From: Glenn Morton (glenn.morton@btinternet.com)
Date: Wed Sep 04 2002 - 09:15:52 EDT
Rich Blinne September 03, 2002 4:16 PM
What I don't see in the article or the review is any mention of how much
energy must be spent to get that hydrogen. The only energy balance they
mention is that you get 1 kW per liter volume of the reactor. What is
needed before this becomes an energy SOURCE is how much energy is spent per
liter volume of the reactor in operating it plus the fixed cost of building
the darn thing (steel manufacture, transporation energy, construction energy
etc). I can't see that this process would be more efficent than other uses
of biomatter. If it takes more energy to manufacture the hydrogen than that
which you get out of the process, it is not useful for an energy source.
With ethanol, that highly touted alternative energy we find:
ėThe total fossil energy expended to produce 1 liter of
ethanol from corn
is 10,200 kcal, but note that 1 liter of ethanol has an energy value of only
5130 kcal. Thus, there is an energy imbalance causing a net energy loss.
Approximately 53% of the total cost (55 c per liter) of producing ethanol in
a large, modern plant is for the corn raw material. The total energy inputs
for producing ethanol using corn can be partially offset when the dried
distillers grain produced is fed to livestock. Although the feed value of
the dried distillers grain reduces the total energy inputs by 8% to 24%, the
energy budget remains negative.î David Pimentel et al, ėRenewable Energy:
Economic and Environmental Issues,î BioScience 44(1994):8:536-547, p. 538
Just performing a chemical reaction doesn't mean it is useful, economical,
or viable.
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Sep 04 2002 - 12:11:30 EDT