Slashdot Mirror
Sewage To Be Turned Into H
Anonymous Howard writes "The New Scientist website reports in this article that British scientists are working on a more efficient way to convert sewage and other wet waste into hydrogen fuel. It sounds fairly promising."
Anything is better then filling more roadside landfills that just add to the beauty of our land!
Wasn't there just a story posted on Slashdot of Americans ineptitude of grasping basic science concepts?
oh well.
There are 01 types of people in this world. Those that understand binary, and me.
My question is what is actually providing the energy to heat and break up the waste? Sure this sounds like a good method to get rid of waste but it isn't an alternitive fuel source that I can see. You still need solar or oil to break apart the Hydrogen. Nothing is free.
My point isn't that we should eschew all dangerous fuels. My point is that fuel is dangerous. It has to be. If it doesn't have a high chemical potential energy, it's not fuel; it's inert and therefore useless. I sure hope the public doesn't get swayed by stupid misguided safety arguments.
Read Bujold. Free (as in
This is true. All you need for a hydrogen+oxygen fire is hydrogen, oxygen, and enough activation energy for the reaction (typically provided in the form of a spark or heat from the preceeding reactions). But, before we go any further, let's talk about gasoline. Right now in you car I'm betting you have at the very least 10 gallons of it, and if you just filled up you could have more. Hydrogen as stored for electrical generation would not have oxygen- if you turned on the valve and held your lighter to it you'd essentially be making a bunson burner (or if it's leaking fast enough, a flame thrower). Now, what about gasoline?
Because of gasoline's low flash point (-40 degrees C. or F, your pick), you find yourself with a bunch of flammable vapors in a short period of time. And gasoline burns more slowly than hydrogen, and this is bad in terms of safety. Hydrogen burns up really quickly and is gone, gasoline pesters. Gasoline fires are much more dangerous than hydrogen fires. And we're not even addressing all of the toxic fumes that go along with combustion of gasoline.
In the Hindenburg disaster, all of the hydrogen was gone with a pop. The ensuing fire, flames, and mayhem were the result of the paint- the zepplin was painted with a compound that was intended to reduce drag. Unfortunately, this paint was essentially jet fuel. The Hindenburg disaster serves as more of an argument against petroleum based fuels than against hydrogen.
Of all the problems with hydrogen, safety is not one of them. It's safer for people directly, and it's safer for us and the enviornment in the long run.
As for your question about efficiency, obviously 20% efficiency means you harness 20% of the total energy that is in the fuel source. Getting 20% more out than what you put in would be a violation of the first law of thermodynamics.
-bugg
Seems to me that the oil companies need only roll out that old Hindenberg [sic] film everytime to clinch this one.
Um, that doesn't happen. I know, I know, anything large and rich is bad, but if they are so ruthless at least give them credit for something less juvenile than:
ENERGYCO VP: Johnson, this darn Hydrogen research is really scary. Instead of seeing how we can make money off it as a large energy supplier with an entrenched distribution infrastructure, I guess we should just roll out the ole' Hindenburg clip. That should stop the progress in it's tracks.
sig is
More like:
ENERGYCO VP: We have two choices here. Spend money on hydrogen research which wouldn't really increase our incomes much, or keep on making money from our existing gasoline infrastructure for the next x years until the oil runs out and we're forced to switch anyway. So it's basically long term of short term money. Our stockholders want short term money. Roll the Hindenburg clips.
So nearly every government in the world (except for the USA, naturally, with corrupt Bush) has signed up to the Kyoto treaty because most scientists think we have no effect on global warming? Aren't you a little divorced from reality?
Speak for yourself, hippie. Several countries have ratified Kyoto, but none of the countries who would actually face restrictions have signed it, with the exception of only two. So unless by "nearly every government in the world" you mean "Romania and the Czech Republic and that's about it," lay off the knee-jerk Bush-bashing and don't believe everything your fellow patchouli-sniffers tell you. Get your facts straight and try to break your immature leftist addiction to outrage for its own sake.
What Would Jesus Do
(for a Klondike bar)?