07 Jan 14
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
07 Jan 14
Originally posted by humyIt's funny, all these competing technologies, wonder which one will win? H2? Methane? Electric? For transport.
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
07 Jan 14
Originally posted by sonhouseI 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.
It's funny, all these competing technologies, wonder which one will win? H2? Methane? Electric? For transport.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
07 Jan 14
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.
07 Jan 14
4 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?