Non fossil fuel propulsion

well it looks like Canada is now going to the Chinese to develop the oil sands, so looks like all that CO2 will end up in the atmosphere after all. The oil sands have been called the game ender for any hope of slowing the trend in CO2 that can only lead to one thing.

a word about "conservation being the real answer" and this coming from a raging conservationist; its not going to help one bit unless we abandon fossil fuels completely. We could make all our value added products from Algae based bio diesel ( ABBD ) which effectively would be the artificial CO2 sink thats so desperately needed. And that CO2 would be being pulled directly from the atmosphere, something else thats sorely needed.

But thats just one reason

The immediate concern is that we increase our energy use about 7% every year, that gives us a doubling time of just 10 years. Which means in twenty years we'll be using 4 times the energy we use today, worldwide. No level of conservation has a realistic hope of dealing with that. We must consider other forms of fuels as our major energy supplier if we are going to even remotely have a chance of repairing just the existing damage to the atmospheric chemistry. And its gotta be something immediate, organic carbons are already starting to react to the rising temps. CO2 may be up ~33% over the last 200 years or so, but CH4 is up 150% over the last ~30 and shows no sign of slowing. Reminder, CH4 has roughly 25 times the greenhouse effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Long story short we are running out of time. Conservation can't hope to keep up with the increase in demand and at best, just buys us a little more time. Which, at this point only prolongs the inevitable, unless we make some major changes really really fast. The algae based bio diesel programs are going gang busters to get online as fast as possible but even that might be to little to late. I know a few of you have trouble with that whole concept but its the grim truth, and we'd better do something fast.

The deal is not that we only need an alternative fuel, its that we need an alternative fuel that can help repair the atmospheric chemistry, which is what algae based bio diesel does when it sucks CO2 out of the atmosphere as a part of its cycle. Even if its not the best fuel, which thus far it is, this characteristic alone makes it the fuel of choice.

The nuclear option is ridiculously expensive and has already been proven a quagmire of corrupt political officials and crooked contractors. Even if it were a viable form of energy without the huge cost to the taxpayers to get em up and running, the decommissioning costs are astronomical. And lets not even start about the subsidies.

I'm thinking there are a lot of alternative energy sources, the Shoeman Gap charge being my personal fave. But I'm just not seeing anything come down the pipes that can compare with algae based bio diesel for its positive effects on the environment. Which is the real issue. How do we correct the imbalance we've introduced into the worlds climate system.

I'm all for alternatives and if we can come up with something to run our cars on instead of algae based bio diesel thats great, because then more of the bio diesel can go into manufacturing those value added products that effectively lock up that CO2.

Oh well, great thread
but I"m out of beer

cheers
B

 

here here Dr. OGAWA Shigeo on hydrogen ships (last chapter)

ridicules actually that we have oceans full of 2 gasses (H+O)
that are atracted by atomic gravity forming the liquid water or H2O
who is gonna mine that welth or are we waiting for aliens to come and do that

Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFC) burn everything clean, give 70% efficiency at 600 C
upto 400KW, this 3 fase concept turbine's possible a real shaft steam turbine?

 

Good observation. You don't like a city, exterminate the inhabitant in the worst possible manner and then take 60 years to rebuilt it the way you like.
I think I really prefer Detroit, but it is a personal choice

Atomic propulsion for large ship will be a good idea. Providing good defense against terrorism and pirate of course.
The Sky sail, for large ship do not work. The saving is to low.
If you want to use sail, you have to change the shipping attitude from the get go.

 

decade ago MikeD+ NA wrote me preliminairy paperwork alone was more than than the ship would cost

 

yipster, thats an entirely artificial and controlable cost. It can be gotten rid of. It isn't real in the way that tons-of-steel/MW of shaft power is real.

 

all this talk about costs to convert the merchant fleet to nuc should not be a barrier to achieving this goal. the amount of ships to be converted would bring the cost way down. economy of scale. the other thing i believe is governments would have to chip in with subsidies to help the ship owners. they waste money everywhere else, why not put some to a fix for the planets pollution problem.

 

I would think bio fuels would be part of any comprehensive plan to conserve energy.I am simply suggesting that utilizing resources in the most efficient manner possible along with a change in consumer attitude would be a step in the right direction towards sustainable renewable energy. This is of course is impossible to achieve without central management which would entail some kind of command economy which many would argue do not work. At any rate I for one do not see that the governance of this planet or the behavior of its inhabitants is about to change any time soon. The pursuit of safe clean nuclear power is the way to go for now. China certainly does. As an aside if The powers that be in the west are at least considering that nuclear might be an important player in the energy game Is it possible that Iran a country with the worlds third largest deposits of uranium has the intention of enriching it so that they can sell value added to the Chinese to fuel the reactors they are building it seems by the minute.

 

problem is nuclear isn't safe or clean. given the horrors of extracting the nuclear material from our planet ( something my friends the Navajo know all to well http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...L2P-znC7nJ5eiScHw&sig2=qTDdDP9avgbE_jJ6kHnx_g ) its pretty clear to see that no part of the process is safe or clean.

Nuclear has proven itself to be about the least clean or environmentally friendly form of energy. The industry is continually being caught out lying about spills and accidents, as well as being constantly caught in various scams that end up costing the taxpayers a fortune.

Just the CO2 release from all the concrete a nuclear plant requires precludes its benefits over natural gas fired plants, but then when you consider the maintenance, fuel production, waste issues. Its the most expensive and least environmentally friendly fuel there is.

place that stuff on privately owned and operated ships, in an industry which sees the loss of, how many ships a months? And it becomes pretty clear why that option is not even remotely being considered. Course imagine if pirates got ahold of a nuclear reactor. Yikes, wonder what that would cost to get back, in lives, money, environmental cost. Damn, no way ( thankfully ) is that ever going to happen anytime soon.

safe and clean
after what just happened in japan I'd think more people would have learned by now.

 

Firstly, the so called biofuels are not much different than fossil fuels, except for their age. The alternatives to fossil fuels, unless it is nuclear power, will require a re-adjusment of lifestyle for the whole world. For example, accept endemic famines like in the past. Without the use of fossil fuels, there is no way to maintain support for the world's population.

 

actually thats there big benefit, hardly any change at all needs to be done to the existing infrastructure. Just basic algae based bio diesel, its virtually identical to dino based diesel. But its huge asset is its carbon neutral at the least, and if you make value added products like plastics out of it, it could be considered carbon negative. Depends on the lifespan of those products and there disposal method. If a solid effort was made to produce say automotive plastics out of the stuff then we'd really be doing something to reduce the atmospheric levels of CO2

I'd also suggest that the worlds lifestyle is going to get some serious readjustment whether it likes it or not. Might as well make it an adjustment for the better than the worse.

Nuclear isn't even remotely an option and its negative impacts are clearly inducing a negative growth in the nuclear power industry. The only two countries actively building nuclear power plants are obviously doing so for ulterior motives

from
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...YbaxIsAt6f28kVXAQ&sig2=PXgemEqhCc0SN3i0a3Empw

I went over the costs of decommissioning some of those plants on another thread but I'm not sure which one, in any case nuclear is a dead option and its good riddance I'd say.

Maybe now we can focus on effective solutions rather than boondoggles that only serve to line a few politicians pockets

 

Nuclear Power in China
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html

(Updated January 2012)

"Mainland China has 14 nuclear power reactors in operation, more than 25 under construction, and more about to start construction soon.
Additional reactors are planned, including some of the world's most advanced, to give a five- or six-fold increase in nuclear capacity to at least 60 GWe by 2020, then 200 GWe by 2030, and 400 GWe by 2050."
...

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html

 

That fact alone was worth the read

There's no doubt that the nuke industry has a marketting problem.
You can spout all the stats you like, but the anti side has some pretty
impressive photos they can trot out!

 

interesting

so whats your reference on that piece you posted

also I think Jeff prefers we post short snippets out of whatever and always include where we got it from so it keep him out of copyright issues.

I'm off for a beer but one quick thing I notice is that there are wildly differing stats being offered here. So whats the deal, who's got the real scoop and who's got flawed info.

Might be interesting to figure out if its the nuclear industry thats fudging the numbers or if its the environmental concerns that are fudging the numbers. I'd say both are probably at fault but all in all the nuclear industry and lost about as much credibility as it could possibly loose after the latest fiasco in Japan. The response time was disastrously slow and there transparency in reporting the degree of contamination was anything buy honest.

also given China's issues with quality control is it really all that wise for them to be building a bunch of nuclear power plants ?

 

I wonder if someone will develop liquid fluoride thorium reactor for a ship? There are modern and futuristic nuclear designs that might just work. Security would be a concern, but hopefully that concern can be reduced in the design.

For little ships under 35', I still like the solar option. Something like the Island Pilot DSe.

 

China Guangdong Nuclear Power Group website (www.cgnpc.com.cn)

China National Nuclear Corporation website (www.cnnc.com.cn)

Country Analysis Briefs: China, Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/index.html

Uranium 2007: Resources, Production and Demand, OECD Nuclear Energy Agency and International Atomic Energy Agency, 2008 (ISBN: 9789264047662)

Nicobar Group website (www.nicobargroup.com)

Dynabond PowerTech website (www.dynabondpowertech.com)

Proceedings of the World Nuclear Association's China International Nuclear Symposium, held in Beijing on 23-25 November 2010, and that in Hong Kong in October 2011. No doubt these sources have a bias favorable towards nuclear power . I am not an advocate for nuclear power as it is today. What I have been trying to say, is that as nuclear power is the only way we have now to provide the massive amounts of new energy that is required if the world continues on its present course, efforts have to be made to make it safe and clean. My own feeling is that through the use of renewable energy of all kinds, managed conservation, responsible manufacturing and agricultural practices, population control and an end to economic growth mania we could solve the immediate problem without the need for nuclear. I am resolved to the fact that none of those will happen. I was just reading on the bbc news website that the un calculates that By 2030, demand for food will rise by 50%, for energy by 45% and for water by 30% . For my own part I am having difficulty designing an economical sailing solar powered electric auxiliary world cruiser for my retirement .