Re: Hydrogen as SCAM?

From: Kai M. Becker (kmb@kai-m-becker.de)
Date: Mon Feb 03 2003 - 09:25:40 MST

  • Next message: Max M: "Re: Congratulations to Damien and Barbara!!"

    Dickey, Michael F schrieb:
    > Approximate Thermal Energy release
    > Coal - ~6150 kilowatt-hours(kWh)/ton
    > Uranium - 2 x 10E9 kWh/ton
    >
    > What, exactly, makes a material with nearly 1 million times as much
    > energy as coal 'uneconomical' Is uranium 1 million times more difficult to
    > mine and obtain? I don't think so. Is uranium 1 million times more
    > expensive to transport, process, and use than coal?

    (1) AFAIK, coal is not suitable for deadly weapons and therefore of no
    value for villains of any kind, including "corrupt despotic theocratic
    murderous regimes".

    (2) Coal is almost no hazard for human health, except when swallowed or
    hit on the head and therefore doesn't have to be kept safe and secured
    at all times.

    (3) The by-products of coal mining can be put back without any hazard
    for the biosphere.

    (4) Coal ashes is not dangerous and does not need to be kept off our
    biosphere for thousands of years.

    (5) Even a very large malfunction in a coal fired power plant could not
    devastate a large area, cost millions of lives and billions of Euros
    (please read about the effects of Tschernobyl '86 in FSU and Europe).

    (6) An exploding LNG tanker may have the mechanical power of a small
    A-bomb, but it will not make the whole area inhabitable for years. BTW,
    what would you prefer as a terrorist attack, an oil tanker rammed into a
      harbour at full speed, or an atomic bomb on the same area?

    All this results in much higher costs for nuclear power systems.

    If Uranium would be as inert and safe for the biosphere as coal or gas,
    and if the process from Uranium to energy and the disposal of the waste
    would be as safe as with coal or gas, I'd agree with you.

    Risk assessment calculates the probability of a risk multiplied by the
    cost of the consequences. An important factor for the latter is, how
    many people and their belongings (incl. industry) are affected. In
    Western-Europe, with its population density between 200 and 300 p/km^2
    (New York: 270), the consequences of only one greater nuclear accident
    outweight every catastrophy even large numbers of exploding coal plants
    could achieve :-)

    But I agree that burning fossil fuels is not very intelligent either. As
    long as we don't have any technology to predict/control the large scale
    effects of our actions, we are wise to reduce our influence on the
    ecosphere wherever possible. On the long run, we will have to develop
    sustainable technological systems on this planet, regardless of how
    complex and high-tech they may be.

        Kai



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 03 2003 - 09:28:52 MST