1. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    07 Jan '14 19:00
    This should be one step closer to making cheap economically viable biofuels from cheap biomass (such as grass ) closer to reality by economically separating out the lignin in the biomass that would otherwise normally gets in the way of turning the biomass into biofuel;

    http://phys.org/news/2014-01-simple-technique-biofuel-production.html
  2. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    07 Jan '14 19:40
    Originally posted by humy
    This should be one step closer to making cheap economically viable biofuels from cheap biomass (such as grass ) closer to reality by economically separating out the lignin in the biomass that would otherwise normally gets in the way of turning the biomass into biofuel;

    http://phys.org/news/2014-01-simple-technique-biofuel-production.html
    It's funny, all these competing technologies, wonder which one will win? H2? Methane? Electric? For transport.
  3. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    07 Jan '14 19:44
    Don't know which will become dominant...
    But I suspect a combination of all of the above for different applications.
  4. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    07 Jan '14 19:52
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    It's funny, all these competing technologies, wonder which one will win? H2? Methane? Electric? For transport.
    I am not sure about the medium run but in the VERY long run; electric for everything except aircraft. And magnesium-sulfur batteries would be the battery of choice for virtually all electric vehicles despite the fact that there is currently virtually no research into magnesium-sulfur batteries.
  5. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    07 Jan '14 20:24
    VERY long term nuclear is probably the answer.

    Solid state aneutronic fusion is showing promise for battery like power applications
    if you are looking really long distance into the future.

    On site direct power generation will always beat energy storage and transmission
    for efficiency.
  6. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    07 Jan '14 22:114 edits
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    VERY long term nuclear is probably the answer.

    Solid state aneutronic fusion is showing promise for battery like power applications
    if you are looking really long distance into the future.

    On site direct power generation will always beat energy storage and transmission
    for efficiency.
    VERY long term nuclear is probably the answer.

    I don't know why you would think that. Why not solar and wind (among other renewables ) combined with a supergrid and off-the-grid storage to completely compensate for solar and wind being fickle?
    On site direct power generation will always beat energy storage and transmission for efficiency.

    how did you conclude this?
    If you are still talking nuclear here, wouldn’t it be rather inconvenient if not impractical to, say, have a car powered directly by its own nuclear reactor?
  7. Joined
    30 Sep '12
    Moves
    731
    12 Jan '14 00:46
    Originally posted by humy
    If you are still talking nuclear here, wouldn’t it be rather inconvenient if not impractical to, say, have a car powered directly by its own nuclear reactor?
    A big worry there would be terrorists opening new junkyards.
  8. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    12 Jan '14 08:31
    Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
    A big worry there would be terrorists opening new junkyards.
    Yikes! Any psychopathic moron in the world will be able to make a nuke from junk!
Back to Top