XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science   
   From: jclarkeusenet@cox.net   
      
   In article , bap@shrdlu.com says...   
   >   
   > On 14/01/14 20:32, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   > >> That's why most manufacturers are   
   > >> already moving towards hydrogen powered cars, which are a much more   
   > >> senisible option since they are refuelled quickly in the same basic   
   > >> manner as a petrol / diesel vehicle. It is also much easier to change   
   > >> petrol / diesel pumps over time to be pumps for hydrogen car refuelling   
   > >> or add more pumps.   
   > >>   
   > >   
   > >      Hydrogen's a terrible choice at the moment. You need to   
   > > (inefficiently) use electricity to generate it, then you need either   
   > > SUPER high pressure storage for it (which means that even leaving   
   > > combustibility aside, it's a bomb) or some of the   
   > > somewhat-less-high-pressure absorptive materials which reduce its energy   
   > > density effectively. It leaks easily (tiny molecule), requires   
   > > high-pressure transfer, and it's not THAT easy to convert "dump liquid   
   > > down a hole" storage and fill-up machinery to "send highly compressed   
   > > gas into a compressed gas tank".   
   >   
   > Hydrogen systems don't have the same energy-density as gasoline so they   
   > really aren't suited to vehicular use. Using hydrogen-powered vehicles   
   > is mostly a PR issue now, part funded by tax incentives.   
      
   So you're saying that the hydrogen powered Hondas currently on the road   
   are not achieving the stated performance?  Funny, but it's Tesla that   
   has to keep suing everyone who tests their cars--everyone who tests the   
   Hondas seems to find that they do exactly what is claimed.   
      
   > >      If you're gonna use electricity to manufacture your fuel, why not   
   > > manufacture gasoline? We already have the infrastructure to store and   
   > > transport it, we're intimately familiar with its hazards and how to   
   > > control them, it's got awesome energy density, and you don't have to   
   > > convert 250 million cars over in order to use it.   
   >   
   > That's what I would recommend.   
   >   
   > >   
   > >      Just build a bunch more generating stations. Preferably nuclear,   
   > > maybe thorium cycle if they get the bugs out.   
   >   
   > Most of the bugs are gone from thorium reactors,   
      
   There is no such thing as a "thorium reactor".  Thorium is not fissile.   
   There are uranium reactors that breed thorium into uranium and burn the   
   uranium though.   
      
   > China looks like they   
   > are going for it now.   
      
   They are going for having a demo reactor online about the same time that   
   the EU cranks up their first fusion reactor.   
      
   > Someone is because recently it became economic to   
   > work up uranium mine tailings for their thorium. Someone somewhere is   
   > buying thorium in bulk.   
      
   Why "work up uranium mine tailings" when there are ample reserves?  As   
   for "buying in bulk", Aladdin and Coleman buy thorium in bulk.  It's   
   used in gas and oil lanterns, the bright ones anyway.   
      
   > My idea is to run molten-salt thorium reactors to generate hydrogen and   
   > use the waste heat to convert biomass to hydrocarbons. MSRs run close to   
   > 1000 C and at that temperature you can convert all of the carbon in a   
   > tree into usable fuel. You get carbon-neutral fuel with technologies   
   > that we have already optimised for 100 years.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)