nklr-really

[Blake Sobiloff]

On Dec 5, 2007, at 5:44 PM, traderpro2003 wrote:

> Have no fear. At $4/gal, hydrogen fuel becomes competitive.

...assuming we have the spare electrical capacity to be splitting hydrogen from oxygen. Unfortunately we won't have that until we have *many* more nuclear plants, whose off-peak generation can be used for exactly that purpose. If I were king we'd have 30 new pebble-based nuke plants in five years, and be using nuclear-derived electricity for 80+% of our use in twenty years. -- Blake Sobiloff http://www.sobiloff.com/> San Jose, CA (USA)

[traderpro2003]

Awhile ago on TV I saw something like: just to meet the expected growth in demand for energy (not replace what is needed daily now) we'd have to build 10,000 of the most efficient and powerful nukes. This is worldwide not just the US. So I think it's going to take solar, wave, wind, nuke, geothermal, biofuels (hold the corn please), and more efficiency in everthing we use. People commuting are simply going to have to switch to more efficient means. But you're right, H doesn't come without a cost. Hell, here in Colorado, I could power my house and supply the grid with electricity or store some H if this system didn't cost me $65,000. $65,000 is too much. A guy in S Carolina has a really nice self-sufficient, solar/batt hydrogen system (think 3 huge propane tanks and a sub-panel room with electrical equip and batteries, and he uses no external power...even fuels his car with H. Cost: $500k. So I'd rather the gov't be pumping money into researching and lower all these costs ($20k for the $65k, I'm in.) vs. the billions and billions to go to Mars. We're all still waiting for Moon rocks to cure cancer. I say we get the mess in the backyard cleaned up before we start sweeping the beeches. Cheers - Brian

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, Blake Sobiloff wrote: > > On Dec 5, 2007, at 5:44 PM, traderpro2003 wrote: > > Have no fear. At $4/gal, hydrogen fuel becomes competitive. > > ...assuming we have the spare electrical capacity to be splitting > hydrogen from oxygen. Unfortunately we won't have that until we have > *many* more nuclear plants, whose off-peak generation can be used for > exactly that purpose. If I were king we'd have 30 new pebble- based > nuke plants in five years, and be using nuclear-derived electricity > for 80+% of our use in twenty years. > -- > Blake Sobiloff > http://www.sobiloff.com/> > San Jose, CA (USA) >

[Jacobus De Bruyn]

I agree, the technology is there, it is just that the price of oil makes a very few people very happy. Hydrogen can be produced from seawater by using solar energy in the deserts, and be put into fuel cells. I don t think biomass fuels ethanol and corn oil whatever could meet the energy needs of the world, and coal does stink, as I can remember from the coal burning days. What is needed is a change in attitude and the way we think, hence the way we act. The thing about global warming is that it seems to be the short time future, as a new ice-age is the long time prospect, but why hassle about a few thousand years? I remember the days you could have all you needed in walking distance in the neighborhood. Now to get breakfast people drive 25 minutes, then another 30 min. to get to the Home Depot, then 40 minutes to get to wherever, and so on. We might have to redesign our cities, farms etc. We can not longer live in the fifties. Jake. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

[traderpro2003]

Monte - Hard to disagree here...especially on the REALLY part. But had we not gone to the moon, is it not possible we would have these same things? For instance, back in the 60s-70s, say we focused intensely on alternative fuels, and today we're not in our current oil crisis mess....Could also we have "stumbled" into WD-40? A lot of these "products" are used in our everyday lives, so the impetus for discovery isn't just space. Therefore, I suggest it's a bit hasty to say "only the space program" could have brought us these. I fact, could we have done better on some parallel? Debatable. This question is right up there with wondering what would have happened had we not gone to Vietnam. I mean had Al Gore been KIA...we might not have the internet! j/k Sure the moon race gave us WD-40, but this doesn't insinuate an "event" breeds invention. A problem or curiosity does. The internet didn't come from the moon anymore than the polio vaccine did. I'd vote the internet is BIGGER than space exploration btw. Curious people bring use curious results and solutions. I mean what race was Einstein in in providing the fundamentals/theory to which most things are analyzed or even built? Hmmm...interesting. I'm not knocking our space program, brave men or invention- serendipity. Forgive me for being misinterpreted. Rather I'm suggesting inventors will continue to invent regardless of event. If we tell our greatest minds to go find something "over there" and support them with huge resources, that's where they will go. US/British cracked the enigma, built the first a-bomb, etc. However the consequences of "directed utilization" (thank you) could be such that we jeopardize the underpinnings of our own future existence. You don't want to be 20-years from now standing in Prudhoe Bay, ANWR or otherwise thinking "Now what?!...and cancel the Mars program?" So perhaps you can understand me wanting to wait for WD-80 in new, dry Mars-ready formula until we get our little energy problems worked- out. I hate to say it, but it's right up there with you're not leaving your room until [the problem] it's cleaned [is fixed]. Mom was right... - Brian --- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "monte quint" wrote:

> > While I do agree that the moon rocks didn't cure cancer, it is > disingenuous to dismiss the technological advances made by our

space

> program of 40 years ago. > > I'm sure my list is nowhere near complete but a few of the things

we

> use each and every day are results of the government and industry > investment in the research for the early space program. > > Advanced adhesives > High Density Polyethylene products > Ultra-High Molecular Weight products > Velcro, (currently large reward offered by government for the > development of "silent" velcro) > Satellite tracking systems-can you say GPS > Sealed fuel delivery systems > Remote medical monitoring capabilities > Hazardous Material protective clothing > Fireproof materials > Fire Supression Systems > Fiber-optics > Communications systems now in use throughout the world > Computers > Miniturized electronics > Household Insulation advances and Vapor Barrier uses > Scrubbing systems for recycling air and water > Kevlar > not to mention aerodynamcis, physics, and numerous medical

diciplines

> and on and on it could go > > I didn't have to go to a website for this list but if I did it

would

> only have been possible due to the early forerunner of the Internet > that was developed to connect government facilities, private and > public research institutions to the of thousands of researchers who > worked and contributed their knowledge to "fuel" the space program. > > So, maybe moon rocks didn't cure anything but the results of the > effort to go get the damn things has improved all of our lives > greatly, maybe that sort of success and co-operation by government, > academic institutions and industry should be considered as a by- > product of getting some Mars rocks. > > By the way 2nd growth trees in Alaska were harvested and replanted

on

> a one hundred year harvest to harvest cycle or they were to be

until

> the fear mongers among you scared timber companies in to a policy

of

> get the fu-k in, get the fu-k out, situation. > > But I forget all the Sierra Club contributors, Wilderness > Conservation Society, know more than thousands of trained foresters > and the 4th or 5th generation family owned loggers. > > And Al Gore inventer the internet, right?? > > So take the wood, wood pulp, and the space program out of you lives > and what do you have left?? You figure it out! > > How about instead of trashing oil and oil companies we US citizens > try to get a single national standard for fuel ratings passed so a > refinery doesn't have to make 35 different grades/additives for

fuel

> to meet all the jumble of state and local regulations. Fuel prices > would drop, engines would be built to maximize performance on a set > fuel standard, etc. > > Monte > (it's been a long cold night) >