" Jeanne Stockdale" wrote in message
...

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jeanne Stockdale wrote:



In the UK in December, the isolation is about 1-2
megajoules/sq.metre
per diem. If you can extract energy at 15%, you are doing well.
So,
to get 1 KW for 24 hours (assuming perfectly efficient storage),
you
need 300-600 square metres dedicated to solar panels. I don't
know
the average energy consumption per person, but I should guess a
few
kilowatts. Where were you proposing to put the panels?

That excludes the fact that the ones used to generate electricity
or hydrogen use toxic chemicals and cost more energy to make than
they save. Ones used to heat water would be worthwhile, if it
wasn't for the fact that our peak demands are in winter. Solar
power is at best a joke in the UK.

Where it WOULD help is if used by the Texans to run their air
conditioners.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Agreed that conventional solar panels are not efficient in the UK.
and only
of marginal efficiency in sunnier climates.
I propose therefore not to stick the panels anywhere.

I agree fully. All efforts should be directed at building nuclear
power stations as fast as is humanly possible. There really is no
other route available at present.

Franz

" Jeanne Stockdale" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

Not
such a difficult concept when you remember setting fire to paper
as
a kid
using a magnifying glass.
On combustion the residue is water if my O level Phys/Chem
memories
are correct.

Your memories of chenmistry are very badly flawed. Burning
carbon
does not yield any water at all. It yields mainly CO2 under ideal
burning conditions. The CO2 is the ****** in the woodpile which
we
are trying to get rid of.




I was trying to illustrate the power of the sun correctly harnessed.
I am aware that burning paper causes the same problems as burning
other
fossil stuff -CO2 etc.
Its the burning of hyrogen that I hope would produce water alone.

You have said this before. Now please tell us how you propose to use
the sun to produce hydrogen and oxygen from water.

Franz

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 19:21:01 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


" Jeanne Stockdale" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in
message
...

"

In the ultimate future that is quite true. At some stage it
will
become essential to cap the total human population. However,
the
amount of energy available in fissile (and fusible) materials
is
vastly in excess of that in the available fossil fuels.

Franz


In order to shorten the period within we can take
advantage
of the
sun's energy, we should go down the road of directly extracting
the
radiated
energy.

Sorry, but the meaning of that sentence escapes me entirely.

It's the Icarus solution :-)



We have (more than ! ) an abundance of water and hydrogen
should be
easily extractable therefrom by heat from the sun.

There is no direct way of using solar heat to decompose water into
hydrogen and oxygen
Electrolysing water just to burn it again is not a *source* of any
energy whatsoever. It merely provides a method of storing and
transporting energy.

It's just a matter imho
of developing the technology to focus the energy
appropriately.

What would this technology consist of?

Not
such a difficult concept when you remember setting fire to paper
as
a kid
using a magnifying glass.
On combustion the residue is water if my O level Phys/Chem
memories
are correct.

Your memories of chenmistry are very badly flawed. Burning carbon
does not yield any water at all. It yields mainly CO2 under ideal
burning conditions. The CO2 is the ****** in the woodpile which we
are trying to get rid of.

I think he meant burning oxygen and hydrogen together like the space
shuttle does.

No. He was talking about burning a piece of paper.

Franz

Martin wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:53:54 +0100, "David Hill"
wrote:

Franz asked "..... Why not mount windmills directly on every
car?
....."

No he didn't I did and it was supposed to be a joke.


Why bother when most cars have their alternators doing nothing
most
of their journey, they could be used to charge up a 2nd battery,

which would increase fuel consumption.

If you think of how
much potential electricity could be produced each day from our
traffic, cars and lories etc, it would add up to a lot, and with
no
extra fuel used.

It would use extra fuel. When an alternator is charging it does
more
work.

I'm warming to this theme. Roads in future will all be made of rows
and rows of rollers driving generators. Hell, why stop at roads?
Footpaths, too, since every little helps. Around the house, we'll all
use special roller-skates charging battery packs slung on our backs;
every night at bedtime, we take off the batteries, and plug them into
a special socket, from which they'll power the off-peak
water-heating, dishwasher, and washing machine. If this doesn't get
me a knighthood, there's no justice in life.

Now, about gas...

Mike.

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

Its the burning of hyrogen that I hope would produce water alone.

You have said this before. Now please tell us how you propose to use
the sun to produce hydrogen and oxygen from water.

Franz


Not quite worked that out yet !
The atom is splittable - why not the molecule H20. ?

Pete

"David Hill" wrote in message
...
Franz asked "..... Why not mount windmills directly on every car?
......"

It was not I who asked that, but let it be........

Why bother when most cars have their alternators doing nothing most
of their
journey, they could be used to charge up a 2nd battery, If you think
of how
much potential electricity could be produced each day from our
traffic, cars
and lories etc, it would add up to a lot, and with no extra fuel
used.

Sorry David, but there is no such thing as a free lunch in the energy
world.
Firstly, the amount of energy stored in a car battery is very tiny.
Secondly, it is not deposited in the battery for free. Petrol is
burnt to achieve it.

Alternatively, make all vehicles petrol/electricity combined so that
the
electricity produced would go to power the car in urban situations,
thus
saving fuel and co2 emissions.

That does not save any fuel whatsoever. Not even one tiny little
smidgeon. *All* the energy of which you talk has come from burning
fuel.

Also.What about a microwave powered engine.

That's a new one to me. How does it work? Where does the microwave
energy come from? Did you know that not all of the electrical energy
applied to a magnetron is converted into microwaves? And klystrons
are even less efficient? And that converting microwave energy into
heat and subsequently into mechanical energy is only about 30%
efficient, at best?

Franz

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
. ..

"Franz Heymann" wrote in
message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
...

snip

Fusion power, if it ever comes, is actually going to have side
considerations similar to that of fusion power, namely, what
to do
with the ash.


Not according to SEAFP in 1995.
See http://www.fusion.org.uk/focus/index.htm
and navigate to the 'safe and clean' section. If those
conclusions
are safe,
fusion power plants, if ever built, should not present the same
long
term
waste management problems as fission plants.

That article does not go into a solitary detail about the
reactions
and reaction products of fusion reactions. The reaction being
studied is one involving the fusion of a deuteron with a triton.
The
end products are an alpha particle and a high energy neutron. The
secondary radioactive products produced by these particles before
they
are thermalised are not usually discussed when talking about
fission.
{:-((


I thought you were implying that a (theoretical) fusion reactor
would
produce similarly long lived 'nuclear waste' to existing fission
reactors.

No. I did not say so.

The article quoted implies it would not. Not being a nuclear
physicist
myself, I saw no reason to doubt the worth of SEAFP's conclusions.

It is true that there will be very little by way of long lived
nucleids, but folk usually forget about the shorter lived components.
The designers of the existing nuclear reactors also did simulated
studies of the safety of power stations.

The long lived waste is no problem at all. It is only the activities
of the anti-nuclear lobby which prevents it from being dealt with.
The obvious solution is to vitrify the ash and to dump it in the deep
ocean at the edge of a tectonic plate subduction zone, where it will
be sucked into the bowels of the earth and join the vast quantities of
natural radioactive material already there.

Franz

" Jeanne Stockdale" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

Its the burning of hyrogen that I hope would produce water
alone.

You have said this before. Now please tell us how you propose to
use
the sun to produce hydrogen and oxygen from water.

Franz


Not quite worked that out yet !
The atom is splittable - why not the molecule H20. ?

Insolation certainly won't do it. Electrolysis does it. But
electrolysis needs electricity......

Franz

"Malcolm" wrote in message
...

In article , Franz Heymann
writes

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jeanne Stockdale wrote:

Sunpower!

All energy sources on earth, past, present and future are
derived
from the
sun.
The future for our long-term survival is to shortcut the years
of
previous
storage to direct access -imho.

The problem with doing that in the UK is that we first need to
tow
these islands 20 degrees south.

{:-))

Let's get back to gardening:
When Porter was at the Royal Institution, there was a very active
research programme on trying to disentangle the details of the
quantum
processes by which photosynthesis proceeds. My own opinion is that
solar energy will become a viable alternative for replacing fossil
fuel energy when we know enough to produce photosynthesis on an
industrial scale without the need for green plants.
Is there a chemist amongs urglers who knows the status of research
on
the physics of photosynthesis?

I'm trying to resist the temptation to say that no there isn't such
a
person, but that won't stop several urglers telling you anyway!

I look forward to what they might have to say. {:-))

Franz

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
. ..

"Franz Heymann" wrote in
message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
...

snip
snip

The long lived waste is no problem at all. It is only the activities
of the anti-nuclear lobby which prevents it from being dealt with.
The obvious solution is to vitrify the ash and to dump it in the deep
ocean at the edge of a tectonic plate subduction zone, where it will
be sucked into the bowels of the earth and join the vast quantities of
natural radioactive material already there.


I am no expert, but I recall reading material which suggested that merely
dumping an object on the ocean floor in the vicinity of a subduction layer
would not guarantee subduction, because the ocean is around 6 miles deep,
and the underlying tectonic plates are as much as 50 miles deep. Delivering
waste material into an actual subduction layer may be beyond our current
technological capability?

In article ,
"Franz Heymann" writes:
| "Malcolm" wrote in message
| ...
|
| When Porter was at the Royal Institution, there was a very active
| research programme on trying to disentangle the details of the
| quantum
| processes by which photosynthesis proceeds. My own opinion is that
| solar energy will become a viable alternative for replacing fossil
| fuel energy when we know enough to produce photosynthesis on an
| industrial scale without the need for green plants.
| Is there a chemist amongs urglers who knows the status of research
| on
| the physics of photosynthesis?
|
| I'm trying to resist the temptation to say that no there isn't such
| a
| person, but that won't stop several urglers telling you anyway!
|
| I look forward to what they might have to say. {:-))

Well, I am no chemist, but I know something. Yes, the mechanisms
are now known, at least in outline, but not enough to design systems
that will work any better than tanks full of Chlorella. Don't hold
your breath for one, either, though the projects for breeding more
efficient forms of Chlorella and other unicellular plants are going
well.

However, even that isn't necessary in countries that get a decent
amount of sunlight. There are plenty of crops which produce a lot
of oil suitable for 'biodiesel', and the residue makes a perfectly
good fuel for heating, electricity generation etc.

The biggest problem in most areas is the shortage of fresh water,
which is the reason for the Israeli roadmap separating the proposed
Palestinian 'state' from the Jordan by a buffer zone. It has nothing
to do with security, and is merely to seize the main water supplies.

This is why there is active research on things like Chlorella that
produce oils rather than starches, and will thrive in enclosed
habitats. I am not sure of their status.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...
I'm warming to this theme. Roads in future will all be made of rows
and rows of rollers driving generators. Hell, why stop at roads?
Footpaths, too, since every little helps. Around the house, we'll all
use special roller-skates charging battery packs slung on our backs;
every night at bedtime, we take off the batteries, and plug them into
a special socket, from which they'll power the off-peak
water-heating, dishwasher, and washing machine. If this doesn't get
me a knighthood, there's no justice in life.

Now, about gas...
I think each new house built should have a small horizontal type wind
turbine on the roof.

In article , Franz Heymann
writes
There is at present no way of avoiding the construction of common or
garden (got it in!) fission stations as fast as possible, and the
problem gets more urgent every year that passes without action being
taken in that direction.

But it would be great to be able to say...
....Gone fission?

--
regards andyw

"ex WGS Hamm" wrote in message
...

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...
I'm warming to this theme. Roads in future will all be made of
rows
and rows of rollers driving generators. Hell, why stop at roads?
Footpaths, too, since every little helps. Around the house, we'll
all
use special roller-skates charging battery packs slung on our
backs;
every night at bedtime, we take off the batteries, and plug them
into
a special socket, from which they'll power the off-peak
water-heating, dishwasher, and washing machine. If this doesn't
get
me a knighthood, there's no justice in life.

Now, about gas...
I think each new house built should have a small horizontal type
wind
turbine on the roof.

With luck, that produces enough power to drive a telly, sometimes.

Franz

Franz Heymann wrote:

"Broadback" wrote in message
...

Franz Heymann wrote:

"Charlie Pridham" wrote in message
...


"Martin" wrote in message
news

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 19:18:58 +0100, Broadback



wrote:



Martin wrote:


On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 14:04:45 +0100, "David Hill"
wrote:




And just when I have been notified of a third price rise in

the

last


few


months for the bulk gas I use for heating.
The price has now gone up by about 45% this year.


All over Europe, the price of natural gas is linked to the

price of


crude oil.

A plus to these price rises is that it make alternative sources

of


energy more likely. I can't wait for the hydrogen era to come

in.


Looks like the Canadians are getting on top of it!

Hydrogen is created using electricity, which is generated using

fossil


or nuclear fuel.
--
Martin

Not in Canada's case they even call it Hydro :~)


The amount of hydroelectric power available on a global scale

makes no

more than a tiny dent in the total fossil fuel requirements. And

the

essence of the matter is that it is already being used. Utilising

it

to make hydrogen will sinply make further demands on fossil fuel

to

make up for the fact that the hydroelectric power will be diverted

to

doing something other than what it is doing today.

Hydrogen simply is not an alternative fuel. It is simply an
alternative method of storing conventional fuels.

The real truth of the matter is that there is simply no way out

other

than building nuclear stations as fast as possible.

Franz





Ah, but the Canadian company has successfully generated hydrogen

from

water using sun power.


By what process?


A lot of possibility there, it is very advanced
they have conducted viable commercial tests.


I have my doubts, and will continue to have them until I know what
magic process was used.

Franz


I do not believe it to be magic, in fact if able I would happily invest
in the company, sadly they will only allow Canadian investors, whether
this is a stipulation of the Canadian government, who have an interest,
I don't know. If you are interested in finding out more go to their site:
http://www.shec-labs.com