Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology Science

Squeezing Coal To Reduce Emissions 107

Posted by timothy from the soon-you-will-have-to-register dept.
sbszine writes "Australian newspaper The Age has an interesting story on squeezing coal before burning it in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The process, discovered by Victorian scientists, is expected to make brown coal (lignite) burn 30% cleaner. Good news, as Australia is the world's number one exporter of coal."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Squeezing Coal To Reduce Emissions More

Squeezing Coal To Reduce Emissions

Comments Filter:

  • bring on the science!! (Score:4, Funny)

    by p4ul13 ( 560810 ) on Wednesday August 04, 2004 @09:45AM (#9878303) Homepage
    If Superman III has taught us anything, it is that heating and squeezing coal does not lead to a cleaner burn, it leads to really big diamonds.

  • Victorian scientists... my goodness (Score:5, Funny)

    by ssclift ( 97988 ) on Wednesday August 04, 2004 @09:55AM (#9878420)

    I know Slashdot posts the occasional late story, but this is over 100 years old... that must be a record.

    :-)

  • Huh-huh-huh, You said "Squeeze" (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 04, 2004 @10:14AM (#9878590)
    Squeezing can only hold back your emissions for so long.

  • It makes perfect sense... (Score:5, Informative)

    by ResidntGeek ( 772730 ) on Wednesday August 04, 2004 @10:32AM (#9878778) Journal
    Anthracite, the cleanest-burning coal, is also called hard coal because it's the densest variety and it contains the least moisture. Lignite, the type they squeezed, is the crappiest kind of coal. It is almost half water and is quite light. How many brilliant people did it take to think "maybe if we make lignite denser and take the water out, it'll burn more cleanly!"???

    • How many brilliant people

      Well, let the research continue.

      But here in the USA, we have an election year and populist politicians in the mix.

      There are a bunch of voting coal miners on the one hand.

      There are a whole lot of semi-intelligent SUV-driving people that are wondering why the hell America has to get most of its oil from Saudi Arabia, home of most of the 9/11 hijackers, where the ruling government is not democratically elected but if it were it would like more like Afghanistan did 4 years ago in

  • Question (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jarran ( 91204 )
    Who, exactly is touting this as good? If you believe in man made climate change, 30% less damaging than coal just isn't good enough. We need to be moving away from fossil fuels, not finding marginally less damaging ways to burn them.

    And if you don't believe in mad made climate change, why bother? It's going to be less efficient, and therefore will create even more nasty emissions other than CO2, which isn't the only pollutant released by coal burning.

    (No, I haven't RTFA, as it requires registration.)

    • Re:Question (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dpilot ( 134227 )
      Because we're not going to replace our power infrastructure overnight. Unfortunately we're doing very little to move off of fossil fuels at all. But even when we get off the mark, it's going to be a lengthy process, not an overnight conversion. Cleaning up legacy powerplants is a good thing, even if it isn't the final goal.

      I wonder how much it would cost to migrate off of fossil fuels. Last year we spend $8.5e9 on the Iraq war, during a relatively slack economy with a huge deficit, and barely batted an eye

      • Re:Question (Score:3, Insightful)

        by nelsonal ( 549144 )
        My favorite quote of all time comes from the economist, "the entire western economy is a call option on the house of Saud." If that isn't a scary thought I don't know what is. There was an excellent article on Slate the other day that put this same idea in quite a few more words (summary that Osama wants the oil under Saudi Arabia and Iraq, and the regime we have been supporting for the better part of 50 years is currently tottering).
        Unfortunately I know of nothing with the energy density of fossil fue
        • I doubt Osama Binladen really wants the oil. I suspect he just doesn't want us to have it.

          Personally, I believe ALL of us have underestimated what the War on Terror really is. It has been largely cast as US vs Al Quaeda, et al. But IMHO it's really the concept of Western Civilization vs Tribalism. Unfortunately our side is badly divided. I'd really hate to see the centuries-long mess if Tribalism (especially as currently implemented) were to actually win.

          • Re:Question (Score:3, Insightful)

            by frankie ( 91710 )
            I believe ALL of us have underestimated what the War on Terror really is. [...] it's really the concept of Western Civilization vs Tribalism.

            Speak for yourself. Lots of us have known this for years [google.com].

            Of course, the jihadists probably wouldn't be jihading if we weren't so dependent on fossil fuels. We wouldn't be impinging on their turf, and they wouldn't have the cash to buy weapons.
            • Yecchh. I've just been framing these thoughts since 9/11, and here's someone publishing in 1992. Oh well, at least I missed 12 years of feeling bad about it.

              Makes me wish we really had space travel. There's been the obvious 'eggs out of just one environmental basket' in science fiction, but there have also been a fair amount of 'eggs out of Earth's political basket' stories, too. Really a good solution, assuming the right level of difficulty for the technology. Jihad develops no technology, but rather pigg
            • After a little time to sleep on it...

              McWorld is well-phrased. I hadn't put my arguments into those words, though I had been thinking that currently the US isn't doing too good a job of being the Champion of Civilizaton. For that matter, the rest of Western Civilization is acting rather badly with regards to excessive economic control, too.

              The irony of it all... The folks that wave the flag, trumpet freedom, and thump their Bibles, by their words and actions, appear to stand for restriction of personal rig
        • What is a call option? That sure looks like a great quote, but I'm missing something.
          • A call option is what all company options are. You make money if the value of an something goes up (or in this case the Sauds remain in power. It's value goes to 0 quickly if the value declines (or the Sauds leave power). The opposite would be a put option (you make money if something declines. Mark Cuban is currently wealthy because he bought puts on his Yahoo stake in 1999/2000.
            • So say, just for shits and grins, we decided to nuke Saudi Arabia and make it uninhabitable for the next 1600 years- what would that do to Saudi held assets in our economy?
        • Coal used for steam averages 13 million BTU/ton if memory serves (can't find the link on the DOE web site at the moment). Petroleum products seem to fall in the range of 115-130,000 BTU/gallon.

          Looking at energy density is somewhat misleading, because the conversion efficiency of these fuels into work is typically less than 40%, often less than 20% (I've read that personal vehicles average a lousy 17%). If an alternate energy source has a higher conversion efficiency, it could store more useful energy in a

      • Just wanted to point out that e9 is a radically different number than E9. e9 = 2.71828183^9 = 8,103.08393, so $8.5e9 = $68,876.21.

    • Re:Question (Score:5, Insightful)

      by be951 ( 772934 ) on Wednesday August 04, 2004 @11:05AM (#9879088)
      Who, exactly is touting this as good? If you believe in man made climate change, 30% less damaging than coal just isn't good enough. We need to be moving away from fossil fuels, not finding marginally less damaging ways to burn them.

      First, you don't need to believe in man made climate change to consider less pollution "good". Also, I agree that we should be moving to non-polluting (or as nearly as possible) energy sources, but that isn't going to happen until clean energy sources are reasonably cost competitive on a scale that allows similar capacity. So realistically the two options are: keep burning coal the old way until alternatives are adopted; or burn significantly cleaner until alternatives are adopted.

      • Re:Question (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Red Rocket ( 473003 )

        Also, I agree that we should be moving to non-polluting (or as nearly as possible) energy sources, but that isn't going to happen until clean energy sources are reasonably cost competitive on a scale that allows similar capacity.

        And clean energy sources aren't going to be cost competitive until dirty energy sources include all the costs of their product into the price of the product. As it is now, they export those costs onto the public at large making them seem cheaper than they actually are. [a-p-e-x.org] Atmosphe
        • That's the other side of the coin. Either advances in clean energy technology bring the cost down to be competitive, or externalities of coal and other fossil fuels are applied to the producer and/or consumer. Or (most likely) they meet somewhere in the middle. There are several variations on this. Taxation is one method, i.e. tax breaks or subsidies for clean energy sources and/or additional assessments on fossil fuels. Tightening environmental standards also puts the costs back on the producer. Since

      • nuclear was ready decades ago, we just weren't ready to accept it. Funny how irrationaly hysteria starts to diminish as cost becomes a factor, no?

    • Re:Question (Score:3, Interesting)

      by scorp1us ( 235526 )
      I completely agree with you.

      Why is ti so hard to make artificial plants, and not the plastic kind?

      A plant consumes CO2, produces O2 and converts sunlight to energy. Why can't we do all that, but change the chemical to eletrical energy?

      That way the moer enery we make, the more we clean out the greenhouse gasses. And I'm sure we could scale it down to household size and let the general public both supplement their power usage and help clean the atmosphere at the same time.

      Seems like a win-win to me.

  • My question.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by theslashdude ( 656154 ) on Wednesday August 04, 2004 @10:34AM (#9878800)
    ...is how much energy does it take to squeeze the coal? Because if they end up having to burn 30% more coal to generate the additional energy needed to squeeze the coal, then it's not much of a gain.

  • stop-gap (Score:1, Redundant)

    by nusratt ( 751548 )
    Let's stop trying to find Band-Aids for energy resources which are inherently finite and time-limited. Short of global population-control (NBL--Not Bloody Likely), eventually we'll have no choice but to go with unlimited sources (e.g., solar, hydrogen, nuclear). And the only choice which is ready *today* is nuclear -- which today is much more advanced, safety-wise, than most people realize.

    This isn't an argument for "nuclear forever". But if we go full-speed immediately to develop enough nuclear capacit
    • Besides all that, we're seriously running out of DU after generously donating so much to Iraq. <grin>

      Actually, as well, since it would be "produced", hydrogen isn't really a source of "power" it's actually more of a distribution system and in light of that, I'm not exactly sure I can trust your appraisal of the state of integrity and safety within the entire global nuclear power industry
      • "hydrogen isn't really a source of "power" it's actually more of a distribution system and in light of that, I'm not exactly sure I can trust your appraisal of the state of integrity and safety within the entire global nuclear power industry"

        re: hydrogen: nitpicking. The point is, That Set Of Entities Colloquially Named As Alternative Energy Sources.

        re: "entire global nuclear power industry"

        not what i meant.
        not saying all existing plants are safe;
        saying that the technology exists to build new plants
        • Nitpicking? Hardly, in fact, I suggest you follow your own advice and try using Google. Or better yet, try to do some real research. A good start is here:

          Hydrogen Fuel for Surface Transportation
          http://www.altfuels.com/hfst.php [altfuels.com]

          From where I am , it clearly seems that you possess only a layperson's understanding of these issues, which, logically led to my second point.

          However, with a little effort on your part, I'm sure you'll be able to hold up your end of this discussion. At that time, if you're still o
          • "Nitpicking? try to do some real research. A good start is here"

            I don't understand why you're doggedly obssessing on my having used the word "hydrogen".
            My OP clearly said, "(***E.G.*** solar, hydrogen, nuclear)".
            And then I explained in a follow-up that I was generically referring to "Alternative Energy Sources".

            "it clearly seems that you possess only a layperson's understanding of these issues."

            I never claimed, nor meant to create an impression, otherwise.
            OTOH, one needn't necessarily be incapable of en
            • I'm sorry if I've come across as dogged. However, after much study, I've come to the conclusion that despite much better designs, there are none that are "perfect" nor are there any organizations that I currently trust enough to oversee the operation of a less than perfectly safe nuclear powerplant. Given what I perceived as a fundamental misrepresentation concerning the nature of hydrogen as an alternate energy "source", I simply felt that reflected poorly on your support for the nuclear industry on the wh
              • "sorry if I've come across as dogged"
                It was objectionable only in respect to the hyper-focus on the reference to hydrogen as energy source versus distribution system.

                Thanks for the link. I read (skimmed) it, but found no place where they make the link between human/software failures and the *kind* of risks exposed, in the context of passive designs.

                Certainly, no one would say that even a "perfect" passive design would mean that there are no residual risks of any kind: if a plant fails but safely "fizzle
                • Hyper-focus? I have no idea what you mean. I simply made note of apparent misunderstanding on your part and then used that to question the validity of your conclusion. Perhaps you're being a little hyper-sensative?

                  By the way, just to be clear. After much study and thought I have found that there is no perfectly safe, or even acceptably safe method of building nuclear power plants on earth.

                  I do agree designs are better. Are they perfect? Hardly. Every engineer will tell you there's no such thing as a perfe

                  • By the way, just to be clear. After much study and thought I have found that there is no perfectly safe, or even acceptably safe method of building nuclear power plants on earth.

                    There is no completely safe way of doing anything. Do you consider coal power (cf. 1,000,000 deaths per year) acceptably safe? How about personal transportation? How about DIY?

                    Once you've read through as many studies on operator error in control rooms as I have, then we can talk.

                    How many people have actually died as a resu

                    • "There is no completely safe way of doing anything."

                      Untrue rhethoric.

                      Do you consider coal power (cf. 1,000,000 deaths per year) acceptably safe?

                      No, but the problem isn't coal per se, from what I can see, it is the greed and irresponsibility of the power planet owners that cause these deaths.

                      "How many people have actually died as a result?"

                      Way to many. Of couse, since it doesn't seem to affect you personally, you continue merrily on in denial.

                      If major industrial concerns carried their own weight a

                    • Untrue rhethoric

                      Do you mean there is a zero risk way of doing ANYTHING? Seriously, life involves risks, and therefore every activity involves a risk vs. utility judgement and calculation. Otherwise you'd have to oppose everything.

                      No, but the problem isn't coal per se, from what I can see, it is the greed and irresponsibility of the power planet owners that cause these deaths.

                      Coal dosen't have to account for it's externalities. Nuclear does, pretty much uniquely amongst all energy sources considered.

                  • So your saying Nuclear power has cost this contry over 10 billion $ a year and provides 20+% of our electricity... Sounds reasonable to me.

                    Most of the early cost's where R&D much of which went to making bomb's. Now as to the gov giving 2billion a year to the nuclear power that's not realy that out of bounds either look what we have given the airlines. But, in anycase as money was spend on R&D USING that money would make more sence than saying well this is working teck but it cost alot of money to
                    • Reasonable ... lol ... sure. Please, reread the article.

                      Let me rephrase this. There was never any real need for any subsidies. These companies spent public funds while generating massive private wealth for a privileged few.

                      Funny how people get upset when someone steals their bike / car / wallet etc. but they seem ok when others steal thier lives, savings and freedoms.

                      Well, enjoy yourself. You seem quite good at it.
                    • "reread the article"

                      Umm, first off are you talking about an article other than Squeezing Coal To Reduce Emissions? cuz unless i missed something it's not talking about nukes at all.

                      And 2nd I am sorry but I know money changes hands all the time honestly everybody's hand is in the government pot. It's realy the basic inificency of representive government. But, for those who wish to trade there "vote" for money fine with me I have other isues I want addressed. So I will vote for your powerplant if you wi
                    • Actually, I totally appreciate your perspective. In general, I agree, trying to change people or the system is futile. I don't expect things to change nor do I write just because I'm angry. I write because it's a part of my life to struggle against evil. Whereas I don't expect others to change, I do expect myself to. By working against the common grain, I encounter much resistance. This strengthens me. It's similar to weight training but in this sense, I'm working towards a stronger sense of conscience and
                    • Sorry, I was not trying to say it was futile I was trying to represent changing that as a cost not worth paying.

                      While it's a little hard to respond to someone who point's to a book and say's "this is what I think" I am going to try and come up with one. While "young" I have been exposed to a wide variety of eastern and western belief systems. I have yet to form a consistent set of beliefs nor have I adapted any belief system. Yet like most people who think about such things I have tried to move beyond "

    • Re:stop-gap (Score:3, Interesting)

      by be951 ( 772934 )
      And the only choice which is ready *today* is nuclear...

      The only barrier to more widespread adoption of solar is the cost.

      But if we go full-speed immediately to develop enough nuclear capacity to COMPLETELY eliminate our dependence on petro sources which are actually or potentially volatile or unreliable -- e.g., the Middle East...

      I doubt it would help much, because we don't use a lot of oil (relatively speaking) for electic generation. Coal is the big player there. Most of our oil consumption is for

      • "only barrier to more widespread adoption of solar is the cost"

        which makes it not ready.
        QED.
        And this was part of my point, i.e. re-invest the savings (from leaving the Middle East) into making other alternatives ready for wide-spread use.

        "our oil consumption is for transportation -- something for which both nuclear and solar are poorly suited."

        nuc-gen'd electric is unsuitable because of our current transportation HABITS (versus technology).
        It's fine for mass-transit and for hybrid cars.

        "I thought the bi
        • which makes [solar] not ready.

          The barrier to widespread use of nuclear is that it is unpopular with the public/politically. One could make the case that it is even less ready than solar.

          nuc-gen'd electric is unsuitable because of our current transportation HABITS

          And infrastructure. Electricity is fine for trains and trolleys, but another major component of mass transit (especially if you're talking about replacing a significant portion of private vehicles) is an extensive bus system. What kind of hy

          • "nuclear is unpopular with the public/politically. One could make the case that it is even less ready than solar."

            I think you already realize that these are two different senses of "ready".
            I'm talking about "ready", technologically and financially, i.e. no MATERIAL barriers.
            You're speaking of attitudinal/policy issues, which is EXACTLY the point of my OP:
            that we must change our attitudes and be open and willing to re-evaluate the state of nuclear power, at least as an interim measure.

            re: hybrid, you're ri
            • I think you already realize that these are two different senses of "ready".

              Absolutely. And given the fact that cost per KW of solar power has declined steadily for many years, while popular acceptability of nuclear power hasn't seemed to change much indicates to me that solar is probably more ready than nuclear.

              Nuc-gen'd electric could be used to power cars TODAY.

              Very true. And we don't need to change the way we generate electricity to make that happen. In fact, there are thousands of electric vehicle

              • "it will continue to be a slow, gradual change."

                I'm not sure that it need be.
                How long does it take to build a new nuc plant?
                Let's say 5 years. Then we could legislate today, that we start building enough plants to replace all the energy from Middle East petro, and that, starting 5 years from now, there will be an extra tax on every NEW petro car sold in the USA, for every maker who hasn't sold its "fair share" of the number of electric cars needed to remove the need for that amount of Middle East petro.
                • How long does it take to build a new nuc plant? Let's say 5 years.

                  I'd say that is extremely optimistic. In fact, I could easily conceive a number of realistic scenarios in which you'd be lucky to break ground in 5 years. You'd be better off subsidizing something like this [changingworldtech.com] (crude oil from industrial waste). I'm not sure what kind of cost per barrel they're getting, as it is primarily being marketed as waste disposal rather than energy production. Combine legislation favorable to that technology with ser

                  • I didn't mean that I think that '5' is the number.
                    I was just saying, "schedule the Detroit change to be phased-in at 'x' years, where 'x' = the time to build a plant."
                    • I understand. But if the number is 10 or 15 or 20, then we're back to "slow change". If you work on something less contentious with respect to public and regulatory oversite, you can probably effect change more quickly. Also, if you chose something more scalable (my understanding is that designs already approved by the NRC are ones with one or a few large reactors, rather than more numerous, smaller ones --but I could be mistaken) you would be able to get the cleaner sources online more quickly, albeit m
            • Europe stuffs a billion dollars a year into the occupied territories. Fat lot of good it does with most of it getting siphoned off into the pockets of a few senior Fatah people, the only people allowed to accept the money in the first place.

              Anyway, that's a digression. Westinghouse is trying to get a 1000MW reactor design based on an already-approved 600MW design through the US NRC. That's the only way to get the costs down to 4.5 cents per KWh, which is where it starts to get competitive for a one-off
              • "Europe stuffs a billion dollars a year into the occupied territories. Fat lot of good it does with most of it getting siphoned off into the pockets of a few senior Fatah people, the only people allowed to accept the money in the first place."

                Well, that would have to change, of course. I think the key would be to allow the populace to present a consensus of their *needs*, but for the Western financiers to directly hire the contractors to fulfill the needs, eliminating the corrupt middle-men.
                It might be ne
        • nuc-gen'd electric is unsuitable because of our current transportation HABITS (versus technology).

          It's fine for mass-transit and for hybrid cars.


          Nitpick - Hybrid cars do not use grid power, all their electric needs are filled by onboard generators driven by the gas engine (or by regenerative braking).

          Pure electric vehicles would be a good recipient of that nuclear power, however.

        • The fact is, the biggest Islamic threat TO THE USA today, is from a group founded by a guy who's pissed about US troops not leaving Saudi soil after Gulf#1.

          That's flat-out wrong. Osama bin Laden takes years to research, design and carry out attacks; his first attack on the WTC was in 1993. US troops only entered Saudi Arabia in 1990-91 to remove Saddam from Kuwait; ObL would have had to start his apparatus before Iraq invaded to have met his timetable.

          I recall seeing statements by ObL stating that the U

          • "He doesn't like "infidels", period."
            I suggest you google this.
            Virtually every commentator/analyst I've seen/heard/read, says that OBL's biggest beef is our presence on "holy" soil in Saudi.

            "doesn't like" is very different from "wants to attack on their home soil".
            Americans "don't like" the practice of forced female circumcision, but we'd never go to war to prevent it.

            Do you really believe that 9/11 would have happened if we'd COMPLETELY left the region IMMEDIATELY after GW#1, and had NO troops in the reg
      • Nuclear power can be used in transportation to power electrolysis to generate hydrogen for fuel cells, or simply used to recharge a battery.
        • Nuclear power can be used in transportation to power electrolysis to generate hydrogen for fuel cells, or simply used to recharge a battery.

          Most definitely. Electricity generated from any source could. The issue is that vehicles using advanced batteries or fuel cells are not available and probably won't be for several years. Thus the point that neither nuclear nor solar are well suited to replace oil as our primary energy source for transportation.

          • "The issue is that vehicles using advanced batteries or fuel cells are not available and probably won't be for several years."

            This surprises me. I thought that battery cars are available (or at least feasible) today.
            • I should have been more clear regarding the context of that comment. Better battery or fuel cell technology is needed (IMO) for widespread adoption of electric vehicles due to the limitations (range, cost, recharge time, etc...) of currently available vehicles. There have been production EVs available to consumers, but I'm not sure if there are any cars currently available (there may still be some smaller vehicles like the Bombardier, GEM and Th!nk which I believe are classified as "low speed vehicles" li

      • The only barrier to more widespread adoption of solar is the cost.

        The initial estimate for a system that worked was about ten Iraqs. At the end of that, you'd not only have grid solar power for less than current prices but also a working space industry.

        On one hand, prices have gone up, on the other, technology has improved. On the gripping hand, if Michael Laine has his way [liftport.com], that cost will plummet in the next decade or two.

    • ?Long after multiple others thought it was worth responding?

      check your time-stamps before modding, jerk.
    • What is the output of a 75lb nuclear battery? If you can get it to 96 V 800 amps, then you can easily run a car on it. For a lot longer than the car body will survive.

      That is what it will take to get us on nuclear- cheap, reliable, but most importantly MOBILE sources of energy.
      • sorry, i have no idea what you mean by "nuclear battery".
        I was thinking of batteries charged by nuc-gen'd electric coming over conventional power-lines.
        • I had an everything2 link on this- but my work computer seems to have everything2 blocked. Nuclear batteries are used by NASA on space probes mainly- they use a low level radiation source and a thermocoupler to generate electricity from the heat coming off the radiation source. I've heard that they're legal for civilian use in the Northern Territories of Canada- and it's easy to put in enough lead shielding to make it a perfectly safe form of electricity. The problem, though, is power output per weight;
          • "a low level radiation source and a thermocoupler to generate electricity from the heat coming off the radiation source. I've heard that they're legal for civilian use in the Northern Territories of Canada- and it's easy to put in enough lead shielding"

            YIKES! That's what I call getting up-close-and-personal with nuclear.
            Personally, I'd NEVER feel safe about all that radioactive stuff being carried around in cars.
            And there isn't enough lead on the planet to get the public to accept it.

            I much prefer my nuc
            • Well, I hate to tell you, but you've already got the equivalent in a nuclear detector right inside your house. Look on the ceilings and walls for a white lump of plastic shaped like an overgrown hockey puck. It's called a smoke detector- and while there are a few that use different technologies, most use an Americium radiation source and a radiation detector with a gap in between to let smoke particles in- when the radiation detector stops detecting radiation in the proper ammount, the alarm goes off.

              The
              • "you've already got the equivalent in a nuclear detector right inside your house. It's called a smoke detector"

                Yes, but my house doesn't go rolling around the highways and exposing itself to collisions.
                And don't the nuc batts carry a lot more of the stuff?
                • Yes, but my house doesn't go rolling around the highways and exposing itself to collisions.

                  However it's the same principle- you simply engineer the shielding to the situation. Like I said- lead is a great collision force absorbtion material.

                  And don't the nuc batts carry a lot more of the stuff?

                  Depends on the engineering, how much power you want, etc. But we're talking FAR less than critical mass- and not even enough to cause radiation burns with limited exposure. You could easily work with the elem

      • One example is given here. [atomicinsights.com] Output was 75W (30A @2.5V), for a 25kg unit.

        So that would only really work if you had a battery electric car - the car would auto-charge whilst stationary. Probably not really an option, for obvious reasons (public paranoia, accident safety).

        It is slightly surprising that we don't already use electric cars for short journeys; the only reason they cost more is lack of mass production, and they are cheaper to run. Only problem is the ~100 mile range.

        • Paranoia and Safety can be engineered around. The physical limit on power vs. weight cannot- and that's where the real problem lies. Charging while stationary though- that would be interesting, but how long would it take for a 75 W nuclear battery to charge an electric car or even a scooter?

          The second bit- using electric vehicles for short journeys- surprises me too- after all, an electric scooter only costs $100-$250, depending on model, and is great for urban driving (in fact, it's better than a car- d
        • 2nd reply- the Snap 27 itself would be a bad choice anyway, due to the fact that it uses a particularily expensive and hard to handle fuel, Plutonimum 238.

          True, the isotope of plutonium is relatively safe compared with the weapons grade P236, but surface temperature of the fuel rod is 500 degrees C- which means basically factory assembly and total sealing/shielding would be REQUIRED for a civilian version. This would raise problems for the "cold" side of the thermocouple- which would have to be external.

  • FYI: Reg free links (Score:4, Informative)

    by 2TecTom ( 311314 ) on Wednesday August 04, 2004 @10:54AM (#9878979) Homepage Journal
    Clean coal? Squeeze it, say scientists
    http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/03/10914 76492485.html [theage.com.au]
    Burning coal into the future
    http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/04/10915 57913536.html [theage.com.au]

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Close