Yes Jones, using old growth redwoods for source material would be a bad idea. :) But plant waste is cheap and plentiful and needs to be disposed of anyway-- -- corn husks, pea pods, soy bean shells, saw dust, wood scraps, and lawn trimmings. Why not, if the technology pans out, would you not want to extract the energy? The goal isn't per se "free energy", but energy that begins to compete with the overall costs associated with fossil fuels -- wars, carbon, outflows of cash that could otherwise be kept locally. Solar and wind are good but not ideal for every situation.
- Brad On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 2:38 PM, ken deboer <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >> >> >> >
