On Mar 4, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

I wrote:

No common chemical and very few exotic chemicals can produce more energy than gasoline . . .

By volume or by weight, as far as I know.


Even aluminum, silicon, and anthracite beat gasoline in MJ/liter.  See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_density.svg

Lithium borohydride beats it in MJ/kg.

As you can see from the above chart, silicon has a huge potential for energy storage and long distance transport of energy. This was noted in the following,

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/BigPicture.pdf

and not a new idea as can be seen by the the reference:

http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD/ PROD0000000000079095.pdf




Gasoline produces ~45 MJ/kg according to most sources.

Wikipedia, which is sometimes good for something, says methane produces 50 MJ/kg. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_combustion

I did not include "hydrogen" among common chemicals. As far as I know it is the most energy dense chemical fuel by weight, at 142 MJ/ kg. That's why they use it for rocket fuel.

In my book, in chapter 1, p. 12, I discussed this issue by comparing a hypothetical cell filled with hydrogen and oxygen to a cold fusion cell. I was assuming that hydrogen and oxygen has more energy by weight than any other chemical fuel. I am ignoring the weight of the container, and problems with compressing the gas, and all other real-world considerations.

- Jed


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/




Reply via email to