Ethinol, nuclear and hydrogen: An excellent article.

I just couldn't allow this to pass without sharing it.

......................................................................

This article appears in the June 2, 2006 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
Ethanol: Not a Kernel of Science in It
by Laurence Hecht

Ethanol is an excellent substance to tank up on. Just don't drive on it. It slows reaction time, impairs judgment, and it's illegal. In excess, it can make you giddy, stupid, mean, sour, depressed, and violent. It might even make you President.

Here we will inform you what ethanol is, why it is a worse than stupid way to replace our oil dependency, and why development of nuclear power is the only sane way to provide ourselves an economic future.

Ethyl alcohol or ethanol (C2H5OH) is the second in what chemists call the homologous series of alcohols, which include methyl, ethyl, propyl, butyl, and amyl alcohol, each one distinguished from the previous by the addition of an atom of carbon and two of hydrogen (CH2). Man has been making ethyl alcohol since long before the discovery of its chemical and structural formula. Almost any plant substance can serve as the raw material—grapes, apples, corn, grain, and potatoes are traditional ingredients. To make some yourself, start with some store-bought apple juice which has been bottled without preservatives. Put it in a clean glass container, and let it sit several days. Yeast, naturally present in the air, will act on the fruit sugars—according to a process first deduced by Louis Pasteur—to change them into alcohol. This is called fermentation. Make sure you use a loosely fitting cover, because carbon dioxide gas is released in the process, and could explode a tightly closed container.

If you wait too long, the fermentation will go to the next stage, converting the alcohol to vinegar (acetic acid). If you stop it at the right moment, you will have an apple cider of perhaps 5-10% alcohol content. The alcohol will be mixed in with the sugary fruit juice. A simple way to separate the alcohol is to freeze the mixture. The alcohol, which has a lower freezing point than the rest of the mix, will collect in a cylindrical hollow in the center of the frozen substance. One can also separate the alcohol with a still, or what chemists call a distillation apparatus. Ethyl alcohol has a boiling point of 173°F, well below that of water. By heating the mixture, the ethyl alcohol boils off first; its vapor can be collected by condensation on a cool part of the apparatus called a condenser. Both of these methods of separation are types of fractional distillation.

The Cost of Scaling Up
To produce ethanol on a commercial basis, the laboratory process of fermentation and distillation must be scaled up. Remembering that our original intention was to save on the use of petroleum products, we must therefore examine the amount of gasoline and other petroleum fuels that would go into the production of ethanol as a replacement for gasoline. First we have the production of the corn or other vegetable product which is going to provide the sugars for fermentation. Modern agriculture is a highly energy-intensive operation: tractors and farm vehicles require a lot of gasoline or diesel fuel; ammonia fertilizers use natural gas as a feedstock; irrigation requires large amounts of electrical energy; farm work also requires human physical and mental labor, which requires energy for its maintenance. Bulk raw materials must now be transported from the farm to the still, for processing and distillation, another energy-intensive process, frequently using natural gas. In fact, more than the total current national consumption of natural gas would be required to power the stills to produce enough ethanol to replace our petroleum dependence.

When all of these inputs are taken together—studies by Dr. David Pimentel of Cornell University and Tad W. Patzek of the Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Berkeley have shown—alcohol production consumes more units of fossil fuel energy than it yields when burned as fuel. Corn ethanol, switchgrass ethanol, and wood alcohol (methanol) consume respectively 29%, 45%, and 57% more units of fossil-fuel energy than they give back on burning.

If we were so insane as to attempt to replace our petroleum usage with corn ethanol (the least inefficient of the choices), it would require placing 1.8 million square miles, or 51% of the land area of the 50 states, under corn cultivation, according to the calculations of retired University of Connecticut physics profesor Howard Hayden (21st Century Science & Technology, Spring 2005, pp. 10-11). However, this is a physical impossibility, for not only could we not find the arable land; we would lack the fossil-fuel supply with which to generate our replacement fuel! Need we also mention that a large portion of the human population is suffering from malnutrition? Knowing that, can any moral person justify taking our productive agricultural land out of food production to feed this swindle?

The high cost of the energy inputs required for ethanol production is actually reflected in the price of the product. When all the tax credits and government subsidies are taken into account, the cost of ethanol comes to $7.24 per gallon of "imported gasoline replaced" (see http://zfacts.com for an exhaustive study). A bipartisan grouping of Senators has now moved to remove the Federal requirement of a 10% ethanol additive to gasoline, because it is adding 30-40 cents per gallon to the price of gas. Not surprisingly, the largest financial beneficiary of the government subsidies have been the grain cartels—Archer, Daniels, Midland and Cargill—and hedge fund speculators who have recently moved in on the ethanol boondoggle.

Let us now see why nuclear power is an enormously better, and absolutely necessary alternative to the funny fuel.

How Alcohol and Gasoline Burn
Structurally, alcohols are similar to hydrocarbons which are what make up the combustible parts of coal, oil, and gasoline. The hydrocarbons form a simple, homologous series, like the alcohols. Methane, one of the ingredients of natural gas, is the simplest hydrocarbon, consisting of a single carbon atom surrounded by four hydrogens. In the 1870s, two brilliant young chemists, Joseph Achille LeBel and Jacobus Henricus van't Hoff, deduced that carbon bonds with other atoms in a tetrahedral arrangement. Thus, the methane molecule (CH4) could be pictured as a tetrahedron with a carbon in the center and a hydrogen atom at each of the four vertices. Ethane, the second in the hydrocarbon series, consists of two tetrahedra joined at their vertices. Knowing this, its formula may be easily deduced by construction, as C2H6, and so forth. The alcohol series are much like the hydrocarbons, except that one of the hydrogen atoms is replaced by a molecule consisting of a combination of oxygen and hydrogen (OH).

The connection between one atom and another is called a bond. We understand these bonds today as attractive relationships between the electrons in the outer orbitals of the atoms. Their exact nature, despite much study, is not yet fully understood. However, the branch of physical chemistry known as thermodynamics has been able to create a kind of accounting system, which doesn't worry about what the actual physical geometric process of transformation is. It merely keeps track of the energy relationships, on the assumption that no new energy is created or destroyed in a chemical change. Thus, the attractive bond between the electrons is thought of as containing a certain amount of energy. When a hydrocarbon or an alcohol burns, that is combines with oxygen in the air, these bonds are broken. The energy contained in them is now converted into heat. We don't know exactly how, but we can measure precisely how much.

Heat is measured in a unit called a calorie, which was developed out of the work of Antoine Lavoisier (1743-1793) in experiments on the specific heats of the elements. It is the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of one gram of water (at a temperature of 14.5°C) by one degree centigrade. Because this unit is so small, we often employ the kilocalorie, which is the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of one kilogram (2.2 pounds) of water by one degree centigrade. (Heat may also be measured by the unit of work known as the joule—there are 4.18 joules in a calorie—and the British Thermal Unit (Btu) which is equal to 252 calories). Using any of these units, we can determine the amount of heat produced when a certain quantity of alcohol, gasoline, coal, or any other combustible substance is burned.

The burning of one kilogram of gasoline produces about 10,500 kilocalories. Burning one kilogram of ethanol produces about 7,140 kilocalories, about 68% that of gasoline. Thus, a car running on pure ethanol will require a fuel tank that is almost half again larger than a gasoline-powered vehicle.[1]

The Nuclear Domain
However, these relatively small differences are negligible in comparison to the heat released by nuclear processes. The fissioning of one gram of uranium releases about 2 million times as much heat as is produced by burning an equivalent weight of gasoline or oil, and 3 million times the heat produced in burning that weight of coal.

These enormous energies are not released from the chemical bonds. We are speaking now about a new physical domain. In the breaking apart of the uranium nucleus, we are releasing the much stronger forces which hold the nucleus together. Here, in a space about one-millionth the size of the whole atom, we find 92 charged particles, known as protons, each 1836 times heavier than the extra-nuclear electrons, which are the actors in chemical reactions. The protons are held together by some powerful agent, conventionally known as the strong force. In addition to these 92 protons, a nucleus of fissionable uranium-235 contains another 143 neutral particles about the same mass as the proton. When a uranium nucleus shatters, fragments containing these particles go flying apart at velocities up to one-tenth the speed of light.

For more than 60 years, since the operation of the first atomic pile on Dec. 2, 1942, we have known how to control this process. For over 50 years, we have harnessed the heat generated by the fission of the nucleus to produce electricity, safely and cheaply. With a complete fuel cycle which includes reprocessing, there is no nuclear waste.

Nuclear is a fully renewable energy resource. It is also only the beginning. For in 25 years we will begin to commercialize an even more powerful source of energy from the nucleus, fusion power.

With abundant nuclear power, we can virtually eliminate our dependence on imported oil, without having to cover the whole nation with ethanol cornfields and eliminate our food and animal production. Nuclear will provide the electricity to recharge the batteries for electric-powered transport on the trips of under 30 miles that make up the majority of vehicle use.

Nuclear will also generate the fuel to replace gasoline for use on longer trips. With the temperatures of 700-800 degrees, which can be produced by the new fourth generation of nuclear reactors, we can easily separate hydrogen from water, using electrolysis and even more efficient chemical separation methods. The hydrogen will power fuel cells to run electric motors, or be burned in internal combustion engines. Soon, as a result of advances in fast pulse laser machining processes, ceramic turbines, capable of operating at temperatures of 3,000 degrees and thus achieving efficiencies three times that of conventional engines, will be available.

Hydrogen Fuel
With a heat of combustion of 34,200 kilocalories per kilogram, hydrogen carries more than three times the energy content by weight of gasoline, and nearly five times that of ethanol. That is why it is used as rocket fuel. The leading problem in using hydrogen to power vehicles has been the cost of compressing it to a usable size. However, a variety of options are available and in the works to solve this problem.

The byproduct of the burning of hydrogen is water. The byproduct of the production of hydrogen from water is oxygen. Releasing oxygen to the atmosphere by the industrial production of hydrogen, will solve what is by far the most serious atmospheric environmental threat we face. That threat is not the release of carbon dioxide from combustion of carbonaceous fuels—for carbon dioxide enhances plant life, helps produce cloud cover, and has never been proven to increase the Earth's temperature. The real danger to be feared from the greatly expanded use of carbon-based fuels, is the depletion of atmospheric oxygen. Nuclear power and the hydrogen cycle will give the children of the next century the air they need to breathe.

As a growing fraction of intelligent young people are coming to recognize, the often sexually-tinged anti-nuclear obsessions of their parents' generation have contributed in large part to the new generation's lack of access to the levels of educational, healthcare, and employment opportunities which Americans had come to expect. It is time for those still embracing such fantasies to grow up and admit their past errors, or get out of the way. Woodstock, EarthDay, and the rest of those youthful hijinks are a thing of the far-distant past. The nation's future is at stake.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Ethanol is able to deliver about the same amount of power as gasoline, because it requires less air to burn, and thus a greater portion of the gaseous mixture found in the cylinder on each stroke is made up of ethanol. Because of its air requirement, only about one third as much gasoline vapor as ethanol can fit into a cyclinder of a given size.
 
Yep, great article.

So, the future won't be bleak. A nuclear future sounds good. What about if Australia also makes a fortune by storing the waste in the only safe place in the world, in the safest landscape, in the safest country.

But how do we make it happen? Two many greenies to stuff everything up.

See ya's.
 
Very interesting article. It is a pity that we are not developing the nuclear side of things as when I was at a recent Uranium conference there were some people saying that the money that we could earn from storing the rest of the world's nuclear waste would be worth about 1% of our GDP.

The other issue to consider is that people are currently working on technology that will apparently be able to produce up to 40x as much energy from a given amount of fuel. Thus the waste could become very valuable at some time in the future.

Regards,

Anthony
 
Great article, Thanks for sharing.

It's about time that the attitudes change a bit about nuclear energy.

What about the reprocessing of the nuclear waste, though. How does that happen? What type of reactor is required? Why aren't other countries doing it since it is one of the major concerns of the anti-nuclear camp?

Cheers,
 
I'm a big fan of nuclear power.

It's a decent a baseline replacement for coal and gas-fired powerplants.

However....the world still has a decent supply of coal and gas, and they are both much cheaper to extract and use than nuclear power.

Technically coal is a much greater pollutant than nuclear power (gas is about on par) - however we seem much less concerned over coal smog (which can be radioactive as well) than over nuclear.

The average American's exposure to radiation (82%) comes primarily from natural sources. Fifty-five percent comes from radon, which is given off by radium, a component of soil and rock. Americans receive a smaller percentage of radiation from other terrestrial sources, such as uranium in the soil, and from cosmic rays. Eleven percent of natural radiation exposure is internal, primarily from radioactive potassium in our bodies. Eighteen percent of American's radiation exposure comes from man-made sources such as x-rays, nuclear medicine, and consumer products, much of which is the necessary byproduct of beneficial products and procedures. Americans receive only 0.1% of their total radiation exposure from nuclear energy production. This figure includes exposure from mining, milling, reactor operation, transportation, and waste storage. Interestingly, Americans receive 0.5% of their total radiation exposure from the radioisotopes released into the atmosphere from coal-fired power plants. We actually receive five times as much radiation from coal-fired power plants as we do from nuclear power plants (Taylor, 1996).
- http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

I reckon humanity is still on a jag over the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.

Until we get over this, nuclear, while a relatively safe and clean fuel source compared to the disgustingly dirty fuels we use today, will be mistakenly considered a 'bad' fuel.

One interesting point btw - the nuclear industry is the only energy industry that takes full responsibility for it's waste products and factors the disposal costs into the cost of the energy supplied.

Coal, gas and oil would be much more expensive if the cost of disposing of the waste products was taken into account.

House_Keeper, take a look at the pebble bed reactors being put into China at the moment if you want to understand more about nuclear waste management. Here's a good source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor#Production_of_fuel

Cheers,

Aceyducey
 
hi all
very interesting that nobody has brought up any new technologys.
where is hot rock fusion and steam generation in this mix.
we are in the best area for this technology.
the pacific is the closes point to the core of the planet and most of the islands if bores where sunk could out power most of the generator we Currently have.
If you could sink a hole or bore line to supply super heated gas line from a volcano as the source turbine the power is immence.
to generate the same power as a small generation plant is the same as constructing a conventional power staion put the run cost are about 10% and the power per cost is a fraction of the current cost.
for me core heat power supply will be the fuel of the future and if it get off the ground and I think it will it will out pace both nuclear and coal.
wind and air can't supply the power of core and if you tap the areas that have volcano problems then you have a renewable fuel.
It won't be in my life time that this tech will grow but for me it will happen it must.
the idea is very simple they have three plant running putting out 11 meg watts on a standard turbine its just a matter of time before they get it right and from an enviromental point of view they only put out super high temp steam.
they drop water onto the core that superheats and forms steam that drive the turbine.
and when it cools they drill until it gets to 2000c and start again
not sure why people haven't had a look at it I have and from an investor point of view the companies involved all look like a heart attack and that the best time to look at there share price.
 
Geezzzz GR, you post a lot of good stuff. Why do you insist on making it unreadable? The shift key is under your left pinky and that gives you capitals!. You know the return key but hitting it twice when appropriate does wonders too.

As for thermo power, obviously the Kiwis harness a lot of it. Lihir Gold has recently commissioned a thermal generator to replace diesel generators too but I think they are both tapping live steam and not injecting water into hot rock.

I agree that it is a concept very worth of further research. But these technologies should be virtually proven by now if our pollies and the electorate generally could see beyond 6 inches in front of their collective noses.
 
Last week here in Japan they started testing a hydogen / water powered car. It's running around Japan for a year or so. First one to be road safety approved here. The idea is you "fill up" with water and ocassionally get a hydro refill.

Hydrogen is ignited and water is then added, this greatly magnifies the combustion while using only small amounts of hydrogen. I only saw a snipet about it on the news so don't have much real info ... in fact it's most likely old tech. Stability and safety of the hydrogen tank, currently under the centre of the car is one of the main concerns ... especially in a collision.
 
I'm had a long and close look at geothermal, including considering picking up some of the leases around Australia (most of the good ones are gone now).

However I've begged off at this stage as no-one has yet made it work successfully and the investment required to do so is huge.

While initially it looks really simple (use existing drilling tools and existing steam-electricity processing equipment), the engineering challenges of pumping water several kilometres down a shaft, then generating electricity from steam coming several kilometres up another shaft, are still large.

Much easier and cheaper to set up an oil exploration company - there's a known and profitable market, established processes and no technical or engineering challenges (beyond specific environments) to solve.

Definitely the companies working in the geothermal area look like heart attacks - and picking the winners isn't easy. I'm not convinced that most now operating have the resources or management to successfully survive until geothermal becomes commercial.

They are too risky for me to put cash in at this stage.

However if someone said to me, here's $50M, go create a company that will successfully generate commercial geothermal-based electricity, I'd be in it in an instance!

Even with a $5M starting budget I could create a company for AIM listing that would have a good shot at success in this area (stay tuned...Gross call me if you'd be interested in working together on this one)

BTW Grossreal - the world is (almost) spherical, we're no closer to the core than anyone else ;)

We do have a massive 'hot rock' underneath us with minimal geological movement - which is a plus for geothermal exploitation. However we don't have the capacity to generate geothermal energy close to the surface, like New Zealand or Japan (due to volcanos).

Cheers,

Aceyducey
 
hi all
couple of thing
I wouldn't invest at this a stage either but I think is alot better then the others on offer

typing to these lenghts are not my usually for of communication, the phone is so I am trying but I only have so much time.

the planet is a sphere but vanuatu has an active volcano its on a relative sparce island and this is the type of place that could generate the power the problem then is transporting the power.


there is two that I know success plants The name escape me at the moment one is in wa and the other in sa you can find them if you do an asx check or a resource mag scan.


and Aceyducey picking winner is what we try to do
my son has been keeping an eye on this field and be doesn't do to bad at the moment.

Aceyducey you don't need a 5 mil budjet you need a 5 mil term deposit for 2 years and then leverage off that.


Aceyducey currently not in my radar to look at this but it has been on my mind for some time.
as the heart attack keeps changing the fortunes in these companies

you only need a buy into the right one at the right price and then redirect the fortunes of that company.

thats also easier said then done.
 
RichardC said:
......................................................................

This article appears in the June 2, 2006 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
Ethanol: Not a Kernel of Science in It
by Laurence Hecht

<...lots of unnecessary scientific "facts" deleted"...>

Nuclear is a fully renewable energy resource. It is also only the beginning. For in 25 years we will begin to commercialize an even more powerful source of energy from the nucleus, fusion power.

<...more stuff deleted...>

The byproduct of the burning of hydrogen is water. The byproduct of the production of hydrogen from water is oxygen. Releasing oxygen to the atmosphere by the industrial production of hydrogen, will solve what is by far the most serious atmospheric environmental threat we face. That threat is not the release of carbon dioxide from combustion of carbonaceous fuels—for carbon dioxide enhances plant life, helps produce cloud cover, and has never been proven to increase the Earth's temperature. The real danger to be feared from the greatly expanded use of carbon-based fuels, is the depletion of atmospheric oxygen. Nuclear power and the hydrogen cycle will give the children of the next century the air they need to breathe.

Yes, an interesting article, although filled with a lot of irrelevant crap about molecular structures etc, and emotive statements that I find distracting. I am in the pro-nuclear energy camp, but I don't think articles like this really help the debate.

Firstly, stating that in 25 years fusion reactors will be available is pure conjecture. In any case it's irrelvant to whether we should develop more fission reactor capability now.

Secondly, I'm not an atmospheric scientist, but I find it very hard to believe that the world will face an oxygen shortage because of our burning of fossil fuels, or that a nuclear world would save us from this disaster. I mean, give me a break. And combining this idea with the statement that global warming is not a real issue...what the?

Using pseudo-scence and emotion may be one way to win some people over to your side, but I'd prefer some balanced discussion of the facts.

In Australia we have more than enough coal to provide electricity for a while yet. Only when the environmental cost of using fossil fuels (epecially the dirty coal that we have in Victoria for example) can be factored into the price of our electricity (which is slowly happening via "carbon trading" schemes) will nuclear power become a reality.

GR and Acey, I haven't looked much at geothermal, but can this really provide the large amounts of energy that we require. I always thought it would be a minor player like wind power (although that doesn't mean it wouldn't be very lucrative - if you're trying to raise $5M I'll send you $100 for a couple of shares :D ).

John.
 
johnnyb said:
Yes, an interesting article, although filled with a lot of irrelevant crap about molecular structures etc,
Maybe I'm a pre-puter geek type but I love that stuff.:)

I thought the meat of the article was in the debunking of the ethinol theory which, dangerously, has powerful proponents.
 
RichardC said:
Maybe I'm a pre-puter geek type but I love that stuff.:)

I thought the meat of the article was in the debunking of the ethinol theory which, dangerously, has powerful proponents.

Yes, I agree that the ethanol discussion is interesting. I hadn't seen some of the numbers he put forward.

I guess I just have a short attention span (and short temper) when people can't stick to the point. If he was trying to make an argument against ethanol then the article could have finished about half way. The debate on fossil Vs nuclear is something separate IMHO.

John.
 
RichardC said:
I thought the meat of the article was in the debunking of the ethinol theory which, dangerously, has powerful proponents.


Ethanol may be a bit dodgy, however it will still be a big thing, and bring it on as far as I'm concerned.

It will be big due to political reasons. The US wants to reduce oil dependance from the middle east and it will do that. It will also prolong oil. Oil is what will run out first and ethanol is really the conversion of natural gas into auto fuel as in through the fertilizer to grow the crop. Diesel is only a small part of growing crops these days. Tillage of the soil is a pretty dumb way to kill weeds. The energy use is tremendous. Most farmers don't spend much on diesel these days to till the soil to kill weeds. Roundup is far more effective and efficient.

Another reason why ethanol could be pushed for political reasons is farm subsidies. If grain prices jump enough, the subsidies could be phased out without complant from US and Euro farmers, and good ridance too.

The diesel to shift the grain I guess needs to be counted, however the grain had to be transported anyway if it was being used for food. For ethanol, the grain will just travel a short distance to the ethanol plant, then, when converted, the much smaller volume of ethanol is transported to the cities and where it will be used. Fertilizer or some other meal type stock feed is often a by product of the process, so it would stay up country.

Personally, I think it is only profitable now to turn grain into ethanol due to grain being way under it's true value. Grain will surely jump in price soon. The US is about to start turning as much tonnes of corn as twice the whole Aussie grain crop, to ethanol. This will take away much of the worlds grain exports. World grain supplies are already at low levels. Lowest in over 30 years, and that is with double the consumption. What happens next will be interesting. I think the ethanol craze will fizzle out on it's own when grain jumps in price and grains real value as food is better appreciated..

See ya's.
 
Last edited:
hi johnnyb
the cost to build the power station is the same and the out put is also the same as a coal fired unit its just the form that superheated steam is produced that is different.
and yes It is a possible replacement for fossils if they can refine it to a degree that it will work.
they are at about 65% down that road at the moment.
didn't look at it replacing the ozone but they have looked at it being produced in an arid area and the steam to cause water changes but this is a side line and of no real use for me.
as I say maybe not in my time frame that it will happen.
but for me is the best renewable, low emmission,way of producing power.
and put it with a water pipe line to the alice( which has been on the board for years) and the two may still come off.
the water can be salt water and the steam ( from school days ) turns into fresh water and drops out there
very interesting
 
grossreal said:
hi all
heres a guestion for you
how much normal steam is produced by 1 ltr of water.
give the answer in about 3hrs

1 litre of water raised to 100C contains 419 kilo Joules of energy (sensible heat)and weighs 1 kg. Specific heat of water = 4.19 kJ/1C/litre, specific heat of steam = 2.16 kJ/1C/kg. 1 kg of steam at 1 atmosphere and 100C contains 419kJ (sensible) + 2257 kJ of heat of vapourisation (latent heat) and occupies 1,673 litres!

http://www.hbd.org/brewery/library/SteInjCS1295.html
 
hi duncan
I new someone would know I had it at 1700ltrs of steam per one ltr of water and was wondering how many service techs were out there as its part of training for steam tanks.
coffee machines etc
its very interesting how much steam is produced from one ltr of water and you can work out backwards how much water a coal fired generator will (that was changed to a geothermal ) drop in an area like alice springs etc its a fare bit of water.
 
johnnyb said:
GR and Acey, I haven't looked much at geothermal, but can this really provide the large amounts of energy that we require. I always thought it would be a minor player like wind power (although that doesn't mean it wouldn't be very lucrative - if you're trying to raise $5M I'll send you $100 for a couple of shares :D ).

Not raising the money at this stage Johnny, but I reserve the right to put together a business plan for a private equity raising in the future :)

As to the large quantities of energy, well geo has a better shot at it than wind or tidal, hydro is out of the picture (not enough water) and solar...well, we'll see :)

But don't take my word for it, check out: http://www.geodynamics.com.au/IRM/content/02_hotdryrock/02.3.html

One cubic kilometre of hot granite at 240oC has the stored energy equivalent of 40 million barrels of oil when the heat is extracted to a temperature of 140oC.

Australia is known to have several thousand cubic kilometres of identified high heat producing granites and these have the potential to meet the total electricity demand of the country for hundreds of years.

Cheers,

Aceyducey

PS: They do have a bias, but the maths works :)
 
Back
Top