In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

By that time they'll all be burning hydrogen anyway. Can't build a scramjet
that runs on oil. You really think that the engineers of the world are so
limited in their abilities that they will be unable to build an aircraft
that runs on anything but fossil fuels?

Take that blind optimism one step further and maybe anti-gravity will
get us all out of this. I prefer to do my speculating with parts and
pieces we have today. They need to be fine tuned and developed.

If you see nothing wrong with squandering resources, finite as they may
be, than you're part of the problem. Wishfully thinking that we'll
engineer our way out of whatever problem we create for ourselves is
irresponsible in my book. I'm not expecting you to agree.

And you're right. I should have been more specific in my suggestion of a
railroad 'coast to coast' by adding a few thousand details which may
have explained in more detail of it is that makes up a railroad. I do
believe that others may have had some idea that 'the rail road' could
even include branch lines. My feeling is that you simply like to be
contrary. Then again, I could be wrong.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Robatoy wrote:

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

And of course you're also planning to throttle down the Sun to just
what
we
need so that it doesn't run out of hydrogen sooner than it has to. Or
is
that too long a time frame for you to be concerned about? And you
criticize others for thinking short term. Shame, shame.

I am looking really hard to find the humour in this because you canNOT
be serious.

There is no humor. It's going to run out of hydrogen eventually. But I
guess that that's so far in the future that you don't care what generation
gets saddled with the problem.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

No problem. After the hydrogen is consumed, it will burn helium, for a
while. The real problem will be when it becomes a red giant and expands to
a size somewhat larger than the Earth's orbit. You'd better hope they've
come out with SPF 1E+12 sun screen when that happens.

todd

Todd Fatheree wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Robatoy wrote:

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

And of course you're also planning to throttle down the Sun to just
what
we
need so that it doesn't run out of hydrogen sooner than it has to. Or
is
that too long a time frame for you to be concerned about? And you
criticize others for thinking short term. Shame, shame.

I am looking really hard to find the humour in this because you canNOT
be serious.

There is no humor. It's going to run out of hydrogen eventually. But I
guess that that's so far in the future that you don't care what
generation gets saddled with the problem.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

No problem. After the hydrogen is consumed, it will burn helium, for a
while.

It's my understanding that stars go through the helium pretty fast. I would
also expect a change in output.

The real problem will be when it becomes a red giant and expands
to
a size somewhat larger than the Earth's orbit. You'd better hope they've
come out with SPF 1E+12 sun screen when that happens.

Yep.

todd

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"J. Clarke" wrote in message

There is no humor. It's going to run out of hydrogen eventually. But
I
guess that that's so far in the future that you don't care what
generation gets saddled with the problem.

Makes me think of Babylon 5, the SciFi series. One episode was a million
years in the future where someone was documenting our sun finally burning
out.

"Scott Lurndal" wrote in message
...
First off, the waste problem is greatly exagerated. Using reprocessing,
the waste can be turned into useful reactor fuel. The problems with
reprocessing are political, not technical.

The waste is not really waste, anyway. It is a collection of isotopes,
many of which are radioactive at various levels. Generally the level
of radioactivity is inversely coorelated to the length of the half-life,
i.e. isotopes with a longer half-life have relatively low radioactivity.

After extracting the useful isotopes (cesium, etc for medical uses, et.
al.),
the remainder can be reprocessed into useful fuel. The quite small amount
left after reprocessing can be easily sequestered in Yucca mountain or a
salt mine in Kansas until mankind finds a use for it.


I had the misfortune to mention that recycling worked in nuclear material in
a dinner group of artists one night. Should have heard the outcry.

There is also some particle absorption method for accelerating some of the
long-term stuff into stability, if I read it correctly. Just as soon as we
begin to do it, we'll discover a pressing need for what we've transmuted....

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...

I would hope that all those children who are now being left behind would
have been trained properly by the new government.



You really shouldn't take me, or yourself so seriously.

The first sentence is scary.

I'm hoping you follow the second.

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 09:33:46 -0400, Robatoy
wrote:

In article ,
Prometheus wrote:

[snipperectomy]

Not only that, but it's just plain
spiffy.

Its spiffiness becomes amplified when you bolt a couple of nuclear
generators onto a new set of cross-country electrified high-speed double
track railroads and get all them damned trucks and busses off the road.
That alone will be a huge step in the right direction.
BTW.. build in some accountability in that new system, i.e. Do Not
privatize it. Staff the whole damn thing with military vets.

Yeah. I know a lot of people say they'd never part with their
vehicles, and I doubt I'd sell mine just because I had another option,
but if I could take a train to the city I work in, and a bus from the
depot to the shop, I sure as hell wouldn't be driving 60+ miles a day.
When I lived in the metro area (in MN), I used the bus to commute
every day, and it was great. Instead of getting ****ed off at the
gridlock, I sat and read a book.

Efficient transportation running off of a clean power source.

And while I'm at it, outlaw or tax the bejeezus out of all privately
owned vehicles over 2500 pounds with engines bigger than 2 litres.

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 18:13:56 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , "George" wrote:

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Prometheus wrote:

[snipperectomy]

Not only that, but it's just plain
spiffy.

Its spiffiness becomes amplified when you bolt a couple of nuclear
generators onto a new set of cross-country electrified high-speed double
track railroads and get all them damned trucks and busses off the road.

How you going to obtain right-of way? Don't say you're going to use the
highway, because messing with the area for the public's cars won't get you
reelected. You certainly will have to avoid all wetlands, wilderness areas,
urban areas where crossings cannot be made at other than highway level
because of the danger ... goes on and on.

I don't see much reason why rail lines couldn't be run down the medians of
existing interstates, similarly to the commuter rail service in and out of
Chicago. And there are plenty of *existing* rail lines on *existing*
rights of way that could be upgraded, doubtless at less expense than leasing
*new* rights of way and constructing new lines.

Yep. There are an awful lot of old freight lines that are used for
nothing more than parking lots for rusty old boxcars around here. I'm
sure there are plenty right-of-ways if anyone cared to set up a
system. I imagine there are all sorts of tax incentives for commuter
rail that would pay for the upgrades as well.

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 00:19:34 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

After extracting the useful isotopes (cesium, etc for medical uses, et. al.),
the remainder can be reprocessed into useful fuel. The quite small amount
left after reprocessing can be easily sequestered in Yucca mountain or a
salt mine in Kansas until mankind finds a use for it.

I'm a far cry from a physicist, and I imagine that an average nuclear
power plant doesn't come anywhere near the efficiency of the E=MC^2
equation, but even if is several thousand times less efficient, those
plants really can't be making much waste- can they? I really have no
idea, so don't go jumping down my throat about it- I'm just curious.
If a spent fuel rod is fairly small, and we can get a whole lot of
them in a concrete and lead-lined bunker, who cares if it has to sit
for a while until we find a use for them? Put 'em next to all the
nuke silos, and you don't even have to have extra guards...

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 02:14:19 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message news:P9qpe.2425
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.com...

I don't see much reason why rail lines couldn't be run down the medians
of
existing interstates, similarly to the commuter rail service in and out
of
Chicago. And there are plenty of *existing* rail lines on *existing*
rights of way that could be upgraded, doubtless at less expense than
leasing
*new* rights of way and constructing new lines.

Did you ever notice what _else_ is in those medians at most underpasses?
Concrete pillars....

So how hard is it to go one side or the other? That doesn't seem to have
been
much of a problem in Chicago; I can't imagine it would be more difficult
to
figure out anywhere else.

Where do you guys live? Along many of the interstates here in the
northeast, you'd be hard pressed to ride a scooter let alone put rail lines.
There is NO median, just a barrier. Drive I-95 from Philly to Boston and
see how much rail you can lay. I know a Plate B boxcar has an inside height
of 10' 7" but I don' tknow the outside. Bridge clearance could also be a
problem. McKinley cars are 18' high. That puts the median 5" below the
grade of the highway.

I'm sure the idea has merit in some areas, but it is not easy to do in
others.

I think you've got a good point there- Where I'm at, there is plenty
of room, and I would like to think that a small line starting from
Superior, and passing through Rice Lake, Eau Claire, and whatever else
is on the way on through to Madison, Milwalkee or Chicago would be a
very good thing. With some strategic stops, it would be a great
commuter line- and it could be funded locally. Every area is going to
be a little different, but I've got a good deal of faith in the state
and local governments in my area- but I doubt the value of the Federal
system for a lot of things. A system doesn't have to be
coast-to-coast to be useful, after all.

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 15:03:48 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Robatoy wrote:

In article ,
Prometheus wrote:

[ snippage]


but now that you mention it,
buying Chinese supports communism.

Bingo. Glad to see somebody is awake.

Or perhaps it supports corruption of the Communist system by forcing them to
compete with capitalism?

Hmm... Giving a communist government a juicy market for cheap goods
extorted from a population with few legal rights so that they can
remain in power is corrupting them? Why in the hell do we have an
economic embargo against Cuba, then? Since it's such a small country,
buying everything Castro can get out of his population would be bound
to turn the place into the very model of capitalism in a matter of
months- except you're forgetting that there is no such thing as
signifigant private property in a communist society.

It just doesn't work. We can not and should not fight China with guns
and bombs, but thinking that giving them all our money and
manufacturing capability is going to make them change their ways is
just foolish.

"Upscale" wrote in message
...
"J. Clarke" wrote in message

There is no humor. It's going to run out of hydrogen eventually.
But
I
guess that that's so far in the future that you don't care what
generation gets saddled with the problem.

Makes me think of Babylon 5, the SciFi series. One episode was a million
years in the future where someone was documenting our sun finally burning
out.

Off the top of my head, I think the number is closer to 2.5 billion years.

todd

"Prometheus" wrote in message
...

It just doesn't work. We can not and should not fight China with guns
and bombs, but thinking that giving them all our money and
manufacturing capability is going to make them change their ways is
just foolish.


You have to fight them with ideas. It's a systematized belief - for all
practical purposes a religion. It's conversion you're after.

Letting people have the first taste of greater return for their individual
labor is usually enough to convince them that it ought always to be so. Had
the USSR been able to bite the ideological bullet and get some incentive in
the system ....

"Prometheus" wrote in message
...
Yep. There are an awful lot of old freight lines that are used for
nothing more than parking lots for rusty old boxcars around here. I'm
sure there are plenty right-of-ways if anyone cared to set up a
system. I imagine there are all sorts of tax incentives for commuter
rail that would pay for the upgrades as well.



You hadn't noticed the change from Wisconsin Central to CP?

Just-in-time inventory and the decline in bulk products from extractive
industries like the mines they wouldn't open at Lac De Flambeau have pretty
much done for rail traffic. That, and, as I mentioned, right-of-way
improvements require upgrade to the new standards, while repair just fixes
existing damage.

As for commuter rail, unless you plan a forty year legal fight lead time,
you're not getting right-of-way into the city.

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 06:23:11 -0500, the inscrutable Prometheus
spake:

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 00:19:34 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

After extracting the useful isotopes (cesium, etc for medical uses, et. al.),
the remainder can be reprocessed into useful fuel. The quite small amount
left after reprocessing can be easily sequestered in Yucca mountain or a
salt mine in Kansas until mankind finds a use for it.

I'm a far cry from a physicist, and I imagine that an average nuclear
power plant doesn't come anywhere near the efficiency of the E=MC^2
equation, but even if is several thousand times less efficient, those
plants really can't be making much waste- can they? I really have no
idea, so don't go jumping down my throat about it- I'm just curious.
If a spent fuel rod is fairly small, and we can get a whole lot of
them in a concrete and lead-lined bunker, who cares if it has to sit
for a while until we find a use for them? Put 'em next to all the
nuke silos, and you don't even have to have extra guards...

Why not dismantle all the ICBM silos and use them for underground
storage. They're concrete-lined, bomb-proof, and already exist. They
are in secure areas and are now staffed by military guards.

Our nuke subs have enough missile capacity to blow up the world many
times over. Why do we need all those useless silos?

"Be the change you want to see in the world." --Mahatma Gandhi
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://diversify.com Website Application Programming

"Prometheus" wrote in message
plants really can't be making much waste- can they? I really have no
idea, so don't go jumping down my throat about it- I'm just curious.
If a spent fuel rod is fairly small, and we can get a whole lot of
them in a concrete and lead-lined bunker, who cares if it has to sit
for a while until we find a use for them? Put 'em next to all the
nuke silos, and you don't even have to have extra guards...

Brings to mind all the garbage that Toronto, Ontario is shipping down to a
landfill in Michigan while they're shipping all their spent fuel rods for
storage up here in Ontario. If I had to pick living besides one or the
other, I'd choose the landfill even if they say that the spent fuel rods are
safely stored.

"Prometheus" wrote in message
plants really can't be making much waste- can they? I really have no
idea, so don't go jumping down my throat about it- I'm just curious.
If a spent fuel rod is fairly small, and we can get a whole lot of
them in a concrete and lead-lined bunker, who cares if it has to sit
for a while until we find a use for them? Put 'em next to all the
nuke silos, and you don't even have to have extra guards...

Brings to mind all the garbage that Toronto, Ontario is shipping down to a
landfill in Michigan while they're shipping all their spent fuel rods for
storage up here in Ontario. If I had to pick living besides one or the
other, I'd choose the landfill even if they say that the spent fuel rods are
safely stored.

In article , "J. Clarke" wrote:

Perhaps using nuclear rockets? An Orion could put quite a lot of nuclear
waste into the sun in a single go eg.

There's still the orbital mechanics issue. It's a lot easier to eject it from
the solar system than to shoot it into the sun.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
Makes me think of Babylon 5, the SciFi series. One episode was a million
years in the future where someone was documenting our sun finally
burning
out.

Off the top of my head, I think the number is closer to 2.5 billion years.

Actual estimation or the number of years in Babylon 5? In any event, I
thought it was a pretty neat series. Sorry to see it end.

In article ,
"George" wrote:

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...

I would hope that all those children who are now being left behind would
have been trained properly by the new government.



You really shouldn't take me, or yourself so seriously.

The first sentence is scary.

It sure is scary. There are plenty of children left behind.
They're not all going to grow up to be upright citizens?
The 'Right or wrong, MY country' slogan carries only so much weight.

I'm hoping you follow the second.
In most cases, I do. When it becomes obvious so many kids are falling
through the cracks, as well as other pressing issues, I find it harder
to look at the bright side.
The general tone of my posts in this thread were in reply to an link
DouginUtah posted.. that, in fact, resources are finite. The results of
which will bite us all in the collective, communal ass.

I sell and fabricate countertops made from petroleum products, some made
in Korea and China. In terms of tree-hugging, volvo-driving,
tofy-sucking ideology, I don't have a leg to stand on. That in itself is
no reason not to discuss the issues.

Hello,

Which does what? The guys who retire from NR already go into reactor
operation and who else do you have that is going to be any more capable
than your average civilian?
I was just looking for a job for the warriors who won't be needed in
times of world piece. Can't fight really big wars without fuel.
Besides, there will be virtually zero terrorists as there will be fewer
people ****ed at having been invaded for their resources... because
they'll be all out of resources.

Yeha right: I can see the conversation going like that:
US (280M people): Well, that's it, we have used all your ressources, but
now, they are no more of it, so let us all be friends and return home.
others (China, 1.3B peoples, Affirca/Middle east, 1B peoples): Yeha right,
you mean, you came here, took everything and now you are leaving us after
you've ripped the benefits! you are dead meat!

because, let us be realistic, in Warcraft, the guy who has gathered the most
ressources when they run out usually wins the game because you can not get
anything without them... in real life a whole lot of motivated little guys
(over 2B of them) will eat alive 280 fatys watching a beeped out jerry
springer while sittinng on their couch....


regards, cyrille

Hello,

For openers, my 'idealistic' view is set in the future when there are no
airlines to compete with, when fossil-fuel is priced through the roof
or simply not available; planes don't compete.

By that time they'll all be burning hydrogen anyway. Can't build a
scramjet
that runs on oil. You really think that the engineers of the world are so
limited in their abilities that they will be unable to build an aircraft
that runs on anything but fossil fuels?

Well, I am an engineer of the world, and the problem is that gaz has a
unique capacity to pack a whole lot of easy to access energy (read, the
machinery used to exctract it is simple and light) .

Hydrogene has much less energy packed into it and would therefore require
much larger tank in aircraft which are already reaching their limits (if you
look at stats, a 777 or 737, or A380 have more weight in fuel at take off
than the weight of the aircraft itself!).
nuclear is not possible fo flight due to the weight of the equipment require
to gather the energy out of the high energy fuel....
electricity is not possible due to the weight of the equipment required to
store the energy...

We are already reaching the hurbard peak, and oil is only going to get more
and more expensive, any new technology would take at least 20 years to
become available to place in aircraft... wich china and india (2.5B peoples)
industrialzing, how much do you think gaz will cost in 20 years?

cyrille

See what you started, Tom?

G

Cyrille de Brébisson wrote:

Hello,

Which does what? The guys who retire from NR already go into reactor
operation and who else do you have that is going to be any more capable
than your average civilian?
I was just looking for a job for the warriors who won't be needed in
times of world piece. Can't fight really big wars without fuel.
Besides, there will be virtually zero terrorists as there will be fewer
people ****ed at having been invaded for their resources... because
they'll be all out of resources.

Yeha right: I can see the conversation going like that:
US (280M people): Well, that's it, we have used all your ressources, but
now, they are no more of it, so let us all be friends and return home.
others (China, 1.3B peoples, Affirca/Middle east, 1B peoples): Yeha right,
you mean, you came here, took everything and now you are leaving us after
you've ripped the benefits! you are dead meat!

because, let us be realistic, in Warcraft, the guy who has gathered the
most ressources when they run out usually wins the game because you can
not get anything without them... in real life a whole lot of motivated
little guys (over 2B of them) will eat alive 280 fatys watching a beeped
out jerry springer while sittinng on their couch....

Uh, how they gonna get here? Planning an invasion against a weak nation
when you have a powerful navy is a huge job. Planning an invasion against
a strong nation when you have no navy to speak of is pretty much
impossible. Or would they invade Mexico first?

regards, cyrille

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
Our nuke subs have enough missile capacity to blow up the world many
times over. Why do we need all those useless silos?


Because someone may find a way to track the subs.

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"George" wrote:

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...

I would hope that all those children who are now being left behind
would
have been trained properly by the new government.



You really shouldn't take me, or yourself so seriously.

The first sentence is scary.

It sure is scary. There are plenty of children left behind.
They're not all going to grow up to be upright citizens?
The 'Right or wrong, MY country' slogan carries only so much weight.


Sorry, images of what I saw in Cuba, USSR, and on TV of Hitler Youth define
"trained properly by the new government" to me.

Who's behind depends more on a cultural anti-intellectual bias and a
distorted concept of personal liberty defined as the freedom to be ignorant.

Robatoy wrote:

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

By that time they'll all be burning hydrogen anyway. Can't build a
scramjet
that runs on oil. You really think that the engineers of the world are
so limited in their abilities that they will be unable to build an
aircraft that runs on anything but fossil fuels?

Take that blind optimism one step further and maybe anti-gravity will
get us all out of this.

We don't know how to create anti-gravity, but we do know how to make engines
that run on hydrogen. The engine in your car can almost certainly be
converted, just as it can be converted to run on natural gas (call your gas
company and ask them how much it will cost to do the conversion--this is
everyday technology--most gas companies run their own vehicles on natural
gas). The only problem is where to get the hydrogen, and electrolysis
using nuclear power plants to supply the electricity will work fine.

I prefer to do my speculating with parts and
pieces we have today. They need to be fine tuned and developed.

Hydrogen is a part and piece we have today. There's no magic there. Any
senior mechanical engineering student should be able to cobble together a
hydrogen-powered vehicle if you give him enough budget or access to a good
enough junk pile. You can fine tune and develop all you want to but the oil
will still run out. There is a finite amount of it and if any more is
being created it is being created at a very, very slow rate, slow enough
that lubricant for bicycle chains would probably use it up eventually if we
all quit using it for anything else.

If you see nothing wrong with squandering resources, finite as they may
be, than you're part of the problem.

If you think that finite resources can be made to last for all time by
economizing then you are the one who is part of the problem. The solution
is not to economize, the solution is to find ways to do whatever we want to
do without having those resources available.

Wishfully thinking that we'll
engineer our way out of whatever problem we create for ourselves is
irresponsible in my book.

Wishfully thinking that if we all make ourselves miserable the oil won't
ever run out is what is irresponsible.

I'm not expecting you to agree.

And you're right. I should have been more specific in my suggestion of a
railroad 'coast to coast' by adding a few thousand details which may
have explained in more detail of it is that makes up a railroad. I do
believe that others may have had some idea that 'the rail road' could
even include branch lines. My feeling is that you simply like to be
contrary. Then again, I could be wrong.

The simple fact is that nobody wants to ride trains. Even if you build your
railroad it will be empty most of the time unless you give it huge
government subsidies and operate it at an immense loss, thereby essentially
providing free transportation at taxpayer expense.

Amtrak operates a high speed train based on the French TGV technology
between Boston and New York. I thought about riding it once and it turned
out that the fare was higher than any airline for the same trip. What
makes you think that your miracle train will be cheaper?

And you talk about hydrogen being impractical? We've had trains for more
than two centuries--we know trains--and trains don't work for us anymore.
Why do you have so much trouble with that notion?

Maybe economic conditions will change in such a way tha trains become
practical again. When that happens then trains will become popular again.


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Upscale wrote:

"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
Makes me think of Babylon 5, the SciFi series. One episode was a
million years in the future where someone was documenting our sun
finally
burning
out.

Off the top of my head, I think the number is closer to 2.5 billion
years.

Actual estimation or the number of years in Babylon 5? In any event, I
thought it was a pretty neat series. Sorry to see it end.

Actual estimation--depending on who you talk to it could be 5 billion to the
red giant stage. And at that stage if we haven't done something we're all
dead--Earth is going to be inside the sun at that point. So is Mars.

But that is so far off that most people think that it means "never".

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"J. Clarke" wrote in message

Uh, how they gonna get here? Planning an invasion against a weak nation
when you have a powerful navy is a huge job. Planning an invasion against
a strong nation when you have no navy to speak of is pretty much
impossible. Or would they invade Mexico first?

Hell, there's going to be so many of them that they could frog march them
into the ocean and still have enough to walk across the bridge of dead
bodies.

J. Clarke wrote:
....

The simple fact is that nobody wants to ride trains. Even if you build your
railroad it will be empty most of the time unless you give it huge
government subsidies and operate it at an immense loss, thereby essentially
providing free transportation at taxpayer expense.

sorta like the use of automobiles today. the public subsidizes both oil
and most of the highway system. similar subsidies keep the airlines
going. trains are a far better value than either of those. of course,
suburban sprawl is built only for the use of a car, so much more would
need to be done than simply laying new tracks, we need whole new cities
built around them.

hydrogen will not replace oil in cars. beside the fact that hydrogen is
an energy sink, it is not feasible to store or move it on the scale we
are used to with gasoline. (not even 10% of the current scale) this is
a physical problem that cannot be mitigated by technology. forget about
it.

maybe a better battery will be developed, the best minds with the best
funding have been on it for many years, but say you could get the
weight and capacity problem solved, electricity generation and delivery
is less efficient than burning the gas directly in the cylinder, (about
3 times less). so clearly coal and gas is not going to provide the
power. nuke plants arent all that big a bonanza once you consider all
of the energy required, and it takes aobut 20 years to even start it
up, but does seem the only viable source of power down the road. and
what's more, an all-electric fleet is untenable with the current grid,
just rebuilding the decrepid system we already have has to happen
before one starts talking about delivering 4 times the juice.

personally, i prefer to ride the train over the car or the plane from a
sheer comfort standpoint. but whether you prefer it or not, the
airplane and car will no longer be an option within 10 years. but if we
dont start re-building the system immediately, the trains wont be there
either. between currupt US leadership and the public's
head-in-the-sand-ism, i'm pretty sure we'll end up with the latter
option.

to think that our society can maintain any significant percentage of
its current energy consumption levels is pure wishful thinking i'm
afraid. which means that all of this is thrust onto a backdrop of
worldwide economic failure. how to power your car will be a sick
joke...how to obtain food will be the main topic of the day 20 years
from now. along with "we coulda" and "we shoulda".





Amtrak operates a high speed train based on the French TGV technology
between Boston and New York. I thought about riding it once and it turned
out that the fare was higher than any airline for the same trip. What
makes you think that your miracle train will be cheaper?

And you talk about hydrogen being impractical? We've had trains for more
than two centuries--we know trains--and trains don't work for us anymore.
Why do you have so much trouble with that notion?

Maybe economic conditions will change in such a way tha trains become
practical again. When that happens then trains will become popular again.
--
--John

"Upscale" wrote in
:

Brings to mind all the garbage that Toronto, Ontario is shipping down
to a landfill in Michigan while they're shipping all their spent fuel
rods for storage up here in Ontario. If I had to pick living besides
one or the other, I'd choose the landfill even if they say that the
spent fuel rods are safely stored.


I wouldn't want to live really close to either. But if I *had* to make a
choice, I'd rather stay away from the landfill. A few weeks ago I drove
down the West Side from the GWB, and did notice the odors from the odor-
free sewage plant around 150th/160th Street. Was difficult not too.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Todd Fatheree" wrote:

Makes me think of Babylon 5, the SciFi series. One episode was a
million
years in the future where someone was documenting our sun finally
burning
out.

Off the top of my head, I think the number is closer to 2.5 billion
years.

todd

*Pfew*!!! *wiping my brow*...2.5 Billion .. you had me worried it was
only a million!

*sigh of relief*

Sorry. As an engineer, I cringe when I see a three-orders of magnitude
error. ;-)

todd

In article om,
"bill stender" wrote:

[snipped for brevity]

Thank you, Bill. Not just because I happen to agree with all you stated,
but also because you got your views across without a haughty attitude.
Refreshing.

(spoken)
The world today is absolutely cracked.
With nuclear bombs to blow us all sky high.
There's fools and idiots sitting on the trigger.
It's depressing, and it's senseless, and that's why...

(singing)
I like chinese,
I like chinese,
They only come up to you knees,
Yet they're always friendly and they're ready to to please.

I like chinese,
I like chinese,
There's nine hundred million of them in the world today,
You'd better learn to like them, that's what I say.

I like chinese,
I like chinese,
They come from a long way overseas,
But they're cute, and they're cuddly, and they're ready to please.

I like chinese food,
The waiters never are rude,
Think the many things they've done to impress,
There's maoism, taoism, eging and chess.

I like chinese,
I like chinese,
I like their tiny little trees,
Their zen, their ping-pong, their ying and yang-eze.

I like chinese thought,
The wisdom that Confusious taught,
If Darwin is anything to shout about,
The chinese will survive us all without any doubt.

So, I like chinese,
I like chinese,
They only come up to you knees,
Yet they're wise, and they're witty, and they're ready to please

Wo ai Zhong-guo ren [Wo, I chumba run]
Wo ai Zhong-guo ren
Wo ai Zhong-guo ren
Ni Hao Ma? Ni Hao Ma? Ni Hao Ma? Zai zhen [Ne hamma? ... Chi Chen]

I like chinese,
I like chinese,
They're food is guaranteed to please,
A fourteen, a seven, a nine and li-chese

I like chinese,
I like chinese,
I like their tiny little trees,
Their zen, their ping-pong, their yin and yang-eze

I like chinese,
I like chinese,
(fade out....)

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Robatoy wrote:

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

By that time they'll all be burning hydrogen anyway. Can't build a
scramjet
that runs on oil. You really think that the engineers of the world are
so limited in their abilities that they will be unable to build an
aircraft that runs on anything but fossil fuels?

Take that blind optimism one step further and maybe anti-gravity will
get us all out of this.

We don't know how to create anti-gravity, but we do know how to make
engines
that run on hydrogen. The engine in your car can almost certainly be
converted, just as it can be converted to run on natural gas (call your
gas
company and ask them how much it will cost to do the conversion--this is
everyday technology--most gas companies run their own vehicles on natural
gas). The only problem is where to get the hydrogen, and electrolysis
using nuclear power plants to supply the electricity will work fine.

There's no technology involved in burning hydrogen - but /burning/ and
/using/ hydrogen are two different things.

I prefer to do my speculating with parts and
pieces we have today. They need to be fine tuned and developed.

Hydrogen is a part and piece we have today. There's no magic there. Any
senior mechanical engineering student should be able to cobble together a
hydrogen-powered vehicle if you give him enough budget or access to a good
enough junk pile. You can fine tune and develop all you want to but the
oil
will still run out. There is a finite amount of it and if any more is
being created it is being created at a very, very slow rate, slow enough
that lubricant for bicycle chains would probably use it up eventually if
we
all quit using it for anything else.

In as far as you've taken this, what you've said is absolutely true. I'll
assume that you're aware that the hydrogen atom is the smallest - and that
the hydrogen molecule (H2) is /so/ small that it can pass through the wall
of a tank made of nearly any material.

The challenge is not to build a hydrogen-fueled engine. The first challenge
is to build a safe gas tank and a safe gas station.

I'll also assume that you've had enough high school chemistry to know that
the hydrogen ion is "hungry" (chemically active). It "strongly prefers" to
bond with other elements. To produce hydrogen fuel, those bonds need to be
broken and the hydrogen isolated. Breaking the hydrogen bond will require
*at least* as much energy as will be made available in any use of hydrogen
as fuel.

What this means is that while hydrogen has potential as a means of storing
and/or transporting energy today's physicists, chemists, and engineers are
unable to develop hydrogen as a primary energy source. To do that, we'll
need a major scientific breakthrough. We may have that breakthrough with
fuel cells - but that's not "for sure" yet.

If you see nothing wrong with squandering resources, finite as they may
be, than you're part of the problem.

If you think that finite resources can be made to last for all time by
economizing then you are the one who is part of the problem. The solution
is not to economize, the solution is to find ways to do whatever we want
to
do without having those resources available.

This last sentance is one of the best points of the entire thread. I'd like
to suggest that the discussion should not be about who's right or wrong (or
about /who/ at all), but about what works and what doesn't. There are both
long-term and short-term aspects to this problem. Fitting all the pieces of
the problem on a time line would be hugely constructive - and would of
itself be a significant undertaking. Bickering over randomly selected pieces
doesn't seem to be moving us toward solutions...

Wishfully thinking that we'll
engineer our way out of whatever problem we create for ourselves is
irresponsible in my book.

Wishfully thinking that if we all make ourselves miserable the oil won't
ever run out is what is irresponsible.

Well, we'll either have to design a solution, accidentally trip over a
solution, or do without a solution. My own opinion is that it'll probably
work best to be optimistic and at least attempt to design a solution. By so
doing, if we fail we'll at least maximize our chances to recognize a
solution if we accidentally trip over it - and it might not be too early to
begin serious thought about the third possibility...

I'm not expecting you to agree.

And you're right. I should have been more specific in my suggestion of a
railroad 'coast to coast' by adding a few thousand details which may
have explained in more detail of it is that makes up a railroad. I do
believe that others may have had some idea that 'the rail road' could
even include branch lines. My feeling is that you simply like to be
contrary. Then again, I could be wrong.

The simple fact is that nobody wants to ride trains. Even if you build
your
railroad it will be empty most of the time unless you give it huge
government subsidies and operate it at an immense loss, thereby
essentially
providing free transportation at taxpayer expense.

I'd rather travel by transporter beam if I'm in a hurry, or by sailboat if
I'm not. (-:

I don't mind riding in trains - so your "simple fact" isn't quite as simple
and absolute as you claimed.

We've done rail transport rather badly in the USA. The industry fell victim
first to bad management; and then to overregulation by a legislature who had
no understanding of the problems and which was fed misinformation (and
campaign funding) by special interest groups who weren't terribly concerned
about the well being of either railroads or the country.

Young people should understand that this behavior is not a new problem. The
story of the passing of Philadelphia's street car lines amounts to an
encapsulation of what happened to the entire rail industry, except that
labor unions played a very much more prominant role in the national story.

What remains should be considered "on life support". This life support is
terribly expensive - and I think the only reason the plug hasn't been pulled
is that a few key knowledgable folks know that at some point we're going to
need to re-awaken the patient and coax it back to health.

Amtrak operates a high speed train based on the French TGV technology
between Boston and New York. I thought about riding it once and it turned
out that the fare was higher than any airline for the same trip. What
makes you think that your miracle train will be cheaper?

Why should it be cheaper? In France the TGV costs more to ride than do the
other trains. The TGV (Train à Grande Vitesse or "high-speed train" to the
French, "Train Goes Voom!" to us) is especially clean, comfortable, safe,
and breathtakingly fast (and only stops at major cities.) Their other trains
seemed safe and reliable but not quite as spiffy and seemed to stop at every
town - and they cost less per km to ride than the TGV.

And you talk about hydrogen being impractical? We've had trains for more
than two centuries--we know trains--and trains don't work for us anymore.
Why do you have so much trouble with that notion?

Maybe economic conditions will change in such a way tha trains become
practical again. When that happens then trains will become popular again.

Passenger trains don't work for us any more because we stopped allowing them
to work for us. If our need becomes sufficient, we have the option of
allowing them to work for us again - but it'll be expensive to restore all
of that infrastructure and undo all of the special interest legislative
damage.

--
Morris

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 05:30:44 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 06:23:11 -0500, the inscrutable Prometheus
spake:

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 00:19:34 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

After extracting the useful isotopes (cesium, etc for medical uses, et. al.),
the remainder can be reprocessed into useful fuel. The quite small amount
left after reprocessing can be easily sequestered in Yucca mountain or a
salt mine in Kansas until mankind finds a use for it.

I'm a far cry from a physicist, and I imagine that an average nuclear
power plant doesn't come anywhere near the efficiency of the E=MC^2
equation, but even if is several thousand times less efficient, those
plants really can't be making much waste- can they? I really have no
idea, so don't go jumping down my throat about it- I'm just curious.
If a spent fuel rod is fairly small, and we can get a whole lot of
them in a concrete and lead-lined bunker, who cares if it has to sit
for a while until we find a use for them? Put 'em next to all the
nuke silos, and you don't even have to have extra guards...

Why not dismantle all the ICBM silos and use them for underground
storage. They're concrete-lined, bomb-proof, and already exist. They
are in secure areas and are now staffed by military guards.

Our nuke subs have enough missile capacity to blow up the world many
times over. Why do we need all those useless silos?

See, there ya go! It is rather funny the way we seem to need enough
explosives to kill every living thing on Earth a several times over- I
figure just enough to kill everything once should be plenty for
anyone.

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 08:12:46 -0400, "George" wrote:


"Prometheus" wrote in message
.. .
Yep. There are an awful lot of old freight lines that are used for
nothing more than parking lots for rusty old boxcars around here. I'm
sure there are plenty right-of-ways if anyone cared to set up a
system. I imagine there are all sorts of tax incentives for commuter
rail that would pay for the upgrades as well.



You hadn't noticed the change from Wisconsin Central to CP?

Nah, they all look the same to me.

Just-in-time inventory and the decline in bulk products from extractive
industries like the mines they wouldn't open at Lac De Flambeau have pretty
much done for rail traffic. That, and, as I mentioned, right-of-way
improvements require upgrade to the new standards, while repair just fixes
existing damage.

Well sure, it's an investment. There are a lot of barriers to parks
as well, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have any.

As for commuter rail, unless you plan a forty year legal fight lead time,
you're not getting right-of-way into the city.

You may be right- but would that stop a bus terminal located next to
the city from filling the gap? I know a lot of people don't like the
idea, but it's really not that difficult or inconvenient to use public
transportation.

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 23:00:22 -0500, "Morris Dovey"
wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Robatoy wrote:

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

The simple fact is that nobody wants to ride trains. Even if you build
your
railroad it will be empty most of the time unless you give it huge
government subsidies and operate it at an immense loss, thereby
essentially
providing free transportation at taxpayer expense.

Have you every commuted on a train? How do you know it's just no
good? We simply don't have appealing options right now. Nobody wants
to hop a frieght train and ride in a dirty boxcar to work, but I'd
love to have the option of taking a nice train in to work. It'd be
even better if it had a car with a little diner that served breakfast,
and high speed wireless internet access. Sitting in a comfy seat
doing something interesting sure beats getting ****ed off sitting in
gridlock for me.

We've done rail transport rather badly in the USA. The industry fell victim
first to bad management; and then to overregulation by a legislature who had
no understanding of the problems and which was fed misinformation (and
campaign funding) by special interest groups who weren't terribly concerned
about the well being of either railroads or the country.

IIRC, the highway system was a military lobby to begin with. We were
going in the direction of rail before all that money went into the
roadways.

Amtrak operates a high speed train based on the French TGV technology
between Boston and New York. I thought about riding it once and it turned
out that the fare was higher than any airline for the same trip. What
makes you think that your miracle train will be cheaper?

Why would it need to go that fast? I'd like to see commuter rail for
short trips- that doesn't have to go 400 mph... hell, it could done
with steam locomatives and still get the job done.

Why should it be cheaper? In France the TGV costs more to ride than do the
other trains. The TGV (Train Ã* Grande Vitesse or "high-speed train" to the
French, "Train Goes Voom!" to us) is especially clean, comfortable, safe,
and breathtakingly fast (and only stops at major cities.) Their other trains
seemed safe and reliable but not quite as spiffy and seemed to stop at every
town - and they cost less per km to ride than the TGV.

Sorta like the difference between the Concorde and flying coach on a
747.

And you talk about hydrogen being impractical? We've had trains for more
than two centuries--we know trains--and trains don't work for us anymore.
Why do you have so much trouble with that notion?

Because the trains were killed, they didn't die of natural causes.
Now nobody thinks they're an option anymore- but they still are.
They're putting in a bypass in a nearby city, it's a seven year
project that is costing god-only-knows how much money, and they've
moved enough earth to make several good-sized mountains- for cars.
With the same investment, they could have put in a first-class train
system, and it would have done a whole lot more for the traffic
problem.

Maybe economic conditions will change in such a way tha trains become
practical again. When that happens then trains will become popular again.

Passenger trains don't work for us any more because we stopped allowing them
to work for us. If our need becomes sufficient, we have the option of
allowing them to work for us again - but it'll be expensive to restore all
of that infrastructure and undo all of the special interest legislative
damage.

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 08:05:08 -0400, "George" wrote:


"Prometheus" wrote in message
.. .

It just doesn't work. We can not and should not fight China with guns
and bombs, but thinking that giving them all our money and
manufacturing capability is going to make them change their ways is
just foolish.


You have to fight them with ideas. It's a systematized belief - for all
practical purposes a religion. It's conversion you're after.

Letting people have the first taste of greater return for their individual
labor is usually enough to convince them that it ought always to be so. Had
the USSR been able to bite the ideological bullet and get some incentive in
the system ....


If you're lucky, you're right. If you're not, you just gave all the
tools and weaponry to the wrong people. I'd rather keep the factories
here.

"Prometheus" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 08:05:08 -0400, "George" wrote:


"Prometheus" wrote in message
.. .

It just doesn't work. We can not and should not fight China with guns
and bombs, but thinking that giving them all our money and
manufacturing capability is going to make them change their ways is
just foolish.


You have to fight them with ideas. It's a systematized belief - for all
practical purposes a religion. It's conversion you're after.

Letting people have the first taste of greater return for their
individual
labor is usually enough to convince them that it ought always to be so.
Had
the USSR been able to bite the ideological bullet and get some incentive
in
the system ....


If you're lucky, you're right. If you're not, you just gave all the
tools and weaponry to the wrong people. I'd rather keep the factories
here.

NIMBY is the acronym, I guess.

It's not the Chinese who have prevented construction of new factories here
.....