Posted on 03/19/2014 4:28:24 PM PDT by dynachrome
I stand corrected, thanks
E=MC2 EXCEPT for chemical energy.
I guess we will have to rewrite Einstein's law ...
E=MC2 EXCEPT for chemical energy.
What’s your point? The quote (and its grammatical correctness) are not mine.
Screw that. We want our oil and natural gas and fracking and strip mining and conventional nook plants (with Fukashima meltdowns) that create highly radioactive waste that lasts for thousands of years. Big Oil will never allow thorium plants in the USSR.
See part II.
http://www.mrelativity.net/papers/8/100.pdf
Einsteim says it applies to ALL energies. He did NOT say E=MC2 except for chemical energy.
“The great achievement of 20th century quantum physics has been to describe chemical reactions in terms of E = mc2.”
http://www.energytribune.com/2771/understanding-e-mc2#sthash.Pp9wZbDM.dpbs
The result of a chemical reaction will show a slight change in mass per molecule from the feed compounds, based on how much energy was released or absorbed. It’s very little, though.
...it may be a time-out suspension, rather than a forever zot?
Or have there been enough time-outs for that one, already.
Libs/greenies already fiercely oppose it. They say it’s not economically feasible.
The irony in that is palpable. Solyndra and the like, anyone?
I have to smirk at the phrase “fossil fuel hegemony”. That thorium is a lot older than the oil, gas, and coal the greenies whine about.
The processing involved burning the coal, and then collecting the ash and extracting the uranium from that.
Why not have both? Just process the flyash.
The reason so much energy is released in a nuclear reaction (detonation) is the c^2 times the relatively small mass converted.
Hey look! He played the engineer card!
So, tell me. We have been trying to contrast what are basically two different methods of generating energy in the form of heat. Your stand seems to be that, regardless of the process, mass is destroyed/converted. Is this also true then of friction?
If I rub my hands together quickly, am I then causing matter to change to energy?
Even if there were some nuclear component of the chemical reaction known as “burning”, the vast majority of energy released is from the rearrangement of molecular bonds in hydrocarbons to form CO, CO2 and HOH.
It's not the grammatical correctness, but the conceptual correctness. It's not an either-or question. The coal contains both Thorium and Carbon. You can extract the Thorium, and still have all the Carbon. You don't have to choose to use either one or the other.
Right. I believe the suggestion of the author was to extract the carbon via the Fischer-Tropsch process rather than burning, in order to get "petroleum product".
His reasoning was that you didn't need to burn the carbon to produce electricity, because you already had a surplus from the thorium.
Smokin' - yes, you could use the uranium, but remember the problems associated with uranium feed stock power plants (see Japan), and the fact that Watermelon whackjobss would fight you every step of the way.
thank you for the link, I’ll go take a look.
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.