On 6/30/2011 12:11 AM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
> OOPs the link to the European Union's website on the Tokamak fusion
> reactor is at this link: it's not a fission reaction. also check out
> http://www.pppl.gov to confirm these statments
>
> http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-and-environment/index_en.htm
>
> Larry regarding fuel economy, the current pace is too slow, we have
> had the technology to have 180 mpg's since the 1970's. I will post the
> amazon.com link to where you can buy the shell oil study. I also will
> post info on hydrogen fuel cells.
>
I agree it is too slow, But I live in the real world and we are having a
hard time defending what is in place now.
And don't bother with the link --- I've read it. a lot of that "study"
has been debunked or disproven. Mostly it relies on unmarketable design
features, unproven or disproven or untested assertions.
In any event, why bother.
As I have *repeatedly* noted, a 50 MPG CAFE coupled with PROVEN
renewable bio-oils in smart diesels (palm, soy, coconut, cottonseed and
others are in COMMERCIAL use now!!) will eliminate 100% of US petroleum
use for transportation, 90% of total usage. For 1/10th the cost with far
less economic disruption.
> How to Improve Fuel Economy
>
> Citation: Shell Oil Company’s “Fuel Economy of the Gasoline
> Engine” (ISBN 0470991321); 1977. On page 42, Shell Oil quotes the
> (then) President of General Motors who predicted in 1929 that cars
> would achieve 80 mpg by 1939. Pages 221 through 223 have Shell writing
> of their test circuit achievements, specifically the 49.73 mpg
> achieved in 1939; the 149.95 mpg achieved in 1949 ; 244.35 mpg in 1968
> and the biggie, 376.59 mpg in 1973.
>
> http://cfpub.epa.gov/ols/catalog/catalog_display.cfm?&FIELD1=SUBJECT&INPUT1=Internal%20combustion%20engines%20Spark%20ignition%20Fuel%20consumption&TYPE1=EXACT&item_count=3
>
> Fuel economy of the gasoline engine fuel, lubricant, and other
> effects /
> Author Blackmore, David Richard; Thomas, Alun; Affleck, W. S.
> Publisher Wiley,
> Place Published New York :
> Year Published 1977
> OCLC Number 02837680
> Subjects Internal combustion engines, Spark ignition--Fuel
> consumption
> Holdings Library Call Number Additional Info Location Date Modified
> EIAM TJ789.Fu Region 2 Library/New York,NY 01/01/1988
> ELCM TJ789.F78 1977 NVFEL Library/Ann Arbor, MI 09/10/1988
>
> Collation xi, 268 p. : ill. ; 25 cm.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Fuel-Economy-Gasoline-Engine-Lubricant/dp/0333220226/
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Fuel-economy-gasoline-engine-lubricant/dp/0470991321/
>
> http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets-376-59-mpg-1264903.php
>
> ..how does 376.59 miles per gallon sound?
> ..
> it's from a chop-top, steel-frame 1959 Opel T-1 (think melting jelly
> bean, but uglier). And the record was set in 1973 in a contest
> sponsored by Shell Oil Co.
>
> Yes, that Shell Oil, better known now as Royal Dutch Shell.
>
> Evan McMullen, owner of Seattle-based Cosmopolitan Motors,
> rediscovered the Guinness world-record-setting but forgotten car in
> Florida.
>
>
> Guinness listed it in its 1975 record book. Technological journals
> from the era waxed about the Opel's simple but effective modifications
> and engineering
>
>
> The mileage from the mostly stock four-cylinder came from heating and
> insulating the fuel line so the gas entered the engine as lean vapor.
> Then they drove the car on a closed course at a steady 30 mph.
>
> So some of that wouldn't work in the street, McMullen concedes. But if
> the car were made more drivable and lost 200 mpg -- it still would get
> 176 mpg.
>
>
> US Dept. Of Energy Fuel Cell program:
> http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/
>
> Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association
> The Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association (FCHEA) is the trade
> association for the fuel cell and hydrogen industry. FCHEA has
> brochures and industry information on its website,
>
> http://www.fchea.org
>
> California Fuel Cell Partnership – http://www.cafcp.org
> California Hydrogen Business Council - http://www.californiahydrogen.org
> California Stationary Fuel Cell Collaborative - http://www.casfcc.org
>
> Info on Hydrogen fuel cell fueling stations and companies in
> california
>
> http://www.fuelcells.org/info/statedatabase.html
>
> http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/stateofthestates2011.pdf
>
> "More hydrogen fueling stations were opened, serving light duty
> vehicles, buses and fuel cell forklifts.
> • By the end of 2011, California plans to have at least 20 public
> stations operating or under construction, with California Energy
> Commission support for more stations down the pike.
> • New hydrogen stations were opened in Delaware, New York, and South
> Carolina to fuel cars and buses.
> • New private hydrogen fueling stations were opened at warehouses
> around the country to serve fuel cell-powered forklifts.
> • Air Products reports 347,000 hydrogen fuelings per year at its
> fueling stations and hydrogen dispensers.
> More fuel cells are now backing up telecommunication and radio towers
> and utility substations.
> • Federal American Recovery and Reinvestment (ARRA) funding supported
> hundreds of installations around the country by Sprint Nextel and fuel
> cell manufacturer ReliOn (for AT&T and PG&E), respectively.
> • Microcell Corporation also installed fuel cell units at CA, MD, NC,
> OH and VA telecom and utility sites.
>
> Fuel cell manufacturer Bloom Energy is greatly expanding its
> Sunnyvale, California manufacturing facility and adding more than
> 1,000 new jobs. Bloom Energy expanded its workforce by over 70 percent
> in 2010 alone, and has grown 525 percent over the past four years. The
> company is also planning to build a manufacturing facility in Newark,
> Delaware, hiring 900 employees over five years and predicting a
> minimum of 600 more jobs to follow as its suppliers open Delaware
> bases of operations."
>
> Recent Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Installations
>
> Sonoma County Government Buildings, Santa Rosa: The county has
> installed a 1.4 MW FuelCell Energy power plant to power government
> buildings in Santa Rosa. The fuel cell system provides 90 percent of
> the energy used at the facility, powering about 12 buildings and
> heating the buildings with the fuel cell's waste heat. (17)
>
> natural gas powering fuel cells
>
> http://www.bloomenergy.com/products/solid-oxide-fuel-cell-animation/
>
> http://www.bloomenergy.com/products/solid-oxide-fuel-cell/
>
> http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/stateofthestates2011.pdf
>
> Bloom Energy, Sunnyvale: Bloom Energy Servers, solid oxide fuel cell
> (SOFC) systems are installed at many high profile locations – eBay,
> Google, Coca-Cola, FedEx. Bloom also offers Bloom Electrons™, a PPA
> that allows customers to lock in their electricity rates for 10 years,
> delivering fixed predictable costs and significant savings versus the
> grid with no initial investment. Bloom manages and maintains the
> systems on the customers’ sites and the customers pay only for the
> electricity consumed. Bloom has more than 20 MWs of power (200
> systems) already installed, with several repeat customers. The company
> is expanding its Sunnyvale manufacturing facility by four times to
> over 210,000 square feet, and providing over 1000 new jobs for
> Californians. Bloom Energy expanded its workforce by over 70 percent
> in 2010 alone, and has grown 525 percent over the past four years.
>
> FuelCell Energy, Danbury: FuelCell Energy manufactures Direct Fuel
> Cell© (DFC©) MCFC fuel cell systems that can run on natural gas or
> biogas. The company has sold more than 16 MW of power to California
> alone in the past year and most recently announced a sale of 70 MW to
> POSCO Power in Korea. (31)
>
> SunHydro Hydrogen Station, Charlotte: SunHydro is the world's first
> chain of privately funded fueling stations that provide hydrogen to
> fuel cell cars. The company's goal is to produce hydrogen on-site
> using solar energy and water. Most of the stations will be "self-
> service," open 24 hours a day and near major highways and major
> cities. A station is planned in Charlotte in Phase 1 of the project’s
> development, which will create an East Coast Hydrogen Highway. Station
> roll-out will begin in the northeastern U.S.
>
> California
> • Worldwide leader in - hydrogen stations, fuel cell vehicles, fuel
> cell buses, stationary installations; Progressive emissions and
> funding policies
>
> info on Lawerence Livermore National Labs research on hydrogen fuel
> powered cars
> https://energy.llnl.gov/hydrogen.php
>
> excerpt
>
> Hydrogen Fuel
>
> As a fuel to power engines, hydrogen may realize the possibility of
> very low emissions—and potentially zero emissions. Hydrogen fuel can
> be converted electrochemically into electric energy using a fuel cell
> or burned in a hydrogen combustion engine. The fuel cell is one of the
> most promising clean-energy technologies, while the hydrogen
> combustion engine provides another option for carbon-free hydrogen
> fuel.
>
>
>
> Hydrogen Fuel
>
> As a fuel to power engines, hydrogen may realize the possibility of
> very low emissions—and potentially zero emissions. Hydrogen fuel can
> be converted electrochemically into electric energy using a fuel cell
> or burned in a hydrogen combustion engine. The fuel cell is one of the
> most promising clean-energy technologies, while the hydrogen
> combustion engine provides another option for carbon-free hydrogen
> fuel.
> The Challenge
>
> Hydrogen does not commonly occur in its diatomic form on Earth and,
> thus, it is not so much an energy resource as it is a synthesized
> carrier, made from other resources. Today, hydrogen is commonly
> generated from natural gas with about 80 percent efficiency. Hydrogen
> is also extracted from water using electricity to power an
> electrolysis reaction.
>
> Storing hydrogen fuel onboard a vehicular poses challenges. Although
> hydrogen is environmentally friendly, particularly at its point of
> use, it is not as dense as conventional fossil fuels and requires
> large, reinforced and pressurized storage tanks to achieve practical
> driving distances. This presents space constraints for vehicle designs
> and potential safety concerns.
>
> The Solution
>
> The U.S. Department of Energy Hydrogen Program technical plan calls
> for the development and commercialization of economical hydrogen
> production, generation, and distribution technology by 2015 and market
> incorporation by 2020.
>
> To support this goal, LLNL researchers have designed, built, and
> demonstrated a hydrogen-storage tank on a conventional vehicle that
> can hold 10 kilograms of liquid hydrogen—enough for 500+ miles of
> driving. Livermore Laboratory is also examining the use of exotic
> microbes as biological hydrogen generators. For use in hydrogen fuel
> production, the most promising microbes are Pyrococcus furiosus. P.
> furiosus can consume extracts of starchy plant matter, digesting the
> carbohydrate in a way that not only provides energy but also releases
> hydrogen gas.
>
>
> http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/stateofthestates2011.pdf
>
> California Energy Commission (CEC) 2010-2011 Investment Plan for the
> Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program: A
> strategic decision by the CEC to match federal ARRA funding has
> resulted in significant uncommitted Program funding from the first
> investment plan. The CEC is releasing a series of focused
> solicitations for approximately $113 million that, among other
> efforts, further expands the state’s hydrogen fueling network. $14
> million was allotted to this effort in 2010 (See the Hydrogen Stations
> entry in the California Planned Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Installations
> section below).
> Since adoption of the first investment plan in 2009, the CEC has
> committed funds to a variety of alternative fuel efforts, including
> the certification of hydrogen dispensing equipment for retail hydrogen
> fueling stations and establishing specifications for hydrogen and
> biodiesel fuels. (15)
>
> Public Utilities Commission (PUC) Self-Generation Incentive Program
> (SGIP): SGIP provides rebates for qualifying distributed energy
> systems installed on the customer's side of the utility meter.
> Qualifying technologies include wind turbines, fuel cells, and
> corresponding energy storage systems. The program was to expire at the
> end of 2011, but PUC code was amended to enable continuation of
> incentives through the end of 2015. Additional program funding,
> however, may not be available after 2011. The program year 2010
> budgets by SGIP Program Administrator were:
> Program
> Administrator Percentage
>
> 2010 SGIP Budget (millions)
> PG&E
> 44%
> $36
> SCE
> 34%
> $28
> CCSE
> 13%
> $11
> SoCalGas
> 9%
> $8
> TOTAL
> 100%
> $83
>
> Recent Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Installations
>
> Sonoma County Government Buildings, Santa Rosa: The county has
> installed a 1.4 MW FuelCell Energy power plant to power government
> buildings in Santa Rosa. The fuel cell system provides 90 percent of
> the energy used at the facility, powering about 12 buildings and
> heating the buildings with the fuel cell's waste heat. (17)
>
> Award Ceremonies, Los Angeles: Altergy Systems’ Freedom Power™
> hydrogen fuel cell systems supplied lighting and “zero emission” power
> needs for all four major Hollywood Awards Ceremonies – The Golden
> Globes, The Screen Actors Guild Awards, The Grammy Awards, and the
> Academy Awards.
>
> Adobe Headquarters, San Jose: Twelve Bloom Energy Servers - 1.2 MW
> total power - were installed in September 2010 at Adobe’s headquarters
> campus.
>
> Whole Foods Market, San Jose: Whole Foods Market will power a new San
> Jose retail store with a 400-kW UTC Power fuel cell system. The fuel
> cell system will generate 90 percent of the store’s power and its
> byproduct thermal energy will be used for store heating, cooling and
> refrigeration.
>
> Albertsons, San Diego: A new Albertsons supermarket in San Diego
> generates nearly 90 percent of its electricity using a 400-kW UTC
> Power fuel cell. Byproduct heat from the fuel cell is captured and
> used to warm water used in the store, heat the store when necessary
> and to power a chiller to help cool the refrigerated food, resulting
> in an overall energy efficiency of approximately 60 percent, nearly
> twice the efficiency of the U.S. electrical grid. During power
> outages, the store can operate without disruption because electricity
> is generated on-site by the fuel cell, allowing Albertsons to avoid
> costly food spoilage and ensure a reliable food supply in emergency
> situations.
>
> Zero Emission Bay Area (ZEBA) Advanced Fuel Cell Bus Demonstration,
> Oakland: Five Bay Area transit agencies have joined to form the ZEBA
> demonstration group: Alameda-Contra Costa (AC) Transit, Golden Gate
> Transit, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, San Mateo County
> Transit District and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation
> Agency. AC Transit is leading the project by purchasing the buses;
> providing facilities to house, maintain, and fuel them; and serving as
> the primary operator. AC Transit has begun taking delivery of the
> buses; once all 12 buses are deployed, they will comprise the largest
> fuel cell bus fleet in the U.S.
>
> Honda Solar Hydrogen Station, Los Angeles: Honda has deployed its
> “next generation” solar hydrogen refueling station that uses Honda’s
> own solar cells. The unit collects solar energy during the day and the
> customer can slow-fill with hydrogen over an eight-hour period at
> night.
>
> Shell/Toyota Hydrogen Fueling Station, Torrance: Opened in May 2011,
> this is the first hydrogen fueling station in the U.S. fed directly
> from an active industrial hydrogen pipeline. The station is a
> collaborative effort between Toyota, Air Products, Shell, South Coast
> Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and DOE. The facility will
> provide hydrogen for the Toyota fuel cell hybrid demonstration program
> vehicles as well as other manufacturers' fuel cell vehicle fleets in
> the Los Angeles area.
>
> list of some hydrogen fueling stations
>
> Hydrogen Fueling Stations: The CEC selected 11 hydrogen fueling
> station projects for its “Hydrogen Fuel Infrastructure” solicitation
> under the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology
> Program. The awards include:
> • $3,396,309 to Linde LLC for a Laguna Nigel Station and a West
> Sacramento Station (funding has been released for contracting – April
> 2011).
> • $567,003 to the Airport Commission, City and County of San Francisco
> for the San Francisco International Airport (SFO) West Bay Hydrogen
> Fueling Complex (funding has been released for contracting – April
> 2011).
> • $8,484,871 to Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. for eight stations
> located at UC Irvine; Santa Monica; Beverly Hill (Los Angeles); West
> Los Angeles; Hermosa Beach; Irvine North Station (Irvine); Diamond
> Bar; and Hawthorne.
> Three new hydrogen stations are under construction: CSU LA station,
> Harbor City station (where a hydrogen dispensing island is going into
> an existing gasoline station), and AC Transit’s station in Emeryville
> (the station will have a dispenser inside the bus yard for buses, and
> a separate dispenser outside for passenger vehicles - car drivers will
> fill with renewably-generated hydrogen).
> Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA), Ontario: Inland Empire
> Utilities Agency signed a landmark 20-year PPA with UTS BioEnergy to
> install, operate and maintain a 2.8 MW fuel cell system, fueled
> primarily with renewable biogas. IEUA will purchase power generated
> from the fuel cell plant at the agreed upon price over the next 20
> years, and will use the heat generated from the process to heat the
> biogas producing anaerobic digesters at the water recycling facility.
> Irvine Unified School District: The District will install fuel cells
> at two high schools (University and Woodbridge High Schools) to
> generate heat and additional power. Each school will receive six 5-kW
> ClearEdge Power fuel cell units. The fuel cells will be partially
> funded SGIP.
> K2 Pure Solutions Bleach Plant, Pittsburg: Ballard's CLEARgenTM fuel
> cell system will convert by-product hydrogen into clean load-following
> electricity that will partially offset power demand at the bleach
> plant.
>
> National Aeronautical and Space Administration’s (NASA) Ames Research
> Center, Moffett Field: Selected under the U.S. Army Corps of
> Engineers’ Engineer Research and Development Center, Construction
> Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) PEM Fuel Cell Backup
> Demonstration Program to receive emergency fuel cell backup power
> units in June 2011. The fuel cells will operate for five years with an
> option for the host sites to fund an extension at that time.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Info on the Tokamak nuclear fusion test reactor:
>
> info on the Tokamak fusion test reactor achievements: at PPPL.gov
> main website of the Tokamak project
> http://www.iter.org
>
> http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html
> The Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) operated at the Princeton
> Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) from 1982 to 1997. TFTR set a number
> of world records, including a plasma temperature of 510 million
> degrees centigrade -- the highest ever produced in a laboratory, and
> well beyond the 100 million degrees required for commercial fusion. In
> addition to meeting its physics objectives, TFTR achieved all of its
> hardware design goals, thus making substantial contributions in many
> areas of fusion technology development.
>
>
> In December, 1993, TFTR became the world's first magnetic fusion
> device to perform extensive experiments with plasmas composed of 50/50
> deuterium/tritium -- the fuel mix required for practical fusion power
> production. Consequently, in 1994, TFTR produced a world-record 10.7
> million watts of controlled fusion power, enough to meet the needs of
> more than 3,000 homes. These experiments also emphasized studies of
> behavior of alpha particles produced in the deuterium-tritium
> reactions. The extent to which the alpha particles pass their energy
> to the plasma is critical to the eventual attainment of sustained
> fusion.
>
> environmental impact of a nuclear fusion power plant:
>
> http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-and-environment/index_en.htm
>
>
> Fusion power: safe and very low-carbon
>
> Many studies have looked at the potential impact of fusion power on
> the environment and at the possible risks associated with operating
> large-scale fusion power plants. The results show that fusion can be a
> very safe and sustainable energy source.
>
> The initial European Safety and Environmental Assessment of Fusion
> Power (SEAFP) looked at conceptual designs of fusion power stations
> and their safety and environmental assessments, including the
> identification and modelling of every conceivable accident scenario.
> This research has been extended in subsequent studies.
> Safety
>
> SEAFP concluded that fusion has very good inherent safety qualities,
> among which absence of 'chain reaction' and no production of long-
> lived, highly radiotoxic products. The worst possible accident would
> not be able to breach the confinement barriers. Even when a hypothesis
> is done that confinement barriers be breached, any accidental
> radioactive release from a fusion power station in this case cannot
> reach the level that would require the evacuation of the local
> community.
>
> The inherent safety characteristics of a fusion reactor are due to the
> very low fuel inventory in the reactor during operation and to the
> rapid cooling that extinguishes the fusion reactions should a
> malfunction occur.
>
> Of the fuels, lithium and deuterium are not radioactive. However
> tritium is radioactive with a short half-life of 12.6 years. As
> tritium is produced and used inside the reactor, no transport of
> radioactive fuel is needed.
>
> At the end of a fusion power station's working life the radiotoxicity
> in the reactor chamber and other structural and waste materials will
> decay rapidly. In less than 100 years the residual activity of these
> materials would be less than the radiotoxicity found in the waste from
> a conventional coal-fired power station. Fusion power will not burden
> society with a long-term toxic waste issue.
> Sustainable
>
> Fusion power does not produce any greenhouse gases (GHGs) or other
> atmospheric pollutants during operation. It offers a route to large-
> scale baseload energy production with no negative impact on the
> climate.
>
> The fuel consumption in a fusion power station is extremely low. To
> generate 7 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, a 1000-megawatt
> fusion power station would consume about 100 kg of deuterium and three
> tonnes of lithium per year. This compares to the 1.5 million tonnes of
> coal in an equivalent fossil-fuel plant.
>
> Fusion offers an almost limitless fuel supply with the fuel found in
> all parts of the world, and no negative climate change issues.
> Safety for ITER
>
> Key aspects of the safety of ITER are effluents and emissions during
> normal operation, occupational safety of workers at the site, proper
> storage and treatment of radioactive materials generated during
> operation and decommissioning, and potential accidents and incidents.
>
> All these aspects were evaluated as part of a Generic Site Safety
> Report (GSSR) that developed a technical safety basis for the
> regulatory and licensing of the ITER site.
>
> The GSSR indicates that effluents during normal operation should be
> less than 1 % of natural background radiation levels. Occupational
> exposure of workers at the ITER site is estimated to be less than the
> guidelines set for the next-generation of nuclear (fission) power
> plants.
>
> For decommissioning, the majority of the radioactive materials should
> be released from regulatory control in reasonable timescales. It is
> estimated that 60 % of the material will be below international
> clearance levels after 30 years, with 80 % available after 100 years.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> check out this link: Regarding Hydrogen fuel powered cars that can
> travel 500 miles with 10 kilograms of hydrogen fuel.
>
> https://energy.llnl.gov/hydrogen.php
>
> Hydrogen Fuel
>
> As a fuel to power engines, hydrogen may realize the possibility of
> very low emissions—and potentially zero emissions. Hydrogen fuel can
> be converted electrochemically into electric energy using a fuel cell
> or burned in a hydrogen combustion engine. The fuel cell is one of the
> most promising clean-energy technologies, while the hydrogen
> combustion engine provides another option for carbon-free hydrogen
> fuel.
>
> LLNL researchers have designed, built, and demonstrated a hydrogen-
> storage tank on a conventional vehicle that can hold 10 kilograms of
> liquid hydrogen—enough for 500+ miles of driving. ..Livermore
> Laboratory is also examining the use of exotic microbes as biological
> hydrogen generators. For use in hydrogen fuel production, the most
> promising microbes are Pyrococcus furiosus. P. furiosus can consume
> extracts of starchy plant matter, digesting the carbohydrate in a way
> that not only provides energy but also releases hydrogen gas.
>
> see this link:
>
> http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf
>
> i have excerpts of the study w/ page numbers at this link
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/48cf5a36493b41b6
>
> and then this link: where the increased US domestic Oil drilling
> theory to lower oil prices was debunked, because we only have 2
> percent of global reserves, oil drilling is at a 20 year high, we are
> producing a million more barrels than we did 5 years ago and this has
> had no effect on oil prices, since the price is set by OPEC, and
> Financial Futures Market Speculators
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/abb972cd082cd361
>
> PS if you are going to bring up the tar sands reserves, the fact is
> that they have higher sulphur content, which makes for a lower quality
> grade of gasoline fuel, than say Venezuela's or Libya's, light sweet
> crude, and these tar sands, also emit more emissions than standard
> fuel, and the
> hydrofracking required to blast the shale, has a larger more negative
> environmental impact and is more expensive than conventional oil
> drilling. Finally most of these tar sands are in Canada, so I dont see
> it as US Domestic oil drilling
>
Trillions to develop and retool, decades out.
For what advantage over 50 MPG CAFE?
None.
Above you were worried we were moving too slowly.
Now you want us to wait a quarter century before we start??
More has been spent on the development of a hydrogen fuel tank (and we
still do not have a commercially viable one that does not have to be
serviced (vented) on a sub-weekly schedule --- That means if you don't
drive for a week or manually reduce pressure in the tank it will go BOOM.
Fuel cells aren't even at the fantasy stage yet.
> Theory of Cold Fusion
>
> http://guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Kanarev/coldfusion/
>
> thomaswheat1975
>
> On Jun 26, 8:36 am, Tom Jigme Wheat<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Tokamak fusion test reactor can resolve power supply problem to SDI
>>
A tokamak is not cold fusion, it is very hot --- 100Mdeg C --- fusion.
Ok, I warned you. Here's how a tokamak works, and why we do not have a
commercially viable reactor after 60 years of research.
A tokamak is a magnetic device --- multiple electromagnetically
generated fields form the reaction vessel, insert reaction media, direct
the output to generators, control the reaction, etc.
Three fields, for ex, are required to create the torus --- one spiral
field to create the wall, a toroidal one to squeeze and direct the
streams for collision, and one through the "donut hole" to keep
everything aligned --- all using a lot of electricity.
Tokamaks operate at around 100Mdeg C. Squeezing the plasma by
contracting the torus (like the compression stroke of an internal
combustion engine) gets us to +- 30Mdeg. Another expensive magnetic
field can be used to induce an electric current in the plasma, Ohmic
heating it the rest of the way the same as an incandescent bulb's
filament is heated. But it cannot *keep* the plasma hot. If the LI is
not purified to all Li7 (a very expensive process in dollars and
electricity), the LI6 reaction is endothermic and cools the plasma.
Neutron and charged particle losses cool it a whole lot more, to the
point the reaction is no longer self-sustaining. As more and more
neutral particles (neutrons, He4 from the LI reaction) pollute the
plasma Ohmic heating becomes unable to maintain temps, so ANOTHER
expensive magnetic field must provide heating by vibrating the plasma at
high speed.
Finally MORE magnetic fields must collect the charged particles output
from the reaction, separate them by charge, and direct them to the
generator. Because temps are so high the alphas are high speed,
requiring a strong (expensive) field to capture them.
Most research tokamaks do not use the last heating step --- when temps
fall too far they just let the reaction stop.
Improvement in magnets from materials science has lessened the cost of
generating the magnetic fields significantly. Redesign of the geometry
of some of the fields has saved more. Improved vacuum pump design has
saved a little more.
But a tokamak still requires a lot more energy input for each MW of
output than any other method, even when fuel transportation and
processing costs are included, making them far less efficient than every
other mode of generation.
And they become less efficient the longer they are in operation.
The quality of the vacuum is critical to operation. As He4 levels
increase, and random fission products from the reaction of neutrons with
the container and components contribute to the internal atmosphere
reaction efficiency drops. At some point the reaction must be stopped
and the vacuum reestablished.
And NOT one of the 20-25 tokamaks in operation or development today
pretends they have an answer to these problems.
Yes, they are absolutely safe. They are NOT as non-polluting as some
claim. lithium is rare and production requires the smelting and
processing of very large amounts of ore. Depending on the source, which
can range from clays to igneous rocks, the slag can be quite toxic.
Lithium is extremely reactive --- explosive when it comes in contact
with water, self-igniting and flammable in ordinary atmosphere --- and
corrodes quickly so it is usually kept as a chloride salt. The pure
metal is kept in oil and is cleansed of this oil by toxic hydrocarbons.
Deuterium production from water is clean, but requires very large
amounts of electricity.
Larry
>> http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/fusion/microscope/safety-...
>>
>> environment/index_en.htm
>>
>> Fusion power: safe and very low-carbon
>>
>> Many studies have looked at the potential impact of fusion power on
>> the environment and at the possible risks associated with operating
>> large-scale fusion power plants. The results show that fusion can be a
>> very safe and sustainable energy source.
>>
>> The initial European Safety and Environmental Assessment of Fusion
>> Power (SEAFP) looked at conceptual designs of fusion power stations
>> and their safety and environmental assessments, including the
>> identification and modelling of every conceivable accident scenario.
>> This research has been extended in subsequent studies.
>> Safety
>>
>> SEAFP concluded that fusion has very good inherent safety qualities,
>> among which absence of 'chain reaction' and no production of long-
>> lived, highly radiotoxic products. The worst possible accident would
>> not be able to breach the confinement barriers. Even when a hypothesis
>> is done that confinement barriers be breached, any accidental
>> radioactive release from a fusion power station in this case cannot
>> reach the level that would require the evacuation of the local
>> community.
>>
>> The inherent safety characteristics of a fusion reactor are due to the
>> very low fuel inventory in the reactor during operation and to the
>> rapid cooling that extinguishes the fusion reactions should a
>> malfunction occur.
>>
>> Of the fuels, lithium and deuterium are not radioactive. However
>> tritium is radioactive with a short half-life of 12.6 years. As
>> tritium is produced and used inside the reactor, no transport of
>> radioactive fuel is needed.
>>
>> At the end of a fusion power station's working life the radiotoxicity
>> in the reactor chamber and other structural and waste materials will
>> decay rapidly. In less than 100 years the residual activity of these
>> materials would be less than the radiotoxicity found in the waste from
>> a conventional coal-fired power station. Fusion power will not burden
>> society with a long-term toxic waste issue.
>> Sustainable
>>
>> Fusion power does not produce any greenhouse gases (GHGs) or other
>> atmospheric pollutants during operation. It offers a route to large-
>> scale baseload energy production with no negative impact on the
>> climate.
>>
>> The fuel consumption in a fusion power station is extremely low. To
>> generate 7 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, a 1000-megawatt
>> fusion power station would consume about 100 kg of deuterium and three
>> tonnes of lithium per year. This compares to the 1.5 million tonnes of
>> coal in an equivalent fossil-fuel plant.
>>
>> Fusion offers an almost limitless fuel supply with the fuel found in
>> all parts of the world, and no negative climate change issues.
>> Safety for ITER
>>
>> Key aspects of the safety of ITER are effluents and emissions during
>> normal operation, occupational safety of workers at the site, proper
>> storage and treatment of radioactive materials generated during
>> operation and decommissioning, and potential accidents and incidents.
>>
>> All these aspects were evaluated as part of a Generic Site Safety
>> Report (GSSR) that developed a technical safety basis for the
>> regulatory and licensing of the ITER site.
>>
>> The GSSR indicates that effluents during normal operation should be
>> less than 1 % of natural background radiation levels. Occupational
>> exposure of workers at the ITER site is estimated to be less than the
>> guidelines set for the next-generation of nuclear (fission) power
>> plants.
>>
>> For decommissioning, the majority of the radioactive materials should
>> be released from regulatory control in reasonable timescales. It is
>> estimated that 60 % of the material will be below international
>> clearance levels after 30 years, with 80 % available after 100 years.
>>
>> The GSSR assessments showed that ITER can be constructed and operated
>> safely without significant environmental impacts.
>>
>> Further site specific studies will continue once the facilities at
>> Cadarache are built and commissioned.
>>
>> thomaswheat1975
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread...
>>
>> On Jun 25, 12:20 am, thomas wheat<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> regarding discussion archived here:
>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread...
>>
>>> I meant solid propellant, what fucked up the space shuttle was
>>> chlorine boosters!!!
>>
>>> I was right about the range, 6000 miles, the speed is actually 15000
>>> miles per hour, so obviously this fuel source, although has higher
>>> emissions, is much more productive, than standard jet fuel, or liquid
>>> based rocket propellants.
>>
>>> http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/lgm-30_3.htm
>>
>>> f 500 single RV Minuteman IIIs will be the nation's ICBM deterrent
>>> force through 2020.
>>
>>> Primary function: Intercontinental ballistic missile
>>> Contractor: Boeing Co.
>>> Power plant: "Three solid-propellant rocket motors;"
>>> first stage, Thiokol;
>>> second stage, Aerojet-General;
>>> third stage, United Technologies Chemical Systems Division
>>> Thrust: First stage, 202,600 pounds (91,170 kilograms)
>>> Length: 59.9 feet (18 meters)
>>> Weight: 79,432 pounds (32,158 kilograms)
>>> Diameter: 5.5 feet (1.67 meters)
>>> Range: 6,000-plus miles (5,218 nautical miles)
>>> Speed: Approximately 15,000 mph (Mach 23 or 24,000 kph) at burnout
>>
>>> On Jun 24, 10:36 pm, Larry Hewitt<***@comporium.net> wrote:> On 6/24/2011 9:38 PM, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
>>
>>>>> Larry your being a minimalist, and your argue albeit indirectly for
>>>>> the same REACTIONARY FOSSIL FUEL statism.
>>
>>>>> SEE THIS CONTACT AT PRINCETON PLASMA PHYISCS, HE WILL TELL YOU TOKAMAK
>>>>> IS NOT A NUCLEAR FISSION POWER PLANT, RATHER A NUCLEAR FUSION POWER
>>>>> PLANT!!!!
>>
>>>> I know far more about fission and fusion than you do.
>>
>>> you dont know shit!!!!!!!!!
>>> By 2015 the european union expects to be operating A Tokamak DEMO
>>> Fusion Power plant.
>>
>>>> EVERY fusion reactor is a decade or more and billions out from a
>>>> commercial application.
>>
>>> European union estimates the cost to construct the first commercial
>>> reactor prototype, the DEMO, to cost about 10 billion dollars.
>>> Incidently we were on our way of doing that sooner, but no george
>>> fuckin bitch bush decimated the nuclear fusion budget in
>>> 2005!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>>>> ***@pppl.gov
>>
>>>>> http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html
>>
>>>>> Fact natural gas rices are really CHEAP right now compared to oil
>>>>> prices.
>>
>>> The only reason the Oil companies dont want to supply more nautral gas
>>> is because its harder for them to rig the market, for natural gas,
>>> and also since natural gas is so cheap they claim, the cost of
>>> constructing an Canadian-USA nautral gas pipeline wont be profitable.
>>> But that's a crock of shit. Approximately 70 percent of our fossil
>>> fuel consumption is used in transportation, imagine if we were
>>> supplying natural gas from canada, everyone would make money, there is
>>> the demand, just not the will on the part of the statist oil
>>> companies. ExxonMobil estimates that North America has 150 years
>>> supply of Natural gas. So its these oil companies who are
>>> intentionally withholding supply. Also regarding the static
>>> reactionary, devolving of fuel economy standards, did you know that
>>> Royal Dutch Shell, published a study called "Fuel economy of the
>>> Gasoline Engine" in which a 1950's era Opel, got over 300 miles to the
>>> gallon. It was recorded in the Guinness Book of world records in the
>>> 1970's!
>>
>>> Citation: Shell Oil Company’s “Fuel Economy of the Gasoline
>>> Engine” (ISBN 0470991321); published by John Wiley& Sons, New York,
>>> 1977. On page 42, Shell Oil quotes the (then) President of General
>>> Motors who predicted in 1929 that cars would achieve 80 mpg by 1939.
>>> Pages 221 through 223 have Shell writing of their test circuit
>>> achievements, specifically the 49.73 mpg achieved in 1939; the 149.95
>>> mpg achieved in 1949 (using magnetos); 244.35 mpg in 1968 and the
>>> biggie, 376.59 mpg in 1973.
>>
>>> http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-g...
>>
>>> Hybrids, meet your rival -- it gets 376.59 mpg
>>> By MIKE LEWIS, P-I REPORTER
>>> Published 10:00 p.m., Tuesday, February 19, 2008
>>
>>> Read more:http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Hybrids-meet-your-rival-it-gets...
>>
>>> Don't choke on your organic soy-double-decaf-fair-trade-carbon-neutral
>>> macchiato, but how does 376.59 miles per gallon sound? Makes your
>>> Honda Civic hybrid look Hummeresque, doesn't it?
>>
>>> That number doesn't come from some manta ray-shaped, wind tunnel-
>>> vetted carbon fiber space car. No, it's from a chop-top, steel-frame
>>> 1959 Opel T-1 (think melting jelly bean, but uglier). And the record
>>> was set in 1973 in a contest sponsored by Shell Oil Co.
>>
>>> Yes, that Shell Oil, better known now as Royal Dutch Shell.
>>
>>> Evan McMullen, owner of Seattle-based Cosmopolitan Motors,
>>> rediscovered the Guinness world-record-setting but forgotten car in
>>> Florida.
>>
>>> Guinness listed it in its 1975 record book. Technological journals
>>> from the era waxed about the Opel's simple but effective modifications
>>> and engineering.
>>
>>>> So what?
>>
>>>> As you have noted, oil prices are artificially high now because of
>>>> speculation and price fixing.
>>
>>> Yes if the CEO of ExxonMobil is correct in his calculation that
>>> without speculation, that the price of oil should be between 60 and 70
>>> dollars a gallon, then gas shouldn't cost more than 2.40 cents a
>>> gallon.
>>
>>>> Besides, I am talking tomorrow, not today, and new applications for NG,
>>>> not current.
>>
>>>> It benefits the consumer to increase production.
>>
>>> Not in the US market. It only benefits the oil companies, who export
>>> our increased domestic oil production, thereby doing nothing to
>>> affect local supply shortages. Most of oil is shipped to Asia were the
>>> demand is highest. Oil prices fell from 99 dollars a barell to 91
>>> dollars a...
>>
>> read more »
>