"BAC" wrote in message
...

"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?

I cannot prove its feasibility, but I see no reason why it should not
be possible. With GPS, the location of the boat carrying the stuff
can be determined to the nearest metre, if not better. The local
water currents are easily studied in great detail before anmything is
dumped. Remember that the fact that the ash has been vitrified will
contain it for millennia.

Franz

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

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.

None of which would alleviate the rate of release of CO2, or am I
wrong?

Franz

In article ,
Broadback writes:
|
| 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

Well, my guess is the reason that Shec Labs is a front end for an
organisation located in a country with which Canada does not have
an extradition treaty. If you look even slightly closely at that
Web page and its references, you will find a number of interesting
anomalies.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
"Franz Heymann" writes:
|
| 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.
|
| None of which would alleviate the rate of release of CO2, or am I
| wrong?

Your statement is right but you are wrong.

The reason is that they would take their carbon from the atmosphere,
and not from carbon stored underground. They would therefore be
neutral as far as atmospheric carbon is concerned.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Franz wrote "....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. ....."

There I have to disagree with you, the battery is being charged all the time
the engine is running to propel the car, and the fuel consumption is the
same if the battery is charging or not.
I didn't say that you wouldn't have to have a much larger battery fitted to
get the power required


--
David Hill
Abacus nurseries
www.abacus-nurseries.co.uk

In article ,
David Hill wrote:
Franz wrote "....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. ....."

There I have to disagree with you, the battery is being charged all the time
the engine is running to propel the car, and the fuel consumption is the
same if the battery is charging or not.
I didn't say that you wouldn't have to have a much larger battery fitted to
get the power required

Yes, very true. I have this design for a car that needs no fuel
whatsoever to run. It burns hydrogen, drives the wheels and the
generator, and charges a battery. This is taken out, and used to
electrolyse water, to fuel the car. All I need is a small amount
of money to build a prototype, and I am sure that you will be happy
to invest in my company, which is registered in Brazil (for legal
reasons). A mere 10,000 will get you in on the ground floor.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Franz Heymann wrote:
"ex WGS Hamm" wrote in message
...

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
[...]
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.

Anything that stops people watching telly is to be encouraged.

Mike.

"Broadback" wrote in message
...
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

The URL has the format and is written in the style I expect from
someone who is pulling the wool over the readers' eyes. I found no
reference to any peer reviewed publication of the physics underlying
the process.

I would have thought that there should have been at least one mention
of the structure of the extremely high pressure vessel which would be
needed to prevent water at 2000 deg C from exploding as steam rather
than decomposing. And how are the Oxygen and Hydrogen separated in
the confined space of the focus of a parabolic mirror, especially when
it is at a phenomenally high pressure?

My doubts are not even slightly allayed.

Franz

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Broadback" wrote in message

[snip]

http://www.shec-labs.com

The URL has the format and is written in the style I expect from
someone who is pulling the wool over the readers' eyes. I found no
reference to any peer reviewed publication of the physics underlying
the process.

I would have thought that there should have been at least one
mention
of the structure of the extremely high pressure vessel which would
be
needed to prevent water at 2000 deg C from exploding as steam rather
than decomposing. And how are the Oxygen and Hydrogen separated in
the confined space of the focus of a parabolic mirror, especially
when
it is at a phenomenally high pressure?

My doubts are not even slightly allayed.

I have spent some time googling on 'water hydrogen sunlight' and dug
up a vast number of references, none of which corroborated the work in
that Canadian URL. In fact, it looks to me as if the most promising
technique is one developed in Israel in which a photovoltaic cell is
coupled directly to an electrolytic cell. That might enable the
sunlight in well insolated tropical regions to be used to produce
hydrogen to be transported to places like the UK which has little
sinlight. The problem is that it will be economically even more
unviable than solar voltaic panels currently are, because of the
additional transportation costs.

Franz

"David Hill" wrote in message
...
Franz wrote "....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. ....."

There I have to disagree with you, the battery is being charged all
the time
the engine is running to propel the car, and the fuel consumption is
the
same if the battery is charging or not.

There is no such thing as a free lunch as far as energy is concerned.
Your suggestion violates the first law of thermodynamics. The car
will use some energy from the engine to turn the generator which
charges the battery.

I didn't say that you wouldn't have to have a much larger battery
fitted to
get the power required

Thereby requiring more energy from the engine to drive the generator.
It is utterly impossible to win in the energy game. In fact, you
usually do not even break even.

Franz

"newsb" wrote in message
...
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?

{:-))

Franz

"Janet Baraclough.." wrote in
message ...
The message
from "David Hill" contains
these
words:


It seems as if in all this discussion no one is thinking of Hydro
electricity.......We have many rivers that could be harnessed to
produce
power.

Hydro-generated electricity has been produced in Scotland and
Wales
for decades. Both supply it to England via the national grid. From
high
dams not rivers btw..you wouldn't generate much power from summer
water-levels and flowrates in many UK rivers.

In Canada the government has its long term plan for renewable
energy.

So does Scotland; the target is to produce 40% by sustainable
methods
by 2020. Hydro-generation already exists, onshore windfarms are
going up
everywhere, off-shore windfarms

Windfarms can contribute an almost negligible fraction of the energy
requirements of an industrialised country. Their sole purposes are to
salve our consciences and to make money for the investors.

and wave-farms are coming soon.

I will wait and see. They have been coming soon for almost as long as
fusion energy has been coming soon.

Scotland (Arran, in fact, which was the proposed first site)
rejected
Biofuel extraction from wood waste

Biofuel does not help one iota to solve the problem of the CO2 release
rate into the atmosphere. All it might do is to protect us slightly
from the vagaries of natural gas and oil supplies.

a couple of years back on grounds
that the process is highly polluting..so has Canada, iirc. On the
web
you can no doubt find the story of how the proposing company, Border
Biofuels, managed to rip off a huge govt grant, before going bust.

Par for the course in the energy game.
Remember cold fusion?

Franz

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"Franz Heymann" writes:
|
| 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.
|
| None of which would alleviate the rate of release of CO2, or am I
| wrong?

Your statement is right but you are wrong.

The reason is that they would take their carbon from the atmosphere,
and not from carbon stored underground. They would therefore be
neutral as far as atmospheric carbon is concerned.

Ahh. I was dumb. I have been similarly dumb in a number of other
posts I wrote on this aspect of the thread. I withdraw. Burning
biomass is not as bad as burning oil and gas.

Franz

In article ,
Franz Heymann wrote:

So does Scotland; the target is to produce 40% by sustainable
methods
by 2020. Hydro-generation already exists, onshore windfarms are
going up
everywhere, off-shore windfarms

Windfarms can contribute an almost negligible fraction of the energy
requirements of an industrialised country. Their sole purposes are to
salve our consciences and to make money for the investors.

and wave-farms are coming soon.

I will wait and see. They have been coming soon for almost as long as
fusion energy has been coming soon.

Yes and no. The UK is one country where those techniques ARE viable.
Not easily, but they make engineering sense, whereas solar power
doesn't. Technically, we could meet our entire energy requirements
by either wind- or wave-farms, combined with pumped water storage.
There are a few, minor, details to resolve ...

But at least the project doesn't require a rewriting of elementary
physics.

Biofuel extraction from wood waste

Biofuel does not help one iota to solve the problem of the CO2 release
rate into the atmosphere. All it might do is to protect us slightly
from the vagaries of natural gas and oil supplies.

As we agreed in another post, biofuel is at least neutral, but like
solar power it is of little use to the UK. I don't see where wood
waste comes in, but it can be used.

a couple of years back on grounds
that the process is highly polluting..so has Canada, iirc. On the
web
you can no doubt find the story of how the proposing company, Border
Biofuels, managed to rip off a huge govt grant, before going bust.

Par for the course in the energy game.
Remember cold fusion?

To be fair, that was an honest mistake. Yes, the chances of it being
real were infinitesimal, but investing it in was still worthwhile.
Chances of it being real (say) 10^-6. Benefit if it were real (say)
$10^13. Appropriate investment (say) $10^7. Standard game theory,
a.k.a. cost-benefit analysis, a.k.a. theoretical statistics.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...


[snip]

Biofuel does not help one iota to solve the problem of the CO2
release
rate into the atmosphere. All it might do is to protect us slightly
from the vagaries of natural gas and oil supplies.

As I pointed out in another post, I withdraw that statement. It is
nonsense.

Franz