[FoRK] The Ni-64 "theory" of "cold fusion" (more energy hacks)

Eugen Leitl eugen at leitl.org
Tue Jun 15 02:49:25 PDT 2010


On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 09:17:38PM -0700, Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo wrote:

> > To head off the OB_EUGEN critique, like all the proposed
> > fixes beyond e.g. ubiquitous solar, this one's obviously
> > transient / non-sustainable over the long haul, and only

My only objection is that LENR-CANR is choicest snake oil
so far. I.e., there's no EROEI to make as there's no ER.

> > economically viable over some range of time.  (Though,
> > to be fair, even solar is "transient" on  long-enough
> > time scale.)
> > 
> 
> I still seem to be missing something crucial every time someone says they can replace oil with something else. 
> 
> Small Fact: A significant percentage of oil goes into propelling untethered vehicles all over the place. And another significant portion is used for chemical feedstocks for, oh, about a gazillion things in our daily lives.

Synfuels. See infrastructure. The challenge is to move on
from high pressures and temperatures to mild conditions,
where you need less energy input and the catalyst doesn't
soot up.

Ideally, you'd run something at standard conditions. Just
what the plants and animals do.
 
> How, exactly, are those functions of oil going to be replaced with things like solar, cold fusion, whatever-other-static-generation-magic?
> 
> Yeah, I *know* you can use static electrical generation to charge batteries. But we can barely do cars right now and, even so, it would take years to replace any significant percentage of them. We can't do trucks or buses or trains or ships at all.
> 
> And, yeah, I *know* you can do electric trains, too. And buses/trolleys in a dense urban environment. But we mostly don't do them here in North America and most other parts of the planet. So, another total infrastructure replacement. 
> 
> And even if we could somehow rush that and ignore the car thing and just let personal transportation crash, there's still trucks and buses between urban centres. Trucks are our main source of transportation of goods in most of the world. Not just within urban centres but between them as well. And buses would be the only hope for personal transportation if we can't, or choose not to, replace the personal vehicle fleet in a realistic timeframe.
> 
> And what about the ship fleets. What's the timeframe to convert them to something-not-oil? And what's the something-not-oil that might actually work? 
> 
> Ummmm... I almost forgot about tractors. What about tractors?
> 
> And, of course there's all those pesky chemical feedstocks. There's not much we use or wear today that's not made from petrochemicals.

You can derive everything from C1 feedstock. So basically,
if you have CO2, H2O and energy, you're golden.
 
>  ?????  What the hell am I missing when I react that someone's up their ass whenever they start talking about replacing oil with something that's only good for static electrical generation? How much oil is really used for static electrical generation anyway? Isn't most of it used for untethered transportation of one sort or another plus chemical feedstocks? Isn't coal the main hydrocarbon used for electrical generation? Isn't natural gas the primary liquid hydrocarbon used for electrical generation?  ?????
> 
>          ...ken... <Feeling either incredibly stupid or incredibly ignorant.....>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


More information about the FoRK mailing list