Author Topic: Answer to Mid east problems (Read 1451 times)

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #60 on:** January 25, 2005, 11:15:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nuke33
Thats false.. According to Popular Science, a gallon of gasoline contains 2600 times the energy than a gallon of hydrogen..

That's not what he compared... he compared H20 to C8H18.

If you balance out a stoichiometric burn,

2 C8H18 + 25 O2 = 18 H20 + 16 CO2

So there is a 1:9 molecular equivalance.

I need 9 moles of water to balance out 1 mole of C8H18

MW of C8H18 = 66

MW of H20 = 10

so 90 lbs of water has as much Hydrogen as 66 lbs of Gasoline

10.97 Gallons H2O = 66# / 6#/gal = 11 gallons Gasoline.

the 1:1 volumetric equivalence is correct. Same amount of hydrogen in each.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #61 on:** January 25, 2005, 11:17:51 PM »

It is also interesting to note that the reason Columbus wanted to sail west to get to the east was to get spices and if you went east, you had to deal with the Arabs.

We have had problems with the middle east since well before the petroleum era.

Nuke33 · « **Reply #62 on:** January 26, 2005, 12:55:57 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
That's not what he compared... he compared H20 to C8H18.

If you balance out a stoichiometric burn,

2 C8H18 + 25 O2 = 18 H20 + 16 CO2

So there is a 1:9 molecular equivalance.

I need 9 moles of water to balance out 1 mole of C8H18

MW of C8H18 = 66

MW of H20 = 10

so 90 lbs of water has as much Hydrogen as 66 lbs of Gasoline

10.97 Gallons H2O = 66# / 6#/gal = 11 gallons Gasoline.

the 1:1 volumetric equivalence is correct. Same amount of hydrogen in each.

So are you saying that a gallon of water has the same ammount of stored energy that a gallon of gasoline has? If so, that's great but it doesnt remove the fact that it would require more energy to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen than the hydrogen would produce, or the fact that hydrogen would either have to be pressurized to extreme PSI's (10,000+) or liqufied to be practical fuel for cars.. Both scenarios are fairly impractical or dangerous to begin with..

I think we need Cold Fusion

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #63 on:** January 26, 2005, 01:41:40 AM »

Actually I was equating the number of hydrogen atoms in each.

If you stripped the hydrogen from the carbon in the gasoline, and you separated the hydrogen from the oxygen in the water, you would have the same amount of hydrogen.

The amount of energy to electrolyze the water into its constituants would be obviously much higher than the amount of energy required to strip the carbon from the gasoline.

KBall · « **Reply #64 on:** January 26, 2005, 01:56:22 AM »

And what happens when the fresh water is in such short supply that the water can only be used for drinking? When I was in Kuwait bottled water was more valuable to the locals than gold.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #65 on:** January 26, 2005, 02:00:12 AM »

reverse osmosis

all you need is unlimited supplies of energy.

Probably the easiest source available presently is nuclear.

Nuke33 · « **Reply #66 on:** January 26, 2005, 02:07:51 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
reverse osmosis

all you need is unlimited supplies of energy.

Probably the easiest source available presently is nuclear.

Speaking of unlimited supplies of energy, I was readin popular science once again, and read an article about a new solar dish. Supposedly an array of 10,000 square miles would supply all of america's electricity needs..

But who's gonna pay for it? Our Guvment loves us some oil and likes to invade people to get to it..

KBall · « **Reply #67 on:** January 26, 2005, 02:26:38 AM »

Water is not unlimited and nuclear energy is not clean. Look at the mess we have going on in the U.S. right not. Each state is fighting to send its radioactive waste to other states and those states are fighting back. No one wants that waste. And you can't blast it off into space because that 1 flight that blows up out of a hundred would be worse than any natural disaster. The switch to another energy source doesn't solve the problems of obtaining clean energy it creates different problems.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #68 on:** January 26, 2005, 02:57:37 AM »

Water is just a medium for conversion of energy. It is not destroyed.

It is broken down into Hydrogen and Oxygen, and if converted in a fuel cell or burned, the constituant parts are recombined to make water.

Theoretically there is no water use, so the water is unlimited.

The big reason the US nuclear energy industry has waste problem is because Carter outlawed reprocessing as I recall, by executive order.

France and the UK reprocess and that which cannot be reprocessed goes through glass vitrification and is sealed in canisters for geological disposal.

Two billion years ago in west Africa, chain reactions started spontaneously in concentrated deposits of uranium ore. The reactions continued for hundreds of thousands of years forming plutonium and all the highly radioactive waste products created today in a nuclear power reactor. Despite the existence at the time of large quantities of water in the area, these materials stayed where they were formed and eventually decayed into non-radioactive elements.

Nuclear power dams no rivers, creates no greenhouse gasses or acid rain, doesn't chop up fish or birds in spinning turbines...

indy007 · « **Reply #69 on:** January 26, 2005, 07:48:50 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by weaselsan
Make them poor?? They do that themselves. Using that logic we made people in the wood wheel industry poor when we changed to the automobile.

Right. I think you missed my point... I'm all for removing our depedence on foreign oil. I think there should be a prize like the Ansari X-Prize, but for hydrogen fuel cell development. The long term benefits to us outweigh the hurdles to get there.

However, the topic of this thread is "Answer to Mid east problems", and I'd like to know how it would solve them. If we flipped a light switch, and were on hydrogen tommorrow, the US could gradually withdraw it's concerns and stay out of the region, leaving it to the UN. The region destabilizes due to a collapsing economy based around the devaluation of oil. Food shortages, civil unrest, etc, etc. Foreign aid goes up even higher. The UN has to send peacekeepers, so, the US military gets back on their boats, and heads back to the Middile East. Now, in addition to being infidels, we're responsible for the poverty of a region in turmoil that also happens to have relatively unstable nuclear powers. The Imams preach to the masses that it's the fault of western countries, as opposed to their inability to keep up in the field of fuel technologies. The next wave of terrorism and Jihad begins.

Like I said, the switch would be great for us, but I seriously doubt it would solve the problems of the Middle East, and would even expect it to make them much worse.

weaselsan · « **Reply #70 on:** January 26, 2005, 09:00:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
That's not what he compared... he compared H20 to C8H18.

If you balance out a stoichiometric burn,

2 C8H18 + 25 O2 = 18 H20 + 16 CO2

So there is a 1:9 molecular equivalance.

I need 9 moles of water to balance out 1 mole of C8H18

MW of C8H18 = 66

MW of H20 = 10

so 90 lbs of water has as much Hydrogen as 66 lbs of Gasoline

10.97 Gallons H2O = 66# / 6#/gal = 11 gallons Gasoline.

the 1:1 volumetric equivalence is correct. Same amount of hydrogen in each.

You tell em ....It's simple.....

weaselsan · « **Reply #71 on:** January 26, 2005, 09:26:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by indy007
Right. I think you missed my point... I'm all for removing our depedence on foreign oil. I think there should be a prize like the Ansari X-Prize, but for hydrogen fuel cell development. The long term benefits to us outweigh the hurdles to get there.

However, the topic of this thread is "Answer to Mid east problems", and I'd like to know how it would solve them. If we flipped a light switch, and were on hydrogen tommorrow, the US could gradually withdraw it's concerns and stay out of the region, leaving it to the UN. The region destabilizes due to a collapsing economy based around the devaluation of oil. Food shortages, civil unrest, etc, etc. Foreign aid goes up even higher. The UN has to send peacekeepers, so, the US military gets back on their boats, and heads back to the Middile East. Now, in addition to being infidels, we're responsible for the poverty of a region in turmoil that also happens to have relatively unstable nuclear powers. The Imams preach to the masses that it's the fault of western countries, as opposed to their inability to keep up in the field of fuel technologies. The next wave of terrorism and Jihad begins.

Like I said, the switch would be great for us, but I seriously doubt it would solve the problems of the Middle East, and would even expect it to make them much worse.

Nothing we do or don't do will solve the poverty and ignorance in the middle east. It will have to be solved by them. The point of my thread when I said "problems" was to solve our problems in maintaining a stable middle east to allow for the free flow of oil to developed nations that need it . The world can't be served by constant turmoil that threatens the free flow of a product that most nations depend on to maintain healthy economies. The Terrorism that we see today has nothing to do with oil, poverty
lack of education or anything else. It is simply a radical group of religious zealots that want their form of Islam to be world wide. Terrorism is actually not what we are at odds with today. Terrorism is a weapon, not a cause. We are at war with radical Islam...it's just not politically correct to say so. If you tell the truth some world leaders and politicians as a knee jerk reaction scream "RACISM". Until they come to grips with that reality their problems will never be solved.

indy007 · « **Reply #72 on:** January 26, 2005, 10:46:30 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by weaselsan
Nothing we do or don't do will solve the poverty and ignorance in the middle east. It will have to be solved by them. The point of my thread when I said "problems" was to solve our problems in maintaining a stable middle east to allow for the free flow of oil to developed nations that need it . The world can't be served by constant termoil that threatens the free flow of a product that most nations depend on to maintain healthy economies. The Terrorism that we see today has nothing to do with oil, poverty
lack of education or anything else. It is simply a radical group of religious zealots that want their form of Islam to be world wide. Terrorism is actually not what we are at odds with today. Terrorism is a weapon, not a cause. We are at war with radical Islam...it's just not politically correct to say so. If you tell the truth some world leaders and politicians as a knee jerk reaction scream "RACISM". Until they come to grips with that reality their problems will never be solved.

Well said