Re: Congress Passes H-Prize

Ben Brockert wrote:

> 
> The sci-fi solution to both the hydrogen economy and power line  
> losses is to have cryogenic pipelines crossing the US carrying liquid  
> hydrogen, with superconductive cables in the pipelines made possible  
> by the low temperatures.
> 

There was a science fiction story I read once, "We in Some Strange 
Power's Employ" was the title, I think, though I've forgotten the author 
(unless it was Richard Matheson, best known for "Omega Man" -- I didn't 
do well at remembering authors until I'd trained myself to do so), which 
revolved around servicing power/communication cables built along this 
kind of line.  It was a horror story...

Methanol in the pipes is a big improvement over hydrogen, but then 
you're burning energy to make the methanol, and even if you're 
converting atmospheric carbon dioxide for the process, the production 
and consumption can't get any better than carbon-neutral WRT greenhouse 
gas.  Again, if you're using a fossil fuel feedstock in the first place, 
you'e probably ahead to just pipe the natural gas where it's needed. 
*Any* liquid hydrocarbon fuel will be a big jump in energy density over 
even liquid (as rocket folks keep finding out when they do full vehicle 
Isp calculations), though if viscosity limits the pumping velocity 
severely enough, you might be ahead with natural gas.

I might point out that there have been technology demonstrations and a 
very few actual transmission lines built using megavolt DC.  The losses 
are low enough to allow very long distance transmission, because 
resistance losses scale as the square of current, and if the voltage is 
high enough, the current can be very small.  And DC doesn't have most of 
the annoying side effects of high voltage AC such as radio interference, 
inductive effects, etc. (and if the current is kept low enough for small 
transmission losses, the standing magnetic field isn't strong enough to 
cause problems like disrupting bird migrations).  Megavolt transmission 
does, however, require very tall towers, which are commonly labeled as 
"blight" if they intrude on an area an eco-group has designated as 
"beautiful", and in any case can be a hazard to aircraft.  And it can be 
a little tricky getting the voltage converted at either end (this 
technology exists, with sufficient power handling, it's just not as 
simple as a big transformer with several tons of copper wire and soft 
iron core bathed in PCB-rich transformer cooling oil).

Oh, well, if this stuff were as easy as digging drilling a hole in the 
ground and burning the black stuff that comes out, we'd have been doing 
it a century or more ago...

Bottom line with the Kyoto protocols: only the rich are required to 
beggar themselves meeting these regulations, while the poor are 
encouraged to continue emulating the way the rich lived in the 1970s. 
Reducing greenhouse gas (or at least creating the means to do so) is 
admirable -- the means (requiring only countries that *need* the energy 
and energy density of fossil fuels to maintain themselves to take the 
hit) seems destined to guarantee failure, likely via a major war.

-- 
After you use everything you know and can find out to make what you're 
certain is the right decision, and it's too late to change things or 
back out -- you'll find out something that would have reversed the whole 
thing for you, if you'd only known in time.

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer   http://silent1.home.netcom.com

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.