six extra months of oil
mrda...@gmail.com
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/08/05/oil.boomtown/index.html
"An April 2008 USGS report estimated the amount of technically
recoverable oil in the Bakken Formation at 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels,
with a mean of 3.65 billion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_Formation
U.S. Petroleum Consumption: 20,680,000 barrels/day
3.65E9 bbl / 20.7E6 bpd = 176 days = about 6 months' worth of oil
Michael
Lynn McGuire
Dont worry, we will use it all up ! I think that
finds like this all over the USA will keep us
minimally going for the next 10 to 20 years. Who
knows what 2030 will be like though ? Maybe all
cars electric and a nuclear power plant on each
street corner.
Lynn
Jim Thompson
On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 14:48:12 -0500, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com>
wrote:
Maybe we will all grow up, stop believing in "over-unity", and begin
acting like engineers.
We _will_ find solutions, provided the Democrats don't manage to block
everything but jousting with windmills.
But we can't just up and stop using oil.
If you think we can I have a special deal on a bridge I'd like to show
you.
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Bill Slowman: Result when a PhD exchanges brains with a jackass.
MooseFET
Nuclear power plants sound OK until they get near the end of their
lives. When it is time to scrap it out, it is very big trouble.
We have to get the various political types to stop working at cross
purposes. Carter put solar panels on the White House. Reagan took
them down. What each party does, the other wants to undo.
Lynn McGuire
>> finds like this all over the USA will keep us
>> minimally going for the next 10 to 20 years. Who
>> knows what 2030 will be like though ? Maybe all
>> cars electric and a nuclear power plant on each
>> street corner.
>
> Nuclear power plants sound OK until they get near the end of their
> lives. When it is time to scrap it out, it is very big trouble.
So never shut them down.
Lynn
Ross Herbert
:>> Dont worry, we will use it all up ! I think that
Now, who is living in cloud cuckoo land...?
All nuclear power plants have a use-by-date when they must be decommissioned -
around 50 years max. The cost of dismantling makes it economically unviable to
tkae this final step so they generally just get mothballed and fenced off. In
the final wash-up the cost of opting for nuclear in the first instance doesn't
work out to be so attractive. Unless the cost of all phases in the life of any
energy generating plant, ie. construction, operation, de-commissioning and
dismantling are included in the budget, it is not accurate to say that going
nuclear is more cost effective than other options.
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>>> Dont worry, we will use it all up ! I think that
Won't work. Lookup "radiation embrittlement" and "neutron induced
swelling" with Google. Lots of reasearch on the subject. Basically,
the metal in the reactor containment vessel and high pressure plumbing
start to become a problem after many years of operation. I think the
best than can be done is about a 60 year life. Most of what's around
today was designed for 30-40 years. See section titled "Lifetime of
nuclear reactors":
<http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf32.html>
Incidentally, one of the advantages of a bebble bed reactor over a
conventional water cooled reactor is that there's no embrittlement
problem because there's no plumbing in the core.
--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558 je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
# http://802.11junk.com je...@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
Rich Grise
> On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 10:23:34 -0500, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>
> :>> Dont worry, we will use it all up ! I think that finds like this all
> :>> over the USA will keep us minimally going for the next 10 to 20 years.
> :>> Who knows what 2030 will be like though ? Maybe all cars electric
> :>> and a nuclear power plant on each street corner.
> :>
> :> Nuclear power plants sound OK until they get near the end of their
> :> lives. When it is time to scrap it out, it is very big trouble.
> :
> :So never shut them down.
>
>
> All nuclear power plants have a use-by-date when they must be
> decommissioned - around 50 years max. The cost of dismantling makes it
> economically unviable to tkae this final step so they generally just get
> mothballed and fenced off. In the final wash-up the cost of opting for
> nuclear in the first instance doesn't work out to be so attractive. Unless
> the cost of all phases in the life of any energy generating plant, ie.
> construction, operation, de-commissioning and dismantling are included in
> the budget, it is not accurate to say that going nuclear is more cost
> effective than other options.
When the oil runs out, wind and solar are proven woefully inadequate,
and hydro is maxed out, it might be the only viable option.
Maybe we should swallow our false pride and just ask Japan and France
how they're doing it.
Cheers!
Rich
mrda...@gmail.com
Yep. I wonder how the French handle their spent fuel rods...
On the other hand... some really cool catalysts might be available in
spent fuel rods... Technetium-99 is a great catalyst for dehydrating
alcohols... Cobalt-60 shows some promise in catalyzing the
polymerization of methane to higher hydrocarbons.
References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technetium (better catalyst than rhenium
or palladium)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/144/3621/991 -- How
High is High? 0.06% :(
No need to rely on America, if Americans are afraid of nuclear
power...
Cheers,
Michael
Lynn McGuire
They recycle them in a breeder reactor like we used to do.
You can usually get a 90+% recovery on the uranium in spent
fuel rods. Commercial fuel rod are only 3 to 5% uranium.
It is the military fuel rods that approach 90%.
Lynn
Go Nuclear for Clean Air !
mrda...@gmail.com
> > Yep. I wonder how the French handle their spent fuel rods...
>
> They recycle them in a breeder reactor like we used to do.
> You can usually get a 90+% recovery on the uranium in spent
> fuel rods. Commercial fuel rod are only 3 to 5% uranium.
> It is the military fuel rods that approach 90%.
"Ironically, the French nuclear program is based on American
technology. After experimenting with their own gas-cooled reactors in
the 1960s, the French gave up and purchased American Pressurized Water
Reactors designed by Westinghouse. Sticking to just one design meant
the 56 plants were much cheaper to build than in the US. Moreover,
management of safety issues was much easier: the lessons from any
incident at one plant could be quickly learned by managers of the
other 55 plants. The "return of experience" says Mandil is much
greater in a standardized system than in a free for all, with many
different designs managed by many different utilities as we have in
America."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html
>
> Lynn
>
> Go Nuclear for Clean Air !
It may come to that.
Thanks,
Michael
Lynn McGuire
> technology. After experimenting with their own gas-cooled reactors in
> the 1960s, the French gave up and purchased American Pressurized Water
> Reactors designed by Westinghouse. Sticking to just one design meant
> the 56 plants were much cheaper to build than in the US. Moreover,
Not surprising.
>> Go Nuclear for Clean Air !
>
> It may come to that.
At least one very large chemical plant on the Texas Gulf
Coast (who shall rename nameless) was considering building
a nuclear power plant in topping configuration for their
steam requirements. They currently have 400+ MW of combined
cycle in topping configuration. Natural gas costs are
killing their profits. After seeing the regulatory
nightmare the utilities are facing for the new nukes they
are now considering building several pet coke steam boilers.
Very, very, very nasty emissions and hard to control
(fluidized bed).
Lynn
Ross Herbert
:When the oil runs out, wind and solar are proven woefully inadequate,
:and hydro is maxed out, it might be the only viable option.
:
:Maybe we should swallow our false pride and just ask Japan and France
:how they're doing it.
:
:Cheers!
:Rich
The vested interests associated with the nuclear industry keep pushing,pushing,
all the time to encourage greater use of nuclear power as an energy source
(which I admit is very efficient in operation). They know that once this option
is adopted, the huge costs involved in building and running power plants will
virtually guarantee that no future government will close them down, so they try
to sell prospective clients only the "good" aspects of the technology. It takes
many years of operation in a densely populated area to recoup the costs of
building, operating and maintaining a nuclear plant so closing one before around
30 years of operation could result in huge losses - not to mention the cost of
building an alternative source to replace it.
Radioactive waste is a huge problem, particularly in small, densely populated
countries. Despite the fact that glassification of nuclear waste (synroc) has
been around for 30 years, There has only recently been one proposal to adopt it
because of the high cost involved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synroc
The UK, for example, has been pressuring successive Australian governments for
at least 10 years to accede to requests to accept and store nuclear waste from
their nuclear plants. Because we have large unpopulated areas in the outback
with stable geomorphology, we are seen as a pushover for this function. Once we
had agreed to take the UK waste (the foot in the door) we would then be
pressured to accept waste from other European countries. Australia will not be
used as a waste dumping ground for other nuclear nations....
http://www.anawa.org.au/waste/pangea.html
Frithiof Jensen
"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> skrev i
meddelelsen news:df1k94da59q3vlair...@4ax.com...
>
> But we can't just up and stop using oil.
>
Join the Amish ;-) They can!
Kris Krieger
news:pan.2008.08.08....@example.net:
Well, if/when I want to put a solar panel on my roof and a PacWind vertical
wind turbine in my yard, I certainly won't call you for advice... =:-o
Michael A. Terrell
What do they run their saw mills on then? I was told some are
gasoline engines, while others are diesel. Some use air compressors run
by gasoline, as well. On another newsgroup, someone was describing the
tooling and machines used in an Amish furniture shop, including the
compressed air powered ceiling fans.
--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html
If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm
Notice to all employees:
In our continuing effort to conform to political correctness, we must
insist that all employees call a spade a shovel.
That is all.
Don Klipstein
>On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:30:22 GMT, Rich Grise <ri...@example.net> wrote:
>
>:When the oil runs out, wind and solar are proven woefully inadequate,
>:and hydro is maxed out, it might be the only viable option.
>:
>:Maybe we should swallow our false pride and just ask Japan and France
>:how they're doing it.
>
>that once this option is adopted, the huge costs involved in building and
>running power plants will virtually guarantee that no future government
>will close them down, so they try to sell prospective clients only the
>"good" aspects of the technology. It takes many years of operation in a
>densely populated area to recoup the costs of building, operating and
>maintaining a nuclear plant so closing one before around 30 years of
>operation could result in huge losses - not to mention the cost of
>building an alternative source to replace it.
>
>Radioactive waste is a huge problem, particularly in small, densely
>populated countries. Despite the fact that glassification of nuclear
>waste (synroc) has been around for 30 years, There has only recently been
>one proposal to adopt it because of the high cost involved.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synroc
The barriers to tossing chunks of synroc into salt domes where they will
be safe for many millions of years are political.
Chunks of synroc can also be dumped into depleted uranium mines.
Security requirement to prevent terrorists building a "dirty bomb" are
greater for exhausted uranium mines than for salt domes however, since a
salt dome merely requires plugging a roughly-mile-deep borehole and
concrete is cheap. Monitoring against terrorists drilling down a mile
should be cheap.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
krw
frithio...@diespammerdie.jensen.tdcadsl.dk says...
You obviously know nothing about the Amish. The place we bought our
furniture from was off-grid, but had a pair of huge Cummins diesels
in the back to power their workshop and salesroom. Others had
natural gas piped through the showroom for lights. They also have
cell phones and computers, just not for personal use.
--
Keith
Frithiof Jensen
"krw" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> skrev i meddelelsen
news:MPG.230985234...@news.individual.net...
Standards are clearly falling! I am fairly certain that the Amish considered
any technology later than about 1870 as the work of Satan. Maybe they have
found a way out like (some of) the Jews in Antwerp that used the electric
ring main around the city as the "Fenced Area" they must stick to during the
Sabbath; some rabbi always phoned my ex-boss to ask ;-)
>
> --
> Keith
Tim Williams
message news:48a0631f$0$56772$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
> Standards are clearly falling! I am fairly certain that the Amish
> considered any technology later than about 1870 as the work of Satan.
Like all beliefs, it's a variable thing... some are moderately Amish and
into the business side, so they make exceptions for stuff like that. Not
strictly right, but they do it anyway. Hey, it makes money and they still
get to wear the cool beard and black clothes and hat. ;-)
Tim
--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms
Kris Krieger
wrote in news:48a0631f$0$56772$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk:
>
> "krw" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:MPG.230985234...@news.individual.net...
>> In article <489dd407$0$56789$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk>,
>> frithio...@diespammerdie.jensen.tdcadsl.dk says...
>>>
>>> "Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com>
>>> skrev i meddelelsen
>>> news:df1k94da59q3vlair...@4ax.com...
>>> >
>>>
>>> > But we can't just up and stop using oil.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Join the Amish ;-) They can!
>>
>> You obviously know nothing about the Amish. The place we bought our
>> furniture from was off-grid, but had a pair of huge Cummins diesels
>> in the back to power their workshop and salesroom. Others had
>> natural gas piped through the showroom for lights. They also have
>> cell phones and computers, just not for personal use.
>
> Standards are clearly falling! I am fairly certain that the Amish
> considered any technology later than about 1870 as the work of Satan.
WOrk of Satan? I'd always heard just that it wasn't Biblical - I don't
recall the details (I'm not Amish), but IIRC it had something to do with
only using technology that could be directly derived from things and
materials mentioned in the Bible.
Now, it does mention "oil lamps", but i've no idea what the source of
that oil would have been - animal fat, vegetable oils such as olive oil,
or somethign that was found seeping from the ground, or something found
srot fo like the chunkcs of what I seem to recall as being Asphalt that
occur naturally in (again IIRC - sorry, it's been a long tiem) in/around
the Dead Sea.
I don't recall hearing anything about "work fo Satan", only "non-
Biblical".
> Maybe they have found a way out like (some of) the Jews in Antwerp
> that used the electric ring main around the city as the "Fenced Area"
> they must stick to during the Sabbath; some rabbi always phoned my
> ex-boss to ask ;-)
>
There is not supposed to be any work done on the Sabbath, but there is a
lot of discussion and debate about what exactly constitutes work.
Jim Thompson
>"Frithiof Jensen" <frithio...@diespammerdie.jensen.tdcadsl.dk> wrote in
>message news:48a0631f$0$56772$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
>> Standards are clearly falling! I am fairly certain that the Amish
>> considered any technology later than about 1870 as the work of Satan.
>
>Like all beliefs, it's a variable thing... some are moderately Amish and
>into the business side, so they make exceptions for stuff like that. Not
>strictly right, but they do it anyway. Hey, it makes money and they still
>get to wear the cool beard and black clothes and hat. ;-)
>
>Tim
I like the movie, "Witness". Actually a fair amount of insight into
the Amish community.
IIRC there are several "flavors" of "Amish" (with different names I
can't remember now :-), that have varying degrees of modernization,
like allowing zippers in clothing ;-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
A simulation, struggling to converge, is telling you something
Maybe your idea of a ring of current mirrors is flawed ?:-)
Rich Grise
>> and hydro is maxed out, it might be the only viable option.
>
> Well, if/when I want to put a solar panel on my roof and a PacWind vertical
> wind turbine in my yard, I certainly won't call you for advice... =:-o
Hey, if it works for you, go for it!
Do they provide enough energy to charge up your electric car for a trip
to, say, work, or maybe to the store?
Thanks,
Rich
Kris Krieger
> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 13:46:25 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote:
>> Rich Grise <ri...@example.net> wrote in
>>>
>>> When the oil runs out, wind and solar are proven woefully
>>> inadequate, and hydro is maxed out, it might be the only viable
>>> option.
>>
>> Well, if/when I want to put a solar panel on my roof and a PacWind
>> vertical wind turbine in my yard, I certainly won't call you for
>> advice... =:-o
>
> Hey, if it works for you, go for it!
Once I make up my mind to do something, one way or another it gets done
;)
>
> Do they provide enough energy to charge up your electric car for a
> trip to, say, work, or maybe to the store?
>
I've seen reports on such setups that do.
I can't set it up here becasue the HOA doesn't allow it ("it's ugly"),
but I'm pretty sure this is not going the be the last place I ever live,
and I'm hoping that family economics and the Univers will allow me to
have the last (retirement) place built costom (modest/compact size, very
low maintenance, as energy etc. independent as possible using a mix of
passive cooling/heating, thermomechanical, water-related, and other
"alternative" designs and widgets, and so on) (I of course am also
compelled to mention xeriscaping and using native local plants as much as
possible to reduce maintenence and maintenence-costs of landscaping).
I've been working on ideas ("mental plans") and a few sketches/diagrams
for a while now. Climate is the key factor. All of this has to be
adjusted for climate, of course. I'm planning to live somewhere warm and
dry, tho', which makes passive cooling *much* easier, because, when I
lived in So. California, I was actually comfortable up to about 94-96 deg
when the humidity was 12% or lower.
Northern climate are more challenging (and rough on arthritis), and
hot'n'humid climates are also rough, becasue passive cooling is much less
efficient (for me at least) in high humidity.
ANyhoo, getting back to the eelctric car/solar panel connection, I had
seen 2 or three programs about it, can't recall what they are - maybe a
quick Google will turn something up, lessee...
eh, kind of amish-mash, found this:
http://www.solar-electric-car.com/solar.htm
http://www.sensorsmart.com/solar_products.html
http://www.myhomepowersystem.com/aspectssolar.php
This was my google search:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=solar-panel++home++electric-
car&start=30&sa=N
I think the most recent program was on the Discovery Channel, either that
or Nat Geo, or History Channel. I can't recall, sorry. But the show did
mention electric cars being "refuled" by solar panels on a home's roof,
and that the car had a 30 mile operating radius, although that's either
being improved, or is greater in other cars (sorry, I can't recall).
I don't recall these being related to the program, btu I found them while
searchign on other stuff related to what I'm writing here:
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/autos/0806/gallery.electric_cars_now/
4.html
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/autos/0806/gallery.electric_cars_now/
2.html
(I ignored the Tesla, as IMO $100,000 for a car is just plain stupid.)
Big problem with electrics so far is 25MPH top speed - even in the
neighborhoods here, if you go 25, you'll get run down/over...
Ohters:
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-fi-
think22apr22,1,4269330.story
Anyhoo, point is, a solar panel could be used to "refule" - naturaly,
ti'd work better where there is enough bright light, but *anythin* is
like that, i.e. each individual has to draw up theri own cost:benefot
analysis. I'm not claiming it's The Absolute Solution, because ther eis
no such thing - it's just somethign for peole to think about, especially
as teh electric cars become more capable, and soalr panels become mroe
efficient and less expensive.
Meanwhile, there is a sort of engine that uses a small gasoline-powered
engine to charge a battery, such that the car supposedly gets 100MPG (and
that is without pluggign it into the wall - jsut running in the car's
internals) although according to the site I saw, an 8-passenger vehicle
still can "only" get around 70 MPG
(as though that's insignificant =>:-/ ) I
seem to have not bookmarked it, though :p
But I did find this:
http://www.rqriley.com/cent.html
FWIW...