Re: Nothing like oil?
- From: jdnicoll@xxxxxxxxx (James Nicoll)
- Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:35:57 +0000 (UTC)
In article <1203357418@xxxxxxxxx>, Wayne Throop <throopw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
: jdnicoll@xxxxxxxxx (James Nicoll)
: If you're making hydrocarbons as a fuel, it's probably best to
: think of them as a battery, allowing energy from some large central source
: to be converted and transported in a more convenient form.
Yes. And this reminds me of the huge disadvantage "real" batteries
have, compared to fuel. Imagine the mass penalty if your car had to have
an oxygen tank, and avoid using the outside air. Ignoring issues of
LOX or other storage techniques, just the mass, and comparing to using
hydrogen as fuel, and again considering just the mass, chemical
batteries are at a *tremendous* fundamental disadvantage.
LOX is (aside from what happens if you spill it in an inconvenient
location) relatively easy to handle and almost too cheap to meter. LH2
on the other hand is a big bundle of pain-in-the-ass wrapped in suckitude.
It's expensive, it's hard to store and the energy density per liter is
laughable. A lot of H2's shortcomings as a fuel can be fixed with the
simple addition of some carbon, generally along the lines of CnH(2n+2),
where n is a number between about five and twenty.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
.
- References:
- Nothing like oil?
- From: David Tate
- Re: Nothing like oil?
- From: Mike Dworetsky
- Re: Nothing like oil?
- From: James Nicoll
- Re: Nothing like oil?
- From: Wayne Throop
- Nothing like oil?
- Prev by Date: Re: Nothing like oil?
- Next by Date: Re: Nothing like oil?
- Previous by thread: Re: Nothing like oil?
- Next by thread: Re: Nothing like oil?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|