Re: Treason
Sam Wormley
> Existing at the core of this mess where the investigation of
> celestial and terrestrial phenomena is now in total disrepute is the
> original late 17th century distortions which attempted to force
> planetary orbital dynamics to look like the behavior of terrestrial
> objects by exploiting the calendar based convenience of Ra/Dec.It is
> the lack of astronomers and the authority they carry that presents the
> greatest problem at the moment as the interpretative qualities which
> put physical considerations into context of conclusions are completely
> absent ,this is not just a recent problem but one that may always
> exist -
>
> "The same thing has struck me even more forcibly than you. I have
> heard such things put forth as I should blush to repeat--not so much
> to avoid discrediting their authors (whose names could always be
> withheld) as to refrain from detracting so greatly from the honor of
> the human race. In the long run my observations have convinced me that
> some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion In
> their minds which, either because of its being their own or because of
> their having received it from some person who has their entire
> confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever
> to get it out of their heads. Such arguments in support of their fixed
> idea as they hit upon themselves or hear set forth by others, no
> matter how simple and stupid these may be, gain their instant
> acceptance and applause. On the other hand whatever is brought forward
> against it, however ingenious and conclusive, they receive with
> disdain or with hot rage--if indeed it does not make them ill "
> Galileo
>
> Trying to make pollution studies look like global climate is much the
> same as what Newton did with planetary motions and objects at a local
> human level,the former being a symptom of the latter approach which
> has temporarily destroyed the methods and insights of astronomy and
> investigative approaches.
>
> The treason is not among those who subscribe to empiricism,it is those
> who know exactly what went wrong in the late 17th century when the
> great astronomical heritage came under an assault from those who are
> comfortable distorting data to suit their conclusions.
>
>
1. Global Warming is happening.
2. Normally we should be cooling and we are not because of
an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. The CO2 humans
are dumping into the atmosphere, cannot be denied. The warming
from CO2 is driving more moisture into the atmosphere. Higher
night time dew points... less nighttime cooling.
Pretty obvious in Iowa. The increase moisture results in
o cooler Summer Highs
o Warmer Summer Lows
o increased rainfall
o increased flooding (economic disaster
$20 billion in the Cedar Rapids, IA area)
o greater water run-off
Here's some data from Iowa State
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/faculty/takle/presentations.html
More from University of Iowa
http://www.engineering.uiowa.edu/faculty-staff/profile-directory/cee/schnoor_j.php
Quadibloc
since we don't know what causes the seasons, we're not qualified to
judge if it is anthropogenic or not.
Given that he says that
"the original late 17th century distortions which attempted to force
planetary orbital dynamics to look like the behavior of terrestrial
objects by exploiting the calendar based convenience of Ra/Dec."
is at the root of the problem, it is clear that he opposes the insight
Newton is said to have derived from the fall of an apple. Rather than
having the heavens work by the force of gravity plus the conservation
of momentum, as far as he is concerned, the heavens are a completely
separate heavenly realm with their own independent set of laws; to be
understood by analogy ("structural astronomy") and creative insight -
under the discipline of sound authority.
Not where anyone can do anything they want, because if they're wrong
they'll be shot down by the facts: that's the anarchy Newton and
Flamsteed created.
In other words, he is at war with science itself. I don't think you
can do much with that.
John Savard
MAT
"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:8b84dc2b-6e37-4b0e...@z35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
wsne...@hotmail.com
You would prefer a drought?
Sam Wormley
My preferences are unimportant.
Quadibloc
> You would prefer a drought?
The increased rainfall just happens to be one consequence of a change
in climate. Whether it provides a net benefit or net harm to Iowa -
just as Canada might benefit from easier access to some Arctic
resources - is irrelevant. Instead, what is important is the *total*
impact of the change in climate, which will be negative in many ways,
from invasive species in the southern U.S. to famine in southeast
Asia.
John Savard
GW Proff
>>> oriel36 wrote:
wsne...@hotmail.com
The worst invasive species are usually brought in by ships and planes,
from great distances, not so much from migrations of species from
adjacent areas.
I'm not sure why Wormley is trying to use the floods in Cedar Rapids
to make his point. After all, the city is called Cedar _Rapids_ from
which we can infer that it was built on a river. Rivers have been
known to be the site of floods since ancient times. If the long-term
monetary benefit of having the city on the river exceeds that of $20
billion in damages then what's the problem? (That amount of damage
would work out to about $3 million per acre that was flooded, ie
pricey real estate.)
Sam Wormley
>
> I'm not sure why Wormley is trying to use the floods in Cedar Rapids
> to make his point. After all, the city is called Cedar _Rapids_ from
> which we can infer that it was built on a river. Rivers have been
> known to be the site of floods since ancient times. If the long-term
> monetary benefit of having the city on the river exceeds that of $20
> billion in damages then what's the problem? (That amount of damage
> would work out to about $3 million per acre that was flooded, ie
> pricey real estate.)
>
>
I agree that Cities, Businesses and homes should not be built on
flood planes. It does happen.
Background--the levee system was meant to handle 500 year event
floods and one would expect a flood of that magnitude to go over
a foot or two. The 2008 flood breached the levee system by almost
11 feet.
Twenty Billion Dollars in flood damage--not fun for the local,
state or nation.
The impact of global climate change in the form of increased
rainfall, increased rate of rainfall and increased big rainfall
events is a concern.
Here's some data from Iowa State University
wsne...@hotmail.com
I wonder how many flood victims in Cedar Rapids drive around in
SUVs?
Maybe Iowa should ramp up its production of biofuel (without Federal
help.) The use of fossil fuels and the transmission of electricity
into the state could then be gradually reduced to zero over a period
of a few years. Then we will all see if the state can really meet its
own energy needs via biofuel (along with whatever hydro, nuclear, wind
and solar it might be able to keep running without support by fossil
fuel.)
If it can't do that and wants to resume fossil fuel use, then no more
compliants about global warming should be heard from anyone living or
working in the state.
Quadibloc
> If it can't do that and wants to resume fossil fuel use, then no more
> compliants about global warming should be heard from anyone living or
> working in the state.
That's silly.
Just because *most* people in the state aren't likely to change their
lifestyles voluntarily to do something about global warming, that
doesn't mean that the enlightened few shouldn't continue to complain
even more loudly and clearly. Until someone listens. Hopefully in time
to avert global disaster.
With nuclear power as one of the energy sources, there is _no
question_ that we can meet our energy needs without use of fossil
fuels. Except for the fossil fuels we'll use while we're building all
those nuclear power plants. That's fine - this _is_ a selfish
strategy. Get one's own nuclear power plants built *now*, while one
can still use fossil fuels for the trucks going to the construction
site - so that when the world wakes up, and fossil fuels are banned,
at least *your* area will be sitting pretty with abundant nuclear
power while everyone else is suffering on what little energy they can
get from wind and solar. (Well, _some_ other lucky people already have
hydroelectricity.)
Given that current warming has already started methane release, and
the oceans are becoming acidic from absorbing too much carbon dioxide,
we probably can't avert the climate catastrophe, so we should *at
least* secure our energy supplies while we still can.
If I'm pessimistic, and switching to nuclear does help prevent
disaster, all the better.
John Savard
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Nov 27, 10:06 am, wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > If it can't do that and wants to resume fossil fuel use, then no more
> > compliants about global warming should be heard from anyone living or
> > working in the state.
>
> That's silly.
Not silly at all, because you quoted me out of context. IF an
experiment such as I suggested were to be run, AND they were not able
to maintain their lifestyle THEN they have no grounds to expect others
to follow the same strategy.
> Just because *most* people in the state aren't likely to change their
> lifestyles voluntarily to do something about global warming, that
> doesn't mean that the enlightened few shouldn't continue to complain
> even more loudly and clearly.
The "enlightened few" are not so "enlightened" as they would have
others believe. While the state-wide experiment I had suggested will
happen until we actually run out of fossil fuels, it is certainly
possible for someone on a farm or "enlightened" citizens of a small
town to try to support themselves without direct or indirect reliance
on fossil fuels.
> Until someone listens. Hopefully in time
> to avert global disaster.
>
> With nuclear power as one of the energy sources, there is _no
> question_ that we can meet
some of
> our energy needs without use of fossil
> fuels. Except for the fossil fuels we'll use while we're building all
> those nuclear power plants.
Then you need to maintain the plants, and the power line networks,
mine new sources of uranium, etc. No machine lasts forever, so you
will need to replace the plants or large components of them,
eventually.
> That's fine - this _is_ a selfish
> strategy. Get one's own nuclear power plants built *now*, while one
> can still use fossil fuels for the trucks going to the construction
> site - so that when the world wakes up, and fossil fuels are banned,
Oh, yeah, that'll happen. We will run low on fossil fuels though,
eventually.
> at least *your* area will be sitting pretty with abundant nuclear
> power
Until your power plants succumb to the ravages of time...then what?
> while everyone else is suffering on what little energy they can
> get from wind and solar. (Well, _some_ other lucky people already have
> hydroelectricity.)
Well, not exactly. It is nice to imagine that your large local
hydroelectric plant serves only your immediate area, but it doesn't.
> Given that current warming has already started methane release, and
> the oceans are becoming acidic from absorbing too much carbon dioxide,
> we probably can't avert the climate catastrophe, so we should *at
> least* secure our energy supplies while we still can.
And figure out how to maintain them without a fossil fuel
infrastructure. Good luck.
Quadibloc
> And figure out how to maintain them without a fossil fuel
> infrastructure. Good luck.
Replacing every fossil-fuel fired power plant in the nation with
nuclear power will take a lot of trucks and bulldozers.
Once that's done, keeping them fueled, repairing them, and so on, can
be done by vehicles which burn hydrogen. Made with electricity from
water.
John Savard
MakeMak
> at least *your* area will be sitting pretty with abundant nuclear power
Abundant nuclear power at 35 cents per kW/h. ;-)
> while everyone else is suffering on what little energy they can
> get from wind and solar.
Solar cost per kW/h is halving every two years. Very soon it will be competitive
with regular fuels (without a subsidy):
Chris.B
wrote:
>
> Solar cost per kW/h is halving every two years. Very soon it will be competitive
> with regular fuels (without a subsidy):
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8386460.stm
If solar panels were to become an acceptable roof covering instead of
the current fashion for energy hungry, glazed tiles the real costs of
solar would plummet. There are many roof coverings with only a 30 year
life expectancy including thatch and corrugated, fibre cement. Who
knows what form solar could take in 30 more years? The buildings
advisory experts are already calling for increased roof angles and
stronger roof coverings to cope with expected wind speed increases. A
smooth solar panel, able to withstand wind forces and downwind suction
in particular, could be the answer to new roofing needs for the coming
century. A low reflectivity coating might be wise to avoid blinding
the remaining few pilots when weather conditions become too extreme,
too often, for flight on the present scale.
Quadibloc
> If solar panels were to become an acceptable roof covering instead of
> the current fashion for energy hungry, glazed tiles the real costs of
> solar would plummet. There are many roof coverings with only a 30 year
> life expectancy including thatch and corrugated, fibre cement. Who
> knows what form solar could take in 30 more years?
They have solar cells that could last 30 years, being covered by a
foot of snow every winter?
Or would we have to change the shape of our roofs, so they slope
upwards at a steep angle? And in that case, we would need more solar
cells... except that our neighbors' house would probably block the
sun, so we wouldn't need any...
John Savard
Chris.B
>
> They have solar cells that could last 30 years, being covered by a
> foot of snow every winter?
>
> Or would we have to change the shape of our roofs, so they slope
> upwards at a steep angle? And in that case, we would need more solar
> cells... except that our neighbors' house would probably block the
> sun, so we wouldn't need any...
>
> John Savard
John
A foot of snow assumes adhesion and a cold, heavy snowfall local
climate. Historically, roof angles vary with climate and expected
snowfall. Heavy snow is becoming only a memory in parts of Europe. No
kid would be without a sledge in my youth. For generations before that
ice skates were popular on the annually frozen lakes and canals. Only
once in my lifetime were temperatures low enough for long enough to
risk a walk on the local river or canal. Nowadays such winter
pastimes are considered curiosities. Denmark at 55N has a great many
water heating, solar panels. One could imagine a hybrid system where
warm water was fed to solar electric panels to ensure snow could not
attach itself in colder, snowier climates. Besides, with AGW
continuing unabated one might imagine snowfall being much reduced.
Just as it is in Europe.
Quadibloc
> A foot of snow assumes adhesion and a cold, heavy snowfall local
> climate.
Well, it is true that people in Arizona or Southern California might
be able to manage solar panels on their roofs. But I'm thinking of the
real ordinary people of the continent, who live in places like my
home, Edmonton, Alberta. Now, I realize that it is colder than some
places, but I hear that they have snow in the winter in Boston and
Toronto as well.
> Besides, with AGW
> continuing unabated one might imagine snowfall being much reduced.
> Just as it is in Europe.
We need to make certain it does not continue. Solar panels on roofs
will help, although my main fear is that ordinary people won't be able
to afford them.
John Savard
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Nov 27, 8:46 pm, wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > And figure out how to maintain them without a fossil fuel
> > infrastructure. Good luck.
>
> Replacing every fossil-fuel fired power plant in the nation with
> nuclear power will take a lot of trucks and bulldozers.
And a considerable amount of diesel oil, made from petroleum.
> Once that's done, keeping them fueled, repairing them, and so on, can
> be done by vehicles which burn hydrogen. Made with electricity from
> water.
When you make hydrogen from water, you will get only half the energy
back.
Why not go for broke, and see if you build a second nuclear power
plant using only heat and electricity obtained from the first one you
build? You would have to find, mine, transport and process the
uranium, and the materials to make concrete, mine ores and make them
into steel, copper and aluminum, build and power all of the trucks,
trains, and construction equipment, and pay, house and feed the
workers, etc. When the power plant is ready to be decommissioned, you
will need to deal with the waste products, demo the plant, etc.
The third and subsequent plants might either be easier or impossible
to construct in the same way.
Morten Reistad
<wsne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 28, 9:30 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> On Nov 27, 8:46 pm, wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > And figure out how to maintain them without a fossil fuel
>> > infrastructure. Good luck.
Sorry for the digression, but this seems like a non-troll and
the energy question DOES have planetary proportions. Longish answer.
>> Replacing every fossil-fuel fired power plant in the nation with
>> nuclear power will take a lot of trucks and bulldozers.
>
>And a considerable amount of diesel oil, made from petroleum.
>
>> Once that's done, keeping them fueled, repairing them, and so on, can
>> be done by vehicles which burn hydrogen. Made with electricity from
>> water.
>
>When you make hydrogen from water, you will get only half the energy
>back.
Yep. And this is a concept we have to get used to. Already only
around 60% of petroleum reserves will make it out of the well, at most,
and around 15% of that is lost in transport, processing etc, more if
the refinery uses cracking. Most of it is burnt to give energy to
facilitate energy processing and transport. And in the final car,
we have 30% efficiency; at the very best.
We must fully unthink the concepts of "hydrogen economy". Hydrogen
is a sideshow, an energy transport, and not a very good one at that.
The energy carriers are not a great problem, as long as we focus on
them as carriers, not sources. Biofuels are bad to mediocre sources,
but excellent carriers. If you have abundent grid energy you can make
ethanol from wood pulp; from fast(er) growing trees in Siberia and Alaska.
But you will have to add a lot of energy. That whole process is around
30% energy efficient. Ditto for hydrogen, or other synthetic hydrocarbon
fuels. Carrier, not source. And somewhat less energy efficient than oil.
With the fossil fuels we have another half decade or two (if we believe the
doomsdayers) or four to five (if we believe the optimists) of current, and
rising, consumption. We must use those decades to build intermediate
sustianable sources. The only option that is realistic in that time
frame is fission energy based on uranium and thorhium.
By all means, build solar, hydro, wind, wave and tide plants. But
you need 800 windmills to make one baseload station; and you need
some other plant to take the changes. Denmark has really made an
effort to do this. They can now take 18% of peak load, around 30%
of total consumption with wind and wave. That took a national effort
for a decade; and increased energy prices by nearly a third.
We will all have to get there, eventually. But Denmark tells us that
with normal, commercial development this will take several centuries.
OK, we have hydro.Hydro is unique among renewable sources in that
relatively large plants can be rapidly deployed. (rapid compared to
other power sources)
Countries with rugged terrain, like Canada, Norway, Russia, Iceland,
Brazil and Nepal has had good success with Hydro. But we are
running out of rivers.
Which leaves nuclear for the baseload of the 21st and probably also
the 22nd century.
The safety record, Chernobyl included, is already an order of
magnitude better than coal, and about on par with oil and gas.
Without Chernobyl the record is another order of magnitude better.
Coal already spews out more radioactive waste every month than
several Chernobyl accidents, so the nuclear safety record does
not have to be very much better to be attractive. Even Soviet
carbon-moderated reactors are better than coal. This mostly tells
us what a profound jam we are in regarding our energy supply.
And we must reprocess. Separate the low-grade contaminants out.
These are long term, but of lower radioactivity than the ore we
mined in the first place. The high grade goes back in the reactors.
The medium range waste products is a problem, but it is perfectly
feasible to burn them in a reactor. This is pure waste disposal,
this will be a dirty reactor; and not very suitable for energy
production. Thorium has a very attractive side here, because there
are significantly fewer of these intermediate waste products.
This has already been known for half a century or more. But we
have built reactors as a side show of the bomb making. So we
build the wrong reactors, with the wrong reprocessing. We will have
to rethink this whole value chain from a civilian perspective.
There are upsides. We have a peace dividend from all the bomb
material. This makes a great addition to civilian, low grade fuel;
uranium or thorium alike; and the indefensible contamination performed
to make that weapons material is already done. This store is
sufficient for a hundred to several hundred years of civilian fuel
enrichment.
We must plan for around a tripling of the global energy consumption.
Energy consumption rises sharply with wealth up to a GNP of around
$12k/year, and levels off from there.
There are currently around 7000 main power stations feeding the
worldwide grid. Around 600 of these are nuclear, 400 hydro. In
other words, we need another 18000 nuclear power stations. In
around 30 years. This is if we want the population of the whole
planet to have a standard of living comparable to the US in the
1950s; approximatly where Maxico is now. 600 nuclear power stations
a year ? That is way beyond our current capabilites. We struggle
to build 30. And we mismanage the fuel. Handled correctly Norway
alone has enough Uranium and Thorium ore to run the world anergy
supply for several milennia. And you find U and Th in a lot of places,
but only a few percent are even considered for mining.
>Why not go for broke, and see if you build a second nuclear power
>plant using only heat and electricity obtained from the first one you
>build? You would have to find, mine, transport and process the
>uranium, and the materials to make concrete, mine ores and make them
>into steel, copper and aluminum, build and power all of the trucks,
>trains, and construction equipment, and pay, house and feed the
>workers, etc. When the power plant is ready to be decommissioned, you
>will need to deal with the waste products, demo the plant, etc.
>
>The third and subsequent plants might either be easier or impossible
>to construct in the same way.
No, this is a sidetrack. We must migrate the whole economy. One
nuclear power plant, or biofuel carrier maker at a time.
Fortunatly, the nature of the oil and gas business is that we will
have a production peak where around 38% of available resources are
extracted. Production will then peter off, slowly, and the stuff will
become gradually more expensive. We may in fact already be past "peak
oil". (highest world production so far was in August 2007 at 89.5
bbarrels/day. Current production hovers around 83 [oecd figures]). It
seems the "end of oil and gas" is going to be a long tail of slowly
decling production and increasing prices, not an abrupt
end. Fortunatly, we can migrate 70% of our energy consumption through
the grid, so we can build replacement baseload stations for several
decades before we have to grapple in earnest with energy carriers for
transport.
And we should seriously consider making a mass driver around a
nuclear power station and a large, equatorial mountain. Projects
like the ISS are futile if we are to depend on oxygen and hydrazine
for the bulk lifting.
(See, I did get relevant for the newsgroup at the end.)
-- mrr
Morten Reistad
By all means, build all the the solar, wave, hydro, tide, wind and geothermal
power you can. Denmark has really tried. After a decade of national effort
they carry 18% of peak load, and nearly 30% of total consumption; or nearly
twice the increase in energy consumption during that decade.
It will take a while. Probably a few centuries.
Use nuclear in the interim.
.. mrr
wsne...@hotmail.com
> In article <fbaeb663-c19f-4ab9-9867-da83ff726...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> <wsnel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 28, 9:30 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >> On Nov 27, 8:46 pm, wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >> > And figure out how to maintain them without a fossil fuel
> >> > infrastructure. Good luck.
>
> Sorry for the digression, but this seems like a non-troll and
> the energy question DOES have planetary proportions. Longish answer.
>
> >> Replacing every fossil-fuel fired power plant in the nation with
> >> nuclear power will take a lot of trucks and bulldozers.
>
> >And a considerable amount of diesel oil, made from petroleum.
>
> >> Once that's done, keeping them fueled, repairing them, and so on, can
> >> be done by vehicles which burn hydrogen. Made with electricity from
> >> water.
>
> >When you make hydrogen from water, you will get only half the energy
> >back.
>
> Yep. And this is a concept we have to get used to. Already only
> around 60% of petroleum reserves will make it out of the well,
Reserves are what can be extracted, not the total amount in the oil
field. At some point, you will need to expend a barrel of oil to get
a barrel out, so what would be the point? If you can use energy that
came _only_ from some other source, it would make sense to extract
that oil since oil has other, some say better uses, than as fuel.
When using fossil fuel to create a renewable infrastructure, we need
to be sure that the renewable infrastructure can "renew" itself when
the time comes.
> at most,
> and around 15% of that is lost in transport, processing etc, more if
> the refinery uses cracking. Most of it is burnt to give energy to
> facilitate energy processing and transport.
Gasoline has about 25:1 EROI according to some estimates. Nuclear is
probably not that high, but estimates vary widely.
> And in the final car,
> we have 30% efficiency; at the very best.
Perhaps, but the EROI of petroleum is high. By the time you have
used fossil fuel to build a nuclear plant, mine and create its fuel,
account for the inevitable inefficiencies of converting heat into
steam, then into electricity, then into hydrogren, then account for
the inefficiences of the vehicle, would you have been better off just
using the oil to fuel vehicles directly?
> We must fully unthink the concepts of "hydrogen economy". Hydrogen
> is a sideshow, an energy transport, and not a very good one at that.
> The energy carriers are not a great problem, as long as we focus on
> them as carriers, not sources. Biofuels are bad to mediocre sources,
> but excellent carriers. If you have abundent grid energy you can make
> ethanol from wood pulp; from fast(er) growing trees in Siberia and Alaska.
> But you will have to add a lot of energy. That whole process is around
> 30% energy efficient. Ditto for hydrogen, or other synthetic hydrocarbon
> fuels. Carrier, not source. And somewhat less energy efficient than oil.
>
> With the fossil fuels we have another half decade or two (if we believe the
> doomsdayers) or four to five (if we believe the optimists) of current, and
> rising, consumption. We must use those decades to build intermediate
> sustianable sources. The only option that is realistic in that time
> frame is fission energy based on uranium and thorhium.
> By all means, build solar, hydro, wind, wave and tide plants. But
> you need 800 windmills to make one baseload station; and you need
> some other plant to take the changes. Denmark has really made an
> effort to do this. They can now take 18% of peak load, around 30%
> of total consumption with wind and wave. That took a national effort
> for a decade; and increased energy prices by nearly a third.
How much electricity does Denmark import? Remember Denmark is small,
and and what it does might not scale up very well in the real world.
> We will all have to get there, eventually. But Denmark tells us that
> with normal, commercial development this will take several centuries.
> OK, we have hydro.Hydro is unique among renewable sources in that
> relatively large plants can be rapidly deployed. (rapid compared to
> other power sources)
>
> Countries with rugged terrain, like Canada, Norway, Russia, Iceland,
> Brazil and Nepal has had good success with Hydro. But we are
> running out of rivers.
>
> Which leaves nuclear for the baseload of the 21st and probably also
> the 22nd century.
>
> The safety record, Chernobyl included, is already an order of
> magnitude better than coal, and about on par with oil and gas.
> Without Chernobyl the record is another order of magnitude better.
> Coal already spews out more radioactive waste every month than
> several Chernobyl accidents, so the nuclear safety record does
> not have to be very much better to be attractive. Even Soviet
> carbon-moderated reactors are better than coal. This mostly tells
> us what a profound jam we are in regarding our energy supply.
So move to Chernobyl.
Net energy considerations and economics probably come into play.
> >Why not go for broke, and see if you build a second nuclear power
> >plant using only heat and electricity obtained from the first one you
> >build? You would have to find, mine, transport and process the
> >uranium, and the materials to make concrete, mine ores and make them
> >into steel, copper and aluminum, build and power all of the trucks,
> >trains, and construction equipment, and pay, house and feed the
> >workers, etc. When the power plant is ready to be decommissioned, you
> >will need to deal with the waste products, demo the plant, etc.
>
> >The third and subsequent plants might either be easier or impossible
> >to construct in the same way.
>
> No, this is a sidetrack. We must migrate the whole economy. One
> nuclear power plant, or biofuel carrier maker at a time.
Do you think it would be possible to build a new nuclear plant using
only the energy from an existing plant of the same size and still have
any net energy left over for other uses?
> Fortunatly, the nature of the oil and gas business is that we will
> have a production peak where around 38% of available resources are
> extracted. Production will then peter off, slowly, and the stuff will
> become gradually more expensive. We may in fact already be past "peak
> oil". (highest world production so far was in August 2007 at 89.5
> bbarrels/day. Current production hovers around 83 [oecd figures]). It
> seems the "end of oil and gas" is going to be a long tail of slowly
> decling production and increasing prices, not an abrupt
> end. Fortunatly, we can migrate 70% of our energy consumption through
> the grid, so we can build replacement baseload stations for several
> decades before we have to grapple in earnest with energy carriers for
> transport.
I once saw an ad for some sort of still to make ethanol to power
vehicles. The still was operated on electricity. Why not just use
some of the ethanol to make more ethanol instead? The same sort of
question needs to be asked of all proposed sources of energy.
> And we should seriously consider making a mass driver around a
> nuclear power station and a large, equatorial mountain. Projects
> like the ISS are futile if we are to depend on oxygen and hydrazine
> for the bulk lifting.
There is nothing futile about space exploration, it currently takes up
a small amount of our energy.
Quadibloc
> I once saw an ad for some sort of still to make ethanol to power
> vehicles. The still was operated on electricity. Why not just use
> some of the ethanol to make more ethanol instead? The same sort of
> question needs to be asked of all proposed sources of energy.
Electricity is a good source of energy, because it can be made from
non-carbon prime movers (hydroelectricity, nuclear, wind, solar).
Ethanol, when burned, releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Thus, it is only to be used for things like motor vehicles, where
there is no alternative (fuel cells and the like not quite being ready
yet).
John Savard
Morten Reistad
<wsne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 2, 10:42 am, Morten Reistad <fi...@last.name> wrote:
>> In article <fbaeb663-c19f-4ab9-9867-da83ff726...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>> Yep. And this is a concept we have to get used to. Already only
>> around 60% of petroleum reserves will make it out of the well,
>
>Reserves are what can be extracted, not the total amount in the oil
>field. At some point, you will need to expend a barrel of oil to get
>a barrel out, so what would be the point? If you can use energy that
>came _only_ from some other source, it would make sense to extract
>that oil since oil has other, some say better uses, than as fuel.
OK, "Reserves" may not be the best word. But the extraction technilogy
imporves all the time. The limit was 40-something percent a few decades
ago. But the extra extraction takes time. You have to produce slower and
slower to get more oil out. The ROI will probably be high for a long,
long time; but production will get slower. We see that in all the
fields that have peaked. They get a long tail of dwindling production.
>When using fossil fuel to create a renewable infrastructure, we need
>to be sure that the renewable infrastructure can "renew" itself when
>the time comes.
>
>> at most,
>> and around 15% of that is lost in transport, processing etc, more if
>> the refinery uses cracking. Most of it is burnt to give energy to
>> facilitate energy processing and transport.
>
>Gasoline has about 25:1 EROI according to some estimates. Nuclear is
>probably not that high, but estimates vary widely.
>
>> And in the final car,
>> we have 30% efficiency; at the very best.
>
>Perhaps, but the EROI of petroleum is high. By the time you have
>used fossil fuel to build a nuclear plant, mine and create its fuel,
>account for the inevitable inefficiencies of converting heat into
>steam, then into electricity, then into hydrogren, then account for
>the inefficiences of the vehicle, would you have been better off just
>using the oil to fuel vehicles directly?
For the wasteful nuclear plants in the US, probably. But they are
made wrong. They are build to use an abundance of highly radioactive
fuel, and not to reprocess. This is a cold war legacy that has to go.
>
>> We must fully unthink the concepts of "hydrogen economy". Hydrogen
>> is a sideshow, an energy transport, and not a very good one at that.
>> The energy carriers are not a great problem, as long as we focus on
>> them as carriers, not sources. Biofuels are bad to mediocre sources,
>> but excellent carriers. If you have abundent grid energy you can make
>> ethanol from wood pulp; from fast(er) growing trees in Siberia and Alaska.
>> But you will have to add a lot of energy. That whole process is around
>> 30% energy efficient. Ditto for hydrogen, or other synthetic hydrocarbon
>> fuels. Carrier, not source. And somewhat less energy efficient than oil.
>>
>> With the fossil fuels we have another half decade or two (if we believe the
>> doomsdayers) or four to five (if we believe the optimists) of current, and
>> rising, consumption. We must use those decades to build intermediate
>> sustianable sources. The only option that is realistic in that time
>> frame is fission energy based on uranium and thorhium.
>
>> By all means, build solar, hydro, wind, wave and tide plants. But
>> you need 800 windmills to make one baseload station; and you need
>> some other plant to take the changes. Denmark has really made an
>> effort to do this. They can now take 18% of peak load, around 30%
>> of total consumption with wind and wave. That took a national effort
>> for a decade; and increased energy prices by nearly a third.
>
>How much electricity does Denmark import? Remember Denmark is small,
>and and what it does might not scale up very well in the real world.
Denmark has a slightly positive energy balance on the grid, importing
from Norway (95% Hydro) and Sweden (45% hydro, 40% nuclear, some gas
turbines) and sell to Germany. Denmark has several large coal plants
that take the bulk of the production. The quad source arrangement in NO/SE/DK
is using the different sources very efficiently.
>> carbon-moderated reactors are better than coal. This mostly tells
>> us what a profound jam we are in regarding our energy supply.
>
>So move to Chernobyl.
Strawmans argument. I could re-iterate with the location of
a few hundred coal mines; half a hundred of which are truly
decrepit hellholes.
>> a year ? That is way beyond our current capabilites. We struggle
>> to build 30. And we mismanage the fuel. Handled correctly Norway
>> alone has enough Uranium and Thorium ore to run the world anergy
>> supply for several milennia. And you find U and Th in a lot of places,
>> but only a few percent are even considered for mining.
>
>Net energy considerations and economics probably come into play.
Noone wants to invest in nuclear power. The major restriction is
legislation and a regulatory regime, not market forces. Although
litigation is part of the picture.
>> >The third and subsequent plants might either be easier or impossible
>> >to construct in the same way.
>>
>> No, this is a sidetrack. We must migrate the whole economy. One
>> nuclear power plant, or biofuel carrier maker at a time.
>
>Do you think it would be possible to build a new nuclear plant using
>only the energy from an existing plant of the same size and still have
>any net energy left over for other uses?
Yes, but the factor isn't 20:1 as for petroleum (although that factor
is declining too, as oil get harder to extract; some fields are
down to 4:1).
Just look at France. Over 50 nuclear reactors supply more than the
energy needs of France. (The exports are bigger than all other
sources combined) Of those 50, 1 reactor is used for reprocessing,
using around 2% of the total energy for (re)processing. Around 60%
of the reprocessing is done for France, the rest is done for other
countries.
As for the construction and mining, the biggest energy use is in
mining, transport, cement and steel production. France is a large
exporter of cement and steel, and all the energy for that comes from
the grid; i.e. nuclear. Transport use some energy; the total transport
sector for all of France uses around 25% as much energy as the power
in the grid. Some ore is imported; but we are talking many orders of
magnitude smaller energy use in that mining.
France could synthesize ethanol and hydrogen in sufficient quantities
to supply the entire country with fuel with another 20 nuclear power
stations and some large chemical plants. This will be economically
feasible with an energy price of $150/barrel.
>
>I once saw an ad for some sort of still to make ethanol to power
>vehicles. The still was operated on electricity. Why not just use
>some of the ethanol to make more ethanol instead? The same sort of
>question needs to be asked of all proposed sources of energy.
Here people mix source and carrier. Ethanol and hydrogen are very
bad SOURCES of energy, but they work very well for STORING and
TRANSPORTING energy. So, yes, you will use 3 units of grid energy
to make 1 unit of vehicle propulsion energy. Or less. Sometimes a
lot less.
>> And we should seriously consider making a mass driver around a
>> nuclear power station and a large, equatorial mountain. Projects
>> like the ISS are futile if we are to depend on oxygen and hydrazine
>> for the bulk lifting.
>
>There is nothing futile about space exploration, it currently takes up
>a small amount of our energy.
One nuclear power station is plenty for a mass driver, as long as
we can find a buffer to hold energy and release it during that one
second of accelration we need to get dead mass to orbit in the distance
we can expect our runway up a mountainside to have. That is the
challenge.
-- mrr
Morten Reistad
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>On Dec 3, 4:17�am, wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> I once saw an ad for some sort of still to make ethanol to power
>> vehicles. �The still was operated on electricity. Why not just use
>> some of the ethanol to make more ethanol instead? �The same sort of
>> question needs to be asked of all proposed sources of energy.
>
>Electricity is a good source of energy, because it can be made from
>non-carbon prime movers (hydroelectricity, nuclear, wind, solar).
No, not a source. A carrier. Hydro, nuclear, wind, solar, wave,
geothermal, petroleum, coal, gas and biomass are _sources_ of energy.
Electricity, ethanol, hydrogen are carriers. But the fossil fuel
sources are so easily transporable that they are carriers too.
>Ethanol, when burned, releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
>Thus, it is only to be used for things like motor vehicles, where
>there is no alternative (fuel cells and the like not quite being ready
>yet).
If we get that carbon from trees we are not sending any net carbon
into the athmosphere.
But I wasn't even considering global warming in the post. We have
more than enough work in front of us just to secure a long term
energy supply.
-- mrr
wsne...@hotmail.com
> In article <60e33dd3-f935-4cb9-874d-7a1cb6ba1...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Ok, so even small Denmark hasn't built or can't build enough windmills
or nuke plants.
> >> carbon-moderated reactors are better than coal. This mostly tells
> >> us what a profound jam we are in regarding our energy supply.
>
> >So move to Chernobyl.
>
> Strawmans argument. I could re-iterate with the location of
> a few hundred coal mines; half a hundred of which are truly
> decrepit hellholes.
Strawmans argument. Even by low communist/socialist standards, the
area around Chernobyl was probably a decent-enough place to live
before the accident. Now it has been abandoned.
> >> a year ? That is way beyond our current capabilites. We struggle
> >> to build 30. And we mismanage the fuel. Handled correctly Norway
> >> alone has enough Uranium and Thorium ore to run the world anergy
> >> supply for several milennia. And you find U and Th in a lot of places,
> >> but only a few percent are even considered for mining.
>
> >Net energy considerations and economics probably come into play.
>
> Noone wants to invest in nuclear power. The major restriction is
> legislation and a regulatory regime, not market forces. Although
> litigation is part of the picture.
Nuclear tends to be much more expensive to build than coal plants, and
as the cost of fossil fuel goes up, so will the cost of building the
plants.
> >> >The third and subsequent plants might either be easier or impossible
> >> >to construct in the same way.
>
> >> No, this is a sidetrack. We must migrate the whole economy. One
> >> nuclear power plant, or biofuel carrier maker at a time.
>
> >Do you think it would be possible to build a new nuclear plant using
> >only the energy from an existing plant of the same size and still have
> >any net energy left over for other uses?
>
> Yes, but the factor isn't 20:1 as for petroleum (although that factor
> is declining too, as oil get harder to extract; some fields are
> down to 4:1).
>
> Just look at France. Over 50 nuclear reactors supply more than the
> energy needs of France. (The exports are bigger than all other
> sources combined) Of those 50, 1 reactor is used for reprocessing,
> using around 2% of the total energy for (re)processing. Around 60%
> of the reprocessing is done for France, the rest is done for other
> countries.
How have France's unemployment levels been over the last forty years
or so?
> As for the construction and mining, the biggest energy use is in
> mining, transport, cement and steel production. France is a large
> exporter of cement and steel, and all the energy for that comes from
> the grid; i.e. nuclear. Transport use some energy; the total transport
> sector for all of France uses around 25% as much energy as the power
> in the grid. Some ore is imported; but we are talking many orders of
> magnitude smaller energy use in that mining.
>
> France could synthesize ethanol and hydrogen in sufficient quantities
> to supply the entire country with fuel with another 20 nuclear power
> stations and some large chemical plants. This will be economically
> feasible with an energy price of $150/barrel.
Ok, I have no nuclear plants but a whole lot of fossil fuel. If I use
some of that fuel to build a nuke plant and provide it with an intial
supply of fuel, can that plant then support itself with no further
energy inputs from elsewhere? Will it be able to supply me with
enough energy to build another plant of similar or greater capacity?
So that I can use the fossil fuel for something else (or not use it at
all?)
>
>
> >I once saw an ad for some sort of still to make ethanol to power
> >vehicles. The still was operated on electricity. Why not just use
> >some of the ethanol to make more ethanol instead? The same sort of
> >question needs to be asked of all proposed sources of energy.
>
> Here people mix source and carrier. Ethanol and hydrogen are very
> bad SOURCES of energy, but they work very well for STORING and
> TRANSPORTING energy. So, yes, you will use 3 units of grid energy
> to make 1 unit of vehicle propulsion energy. Or less. Sometimes a
> lot less.
Whenever I hear about ethanol or other biofuels, I picture some hippie
driving into town to buy gasoline to run his portable generator so
that he can make ethanol, then ending up with just enough ethanol each
week to get him back to town to get more gasoline, until he finally
runs out of money for gasoline.
> >> And we should seriously consider making a mass driver around a
> >> nuclear power station and a large, equatorial mountain. Projects
> >> like the ISS are futile if we are to depend on oxygen and hydrazine
> >> for the bulk lifting.
>
> >There is nothing futile about space exploration, it currently takes up
> >a small amount of our energy.
>
> One nuclear power station is plenty for a mass driver, as long as
> we can find a buffer to hold energy and release it during that one
> second of accelration we need to get dead mass to orbit in the distance
> we can expect our runway up a mountainside to have. That is the
> challenge.
That would be one $^#*@ of a lot of g-forces on whatever it is you
intend to launch.
Morten Reistad
<wsne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 3, 11:41 am, Morten Reistad <fi...@last.name> wrote:
>> In article <60e33dd3-f935-4cb9-874d-7a1cb6ba1...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> >and and what it does might not scale up very well in the real world.
>>
>> Denmark has a slightly positive energy balance on the grid, importing
>> from Norway (95% Hydro) and Sweden (45% hydro, 40% nuclear, some gas
>> turbines) and sell to Germany. Denmark has several large coal plants
>> that take the bulk of the production. The quad source arrangement in NO/SE/DK
>> is using the different sources very efficiently.
>
>Ok, so even small Denmark hasn't built or can't build enough windmills
>or nuke plants.
No, exactly. They will get there if they can keep the program they
currently have going until around 2045, or for a 60 year duration.
For the rest of the world we cannot keep up that pace, of a pretty
rich, windy place of limited size and high social coherence. And
eco-minded nearly all of them. They also have a large problem
with the price of their electricity; so wind power does not seem
any more expensive than the alternative.
>> >> carbon-moderated reactors are better than coal. This mostly tells
>> >> us what a profound jam we are in regarding our energy supply.
>>
>> >So move to Chernobyl.
>>
>> Strawmans argument. I could re-iterate with the location of
>> a few hundred coal mines; half a hundred of which are truly
>> decrepit hellholes.
>
>Strawmans argument. Even by low communist/socialist standards, the
>area around Chernobyl was probably a decent-enough place to live
>before the accident. Now it has been abandoned.
I still say that nearly any nuclear reactor has a better environmental
record than coal, or shale oil. Visited a strip mined field lately?
We generate a chernobyl or two worth of waste every year with coal,
and that is considered normal. And one coal plant releases as much
radioactive contamination into the atmosphere as what a nuclear
plant generates, and stores safely; where around 96% can be handled
in reprocessing.
Yes, there are definate dangers with nuclear energy. That it comes
up so far ahead of coal should scare us.
>> >> a year ? That is way beyond our current capabilites. We struggle
>> >> to build 30. And we mismanage the fuel. Handled correctly Norway
>> >> alone has enough Uranium and Thorium ore to run the world anergy
>> >> supply for several milennia. And you find U and Th in a lot of places,
>> >> but only a few percent are even considered for mining.
>>
>> >Net energy considerations and economics probably come into play.
>>
>> Noone wants to invest in nuclear power. The major restriction is
>> legislation and a regulatory regime, not market forces. Although
>> litigation is part of the picture.
>
>Nuclear tends to be much more expensive to build than coal plants, and
>as the cost of fossil fuel goes up, so will the cost of building the
>plants.
With the US regulatory regime for civilian nuclear power plants
investments in those are futile. You are bound to lose that investment.
Without reprocessing, and with the one-off reactor designs that take
20 years for a final regulatory approval the whole industry is sunk.
This is a political, not commercial problem.
>> >> >The third and subsequent plants might either be easier or impossible
>> >> >to construct in the same way.
>>
>> >> No, this is a sidetrack. We must migrate the whole economy. One
>> >> nuclear power plant, or biofuel carrier maker at a time.
>>
>> >Do you think it would be possible to build a new nuclear plant using
>> >only the energy from an existing plant of the same size and still have
>> >any net energy left over for other uses?
>>
>> Yes, but the factor isn't 20:1 as for petroleum (although that factor
>> is declining too, as oil get harder to extract; some fields are
>> down to 4:1).
>>
>> Just look at France. Over 50 nuclear reactors supply more than the
>> energy needs of France. (The exports are bigger than all other
>> sources combined) Of those 50, 1 reactor is used for reprocessing,
>> using around 2% of the total energy for (re)processing. Around 60%
>> of the reprocessing is done for France, the rest is done for other
>> countries.
>
>How have France's unemployment levels been over the last forty years
>or so?
High. France has a lot of problems. They were left high and dry after
the oil crisis, and did what they could to solve their energy problem.
Dirigisme worked for that.
>> As for the construction and mining, the biggest energy use is in
>> mining, transport, cement and steel production. France is a large
>> exporter of cement and steel, and all the energy for that comes from
>> the grid; i.e. nuclear. Transport use some energy; the total transport
>> sector for all of France uses around 25% as much energy as the power
>> in the grid. Some ore is imported; but we are talking many orders of
>> magnitude smaller energy use in that mining.
>>
>> France could synthesize ethanol and hydrogen in sufficient quantities
>> to supply the entire country with fuel with another 20 nuclear power
>> stations and some large chemical plants. This will be economically
>> feasible with an energy price of $150/barrel.
>
>Ok, I have no nuclear plants but a whole lot of fossil fuel. If I use
>some of that fuel to build a nuke plant and provide it with an intial
>supply of fuel, can that plant then support itself with no further
>energy inputs from elsewhere? Will it be able to supply me with
>enough energy to build another plant of similar or greater capacity?
>So that I can use the fossil fuel for something else (or not use it at
>all?)
You need some supporting infrastructure for that nuclear plant.
You need to generate transportable fuel. And you need to feed and
maintain the plant; so you need a mining, reprocessing and maintenence
industry for the plant.
Currently we have a lighter problem. We have lots of fossil fuel,
but we struggle to get enough of it without running into price problems,
or being held politically hostage by nations we normally would not
like to live in.
So the short time problem is "how do we extend the fuel we have to
last as long as possible, as cheaply as possible". The answer so
far has been coal, but I hold that nuclear energy is a far better
alternative. The total construction sector uses around 20% of all
energy. A small fraction of that goes into nuclear reactors; max 5%
of the total. And those can feed everything that uses electricity
from the grid. This extends the oil and gas about three times as
far as what we have today.
The pessimists say we had peak oil in 2007, the optimists say
2021-2023, depending on markets. All agree that there will be
a sliding production after that. This will either drive up prices
to the point of having wars about it; or we can happily fuel our
grids from something else while we ponder what to do for another
half century or more.
>> >I once saw an ad for some sort of still to make ethanol to power
>> >vehicles. The still was operated on electricity. Why not just use
>> >some of the ethanol to make more ethanol instead? The same sort of
>> >question needs to be asked of all proposed sources of energy.
>>
>> Here people mix source and carrier. Ethanol and hydrogen are very
>> bad SOURCES of energy, but they work very well for STORING and
>> TRANSPORTING energy. So, yes, you will use 3 units of grid energy
>> to make 1 unit of vehicle propulsion energy. Or less. Sometimes a
>> lot less.
>
>Whenever I hear about ethanol or other biofuels, I picture some hippie
>driving into town to buy gasoline to run his portable generator so
>that he can make ethanol, then ending up with just enough ethanol each
>week to get him back to town to get more gasoline, until he finally
>runs out of money for gasoline.
Exactly. Those hippies do not understand that they just made an
energy carrier, ethanol. The science-hippes with hydrogen may look
somewhat more respectable, but they make the same fallacy.
Yes, we may have to use lots of energy to make ethanol, or hydrogen,
or synthetic diesels or whatever. But before we do that we need a
solid source of energy.
Our choices are Nuclear, Coal/Shale, or some fantastic solar/wind/eco
scheme that will take two to three centuries to build. Coal and Shale
is an environmental disaster of epic proportions. Solar/wind etc is
just not realistic. Which leaves nuclear.
>
>> >> And we should seriously consider making a mass driver around a
>> >> nuclear power station and a large, equatorial mountain. Projects
>> >> like the ISS are futile if we are to depend on oxygen and hydrazine
>> >> for the bulk lifting.
>>
>> >There is nothing futile about space exploration, it currently takes up
>> >a small amount of our energy.
>>
>> One nuclear power station is plenty for a mass driver, as long as
>> we can find a buffer to hold energy and release it during that one
>> second of accelration we need to get dead mass to orbit in the distance
>> we can expect our runway up a mountainside to have. That is the
>> challenge.
>
>That would be one $^#*@ of a lot of g-forces on whatever it is you
>intend to launch.
That is the consequence of the topology of the earth. We need to get
that mass up to orbit, or around 28 000 km/h, 7.5 km/sec. Preferrably we
should make orbital exit from earth, or a very high orbit with ~40000km/sec
or close to 11 km/sec.
If we take the tallest mountain slope we have, near equator we can use
hawaii, the canaries, kilimanjaro, or the andes mountains. Himalayas are
taller, but there are no really large slopes there.
We can make around 10 km of runway before we run out of mountain, if we
are _very_ lucky. Remember, the upward component is essential.
From zero to 10 km/sec in 10 km. Linear accelration, 5 km/s^a, 2 seconds
on the runway.
S= v0t + 1/2 at^2,
v = a t
v0 is zero, v = 10km/s s=10km;
10km = 1/2 a*t*t
10km/s = a*t
10km = 1/2 10km/s * t => t = 2s
10km/s = a * 2 s => 5 km/s^2 = a
Accelration needs to be acound 5 km/sec^2. F = ma for one kilogram
says 5k newtons as a force per kilogram. That is around 510 G.
We will use two seconds up the
runway, and will be in the altitude of 100 km at a decent, >>30degrees
slope within 20 seconds, and past the ISS and the shuttle within a minute.
But it needs to do an orbit correction within the next hour, or come
crashing back down. There is a distinct lack of orbital correcion equipment
that can withstand 510G. We don't need to correct it much though. Just enough
to keep the orbit above the athmosphere.
In two seconds we move 10 000 m with a force of 5 000 N, or
50 000 000/2 Nm/s = 25 megawatts per kiogram.
The object needs to be of a certain size not to just burn in the atmosphere.
A maglev engine of this caliber will have less than 1/5th efficiency, even
if we employ superconductors liberally, and run the runway in a vacuum.
The biggest nuclear reactors operate at a few gigawatts. With no storage
of effect, and 20% efficiency we end at an ability to launch 16 kilograms
in one go. That is too little, will probably burn in the atmosphere.
Clearly mass drivers has some way to go before they are practical.
And I havent mentioned the sonic boom that will result from nearly a
gigajoule of kinetic energy making it's way through the atmosphere.
Some hippies may object to that.
And then we have the heating. And the pressure. I am not sure we have
materials that will not catastrophically deform when exposed to this.
-- mrr
Quadibloc
> Exactly. Those hippies do not understand that they just made an
> energy carrier, ethanol. The science-hippes with hydrogen may look
> somewhat more respectable, but they make the same fallacy.
Nearly all advocates of the "hydrogen economy" whose writings I have
encountered have advocated either nuclear power or solar power
satellites as the source of the power to make the hydrogen. They're
perfectly aware that hydrogen is not a prime mover, but they also
realize that a compact portable source of power other than fossil
fuels is urgently needed for motor vehicles - and that necessarily
means a secondary energy source, unless one wants fissionable
materials to be available at every local gas station.
John Savard