Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:

Michael Coslo wrote:

What are the byproducts of converting seawater to hydrogen and oxygen?

Mostly salt.

And chlorine.

As you mentioned in another post, sodium hydroxide.

However I don't see that as a big problem. Either the electrolysis
process can be made to not split the NaCl, or it can be recombined and
the energy recovered.

The main byproduct problem I see is that you'll have lots of salt.

Hydrogen is seen as some sort of saving angel in the energy issue.
Producing the hydrogen is a bit of a problem though. It takes a lot of
energy to produce it. It has a pretty low volumetric energy density.


Which means it is compressed and your fuel tank becomes a highpressure
canister. Not only is the stuff flammable, like gasoline, but it's
under high
pressure.

Two ways to go boom.


But to the problem at hand, a somewhat practical method of producing H2
would be to electrolyze it, using Nuc power. The electrolysis plant
would probably be set up near the ocean (let's not even talk of fresh
water production - just ask the folks on the left coast about fresh water)

So now we have an extraction plant that is powered by an unpopular
power source, and has one big nasty polluting byproduct.

Or we can use the other methods of generating H2. Of course, they cause
as much pollution producing the fuel as if we just used the fuel in the
first place.


Maybe. There are all sorts of possible technologies to extract,
transport and store hydrogen. For example, there's work being done to
store the gas in metal hydrides. It could be extracted by using
electricity made photovoltaically. Etc.

The infrastructure would be interesting. The best looking way for
hydride storage that I've heard of so far, is the replacement tank
method. Interesting, and I suspect that teh real quick stop for fuel
would become a thing of the past.

Not with quick-connecting pipes. Leave it to the MEs.

The big question is whether such processes can be made economically
competitive. How much will a hydrogen car cost? How much will they cost
to drive per mile? What are the maintenance costs?

Maintenance would *probably* be improved. I suspect that
engines would
last longer, and be a lot cleaner to be around.

Agreed!

But the cost competitiveness problem still exists.

The big problem is that there's probably no single magic long- term
solution. Rather there are a bunch of small solutions that add up.

Here's two favorites of mine:

Imagine a tall (couple of hundred feet) hollow tower, in the desert. A
vertical pipe, as it were, with holes around the bottom.

Around its base is a large circular greenhouse whose roof slants toward
the tower.

When the sun is out, the air under the greenhouse roof is heated, and
rises. This creates an artificial wind towards the tower. The warmed
air goes up the tower, which contains a wind-driven generator. Works
whether or not there is a breeze. The generator and its impeller are
near ground level. Etc.

Good process, and an old one. A lot of places in the middle east use
those type of towers (usually lower) to bring cooling air into the house.

The process also works for a limited amount of time after the sun goes
down. The warm ground heats the air above it.

The ground under the greenhouse roof can be farmed, if there's water
available for irrigation.

also

There's a process called TDP (Thermal Depolymerization Process) that
can supposedly break down various types of waste into fuel oil, gas and
other usable products. For example, there's a pilot plant here in
Philadelphia that takes sewage sludge (ugh) and breaks it down into a
type of fuel oil, methane gas, water, and some other things that are
usable as fertilizer. The result is also
sterilized.

If nothing else, it gets rid of the stuff!

Which is a major problem today. Two birds, etc.

Another plant in Carthage, MO, takes the waste from a turkey-processing
plant and extracts oil, gas and some other products from it.

The company claims that many other feedstocks can be used. Old tires, a
chronic disposal problem, can allegedly be broken down into oil, gas,
steel, fiberglass and carbon black.

The process supposedly uses 15% of the product to run itself.

hmm, not too bad...

*IF* it really does what is claimed. That's the problem with a
lot of new technologies:

If they're for-real, the developers are very secretive about the actual
process because they're afraid it will be stolen.

If they're a scam, the developers are very secretive about the actual
process because they're afraid it will be discovered to be a fake.

Of course the above pilot plants produce fuel at the rate of a few
hundred barrels a day.

It's doubtful that either of the above will solve all our energy
problems. It's also unclear as to whether they are economically
feasible on a large scale.

But if they are doable, they can sure help. In the case of TDP, a big
part of the waste-disposal problem can be dealt with.


73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:

wrote:


Michael Coslo wrote:


What are the byproducts of converting seawater to hydrogen and oxygen?


Mostly salt.

And chlorine.


As you mentioned in another post, sodium hydroxide.

However I don't see that as a big problem. Either the electrolysis
process can be made to not split the NaCl, or it can be recombined and
the energy recovered.

The main byproduct problem I see is that you'll have lots of salt.


Hydrogen is seen as some sort of saving angel in the energy issue.
Producing the hydrogen is a bit of a problem though. It takes a lot of
energy to produce it. It has a pretty low volumetric energy density.


Which means it is compressed and your fuel tank becomes a highpressure
canister. Not only is the stuff flammable, like gasoline, but it's
under high
pressure.

Two ways to go boom.



But to the problem at hand, a somewhat practical method of producing H2
would be to electrolyze it, using Nuc power. The electrolysis plant
would probably be set up near the ocean (let's not even talk of fresh
water production - just ask the folks on the left coast about fresh water)

So now we have an extraction plant that is powered by an unpopular
power source, and has one big nasty polluting byproduct.

Or we can use the other methods of generating H2. Of course, they cause
as much pollution producing the fuel as if we just used the fuel in the
first place.


Maybe. There are all sorts of possible technologies to extract,
transport and store hydrogen. For example, there's work being done to
store the gas in metal hydrides. It could be extracted by using
electricity made photovoltaically. Etc.

The infrastructure would be interesting. The best looking way for
hydride storage that I've heard of so far, is the replacement tank
method. Interesting, and I suspect that teh real quick stop for fuel
would become a thing of the past.


Not with quick-connecting pipes. Leave it to the MEs.

I wonder if there will be self-tank exchange stations? 8^)

No doubt it can be done.

The big question is whether such processes can be made economically
competitive. How much will a hydrogen car cost? How much will they cost
to drive per mile? What are the maintenance costs?

Maintenance would *probably* be improved. I suspect that
engines would
last longer, and be a lot cleaner to be around.


Agreed!

But the cost competitiveness problem still exists.

The big problem is that there's probably no single magic long- term
solution. Rather there are a bunch of small solutions that add up.

Here's two favorites of mine:

Imagine a tall (couple of hundred feet) hollow tower, in the desert. A
vertical pipe, as it were, with holes around the bottom.

Around its base is a large circular greenhouse whose roof slants toward
the tower.

When the sun is out, the air under the greenhouse roof is heated, and
rises. This creates an artificial wind towards the tower. The warmed
air goes up the tower, which contains a wind-driven generator. Works
whether or not there is a breeze. The generator and its impeller are
near ground level. Etc.

Good process, and an old one. A lot of places in the middle east use
those type of towers (usually lower) to bring cooling air into the house.


The process also works for a limited amount of time after the sun goes
down. The warm ground heats the air above it.

The ground under the greenhouse roof can be farmed, if there's water
available for irrigation.


also

There's a process called TDP (Thermal Depolymerization Process) that
can supposedly break down various types of waste into fuel oil, gas and
other usable products. For example, there's a pilot plant here in
Philadelphia that takes sewage sludge (ugh) and breaks it down into a
type of fuel oil, methane gas, water, and some other things that are
usable as fertilizer. The result is also
sterilized.


If nothing else, it gets rid of the stuff!


Which is a major problem today. Two birds, etc.


Another plant in Carthage, MO, takes the waste from a turkey-processing
plant and extracts oil, gas and some other products from it.

The company claims that many other feedstocks can be used. Old tires, a
chronic disposal problem, can allegedly be broken down into oil, gas,
steel, fiberglass and carbon black.

The process supposedly uses 15% of the product to run itself.

hmm, not too bad...


*IF* it really does what is claimed. That's the problem with a
lot of new technologies:

One of the biggest problems I see for many of these technologies is that
they often don't have the scalability needed to provide fuel for many
vehicles, let alone fuel the countries needs. If this plant went into
serious production, it might run out of feedstock pretty quickly.

I think that until the next big fuel comes along, we are going to enter
an age of "niche" fuel production.

That is okay, as long as we don't get involved in feedstock that might
otherwise be food, ie corn/ethanol production. There are possible
ethical considerations that will crop up in that case.

- Mike KB3EIA -

wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

an_old_friend wrote:

wrote:

What does this have to do with ham radio? Plenty!
For one thing,
ham radio is mentioned in the second article.

mentioned

Yep.


Did anyone besides me actually read the articles I linked?


The Space Shuttle was promoted as the "next big thing"
in space travel
- as a "space truck" that would cut the cost of
getting to orbit,
reducing the waste of one-time rockets, etc. We were
told of turnaround
times of a few weeks, and missions costing 10 to
20 million dollars
total - none of which has ever come to pass, 30
years after the program began.

yea the shutle was and is a failure

Based upon WHAT data, Mark?


It's a fact that the Space Shuttle program has not reached *some*
of the goals set for it. OTOH it has reached and exceeded some
of the goals, too.

The Space Shuttle program is neither a complete success nor a total
failure. It's done many great things, but not everything
that was expected.

But that's not the point I was making.

That people have been killed flying it? So what?


No Americans died flying the Mercury, Gemini or Apollo missions. The
Apollo 1 fire that killed astronauts Grissom, Chaffee and White
happened during a ground training/checkout session.


People die on
commecial airliners on a monthly basis. Are airliners a
failure?


There's a big difference.

The chances of dying in a commercial airliner accident are extremely
small. The failure rate of commercial airline flights (where "failure"
equals "people died") is extremely small. In fact if you drive to the
airport, fly around the world on First World commercial airliners
(returning to your point of origin), and drive home, the most dangerous
part of the trip is the drive to and from the airport, statistically
speaking.

One of the statistics that is trotted out when speaking of airline
safety is passenger miles. I suspect the shuttle would fare *very* well
if we applied passenger miles to it! ;^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Michael:

Don't you think chinas' appetite for fuel will eventually (soon?) consume
the elephants share, we can probably scale back and ride bicycles so there
is enough fuel for trucks to bring us food and toilet paper--but, maybe
not...

John

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 23:54:19 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:

wrote:


Michael Coslo wrote:


What are the byproducts of converting seawater to hydrogen and oxygen?


Mostly salt.

And chlorine.


As you mentioned in another post, sodium hydroxide.

However I don't see that as a big problem. Either the electrolysis
process can be made to not split the NaCl, or it can be recombined and
the energy recovered.

The main byproduct problem I see is that you'll have lots of salt.


Hydrogen is seen as some sort of saving angel in the energy issue.
Producing the hydrogen is a bit of a problem though. It takes a lot of
energy to produce it. It has a pretty low volumetric energy density.


Which means it is compressed and your fuel tank becomes a highpressure
canister. Not only is the stuff flammable, like gasoline, but it's
under high
pressure.

Two ways to go boom.



But to the problem at hand, a somewhat practical method of producing H2
would be to electrolyze it, using Nuc power. The electrolysis plant
would probably be set up near the ocean (let's not even talk of fresh
water production - just ask the folks on the left coast about fresh water)

So now we have an extraction plant that is powered by an unpopular
power source, and has one big nasty polluting byproduct.

Or we can use the other methods of generating H2. Of course, they cause
as much pollution producing the fuel as if we just used the fuel in the
first place.


Maybe. There are all sorts of possible technologies to extract,
transport and store hydrogen. For example, there's work being done to
store the gas in metal hydrides. It could be extracted by using
electricity made photovoltaically. Etc.

The infrastructure would be interesting. The best looking way for
hydride storage that I've heard of so far, is the replacement tank
method. Interesting, and I suspect that teh real quick stop for fuel
would become a thing of the past.


Not with quick-connecting pipes. Leave it to the MEs.

I wonder if there will be self-tank exchange stations? 8^)

No doubt it can be done.

The big question is whether such processes can be made economically
competitive. How much will a hydrogen car cost? How much will they cost
to drive per mile? What are the maintenance costs?

Maintenance would *probably* be improved. I suspect that
engines would
last longer, and be a lot cleaner to be around.


Agreed!

But the cost competitiveness problem still exists.

The big problem is that there's probably no single magic long- term
solution. Rather there are a bunch of small solutions that add up.

Here's two favorites of mine:

Imagine a tall (couple of hundred feet) hollow tower, in the desert. A
vertical pipe, as it were, with holes around the bottom.

Around its base is a large circular greenhouse whose roof slants toward
the tower.

When the sun is out, the air under the greenhouse roof is heated, and
rises. This creates an artificial wind towards the tower. The warmed
air goes up the tower, which contains a wind-driven generator. Works
whether or not there is a breeze. The generator and its impeller are
near ground level. Etc.

Good process, and an old one. A lot of places in the middle east use
those type of towers (usually lower) to bring cooling air into the house.


The process also works for a limited amount of time after the sun goes
down. The warm ground heats the air above it.

The ground under the greenhouse roof can be farmed, if there's water
available for irrigation.


also

There's a process called TDP (Thermal Depolymerization Process) that
can supposedly break down various types of waste into fuel oil, gas and
other usable products. For example, there's a pilot plant here in
Philadelphia that takes sewage sludge (ugh) and breaks it down into a
type of fuel oil, methane gas, water, and some other things that are
usable as fertilizer. The result is also
sterilized.


If nothing else, it gets rid of the stuff!


Which is a major problem today. Two birds, etc.


Another plant in Carthage, MO, takes the waste from a turkey-processing
plant and extracts oil, gas and some other products from it.

The company claims that many other feedstocks can be used. Old tires, a
chronic disposal problem, can allegedly be broken down into oil, gas,
steel, fiberglass and carbon black.

The process supposedly uses 15% of the product to run itself.

hmm, not too bad...


*IF* it really does what is claimed. That's the problem with a
lot of new technologies:

One of the biggest problems I see for many of these technologies is that
they often don't have the scalability needed to provide fuel for many
vehicles, let alone fuel the countries needs. If this plant went into
serious production, it might run out of feedstock pretty quickly.

I think that until the next big fuel comes along, we are going to enter
an age of "niche" fuel production.

That is okay, as long as we don't get involved in feedstock that might
otherwise be food, ie corn/ethanol production. There are possible
ethical considerations that will crop up in that case.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Not with quick-connecting pipes. Leave it to the MEs.

I wonder if there will be self-tank exchange stations? 8^)

No doubt it can be done.

Self-closing snap-on connector for the hydrogen supply. Similar to what
is used for compressed air.

Very doable.

The big question is whether such processes can be made economically
competitive. Another plant in Carthage, MO, takes the waste from a turkey-processing
plant and extracts oil, gas and some other products from it.

The company claims that many other feedstocks can be used. Old tires, a
chronic disposal problem, can allegedly be broken down into oil, gas,
steel, fiberglass and carbon black.

The process supposedly uses 15% of the product to run itself.

hmm, not too bad...


*IF* it really does what is claimed. That's the problem with a
lot of new technologies:

One of the biggest problems I see for many of these
technologies is that
they often don't have the scalability needed to provide fuel
for many
vehicles, let alone fuel the countries needs. If this plant
went into
serious production, it might run out of feedstock pretty
quickly.

That's where so many people miss the point, Mike.

There's probably no single technology that will solve the
"energy crisis". Too many people want a single magic
silver bullet solution that will solve it all at once.
Extremely unlikely.

As you say, even if TDP works and is
economically competitive, the limiting factor may be
lack of raw material (imagine - not enough trash/waste
to feed the plants!)

The solution is almost certain to be a collection of
good ideas and new technologies. TDP may be one piece,
hydrogen another piece, geothermal, solar, wind, etc.

Then there's conservation and increased efficiency - a
penny saved really *is* a penny earned. For example, one
of the biggest users of electricity in most homes is the
refrigerator. Some new models use much less electricity
per year than their earlier counterparts of the same size
and features - to the point that replacing a 15-20 year old
fridge with a new one may pay for itself in energy savings
even if the old one was working fine.

It's possible to build air conditioners of very high efficiency,
but they cost more. However, using them means we don't have to build
new power plants and new power lines, because the electrical system
will have less peak load. (The peak load typically comes on an August
afternoon - from all the AC units).

Too many folks want one solution to solve 100% of the problem, without
requiring them to change anything, be responsible, or worst of all have
to think.

A more realistic and mature approach is to find a number of
solutions, each of which solves a piece of the problem.

Say you find 10 solutions, each of which solves 10% of the
problem. There you are.

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used
when we created them" (*)

I think that until the next big fuel comes along, we
are going to enter an age of "niche" fuel production.

That is okay, as long as we don't get involved in feedstock that might
otherwise be food, ie corn/ethanol production. There are
possible
ethical considerations that will crop up in that case.

All of engineering involves ethical considerations. Heck, all
of *life* involves ethical considerations!

Is it ethical to import a large percentage of something - anything -
needed to keep a country's economy and way of life going? Particularly
when such importation requires dealing with,
and empowering, people whose values are very different from your
own?

--

Now someone will probably ask what any of this has to do with amateur
radio policy. The answer is that we see the same sort of
oversimplification of problems. We are told that the solution to all of
amateur radio's problems is to get rid of the Morse Code test. When
that fails to bring about a New Golden Age, then what?

73 de Jim, N2EY

K=D8HB wrote:
wrote


But will most people carpool? Will they pay for public transit, wind
farms, and higher-efficiency appliances? Will they live in walkable
towns and cities rather than sprawling into suburbia where every trip
requires a car? How much are Americans willing to reduce their
consumption of energy to balance the equation?


I just love you east-coast liberals with your "feel-good
conservation village" notions.

Minnesota is one of the most "liberal" places in the nation,
Hans.

Such societies exist (in Europe primarily) --- if you want to
live in one, move there.

I see. You get to determine what America should be like,
not me. Why is that?

Personally, I prefer my fuel-inefficient 6.0L 32-valve
turbocharged engine to your "50mpg highway" wimp-mobile.

"Any....fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more
violent. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage -
to move in the opposite direction". (*)

"Wimp-mobile", huh? Is your masculinity and maturity measured
in horsepower, cubic inches displaced, and foot-pounds, Hans?

Mine isn't.

Since I'm willing to pay the price to run it,
and enjoy the freedom it gives me, your "walkable towns" have
zero appeal to me.

*You* don't pay all of the price, Hans. All of us do. We pay it in
pollution, we pay it in the trade deficit, and we pay it in
having to deal with the folks who sell us the oil, and what they
do with the oil money.

Most of all, we pay for it in being dependent. Freedom? How much
freedom exists when a nation's economy is at the mercy of imports?

Nobody is saying that *you* would be forced to live in a "walkable
town".

Sometime back you bemoaned the lack of the community that you
used to see in the radio store/club meeting/etc.

I submit to you that the lack of community problem isn't limited to
amateur radio, but has become a part of American life, and is driven in
part by the detachment of people from the places they live, work, shop,
etc. And that detachment is driven in part by overdependence on
automotive transportation as opposed to walking, running, biking, etc.

Sooner or later, of course, the democrats will again ascend to power an=
d attemp
to social-engineer such crapola into the law of the land,
rather than
inconvenience a few reindeer with drilling rigs in the
neighborhood.

Alaska doesn't have enough oil to end imports, Hans.

It would be interesting to see your reaction if they wanted to drill
for oil under one of your favorite Minnesota lakes. Or build a nuke
plant on one, using the lake water for cooling.
Or something similar.

I seem to recall a quote from Vonnegut about "they were too damn cheap"
or some such. Cheapness involves more than not spending money.

73 de Jim, N2EY


(*) - attributed to Albert Einstein

wrote

It would be interesting to see your reaction if they
wanted to drill for oil under one of your favorite
Minnesota lakes. Or build a nuke plant on one,
using the lake water for cooling. Or something
similar.

We have 15,121 lakes in Minnesota (don't believe the "10,000 Lakes" motto on my
license plates). Who'd miss a few?

I submit to you that the lack of community problem
isn't limited to amateur radio, but has become a part
of American life, and is driven in part by the detachment
of people from the places they live, work, shop,
etc. And that detachment is driven in part by
overdependence on automotive transportation
as opposed to walking, running, biking, etc.

Your east-coast roots are showing. Take a view of Minnesota from 30,000 feet
and measure the distance across the wheat fields, forests, and lakes....

*You* don't pay all of the price, Hans.

Please pass your account information to my banker so that your monthly share can
be automatically paid.

"My doctor says that I have a malformed public-duty gland and a natural
deficiency in moral fibre, and that I am therefore excused from saving
Universes." (*)

Beep beep
de Hans, K0HB

(*) Attributed to Ford Prefect









I seem to recall a quote from Vonnegut about "they were too damn cheap"
or some such. Cheapness involves more than not spending money.

73 de Jim, N2EY


(*) - attributed to Albert Einstein

N2EY:

If EVERYONE where to change the light-bulbs in their homes with the new
LED bulbs, that single action would make one heck of a difference in the
usage of power!

If all business did this too, would probably postpone the whole energy
crisis for a little bit longer...

John

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 03:07:24 -0700, N2EY wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Not with quick-connecting pipes. Leave it to the MEs.

I wonder if there will be self-tank exchange stations? 8^)

No doubt it can be done.

Self-closing snap-on connector for the hydrogen supply. Similar to what
is used for compressed air.

Very doable.

The big question is whether such processes can be made economically
competitive. Another plant in Carthage, MO, takes the waste from a turkey-processing
plant and extracts oil, gas and some other products from it.

The company claims that many other feedstocks can be used. Old tires, a
chronic disposal problem, can allegedly be broken down into oil, gas,
steel, fiberglass and carbon black.

The process supposedly uses 15% of the product to run itself.

hmm, not too bad...


*IF* it really does what is claimed. That's the problem with a
lot of new technologies:

One of the biggest problems I see for many of these
technologies is that
they often don't have the scalability needed to provide fuel
for many
vehicles, let alone fuel the countries needs. If this plant
went into
serious production, it might run out of feedstock pretty
quickly.

That's where so many people miss the point, Mike.

There's probably no single technology that will solve the
"energy crisis". Too many people want a single magic
silver bullet solution that will solve it all at once.
Extremely unlikely.

As you say, even if TDP works and is
economically competitive, the limiting factor may be
lack of raw material (imagine - not enough trash/waste
to feed the plants!)

The solution is almost certain to be a collection of
good ideas and new technologies. TDP may be one piece,
hydrogen another piece, geothermal, solar, wind, etc.

Then there's conservation and increased efficiency - a
penny saved really *is* a penny earned. For example, one
of the biggest users of electricity in most homes is the
refrigerator. Some new models use much less electricity
per year than their earlier counterparts of the same size
and features - to the point that replacing a 15-20 year old
fridge with a new one may pay for itself in energy savings
even if the old one was working fine.

It's possible to build air conditioners of very high efficiency,
but they cost more. However, using them means we don't have to build
new power plants and new power lines, because the electrical system
will have less peak load. (The peak load typically comes on an August
afternoon - from all the AC units).

Too many folks want one solution to solve 100% of the problem, without
requiring them to change anything, be responsible, or worst of all have
to think.

A more realistic and mature approach is to find a number of
solutions, each of which solves a piece of the problem.

Say you find 10 solutions, each of which solves 10% of the
problem. There you are.

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used
when we created them" (*)

I think that until the next big fuel comes along, we
are going to enter an age of "niche" fuel production.

That is okay, as long as we don't get involved in feedstock that might
otherwise be food, ie corn/ethanol production. There are
possible
ethical considerations that will crop up in that case.

All of engineering involves ethical considerations. Heck, all
of *life* involves ethical considerations!

Is it ethical to import a large percentage of something - anything -
needed to keep a country's economy and way of life going? Particularly
when such importation requires dealing with,
and empowering, people whose values are very different from your
own?

--

Now someone will probably ask what any of this has to do with amateur
radio policy. The answer is that we see the same sort of
oversimplification of problems. We are told that the solution to all of
amateur radio's problems is to get rid of the Morse Code test. When
that fails to bring about a New Golden Age, then what?

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:


Now someone will probably ask what any of this has to do with amateur
radio policy. The answer is that we see the same sort of
oversimplification of problems. We are told that the solution to all of
amateur radio's problems is to get rid of the Morse Code test. When
that fails to bring about a New Golden Age, then what?

now you are just lying jim

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

wrote:

Michael Coslo wrote:

wrote:

Not with quick-connecting pipes. Leave it to the MEs.

I wonder if there will be self-tank exchange stations? 8^)

No doubt it can be done.


Self-closing snap-on connector for the hydrogen supply. Similar to what
is used for compressed air.

Very doable.

I wonder if we will have to go back to having actual people dispensing
fuel, that is changing tanks. Otherwise we'll have to have a standard
tank and undercarriage shape - unless of course we opt for some goofy on
top of the car solution. And in that case


The big question is whether such processes can be made economically

competitive. Another plant in Carthage, MO, takes the waste from a turkey-processing
plant and extracts oil, gas and some other products from it.

The company claims that many other feedstocks can be used. Old tires, a
chronic disposal problem, can allegedly be broken down into oil, gas,
steel, fiberglass and carbon black.

The process supposedly uses 15% of the product to run itself.

hmm, not too bad...


*IF* it really does what is claimed. That's the problem with a
lot of new technologies:

One of the biggest problems I see for many of these
technologies is that
they often don't have the scalability needed to provide fuel
for many
vehicles, let alone fuel the countries needs. If this plant
went into
serious production, it might run out of feedstock pretty
quickly.


That's where so many people miss the point, Mike.

Kind og like the guy who runs used oil from french fryers in his
biodeisel car. Says he spends 5 dollars per week for fuel. But that is a
one person solution.

I wonder what that smells like? Fries anyone?


There's probably no single technology that will solve the
"energy crisis". Too many people want a single magic
silver bullet solution that will solve it all at once.
Extremely unlikely.

As you say, even if TDP works and is
economically competitive, the limiting factor may be
lack of raw material (imagine - not enough trash/waste
to feed the plants!)

It is a recyclers dream! And pretty satisfying to actually make garbage
worth something.

The solution is almost certain to be a collection of
good ideas and new technologies. TDP may be one piece,
hydrogen another piece, geothermal, solar, wind, etc.

Then there's conservation and increased efficiency - a
penny saved really *is* a penny earned. For example, one
of the biggest users of electricity in most homes is the
refrigerator. Some new models use much less electricity
per year than their earlier counterparts of the same size
and features - to the point that replacing a 15-20 year old
fridge with a new one may pay for itself in energy savings
even if the old one was working fine.

It's possible to build air conditioners of very high efficiency,
but they cost more. However, using them means we don't have to build
new power plants and new power lines, because the electrical system
will have less peak load. (The peak load typically comes on an August
afternoon - from all the AC units).

Too many folks want one solution to solve 100% of the problem, without
requiring them to change anything, be responsible, or worst of all have
to think.

A more realistic and mature approach is to find a number of
solutions, each of which solves a piece of the problem.

Say you find 10 solutions, each of which solves 10% of the
problem. There you are.

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used
when we created them" (*)

I like that...

I think that until the next big fuel comes along, we
are going to enter an age of "niche" fuel production.

That is okay, as long as we don't get involved in feedstock that might
otherwise be food, ie corn/ethanol production. There are
possible
ethical considerations that will crop up in that case.


All of engineering involves ethical considerations. Heck, all
of *life* involves ethical considerations!

I think this one is a real doozy though. Imagine in times of strife
having to make the decision between fuel and people starving because you
need the food for fuel.

Is it ethical to import a large percentage of something - anything -
needed to keep a country's economy and way of life going? Particularly
when such importation requires dealing with,
and empowering, people whose values are very different from your
own?

I don't have anything against importing oil, save that it can introduce
vulnerability. But using it up is not a problem at all. Hopefully we'll
have replacemnt sources ready when that happens.


Now someone will probably ask what any of this has to do with amateur
radio policy. The answer is that we see the same sort of
oversimplification of problems. We are told that the solution to all of
amateur radio's problems is to get rid of the Morse Code test. When
that fails to bring about a New Golden Age, then what?

The usual suspects will be trotted out:

1. Morse code lovers
2. Old Hams
3. Those Oh-so-difficult tests

And when all else fails.....

Liberals


- Mike KB3EIA -