The hydrogen fuel cell is often said to be a future replacement for oil. But, of course, hydrogen is not a source of energy itself. The plan of the Bush administration is to develop a new generation of very small, safe (no really), distributed nuclear power plants that can then be used as the power source to produce hydrogen for the fuel cells. What I want to know is this. If we have a source of very cheap nuclear energy, can't we just skip the hydrogen and make synthetic gasoline. I'm not a chemist, but isn't gasoline just an energy dense hydrocarbon. Don't plants take water, carbon dioxide from the air, and add in energy from the sun to make hydrocarbons. So assuming these nuclear power plants do provide a very cheap source of energy (and that is a big assumption), and it is located next to a river, can we not produce synthetic gasoline. This would skip the whole step of transforming over to a hydrogen-based economy and all that it entails (new automobile technologies, new hydrogen fueling stations, etc). The carbon that the autos produce would the same carbon that was taken out the air when the synthetic gasoline was produced so the greens should be happy. Can anyone tell me why this would not work?
With all these discussions of biodiesel and ethanol, my question is this. Do we really need the plants? I mean what we have here is plants that are taking CO2, H2O, and energy from the sun to make hydrocarbon molecules. I'm no expert at organic chemistry, but can't we make our hydrocarbons through various chemical reactions. And if I'm not mistaken, we can just make good old gasoline for which the vast majority of cars are already designed. The CO2 is in the air everywhere. H2O is widely available. And aren't there times and places where energy is relatively cheap. For example, at 3 in the morning when energy use on the electric grids are very low, aren't there nuclear power plants, or hydroelectric dams that have spare capacity that just goes to waste? Or what about that recent article about Iceland having so much cheap energy that they want to use it to produce hydrogen. The only problem is that then they are going to have to convert so many different systems to user hydrogen. Why don't they just produce good old gasoline? I'd love to see the comments of anyone who is familiar with the economics of using organic chemistry to produce gasoline.
Employers can check my medical records? I knew that insurance companies could check medical record through MIB if I was applying for insurance. But this article states that if I interview for a new job, the prospective employer could check my medical records. This is completely new to me. Does this mean that if I got your SS number, I could check your medical info by submitting a request to MIB and claiming that I represent a company that has interviewed you?
Slashdot Mirror
The hydrogen fuel cell is often said to be a future replacement for oil. But, of course, hydrogen is not a source of energy itself. The plan of the Bush administration is to develop a new generation of very small, safe (no really), distributed nuclear power plants that can then be used as the power source to produce hydrogen for the fuel cells. What I want to know is this. If we have a source of very cheap nuclear energy, can't we just skip the hydrogen and make synthetic gasoline. I'm not a chemist, but isn't gasoline just an energy dense hydrocarbon. Don't plants take water, carbon dioxide from the air, and add in energy from the sun to make hydrocarbons. So assuming these nuclear power plants do provide a very cheap source of energy (and that is a big assumption), and it is located next to a river, can we not produce synthetic gasoline. This would skip the whole step of transforming over to a hydrogen-based economy and all that it entails (new automobile technologies, new hydrogen fueling stations, etc). The carbon that the autos produce would the same carbon that was taken out the air when the synthetic gasoline was produced so the greens should be happy. Can anyone tell me why this would not work?
With all these discussions of biodiesel and ethanol, my question is this. Do we really need the plants? I mean what we have here is plants that are taking CO2, H2O, and energy from the sun to make hydrocarbon molecules. I'm no expert at organic chemistry, but can't we make our hydrocarbons through various chemical reactions. And if I'm not mistaken, we can just make good old gasoline for which the vast majority of cars are already designed. The CO2 is in the air everywhere. H2O is widely available. And aren't there times and places where energy is relatively cheap. For example, at 3 in the morning when energy use on the electric grids are very low, aren't there nuclear power plants, or hydroelectric dams that have spare capacity that just goes to waste? Or what about that recent article about Iceland having so much cheap energy that they want to use it to produce hydrogen. The only problem is that then they are going to have to convert so many different systems to user hydrogen. Why don't they just produce good old gasoline? I'd love to see the comments of anyone who is familiar with the economics of using organic chemistry to produce gasoline.
Employers can check my medical records? I knew that insurance companies could check medical record through MIB if I was applying for insurance. But this article states that if I interview for a new job, the prospective employer could check my medical records. This is completely new to me. Does this mean that if I got your SS number, I could check your medical info by submitting a request to MIB and claiming that I represent a company that has interviewed you?