Re: The Water Fuel Car's Philosophical Implications Aren't Nearly As Joyous As I Had Hoped
Bret Cahill
>
> Of course it's too good to be believed, because there's been more cow
> patties about
> energy breakthroughs than even Rooters has reported
That's going to be particularly true for the really obvious scams.
> Philosophical implications: CHAOS
>
> Goodbye petroleum industry, say goodbye to world financial paradigms,
> DEBTOR NATIONS, mutualism, folkways of Bail Em Out Street, and
> "securities" my butt-h
>
> The "apocalypse" of devaluation, devastation, deflation, blood in the
> streets
>
> The TEXXONs, BPs, SHELLs go f'ing bankrupt
>
> The Saudis, Persians, Russians, Nigerians, Venezuelans, Norwegians c-o-
> l-l-a-p-s-e as the deities
> probably warned us
>
> In other words, the water car couldn't be allowed to be:
>
> And you never saw the phony video anyhow
>
> So never mind
The only role water might play is a minor increase in efficiency.
It's a scam.
Buffet is all set to make $100 billion off BNSF.
Bret Cahill
Damon Hill
a9f754...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
> Buffet is all set to make $100 billion off BNSF.
He may have to plow back his profits into nuclear energy
and electrification for the railroads, but in the long run
those huge capital investments should more than pay for themselves.
--Damon
Eric Gisin
news:Xns9CEB80C36459...@127.0.0.1...
All the pix of locos on wikipedia are passenger,
and passenger service is too small to make a difference.
I believe Europe is using diesel locos at night for freight, electric for passenger.
A typical freight loco is 3-4MW, so up to 160A at 25KV. You can't get more than 2 on a wire.
Unit trains use up to 6 X 4MW round here becuase of the mountains.
Bret Cahill
>
> He may have to plow back his profits into nuclear energy
> and electrification for the railroads, but in the long run
> those huge capital investments should more than pay for themselves.
He's planning on hauling coal when fuel is $10/gallon.
With a train one gallon of diesel will move 1 ton of coal 400 miles.
He doesn't need to electrify to make a killing.
Bret Cahill
Damon Hill
news:hh17fd$of0$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
You need to do a >lot< more research than just "pictures".
--Damon
Robert Cohen
> "Damon Hill" <damon16...@comcast.not> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9CEB80C36459...@127.0.0.1...> Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote in news:41aff755-1587-46f6-b5f0-
> > a9f75430d...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> Buffet is all set to make $100 billion off BNSF.
>
> > He may have to plow back his profits into nuclear energy
> > and electrification for the railroads, but in the long run
> > those huge capital investments should more than pay for themselves.
>
> I don't think electification of north-american railways is feasable.
> All the pix of locos on wikipedia are passenger,
> and passenger service is too small to make a difference.
> I believe Europe is using diesel locos at night for freight, electric for passenger.
>
> A typical freight loco is 3-4MW, so up to 160A at 25KV. You can't get more than 2 on a wire.
> Unit trains use up to 6 X 4MW round here becuase of the mountains.
The amazing thing about Buffet and perhaps B Gates:
Hardnoses they are, as particularly Gates' victims attest
Buffet's estate mainly goes to charities--his heirs are definitely not
getting the bulk,
apparently relatively little
Gates is (apparently) not day to day at MSFT, as he's involved in
charity/philanthropy, particularly anti-diseases, and at his
relatively young age
And what has this got to do with anything ?
I consider such absurdity, and yet simultaneously, I hasten to
concede it is of ("existential?") utmost goodness
Bret Cahill
>
> >> He may have to plow back his profits into nuclear energy
> >> and electrification for the railroads, but in the long run
> >> those huge capital investments should more than pay for themselves.
>
> > I don't think electification of north-american railways is feasable.
> > All the pix of locos on wikipedia are passenger,
> > and passenger service is too small to make a difference.
> > I believe Europe is using diesel locos at night for freight, electric
> > for passenger.
>
> > A typical freight loco is 3-4MW, so up to 160A at 25KV. You can't get
> > more than 2 on a wire. Unit trains use up to 6 X 4MW round here becuase
> > of the mountains.
>
> You need to do a >lot< more research than just "pictures".
Still, you have to admit, stringing wires all over the place just
isn't as aesthetic as high compression soot belching out of a
locomotive.
Europeans don't have electrified rail above ground anywhere near their
tourists traps.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> He may have to plow back his profits into nuclear energy
> and electrification for the railroads, but in the long run
> those huge capital investments should more than pay for themselves.
India has coal but not oil so, to save money they tried for years and
years to burn a pulverized coal - diesel slurry in their diesel
engines. They tried the same thing with 6 oil at steam power plants
in the U.S. during the 1973 OPEC embargo. The problem, even with 6
oil, was keeping the coal in suspension. GE kept trying more and more
additives to try to keep the coal from settling out. As one ex GE
engineer said, "eventually they had 20 additives and _nothing_
worked."
A coal - oil slurry would work if they had rotating fuel tanks with
scrapers, mixers, agitators, etc. Instead of redesigning the engine
just design a rotating tank fuel car and place it right behind the
locomotive(s), kind of like the coal cars in the old steam engines.
The pulverived coal would need to be added at the last minute, just
before refueling the fuel car.
Bret Cahill
Damon Hill
ecae4a...@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
Vastly more sensible to create a diesel-compatible liquid fuel from
the coal via one of several processes. Could use a nuclear plant's
waste heat, for example. No fleet conversion with funky engines and
tankage, just a different kind of refinery. Should be possible to
cook up a much cleaner fuel in the bargain than petroleum-derived
diesel. And get a stream of uranium and maybe thorium from the coal
ash?
But I'd rather go nuclear-electric for the long run.
--Damon
tg
I repeat. Google Alice---no muss, no fuss, and quite acceptable
acceleration.
-tg
Bret Cahill
>
> >> He may have to plow back his profits into nuclear energy
> >> and electrification for the railroads, but in the long run
> >> those huge capital investments should more than pay for themselves.
>
> > India has coal but not oil so, to save money they tried for years and
> > years to burn a pulverized coal - diesel slurry in their diesel
> > engines. They tried the same thing with 6 oil at steam power plants
> > in the U.S. during the 1973 OPEC embargo. The problem, even with 6
> > oil, was keeping the coal in suspension. GE kept trying more and more
> > additives to try to keep the coal from settling out. As one ex GE
> > engineer said, "eventually they had 20 additives and _nothing_
> > worked."
>
> > A coal - oil slurry would work if they had rotating fuel tanks with
> > scrapers, mixers, agitators, etc. Instead of redesigning the engine
> > just design a rotating tank fuel car and place it right behind the
> > locomotive(s), kind of like the coal cars in the old steam engines.
>
> > The pulverived coal would need to be added at the last minute, just
> > before refueling the fuel car.
>
> Vastly more sensible to create a diesel-compatible liquid fuel from
> the coal via one of several processes. Could use a nuclear plant's
> waste heat, for example. No fleet conversion with funky engines and
> tankage, just a different kind of refinery.
That's the DoE's unwavering position.
I just thought it would be neat to get a cement mixer truck drum on a
rail car.
> Should be possible to
> cook up a much cleaner fuel in the bargain than petroleum-derived
> diesel. And get a stream of uranium and maybe thorium from the coal
> ash?
> But I'd rather go nuclear-electric for the long run.
BUTWHATABOUTALLTHE UGLYWIRES?
Damon Hill
b7eb5d...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
>
>> But I'd rather go nuclear-electric for the long run.
>
> BUTWHATABOUTALLTHE UGLYWIRES?
Oh, get over it. Catenary's part of the charm, and if
Buffet's feeling generous he'll offer preferred contracts
for more esthetically pleasing catenary towers and wiring
arrays. They do get a bit messy on multitrack and yards
with the extra support structure needed.
--Damon