On the box last night. (Al Jazeera).
It has come out on Wikileaks that Saudi Arabia has been deliberately
over estimating it's oil reserves by 40% for political/commercial
reasons. Is this why the gov. is pushing green energy?

harry ) wibbled on Thursday 10 February 2011 07:32:

On the box last night. (Al Jazeera).
It has come out on Wikileaks that Saudi Arabia has been deliberately
over estimating it's oil reserves by 40% for political/commercial
reasons. Is this why the gov. is pushing green energy?

Oil isn't much of a problem rearding electricity generation, but on that
note we should not be burning gas for the same like it's going out of
fashion. The solution here is to stop buggering about and start building
some nukes like they should have started 20 years ago, except they were all
too wet.

Oil will be a big problem for cars and indutry though. And that problem is
not solved.

Cars - still the batteries. Motor and control technologies have been ready
for years (if in part high power motors and control electronics have been
well developed for trains so cars are easy). We just need a method to carry
around a dense store of electricity - which at least is being researched
constantly for mobile electronics - but at the moment the densest and most
convenient way to cary energy happens to be liquid fuels.

Saudi - wouldn't surprise me if they were lying to keep prices up - "oh no
we're running out". 2 years later: "oh look, we've found a bit more - but
only a bit, so it's going to cost you". Repeat for some decades...

--
Tim Watts

On 10/02/2011 07:32, harry wrote:
On the box last night. (Al Jazeera).
It has come out on Wikileaks that Saudi Arabia has been deliberately
over estimating it's oil reserves by 40% for political/commercial
reasons.

It has never been a secret that the experts in the field work on that
assumption. For obvious reasons, nobody has managed to get accurate
figures from the Saudis to confirm it.

Is this why the gov. is pushing green energy?

They are doing that because they think it will get them more votes than
not doing it.

Colin Bignell

On 10/02/2011 07:32, harry wrote:
On the box last night. (Al Jazeera).
It has come out on Wikileaks that Saudi Arabia has been deliberately
over estimating it's oil reserves by 40% for political/commercial
reasons. Is this why the gov. is pushing green energy?
Maybe,but it sure is not to save the planet!

--
Residing on low ground in North Staffordshire

On Feb 10, 8:16*am, Tim Watts wrote:
harry ) wibbled on Thursday 10 February 2011 07:32:

On the box last night. (Al Jazeera).
It has come out on Wikileaks that Saudi Arabia has been deliberately
over estimating it's oil reserves by 40% for political/commercial
reasons. Is this why the gov. is pushing green energy?

Oil isn't much of a problem rearding electricity generation, but on that
note we should not be burning gas for the same like it's going out of
fashion. The solution here is to stop buggering about and start building
some nukes like they should have started 20 years ago, except they were all
too wet.

Oil will be a big problem for cars and indutry though. And that problem is
not solved.

With enough cheap nukes we can make it, or a good enough substitute.

MBQ

On Feb 10, 9:48*am, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 10/02/2011 07:32, harry wrote:

On the box last night. (Al Jazeera).
It has come out on Wikileaks that Saudi Arabia has been deliberately
over estimating it's oil reserves by 40% for political/commercial
reasons.

It has never been a secret that the experts in the field work on that
assumption. For obvious reasons, nobody has managed to get accurate
figures from the Saudis to confirm it.

Is this why the gov. is pushing green energy?

They are doing that because they think it will get them more votes than
not doing it.

And inflated tax revenue on the non "green" sources.

MBQ

Tim Watts wrote:
Oil isn't much of a problem rearding electricity generation, but on that
note we should not be burning gas for the same like it's going out of
fashion. The solution here is to stop buggering about and start building
some nukes like they should have started 20 years ago, except they were all
too wet.

There's at least 300 years of coal in the UK at 1980 consumption
levels.
There's little you can do with coal other than burn it for heat. Coal
should be used to generate electricity, gas should be piped to homes
for
home heating, oil should be used to make plastics. It's madness
burning
gas to make electricity when we already have a distribution system to
get its energy to the consumption point.

JGH

harry wrote:
On the box last night. (Al Jazeera).
It has come out on Wikileaks that Saudi Arabia has been deliberately
over estimating it's oil reserves by 40% for political/commercial
reasons. Is this why the gov. is pushing green energy?

Yes and no.

Oil security is desperately important, but actually most green energy is
no solution.

There are those that don't know his, those that know this but dare not
say it, and those who are quietly changing the rules to ensure that we
get new coal and nuclear installations.

Its put the lib dems in a huge fix: they came on a totally renewable
ticket, but now they are in power, and in possession of the facts, they
are really snookered. Cleggies wife is associated with a windpower
company of course, that magically seems to have got UK contracts. Whilst
vesta closed their UK manufacturing plant last year.

The latest DECC review makes interesting reading.

http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/w...ement-2010.pdf


What you should note is the huge 'commitment to renewables' statement
with almost zero actual real statements about what this means, only one
reference to offshore wind, none to onshore wind and a lot about waste
burning and methane digesters (technologies that actually work).

Whereas there are clear straightforward statements about advanced
supercritical coal and nuclear power installations.

To its a bit of a political hot potato: The LibDems risk being seen as
complete spineless U turning hypocrites if they turn round and tell the
truth that 'wind and solar doesn't work'. And losing a lot of private
cash. Or they risk being seen as the party who destroyed the nations
power generation capability on 5 years time when everyone understands
that they knew renewable energy was mostly crap, and did nothing to tell
us so.

The rumours that Saudi was overestimating reserves have been round the
financial press for a couple of years.

Tim Watts wrote:
harry ) wibbled on Thursday 10 February 2011 07:32:

On the box last night. (Al Jazeera).
It has come out on Wikileaks that Saudi Arabia has been deliberately
over estimating it's oil reserves by 40% for political/commercial
reasons. Is this why the gov. is pushing green energy?

Oil isn't much of a problem rearding electricity generation, but on that
note we should not be burning gas for the same like it's going out of
fashion. The solution here is to stop buggering about and start building
some nukes like they should have started 20 years ago, except they were all
too wet.

Hear hear!


Oil will be a big problem for cars and indutry though. And that problem is
not solved.


Yup.

Cars - still the batteries. Motor and control technologies have been ready
for years (if in part high power motors and control electronics have been
well developed for trains so cars are easy). We just need a method to carry
around a dense store of electricity - which at least is being researched
constantly for mobile electronics - but at the moment the densest and most
convenient way to cary energy happens to be liquid fuels.


100% correct. L:ithoum batteries will work pretty well but never as well
as diesel or kerosene. And lithium is about as good as a battery gets or
*can* get.

Petrol and diesel can be synthesized from many feedstocks, coal is one,
wood another, or even atmospheric CO2..and water! The key is how much
energy it takes to do this.

I think this will be the only solution to keeping aircraft flying.

High speed trains can replace the short haul airliners.

Ships can go nuclear, and will. If piracy is an issue, they may even go
submarine.


Short haul car use will be pretty much battery cars with recharging
wherever you go and a credit/debit card to pay for it.

It's the medium haul - especially freight - that is so difficult to solve.

Saudi - wouldn't surprise me if they were lying to keep prices up - "oh no
we're running out". 2 years later: "oh look, we've found a bit more - but
only a bit, so it's going to cost you". Repeat for some decades...


No,, the story is more about financials and economics: it makes them
look like they are worth more than they are, and hence gives them
greater financial muscle.

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...

Oil will be a big problem for cars and indutry though. And that problem is
not solved.

and aeroplanes!


--
Michael Chare

On Feb 10, 11:00*am, jgharston wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:
Oil isn't much of a problem rearding electricity generation, but on that
note we should not be burning gas for the same like it's going out of
fashion. The solution here is to stop buggering about and start building
some nukes like they should have started 20 years ago, except they were all
too wet.

There's at least 300 years of coal in the UK at 1980 consumption
levels.
There's little you can do with coal other than burn it for heat. Coal
should be used to generate electricity, gas should be piped to homes
for
home heating, oil should be used to make plastics. It's madness
burning
gas to make electricity when we already have a distribution system to
get its energy to the consumption point.

JGH

Coal can yield both gas and fuel oil, leaving smokeless coke. So it
pretty much covers all bases. Dirty fume output can now be treated as
a chemical source rather than released untouched, albeit at a price.

Peak oil is a hypothesis based on failing to understand the nature of
the figures. In short, exploration is expensive, so only so many years
is worth exploring for.

Anyone know anything about gas hydrate reserves?


NT

Figures for oil reserve are not "oil in the ground", they are
dependent on the extraction method whose economics are dependent on
oil price.

High oil prices permit costly extractive methods to be used which in
turn increases the effective reserve and pushes back the "Peak Oil
Date". For example, gas & oil shale reserves in USA & Canada are both
enormous and profitable to extract at current prices. Likewise wells
such as North Sea that were expected to be defunct now are still
providing supply due to a high oil price offsetting the cost of
enhanced extraction techniques.

There is a high degree of speculation with oil, and I suspect
deliberate manipulation to make alternative extraction methods
economic. You would not be mining sands & shale at 12$ per barrel.
Conversely a puzzle is why would you build "The World" if supply were
known to remain low cost far into 2050?

A lot of smoke and mirrors, as others have said we should be
processing our coal and building nukes. Having to convert sterling
into dollars to import energy is not the brightest thing we could do,
digging energy out of the ground is a far more rational solution when
you are sitting on a warehouse of the stuff which you only need to pay
to extract.

There is too much vested interest in terms of disrupting existing
supply chains.

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:06:33 +0000, Moonraker wrote:
On 10/02/2011 07:32, harry wrote:
On the box last night. (Al Jazeera).
It has come out on Wikileaks that Saudi Arabia has been deliberately
over estimating it's oil reserves by 40% for political/commercial
reasons. Is this why the gov. is pushing green energy?
Maybe,but it sure is not to save the planet!

Indeed. The planet will still be there, whether the inhabitants run
out of oil or not.
The only concern of any government is how that situation will
affect their re-election prospects - or their employability/book
prospects afterwards.


--
http://thisreallyismyhost.99k.org/10...0945525983.php

jgharston ) wibbled on Thursday 10 February 2011
11:00:

Tim Watts wrote:
Oil isn't much of a problem rearding electricity generation, but on that
note we should not be burning gas for the same like it's going out of
fashion. The solution here is to stop buggering about and start building
some nukes like they should have started 20 years ago, except they were
all too wet.

There's at least 300 years of coal in the UK at 1980 consumption
levels.
There's little you can do with coal other than burn it for heat. Coal
should be used to generate electricity, gas should be piped to homes
for
home heating, oil should be used to make plastics. It's madness
burning
gas to make electricity when we already have a distribution system to
get its energy to the consumption point.

JGH

Exactly my mate's attitude during privatisation - he worked for CEGB.

"Coal and nuclear for base load, gas for rapid response to demand and
Dinorwig for system stabilisation".

Unfortunately, the idiot tories flooged it off priced deliberately so that
the then cheapness of gas made the whole thing look attractive for sale.

Isn't it funny that whilst Blair was happy to ignore screaming crowds of
protestors over Iraq2 and trample all over everyone who objected to his
draconian regime of new regulations, he couldn't use that pig headedness for
something useful and tell the anti-nuke and nimby lobbies to feck off, they
were getting 15 new nuclear power stations distributed around the grid like
it or not.

We'd have had them by now, or be very close.

Privatisation of electricity has been nearly as bad as the railways. The
CEGB reaserch centre closed down (I wonder who develops their technology
now?), I get charged £35 for a fuse pull, people are getting charged silly
money for new supplies and the southeast MV and LV networks have just been
sold to a Hong Kong company FFS.

--
Tim Watts

On 10/02/2011 13:02, Tim Watts wrote:

....
Privatisation of electricity has been nearly as bad as the railways. The
CEGB reaserch centre closed down (I wonder who develops their technology
now?), I get charged £35 for a fuse pull, people are getting charged silly
money for new supplies and the southeast MV and LV networks have just been
sold to a Hong Kong company FFS.

I don't see any of the private companies reducing prices to avoid making
too much profit, as we were required to when I worked for the
nationalised industry.

Colin Bignell

On 10/02/2011 11:33, Michael Chare wrote:
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...

Oil will be a big problem for cars and indutry though. And that
problem is
not solved.

and aeroplanes!

Jet engines do not really need to burn oil. In WW2, faced by serious
fuel shortages, the Germans built one that ran on coal dust, although
the war ended before it got into production.

Colin Bignell

(%EMAIL) wibbled on Thursday 10 February 2011 13:26:

On 10/02/2011 13:02, Tim Watts wrote:

...
Privatisation of electricity has been nearly as bad as the railways. The
CEGB reaserch centre closed down (I wonder who develops their technology
now?), I get charged £35 for a fuse pull, people are getting charged
silly money for new supplies and the southeast MV and LV networks have
just been sold to a Hong Kong company FFS.

I don't see any of the private companies reducing prices to avoid making
too much profit, as we were required to when I worked for the
nationalised industry.

Colin Bignell

Ditto railways.

Southeastern have hiked prices round here by 10% this year, taken *an
extra* 25 million PA in taxpayer subsidies and yet still manage to have paid
44 million over 3 years in dividends as well as obscene bonuses to
directors.

So there you go. As predicted, privatisation was a gigantic flop. Even the
excuse that it would allow the gov to wash its hands of managing anything is
crap - the DoT interferes with the railways constantly not to mention
Network Rail is now wholly state owned because the privatised effort fecked
up big time.

If you go up to the MD of Southeastern as I did a couple of weeks back and
give him an earful re 1st paragraph, all you get is: we have a duty to
shareholders, we only make 1% profit [my heart bleeds] and we're allowed to
put up the prices by the franchise [so stuff you].

That's why if you follow Twitter on #southeastern you will learn new swear
words every day - and discover a whole bunch of people are barraging MPs and
councillors with letters and emails. Dispatches is doing a programme soon on
the state of the railways - air time March sometime probably.

--
Tim Watts

(%EMAIL) wibbled on Thursday 10 February 2011 13:37:

On 10/02/2011 11:33, Michael Chare wrote:
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...

Oil will be a big problem for cars and indutry though. And that
problem is
not solved.

and aeroplanes!

Jet engines do not really need to burn oil. In WW2, faced by serious
fuel shortages, the Germans built one that ran on coal dust, although
the war ended before it got into production.

Colin Bignell

Wouldn't the silicates and other junk foul up the turbines? Fairly abrasive
too, coal ash, I would have thought...

--
Tim Watts

On 10/02/2011 13:02, Tim Watts wrote:

I get charged £35 for a fuse pull

For a man to come out and pull a fuse at your house? Seems pretty
reasonable.

On 10/02/2011 14:07, Tim Watts wrote:
(%EMAIL) wibbled on Thursday 10 February 2011 13:37:

On 10/02/2011 11:33, Michael Chare wrote:
"Tim wrote in message
...

Oil will be a big problem for cars and indutry though. And that
problem is
not solved.

and aeroplanes!

Jet engines do not really need to burn oil. In WW2, faced by serious
fuel shortages, the Germans built one that ran on coal dust, although
the war ended before it got into production.

Colin Bignell

Wouldn't the silicates and other junk foul up the turbines? Fairly abrasive
too, coal ash, I would have thought...

ISTR it was a ram jet, so that wouldn't have been a problem.

Of course, in the 19th century Hiram Maxim managed to get an estimated
10,000 lbs lift from a steam powered aircraft - pity he hadn't got the
controls sorted before it broke free and took off though.

There were also experiments with nuclear powered aircraft in the 1950s,
although economy class passengers would probably glow at night afterwards.

Colin Bignell

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:22:39 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The rumours that Saudi was overestimating reserves have been round the
financial press for a couple of years.

I don't think any of them really know what reserves they have. ISTR
reading something in an old National Geographic about this many years
ago. The tolerance bands when applied to how much has already
extracted are so wide that the lower limit is such that couldn't have
extracted any in the first place...

--
Cheers
Dave.

Clive George ) wibbled on Thursday 10 February 2011
15:14:

On 10/02/2011 13:02, Tim Watts wrote:

I get charged £35 for a fuse pull

For a man to come out and pull a fuse at your house? Seems pretty
reasonable.

EDF, cutout fuse...
--
Tim Watts

On 10/02/2011 16:20, Tim Watts wrote:
Clive George ) wibbled on Thursday 10 February 2011
15:14:

On 10/02/2011 13:02, Tim Watts wrote:

I get charged £35 for a fuse pull

For a man to come out and pull a fuse at your house? Seems pretty
reasonable.

EDF, cutout fuse...

Still confused - where is the cutout fuse (showing ignorance, I know :-) )

Clive George ) wibbled on Thursday 10 February 2011
16:24:

On 10/02/2011 16:20, Tim Watts wrote:
Clive George ) wibbled on Thursday 10 February
2011 15:14:

On 10/02/2011 13:02, Tim Watts wrote:

I get charged £35 for a fuse pull

For a man to come out and pull a fuse at your house? Seems pretty
reasonable.

EDF, cutout fuse...

Still confused - where is the cutout fuse (showing ignorance, I know :-) )

The main fuse next to (usually) the meter - the one that has EDF seals on so
I am not meant to be pulling it myself.



--
Tim Watts

On 10/02/2011 18:29, Tim Watts wrote:
Clive George ) wibbled on Thursday 10 February 2011
16:24:

On 10/02/2011 16:20, Tim Watts wrote:
Clive George ) wibbled on Thursday 10 February
2011 15:14:

On 10/02/2011 13:02, Tim Watts wrote:

I get charged £35 for a fuse pull

For a man to come out and pull a fuse at your house? Seems pretty
reasonable.

EDF, cutout fuse...

Still confused - where is the cutout fuse (showing ignorance, I know :-) )

The main fuse next to (usually) the meter - the one that has EDF seals on so
I am not meant to be pulling it myself.

Right, it is the one I thought it might be. 35 quid is a fair charge for
that. It's not the work itself which costs the money, it's the getting
the man out there to do it - ie callout.

Since this is a DIY group, what are the options to DIY this? If the
seals are bust, how much do the leccy people complain?

Clive George ) wibbled on Thursday 10 February 2011
18:46:

On 10/02/2011 18:29, Tim Watts wrote:
Clive George ) wibbled on Thursday 10 February
2011 16:24:

On 10/02/2011 16:20, Tim Watts wrote:
Clive George ) wibbled on Thursday 10 February
2011 15:14:

On 10/02/2011 13:02, Tim Watts wrote:

I get charged £35 for a fuse pull

For a man to come out and pull a fuse at your house? Seems pretty
reasonable.

EDF, cutout fuse...

Still confused - where is the cutout fuse (showing ignorance, I know :-)
)

The main fuse next to (usually) the meter - the one that has EDF seals on
so I am not meant to be pulling it myself.

Right, it is the one I thought it might be. 35 quid is a fair charge for
that. It's not the work itself which costs the money, it's the getting
the man out there to do it - ie callout.

I don't think it is - when they have the option to install an isolator,
which they refuse to. I took the precaution of adding exactly the isolator
they would if they did, into their meter cabinet. There was some "debate"
when the bloke came back to refit the fuse, but he saw my POV in the end.

I have the means to isolate my water at the road, my gas at the meter - if
EDF are too cheap to offer an isolator as standard, it's not my fault.

Since this is a DIY group, what are the options to DIY this? If the
seals are bust, how much do the leccy people complain?

It depends.

If you have some manky old crap with paper/oil insulated cable, you would be
well advised not to touch it - there have been cases of:

1) Cutout falling off the wall when fuse pulled;

1a) Then bending the incoming cable where the paper has become dry and
brittle involving a large bang with the potntial to cause horrific burns.

2) The cutout casing breaking up leaving live parts.

If it's new ish (like less than 20 years old) you are probably fine as long
as the company don't have any recollection of having reinstalled the seals
recently - in which case you might get into trouble if they are sure you
broke then rather than slightly suspicios.

--
Tim Watts

Tabby wrote:


Peak oil is a hypothesis based on failing to understand the nature of
the figures. In short, exploration is expensive, so only so many years
is worth exploring for.


Not quite true.


We will never run out of oil, but two points the curve of oil extraction
are salient and meaningful.

1/. The point at which it gets so expensive its cheaper to use something
else. This is 'peak oil' where world production starts to FALL.

2/. The point at which it takes more energy to extract than it produces
when burnt. This is much later on, and marks the true end of oil as a
fuel. But not necessarily as a chemical feedstock for plastics etc.

The peak oil proposition si that we are now at the point where world
consumption and production of oil has, or is about to, peak.


Anyone know anything about gas hydrate reserves?

try theoildrum.

Or whatever that site is called.

Very informed site on all matters petrochemical.


NT

js.b1 wrote:
Figures for oil reserve are not "oil in the ground", they are
dependent on the extraction method whose economics are dependent on
oil price.

High oil prices permit costly extractive methods to be used which in
turn increases the effective reserve and pushes back the "Peak Oil
Date". For example, gas & oil shale reserves in USA & Canada are both
enormous and profitable to extract at current prices. Likewise wells
such as North Sea that were expected to be defunct now are still
providing supply due to a high oil price offsetting the cost of
enhanced extraction techniques.

There is a high degree of speculation with oil, and I suspect
deliberate manipulation to make alternative extraction methods
economic. You would not be mining sands & shale at 12$ per barrel.
Conversely a puzzle is why would you build "The World" if supply were
known to remain low cost far into 2050?


Correct. A LOT of S American and north American/canadian resources are
break-even at around $70 a barrel.

Saudis deliberately limit production rate to keep prices high: this
maximises the value of what they have left in the ground.

Even if they lose market share.


A lot of smoke and mirrors, as others have said we should be
processing our coal and building nukes. Having to convert sterling
into dollars to import energy is not the brightest thing we could do,
digging energy out of the ground is a far more rational solution when
you are sitting on a warehouse of the stuff which you only need to pay
to extract.

There is too much vested interest in terms of disrupting existing
supply chains.

Yup. And in bloody stupid windpower.

I don't personally like coal..its dirty and dangerous and makes a LOT of
CO2. Nuclear far safer and less environmentally destructive.

Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 10/02/2011 13:02, Tim Watts wrote:

...
Privatisation of electricity has been nearly as bad as the railways. The
CEGB reaserch centre closed down (I wonder who develops their technology
now?), I get charged £35 for a fuse pull, people are getting charged
silly
money for new supplies and the southeast MV and LV networks have just
been
sold to a Hong Kong company FFS.

I don't see any of the private companies reducing prices to avoid making
too much profit, as we were required to when I worked for the
nationalised industry.


They are regulated. is it OFGEN?
Colin Bignell

Tim Watts wrote:
Clive George ) wibbled on Thursday 10 February 2011
16:24:

On 10/02/2011 16:20, Tim Watts wrote:
Clive George ) wibbled on Thursday 10 February
2011 15:14:

On 10/02/2011 13:02, Tim Watts wrote:

I get charged £35 for a fuse pull
For a man to come out and pull a fuse at your house? Seems pretty
reasonable.
EDF, cutout fuse...
Still confused - where is the cutout fuse (showing ignorance, I know :-) )

The main fuse next to (usually) the meter - the one that has EDF seals on so
I am not meant to be pulling it myself.


******** to that, cut the seals,l pull it and get the man in at 35 quid
to replace the seals once its reconnected. That's what we did.

No problem at all.

Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 10/02/2011 11:33, Michael Chare wrote:
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...

Oil will be a big problem for cars and indutry though. And that
problem is
not solved.

and aeroplanes!

Jet engines do not really need to burn oil. In WW2, faced by serious
fuel shortages, the Germans built one that ran on coal dust, although
the war ended before it got into production.


In reality for any sort of service life, and efficiency, they do.

And the best hydrocarbon is in fact something like kerosene in terms of
power density. Hydrogen is lighter, but too bulky to fit in a plane and
the tanks get expensive heavy and complex to contain it.

Gas runs turbines just fine BUT again gas storage and safety make it
something you don't want in a plane. Kerosene is the sweet spot. It is
fairly high flash point, doesn't need pressurised tanks, and is good
energy per unit volume.

Its possible to make oil from coal, but cheap and energy efficient it
ain't. S Africa was doing that, and adding ethanol, to make a sort of
petrol during the embargo years.

Colin Bignell

Tim Watts wrote:
(%EMAIL) wibbled on Thursday 10 February 2011 13:37:

On 10/02/2011 11:33, Michael Chare wrote:
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
Oil will be a big problem for cars and indutry though. And that
problem is
not solved.

and aeroplanes!
Jet engines do not really need to burn oil. In WW2, faced by serious
fuel shortages, the Germans built one that ran on coal dust, although
the war ended before it got into production.

Colin Bignell

Wouldn't the silicates and other junk foul up the turbines? Fairly abrasive
too, coal ash, I would have thought...

Exactly. Not a problem when the average airframe life is about 30 hours,
and your back is to the wall.

A commercial airliner is good for 30-60 YEARS. and lord knows how much
actual flying time.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:
(%EMAIL) wibbled on Thursday 10 February 2011 13:37:

On 10/02/2011 11:33, Michael Chare wrote:
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
Oil will be a big problem for cars and indutry though. And that
problem is
not solved.

and aeroplanes!
Jet engines do not really need to burn oil. In WW2, faced by serious
fuel shortages, the Germans built one that ran on coal dust, although
the war ended before it got into production.

Colin Bignell

Wouldn't the silicates and other junk foul up the turbines? Fairly
abrasive too, coal ash, I would have thought...

Exactly. Not a problem when the average airframe life is about 30 hours,
and your back is to the wall.

A commercial airliner is good for 30-60 YEARS. and lord knows how much
actual flying time.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aer...b_table01.html

There you go...

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 11/02/2011 11:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
....
I don't personally like coal..its dirty and dangerous and makes a LOT of
CO2. Nuclear far safer and less environmentally destructive.

Underground gasification of coal removes the safety issues, allows
difficult seams to be exploited, reduces SO2 and NO outputs and can give
somewhere to store CO2 afterwards.

Colin Bignell

John Williamson wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:
(%EMAIL) wibbled on Thursday 10 February 2011 13:37:

On 10/02/2011 11:33, Michael Chare wrote:
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
Oil will be a big problem for cars and indutry though. And that
problem is
not solved.

and aeroplanes!
Jet engines do not really need to burn oil. In WW2, faced by serious
fuel shortages, the Germans built one that ran on coal dust, although
the war ended before it got into production.

Colin Bignell

Wouldn't the silicates and other junk foul up the turbines? Fairly
abrasive too, coal ash, I would have thought...

Exactly. Not a problem when the average airframe life is about 30
hours, and your back is to the wall.

A commercial airliner is good for 30-60 YEARS. and lord knows how much
actual flying time.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aer...b_table01.html


There you go...

a bit more than 30 hours anyway..:-)

On 11/02/2011 11:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 10/02/2011 11:33, Michael Chare wrote:
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...

Oil will be a big problem for cars and indutry though. And that
problem is
not solved.

and aeroplanes!

Jet engines do not really need to burn oil. In WW2, faced by serious
fuel shortages, the Germans built one that ran on coal dust, although
the war ended before it got into production.


In reality for any sort of service life, and efficiency, they do.

I was simply pointing out what is possible with a bit of lateral
thinking. The coal dust jet was a ramjet, which has no moving parts, so
the service life is not really affected by what it burns, but it is not
very practical for a modern aircraft. In the far distant future, when it
might really become important to conserve oil, who knows? Take off and
land with oil burning jets, at cruise speed switch to coal burning ram
jets.

And the best hydrocarbon is in fact something like kerosene in terms of
power density. Hydrogen is lighter, but too bulky to fit in a plane and
the tanks get expensive heavy and complex to contain it.

Gas runs turbines just fine BUT again gas storage and safety make it
something you don't want in a plane.

Aircraft are already flying pressure vessels and Concorde demonstrated
that AVTUR is not always safe.

Kerosene is the sweet spot. It is
fairly high flash point, doesn't need pressurised tanks, and is good
energy per unit volume.

Definitely the best today, but who knows what is going to happen over
the next couple of hundred years or so?

Colin Bignell

Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 11/02/2011 11:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 10/02/2011 11:33, Michael Chare wrote:
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...

Oil will be a big problem for cars and indutry though. And that
problem is
not solved.

and aeroplanes!

Jet engines do not really need to burn oil. In WW2, faced by serious
fuel shortages, the Germans built one that ran on coal dust, although
the war ended before it got into production.


In reality for any sort of service life, and efficiency, they do.

I was simply pointing out what is possible with a bit of lateral
thinking. The coal dust jet was a ramjet, which has no moving parts, so
the service life is not really affected by what it burns, but it is not
very practical for a modern aircraft. In the far distant future, when it
might really become important to conserve oil, who knows? Take off and
land with oil burning jets, at cruise speed switch to coal burning ram
jets.

Cheaper to accept you can't get there quite as soon, and use surface
transport. Irrespective of whether or not global warming is a problem,
we simply can't afford to burn ten times as much energy, making it by
burning hard to replace hydrocarbons, just to get there a bit quicker.
We also need to stop flying food thousands of miles, just for fun. Live
with the fact that strawberries will only be available here in the
European summer season. Flying new potatoes from Egypt to here makes no
sense at all, nor does flying peas and baby sweetcorn from Nigeria, just
to take two examples at random from my local supermarket shelves
recently. Bilberries flown in from Peru? Good grief.....

I can see a future where we are roundly cursed for burning all the oil,
instead of preserving it to use as feedstock for production of things
like plastic and food.

And the best hydrocarbon is in fact something like kerosene in terms of
power density. Hydrogen is lighter, but too bulky to fit in a plane and
the tanks get expensive heavy and complex to contain it.

Gas runs turbines just fine BUT again gas storage and safety make it
something you don't want in a plane.

Aircraft are already flying pressure vessels and Concorde demonstrated
that AVTUR is not always safe.

There's a difference between the fraction of an atmosphere difference
between the cabin pressure and the many atmospheres of pressure you need
to contain gaseous fuel at to carry any decent amount of energy round
with you. It makes (Given current pressure vessel technology) the
gaseous fuel much heavier per kilowatt-hour than most liquid fuels.
Coaldust would be even worse.

Concorde demonstrated not so much the danger of AVTUR or AVGAS as the
problems of pushing the limits and skimping on safety features. It
actually had quite a bad safety record even before the fire, with a much
higher number of unscheduled engine shutdowns per flying hour than
mainstream aircraft, for instance. The fire could have been prevented by
adding a small amount to the unladen weight of the plane, as they proved
after the fact by designing a punctureproof tank liner for retrofit.

Kerosene is the sweet spot. It is
fairly high flash point, doesn't need pressurised tanks, and is good
energy per unit volume.

Definitely the best today, but who knows what is going to happen over
the next couple of hundred years or so?

The relative energy density of various chemical fuels can't change. The
best fuels to burn for transport will almost inevitably be liquids, as
solids and gases are harder to handle.

Using nuclear power or solar energy to make liquid fuels will be cheaper
than carrying pressure vessels or delivery systems capable of handling
abrasive dust.

Someone may come up with a way to make a small, intrinsically safe,
nuclear reactor, but don't hold your breath. Or an energy storage system
that weighs very little, costs next to nothing and is efficient enough.
The laws of physics and chemistry as currently known are against it, though.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 11/02/2011 13:34, John Williamson wrote:
Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 11/02/2011 11:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
....
I was simply pointing out what is possible with a bit of lateral
thinking. The coal dust jet was a ramjet, which has no moving parts,
so the service life is not really affected by what it burns, but it is
not very practical for a modern aircraft. In the far distant future,
when it might really become important to conserve oil, who knows? Take
off and land with oil burning jets, at cruise speed switch to coal
burning ram jets.

Cheaper to accept you can't get there quite as soon, and use surface
transport.

That won't happen though will it? We live in a global society where
speed is important.

....
We also need to stop flying food thousands of miles, just for fun.

It has more to do with the fact that we can't grow enough food in the UK
to feed ourselves.

... Flying new potatoes from Egypt to here makes no
sense at all,

It does if you are an Egyptian farmer.

nor does flying peas and baby sweetcorn from Nigeria,

Ditto for Nigerian farmers. There is also the argument that it is better
to provide markets for the Third World than to have to give them aid.

....
I can see a future where we are roundly cursed for burning all the oil,

My family used to curse my great granfather for spending all his money
before he died. I quite admire him for managing to get through as much
as he did.

....
The relative energy density of various chemical fuels can't change. The
best fuels to burn for transport will almost inevitably be liquids, as
solids and gases are harder to handle.

If we follow your idea of slowing down, we could go back to airships.
Some had diesel engines buring gas which, having much the same density
as air, could be held in collapsing bags at atmospheric pressure without
affecting the airship's weight in flight.

Using nuclear power or solar energy to make liquid fuels will be cheaper
than carrying pressure vessels or delivery systems capable of handling
abrasive dust.

I have great hopes for algal oil, grown with nuclear powered lamps,
eating human and animal waste and producing fertiliser as a by-product.
However, I believe that it can be a mistake to overlook even quite
unpromising looking alternatives, if only to decide they really remain
not viable as technology changes.

Someone may come up with a way to make a small, intrinsically safe,
nuclear reactor, but don't hold your breath.

There are, of course, already reactors that are small enough to run
ships, although they are not currently more economic to run than diesel.
The USA also flew a nuclear reactor in a bomber in the 1950s, although
they stopped development before getting around to using it to run the
engines and I don't think it was particularly safe.

Colin Bignell

Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 11/02/2011 13:34, John Williamson wrote:
Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 11/02/2011 11:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...
I was simply pointing out what is possible with a bit of lateral
thinking. The coal dust jet was a ramjet, which has no moving parts,
so the service life is not really affected by what it burns, but it is
not very practical for a modern aircraft. In the far distant future,
when it might really become important to conserve oil, who knows? Take
off and land with oil burning jets, at cruise speed switch to coal
burning ram jets.

Cheaper to accept you can't get there quite as soon, and use surface
transport.

That won't happen though will it? We live in a global society where
speed is important.

It'll happen sooner or later, and it'll better if it happens sooner
rather than later. The longer we cling to the idea that fast is good,
the worse the crunch will be.

...
We also need to stop flying food thousands of miles, just for fun.

It has more to do with the fact that we can't grow enough food in the UK
to feed ourselves.

So drive/ sail it in from mainland Europe. Anywhere within the EEC is
within the distance that perishable foods can travel by road or rail.

... Flying new potatoes from Egypt to here makes no
sense at all,

It does if you are an Egyptian farmer.

Or the plane operator. Potatoes are starch, and can be grown and stored
locally with minimal inputs. It makes no overall sense to fly stuff
thousands of miles when it can be grown locally, or at least within
driveable distannce. In the meantime, the Egyptian farmer can grow
other, more sensible crops. Plants with oily seed would be good.

nor does flying peas and baby sweetcorn from Nigeria,

Ditto for Nigerian farmers. There is also the argument that it is better
to provide markets for the Third World than to have to give them aid.

So encourage the growing of crops that can be shipped by land. Such as
oily seeds.
...
I can see a future where we are roundly cursed for burning all the oil,

My family used to curse my great granfather for spending all his money
before he died. I quite admire him for managing to get through as much
as he did.

That's as may be, but the money that he spent can be replaced by the
current generation. Oil and other fossil fuels can't be replaced by
future generations.

...
The relative energy density of various chemical fuels can't change. The
best fuels to burn for transport will almost inevitably be liquids, as
solids and gases are harder to handle.

If we follow your idea of slowing down, we could go back to airships.
Some had diesel engines buring gas which, having much the same density
as air, could be held in collapsing bags at atmospheric pressure without
affecting the airship's weight in flight.

I'd need to look at the power needed and energy carried. But why not?

If it's important to have that meeting *now*, then at most levels,
teleconferencing works pretty much as well. Or arrange things so that
people don't have to fly everywhere. I know one argument for Concorde
was that it let a businessman board the plane, fly to New York, do a
day's work and fly home in time for a drink at his local pub, and some
of them claimed that it saved the cost of the ticket. Can things not be
set up so this sort of trip isn't needed?

Using nuclear power or solar energy to make liquid fuels will be cheaper
than carrying pressure vessels or delivery systems capable of handling
abrasive dust.

I have great hopes for algal oil, grown with nuclear powered lamps,
eating human and animal waste and producing fertiliser as a by-product.
However, I believe that it can be a mistake to overlook even quite
unpromising looking alternatives, if only to decide they really remain
not viable as technology changes.

Algal oil is one of many options. Light and heat from safe nuclear
fusion is available in large areas of land that can currently not be
used for anything else. Methane generation from waste has been happening
in certain locations for decades, and once you have methane, you can
easily make longer chains. Great progress is being made in these areas,
but nobody's making a great fuss about it, as it just works, and work is
going on to scale it all up.

Someone may come up with a way to make a small, intrinsically safe,
nuclear reactor, but don't hold your breath.

There are, of course, already reactors that are small enough to run
ships, although they are not currently more economic to run than diesel.
The USA also flew a nuclear reactor in a bomber in the 1950s, although
they stopped development before getting around to using it to run the
engines and I don't think it was particularly safe.

In thoery, it's not impossible to make a sealed, safe reactor smaller
than the central heating boiler it replaces, and provide power for an
office or residential block. Of course, there's the perceived safety
problem to get over....

The economics are changing on the ships, too. We're almost at the stage
where automated sail is becoming economical to run.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

On 11/02/2011 13:34, John Williamson wrote:
Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 11/02/2011 11:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...
I was simply pointing out what is possible with a bit of lateral
thinking. The coal dust jet was a ramjet, which has no moving parts,
so the service life is not really affected by what it burns, but it is
not very practical for a modern aircraft. In the far distant future,
when it might really become important to conserve oil, who knows? Take
off and land with oil burning jets, at cruise speed switch to coal
burning ram jets.

Cheaper to accept you can't get there quite as soon, and use surface
transport.

That won't happen though will it? We live in a global society where
speed is important.

...
We also need to stop flying food thousands of miles, just for fun.

It has more to do with the fact that we can't grow enough food in the
UK to feed ourselves.

Not with 60 million and counting, no. It's need to be under 10, seems to
me.

Half an acre per person for food is tight. One acre per person is
better, and that would need us to have 30 million people, assuming the
whole of England is used. Scotland and Wales would be a bonus.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.