On the other hand, if we'd spent in total on fusion research what we spend on oil subsidies every year or two, we might well have cracked it by now.
Have we spent too much on fusion?
Have we spent too much on fusion?
One of my wine/food buddies in the 70/80's from MIT questioned fusion after being a proponent for many years.
Retired MIT Professor Lidsky dies; questioned fusion power research | MIT News
Yes, well.
People throwing money out the window is hardly anything new. And many governments are especially skilled at it.
The hardest job must be continuing to push for something you know is possible but noone believes in, when you have a working model just be wary of who you bend over for, so to speak.
People throwing money out the window is hardly anything new. And many governments are especially skilled at it.
The hardest job must be continuing to push for something you know is possible but noone believes in, when you have a working model just be wary of who you bend over for, so to speak.
Last edited:
The House of Lords had already announced something like this, when warned of a world-awaited catastrophe in the 20th century - problems with the cleaning of horse manure on the streets of cities.
> catastrophe in the 20th century - problems with the cleaning of horse manure on the streets
This is becoming an issue in some towns near me.
This is becoming an issue in some towns near me.
the article on london smog killing 10000 a year was untrustworthy since it doesnt clatify the underlying cause of death. considering the population of London it seems small if the actual smog was the true cause! I also chuckled at NO2 being a toxin, isnt that laughing gas??? Never let folk with an agenda be scientists!
This is incorrect. Actually, oxygen does not burn at all!
Here's the full article: Chemistry 101: Oxygen is not flammable - Modern Healthcare Vital Signs | The healthcare business blog from Modern Healthcare
-Gnobuddy
Interesting. I found this note helpful:
" ...
Oxygen is the oxidant, not the fuel, but nevertheless the source of most of the chemical energy released in combustion.
..."
... which seems to imply that Oxygen does "burn", although perhaps strictly speaking from a Chemistry perspective I don't know how it would be viewed*. Kind of like how pure water cannot support electrical energy but if that water contains any impurities (in a manner of speaking, a "fuel") it readily conducts electricity.
You can say that water does not conduct electricity, and you would be correct, but none the less water is an electrocution hazard in practical terms.
* An exact quote from my High School Chemistry teacher, after learning I got a final grade of 97 in Physics and giving me a grade of 4 ... that's not a typo ... "If you were my son, I would kill you." I don't think they can say stuff like that today ;-)
Last edited:
Hydrogen isn't a byproduct of liquefying air - there is no Hydrogen in the air to extract.
There are basically two ways to get Hydrogen in industrial scale.
- Electrolysis, in which case Hydrogen is an energy carrier, and the power source is electricity. This is expensive and when you take into consideration energy usage from production, compression and liquefaction and transport, way less efficient than using electricity directly to charge a battery and then using the battery to power a car.
- The cracking of hydro carbons, in which case Hydrogen is an energy source. This is cheaper than electrolysis, but much of the same problems as gasoline and diesel. You are still locked into the oil industry, and you still need to get rid of the co2 that is produced during the cracking. There is also the added inefficience from needing to compress and liquefy the hydrogen - assuming transport is about the same usage as gasoline and diesel. The only advantage is that you eliminate local pollution.
The hydrogen economy is a blind track. It cannot be more eficient than battery power, if produced by electrolysis. The hidden agenda is that current production choices will still lock us into the oil industry.
At present, hydrogen is an alternative for heavy transport, where battery power is currently not really practical.
Johan-Kr
This is almost exactly what I said in post #180 of this thread. 🙂
Linky: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/the-lounge/310490-combustion-cars-uk-2040-a-18.html#post5151819
-Gnobuddy
Other things burn in oxygen. Oxygen itself doesn't burn. Its presence enables or accelerates the burning of other materials. (Though oxygen is not required for burning; other strong oxidizing agents will do just fine instead of oxygen, say fluorine, as an example.)
What does it mean when they say oxygen doesn't burn? Well, if you squirt oxygen out of a nozzle into a vacuum chamber, and try to light the oxygen, it will not burn.
If you squirt oxygen out of a nozzle into a chamber full of argon, and try to light the oxygen, it will not burn.
If you take a sealed metal cylinder filled with pure oxygen and heat it up, you will not start a fire inside the cylinder.
Another way to think of it - "burning" is basically rapid oxidation of something. In other words, you have to have something else (other than oxygen) to oxidize, otherwise you don't have burning!
It seems pretty clear to me what that means - pure water is a very bad conductor. Adding certain types of impurities (such as acid, or table salt) creates ions, and enables the resulting dilute solution of acid or sodium chloride to conduct.
I don't see much cause for confusion there - pure water is an insulator, dilute acids and other ionic solutions conduct. The only confusion is if we mistake tap water for pure water - it isn't, and (as you said), it conducts enough to be quite dangerous to us.
Honestly, I don't see any connection between salt or acid in water and fuel, though.
-Gnobuddy
Just a side note - Apparently there has been developed a process where hydrocarbons can be split into Hydrogen and carbon black. I haven't yet found any mentions of it being used, though.
Johan-Kr
Johan-Kr
Quite probably because the energy needed to accomplish that would be higer than energy obtained by burning the "liberated" carbon.
Not mentioning the horrendous cost.
Even less, that then you would be back to square one , facing the problem of transporting incredibly low energy density pure hydrogen fuel in your car.
Now you know why that idea is not exactly mainstream.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.