Re: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right -- oil and nuclear
In reply to Chris Zell's message of Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:02:36 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] Lemme get this straight, you wanna build fusion reactors to make gasoline? OK, so economic development isn't always linear. Maybe if you reduce energy inputs to nearly zero cost, the other costs of labor and equipment still give you cheap gasoline. But first the minor hurdle of achieving practical fusion has to get done. Details, details... Indeed. If it works, that's what my device will do. BTW it may also be possible to put it in a car directly, obviating the need for a secondary energy carrier. One consideration is how difficult it would be to restart it once stopped and left standing for a while. If that is determined experimentally to be far to long, then use in a car would be excluded - unless it could run at a very low level all the time. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right -- oil and nuclear
we will shortly conquer fusion Next question is, what do you do with it, once conquered? How do you make energy portable or put fusion in a car?
Re: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right -- oil and nuclear
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 7:08 AM, Chris Zellchrisrz...@yahoo.com wrote: we will shortly conquer fusion Next question is, what do you do with it, once conquered? How do you make energy portable or put fusion in a car? Mr. Fusion? http://www.crunchgear.com/wp-content/photos/2070049523_385bca185b_o.jpg Terry
Re: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right -- oil and nuclear
- Original Message - From: mix...@bigpond.com Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 1:17 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right -- oil and nuclear The difference between us is that I believe we will shortly conquer fusion,making it available as an energy source. Is fusion the enemy? Harry
Re: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right -- oil and nuclear
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:40:46 -0400: Hi, [snip] - Original Message - From: mix...@bigpond.com Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 1:17 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right -- oil and nuclear The difference between us is that I believe we will shortly conquer fusion,making it available as an energy source. Is fusion the enemy? Ok, Harry, conquer the problems involved in harnessing fusion. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right -- oil and nuclear
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:27:52 -0500: Hi, [snip] On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 7:08 AM, Chris Zellchrisrz...@yahoo.com wrote: we will shortly conquer fusion Next question is, what do you do with it, once conquered? How do you make energy portable or put fusion in a car? That how this thread started off. Once sufficient cheap energy is available, you can make your own gasoline (or any other appropriate carbon based fuel) from CO2 in the air. Mr. Fusion? http://www.crunchgear.com/wp-content/photos/2070049523_385bca185b_o.jpg I was going to use that! :( Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right -- oil and nuclear
Lemme get this straight, you wanna build fusion reactors to make gasoline? OK, so economic development isn't always linear. Maybe if you reduce energy inputs to nearly zero cost, the other costs of labor and equipment still give you cheap gasoline. But first the minor hurdle of achieving practical fusion has to get done. Details, details...
Re: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right -- oil and nuclear
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:36 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote I was going to use that! :( The early bird gets the worm; but, the second mouse gets the cheese. :-) Terry
Re: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right -- oil and nuclear
In reply to Lawrence de Bivort's message of Sun, 14 Jun 2009 14:08:33 -0400: Hi Lawrence, [snip] Hi, Robin, Agreed that carbons can be used to make carbon compounds. But, as you point out, there is non-trivial the matter of energy consumed in the process and, I would add, the non-trivial matter of economics. There is a reason we aren't making carbon-based materials out of CO2. And this same reason is the reason why we should be conserving oil for feedstock purposes, rather than fuel. No? Lawrence The difference between us is that I believe we will shortly conquer fusion, making it available as an energy source. Once that has happened, everything changes for the better, and that's why I think your vision of the future is inaccurate. -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 7:03 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right -- oil and nuclear In reply to Lawrence de Bivort's message of Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:16:47 -0400: Hi, [snip] Someday, I imagine, humankind will rue having burned oil for fuel, realizing that it was far more valuable as material feedstock for plastics than it is as fuel. It may be our children who come to realize this, and they may wonder why their parents and grandparents didn't realize it and why they didn't insist that oil be used only as a feedstock. [snip] I doubt it. A good organic chemist can make just about any carbon compound from just about any other carbon compound, given enough energy. Even CO2 can serve as the source if really necessary. So the only real limitation is adequate cheap clean energy. Fusion in one form or another would provide this. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
RE: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right -- oil and nuclear
Hi, Robin, Agreed that carbons can be used to make carbon compounds. But, as you point out, there is non-trivial the matter of energy consumed in the process and, I would add, the non-trivial matter of economics. There is a reason we aren't making carbon-based materials out of CO2. And this same reason is the reason why we should be conserving oil for feedstock purposes, rather than fuel. No? Lawrence -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 7:03 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right -- oil and nuclear In reply to Lawrence de Bivort's message of Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:16:47 -0400: Hi, [snip] Someday, I imagine, humankind will rue having burned oil for fuel, realizing that it was far more valuable as material feedstock for plastics than it is as fuel. It may be our children who come to realize this, and they may wonder why their parents and grandparents didn't realize it and why they didn't insist that oil be used only as a feedstock. [snip] I doubt it. A good organic chemist can make just about any carbon compound from just about any other carbon compound, given enough energy. Even CO2 can serve as the source if really necessary. So the only real limitation is adequate cheap clean energy. Fusion in one form or another would provide this. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right -- oil and nuclear
On Jun 14, 2009, at 10:08 AM, Lawrence de Bivort wrote: Hi, Robin, Agreed that carbons can be used to make carbon compounds. But, as you point out, there is non-trivial the matter of energy consumed in the process and, I would add, the non-trivial matter of economics. There is a reason we aren't making carbon-based materials out of CO2. And this same reason is the reason why we should be conserving oil for feedstock purposes, rather than fuel. It is notable that we *can* make feed stocks from CO2 using algae and sunlight: http://www.oilgae.com/ Unfortunately, most of the CO2 producing plants are in the north. One solution might be to pipeline CO2 south. Probably more sensible to build new hybrid plants in the south and ship power to the north using HVDC transmission and and bio-oil products using pipelines. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right -- oil and nuclear
From: Lawrence de Bivort Hi, Robin, Agreed that carbons can be used to make carbon compounds. But, as you point out, there is non-trivial the matter of energy consumed in the process and, I would add, the non-trivial matter of economics. There is a reason we aren't making carbon-based materials out of CO2. And this same reason is the reason why we should be conserving oil for feedstock purposes, rather than fuel. Speaking of feedstock, A. C. Clarke made another interesting suggestion in a forward for a book titled, A Century of Innovation: See Clarke's comments: http://www.greatachievements.org/?id=4796 For more details see Amazon books - A Century of Innovation: http://www.amazon.com/Century-Innovation-Engineering-Achievements-Transformed/dp/0309089085/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8s=booksqid=1245016216sr=1-1 http://tinyurl.com/kvpujl Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right -- oil and nuclear
I wrote: It is notable that we *can* make feed stocks from CO2 using algae and sunlight: http://www.oilgae.com/ Unfortunately, most of the CO2 producing plants are in the north. One solution might be to pipeline CO2 south. Probably more sensible to build new hybrid plants in the south and ship power to the north using HVDC transmission and and bio-oil products using pipelines. It just occurred to me this is confusing wording. It should say: It is notable that we *can* make feed stocks from CO2 using algae and sunlight: http://www.oilgae.com/ Unfortunately, most of the CO2 producing power plants are in the north. One solution might be to pipeline CO2 south. Probably more sensible to build new hybrid solar-algoil power plants in the south and ship power to the north using HVDC transmission and and bio-oil products using pipelines. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right -- oil and nuclear
LOL. Thanks, Horace. I was trying to figure it out. I like the idea: treat CO2 as an asset from which to produce a useful material, rather than as a pollutant to be released into the environment. That would present a double advantage. I'll go check the website. I hope it has some preliminary engineering and cost analyses. Language is an odd and limited tool, isn't it, when trying to describe reality. Lawrence -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 6:10 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right -- oil and nuclear I wrote: It is notable that we *can* make feed stocks from CO2 using algae and sunlight: http://www.oilgae.com/ Unfortunately, most of the CO2 producing plants are in the north. One solution might be to pipeline CO2 south. Probably more sensible to build new hybrid plants in the south and ship power to the north using HVDC transmission and and bio-oil products using pipelines. It just occurred to me this is confusing wording. It should say: It is notable that we *can* make feed stocks from CO2 using algae and sunlight: http://www.oilgae.com/ Unfortunately, most of the CO2 producing power plants are in the north. One solution might be to pipeline CO2 south. Probably more sensible to build new hybrid solar-algoil power plants in the south and ship power to the north using HVDC transmission and and bio-oil products using pipelines. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right -- oil and nuclear
In reply to Lawrence de Bivort's message of Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:16:47 -0400: Hi, [snip] Someday, I imagine, humankind will rue having burned oil for fuel, realizing that it was far more valuable as material feedstock for plastics than it is as fuel. It may be our children who come to realize this, and they may wonder why their parents and grandparents didn't realize it and why they didn't insist that oil be used only as a feedstock. [snip] I doubt it. A good organic chemist can make just about any carbon compound from just about any other carbon compound, given enough energy. Even CO2 can serve as the source if really necessary. So the only real limitation is adequate cheap clean energy. Fusion in one form or another would provide this. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
RE: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right -- oil and nuclear
Someday, I imagine, humankind will rue having burned oil for fuel, realizing that it was far more valuable as material feedstock for plastics than it is as fuel. It may be our children who come to realize this, and they may wonder why their parents and grandparents didn't realize it and why they didn't insist that oil be used only as a feedstock. This is as true for countries with large reserves of oil as it is with those with few reserves. Meanwhile, electricity can serve the needs of transportation and heat - but only if it comes from long-lasting, non-polluting sources. At this point it seems to me that this means nuclear power, augmented as possible by wind, hydro- and solar power. These are all technologies that we understand well. But our population retains a taboo concern with nuclear power - perhaps confounding it with nuclear weaponry - a concern that is encouraged by the questions of waste disposal, the safeguard of weapons-grade materials, and the safety of nuclear plant operations. Until these questions are met, it will be difficult for a nuclear power program to be fully embraced in the US. Are there credible answers to these three questions? Lawrence
