Printable View
Yup, everyone expects a StarTrek future. It ain't gunna happen.
As far as Hydrogen goes it takes more energy to extract the H part of H20 than is contained in the resulting hydrogen. We could build a nuclear plant next to the plant that converts water to hydrogen, next to a plant that burns hydrogen to make electricty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
I agree. Weren't we all supposed to have flying cars by now?
Grunt now you have mentioned the US so I can carry on. It is such a wasteful nation.
When I was there last year I learnt that no one (or not many) hang the washing up. Instead they put every load of washing straight into the dryer for an hour or 2. In winter time I can understand but not in hot summer like 38 degree in Louisville. It will take 5 to 10 minutes to dry.
Everyone drive a truck for no reason, Lights are on 24/7, air con on 24/7 etc etc.
It is just not right that a few hundred million people use a third of the world resources.
Economy is clever way to tell the poor “hey I can use more resources than you” I reckon.
Wow I am on fire.
I hope they've thought of that, otherwise there are going to be a lot of very embarassed scientists when they get their next power bill.Quote:
As far as Hydrogen goes it takes more energy to extract the H part of H20 than is contained in the resulting hydrogen
On the subject of driers, I worked on a block of retirement units in Ryde many years ago. We put a clothes drier in each unit. I asked why (at the time they weren't exactly cheap to buy) and the builder told me that under the conditions of the multi-unit development consent, they had to provide EITHER x sq. metres of drying space per unit OR a clothes drier for each. Since the total drying space required consumed the area of 4 units (2 storey complex) it was much more lucrative to buy the driers and have room for 4 more units.
However, the thing with hydrogen is that it can be stored and can be used to fuel vehicles fairly efficiently. As with all conversion - it is not 100% efficient (heat loss etc) and so you are right about that Grunt, BUT, there is also loss of power by transmission lines etc and over distances of a certain length - it is actually MORE efficient to convert the electricity to hydrogen and then pump the hydrogen and then convert back to electricity, but of course this costs a packet!
As for fusion, that is presently pie in the sky. Yes they are building a station in France, but it is probably further off than flying cars. The trick is to achieve fusion such that it generates power. SUPPOSEDLY cold fusion was achieved years ago, but as no-one has been able to achieve it since implies that something funny happened. They are attempting slightly warmer fusion so far as I know. Fusion would be something like the holy grail for energy, but let's not hold our breaths.
Cam
(Who is willing to at least try to answer any question on power sources as I am pretty well qualified to talk about it).
Cam
Hydrogen isn't all that easy to transport. The hydrogen molecule is the smallest molecule. It's a real bitch trying to contain it. It leaks through glass, rubber plastic etc. Put it in steel pipes and it turns the steel brittle.
I did not say easy to transport, I said that it was more efficient - in a purely energy efficiency sense. I also said that it would be very expensive! :eek:
Whenever I think of hydrogen it reminds me of my high school science teacher, Mr Satterlee. He was this quirky American guy with tunnel vision. One day he was talking about the conversion of water to hydrogen and oxygen in one of those glass thingies (techincal term escapes me). He went into the storeroom and came back with one in his hand. He holds it up and says "this piece of apparatus is very expensive, so I wont pass it around for you to look at. However, it works like this..." and as he said it, he turns around, his hand bumps into one of those big gooseneck water spouts we had in the labs and he drops the thing to the floor, where it shatters into a million bits. The sicence master, Mr Funnell, who was known for his temper, hears the noise and comes in to see what has happened. He looks at Mr Satterlee, who is standing there with his hand still gripping the ghost of the apparatus, and the red tide starts to rise from his collar. Steam starts to come out his ears and he just walks off. It it had been one of the students who broke it, there would have been bloodshed.
Great thread Midge!
As Al said back on Page 1 - no use having more dams if there is no water, river, rain or runoff flowing into them.
I'm very interested in hearing opinions about why a major pipeline from Nth QLD to Sth QLD hasn't been built.
Beyond logistics, money and politics, why hasn't this option been considered? (or have I buried myself too deep during my holidays?)
Can anyone expand on this as I don't know enough about it beyond thinking it sounds worthy of futher investigation?
thanks
Wendy
Steam coming out of his ears? Maybe it was water vapour from a hydrogen fuel cell?? :D
Why aren't these compulsory in Australia?:confused:
Boban and others, I believe unit blocks now have to have storage capacity for storm runoff - is this so? Is this water later used or is it pumped into the sewerage system?
Yes Wendy, it has been considered. At about the time of the Snowy Scheme there was a guy ( whose name I have forgotten, but whowas, ISTR a Queensland pollie) who thought that it would be a great idea to dam all the NQ and FNQ rivers that flow into the sea and tunnel through the mountains and send the water into the Queensland interior. This was supposed to create a large inland river system which would support milliions of people and vast agricultural holdings in Queensland, South Australia and even NSW.Quote:
Originally Posted by rufflyrustic
Apparently this won't work - something to do with heights of dams, and directions of rivers. Now of course there would also be the damage to the rain forests!! To try a coastal pipeline would be even harder.
The other great "pipe dream" of course is the one that would pipe water from the Kimberleys to Perth. The costings for that are between 1 billion to 3 billion (which really means that no-one knows what it will cost, but it is a b*&^dy big number).
Actually, I blame the Romans. They invented internal plumbing. What was wrong with doing your business in a bucket and tossing it out the window. Or going out and squatting in the vegie patch.
Why do we need flushing toilets at all? When you think about it, it's a pretty dumb thing to do. The average person needs 2 litres of water a day, yet we flush 3 litres everytime we take a leak or 6 every time we do a number 2 (if we remember which button to push).
I've just remembered who it was - Dr J J Bradfield (the Sydney Harbour Bridge guy) - the other weaknesses alleged were that it he failed to take proper account of the evaporation.
That plan in WA was a political hot potato at one of their recent elections, and no doubt the costs would be outrageous...but only in todays terms. What if it really needs to be done in the future, when the costs have completely blown out? I think there was a dispute about pipeline vs. canal...
WA already has the sad story of C.Y. O'Connor, who brought water to the goldfields in the late 1800's and was roundly condemned for such a "pipe dream", by short-sighted cynics.
It was the proposed desalination project on Cockburn Sound (WA) which prompted the report about excessive saline output, but I think they've ignored the risks.
Cheers,