[geeks] [rescue] Computerfests (was: first real server hardware) -OT

[wa2egp at att.net]

> Ethanol is a scam.  It consumes more energy in fossil fuels
> than it produces.  Once you've plowed the fields, pumped the water,
> and distilled the alkyhol (all done with fossil fuels) you might
> as well have just saved the expense and used gasoline.  The only
> reason ethanol is produced as a fuel is because it's subsidized
> by tax money.  Ethanol will always be produced as a tasty beverage
> because you can't drink gasoline.  (more than once)

Actually the distillation process does require the most energy.  In 
the right place, you don't have to pump the water and plowing can be
minimal since you don't want to increase erosion.  Although I 
don't know why they can't use solar to distill.

> > Hydrogen bothers me, as does natural gas.
> 
> Free hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe.  The trouble
> is, it's pretty damned scarce here on earth.  It's usually locked up
> in some compound like water and the best way to free it is by
> electrolysis.  The problem with that is that you have to put in the same
> amount of energy to free it (plus overhead!) that you'll get back by
> burning it.  This is great if you have a ready source of renewable energy
> like solar or wind power that you'd like to store up for later, but most
> of us get our electricity from fossil fuels, so it ends up being just
> like the ethanol.

There is some upcoming technology that could (I hope) boost solar cells to
almost 60% efficiency.  There has been some work done on chemicals that
can break up water by just using light thus avoiding the electricity part.
The only problem is said to be storage but there are some foamed metal
tanks that can store hydrogen at low pressure in reasonable amounts.

> I want to smack the average moron who thinks electric cars are
> zero emission vehicles.  My electricity comes from coal, which
> produces all kinds of emissions including spewing more radioactive
> material into the atmosphere than any nuclear power plant.  My
> net emissions may be lower than a gasoline car, but if I owned
> an electric car it would not be a zero emissions vehicle.

True.  Too bad we can't get something to go hydrogen to electricity
and the vehicle will be "minimal" emissions.  At present, electric
vehicles would make the pollution from a diffuse source to a point 
source which might be better since it could be handled more efficiently
at the plant than on a tail pipe. 
 
> > > Right now, I'm leaning towards diesel because the only change needed
> > > is to use the green handle instead of the black one when I fuel up,
> > > and I think people will manage.
> >
> > Diesel doesn't really solve the problem though.
> >
> > You mean as a temporary solution?
> 
> As an interim step.  The beauty of using a SERIES hybrid design
> instead of the parallel design offered by Honda and Toyota
> (although Prius is a step towards series from parallel) is that
> the engine/generator is merely a source of electricity.  Since it's
> not directly coupled to the drivetrain it's just a module.  You can
> easily replace it without any significant change to your design.  Want
> to switch your design from gas to diesel?  Pop in a different
> engine/generator.  Fuel cells become commercially viable?  Pop in a fuel
> cell.  How about a higher performance model to carry heavy loads or go
> faster?  Bigger engine.  How about a multi-fuel turbine to burn whatever
> is on sale this week?  How about Mr. Fusion?  Hamsters?  Plutonium?

That would never fly.  Can't make enough money.  Need to s-can the whole
vehicle and buy a new one ;->
I'm surprised external combustion engines were not more intensely
investigated.  Burn clean with plenty of oxygen, no pressure so
minimal nitrogen-oxygen compounds.  Darn efficiency no better than
internal but more potential to reduce pollution.