"Archimedes Plutonium" <a_plutonium@iw.net> wrote in message
news:41279433.73AC518D@iw.net...
20 Aug 2004 22:05:20 -0700 brianb wrote:
Archimedes Plutonium <a_plutonium@iw.net> 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
.
