O.T. from Afganistan

Page 3 of 6  


No need for personal attacks. An oil pipeline is in also the works with an initial capacity of a million barrels a day. Would you prefer I use the term petroleum-product pipeline? Or should I call it an energy pipeline?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

_six_years_ ago, of an oil company exec speculating on the desirability of building one. That's not "in the works".
Repeat: there is no oil in Afghanistan to speak of. To claim that the US invaded Afghanistan "for the oil" is utterly absurd. To actually *believe* that, as you appear to, is to live in a world divorced from reality.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter, send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The gas pipeline is being built first. The million barrel a day oil pipeline will run as a parallel project. It's still in the planning stages, and that's why I said "in the works".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The "energy" isn't in Afganistan, but the pipeline would have to cross through there to get the the tankers.
Renata
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 23:58:12 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bush has tried to reduce our dependance on foriegn oil but what a nauseating controversy resulted. Apparently having a drilling operation in the American equivalent of Siberia would be bad some how.
As to reducing oil consuption, you talk about improving fuel efficiency and developing alternative fuel sources. First of all, over the years manufacturers have offered many vehicles that get terrific gas mileage. The problem is that nobody wants them. So requiring car manufacturers to only provide vehicles meeting some arbitrary always moving target of gas mileage is just an excercise in forcing something people don't want down their throats.
As to alternative fuels, it seems the most popular alternative is electric power. What a perfect world we would live in if all cars were 100% electric, right? Wrong. Where does electricity come from? Power plants. How do power plants generate electricity? Burning fossil fuels. So either you burn it in your car or the burden gets moved to electrical plants to provide more energy and it's the same fuel causing all the frackas now. Don't you see that it is the same damn problem? I am only guessing here, but my experience tells me you would be against building any new nuclear plants. Not to mention the enormous cost that it would take to upgrade electrical grids to handle delivering all the power to move our automobiles. It will never happen, and it doesn't need to happen. What needs to happen is that panty waist worrywarts need to get the hell out of the way of progress.
And the funding issue is my personal favorite. What some people just can't seem to grasp is that large corporations (oil companies included along with all of the others) contribute a lot of funds to BOTH sides of the political isle. They will contribute large lumps of cash to Kerry, or whoever is nominated because they want influence with the administration regardless of which party it is. It seems the funding issue only gets mentioned when it is an evil Republican (sorry, I don't mean to be redundant) in office.
Frank
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm not talking about tiny little 3 cylinder econo vehicles. What I'm referring to is improving the fuel economy of existing vehicles. If each vehicle being manufactured were to get an extra few miles per gallon, this would go a very long way towards reducing the need for foreign oil imports. It may not eliminate them entirely, but would help quite a bit. The economic and political incentive for this to happen simply isn't there at this point in time, though that may change when oil prices rise in the future.

That's one of them. Hydrogen fueled vehicles are another possibility, with the hitch that although the vehicles are zero-emission (and a great benefit on it's own), the energy required to produce hydrogen is near that of running a gasoline engine. A recent development may dramatically reduce the energy required to generate hydrogen, which will make hydrogen fuel cells much more attractive as an alternative to gasoline.

Depends where you live. In my part of the world we have hydro-electric generation.

No, not necessarily. Nuclear energy has it's own set of problems but it does help reduce greenhouse emmissions. I'd like to see some of the future trillions and trillions of dollars earmarked for military spending diverted to fund fusion research.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Utter nonsense. It hasn't worked that way in the past; what reason is there to suppose it will work that way in the future? As I pointed out in an earlier post, improving fuel mileage primarily results in making longer commutes economically feasible, thus contributing to suburban sprawl and *increasing* our dependence on imported oil. That ain't the answer.
It won't help one damn bit,

And in no way will that alter our dependence on imported oil.

What recent development would that be? Cold fusion?

That's not very portable, is it? Not to mention the environmental damage done by the hydro dams. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

second thing you've said all day that makes any sense.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter, send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

People aren't going to move farther away just because their cars get better gas mileage. If you stated other factors, such as the cost of housing, community and lifestyle, then I'd agree with you.

Sure it will. Less fuel consumed, less pollution.

No. It was in the news a week or two ago and sounded interesting. Look it up yourself.

Yes, you're right. Hydro electric dams aren't very portable. Great observation, though I must point out that most utility companies use powerlines to distribute electricity to their customers. It's much easier. Hydro electric power may not be a free lunch, but it's one of the cleanest methods of electricity generation we have. No burning of fossil fuels, no nuclear hazards and spent fuel disposal problems.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's not what I said.

You're not paying attention, either to me or to history. Improved vehicle fuel mileage does *not* lead to a drop in fuel consumption, but rather to an increase in miles driven.
You are living in a fantasyland. The real world does not work the way you would like it to. [snip]

everywhere that electricity is consumed? Answer: because they can't generate enough electricity to supply everyone that wants it. It just isn't possible to supply the energy demands of a large industrial nation such as the US with hydro power alone. You're in your fantasyworld again.
And what about the environmental damage the dams do?
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter, send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Dam them!
And what about the environmental damage done by all the diesel trucks hauling the recycled cans, paper, plastic and glass?
Better to landfill the LOT of it. In fact, a lot of ends up being trucked to the recycling centres (centers, Keith) and THEN being trucked to the landfill.
(That's not sarcasm. I'm serious.)
djb
PS: The USA could handle all their garbage, our garbage and Mexico's garbage if they'd just privatize the Grand Canyon. What a waste of a great big hole.
(That was...)
--
Is it time to change my sig line yet?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 01:51:32 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

By your reasoning, absolutely nothing was gained by improving overall vehicle gas mileage from back when it was around 5-6 mpg to the ~20 mpg it is today, huh?
Ah the good old days when car were tanks... (I'm kinda waxing sentimental over something I wasn't actually part of, so maybe someone else can fill in additional details, as necessary).
Renata
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Has total fuel consumption gone up, or down?
BTW, even back in the 60s, cars were getting *much* better than 5-6 mpg.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter, send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fuel consumption has, of course, gone up. But, so has population. Besides, it's obviously not that simple. The country's highways and byways have evolved and grown too, for one.
5-6mph wasn't meant ot be exact...
Renata
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 20:54:10 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Having spent a little over 4 years working at the Princeton Plasma Fusion Lab on the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor, I believe that it WOULD take trillions and trillions of dollars over decades and decades to develop a viable, large scale fusion reactor and bring it into the market. I'm not sure the technology would ever reach break-even on the costs invested.
Until such a marvel is created, we need to make use of oil ( including our own), coal, nuclear and other alternative fuels. Perhaps wind farms off the coast of Nantucket. Oh, can't do that, Ted Kennedy and Walter Cronkite are fighting that one. And the ones that have already been built. The environmentalists are trying to shut them down because they are killing birds...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Al Reid wrote:

Al...
What's current status? I heard that tests were successful and that performance was as expected. What's the (current) holdup?
--
Morris Dovey (WB0YEF, once a Field Day operator at W2PU)
DeSoto, Iowa USA
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The tests were highly successful, however, the definition of success in scientific break-even. This means that you do not count certain energy inputs that are necessary to keep the reaction going, including the neutral beam injection. In addition, A successful 'shot' is a contained plasma lasting from several second to less than 1 minute. The first plasma was created on 12/23/1982 and was considered a great milestone. The plasma was contained for ~20ms. Also there are issues of metal fatigue/embrittlement due to the very high radiation levels and neutron flux. The breakeven experiments were delayed many years due to a cut in funding. The thought was to continue to use the reactor for scientific research since once the tritium/deuterium breakeven experiments were completed, the reactor would be too contaminated and radioactive to maintain. The unit would be mothballed for a cooling off period.
It has been a while since I was involved (I was there from '82-'86). At the time the plan was to use deuterium/Tritium as fuels. Tritium is highly radioactive and toxic.
Another hurdle is how to convert the energy to a usable form. Perhaps a molten lithium or sodium blanket to absorb the neutron flux that can be used to create steam to turn a turbine.
I would never say it cannot be done, but there is a long way to go.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Al Reid wrote:

> success in scientific break-even. This means that you do not > count certain energy inputs that are necessary to keep the > reaction going, including the neutral beam injection. In > addition, A successful 'shot' is a contained plasma lasting > from several second to less than 1 minute. The first plasma > was created on 12/23/1982 and was considered a great > milestone. The plasma was contained for ~20ms. Also there > are issues of metal fatigue/embrittlement due to the very high > radiation levels and neutron flux. The breakeven experiments > were delayed many years due to a cut in funding. The thought > was to continue to use the reactor for scientific research > since once the tritium/deuterium breakeven experiments were > completed, the reactor would be too contaminated and > radioactive to maintain. The unit would be mothballed for a > cooling off period. > > It has been a while since I was involved (I was there from > '82-'86). At the time the plan was to use deuterium/Tritium > as fuels. Tritium is highly radioactive and toxic. > > Another hurdle is how to convert the energy to a usable form. > Perhaps a molten lithium or sodium blanket to absorb the > neutron flux that can be used to create steam to turn a > turbine. > > I would never say it cannot be done, but there is a long way > to go.
That there would be metalurgical issues never even ocurred to me. I did understand that if the reactors were configured in pairs or triples, they could power each other and (still) produce a considerable excess.
It's /worth/ "trillions and trillions" of dollars to solve this one problem! The funding issue is unbelievably frustrating - even to non-participants/non-physicists like myself. I've believed that development to the point of safe deployment and commercialization could/would improve life for every human on the planet.
Eventually the problems /will/ be solved - or made moot by a breakthrough in a different direction. To me, at his point in time, this still looks like the most promising approach.
Thanks for your contributions to the project!
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Your really a towel head aren't you?
--
"Cartoons don't have any deep meaning.
They're just stupid drawings that give you a cheap laugh."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

After a shower, sometimes. Not in public though.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

... and the greenies are up in arms over that, seems that hydro- electric dams are bad too, since it floods areas that used to be "pristine wilderness" There are actually proposals to blow up all those dams and "let the rivers run free".
Wind? Forget it -- birds get killed by the blades
Solar? Uh-uh, shades the earth and ruins the ecology near the collectors.

Trillions and Trillions? You really don't know what is in the federal budget, do you?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.