How then, do we move backwards? How does a society, with most of the people having no clue of future events, move from being dependent on a vast and intertwined network of goods and services produced by the indigenous people of whereever, to a local resource and renewable energy based society, and do so in the timeframe available (20-30 years using the most liberal extimates, 10-20 with resonable estimates, 5-10 with worst case scenarios), all the while prices on everything increasing, world politics getting more militaristic, governments continuously reducing civil liberties, shortages of goods on the market and weather patterns resembling bad Hollywood movies?
Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:42 am Post subject: whats everyones view on this quote ...
just wanting to scope out everyones 2 cents:
Like Campbell, Laherrere sees a key role for nuclear energy in the
coming transition, but he also envisions a new role for the petrol
pump: "If new nuclear plants with high temperature reactors are widely
used in the long-term future to supply electricity, they can also
provide hydrogen in their off-peak time, which could be carbonised to
supply synthetic oil. It could easily replace declining oil supply for
transport without any change in the distribution" (Laherrere, 2003).
The Big Five could thus survive the end of oil."
Joined: Jun 02, 2004 Posts: 1078 Location: Bristol, UK
Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:00 am Post subject:
From an environmental point of view carbonising hydrogen in petrol seems crazy... if we had a surplus of hydrogen surely it could be put of better uses?
Joined: Oct 04, 2004 Posts: 244 Location: the Village
Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:11 am Post subject: alpha-beta-gamma
Doesn't nuclear mean it works like the core of the Sun ???
What kind of reactors are they thinking are of any use in terms of producing some kind of power, to be used as electricity? Fusion or fission?
Aren't radioactive materials buried so far inside the planet because they have yet to undergo various changes that would render them safe on the surface, and that's why even so much as the glow-in-the-dark paint on a clock (if it has such on it) can increase the risk of getting something like cancer - because it is an energy type that breaks down the bonds that hold molecules together - like bonds holding the skin together, and the DNA -
before any liars get all whatever, I saw this proved in physics class at school - glow in the dark clocks emit way more radiation, according to a Geiger-Counter. That is why radiation can cause cancers - it breaks the bonds that hold cells and molecules in the body together.
This may also be why prolonged outer space exposure damages bones - and why, if you've seen those NASA tapes, any lifeforms out there resemble ones in our deepest oceans (cartiligious) - they also happen to incorporate phosphorus 'lights' in their bodies.
( phosphorus is also what makes the psilocybin in mushrooms active )
Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:35 pm Post subject: Optimal use for Electic Power
All electric power plants (excluding hydro plants) have the problem that they cannot ramp power production up and down with demand over the 24 hour cycle. So, during the dead of night a lot of power goes to waste. If this power can be captured and stored for later use, it would help us conserve fuel and the environment. That would be the logic behind Laherrere's idea.
Making hydrogen from electricity is not particularly effective (30 - 35% efficient), but I guess 30% is better than 0%. Other ways to store the unused electricity including pumping water from a low reservoir to a high one during off peak hours and releasing it from the high reservoir to the low one (to generate power) during peak hours. You obviously need the right terrain for this to work and a substantial upfront investment.
Laherrere's other idea, to convert the hydrogen to conventional petrochemicals actually makes a lot of sense, in principle. I am amazed that the US Energy Department is seriously discussing hydrogen as a fuel of the future. In the post 9/11 world, why would you promote a high explosive as your fuel of choice?
If this hydrogen to petrochemicals process would use CO2 as a feedstock, you could be addressing global warming at the same time. If you cannot use CO2, you are back to using a fossil fuel, and what would be the point of that? In practice, however, I doubt there are any existing processes for combining hydrogen and CO2 to yield petrochemicals.
I am amazed that the US Energy Department is seriously discussing hydrogen as a fuel of the future. In the post 9/11 world, why would you promote a high explosive as your fuel of choice?
Ha ha ha. As if GASOLINE is not extremely volatile and explosive.
Joined: Jul 18, 2004 Posts: 198 Location: S. Yorkshire, UK
Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:06 pm Post subject:
I think that Laherrere's idea is not to generate hydrogen from nuclear electricity, but from nuclear heat.
The problem with electrolysis, is that generation of electricity is inefficient 33-35% for current nuclear steam technology, and that electrolysis is itself inefficient 80-85% for current tech. Not to mention that electrolysis is expensive (about the same price as fuel cells).
The technology mentioned is nuclear thermal hydrogen generation using a high temperature reactor (like the pebble bed reactor). Instead of passing an electric current through the water, it is superheated with 2 special catalysts. The efficiency of this process is probably 2-2.5x (60-70%) higher than generating the hydrogen from electricity.
The idea of using the hydrogen to make hydrocarbons from carbon sources is interesting, as it allows us to retain the immense investment in infrastructure we have invested in oil. How long would it take, and how much would it cost to refit every gas station? How would we distribute the hydrogen? A new fleet ot tankers, or a new network of pipelines?
My concern about it is that it will encourage the persistant use of fossil fuel carbon, and lead to continued emissions of CO2.
Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:07 pm Post subject: CO2 neutral
Quote:
My concern about it is that it will encourage the persistant use of fossil fuel carbon, and lead to continued emissions of CO2.
As I stated in my previous post, unless one can use CO2 as a feedstock, the conversion of hydrogen to petrochemicals would appear rather pointless. If you do use CO2, the process becomes carbon neutral: it uses and releases equal amounts of CO2.
Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:44 pm Post subject: Re: Optimal use for Electic Power
Optimist wrote:
All electric power plants (excluding hydro plants) have the problem that they cannot ramp power production up and down with demand over the 24 hour cycle.
Are you kidding me, what the hell do you think they do with plants, run them all out 24/7?
Ever heard of a peaking plant?
The CC NG fired units that have been showing up everywhere can vary the turbine output readily, while the steam generator portion output stays fairly static.
However, baseline plants are rather intolerant of load transients.
Would it be more effective use of energy if we used (for domestic water heating, space heating and cooling) this energy when it is in least demand - yes. Consider the possibility of using heat pumps and thermal inertia (storage) to utilize the energy at the time of peak availability, instead of peak conveniance. The losses of storage would be magnitudes less than the losses of repeated conversions of the "excess" energy during off-peak hours - and the cost would also be much less, both of initial and maintainance costs.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
