Author Topic: When the fuel is gone (Read 1936 times)

Staga · « **Reply #45 on:** September 02, 2005, 02:56:22 PM »

In seventies we had Saab 99s with two fuel tanks; one for alcohol distilled from wood (ethanol) and one for ordinary gasoline (to get engine running).
However our government got greedy and taxed the experiment to death f...ing morons.
Cars came popular amongst some guys; engines were having lower compression ratio and chance was done by using parts from Turbo Saabs. All they needed was a refurbished Garrett and car got nice power boost.

g00b · « **Reply #46 on:** September 02, 2005, 04:22:26 PM »

What people need to realize is the difference between "creating" energy and "storing" energy. Hydrogen, fuel cells, batteries are all storage methods. You still have to get the energy from some place.

People talk about solar power, wind, hydro, etc... Imagine the amount of energy we would be extracting from our planets environment to replace the capacity of a nuclear reactor. You are talking about changing weather patterns, building damns, etc... It still takes more energy to produce a solar panel than it will ever generate over it's entire life span! These environmentally friendly power sources are not so friendly when you scale them up to the levels needed to provide the majority of the power supply.

Hydrogen producing algae look like the best long term solution. Methanol and Ethanol will just never be an overall energy efficient strategy.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,54456,00.html

Can't find the article, but I read a good report that stated we would need algae production approx. equal to 40% of our current domestic agriculture production to take care of our current energy needs 100%.

There is simply too much financial momentum for anyone to change untill there is simply no other alternative.

g00b

stantond · « **Reply #47 on:** September 02, 2005, 09:36:59 PM »

Solar panel efficiency has increased and manufacturing processes have improved: http://www.otherpower.com/otherpower_solar_new.html

There is one fundamental source of energy known to mankind (so far) and that is nuclear energy. Our Sun (i.e. the closest star to our planet) is a huge fusion reactor. All other energy on earth (other than from nuclear sources and geothermal) comes from the Sun. Petroleum oil, shale, coal, wind, wood, hydraulic, organic energy, and the food we eat are forms of solar (fusion) energy. It's no wonder ancient civilizations worshipped the Sun. It could be considered the source of life on earth.

The oil we burn is just chemical energy converted from solar very long ago. Chemical (not electrical) forms of stored energy are the most stable and easily converted into heat. Nature converts solar into chemical energy very well, although it seems to take quite a bit of time by our standards. We now have the abilty to convert solar energy into electricity at practical efficiencies. The problem remaining is good battery technology to store electricity in a useful form. Standard lead-acid battery technology, invented in 1860, is out dated.

Regards,

Malta

vorticon · « **Reply #48 on:** September 02, 2005, 09:48:25 PM »

things rarely get efficient without actually using them...20 years ago it cost 40 bucks to produce a barrel of oil from tar sands (i know i use that example a lot, but at least with it im not talking out my arse) 30 years ago we couldnt get 250+ horsepower without leaded fuel.

hell, if people worried about efficiency, steam engines wouldnt have been built, and we'd still be drawing water from a well

sooner we try different energy "sources" on a largish scale, the faster we can get the technology (or some combination of the technologies) to a decent level of efficiency.

oh, and all storage methods require more engery than they release, i think thats some third law somewhere...

FiLtH · « **Reply #49 on:** September 03, 2005, 12:15:12 AM »

I saw a post about what if we used todays tech with steam engines. Isnt that what a nuke reactor is basically?

stantond · « **Reply #50 on:** September 03, 2005, 08:29:32 AM »

Yes, a nuclear reactor is a heat source. Various means have been used to get the heat away from the reactor such as liquid metals and other fluids. Space based reactors have considered using heat pipes and two-phase fluids. Water (as low tech as that sounds), which has been deionized and removed of impurities, has a half life of about 10 seconds and makes a great coolant.

At one time in the 1950's there was a nuclear aircraft being designed and built for the cold war. The idea being that it could stay airborne for months with resupply from other aircraft, similar to the concept of nuclear submarines. Unfortunately (or fortunately), water and lead are very heavy and the aircraft could never fly.

Basically, a nuclear reactor is a steam generator. The only 'trick' to GE and Westinghouse made nuclear reactors, aside from the waste we don't know what to do with, is making sure they have adequate cooling. That was the problem at 3 mile island in the 1970's. The night shift operators heard the cooling pumps cavitating due to low water levels caused by a stuck open valve and shut them off. Fortunately, the day shift arrived a few hours later and turned them back on, but it was too late for the reactor because part of it melted. Chernobyl was a completely different accident due to reactor design. Chernobyl exploded. Naval reactors are the same basic design as those used at 3 mile island, btw.

Regards,

Malta

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #51 on:** September 03, 2005, 08:49:33 AM »

How can the personnell of a nuclear plant be so stupid that they turn off the reactor cooling without shutting down the reactor, this I can't understand.

lazs2 · « **Reply #52 on:** September 03, 2005, 09:01:06 AM »

when the price of easily recoverable oil gets too high we will get into coal conversion and oil shale recovery... as that get's too high we will do more exploration... during this time we will invest in nuke and solar and hydro for energy....

with allmost free electricity we will be able to advance electric and hydrogen cars.

None of this can happen till we burn up the easy peasy reserves...

If you are not doing your part to burn up this oil then you are stopping progress... if you car get's more than about 12 mpg you are just dragging your feet and hindering progress and acting in a selfish manner.

lazs

Staga · « **Reply #53 on:** September 03, 2005, 12:39:44 PM »

If I remember right electricity in US is also bit scarce and when consumption goes up I don't think they're going to lower the cost.
I know I wouldn't

Maverick · « **Reply #54 on:** September 03, 2005, 12:43:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
How can the personnell of a nuclear plant be so stupid that they turn off the reactor cooling without shutting down the reactor, this I can't understand.

Not to defend these folks and their "stupidity", it was my impression that the investigation showed the damping rods that were supposed to have controlled the reaction jammed and couldn't be dropped once the cooling started dropping. They couldn't shut the reaction down. Poor design, yep but that was not the fault of the reactor workers.

Sixpence · « **Reply #55 on:** September 03, 2005, 12:46:47 PM »

Biodiesel, then the farmers will not need government subsidies. When Rudolph Diesel invented his engine, it ran on peanut oil. His vision was the use of the engine would enhance agriculture of the countries that used it.

That + all other alternative fuels, it seems we keep all our eggs in one basket when it comes to fuel in the form of petro

stantond · « **Reply #56 on:** September 03, 2005, 12:50:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
How can the personnell of a nuclear plant be so stupid that they turn off the reactor cooling without shutting down the reactor, this I can't understand.

The reactor automatically shut down long before the operators shut off the cooling pumps. What the night operators didn't understand was the pumps still had to run for about 12 hours after the reactor is shut down to remove residual heat. They were trying to save the pumps which were cavititating due to low water and lost the reactor. The day crew knew what to do, but it was too late.

Regards,

Malta

stantond · « **Reply #57 on:** September 03, 2005, 12:59:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
Not to defend these folks and their "stupidity", it was my impression that the investigation showed the damping rods that were supposed to have controlled the reaction jammed and couldn't be dropped once the cooling started dropping. They couldn't shut the reaction down. Poor design, yep but that was not the fault of the reactor workers.

I believe what Maverick is referring to was not 3 mile island in the 70's, but another reactor problem. I vaguely remember hearing about it but can't quite place the details. Control rods sticking is a problem with commercial reactors to this day.

Regards,

Malta

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #58 on:** September 03, 2005, 01:29:34 PM »

Maybe Sellafield.

jpeg · « **Reply #59 on:** September 03, 2005, 08:25:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Masherbrum
Hydrogen? Remember the Hindenburg!

Karaya

The Hindenburg incident happened because it was painted with flammable paint, not from hydrogen.

There are several myths about the safety of using hydrogen and what you stated is one of the biggest.

In fact Hydrogen is safer than gasoline, hydrogen rises and escapes into the air very quickly, unlike gasoline, which spreads.