Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (124070)	9/17/2000 12:25:29 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572208

Dear Daniel: The energy density of gasoline when converted to mechanical energy via IC engine is at most 15 Kwh per gallon whereas 1 gallon of LiH (liquid Hydrogen) gets about 30 Kwh due to higher fuel cell efficiencies. Of course, fusion would take this to 300,000,000 Kwh. Storing LiH (pronounced "lie") is easy. The larger the tank, the less losses per unit stored and when you bury it, the ground acts like a far better insulator further reducing losses. Alternatively hydrides have the safety of a non explosive storage method but, at a lower density. You have to heat the hydrides to release the hydrogen but density is about 1/3 (I think) of LiH. Pete

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (124070)	9/17/2000 4:15:16 PM
From: jbkelle	Respond to of 1572208

Dan, I agree that the energy density of gasoline is hard to beat. However, on-board reforming of methanol or gasoline for use in fuel cells results in a vehicle that is considered zero-emmissions by CARB, which recently re-emphasized that 10% of vehicles sold in that state must meet zero-emmission requirements for 2003. arb.ca.gov I think each of the major vehicle manufacturers has a design for meeting these requirements. I think some of the publicly available information addresses how the reformers work and where the carbon goes. As for chip-based stuff, I didn't say that chip-based stuff was appropriate for anything approaching the size of a vehicle...although it's possible to consider in the nebulous future. However, chip-based stuff will have applications within 10 years, and more likely within 5. That's the part that makes me wonder if AMD or INTC are looking at any of this stuff. One can look at the assets of AMD and INTC as best used to make more chips with greater processing power, and one can also think about what else these assets are useful for...what products will bring greater margins and extend the lives of their fabs. Interestig discussion about energy on this thread today...jbk