[xj] Re: XJ Digest V2 #1365

Hi Alex

Burning (oxidizing) Hydrogen is 4 times more energetic that burning Carbon, on
an atom-by-atom basis. So, fuels having the most Hydrogen atoms per unit
(volume, mass…) are most efficient. This means that wood is very poor,
having about 10 Cs for every H. Coal is much better, with roughly equal
numbers. Oil is somewhat better, with about 2 Hs per C. But Methane (CH4) is
much better still, like Propane and Butane. Ideally, fuel cells using just
Hydrogen and Oxygen as input are best – no C.

Of course, however, they have also a potential to explode and that’s why
alternative fuel cells of like methane needs to be changed into something safer
= methanol, which presents different problems.

Moving to low-Carbon fuels also helps the greenhouse effect (which we’ll know
is real when the Wall Street Journal finally discusses it on the front page).

When they do report in WSJ, most of us have to pay for clean air and clean air
becomes a tradeable commodity.

  • – China and India alone produce 1/5 the world’s CO2 and are increasing
    that…

Please do not use third world countries as examples of producers of green house
effect. I can bet that US alone produces the same amount of greenhouse gasses as
both India and China together (you can correct me here…). (Ooops…another pub
list discussion coming on…). Yes, I agree they need to upgrade, but that
means spending money to upgrade -> increase poverty -> poor efficiency returns
as equipment becomes old and cannot be maintained. A catch 22 position for a lot
of poorer countries e.g. India. Tiger countries have been upgrading recently due
to new found wealth.

Sooo, moving a Jag to burning wood chips or dung is a no-no, but natural gas
(Propane…) is a step forward, both in efficiency and environmentalism. I
just don’t like those tanks in the trunk.

In some countries we use LNG as a cleaner fuel. It’s a good alternative until
something else comes along. In Europe, old style diesel is used as an
envnrmental alternative due to mileage consumption, although diesel engines are
being blamed for smog (esp when trucks and power generators use them as well.)

Different solution for different folks.

Regards.

Alan Khaw

S3 VDP - No clean thing, either.-----------------------------------------------------------
Email Confidentiality

This email may contain privileged/confidential information.
You may not copy or disclose this message to anyone without
the written permission of Alcatel. If you have received
this email in error please kindly delete this message and
notify the sender. Opinions expressed in this message are
those of the sender and not necessarily the opinions of
Alcatel.

Hi Alan,

No, we don’t want a new thread! And, I like LNG. Just want to clarify that I
wasn’t advocating anything in particular right now, especially since fuel
cells, though apparently best for environmental reasons, are expensive and in
mass production will consume all the world’s platinum output – buy futures, I
guess. They are being used by some bus lines in the US and Europe, but
subsidized. Since we already have a market in polluion credits, you’re likely
right we’ll have clean air on the exchanges too.On the 3rd World, I just repeated the reality they face: cheap, labor-intensive fuel sources are high C/H. Interestingly, we’re supposedly helping China develop a very efficient, clean, coal-based generation system, but politics (both sides of the Pacific) have delayed it. The concern is that we (US, Europe, Oz…) don’t act fast enough to help improve their situation and we end up having reduced our CO2 output, but the net effect is no effect, since they’ve surpassed us. Europe, by the way, is in the most danger (of advanced regions), because agriculture there is dependent on the Gulf Stream and current climate models show it becoming a casualty of higher temps in the tropics. Then there’s the est. 15 trillion tons of Methane Hydrate ices stored in and under the seabeds around the world, 1/15 of which apparently burped out 55 million years ago, due to warmer ocean waters – we don’t even want to think about that, although it now appears the warming then gave a boost to us mammals. It’s a situation that must be resolved, because climate change will affect all, but disproportionately, as usual. Alex 79xj6 Alan.Khaw@alcatel.com.au wrote:

Hi Alex

Burning (oxidizing) Hydrogen is 4 times more energetic that burning Carbon, on
an atom-by-atom basis. So, fuels having the most Hydrogen atoms per unit
(volume, mass…) are most efficient. This means that wood is very poor,
having about 10 Cs for every H. Coal is much better, with roughly equal
numbers. Oil is somewhat better, with about 2 Hs per C. But Methane (CH4) is
much better still, like Propane and Butane. Ideally, fuel cells using just
Hydrogen and Oxygen as input are best – no C.

Of course, however, they have also a potential to explode and that’s why
alternative fuel cells of like methane needs to be changed into something safer
= methanol, which presents different problems.

Moving to low-Carbon fuels also helps the greenhouse effect (which we’ll know
is real when the Wall Street Journal finally discusses it on the front page).

When they do report in WSJ, most of us have to pay for clean air and clean air
becomes a tradeable commodity.

  • – China and India alone produce 1/5 the world’s CO2 and are increasing
    that…

Please do not use third world countries as examples of producers of green house
effect. I can bet that US alone produces the same amount of greenhouse gasses as
both India and China together (you can correct me here…). (Ooops…another pub
list discussion coming on…). Yes, I agree they need to upgrade, but that
means spending money to upgrade -> increase poverty -> poor efficiency returns
as equipment becomes old and cannot be maintained. A catch 22 position for a lot
of poorer countries e.g. India. Tiger countries have been upgrading recently due
to new found wealth.

Sooo, moving a Jag to burning wood chips or dung is a no-no, but natural gas
(Propane…) is a step forward, both in efficiency and environmentalism. I
just don’t like those tanks in the trunk.

In some countries we use LNG as a cleaner fuel. It’s a good alternative until
something else comes along. In Europe, old style diesel is used as an
envnrmental alternative due to mileage consumption, although diesel engines are
being blamed for smog (esp when trucks and power generators use them as well.)

Different solution for different folks.

Regards.

Alan Khaw

S3 VDP - No clean thing, either.