Posted on 06/13/2006 5:34:38 AM PDT by aculeus
Yet another step toward one of the solutions.
Energy in the future is going to come from a basket much greater than today. Fuel cells are one of a number of promosing technologies that will be developed.
The sooner the we stop buying oil from the Middle East the better. Slightly higher costs for energy will be paid off in greater independence and security. The only people who will lose are the oil men in and around the White House.
It should be part of the war on terror. It would be a role that everyone could play. Sadly that type of leadership isn't there.
SOFC are relatively "old hat" in the fuel cell business. The biggest advantage is that they run at sufficiently high temperatures to act as their own "reformers". But they have other problems. One of the biggest is that the solid-oxide (basically a ceramic) is very prone to "thermal shock", so they have to be brought up to operating temperature (and shut down from operation) VERY SLOWLY AND EVENLY. So they will be good for "baseline load" type applications, but not much use for "peaking" type uses.
ping
I'm not sure what you are suggesting here. Please clarify the proposal if there is one.
Are you implying that this might increase our independence because most domestic supplies are high-sulfur?
No, I was thinking that having a mix of fuels from nuclear to coal to wind, solar and biomass will increase our US independence on oil from the Middle East. That is because the US has all of those things in abundance, but an ever shriking amount of oil.
Homework time...
|
"but not much use for "peaking" type uses."
Like driving?
"wind...That is because the US has all of those things in abundance,"
An abundance of wind right here, I'm afraid. By the way, I believe we have centuries worth of coal in the ground in the US.
It is true and so do the Indians, Chinese and Australians. Just have to figure out a way to use the energy stored there without destroying the local, regional or global environment.
Even if you don't think that humans are playing a role in climate change, SOX is real.
Even if the doubling of CO2 concentration over the last 200 years doesn't concern you, if it doubles again, there is no way to know what happens.
Thus if there are cheap ways to gasify coal and also sequester the carbon than it is great. Ultiamtely it may prove cheaper to use other sources of energy.
>Energy in the future is going to come from a basket much greater than today
The magic word is Tokamak
Aus is #2 in the world for Uranium... Nuclear power is the direction they should take... instead of just selling the UO...
Australia is supposed to have the most uranium of the countries, with Canada second.
World Uranium Mining
July 2005
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf23.htm
Canada produces the largest share of uranium from mines (29% of world supply from mines), followed by Australia (21%).
"but an ever shriking amount of oil."
That's a total lie!
California alone has hundreds of years of oil but environmentalists and high taxes keep it trapped in the ground.
How is that a lie. Oil is a fossil fuel. Thus, there is no more of it being produced in a time-frame that is relevant to us. Therefore, when you burn it, the amount left shrinks.
Moreover, the figures say that the earth probably had about 6 trillion barrels of oil. We have used about 1 trillion. Of that 6 trillion about 2 trillion are easily recoverable i.e. cheap.
As we finish up with the second trillion over the next 15-20 years we will either have to come up with new technologies for recovering the more difficult stuff, or switch to alternatives that are cheaper.
As far as California having "hundred of years" of oil, you just made that up. Hundreds of years for whom? The US? Calfornia? Your Ford explorer?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.