 Author |
 Post
|
 |
|
Michael Furdyk
Joined: Aug 12, 2000
Posts: 221 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male & 29
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
City: Toronto
|
Concentrations of Consequence
November 11, 2001 - 11:31 AM
|
|
Sittin' in the bathtub...reading this month's WIRED...
(to the tune of POTUSA's "Peaches") 
Interesting article on page 152: DIVIDED WE STAND. It talks about the traditionally targetted locations by terrorists, concentrations of value, and how targets with the newly termed "concentrations of consequence" are even more at risk. The example: If a city's water supply relies on a single river, or if all its electricity comes from a grid that can be brought down at a single switching station, then there is a concentration of consequence in the river or the grid, making them good targets.
My uncle was mentioning a similar idea to me a few weeks after September 11, saying that if Hoover Dam was hit instead, the everyday represussions for the average American would have been even more severe, greatly amplifying the nation's power crunch.
It talks about how a wind energy farm, for example, is not only a safe, clean way of generating electricity, but is actually risk preventative. It's a diffuse energy source, there isn't any "fuel" that's toxic or flammable, and there are usually few people nearby, because of the low cost of land required to make such farms economically viable. So although they cost more, there is previously perhaps unrealized value in the lower risk. Trains are another good example. Just some stuff to ponder!
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Robert Margolis
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
Posts: 480 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 46
Country: United States
Province/State: Florida
City: Palm Beach Gardens
|
Energy: Diffuse vs Concentrated
November 12, 2001 - 02:52 AM
|
|
Mike -
Before Sept 11 the energy business was moving to less concentrated sources for economic reasons. There are some very good articles on how fuel cells and gas microturbines may power homes the way that air conditioners cool them. After all, an air conditioner is a heat engine, just a different kind.
We do have to worry if the energy sources become too diffuse in that they use so much extra material that they create MORE environmental problems than conventional sources. A good example is that for the amount of megawatts, a solar photovoltaic plant will use almost 1000 times the amount of steel for a coal or nuclear plant. This is because the solar plant requires so much more land. To process that much more steel creates more toxic chemical wastes to manage. If we go TOO diffuse, we will poison ourselves and not need any terrorists to do the job.
Right now, the energy industry is sticking to middle ground: small and medium sized (up to 300 MWe) gas turbines and no coal or nuclear since they are too expensive. Microturbines and fuel cells may come if they can provide power at the right price.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Mike
Joined: Aug 31, 2001
Posts: 369 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 25
Country: Australia
Province/State: Western Australia
City: Perth
|
what about cheaper methods of creating steel?
November 16, 2001 - 06:58 AM
|
|
firstly - im not a science guy, i wish i was. but im not. So i'll put this forward like i only know how.
Are there any methods that arent in use today (or in wide use) that are more economical for mining/refining steel and other compounds used widely for construction and like you mentioned, solar cells?
Also - this may be a bit out of your league rob, but then against you are the 'nuke' guy. It has been proposed you could send out a field of solar cells and collect energy, and beam it back to earth.
how exactly can it be beamed, by laser??? or microwave technology???
Anywho - looking forward to your answers . . .
- - -
Pred.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Robert Margolis
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
Posts: 480 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 46
Country: United States
Province/State: Florida
City: Palm Beach Gardens
|
Small is Beautiful?
November 16, 2001 - 08:32 AM
|
|
Pred -
The so-called "mini-mills" do make steel using less energy and material than older methods. However, the larger land requirement of solar energy still means that for whatever method of making the steel, the coal or nuclear plant will use less steel or concrete. This is not to say that we should not use solar. We need to use it in ways that play off its advantages rather than try to make it a baseload technology.
As far as solar power satellites, usually microwaves are proposed to send the power back to earth (less power loss in the earth's atmosphere than visible light lasers). The system makes use of the fact that you can put a satellite up in a way that the sun will always shine on it at full intensity (1342 watts per sq meter) instead of the day/night average on earth (~200 watts per sq meter).
The only problem is that for these to be economical and not lose too much power in transmitting to earth, you need BIG satellites (e.g. 100,000 MW). These would be both tempting terrorist targets and if one failed you could lose your electric grid.
For solar energy, small IS beautiful.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Melanie
Joined: Jun 28, 2001
Posts: 15 (view all)
Poster Rank:
User is
Offline
Country: United States
Province/State: South Carolina
City: Charleston
|
food for thought...
December 11, 2001 - 07:19 AM
|
|
another alternative:
BIODIESELS
this summer, a car fueled by hemp fuel toured the US and Canada.
here are some facts from the site:
- biodiesels can be blended with petrol-based fuels or used alone
- biodiesel produces approximately 80% less carbon dioxide emissions, and almost 100% less sulfur dioxide
- biodiesel is safe to handle and transport because it is as biodegradable as sugar
- biodiesel can be made from domestically produced, renewable oilseed crops such as hemp
and of course:
- when burned in a diesel engine, biodiesel replaces the exhaust odor of petroleum diesel with the pleasant smell of hemp, popcorn or french fries
hmmmm....? what about bananas and coconut?
http://www.biodiesel.org/fuelfactsheet.htm
http://www.hempcar.org/biofacts.shtml
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Robert Margolis
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
Posts: 480 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 46
Country: United States
Province/State: Florida
City: Palm Beach Gardens
|
Good Idea
December 11, 2001 - 09:38 AM
|
|
Using crop waste for fuel is a good idea. Especially if most of the biomass of the plant would normally be thrown out. Might have to be careful about growing a crop SPECIFICALLY for fuel, as pound for pound, biomass has less energy than sub-bituminous coal. The emissions gain would then be offset by the extra fuel burned and land use.
Don't get me wrong, biomass from agricultural waste has real potential. That way, you are using the same land, energy, material, etc. twice. Plus you create a more diverse energy supply system.
Of course, Pred would probably prefer He3 reactors instead. ;-)
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Robert Margolis
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
Posts: 480 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 46
Country: United States
Province/State: Florida
City: Palm Beach Gardens
|
Hydrogen Fuel: Chemical or Nuclear?
March 31, 2002 - 02:42 AM
|
|
Using hydrogen as a chemical fuel is fine as energy storage. Unfortunately, it cannot be a net energy producer since it must be separated from water. The minimum energy required to separate it is equivalent to what you get when you react the hydrogen to get the water again. Most talk of a hydrogen economy uses hydrogen as a storage medium. The energy for separation can come from any power source (coal, nuclear, solar).
Using nuclear fusion (hydrogen as a nuclear fuel) is different. The massive amounts of energy released are much greater than that of separating the hydrogen, so hydrogen might be a net energy producer if it is used as fusion fuel. Obviously, we are a ways off from having fusion reactors, but we are now able to confine hydrogen plasmas and get significant amounts of fusion energy from them.
As far as regular nuclear power (i.e. fission) the fuel is the least of the problems. Billions of tons of uranium and thorium are in seawater and shale formations. Running out of fuel is not serious problem. I would have to write a big article to explain the controversies with nuclear power as well as its potential.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
vivek
Joined: Dec 19, 2001
Posts: 148 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 31
Country: India
Province/State: Maharashtra
City: Pune
|
Re: Concentrations of Consequence
March 31, 2002 - 04:47 AM
|
|
I think it’s a stupid idea to look forward to solar energy as a primary source of energy. It occupies too much space, too expensive and doesn’t produce much energy. But, never the less, you could use solar energy in things like running wrist watches, calculators, etc. plus things like cooking or heating your house or water heating. Too much conventional electricity is spent on things like these which can be done quite economically using solar power. But trying to generate electricity out of solar energy is anytime a bad idea.
Same goes with wind energy. You can use wind energy to pump out water out of tube wells, do some more research into hydraulics and find out some direct applications. Trying to convert it to electricity first and then using it on a large scale is a stupid idea.
Nuclear energy. Worst idea. Some day all the uranium in the world is going to get over. And as far as generating energy out of hydrogen fusion, it never been done for peaceful reasons. Needs a lot of research and more nuclear testing. And every time we a nuclear test, we get a new variety of nuclear bomb. Besides, with so many nuclear power stations around, militants wont require any nuclear weapons.
Best solution would be to do more research on how hydrogen can be used as a fuel. It will solve all our problems related to energy crisis, and with so many manufacturers of hydrogen, militants wont benefit by blowing up anything.
It will end our dependence on petroleum as a fuel as well.
Also, it could be a dream come true for world environment since hydrogen as a fuel will give only water as its bi-product, which is very environment friendly. No smoke no nothing.
And for not_neo’s remark on hydrogen manufacturing being expensive, I think its because we haven’t explored it much. That’s all.
Some people might even remark that by using hydrogen as a fuel, we would only be shifting the smoke from one chimney to another. But I think if we can have innovative ways of creating hydrogen, we would be reducing a lot of smoke.
Also there are other options like fuels made out of bio-waste. Our chemistry sir once happened to mention, you can manufacture butane quite easily using sugarcane waste. Also, you can manufacture biogas out of animal or human excreta. So many domestic biogas plants exist in rural India used for domestic purposes like cooking. If we just explore enough, may be we could have a great fuel for our vehicles also.
Great idea. These are the real solutions. Not wind or solar or nuclear energy.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Melanie
Joined: Jun 28, 2001
Posts: 15 (view all)
Poster Rank:
User is
Offline
Country: United States
Province/State: South Carolina
City: Charleston
|
the wind!
March 31, 2002 - 12:14 PM
|
|
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020415&s=bivens
"America is the Persian Gulf of wind. The Energy Department estimates that wind in the Dakotas alone could meet two-thirds of America's electricity needs; Texas could meet the last one-third. But there are good winds across America--in a ranking of the top states for wind, California, the wind-power poster-child, comes in at a lowly seventeenth. Solar power is equally bountiful: The Union of Concerned Scientists says 100 square miles in Nevada could produce enough solar electricity to power the nation."
the article also talks about solar power and hydrogen cells for cars
pretty uplifiting
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Gerald Derome
Joined: Oct 23, 2001
Posts: 168 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 55
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
City: Toronto
|
Re: Concentrations of Consequence
March 31, 2002 - 12:48 PM
|
|
Wind power is said to make sushi out of many birds.
When the cost of making 100 square miles of solar panels goes down enough then it may happen.
Hydrogen production is still quite expensive. Takes more energy to make this "hydrogen" then it can pump out. In a few years maybe, hopefully.
Concentration; solar panel farm and the capacitors needed to store electricity for night usage may be target.
Hydrogen plants could be target too!
Try "Concentrations and Consequences of Populations"
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
vivek
Joined: Dec 19, 2001
Posts: 148 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 31
Country: India
Province/State: Maharashtra
City: Pune
|
Re: Concentrations of Consequence
April 1, 2002 - 01:04 AM
|
|
removing hydrogen out of water does require energy, but can be easily done. so... can be a major source of energy. atleast, we wont have to depend on petroleum.
and my fav altrnwhich i think is going to work the best is generating fuel out of bio-mass, like biogas plants or biodiesel as put by melanie.
its the best alternative provided we produce so much waste on a regular basis.
nuclear energy... i dont think fusing hydrogen is the best thing to do.
yes, it can be a good source of energy, but other than technology, there are other factors governing the peace of this world. a fusion reactor would require more nuclear tests, more atom bombs (or rather, hydrogen bombs) and then, having a reactor like that triggers another arms race.
besides, if we decide that only america is allowed to have such technology, and that no other country in the world is to get into nuclear power, even than it can be a BIG danger to you'll. just image, a terrorist attack on a hydrogen reactor, it could create a blast 1000 times the magnitude of hiroshima. so, not a good solution.
at the most, the fission reactors we have today, are the best way to go.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
altaf
Joined: Mar 19, 2002
Posts: 17 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 25
Country: United Arab Emirates
Province/State: Al Fujayrah
City: Fujairah
|
Re: Concentrations of Consequence
April 1, 2002 - 01:53 AM
|
|
hey u guys have been taking abt using biomass as a fuel well it is in use all over india stuff ranging from dung to human excreta to sugarcane waste bagasse is being used in india in both fixed dome an floating dome types of biogass plants these provide fuel for the famers living nearby and also the left over material left behind can be used as manure in the fields... an since india has the largest amount of cattle heads this is a very economical method of proding energy wit very few drawbacs
if vivek has studied in india hell be able to tell u all abt biogas plants cuz they hafto learn abt it !!! rite vivek????
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Robert Margolis
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
Posts: 480 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 46
Country: United States
Province/State: Florida
City: Palm Beach Gardens
|
Garbage
April 1, 2002 - 01:59 AM
|
|
Using garbage will help supplement energy sources. You may not believe this, but we do nto have enough garbage to actually switch totally to it as fuel. The energy per mass (BTU/lb, Kcal/Kg) of garbage is much lower than coal or other fossil fuels. If you convert the garbage to gas, it is still a good idea, it is just that you will still need standard fuels to keep up with current demands.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Mike
Joined: Aug 31, 2001
Posts: 369 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 25
Country: Australia
Province/State: Western Australia
City: Perth
|
i knew this was going to degenerate into a discussion on weapons!
April 1, 2002 - 06:09 AM
|
|
Re: Weapons.
My main problem with weapons research, esp. Weapons of Mass Destruction is that they people are constantly looking to find ways to blow up a really big area all these spectacularly elegant ways.
I want the days of duel's at noonhour back!
Then again, if someone were to hand me a mobile Electro-magnetic pulse emitter thingy, i could have a lot of fun walking around the halls of 1 Microsoft Way 
- - -
Pred.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Robert Margolis
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
Posts: 480 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 46
Country: United States
Province/State: Florida
City: Palm Beach Gardens
|
Hmmm....
April 1, 2002 - 08:43 AM
|
|
Fusion reactors do not involve any nuclear weapons testing. You can see what fusion reactor designs look like at www.itercanada.com. The technology for fusing hydrogen plasmas is much different than the methods used for fusion in H-bombs. Fusing plasmas are of a small density, so a terrorist cannot create a nuclear explosion at a fusion reactor.
Same for fission, light water reactors cannot undergo nuclear explosions. Chernobyl was a rare reactor desing only used in the former Soviet Union.
I hope this clears things up. :-)
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
Home
Community
