A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

How much longer?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11  
Old April 9th 08, 07:47 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Alan[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 163
Default How much longer?

In article Jim Logajan writes:
"Jay Honeck" wrote:


3. New nuclear power plants are not being built because draconian
environmental rules prevent their construction. As of now all
environmental restrictions on construction of new nuclear plants are
lifted.


Not needed:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...n6xZeeLKqBXnLg


2 plants in the country? Good to get started, but We should probably
be building 20 - 30 in California alone.

However:
California law prohibits the construction of any new nuclear power
plants in California until the Energy Commission finds that the
federal government has approved and there exists a demonstrated
technology for the permanent disposal of spent fuel from these
facilities.
Source: http://www.energy.ca.gov/nuclear/california.html

We need to do something about that. We should be recycling this
slightly used nuclear fuel, not throwing it away.

[ Now, I would suggest that all electrical power to Sacramento (the
CA capitol) be shut off until the legislature comes to their senses. ]

4. By decree, hydrogen fuel is now the way of the future -- period.
From this point on, by my decree, the scientific and industrial
capacity of the United States will be used to perfect a hydrogen
distribution system to replace our current gasoline distribution
system, and all cars will be powered by hydrogen. Source:
http://tinyurl.com/6hklhf


Well at least you linked to an article that makes clear that the hydrogen
has to be generated from another source of energy. H2 sucks anyway on
several counts - and your last decree will essentially ground all small
aircraft, including your own. Contrary to your ultimate goal, I assume.


Indeed. Hydrogen is a difficult fuel, with fairly low energy density
for a givin volume. It is also difficult to handle and transport safely.

Currently, the only known way of cramming hydrogen into a small enough
volume to be of use in your airplane is, ironically, by _lightly_ binding
the H atoms to something like, oh say, carbon. A hydrocarbon.


Which makes for a better fuel, safer, and well suited to running our
aircraft.

All we need to do is extract the carbon from the atmosphere, and I have
seen hints that such may be reasonably doable.

Alan
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
My 302 and PDA are no longer on speaking terms Dixie Sierra Soaring 4 September 10th 07 05:16 PM
Some IFR GPS's no longer useable kevmor Instrument Flight Rules 2 May 28th 07 02:27 AM
Jepp no longer in the GA business...? John Harper Instrument Flight Rules 30 June 17th 04 10:49 PM
Some airmen facing longer deployments Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 January 16th 04 08:34 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.