Jones, right on in your assesment of the value of this 'breakthrough'. As an early (reformed) biomass fuel worker, I've seen a lot of 'advances' heralded. All suffer from the same basic flaws, the worst of which you correctly noted. On a very small, local scale, I can buy some of these biomass schemes, but ..................... kend
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > > Brad Lowe wrote: > > Scientists at Virginia Tech are working on a breakthrough > energy technology to convert plant sugars to hydrogen with efficiencies > > 100%. > > > http://scienceblog.com/62111/game-changer-in-alternatve-energy/ > > This could further evidence of an alarming trend in Sci-News these days. > > You can call it U-hype - University hyperbole in the extreme. Universities > need funding and PR helps to get it. > > Think about the unsaid part of this story - from the cynic's POV > > The good: Xylose is a main building block for cellulose, so one does not > need to use food grain to get it but... > The bad: Most common trees like pine are at most 10% xylose and even then > it > is not easy to extract. > The real bad: xylose (HOCH2(CH(OH))3CHO) is composed of hydrogen at a mass > percentage of about 7%. > The ugly: You cut down a 1000 pound tree and you get only 7 pounds of > hydrogen, at most. What happens to the other 993 pounds ? Yup, it does have > burnable carbon, doesn't it, so do you waste that or not? > > Oops... business as usual. > > Wouldn't we be far better off using wind energy to split water to get the > hydrogen - and not have to burn the 993 pounds of waste timber to get the 7 > pounds of hydrogen ? > > Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. > -George Carlin > > >
