"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
news:41279433.73AC518D@iw.net...
> 20 Aug 2004 22:05:20 -0700 brianb wrote:
>
> > Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message
news:<41264C2A.27CCB2C0@iw.net>...
> > > Not only build huge oilshale Electric Power Plants near the oilshale
> > >
> >
> > Does oilshale pollute alot when burned? There must be some reason it
> > isn't used now, as coal is.
> >
>
> Some oil companies have extracted millions of barrels of liquidoil from
oilshale in Colorado.
> Some former Russian countries ? Estonia? still use oilshale to get
electricity. Oilshale has
> more problems than liquidoil but once it is tapped into in a large way
such as several huge
> Electric Power Plants run on oilshale then it has the potential to replace
liquidoil as the
> prefered means of energy source for the USA. Getting started is the hurdle
but once it is
> started it is better than liquidoil because the USA is too much dependent
on foreign sources.
>
> As for the pollution, oilshale has the potential of being perhaps 100
times cleaner for the USA
> overall than our current present day environment. It has that potential
because we convert the
> Oilshale into Electricity and then run our cars and trucks and trains and
ships on rechargeable
> batteries. Plus we can fit the power plants with scrubbers. The potential
is that our cities of
> New York City or Los Angeles has as clean of air as say Glacier National
Park because their are
> no internal combustion engines-- it is all electric battery powered.
>
>
> >
> > Why not just put it into railcars, then you wouldn't even have to
> > build the pipeline.
>
> I am not sure I need the pipelines. No-one has indicated whether I save
more energy by burning
> the oilshale in Colorado and highline the power to the coasts or whether
transporting the
> oilshale to a coastal power plant. It maybe the case that electric power
grid is the highest
> advantage which would entail that all the oilshale power plants be built
in the Utah, Wyoming
> Colorado region.
>
> But another factor is water in that these plants may need alot more water
than what exists in
> those 3 state regions and thus I leave the idea of a slurry pipeline that
follows the Missouri
> and Colorado Rivers.
This is illogical -are you implying addition of water to the pipeline at
points along the way? Why? Are you envisioning a pipeline which leaks water
and needs replenishment? How much energy is needed to pump the water into a
high pressure line (that is already full)? Are you planning on pumping water
up to the shale source and putting it into the line there- thus taking clean
water out of the river and delivering it as dirty water elsewhere, while
decreasing the amount of clean water in the river?. The Colorado, for
example is already almost a mud slurry and very little of it now reaches the
ocean- Oh well, it is only a few Mexican peons who have to suffer for the
greater good of air-conditioning in L.A. What's new?
>
> >
> >
> > I don't think an electric plane would work. Planes are big on having
> > low weight and to an extent low volume. Electricity is much less
> > energy dense per weight and volume than a liquid fuel.
> >
> > I would think burning oil shale would be alot more polluting than air
> > travel, but what do I know.
>
> The reason I brought up the idea of airplane travel using electric
batteries is because the
> future energy sources will be mostly electricity whether from Fission or
from the last remaining
> fossil fuels.
>
> Controlling Pollution is easier done when we can control the electric
power plant than by trying
> to control millions of individuals using some fossil fuel in their
internal combustion engines.
>
> So it is annoying if all the big cities had electric cars yet the airlines
and airplanes still
> huge polluters.
>
> And I find it interesting Theoretically, **theoretically** that a
helicopter is more advantaged
> by electric power than is a airplane configuration.
------
*theoretically* on what basis?. Does the *theory* compare helicopter
engines to electric motors, including power/weight ratios? Are you
envisioning electric powered helicopters carrying 400 passengers at sub or
super sonic speeds?
---------
I have added sci.physics to the list because
> I find it intriguing to think that the vertical motion of a helicopter
versus the horizontal
> motion of a airplane is easier to tap into electric batter power to its
advantage. Of course the
> passenger airplanes and helicopters of the future will have to be
lightweight and carry less of
> a load because they are electric battery powered.
>
> But I think that perhaps in this future world society where most is run on
electricity derived
> from oilshale and fission that the airlines maybe a hybrid of electric
batteries and some clean
> fuel like ethanol. So that we can have jumbo airplanes run on batteries
and ethanol.
Again- consider the relative energy densities of ethanol and jet fuel as
well as that of batteries and electric motors. There is also the refuelling
problem in "furrin parts".
Since you emphasise the vast quantities of oil shale resources and how to
use them- why are you now considering ethanol?
Your dreams are fine but your solutions are based on wishful thinking, not
on the basis of any knowledge of what is involved.
--
Don Kelly
dhky@peeshaw.ca
remove the urine to answer
|
|