 |
|  |
 |
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000 time: 06:30
|
|
Fuel cells are not good for short term / immediate demand such as car acceleraiton, which is why you use hybrid cars with batteries for acceleration and steep stages. Apart from that, fuel cells need to be fueled, and mass efficient hydrogene containers are usually carbone hydrates, so you also need a reformer. Pure hydrogene has less hydrogene in same volume than methane, ironically enough, plus it escapes every container. Fuel cell efficiency is pretty good anyway, 50%+ in practice, even 80%+ in theory.
So there's still a lot of room for improvement, but also many ways to fill that room. There just needs to be investment of time, which noone has, and money, which most want to spend on weapons and condoms.
Set priorities. Discuss.
edit: what I posted before editia was of course nonsense...
With the same (assumedly constant) molar volume of 22.4 l/mol under normal conditions, CH4 contains 4 mol of hydrogene while H2 has only 2. This was the point, the flu is just confusing me. 
Last edited by Ecthy on 20-09-2003 at 14:17
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
More money needs to be spent on fusion reactor research. Once we have working fusion reactors our energy problems are over.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000 time: 06:30
|
|
1. controlled fusion doesn't work and never will
2. even if it will, it'll cost a fortune, so the third world won't profit quickly enough
3. if you throw a bomb into a fusion plant, our universe goes kaputt
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
Ecth: Can you justify any of these statements?
1. Heisenberg said the same thing about controlled fission in the 30s.
2. Once the technology is up and running, it shouldn't be more expensive than fission. It is the research which is expensive.
3. Fusion reactions are hard to maintain - they have to be maintained by a feed back cycle, so throwing in a bomb will not destriy the world any more than for a fission reactor. Furthermore, since fusion is inherently clean there would be no fallout (unlike fission) (althoug this of course does depend on what other shenanigans you use to maintain the fusion).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
CerberusIV
|
|
Random thoughts.
One of the reasons the French have stopped building nuclear reactors is the massive government debts their nuclear reactor programme has run up and the need to try and not break the single currency budget deficit limit.
No-one can really tell the true cost of decommissioning fission reactors because it varies between countries, reactor designs and methods.
Nuclear reactors are fine for base load power production but demand fluctuates and that is where gas fuelled plant comes in because it can be turned on and off more easily.
If you have a suitable mountain, hydro electric is the easiest storage option. There is a set up in the UK where off peak electricity is used to pump water up to a reservoir built into the top of a mountain. When more electricity is needed they allow the water to flow down again and drive the turbines.
Breeder reactors and reprocessing nuclear fuel sounds great in theory. The Sellafield plant in the UK was supposed to do this for a global market. Only the Japanese signed up, it isn't economic and the whole thing is likely to shut down. End of commercial reprocessing to produce recycled fuel rods.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000 time: 06:30
|
|
Rogan, your replies are fair enough, but it will take centuries until "all our energy problems are solved".
The same could be said about fission plants, but people are so paranoid.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970 time: 00:30
|
|
quote: More money needs to be spent on fusion reactor research. Once we have working fusion reactors our energy problems are over. |
Fusion research is already well funded. We should let the science develop at its own pace.
Last edited by DanS on 20-09-2003 at 23:21
|
|
|  |
 |
|
yavoon
|
|
quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara
We need more enegery efficiency coupled with more solar powered buildings coupled with more mass transit. |
by more mass transit u mean more roads to drive our cars on right?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
yavoon
|
|
quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Ah, no. That would only make the energy situation worse. |
we need more energy, no doubt about that.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30. Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|