The old metrics are:

Oil Prices
Interest Rates
Software Licenses
Monopolies
Convergence

The new metrics are:

Solar Capture
Cash
Freshmeat.Org
Competition
Divergence

Hi John Bailo ,

Are you saying that it's good to be holding cash right now ,
  while the price of oil has been soaring ?

Cash is trash ,
  It's better to invest in real assets ...

  If you can find a market that's not about to pop .

Jeff Relf wrote:

> Hi John Bailo ,
> 
> Are you saying that it's good to be holding cash right now ,
>   while the price of oil has been soaring ?

Cash, liquidity, are floating upward.

If you aren't in the market -- you're losing money.

There's inflation all right -- the people who are in the New Hydrogen 
Economy will be the 21st century trillionaires.

Bill Gates is already a pauper.

Jeff Relf wrote:

>   while the price of oil has been soaring ?

So is the price of caviar and rare gems.

Oil is no longer necessary.

Hydrogen is cheap and plentiful.

People will soon buy pints of oil to be used as curios and decoration in 
the home.

Hi John Bailo ,  You dream ,
" the people who are in the New Hydrogen 
    Economy will be the 21st century trillionaires " ,

Or more likely ,
  you'll bust your piggy bank and invest those pennies
  in some fly-by-night hi-tech scheme ,
  losing it all ...  Yet again .

Jeff Relf wrote:

>   you'll bust your piggy bank and invest those pennies
>   in some fly-by-night hi-tech scheme ,
>   losing it all ...  Yet again .

see you an wall street then ...

:D

Hi John Bailo ,  You suggest ,
" Oil is no longer necessary .
    Hydrogen is cheap and plentiful . "

As the  Spooky Ghost  will tell you ,
  oil is  Thee  best way to store and use energy .

Hydrogen fuel is far too expensive ,
  too bulky ,  and too dangerous .

What's more ,  it's  Dirtier  than oil ,
  because of all the energy it takes to make it ,
  and for other reasons as well .

On 2004-02-07, Jeff Relf <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote:
> Hi John Bailo ,  You suggest ,
> " Oil is no longer necessary .
>     Hydrogen is cheap and plentiful . "
>
> As the  Spooky Ghost  will tell you ,
>   oil is  Thee  best way to store and use energy .
>
> Hydrogen fuel is far too expensive ,
>   too bulky ,  and too dangerous .
>

Don't read much do you...

> What's more ,  it's  Dirtier  than oil ,
>   because of all the energy it takes to make it ,
>   and for other reasons as well .

At this time - but I was just reading today about some break throughs
that may make cheap hydrogen a real possability.  Scientists have been
looking at how plants separate hydrogen from water - and they think they
are finally on to something.

If they are able to pull that off, and replicate this process - then
that means there is no storage problem, because all you need is a water
tank...

-- 
Tom Shelton
Powered By Gentoo Linux 1.4
Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers.
		-- Leonard Brandwein

Jeff Relf wrote:

> Hi John Bailo ,  You suggest ,
> " Oil is no longer necessary .
>     Hydrogen is cheap and plentiful . "
> 
> As the  Spooky Ghost  will tell you ,
>   oil is  Thee  best way to store and use energy .

Better than water?

> 
> Hydrogen fuel is far too expensive ,
>   too bulky ,  and too dangerous .

Unfounded assertions.

Eventually, the water converter will be the source.

> 
> What's more ,  it's  Dirtier  than oil ,

Idiocy.

>   because of all the energy it takes to make it ,

Wrong.

>   and for other reasons as well .
> 

Hi John Bailo ,

Re:  How oil as the best way to store energy ,
  You ask , " Better than water ? " ,

There's no way to get energy from water .

Hydrogen fuel is not water .

Jeff Relf wrote:
> Hi John Bailo ,
> 
> Re:  How oil as the best way to store energy ,
>   You ask , " Better than water ? " ,
> 
> There's no way to get energy from water .
> 
> Hydrogen fuel is not water .
> 

http://www.globalideasbank.org/BOV/BV-396.HTML


Fuel from water
Berit Pegg-Karlsson in Polperro, Cornwall, is the Swedish-born director 
of the British-Scandinavian Association for Wind and Hydrogen Power, 
backed by the Pure Energy Trust, of which self-sufficiency writer John 
Seymour is the main trustee. Pegg-Karlsson plans to popularise in 
Britain the very successful hydrogen 'Welgas' experiment financed in the 
town of Harnosand by the Swedish steel industry, SAAB and other firms. 
In Harnosand, Olaf Tegstrom designed and lived in a house where the 
electricity came from a small computer-controlled Danish windmill in the 
garden. The electricity was used to electrolyse filtered water into its 
constituents, hydrogen and oxygen, with the hydrogen gas used for 
cooking and heating the house and as fuel for a SAAB car. The car is 
non-polluting as the exhaust consists almost entirely of water vapour, 
and the safe storage problem has been solved, with the gas absorbed to 
form a metal hydride and released as required. Indeed in West Berlin, 
thanks to government subsidies for fuels that did not cause acid rain, 
Daimler Benz has built a filling station where various converted 
vehicles can be filled with hydrogen, produced from town gas.

Hi John Bailo ,  You quote from the Global Ideas Bank ,
" Daimler Benz has built a filling station where 
    various converted vehicles can be filled with 
    hydrogen produced from town gas " ,

It would be cleaner to burn oil directly ,
  it takes more oil to make the hydrogen first .

Even in the case of the windmill charging 
  a metal hydride battery with electrolytic hydrogen ...

  What about the cost of the battery and it's disposal ?

  Why did the article fail to mention how much of that
    person's energy needs were provided this way ?

There's no  " New economy " ,  John ,
  technology is incremental ,  not miraculous .

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:02:02 -0800, Jeff Relf wrote:

> It would be cleaner to burn oil directly ,
>   it takes more oil to make the hydrogen first .

But the catalysis can be done using solar power.  That's the way the Sun
oil test station in California is doing it.  How can that not be cleaner
than burning oil?

>   What about the cost of the battery and it's disposal ?

That certainly is a concern.  As is the use of metals and toxic
substances.  However, I believe it is early on the technology curve, and
we are using what little we have learned so far.  As with anything, as the
size of the market expands, the substances used will become cheaper,
safer, and so on...

> There's no  " New economy " ,  John ,
>   technology is incremental ,  not miraculous .

Arthur C. Clarke disagrees with you.  He wrote that any sufficiently
advanced technology would appear to another culture as magic.

And technology seems to advance both in increments and discontinuous
jumps.   As in, before 1970 there were no PCs.  Now there are hundreds of
millions.  But the changes since 1990 to PCs themselves have been
incremental.



-- 
kent crasy
W '04 <Open Rule Open Source>

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:02:02 -0800, Jeff Relf wrote:


> 
> There's no  " New economy " ,  John ,
>   technology is incremental ,  not miraculous .

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/hydrogen-economy.htm

-- 
kent crasy
W '04 <Open Rule Open Source>

Hi John Bailo ,  You mention
  " before 1970 there were no PCs " ,

But is the economy any better for that ?

When the computer takes your driver's license ,
  attaches your paycheck ,
  and cleans out your checking account ...

  It makes you wonder .

Hi John Bailo ,
  Re:  Creating hydrogen from water for 
  pie-in-the-sky hydrogen batteries ,
You comment ,
  " But the catalysis can be done using solar power " ,

Back in the early eighties ,
  I remember talking to a company that was actively 
  exploring hydrogen powered vehicles ,
  they were even running a hydrogen powered bus .

They too wanted to get the hydrogen from solar power ,
  but that is so stupid on so many levels .
  It just doesn't work .

Here we are ,  well over twenty years later ...  
   And no sign of anything reasonable .

What makes you think the current oil crises
  will be solved so quickly ?

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:20:22 -0800, Jeff Relf wrote:

> Hi John Bailo ,  You mention
>   " before 1970 there were no PCs " ,
> 
> But is the economy any better for that ?

Yes.  There are more goods at higher quality for less.

Remember, when I was 10, in 1970, there were no /computer jobs/ as we know
them.  Back then, there were regular boring jobs, and a very, very tiny
few who got to create and develop things ( for money ).   To get even a
moderately creative job such as an ad agency copywriter position required
a lot of luck, and the pay was something like $2000 a year.  And, the
chances of getting fired in two years was very high.

Now, 30 years later, many if not most jobs in business require some degree
of creativity.  Web masters, Web Application Developers, Graphic
Designers, System Engineers get to work with code, graphics, sound, video.
Marketing people have become mini-film directors -- creating and executing
concepts with powerful multimedia equipment.  Game development is the new
Hollywood.  And these jobs are growing and growing.

> When the computer takes your driver's license ,
>   attaches your paycheck ,
>   and cleans out your checking account ...

Does the *computer* do that to you?  Are gremlins stealing your socks ?
 Does the IRS bug your apartment?
 
>   It makes you wonder .

Not me.  I'm happy.  I have a brand new Athlon 2400... 

mbeep, mbeep !!!

-- 
kent crasy
W '04 <Open Rule Open Source>

Hi John Bailo ,  You cite ,
  http://auto.howstuffworks.com/hydrogen-economy.htm ,
Which goes to ,
  http://auto.howstuffworks.com/hydrogen-economy6.htm
Where I quote ,
" The most obvious step we will see is 
    the marketing of fuel-cell-powered vehicles .
  Although they will be powered initially by gasoline " ,

And at  _ Less _  efficiency ,  more pollution ,
  and higher cost ,  no doubt .

And when will this miraculous  " New Economy "  happen ?

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:29:38 -0800, Jeff Relf wrote:

> Hi John Bailo ,
>   Re:  Creating hydrogen from water for 
>   pie-in-the-sky hydrogen batteries ,

Jules Verne once conceived the submarine.  Later, it became reality.

> You comment ,
>   " But the catalysis can be done using solar power " ,

Yes.


> 
> Back in the early eighties ,
>   I remember talking to a company that was actively 
>   exploring hydrogen powered vehicles ,
>   they were even running a hydrogen powered bus .

http://www.futureenergies.com/article.php?sid=807
/
London is taking part in a pioneering project to reduce air and noise
pollution by testing the first generation of zero emission fuel cell
buses. The buses form part of a European trial involving ten other cities,
the largest project of its type anywhere in the world. Three vehicles will
be trialled on the 25 bus route which runs from Ilford to Oxford Circus.
The first of the fuel cell buses will go into service on January 14th.
/

> 
> They too wanted to get the hydrogen from solar power ,
>   but that is so stupid on so many levels .
>   It just doesn't work .

You'd be much better if you used a web browser to verify your writings
before typing such stupidity.  Here's the result of a simple Google search:

http://www.humboldt.edu/~serc/trinidad.html

The Schatz Solar Hydrogen Project is a full-time, automated, stand-alone 
energy system that demonstrates that hydrogen can be used to store solar
energy. It powers the air compressor that aerates the aquaria at Humboldt
State University's Telonicher Marine Laboratory in Trinidad, California.
The system uses energy from the sun to power the compressor directly and
to produce hydrogen that powers the compressor when the sun is not
available. The end result is that the fish enjoy solar-powered air bubbles
twenty-four hours a day. Kids touring the Schatz Solar Hydrogen Project In
the solar hydrogen cycle, solar energy provides the electricity to remove
hydrogen from ordinary water by the process of electrolysis. The hydrogen
can then be stored or transported. When hydrogen is recombined with
oxygen, usable energy results. No resources are consumed and the only
byproduct is pure water. In this cycle hydrogen is an energy carrier; it
allows us to store and transport solar energy in large quantities.

> 
> Here we are ,  well over twenty years later ...  
>    And no sign of anything reasonable .

California is committed to building one of these things every 50 miles!

> 
> What makes you think the current oil crises
>   will be solved so quickly ?

Zen answer: Because it can be.

-- 
kent crasy
W '04 <Open Rule Open Source>

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:38:05 -0800, Jeff Relf wrote:

> Hi John Bailo ,  You cite ,
>   http://auto.howstuffworks.com/hydrogen-economy.htm ,

http://apps.edmunds.com/advice/specialreports/articles/100335/article.html

http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/advice/specialreports/honda.fcx/honda.fcx.f34.500.jpg

> And when will this miraculous  " New Economy "  happen ?

Some of us are already in it...

-- 
kent crasy
W '04 <Open Rule Open Source>

Hi John Bailo ,
  First you mention some of the same experimental projects ,
  demos really ,  that have been around for decades ,
  then ,  Re: how this could solve  Immediate  problems ,
You replied ,
  " Zen answer :  Because it can be " ,

That's not the Zen answer ,
  that's the Jimmy Carter answer .

Been there ,  done that ,  it doesn't work .

John Bailo <jabailo@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<Rd_Ub.17373$uM2.5233@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> Jeff Relf wrote:
> 
> >   while the price of oil has been soaring ?
> 
> So is the price of caviar and rare gems.
> 
> Oil is no longer necessary.
> 
> Hydrogen is cheap and plentiful.
> 
> People will soon buy pints of oil to be used as curios and decoration in 
> the home.


Stock tip of the day:  Straddle Martha Stewart.

If you can't afford that, use the strangle.

Double-A

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:57:11 -0800, Jeff Relf wrote:

> Hi John Bailo ,
>   First you mention some of the same experimental projects ,
>   demos really ,  that have been around for decades ,
>   then ,  Re: how this could solve  Immediate  problems ,
> You replied ,
>   " Zen answer :  Because it can be " ,
> 
> That's not the Zen answer ,
>   that's the Jimmy Carter answer .

I would ask you to *join me* in the /New Hydrogen Economy/ but I see you
are far too busy shoveling coal into the basement furnace of your seedy
flophouse.

As always, my response to your retro-grade comments is: you go your way,
I'll go mine.



-- 
kent crasy
W '04 <Open Rule Open Source>

Hi John Bailo ,  You mention ,
  " I'm happy .  I have a brand new Athlon 2400 " ,

Did it come with Windows XP ?

Are you running Windows XP ?

Re:  Automated seizures ,
  You ask , " Does the IRS bug your apartment ? " ,

Don't lie to me Bailo ,
  I know you know all about those automated seizures .

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 23:04:17 -0800, Jeff Relf wrote:

> Hi John Bailo ,  You mention ,
>   " I'm happy .  I have a brand new Athlon 2400 " ,
> 
> Did it come with Windows XP ?

Nope.  No OS.
 
> Are you running Windows XP ?

Nope.  It's a dual boot.  Fedora RC1 Linux and w2k.  w2k is our standard
at work and I need it to work from home ( they use a shiva vpn that only
has a client for windos -- it's not an IPSec standard ).

And today I just spent $90 for Suse Professional 9.0 and a Suse T-Shirt. 
I think I'll stick with Fedora at home and bring my Suse to work and make
my work Linux machine a Suse workstation --- gotta get ready since Novell
is gonna own the business desktop pretty soon !!!

> 
> Re:  Automated seizures ,
>   You ask , " Does the IRS bug your apartment ? " ,

*Automated seizures* is the best description of your Usenet posts so far.



-- 
kent crasy
W '04 <Open Rule Open Source>

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 23:04:17 -0800, Jeff Relf wrote:

> Hi John Bailo ,  You mention ,
>   " I'm happy .  I have a brand new Athlon 2400 " ,
> 
> Did it come with Windows XP ?

Definitely not.

Right now, my Fedora Up2Date is delivering the freshest software in all
categories -- Desktop, Web, Graphics, Games.

All Open Source.  All Free and Clear.

Ahh.  Refreshing. 

:D


__
kent crasy
W '04 <Open Rule Open Source>

Hi Double-A ,  You suggest that we all ,
  " Straddle Martha Stewart " ,

I'd do it ,
  but I don't want to get you in trouble for 
  passing inside information .

Hi John Bailo ,
  " Fedora Up2Date is delivering the freshest software " ,

You paid 90 dollars for Suse ,
  how much did you pay for Fedora Up2Date ?
  Did you get a bootable CD ?

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 23:39:44 -0800, Jeff Relf wrote:

> Hi John Bailo ,
>   " Fedora Up2Date is delivering the freshest software " ,
> 
> You paid 90 dollars for Suse ,
>   how much did you pay for Fedora Up2Date ?

Fedora is free.

fedora.redhat.com

>   Did you get a bootable CD ?

i made it myself with a cd burner.

-- 
kent crasy
W '04 <Open Rule Open Source>

Hi John Bailo ,
  Re: fedora.redhat.com ,

How large is the whole ball of wax ?

How large is the boot CD ?

"Jeff Relf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:76tyrgr61gq5$.dlg@x.Jeff.Relf...
> Hi John Bailo ,
>   Re: fedora.redhat.com ,
>
> How large is the whole ball of wax ?
>
> How large is the boot CD ?

Hey Jeff, just browse http://www.linuxiso.org

Jeff Relf wrote:

> Hi John Bailo ,
>   Re: fedora.redhat.com ,
> 
> How large is the whole ball of wax ?
> 
> How large is the boot CD ?

Like about 4 1/2 inches.

Hi John Bailo ,
  Re:  The size of your erect penis ,
You inform us ,
  " Like about 4 1/2 inches " ,

Exaggerating again ,  are you Bailo ?

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 22:29:38 -0800, Jeff Relf <Me@Privacy.NET>
wrote:

>Hi John Bailo ,
>  Re:  Creating hydrogen from water for 
>  pie-in-the-sky hydrogen batteries ,
>You comment ,
>  " But the catalysis can be done using solar power " ,
>
>Back in the early eighties ,
>  I remember talking to a company that was actively 
>  exploring hydrogen powered vehicles ,
>  they were even running a hydrogen powered bus .
>
>They too wanted to get the hydrogen from solar power ,
>  but that is so stupid on so many levels .
>  It just doesn't work .
>
>Here we are ,  well over twenty years later ...  
>   And no sign of anything reasonable .
>
>What makes you think the current oil crises
>  will be solved so quickly ?
>
What, if anything, has developed from the Japanese research
project involving pumping deep, cold, ammonia rich sea water to
the surface and extracting the ammonia, then breaking this down
into N and H. I read several articles on this, a few months ago,
but haven't read anything lately.

Jeff Relf wrote:
> Hi John Bailo ,
>   Re:  The size of your erect penis ,
> You inform us ,
>   " Like about 4 1/2 inches " ,
> 
> Exaggerating again ,  are you Bailo ?

Yes, I guess I was...but remember, we were talking diameter.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Jeff Relf
<Me@Privacy.NET>
 wrote
on Fri, 6 Feb 2004 21:08:52 -0800
<aldsuz3ie4p9$.dlg@x.Jeff.Relf>:
> Hi John Bailo ,  You suggest ,
> " Oil is no longer necessary .
>     Hydrogen is cheap and plentiful . "
> 
> As the  Spooky Ghost  will tell you ,
>   oil is  Thee  best way to store and use energy .

Barring the nuclear option.  I'd have to look to
see which works better: ammonia or U-235.

(Don't laugh.  The hydrogen in ammonia can be extracted
through electrolysis somehow, then fed into a fusion
machine.  At least, in theory.  In practice, who knows?
But water is a distant second density wise.  Of course
using ammonia as a fuel source for *chemical* purposes
in order to burn the hydrogen therein is ridiculous.)

> 
> Hydrogen fuel is far too expensive ,
>   too bulky ,  and too dangerous .

Expensive:  Probably, although it might get better if we
can mass-produce solar cells without using lots of energy,
or find some other energy extraction method, such as simply
boiling water into a turbine using a solar oven.

Bulky: That it is, unless new storage techniques are involved.
A mole of gas at STP occupies 1/40th of a cubic meter.
At 3,000 psi (20 atm) one can compress that to 1.25 cc but
it's still less energy than 1.25 cc of liquid gasoline.
AIUI active research is going on in this area.

Dangerous: unclear.  I don't see it being any more dangerous
than gasoline or acetylene.  Bear in mind that the Hindenberg
was designed with aluminum skin, which was highly flammable,
and was touched off by a spark (bad design).  As it is,
hydrogen floats *up* when released, as opposed to gasoline
vapors flowing around on the ground, ready to ignite.
While we may lose the hydrogen (it eventually escapes
into space) it doesn't look like a major flammability problem.

> 
> What's more ,  it's  Dirtier  than oil ,
>   because of all the energy it takes to make it ,
>   and for other reasons as well .
> 

The primary problem is that it is made by cracking oil.
Were that method replaced by saner production practices
(e.g., electrolysis via solar) hydrogen would be
reasonably workable.

However, even better (if more complicated) would be
photosynthesis of gasoline or diesel fuel directly
from sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide.

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

Hi Spooky Ghost In The Machine ,
  Re:  Alternative fuels ,
You comment , " In practice ,  who knows ? " .

I do ...  Oil .

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Jeff Relf
<Me@Privacy.NET>
 wrote
on Tue, 10 Feb 2004 04:02:45 -0800
<1i042qxbob7qz.dlg@x.Jeff.Relf>:
> Hi Spooky Ghost In The Machine ,
>   Re:  Alternative fuels ,
> You comment , " In practice ,  who knows ? " .
> 
> I do ...  Oil .

Agreed, oil is the best chemical fuel out there, bar none.
The main problem will be synthesizing it, once our
natural reserves run out.

The Middle East has an advantage here, too: lots
of nice, flat sand, to build oil synthesizers on.
These would probably resemble large, flat pans,
fed with filtered seawater and air.  Bacteria in the pans
would synthesize oil therefrom, which would float up and be
collected from the top of an upward-pointing spout.

Of course I'm far from expert in this sort of thing.
There are issues with nice, flat sand, too; it tends to create
dunes.

Definitely a challenge.

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:1holf1-375.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Jeff Relf
> <Me@Privacy.NET>
>  wrote

<snip>

> > Hydrogen fuel is far too expensive ,
> >   too bulky ,  and too dangerous .
>
> Expensive:  Probably, although it might get better if we
> can mass-produce solar cells without using lots of energy,
> or find some other energy extraction method, such as simply
> boiling water into a turbine using a solar oven.

Ongoing research in catalysis suggests that a photoactivated catalytic
cracking process can be combined with a semi-permeable membrane to produce a
very thin skin-like sheet that will simultaneously electrolyze water AND
separate the gases (hydrogen and oxygen) produced, when exposed to sunlight.

> Bulky: That it is, unless new storage techniques are involved.
> A mole of gas at STP occupies 1/40th of a cubic meter.
> At 3,000 psi (20 atm) one can compress that to 1.25 cc but
> it's still less energy than 1.25 cc of liquid gasoline.
> AIUI active research is going on in this area.

The current best storage for molecular hydrogen (the kind you burn) that
does not require either superinsulated cryogenic containers or high-pressure
storage tanks is in titanium sponge, but nanotubes hold some promise. They
are still VERY expensive, though.

> Dangerous: unclear.  I don't see it being any more dangerous
> than gasoline or acetylene.  Bear in mind that the Hindenberg
> was designed with aluminum skin, which was highly flammable,
> and was touched off by a spark (bad design).

Actually the 'skin' was a minor component on the conflagration:  The 'dope'
(an aviation varnish used to strengthen and waterproof the fabric) was a
flammable laquer mixed with aluminum and red iron oxide (Al + Fe2O3 =
'thermite') - a concoction used in the early days of railroading to weld
large pieces of iron when no furnace, forge, or welding torch was available:

Fe2O3 (solid) + 2 Al (solid) ---> 2 Fe (liquid) + 2 Al2O3 (solid) + lots of
heat!

Note the metallic iron *produced* in the reaction is already molten!

The Hindenberg would have burned just as brightly had it been full of
helium.

> As it is,
> hydrogen floats *up* when released, as opposed to gasoline
> vapors flowing around on the ground, ready to ignite.
> While we may lose the hydrogen (it eventually escapes
> into space) it doesn't look like a major flammability problem.

See the MSDS:
http://www.puyallupfire.com/lepc/hydrogen.htm

Hydrogen has a VERY broad range of flammability, so storage, transport, and
delivery MUST be in a manner that will not allow catastrophic venting of the
gas, even in the event of a disaster.  The National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) flammability rating for hydrogen is 4, the highest
possible.  OSHA prohibits storage of hydrogen in confined spaces or anywhere
near oxidizers such as oxygen or nitrous oxide.

<snip>

> The primary problem is that it is made by cracking oil.
> Were that method replaced by saner production practices
> (e.g., electrolysis via solar) hydrogen would be
> reasonably workable.
>
> However, even better (if more complicated) would be
> photosynthesis of gasoline or diesel fuel directly
> from sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide.

The real logistic problems for hydrogen fuel are *safety* problems in bulk
storage, long-distance bulk transport, transfer to individual vehicles, and
providing integrity of the fuel system in the event of an accident.

When I lived in Colorado, it seemed every day there were a few one-vehicle
roll-overs on the news, almost all of which spilled gasoline.  Very few
roadside fireballs, though.  We need to keep it that way.


Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:9onnf1-6j6.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...

<snip>

> Agreed, oil is the best chemical fuel out there, bar none.
> The main problem will be synthesizing it, once our
> natural reserves run out.

There is a lot to be said in favor of methane.  To start with the gas has
3.3 times as much energy output per unit volume as hydrogen.  It is also
less flammable than hydrogen and can be handled with off-the-shelf natural
gas technology.  Synthetic methane is the same stuff, just a different
source.

> The Middle East has an advantage here, too: lots
> of nice, flat sand, to build oil synthesizers on.
> These would probably resemble large, flat pans,
> fed with filtered seawater and air.  Bacteria in the pans
> would synthesize oil therefrom, which would float up and be
> collected from the top of an upward-pointing spout.
>
> Of course I'm far from expert in this sort of thing.
> There are issues with nice, flat sand, too; it tends to create
> dunes.

....or glass, given sufficient heat. ;-]


Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, tadchem
<tadchemNOSPAM@comcast.net>
 wrote
on Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:00:00 -0700
<i9CdnYSJFrar7bTdRVn-vw@comcast.com>:
> 
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
> message news:9onnf1-6j6.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> Agreed, oil is the best chemical fuel out there, bar none.
>> The main problem will be synthesizing it, once our
>> natural reserves run out.
> 
> There is a lot to be said in favor of methane.  To start with the gas has
> 3.3 times as much energy output per unit volume as hydrogen.  It is also
> less flammable than hydrogen and can be handled with off-the-shelf natural
> gas technology.  Synthetic methane is the same stuff, just a different
> source.

Hm...I'd have to work it out.  Methane is more energy dense than
hydrogen but I doubt it's more energy-dense than gasoline.

Still, part of our economy depends thereon.  It would work well enough.

> 
>> The Middle East has an advantage here, too: lots
>> of nice, flat sand, to build oil synthesizers on.
>> These would probably resemble large, flat pans,
>> fed with filtered seawater and air.  Bacteria in the pans
>> would synthesize oil therefrom, which would float up and be
>> collected from the top of an upward-pointing spout.
>>
>> Of course I'm far from expert in this sort of thing.
>> There are issues with nice, flat sand, too; it tends to create
>> dunes.
> 
> ...or glass, given sufficient heat. ;-]

And the heat comes from...where?

I hope you see the problem; it was pointed out to me by someone
who I've since lost track of, but in retrospect it's quite obvious:
to fabricate glass requires energy -- quite a bit.

But you're right in that one could make glass.  One might even make
silicon chips ("Silicon East"?). :-)

It would be interesting to try to make a solar oven that can melt glass
and sand.

> 
> 
> Tom Davidson
> Richmond, VA
> 
> 


-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, tadchem
<tadchemNOSPAM@comcast.net>
 wrote
on Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:46:11 -0700
<KOmdnTG1WLNk8bTdRVn_iw@comcast.com>:
> 
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
> message news:1holf1-375.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Jeff Relf
>> <Me@Privacy.NET>
>>  wrote
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> > Hydrogen fuel is far too expensive ,
>> >   too bulky ,  and too dangerous .
>>
>> Expensive:  Probably, although it might get better if we
>> can mass-produce solar cells without using lots of energy,
>> or find some other energy extraction method, such as simply
>> boiling water into a turbine using a solar oven.
> 
> Ongoing research in catalysis suggests that a photoactivated catalytic
> cracking process can be combined with a semi-permeable membrane to produce a
> very thin skin-like sheet that will simultaneously electrolyze water AND
> separate the gases (hydrogen and oxygen) produced, when exposed to sunlight.

Sounds promising, if limited.

> 
>> Bulky: That it is, unless new storage techniques are involved.
>> A mole of gas at STP occupies 1/40th of a cubic meter.
>> At 3,000 psi (20 atm) one can compress that to 1.25 cc but
>> it's still less energy than 1.25 cc of liquid gasoline.
>> AIUI active research is going on in this area.
> 
> The current best storage for molecular hydrogen (the kind you burn) that
> does not require either superinsulated cryogenic containers or high-pressure
> storage tanks is in titanium sponge, but nanotubes hold some promise. They
> are still VERY expensive, though.

Still have the problem that liquid hydrogen has less than half the
energy of gasoline.

> 
>> Dangerous: unclear.  I don't see it being any more dangerous
>> than gasoline or acetylene.  Bear in mind that the Hindenberg
>> was designed with aluminum skin, which was highly flammable,
>> and was touched off by a spark (bad design).
> 
> Actually the 'skin' was a minor component on the conflagration:  The 'dope'
> (an aviation varnish used to strengthen and waterproof the fabric) was a
> flammable laquer mixed with aluminum and red iron oxide (Al + Fe2O3 =
> 'thermite') - a concoction used in the early days of railroading to weld
> large pieces of iron when no furnace, forge, or welding torch was available:
> 
> Fe2O3 (solid) + 2 Al (solid) ---> 2 Fe (liquid) + 2 Al2O3 (solid) + lots of
> heat!
> 
> Note the metallic iron *produced* in the reaction is already molten!
> 
> The Hindenberg would have burned just as brightly had it been full of
> helium.

I stand corrected, if only on a subpoint.  :-)  I had not been
aware of this concoction.

> 
>> As it is,
>> hydrogen floats *up* when released, as opposed to gasoline
>> vapors flowing around on the ground, ready to ignite.
>> While we may lose the hydrogen (it eventually escapes
>> into space) it doesn't look like a major flammability problem.
> 
> See the MSDS:
> http://www.puyallupfire.com/lepc/hydrogen.htm
> 
> Hydrogen has a VERY broad range of flammability, so storage, transport, and
> delivery MUST be in a manner that will not allow catastrophic venting of the
> gas, even in the event of a disaster.  The National Fire Protection
> Association (NFPA) flammability rating for hydrogen is 4, the highest
> possible.  OSHA prohibits storage of hydrogen in confined spaces or anywhere
> near oxidizers such as oxygen or nitrous oxide.

Reasonable enough.  It might not be safer, after all.

> 
> <snip>
> 
>> The primary problem is that it is made by cracking oil.
>> Were that method replaced by saner production practices
>> (e.g., electrolysis via solar) hydrogen would be
>> reasonably workable.
>>
>> However, even better (if more complicated) would be
>> photosynthesis of gasoline or diesel fuel directly
>> from sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide.
> 
> The real logistic problems for hydrogen fuel are *safety* problems in bulk
> storage, long-distance bulk transport, transfer to individual vehicles, and
> providing integrity of the fuel system in the event of an accident.
> 
> When I lived in Colorado, it seemed every day there were a few one-vehicle
> roll-overs on the news, almost all of which spilled gasoline.  Very few
> roadside fireballs, though.  We need to keep it that way.
> 

I quite agree on that.  The main problem with gasoline is not
that it's used, but that it's extracted from a non-renewable resource.
Solve that problem and we can continue indefinitely, until
of course someone invents a method by which one can put a fusion
generator in a DeLorean... :-)


> 
> Tom Davidson
> Richmond, VA
> 
> 


-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:dc1qf1-a48.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...

<snip>

> Hm...I'd have to work it out.  Methane is more energy dense than
> hydrogen but I doubt it's more energy-dense than gasoline.

See p. 7 (at the very bottom, in and below the boxes):
http://www-scf.usc.edu/~chem322a/ppt/Chapter_04/322a_Ch_4_01.pdf

<snip>

> And the heat comes from...where?

Anything capable of generating 1500� C or more - oxy-acetylene torch,
Bessemer furnace, ceramic kiln, solar furnace, thermonuclear detonation...

How much glass do you want?

> I hope you see the problem; it was pointed out to me by someone
> who I've since lost track of, but in retrospect it's quite obvious:
> to fabricate glass requires energy -- quite a bit.
>
> But you're right in that one could make glass.  One might even make
> silicon chips ("Silicon East"?). :-)
>
> It would be interesting to try to make a solar oven that can melt glass
> and sand.

I tried it once, back in 1970 - Six large Fresnel condensers as surfaces of
a cube, solar energy directed onto them with a sun-tracking main mirror and
several smaller fixed mirrors to redirect the light onto the condensers.
Melted alumina (>2000� C), but couldn't boil quartz (2230� C).  It could
have gotten hotter, theoretically, but I wasn't trying to optimize it.  Too
much LA smog, anyway.


Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:hd5qf1-p68.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, tadchem
> <tadchemNOSPAM@comcast.net>
>  wrote

<snip>

> > Ongoing research in catalysis suggests that a photoactivated catalytic
> > cracking process can be combined with a semi-permeable membrane to
produce a
> > very thin skin-like sheet that will simultaneously electrolyze water AND
> > separate the gases (hydrogen and oxygen) produced, when exposed to
sunlight.
>
> Sounds promising, if limited.

The "solar constant" limits power to about 1000 watts per square meter
(1-1/3 horsepower for those car buffs out there) on a clear day at noon in
the temperate latitudes.  That means a LOT of space is needed to generate
the power required to fuel a vehicle just for routine daily driving.

<snip>

> I quite agree on that.  The main problem with gasoline is not
> that it's used, but that it's extracted from a non-renewable resource.

Global warming is hard at work on a solution to that:
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_864774.html
the warming and increased atmospheric CO2 levels are stimulating biomass
production.  Anoxic thermal degradation of biomass can generate carbon-based
chemical fuels in large, useable amounts from a renewable source.

My Irish ancestors have been using biomass fuel ("peat") for millenia.


Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

tadchem wrote:

> 
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
> message news:dc1qf1-a48.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> Hm...I'd have to work it out.  Methane is more energy dense than
>> hydrogen but I doubt it's more energy-dense than gasoline.

What do you mean by /energy dense/ ?

Or do you just mean *dense* -- that is, a mole of hydrogen compared to a
mole of gasoline or methane, I would think the hydrogen carries a bigger
whallop.


> 
> See p. 7 (at the very bottom, in and below the boxes):
> http://www-scf.usc.edu/~chem322a/ppt/Chapter_04/322a_Ch_4_01.pdf
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> And the heat comes from...where?
> 
> Anything capable of generating 1500� C or more - oxy-acetylene torch,
> Bessemer furnace, ceramic kiln, solar furnace, thermonuclear detonation...
> 
> How much glass do you want?
> 
>> I hope you see the problem; it was pointed out to me by someone
>> who I've since lost track of, but in retrospect it's quite obvious:
>> to fabricate glass requires energy -- quite a bit.
>>
>> But you're right in that one could make glass.  One might even make
>> silicon chips ("Silicon East"?). :-)
>>
>> It would be interesting to try to make a solar oven that can melt glass
>> and sand.
> 
> I tried it once, back in 1970 - Six large Fresnel condensers as surfaces
> of a cube, solar energy directed onto them with a sun-tracking main mirror
> and several smaller fixed mirrors to redirect the light onto the
> condensers.
> Melted alumina (>2000� C), but couldn't boil quartz (2230� C).  It could
> have gotten hotter, theoretically, but I wasn't trying to optimize it. 
> Too much LA smog, anyway.
> 
> 
> Tom Davidson
> Richmond, VA

-- 
Kent Crazy B.V.

Hi John Bailo,  You ask,
" What do you mean by  Energy dense  ? " ,

Usable energy per gallon.
  ( Note:  That's a volume measurement )

Water has no usable energy per gallon.

Jeff Relf wrote:

> Hi John Bailo,  You ask,
> " What do you mean by  Energy dense  ? " ,
> 
> Usable energy per gallon.
>   ( Note:  That's a volume measurement )
> 
> Water has no usable energy per gallon.


http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/ArthurGolnik.shtml

/Energy density is the amount of energy stored in a given system or region
of space per unit volume or mass. It therefore has units of energy per
length cubed or energy per mass. Gasoline has an energy density of about 45
megajoules per kilogram (MJ/kg).Energy density is the amount of energy
stored in a given system or region of space per unit volume or mass. It
therefore has units of energy per length cubed or energy per mass. Gasoline
has an energy density of about 45 megajoules per kilogram (MJ/kg)./

and the associated link with the slide show, 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/storage.pdf

slide #2 says:

/Hydrogen has the highest mass energy density of any fule:

120 MJ/kg (LHV) 144 MJ/kg (HHV).

That would make both you and the OP wrong.



-- 
Kent Crazy B.V.

Hi John Bailo,

Please stop posting with KNode ,
  You're making me constantly cut and paste newsgroups.

Ralph's KNode is driving me crazy too.
X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net
X-Trace: newssvr25.news.prodigy.com 1076556517 
  ST000 63.201.252.170 (Wed, 11 Feb 2004 22:28:37 EST)
 
You comment,
" Hydrogen has the highest mass energy density of any fuel "

Not per volume it doesn't.  Not at all !

Imagine a rollover with a punctured hydrogen tank,
  It'd be a massive fireball.

Even using some hypothetical battery 
  that costs an arm and a leg ...

Where would it get it's hydrogen from ?

That's right,  you guessed it,  from alcohol.

Jeff Relf wrote:

> Where would it get it's hydrogen from ?
> 
> That's right,  you guessed it,  from alcohol.

Why not.

That's where you get your ideas from.

-- 
Kent Crazy B.V.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, John Bailo
<jabailo@earthlink.net>
 wrote
on Thu, 12 Feb 2004 04:39:19 GMT
<XrDWb.824$tL3.305@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
> tadchem wrote:
> 
>> 
>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
>> message news:dc1qf1-a48.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
>> 
>> <snip>
>> 
>>> Hm...I'd have to work it out.  Methane is more energy dense than
>>> hydrogen but I doubt it's more energy-dense than gasoline.
> 
> What do you mean by /energy dense/ ?
> 
> Or do you just mean *dense* -- that is, a mole of hydrogen compared to a
> mole of gasoline or methane, I would think the hydrogen carries a bigger
> whallop.

There are several metrics here.

Jeff Relf has already mentioned by volume; there's also by unit mass.
These are further complicated by whether one is including oxygen or not.

> 
> 
>> 
>> See p. 7 (at the very bottom, in and below the boxes):
>> http://www-scf.usc.edu/~chem322a/ppt/Chapter_04/322a_Ch_4_01.pdf
>> 
>> <snip>
>> 
>>> And the heat comes from...where?
>> 
>> Anything capable of generating 1500� C or more - oxy-acetylene torch,
>> Bessemer furnace, ceramic kiln, solar furnace, thermonuclear detonation...
>> 
>> How much glass do you want?

[piggybacking]

The main issue here is that the acetylene has to be
manufactured from somewhere; it does not appear naturally
(unless I'm missing something! :-) ).  Presumably, one
can create acetylene from carbon dioxide and water using
sunlight and a variety of intermediate reactions but I'd
have to work out or look up the details.  (Disclaimer:
I am not a chemist. :-) )

Ditto for the heat source of a Bessemer furnace or ceramic kiln,
although the solar furnace looks possible.

>> 
>>> I hope you see the problem; it was pointed out to me by someone
>>> who I've since lost track of, but in retrospect it's quite obvious:
>>> to fabricate glass requires energy -- quite a bit.
>>>
>>> But you're right in that one could make glass.  One might even make
>>> silicon chips ("Silicon East"?). :-)
>>>
>>> It would be interesting to try to make a solar oven that can melt glass
>>> and sand.
>> 
>> I tried it once, back in 1970 - Six large Fresnel condensers as surfaces
>> of a cube, solar energy directed onto them with a sun-tracking main mirror
>> and several smaller fixed mirrors to redirect the light onto the
>> condensers.
>> Melted alumina (>2000� C), but couldn't boil quartz (2230� C).  It could
>> have gotten hotter, theoretically, but I wasn't trying to optimize it. 
>> Too much LA smog, anyway.

The hottest it can get is 5500 C, which is the temperature on the Sun's
surface, IIRC.  I don't think silica needs to get quite that hot.

(Side issue: Houston apparently has beaten LA in the smog department,
the meanies... :-) )

>> 
>> 
>> Tom Davidson
>> Richmond, VA
> 


-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Jeff Relf
<Me@Privacy.NET>
 wrote
on Thu, 12 Feb 2004 02:46:46 -0800
<o68ih9yhrs8t$.dlg@x.Jeff.Relf>:
> Hi John Bailo,
> 
> Please stop posting with KNode ,
>   You're making me constantly cut and paste newsgroups.

This appears to be a technical problem.

> 
> Ralph's KNode is driving me crazy too.
> X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net
> X-Trace: newssvr25.news.prodigy.com 1076556517 
>   ST000 63.201.252.170 (Wed, 11 Feb 2004 22:28:37 EST)
>  
> You comment,
> " Hydrogen has the highest mass energy density of any fuel "
> 
> Not per volume it doesn't.  Not at all !

Correct; while hydrogen has a nice energy density per kg,
the problem is that hydrogen is a gas, and has 2 gm/mole,
at room temperature and normal pressure.  Ideal gas laws
and solubility computations key on moles, not mass.

Contrast that to iso-octane's 114 gm/mole, and the
fact that iso-octane is liquid -- much easier to handle.

> 
> Imagine a rollover with a punctured hydrogen tank,
>   It'd be a massive fireball.

That does sound like a worry, given what little info I have.

> 
> Even using some hypothetical battery 
>   that costs an arm and a leg ...
> 
> Where would it get it's hydrogen from ?
> 
> That's right,  you guessed it,  from alcohol.

I could see several fabrication methods.  Ideally,
a solar-powered or fusion-powered electrical device
(organic solar cells?) would power an electrolysis cell
to generate hydrogen and oxygen from ordinary sea water.

Both might be bottled (the oxygen might find use in certain
medical areas, for example) and sold.  However, a far
more practical fuel would be solar-synthesized diesel,
gasoline, or oil, given our current infrastructure.
Trace elements from the dissolved solids might be sludged
out and processed as well.  Not sure where the chloride ion will
end up -- probably on the oxygen side, which could be a problem.

(This is assuming nanotech doesn't come up with a breakthrough
to build a tiny fusion-generator by banging 4 protons together
or something.  In that case one might get the hydrogen by
onboard electrolysis of ammonia, or, in a pinch, water.)

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, tadchem
<tadchemNOSPAM@comcast.net>
 wrote
on Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:14:56 -0700
<YfKdnW9c1delKrfdRVn-iQ@comcast.com>:
> 
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
> message news:hd5qf1-p68.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, tadchem
>> <tadchemNOSPAM@comcast.net>
>>  wrote
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> > Ongoing research in catalysis suggests that a photoactivated catalytic
>> > cracking process can be combined with a semi-permeable membrane to
> produce a
>> > very thin skin-like sheet that will simultaneously electrolyze water AND
>> > separate the gases (hydrogen and oxygen) produced, when exposed to
> sunlight.
>>
>> Sounds promising, if limited.
> 
> The "solar constant" limits power to about 1000 watts per square meter
> (1-1/3 horsepower for those car buffs out there) on a clear day at noon in
> the temperate latitudes.  That means a LOT of space is needed to generate
> the power required to fuel a vehicle just for routine daily driving.

Considering that a cheap Beem requires about 100 kW or so,
that would require at least 2,000 square meters (@ 10%
efficiency and assuming 12 hour day/night cycles) to power
it continuously; fortunately, one could conceivably get
by with less although it depends on one's commute distance.
If one only drives for 30 minutes round trip, for example, one
can get by with a fraction of that amount, and I'm
probably understating the efficiency now anyway.

> 
> <snip>
> 
>> I quite agree on that.  The main problem with gasoline is not
>> that it's used, but that it's extracted from a non-renewable resource.
> 
> Global warming is hard at work on a solution to that:
> http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_864774.html
> the warming and increased atmospheric CO2 levels are stimulating biomass
> production.  Anoxic thermal degradation of biomass can generate carbon-based
> chemical fuels in large, useable amounts from a renewable source.
> 
> My Irish ancestors have been using biomass fuel ("peat") for millenia.

I was under the impression that plants don't handle increased CO2
that well but that's very old research.  It will be interesting
to see and hopefully not disastrous.  :-)

> 
> 
> Tom Davidson
> Richmond, VA
> 
> 


-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

The Stirling engine perhaps holds greater potiential than any other
source of power in the future. This engine operates on a thermal
differential.
Wherever there is a difference in tempature, thermal power could
provide sufficient energy to power homes, cities and even nations.
Twenty six square miles the Arazona Desert using solar power and
ambient tempatures could supply all the power needs for the state,
and without using any fossil fuel.
Countries where there is abundant thermal energy, ie hot springs,
volcanic sources, deserts etc are a ready made source of energy
to drive polution free Stirling Engines. This is a power source
whose time has come.



"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:7k7tf1-50a.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Jeff Relf
> <Me@Privacy.NET>
>  wrote
> on Thu, 12 Feb 2004 02:46:46 -0800
> <o68ih9yhrs8t$.dlg@x.Jeff.Relf>:
> > Hi John Bailo,
> >
> > Please stop posting with KNode ,
> >   You're making me constantly cut and paste newsgroups.
>
> This appears to be a technical problem.
>
> >
> > Ralph's KNode is driving me crazy too.
> > X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net
> > X-Trace: newssvr25.news.prodigy.com 1076556517
> >   ST000 63.201.252.170 (Wed, 11 Feb 2004 22:28:37 EST)
> >
> > You comment,
> > " Hydrogen has the highest mass energy density of any fuel "
> >
> > Not per volume it doesn't.  Not at all !
>
> Correct; while hydrogen has a nice energy density per kg,
> the problem is that hydrogen is a gas, and has 2 gm/mole,
> at room temperature and normal pressure.  Ideal gas laws
> and solubility computations key on moles, not mass.
>
> Contrast that to iso-octane's 114 gm/mole, and the
> fact that iso-octane is liquid -- much easier to handle.
>
> >
> > Imagine a rollover with a punctured hydrogen tank,
> >   It'd be a massive fireball.
>
> That does sound like a worry, given what little info I have.
>
> >
> > Even using some hypothetical battery
> >   that costs an arm and a leg ...
> >
> > Where would it get it's hydrogen from ?
> >
> > That's right,  you guessed it,  from alcohol.
>
> I could see several fabrication methods.  Ideally,
> a solar-powered or fusion-powered electrical device
> (organic solar cells?) would power an electrolysis cell
> to generate hydrogen and oxygen from ordinary sea water.
>
> Both might be bottled (the oxygen might find use in certain
> medical areas, for example) and sold.  However, a far
> more practical fuel would be solar-synthesized diesel,
> gasoline, or oil, given our current infrastructure.
> Trace elements from the dissolved solids might be sludged
> out and processed as well.  Not sure where the chloride ion will
> end up -- probably on the oxygen side, which could be a problem.
>
> (This is assuming nanotech doesn't come up with a breakthrough
> to build a tiny fusion-generator by banging 4 protons together
> or something.  In that case one might get the hydrogen by
> onboard electrolysis of ammonia, or, in a pinch, water.)
>
> -- 
> #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
> It's still legal to go .sigless.

Jeff Relf wrote:

> Hi John Bailo,
> 
> Please stop posting with KNode ,
>   You're making me constantly cut and paste newsgroups.

Could you too, please, use some sort of quoting prefix, like >... Pretty
please? :-)

"Ronald Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:PBVWb.53563$qK3.1287@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
>
> The Stirling engine perhaps holds greater potiential than any other
> source of power in the future. This engine operates on a thermal
> differential.
> Wherever there is a difference in tempature, thermal power could
> provide sufficient energy to power homes, cities and even nations.
> Twenty six square miles the Arazona Desert using solar power and
> ambient tempatures could supply all the power needs for the state,
> and without using any fossil fuel.
> Countries where there is abundant thermal energy, ie hot springs,
> volcanic sources, deserts etc are a ready made source of energy
> to drive polution free Stirling Engines. This is a power source
> whose time has come.

<snip repost>

And just how long do you think it will take before the eco-terrorists decide
that putting 26 square miles of Arizona desert in the shade will threaten
the habitat of some obscure species of scorpion or lizard or something, and
trash the whole set-up?


Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:nu7tf1-50a.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...

<snip>

> I was under the impression that plants don't handle increased CO2
> that well but that's very old research.  It will be interesting
> to see and hopefully not disastrous.  :-)

AIUI, the limited availability (<400 ppm) of the required nutrient CO2 in
the air is the limiting factor in the growth rate of photosynthetic plants.

There is certainly no shortage of sunlight in comparison, and many plants
are excluded from many habitats by *excessive* water, or annual freezes
(another growth restriction that would be relaxed by global warming).


Tom Davidson
Brighton, CO

"tadchem" <tadchemNOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:y_adnYGq08Ab17Hd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
>
> "Ronald Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:PBVWb.53563$qK3.1287@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> >
> >
> > The Stirling engine perhaps holds greater potiential than any other
> > source of power in the future. This engine operates on a thermal
> > differential.
> > Wherever there is a difference in tempature, thermal power could
> > provide sufficient energy to power homes, cities and even nations.
> > Twenty six square miles the Arazona Desert using solar power and
> > ambient tempatures could supply all the power needs for the state,
> > and without using any fossil fuel.
> > Countries where there is abundant thermal energy, ie hot springs,
> > volcanic sources, deserts etc are a ready made source of energy
> > to drive polution free Stirling Engines. This is a power source
> > whose time has come.
>
> <snip repost>
>
> And just how long do you think it will take before the eco-terrorists
decide
> that putting 26 square miles of Arizona desert in the shade will threaten
> the habitat of some obscure species of scorpion or lizard or something,
and
> trash the whole set-up?
>
I donno; maybe you have a point!
>
> Tom Davidson
> Richmond, VA
>
>

Hi Jan Knutar,
  Re:  My distain for the way KNode,  by default,
  sends replies to messages off into parts unknown,
You joke,
" Could you too,  please, 
    use some sort of quoting prefix,  like  ' > ' ... 
  Pretty please ?  :-) "

I get your drift,  of course,  they won't change.

I noticed that you're using KNode,
  yet you don't send replies to your messages
  off to parts unknown ...

I wonder if Bailo and Ralph could 
  configure their copies of KNode ?

Or do they not give a shit about the replies that they get ?

Jeff Relf wrote:

> Hi Jan Knutar,
>   Re:  My distain for the way KNode,  by default,
>   sends replies to messages off into parts unknown,
> You joke,
> " Could you too,  please,
>     use some sort of quoting prefix,  like  ' > ' ...
>   Pretty please ?  :-) "
> 
> I get your drift,  of course,  they won't change.
> 
> I noticed that you're using KNode,
>   yet you don't send replies to your messages
>   off to parts unknown ...
> 
> I wonder if Bailo and Ralph could
>   configure their copies of KNode ?
> 
> Or do they not give a shit about the replies that they get ?

Could you please just get lost?
Your inane drivel is completely OT here
And on your way out, don't forget to pick up your idiotic twin JBailo
-- 
Warning: You have moved the mouse. 
Windows will reboot now to make the change permanent

Jeff Relf wrote:


> I noticed that you're using KNode,
>   yet you don't send replies to your messages
>   off to parts unknown ...

Unfortunately it's not as easy as configuring. You have to take the bother
to ctrl-u the Followup-To field manually. Knode seems to follow something
called the GNKSA (http://www.gnksa.org), which, IIRC, states what a good
newsreader should and shouldn't do. Among those things are encouraging the
user to not quote 500 lines of text and then add one line of reply, and to
not excessively crosspost, which it does by a pop-up if you try post to
more than 5 groups, and always setting the Followup-To header. 
It still happily sends followups as emails ocasionally for me though, bloody
thing.

Hi Peter K�hlmann,  You rightly note that ,
  " Your inane drivel is completely OT here " ,

But that's fine with me,
  Your nothingness is quite ignorable.
  No need even plonk you.

[ Note this message had to be reposted because Peter K�hlmann
    redirects replies to his messages into parts unknown,
    using his retarded newsreader,  KNode ]

Hi Peter K�hlmann,  You rightly note that ,
  " Your inane drivel is completely OT here " ,

But that's fine with me,
  Your nothingness is quite ignorable.
  No need even plonk you.

Hmm ...  Maybe I should just plonk all KNode users.

Hi Jan Knutar,
  Re:  KNode's GNKSA induced insanity,
  ( i.e.  Sending people's replies off to parts unknown )
You comment,
" You have to take the bother to ctrl-u 
    the  Followup-To:  field manually " ,

I should download the bodies of all messages,
  then I should rank everyone by their newsreaders.

Jeff Relf wrote:

> Hi Jan Knutar,
>   Re:  KNode's GNKSA induced insanity,
>   ( i.e.  Sending people's replies off to parts unknown )
> You comment,
> " You have to take the bother to ctrl-u
>     the  Followup-To:  field manually " ,
> 
> I should download the bodies of all messages,
>   then I should rank everyone by their newsreaders.

Yeah, definitely.  Be more exclusive.


-- 
Kent Crazy B.V.

Jeff Relf <Me@Privacy.NET> writes:
>
> I should download the bodies of all messages,
>   then I should rank everyone by their newsreaders.

Yes, absolutely.  A 3 month period should give you enough data.
You'll want to avoid posting during this period so as not to skew the
results.

The voice of "Jeff Relf" drifted in on the cyber-winds, 
from the sea of virtual chaos...

> Hi Jan Knutar,
>   Re:  KNode's GNKSA induced insanity,
>   ( i.e.  Sending people's replies off to parts unknown )
> You comment,
> " You have to take the bother to ctrl-u 
>     the  Followup-To:  field manually " ,
> 
> I should download the bodies of all messages,
>   then I should rank everyone by their newsreaders.


You know, if you learn the quote a little more when cross-posting, it 
would help out these who don't follow every news group...


As for your problems with Knode, it's because John Bailo is setting the 
follow-up with his posts, a natural Usenet behavior. It's also the same 
option Xnews gives, another GNKSA compliant client, when a message is 
cross-posted to more the X number of groups. 

If your Usenet client is worth "trolling with" it should have an option 
to ignore the "Followup-To:" header anyways.  };8)

-- 
The Tech Zero, Maxwell Pollare - Lost in the keys of Xnews...

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ronald Dean
<rond@bellsouth.net>
 wrote
on Thu, 12 Feb 2004 20:21:43 -0500
<PBVWb.53563$qK3.1287@bignews3.bellsouth.net>:
> 
> 
> The Stirling engine perhaps holds greater potiential than any other
> source of power in the future. This engine operates on a thermal
> differential.
> Wherever there is a difference in tempature, thermal power could
> provide sufficient energy to power homes, cities and even nations.
> Twenty six square miles the Arazona Desert using solar power and
> ambient tempatures could supply all the power needs for the state,
> and without using any fossil fuel.
> Countries where there is abundant thermal energy, ie hot springs,
> volcanic sources, deserts etc are a ready made source of energy
> to drive polution free Stirling Engines. This is a power source
> whose time has come.
> 

26 mi^2 = 67.3 km^2 = 91 gigawatts of raw sunlight.
Assuming a 30 degree differential (9.6%) @ 40 degrees C
(= 104 F or 313 K), one gets about 8.7 gigawatts of usable
energy in a theoretically perfect Carnot heat engine.  (I'd
have to work out if one can concentrate the power to garner
more energy; bear in mind that one can increase the temperature
easily but the corresponding area decreases as well.  There's
also the problem of how much heat can be carried away, and
by what.)

A little short for California, which requires about 40
gigawatts peak, but I don't know the Arizonian power
requirements offhand.

The "thermal chip" is also available, and may be more
efficient, mostly because of losses during conversion of
mechanical to electrical (bearing friction, eddy currents,
etc.).  There are issues with either system at night unless
the heat flow is reversible, and even then there will be
problems; one can only store so much heat in the heat sink.
Flowing water could be used but that would discharge warmed
water back into the environment -- an eco-conservatist's
nightmare waiting to happen.  (There are also issues with
ensuring the water channels stay algae-free.)

The construction costs would be huge, even if one
postulates a tower/mirror construction.  (I like the
general idea of the plants in _The Cool War_; these
genetically modified beauties track a UV hologram across
the sky, pointing the solar energy at a high tower steam
generating plant.  However, I'm not sure a UV hologram is
feasible; the closest I can get thereto is electrically
stimulating the plants under computer control, or some sort
of tripositioning dome or cantilever arrangement where a
movable UV light can position itself appropriately.)

This still doesn't solve the fuel problem for transportation
machinery, either.  Several possibilities here:

[1] Synthetic fuel from excess power, gradual engine change.  This is
    probably the cheapest solution, if not the cleanest (we'll still
    have various oxidation byproducts from the piston engine).

[2] Conversion to all-hydrogen economy.  I've already detailed the
    storage problems of hydrogen (briefly: it's a gas and harder
    to carry in bulk); someone else has pointed out the "fireball
    possibility" of a tanker truck full of the stuff overturning
    and exploding.  Problematic, though possible.

[3] Building of all-new transport facilities.  These might
    look a bit like the old Disney monorail, scaled down.
    The idea here would be much like driving is today:
    get in a skycar, move around, park it somewhere,
    do one's thing, go back home.  The skycars would be
    electrically powered.  At least one Webpage details
    a variant of this proposal, and touts it as cheaper
    than new roadways or maglev trains.  (It might very
    well be.  I don't know.)  The drawback is that looking
    up through the grid might be aesthetically problematic;
    there are also stability issues, especially in my area
    where earthquakes are a worry.

[4] Retrofit of existing transport facilities.  An under-road
    magnetic cable might be used here, to supply power to
    a car's engine.  This may be politically the most palatable
    but will snarl traffic for years during actual retrofit.
    There are also issues relating to undercarriage clearance;
    potholes could be disastrous under certain scenarios.

[5] Elimination of private transportation and retrofit of existing
    transport facilities, using clean electric power (e.g.,
    trolleys, electric trains, electric busses, etc.)  City
    planners would probably love this, but few others would;
    the American automobile is near-sacrosanct.  Europeans
    may be more amenable. :-)

It may be noteworthy that the worldwide electrical power generation
per capita is about 270W; an automobile generates ~ 100 kW.
(Check out various BMW specifications, for example.)

[rest snipped]

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

Hi John Bailo,
  Re: Scoring the  User-Agent:  line,
You comment, " Yeah,  definitely.  Be more exclusive. "

Oh I'm so sorry John,
  I used to read only a few select posts,
  but now that you have shown me the error of my ways,
  I'll spend every waking hour 
  reading as many posts as possible.

Hi Tech Zero,  Not understanding anything I wrote,
You comment,
" John Bailo is setting the follow-up with his posts " ,

The whole point of my post was to mention
  that KNode always adds a  Followup-To:  line ...
  not John.  ( It has to be deleted every time )
  So I'm considering lowering the score of any KNode user.

The voice of "Jeff Relf" drifted in on the cyber-winds, 
from the sea of virtual chaos...

 [Edit: Context Fixed]
>> As for your problems with Knode, it's because John Bailo is
>> setting the follow-up with his posts, a natural Usenet behavior.
>> It's also the same option Xnews gives, another GNKSA compliant
>> client, when a message is cross-posted to more the X number of
>> groups. 
>> 
>> If your Usenet client is worth "trolling with" it should have
>> an option to ignore the "Followup-To:" header anyways.  };8)
> 
> The whole point of my post was to mention
>   that KNode always adds a  Followup-To:  line ...
>   not John.  ( It has to be deleted every time )
>   So I'm considering lowering the score of any KNode user.


Actually no...

  http://knode.sourceforge.net/doc_en_0.3.2_online/more-knode-features.html#KNODE-EDITOR-ADVANCED

It's not a default action of KNode, but that doesn't matter.

Like I said, all of the cross-posted groups are still there, it's only 
the follow-up that's set. So the problem is still with your client and 
not his. It's your client that's obeying the follow-ups like all good 
little newsagents should.

-- 
The Tech Zero, Maxwell Pollare - Lost in the keys of Xnews...

Jeff Relf wrote:

> Hi John Bailo,
>   Re: Scoring the  User-Agent:  line,
> You comment, " Yeah,  definitely.  Be more exclusive. "
> 
> Oh I'm so sorry John,
>   I used to read only a few select posts,
>   but now that you have shown me the error of my ways,
>   I'll spend every waking hour
>   reading as many posts as possible.

http://www.eroticdreamz.net/176/07.jpg

-- 
Kent Crazy B.V.

Hi Tech Zero,
  Re:  How KNode always adds a  Followup-To:  line,
  when responding to a cross-posted message,
  which then  Must  Be  Manually  Deleted  Every  Time,
You goof again by saying,
  " It's not a default action of KNode,
      but that doesn't matter. " ,

I don't care what that poorly worded documentation says,
  I've talked to actual KNode users.
  The  Followup-To:  line has to be 
  manually deleted every time.

I fully realize that this doesn't matter to you,
  but I'm marking-read any and every post with 
  a  Followup-To:  line.

Side note to Bailo,  ( If he's reading this )
  Your use of  Followup-to:  lines tells me that
  you have little regard for people's replies.

Also,  I'm not going to be reading comp.os.linux.advocacy
  or Seattle.General anymore.

Jeff Relf wrote:

> Hi Tech Zero,
>   Re:  How KNode always adds a  Followup-To:  line,
>   when responding to a cross-posted message,
>   which then  Must  Be  Manually  Deleted  Every  Time,
> You goof again by saying,
>   " It's not a default action of KNode,
>       but that doesn't matter. " ,
> 
> I don't care what that poorly worded documentation says,
>   I've talked to actual KNode users.
>   The  Followup-To:  line has to be
>   manually deleted every time.
> 
> I fully realize that this doesn't matter to you,
>   but I'm marking-read any and every post with
>   a  Followup-To:  line.
> 
> Side note to Bailo,  ( If he's reading this )
>   Your use of  Followup-to:  lines tells me that
>   you have little regard for people's replies.
> 
> Also,  I'm not going to be reading comp.os.linux.advocacy
>   or Seattle.General anymore.

The only thing you exhibit here is that you have no idea about how usenet is
supposed to work.
You quote awful and have the nerve to keep ranting about KNode. KNode does
it *correctly* you idiot twit. Good usenet practice mandates that there is
always a "follow-up to" if crossposting.
That *you* don't like it is just icing on the cake, dumbass
-- 
It's sweet to be remembered, but it's often cheaper to be forgotten.

The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<1s6tf1-50a.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>...
(snip)
> 
> (Side issue: Houston apparently has beaten LA in the smog department,
> the meanies... :-) )

Houston only beat L.A. in ground-level ozone, not overall air
pollution. Ozone is just one of six components of air pollution. And
that was in 1999-2000 only. L.A.'s back on top in ozone now.

jjp wrote:

> The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<1s6tf1-50a.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>...
> (snip)
> 
>>(Side issue: Houston apparently has beaten LA in the smog department,
>>the meanies... :-) )
> 
> 
> Houston only beat L.A. in ground-level ozone, not overall air
> pollution. Ozone is just one of six components of air pollution. And
> that was in 1999-2000 only. L.A.'s back on top in ozone now.

Probably too many electric cars.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, GreyCloud
<mist@Cumulus.com>
 wrote
on Mon, 16 Feb 2004 03:20:47 GMT
<jGWXb.816$ss.22825@bcandid.telisphere.com>:
> jjp wrote:
>
>> The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote
>> in message news:<1s6tf1-50a.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>...
>> (snip)
>> 
>>>(Side issue: Houston apparently has beaten LA in the smog department,
>>>the meanies... :-) )
>> 
>> 
>> Houston only beat L.A. in ground-level ozone, not overall air
>> pollution. Ozone is just one of six components of air pollution. And
>> that was in 1999-2000 only. L.A.'s back on top in ozone now.
>
> Probably too many electric cars.
>

Electric cars merely distribute the problem in interesting ways.
Consider that the energy in powering that car has to come
from somewhere -- and nowadays chances are it's a gas-fired
power plant, at least in the California area.  (The mix is
roughly half-and-half, last I looked.)

Gas-fired isn't too bad -- if the gas is renewable.  Trouble is,
I don't think it is.

But OK, I'd have to look now to see who's, erm, winning this competition.
:-)

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 17:00:02 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:

> Electric cars merely distribute the problem in interesting ways.
> Consider that the energy in powering that car has to come from
> somewhere -- and nowadays chances are it's a gas-fired power plant, at
> least in the California area.

Or a huge coal-fired plant in central Utah with a million-volt DC line
running across the Nevada desert to Bakersfield.  Los Angelese, like
most big cities, exports a lot of their pollution problems.


-- 
 -| Bob Hauck
 -| To Whom You Are Speaking
 -| http://www.haucks.org/

"John Bailo" <jabailo@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Rd_Ub.17373$uM2.5233@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Jeff Relf wrote:
>
> >   while the price of oil has been soaring ?
>
> So is the price of caviar and rare gems.
>
> Oil is no longer necessary.
>
> Hydrogen is cheap and plentiful.
>
> People will soon buy pints of oil to be used as curios and decoration in
> the home.
>
Just FYI, without cracking hydrocarbons (i.e. fossil fuel), hydrogen
is horrendously expensive. Practically all the hydrogen used in industry
and aerospace comes from oil. IOW, oil isn't going away any time soon,
at least until it becomes more expensive to squeeze the last few drops
out of the ground than to, say, use hempseed oil.

And who gets the maintenance contract on the LH2 pipelines?

Good Luck.
Rich

"Tom Shelton" <tom@mtogden.com> wrote in message
news:QK%Ub.77$ek7.88535@news.uswest.net...
> On 2004-02-07, Jeff Relf <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote:
> > What's more ,  it's  Dirtier  than oil ,
> >   because of all the energy it takes to make it ,
> >   and for other reasons as well .
>
> At this time - but I was just reading today about some break throughs
> that may make cheap hydrogen a real possability.  Scientists have been
> looking at how plants separate hydrogen from water - and they think they
> are finally on to something.
>
> If they are able to pull that off, and replicate this process - then
> that means there is no storage problem, because all you need is a water
> tank...

Do you by any chance mean,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Photolysis
The splitting of molecules by means of light energy, in the case of
photosynthesis it is the photolysis of water, where hydrogen binds to an
acceptor and oxygen is released.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
courtesy
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary.asp?Term=Photolysis

Cheers!
Rich

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:1holf1-

> However, even better (if more complicated) would be
> photosynthesis of gasoline or diesel fuel directly
> from sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide.

Just splice in a cresote gene into some blue-green algae.

Cheers!
Rich

On 2004-02-26, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:
> "Tom Shelton" <tom@mtogden.com> wrote in message
> news:QK%Ub.77$ek7.88535@news.uswest.net...
>> On 2004-02-07, Jeff Relf <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote:
>> > What's more ,  it's  Dirtier  than oil ,
>> >   because of all the energy it takes to make it ,
>> >   and for other reasons as well .
>>
>> At this time - but I was just reading today about some break throughs
>> that may make cheap hydrogen a real possability.  Scientists have been
>> looking at how plants separate hydrogen from water - and they think they
>> are finally on to something.
>>
>> If they are able to pull that off, and replicate this process - then
>> that means there is no storage problem, because all you need is a water
>> tank...
>
> Do you by any chance mean,
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> Photolysis
> The splitting of molecules by means of light energy, in the case of
> photosynthesis it is the photolysis of water, where hydrogen binds to an
> acceptor and oxygen is released.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> courtesy
> http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary.asp?Term=Photolysis
>
> Cheers!
> Rich

Could be...  That was a while ago - and I only had a passing interest in
it :)

-- 
Tom Shelton
Powered By Gentoo Linux 1.4
"Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable 
end of the western spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small 
unregarded yellow sun. "

"Rich Grise" <null@example.net> wrote in message
news:pLt%b.12302$921.2560@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...

<snip>

> And who gets the maintenance contract on the LH2 pipelines?

You raise an interesting and often overlooked point here - that of bulk
transportation of the fuel.

Liquid hydrogen (LH2) requires temperatures below 20 Kelvins, very hard and
expensive to maintain over several hundred miles of pipeline.

Hydrogen can permeate steel making it brittle, so that long term use of
high-pressure gas pipelines would be prohibitively expensive, requiring
either regular testing (ICC requires hydrostatic pressure testing of
pressure vessels used in transport every 5 to 10 years) or use of more
expensive materials.

Who is ready for 10,000 gallon tanker trucks of liquid hydrogen plying our
highways and is willing to wait around for the inevitable highway accident?


Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

tadchem wrote:

> 
> "Rich Grise" <null@example.net> wrote in message
> news:pLt%b.12302$921.2560@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> And who gets the maintenance contract on the LH2 pipelines?
> 
> You raise an interesting and often overlooked point here - that of bulk
> transportation of the fuel.
> 
> Liquid hydrogen (LH2) requires temperatures below 20 Kelvins, very hard
> and expensive to maintain over several hundred miles of pipeline.
> 
> Hydrogen can permeate steel making it brittle, so that long term use of
> high-pressure gas pipelines would be prohibitively expensive, requiring
> either regular testing (ICC requires hydrostatic pressure testing of
> pressure vessels used in transport every 5 to 10 years) or use of more
> expensive materials.
> 
> Who is ready for 10,000 gallon tanker trucks of liquid hydrogen plying our
> highways and is willing to wait around for the inevitable highway
> accident?
> 

You miss the point that it is entirely possible to switch to Hydrogen
without ever using *pure* Hydrogen.
Fuel Cells running off Methanol are already in production. Methanol is as
easy to transport as oil, even safer.
Using it you can utilize the existing fuel distribution net with very few
changes
-- 
Linux: Because rebooting is for adding new hardware

"Peter K�hlmann" <Peter.Koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:c1nbgc$jl6$00$2@news.t-online.com...

<snip>

> You miss the point that it is entirely possible to switch to Hydrogen
> without ever using *pure* Hydrogen.

And YOU, sir, did not read the question to which I was replying, to wit:

"> > "Rich Grise" <null@example.net> wrote in message
> > news:pLt%b.12302$921.2560@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> And who gets the maintenance contract on the LH2 pipelines?

LH2 is NOT "methanol."


Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

tadchem wrote:

> 
> "Peter K�hlmann" <Peter.Koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:c1nbgc$jl6$00$2@news.t-online.com...
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> You miss the point that it is entirely possible to switch to Hydrogen
>> without ever using *pure* Hydrogen.
> 
> And YOU, sir, did not read the question to which I was replying, to wit:
> 
> "> > "Rich Grise" <null@example.net> wrote in message
>> > news:pLt%b.12302$921.2560@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> >> And who gets the maintenance contract on the LH2 pipelines?
> 
> LH2 is NOT "methanol."
> 

Who cares? To establish hydrogen as energy source, LH2 is simply not needed
And methanol can be transported quite easily in those pipelines

Which is the point after all. When you want to use hydrogen as energy
source, you can't reasonably limit it to just liquid hydrogen
That's something which you'd do if you *don't* want it as energy source
-- 
Modern man is the missing link between apes and human beings.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rich Grise
<null@example.net>
 wrote
on Fri, 27 Feb 2004 03:36:06 GMT
<GWy%b.22587$fL4.22371@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>:
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
> message news:1holf1-
>
>> However, even better (if more complicated) would be
>> photosynthesis of gasoline or diesel fuel directly
>> from sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide.
>
> Just splice in a cresote gene into some blue-green algae.

Creosote (or *is* it cresote?) sounds a bit messy, but that's
more or less the idea, yes.

Mind you, I suspect algae is the ultimate creator of oil, anyway.
I'd have to look, though.

>
> Cheers!
> Rich
>


-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

"Peter K�hlmann" <Peter.Koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:c1nbgc$jl6$00$2@news.t-online.com...
> tadchem wrote:
> > "Rich Grise" <null@example.net> wrote in message
> >> And who gets the maintenance contract on the LH2 pipelines?
> >
> > You raise an interesting and often overlooked point here - that of bulk
> > transportation of the fuel.
....
> > Who is ready for 10,000 gallon tanker trucks of liquid hydrogen plying
our
> > highways and is willing to wait around for the inevitable highway
> > accident?
> >
> You miss the point that it is entirely possible to switch to Hydrogen
> without ever using *pure* Hydrogen.
> Fuel Cells running off Methanol are already in production. Methanol is as
> easy to transport as oil, even safer.
> Using it you can utilize the existing fuel distribution net with very few
> changes

I have a couple of questions for you - or just arguments ;-)
One, yes, methanol is easy to transport, but it's a lot different from
plain ol' hydrogen. IOW, if you're using methanol (or methane or whatever),
it's not a "hydrogen-based system," unless you'd crack the methanol
at the destination end.

And the other, frankly, I'd rather be next to a 10,000 gallon LH2 spill
than 10,000 gallons of methanol. Either will burn, true, albeit the
proportions for an explosive mixture are very probably quite different,
but hydrogen floats up out of the atmosphere. True, any liquid at 20
Kelvins is going to do a lot of damage, but other than frostbite (this
is assuming they didn't burn) it won't kill you outright. Methanol just
lies there, being a liquid at ordinary temperatures, and it's terribly
toxic - i.e., it will poison anybody that it gets on. See
http://www.dakotagas.com/msds/methanolmsds.pdf

If I was going for liquid transportation, I'd pick something other than
methanol. What's its energy density relative to other liquid fuels?

(as far as "where does it come from in the first place," we're back to
the same questions for either.)

Cheers!
Rich

On 2004-02-27 18:45:27 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine 
<ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> said:

> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rich Grise
> <null@example.net>
>  wrote
> on Fri, 27 Feb 2004 03:36:06 GMT
> <GWy%b.22587$fL4.22371@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>:
>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
>> message news:1holf1-
>> 
>>> However, even better (if more complicated) would be
>>> photosynthesis of gasoline or diesel fuel directly
>>> from sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide.
>> 
>> Just splice in a cresote gene into some blue-green algae.
> 
> Creosote (or *is* it cresote?) sounds a bit messy, but that's
> more or less the idea, yes.
> 
> Mind you, I suspect algae is the ultimate creator of oil, anyway.
> I'd have to look, though.

Try this website...

http://people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/usgs.html

You'll find this very interesting and provocative.  It may even make 
one think what the heck is going on if this is really the case in 
regards to Iraq.

Rich Grise wrote:

> "Peter K�hlmann" <Peter.Koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:c1nbgc$jl6$00$2@news.t-online.com...
>> tadchem wrote:
>> > "Rich Grise" <null@example.net> wrote in message
>> >> And who gets the maintenance contract on the LH2 pipelines?
>> >
>> > You raise an interesting and often overlooked point here - that of bulk
>> > transportation of the fuel.
> ...
>> > Who is ready for 10,000 gallon tanker trucks of liquid hydrogen plying
> our
>> > highways and is willing to wait around for the inevitable highway
>> > accident?
>> >
>> You miss the point that it is entirely possible to switch to Hydrogen
>> without ever using *pure* Hydrogen.
>> Fuel Cells running off Methanol are already in production. Methanol is as
>> easy to transport as oil, even safer.
>> Using it you can utilize the existing fuel distribution net with very few
>> changes
> 
> I have a couple of questions for you - or just arguments ;-)
> One, yes, methanol is easy to transport, but it's a lot different from
> plain ol' hydrogen. IOW, if you're using methanol (or methane or
> whatever), it's not a "hydrogen-based system," unless you'd crack the
> methanol at the destination end.
> 

Right. But the Fuel Cells which directly use methanol are already available

> And the other, frankly, I'd rather be next to a 10,000 gallon LH2 spill
> than 10,000 gallons of methanol. Either will burn, true, albeit the
> proportions for an explosive mixture are very probably quite different,
> but hydrogen floats up out of the atmosphere. True, any liquid at 20
> Kelvins is going to do a lot of damage, but other than frostbite (this
> is assuming they didn't burn) it won't kill you outright. 

If you happen to get doused by LH2 you won't just have frostbite
And accidents happen to have a nasty occurrence of sparks at the scene.

> Methanol just 
> lies there, being a liquid at ordinary temperatures, and it's terribly
> toxic - i.e., it will poison anybody that it gets on. See
> http://www.dakotagas.com/msds/methanolmsds.pdf
> 

Well, fuel or diesel aren't that healthy either

> If I was going for liquid transportation, I'd pick something other than
> methanol. What's its energy density relative to other liquid fuels?
> 

Less than fuel or LH2. And *lots* less dangerous to transport compared to
LH2

> (as far as "where does it come from in the first place," we're back to
> the same questions for either.)
> 

You can make it from plants (or rests of plants), but you can also make it
in chemical shops using LH2. 
-- 
Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons, For thou art crunchy, and good
with ketchup!