Off Topic but interesting read

[rsdoran]

I had to do an essay on Hydrogen fuel cells and the real concern was not safety but production, at this time it requires more energy to obtain the hydrogen then it provides.

Being from the SOUTH and not exactly young I can remember when making moonshine was illegal but a highly lucrative venture. The cost of sugar and government regulation made "moonshining" non profitable.

Then the 70's came and oil prices went up so alternatives were looked for, ethanol was to be the answer...NOW Moonshiners could legally make it BUT ALAS no market came to be and the cost of sugar was too prohibitive.

I lost alot of money on Ethanol 30 years ago.

I do not know about the decree in Brazil on vehicles using Ethanol BUT my information shows Brazil to be in the top 10 oil consumer category, which means they consume more than they can produce. The US is number 1 on the list.

We forget that cars are not the only thing that use "oil", many electric power plants use coal or petroleum.

I just hope we do not wait too late to develop alternatives.

 

[elevmike]

I had to do an essay on Hydrogen fuel cells and the real concern was not safety but production, at this time it requires more energy to obtain the hydrogen then it provides.

Exactly! Unlike oil, hydrogen dosnt come ready made. You have to make it from scratch & you need LOTs of electricty to produce hydrogen. So where would all that electricity come from..buring coal or oil?? I dont think so....

 

[Terry Woods]

Nuclear Power...

On the plus-side... it's cheap (in the long run).

On the negative-side... radioactive waste.

There have been many project-leaders in the Yucca Mountain Project. Why?

The turn-over in project-leaders at Yucca Mountain is high because, the earlier project-leaders were from the scientific community. They kept finding problems with the site and the scheme on the whole. Because the government didn't like the results, the government replaced the project-leader... several times. Now the project-leader is a political appointee (you know, just like the Political Officers on the Nazi and Soviet Subs).

Many of the former project-leaders have been called and testified before Congress. All of their testimonies indicate that something is wrong... while the testimony from the political appointee indicates that everything is just lovely!

Congress is having a really hard time disbelieving those from the scientific community and believing the appointee. Something stinks in Nevada!

Google "Yucca Mountain", then Search within Results for "Congressional Investigation".

The implications are much too serious to leave it in the hands of self-serving politicos and business interests.

I seem to recall that the French are dumping their wastes out at sea.

 

[CroCop]

Shoot the waste into the sun.
Make Nevada a nuclear reactor.
Create casks capable of being blown up without dumping radiation all over the place.
And shoot anything that comes within 50 miles of Nuclear Nevada.

 

[rsdoran]

I think the problem with sending it into space is the cost.

Basic Chemistry shows that only a nuclear explosion will destroy an element or substance therefore blowing up nuclear waste using standard explosives just means you create alot of radioactive material that is dust. Using nuclear explosions would create other issues, one of which could be a chain reaction with a simple mistake. The other aspect of nuclear explosions is that elements/substances are destroyed..knowing this could ozone problems also be accredited to the numerous above ground nuclear explosions that have occured in the last 60 years?

As Terry mentions, it becomes political because it is not simple, costs are high, and development (safety) are issues. The scientists lose control because of situations beyond their control.

 

[Peter Nachtwey]

Put the nuclear waste along the Mexican border.

The radiation keep the fruits and vegetables we need from rotting too. Just kidding.

Seriously, I think telecommuting once or twice a week would be a start. It would reduce traffic and that traffic that was left would not waste as much fuel. Internet service is cheap compared to the time wasted moving from place to place. Software like gotomeeting reduce the need to physically meet. Just ONE day a week folks. ONE DAY!!!! Think what it can save. Don't tell me you haven't thought of programming your PLCs from home.

Think about it. What would you company do if the bird flu was contagious to humans. Would your company make everyone come to work just to get sick? Would you be allowed to work from home? I realize that telecommuting may not be possible for everyone. You will just have to take your chances.

Does anybody know of a phone system where their company extension can be forwarded to a cell phone or home phone number?

 

[elevmike]

I seem to recall that the French are dumping their wastes out at sea

.

Well, at least they have long range electric rail...

Does anybody know of a phone system where their company extension can be forwarded to a cell phone or home phone number?

Peter, anytime you call our main office number it will be answered by a live person. However in our case we require 100% reliability, and the cellular system has holes in it. For example, Believe it or not, supposedly the affluent Grosse Pointes has very poor coverage. So we use an answering service with land lines, who in turn can call, or if that fails, page our after hours dispatcher. All of our techs carry a Nextel & a Pagnet pager. We're still waiting on reliable cellular coverage & wireless broadband...

 

[MarkTTU]

Contrary to public belief hydrogen isn't actually all that dangerous.
Under most conditions is dissipates too quickly to become a danger if released to atmosphere and being the smallest atom is incredibly difficult to contain in concentrations high enough to be useful or dangerous anyway.

Back in school I worked on a hydrogen fuel cell powered suburban. Our biggest problems were weight and containment (the stuff leaks through most materials). Ultimately GM pulled our funding because they decided to go a different direction (ethanol); Ford took over the funding shortly before I graduated, but I haven't heard much about the project since it went to Ford.

I've been told before that the US Navy dumps their reactor waste at sea, but only in ultra-deep places. Don't know if its true or not, but it does make a certain amount of sense... Regardless I think nuclear waste is a lot easier to deal with and contain than emissions from coal, oil, natural gas, etc...

 

[Terry Woods]

marksji...
Regarding your remark (much earlier) in response to my remark...

Terry said...
"An interesting concept to keep in mind is... they (the Oil Companies) can't afford to go out of business! Simply on the volume that they are dealing with, if they can maintain a 10% margin, they are doing GREAT! (Without the 400-Million Dollar bonus for the CEO.)"

marksji said...
"I hate to point this out Terry, but 10% margin isn't very good. No, really, it isn't."

After which, you suggested that an investor could get more ROI from a CD.

I checked the ROI on CDs... The 5-Year, High-Yield CDs are paying 5.X%... max!

Having an investment with a company that has a 10% margin sounds twice as good as a High-Yield CD at 5%.

But, I ask you this... if, on a quarterly basis, a company pays all of its' debts, including operating overhead (CODB)... and ends up with a profit of 0%... what immediate harm is there to the company?

There is NO immediate harm to the company. At the very least, the company is surviving!

Of course, if you can help it, that is no way to run a company. There are always those damned "damn-its", and ideas, that cost big bucks. So, of course, it is wise for a company to strive for profit, at least against those "what-ifs".

Now... let's say that the company is supported by share-holders. Share-holders are investing in the company. Investment is a risk. Any share-holder stands to lose his investment. That's the nature of the game; especially in the short-term.

So... strictly from a monetary point of view, if the stock value becomes worthless... what happens to the investor? He has lost all value on his investment in terms of "selling" that share. And of course, since the profit is zero, he doesn't get any dividends.

What happens (or rather, should happen) to the company? Nothing!

The company is surviving. And the company should still have at least some of the cash left from the IPO (unless, of course, it has blown all on Greecian-themed company parties in the Caribbean and on gold shower-curtain rings).

The company should, of course, continue pursuing the "plan" that required the company to ask for a "public loan" in the first place.

But then, there are companies that go public simply for the sake of going public. This is not necessarily beneficial to the company. It is, however, very beneficial for the in-house share-holders. Especially those that have stock-options with a drastically reduced buy-in price.

That single factor is the one that most often corrupts the process. Those that have those stock-options will do whatever (ethical or not) to drive the stock price up so that they can cash-out, before the truth is known.

But then there is also the case where the company releases more than 50% of the stock to the public. In that case, the public share-holders drive the company to inflate the stock via their voting power for the Board of Directors. Some really care that the company does the right thing to be profitable. Others don't give a hang about doing the "right thing", just as long as the stock price goes up! This is especially true among the Day-Traders. That is the essence of Day-Trading!

Yeah... enough of that... and yes, there certainly are more issues regarding the stock-market concept on the whole.

Now, regarding your remark about Hydrogen being safer than we think...

First... Hydrogen is harmless only if the local concentation of Hydrogen is a lot lower than X-Moles per cubic-meter or something like that relative to the local concentration of Oxygen. The key is concentration of the two to each other. And then, of course, they both need to be within proximity of an ignition source. Some of us ex-military types recognize that situation as "flash-bang", even if with differing elements.

Second... the Hindenburg.
No... it didn't explode all at once like a bomb. It did, however, burn across a front as Hydrogen, Oxygen and the ignition source coincided.

Granted... the volume of Hydrogen in a car will be considerably smaller... but then, so is the car, and its' occupant(s).

Them marksji said...
"...the US Navy dumps their reactor waste at sea, but only in ultra-deep places. Don't know if its true or not, but it does make a certain amount of sense..."

So... do you have any idea what radiation destroys first when it comes to living matter? The first thing to go is DNA. After that, if the critter is still around, the cells go... then the organs, then the critter.

If the critter happens to survive beyond the DNA destructuction... then what kind of off-spring do you imagine that that critter will produce?

By the way, humans generally suffer DNA damage, EVERY SINGLE DAY, simply by being exposed to the sun (actually, this damage occurs constantly - sun or no sun... Darwin was right!). However, we mammals (I don't know about the other species) do have, at the cellular level, this incredible ability to repair damaged DNA. But then again, those repair-facilities are capable of handling only so much... just like maintenance folks and programmers... we all have our limitations. "A man needs to know his limitations" (Dirty Harry).

Nuclear waste is a VERY long-term, and SEVERLY consequential, by-product. This is true whether we apply it to humans, cattle, chickens, pigs, food-crops, or, to ocean-life in general, by dropping that waste at the bottom of the oceans. Life, and all other aspects of the human experience is part of the "Great Circle". The basic premise of the Great-Circle is... What goes around... comes around.

I'm Irish! I don't know about you... but I care very much about the welfare of my children, my grand-children, and their great-great-great grand-children, and theirs as well, etc!

I've never been one to by into the idea of "Live for Today" as if "Today" was the last day. Certainly you should live life to the fullest extent that you can. However, that is no excuse to do things that would prevent your grand-child from doing the same! After all... ain't nobody gonna live as long as they would like to!

Think about it.

(1370)

 

[MarkTTU]

marksji...
you suggested that an investor could get more ROI from a CD.

I checked the ROI on CDs... The 5-Year, High-Yield CDs are paying 5.X%... max!

Actually what I said is that IF the ROI is lower than that of a CD then WHY should someone invest in the company? I made no comment about CD's beating 10%! What I did say was that 10% was not a very good ROI for something as risky as a business venture.

But, I ask you this... if, on a quarterly basis, a company pays all of its' debts, including operating overhead (CODB)... and ends up with a profit of 0%... what immediate harm is there to the company?

There is NO immediate harm to the company. At the very least, the company is surviving!

True, there is no immediate (or long term) harm to the company... so long as the investors don't demand their money back. My point is this: Lets say I decide to start a company and I determine that I'll need $10,000 to get everything setup (buy equipment, pay lawyers for the paperwork to do the setup, have operating capital, etc). Let's say I take $10,000 out of my own bank account and fund the company. Now lets say that from that $10,000 I receive a 0% return on investment because the company made no money. OK, for the first year sure, first two years maybe, after that??? At some point I've got to stop and say gee, $10,000 in a CD at 4% would have netted me $400 the first year... $10,400 the next year in a 4% CD would have netted me $416... Every company has someone's money invested in it; if there is no profit then there is no reason for that person or persons to keep their money invested in the company.

Now, regarding your remark about Hydrogen being safer than we think...

First... Hydrogen is harmless only if the local concentration of Hydrogen is a lot lower than X-Moles per cubic-meter or something like that relative to the local concentration of Oxygen...

True, very true, I won't argue that point. Gasoline is the same, as is propane, butane, etc... we are not afraid of these gasses, so why hydrogen?

Second... the Hindenburg.

Ahh, the classic example from the mis-informed public... The primary problem with the Hindenburg was NOT the hydrogen though that was not understood until many years after the accident. Did some of the hydrogen burn? Yes, but most of it escaped harmlessly to atmosphere without ever burning. The primary fuel source was actually the coating used on the blimp material to contain the hydrogen inside the blimp. If you look it up you'll find this material is roughly the same material used in solid rocket boosters and burns rather nicely.

Them marksji said...
"...the US Navy dumps their reactor waste at sea, but only in ultra-deep places. Don't know if its true or not, but it does make a certain amount of sense..."

So... do you have any idea what radiation destroys first when it comes to living matter? The first thing to go is DNA. After that, if the critter is still around, the cells go... then the organs, then the critter.
...
Nuclear waste is a VERY long-term, and SEVERELY consequential, by-product.
...
However, that is no excuse to do things that would prevent your grand-child from doing the same! After all... ain't nobody gonna live as long as they would like to!

First off I said I've been told, but do not know the validity of the statement, that the US Navy dumps its waste overboard.

Second I said it makes a certain amount of sense, not that it made absolute sense and that's what we should do. Which would you rater have? Emissions from coal power plants or nuclear waste? I'd pick nuclear waste every time as I know how to contain it for the long term (though expensive) and I have no idea how to contain the toxic waste from the coal plant.

I'll also point out that all DNA undergoes constant DNA mutations human or otherwise; its just part of how the world works. Radiation (sun, RF, nuclear waste) all cause this process to speed up.

Before you start to lecture about your kids and their kids and leaving a good world and all that remember that every light bulb you have on creates toxic waste, every time you drive a mile you create toxic waste, every product you've ever purchased that came in a plastic container created toxic waste...

We have lots of problems with waste, we have no solutions that eliminate the problems, we have some solutions that reduce the rate at which we create waste, we have some solutions that allow us to exchange one type of waste for another, but we don't have a consensus on what types of waste we want to deal with or in what quantities of each type we want to deal with so we keep using technology and ideas that are 100+ years old because they are already in use and no one is willing to change... This last part seems absurd to me.

 

[Lancie1]

Lancie1,
We are Not in Brazil....In North America Hydrogen & ethanol will never supplant oil as an energy source. They are BOTH way too expensive to produce (both in cost $$ & energy), and it's unlikely that enough could be produced here given our growing demands for energy.

My Opinion: The only realistic long term solution to the U.S.energy issue is Nuclear Power & LOTS of it. We must get past the politics of "Not in my back yard" and open Yucca Mountain, and start building Nuke Plants post haste. Nuke power is clean & efficent and could be cheap if we really want it to be. What about the waste? Store it in Yucca Mountain for now and start doing serious research on how to cut the half life.

Mike,

I have a friend who works for the DOE on the Alcohol for Fuel program. He said about 5 years ago that calculations showed that when gasoline gets to about $2.50 per gallon, then ethanol would be cost competitive. Well, guess what?

I also happened to be working for a large government power utility in 1975 when one of their nuclear plants almost melted down from a fire caused by an electrical engineer (whose name I shall not mention) checking for air leaks around cable trays with a candle.

(Browns Ferry Unit 1, see this article: http://www.ccnr.org/browns_ferry.html#ca)

You would not believe how close we came to having a major nuclear event. It scared me silly, and I was not even directly involved in the operations side. (I have been down into the reactor room in a radiation suit several times, and I pray to God never to have to go there ever again.) Then there was the Three-Mile Island event. Then there was the 1986 Chernobyl meltdown in the Soviet Union.


How short our memories can be. Nuclear power is reliable and cheap, until you add in ALL the costs for operational safety, earthquake remediation, the environmental impact on the lives of people living close to the plants, and waste storage. In spite of the most sophisticated equipment and the most intensive training, the process is still dangerous, unforgiving, and creates a lot of waste that will be around for the next 10,000 years. I have known some nuclear plant operators, and I don't really trust the average good old boy to operate a nuclear plant for years and years without messing up at least ONE time. I vote against the nuclear option.
Many people have worked on the problem of nuclear waste. There is no theoretical way to reduce the half-life. The best hope is to encapsulate the nuclear pellets in glass and store them where no one can be exposed to them for the next 10,000 years. That is a tall order and beyond human comprehension. No political entity has ever lasted 10,000 years, so there is no way to guarantee who will be in control of the waste even 100 years from now.

 

[rsdoran]

I have a question

The discussion in on nuclear waste and what to do with it...correct?

What was being done with the radioactive material before we obtained/used it?

 

[Peter Nachtwey]

I know there are some ex nukes out there.

I was an RCO ( reactor controls officer ) on a submarine. I never heard anything about dumping nuclear waste. The only thing a submarine can dump is reactor coolant and that is too precious to dump except in extreme emergencies. There are holding tanks for holding reactor coolant that exands as the reactor heats up. The coolant is VERY pure and it cost a lot to make it that way so it is too precious to dump.

I believe that nuclear power can be made safe. I also think that is take a special kind of person to run a reactor safely.
It is not a job for your average good old boy. It takes people that have discipline and can follow procedures. It also takes operators that have a true feel for what is happening. The operation needs to be almost instictive.

If rocket boosters were reliable then boosting the waste to the sun is a good idea but the cost of sending waste to the sun must be high too.

Terry must not have any stocks. Marksji has a more realistic vision of how stock prices go up and down. I wouldn't invest in stocks unless the return is greater that some other investment like real estate etc.

 

[MarkTTU]

Thanks Peter; I always questioned the validity of our Navy dumping waste, but I'd heard roughly the same story a couple of times. Now that I've heard what you have to say my bet is the story confused coolant and waste.

 

[MiniRocky]

I cant help but to say Terry is right on.
If people(Middle Class!)who pay the majority of all costs in this country,would quit taking the slap in the face year after year and give the government the same **** the give us,they might listen.

Remember what (Revolution!) stands for