Hi MM >Some thoughts on the ammonia and other threads: > >The chemistry at present is a bit beyond me, although I hope some day >it is not.
Agree! (heartfelt...) >One of the things that has held me back in getting >somewhat better first-hand experience of this list's discussions is >the lack of a house of my own (where one can have the space to work a >bit, or to have a car or two to work on) and I'm working on solving >that. Not that I think one need experience all of these matters, but >it would be nice to have that option. > >But altough I am not a chemistry expert, I have some thoughts as to >the tie-ins of political science, chemistry and sociology. > >Could we really say that we "must" standardize to one single solitary >planet-wide method of storing and using whatever ambient energy we may >harness or release? I don't think that we must do this (although the >rhetoric of some politicians might imply it's even a legal issue). We must NOT do it. >To be sure, our planet and our needs do seem to lend themselves to >defining chemicals and substances which tend to work better than >others. Work better where? Maybe what will work best in a particular situation might be one that doesn't work so well - using wood ash to make soap might make inferior soap to the kind of lye we use for biodiesel, but if these people are poor and far away, if they're going to be confined to using lab-standard lye for soap they're going to be poor and far away and dirty, which is not best. >Part of the way we work out the best ones seems to be simply >in the market-place. Part of the way is through the initiative and >push of corporations and individuals either working legally or >illegally in a market place. And part of the way is, rightly or >wrongly, through govermental intervention. And another part of the way, perhaps most important, though it's generally neglected, is by individual and community choice. Why it might be most important is that it's at this level that the greatest expertise is to be found on the particular conditions, restraints, advantages, which will define the choice of the "best" technology. >Bush's decision to push (not only through rhetoric but through >dispensation of funds) certain energy policy solutions and not others >(drilling in ANWR, a push for funding hydrogen, but very little push >for solar, wind, etc.) is his decision. I disagree with it not >because I disagree always with what he is pushing, but generally >because of what he ignores. This person, who has consistently shown a >weak understanding of Energy Policy and technology, seems to have >decided that he is the arbiter of our Future. He wants us to "join >him" in his decision that Hydrogen is "it". > >For all I know, Hydrogen may turn out to be "it", but as I said >before, it seems to me there are reasons to embrace and continue to >use and push for other fuels and energy sources, on various levels. >This means pushing for solar and wind and other >presently-underutilitized-(in my view)-pimrary sources and this means >pushing for the idea that Hydrogen is *not* the only way to store and >utilize energy later on. There are other gaseous and liquid fuels >which present their own advantages and disadvantages, up to and >including that some of them are far more energy dense and easily >transported than Hydrogen at room temperatures. > >The conversation becomes confused, because we are slowly moving toward >using Fuel Cells rather than less efficient (it is claimed) devices >for converting fuels to electric energy, and fuel cells as I >understand it generally tend toward wanting pure Hydrogen as fuel. >Even granting this simplification, though, it does not mean that >Hydrogen must be the fuel transported to those cells. One can >transport fuels which contain Hydrogen to the point of use, and then >reform the fuels. > >So, whether we use fuel cells or other means of converting liquids or >gasses or solids to useable energy, I think we can continue to have >our *own* discussion, an ongoing competitive one that will last our >lifetimes and much longer, as to exciting new fuel ideas, and there >may be times when there is no right answer for a given task, but >several viable (both technologically and business-wise) fuels for a >given task. We do not need the President or any other person to >decide for us in such a heavy-handed way, sort of hijacking the topic, >as to the fuel(s) of the future. If Hydrogen is a good idea, we can >hash that out ourselves, and if there are many many other good fuel >ideas, we can keep them in mind too. > >Further interesting economics complications and considerations are >introduced when we consider such important issues as that we have >materials we presently regard as waste (urine, feces, wood from >forests, decaying landfill materials) which not only lend themselves >to being used partly for their energy, for the fuel that can be broken >from them, but also need to be disposed of or used in some way in some >cases. So, if we have sewage containing animal or human waste, we are >already committed to spending money cleaning it, and so if valuable >fuel can be derived from it and if this lends itself to a certain >chemistry then it would be logical to consider using that chemical. Perhaps not if it might lead to loosening the grip on energy supplies of the centralised energy interests. Hence the "logic" of "Toxic Sludge is Good For You", or of using fertilizer bags as an excellent place to "dispose" of hazardous wastes, etc. Industrialized agriculture is a major consumer of fossil fuel energy, in many forms, chemical fertilizers being but one of them, and you wouldn't want to upset this cosy arrangement by optimising products from waste streams perhaps too much, eh? >If we have a supposed problem with too much wood "waste" in the >forests, causing "too much" forest fire, and we must clean up some of >it, then we can also turn this negative into a positive and consider >what chemical fuels can be derived. > >Anyway, my point on waste is that it's not just about spending money >to make fuel, but a special class of problem where one already has to >dispose of the material in some way, so the economics of making fuel >are a bit different perhaps than when one starts from scratch to set >out to derive stored energy (fuel). > >MM I think if you add the local, micro-regional, bioregional dimension to this then it becomes complete. It's almost self-evident that the more local the solution the better and more completely it will work, and that it's almost certain to involve a variety of technologies rather than a single one stamped "Best (Washington)". Optimal waste (?) collection, recycling, reuse, disposal certainly works that way: it has to start at source. Maybe it's not so coincidental that we refer to energy as "power supplies" - energy issues and power/control tend to overlap and, more and more, to merge. The powers-that-be (especially these particular powers-that-be) are not very likely to encourage a situation where the masses get into a position where they can say: "I forget - remind me again why we need you?" Best Keith ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
