Gasoline Madness;When to Stop

[ka3zlr]

And He carries a Good Light with Him, FBOM  W3RSW from KA3ZLR...and that's exactly how I would have responded on the air, there's no use quoting it, dissecting it, But Read it and Understand...Good Civics Lesson from Rick...well done...

All For Technology here OM....Think Positive Dudes...Excellent...

[W3RSW]

Thank you.

Field Day made me do it. 

It's funny how much baseless T-rash one goes along with until the laser points in the direction of one's expertise.  One of my Uncles taught me a valuable lesson along that line when I was a lad spouting the latest pollution solutions learned in school.  "Hell Kid, you live in the cleanest world ("environment" not yet used in our context) I could ever imagine.  When I was a kid you had to dodge the chimney cinders when walking down the street. If you worked in town and were lucky enough to wear white shirts,  you had to take a change with you to put it on around noon."   Then he'd go into laughing detail about the sun not coming out in Pittsburgh.  I'm sure a lot of his stories were from others but he made the point.

What worked the miracle of modern Pittsburgh (uh, cough, even before the steel mills were de-nutted by the combination of high labor and raw material costs and rampant environmental control) was natural gas, the piping of the city.

 Technology! - and 19th century at that, finally applied in the 20th displaced the open burning of coal.  Ok, some of the environmental controls were needed at the mills but wise thinking city and county fathers worked together, funded solutions together, made the tough decisions required including unpopular condemnations, demolitions and triage control of businesses.  It's been labeled a working miracle, the marriage of business and government. 

Now we live in a great nation fueled largely by coal.  -Contained and de-sulpherized oxidation of very high BTU fuel.  First the ash was demonized.- Easy fix, not too expensive per KWH for fly ash scurbbers.   Next the sulphur compounds were demonized. - Very expensive fix to reduce back to elemental sulphur.  Oh what's left? Why the very carbon itself.... Yeah, that's it, we'll tax the carbon in the name of clean green.  Believe it or not you already pay a tax on the energy, the heat itself.

"Tax the Carbon!" And the stupid media falls for it. The politicians fall for it.  The manipulated masses fall for it.    Vast millions of people, the very same ones that flocked to the south, infested the marshes and beaches, turned up the A/C, and lit up the night, fell for it. Mark my word if we ever lose cheap power (and believe me, it is cheap even at $500/bbl. compared to the horse era less than a century ago), the stampede back to the north will be thundering...that is, until the first winter.

"Where's our pollution free, carbon free, waste product (nuclear too) free power?"
" Why can't you give me my rightful free power while your at it?"

So really think things through... and I don't mean final solutions to a population explosion based on too cheap energy.  Conversely, I don't mean bowing thoughtlessly to "the little blue marble," flower power concepts that have been recently re-tread from the '60's.  _{"Blue Marble, that's a laugh. We should have been on Mars by now.}  Think how our brains coupled with each other instead of against each other and coupled with technology can achieve a world where all have sufficient, clean energy.

Because if you don't, ..
Don't expect Dubai to hold back.   Don't expect other nations to self fetter their best talents.  Do expect them to aid and abet your self hobbling if you continue to fall for every mantra, income "redistribution" and quick taxation "fix" that comes along.  Convergence with USSR concepts in an increasingly competitive world (notice I didn't say 'fair') including Russia itself will destroy innovation when we need it most.

Never forget the failed concept of; " To each according to his need, from each according to his resorces, skill... ,"whatever.
Then list all the energy resources at the instant, personal command of Al Gore.
Then go read and re-read "Animal Farm."

SomeONE always controls, lately under the guise of "greenuism."

Lastly use either NASA's World View or Google Earth to see what's happening in a world not fettered by alarmists with agendae.   Palm Islands as previously mentioned would be a good place to start.

[K6JEK]

Or else go back to sail ships.  A decade or so ago I recall a prediction that just that would happen, and that navigation by sail would become more reliable and efficient in the future, aided by computerised technology.

MS Beluga SkySails is the world's first commercial container cargo ship partially powered by a giant computer-controlled kite,[2] called the SkySails system. It comprises a kite similar to a paraglider of up to 600 square metres (6,500 sq ft) area.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Beluga_Skysails

Article has a picture.

[W3RSW]

How neat. Retro sailers remind me of some of those ol' Popular Science' articles.

Better be able to reef the sails of those babies pretty quickly. 
Human nature being what it is someone will always try to beat a storm or hurricane.
Some storms come up and from out of "nowhere' very suddenly.  Satellite forewarning may not be enough to catch your local capricous storm. 

For some designs, vastly increased sail area and topmast loading call for deep counterweighting. Draught of some freight vessels is already more than a lot of harbors can accomodate.  Stresses on super hulls would be heading in a new direction... (p.i.)

Cost of transport for large vessels is probably an inverse exponent of the long dimension. (1/cubic?)
What I'm trying to say is that shipping economy of scale calls for really large ships these days, 250k dwt and up.  Similar economy of scale for air and rail transport of course.  It sure would a lot of fun to see a mega-sailer.  It would also have to have emergency power sufficient to operate in the stormy high seas, fairly close to harbors and when becalmed, even power to overcome an error in running sail.  Could be a lot of money in that...   - a very interesting design problem.

For the kite design I guess you just cut 'er loose in a sudden storm...     wonder where it'll land or who it'll cover?

The designs I like are the huge partial air foil/ propeller sections on masts.  Way cool..

Aeolus may have the last laugh here.

[Bill, KD0HG]

Labor costs aside, might operating two smaller (more manageable) sail cargo ships make more sense than one mega-ship?

The larger a diesel, the more efficient, but does that necessarily apply to a wind-powered vessel?

..And what about bringing back steam power and coal boilers?

[W3RSW]

Pennsy was the last railraod to make a 'modern' steam turbine locomotive.
Obviously we'll need a more efficient and less 'polluting' design in today's world.

Quasi Traditional steam updated - possilby Couldn't be done in todays eco-climate -  but sure worth a try what with new fluid technology.

Steam is wonderful ; the big bugaboo there is the tremendous demand for lots of very fresh, uncontaminated or highly treated water.

Eutectic salts (molten) might be a possibility.  Secondary steam to turbines, etc.
A small nuclear reactor driving steam turbines... or generating electricty for drive motors is what navies use now.

Hey engineers, what say?

Big research going on right now in getting Hydrogen stored at room temperature and at low pressures.  -mixed in with super molecules a la inside NaAl₂₃.   if I've gotten that right. 
c.f., "Science News, June 21, 2008"

[Bill, KD0HG]

Why is it that the Navy can have nuclear-powered vessels, but not the private sector?

[K3ZS]

How about a nationwide electric railway system, powered by a network of dedicated nuclear power plants.   I don't think nuclear steam trains would be practical, think of the weight of the mobile containment vessel.

[W3RSW]

Good idea.

As far as loco weight, no prob.
- one of the lightest locos made was the GE 44 tonner.  The great 4-8-8-4 mallets were far heavier.

Surely with titanium 'n stuff we can make a decent portable, lightweight reactor.

and while we're at it, magnilev.  Hey, pretend like cost is no object.  Think in terms of $3 trillion, say the current fy fed. budget riding a $10 tril. economy.

After all that's the kind of thinking that led to the great autoban and interstate system.  Maybe it could be perceived as up a blind alley but the ride was great while it lasted.  Too bad we all got so dependent on the personal auto, moved far from work.... or the work from us. 

[k4kyv]

Why aren't we hearing much of anything these days about the status of research into fusion technology?

And what about this?

[WA1GFZ]

Don't compare Navy talent with the typical back yard JS artest.
There is a reason why the typical person can't have that type of fuel.

[w4bfs]

The biggest problems with both nuc fusion and fission is neutron embrittlement and irradiation of containment structures.  This tends to greatly increase shielding requiremnets.   there is MUCH more to this....help me out ,Ellen

[k4kyv]

But from what I have read on the subject, fusion leaves behind but a tiny fraction of the toxic waste that fission does.  I believe the main problem with fusion is maintaining a stable, controlled reaction.  Fusion works very well in H-bombs, but some means must be developed to put it under control, since a "big bang" is not practical for generating useful energy.  Controlled fusion would be about the closest thing we could come to unlimited "green" power - and the fuel can be extracted from sea water.  The economic benefits would easily cover the costs of maintaining the containment and shielding structures.

Vehicles could run economically 100% off electricity using rechargeable batteries, and virtually render the petrol industry obsolete.  When you fill up, simply exchange batteries.

I suspect that a multi-national "Manhattan Project" for practical fusion reactors could produce successful results within a decade or so, at a fraction of what the major industrialised nations spend to-day to maintain their weapons arsenals.

[w4bfs]

I agree that the energy companies do what large companies tend to do and that is to eliminate competition ... I wonder just how many inventions have been lost that could have made things  much better ... lets see, I believe nuclear fusion also creates high energy neutrons ... the impengement of those tends to actually change/distort the molecular structure of containments ... some become brittle, some become radioactive .. i know only a little of this from working as a nuc plant operator ... guess that why I like glow in the dark... 73  John

[flintstone mop]

Nuclear would be the way to go IF the plants were standardized, like France(?). A plant operator or tech can walk into any nuclear plant and know how to operate. If nuclear is handled on the cheap, like we do here in the USA, then you have a perfect formula for a 3 mile island or Chernobyl.

Fred

[w4bfs]

yeah Fred ... that's the direction the industry is heading ... It seems the most efficient design is around 500MW PWR and has been fairly well designed as a module ... this should radically speed up the licensing process ... TVA is raising rates about 25% this fall and is rumored to have several new sites in mind for new construction ...73...John

[k4kyv]

Remember "atoms for peace" back in the Eisenhower era?  When nuke plants were to come on line, electricity would to be "too cheap to meter".

[WA1GFZ]

well we have yet another rate increase coming for power.
Anybody want to jump in and defend the power company.

[KA1ZGC]

Well, Frank... since anyone saying anything at all that makes any amount of sense about anything will be twisted by you into "defending the power companies", I might as well be your target today. Here goes:

You can't build a nuke plant in this country because the Jane Fondas of the world made sure that everyone would crap their pants at the first whisper of the word "nuclear".

The same phony enviro-whacko hysteria has now extended to hydroelectric dams (they might disturb fish spawning), windmills (a migratory bird might fly into one), and even solar farms (they haven't figured out what to make us all fear about this yet, but they're working hard at it).

You know, all those things that were supposed to be alternatives to nuke energy, those same whackos found a reason to stop them, too. They claim it's for "the environment", but they don't give a damn about the environment, they only care about the view out their window.

So what does that leave us with? You guessed it: coal and oil (the two least environmentally-friendly forms of power generation, the only ones these "environmentalists" don't complain about).

What's happening to the price of oil right now? That's right, it's going up. Price of coal? Also going up very soon, because we need to burn oil in order to ship coal.

So you can blame the power companies if you want (and you've clearly already made your mind up on that), but they've got to pay for the oil and coal they burn to light your air conditioner. Those prices go up, the price per kilowatt-hour goes up.

If the price of flour goes up, the price of the bread you buy from the baker will do the same. That by itself doesn't make the baker evil or greedy.

Pretty simple, really. Plain, simple economics, just like they taught you in school.

So rather than assuming the power company is out to get you, why not focus your anger where it belongs: to the Jane Fondas and Julia Butterfly Hills that got us into this mess in the first place?

I guess it's easier to just shoot the messenger than it is to stop and look at the bigger picture.

--Thom
p.s. No point getting pissed at me, either... you did dare us to respond.

[Mike/W8BAC]

Bill/KD0HG said

Why is it that the Navy can have nuclear-powered vessels, but not the private sector?

Two main reasons Bill. Scale and security. The navy is able to use highly refined (almost weapons grade) fuel which produces far more energy than what is available for industry use. A fuel cycle for a navy carrier is expected to be 20 years as apposed to only 3 years in a civilian reactor. The size and weight of the carrier or sub reactor and related components is much smaller. If a civilian reactor of the same horsepower was produced the ship would be much, much heavier.

The other reason is security. A navy ship or sub is expected to be able to protect itself form attack and a civilian ship would be a floating target.

We tried it back in the 1950's. MS Savannah was the first and only nuclear powered cargo ship. It is on display at Patriots Point in Charleston harbor South Carolina. The size and weight of the reactor and shielding made it slow and the payload was small. Many countries wouldn't let it stop. The crew and US port workers had the biggest influence on it's short life. Fear of working on or near the ship lead to crew shortages and longshoreman strikes.

If your ever in Charleston make it a point to visit the Patriots Point display. The Yorktown is awesome.

Mike

[WD8BIL]

I guess it's easier to just shoot the messenger than it is to stop and look at the bigger picture.

AS long as Congress can continue to demonize the private sector industries that actually bring us the comodities we use AND, all the while, rake in the tax dollars for doing nothing ... nothing will change.
The only answer is voter imposed term limits.

Think about ..... we can change the face of Congress in just 6 years.

BUT..... most people ain't gotta clue.

[K3ZS]

A majority of people that consider themselves "environmentalists" are in favor of nuclear electric power production.    The envirowackos are limited to Hollywood.

[WA1GFZ]

Hey Bud,
Maybe congress will wake up when there is no more tax base to extort cash from and we finally hit the credit card limit??
Tom,
I like Nuke power there is one 5 miles up the road. Rather that than CO and CO2 belching out a stack. Our power co is owned by guess who

[Bill, KD0HG]

Mike/BAC, thanks for the insight.

With respect to some of the other comments about nukes, what strikes me is that a major issue is ignorance on the part of the public. Ignorance leads to unwarranted fear. It's human nature.

The nuclear industry hasn't done a very good job of promoting itself and educating the general public. In fact, a terrible job. Everything's 'top secret'. The facilities are guarded by mooks armed with M-16s. Let the public tour a nuclear power plant. Have an open house once a year. Answer questions. Inform and educate. If they can't do that and demonstrate that nukes are safe facilities, then I fear that the cause is hopeless.

Compare that to the promotional campaigns Exxon and others have done with respect to their businesses.

[WA1GFZ]

Bill,
If you have ever been in a nuke facility you know why they can't do an open house. I spent a day in one doing 6 hours of safety training to do a 1/2 hour job. I did get a chance to wrap my arms around one of the generator output leads.