http://www.physorg.com/news1471.html
Actually a very good point.
Yes, good point, but no surprise. So when do we get started?
DO we get started? What are the current economic drivers ... the viable business model ... for this kind of an investment? There are lots of conspiracy theorists who blame Big Oil for the lack of current alternatives, but the truth remian that these "better" alternatives are just too darned expensive to pay their own way.
I can't speak for the UK, but if the US is to achieve this kind of "energy independence" it's going to take national committment on the scale of the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo program(s), with subsidies everywhere. Generation, transmission, storage, vehicle modifications, ... the whole works.
Hang onto your wallets!!!!!
I can't speak for the UK, but if the US is to achieve this kind of "energy independence" it's going to take national committment on the scale of the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo program(s), with subsidies everywhere. Generation, transmission, storage, vehicle modifications, ... the whole works.
Hang onto your wallets!!!!!
Hi ChiRaven
from the UK I couldnt agree more
AR
from the UK I couldnt agree more
AR
New wind is already cost equivalent to new black coal generators. The sooner we get started the better. There is also wave generator, in particular, oscillating water column, that is in already in pilot installation and the Salter Duck that can utilise the higher energy density water waves or maybe reduce coastline wave damage by converting the wave energy before it reaches shore. How much has it cost the US in cyclone damage this year? There are many "economic" arguments against cleaner energy but fossil energy is stored energy that is not sustainable. Hydrogen is an energy storage medium usurpted by petroleum for over 100 years about time the perception changed and we grasped the vision of a sustainable future for spaceship earth.
Money Money Money perhaps it has talked for too long. When we talk about the cost of this clean technology compared to fossil fuels lets figure in the huge amount of money the gov't has spent on nuclear power (including research), oil exploration and retrieval and any wars that were required to obtain the oil and stabilize its price.
In the early 1970's a college programmed a computer with all the information they believed would be available about 1850, one projection stands out in my memory.
In the year 1950 the USA would have four feet horse manure over it. So much for projections.
In the year 1950 the USA would have four feet horse manure over it. So much for projections.
Hydrogen? Let's finish the roll out of the hybrid. My honda hybrid is
loved by all who drive in it. Half the oil dependence.
Hydrogen is politics for "not gonna fix the Hummer tax-break loophole this year."
loved by all who drive in it. Half the oil dependence.
Hydrogen is politics for "not gonna fix the Hummer tax-break loophole this year."
QUOTE
New wind is already cost equivalent to new black coal generators. The sooner we get started the better.
Even here in California, where there is a greater-than-average number of people who're supportive and indeed profess to be extremely interested in going with other sustainable energy methods like wind, the general public just hasn't exerted the pressure on government or industry to start making these things a reality.
I for one am appalled that after the last California energy crisis, there wasn't a RUSH by manufacturers to build low-cost wind generators. If there had been viable ways for the average homeowner to offset even a SMALL portion of their electricity with their own wind (or even solar) generator, people would go for it.
There's just too much "old thinking" getting in the way though. (Reminds me of the couple in Iowa this Christmas that wanted to erect a windmill on their property to power a good portion of their community's electric needs. In the end, it got blocked by the local power company that had a contract with the town for a few more years to be the exclusive provider of power. What small-minded fools.... In the end, the couple took the same money that could have powered the town for YEARS, and just paid the town's citizens' electric bills for December. Hrumph.)
The research focused on generating hydrogen using hydrolysis. What (if any) research has been done looking at generating hydrogen through chemical reactions, such as hydrochloric acid and zinc?
If you want to renovate your house, you very rarely smash your house down and start all over. You very rarely work on every room in your house at the same time. You go room by room, make changes to your position as needed.
This needs to be applied to oil dependency. This needs to start in peoples heads.
If hydrogen is too difficult to produce, this does not mean we have to stick with oil. Oil is not going to last for ever at the rate we are using it. Then what?
Why not try something else. Technology exists to have electric vehicles for example. Yes you have to make bateries but these are one-off's compared to hydrogen which would need to be constantly created.
There is a problem. Refuel points. No point in buying such a vehicle cos how would you charge it? No point making such a vehicle cos no one will buy one. So what is the point in running a refuel point if no one has such a vehicle. This loop needs to be broken, someone need to take loss for a while...
Governments should work on refuel points at a loss. Car manufacturers should use some of their MASSIVE profits to fund alternative vehicles at a loss, being supported by regular oil based vehicles. Get the vehicles into the consumers hands. Eventually with education of society, people will slowly switch over. Car manufacturers will start to reduce their losses, governments will have to fund recharge points less. Project the outcome in 50 years time.
This needs to be applied to oil dependency. This needs to start in peoples heads.
If hydrogen is too difficult to produce, this does not mean we have to stick with oil. Oil is not going to last for ever at the rate we are using it. Then what?
Why not try something else. Technology exists to have electric vehicles for example. Yes you have to make bateries but these are one-off's compared to hydrogen which would need to be constantly created.
There is a problem. Refuel points. No point in buying such a vehicle cos how would you charge it? No point making such a vehicle cos no one will buy one. So what is the point in running a refuel point if no one has such a vehicle. This loop needs to be broken, someone need to take loss for a while...
Governments should work on refuel points at a loss. Car manufacturers should use some of their MASSIVE profits to fund alternative vehicles at a loss, being supported by regular oil based vehicles. Get the vehicles into the consumers hands. Eventually with education of society, people will slowly switch over. Car manufacturers will start to reduce their losses, governments will have to fund recharge points less. Project the outcome in 50 years time.
Forget hydrogen altogether. Let's start using those new batteries Toshiba created and just go straight electric. Sure we might need to build a few new power plants, but transmitting electricity is a lot more efficient than shipping hydrogen. The infrastructure seems to be half of the problem.
what happened to using natural algae to produce hydrogen from water? i remember reading a story somewhere that swamps smell funny because the algae in the water extracts hydrogen from the water and releases it into the air.
regardless i have faith in the scientific community that they will come up with some efficient alternative means of extracting hydrogen from water. the saying goes that only "death and taxes" are certain in life, but it’s wrong. it's "death, taxes and scientific/technological advancement".
also, if someone can crack nuclear fusion (if you believe the hype) then generating electricity to extract hydrogen won't require fossil fuels. if cold fusion (e.g. using ultrasound to generate collapsing bubbles in water) is possible then this is even better.
regardless i have faith in the scientific community that they will come up with some efficient alternative means of extracting hydrogen from water. the saying goes that only "death and taxes" are certain in life, but it’s wrong. it's "death, taxes and scientific/technological advancement".
also, if someone can crack nuclear fusion (if you believe the hype) then generating electricity to extract hydrogen won't require fossil fuels. if cold fusion (e.g. using ultrasound to generate collapsing bubbles in water) is possible then this is even better.
QUOTE (Insyght+)
Car manufacturers should use some of their MASSIVE profits to fund alternative vehicles at a loss, being supported by regular oil based vehicles.
No one wants to operate at a loss (especially the American car companies who are already not doing very well right now, like GM). This is why hybrids are more expensive. Even the imports. It's also why there are government subsidies. I don't think the American car companies are going to move forward much on this unless there are big government subsidies. I won't hazzard a guess at what the odds of that are. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader.
No one wants to operate at a loss (especially the American car companies who are already not doing very well right now, like GM). This is why hybrids are more expensive. Even the imports. It's also why there are government subsidies. I don't think the American car companies are going to move forward much on this unless there are big government subsidies. I won't hazzard a guess at what the odds of that are. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader.
WaterBreath,
Regarding car companies not doing well right now. That "not doing well" is relative to previous years, not absolute. I pulled this from Yahoo finance [March this year]:
So far this year, GM has sold a total of 995,225 vehicles, down 3.9 percent from more than 1 million vehicles a year ago.
>400,000 cars per MONTH is not bad if you ask me.
Yet ironically, whilst there I read the following:
GM Delivers First Fuel Cell Truck to U.S. Army
Friday April 1, 12:12 pm ET
- Military Sees Day When All Its Vehicles Would Be Fuel Cell-Powered
The modified Chevrolet Silverado is equipped with two 94 kW fuel cell stacks, capable of generating 188 kW and 317 foot-pounds of torque, or roughly the motor torque generated by GM's 5.3 liter V-8 engine.
"Fuel cell vehicles are a good match with U.S. Army goals," said Elizabeth A. Lowery, GM's vice president for Environment and Energy. "We are committed to the development of new technologies that will improve fuel consumption and reduce vehicle emissions. Fuel cell systems are both clean and quiet, and therefore, can provide a battlefield advantage.
Regarding car companies not doing well right now. That "not doing well" is relative to previous years, not absolute. I pulled this from Yahoo finance [March this year]:
QUOTE
The world's largest automaker, which warned on March 16 of a loss in the first quarter and lowered its full-year earnings target by as much as 80 percent, sold 426,114 cars and trucks last month compared with 414,949 a year earlier.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The world's largest automaker, which warned on March 16 of a loss in the first quarter and lowered its full-year earnings target by as much as 80 percent, sold 426,114 cars and trucks last month compared with 414,949 a year earlier. |
So far this year, GM has sold a total of 995,225 vehicles, down 3.9 percent from more than 1 million vehicles a year ago.
>400,000 cars per MONTH is not bad if you ask me.
Yet ironically, whilst there I read the following:
QUOTE
GM Delivers First Fuel Cell Truck to U.S. Army
Friday April 1, 12:12 pm ET
- Military Sees Day When All Its Vehicles Would Be Fuel Cell-Powered
The modified Chevrolet Silverado is equipped with two 94 kW fuel cell stacks, capable of generating 188 kW and 317 foot-pounds of torque, or roughly the motor torque generated by GM's 5.3 liter V-8 engine.
"Fuel cell vehicles are a good match with U.S. Army goals," said Elizabeth A. Lowery, GM's vice president for Environment and Energy. "We are committed to the development of new technologies that will improve fuel consumption and reduce vehicle emissions. Fuel cell systems are both clean and quiet, and therefore, can provide a battlefield advantage.
QUOTE (WaterBreath+Apr 4 2005, 08:22 PM)
QUOTE (Insyght+)
Car manufacturers should use some of their MASSIVE profits to fund alternative vehicles at a loss, being supported by regular oil based vehicles.
No one wants to operate at a loss (especially the American car companies who are already not doing very well right now, like GM). This is why hybrids are more expensive. Even the imports. It's also why there are government subsidies. I don't think the American car companies are going to move forward much on this unless there are big government subsidies. I won't hazzard a guess at what the odds of that are. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader.
Another reason hybrids are so expensive is the stupid lawsuits from Deroit. eg. Ovonics (former GM exec. as chairman) has never sold anything useful in their life, and from looking at their website, might never. But they've managed to file a patent which has broad coverage of something basic re. NiMh batteries. Pretty meaningless patent, but they were able to use it recently to sue Toyota and whoever made the Prius batteries (Mitsubishi?) for 30 million based on the Prius using NiMh batteries. Guess who's financed the laywers for the lawsuit? Texaco.
Another former CEO of Oldsmobile has hooked up with some guy from nowhere and filed a "patent on the hybrid drivetrain". Really stupid, nothing inovative in the patent at all except one small bit about center-tapping the battery pack, which is stupid really because getting high enough voltage from the batteries is one of the problems with hybrids (small battery packs, high power). Otherwise I found precedents for every claim in their patent, mostly from a European tractor manufacturer's published specification of a test vehicle from ten years ago. (New Holland Tractor). But you bet they're gonna sue every company that tries to build a hybrid? Watch.
I'll get you references if you need them.
No one wants to operate at a loss (especially the American car companies who are already not doing very well right now, like GM). This is why hybrids are more expensive. Even the imports. It's also why there are government subsidies. I don't think the American car companies are going to move forward much on this unless there are big government subsidies. I won't hazzard a guess at what the odds of that are. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader.
Another reason hybrids are so expensive is the stupid lawsuits from Deroit. eg. Ovonics (former GM exec. as chairman) has never sold anything useful in their life, and from looking at their website, might never. But they've managed to file a patent which has broad coverage of something basic re. NiMh batteries. Pretty meaningless patent, but they were able to use it recently to sue Toyota and whoever made the Prius batteries (Mitsubishi?) for 30 million based on the Prius using NiMh batteries. Guess who's financed the laywers for the lawsuit? Texaco.
Another former CEO of Oldsmobile has hooked up with some guy from nowhere and filed a "patent on the hybrid drivetrain". Really stupid, nothing inovative in the patent at all except one small bit about center-tapping the battery pack, which is stupid really because getting high enough voltage from the batteries is one of the problems with hybrids (small battery packs, high power). Otherwise I found precedents for every claim in their patent, mostly from a European tractor manufacturer's published specification of a test vehicle from ten years ago. (New Holland Tractor). But you bet they're gonna sue every company that tries to build a hybrid? Watch.
I'll get you references if you need them.
what would happen if every home owner installed solar panals on their roofs?
seems to me that the Power company could finance this and simply take the extra power in return instead of payment until the units are paid off with a bit of interest.
then we get more power, our bills go down, and we have less need for coal and oil.
plus the power companies come out ahead.
someone tell me the flaw here?
seems to me that the Power company could finance this and simply take the extra power in return instead of payment until the units are paid off with a bit of interest.
then we get more power, our bills go down, and we have less need for coal and oil.
plus the power companies come out ahead.
someone tell me the flaw here?
Matt,
Great plan. I've been tempted to consider private at home energy... seams the most logical way to go. Got me asking Q's about how to harness energy from residual heat. In summer it's free, in winter we pay to generate it and let it all float outside. Why not re-use that in some form... anyways, thats off topic.
I think it's like this: Right now we need the power companies. They can raise the price how they want and we have to byte... we have little choice. If they gave us freedom, even support it by helping us generate our own power, then they would kinda quality for a Darwin award from an financial standpoint in the long term, shutting them selves down.
I see no reason why everything on the earth could not be powered by a combination of water, wind, solar and geothermal energy sources, all "free" to some extent.
With reference to some comments on reason for high cost of hybrids, it's just greed. Think about it, take an example, DVD burners. How much were those "things" when they first come out? I don't know if I can count that high... yet now they are peanuts. Anything new is always highly priced. Once the people with cash have had their share first, the prices are dropped and the rest of moral man gets his turn. Next thing they are considered garbage.
Here's my plan. Get rid of MONEY. Problems solved
Great plan. I've been tempted to consider private at home energy... seams the most logical way to go. Got me asking Q's about how to harness energy from residual heat. In summer it's free, in winter we pay to generate it and let it all float outside. Why not re-use that in some form... anyways, thats off topic.
I think it's like this: Right now we need the power companies. They can raise the price how they want and we have to byte... we have little choice. If they gave us freedom, even support it by helping us generate our own power, then they would kinda quality for a Darwin award from an financial standpoint in the long term, shutting them selves down.
I see no reason why everything on the earth could not be powered by a combination of water, wind, solar and geothermal energy sources, all "free" to some extent.
With reference to some comments on reason for high cost of hybrids, it's just greed. Think about it, take an example, DVD burners. How much were those "things" when they first come out? I don't know if I can count that high... yet now they are peanuts. Anything new is always highly priced. Once the people with cash have had their share first, the prices are dropped and the rest of moral man gets his turn. Next thing they are considered garbage.
Here's my plan. Get rid of MONEY. Problems solved
Excellent points, lengould. Though I'd add that the reasons that Texaco is terrified of losing their oil business and heavy investors in GM want to hamper the import hybrids is that they don't want to operate at a loss while they come up with a real free-market response to a better product.
Is it fair? No. Is it right? I don't think so. Is it the way a free-market is supposed to work? I really doubt it. But it happens. And it happens because the people holding the reigns at any given moment have it easy, and they don't want to go back to working for their money.
I think the flaw is here: "seems to me that the Power company could finance this". It's their money on the table if the plan fails. Too much risk. What if the customers don't want it? (And let's face it, how many people would really go to the effort to participate in this unless it was mandated?) They won't do this unless the government is propping them up with subsidies, or a market impetus arises naturally (i.e. a competitor, or plucky startup is willing to take the risk).
I think there's a reason why most of the cutting-edge R&D that doesn't come out of universities comes from a small number of corporate departments: either their business depend heavily on it (GM's doesn't depend on battery technology.... yet), or they've got cash to burn. Places like Microsoft and Google have cash to burn.
Those that don't have this cash only do research that provides a direct benefit in immediate competition: GM, Ford, Chrysler are all working on getting better horsepower and more luxuries (On-Star, TV's, DVD players, video games, heated seats, CVT, etc.) out of a cheaper engine. Eventually, the market won't be willing to tolerate the price of gas and they'll have to really start throwing money at getting more mileage out of the gas we've got. Probably they've got the foresight to have already started this. But the imports have a jump on them. So rather than invest more in R&D, they go for the "cheaper" route of submarine patents and equally destructive tactics.
Bleh. Now you've got me riled up, thinking about this crap. The crappy thing about a free market is that progress never comes as fast as we want it to, only as fast as it has to.
I think the flaw is here: "seems to me that the Power company could finance this". It's their money on the table if the plan fails. Too much risk. What if the customers don't want it? (And let's face it, how many people would really go to the effort to participate in this unless it was mandated?) They won't do this unless the government is propping them up with subsidies, or a market impetus arises naturally (i.e. a competitor, or plucky startup is willing to take the risk).
I think there's a reason why most of the cutting-edge R&D that doesn't come out of universities comes from a small number of corporate departments: either their business depend heavily on it (GM's doesn't depend on battery technology.... yet), or they've got cash to burn. Places like Microsoft and Google have cash to burn.
Those that don't have this cash only do research that provides a direct benefit in immediate competition: GM, Ford, Chrysler are all working on getting better horsepower and more luxuries (On-Star, TV's, DVD players, video games, heated seats, CVT, etc.) out of a cheaper engine. Eventually, the market won't be willing to tolerate the price of gas and they'll have to really start throwing money at getting more mileage out of the gas we've got. Probably they've got the foresight to have already started this. But the imports have a jump on them. So rather than invest more in R&D, they go for the "cheaper" route of submarine patents and equally destructive tactics.
Bleh. Now you've got me riled up, thinking about this crap. The crappy thing about a free market is that progress never comes as fast as we want it to, only as fast as it has to.
Here's my plan. Get rid of MONEY. Problems solved.
If only...
I don't know how you price a middle sized star with nine or so planets.
I think it's out of the average human's price range though.
My point is there are NO sustainable answers looking "close to home".
Pipe dreams like Solar Power , wind power , fusion and other assorted theories will never be as efficient as just mining for fuel. Since we're running out of hydrocarbons on Earth and have nowhere near enough free H2 on Earth , my idea is we have no alternative but to look towards the outer planets.
The last time I checked the cost to get 1 pound into low earth orbit was ~$20,000.
Just how do you propose to launch some massive rocket to Jupiter, a minimum of 365 million miles away, slow down when you get there, then "a miracle occurs" and we somehow gather massive amounts of hydrogen from a planet that has a 2.64 higher gravitational force then earth, Then we somehow get this massive amount of H2 out of Jupiter's gravitational field, get it back another 400 or so million miles to Earth orbit and THEN get it to the surface, in one piece, and do this all for less then the cost of a gallon equivalent of H2 made on earth?
Or just consider that it is going to take us roughly 15 Billion and 15 years to just get a tiny spacecraft to the moon and back and you are proposing we somehow get 30 BILLION BARREL equivalent of H2 from Jupiter each year?
And you call Solar and Wind pipe dreams?
Arthur
Is it fair? No. Is it right? I don't think so. Is it the way a free-market is supposed to work? I really doubt it. But it happens. And it happens because the people holding the reigns at any given moment have it easy, and they don't want to go back to working for their money.
QUOTE
plus the power companies come out ahead.
someone tell me the flaw here?
someone tell me the flaw here?
I think the flaw is here: "seems to me that the Power company could finance this". It's their money on the table if the plan fails. Too much risk. What if the customers don't want it? (And let's face it, how many people would really go to the effort to participate in this unless it was mandated?) They won't do this unless the government is propping them up with subsidies, or a market impetus arises naturally (i.e. a competitor, or plucky startup is willing to take the risk).
I think there's a reason why most of the cutting-edge R&D that doesn't come out of universities comes from a small number of corporate departments: either their business depend heavily on it (GM's doesn't depend on battery technology.... yet), or they've got cash to burn. Places like Microsoft and Google have cash to burn.
Those that don't have this cash only do research that provides a direct benefit in immediate competition: GM, Ford, Chrysler are all working on getting better horsepower and more luxuries (On-Star, TV's, DVD players, video games, heated seats, CVT, etc.) out of a cheaper engine. Eventually, the market won't be willing to tolerate the price of gas and they'll have to really start throwing money at getting more mileage out of the gas we've got. Probably they've got the foresight to have already started this. But the imports have a jump on them. So rather than invest more in R&D, they go for the "cheaper" route of submarine patents and equally destructive tactics.
Bleh. Now you've got me riled up, thinking about this crap. The crappy thing about a free market is that progress never comes as fast as we want it to, only as fast as it has to.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| plus the power companies come out ahead. someone tell me the flaw here? |
I think the flaw is here: "seems to me that the Power company could finance this". It's their money on the table if the plan fails. Too much risk. What if the customers don't want it? (And let's face it, how many people would really go to the effort to participate in this unless it was mandated?) They won't do this unless the government is propping them up with subsidies, or a market impetus arises naturally (i.e. a competitor, or plucky startup is willing to take the risk).
I think there's a reason why most of the cutting-edge R&D that doesn't come out of universities comes from a small number of corporate departments: either their business depend heavily on it (GM's doesn't depend on battery technology.... yet), or they've got cash to burn. Places like Microsoft and Google have cash to burn.
Those that don't have this cash only do research that provides a direct benefit in immediate competition: GM, Ford, Chrysler are all working on getting better horsepower and more luxuries (On-Star, TV's, DVD players, video games, heated seats, CVT, etc.) out of a cheaper engine. Eventually, the market won't be willing to tolerate the price of gas and they'll have to really start throwing money at getting more mileage out of the gas we've got. Probably they've got the foresight to have already started this. But the imports have a jump on them. So rather than invest more in R&D, they go for the "cheaper" route of submarine patents and equally destructive tactics.
Bleh. Now you've got me riled up, thinking about this crap. The crappy thing about a free market is that progress never comes as fast as we want it to, only as fast as it has to.
Here's my plan. Get rid of MONEY. Problems solved.
If only...
well there is also development costs to consider.
someone had to pay the engineers who created the dvd burners. that was an investor. he invested to make a profit, now that the burners are out and making money, that investor needs to be paid back. so he can invest in some other new technology that everyone wants. Once the companies have paid back the investor, then the only thing they have to cover is the cost of making them marketing them, shipping them, replacing and repairing them and improving them. plus a little extra to motivate them to do this.
and of course the Lawyers and the government.
which probably take the biggest chunk of all. get rid of taxes on the stuff and do something about the millions of crap lawsuits filed every year and things will get downright cheap.
BTW, Gas was $2.39 a gallon this after noon.
someone had to pay the engineers who created the dvd burners. that was an investor. he invested to make a profit, now that the burners are out and making money, that investor needs to be paid back. so he can invest in some other new technology that everyone wants. Once the companies have paid back the investor, then the only thing they have to cover is the cost of making them marketing them, shipping them, replacing and repairing them and improving them. plus a little extra to motivate them to do this.
and of course the Lawyers and the government.
which probably take the biggest chunk of all. get rid of taxes on the stuff and do something about the millions of crap lawsuits filed every year and things will get downright cheap.
BTW, Gas was $2.39 a gallon this after noon.
Well, there's all of the above... and there's also other things to think about which really have not been addressed yet. And they need to be. Badly.
A couple weeks ago, I got woken out of bed for a "fuel spill". I went to the station and caught Engine 32-2, and we arrived on scene at a gas station. Boy, what a spill - it seems some moron had swiped his plastic at the pump, stuck the noz into his filler, wedged the handle "open" with his gas-cap...
... and drove away.
$293 dollars and 38 (and 9 tenths) cents later, the attendant noticed and managed to shut it off. Mostly. When the moron drove off, he twisted the pump on it's mounts, and promptly cracked one of the return feeds. The twisting of the pump allowed the nozzle to fall away from the car without shearing the line (which has a ball-shutoff at the shear point), and by pure chance the impact on the ground didn't "kick off" the nozzle. The pump just kept pumping, spewing it from both the nozzle and the cracked return. Our chief is pissed; it's a lot of gas, on a downhill grade, and he wants to have a word with this moron. Thank god he paid with plastic - the cop was waiting for him when he got home.
The moron's reaction when he's brought back on-scene, and sees what happened?
"Eh, whatever." I guess he was pissed because he scratched his 'Beemer, the poor guy. Meanwhile I've got 3 hazmat crews standing in the middle of this crap next to a major thorougfare with nice hot cars driving past with vapors thick enough that you *really* want to wear your mask. And it's all flowing downhill towards a storm sewer, which we managed to protect with an impromptu dyke.
"Eh, whatever."
The above story is relevent because we're talking about storing liquid hydrogen here, folks. We're also talking about an average IQ of 100.
I've seen some developments (right here, in fact) where some genius has decided to store that hydrogen in a magnesium "fuel tank". I just about spit my coffee on my keyboard at the thought. The problem is that cars catch fire. It's just one of those things that happens. When hydrogen burns, it turns to water. That's also one of those things that happens. Ever seen what happens when you introduce water to a significant quantity of burning magnesium?
I suspect that most of us who are reading this have never actually seen what happens, by virtue of the fact that if we had ever done such a thing, we wouldn't have any sort of face left to read this with.
Meanwhile, I'm going to be expected to actually deal with this crap.
There's a lot of issues to be resolved yet, and money has little to do with them. Gasoline... I can handle that. Think airbags are great? Undeployed airbags scare the living heck out of me. Hydrogen? Fine, but please don't call us 'til it's over, please...
A couple weeks ago, I got woken out of bed for a "fuel spill". I went to the station and caught Engine 32-2, and we arrived on scene at a gas station. Boy, what a spill - it seems some moron had swiped his plastic at the pump, stuck the noz into his filler, wedged the handle "open" with his gas-cap...
... and drove away.
$293 dollars and 38 (and 9 tenths) cents later, the attendant noticed and managed to shut it off. Mostly. When the moron drove off, he twisted the pump on it's mounts, and promptly cracked one of the return feeds. The twisting of the pump allowed the nozzle to fall away from the car without shearing the line (which has a ball-shutoff at the shear point), and by pure chance the impact on the ground didn't "kick off" the nozzle. The pump just kept pumping, spewing it from both the nozzle and the cracked return. Our chief is pissed; it's a lot of gas, on a downhill grade, and he wants to have a word with this moron. Thank god he paid with plastic - the cop was waiting for him when he got home.
The moron's reaction when he's brought back on-scene, and sees what happened?
"Eh, whatever." I guess he was pissed because he scratched his 'Beemer, the poor guy. Meanwhile I've got 3 hazmat crews standing in the middle of this crap next to a major thorougfare with nice hot cars driving past with vapors thick enough that you *really* want to wear your mask. And it's all flowing downhill towards a storm sewer, which we managed to protect with an impromptu dyke.
"Eh, whatever."
The above story is relevent because we're talking about storing liquid hydrogen here, folks. We're also talking about an average IQ of 100.
I've seen some developments (right here, in fact) where some genius has decided to store that hydrogen in a magnesium "fuel tank". I just about spit my coffee on my keyboard at the thought. The problem is that cars catch fire. It's just one of those things that happens. When hydrogen burns, it turns to water. That's also one of those things that happens. Ever seen what happens when you introduce water to a significant quantity of burning magnesium?
I suspect that most of us who are reading this have never actually seen what happens, by virtue of the fact that if we had ever done such a thing, we wouldn't have any sort of face left to read this with.
Meanwhile, I'm going to be expected to actually deal with this crap.There's a lot of issues to be resolved yet, and money has little to do with them. Gasoline... I can handle that. Think airbags are great? Undeployed airbags scare the living heck out of me. Hydrogen? Fine, but please don't call us 'til it's over, please...
No matter what opinions that have been stated above, they all dissolve to one main constraint.
Fossil fules.
Let's face it all you Boy Scouts, oil is here to stay. If not in the U.S., and the industrialized world, then in the rest of the 80% of the world that is trying desperately to catch up with that elite 20%. Oil technology is a MONSTER.
Don't shout so loud about the green options that are hard to impliment or imagine (lots of things that don't exist are hard to imagine..but there they are) you forget that drilling in Alaska's north is now LEGAL. Just like the pipeline that exists, once the black gols starts flowing it does not stop.
Pick your battle wisely, Padawan
Fossil fules.
Let's face it all you Boy Scouts, oil is here to stay. If not in the U.S., and the industrialized world, then in the rest of the 80% of the world that is trying desperately to catch up with that elite 20%. Oil technology is a MONSTER.
Don't shout so loud about the green options that are hard to impliment or imagine (lots of things that don't exist are hard to imagine..but there they are) you forget that drilling in Alaska's north is now LEGAL. Just like the pipeline that exists, once the black gols starts flowing it does not stop.
Pick your battle wisely, Padawan
QUOTE (Matt+Apr 4 2005, 09:40 PM)
what would happen if every home owner installed solar panals on their roofs?
seems to me that the Power company could finance this and simply take the extra power in return instead of payment until the units are paid off with a bit of interest.
then we get more power, our bills go down, and we have less need for coal and oil.
plus the power companies come out ahead.
someone tell me the flaw here?
Matt, the way you set it up the power companies don't come out ahead, cause once you've paid off your installation in power contributions, you are (more nearly) self sufficient and you don't need them any more (or you need them less). In a slightly modified plan, you have your house done up with solar panels in return for a reduction in your monthly bill, where the reduction is less than the value of the power you are contributing to the grid. You'd be happy since it is zero investment for you (money-wise) in return for lower bills and the power company would make out because they are getting more value from your panels than they are losing in discounts.
seems to me that the Power company could finance this and simply take the extra power in return instead of payment until the units are paid off with a bit of interest.
then we get more power, our bills go down, and we have less need for coal and oil.
plus the power companies come out ahead.
someone tell me the flaw here?
Matt, the way you set it up the power companies don't come out ahead, cause once you've paid off your installation in power contributions, you are (more nearly) self sufficient and you don't need them any more (or you need them less). In a slightly modified plan, you have your house done up with solar panels in return for a reduction in your monthly bill, where the reduction is less than the value of the power you are contributing to the grid. You'd be happy since it is zero investment for you (money-wise) in return for lower bills and the power company would make out because they are getting more value from your panels than they are losing in discounts.
Look, anyone can put together a solar collector on their roof and make it viable. No excuses. It makes no matter if your want is electricity or heat - or...wait for it...BOTH!!!! However it is nothing but words unless you DO IT. It just takes a little bit of capital that we are all putting into our gas tanks.
Hi all, I didn't notice this topic getting going again - grim scene Steve, and there are plenty of situations where hydrogen is plenty dangerous. Hope your keyboard has recovered.
Solar power for houses is great but obviously in some parts of the world it is better than others. I would certainly not live in North Africa, Arizona or Western Oz without some of that 330+ days sun per year helping with my bills.
Can't really see the power companies going for it, they are presumably hoping someone else will pay for the installation. They do not retain the generating capacity but do not have to carry out repairs and replacements.
Solar power for houses is great but obviously in some parts of the world it is better than others. I would certainly not live in North Africa, Arizona or Western Oz without some of that 330+ days sun per year helping with my bills.
Can't really see the power companies going for it, they are presumably hoping someone else will pay for the installation. They do not retain the generating capacity but do not have to carry out repairs and replacements.
Hi, Moseley,et al,
There are a number of state and/or power company programs, available to home owners, that supplement the installation of alternative energy sources. Currently, in NY, it is not much of a reach to have a complete Solar installation (to 10kW,,, ~$50,000 cost) completely paid for;
http://masticshirleychamber.com/photov/html/paul.htm
http://masticshirleychamber.com/photov/html/jerry1.htm
http://masticshirleychamber.com/photov/html/jerry2.htm
~
There are a number of state and/or power company programs, available to home owners, that supplement the installation of alternative energy sources. Currently, in NY, it is not much of a reach to have a complete Solar installation (to 10kW,,, ~$50,000 cost) completely paid for;
http://masticshirleychamber.com/photov/html/paul.htm
http://masticshirleychamber.com/photov/html/jerry1.htm
http://masticshirleychamber.com/photov/html/jerry2.htm
~
QUOTE (Guest_Bernie+Apr 5 2005, 05:28 AM)
In a slightly modified plan, you have your house done up with solar panels in return for a reduction in your monthly bill, where the reduction is less than the value of the power you are contributing to the grid. You'd be happy since it is zero investment for you (money-wise) in return for lower bills and the power company would make out because they are getting more value from your panels than they are losing in discounts.
that's pretty much the idea I had.
though as a home owner I'd want them to eventually be paid off, though if we take the stance that we are merely renting our roof space for the power company, then it might fly where the power company always owns the things and makes money off of them.
that's pretty much the idea I had.
though as a home owner I'd want them to eventually be paid off, though if we take the stance that we are merely renting our roof space for the power company, then it might fly where the power company always owns the things and makes money off of them.
Personally, the biggest complaints I hear, about putting anything on a roof is that they are ugly, and are expensive to replace if damaged (from stuff like hail). Too bad we can't develop some sort of power generation system that could either replace shingles with tiled panels (where you could easily replace broken tiles), or lay under the shingles (and absorb heat).
I think more people would go for these systems if they were not so unsightly.
I think more people would go for these systems if they were not so unsightly.
I guess everyone is different, but I think the panels look kewl
The majority of the push is to get people to use less power, do this do that, consume less. If every one turns of the lights for one hour a day, then it will save X thousands of barrels of oil. The Canadian Gov for example wants you to spend extra money to buy high efficiency gas furnaces, Energy Star 2000 or higher. If you do this, then you can fill out a tax rebate form to get the tax back.
Though this in it's self is ok, they should be encouraging consumers to delve into energy self sufficiency. Encouraging people to look at solar technology or whatever, giving incentives in this direction. We need to look at long term.
How much would a solar system cost, which is able to power all the lights + entertainment equip (computers/tv/stereos, etc) ? [I see a price listed $50,000.... but that is just stupid. Does it REALLY cost $50,000 to manufacture these parts?]
The majority of the push is to get people to use less power, do this do that, consume less. If every one turns of the lights for one hour a day, then it will save X thousands of barrels of oil. The Canadian Gov for example wants you to spend extra money to buy high efficiency gas furnaces, Energy Star 2000 or higher. If you do this, then you can fill out a tax rebate form to get the tax back.
Though this in it's self is ok, they should be encouraging consumers to delve into energy self sufficiency. Encouraging people to look at solar technology or whatever, giving incentives in this direction. We need to look at long term.
How much would a solar system cost, which is able to power all the lights + entertainment equip (computers/tv/stereos, etc) ? [I see a price listed $50,000.... but that is just stupid. Does it REALLY cost $50,000 to manufacture these parts?]
QUOTE
How much would a solar system cost, which is able to power all the lights + entertainment equip (computers/tv/stereos, etc) ?
I don't know how you price a middle sized star with nine or so planets.
I think it's out of the average human's price range though.
QUOTE (Steve+)
I've seen some developments (right here, in fact) where some genius has decided to store that hydrogen in a magnesium "fuel tank". I just about spit my coffee on my keyboard at the thought. The problem is that cars catch fire. It's just one of those things that happens. When hydrogen burns, it turns to water. That's also one of those things that happens. Ever seen what happens when you introduce water to a significant quantity of burning magnesium?
I suspect that most of us who are reading this have never actually seen what happens, by virtue of the fact that if we had ever done such a thing, we wouldn't have any sort of face left to read this with.
I've seen small amounts of burning magnesium. It's almost ridiculous how bright it burns. I also know that throwing water on it speeds up the reaction, and can cause explosions.
However, the article you were referring to was not talking about a magnesium "fuel tank", as you put it. It was talking about storing it as a magnesium metal hydride (much like the material in nickel metal hydride, aka NiMH, batteries). What this means is that the hydrogen and magnesium would exist as a compound, not as actual molecular hydrogen and magnesium. The only pure hydrogen in the system at any point is what is in the engine or on its way there. And the water produced burning that small amount of hydrogen would just end up as vapor and waft away into the air, just like it does from the reaction in the engine. So I'm not sure there's a huge danger of water-waste exacerbating a magnesium fire. Besides, a magnesium fire is dangerous enough by itself. So I would think (and hope!) safety precautions would be taken to ensure that as the hydrogen is pulled out of the resevoir that it would be replaced by some other element, to ensure that pure magnesium did not remain in the system in significant quantities.
I suspect that most of us who are reading this have never actually seen what happens, by virtue of the fact that if we had ever done such a thing, we wouldn't have any sort of face left to read this with.
I've seen small amounts of burning magnesium. It's almost ridiculous how bright it burns. I also know that throwing water on it speeds up the reaction, and can cause explosions.
However, the article you were referring to was not talking about a magnesium "fuel tank", as you put it. It was talking about storing it as a magnesium metal hydride (much like the material in nickel metal hydride, aka NiMH, batteries). What this means is that the hydrogen and magnesium would exist as a compound, not as actual molecular hydrogen and magnesium. The only pure hydrogen in the system at any point is what is in the engine or on its way there. And the water produced burning that small amount of hydrogen would just end up as vapor and waft away into the air, just like it does from the reaction in the engine. So I'm not sure there's a huge danger of water-waste exacerbating a magnesium fire. Besides, a magnesium fire is dangerous enough by itself. So I would think (and hope!) safety precautions would be taken to ensure that as the hydrogen is pulled out of the resevoir that it would be replaced by some other element, to ensure that pure magnesium did not remain in the system in significant quantities.
is there some reason they can't store hydrogen as water? i seem to remember a science class demo on this subject. make the hydrogen as you need it, and it would be much safer, less expensive and cheaper to produce. may not work on a piston engine very well, but a turbine or a rotary engine would fit the bill just fine. 
the energy to convert H20 to +2H would have to come from someplace
QUOTE (WaterBreath+Apr 5 2005, 06:12 PM)
So I would think (and hope!) safety precautions would be taken to ensure that as the hydrogen is pulled out of the resevoir that it would be replaced by some other element, to ensure that pure magnesium did not remain in the system in significant quantities.
Exactly the point - we'd think that'd be a natural thing to do. My guess (and experience) is that it won't happen.
Pick your favorite hybrid car. Big batteries in them, eh? Nice fat voltage and current, as well. Now, smash that car up with someone in it. I'm going to take an O-cutter, which is a fun tool that'll crank out about 80,000 lbs of force when it cuts, and try to get the person out. Big question - where do I cut? More importantly, where do I not cut because it'll kill me?
You'd think something as trivial as standardizing the routes of the power cables would have happened. It hasn't. It's vastly different between makes, and is even vastly different between model years. Can I disconnect the batteries? Is there at least a standard way to do that? Nope. They move those too, along with how they're connected. And remember, the car is crushed and/or upside down - access panels aren't exactly going to work very well.
Pick your favorite "recent" car, with the airbags I mentioned. Airbags are great during a crash - they use a stored-energy device to inflate a bag (with great force) and hold you in place, so that you'll decellerate with the car over a longer period. Great concept, and it works - they now put airbags everywhere - side curtain, rear curtain, side-seat, you name it. It's wonderful.
Now, imagine that every one of those bags has it's own little "stored energy" device, because each one does. You know how much energy they have in them, and you know that they're rigged such that they'll still function for some period of time if the electric system of the car has been crushed. They're very well thought-out in how they are designed, and are quite robust.
Except for one small issue - where they get placed. They put them *everywhere*. In the door, low in the B-post, middle of the B-post, top of the B-post, in the roof center, in the roof edge, under the center console, in the dash, in the seat, in the floor under the seat...
...and they move the dumb things *every model year*. Care to guess what happens when my trusty O-cutter "finds" one of these things? I become "one" with the tool, and any EMS guys inside the car by the corresponding airbag will probably get his ribs or head crushed. You can cut the battery and pretend to disarm the system, but... nope, they've got nice little caps in them to store charge. We're supposed to wait 20 minutes before cutting, "to be safe" - and meanwhile, our poor victim is bleeding out. Even missing the charges is often irrelevent - when cutting things, all wires in that area get cut as well. And of course, they get shorted together (and grounded) in god-knows-what-order. One of those wires is the trigger for that charge. I'm going to short it to a whole pile of random potentials, aren't I? You'd think they'd have considered this fact in the design, right? At least, I would... or let me rephrase that. At least, I used to think so. As was demonstrated last month, I was mistaken.
Please note that this *is* the general case with modern cars. We're working on tactics to reliably mitigate these explosives, but it takes time - and we get no help from manufacturers or industry. All they want to do is make us carry a 1 billion page book that changes every week, detailing every make, model, and variation of car with where the hazards are *expected* to be. It doesn't work.
So, I'm cynical. You can wash, rinse, repeat this cynicism with modern housing construction. Nice windows that are 99.99999% heat reflective, and basically unbreakable. Great when things are fine, not a good thing when (1) the room is on fire and approaching 2000 degrees and (2) you're in the room next to it, trying to make exit through such a window. Add some nice kevlar bug-screens into the equation, and not even a K12 saw is going to help.
On the good side, such houses typically use the latest "state of the art" construction materials and techniques. They use engineered wood products in very complex truss assemblies. Gussested Wooden I-Beams are the norm, and J-Beams (an I-Beam with a glued strip of kevlar replacing the lower channel) are beginning to replace them on first floors where the lower basement is unfinished. They work real well, except that the glue that binds the wood-chips is "rated" to fail at 400 degrees in 4 minutes. We all know how forgiving a truss is to componant failure. 400 degrees, 4 minutes. Typical living room with a modern (petroleum based) couch in it will hit 1600 degrees in seven minutes. We should be able to receive the alarm, get there, and gain entry into the structure for a life-search just in time to wear the bulk of the structure on our heads.
An old fire-dog named Frank Brannigan has done enormous work regarding such structures, and with that industry. He actually met with the engineers who developed the "wooden I-beam", and asked them "So, how long is this stuff going to last in a fire?" The answer: "Don't expose it to fire." "No," he insisted, "We didn't start this fire. The house is burning, there's people in there, and we have to get them out. How long is this stuff going to last in a fire?" The answer, amidst stares of "horror and disbelief" (Frank's words) by those engineers? "Uhm, don't expose it to fire."
The J-beams, which are even stronger due to the kevlar strip replacing the lower wood-piece, perform even worse under fire. The glue holding the strip fails in about 3 minutes at 400 degrees. Compression along the upper edge is still maintained by the wood-channel up there, but there's now nothing to resist the tension along that lower edge as the kevlar delaminates. Please note that a waste-basket fire will give you about 400 degrees directly above it, rather quickly... and also note that the glue in the rest of the "J-beam" is still approaching failure at the same time.
And recall that water weighs 8 pounds per gallon. An average fire truck will pump out 1200 to 1500 gallons per minute during a rocking fire. Call it 1200... at 8 pounds, let's see... carry the 2, add the 1... that's 10,000 pounds per minute that we're adding the the load in the structure. Think the engineers considered that fact? Nope, they didn't. Even at a "bread-n-butter" fire, where we'd use half the flow-rate - that's 5,000 pounds per minute. And you think landlords bitch about waterbeds weighing too much...
Attic spaces still use wood studs in their trussing, though - but they use gusset plates to hold them. Such trusses are good for an average of 7 minutes at 600 degrees before the wood has pyrolized around the teeth of the plates, at which point the plates simply "fall off" or "pop out" due to the wood's contraction away from those teeth. The result is typically a spectacular, instantaneous failure of the entire roof assembly. Or as we call it, "the attic situation has just converted itself into a basement situation." Hopefully noone is on that roof, or in the structure when this happens.
Still more craziness can be found to the North, in Canada. There, some putz created a *really* great idea. Take some very thin steel U-channels that only offer strength under compression (exactly under compression, and nothing else), and call them "studs". Sandwich them between two sheets of styrofoam, and call that a "load bearing" wall. Stick four of these walls together to form a box, stick a platform on it, and there's your first floor. Repeat to form the 2nd floor, etc. And believe me, the result *is strong as hell*.
Until it burns. Then the entire structure simply "screws down", almost immediately. You'd think that technique will never make it into the U.S.
So, I do hope people consider "eventualities" when they design and implement all of this (otherwise) great stuff. So far, however, they've completely ignored it. Various fire districts are reacting in different ways as a result. In one specific county in Virginia who's population is exploding, for example, they run a 10 minute timer from when the alarm goes off. If they show up and no fire is visible, they'll perform an aggressive attack until that 10 minutes is up. If any fire is visible when they show up, it's assumed that the 10 minutes already expired before the fire was called in. Either way, the structure is considered lost once the 10 minutes is "done", along with any people trapped inside of it. Attempts to rescue may still take place from the outside, but noone is allowed in. Ever. They do this, because in their tests of these new structures, the typical floor above the fire would come down within 12 minutes, and some in as little as 7. Kind of scarey, when you consider that it takes an average of 4 to 7 minutes for a fire company to even get on-scene, and that's assuming the alarm was raised the *instant* the fire started. You'd think the people building this stuff would have considered it. And you'd think the people buying these houses would know about it. They haven't, and they don't.
The above is a little off-topic from this thread, but it's very much on-topic with the "I'd think safety precautions" concept. My guess is that such precautions won't be considered, simply because they never have been.
Comments?
(and thanks for listening to me vent on this topic. Obviously, it's a little stressful )
Exactly the point - we'd think that'd be a natural thing to do. My guess (and experience) is that it won't happen.
Pick your favorite hybrid car. Big batteries in them, eh? Nice fat voltage and current, as well. Now, smash that car up with someone in it. I'm going to take an O-cutter, which is a fun tool that'll crank out about 80,000 lbs of force when it cuts, and try to get the person out. Big question - where do I cut? More importantly, where do I not cut because it'll kill me?
You'd think something as trivial as standardizing the routes of the power cables would have happened. It hasn't. It's vastly different between makes, and is even vastly different between model years. Can I disconnect the batteries? Is there at least a standard way to do that? Nope. They move those too, along with how they're connected. And remember, the car is crushed and/or upside down - access panels aren't exactly going to work very well.
Pick your favorite "recent" car, with the airbags I mentioned. Airbags are great during a crash - they use a stored-energy device to inflate a bag (with great force) and hold you in place, so that you'll decellerate with the car over a longer period. Great concept, and it works - they now put airbags everywhere - side curtain, rear curtain, side-seat, you name it. It's wonderful.
Now, imagine that every one of those bags has it's own little "stored energy" device, because each one does. You know how much energy they have in them, and you know that they're rigged such that they'll still function for some period of time if the electric system of the car has been crushed. They're very well thought-out in how they are designed, and are quite robust.
Except for one small issue - where they get placed. They put them *everywhere*. In the door, low in the B-post, middle of the B-post, top of the B-post, in the roof center, in the roof edge, under the center console, in the dash, in the seat, in the floor under the seat...
...and they move the dumb things *every model year*. Care to guess what happens when my trusty O-cutter "finds" one of these things? I become "one" with the tool, and any EMS guys inside the car by the corresponding airbag will probably get his ribs or head crushed. You can cut the battery and pretend to disarm the system, but... nope, they've got nice little caps in them to store charge. We're supposed to wait 20 minutes before cutting, "to be safe" - and meanwhile, our poor victim is bleeding out. Even missing the charges is often irrelevent - when cutting things, all wires in that area get cut as well. And of course, they get shorted together (and grounded) in god-knows-what-order. One of those wires is the trigger for that charge. I'm going to short it to a whole pile of random potentials, aren't I? You'd think they'd have considered this fact in the design, right? At least, I would... or let me rephrase that. At least, I used to think so. As was demonstrated last month, I was mistaken.
Please note that this *is* the general case with modern cars. We're working on tactics to reliably mitigate these explosives, but it takes time - and we get no help from manufacturers or industry. All they want to do is make us carry a 1 billion page book that changes every week, detailing every make, model, and variation of car with where the hazards are *expected* to be. It doesn't work.
So, I'm cynical. You can wash, rinse, repeat this cynicism with modern housing construction. Nice windows that are 99.99999% heat reflective, and basically unbreakable. Great when things are fine, not a good thing when (1) the room is on fire and approaching 2000 degrees and (2) you're in the room next to it, trying to make exit through such a window. Add some nice kevlar bug-screens into the equation, and not even a K12 saw is going to help.
On the good side, such houses typically use the latest "state of the art" construction materials and techniques. They use engineered wood products in very complex truss assemblies. Gussested Wooden I-Beams are the norm, and J-Beams (an I-Beam with a glued strip of kevlar replacing the lower channel) are beginning to replace them on first floors where the lower basement is unfinished. They work real well, except that the glue that binds the wood-chips is "rated" to fail at 400 degrees in 4 minutes. We all know how forgiving a truss is to componant failure. 400 degrees, 4 minutes. Typical living room with a modern (petroleum based) couch in it will hit 1600 degrees in seven minutes. We should be able to receive the alarm, get there, and gain entry into the structure for a life-search just in time to wear the bulk of the structure on our heads.
An old fire-dog named Frank Brannigan has done enormous work regarding such structures, and with that industry. He actually met with the engineers who developed the "wooden I-beam", and asked them "So, how long is this stuff going to last in a fire?" The answer: "Don't expose it to fire." "No," he insisted, "We didn't start this fire. The house is burning, there's people in there, and we have to get them out. How long is this stuff going to last in a fire?" The answer, amidst stares of "horror and disbelief" (Frank's words) by those engineers? "Uhm, don't expose it to fire."
The J-beams, which are even stronger due to the kevlar strip replacing the lower wood-piece, perform even worse under fire. The glue holding the strip fails in about 3 minutes at 400 degrees. Compression along the upper edge is still maintained by the wood-channel up there, but there's now nothing to resist the tension along that lower edge as the kevlar delaminates. Please note that a waste-basket fire will give you about 400 degrees directly above it, rather quickly... and also note that the glue in the rest of the "J-beam" is still approaching failure at the same time.
And recall that water weighs 8 pounds per gallon. An average fire truck will pump out 1200 to 1500 gallons per minute during a rocking fire. Call it 1200... at 8 pounds, let's see... carry the 2, add the 1... that's 10,000 pounds per minute that we're adding the the load in the structure. Think the engineers considered that fact? Nope, they didn't. Even at a "bread-n-butter" fire, where we'd use half the flow-rate - that's 5,000 pounds per minute. And you think landlords bitch about waterbeds weighing too much...
Attic spaces still use wood studs in their trussing, though - but they use gusset plates to hold them. Such trusses are good for an average of 7 minutes at 600 degrees before the wood has pyrolized around the teeth of the plates, at which point the plates simply "fall off" or "pop out" due to the wood's contraction away from those teeth. The result is typically a spectacular, instantaneous failure of the entire roof assembly. Or as we call it, "the attic situation has just converted itself into a basement situation." Hopefully noone is on that roof, or in the structure when this happens.
Still more craziness can be found to the North, in Canada. There, some putz created a *really* great idea. Take some very thin steel U-channels that only offer strength under compression (exactly under compression, and nothing else), and call them "studs". Sandwich them between two sheets of styrofoam, and call that a "load bearing" wall. Stick four of these walls together to form a box, stick a platform on it, and there's your first floor. Repeat to form the 2nd floor, etc. And believe me, the result *is strong as hell*.
Until it burns. Then the entire structure simply "screws down", almost immediately. You'd think that technique will never make it into the U.S.
So, I do hope people consider "eventualities" when they design and implement all of this (otherwise) great stuff. So far, however, they've completely ignored it. Various fire districts are reacting in different ways as a result. In one specific county in Virginia who's population is exploding, for example, they run a 10 minute timer from when the alarm goes off. If they show up and no fire is visible, they'll perform an aggressive attack until that 10 minutes is up. If any fire is visible when they show up, it's assumed that the 10 minutes already expired before the fire was called in. Either way, the structure is considered lost once the 10 minutes is "done", along with any people trapped inside of it. Attempts to rescue may still take place from the outside, but noone is allowed in. Ever. They do this, because in their tests of these new structures, the typical floor above the fire would come down within 12 minutes, and some in as little as 7. Kind of scarey, when you consider that it takes an average of 4 to 7 minutes for a fire company to even get on-scene, and that's assuming the alarm was raised the *instant* the fire started. You'd think the people building this stuff would have considered it. And you'd think the people buying these houses would know about it. They haven't, and they don't.
The above is a little off-topic from this thread, but it's very much on-topic with the "I'd think safety precautions" concept. My guess is that such precautions won't be considered, simply because they never have been.
Comments?
(and thanks for listening to me vent on this topic. Obviously, it's a little stressful
)
Thanks. You've convinced me to quit my job, leave the city, and go live off the land, in a field under the stars, someplace warm, but not too warm. 
But seriously, sorry to have opened those wounds for you.
I know progress and technology come at a price, and that if every step was completely, verifiedly, safe, we'd never have progressed past foot-traffic. I mean, come on, horses spook; how can you trust them in a pinch?
But that doesn't mean there's excuse for carelessness.
It's got to be terrible to have to "clean up the mess" of the sacrifices we make as a society. I'd be all for taking it slow, steady, and safe with our progress. But unfortunately those like me, and I assume you, are in the minority. Consumers are called such for a reason. They want stuff and they do not want to wait for it.
But seriously, sorry to have opened those wounds for you.
I know progress and technology come at a price, and that if every step was completely, verifiedly, safe, we'd never have progressed past foot-traffic. I mean, come on, horses spook; how can you trust them in a pinch?
But that doesn't mean there's excuse for carelessness.
It's got to be terrible to have to "clean up the mess" of the sacrifices we make as a society. I'd be all for taking it slow, steady, and safe with our progress. But unfortunately those like me, and I assume you, are in the minority. Consumers are called such for a reason. They want stuff and they do not want to wait for it.
QUOTE (Anderson+Apr 4 2005, 05:23 PM)
The research focused on generating hydrogen using hydrolysis. What (if any) research has been done looking at generating hydrogen through chemical reactions, such as hydrochloric acid and zinc?
Forget hydrolysis and entropic crap like that. The laws of entropy will alyways catch up with you.
We need to think BIG , an out of this world solution is the only way to get unlimited and CHEAP hydrogen. Why are we even talking about getting hydrogen from within Earth when there are unlimited quantities of pure H2 available just in our solar backyard.
Jupiter and Saturn are just waiting for us to pay a visit , fill up and head back home with a gazillion gallons of pure H2 gas. There might be huge technical obstacles to overcome .. For instance the insane gravity , but think about it .. There's so much free H2 floating around in those planets , all we need to do is get a little close and put the vacuum on high. Whatever ship we use to go there should be designed with just enough H2 fuel to reach there on an empty tank , and whatever H2 is sucked up can be used as fuel for the trip back home.
Using liquid hydrogen propulsion it should be possible to get enough thrust to pass by Jupiter close enough to suck in millions of tons of H2 , and still escape getting pulled into the planet. This is the same propulsion technology we use to reach the moon isn't it ?
So technically the only thing against it is the lack of cheap and large quantities of H2 , which is exactly why we need to start exploting the resources of our Solar System.
Forget hydrolysis and entropic crap like that. The laws of entropy will alyways catch up with you.
We need to think BIG , an out of this world solution is the only way to get unlimited and CHEAP hydrogen. Why are we even talking about getting hydrogen from within Earth when there are unlimited quantities of pure H2 available just in our solar backyard.
Jupiter and Saturn are just waiting for us to pay a visit , fill up and head back home with a gazillion gallons of pure H2 gas. There might be huge technical obstacles to overcome .. For instance the insane gravity , but think about it .. There's so much free H2 floating around in those planets , all we need to do is get a little close and put the vacuum on high. Whatever ship we use to go there should be designed with just enough H2 fuel to reach there on an empty tank , and whatever H2 is sucked up can be used as fuel for the trip back home.
Using liquid hydrogen propulsion it should be possible to get enough thrust to pass by Jupiter close enough to suck in millions of tons of H2 , and still escape getting pulled into the planet. This is the same propulsion technology we use to reach the moon isn't it ?
So technically the only thing against it is the lack of cheap and large quantities of H2 , which is exactly why we need to start exploting the resources of our Solar System.
That is an intersting idea. Presumably the billions of tons of hydrogen we vacuum off the surface of Jupiter will be carted back to earth to power our electrical grid, our cars, as well as our wars too for years to come. But did you stop to consider that hydrogen is one part of the reaction that forms electrical current, and the other is oxygen. I suppose we have billions of tons of oxygen to spare down here on earth? What will you do when our oxygen is all tied up in water molecules. You can't breathe water very well.
The fireman had it right. The answer to the energy crisis is the same as the answer to the carelessness of industrial design, and the environmental crises and most other crisises as well. It is that laws of ecology need to be actively encorporated into the rules of society, beginning with markets, economics, and politics, and moving into the laws of reproduction among the "values" driven populations. People that are behind every part of life from families to corporations to politics need to obey the rules of limited resources and to slow down, live with care, leave small footprints and consider the planetary ecology as the final lawmaker with respect to life on earth.
Energy problems can be lessened by actively creating a smaller, more educated, better cared for population on planet earth.
Unfortunately this inititive directly challenges the conception of profit as it is viewed today by major corporate entities. Sadly this is a misconception. Look back to the first economist, the Englishman Adam Smith to understand that a large, uneducated, mass of people living in poverty are not a requirement for a Captialist system to thrive. In fact they are a liability and a drain on the helath of a long term market system. The current market system which is based on ideas of plunder and subjugation that have been discredited since the 17th century and date back to the origins of feudalism is barbaric, and is based on ever expanding regions of exploitation. It is the source of all our social problems, including the current energy crisis.
If things continue like this, then the future belongs to the predictions of the genius economist, Thorstein Veblen who marked that a Captialist system that continues unchecked will end up looking like a more advanced state of feudalism in which not only wealth but production has narrowed to fit the needs specialized needs of a few warlike individuals or organizations. Picture the planet reduced to a gloomy dust covered desert in which starved, naked populations watch the spectacle from the crusted skeletons of our former cities as technologically advanced super warlords battle eachother with weapons of unheard of sophistication for supremacy over the last dwindling supplies of natural resources.
The fireman had it right. The answer to the energy crisis is the same as the answer to the carelessness of industrial design, and the environmental crises and most other crisises as well. It is that laws of ecology need to be actively encorporated into the rules of society, beginning with markets, economics, and politics, and moving into the laws of reproduction among the "values" driven populations. People that are behind every part of life from families to corporations to politics need to obey the rules of limited resources and to slow down, live with care, leave small footprints and consider the planetary ecology as the final lawmaker with respect to life on earth.
Energy problems can be lessened by actively creating a smaller, more educated, better cared for population on planet earth.
Unfortunately this inititive directly challenges the conception of profit as it is viewed today by major corporate entities. Sadly this is a misconception. Look back to the first economist, the Englishman Adam Smith to understand that a large, uneducated, mass of people living in poverty are not a requirement for a Captialist system to thrive. In fact they are a liability and a drain on the helath of a long term market system. The current market system which is based on ideas of plunder and subjugation that have been discredited since the 17th century and date back to the origins of feudalism is barbaric, and is based on ever expanding regions of exploitation. It is the source of all our social problems, including the current energy crisis.
If things continue like this, then the future belongs to the predictions of the genius economist, Thorstein Veblen who marked that a Captialist system that continues unchecked will end up looking like a more advanced state of feudalism in which not only wealth but production has narrowed to fit the needs specialized needs of a few warlike individuals or organizations. Picture the planet reduced to a gloomy dust covered desert in which starved, naked populations watch the spectacle from the crusted skeletons of our former cities as technologically advanced super warlords battle eachother with weapons of unheard of sophistication for supremacy over the last dwindling supplies of natural resources.
QUOTE (xtian+Jun 22 2005, 06:57 PM)
That is an intersting idea. Presumably the billions of tons of hydrogen we vacuum off the surface of Jupiter will be carted back to earth to power our electrical grid, our cars, as well as our wars too for years to come. But did you stop to consider that hydrogen is one part of the reaction that forms electrical current, and the other is oxygen. I suppose we have billions of tons of oxygen to spare down here on earth? What will you do when our oxygen is all tied up in water molecules. You can't breathe water very well.
The fireman had it right. The answer to the energy crisis is the same as the answer to the carelessness of industrial design, and the environmental crises and most other crisises as well. It is that laws of ecology need to be actively encorporated into the rules of society, beginning with markets, economics, and politics, and moving into the laws of reproduction among the "values" driven populations. People that are behind every part of life from families to corporations to politics need to obey the rules of limited resources and to slow down, live with care, leave small footprints and consider the planetary ecology as the final lawmaker with respect to life on earth.
Energy problems can be lessened by actively creating a smaller, more educated, better cared for population on planet earth.
Unfortunately this inititive directly challenges the conception of profit as it is viewed today by major corporate entities. Sadly this is a misconception. Look back to the first economist, the Englishman Adam Smith to understand that a large, uneducated, mass of people living in poverty are not a requirement for a Captialist system to thrive. In fact they are a liability and a drain on the helath of a long term market system. The current market system which is based on ideas of plunder and subjugation that have been discredited since the 17th century and date back to the origins of feudalism is barbaric, and is based on ever expanding regions of exploitation. It is the source of all our social problems, including the current energy crisis.
If things continue like this, then the future belongs to the predictions of the genius economist, Thorstein Veblen who marked that a Captialist system that continues unchecked will end up looking like a more advanced state of feudalism in which not only wealth but production has narrowed to fit the needs specialized needs of a few warlike individuals or organizations. Picture the planet reduced to a gloomy dust covered desert in which starved, naked populations watch the spectacle from the crusted skeletons of our former cities as technologically advanced super warlords battle eachother with weapons of unheard of sophistication for supremacy over the last dwindling supplies of natural resources.
It's exactly your kind of thinking due to which most people get put off by environmentalists . What you are proposing is more Socialism and communism.
Soviet Russia , China , Combodia and countless other nations turned thier backs on captitalism and democracy. After suffering under tyrants like Stalin and watching thier Industries go to waste now they're avowed capitalists.
There's nothing wrong with capitalism by itself. But yes unbridled capitalism can be bad and needs some control. However its still a MUCH better system that anything else we've come up with. Also under capitalism , War has actually reduced in this world because it's bad for business. Grandiose dreams of feeding all people , eliminating war , animal rights are not the way any civilization achieves scientific progress.
Now , back to your concern about oxygen. This is going to be a problem only as long as we are going to use oxidation as a means for energy. However making H2O is still FAR better than generating CO2 by burning fossil fuels.
Since this pure H2 is going to be in space in Cargo ships there's all kinds of interesting experiments we could conduct now. For instance the Hydrogen bomb way to achieving fusion is something we can't use or experiment with on Earth because of the insane explosive energy and radioactivity achieved. However our ship is in space so we would be free to conduct any kind of fusion experiment now.
The trip from Saturn to Earth could be greatly reduced if we experiment with controlled explosive fusion. There's no shortage or H2 available so say we set off a small nuclear fission device in a sufficient quantity of H2 , with the explosive fusion reaction we set off we could possibly slingshot our Cargo ships to reach Earth in a matter of hours or days.
Also your concerns about Oxygen. I'm sure we could find sufficient quantities of Oxygen in on of the moons of Jupiter or Saturn. Would be a lot easier to suck up O2 from one of those moons than H2 from Jupiter.
Another way is to set off a nuclear fusion device in one the Sea's . Say the Pacific Ocean. The high temperatures and energy generated would be enough to break down a LOT of water into H2 and O2. Yeah it sounds insane but if we were really going to run out of O2 we could do that to save our planet.
Your last paragraph sounds like pure communist crap. You say "techno lords" battle out for depleted resources. But by going to space we're exactly making the "battle" for resources completely meaningless. There's unlimited amounts of almost EVERYTHING out there. H2 from Jupiter. O2 from the moons. Unlimited quantities of Uranium,Iron,Titatnium and almost every metal from the Asteroid belt. What i'm proposing is a completely self sufficient cycle to get raw materials for Earth , and at quantities which would last us for millions of years , without affecting our ecology.
BTW you talk about humans reducing the planet to a gloomy dust covered desert. It's going to happen within 200-300mn years anyway without any human intervention because the Sun is going towards the Red giant state. Global warming is going to be a ride in the park then because its going to get so hot that the oceans will literally fry up and evaporate to space.
For now , as long as we control population growth we're going to be fine. The reason why large areas of Earth are undergoing desertification is precisely because of ridiculous resource pressures due to out of control population growth in many developing countries.
The fireman had it right. The answer to the energy crisis is the same as the answer to the carelessness of industrial design, and the environmental crises and most other crisises as well. It is that laws of ecology need to be actively encorporated into the rules of society, beginning with markets, economics, and politics, and moving into the laws of reproduction among the "values" driven populations. People that are behind every part of life from families to corporations to politics need to obey the rules of limited resources and to slow down, live with care, leave small footprints and consider the planetary ecology as the final lawmaker with respect to life on earth.
Energy problems can be lessened by actively creating a smaller, more educated, better cared for population on planet earth.
Unfortunately this inititive directly challenges the conception of profit as it is viewed today by major corporate entities. Sadly this is a misconception. Look back to the first economist, the Englishman Adam Smith to understand that a large, uneducated, mass of people living in poverty are not a requirement for a Captialist system to thrive. In fact they are a liability and a drain on the helath of a long term market system. The current market system which is based on ideas of plunder and subjugation that have been discredited since the 17th century and date back to the origins of feudalism is barbaric, and is based on ever expanding regions of exploitation. It is the source of all our social problems, including the current energy crisis.
If things continue like this, then the future belongs to the predictions of the genius economist, Thorstein Veblen who marked that a Captialist system that continues unchecked will end up looking like a more advanced state of feudalism in which not only wealth but production has narrowed to fit the needs specialized needs of a few warlike individuals or organizations. Picture the planet reduced to a gloomy dust covered desert in which starved, naked populations watch the spectacle from the crusted skeletons of our former cities as technologically advanced super warlords battle eachother with weapons of unheard of sophistication for supremacy over the last dwindling supplies of natural resources.
It's exactly your kind of thinking due to which most people get put off by environmentalists . What you are proposing is more Socialism and communism.
Soviet Russia , China , Combodia and countless other nations turned thier backs on captitalism and democracy. After suffering under tyrants like Stalin and watching thier Industries go to waste now they're avowed capitalists.
There's nothing wrong with capitalism by itself. But yes unbridled capitalism can be bad and needs some control. However its still a MUCH better system that anything else we've come up with. Also under capitalism , War has actually reduced in this world because it's bad for business. Grandiose dreams of feeding all people , eliminating war , animal rights are not the way any civilization achieves scientific progress.
Now , back to your concern about oxygen. This is going to be a problem only as long as we are going to use oxidation as a means for energy. However making H2O is still FAR better than generating CO2 by burning fossil fuels.
Since this pure H2 is going to be in space in Cargo ships there's all kinds of interesting experiments we could conduct now. For instance the Hydrogen bomb way to achieving fusion is something we can't use or experiment with on Earth because of the insane explosive energy and radioactivity achieved. However our ship is in space so we would be free to conduct any kind of fusion experiment now.
The trip from Saturn to Earth could be greatly reduced if we experiment with controlled explosive fusion. There's no shortage or H2 available so say we set off a small nuclear fission device in a sufficient quantity of H2 , with the explosive fusion reaction we set off we could possibly slingshot our Cargo ships to reach Earth in a matter of hours or days.
Also your concerns about Oxygen. I'm sure we could find sufficient quantities of Oxygen in on of the moons of Jupiter or Saturn. Would be a lot easier to suck up O2 from one of those moons than H2 from Jupiter.
Another way is to set off a nuclear fusion device in one the Sea's . Say the Pacific Ocean. The high temperatures and energy generated would be enough to break down a LOT of water into H2 and O2. Yeah it sounds insane but if we were really going to run out of O2 we could do that to save our planet.
Your last paragraph sounds like pure communist crap. You say "techno lords" battle out for depleted resources. But by going to space we're exactly making the "battle" for resources completely meaningless. There's unlimited amounts of almost EVERYTHING out there. H2 from Jupiter. O2 from the moons. Unlimited quantities of Uranium,Iron,Titatnium and almost every metal from the Asteroid belt. What i'm proposing is a completely self sufficient cycle to get raw materials for Earth , and at quantities which would last us for millions of years , without affecting our ecology.
BTW you talk about humans reducing the planet to a gloomy dust covered desert. It's going to happen within 200-300mn years anyway without any human intervention because the Sun is going towards the Red giant state. Global warming is going to be a ride in the park then because its going to get so hot that the oceans will literally fry up and evaporate to space.
For now , as long as we control population growth we're going to be fine. The reason why large areas of Earth are undergoing desertification is precisely because of ridiculous resource pressures due to out of control population growth in many developing countries.
The truth about hydrogen is that there are allready systems that are too good out there for some peoples liking.
The problem with people who come up with soloutions for energy/enviroment is they get *** all over by special intere$$t groups and are hidden from the public, for example,there is no freedom in the media and any alternative energy technologies "they" show on tv are mostly BS in one way or another.There is also no public support for the good technologies because, of course, the public really isn't aware of what is going on!
PS
Was this ment to be serious? The getting hydrogen from Jupiter? I am about to have a big laugh! (Can I buy some stocks?) Talk about entropy! I know! It will give more money for the space program!
The problem with people who come up with soloutions for energy/enviroment is they get *** all over by special intere$$t groups and are hidden from the public, for example,there is no freedom in the media and any alternative energy technologies "they" show on tv are mostly BS in one way or another.There is also no public support for the good technologies because, of course, the public really isn't aware of what is going on!
PS
Was this ment to be serious? The getting hydrogen from Jupiter? I am about to have a big laugh! (Can I buy some stocks?) Talk about entropy! I know! It will give more money for the space program!
Fuel cells are no good anyways. They are way to sensitive to impurities and need constant maintanance. That is why they haven't really gone anywhere since 1850.The fuel cell is hype.
QUOTE (blondie+Jun 23 2005, 03:27 AM)
The truth about hydrogen is that there are allready systems that are too good out there for some peoples liking.
The problem with people who come up with soloutions for energy/enviroment is they get *** all over by special intere$$t groups and are hidden from the public, for example,there is no freedom in the media and any alternative energy technologies "they" show on tv are mostly BS in one way or another.There is also no public support for the good technologies because, of course, the public really isn't aware of what is going on!
PS
Was this ment to be serious? The getting hydrogen from Jupiter? I am about to have a big laugh! (Can I buy some stocks?) Talk about entropy! I know! It will give more money for the space program!
I think i'm understanding why cold fusion is dead.
It's precisely due to nutcases like you who think the entire world is against the concept. IMO , cold fusion as a concept is just trickery. Sure they are able to produce neutrons but IMO its more due to reactions we don't understand yet that instead of stripping electrons are stripping neutrons off atomic nuclei. There isn't fusion taking place here , just more atomic nuclei getting stripped off neutrons. Sure this merits further look into how neutrons are getting ejected out of nuclei , but we sure as hell aren't getting much energy out of this.
Now , a bunch of wide eyed morons takes this as proof of fusion. I'm sorry but if it were so simple we would have spontaneous fusion taking place anywhere a sufficient quantity of H2 was available. Why the hell are Jupiter and Saturn not turning into stars ? They have insane magnetic and electric fields , and enough turbulance in the form of surface storms. Yet there is no "cold fusion" taking place there. Heck Shoemaker Levy crashed into Jupiter and despite what some nuts said , NOTHING HAPPENED. There just isn't enough gravity in there to initiate fusion.
IMO the only place fusion will take place is in insanely extreme conditions. Like stars where the effects of gravity cause fusion. Mind you , AFAIK this fusion takes place only in the core of stars . The outer regions of stars have NO fusion taking place , cold or hot.
The only way we're going to get fusion on Earth is by recreating these insane temperatures and pressures. Unfortunately this means a LOT more energy is spent igniting and maintaining the reaction than what comes out. We just lack the gravity found in the core of stars on Earth to initiate cheap fusion. So unless we're going to find a way of creating gravity for cheap , the only other way is to do fusion is to it in an explosive way. For now , the only cheap and easy way to attain fusion which is tried and tested is the Hydrogen bomb. Using a small fission device we are able to recreate exactly the conditions needed to initiate fusion.
IMO instead of wasting money on ITER we should instead try to focus on this approach. I had already mentioned about the Jupiter hydrogen. Setting up a space based lab we have no limits on what kind of experimentation we can do with the H2 we mine from Jupiter. Including setting of a nuclear device to initiate fusion. There would be enormous wastage but if we are able to capture even 1% of the energy emmited from a fusion explosion in space and store it , we would get more energy out of a single H2 cargo ship through explosive fusion than through a 100 loads of H2 using oxidation.
You talk about not spending more money for the Space program.. But the Space program has yielded real benifits and real science. All cold fusion has yielded is a few neutrons despite what a tribe of people say who believe that "the public really isn't aware of what is going on! ". The public has already understood that Cold fusion is pure nonsense.
The problem with people who come up with soloutions for energy/enviroment is they get *** all over by special intere$$t groups and are hidden from the public, for example,there is no freedom in the media and any alternative energy technologies "they" show on tv are mostly BS in one way or another.There is also no public support for the good technologies because, of course, the public really isn't aware of what is going on!
PS
Was this ment to be serious? The getting hydrogen from Jupiter? I am about to have a big laugh! (Can I buy some stocks?) Talk about entropy! I know! It will give more money for the space program!
I think i'm understanding why cold fusion is dead.
It's precisely due to nutcases like you who think the entire world is against the concept. IMO , cold fusion as a concept is just trickery. Sure they are able to produce neutrons but IMO its more due to reactions we don't understand yet that instead of stripping electrons are stripping neutrons off atomic nuclei. There isn't fusion taking place here , just more atomic nuclei getting stripped off neutrons. Sure this merits further look into how neutrons are getting ejected out of nuclei , but we sure as hell aren't getting much energy out of this.
Now , a bunch of wide eyed morons takes this as proof of fusion. I'm sorry but if it were so simple we would have spontaneous fusion taking place anywhere a sufficient quantity of H2 was available. Why the hell are Jupiter and Saturn not turning into stars ? They have insane magnetic and electric fields , and enough turbulance in the form of surface storms. Yet there is no "cold fusion" taking place there. Heck Shoemaker Levy crashed into Jupiter and despite what some nuts said , NOTHING HAPPENED. There just isn't enough gravity in there to initiate fusion.
IMO the only place fusion will take place is in insanely extreme conditions. Like stars where the effects of gravity cause fusion. Mind you , AFAIK this fusion takes place only in the core of stars . The outer regions of stars have NO fusion taking place , cold or hot.
The only way we're going to get fusion on Earth is by recreating these insane temperatures and pressures. Unfortunately this means a LOT more energy is spent igniting and maintaining the reaction than what comes out. We just lack the gravity found in the core of stars on Earth to initiate cheap fusion. So unless we're going to find a way of creating gravity for cheap , the only other way is to do fusion is to it in an explosive way. For now , the only cheap and easy way to attain fusion which is tried and tested is the Hydrogen bomb. Using a small fission device we are able to recreate exactly the conditions needed to initiate fusion.
IMO instead of wasting money on ITER we should instead try to focus on this approach. I had already mentioned about the Jupiter hydrogen. Setting up a space based lab we have no limits on what kind of experimentation we can do with the H2 we mine from Jupiter. Including setting of a nuclear device to initiate fusion. There would be enormous wastage but if we are able to capture even 1% of the energy emmited from a fusion explosion in space and store it , we would get more energy out of a single H2 cargo ship through explosive fusion than through a 100 loads of H2 using oxidation.
You talk about not spending more money for the Space program.. But the Space program has yielded real benifits and real science. All cold fusion has yielded is a few neutrons despite what a tribe of people say who believe that "the public really isn't aware of what is going on! ". The public has already understood that Cold fusion is pure nonsense.
As I said before ,give me a break.(who is the nutcase here?) In reality ,this hydrogen from space is bull. Do you really think there aren't easier ways to produce hydrogen? Here on earth? The world needs practical and affordable technology. You assume I support cold fusion. I don't , because it is nuclear,and there are better/easier ways of getting energy.I really don't know if the technology works or not because I have never really looked at it and to be quite honest, I really don't care to.
By the way, I also don't think the whole world is against the concept . The poor and middle class would love to have access to affordable energy. Hydro bills are outragous and I know elderly people who have a hard time paying their bills.Gas is at an all time high now and people only buy it because they have to. Its a control because there is no compitition in the energy industry.Right now, where I live electriciy costs about 13 cents per kwh.This is including delivery charge and the paying off the debt that the former CEO's wracked up.Someone is making a killing, everyone knows it.
If a company were able to take the Henry Ford approach , and mass produce a hydrogen or other system that is affordable , consumers would switch to that system. Problem solved. Almost.
I am not saying I think this will happen anytime soon .But I do think that people will regret their apathy, because there is going to be misery, the enviromental impacts of what has been done to our planet will become more apparent and there will be more natural disasters, it has been proven by science and there is much cause for concern.
On the bright side, I guess there will be no money for stupidness like mining Jupiter. Jupiter is apparently chock full of diamonds,though ,maybe you would be better off building your spaceship and selling shares on speculation that it might make it there with out blowing up and then come back to earth with this free hydrogen that will end up costing$ 100,000 a litre . Must be nice to get paid to come up with such nonsense.
By the way, I also don't think the whole world is against the concept . The poor and middle class would love to have access to affordable energy. Hydro bills are outragous and I know elderly people who have a hard time paying their bills.Gas is at an all time high now and people only buy it because they have to. Its a control because there is no compitition in the energy industry.Right now, where I live electriciy costs about 13 cents per kwh.This is including delivery charge and the paying off the debt that the former CEO's wracked up.Someone is making a killing, everyone knows it.
If a company were able to take the Henry Ford approach , and mass produce a hydrogen or other system that is affordable , consumers would switch to that system. Problem solved. Almost.
I am not saying I think this will happen anytime soon .But I do think that people will regret their apathy, because there is going to be misery, the enviromental impacts of what has been done to our planet will become more apparent and there will be more natural disasters, it has been proven by science and there is much cause for concern.
On the bright side, I guess there will be no money for stupidness like mining Jupiter. Jupiter is apparently chock full of diamonds,though ,maybe you would be better off building your spaceship and selling shares on speculation that it might make it there with out blowing up and then come back to earth with this free hydrogen that will end up costing$ 100,000 a litre . Must be nice to get paid to come up with such nonsense.
Like I said earlier ,
There's only two ways to mass produce insane quantities Hydrogen for cheap -
1. Mine Jupiter or another H2 rich moon. Sure there's lots of H2 in the Earth but its mostly useless since its all locked up as Hydrides or water.
2. Set off limited size fusion device (Hydrogen bomb) in a sizeable amount of water. The insane energy released would be more than enough to split the water into H2 and O2. The only problem is stopping the H2 released from escaping into outer space.
There's only two ways to mass produce insane quantities Hydrogen for cheap -
1. Mine Jupiter or another H2 rich moon. Sure there's lots of H2 in the Earth but its mostly useless since its all locked up as Hydrides or water.
2. Set off limited size fusion device (Hydrogen bomb) in a sizeable amount of water. The insane energy released would be more than enough to split the water into H2 and O2. The only problem is stopping the H2 released from escaping into outer space.
Pkunk,
Besides co$t, there is not enough time to even waste planning, and preparing for such an endeavor. (let alone pulling it off) Maybe after Hydrogen infrastructure is in place here, along with the trucks, trains, planes, and cars being made to run on H. (20yrs?)
Get real ! If your dreaming of solutions on Jupiter, you haven't grasped the total problem here on Earth.
RJ
Besides co$t, there is not enough time to even waste planning, and preparing for such an endeavor. (let alone pulling it off) Maybe after Hydrogen infrastructure is in place here, along with the trucks, trains, planes, and cars being made to run on H. (20yrs?)
Get real ! If your dreaming of solutions on Jupiter, you haven't grasped the total problem here on Earth.
RJ
Yes , maybe after 20 years.
But right now the only way of making H2 on Earth is to burn more fossil fuels. Sure , we can make technology to trap the CO2 released after burning fossil fuels , but it's still a very inefficient way of making H2. In fact we can get more energy by just burning the fossil fuels instead. Anyway at the current exponential rate of growth in fossill fuel usage esp. with the emergence of China and India , we're going to RUN OUT of fossill fuels in 30 years or so.
So if we stick to the 20 year timeline you propose , we'll already be plum out of fuel by then. Heck , War would break out for the Oil resources left and people wouldn't care a damn about Space mining. The only solution is to start planning for Space mining now , since it'll take us at least 30 years to actually do it , and we actually have the resources to pull it off now. Instead of wasting money on sending Humans to Mars and the Moon , we'll get a LOT more bang for buck by investing in H2 mining missions instead.
BTW Guest_RickJ , I am getting real since the energy situation is only going to get a LOT worse.
But right now the only way of making H2 on Earth is to burn more fossil fuels. Sure , we can make technology to trap the CO2 released after burning fossil fuels , but it's still a very inefficient way of making H2. In fact we can get more energy by just burning the fossil fuels instead. Anyway at the current exponential rate of growth in fossill fuel usage esp. with the emergence of China and India , we're going to RUN OUT of fossill fuels in 30 years or so.
So if we stick to the 20 year timeline you propose , we'll already be plum out of fuel by then. Heck , War would break out for the Oil resources left and people wouldn't care a damn about Space mining. The only solution is to start planning for Space mining now , since it'll take us at least 30 years to actually do it , and we actually have the resources to pull it off now. Instead of wasting money on sending Humans to Mars and the Moon , we'll get a LOT more bang for buck by investing in H2 mining missions instead.
BTW Guest_RickJ , I am getting real since the energy situation is only going to get a LOT worse.
Pkunk,
Somehow, we're in agreement, but still not.
I'm not on The H bandwagon, perhaps that's the difference? Not that it is a bad idea, just that, with current teqniques, it's not practical. (your quote "right now the only way of making H2 on Earth is to burn more fossil fuels")
My whole point for responding was exactly what you said in your last post. There is not enough time for that plan to "save" us. (your quote"if we stick to the 20 year timeline you propose , we'll already be plum out of fuel by then" and "start planning for Space mining now , since it'll take us at least 30 years to actually do it ") That is a logistical impossibility. No manufacturer is going to make vehicles to run on something that might be here in 30 years. Look at the history of a. gas stations, b. roads, and c. automobiles - in that order. If you build, it they will come.
The economic destruction of the PRICE of gas/oil to the user will hit LONG before it is actually "gone dry". If we don't have alternatives in place in 5 years, it's not going to matter. That's why I'm saying we must look closer to home for answers.
best wishes,
RJ
Somehow, we're in agreement, but still not.
I'm not on The H bandwagon, perhaps that's the difference? Not that it is a bad idea, just that, with current teqniques, it's not practical. (your quote "right now the only way of making H2 on Earth is to burn more fossil fuels")
My whole point for responding was exactly what you said in your last post. There is not enough time for that plan to "save" us. (your quote"if we stick to the 20 year timeline you propose , we'll already be plum out of fuel by then" and "start planning for Space mining now , since it'll take us at least 30 years to actually do it ") That is a logistical impossibility. No manufacturer is going to make vehicles to run on something that might be here in 30 years. Look at the history of a. gas stations, b. roads, and c. automobiles - in that order. If you build, it they will come.
The economic destruction of the PRICE of gas/oil to the user will hit LONG before it is actually "gone dry". If we don't have alternatives in place in 5 years, it's not going to matter. That's why I'm saying we must look closer to home for answers.
best wishes,
RJ
No matter what they have to come up with a commuter car that does not use an oil base fuel.
The speed of the vehical does not have to be above 60 miles an hour.
We should use them brains at NASA to help develop this.
You can use exsititing gas station to have a charging station for electric and hydrogin cars plus they would still have gasoline and diesel.
And the fuel companies should be taxed to help accomplih this until it is accomplished.
And make it a tax were they can not charge it back to the consumer it would have to come out of there profits until we get alternative fuel sources in place.
And if they refuse to do so the goverment should confisate there business in this country.
They are all making big profits and have helped more they any other business to cause gobal warming.
The goverment should help all American auto makers develop a car and share all the information they have about building these cars with them and keep it top secret until our automanfactors have it up an running.
So they can be competive with the forgin auto makers.
We need a better mass transit system in popualated regions of the country.
All buses should be switched to alternitive fuels and there should more bus routes that would make it easier for to use mass transit.
The goverment needs to come back with tax breaks and low interest or no interset loans for home owners to insulate thier homes and to get solar and other energy savings devices.
We should have more train service to transport goods across this country to central points were they would be transfered to trucks for the final delivery.
We must become independent from forigin oil or we are going to really suffer!
The speed of the vehical does not have to be above 60 miles an hour.
We should use them brains at NASA to help develop this.
You can use exsititing gas station to have a charging station for electric and hydrogin cars plus they would still have gasoline and diesel.
And the fuel companies should be taxed to help accomplih this until it is accomplished.
And make it a tax were they can not charge it back to the consumer it would have to come out of there profits until we get alternative fuel sources in place.
And if they refuse to do so the goverment should confisate there business in this country.
They are all making big profits and have helped more they any other business to cause gobal warming.
The goverment should help all American auto makers develop a car and share all the information they have about building these cars with them and keep it top secret until our automanfactors have it up an running.
So they can be competive with the forgin auto makers.
We need a better mass transit system in popualated regions of the country.
All buses should be switched to alternitive fuels and there should more bus routes that would make it easier for to use mass transit.
The goverment needs to come back with tax breaks and low interest or no interset loans for home owners to insulate thier homes and to get solar and other energy savings devices.
We should have more train service to transport goods across this country to central points were they would be transfered to trucks for the final delivery.
We must become independent from forigin oil or we are going to really suffer!
100 Nuclear plants? doable. Easily. We just need to re-educate the average joe about the REAL facts, and about the risks and benefits of nuclear power.
If you have no actual education about nuclear power plants, STFU, I lived and worked in one for 11 Years. I worked with nuclear weapons as well.
Your idealistic rantings are amusing, but as I see it, mere mental masturbation. When the price of gasoline hits 20 dollars a gallon, and reality starts to rock your world in a more un-bullshittable way, you will be singing a different tune.
We ALREADY HAVE the technology, a simple investment in manufacturing is needed. When your quality of life takes a hit, you will be forced to do what we should have done long ago. Stop with the ideological grandstanding. Stop scaring people. Taking advantage of others ignorance, or even worse, multiplying your own ignorance and spreading it to others is wrong.
People are afraid of the bomb. Fine. I know exactly how much damage they do. It was my job. But the fear of people about atomic anything is at an irrational level.
If you think Nuclear power is so bad, answer a simple question for me. What resource is there that can NOW be used to replace the power generated right now, by the few remaining Nuclear power plants we have, at even TWICE the cost?
There is none.
If you have no actual education about nuclear power plants, STFU, I lived and worked in one for 11 Years. I worked with nuclear weapons as well.
Your idealistic rantings are amusing, but as I see it, mere mental masturbation. When the price of gasoline hits 20 dollars a gallon, and reality starts to rock your world in a more un-bullshittable way, you will be singing a different tune.
We ALREADY HAVE the technology, a simple investment in manufacturing is needed. When your quality of life takes a hit, you will be forced to do what we should have done long ago. Stop with the ideological grandstanding. Stop scaring people. Taking advantage of others ignorance, or even worse, multiplying your own ignorance and spreading it to others is wrong.
People are afraid of the bomb. Fine. I know exactly how much damage they do. It was my job. But the fear of people about atomic anything is at an irrational level.
If you think Nuclear power is so bad, answer a simple question for me. What resource is there that can NOW be used to replace the power generated right now, by the few remaining Nuclear power plants we have, at even TWICE the cost?
There is none.
Why do you keep saying massive amounts of hydrogen? Do you mean enough fuel to meet the worlds energy needs and the up comming demand from countries like China?
You are going about the wrong way and anyone who can think logicaly would agree. There are allready technologies out there that can produce hydrogen on demand to be used to run engines. I am talking about a system that uses readly availabe cheap alloys and with the use of a cheap electrolyte (water) , can produce a litre of hydrogen a minute and it can run engines(duh) The cost of the fuel in KWH has been figured at below 2 cents/kwh. Thats quite the savings isn't it? There are also other electrical hydrogen units that are very good.....This is why I hate to see these kinds of projects like this proposed
space trip 1) get any attention what so ever 2) get massive amounts of money 3) are justified even though they will never yield any kind of results (that matter or have a gain)
The other point I would like to mention is that the hydrogen technologies that are mostly mentioned are one that involve massive infucture changes such as these bullshit hydrogen filling stations that will never happen and the use of compressed hydrogen which is dangerous and will not get public support because (well would you want to hide behind a brick wall while you were filling up your tank!) and no matter how bullit proof your tank is supposed to be , would you want a tank of compressed H under your seat?
So, I have to agree that the way the hydrogen industry is going right now is wrong. Most of the industry is running on old technologies and there are many companies that are frauds, they get away with it because the most of the public really doesn't know much about fuels, engines, fuel cells or any thing to do with Hydrogen. These people make alot of money,they are quite happy to sell snake oil and the people who are really doing good technology get squat. This is the way it really is guys. The technology is available, but is there anyone who could/ would be able to do something about it? Not likely!
You are going about the wrong way and anyone who can think logicaly would agree. There are allready technologies out there that can produce hydrogen on demand to be used to run engines. I am talking about a system that uses readly availabe cheap alloys and with the use of a cheap electrolyte (water) , can produce a litre of hydrogen a minute and it can run engines(duh) The cost of the fuel in KWH has been figured at below 2 cents/kwh. Thats quite the savings isn't it? There are also other electrical hydrogen units that are very good.....This is why I hate to see these kinds of projects like this proposed
space trip 1) get any attention what so ever 2) get massive amounts of money 3) are justified even though they will never yield any kind of results (that matter or have a gain)
The other point I would like to mention is that the hydrogen technologies that are mostly mentioned are one that involve massive infucture changes such as these bullshit hydrogen filling stations that will never happen and the use of compressed hydrogen which is dangerous and will not get public support because (well would you want to hide behind a brick wall while you were filling up your tank!) and no matter how bullit proof your tank is supposed to be , would you want a tank of compressed H under your seat?
So, I have to agree that the way the hydrogen industry is going right now is wrong. Most of the industry is running on old technologies and there are many companies that are frauds, they get away with it because the most of the public really doesn't know much about fuels, engines, fuel cells or any thing to do with Hydrogen. These people make alot of money,they are quite happy to sell snake oil and the people who are really doing good technology get squat. This is the way it really is guys. The technology is available, but is there anyone who could/ would be able to do something about it? Not likely!
one word..........waste!........nuclear!nuff said.
QUOTE (Guest_RickJ.+Jun 27 2005, 06:25 PM)
Pkunk,
Somehow, we're in agreement, but still not.
I'm not on The H bandwagon, perhaps that's the difference? Not that it is a bad idea, just that, with current teqniques, it's not practical. (your quote "right now the only way of making H2 on Earth is to burn more fossil fuels")
My whole point for responding was exactly what you said in your last post. There is not enough time for that plan to "save" us. (your quote"if we stick to the 20 year timeline you propose , we'll already be plum out of fuel by then" and "start planning for Space mining now , since it'll take us at least 30 years to actually do it ") That is a logistical impossibility. No manufacturer is going to make vehicles to run on something that might be here in 30 years. Look at the history of a. gas stations, b. roads, and c. automobiles - in that order. If you build, it they will come.
The economic destruction of the PRICE of gas/oil to the user will hit LONG before it is actually "gone dry". If we don't have alternatives in place in 5 years, it's not going to matter. That's why I'm saying we must look closer to home for answers.
best wishes,
RJ
My point is there are NO sustainable answers looking "close to home".
Pipe dreams like Solar Power , wind power , fusion and other assorted theories will never be as efficient as just mining for fuel. Since we're running out of hydrocarbons on Earth and have nowhere near enough free H2 on Earth , my idea is we have no alternative but to look towards the outer planets.
And your point about manufacturers not making H2 vehicles - they don't need to. We can just continue using fossill fuel powered vehicles until we are able to space mine the huge quantities of H2 needed to support a world-wide hydrogen cycle. Believe it or not , there is very little you need to change in a vehicle's engine to make it H2 compatible. The main area of change is the fuel tank . But i believe they're coming out with more and more efficient Hydrogen "locking" materials to solve this problem too.
Most people change cars every 5 years anyway so i don't see any need for Auto companies to start making H2 vehicles now. And if they need too , it's a pretty easy obstacle to cross. The only problem is just getting our hands on some CHEAP H2.
And you prediction of "5 years" is SO 1970's like. There is still a LOT of hydrocarbons left . Enough to last 20 years at least. Even countries like India and China which were supposed to have very little fossill fuels , have recently discovered huge quantities of natural gas. Enough to last them for decades even if oil runs out.
If we start now , in 30 years we can comfortable initiate a space mining cycle. We have the technology and the resources. The only thing lacking until now is the priorities. Manned missions to Mars and fruitless "quests for life" are an absolute WASTE of resources that can easily be diverted to something that makes perfect business sense like mining.
IMO , the other "great hope" like nuclear fusion is going to go nowhere. We've known about fusion for decades yet we've come nowhere near getting a sustainable reaction. Based on my understanding , unless we get the technology to generate gravity we're going to go nowhere on controlled fusion.
Somehow, we're in agreement, but still not.
I'm not on The H bandwagon, perhaps that's the difference? Not that it is a bad idea, just that, with current teqniques, it's not practical. (your quote "right now the only way of making H2 on Earth is to burn more fossil fuels")
My whole point for responding was exactly what you said in your last post. There is not enough time for that plan to "save" us. (your quote"if we stick to the 20 year timeline you propose , we'll already be plum out of fuel by then" and "start planning for Space mining now , since it'll take us at least 30 years to actually do it ") That is a logistical impossibility. No manufacturer is going to make vehicles to run on something that might be here in 30 years. Look at the history of a. gas stations, b. roads, and c. automobiles - in that order. If you build, it they will come.
The economic destruction of the PRICE of gas/oil to the user will hit LONG before it is actually "gone dry". If we don't have alternatives in place in 5 years, it's not going to matter. That's why I'm saying we must look closer to home for answers.
best wishes,
RJ
My point is there are NO sustainable answers looking "close to home".
Pipe dreams like Solar Power , wind power , fusion and other assorted theories will never be as efficient as just mining for fuel. Since we're running out of hydrocarbons on Earth and have nowhere near enough free H2 on Earth , my idea is we have no alternative but to look towards the outer planets.
And your point about manufacturers not making H2 vehicles - they don't need to. We can just continue using fossill fuel powered vehicles until we are able to space mine the huge quantities of H2 needed to support a world-wide hydrogen cycle. Believe it or not , there is very little you need to change in a vehicle's engine to make it H2 compatible. The main area of change is the fuel tank . But i believe they're coming out with more and more efficient Hydrogen "locking" materials to solve this problem too.
Most people change cars every 5 years anyway so i don't see any need for Auto companies to start making H2 vehicles now. And if they need too , it's a pretty easy obstacle to cross. The only problem is just getting our hands on some CHEAP H2.
And you prediction of "5 years" is SO 1970's like. There is still a LOT of hydrocarbons left . Enough to last 20 years at least. Even countries like India and China which were supposed to have very little fossill fuels , have recently discovered huge quantities of natural gas. Enough to last them for decades even if oil runs out.
If we start now , in 30 years we can comfortable initiate a space mining cycle. We have the technology and the resources. The only thing lacking until now is the priorities. Manned missions to Mars and fruitless "quests for life" are an absolute WASTE of resources that can easily be diverted to something that makes perfect business sense like mining.
IMO , the other "great hope" like nuclear fusion is going to go nowhere. We've known about fusion for decades yet we've come nowhere near getting a sustainable reaction. Based on my understanding , unless we get the technology to generate gravity we're going to go nowhere on controlled fusion.
There are solutions right here on earth believe it or not! This is the point. The technology has allready been done. There are some very good systems and they get swept under the rug. This is political. These inventions belong to a class of technologies classified as"Disruptive Technologies" and there is bitter oppsition to these technologies, believe it or not.
hydrogen can be stored in different ways than compressing it and new technologies are being developed all the time.
the concept of a hydrogen economy is very good' but wont suit all types of transport.
how ever there is one very good concept you can generate H2 just about any where from a small windmill on a mountain top to a massive hydro powered station.
small generators will become viable as a totally automated small generator using any sort of power or technology can store H2 in a form that can be transported by road or rail.
for instance a 2 kw wind generator placed in a windy ridge can generate power to electrolise water continuously untill a large enough quantity is stored in suitable bottles etc and when a sufficient economic amount is available the full containers are picked up and empty ones replaced for the next period.
in essence a transporter will take empty bottles on a H2 collecting run and return with full ones each run calculated to take a full and economic load.
this way every available scource of energy can be farmed even in the most remote or poorest places.
the concept of a hydrogen economy is very good' but wont suit all types of transport.
how ever there is one very good concept you can generate H2 just about any where from a small windmill on a mountain top to a massive hydro powered station.
small generators will become viable as a totally automated small generator using any sort of power or technology can store H2 in a form that can be transported by road or rail.
for instance a 2 kw wind generator placed in a windy ridge can generate power to electrolise water continuously untill a large enough quantity is stored in suitable bottles etc and when a sufficient economic amount is available the full containers are picked up and empty ones replaced for the next period.
in essence a transporter will take empty bottles on a H2 collecting run and return with full ones each run calculated to take a full and economic load.
this way every available scource of energy can be farmed even in the most remote or poorest places.
Yeh, I know, what I am trying to say is there is no need for hydrogen to be stored or moved whatsoever. I am talking about systems that make hydrogen on demand for use directly to the engine.There are far easier ways of producing hydrogen than what you are talking about. I am not saying this idea wouldn't work but it seems very slow and time consuming and then there is the cost of the windmill etc....There are technologies that would get the job done more efficently.
[SIZE=7]We have a gentlman in Tempe, AZ that has been powering his truck with hyrogen for years now, It is a dual use both Gasoline for long trips and for in town driving he switches to Hydrogen. He gets the Hydrogen from electronalysis using plain water. Cost was 35 cents per gal or equal to a gal of gas. I am assuming that this was the cost of electric and storage equipment. Very interesting that a indivigual would accomplish this kind of feat. Now don't look to our government to solve our problem as they are tied to closely to big oil. Both Parties are only interested in who will be running the show when their time comes. Today with Maglav transportation across country and inter city we could very easily change our depenance on Oil. For those quick trips where MagLav does not go an rental electric car would do very nicely, Maybe it could start with a small group working independantly like a club and then spread member ship through out the USA to establish these things but it will take Us to do it, Not the Government.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jun 27 2005, 11:32 PM)
100 Nuclear plants? doable. Easily. We just need to re-educate the average joe about the REAL facts, and about the risks and benefits of nuclear power.
The 100 nuclear plants were just for the UK. It would be well over 2,000 nuclear plants in the US, approx 8,000+ for the world.
Got that much nuclear fuel?
At what cost?
Nuclear availability peaked in 2002 and is falling.
Over 1/2 the reactors are 20+ years old and 90 of them are 30+ years old.
The 441 existing Nuclear power plants (354 GWelt capacity) used about 64,400 tons of uranium.
Uranium reserves equal but 1.57 Million tons
Uranium reserves and resources are present in only a few countries. Ten countries have nearly 99 % of the recoverable reserves and four countries have nearly 80 % of the reserves: Australia (646,000 t U, ~41 %), Canada (265,000 t U, ~17 %), Kazakhstan (232,000 t U, ~15 %), and South Africa (118,000 t U, ~8 %).
Primary energy production from Oil is ~20 times greater than existing nuclear power. If we built enough nuclear plants to replace oil (forget losses via transmission) we would increase our annual usage to just below our proven reserves.
While nuclear can play a roll in our energy future, the idea that it can replace oil faces some major practical hurdles.
Arthur
The 100 nuclear plants were just for the UK. It would be well over 2,000 nuclear plants in the US, approx 8,000+ for the world.
Got that much nuclear fuel?
At what cost?
Nuclear availability peaked in 2002 and is falling.
Over 1/2 the reactors are 20+ years old and 90 of them are 30+ years old.
The 441 existing Nuclear power plants (354 GWelt capacity) used about 64,400 tons of uranium.
Uranium reserves equal but 1.57 Million tons
Uranium reserves and resources are present in only a few countries. Ten countries have nearly 99 % of the recoverable reserves and four countries have nearly 80 % of the reserves: Australia (646,000 t U, ~41 %), Canada (265,000 t U, ~17 %), Kazakhstan (232,000 t U, ~15 %), and South Africa (118,000 t U, ~8 %).
Primary energy production from Oil is ~20 times greater than existing nuclear power. If we built enough nuclear plants to replace oil (forget losses via transmission) we would increase our annual usage to just below our proven reserves.
While nuclear can play a roll in our energy future, the idea that it can replace oil faces some major practical hurdles.
Arthur
QUOTE (Pkunk+Jun 28 2005, 04:52 PM)
My point is there are NO sustainable answers looking "close to home".
Pipe dreams like Solar Power , wind power , fusion and other assorted theories will never be as efficient as just mining for fuel. Since we're running out of hydrocarbons on Earth and have nowhere near enough free H2 on Earth , my idea is we have no alternative but to look towards the outer planets.
The last time I checked the cost to get 1 pound into low earth orbit was ~$20,000.
Just how do you propose to launch some massive rocket to Jupiter, a minimum of 365 million miles away, slow down when you get there, then "a miracle occurs" and we somehow gather massive amounts of hydrogen from a planet that has a 2.64 higher gravitational force then earth, Then we somehow get this massive amount of H2 out of Jupiter's gravitational field, get it back another 400 or so million miles to Earth orbit and THEN get it to the surface, in one piece, and do this all for less then the cost of a gallon equivalent of H2 made on earth?
Or just consider that it is going to take us roughly 15 Billion and 15 years to just get a tiny spacecraft to the moon and back and you are proposing we somehow get 30 BILLION BARREL equivalent of H2 from Jupiter each year?
And you call Solar and Wind pipe dreams?
Arthur
QUOTE (blondie+Jun 28 2005, 04:34 AM)
There are allready technologies out there that can produce hydrogen on demand to be used to run engines. I am talking about a system that uses readly availabe cheap alloys and with the use of a cheap electrolyte (water) , can produce a litre of hydrogen a minute and it can run engines(duh) The cost of the fuel in KWH has been figured at below 2 cents/kwh. Thats quite the savings isn't it?
Sure is, since the price you quote for your H2 fuel is less than half the cost just TO PRODUCE electricity.
So tell me, why don't the huge electric power companies convert to your system?
Seems like they would save a bundle and make a small fortune.
Sounds like snake oil to me.
Arthur
Sure is, since the price you quote for your H2 fuel is less than half the cost just TO PRODUCE electricity.
So tell me, why don't the huge electric power companies convert to your system?
Seems like they would save a bundle and make a small fortune.
Sounds like snake oil to me.
Arthur
QUOTE (Jim Lafferty+Jun 27 2005, 11:30 PM)
The goverment should help all American auto makers develop a car and share all the information they have about building these cars with them and keep it top secret until our automanfactors have it up an running.
So they can be competive with the forgin auto makers.
I can't wait to buy one of them Govmint Cars, bet they will be sweeet.
I'm sure they will be better than them durn forgin autos.
Arthur
So they can be competive with the forgin auto makers.
I can't wait to buy one of them Govmint Cars, bet they will be sweeet.
I'm sure they will be better than them durn forgin autos.
Arthur
Wind, solar, and wave power generation are pipe dreams, but shipping tons of liquid hydrogen from Jupiter to earth (with mucho re-entry heat) is not? I just hope that rocket's re-entry is on the 4th of July so we can have some REALLY BIG fireworks. What would this storage tank be composed of, to withstand the pressure of a couple tons of liquid hydrogen being heated by re-entry? Talking about Jupiter's hydrogen is just fiddling away while Rome is burning.
On a slightly more practical note, I read an article about a company in Canada that has a briefcase-sized hydrogen generator that injects the hydrogen into the fuel stream of a CONVENTIONAL internal combustion car, increasing the gasoline burn efficiency (i.e., mpg) and reducing emissions to near zero. I can't find the article now. Anyone else seen it? Supposedly 6 - 12 months from market. Can't remember the price, but somewhere around $2k?
How about the federal government eliminate its subsidies on suburban development (mortgage interest deductions)? The average commute time in large metro areas is approaching (or over) 90 minutes EACH WAY. How about the federal governnment eliminate its tax breaks on large SUVs? How about an excise tax on 'gas guzzlers' a la the 70s when the last oil crisis happened? There is absolutely no reason one needs 2+ tons of machinery to get from point A to point B.
How about 'fast tracking' the development of Personal Rapid Transit (PRT)? The two most common complaints for people not using mass transit are inconvenience (station locations) and privacy. PRT eliminates both those by giving you a personal car and going directly from your start to your destination with no intervening stops. www.skytran.net among others.
On a less practical note, how about looking at the pricing structure of the free market system. Economist Milton Friedman (I think) said, "the free market system is very good at determining the price of things, but very bad at determining the cost of things". A 'cradle to the grave' price on a commodity would certainly change the way things are currently priced. Figure in liability insurance costs and 10,000 year storage costs to the price of nuclear power. Figure in costs of ozone-related illnesses, acid-rain destruction costs, etc. to fossil fuel usage. Figure in costs of mercury contamination by using flourescent light bulbs. Figure in contamination costs of arsenic in production / disposal of solar panels. Et Cetera. In other words, what is the TRUE COST of these alternatives? Why not a law that says a manufacturer is responsible for ALL costs of their product? A coal-burning power plant is responsible for ALL costs for the by-products going up their chimneys. A PC manufacturer must accept all their PCs back for disposal once they are obsolete. Ditto for cars, refrigerators, sofas, etc.
There seems to me to be a bit more urgency to this topic than to be wasting time on Jupiter solutions.
Bruce
On a slightly more practical note, I read an article about a company in Canada that has a briefcase-sized hydrogen generator that injects the hydrogen into the fuel stream of a CONVENTIONAL internal combustion car, increasing the gasoline burn efficiency (i.e., mpg) and reducing emissions to near zero. I can't find the article now. Anyone else seen it? Supposedly 6 - 12 months from market. Can't remember the price, but somewhere around $2k?
How about the federal government eliminate its subsidies on suburban development (mortgage interest deductions)? The average commute time in large metro areas is approaching (or over) 90 minutes EACH WAY. How about the federal governnment eliminate its tax breaks on large SUVs? How about an excise tax on 'gas guzzlers' a la the 70s when the last oil crisis happened? There is absolutely no reason one needs 2+ tons of machinery to get from point A to point B.
How about 'fast tracking' the development of Personal Rapid Transit (PRT)? The two most common complaints for people not using mass transit are inconvenience (station locations) and privacy. PRT eliminates both those by giving you a personal car and going directly from your start to your destination with no intervening stops. www.skytran.net among others.
On a less practical note, how about looking at the pricing structure of the free market system. Economist Milton Friedman (I think) said, "the free market system is very good at determining the price of things, but very bad at determining the cost of things". A 'cradle to the grave' price on a commodity would certainly change the way things are currently priced. Figure in liability insurance costs and 10,000 year storage costs to the price of nuclear power. Figure in costs of ozone-related illnesses, acid-rain destruction costs, etc. to fossil fuel usage. Figure in costs of mercury contamination by using flourescent light bulbs. Figure in contamination costs of arsenic in production / disposal of solar panels. Et Cetera. In other words, what is the TRUE COST of these alternatives? Why not a law that says a manufacturer is responsible for ALL costs of their product? A coal-burning power plant is responsible for ALL costs for the by-products going up their chimneys. A PC manufacturer must accept all their PCs back for disposal once they are obsolete. Ditto for cars, refrigerators, sofas, etc.
There seems to me to be a bit more urgency to this topic than to be wasting time on Jupiter solutions.
Bruce
It's a great discussion. Because if it's true that the CO2 released after burning fossil fuels underlies the monsters like Hurricane Katrina and Rita then we must seek for alternative source of energy or try to diminish our demands(waste). I don't even say about that oil is a very finite resource and about that the rest of the 80% of the world is trying desperately to catch up with that elite 20%, exacerbating the Problem.
I live in Ukraine so I am sorry for my English.
I skimmed through your debate and have been astonished by Pkunk's point of view.
The only way we're going to get fusion on Earth is by recreating these insane temperatures and pressures. Unfortunately this means a LOT more energy is spent igniting and maintaining the reaction than what comes out. We just lack the gravity found in the core of stars on Earth to initiate cheap fusion. So unless we're going to find a way of creating gravity for cheap , the only other way is to do fusion is to it in an explosive way.
To Pkunk
Why do you think so? Do you have any arguments against ITER?
(please see www.iter.org)
I live in Ukraine so I am sorry for my English.
I skimmed through your debate and have been astonished by Pkunk's point of view.
QUOTE
The only way we're going to get fusion on Earth is by recreating these insane temperatures and pressures. Unfortunately this means a LOT more energy is spent igniting and maintaining the reaction than what comes out. We just lack the gravity found in the core of stars on Earth to initiate cheap fusion. So unless we're going to find a way of creating gravity for cheap , the only other way is to do fusion is to it in an explosive way.
To Pkunk
Why do you think so? Do you have any arguments against ITER?
(please see www.iter.org)
Eugene,
ITER may possibly advance the science and technology for fusion power generation, but their timeline to commercial power production is at least 50 years out. Back in the 1950s fusion power generation was 50 years away. I definitely think this technology should be explored, but not exclusively.
Five years ago auto companies and researchers were saying commercial fuel cell cars would be in production by 2005. The danger of waiting for some magic bullet in the future is complacency in the present. A few years ago Pres. Bush, in his state of the union address, made a push for more money for hydrogen technology. Which effectively let him off the hook as far as doing anything in the present. We can all wish for some relatively painless cure down the road, but in the meantime our dependence on fossil fuels and their emissions into the atmosphere continues. There are plenty "off the shelf" technologies and policies that can be used right now and each can start to make an incremental difference. Comparing America of the 60s to America today sees a 20% increase in 'fuel efficiency' (whole economy, not just cars) but the majority of that gain occurred in the few years after the 'oil shock' of the 70s, primarily due to governmental policy (tax breaks and deductions) and automobile CAFE standards. I would readily take another 20% gain today instead of holding my breath (literally) for ITER, fuel cells, or Jupiter. Not too sexy a solution, but the point is carbon emissions reductions and less dependence on fossil fuels, right?
Bruce
ITER may possibly advance the science and technology for fusion power generation, but their timeline to commercial power production is at least 50 years out. Back in the 1950s fusion power generation was 50 years away. I definitely think this technology should be explored, but not exclusively.
Five years ago auto companies and researchers were saying commercial fuel cell cars would be in production by 2005. The danger of waiting for some magic bullet in the future is complacency in the present. A few years ago Pres. Bush, in his state of the union address, made a push for more money for hydrogen technology. Which effectively let him off the hook as far as doing anything in the present. We can all wish for some relatively painless cure down the road, but in the meantime our dependence on fossil fuels and their emissions into the atmosphere continues. There are plenty "off the shelf" technologies and policies that can be used right now and each can start to make an incremental difference. Comparing America of the 60s to America today sees a 20% increase in 'fuel efficiency' (whole economy, not just cars) but the majority of that gain occurred in the few years after the 'oil shock' of the 70s, primarily due to governmental policy (tax breaks and deductions) and automobile CAFE standards. I would readily take another 20% gain today instead of holding my breath (literally) for ITER, fuel cells, or Jupiter. Not too sexy a solution, but the point is carbon emissions reductions and less dependence on fossil fuels, right?
Bruce
re domestic solar panels...
First the price is too high, solar panels need to drop by about 50% before many people will adopt this..
Why install the solar panels when the house is built and fold the cost into the initial mortage..
At these interest rates, buying a totally green house that allows me to watch TV (and feed my family) during the hurricanes and frequent power outages would be great.
But the key is whatever you do, look at the orientation of the house before you buy, a south facing roof should be a major selling point, at some point solar cells will be common but you need the house facing the right way.
my son did a science project, computer interfaced solar cells, we don't have enough solar energy to heat bath water due to our trees...
First the price is too high, solar panels need to drop by about 50% before many people will adopt this..
Why install the solar panels when the house is built and fold the cost into the initial mortage..
At these interest rates, buying a totally green house that allows me to watch TV (and feed my family) during the hurricanes and frequent power outages would be great.
But the key is whatever you do, look at the orientation of the house before you buy, a south facing roof should be a major selling point, at some point solar cells will be common but you need the house facing the right way.
my son did a science project, computer interfaced solar cells, we don't have enough solar energy to heat bath water due to our trees...
To birdan
Yeah, right.
Yeah, right.
I definitely think this technology should be explored, but not exclusively
I didn't say about developing ITER exclusively.
Don't understand.
Don't understand.
How about the federal government eliminate its subsidies on suburban development (mortgage interest deductions)? The average commute time in large metro areas is approaching (or over) 90 minutes EACH WAY. How about the federal governnment eliminate its tax breaks on large SUVs? How about an excise tax on 'gas guzzlers' a la the 70s when the last oil crisis happened?
Very interesting proposal, but don't you think it would kill such weak economy like that in Ukraine.
Agree with you. But would politics do things which the community need? Do we must raise public awareness on those topics? Will it have any result?
QUOTE
...the point is carbon emissions reductions and less dependence on fossil fuels, right?
Yeah, right.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ...the point is carbon emissions reductions and less dependence on fossil fuels, right? |
Yeah, right.
I definitely think this technology should be explored, but not exclusively
I didn't say about developing ITER exclusively.
QUOTE
Which effectively let him off the hook as far as doing anything in the present.
Don't understand.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Which effectively let him off the hook as far as doing anything in the present. |
Don't understand.
How about the federal government eliminate its subsidies on suburban development (mortgage interest deductions)? The average commute time in large metro areas is approaching (or over) 90 minutes EACH WAY. How about the federal governnment eliminate its tax breaks on large SUVs? How about an excise tax on 'gas guzzlers' a la the 70s when the last oil crisis happened?
Very interesting proposal, but don't you think it would kill such weak economy like that in Ukraine.
QUOTE
There seems to me to be a bit more urgency to this topic...
Agree with you. But would politics do things which the community need? Do we must raise public awareness on those topics? Will it have any result?
Hello my name is David and I like to tell you an idea that mite work and iam just seeing if you can find out of anyone if it’s possible. It’s a car with two axels and on each one .There is a long magnet around the axel and then there is a box around that. Not touching the magnet and the box is lined with copper lining which means when the car is moving its generating power. The faster you go the more power you make. It’s the same idea as a wind turbine . The car would have a long flat battery under all the seats in the body of the car and a electronic motor in the front with maybe an intercooler vent with another turbine so when your driving the wind would be spinning it making more energy for the battery and motor .well that the idea sorry I don’t have any diagrams but I hope you get the idea thanks
Please reply to IGONODave@hotmail.com
Please reply to IGONODave@hotmail.com
I envision multi square mile arrays of solar panels or Stirling engines in the southwest deserts of the USA. The peak solar power falling on 1 sq mile is about 3700 megawatts. That converted to electrical power (despite many losses and inefficiencies) is still huge. In the daytime it could power the grid as well as electrolyzing water to make hydrogen. The stored hydrogen could run the power plants at night and provide fuel for transportation vehicles. Don't go with nukes which are full of long range problems: Catastrophic accident or terrorism, security issues, waste disposal, decommissioning costs, catastrophe insurance, not-in-my-back-yard politics, etc. Solar on the other hand is simple, safe, completely non polluting, scalable to any size, can be dispersed or concentrated as much as desired.
Maybe this is a job for all those immigrants in the states - Building all those 100,000 wind turbines 
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.