Should energy crisis revive nuclear power? (New methods of nuclear waste disposal)
jtnews
look?
I'm also curious about the idea of disposing nuclear waste in
subduction zones like the Alleutian Trench. Is this possible?
We_Are_All_Kosh
jtnews <jtn...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:39E00ECB...@bellatlantic.net...
I think that there always has been a case for nuclear power. However, the
ability to control the process in a way that is both politically acceptable
and safe would, with current technology, make the exercize less economic
than burning fossil fuels. Something would have to happen to make that
extra cost acceptable.
The disposal of waste in trenches would not be either politically or
environmentally acceptable and would be very much more expensive that the
current methods of waste disposal. The problem with nuclear waste is that
it is very visibly. Great huge radiation proof containers and a hell of a
lot of security. It is interesting to note that the burning of coal
actually puts more radioactive watse directly into the atmosphere each day
than all the nuclear accidents and probably the bombs put together. Think
about it geologists, coal is the ultimate trap for heavy metals and uranium
really like to accumulate in carbon rich environments.
The best thing to do with radioactive waste is to put it back where it came
from. Lock it into a silicate synthetic rock and put it back into high
radioactive rocks like the Archaean granites. This is also quite expensive
and there has not been the political or economic will to take such a process
to completion. Many years ago Australian experimental geologists developed
just such a process called Synrock
Ryan Healey
cleanly, cheaply or safety so nuclear should become the main energy source
like in France.
CLK
disagree.
Carl
On Sun, 08 Oct 2000 06:06:04 GMT, jtnews <jtn...@bellatlantic.net>
wrote:
malcolm.scott
Malcolm
"jtnews" <jtn...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:39E00ECB...@bellatlantic.net...
Graham Cowan
CLK wrote:
> Yes, I think it should. But I imagine the eco-terrorists would
> disagree.
"Eco-terrorist" implies some kind of high-minded psychopathology.
I think they're just puppets on hydrocarbon money strings.
One dollar in uranium annihilates, at current prices,
150 petrodollars plus tax. (How much tax?)
But whatever they are, the important thing is, they don't matter:
http://www.nei.org/documents/publicop0004.pdf .
Also, note that a brisk acceleration in the rate at which
the world's aggregate nuclear plant capacity increases
is not quite the same thing as a revival. It has been increasing
all along. Even in the USA production has been increasing,
although without new plant that can't continue. See
the "current international status" page at http://www.uic.com.au .
---
At http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html see red hot boron
in air, a fuel more potent than gasoline, not burning. Let the
baby play with matches in the fuel storage room!
Don Libby
>
> Oil is not used for generating electricity so there is no link.
> Malcolm
>
> "jtnews" <jtn...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
> news:39E00ECB...@bellatlantic.net...
Electricity is used to heat buildings, power electric commuter trains
and trolleys, as well as electric cars, motorcycles, bikes, and
scooters, so there is a link. Oil is used in generating electricity in
stand-alone diesel generator sets, as well as in utility-scale
powerplants. Including petroleum coke (a solid by-product of oil
refining that is used increasingly as power plant fuel), oil generates
more electricity in the US than geothermal, biomass, wind, and
photovoltaic combined.
-dl
Danny Dickerson
extremely low prices of a year ago. This is
temporary. Prices should start to drop slightly
this spring.
In real terms, oil prices are still lower than they
were during much of the 80's and 90's. It's
just that they were so low for so long that
people got used to the low prices. Last year,
the price of oil reached its lowest level in
50 years!
I expect prices to return to the $20-25/bbl range
in a year or so.
Danny
jtnews <jtn...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:39E00ECB...@bellatlantic.net...
Jo Schaper
<jtn...@bellatlantic.net> writes:
Nuclear powered cars? I don't think so.
Reety
"Jo Schaper" <josc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001008121246...@nso-bg.aol.com...
Hey look on the bright side - a few automobile accidents and the human
overpopulation dilemma of mother earth may be solved;-)
Reety
Reety
"malcolm.scott" <malcol...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:A5_D5.20728$uq5.4...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> Oil is not used for generating electricity so there is no link.
> Malcolm
>
err--- I think you have been mislead Malcolm.
As you can read on http://www.iea.org/pubs/studies/files/oilpofly.htm
""The use of oil in power generation has declined dramatically since the oil
shocks of the 1970s. Oil's share of total OECD electric generation declined
from over 20% in 1974 to less than 9% in 1994. However, oil still plays an
important role in the electricity supply of many countries. Oil-fired power
plants are now used predominantly for meeting peak and intermediate loads.
Oil also provides an important measure of flexibility in meeting electricity
demand, as illustrated by its role in generating electricity during extreme
weather conditions, low hydroelectric production, interruption of other fuel
supplies, and in isolated or small electricity supply systems. Although oil
in baseload power generation will probably continue to decline in importance
in most OECD countries, heavy fuel oil and distillates will continue to play
an effective and flexible role in peak and intermediate load electricity
supply. ""
a couple of other quick checks on oil-fired power plants are listed as
follows:
http://www.basinelectric.com/plants.htm
http://www.mb.com.ph/BSNS/1999-12/BS121502.asp
just one search on one search engine for the term "oil-fired power plants"
gave me over 3,000 listings. hmmmm. I do believe there are some oil-fired
power plants in existence in the world today.
Reety
schuyler
One of the problems with fossil fuels as compared to fission is that we
haven't been including long term costs in our over-all cost of the fuel
itself. With nuclear fission, a wide range of costs, including long term,
have been taken into consideration, thus rendering it far less attractive
than it was originally. That's not to say that even considering long term
costs (nuclear waste storage, finite life of reactors, other preventative
measures against health risks), that fossil fuels are as bad or worse
qualitatively. I don't know the answer to that, but I'll mention the fact
that there are environmental considerations and effects which at present
have not been accurately measured, effects to the earths' climate by way of
carbon dioxide emissions, for example. The signal to noise ratio is too low
to determine the case for global warming accurately, not to mention
determining specific costs, though I would side with the more common sense
and safe conclusion, that fossil fuels may very well be causing adverse
climatic effects as a considerable amount of evidence now shows. Another
thing worth mentioning, which is not necessarily unique to fossil fuels, an
outcome of the fact that oil has been so cheap to find and extract up until
now, is that the transportation and electrical power infrastructure built up
may prove useless when oil is no longer cost effective to extract. Our
systems of highways and the layout of our cities, all depend on very cheap
energy; essentially we are very spread-out! If oil becomes more expensive,
what will become of all the 20 mile commutes which workers make to the
cities where their jobs are every day? What about 'sport utility vehicles'
or 'vanity' trucks? How will the big shopping malls and drive-in businesses
fare? Since the emergence of cheap fossil fuels and vast networks of
publicly subsidized roads and a steady supply of privately owned single
occupant vehicles, our communities, businesses and public places have all
become completely severed from one another, with a slow disappearance of
semi-autonomous communities or towns giving way to urban. If the price of
oil goes up relatively fast, say over the next twenty to fifty years, then
the transition could be very bad for the economies involved, considering the
degree of total dependence on cheap oil and the lack of available, viable
energy resources. Also consider that historically, it has taken about 100
years for new energy resources to become fully integrated into an economy.
Such a scenario could quite possibly entail some finite period of heavy use
of fission nuclear energy, considering the strong human inclination towards
maintaining the status quo in terms of quality of life for the middle
class... If it's easy to employ the use of fission, then human nature is
such that it will become heavily used and the long term costs shrugged off
as the problem of future generations (I think the current life span of a
fission plant is something like 50 years?). One positive outcome would be
the development of a more autonomous culture, world wide, with the
development of energy resources heading more towards the renewable, and
economies being adjusted into balance or equilibrium as opposed to relying
on continuous growth.
I've figured out a simple and crude formula for quality of life, which can
be applied to the up coming economic situation to see what to expect:
Quality of life (very roughly) = Labor (number of workers & intensity of
work) x Resources (natural) x Technology (inventiveness) / Total Population
To support maintain a higher standard of living, women have been integrated
into the work force. If a given energy resource become more expensive
(ratio of resources and energy in to energy out), then labor must intensify
and/or technology must compensate to maintain one's quality of life. A
common misconception (though thinking positive and following one's dreams is
always a good thing!) is that somehow, technology will always bail us out
i.e. compensate for any labor or resource problems that might arise. I guess
the whole point of a over-simplified formula like this is just to help
understand that there are limits, and energy will always play a very big
role in our lives.
Schuyler
Austin, Texas
schuyler
oil, then fission...
Coal, natural gas, and other refined varieties of oil are all fossil fuels,
are limited resources and are environmentally costly over the long term.
e.g. Carbon dioxide, heat, sulfur dioxide, ozone, other hydrocarbons, etc.
Schuyler
malcolm.scott <malcol...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:A5_D5.20728$uq5.4...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> Oil is not used for generating electricity so there is no link.
> Malcolm
>
> "jtnews" <jtn...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
> news:39E00ECB...@bellatlantic.net...
schuyler
down, just like the stock market... The important point is that the long
term trend will be toward the cost of oil going up. Current estimates by
oil companies and the scientific community tend to be in the range of 50 to
100 years in terms of oil being a viable, primary energy source.
Cost = Demand / Supply
As the supply gradually diminishes (may or may not be enough to adversely
affect the economy in our lifetimes; no one knows), and the population of
our planet continues to grow (about 1.3% per year), the it's easy to see
that the cost will go up. Personally, it makes me pretty uneasy, knowing
that oil supplies in the West rely so much on 'statesmanship' and military
might to obtain such a large percentage of it's energy from a hand full of
foreign countries. We should be more diversified in the US, and aim toward
renewable energy in terms of our long term economic strategy.
Schuyler
Danny Dickerson <dan...@dallas.net> wrote in message
news:su178gc...@corp.supernews.com...
> Oil prices are higher now simply because of the
> extremely low prices of a year ago. This is
> temporary. Prices should start to drop slightly
> this spring.
>
> In real terms, oil prices are still lower than they
> were during much of the 80's and 90's. It's
> just that they were so low for so long that
> people got used to the low prices. Last year,
> the price of oil reached its lowest level in
> 50 years!
>
> I expect prices to return to the $20-25/bbl range
> in a year or so.
>
> Danny
>
>
> jtnews <jtn...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
> news:39E00ECB...@bellatlantic.net...
CLK
shut down the geothermal project over by Milford Utah AND close down
the coal-fired generation plants throughout Utah and many other
states. Are they paid by the petroleum industry? Hardly. They also
want to stop all oil & gas drilling as well as close in the current
wells. They are beyond money. They are borderline on criminals.
Carl
On Sun, 08 Oct 2000 09:35:49 -0400, Graham Cowan <gco...@eagle.ca>
wrote:
josc...@aol.com
"schuyler" <schu...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> Electricity is primarily generated by way of coal, then natural gas,
then
> oil, then fission...
>
> Coal, natural gas, and other refined varieties of oil are all fossil
fuels,
> are limited resources and are environmentally costly over the long
term.
> e.g. Carbon dioxide, heat, sulfur dioxide, ozone, other hydrocarbons,
etc.
>
> Schuyler
Get some facts, Schuyler, then return. Yes, they are all fossil fuels.
Coal, the last time I saw it had an 800 year supply, even more if we
count the high sulfur varieties which are currently lying fallow.
Emissions scrubbers on electrical plants are extremely efficient, if
kept tuned up. Compare coal emissions with 1900 and you will see what I
mean. New technology will no doubt continue their march toward even
greater efficiency.Natural gas reserves are out there, especially in
forms we haven't learned to tap yet, and biomass methane is seriously
underutilized.
I am all for nukes, once people solve the waste disposal problem, and
not until. Looks like there is a growth industry out there.
I for one, would rather die of hydrocarbon related pollutin as
opposed to radiation sickness or leukemia. My mom died of leukemia. It
isn't pretty.
Jo
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
josc...@aol.com
mileage:
1 Ford Festiva (a now extinct subcompact, capable of carrying two
adults and a week's worth of camping gear down mud and gravel roads,
and across relatively level fields, including through up to 6 inches of
water) got 48 mpg average for 260,000 miles until it just rolled over on
its roof and died on the original drive train.
== almost 1/2 Ford 2wd 4 cylinder Ranger pickups still going strong
at 210,000 miles on its original drive train, at 26 mpg. The only
difference in performance is it can also sleep two under a camper shell,
carry a 4x 6 mattress and various house hold items, or up to `1000
pounds of office paper headed for a recycling company in one trip
instead of several. Maybe 3 more inches capability of driving through
water, and a little more clearance driving through creeks and over big
rocks, but nothing else.
== 1/3 Ford Explorers getting 16 mpg with all the "cool" you can
handle, but probably driven more to the mall and less off road per
capita than any other suburban SUV. Exploding tires optional.
== 1/4 Ford Excursion behemoth at 12 mpg, hauling around much
ostentatious ego in all that cargo space.
The moral of this exercise is: if the idea is to get from point a to
point b, and truly thumb one's nose at the gas pump, get as little
vehicle as is feasible for your task, and the oil "crisis" will
disappear. My husband and I are outdoors people, and the first two
vehicles (our actual vehicles) have never failed to get us where we
needed to go, because the trick to off roading is not the vehicle but
that essential part called the nut behind the wheel.
Nuff said.
Ryan Healey
Of course its used to make electricity, in fact the only reason oil prices
aren't higher is because many oil burning plants in europe got replaced by
nuclear.
There are still oil burning plants in existance.
"malcolm.scott" wrote:
> Oil is not used for generating electricity so there is no link.
> Malcolm
>
> "jtnews" <jtn...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
> news:39E00ECB...@bellatlantic.net...
Ryan Healey
schuyler wrote:
> Electricity is primarily generated by way of coal, then natural gas, then
> oil, then fission...
>
> Coal, natural gas, and other refined varieties of oil are all fossil fuels,
> are limited resources and are environmentally costly over the long term.
> e.g. Carbon dioxide, heat, sulfur dioxide, ozone, other hydrocarbons, etc.
>
> Schuyler
>
> malcolm.scott <malcol...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:A5_D5.20728$uq5.4...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> > Oil is not used for generating electricity so there is no link.
> > Malcolm
> >
> > "jtnews" <jtn...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
> > news:39E00ECB...@bellatlantic.net...
Ryan Healey
> Get some facts, Schuyler, then return. Yes, they are all fossil fuels.
> Coal, the last time I saw it had an 800 year supply, even more if we
> count the high sulfur varieties which are currently lying fallow.
> Emissions scrubbers on electrical plants are extremely efficient, if
> kept tuned up. Compare coal emissions with 1900 and you will see what I
> mean. New technology will no doubt continue their march toward even
> greater efficiency.Natural gas reserves are out there, especially in
> forms we haven't learned to tap yet, and biomass methane is seriously
> underutilized.
> I am all for nukes, once people solve the waste disposal problem, and
> not until. Looks like there is a growth industry out there.
Thats already been done, all they need to do is actually build it.
> I for one, would rather die of hydrocarbon related pollutin as
> opposed to radiation sickness or leukemia. My mom died of leukemia. It
> isn't pretty.
You are more likely to die of hydrocarbon related pollution then radiation
sickness, and anyway Coal plants put 100 times the radation of a nuclear
plant into the environment, nuclear plants don't cause those types of
problems.
Mitchell Isaacs
news:8rr1m6$p7a$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
> The fluctuations we've seen are just short term. Oil prices will go up
and
> down, just like the stock market... The important point is that the long
> term trend will be toward the cost of oil going up. Current estimates by
> oil companies and the scientific community tend to be in the range of 50
to
> 100 years in terms of oil being a viable, primary energy source.
>
> Cost = Demand / Supply
>
> As the supply gradually diminishes (may or may not be enough to adversely
> affect the economy in our lifetimes; no one knows), and the population of
> our planet continues to grow (about 1.3% per year), the it's easy to see
> that the cost will go up. Personally, it makes me pretty uneasy, knowing
> that oil supplies in the West rely so much on 'statesmanship' and military
> might to obtain such a large percentage of it's energy from a hand full of
> foreign countries. We should be more diversified in the US, and aim
toward
> renewable energy in terms of our long term economic strategy.
sources become highly economic. While the current prices are higher than
we're used to, oil is still a cheaper source of energy than most
alternatives.
Cheers,
Mitchell
lee...@my-deja.com
"schuyler" <schu...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
> To support maintain a higher standard of living, women have been
integrated
> into the work force. If a given energy resource become more expensive
> (ratio of resources and energy in to energy out), then labor must
intensify
> and/or technology must compensate to maintain one's quality of life.
A
> common misconception (though thinking positive and following one's
dreams is
> always a good thing!) is that somehow, technology will always bail us
out
> i.e. compensate for any labor or resource problems that might arise.
I guess
> the whole point of a over-simplified formula like this is just to help
> understand that there are limits, and energy will always play a very
big
> role in our lives.
>
> Schuyler
> Austin, Texas
u might be interested in the figures which are being used
by the international agencies for the oil and gas left in
the ground, the peak of production is somewhere in the present
decade. the decline in the lower 48 was predicted by hubbert
and he was correct to within one year. go to the runningonempty
website and see the statistics assembled for a real shock,
" Website of the 300-member Web forum
www.egroups.com/group/RunningOnEmpty
This web site explains that the global oil fields are running empty,
and the severe impacts expected...."
you can also search with any search engine for "hubbert peak"
and get lots of the charts and studies.
the usgs at their open house earlier this year also
showed a poster by les magoon which shows oil declining
this decade, i can email to u if u wish.
rgds
leelock
lee...@my-deja.com
lee...@my-deja.com
lee...@my-deja.com
Paul E. Bennett
> I am all for nukes, once people solve the waste disposal problem, and
> not until. Looks like there is a growth industry out there.
One speaker at an informative event - when Hinkley C was being proposed -
gave the audience some food for thought. The speaker stated that the waste
disposal requirements for the various forms of energy were quite markedly
different and asked the audience what their reactions would be to the
prospect of being personnally responsible for disposal of the waste produced
their own life-time electrical energy generation requirements.
Coal amounted to 30 (very large) truck loads of ash (which if disposed
of in the average UK garden would make a pile higher than the houses).
Coal also emits 200 times more radioactive fall-out than a nuclear
power plant (because coal is mildly radioactive anyway).
Oil produced about 2 (very large) truck loads of a glutinous slurry.
Gas left no discernible waste product.
Nuclear waste, processed and vitrified, could be placed in your hand
(minimal risk to you) and would be slightly larger than an Ice Hockey
Puck.
The UK nuclear industry relies on a number of Magnox and AGR reactor
systems for which spent fuel is extracted from the reactors, re-processed
to extract un-used Uranium and Plutonium products (leaving just 0.3% of
the material as ash and metal filings). This is all remains and which is
vitrified. Thorpe was designed to reduce the stock-pile of waste on site
(about 2 soccer pitches of drums 3 high) as well as other material from
elsewhere.
> I for one, would rather die of hydrocarbon related pollutin as
> opposed to radiation sickness or leukemia. My mom died of leukemia. It
> isn't pretty.
Neither is dying of the lung related deseases from ingestion of coal dust
(which one of my uncles is suffering). Then, we are all going to die one
day and it will be our legacy to our children. Do we have so little respect
for them that we are willing to continue to destroy our atmosphere and
leave large piles of waste material lying around.
Please note that the hole in the Ozone layer is still growing, CO2 levels
are still escalating. We need to speed up the implementation of clean power
generation, cleaner and better managed public transport, reduction in the
use of cars powered by internal combustion engines and perhaps this will
need a change in planning strategy too.
Incidently, I do not own a car myself (although I can drive) so use the
UK public transport system quite exensively. It does have economic benefit
for me in that I can do some of my work on the train and do not expend vast
sums of money keeping a car sat in a parking space.
--
********************************************************************
Paul E. Bennett ....................<email://p...@amleth.demon.co.uk>
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy .....<http://www.amleth.demon.co.uk/>
Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972 .........NOW AVAILABLE:- HIDECS COURSE......
Tel: +44 (0)1235-814586 .... see http://www.feabhas.com for details.
Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..
********************************************************************
Ralph Nesbitt
"Ryan Healey" <ryanh...@primus.com.au> wrote in message
news:39E17DED...@primus.com.au...
> What are you stupid?
>
> Of course its used to make electricity, in fact the only reason oil prices
> aren't higher is because many oil burning plants in europe got replaced by
> nuclear.
>
> There are still oil burning plants in existance.
>
> "malcolm.scott" wrote:
>
> > Malcolm
> >
> > "jtnews" <jtn...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
> > news:39E00ECB...@bellatlantic.net...
> > > With skyrocketing oil prices, should nuclear power now be given a
second
> > > look?
> > > I'm also curious about the idea of disposing nuclear waste in
> > > subduction zones like the Alleutian Trench. Is this possible?
---------------------
A lurker "Delurks" to ask.
Would not the Electricity produced by "Gas Turbine Combined Cycle"
generating units fall in/under the "Broad Clasification" of "Oil Generated
Electricity?
Back to "Lurking"
Ralph Nesbitt
Stolmar Aladar
"We_Are_All_Kosh" <ara...@interact.net.au> wrote:
>
> jtnews <jtn...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
> news:39E00ECB...@bellatlantic.net...
> > With skyrocketing oil prices, should nuclear power now be given a
second
> > look?
> > I'm also curious about the idea of disposing nuclear waste in
> > subduction zones like the Alleutian Trench. Is this possible?
>
However, the
> ability to control the process in a way that is both politically
acceptable
> and safe would, with current technology, make the exercize less
economic
> than burning fossil fuels. Something would have to happen to make
that
> extra cost acceptable.
The extra cost is generated by the legislature, the same legislature
could be mandated to remove that extra. The MOX fuel is a first step to
compensate for the cost extras.
The current technology is available -- see France.
Most of the problems with the safety are caused by the very
bureaucratic establishment designed to maintain the safety: NRC of USA.
>
> The disposal of waste in trenches would not be either politically or
> environmentally acceptable and would be very much more expensive that
the
> current methods of waste disposal. The problem with nuclear waste is
that
> it is very visibly. Great huge radiation proof containers and a hell
of a
> lot of security.
The assumption of the continuity of civilization makes it possinle to
guard the small volumes of radioactive waste almost anywhere. It is not
a real, just a played by financial and political interests artifical
problem.
> It is interesting to note that the burning of coal
> actually puts more radioactive watse directly into the atmosphere
each day
> than all the nuclear accidents and probably the bombs put together.
The nuclear power plant as a norm does not release any radioactivity
into the environment, in contrast to the oil and coal fired power
plants, which do it without any record and control of it!
>Think
> about it geologists, coal is the ultimate trap for heavy metals and
uranium
> really like to accumulate in carbon rich environments.
>
> The best thing to do with radioactive waste is to put it back where
it came
> from.
Depleted - for weapon programs - Uranium ore mines.
> Lock it into a silicate synthetic rock and put it back into high
> radioactive rocks like the Archaean granites. This is also quite
expensive
> and there has not been the political or economic will to take such a
process
> to completion. Many years ago Australian experimental geologists
developed
> just such a process called Synrock
>
>
Concrete is good, also there is a crystallization process possibility.
The separation of real hard stuff and burial in glass is used now.
The main issue is the volume reduction, which could be solved.
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar
fungee
"Reety" <inq...@nospam.geomarinetech.com> wrote:
>
> "Jo Schaper" <josc...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20001008121246...@nso-bg.aol.com...
> > Nuclear powered cars? I don't think so.
An electric car charged by one of the 103 commercial power reactors
might qualify as one. Not that it would be a good transportation choice
today, but perhaps in the future.
>
> Hey look on the bright side - a few automobile accidents and the human
> overpopulation dilemma of mother earth may be solved;-)
Yeah. People thinking there's a human overpopulation dilemma on mother
earth should be the first to do something about it...
:-)
--
fungee
Hindsight is 20/10.
josc...@aol.com
> >
> > Hey look on the bright side - a few automobile accidents and the
human
> > overpopulation dilemma of mother earth may be solved;-)
>
> Yeah. People thinking there's a human overpopulation dilemma on
mother
> earth should be the first to do something about it...
>
> :-)
>
> --
> fungee
I have. My husband and I have no kids by choice for this very reason.
When we are gone, that is it.
fungee
josc...@aol.com wrote:
> In article <8rsroq$67p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>
> > >
> > > Hey look on the bright side - a few automobile accidents and the
> human
> > > overpopulation dilemma of mother earth may be solved;-)
> >
> > Yeah. People thinking there's a human overpopulation dilemma on
> mother
> > earth should be the first to do something about it...
> >
> > :-)
> >
>
> I have. My husband and I have no kids by choice for this very reason.
> When we are gone, that is it.
Evolution at its finest. Survival of the smartest.
Just kidding! If you are willing to sacrifice the joy of children
thinking that will help my children live better lives, that's your
bighearted if not misguided option.
Two more lame jokes. Humorous (to me), but also true.
1. Hey, that leaves more resources for the rest of us!
2. Failing to carry on your ideas via your offspring may be
counter-productive, since I'm raising my kids to be capitalist pigs.
--
fungee
Hindsight is 20/10.
Phil Hays
> What about oil shale? Back in the 70's and 80's they were
> investigating it. What's the deal with that?
As I recall, the production cost for "oil" from shales was projected to be
around $40-$50 per barrel back then. Better tack on 50% for inflation.
--
Phil Hays
CLK
equivalent that coal does. And gas burns dry which means more costly
maintanance on the burners and furnace.
Carl
On Mon, 09 Oct 00 08:28:02 GMT, p...@amleth.demon.co.uk ("Paul E.
Bennett") wrote:
>In article <8rrf16$4fr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> josc...@aol.com writes:
>
>> I am all for nukes, once people solve the waste disposal problem, and
>> not until. Looks like there is a growth industry out there.
>
>One speaker at an informative event - when Hinkley C was being proposed -
>gave the audience some food for thought. The speaker stated that the waste
>disposal requirements for the various forms of energy were quite markedly
>different and asked the audience what their reactions would be to the
>prospect of being personnally responsible for disposal of the waste produced
>their own life-time electrical energy generation requirements.
>
> Coal amounted to 30 (very large) truck loads of ash (which if disposed
> of in the average UK garden would make a pile higher than the houses).
> Coal also emits 200 times more radioactive fall-out than a nuclear
> power plant (because coal is mildly radioactive anyway).
>
> Oil produced about 2 (very large) truck loads of a glutinous slurry.
>
> Gas left no discernible waste product.
>
> Nuclear waste, processed and vitrified, could be placed in your hand
> (minimal risk to you) and would be slightly larger than an Ice Hockey
> Puck.
>
>The UK nuclear industry relies on a number of Magnox and AGR reactor
>systems for which spent fuel is extracted from the reactors, re-processed
>to extract un-used Uranium and Plutonium products (leaving just 0.3% of
>the material as ash and metal filings). This is all remains and which is
>vitrified. Thorpe was designed to reduce the stock-pile of waste on site
>(about 2 soccer pitches of drums 3 high) as well as other material from
>elsewhere.
>
>> I for one, would rather die of hydrocarbon related pollutin as
>> opposed to radiation sickness or leukemia. My mom died of leukemia. It
>> isn't pretty.
>
CLK
investigating it. What's the deal with that?
On Sun, 08 Oct 2000 06:06:04 GMT, jtnews <jtn...@bellatlantic.net>
wrote:
andesite
"> CLK wrote:
> > What about oil shale? Back in the 70's and 80's they were
> > investigating it. What's the deal with that?
>
> around $40-$50 per barrel back then. Better tack on 50% for inflation.
I'm interested - why did you put oil in quotation marks? More expensive it
may be, but is it substantially different from oils from other sources?
Mac
Jacques Jedwab
> What about oil shale? Back in the 70's and 80's they were
> investigating it. What's the deal with that?
> Carl
>
One of the problems with oil shale and tar sand (Athabasca) is that one
ends up with mountains of refuse. With liquid oil, the "refuse" (the
reservoir) is automatically left in the ground. This is a hidden assetfor
oil which has not yet been fully considered.
It would of course be possible to use the shale and sand refuses
economically: when the tar is extracted with xylol or toluol, the
Athabasca sands leave behind a wonderful calibrated white sand. The
valuation of the refuses has of course also been considered in the past
studies, but the volumes at stake are really tremendous. J.J.
malcolm.scott
slurry?
Malcolm
""Paul E. Bennett"" <p...@amleth.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:971080...@amleth.demon.co.uk...
malcolm.scott
Malcolm
"CLK" <dus...@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:39e29e9a...@news.citlink.net...
malcolm.scott
I see that the USA has oil fired capacity of nearly 10%, almost as much as
nuclear. I know of only one purely oil fired station in the uk but it is
not normally in operation. There are some dual fired but again are not
normally running on oil. In the UK therefore the oil price has no direct
effect on the price of electricity.
Malcolm
"Ryan Healey" <ryanh...@primus.com.au> wrote in message
news:39E17DED...@primus.com.au...
> What are you stupid?
>
> Of course its used to make electricity, in fact the only reason oil prices
> aren't higher is because many oil burning plants in europe got replaced by
> nuclear.
>
> There are still oil burning plants in existance.
>
> "malcolm.scott" wrote:
>
> > Oil is not used for generating electricity so there is no link.
> > Malcolm
> >
> > "jtnews" <jtn...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
> > news:39E00ECB...@bellatlantic.net...
Richard Bell
> I am all for nukes, once people solve the waste disposal problem, and
>not until. Looks like there is a growth industry out there.
> I for one, would rather die of hydrocarbon related pollutin as
>opposed to radiation sickness or leukemia. My mom died of leukemia. It
>isn't pretty.
Last I checked, brown lung, unlike leukemia was not treatable, and
hydrocarbon related dieases are not limited to those people that work with
them directly. More people die of smog aggravated respiratory problems in
Los Angelas every year than were killed in the Chernobyl clean up.
A few tonnes of reactor fuel contains the energy equivalent of millions
of tonnes of coal. Miners are killed during the extraction, and others
are killed at level crossing collissions with freight trains. Even if
all of the coal particulates are kept out of the air, these death rates
make coal less safe than nuclear.
Getting a fatal hydrocarbon-related illness only requires that you live
downwind. Contracting leukemia due to atomic energy, judging by leukemia
rates of atomic energy workers, requires malicious stupidity (chernobyl).
The problem with perceived nuclear safety is that the general populace is
insufficiently educated to really understand technical issues, and their
is a vested interest to perpetuate this state of affairs.
Paul E. Bennett
malcol...@ntlworld.com "malcolm.scott" writes:
> I thought all fractions of oil were utilised. Any idea what happens to this
> slurry?
> Malcolm
As I understand it from the fellow who gave the talk, the glutinous
slurry is an accretion that has to be cleaned from the injection
system from time to time. It may well be used in some other products
rather than left to total waste but I know not where.
schuyler
> OPEC do not want to see the oil prices rise to levels whereby alternative
> sources become highly economic. While the current prices are higher than
> we're used to, oil is still a cheaper source of energy than most
> alternatives.
>
> Cheers,
> Mitchell
I agree. When OPEC says they have no choice but to raise the price of oil,
i.e. the cost of doing business, then we'll all know it. The current price
increases are a short term aberration.
Schuyler
Phil Hays
> I'm interested - why did you put oil in quotation marks? More expensive it
> may be, but is it substantially different from oils from other sources?
From a technical refining prospective, I've been told it is rather different.
--
Phil Hays
Bruce D. Winningham
<spampos...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>As I recall, the production cost for "oil" from shales was projected to be
>around $40-$50 per barrel back then. Better tack on 50% for inflation.
You would also probably need to add on a substantial amount for
meeting environmental regs and reclamation. My experience in the oil
field has been with drilling wells but not mining shales. I understand
that a huge amount of shale would have to be mined for the small
amount of oil it would produce.
Bruce Winningham
CLK
generation plants. But has anyone even considered what else there is
to coal? Coal tar and the many different distillates that come from
coal are needed in more than just running power plants. Nylon, tire
rubber, paints, and many different kinds of plastics come from it.
Not just coal, but crude oil as well. If you get rid of coal mining,
you loose far more than "just" a source of energy.
Coal and petroleum as well as uranium should be used together. Not,
not burning it, but in use. Nuclear power plants can be very
beneficial, and if the fuel rods are reused, and they can be used in a
different reactor (if I recall correctly), the fuel waste can be much
less. Coal mining and coal-fired power plants have their place as
well as petroleum. To totally do away with one or two puts too much
reliance on fewer sources/methods, and if they fail or go down, what
else is there?
Carl
On 10 Oct 2000 14:12:16 GMT, rlb...@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Richard
Martin Erhardsen
"schuyler" <schu...@mail.utexas.edu> skrev i en meddelelse news:8s05u6$idp$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
Why do we get all those huge peaks and valleys in the oil price. Is all that
volatility caused by supply and demand, or is it speculation.
Ian St. John
> Ok so everyone is talking about the power generated by coal-fired
> generation plants. But has anyone even considered what else there is
> to coal? Coal tar and the many different distillates that come from
> coal are needed in more than just running power plants. Nylon, tire
> rubber, paints, and many different kinds of plastics come from it.
> Not just coal, but crude oil as well. If you get rid of coal mining,
> you loose far more than "just" a source of energy.
>
> Coal and petroleum as well as uranium should be used together. Not,
> not burning it, but in use. Nuclear power plants can be very
> beneficial, and if the fuel rods are reused, and they can be used in a
> different reactor (if I recall correctly), the fuel waste can be much
> less. Coal mining and coal-fired power plants have their place as
> well as petroleum. To totally do away with one or two puts too much
> reliance on fewer sources/methods, and if they fail or go down, what
> else is there?
> Carl
Why do people extend debates on relative merit into total persecution? Of
course coal would still be part of the mix. Nobody said it would be banned.
Ian St. John
"Martin Erhardsen" <MartinE...@mail.tele.dk> wrote in message
news:8s1dar$2t0s$1...@news.cybercity.dk...
Artificial supply and demand so less stable. Demand stays constant but
supply is up and down. Also lag between supply change and demand service due
to refining leads to some exageration.
CLK
Wilderness Alliance and Sierra Club are babbling about, eh?
Carl
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:46:09 GMT, "Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net>
wrote:
>
>"CLK" <dus...@citlink.net> wrote in message
>news:39e3f8c0...@news.citlink.net...
>> Ok so everyone is talking about the power generated by coal-fired
>> generation plants. But has anyone even considered what else there is
>> to coal? Coal tar and the many different distillates that come from
>> coal are needed in more than just running power plants. Nylon, tire
>> rubber, paints, and many different kinds of plastics come from it.
>> Not just coal, but crude oil as well. If you get rid of coal mining,
>> you loose far more than "just" a source of energy.
>>
>> Coal and petroleum as well as uranium should be used together. Not,
>> not burning it, but in use. Nuclear power plants can be very
>> beneficial, and if the fuel rods are reused, and they can be used in a
>> different reactor (if I recall correctly), the fuel waste can be much
>> less. Coal mining and coal-fired power plants have their place as
>> well as petroleum. To totally do away with one or two puts too much
>> reliance on fewer sources/methods, and if they fail or go down, what
>> else is there?
>> Carl
>
>Why do people extend debates on relative merit into total persecution? Of
>course coal would still be part of the mix. Nobody said it would be banned.
>
>
>>
>>
David Ramalho
You may find the following website to be of some interest.
SHALE OIL--THE ELUSIVE ENERGY
http://hubbert.mines.edu/news/v98n4/Youngquist.html
Regards
David Ramalho
Richard Bell
Bruce D. Winningham <10274...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 23:19:53 -0700, Phil Hays
><spampos...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
>>As I recall, the production cost for "oil" from shales was projected to be
>>around $40-$50 per barrel back then. Better tack on 50% for inflation.
>
>You would also probably need to add on a substantial amount for
>meeting environmental regs and reclamation. My experience in the oil
>field has been with drilling wells but not mining shales. I understand
>that a huge amount of shale would have to be mined for the small
>amount of oil it would produce.
>
oil can actually be done in situ, withou bringing the oil-shale out of th
ground. WGBH Boston, in their documentary series "NOVA", explained how you
could turn the mountain into its own retort. The principal involves using
explosives to pulverise the deposit, and then firing it like a huge charcoal
pit. The oil settles to the bottom, and is pumped to the surface (or maybe
the rubble filled caverns were high enough in the mountain to allow the oil
to be drained. There were some environmental concerns about ground water
at the surface mingling with heavy-metal laden deep water from below the
formerly impervious shale.
Lewis Hutton
from Bruce D. Winningham <10274...@compuserve.com> contains these words:
> On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 23:19:53 -0700, Phil Hays
> <spampos...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> >As I recall, the production cost for "oil" from shales was projected to be
> >around $40-$50 per barrel back then. Better tack on 50% for inflation.
> You would also probably need to add on a substantial amount for
> meeting environmental regs and reclamation. My experience in the oil
> field has been with drilling wells but not mining shales. I understand
> that a huge amount of shale would have to be mined for the small
> amount of oil it would produce.
Every day I commute through the bing* country, given that the
industry produced oil for over 150 years the amount of spoil is not
that large. The industry began in the 1840s lasted until 1962 before
competition from crude oil and the exhaustion of the best supplies
forced it to close. They got about 60 gallons of oil for every ton of
shale in the 1870s, that is the only figure I have to hand, but I
know it was lower towards the end.
In the 40 years since the industry closed, some of the bings have
been resculpted, others have had the material used for tennis courts
and football fields. Some simply stand proud on the landscape and
are being colonised by birch woodland. I think they are a dramatic
reminder of an industrial past, one that is sadly forgotten by most
Scots people. All have heard of David Livingstone but few know of
the man who provided his finacial backing, James 'Paraffin' Young the
West Lothian oil magnate.
* Bing (lowland Scots) a pile or heap.
--
Lewis.
Reety
"Martin Erhardsen" <MartinE...@mail.tele.dk> wrote in message
news:8s1dar$2t0s$1...@news.cybercity.dk...
>
> "schuyler" <schu...@mail.utexas.edu> skrev i en meddelelse
news:8s05u6$idp$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
> >
> > > OPEC do not want to see the oil prices rise to levels whereby
alternative
> > > sources become highly economic. While the current prices are higher
than
> > > we're used to, oil is still a cheaper source of energy than most
> > > alternatives.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Mitchell
> >
> > I agree. When OPEC says they have no choice but to raise the price of
oil,
> > i.e. the cost of doing business, then we'll all know it. The current
price
> > increases are a short term aberration.
> >
>
> Why do we get all those huge peaks and valleys in the oil price. Is all
that
> volatility caused by supply and demand, or is it speculation.
>
>
Celeborn
wrote:
>In the 40 years since the industry closed, some of the bings have
>been resculpted, others have had the material used for tennis courts
>and football fields. Some simply stand proud on the landscape and
>are being colonised by birch woodland. I think they are a dramatic
>reminder of an industrial past, one that is sadly forgotten by most
>Scots people. All have heard of David Livingstone but few know of
>the man who provided his finacial backing, James 'Paraffin' Young the
>West Lothian oil magnate.
>
>* Bing (lowland Scots) a pile or heap.
Where about exactly can I view these...? Might be able to squeeze a
project out of it :)
--
Daniel Grey BSc. (Hons) Engineering Geology.
Bruce D. Winningham
<malcol...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Oil is not used for generating electricity so there is no link.
I beg to differ, what about the cities that have their own diesel
burning power plants?
Bruce Winningham
Magnus Redin
> With skyrocketing oil prices, should nuclear power now be given a
> second look?
Sure but it takes 2-3 years to upgrade a running nuclear plant and
7-10 years to plan and build a new one depending on local
circumstances.
More nuclear power would help a lot the next time we have a price
increase on oil, gas or coal.
The French are probably laughing a lot right now. They built lot of
nuclear power after the oil crisis in the 70:s and has abandoned
fossil power for electricity production. They are exporting a lot of
electricity and wont get an electricity shortage or unberable prices
regardles what happens with the fossil fuel market.
But most of the oil is used for aeroplanes, ships, cars and heating.
Oil for heating can be replaced with electricity driven heat-pumps or
direct heating. Synthetisizing fuel with CO2 from the air and
electricity is possible but very, very, very expensive. Electrified
rail can do some of the transportation work and save oil. Very large
container ships and bulk carriers could be nuclear powered in the same
way as aircraft carriers and submarines but I dont think it will be
economical untill we get a fossil fuel shortage.
> I'm also curious about the idea of disposing nuclear waste in
> subduction zones like the Alleutian Trench. Is this possible?
Those areas are geologically active, the waste might get crushed and
ejected. And I dont think it is a good idea even if it is possible
since it then would be very hard to retrieve the waste for recycling
and reuse in more advanced reactors.
Regards,
--
--
Magnus Redin Lysator Academic Computer Society re...@lysator.liu.se
Mail: Magnus Redin, Klockaregården 6, 586 44 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)70 5160046 and (0)13 214600
Graham Cowan
Magnus Redin wrote:
> ... The French are probably laughing a lot right now. They built lot of
> nuclear power after the oil crisis in the 70:s and has abandoned
> fossil power for electricity production. They are exporting a lot of
> electricity and wont get an electricity shortage or unberable prices
> regardles what happens with the fossil fuel market.
>
> But most of the oil is used for aeroplanes, ships, cars and heating.
> Oil for heating can be replaced with electricity driven heat-pumps or
> direct heating. Synthetisizing fuel with CO2 from the air and
> electricity is possible but very, very, very expensive ...
Where can I find a detailing of the predicted costs?
(I believe process heat, rather than electricity, is the more
likely form for the input energy to be in.)
---
At http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html see red hot boron
in air, a fuel more potent than gasoline, not burning. Let the
baby play with matches in the fuel storage room!
Magnus Redin
> Where can I find a detailing of the predicted costs?
> (I believe process heat, rather than electricity, is the more
> likely form for the input energy to be in.)
I got it from a german proposal for covering a sizable part of the
sahara desert with solar cells and make hydrogen or hydrocarbons from
the electricity for shipmet to central europe. I read it about two
years ago and dont remember more then it was very, very expensive. I
have to dig some to find it.
I wonder if it would make sence to make hydrogen from electricity and
use it to enrich heavy cracked oils in refineries?
Robert Flory
minerals
Most of our shale is in the Colorado River basin which has pretty serious
salinity problems down stream.
What would you do with the billions of tons of saline minerals. I doubt
Wyomings Trona industry would be too keen on the competition.
Add that to the environmental and political problems of pit mine 1000 meters
deep and miles across, disposal of that volume ++ (retorted shale expands)
you have mountains ..... Then there is the unstable price of oil.... The
cost of ramping up a shale industry big enough to have an effect. It's
mind boggling
The reserves are there... just like with coal, but will the political and
environmental climate allow us to do so.
R. Flory
"Celeborn" <cele...@lothlorien.force9.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4as9us8tcuo491tnn...@4ax.com...
Dave Gower
> I'm also curious about the idea of disposing nuclear waste in
> subduction zones like the Alleutian Trench. Is this possible?
I've got another idea. Let's look at radioactive waste as a potential source
of energy. The technology for capturing radiation and converting it into
more useful forms of energy is probably largely undiscovered
Future Beacon
The radioactivity of the earth seems like a reasonable source of
power (geothermal) but I have only heard of the hydrothermal ideas.
Why aren't people trying to invent fluids that decompose
endothermicly to extract energy from reachable (small) temperature
differences? The idea (please correct my theory if it is unsound)
is to let the elevated temperature region (underground) elevate
the fuel value of a fluid material so that it can go through thermal
environments (lots of rock) without releasing this fuel value. Is
this an ongoing thread of development?
Thank you for your help.
Jim Trek
Future Beacon Technology
http://eznet.net/~progress
prog...@eznet.net
karljo...@my-deja.com
"Dave Gower" <dav...@magma.ca> wrote:
>
> "jtnews" <jtn...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
> news:39E00ECB...@bellatlantic.net...
>
> > I'm also curious about the idea of disposing nuclear waste in
> > subduction zones like the Alleutian Trench. Is this possible?
>
> I've got another idea. Let's look at radioactive waste as a potential
source
> of energy. The technology for capturing radiation and converting it
into
> more useful forms of energy is probably largely undiscovered
Spent nuclear fuel contains usable isotopes (it's illegal in the US to
use them though). Fissionable uranium 235 and fissionable plutonium 239
as well as fertile uranium 238 (which can be converted to fissionable
material in a reactor). Plutonium 238 is used in radioisotope
thermoelectric generators in space craft (I don't know if the pu238
came from power plants or from nuclear weapons programs though). Pu 238
can also be used in pacemaker batteries.
The heat from spent fuel isn't a high level source of energy, but it
may be possible to make generators using low level energy systems (low
level temperature in this case) with nickel titanium alloy.
There is some suggestion that significant power can be had from spent
fuel by wrapping it with mutiple layers of photovoltaic cells. The
ionizing radiation would produce energy in the cells. Some have
suggested that there would be insufficient energy in the spent fuel to
provide significant power. I don't have the data to work out the answer
at this point & am interested in input on the idea.
Karl Johanson
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Plutonium Man
caused by large numbers of leaking Russian built reactors. Without it,
people live too long and eat too much. Have you ever seen a person
with radiation poisoning who was fat? No.
All nuclear waste should be dumped in the mid-ocean at surface level
without containment vessels. Preferably in a current that takes it
first to countries full of brown people. We all know there are to many
brown people in the world and since the United States has stopped
waging war and killing its fair share of brown people, nuclear waste
can make up for this reduction in brown people once blown up by US
bombs.
We also need little reactors in every car so we can tell the towel
heads to pump their oil up their asses.
Future Beacon
I have been using search engines to locate sites about geothermal
generation or electricity and the direct use of geothermal power.
They all seem to involve water and steam. Does anybody know of
a technology that uses the heat of the earth to raise the chemical
fuel value of fluids or slurries (contained in pipes) exchanged
between the surface and deep dry rock? Does anybody know of any
geothermal technology that does not involve merely the heating
of water?
Christine Wells
I would direct your enquiries towards Iceland. If anyone has ever come up
with a different typ of 'earth heat exchanger' I'm sure it would be there!
Why not try the higher education establishments and geological survey sites
first.
Sorry couldn't help further.
Christine.
"Future Beacon" <prog...@eznet.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.21L2.00101...@shell1.eznet.net...
Peter Halls
there have been many studies into harnassing geothermal energy, the
British programme was run by the (erstwhile) Camborne School of Mines from
the 1970's into the very early 1990's. There is much literature on the
subject in publications ranging from computer graphics (describing their
pioneering work in visualisation) to geological, economics and energy
journals. There have been (and are) a number of other projects, some more
successful than others - the most successful (from memory) seem to have
been in Iceland and New Zealand.
The primary objective of all the studies I have read (have not been
involved in anything like this since around 1992/3 though) has been to
generate electricity. Almost all electricity generation focusses around
steam powered turbines turning the generators. Turning water into steam
for this process has thus been the goal of the majority (if not all) of
the projects.
Whilst your suggestion might have been considered (but I have no
recollection of having seen such) I would have thought that the likely
energy loss resulting from two heat exchangers - the turbine is a heat
exchanger : heat to rotary energy - rather than just the one could
cripple. Maybe you've a better process to gain the necessary rotary motion
from other liguids or slurries than from water turned to steam?
P.
> "Future Beacon" <prog...@eznet.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.21L2.00101...@shell1.eznet.net...
> >
> >
> > I have been using search engines to locate sites about geothermal
> > generation or electricity and the direct use of geothermal power.
> > They all seem to involve water and steam. Does anybody know of
> > a technology that uses the heat of the earth to raise the chemical
> > fuel value of fluids or slurries (contained in pipes) exchanged
> > between the surface and deep dry rock? Does anybody know of any
> > geothermal technology that does not involve merely the heating
> > of water?
> >
> > Thank you for your help.
> >
> >
> > Jim Trek
> > Future Beacon Technology
> > http://eznet.net/~progress
> > prog...@eznet.net
> >
>
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
PPPPPH H | Peter Halls - University of York Computing Service -
P P H | GIS Advisor
P P H | Email: P.H...@YORK.AC.UK
PPPPPJHHHHHH | Telephone: 01904 433806 FAX: 01904 433740
P J H | Smail: Computing Service,
P J H | University of York,
P J H | Heslington.
J | YORK YO10 5DD
J J | England.
JJJ This message has the status of a private & personal communication
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Future Beacon
Peter,
Thank you for this message:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Peter Halls wrote:
> Jim,
>
> there have been many studies into harnessing geothermal energy, the
> British programme was run by the (erstwhile) Camborne School of Mines from
> the 1970's into the very early 1990's. There is much literature on the
> subject in publications ranging from computer graphics (describing their
> pioneering work in visualization) to geological, economics and energy
> journals. There have been (and are) a number of other projects, some more
> successful than others - the most successful (from memory) seem to have
> been in Iceland and New Zealand.
>
> The primary objective of all the studies I have read (have not been
> involved in anything like this since around 1992/3 though) has been to
> generate electricity. Almost all electricity generation focuses around
> steam powered turbines turning the generators. Turning water into steam
> for this process has thus been the goal of the majority (if not all) of
> the projects.
>
> Whilst your suggestion might have been considered (but I have no
> recollection of having seen such) I would have thought that the likely
> energy loss resulting from two heat exchangers - the turbine is a heat
> exchanger : heat to rotary energy - rather than just the one could
> cripple. Maybe you've a better process to gain the necessary rotary motion
> from other liquids or slurries than from water turned to steam?
The process I have in mind does not involve rotary motion. It is
a process for developing or enriching a fuel. Decomposition of a
chemical compound by heat should be an endothermic process. If the
products are transported separately to the surface, the fuel value
obtained from the heat cannot be lost to the environment while
the chemicals are being transported (or so I hope). If such an
effect is possible, it means that the pipe can be narrow and the
flow rate can be low. I hope to find materials that will be useful
at temperatures less than the boiling point of water. The process
might be inorganic, organic, or biological. A catalyst might be
used at the surface to gate the energy usage.
Eventually, the fuel must be used and the conversion process will,
no doubt, have losses; but my focus is on getting some fuel value
trapped in chemical energy so that it is not lost as heat in the
long trip back up to the surface. Thank you for the leads and
interested parties you have mentioned.
Thank you also Christine:
> Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:53:13 +0100
> From: Christine Wells <chri...@0x0.oxo.oxo>
> Newsgroups: sci.geo.geology
> Subject: Re: Geothermal Power
>
> Dear Jim,
>
> I would direct your enquiries towards Iceland. If anyone has ever
> come up with a different typ of 'earth heat exchanger' I'm sure it
> would be there! Why not try the higher education establishments
> and geological survey sites first.
>
> Sorry couldn't help further.
>
> Christine.
I appreciate any such leads and suggestions.
Best regards,
Peter Halls
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Future Beacon wrote:
%<Snip
>
> The process I have in mind does not involve rotary motion. It is
> a process for developing or enriching a fuel. Decomposition of a
> chemical compound by heat should be an endothermic process. If the
> products are transported separately to the surface, the fuel value
> obtained from the heat cannot be lost to the environment while
> the chemicals are being transported (or so I hope). If such an
> effect is possible, it means that the pipe can be narrow and the
> flow rate can be low. I hope to find materials that will be useful
> at temperatures less than the boiling point of water. The process
> might be inorganic, organic, or biological. A catalyst might be
> used at the surface to gate the energy usage.
>
> Eventually, the fuel must be used and the conversion process will,
> no doubt, have losses; but my focus is on getting some fuel value
> trapped in chemical energy so that it is not lost as heat in the
> long trip back up to the surface. Thank you for the leads and
> interested parties you have mentioned.
>
Fair enough. The Camborne work was primarily concerned with energy
from relatively low heat gain ... and they certainly looked at
possibilities of using the geothermal gain to reduce the additional heat
input ... but for generating electricity! [One of the team of authors to
look for is Haydn Scholes ...] The Camborne energy source was from natural
radioactive decay in the Cornish granites, rather than from volcanism.
Maybe, where the energy is greater, the work using volcanic sources has
concentrated also on the immediately recognised application?
I certainly have never heard of any work to use geothermal energy in the
way you describe ... but, being a geologist rather than a chemical
engineer, I'm not qualified to discuss that specific application area.
Maybe a posting to one of the chemistry newsgroups could be beneficial?
Peter
josc...@aol.com
<Pine.LNX.4.21L2.00101...@shell1.eznet.net>,
Future Beacon <prog...@eznet.net> wrote:
>
>
> Peter,
>
> Thank you for this message:
>
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Peter Halls wrote:
>
> > Jim,
> >
> > there have been many studies into harnessing geothermal energy, the
> > British programme was run by the (erstwhile) Camborne School of
Mines from
> > the 1970's into the very early 1990's.
There is a geothermal plant in Ridgecrest California, on the eastern
side of the Sierras, two valleys over from Death. It is powered by
geotherms off the Garlock Fault.
Sorry I don't have a URL, but those clues might help track down
someone from out there to help.
jo
Paul F. Dietz
> I wonder if it would make sence to make hydrogen from electricity and
> use it to enrich heavy cracked oils in refineries?
Unless oil gets very expensive, it will be cheaper
to make the hydrogen from the oil itself (or from tar/char
from the refining process), by gasification. Heck,
hydrogen from electrolysis doesn't become competitive
with hydrogen from *biomass* gasification until the
price of electricity is around $.02/kWh.
Paul