On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 14:28:48 -0500, Gary Coffman
brought forth from the murky depths:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 04:55:53 GMT, Larry Jaques wrote:
Don't you agree that we should be pursuing alternative fuels
much, much more than we are now? If nothing else, reliance on
fossil fuels makes us too dependent upon the external sources.
Add smog and toxic wastes to that and it's pretty clear.
What alternatives would you propose? The website does a fair
job of explaining why alcohol, biodiesel, etc aren't viable. We've
known how to make synthetic gasoline from coal for 60 years,
but the costs, both in dollars and in environmental effects, make
that unattractive.
Nearly all alternatives are efficient and viable in small
quantities. But solar electricity/hot water should be part
of all new homes (+5% cost, 2-5 yr ROI, cheaper than building
more dam/nuke/natgas plants), electric/gas hybrid cars should
be put out by every mfgr by now, and new buildings should be
made semi self-sufficient.
What can all of us do to make this happen? Dare we even
contact our congresscritters nowadays?
Bush is proposing $1 billion for the hydrogen economy, but we've
Quick Q: Where will he get it?
understood the chemistry and physics involved with that for nearly
a century. It is the daunting cost of switching over the infrastructure
that's the hold up there, and a billion won't begin to touch it. Besides
what we really need to make the hydrogen economy go is plenty of
nuclear power. That's not happening.
IDAGS for "hydrogen production" and found some new ideas out
there, including algae.
http://tinyurl.com/2yr9r
Nuclear waste disposal is a high-level ongoing problem.
Only in the minds of those who already oppose nuclear power anyway.
If you took all the high level waste from every commercial nuclear reactor
since the beginning of the nuclear age and piled it up 3 feet deep, it
would barely cover one football field. Of course that would be a silly
thing to do, since reprocessing it will turn it into more fuel, but it gives
What percentage/type of nuclear waste can be/is reprocessed?
you a feel for the scope of the issue. If we desired, we could simply
pile it up in a desert somewhere, put a fence around it and walk away
for 500 years. At that point the radioactivity would have decayed to
the level of the original ores dug out of the ground.
Oops, most uranium is deadly enough right out of the ground.
So is the less powerful radon gas in large enough quantities.
And what about dirty military and scientific waste, with much
longer half-lives? But we could put all of it in Arizona or
Nevada. They wouldn't mind. Who needs those states? They both
have desert, too. Now. But in 500 years, it (and every other
square foot of dirt on Earth) will be full of people if things
go on as they have. I'm betting on a bigass (highly scientific
lingo there, wot?) turn of events which will slow things down
shortly. I just hope the Shrub doesn't start it. (WWIII)
Now there *are* large quantities of *low level* waste. But we've set
the standards for that so strictly that it makes no sense at all. The
concrete blocks in your foundation are more radioactive than most
of what is classified as low level waste. Yet the rules say we have to
entomb low level waste forever. Nonsense.
Yeah, some of the regs are pretty stiff. Perhaps a new look
should be taken.
No, hydrogen is not made by electrolysis of natural gas. Water
I did some personal fuel-cell research a couple years ago and
according to several sites I visited, their source was natural
gas. Perhaps they've changed, but that was the soup du jour back
then. YMMV
http://www.eere.energy.gov/RE/hydrogen_production.html
shows a few methods, including those I remembered.
is the source of hydrogen using electrolysis. Hydrogen from
natural gas is produced by steam reforming over a hot iron
catalyst. We do need large quantities of electric power to make
hydrogen by electrolysis, that's why we need to be pushing nuclear
power plant construction in a big way.
I wonder if nuke power might be better in the long run than
all the coal/gas/oil we're burning to produce electricity
now. And I saw how much damage was done in the hydroelectric
producing states a few years ago when the PRK was in trouble.
It affected the cycle of fisheries and many other systems.
I have a copy of "The Ultimate Resource" by Simon on hold at
the library. It may prove to be interesting.
I'm thinking we might be better off without many of the
chemicals and fertilizers being used nowadays, so downgrade
the need for oil in that use, too.
Then you condemn the world to starvation.
We don't really NEED all these people, now do we?
(Only half kidding.) snort Vive Malthus!
-
News Flash: We have more food than we use now and half the
world still starves due to POLITICS. There are many tens of
thousands (maybe more) starving in this country, too, yet
we throw food away, recycling a teeny percent of a percent.
Properly nourished plants don't get eaten by bugs, so once we
go back to organics, there will be enough. Add more hothouses,
hydroponics, home gardens, etc. and food will be plentiful.
Removing many of the fertilizers and pesticides would stop
other problems from occuring, such as poisoned wells/streams,
algae blooms from the fertilizers, human/animal deaths, etc.
Saaay, you're not a ADM investor, are you?
While I'm definitely not a Global Warming believer, I do feel
that we should be reducing our burden on the planet.
..-.
Life is short. Eat dessert first!
---
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development