BS: Alternative energy sources

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 12:55 PM

The problem with coal is that no matter how clean they are able to make it burn, extracting it from the ground always creates pollution and serious damage to the environment.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Paul Burke
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 04:41 AM

"That is why I believe that cheap production of hydrogen gas is possible using the common ultrasonic devices that chemistry labs currently use to speed up / catalyze chemical reactions." said Donuel.

But that doesn't produce any energy, it merely changes it from one form (electricical, mechanical) to another (chemical). You still have to produce the input from somewhere, and the only possible non- fossil sources are from outside (solar- this includes wind, tidal and wave energy since they are powered ultimately by the sun), or internal, that is nuclear (geothermal, fusion or fission).

Of those, solar options and geothermal energy are rejected as uneconomic (nobody having priced the Earth), fission is filthy (google for Dounreay, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Sellafield, etc.), and fusion hasn't worked yet (except uncontrollably, as a weapon).

JiK... temperatures are high, but the pressure is low, so it's almost like a vacuum flask- the idea is that there isn't sufficient conduction from the plasma to the metalwork to make cooling a problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 12:56 PM

Paul Burke -

Conduction isn't necessary. Radiation alone will melt the materials shown as being used on the diagram about as fast as a ground zero nuclear EMP pulse.

The main point about the focused fusion site is that it states (or makes inuendos about) a lot of things, but gives no scientific evidence for validity, or even rationale, for what is claimed. It's not a "scientific" article, and perhaps wasn't meant to be.

If it's to be given any real credit, a few equations are needed, or at least citations for where they, and supporting reports on actual experiments, can be found. I'm not sufficiently impressed with the site to go looking for them. There are far too many such sites to spend time on all of them, and this one gives no real reason to expect it to be any better than many others.

"Focused fusion" is a term that was tossed about at least as far back as the early 1980s and was seriously investigated then. This site doesn't even tell me if they're talking about the same thing or about some new magic wand they think they've found. The early - and sensational - reports on "Cold Fusion" a few years back were more credible.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: robomatic
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 01:08 PM

A lot of hope is being expended on hype.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: GUEST,ivor
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 07:23 PM

How about alternatives to the amount of energy we spend/are going to spend.

Like rethinking our way of life in an effort to begin reducing our energy consumption.

Or do we consume ourselves to extiction. After all, the system we live in assumes infinite growth/ ever- more profit, while the Earth is obviously finite.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 09:08 PM

Today on NPR there was a segment dealing with energy alternatives.
The main thrust was the announcement of a new dawn in the area of soar power. Enormous parabolic mirrors focus the sun's rays on a tank of H that then undergoes a process of heat transfer for the production of electricity. Production is starting in California of this huge solar energy plant.

The other method of note was a re emergence of the Sterling engine.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 08:07 PM



Crude oil and gasoline prices are near an all-time high. But don't
despair. One scientist has found an alternative source of energy: pig
manure.

[SNIP]

For now, each half-gallon (two-liter) batch of manure converts to only about 9 ounces (0.26 liter) of oil.

[SNIP]

So should oil companies be worried about Zhang?

"Maybe," he said. "I have no support from the oil companies, that's for sure."

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: robomatic
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 08:10 PM

So instead of "Put a TIGER in your tank...........?
should be, put a pig's Sh*t in your tank.........."

Sorry, but it doesn't scan.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 08:25 PM

Donuel,
re the solar energy NPR report - is what I mentioned above,

www.Stirlingenergy.com - is still the most efficient way of converting solar power -

(also the www.Newscientist.com site mentioned a patent on a solar energy drone plane that uses the same Stirling (not sterling) engine as above.
\\

despite the US opting out of the Kyoto accord, and doing as much to resist the 'Son of Kyoto' conference that is starting in Canada this week - many advances in wind and solar happened recently thanks to Kyoto..
cheers
Peter

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Nov 05 - 04:45 AM

Rooster Booster If we can't harness the hot air produced on here, then this may make use of some of the sh*t produced instead.
I note that the manure used is chicken manure, so we may only be able to use GUEST posts!
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 30 Nov 05 - 09:59 AM

Sorry Alice, the coal to liquids conversion doesn't work just like that.

Yes, you can gasify coal, and reform the product into a synthetic petroleum, with very low sulphur and nitrogen content.

They kept on talking about 'virtually no emissons'. That is simply not true. If you are burning petroleum, regardless of it's source, it will produce the same CO2.

You also use a considerable amount of coal in the procees itself- IIIRC from my lectures, somewhere between 65-75% efficient, and are left with alot of slag and other by-producys, rich in all those toxic or undesireable elements removed from the end product- heavy metals, sulphur and nitrogen.

The main advantage of the process is that it uses domestic feedstocks. The two places where it has been done on a large sclae are Nazi Europe, and Apartheid South Africa. This is as neither of those places could import or produce enough conventional oil to meet demand.

It may be secure, but it's not clean. The US has huge coal reserves. Australia and much of Europe also have very large reserves. It's just too dirty.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Nov 05 - 10:03 AM

Paul Burke - sorry charlie but no one creates energy. Everything is a conversion process.

We were talking about fuel for the H gas fuel cell, which is a marvelous way to power cars. Outside of the manufacture of the new highly efficient fuel cells, the only "pollution/exhaust" that the fuel cell cars and busses produce is pure water.

I made a design for homes that converts wind power to electricity that is then stored in batteries and then used to run a small motor that powers a dual tank saline heat pump buried 15 ft underground at a constant 52 F, to heat a large home. Solar back up is helpful but not required.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Nov 05 - 08:33 PM

The pig manure post lost this sorry

it is buried in the source code, but didn't display, so if a clone wants to fix it and delete this, fine, thanks

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: GUEST,noddy
Date: 01 Dec 05 - 04:10 AM

G.W.BUSH      lots of hot air.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Paul Burke
Date: 01 Dec 05 - 04:17 AM

Donuel, you're cavilling. The point is that there's a huge difference between recycling stored fossil energy (which releases CO2 into the atmosphere) and using sources of energy that are derived from outside the Earth (wind/ tidal = solar), or using energy from nuclear reactions, both of which don't add to the CO2. the problem with current fission solutions is that they add to something else instead.

So hydrogen, whether converted in fuel cells or burnt directly in an IC engine, is merely a means of transmitting the energy from the site of production (by whatever means) to the point where the energy is used. Unless we find a reservoir of molecular hydrogen somewhere on Earth, it can't generate anything.

Having said that, its flexibility- you can make hydrogen from anything from a waterwheel or a bicycle to a nuclear power station- makes it very attractive as a storage medium for low- grade alternative production sources. If we can keep it from blowing up.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 01 Dec 05 - 06:54 AM

Preventing hydrogen from blowing up is simply an engineering challenge. It's been done with petrol, and now LPG. Hydrogen is slightly harder to work with, but not impossibly so.

AS you say, almost any energy source can be used to produce Hydrogen. I would lean towards large power stations , which produce electicity, and an on-site electrolysis plant for hydrogen. When demand for electricty is lower, ie late at night, step up hydrogen production.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 Dec 05 - 07:02 AM

But WHAT do you use to fuel the power stations? Especially at night?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: GUEST,noddy
Date: 02 Dec 05 - 04:00 AM

Hydrogen powered cars have been around since before 1980, and they did not blow up!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Dec 05 - 10:32 AM

You get much less energy from a gallon of liquid hydrogen than a gallon of petrol, and you need a bulky tank to maintain the cryogenically low temperature.
It can be done but it is a poor substitute.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 02 Dec 05 - 12:17 PM

that last comment might be misleading, hydrogen does pack 3x more energy per pound than gasoline, but takes up 4x the space.

hydrogen vs gas

(so youd need 5 tanker trucks of hydrogen, to carry the same amt of gasoline, and of course it takes energy to compress) if you wanted to make a pipeline it would be as wide as a house..

there are ways of storing hydrogen in metal hydrides, which would avoid the high pressure, but still costs energy..
It seems that one problem of the costs of fuel cells is you need platinum which is ridiculously expensive.

its quite possible rechargable batteries may be the way to go, as lithium is far less expensive than platinum...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Amos
Date: 02 Dec 05 - 12:25 PM

There are mineral powders which can be used (although i forget their name) to store hydrogen in an inert combination and release it on demand at low overhead. In addition current research into nanotubes (molecular scale constructions of C-60 molecules) indicates they can be developed into an effective hydrogen transport system with low risk.

Hydrogen's greatest benefit is the benevolence of its by-products in combustion -- drinkable water.

Our current addiction to portable energy sources requires something comparable to the petrol-driven personal vehicle, and hydrogen potentially provides that. On the other hand if we could raise the efficiency of batteries we could transition to solar-, tidal- or wind-powered electrical systems which would do as well, if we could engineer a method of "refillling" them that was as efficient as gas stations are currently.

The biggest single thing that is missing in all this is a sponsorship with enough clout to bring the various parts of technology together and fund the evolution of deployable, workable solutions, the establishment of infrastructure, and the emergence of workable engines in market-ready vehicles.

The biggest players in the current scenario are the oil companies who are galloping to transfer their near-monopoly of the oil-based energy economy to the renewable energy economy so they can make the transition without disrupting their jolly revenue stream. Having every wage earner in the developed world in your customer base is not a situation to walk away from.

A

A

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Amos
Date: 02 Dec 05 - 10:17 PM

A FIRST: HYDROGEN ATOMS MANIPULATED BELOW SURFACE OF PALLADIUM CRYSTAL, December 02
For the first time, scientists have manipulated hydrogen atoms into stable sites beneath the surface of a palladium crystal, creating a structure predicted to be important in metal catalysts, in hydrogen storage and in fuel cells. The research will be published in the Dec. 13 issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
Full story at http://www.physorg.com/news8690.html

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 08:46 AM

This getting far too technical. I still want to know what's wrong with clockwork cars...

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 08:56 AM

I'm not sure what's wrong with clockwork cars, but I would guess it's being unable to store enough energy to power it very far.

Otherwise, one would already have been built by some Victorian. It's not as if you knowledge of how to make clockwork mechanisms has advanced that much since then.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 09:43 AM

H storage is a problem as people here suggest but not insurrmountable. Storing it in hydride crystals was a pioneering offering but new ways are in the wings.

Production of H fuel while driving is advantageous. Then one would pull into a sevice station to have their H compressed with electic pumps - hopefully powered by sustained fusion reactors.

One energy alternative area I feel we should stay away from are mini black hole manipulation. Even the dimmest bulb could figure out why.

If we do want to experiment in this area, lets wait until we can do it 4.2 light years away from Earth, just in case their is a super nova "incident".

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Dec 05 - 08:27 AM

They were running electric buses with storage in big flywheels.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 05 - 10:04 AM

Powdered iron can be used as a fuel for car engines. No problem with the volume but the mass is greater than for petrol.
The exhaust is solid iron oxide which can be reused after being reduced with hydrogen, releasing water as the final waste.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: bobad
Date: 04 Dec 05 - 10:59 AM

Not exactly an alternative energy source but an innovative application of existing technology to replace an inefficient method of heating water:

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 Posted at 2:57 PM EST

Globe and Mail Update

Pulsar Advanced Technologies has announced will next week launch its lead product, the Vulcanus MK4, a water heater USING microwave technology to heat water on demand. This technology with super-heating capabilities will drastically cut energy costs and totally eliminate the need to store hot water. The Vulcanus MK4 is making its world premier at Construct Canada in Toronto between Nov. 30 and Dec. 2.

The tankless system uses microwave technology to heat water on demand, saving energy and providing an endless supply of hot water for residential and commercial usage. The technology is designed to eliminate the deadly Legionella Pneumophila, since water will not stagnate, as it does with conventional hot water heaters.

Powered by electricity and unaffected by the volatile gas markets, the Vulcanus MK4 can heat water from 35 degrees Fahrenheit to 140 degrees Fahrenheit in seconds and can source multiple applications at once: showers, dishwasher, sink usages and more. The Vulcanus MK4 is the size of a stereo speaker with a sleek modern look, making it ideal for condos and apartments, while powerful enough to serve the needs of any size family.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 04 Dec 05 - 01:24 PM

Powdered iron can be used as a fuel for car engines. No problem with the volume but the mass is greater than for petrol.
The exhaust is solid iron oxide which can be reused after being reduced with hydrogen, releasing water as the final waste.

You now have two problems to deal with.

Solids handling is far more complicated than gas/liquid handling. Everyone avoids them if at all possible

Storing the oxidised fuel.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: patmc
Date: 04 Dec 05 - 03:34 PM

extraction of electricity from the quantum flux

go on - google it

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Wolfgang
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 10:11 AM

The most destructive crop on earth is no solution to the energy crisis (opinion in the GUARDIAN)

A harsh (self) critique of a former believer in biodiesel.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 11:51 AM

flywheels are nothing new, the 1892 Vancouver to New Westminster inter-urban railway was electrically powered and also used a flywheel to store kinetic energy.

good link Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 12:23 PM

Many people fail to understand the difference between generating energy, and transporting it.


The main ways we can currently see to transport energy, ie for use in cars etc, away from the electricty grid are:

Stored Hydrocarbons- Petrol, gas, LPG etc,
Stored Hydrogen- fuel cells
Batteries.


The main ways we can generate power currently are:

Burning Hydrocarbons,
Nuclear Fission,
Geothermal power,
Tidal power,

Solar-derived power forms:
Solar power,
Wind power,
Hydro-Electric power,
Biomass burning.

Any other suggested power source has to be looked at carefully. Is it something new that actually generates power, such as nuclear fusion, or is it just a new way of transporting energy derived from one of the processes above.

If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: autolycus
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 06:25 PM

So reducing consumption is not an option, then?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 06 Dec 05 - 06:53 PM

In the early to mid 1980s (date from vague recollection) Scientific American carried an extensive report on energy storage using flywheels. The "specific energy" (excuse tech jargon) storage capacity is impressive, but works well only at very high rotation speeds. Contrary to what might be expected, it works much better with very lightweight flywheels, which were run in vacuum containers in most prototype devices.

In most trial applications, another kind of power source is used to spin the flywheel up, and a motor/generator taps energy from the flywheel only to meet peak power demands. Regenerative braking, to recover the kinetic energy of the vehicle when it's slowed can avoid throwing away some energy.

The concept works quite well in "normal" situations, but handling the rapid release of stored energy in an abnormal situation such as a crash or even an unusual maneuver presents some subtle but substantial difficulties.

When large amounts of energy are "contained" in a rotating mass, there is an inherent large gyroscopic moment. Problems that result from unexpected inputs to a device with large angular momentum include effects similar to what happened when GE put their first twin-engined diesel electric locomotive on the tracks. The first time it tried to go around a curve at useful speed, the gyroscopic moment lifted the wheels off the track and the engine jumped the rails.

With proposed flywheel storage devices, an "accident" that damages the containing vessel can result in an "explosion" - by nearly instant release of all the stored energy - that's every bit as destructive as dynamite.

A few laboratory and industrial applications do use flywheels for energy storage, but it hasn't been found viable for vehicle use. An example of a lab use is at the Bitter Magnet Lab, where a multi-ton (20,000 pound?) ten foot diameter flywheel is brought up to speed over a fairly long time - limited by how much electric power they can suck out of the grid without dimming all the lights in Cambridge MA. When the switch is thrown, the inertia of the flywheel is dumped into a generator that brings the flywheel from a few hundred rpm to zero in about 10 or 20 milliseconds, to produce "massive magnetic pulses" in the laboratory apparatus.

But the Bitter flywheel wouldn't fit in your trunk.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: mg
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 01:29 AM

I think we have to get away of thinking of one do it all source...a car and a house have different energy needs. A car has to move.   A house can just sit there. Then there are industrial needs. Also, I bet if we quit buidling so many houses out of wood we could get by with much less heat...have an impervious house, say made out of stone, that doesn't care what the weather is..I suspect a lot of heat goes to trying to prevent houses from rotting etc...and then think about heating the little tiny space around each occupant...say Granny is in her rocking chair...have a little heat bubble for that..an invalid..a premature infant...all need more heat..actually most of us could do with much less and would be better off for it. Lorna was just telling me how children are believed to have brown fat and because we overheat them and they aren't out enough their own natural little furnaces shut down..interesting concept..I haven't heard much about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 08:07 AM

MG, where are you based? Climate is important

Wood is actually a fairly good insulator. There are reasons not to build in it, but temprature is not it.

Stone houses have a huge thermal mass. If they're not too draughty, they will take a long time to heat up or cool down. Newer ones, with proper thinner masonry are less so but the old ones with 4-6 foot thick rough stone walls might as well be caves. You do need some heating in a cold winter, because the cold does get through the walls eventually. It just takes longer


Any thick, solid walls behave the same way, so concrete, thick brick, stone or adobe are all used in hot climates to keep out the heat of a hot day.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: saulgoldie
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 11:23 AM

Where we are going:

Well, the guy who first called our attention to global warming recently said that if we don't do something drastic, the environment will be irreparably harmed, and we will be back to the weather patterns of 1/2 a million years ago. That is to say, warmer and far less predictable according to present models.

The path to a better world involves fewer people each using less energy, and making more effective use of alternative energy sources that do not cause more pollution or add further to warming.

Sad to say (as a US citizen) that my counrty is the biggest offender in this regard, using something like 40% of the world's energy, and declining to sign on with the Kyoto accord, and all that. And we have so effectively marketted our consumerist (energy-wasteful) life-style to the developing countries that they are rapidly becoming a more significant part of the problem. And "leading" us out of this condition is, well, the less said the better.

Nevermind that oil will run out in the very near future. The climate could likely do us in quicker and worser than that eventuality.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: mg
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 03:44 PM

I am in coastal washington state usa where it is one of the few places it might have made sense to build with wood..it was practically considered a weed..some species like alder..and we have earthquakes and it is good for that..and in a coastal climate you don't have the highs and lows. but i now question building with it even here...for social reasons if nothing else...you no longer have a stern matriarch or patriarch capable of controlling the lives of the housemembers..you have unrelated groups of people, you have retirement houses, you have large numbers of people with alzheimers, you have young people living in clusters, and last and worst of all,you have huge numbers of drug users. all of those are factors in fire consideration..plus you have renters..plus you have all sorts of people without enough money so repairs don't get done, appliances are jury-rigged....you have people who smoke in bed and they might be in an apartment next to you. my whole apartment house in the early 70s was in fear of fire although it was brick because a very old woman who had escaped the russian revolution would leave pots on...so even if you personally are totally aware and responsible, your neighbors on meth might not be...i think the fire risk is just too high now..plus there might be some substances that could be cleaned up after meth, flood, mold etc..ceramic maybe? and think if they had had elevated stone or cement houses in new orleans...and all of those twister and hurricane states....why in the world are they still building out of wood there...one of my big questions to ask everyone...no one likes the look of cement block except me, but reinforced it is pretty good for a lot of situations...anyway, if you have a chance, don't live in a wooden apartment house....mg

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: robomatic
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 04:05 PM

Uh, there's a fire risk in any construction, and wood is a terrific material when used properly.

Hydrogen is a fuel, and in the US it is mostly derived from natural gas. It is true that burning the hydrogen results in pure water as the result, but stripping the natural gas down to hydrogen (called 'reforming') results in waste emissions, including carbon dioxide.

In addition to the storage problem of hydrogen itself, a vehicle that is powered by hydrogen will not recover kinetic energy by braking unless it has an additional way to store electric energy such as a battery or 'super'capacitor.

And in addition to all that, if you want to heat your vehicle, you'll find that heat cuts way down on your range, because it uses a lot of fuel. The 'advantage' of existing internal combustion engines is that they put out a lot of heat as waste product.

Right now the hybrid vehicles which utilize internal combustion engines run at high efficiency and recover energy of motion during braking represent a high point in efficient energy utilization.

The explosion hazard of hydrogen is over-rated.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 05:00 PM

what is the fire risk of a cement house once the cement has been poured? Of course you have trim etc. and perhaps interior walls..but the structure should be ok, should it not? Do I have to go and set fire to a cement block to find this out? mg

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: GUEST,patmc
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 05:33 PM

In a lot of climates houses need next to no heat. I've seen bananas growing in the Rockies with passive heating- ok the insulation and trick glass required cost a fortune but then it was a prototype.
Equally our personnel vehicles weigh a silly amount- two ton of steel to move lil old me (actually not as lil as I used to be)

Trucking is a real problem- nuclear derived electric trains anyone?

Solar PV- Israelis PV is way over 10 % closer to 30 at last check-

Solar Carnot/stirling cycle - if you have a good 'cold' end these are well over 50 %.

Wind- maybe but the materials science is not there - the new gearbox less gennies are good but the blades still have short lifetimes.

Wave power sucks- the gear gets smashed up and even when it works it leaves deoxygenated water behind it.

Tidal- works but is soooooo expensive. Nice if you already own a fjord though.

biofuel- sounds feasible but for some reason I get an uneasy feeling about it.

As I see it there is going to be a melange of technologies. Nukes will rule until al queda cracks one open.

Oh well back to the day job- looking for oil

Patmc

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 05:46 PM

The fire risk in a cement house is just about everything in the house. Anything I list below will burn in a house fire.

carpets
curtains
clothes
furniture
electricals
functional wood- rafters, floor joists, doors etc.

that's just the start.

The external walls may still be standing, but everyone in it can be just as dead of smoke inhalation, assuming the floors and roof haven't fallen in on you as well.


However, for an apartment block, assuming you build with fireproof floors, it is sensible to build in brick/concrete etc. The place where the fire starts still has to get out just as fast , but the neighbours are far safer.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 12:53 AM

Came across a writer mentioning that bio-diesel is projected to use 'palm-oil', for the growing of which it will be necessary to destroy most of the rainforest in SE Asia at current rates of fuel usuage.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 07:56 PM

Well, it doesn't have to use allof the rainforest. Palm oil used to be used in cooking, and some people consider it quite healthy. Certainly they should at least be able to use the old plantations or family plots or whatever. There are a lot of places that need to be reforested, including where the rainforest has been cut already. Why not for palm oil...I presume it is some sort of fruit or nut and is a renewable resourcs. Just because you use some doesn't mean it has to provide all of the world's needs. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 09:03 AM

If all the fish and chip oil in the USA were used for generating biodiesel it would provide about 1/380th of the current fuel usage.

So UKers, we have work to do....


Oh and my previous post was quoting form a source that assumed that oil had ceased, and that we would need an equivalent amount of palm-oil.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 03:35 PM

foolestroupe and mg you might want to read wolfgangs link above

the problem is that palm-oil plantations lead to deforestation
in Malaysia and Indonesia -

and the European govts cant restrict import of palm-oil from those
countries due to habitat destruction that would be a trade violation..

here is a bit of it..

In September, Friends of the Earth published a report about the impact of palm oil production. "Between 1985 and 2000," it found, "the development of oil-palm plantations was responsible for an estimated 87 per cent of deforestation in Malaysia". In Sumatra and Borneo, some 4 million hectares of forest have been converted to palm farms. Now a further 6 million hectares are scheduled for clearance in Malaysia, and 16.5 million in Indonesia.

Almost all the remaining forest is at risk. Even the famous Tanjung Puting national park in Kalimantan is being ripped apart by oil planters. The orangutan is likely to become extinct in the wild. Sumatran rhinos, tigers, gibbons, tapirs, proboscis monkeys and thousands of other species could go the same way. Thousands of indigenous people have been evicted from their lands, and some 500 Indonesians have been tortured when they tried to resist. The forest fires which every so often smother the region in smog are mostly started by the palm growers. The entire region is being turned into a gigantic vegetable oil field.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 09:59 PM

Gee petr, where do you think I got the info? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Leadfingers
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 06:24 AM

So far the best idea is the Hot Air generated here !!!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Leadfingers
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 06:25 AM

AND another 100th !