Alt fuels was Re: [AT] Gasoline $

[ken knierim]

On Wed, 2005-08-10 at 14:35, George Willer wrote:
> Ken,
> 
> A reactor is the only way that hydrogen could possibly be produced to fuel 
> the miracle vehicles many  (on other sites) have been promoting.  Hydrogen 
> fuel cells are really a way to store energy produced elsewhere.  (There can 
> never be wells producing hydrogen, as many seem to forget).  The waste 
> shouldn't be a problem... just bury it in the same hole the uranium was dug 
> from!!!!

True, uranium comes from the ground and it's radioactive. When the fuel
is spent, seems to me there's a lot less radioactivity. But... what
about the stuff that's made in the reactor? Plutonium comes to mind, and
that is a rather toxic substance, whether or not it's radioactive. I'm
sure there are lots of ways of controlling things like this and I'm not
an expert, but there seems to be some disagreement with what to do with
the stuff. 

The operators of the plants have to be vigilant so we don't have an
accident. Don't get me wrong, I think nuclear power is a great thing.
It's not a do-all and end-all, but if we keep the dollars here, it's
even better. 

> 
> A friend (and mentor) many years ago was searching for a crop that could 
> produce the fuel he would need with enough density to move his farming 
> operation to a third world country.  He's no longer with us, but I remember 
> his first choice... yams.

Interesting. I really do not like yams myself (I know, sacrilege to
some!) but it seems they have a lot of sugar. Was he intending to
convert them to alcohol somehow and use that for power? 

> 
> If you could produce and install enough solar panels with high enough 
> efficiency (1KW per square meter), Arizona would freeze over!

Solar influx, as a rough number, is 1KW per square meter. At the
Springerville plant, the max is 1.25KW/sq meter. Now if we can invent a
solar cell that's better than a few percent efficient, we'll be rich! :)
   If there was a better method, say some process where we could use
sunlight to crack water into hydrogen directly and efficiently, I'd
suggest that. Arizona isn't going to get significantly cooler any time
soon, even if someone invents a solar cell paint and we cover
everything. (of course, there are folks that think it's gonna snow in
Phoenix next month when I finally get married, but that's a different
subject altogether!)

What I said is it that it IS being done and it means we're not sending
that money overseas for oil.  Not always does the best idea win...
sometimes it's the first idea folks can figure out how to make work that
wins. I know Sterling-cycle engines can convert heat to mechanical power
a lot more efficiently than solar cells do it... but these beasts aren't
cheap and they will require maintenance. 

Growing trees and burning them for fuel isn't overly efficient either
(less than 1% according to my reading), but it works, it's cheap and
it's low tech enough that even I can do it to a small degree. 

Ken