X-Message-Number: 20168
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 09:04:07 EDT
Subject: Re: CryoNet #20152 Carbon output of freeze tank?

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> Tracey, I believe your correspondent's got hold of a straw man. Don't
> know about CI in Michigan, but Alcor's Dewars aren't even powered - just
> topped up with the appropriate chilled substance every now and again to
> keep the contents cool.
> As for carbon output - I don't see how carbon is generated in the
> process (unless he's counting any discarded cooling products.) And the
> process doesn't even involve radioactivity. 

I think both, Alcor and CI use LN2 in dewars, LN2 is a by product of LOX 
making for industry. Both are produced by air liquefaction. This is done by 
compressing air, cooling it in a radiator and then expand it so it gets 
colder ( in fact there is a two step cooling process to go down to lN2 
temperature). Compression is made by a turbopump run by an electric motor. 
The electricity is generated by burning fosil fuels or in a nuclear reactor. 
Because dewars are not perfect, there is a constant boiloff and more LN2 must 
be added every week or so.

The carbon or radio activity come from the energy used to produce LN2. What 
can be argued is that LN2 is a by-product of LOX industry. If it was not used 
in cryonics or elsewhere, it would be produced anyways to make LOX and would 
be a total waste. In that way it is energy and so carbon free. This is not 
really true, because it could be used to chil more air and help to produce 
more LOX or produce the same LOX quantity at lower energy cost. So, in the 
end, there is indeed a carbon - radio activity cost of cryonics.

Yvan Bozzonetti.


 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=20168