Posted on 05/26/2004 9:48:04 AM PDT by Rebelbase
Have you seen the Ford Thunderbird? Retro style two-seater, 50s colors. Appears to be driveable, unlike the original Thunderbird.
In higher than normal atmospheric concentrations it is.
Don't go putting anything flammable near that vent opening.
You'll just be asking for trouble.
Agreed. But consider this:
The cleanest and least environmentally damaging form of electricity generation is nuclear, especially the low-temperature unenriched uranium CANDU reactor.
Hydrogen is the cleanest burning fuel, its combustion by-product is water.
The main difficulty in nuclear generation is that nuke plants must run flat out 24/7 to be efficient and so they have to be built to supply the low demand periods while the more polluting fossile fuel plants and watershed damaging hydro plants pick up the peak demands.
So, build nuke plants to supply the peak electricity demand and use their surplus electricity during slack demand periods to produce hydrogen.
yep ... love 'em ... the black ones are pretty cool, especially ... unfortunately, I don't have $44,000 or whatever they are now ... I'll have to have 'em work on my '86 Corvette ... LOL ...
I had a '60 T-Bird convertible (77 Sunset Strip) that I was going to fix up but it was too much of a project, too many years ago ...
Sticker $41. Powder blue. This isn't the place for that, no place to go except Anchorage, and you'd be invisible among the F-350 duallies and 10-yard side dumps.
The problem is that a tank full of gasoline (or diesel, or jet fuel) packs far more energy than the same weight - or volume - of dynamite, and nothing else matches its combination of energy density, safety, ease of storage and transport, and cost. In fact, when the price of natural petroleum gets high enough, the best solution might be to synthesize petroleum fuels rather than to switch to alternative energy vectors.
The fact is that oil provides over 95% of our transportation fuel. Half of all crude oil becomes gasoline, and another fourth becomes diesel or jet fuel. Heavier fractions become heating oil, lubricants, chemical feedstocks, asphalt, and other opportunity uses. Still, we use crude oil as an energy SOURCE. 80% of the energy it contains in the ground ends up in the tank for us to burn. Nature was nice to us.
One of the most efficient ways to increase gasoline supplies would be to extract more from existing feedstocks - the other fourth - with better refining techniques. We absolutely need more refining capacity. We are operating at close to 98% of capacity today, and the existing plants are getting really old, even with continuous maintenance and improvements.
Ethanol? It's been done, in Germany during the war, in South Africa during the apartheid embargo, and even in Brazil today. But in Brazil, where it is made most cheaply, from sugar cane, it is only a shrinking 20% of the fuel supply. Even heavily subsidized, it is much more expensive than petroleum and provides only half the mileage.
In this country, using corn as the feedstock (and using chemical and enzyme treatments to extract from leaves and stalks as well as the digestible sugars and starches) would yield an average of about 8 barrels per acre per crop. And each barrel of fuel grade ethanol contains only 2/3 the energy of a barrel of gasoline. To replace ONLY 20% of our current petroleum consumption would require NEW irrigated land equal to Texas plus Tennessee, which, I believe, puts this plan in the same category of solutions as antigravity and matter transporters.
Hydrogen? Promises, promises. It's everywhere around us, but not in its free form (H2). Most of it is locked up in water, and much of the rest in hydrocarbons - yes, petroleum and other gas and liquid fuels (NOT coal, which is just carbon). Because hydrogen is not free, it must be extracted from its feedstock.
Electrolysis from water requires about twice the energy that will be available as fuel, but that is before compressing the H2 gas into tanks for distribution, which could require as much as 1/3 more of the fuel value.
Transferring a gas under very high pressure is always energy intensive, and probably cannot be done passively, like a liquid. When the storage tank is half empty, the receiving tank would only get half full, without compression. This means that tank exchange may be the only practical refueling method for gaseous H2.
Metal-hydride storage might be an alternative to high pressure. Certain metals in specific forms - in general, finely powdered, then sintered into porous pellets with enormous surface area - can store hydrogen (chemically, also a metal) on the surface, and the density of hydrogen can far exceed its gaseous density. But the matrix metals are heavy and expensive, and require heat to release hydrogen.
Chemical storage might be a better choice. A catalytic device called a reformer can extract hydrogen from hydrocarbons, anything from methane and alcohols to gasoline fractions, using (or wasting) the energy from the carbon content for the extraction process. Another comparatively efficient chemical that stores copious amounts of hydrogen is sodium borohydride (NaBH4) in a water solution. It is stable, NOT flammable, and relatively non-toxic and non-corrosive - less hazardous than gasoline. The residue, sodium borate, is recyclable. Expensive, right now, but the price could come down with volume production.
But anything other than natural petroleum is only an energy VECTOR, or SECONDARY source, a way to transport energy instead of a primary source, with its energy content already present when obtained. The only primary energy sources capable of supplying the amount required, continuously and reliably, are nuclear. Fission today, and perhaps fusion someday, when hydrogen will really become a primary fuel. I picture large nuclear facilities that not only produce electricity but desalinize water, produce hydrogen (in whatever form becomes the standard,) and distribute hot water locally for space heating. Maybe it can take out the garbage, as well.
Increases in the price of oil just make these alternatives more economical, and ECONOMICS IS THE KEY. Higher prices drive exploration and development for oil, as well as new petroleum sources like tar sands. Higher prices also drive the use of the substitutes and alternatives described above.
well, if you wind up with a spare one, any color, ship it down to me in the 48 contiguous states ... hehe ...
when I bought my Explorer a few years ago, I went to pick it up and there was a new F-350 Extended Cab Dually with the Triton engine right next to it ... that thing looked like it was 30 feet long ... of course it wasn't but it looked twice as big as my Explorer ...
Hydride storage and solar powered electrolysis gensets have been around since the 70's. If you take the approach that the real cost of oil is more like $5 / gallon when you factor in the total cost to get it (like fighting wars in a part of the world that decayed beyond hope 500 years ago), then cases for alternative fuels and methods become viable really quickly.
The Luddites will still be here complaining that they can't get a '66 GTO anymore long after everyone else is driving Hybrid or Hydrogen SUV's using manufactured fuels. Let them honk. But especially let the Arabs honk as they have to drink their damn oil, because no one wants it.
What's the cost of dead men in Iraq, dead people in New York City, and never ending wars due to the vast flows of money flowing into the most unstable part of the world? You volunteer to go fight to secure the fields in the Middle East? How much taxes should we pay to maintain a military dedicated to doing nothing but holding down that part of world until...what? Zero Point Energy actually seems feasible?
Funny how costs like that never seem to come up in the analysis from the "It's only oil" crowd. You willing to die to try and make it all true?
There was a black Thunderbird hidden in back among the F-250s and F-150s. Maybe it's an extra. I'll ask next time.
What year vette?
I own a 2001 triple black vert, 6 spd.
late '86, aluminum heads 4+3 (didn't know, it's not the best tranny, I had to put a new one in) ... but I've seen some modified, normally aspirated that can turn 10's ... needs paint ... and rich owner ... hehe
I'm car poor ... too many hobbies ...
I owned an 85; tranny went out on it as well.
sounds cool ... just remember, if you have to file off the serial numbers before you send it, it's not an 'extra' ... LOL
*sigh* ... shoulda married that gal that was in Med School a few years back ... hehe ...
yeah, it got locked permanently in reverse backing out of a parking space at the local Sonic Drive-In ... think it was fixable ... dropped $2400 on a new one ... would like to have converted to the 6-speed but couldn't mess with it at the time ... shoulda found a way though ...
I still have the orig tranny but it runs about $1300 to get it rebuilt ... I don't need a spare that bad ... but the car has never been wrecked so the fiberglass is excellent ...
I've owned a '79 (garage queen) an '85 (bad tranny) a '90 (great car!) and now the '01. Of all the models, the C5 is the best, IMHO. Rides well, and dusts rice rockets with ease.
Oil is a small piece of the equation - they hate us for many reasons having nothing to do with oil and a LOT to do with religion. I posted technical information, and have no interest in dicussing the politics on this thread. Read all of my post - you might learn something.
yeah, I'll own a later model if money drops outta the sky next to me (and I can move outta this county I'm in with high taxes) ...
mine's been in the garage a long time ... my friend has a couple including a '78 Pace Car with low miles ... I'd like to jump on it but now is not the time ...
thought these were Super T-10's, but they are only T-10's as I understand it, and the torgue even from the L-98 is hard on them ... probably explains your '85 ...
I doubt it. If you're deluded enough to believe that religion is the reason we're in the middle east, then it would be like a religous discussion: never ending. Oil is a national interest of the United States. Therefore we do things in the national interest. That's it. Any other reasons, things are not done for, no matter what propaganda you hear.
As far as the technical content, you had no new comments I haven't heard in the last 25 years. Your conclusion at the end was fine: use nuclear power of one flavor or another to create hydrogen. My only comment on that is...why wait? It's easier to change the laws on building plants then it is to start, conduct and finish wars.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.