Re: water as fuel


"Geoff Miller" <geoffm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e4f8tf$9o3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


DH <dh@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wtes:

: Doesn't gasoline contain far more energy per unit weight than
: hydrogen does, what with all those molecular bonds just waiting
: to be broken and all? And if so, doesn't that make it more ex-
: plosive (read: dangerous) than hydrogen, pound for pound?

Either one, without O2, is a harmless substance.

There'd be plenty of O2 available if a tank containing either were
ruptured in a crash. And that's what the previous poster was getting
at, not any danger inherent in simply having the stuff on board.


There's a difference between "fuel on fire" and "fuel exploding," mostly
having to do with how well it's mixed with the O2.

Not that I'd want to be involved with either.


The problem with Hydrogen is that we have neither a convenient way
to carry around 400+ miles worth of the stuff (I dont know how much
it would weigh but it would either have to be squeezed or liquified
and still might be pretty big volume), nor a convenient way to pro-
duce it.

Or an infrastructure for dispensing it.


: Think about it: we could have nuclear power plants on the coasts,
: colocated with desalination plants and electrolysis facilities.
: Our energy, water and automobile fuel needs could be met in one
: swell foop, as it were, all within the smallest possible use of
: space. Sounds like a winner to me.

Well, yeah, except that's a crapload of nuclear power plants. You
still have to obtain nuclear fuel for them. You'd probably need to
go to breeder cycles. You'd also have a lot of nuclear waste to
deal with. On the plus side, nobody would complain about the water
off the Coast of Maine being too cold for swimming any more. And
you'd be able to pull lobsters from the bay all pre-cooked.

Ain't hyperbole fun? I'm surprised you didn't mention that three-
eyed fish in The Simpsons.

France (to name one example) gets the overwhelming majority of its
electricity from nuclear generation, and it isn't overrun with nuke
plants. Considering how far to the Left the European political mind-
set is compared to ours, there'd have been a hell of an outcry if it
were. Don't forget, nuclear power plants generate a metric shitload
of electricity. That's one reason they're less common in the U.S.
than conventional power plants: proportionately fewer are needed.



The French aren't using nuclear power to commute 50 miles to work each way.
Their per-capita energy consumption is significantly lower than ours. We'd
need more nukes, per capita, than they do to get the same fraction of our
overall energy demand from nukes.

Also, don't forget that nukes are a tempting terrorist target. As is their
waste. I'm not anti-nuke but I'm in favor of being fully aware of what
we're getting into and being prepared for it.

Solar cells, anyone?

And in the wintertime, when the sun is less intense and the sky is
overcast much of the time? That's the sort of thing I was alluding
to when I said we'll need a combination of technologies: solar cells
in sunny places, hydropower in places like the Northwest which have
lots of rivers, windmills where it's breezy, and nuclear plants to
take up the slack (and power the colocated desalination and elec-
trolysis facilities).


Normally, I would agree that a mix makes a lot of sense. However, on
Usenet we prefer exaggeration, histrionics, polarization and a healthy dose
of "neener, neener, neener" to any kind of reasoned and thoughtful
discussion.



*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
.

Loading