Running out of energy.
Michael Ward
forms of energy. I'm talking in the loooooong term.
What about, geothermal. Eventually, won't the planet
reach a point where there just isn't much geolocial activity
and not that much energy in the planet to harvest.
What about wind power. Will metereorlogical
activity stay roughly the same through the eons
or will it reach a point when there simply isn't
much weather, and not enough wind to turn windmills.
I assume that there will always be the potential to
get lots of solar energy provided you have effiecient
enough solar cells. Since it would seem when the
suns energy decreases noticablly we won't be able
live much longer anyway.
Any thoughts?
What SF novels deal with this theme. Edmond Hamilton's
_City at World's End_ is the only one I know I can
think of.
Mike
James Nicoll
Michael Ward <ward...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>OK, fossil fuels won't last forever, but what about other
>forms of energy. I'm talking in the loooooong term.
>
>What about wind power. Will metereorlogical
>activity stay roughly the same through the eons
>or will it reach a point when there simply isn't
>much weather, and not enough wind to turn windmills.
On Earth, wind is largely driven by solar energy.
The good news is that the sun is getting brighter with time
so we can expect even more powerful winds for quite some
time. The bad news is eventually, assuming we don't move
the Earth, the increasing heat will bake the planet as dry
of volatiles as the Moon or maybe moreso, since Earth's obliquity
is not zero and so the ice-in-shadowed-crater trick won't work
here. The Earth might even be consumed outright. In any case,
once the air is gone, so are the winds.
On the plus side, solar power will be on an upswing
as the sun turns into a red giant.
>I assume that there will always be the potential to
>get lots of solar energy provided you have effiecient
>enough solar cells. Since it would seem when the
>suns energy decreases noticablly we won't be able
>live much longer anyway.
>
We'll be cooked long before the Sun becomes a white
dwarf. Probably.
Reverend Sean O'Hara
>
> OK, fossil fuels won't last forever, but what about other
> forms of energy. I'm talking in the loooooong term.
>
to create petroleum products -- bioengineered bacteria, frex. Hopefully
by that point, though, we'll've moved on to using petroleum only for
manufacturing plastics.
> What about, geothermal. Eventually, won't the planet
> reach a point where there just isn't much geolocial activity
> and not that much energy in the planet to harvest.
>
Well, yes, that'll eventually happen, but the timescale involved is such
that you might as well worry about the sun exploding, too.
> What about wind power. Will metereorlogical
> activity stay roughly the same through the eons
> or will it reach a point when there simply isn't
> much weather, and not enough wind to turn windmills.
>
We'll always have weather. The weather patterns might change over time,
but so long as the Earth is spinning and has an atmosphere, there'll
be wind. In fact, even if the Earth stopped spinning (and we're talking
about something millions of years in the future), you'd still have
air currents moving between the day and night sides.
The problem, however, is that windmills just aren't very effective.
A) A windmill farm's output will vary from day to day depending upon
the weather. B) I don't remember the reason, but the power generated by
a windmill can't be transferred great distances through powerlines.
> I assume that there will always be the potential to
> get lots of solar energy provided you have effiecient
> enough solar cells. Since it would seem when the
> suns energy decreases noticablly we won't be able
> live much longer anyway.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
Assuming you're against nuclear reactors, hydroelectric dams are the
best bet. Sure, rivers will change course over time, but until then,
a big dam is highly effective. And there are even ways to construct dams
that'll keep environmentalists quiet about the fish.
I once read an idea about placing turbines on the ocean floor to harness
ocean currents. The currents shouldn't shift too much in the span of
human history, and even if they do, there'll be other currents around
to be tapped. Of course, the more energy taken from the current, the
slower the current would move. Planting turbines in the Gulf Stream
could eventually cause Spain to have a climate similar to New York.
--
Reverend Sean O'Hara
You too can be an ordained minister: http://www.ulc.org
Culture Editor for Expulsion: http://www.expulsion.org (new & improved)
"So what state is Wales in?" - G. W. Bush (quoted by Charlotte Church)
The Great Gray Skwid
> Michael Ward wrote:
<snip windmills>
> The problem, however, is that windmills just aren't very effective.
> A) A windmill farm's output will vary from day to day depending upon
> the weather. B) I don't remember the reason, but the power generated by
> a windmill can't be transferred great distances through powerlines.
The Fuck?
Wanna' run a check on point B, there?
--
| | |\ | | | ) Theudegisklos "Skwid" Sweinbrothar
|/| |\ |/ | |X| ( SKWID, Vulture V4 pilot ( The Humblest Mollusc
| | | | | | | ) Evan "Skwid" Langlinais ) on the Net
"AWWWW That's a good Skwid! *pat* *pat* Yes you are!" - Scott Dalton
J.B. Moreno
> Michael Ward <ward...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >OK, fossil fuels won't last forever, but what about other
> >forms of energy. I'm talking in the loooooong term.
-snip-
> On Earth, wind is largely driven by solar energy. The good news is
> that the sun is getting brighter with time so we can expect even more
> powerful winds for quite some time.
-snip-
> >Since it would seem when the suns energy decreases noticablly we won't be
> >able live much longer anyway.
> >
> We'll be cooked long before the Sun becomes a white
> dwarf. Probably.
Or have moved elsewhere. OTOH, I don't believe any species on
multi-cell species on the planet has been around that long without going
extinct, so even moving elsewhere might not have helped by that time.
--
JBM
"Your depression will be added to my own" -- Marvin of Borg
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> spake:
> On Earth, wind is largely driven by solar energy.
> The good news is that the sun is getting brighter with time
> so we can expect even more powerful winds for quite some
> time. The bad news is eventually, assuming we don't move
> the Earth, the increasing heat will bake the planet as dry
> of volatiles as the Moon or maybe moreso, since Earth's obliquity
> is not zero and so the ice-in-shadowed-crater trick won't work
> here. The Earth might even be consumed outright. In any case,
> once the air is gone, so are the winds.
You must run, right now, to your local comics shop and demand copies
of _Just a Pilgrim_, by Garth Ennis (it's a 5-issue limited series, but
there may be a sequel series eventually). It's set less than a
generation after the sun expands very suddenly, the oceans dry up,
humanity is clearly doomed, and _Mad Max_-style gangs roam the ocean
floors preying upon the weak.
It's great fun.
--
<a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
"No one is safe. We will print no letters to the editor. We will give no
space to opposing points of view. They are wrong. The Underground Grammarian
is at war and will give the enemy nothing but battle." -TUG, v1n1
James Nicoll
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes <kami...@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu> wrote:
>16 Nov 2001 15:37:33 -0500 in <9t3ted$7cr$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> spake:
>> On Earth, wind is largely driven by solar energy.
>> The good news is that the sun is getting brighter with time
>> so we can expect even more powerful winds for quite some
>> time. The bad news is eventually, assuming we don't move
>> the Earth, the increasing heat will bake the planet as dry
>> of volatiles as the Moon or maybe moreso, since Earth's obliquity
>> is not zero and so the ice-in-shadowed-crater trick won't work
>> here. The Earth might even be consumed outright. In any case,
>> once the air is gone, so are the winds.
>
> You must run, right now, to your local comics shop and demand copies
>of _Just a Pilgrim_, by Garth Ennis (it's a 5-issue limited series, but
>there may be a sequel series eventually). It's set less than a
>generation after the sun expands very suddenly, the oceans dry up,
>humanity is clearly doomed, and _Mad Max_-style gangs roam the ocean
>floors preying upon the weak.
>
> It's great fun.
Hrm. Where did the water go? Hot wet greenhouses tend to be
high pressure and just a tad warm.
Jordan S. Bassior
>OK, fossil fuels won't last forever, but what about other
>forms of energy. I'm talking in the loooooong term.
For the _very_ long run, some form of hydrogen fusion. It's inconceivable that
over a timescale of centuries the problems inherent in doing so, at least by
stationary installations, won't be solved.
Solar power (which is of course indirect hydrogen fusion) is another bet,
especially for a system as a whole. A very long-run power process might involve
building a Dyson Sphere to trap as much solar energy as the star puts out.
We might eventually learn to tap the energy of supermassive stars by building
some sort of long-range, ultra-refractory Dysonesque arrangement and triggering
novae or supernovae, somehow storing all the energy produced. This would
require advances in physics though, not just engineering, to accomplish.
You could also generate energy by dysoning a black hole and dumping mass -- any
mass -- into it.
--
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
--
Michael S. Schiffer
<9t3ted$7cr$1...@panix2.panix.com>:
>In article
><zmeJ7.172745$3d2.7...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>Michael Ward <ward...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>...
>>I assume that there will always be the potential to
>>get lots of solar energy provided you have effiecient
>>enough solar cells. Since it would seem when the
>>suns energy decreases noticablly we won't be able
>>live much longer anyway.
> We'll be cooked long before the Sun becomes a white
>dwarf. Probably.
I actually doubt it. Either we'll be extinct (and therefore in no
position to be cooked) or we'll have had the wherewithal to survive
for billions of years (how many orders of magnitude is that past the
typical vertebrate species lifespan)? If we somehow manage the
latter, it seems unwise to bet against such a species' chance to
survive the red giant phase. That "just" requires good travel
capabilities, after all. (Possibly we can adapt the method Larry
Niven used in _A World Out of Time_, though I'd want to see some
calculations for the resultant tidal stresses and climate effects.)
Mike
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS
ms...@mail.com
msch...@condor.depaul.edu
Wim Lewis
Michael Ward <ward...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>forms of energy. I'm talking in the loooooong term.
>
>What about, geothermal. Eventually, won't the planet
>reach a point where there just isn't much geolocial activity
>and not that much energy in the planet to harvest.
Geothermal power is, IIRC, ultimately derived from the decay of
radioactive elements within the Earth. These elements could of course
be used directly --- granite contains enough uranium that you
could refine it and run a reactor off it if you really wanted to ---
or indirectly via geothermal power, basically using the Earth as a huge RTG.
>I assume that there will always be the potential to
>get lots of solar energy provided you have effiecient
>enough solar cells. Since it would seem when the
>suns energy decreases noticablly we won't be able
>live much longer anyway.
By the time the Sun's power output starts dropping noticeably,
the human race will probably have advanced technologically to the
point where practical fusion power is only 15-30 years off. We can
harvest vast amounts of unconsumed hydrogen from the Sun's outer layers.
This should keep us warm for a while.
In the even longer term, you have to worry about the ultimate heat death
of the universe. If you believe Tipler, even that can be finessed...
--
Wim Lewis <wi...@hhhh.org>, Seattle, WA, USA. PGP keyID 27F772C1
My ambition is to have all [my] arguments seem annoyingly plausible -Joe Slater
Phil Fraering,,,
>We leaned closer as Reverend Sean O'Hara <soh...@gmu.edu> whispered:
>> Michael Ward wrote:
><snip windmills>
>> The problem, however, is that windmills just aren't very effective.
>> A) A windmill farm's output will vary from day to day depending upon
>> the weather. B) I don't remember the reason, but the power generated by
>> a windmill can't be transferred great distances through powerlines.
>The Fuck?
>Wanna' run a check on point B, there?
I think he got confused concerning what sort of generator gets attached
to a windmill. DC windmills are sometimes used to power isolated spots
not connected to the grid in the US; someone who's had personal experience
with those, but hasn't read anything about the asynchronous generators
often used in Europe (and to a lesser extent, the US) to hook a wind
turbine up to the grid might draw some sort of wierd conclusion about
that.
(Although some of the major manufacturers in the US use a combination
of DC generators and separate inverters and transformers...)
Sorry if this bores you; I've been reading about wind turbine designs
lately.
Phil
--
Phil Fraering
p...@globalreach.net
Clandestiny
<wi...@underhill.hhhh.org> wrote:
>
> By the time the Sun's power output starts dropping noticeably,
> the human race will probably have advanced technologically to the
> point where practical fusion power is only 15-30 years off.
That's one of the funniest things I've read in weeks. Thanks.
Nancy Lebovitz
Likewise.
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
Robert Carnegie
Like the dinosaurs' Earth, you mean? Plant forms from then show
that most of the land was hotter, but there was plenty of water.
Maybe it all evaporated across dimensions into Costner's Waterworld.
I haven't read the comicbook in question, only reviews, but I gather
that scientific credibility of the scenario is not the main point ;-)
Heck, if it helps to scare people into looking seriously at real
climate change and effects of pollution, let 'em go with it.
James Nicoll
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote in message news:<9t4648$e5s$1...@panix2.panix.com>...
>> In article <slrn9vb672.2...@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu>,
>> Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes <kami...@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu> wrote:
>> > You must run, right now, to your local comics shop and demand copies
>> >of _Just a Pilgrim_, by Garth Ennis (it's a 5-issue limited series, but
>> >there may be a sequel series eventually). It's set less than a
>> >generation after the sun expands very suddenly, the oceans dry up,
>> >humanity is clearly doomed, and _Mad Max_-style gangs roam the ocean
>> >floors preying upon the weak.
>> >
>> > It's great fun.
>>
>> Hrm. Where did the water go? Hot wet greenhouses tend to be
>> high pressure and just a tad warm.
>
>Like the dinosaurs' Earth, you mean? Plant forms from then show
>that most of the land was hotter, but there was plenty of water.
No, more like Venus 3 billion years ago: like a pressure cooker.
Joseph Hertzlinger
<wi...@underhill.hhhh.org> wrote:
>By the time the Sun's power output starts dropping noticeably, the
>human race will probably have advanced technologically to the point
>where practical fusion power is only 15-30 years off.
There are persistent predictions that we're just a few decades away
from controlled nuclear fusion.
There are persistent predictions that we're just a few decades away
from running out of oil
Coincidence?
Matt McIrvin
rja.ca...@excite.com (Robert Carnegie) wrote:
> I haven't read the comicbook in question, only reviews, but I gather
> that scientific credibility of the scenario is not the main point ;-)
>
> Heck, if it helps to scare people into looking seriously at real
> climate change and effects of pollution, let 'em go with it.
There's danger in this, as with all cases of exaggeration to scare the
complacent: when people find out that the described scenario is bogus,
they might easily assume that *all* claims of negative environmental
consequences of human actions are equally bogus. Indeed, I suspect
that many of the people who reject even well-supported environmentalist
claims have come to that position as a reaction to the technophobic
fringe of environmentalism, and to nonsense like "Waterworld" and
"Captain Planet."
--
Matt McIrvin
Mark Atwood
>
> There's danger in this, as with all cases of exaggeration to scare the
> complacent: when people find out that the described scenario is bogus,
> they might easily assume that *all* claims of negative environmental
> consequences of human actions are equally bogus.
*cough* DARE *cough* "Reefer Madness" *cough*
--
Mark Atwood | I'm wearing black only until I find something darker.
m...@pobox.com | http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Richard VanHouten
>
> Matt McIrvin <mmci...@world.std.com> writes:
> >
> > There's danger in this, as with all cases of exaggeration to scare the
> > complacent: when people find out that the described scenario is bogus,
> > they might easily assume that *all* claims of negative environmental
> > consequences of human actions are equally bogus.
>
> *cough* DARE *cough* "Reefer Madness" *cough*
>
Robert Sneddon
<ric...@citlink.net> writes
>Mark Atwood wrote:
>>
>>
>> *cough* DARE *cough* "Reefer Madness" *cough*
>>
>You've got a nasty cough there, you should cut down on your smoking.
When I first heard of "Reefer Madness", I was hanging around with a
group of rabid dinghy sailors; the type who'd do rain dances in a Force
Eight to try and whip it up a bit. I recollect my first thought was that
the phrase exactly described these lunatics. I was a little bit
disappointed to find out what it really meant later.
--
Robert Sneddon nojay (at) nojay (dot) fsnet (dot) co (dot) uk
Jordan S. Bassior
>You've got a nasty cough there, you should cut down on your smoking.
Yeah -- it could make you go insane, molest women, and murder people.
Or more likely, not ;-)
Jens Kilian
> We'll always have weather.
Solar wind is also weather ;-)
--
mailto:j...@acm.org phone:+49-7031-464-7698 (TELNET 778-7698)
http://www.bawue.de/~jjk/ fax:+49-7031-464-7351
PGP: 06 04 1C 35 7B DC 1F 26 As the air to a bird, or the sea to a fish,
0x555DA8B5 BB A2 F0 66 77 75 E1 08 so is contempt to the contemptible. [Blake]
Jens Kilian
I remember a fantasy-thinly-disguised-as-SF where the premise was that the
water in the oceans had been *used up* (fuel for spaceships?), but which
otherwise sounded a lot like the above. YASID?
Jens Kilian
> You could also generate energy by dysoning a black hole and dumping
> mass -- any mass -- into it.
IIRC, Kip Thorne (in _Black Holes and Time Warps_) proposes a way to extract
energy from a black hole which "only" requires a ring around it, not a full
Dyson Sphere.
Robert Carnegie
> In article <f3f18bc0.01111...@posting.google.com>,
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote in message news:<9t4648$e5s$1...@panix2.panix.com>...
> >> In article <slrn9vb672.2...@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu>,
> >> Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes <kami...@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu> wrote:
> >> >the sun expands very suddenly, the oceans dry up -
> >>
> >> Hrm. Where did the water go? Hot wet greenhouses tend to be
> >> high pressure and just a tad warm.
> >
> >Like the dinosaurs' Earth, you mean? Plant forms from then show
> >that most of the land was hotter, but there was plenty of water.
>
> No, more like Venus 3 billion years ago: like a pressure cooker.
On reflection, the dinosaurs saw many climates come and go over time,
and the BBC's fun new series _Walking With Beasts_ (covering everything
_since_ the dinosaurs, including us, www.bbc.co.uk/beasts says that
at the first stop on the way back up from C-T, a mere 49 million years
since, it had gotten _hotter_.
I kind of know about pressure cookers, but how sure are we about how
Venus was 3 billion years ago? Was it different to how it is today?
And why so? Should I know this stuff?
Robert Carnegie
Not exactly. I've realised after reading James Nicoll's post that the
oil companies are drilling Venus and using fusion-powered rockets to
push the stuff back to Earth, and evidently that's where information
comes from that on our own planet is obtained from the fossil record.
It is not unreasonable to suspect that our governments' claims about
the Mekon and his Treens sponsoring terrorism and oppressing their
women are nothing but propaganda to distract us from humanoid rights
abuses in a developing biosphere.
Contrary to popular belief, the oilcos aren't suppressing nuclear
research, but they're keeping the fruits to themselves.
The Great Gray Skwid
whispered:
> The Great Gray Skwid <sk...@grandamgt.com> writes:
> >We leaned closer as Reverend Sean O'Hara <soh...@gmu.edu> whispered:
> >> Michael Ward wrote:
> ><snip windmills>
> >> The problem, however, is that windmills just aren't very effective.
> >> A) A windmill farm's output will vary from day to day depending upon
> >> the weather. B) I don't remember the reason, but the power generated by
> >> a windmill can't be transferred great distances through powerlines.
> >The Fuck?
> >Wanna' run a check on point B, there?
> I think he got confused concerning what sort of generator gets attached
> to a windmill. DC windmills are sometimes used to power isolated spots
> not connected to the grid in the US; someone who's had personal experience
> with those, but hasn't read anything about the asynchronous generators
> often used in Europe (and to a lesser extent, the US) to hook a wind
> turbine up to the grid might draw some sort of wierd conclusion about
> that.
I figured it was probably that or something similar. Mostly I just
wanted to make a call on a ridiculously improbable statement.
> (Although some of the major manufacturers in the US use a combination
> of DC generators and separate inverters and transformers...)
I can see how that might be more efficient for large arrays (that is your
meaning, isn't it?)
> Sorry if this bores you; I've been reading about wind turbine designs
> lately.
Not at all.
--
| | |\ | | | ) Theudegisklos "Skwid" Sweinbrothar
|/| |\ |/ | |X| ( SKWID, Vulture V4 pilot ( The Humblest Mollusc
| | | | | | | ) Evan "Skwid" Langlinais ) on the Net
Ask me for information about the Texas Darkfriends!
Geoffrey A. Landis
>
> In the even longer term, you have to worry about the ultimate heat death
> of the universe. If you believe Tipler, even that can be finessed...
To the contrary, Tipler's Omega point requires a closed universe, with a
collapse at the end.
Dyson, however, analyzed life in an open universe with heat-death.
--
Geoffrey A. Landis
http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis
Just published: IMPACT PARAMETER (and other quantum realities)
http://www.goldengryphon.com/ip-frame.html
Richard Treitel
wrote:
>There are persistent predictions that we're just a few decades away
>from controlled nuclear fusion.
>
>There are persistent predictions that we're just a few decades away
>from running out of oil
> Coincidence?
I think so. The former are a result of scientists' inability to see
difficulties beyond the one they're currently trying to surmount. The
latter are a result of the behaviour of oil companies: once they've got
enough proven reserves to last them thirty-odd years, it's not
profitable to explore for more. This number depends on the state of
long-term interest rates, the ratio of oil price to cost of exploration,
and other minor factors, but thirty is a fair approximation under recent
conditions (i.e. the past few decades).
-- Richard
------
I don't read Usenet as regularly as I used to. Please be patient.
See also http://www.treitel.org/Paul/index.html
++ to work out my real address needs a human brain ++
Jordan S. Bassior
> The former are a result of scientists' inability to see
>difficulties beyond the one they're currently trying to surmount.
And, after all, how are they supposed to know what difficulties they _haven't_
encountered yet? The set of difficulties they're working on now could be the
last serious obstacles to commercially-practical fusion power, or a new set
might pop up as soon as these have been conquered.
The Great Gray Skwid
> In article <161120012306183789%cland...@nospam.msn.com>,
> Clandestiny <cland...@nospam.msn.com> wrote:
> >In article <9t4c3o$794$1...@underhill.hhhh.org>, Wim Lewis
> ><wi...@underhill.hhhh.org> wrote:
> >> By the time the Sun's power output starts dropping noticeably,
> >> the human race will probably have advanced technologically to the
> >> point where practical fusion power is only 15-30 years off.
> >That's one of the funniest things I've read in weeks. Thanks.
> Likewise.
Awesome.
Erik Max Francis
> Dyson, however, analyzed life in an open universe with heat-death.
Creatures larger than the currently-observable universe composed of
positronium "atoms" ...
--
Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, US / 37 20 N 121 53 W / ICQ16063900 / &tSftDotIotE
/ \ Laws are silent in time of war.
\__/ Cicero
Esperanto reference / http://www.alcyone.com/max/lang/esperanto/
An Esperanto reference for English speakers.
Jeff Walther
> Of course. Just about ALL causes have as their worst enemies those who
> extend their version of their cause to extreme levels. How would you like
> to be a Islamic missionary right now?
>
> Certainly conservatives are hurt the same way.
Militia nuts vis a vis those who revere the second amendment to the US
constitution, e.g.
Lee
"Clandestiny" <cland...@nospam.msn.com> wrote in message
news:161120012306183789%cland...@nospam.msn.com...
Fusion power is the energy source of the future (not counting the Sun) and
it will always be the future. I have a Physics book printed in the 1960's
that said fusion power is 10 to 20 years away, that was what, close to forty
years ago. LOL. Maybe a few more billion dollars will speed it along, at the
very least it will give scientists a job.
Matt McIrvin
Jens Kilian <Jens_...@agilent.com> wrote:
> I remember a fantasy-thinly-disguised-as-SF where the premise was that the
> water in the oceans had been *used up* (fuel for spaceships?), but which
> otherwise sounded a lot like the above. YASID?
I don't know this one, but I do remember that Asimov's "The Martian
Way" had a demagogue who turned Earth opinion against spacefarers by
complaining that they were using up the oceans as reaction mass for
their ships. Calculations of the actual comparative amounts involved
fell on deaf ears.
--
Matt McIrvin
Offbreed
>
> I figured it was probably that or something similar. Mostly I just
> wanted to make a call on a ridiculously improbable statement.
What's ridiculous about it? Lot of friction there when you try to
twist a couple of miles of copper wire.
<G>
Nyrath the nearly wise
Justin Bacon
>Fusion power is the energy source of the future (not counting the Sun) and
>it will always be the future. I have a Physics book printed in the 1960's
>that said fusion power is 10 to 20 years away, that was what, close to forty
>years ago. LOL. Maybe a few more billion dollars will speed it along, at the
>very least it will give scientists a job.
Your logic is laughable. In the 1920s there were physic books and newspaper
reports which claimed that man would walk on the moon within 10 or 20 years
(and a good number of skeptics, just like yourself, who said that it would
never happen). Lo and behold, the 1940s came and went and man was not on the
moon. Thus, by your logic, we would conclude that man never walked on the moon.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
James Nicoll
Justin Bacon <tria...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Your logic is laughable. In the 1920s there were physic books and newspaper
>reports which claimed that man would walk on the moon within 10 or 20 years
Cite.
Robert Carnegie
Whereas NASA secretly filmed the movie _Capricorn One_ there. :-)
Actually, I think a point is being made about Singularity or
lack of it - we can't easily estimate how long it may take to
achieve goals that are scientifically plausible but technically
difficult, beyond a very short future. Other stuff besides fusion
that we were going to do includes cloning and artificial wombs
and electric cars and eliminating malaria and knock-'em-dead
monoclonal antibody mouth-wash and vaccinating against AIDS -
well, medical progress is deliberately slow and careful, and
that's good.
Some of these things aren't urgently needed, anyway.
For that matter, I don't see how anyone in the 1920s could
realistically expect a moonshot by the end of the 1940s.
The achievement is now seen to have required a
World War-inspired investment in rocket science, ditto in
computers, an ongoing Cold War and Space Race, and the
application of quantum mechanics in producing transistors
for electronic equipment. Jules Verne was joking; H. G. Wells
was _definitely_ joking; Edgar Rice Burroughs _knew_ he
was having us on. Even without the Depression, it was
never going to happen in that time scale. And what was
the point of it to be, anyway?
The last I heard, fusion power using little pellets of hydrogen,
or something, should be past the energy break-even point by now,
so producing fusion electricity _is_ possible - but the financial
break-even point is quite a long way beyond that!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1263000/1263863.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1573000/1573450.stm
...um, "in a few decades". *sigh*
"In cities", he says, too? Say what??
Progress also depends on spending money on research. This usually
depends on someone profiting from it later on, usually a private
interest. Who profits from hydrogen fusion - Perrier, from selling
the bottled water from which hydrogen can be extracted?
"Moore's Law" concerning the affordability of computer power
is suspected to work reliably (as it is seen to do, beyond
"reasonable" expectation) by driving investment: if you don't see
your company advancing its products in line with the Law,
then you aren't spending enough. So you increse your R&D budget
until you're keeping up with the Law.
Jordan S. Bassior
>Actually, I think a point is being made about Singularity or
>lack of it - we can't easily estimate how long it may take to
>achieve goals that are scientifically plausible but technically
>difficult, beyond a very short future. Other stuff besides fusion
>that we were going to do includes cloning and artificial wombs
>and electric cars and eliminating malaria and knock-'em-dead
>monoclonal antibody mouth-wash and vaccinating against AIDS -
>well, medical progress is deliberately slow and careful, and
>that's good.
Well, I think we're still going to do all those things. Eventually.
>For that matter, I don't see how anyone in the 1920s could
>realistically expect a moonshot by the end of the 1940s.
Underestimation of the difficulties involved. Though actually, I don't know
that anyone in the 1920's _did_ think we'd get to the moon by around 1950. I
think it would have surprised most people, including engineeers, scientists,
and sf writers, way back in 1925, that we would in fact get to the Moon in a
mere 44 years.
>The achievement is now seen to have required a
>World War-inspired investment in rocket science, ditto in
>computers, an ongoing Cold War and Space Race, and the
>application of quantum mechanics in producing transistors
>for electronic equipment. Jules Verne was joking; H. G. Wells
>was _definitely_ joking; Edgar Rice Burroughs _knew_ he
>was having us on.
"Joking" is a bad word for it. "Overly optimistic" would be a more precise way
of putting it. Though note that H. G. Wells' _Shape of Things to Come_
postulated an _orbital_ Moon shot in 2040, and it was written in the 1930's. So
he presumably would have been surprised that we actually reached the Moon 30
years after the film version was released.
> Even without the Depression, it was
>never going to happen in that time scale. And what was
>the point of it to be, anyway?
Presumably, the same point that it has now. The colonization of worlds beyond
the Earth.
Robert Sneddon
Bassior <jsba...@aol.com> writes
>Underestimation of the difficulties involved. Though actually, I don't know
>that anyone in the 1920's _did_ think we'd get to the moon by around 1950. I
>think it would have surprised most people, including engineeers, scientists,
>and sf writers, way back in 1925, that we would in fact get to the Moon in a
>mere 44 years.
>
collection in the late 50's to the effect that somewhere Right Now there
was a boy who would be the first man on the moon. It surprised him
somewhat when it turned out that boy was thirty years old when he said
it.
Phil Fraering,,,
>I figured it was probably that or something similar. Mostly I just
>wanted to make a call on a ridiculously improbable statement.
OK.
>> (Although some of the major manufacturers in the US use a combination
>> of DC generators and separate inverters and transformers...)
>I can see how that might be more efficient for large arrays (that is your
>meaning, isn't it?)
I don't know if it is more efficient or not; the state-of-the-art
with inverters keeps changing. There are things you can do with DC
wind turbines that you can't with the asynchronous generators,
like control the magnetic field so that you have constant tip
speed no matter what the wind velocity is. You need a homopolar
generator for that trick.
>> Sorry if this bores you; I've been reading about wind turbine designs
>> lately.
>Not at all.
>--
>| | |\ | | | ) Theudegisklos "Skwid" Sweinbrothar
>|/| |\ |/ | |X| ( SKWID, Vulture V4 pilot ( The Humblest Mollusc
> | | | | | | | ) Evan "Skwid" Langlinais ) on the Net
>Ask me for information about the Texas Darkfriends!
What's the Texas Darkfriends?
--
Phil Fraering
p...@globalreach.net
Robert Carnegie
> The Great Gray Skwid <sk...@grandamgt.com> writes:
> >> (Although some of the major manufacturers in the US use a combination
> >> of DC generators and separate inverters and transformers...)
>
> >I can see how that might be more efficient for large arrays (that is your
> >meaning, isn't it?)
>
> I don't know if it is more efficient or not; the state-of-the-art
> with inverters keeps changing. There are things you can do with DC
> wind turbines that you can't with the asynchronous generators,
> like control the magnetic field so that you have constant tip
> speed no matter what the wind velocity is. You need a homopolar
> generator for that trick.
Way out of my depth, but if you can regulate the speed of the turbine
then isn't that suitable for generating AC?
I may be overlooking some orders of magnitude in precision here.
And I suppose you can hardly aim to run a windmill at 50 or 60 Hz.
But if astronomers can now pull off optical interferometry then
this kind of timing problem should be do-able.
Robert Sneddon
Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> writes
>
>I may be overlooking some orders of magnitude in precision here.
>And I suppose you can hardly aim to run a windmill at 50 or 60 Hz.
Normal technique for wind farms is to generate the electricity from the
wind turbine as DC, and then use a power converter to turn it into AC at
the correct local frequency and voltage. It also synchronises the AC to
the mains supply.
These converters aren't cheap, but if they are properly designed for
the loads they face, they are effectively a one-off cost, requiring
little or no maintenance or repair. The turbines require regular repair,
as they have many moving parts, under significant loads (bearings,
gearboxes, braking systems etc.) Doing these repairs is actually quite
risky, as they are on the top of a fifty foot mast, usually in a windy
location, and sometimes the safety gear fails.
Phil Fraering,,,
>Way out of my depth, but if you can regulate the speed of the turbine
>then isn't that suitable for generating AC?
The asynchronous generators used in most setups generate AC in phase
with the drive current as long as the cage is spinning faster than
the frequency of the field.
You can find more information at http://www.windpower.dk.
Phil
--
Phil Fraering
p...@globalreach.net
Mark Atwood
> gearboxes, braking systems etc.) Doing these repairs is actually quite
> risky, as they are on the top of a fifty foot mast, usually in a windy
> location, and sometimes the safety gear fails.
Per watt generated, windmills are *the* most dangerous source of
power, easily beating out nukes, easily beating coal/oil/gas as
currently accounted, and probably even will beat fossil fuels if you
count in worse reasonable case global warming.
--
Mark Atwood | I'm wearing black only until I find something darker.
m...@pobox.com | http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Paul Austin
"Mark Atwood" <m...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:m3pu68h...@khem.blackfedora.com...
> Robert Sneddon <no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > gearboxes, braking systems etc.) Doing these repairs is actually quite
> > risky, as they are on the top of a fifty foot mast, usually in a windy
> > location, and sometimes the safety gear fails.
>
> Per watt generated, windmills are *the* most dangerous source of
> power, easily beating out nukes, easily beating coal/oil/gas as
> currently accounted, and probably even will beat fossil fuels if you
> count in worse reasonable case global warming.
Mark, do you have a source for that?
--
"I don't wonder that so many men are wicked.
I do wonder that so many are unashamed"
Paul F Austin
pau...@digital.net
Phil Fraering,,,
>In article <f3f18bc0.0111...@posting.google.com>, Robert
>Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> writes
>>
>>I may be overlooking some orders of magnitude in precision here.
>>And I suppose you can hardly aim to run a windmill at 50 or 60 Hz.
> Normal technique for wind farms is to generate the electricity from the
>wind turbine as DC, and then use a power converter to turn it into AC at
>the correct local frequency and voltage. It also synchronises the AC to
>the mains supply.
Having found a more accurate url... check http://www.windpower.dk,
especially http://www.windpower.dk/tour/wtrb/async.htm .
Phil Fraering,,,
>Robert Sneddon <no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> gearboxes, braking systems etc.) Doing these repairs is actually quite
>> risky, as they are on the top of a fifty foot mast, usually in a windy
>> location, and sometimes the safety gear fails.
>Per watt generated, windmills are *the* most dangerous source of
>power, easily beating out nukes, easily beating coal/oil/gas as
>currently accounted, and probably even will beat fossil fuels if you
>count in worse reasonable case global warming.
I'd like to see a cite for that, with the statistics broken down
by windmill design and company of origin.
Mark Atwood
>
> >Per watt generated, windmills are *the* most dangerous source of
> >power, easily beating out nukes, easily beating coal/oil/gas as
> >currently accounted, and probably even will beat fossil fuels if you
> >count in worse reasonable case global warming.
>
> I'd like to see a cite for that, with the statistics broken down
> by windmill design and company of origin.
I'll try to get around to digging up my back issues of Whole Earth
Review, as, IIRC, that is where I got the factoid from. I am inclined
to believe them, it is akin to a "honor game" of stickball where
someone on your own team calls you "out".
phil hunt
>Robert Sneddon <no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> gearboxes, braking systems etc.) Doing these repairs is actually quite
>> risky, as they are on the top of a fifty foot mast, usually in a windy
>> location, and sometimes the safety gear fails.
>
>Per watt generated, windmills are *the* most dangerous source of
>power, easily beating out nukes, easily beating coal/oil/gas as
>currently accounted, and probably even will beat fossil fuels if you
>count in worse reasonable case global warming.
However, most people assess reisk differently if the only people
at risk are those who chose to work somewhere. A windmill won't
kill you just for living a few hundred miles downwind of it.
--
*** Philip Hunt *** ph...@comuno.freeserve.co.uk ***
Robert Sneddon
<ph...@comuno.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>
>However, most people assess reisk differently if the only people
>at risk are those who chose to work somewhere. A windmill won't
>kill you just for living a few hundred miles downwind of it.
>
A large Dutch experimental wind machine threw a blade once during a
high-speed test. It ended up punched though somebody's roof about a
kilometre from the site. As the good windfarm sites are used up more and
more, they will start encroaching on residential areas (which means the
power they generate doesn't have to travel as far).
Workers at nuclear plants are monitored regularly for total exposure to
radiation, unlike "normal" people who live in granite buildings, go down
into dark ill-ventilated basements and stand under smoke alarms.
Jordan S. Bassior
>However, most people assess reisk differently if the only people
>at risk are those who chose to work somewhere. A windmill won't
>kill you just for living a few hundred miles downwind of it.
As far as I know, not even Chernobyl killed anyone at _that_ range. And if you
happen to be walking or driving by a windmill farm when one of the blade
assemblies decides to disassemble itself, or come loose from its pillar, you're
endangered even though you don't work there.
Phil Fraering,,,
>Phil Fraering,,, <p...@this.definition.suxx.invalid> writes:
>>
>> >Per watt generated, windmills are *the* most dangerous source of
>> >power, easily beating out nukes, easily beating coal/oil/gas as
>> >currently accounted, and probably even will beat fossil fuels if you
>> >count in worse reasonable case global warming.
>>
>> I'd like to see a cite for that, with the statistics broken down
>> by windmill design and company of origin.
>I'll try to get around to digging up my back issues of Whole Earth
>Review, as, IIRC, that is where I got the factoid from. I am inclined
>to believe them, it is akin to a "honor game" of stickball where
>someone on your own team calls you "out".
I'm somewhat interested in statistics brokeon down by windmill design
and company of origin.
And I've seen so much bullshit regarding mainstream media (and fringe
media) reportage of the energy industry that I'd want to double-check.
Jordan S. Bassior
>Broken dams have killed the most people directly. Intact dams probably do
>the most ecological damage of any power source.
The Aswan Dam, in Egypt, is basically a doomsday machine from the viewpoint of
the Egyptians. In any nuclear exchange, one fairly small tactical nuke could
wipe out almost the whole settled zone of the country, simply by hitting the
dam and causing a huge ram of water to rush down the Nile valley.
>Coal is a contender and
>smog may have done more to hurt health than broken dams have.
A coal plants also, _in the course of its normal operation_, release more
radiation per time unit into the environment than Three Mile Island did in the
course of its meltdown.
>It's interesting that we're so afraid of nuclear - it means that the U.S.
>can drop nuclear-sized bombs and that's OK, as long as they don't drop
>nuclear bombs.
I constantly hear absurd estimates of the destructiveness of nuclear weapons,
coming generally from people who confuse "detectible" fallout levels with
"lethal" ones.
Phil Fraering,,,
>In article <slrna00h6r...@comuno.freeserve.co.uk>, phil hunt
><ph...@comuno.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>>
>>However, most people assess reisk differently if the only people
>>at risk are those who chose to work somewhere. A windmill won't
>>kill you just for living a few hundred miles downwind of it.
>>
> A large Dutch experimental wind machine threw a blade once during a
>high-speed test. It ended up punched though somebody's roof about a
>kilometre from the site. As the good windfarm sites are used up more and
>more, they will start encroaching on residential areas (which means the
>power they generate doesn't have to travel as far).
Actually, in Denmark, they're using offshore sites more and more.
And that was an experimental machine, in a high-speed test; and
an anecdote does not statistics make.
phil hunt
>Phil Hunt said:
>
>>However, most people assess reisk differently if the only people
>>at risk are those who chose to work somewhere. A windmill won't
>>kill you just for living a few hundred miles downwind of it.
>
>As far as I know, not even Chernobyl killed anyone at _that_ range.
My understanding is that Chernobyl and Windscale/Sellafield both have.
Though I'm not an expert in the subject, I'll admit.
> And if you
>happen to be walking or driving by a windmill farm when one of the blade
>assemblies decides to disassemble itself, or come loose from its pillar, you're
>endangered even though you don't work there.
If you are right next to it. Nuclear plants have a longer range.
Richard Harter
<no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <slrna00h6r...@comuno.freeserve.co.uk>, phil hunt
><ph...@comuno.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>>
>>However, most people assess reisk differently if the only people
>>at risk are those who chose to work somewhere. A windmill won't
>>kill you just for living a few hundred miles downwind of it.
>>
>
> A large Dutch experimental wind machine threw a blade once during a
>high-speed test. It ended up punched though somebody's roof about a
>kilometre from the site. As the good windfarm sites are used up more and
>more, they will start encroaching on residential areas (which means the
>power they generate doesn't have to travel as far).
The above rather odd paragraph. Modern large wind towers are run at
low rotation speeds (the older generation of towers were run at higher
speeds.) Wind towers are mostly dangerous to birds and here it
matters whether one is talking about older wind towers or the current
generation of wind towers. Older towers were low enough to be a
danger to low flying song birds and rotated fast enough to be
dangerous to high flying birds. The California wind farms had a fair
amount of problems with bird loss. The blades in modern towers are
far enough off of the ground so as not to be a threat to songbirds and
turn slowly enough so as not to be a threat to high flying birds,
e.g., hawks, eagles, geese, and ducks.
Good windfarm sites are, not too surprisingly, located in areas with
low population density, e.g., the Dakotas, parts of Minnesota and
Iowa, parts of Texas, et cetera. The concern that windfarms would
encroach on residential areas is, well, peculiar. The major problem
with windfarms is power transmission. The areas where there are
strong prevailing winds (e.g., the Dakotas) are distant from the
metropolitan areas where the power is wanted. The current power
transmission infrastructure already is at near capacity.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net,
http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, http://www.varinoma.com
Remember: If you're going to practice cannibalism, do so responsibly.
Friends don't let friends eat friends. - Richard Clayton
Robert Sneddon
<c...@tiac.net> writes
>The above rather odd paragraph. Modern large wind towers are run at
>low rotation speeds (the older generation of towers were run at higher
>speeds.) Wind towers are mostly dangerous to birds and here it
>matters whether one is talking about older wind towers or the current
>generation of wind towers. Older towers were low enough to be a
>danger to low flying song birds and rotated fast enough to be
>dangerous to high flying birds. The California wind farms had a fair
>amount of problems with bird loss. The blades in modern towers are
>far enough off of the ground so as not to be a threat to songbirds and
>turn slowly enough so as not to be a threat to high flying birds,
>e.g., hawks, eagles, geese, and ducks.
I wish I still had the reference to the incident. It was a long while
back (mid-70s, oil crisis maybe?), when a lot of experimental designs
were being field-tested and the bugs shaken out of them. From faint
memory, the test was to see what happened if the braking systems failed
in storm conditions. I think they actually motored the generator unit to
get the hub to overspeed, no convenient storm being to hand. It was a
variable-pitch hub, as most modern designs are, and the centripetal
forces on the pitch mechanism caused a blade shaft to break, and the
blade separated. I expect the hub and gearbox took a pounding from the
off-balance load before they could brake it down safely.
>
>Good windfarm sites are, not too surprisingly, located in areas with
>low population density, e.g., the Dakotas, parts of Minnesota and
>Iowa, parts of Texas, et cetera. The concern that windfarms would
>encroach on residential areas is, well, peculiar. The major problem
>with windfarms is power transmission. The areas where there are
>strong prevailing winds (e.g., the Dakotas) are distant from the
>metropolitan areas where the power is wanted. The current power
>transmission infrastructure already is at near capacity.
That's why windfarms closer to the consumers are more likely,
especially after the choicest sites are loaded to their environmental
capacity.
Paul Austin
"phil hunt" wrote
> Jordan S. Bassior wrote:
> >Phil Hunt said:
> >
> >>However, most people assess reisk differently if the only people
> >>at risk are those who chose to work somewhere. A windmill won't
> >>kill you just for living a few hundred miles downwind of it.
> >
> >As far as I know, not even Chernobyl killed anyone at _that_ range.
>
> My understanding is that Chernobyl and Windscale/Sellafield both have.
>
Only in the diffuse sense of increased mortality. You deal with quite small
numbers against a much larger background of "normal" deaths. Chernobyl's
prompt lethality was fairly limited in geographical extent and mostly among
those who "chose to work" at containing the event (who were heroes on the
same scale as NY firemen were in September)
In any case, dead is dead. If the wind farm mechanic dies to provide you
power, it's remarkably cavalier of you to say he "chose to work" there.
Richard Harter
I wouldn't be a bit surprised. There have been major advances in wind
tower design and in the materials available. The upside is that
nowadays they are computer controlled; the downside is that nowadays
they are computer controlled.
>
>>
>>Good windfarm sites are, not too surprisingly, located in areas with
>>low population density, e.g., the Dakotas, parts of Minnesota and
>>Iowa, parts of Texas, et cetera. The concern that windfarms would
>>encroach on residential areas is, well, peculiar. The major problem
>>with windfarms is power transmission. The areas where there are
>>strong prevailing winds (e.g., the Dakotas) are distant from the
>>metropolitan areas where the power is wanted. The current power
>>transmission infrastructure already is at near capacity.
>
> That's why windfarms closer to the consumers are more likely,
>especially after the choicest sites are loaded to their environmental
>capacity.
I don't know what the situation is in the UK (I gather that is where
you are posting from) but it very definitely isn't the situation in
North America. Commercial wind farms need steady prevailing winds.
These are found in wide open, flat grasslands. The center third of
continental NA has good prevailing winds and low population densities.
Areas with high population densities are almost unsuitable - people
tend not to live in areas auitable for wind farms.
Power can be transmitted across long distances, but you must have the
transmission lines have to be in place.
Phil Fraering,,,
>The above rather odd paragraph. Modern large wind towers are run at
>low rotation speeds (the older generation of towers were run at higher
>speeds.) Wind towers are mostly dangerous to birds and here it
>matters whether one is talking about older wind towers or the current
>generation of wind towers. Older towers were low enough to be a
>danger to low flying song birds and rotated fast enough to be
>dangerous to high flying birds. The California wind farms had a fair
>amount of problems with bird loss.
I think the California wind farm that had the problem with bird loss
used an uncommon "vertical axis" design.
I have an idea about how to fix that system. I have heard that they
dismantled the Altamont Pass turbines, but I don't know where they ended
up, so I don't know if there's a point.
>The blades in modern towers are
>far enough off of the ground so as not to be a threat to songbirds and
>turn slowly enough so as not to be a threat to high flying birds,
>e.g., hawks, eagles, geese, and ducks.
>Good windfarm sites are, not too surprisingly, located in areas with
>low population density, e.g., the Dakotas, parts of Minnesota and
>Iowa, parts of Texas, et cetera. The concern that windfarms would
>encroach on residential areas is, well, peculiar. The major problem
>with windfarms is power transmission. The areas where there are
>strong prevailing winds (e.g., the Dakotas) are distant from the
>metropolitan areas where the power is wanted. The current power
>transmission infrastructure already is at near capacity.
I think you can find links to regional maps of windpower density at
http://www.awea.org; I think that except for the coast, Louisiana is pretty
much a wash for wind power. Just north of here, in the Ouashita "mountains"
in Arkansas, there seem to be good sites.
William December Starr
jsba...@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior) said:
>> Broken dams have killed the most people directly. Intact dams
>> probably do the most ecological damage of any power source.
>
> The Aswan Dam, in Egypt, is basically a doomsday machine from the
> viewpoint of the Egyptians. In any nuclear exchange, one fairly
> small tactical nuke could wipe out almost the whole settled zone of
> the country, simply by hitting the dam and causing a huge ram of
> water to rush down the Nile valley.
set taste=BAD
Dibs on the movie rights!
unset taste
-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
William December Starr
Jens Kilian <Jens_...@agilent.com> said:
>> You could also generate energy by dysoning a black hole and
>> dumping mass -- any mass -- into it. [Jordan S. Bassior]
>
> IIRC, Kip Thorne (in _Black Holes and Time Warps_) proposes a way to
> extract energy from a black hole which "only" requires a ring around
> it, not a full Dyson Sphere.
_If_ the black hole is spinning -- it's the hole's spin, not its
mass, that's drained off as useable energy. It's described at page
53 of the hardcover edition, and it seems to only require "giant
superconducting coils" near the black hole and a power receiving
structure further out; that the receiving structure in this
hypothetical is a full-blown ringworld seems just a matter of
aesthetics:
The energy extractor works on the same principle as do some
quasars: [The] crew have threaded a magnetic field through the
hole's horizon and they hold it on the hole, despite its tendency
to pop off, by means of giant superconducting coils. As the
horizon spins, it drags the nearby space into a tornado-like swirl
which in turn interacts with the threading magnetic field to form a
giant electric power generator. The magnetic field lines act as
transmission lines for the power. Electric current is driven out
of the hole's equator (in the form of electrons flowing inward) and
up the magnetic field lines to the ring world. There the current
deposits its power. Then it flows out of the ring world on a
nother set of magnetic lines and down into the hole's north and
south poles (in the form of positrons flowing inward). <*snip*>
Gradually as the power is extracted, the hole will slow its spin,
but it will take many eons to exhaust the hole's enormous store of
spin energy.
At first glance that sounded to me like a perpetual-motion machine,
albeit one with a finite lifespan: it "felt" to me, intuitively, that
you'd have to put _in_ as much energy to create and hold in place the
magnetic field as you'd get _out_ of the system, but hey, my intuition
didn't evolve near any spinning black holes so what does it know?
I'll assume that Thorne knew what he was talking about.
John Andrew Fairhurst
> I don't know what the situation is in the UK (I gather that is where
> you are posting from) but it very definitely isn't the situation in
> North America. Commercial wind farms need steady prevailing winds.
>
Which are generally found in the hillier regions of the country (except
for a few places like Norfolk), but even there, human occupancy is
creeping up the hills.
Don't forget that the UK, as with the rest of West Europe, is somewhat
overcrowded compared with the States on average.
--
John Fairhurst
In Association with Amazon worldwide:
http://www.johnsbooks.co.uk/Books/Gollancz
More Classic SF
Lee DeRaud
<teapot7s...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>William December Starr wrote:
>
>>> The Aswan Dam, in Egypt, is basically a doomsday machine from the
>>> viewpoint of the Egyptians. In any nuclear exchange, one fairly
>>> small tactical nuke could wipe out almost the whole settled zone of
>>> the country, simply by hitting the dam and causing a huge ram of
>>> water to rush down the Nile valley.
>
>> set taste=BAD
>
>Continuing with the poor taste, but also a genuine question: Would you
>need a tactical nuke or would a hijacked airliner be sufficient?
The nuke, most likely. The blast effects from the airliners at the WTC
were minimal: most of the damage came from the thermal effects of the
burning fuel. The Aswan dam is virtually solid, with one *mother* of a
heat sink behind it.
Lee
David Cowie
>>Continuing with the poor taste, but also a genuine question: Would you
>>need a tactical nuke or would a hijacked airliner be sufficient?
>
> The nuke, most likely. The blast effects from the airliners at the WTC
> were minimal: most of the damage came from the thermal effects of the
> burning fuel. The Aswan dam is virtually solid, with one *mother* of a
> heat sink behind it.
>
> Lee
And for maximum effect, do you detonate the nuke on the wet or dry side
of the dam wall?
--
David Cowie
There is no _spam in my address.
"You had to do WHAT with your seat?"
Steinn Sigurdsson
> On Wednesday 05 December 2001 16:04, Lee DeRaud wrote:
> >>Continuing with the poor taste, but also a genuine question: Would you
> >>need a tactical nuke or would a hijacked airliner be sufficient?
> > The nuke, most likely. The blast effects from the airliners at the WTC
> > were minimal: most of the damage came from the thermal effects of the
> > burning fuel. The Aswan dam is virtually solid, with one *mother* of a
> > heat sink behind it.
> > Lee
> And for maximum effect, do you detonate the nuke on the wet or dry side
> of the dam wall?
Wet side, definitely.
Nuke is probably an overkill, though I don't have the
dam specs. A few bunker-busters might do it, though they'd have
to come from the dry side.
ObSF: Force 10 from Navarone
Mark Reichert
news:rx7lmgh...@najma.astro.psu.edu...
> > And for maximum effect, do you detonate the nuke on the wet or dry side
> > of the dam wall?
>
> Wet side, definitely.
Putting massive holes in the grout moisture barrier in the dam would have
the water seeping though and destroying the dam eventually.
Lee DeRaud
<ste...@najma.astro.psu.edu> wrote:
For some rather large value of "few", maybe. Punching a hole in it
near the top might eventually destroy it, but for the kind of
catastrophic effects we're talking about here, you need to take out a
good-sized section down near the *base*. A quick google gives:
http://www.touregypt.net/highdam.htm which says the dam is 3200+ feet
thick at the base.
Lee
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
wrote:
snip
>For some rather large value of "few", maybe. Punching a hole in it
>near the top might eventually destroy it, but for the kind of
>catastrophic effects we're talking about here, you need to take out a
>good-sized section down near the *base*. A quick google gives:
>http://www.touregypt.net/highdam.htm which says the dam is 3200+ feet
>thick at the base.
One *might* want to look at Ed Abbey's speculations about taking out
the Glen Canyon Dam in _The Monkey Wrench Gang_.
jrw
Captain Button
> On 05 Dec 2001 18:21:33 -0500, Steinn Sigurdsson
> <ste...@najma.astro.psu.edu> wrote:
>>David Cowie <david_co...@lineone.net> writes:
[ dambusting for a more corpse-filled Med ]
>>> And for maximum effect, do you detonate the nuke on the wet or dry side
>>> of the dam wall?
>>
>>Wet side, definitely.
>>
>>Nuke is probably an overkill, though I don't have the
>>dam specs. A few bunker-busters might do it, though they'd have
>>to come from the dry side.
> For some rather large value of "few", maybe. Punching a hole in it
> near the top might eventually destroy it, but for the kind of
> catastrophic effects we're talking about here, you need to take out a
> good-sized section down near the *base*. A quick google gives:
> http://www.touregypt.net/highdam.htm which says the dam is 3200+ feet
> thick at the base.
Judging by a documentary about the Aswan dam I saw on the History
Channel, the dam does not look like what most people think of as a
big dam.
It isn't a wall across a canyon, taller than it is wide or thick.
It is very long (thick) in the direction of the river flow.
Crude ASCII art attempt from memory:
Like this:
------------------------------
~~~~~~~~/################################\
~~~~~~~/##################################\
~~~~~~/####################################\
~~~~~/######################################\
~~~~/########################################\~~~~~~
~~~/##########################################\~~~~~
Rather than like this:
|####|
~~~~~~~~~~~~|####|
~~~~~~~~~~~~|####|
~~~~~~~~~~~~|####|
~~~~~~~~~~~~|####|
~~~~~~~~~~~/######\
~~~~~~~~~~/########\
~~~~~~~~~/##########\~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~/############\~~~~~
Also, it is not solid concrete, it is rock and earth with a layer
of concrete on top to keep it in place.
ObSF: "Water is for Washing" by Heinlein
(Thanks to Ahasuerus, who pointed out this story the last time
this topic came around, last May.)
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&th=296eb08e0c93a47a
--
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in
tolerance and free speech," - David Brin
Captain Button - but...@io.com
Lee DeRaud
Much easier target, IMHO: higher, narrower, *much* thinner.
Lee
Lee DeRaud
wrote:
>Wild-eyed conspiracy theorists insist that on Thu, 6 Dec 2001 15:39:48 GMT, Lee DeRaud <lee.d...@boeing.com> wrote:
>> For some rather large value of "few", maybe. Punching a hole in it
>> near the top might eventually destroy it, but for the kind of
>> catastrophic effects we're talking about here, you need to take out a
>> good-sized section down near the *base*. A quick google gives:
>> http://www.touregypt.net/highdam.htm which says the dam is 3200+ feet
>> thick at the base.
>
>Judging by a documentary about the Aswan dam I saw on the History
>Channel, the dam does not look like what most people think of as a
>big dam.
>
>It isn't a wall across a canyon, taller than it is wide or thick.
>
>It is very long (thick) in the direction of the river flow.
>
>Crude ASCII art attempt from memory:
>
>Like this:
>
> ------------------------------
>~~~~~~~~/################################\
>~~~~~~~/##################################\
>~~~~~~/####################################\
>~~~~~/######################################\
>~~~~/########################################\~~~~~~
>~~~/##########################################\~~~~~
Yup. Actually it's *worse* than that: 3200ft thick at the base, <400ft
high...and over two *miles* wide. It's more like "God's Own Levee"
than the kind of thing Americans typically think of as a "dam". Glen
Canyon dam, ferex (just because somebody else brought it up), is
roughly 100ft thick, 500ft high, 1000ft wide...*not* the same thing.
>Also, it is not solid concrete, it is rock and earth with a layer
>of concrete on top to keep it in place.
>
>ObSF: "Water is for Washing" by Heinlein
I'm reminded more of that classic Zelazny phrase from "This Immortal":
"BFMI: brute force and massive ignorance".
Lee
Steinn Sigurdsson
> >Like this:
I've spec'd levee dams before,
there's a somewhat smaller one that is perfectly sited to
wipe out a very large area in another country.
I still cringe when I look at the map of that one...
I was also nearby when one failed during an attempted controlled
removal and talked to the engineer in charge afterwards.
To get something lie this to fail catastrophically, you want
to get penetrating cracks at the base, if you can weaken the front
and get seepage going, the water pressure will lift it and
you will get extremely rapid flooding.
Lip breaches will fail it, but much more slowly and controllably
(and possibly in way that can be repaired) if the fill was done
correctly (big IF - Aswan was soviet built IIRC).
Hence #1 way is to get a strong hydrostatic shock on the wet side,
and #2 is to get deep penetration point failure low on the front side.
Does have to get through though, and 1000m is a long way,
but then the water also works with you.
Mark Reichert
news:_cQP7.271608$dk.18...@bin1.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> Judging by a documentary about the Aswan dam I saw on the History
> Channel, the dam does not look like what most people think of as a
> big dam.
Depends on which part we are talking about. The part across the main
channel is that wide low mound of earth. The part with the turbines looks
more like a concrete dam.
Lee DeRaud
Isn't that the "old" Aswan dam, about 6km upstream?
Lee
Jason Maxwell
news:3c0fa0ea...@news.aracnet.com...
Glen Canyon Dam/Lake Powell. The odd thing about it is that it wouldn't
have meant anything to me except I found out at the end of October that my
parents are moving there for my Dad's new job. Since then I've read Stage
of Emergency by Stve Piezneak (sp?) which partly takes place there,
Astronomy.com is running a contest where the grand prize is a trip to Lake
Powell (The lake created by the dam) and rewatching Broken Arrow, the lake
that Christian Slater ends up in is Lake Powell. Did Lake Powell just get
real popular or something?
Jason
Frank Ney
David Cowie <david_co...@lineone.net> to write:
>And for maximum effect, do you detonate the nuke on the wet or dry side
>of the dam wall?
Definitely wet side, for the shaped-charge and cofferdam effect.
Frank Ney N4ZHG WV/EMT-B LPWV NRA(L) ProvNRA GOA CCRKBA JPFO
--
"I believe a self-righteous liberal Democrat with a cause is
more dangerous than a Hell's Angel with an attitude."
-- Ted Nugent
Just Say No to Gestapo Tactics http://reduce.to/justsayno/
Abuses by the BATF http://www.hamnet.net/~n4zhg/batfabus.html