RE: Drilling the Sky -- link to fuel flexibility in cars

At 12:55 PM 9/23/2007, Feng Hsu wrote:

Paul,
 
Hydrazine is nasty stuff. We use it on the Space Shuttle to fuel the APUs for hydraulic powers and it is one of the safety hazards that must be carefully managed and controlled due to its nasty corrosive chemical properties. It can easily damage your electrical wire insulations and even your health...... So as you said, additives must be added for safety reasons if massive use of hydrazine is allowed by general publics for cars and yet we don�t know how expensive or how hazardous the additives can be?
 

I went through a few iterations on this just yesterday,

The key is that it's HH, hydrazine HYDRATE, not hydrazine.
The difference between hydrazine and hydrazine hydrate is essentially
the same as the difference between ethane and ethanol...
a huge difference when it comes to safety.

It's clear that NAIST and Daihatsu have done the due diligence on safety
and on additives.

Of course -- gasoline, ethanol and methanol are ALSO disasters without additives.

If we could generate electricity for baseload needs regardless from terrestrial or space based solar installations,
why need we mess around with any liquid fuels such as hydrazine or methanol etc. for cars?

I was referring to what I would propose as a game plan for Exxon.

In the long-term, we don't KNOW which fuel is BEST -- or whether liquid fuels
will be better than electricity. I was **NOT** saying I would advocate a commitment
to HH either by me or by the US government. However -- if propose to Exxon that they
use electricity (from space or anywhere else) to make liquid fuels, we do need to
ask what a core representative set of possible liquid fuels should be.

**IF** we can get cars able to use HH as well as gasoline,ethanol and methanol,
at relatively low additional cost, I WOULD propose that Exxon and we unite to push for
a rapid development of GEMH-flexible plug-in hybrids as soon as possible, so that
the market opens up for E85, M85 and HH as well as gasoline... whether
they like electricity or not. And I propose that we agree to incentives
for GEMH flexibility as such in new cars, apart from the additional incentives for plug-in capability.
The goal is COMPETITION, so that the ultimate choice
will be made by the market, not by us picking winners and losers.

And I would propose that all those who have talked about "hydrogen economy"
or hydrogen as a possible car fuel switch to HH instead. It is a more realistic route to
the same goal.

And sure, I would recommend that Exxon HEDGE its investments in liquid fuel
with a well-strategized investment in a new form of electricity, energy from space.
But at the present time, it would be a bit much to ask Exxon to totally
give up on the long-term possibilities for liquid fuels or "hydrogen".
The opportunity for them is to HEDGE (and refine) that existing commitment,
to allow for massive long-term uncertainties in world markets and politics.

Best of luck,

    Paul