SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum
GLD 387.88+1.2%Nov 28 4:00 PM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
Recommended by:
3bar
To: TobagoJack who wrote (150663)9/11/2019 5:53:37 AM
From: Maurice Winn1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) of 218121
 
Post Teotwawki, diesel is a lot easier to obtain than hydrogen. Which is handy because hydrogen cars will be trivially few.

I see no reason to swap from hydrocarbons or electric vehicles to hydrogen.

Hydrogen cars are too expensive to make and too inefficient in use of energy.

Nuclear reactors for electricity is probably the main way to go with geothermal, photovoltaics etc better in some places. But heavy tars are good too. For 20% extra energy the exhaust from power stations can be cleaned, compressed, cooled, liquefied and piped 400 metres under the ocean for 1000 year sequestration and eventual deposition into oceanic sedimentary layers for a million year sequestration. That's long enough even for long term planners. That was my 1986 invention that I told a couple of Mitsubishi engineers who patented it, the cheeky blighters. The patent expired 10 years ago so no harm.

A good use of methane rather than stripping hydrogen from it is to hydrogenate heavy stuff, even coal, to make nice gasoline, diesel and jet fuel which are much more valuable than waste methane and low value tarry muck.

Terrestrial energy can go electric. Aviation can use hydrocarbons. My invention (years before Elon' s hyperloop which he copied almost word for word and you can read my description of it right here in SI) was intended to replace aviation with faster safer cheaper more convenient vacuum tubes right across Asia to western and southern Europe and maybe even across the Bering straits to north and south America.

With a vacuum tube, speed could be faster than jets at 38,000 feet and no air intake needed as magnetic propulsion doesn't breathe.

But I decided that airliners can beat tubes, especially when aircrew aren't needed and they are made much more efficient.

Maybe start in high density places such as New York to Washington.

Mqurice
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News