Let's go fellows--we are all a little more hip than this. Water is H2O and contains Hydrogen. Free Hydrogen is very explosive and makes a good fuel. Water can be disassociated into Oxygen and Hydrogen. It takes more energy to do this than you get back by burning the two products. This is the 2nd law of thermodynamics at work.

What is not mentioned is that the energy to split up the sea water comes from the microwaves that he uses to bombard the water. Microwaves at the X-band frequencies are good at heating up water very quickly. That is how your microwave oven works.

This was discovered by the Air force when they tried to use X-Band Radar (say around 10 to 11 Gigahertz or 3 cm wavelength) The radar wouldn't work since this frequency range turned out to be absorbed by water vapor. There is abundant water vapor in the air. At least this provided a bunch of X-band klystrons for us reasearchers to experiment with microwaves at a reasonable price.

Thats the physics lesson for today--thank you all and good night.

Daddio

How much energy is used to transport a barrel of crude and then to process it into gasoline? More or less than the energy of a microwave process?

And sea water - is it more or less abundant, and more or less of a reason to go to war over than oil?

And how does the comparison of emissions of spent gas compare to that of hydrogen?


.

Yes of course--but the question is where do we get the abundant, high quality energy to convert hydrogen into our major fuel for autos--I vote for nuclear; what do you say

regards,

Bill

Although I don't like the idea of nuclear power plants, it is an option, though I think we could cover the differential by shutting off all the petrol plants and putting up solar panels in all of our massive deserts and flatlands. Every home in America should also have enough solar equipment to help with the entire energy crisis. I don't know how the battery situation would fit in but feeding it right into the grid, lowering the need and price would look good on paper. (Unless the new chem-gel batteries are good for these applications.)

I have no idea if this would cover the energy needs required. I could look it up with any data you could help me with. I am not a scientist but know petrol was the way of the 20th century and is going to contribute greatly in making our planet look a lot like Mars by the 23rd.


Respectfully,

MrGray

.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Radio Frequencies Help Burn Salt Water:

ERIE, Pa. - An Erie cancer researcher has found a way to burn salt water, a novel invention that is being touted by one chemist as the "most remarkable" water science discovery in a century.

John Kanzius happened upon the discovery accidentally when he tried to desalinate seawater with a radio-frequency generator he developed to treat cancer. He discovered that as long as the salt water was exposed to the radio frequencies, it would burn.

http://green.yahoo.com/index.php?q=node/1570

A number of culinary-challenged people have been burning water since the invention of fire.

Leave my wife out of this.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

:D

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Let's go fellows--we are all a little more hip than this. Water is H2O and contains Hydrogen. Free Hydrogen is very explosive and makes a good fuel. Water can be disassociated into Oxygen and Hydrogen. It takes more energy to do this than you get back by burning the two products. This is the 2nd law of thermodynamics at work.

What is not mentioned is that the energy to split up the sea water comes from the microwaves that he uses to bombard the water. Microwaves at the X-band frequencies are good at heating up water very quickly. That is how your microwave oven works.

This was discovered by the Air force when they tried to use X-Band Radar (say around 10 to 11 Gigahertz or 3 cm wavelength) The radar wouldn't work since this frequency range turned out to be absorbed by water vapor. There is abundant water vapor in the air. At least this provided a bunch of X-band klystrons for us reasearchers to experiment with microwaves at a reasonable price.

Thats the physics lesson for today--thank you all and good night.

Daddio

How much energy is used to transport a barrel of crude and then to process it into gasoline? More or less than the energy of a microwave process?

And sea water - is it more or less abundant, and more or less of a reason to go to war over than oil?

And how does the comparison of emissions of spent gas compare to that of hydrogen?


.

Yes of course--but the question is where do we get the abundant, high quality energy to convert hydrogen into our major fuel for autos--I vote for nuclear; what do you say

regards,

Bill

I keep trying to get the Navy to run a power cord from the ships in Norfolk to shore. Think of all the energy we could get from them while they're in for maintenance.

Nuclear is the best why to go at this point. We've come a long way since TMI and I think it's time to start building again.

---

Hopefully the cosmos is not trying to reverse the charges.
Moderation in all things.

Motivation

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Motivation

Mr Gray,

Here is what I find on solar energy via photo-voltaic cells. In Key West Florida we had a thermal solar hot water heating system on our roof back in the 1950's. It generated plenty of hot water for a family of 5 except when it was overcast for a day or more.

For much of the United States the solar energy impinging on the surface of the earth is about 700 watts per square meter. It is more at the equator and remember this is on a clear day. Conversion efficiencies vary widely; 8 to 14 % is the range of most commercially available panels. There are some exotic materials that can achieve around 40% but these cost at least 100 times more than the commonly avilable units which are expensive to start with.

A 3 Kilowatt unit which can back feed the electric grid costs around $18,000 to buy. (These can also kill linemen who think that they have shut off the power to where they are working.)

My home uses 6000 kilowatt hours per month during the hottest summer months and probably averages 3000 Kilowatt hours per month year round since I have gas heat and stove. The average house probably uses about one half of this amount. Mine is 6000 square feet.

In California the State may rebate up to half the cost and the Feds may rebate another $2000 so that is quite a subsidy. Wikipedia says that the cost to produce a kilowatt of electricity is 60 cents via solar , This is compared to the cost to produce of an average of about 4 cents currently by all other methods in the US. Solar cells have to be kept squeaky clean for top performance and Ideally they should track the sun --probably not practical for home units.

I used to monitor the energy budget for the University of Illinois--I learned a lot from my boss who said. " He didn't care what the price of electricity was as long as you don't use any of it." Illinois' Small Homes Council had what they called their lo-cal house. It used proper east-west orientation, proper overhang, low % of window area, storm doors, Double framed outside walls with an air gap between each double wall and R-30 minimum insulation in the roof. The claimed cost to heat and cool this house was said to be about $125 per year. This was about 30 years ago in Illinois which has fiercely cold winters.

This house was a small unit about 1200 sq feet if I remember right but it was all on one floor.

I imagine that today you could build a 2 story house of 2400 square feet that would cost only around $500 per year to heat and cool. It would have 2 x 6 exterior framing stuffed with fiberglass with a cladding of 1 " urethane and TYVEK house-wrap, R-30+ insulation in the the properly ventilated attic, No more than 30% glass with roof overhangs and triple pane film coated windows. A SEER rating of 16 on the air conditioner and a furnace effiencey of 95% . Such a house would still have to be properly ventilated as it would be "tight" and moisture could be a problem. A whole house attic fan and ceiling fans would allow further savings as would timer thermostats if the house were vacant for long periods during the day-I used to come home from work and find my cats huddled under the bed clothes if i came home earlier than planned.

I would favor Govt-sanctioned standards -maybe through the current Energy Saving TAX rebate program for all new homes. It would cost more up front but would speak to comfort and savings down the line.

---

Thanks so much Mr. Rothamel,

I'll crunch those numbers and see what I can see. Your data on the home systems is brilliant. I used to work for a solar company out here in California. We sold thermosyphonic water heaters, and a simple space heater using the same principle with air and a small fan powered by a tiny photovoltaic panel. This was in the late 80's, when the government offered a 50% tax write-off on total cost of unit(s).

I've always liked the Earthship homes:

http://www.earthship.net/

More Videos:

http://www.earthship.net/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=2

I've bought book one of the 3 part earthship series, and should really get the other two soon. No heating or cooling bills sounds good to me.


Thanks again, Mr. Rothamel,


Your friend, always,

MrGray

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Note that water is not listed as an element.

I just figured he was talking about Hydrogen.

If he was, Hydrogen is in the 1.5% all others. Hardly the most abundant element on the planet.

Wouldn't Nitrogen be more abundant than Oxygen? It's all around us after all.

---

me@rescam.org

I don't know enough about it to converse, but would love some data on it's potential use and properties.

Thanks in advance, Misfit!

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Nitrogen is a very inert gas. Nitrogen oxides are produced in the combustion of all fossil fuels and contribute to global warming, especially nitrogen protoxide (N2O).
Tullio

---

Thanks, tullio,

Apparently, nuclear reactors create as much carbon emissions as coal and petrol, from what I've heard anyhow.

Man are we in trouble.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Thanks, tullio,

Apparently, nuclear reactors create as much carbon emissions as coal and petrol, from what I've heard anyhow.

Man are we in trouble.

Well, this is new to me. They give out a good amount of hot water from the heat exchanger circuit, this is very well known. After all, they obey the second law of thermodynamics, like any steam engine.
Tullio

---

You lost me after "heat exchanger circuit" but I trust you.

:D

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

You lost me after "heat exchanger circuit" but I trust you.

:D

Thanks for your trust. When I was physics editor at Mondadori I knew some of the best Italian nuclear engineers and I learned a lot from then. Unfortunately, the Italian government abandoned nuclear power after a referendum and now we depend on imported fuels for our electricity, unlike France.
Tullio

---

Very interesting, and a pleasure to make your acquaintance!


Freedom Fuels

http://joox.net/cat/44/id/1212732


http://www.divx.com plugin required

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Thanks, tullio,

Apparently, nuclear reactors create as much carbon emissions as coal and petrol, from what I've heard anyhow.
Man are we in trouble.

Well, this is new to me. They give out a good amount of hot water from the heat exchanger circuit, this is very well known. After all, they obey the second law of thermodynamics, like any steam engine.
Tullio

Where is the reference on carbon production of nuclear power plants. My daughter has the same mis-conception. It's ironic that Carbon dioxide is now a worry from power plants, Used to be the worry about sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, small heavy metal particulates, coal smoke and dust etc etc. scrubbers and bag house filters took care of most of these while probably doubling the price of energy from coal and dumping about 600 pounds of slurry into a landfill for each ton of coal burned. i used to think it eas better to let the smoke stack and plume distribute these widely into the environment rather that concentrating them in a scrubbing and filtering operation--The environmentalists will win this battle every time though--too political and emotional to deal with rationally.

The "Heat Exchanger" or cooling towers are common to all power plants and don't involve any combustion. All powerplants use high pressure steam to drive turbines. The steam that exits the turbines has lost most of it's temperature and energy. It has to be cooled to go back into the boilers. Just like a car radiator, the cooling towers transfer waste heat back into the environnment. In this case water is used instead of high velocity air flow as in a car's radiator. The heated, cooling water is then discharged into a water source (lake or seashore). The water I'm speaking of here is actually used to carry off the heat from water that is recirculated internally in the steam plant--it's treated so that no impurities wll corrode the tubine blades (vanes). Also in a nuclear plant pure water is used so that it will not pick up radioactivity.

Most nuclear plants are sited on a lake or seashore. There may be limits on how hot they will allow the water discharged back into the lake to be. Clinton Power plant in illinois raised it's lake's (man made) temperature about 2 degrees.

Unless someone can point to combustion processes involved in making the enriched uranium fuel then I would surmise that there is zero carbon production from nuclear power plants. The only carbon I know about might be in the rods used to moderate the production of energy in the reactor.

The argument probably goes like this "there is still pollution from nuclear power plants that must be dealt with". This is of course true. Spent fuel must be reprocessed or encased in glass and stainless steel and stored in undeground caverns that will not affect water supplies. I rented ented a house in California (1984) from a guy who went to Carlesbad, New Mexico to work on this process--don't think that it went exactly as planned. The WIPP repository there, however, has received hundreds of shipments of nuclear waste to store in it's rock salt caverns.

What has France done to solve these waste problems and all the carbon alledgedly produced by Nuclear Plants. I believe that we are about 20% nuclear now in the US --Am I right ?

---

More on CO2 Emissions from Nuclear plants --seems like the effect is quite the opposite--ne pas ??

The US has the most power produced from Nuclear: 110 plants vs 26 for France . France is 80 % nuclear and we are only 20%. France is a small country in comparison to the US.

---

I think the French have brought up an elite of nuclear engineers and power plant managers like no one else in the world. Of course they have the Grandes Ecoles, which give France an edge over the whole world. No nuclear accidents in France, except the failure of the Superphenix fast breeder. Emilio Segre' told me once: breeders are a folly.
Tullio

---

I think the French have brought up an elite of nuclear engineers and power plant managers like no one else in the world. Of course they have the Grandes Ecoles, which give France an edge over the whole world. No nuclear accidents in France, except the failure of the Superphenix fast breeder. Emilio Segre' told me once: breeders are a folly.
Tullio

Yes Sir, you remind me of some thoughts that I have long held on this subject.

I would almost rather die than think that the Government is a solution to a major problem. But, Nuclear Energy is a National problem since it will soon enough be coupled to Alternative fuels and de-salinizateion.

We also have an EPA, An Interstate Hwy System, a Nuclear Reg Committee and a nuclear Navy. So why not a Govt push in many directions. Expansion of the Naval Academy to provide a vast cadre of Nuclear engineers and technicians for the new and old nuclear plants that we need to operate. A TVA-Like thrust to put Nukes into construction--There will be Nukes in the "Valley" by gum. These need not be located near population centers.

Scholarsips funded at major Universities for Nuclear Engineers--we need high quality personnel to run the nuclear Plants --need the best people to prevent accidents and to respond correctly to any anomaly. More work would also be needed on the downstream disposal system

I see an extended branch of the Navy --if we can have Govt Public Health service then why not a Nuclear Operations Service--This thrust could maybe push more of our youth into engineering and science careers. My dream job would be to develop this cirriculum.

Even if CO2 turns out to be a non-problem we will eventually need the benefits of getting off of the Oil Patch and their politically unstable conditions. We will need to use nuclear energy to create hydrogen fuel for automotive fuel and massive enrgy for de-salinization use. Our corn and feed grains should be returned to feeding animals so that food prices can be brought back in line-Fuel use is inefficient and drives up the cost of almost any food product.

Maybe we are getting a little off from the Thread Topic but what do you all think about alternative energy and how could we fix hydrogen in liquid form to fit in with the fueling infra-structure that we now have (Pipe lines, Gas Station Tanks, Gas Pumps, Cheap fuel tanks on cars and trucks, Quick re-fueling etc)

---

All I know is that you need 5 kWh of electricity to produce one cubic meter of hydrogen in standard pressure and temperature conditions. Of course it must be cheap energy since you must not only produce hydrogen but also store and distribute it to consumers. Nuclear energy is the only solution, besides hydroelectric power, which has both limits and dangers. I was a member of the rescue teams in the 1963 Vajont dam disaster in Italy, but there was nobody to be rescued. 2000 people died.
Tullio

---