[Terrapreta] Energy Source

[MFH]

Sean,

 

I'll send some more detail through later, but my further trial last weekend
indicates that with the capture and storage of excess gases there should be
no need for any external 'fuel' other than the use of captured gases from
previous batches. Also of interest given our previous correspondence about
temperatures, is that I had glass from a broken bottle in a plastic phase ON
TOP of the steel drum. Well, actually a little to the side, but I was able
to prod this with a steel rod and fold it around. Whether this is the right
sort of temp for char is not my main thrust here - I am still blown away
(not quite literally) by the capacity of 100Kg of dry wood to produce energy
outputs of staggering proportions.

 

Max H

 

 

  _____  

From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
[mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Sean K. Barry
Sent: Monday, 12 May 2008 2:44 PM
To: still.thinking at computare.org; 'Terra Preta'; 'Kurt Treutlein'
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Energy Source

 

Hi Duane,

 

I agree that Bob Dratch's ideas are not the normal for what I would expect.
I also agree that using nuclear power to carbonize more biomass into
charcoal is a pretty good idea, compared to burning 1/2 the biomass we
harvest (and letting the gases and heat go into the atmosphere, unused) to
make the other 1/2 into charcoal.  Making Terra Preta Nova or Neo Terra
Preta do the jobs we need it to do will take LOTS of charcoal.  Nuclear
power can help us get more sooner.

 

Hmmmm  ... Is there any proof that anyone one of us isn't stupid?!

 

Regards,

 

SKB

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Duane Pendergast <mailto:still.thinking at computare.org>  

To: 'Sean K. Barry' <mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>  ; 'Terra Preta'
<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>  ; 'Kurt
<mailto:rukurt at westnet.com.au>  Treutlein' 

Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 10:13 PM

Subject: RE: [Terrapreta] Energy Source

 

Sorry Sean, Kurt, 

 

I hadn't read the entire article by Bob Dratch that Kurt sent till now. I
just saw the reference to nuclear energy and instantly developed a warm,
fuzzy glow.

 

Bob Dratch seems to me to be developing some new reactor physics. At least
it's new to this mechanical engineer who worked in the nuclear power
industry for 26 years. I say that by way of pointing out I'm not a nuclear
physicist and would not be one to deny the possibility of new discoveries in
that field. The methods I'm aware of for using thorium as a reactor fuel
involves first converting it via neutron (or proton) bombardment to produce
Uranium 233 which is fissile and can be used as reactor fuel. Not too
different from converting uranium 238 into plutonium which can also be used
as reactor fuel. These more plodding approaches, based on documented
science, are discussed in a paper I presented in Japan several years ago.
India is interested in developing thorium powered reactors.

 

http://www.computare.org/Support%20documents/Publications/Sustainable%20Deve
lopment.htm

 

http://www.dae.gov.in/publ/ar0203/chap3.pdf

 

Bob seems to be raising some spurious points re hydrogen. The dream of using
hydrogen as a means of storing energy from wind, solar or nuclear plants
depends on temporarily converting water to hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen
is then "burnt" with oxygen - usually assumed to be from the air - to
recreate water and produce energy where needed.  The amounts of water
temporarily needed for hydrogen production are totally miniscule so the
concern he raises - perhaps jokingly - re drying the planet are not
credible.

 

I came across this company a few days ago which is working on a novel
concept for a fusion reactor. 

 

http://www.generalfusion.com/

 

It seems pretty incredible too considering the decades of effort exp-ended
on fusion to date with no power plants in sight. The physical principles
involved do appeal to a mechanical engineer with a bit of knowledge re shock
waves and implosions. At this point I'd be more inclined to invest in
General Fusion than in 

 

http://bob-dratch.org/

 

At my age I doubt I'd get much return on my investment or any kind of
satisfaction from either.

 

Sorry for dragging us so far off topic, but I can't help thinking humanity
will need a lot of energy and food over the coming decades and centuries. If
neo terra preta works and nuclear energy can be used to help maximize  its
production in some way - why not go for it.

 

Duane

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
[mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Sean K. Barry
Sent: May 11, 2008 7:41 PM
To: Terra Preta; Kurt Treutlein
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Energy Source

 

Hi Kurt,

 

I read the entire article about Thorium reactors.  I read about Bob's
concerns over the theft of fissionable material (spent nuclear fuel) from
nuclear fission reactors using Uranium.  I took issue with the first
sentence at the top of the the article you referenced, is all.   I think
Thorium reactors might be a great idea.  What is the problem with my
reaction that you are having?

 

Kurt, I quoted from the article in blue

 

Did we not read the same thing?

 

Regards,

 

SKB

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080512/9c4aceed/attachment.html