From: Stirling Westrup (sti@cam.org)
Date: Fri Feb 04 2000 - 19:53:34 MST
Eugene Leitl wrote:
> Spudboy100@aol.com writes:
>
> > Methane-would not necessarilly be the fuel for your engine or fuel cell-but
> > merely the source, i.e. fuels derived from methane. Wind Power has been a
>
> Conversions are expensive. Methane is ideal for homes, since most are
> already connected to natural gas infrastructure.
>
> Methane is piss-poor in cars, since requiring either cryogenic or
> high-pressure storage, both of it nonviable. Methanol made from
> methane (via the synthesis gas route) or hydrogen (buckytube or
> hydride-absorbed) would make more sense there.
The above reminds me of a question I've been meaning to put to the list. What
is the highest density chemical energy storage that is currently known? Is the
answer different if we look at joules per mililiter instead of per gram? What
are the theoretical maximums for normal matter? I've been trying to project
chemical storage systems forward to a time when we can nano-construct the
molecules if necessary, but I haven't got the right background to make an
estimate.
--
Stirling Westrup | Use of the Internet by this poster
sti@cam.org | is not to be construed as a tacit
| endorsement of Western Technological
| Civilization or its appurtenances.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:26:37 MST