Re: Enlightenment
- From: "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 20 Jul 2007 20:51:06 -0400
David Friedman <ddfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If you had the fuel to burn in the powerplant, you wouldn't have to
synthesize it.
I was comparing generating electricity by (say) nuclear power, using
it to synthesize a liquid fuel, and burning the liquid fuel to power
a vehicle with the alternative of generating electricity in the same
way, using it to charge a battery, and using the battery to power
the vehicle.
Energy doesn't gradually leak out of fuel tanks. Fuel is an
inherently more compact form of energy storage, since it relies on
oxygen in the air. In a crash (or any other time) fuel can't release
energy unless it combines with air, but batteries can release all
their energy at once if there's a short circuit. The vehicle gets
lighter as the fuel is consumed, but not when a battery loses charge.
As for efficiency, I can't see any obvious reason why a battery would
have to be more efficient than a fuel cell. More efficient than a
piston engine, sure.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Enlightenment
- From: mike weber
- Re: Enlightenment
- References:
- Re: Enlightenment
- From: David Friedman
- Re: Enlightenment
- Prev by Date: Re: Public School was a waste of my time (Re: When even a Republican can see i
- Next by Date: Re: Cyclical history bites again!
- Previous by thread: Re: Enlightenment
- Next by thread: Re: Enlightenment
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
