FPGA Central

Randy Yates <[email protected]> writes:
> [...]
> for disposing of nuclear was placing it ...

That should have been "for disposing of nuclear waste was placing
it ...".
--
% Randy Yates % "Ticket to the moon, flight leaves here today
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % from Satellite 2"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Ticket To The Moon'
%%%% <[email protected]> % *Time*, Electric Light Orchestra
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

Randy Yates wrote:
> Carlos Moreno <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>[...]
>>believe me, we were as shocked as you (and Jerry
>>and Erik and others) seem to be when they told us that
>>Nuclear energy, hands down, was the best form of energy,
>>without any other competitor that comes remotely close.
>
>
> Carlos,
>
> I remember learning a few years ago that the best solution
> we had for disposing of nuclear was placing it in specially
> reinforced barrels and placing them deep underground in some
> remote area.
>
> Is this what you call a viable, large-scale energy source?

I don't know -- perhaps it is; I mean, radioactive materials
*do happen* in Nature; they simply are in places where we can
not be. I don't see how that would change. (then again, this
is beyond my -- probably yours as well -- area of strong
expertise; I'm just "re-transmitting" (*) an argument that
I found quite convincing, and argument given by a guy that
does work in the area).

Do keep in mind that having more energy, then deep excavations
done properly and efficiently become more feasable.

Also, what you learned a few years back (which probably is
still valid today, I'm not going to argue against that) might
be valid because of today's scenario regarding Nuclear energy;
we produce just a little, so we're paying too much for the
"overhead" in teh cost of doing so.

What I mean is the following: perhaps the *only* viable
solution to dispose of nuclear waste is burial *because*
we're producing just a bit of energy, not enough to make
some other solutions viable -- when you think about it, if
you have a lot of extra energy, then perhaps a 5 or 10% of
inefficiency given by having to spend massive amounts of
energy in launching those containers with nuclar waste to
outer space could become realistic -- launching those to
outer space is today ridiculously unrealistic because the
energy is too expensive -- because we do not have an
extremely efficient source of it. The argument is kind
of recursively self-enforcing -- what a beauty! :-)).

Launching nuclear waste to outer space is just an example;
there may be other alternatives that Scientists and Engineers
could come up with *if* they could count on massive amounts
of energy that is produced at a reasonable cost; again,
perhaps you don't even need other methods; perhaps with
massive amounts of energy, one could improve and make the
burial solution much more efficient and safe?

(*) I thought I'd use that communications terminology as
a silly attempt to bring the discussion marginally on-topic
for this NG :-)

Cheers,

Carlos
--

Randy Yates wrote:
> Randy Yates <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>[...]
>>for disposing of nuclear was placing it ...
>
>
> That should have been "for disposing of nuclear waste was placing
> it ...".

Carlos,

There is no doubt that nuclear is the cleanest form of energy in the
short term. The limited amount of waste accumulates slowly enough so
that the problem of its disposal can -- week after week -- be put off
until next week. (Just last week, it was discovered that water with
radioactive solutes had been leaking from a massive concrete tank into
the ground for the last few months at the Indian Point reactor in New
York.) So far, after at least 40 years of discussion and planning, no
acceptable solution for "permanent" disposal has been arrived at.

The pressing needs we all know about make nuclear power seem very
attractive, but be warned: every solution brings its own problems. There
was a time when it was deemed wise to introduce rabbits into Australia.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Carlos Moreno wrote:

...

> Do keep in mind that having more energy, then deep excavations
> done properly and efficiently become more feasable.

How deep is deep enough? For necessary storage times of tens of
millennia, who will predict the actions of plate tectonics?

...

> What I mean is the following: perhaps the *only* viable
> solution to dispose of nuclear waste is burial *because*
> we're producing just a bit of energy, not enough to make
> some other solutions viable -- when you think about it, if
> you have a lot of extra energy, then perhaps a 5 or 10% of
> inefficiency given by having to spend massive amounts of
> energy in launching those containers with nuclar waste to
> outer space could become realistic -- launching those to
> outer space is today ridiculously unrealistic because the
> energy is too expensive -- because we do not have an
> extremely efficient source of it. The argument is kind
> of recursively self-enforcing -- what a beauty! :-)).

How can nuclear energy be used to reach space without contaminating the
surface and atmosphere?

> Launching nuclear waste to outer space is just an example;
> there may be other alternatives that Scientists and Engineers
> could come up with *if* they could count on massive amounts
> of energy that is produced at a reasonable cost; again,
> perhaps you don't even need other methods; perhaps with
> massive amounts of energy, one could improve and make the
> burial solution much more efficient and safe?

It's a glorious thought! It will make nuclear energy practical when we
learn how to implement it. Not before, though.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Jerry Avins wrote:

>> Launching nuclear waste to outer space is just an example;
>> there may be other alternatives that Scientists and Engineers
>> could come up with *if* they could count on massive amounts
>> of energy that is produced at a reasonable cost; again,
>> perhaps you don't even need other methods; perhaps with
>> massive amounts of energy, one could improve and make the
>> burial solution much more efficient and safe?
>
> It's a glorious thought! It will make nuclear energy practical when we
> learn how to implement it. Not before, though.

Point well taken.

However, we are forgetting that the discussion should be whether
the other methods are better. The answer that I keep defending
is NO. You're pointing out potential hazards with nuclear energy;
however, you're disregarding the *non-potential*, the very real
(real as in "they're happening") hazards of the other, inefficient
forms of producing energy (well, I'm mainly referring to burning
petroleum), for which, IMHO, the only possible defense is that
"well, the infrastructure is already there, and it is already
working, so it's economically unsound to throw that away".

Hydro-electric energy is an entirely different beast; it might as
well be *the* perfect energy source, if only it were available
everywhere. And still, not that perfect; it doesn't cause damage
and waste on a per-megajoule basis, but it does cause a one-time
ecologic damage that could be quite considerable.

Wind is perhaps an even better source in that sense -- except
that it has to be far less efficient (I'm guessing here), and
again, it's not necessarily accessible everywhere.

This article about Space Elevators (the one I mentioned in another
branch of this thread) talks about the possibility of putting
solar cells out there, where there's *a lot more* solar energy
than down here where it has been filtered by the (outer) atmosphere,
and send the energy directly by cables -- they mention that when
Space Elevators reduce the cost of putting materials and
infrastructure out there (outside the atmosphere), then that
strategy as a source of energy might become feasable. When you
think about it, yes, it seems silly that we have to be discussing
here about nuclear vs. non-nuclear energy, when we have at merely
150 million kilometers, a source of such a brutally high amount
of energy :-) Nature has known to take advantage of it; why
couldn't we?

Carlos
--

Carlos Moreno <[email protected]> writes:

> Jerry Avins wrote:
>
>>> Launching nuclear waste to outer space is just an example;
>>> there may be other alternatives that Scientists and Engineers
>>> could come up with *if* they could count on massive amounts
>>> of energy that is produced at a reasonable cost; again,
>>> perhaps you don't even need other methods; perhaps with
>>> massive amounts of energy, one could improve and make the
>>> burial solution much more efficient and safe?
>> It's a glorious thought! It will make nuclear energy practical when
>> we learn how to implement it. Not before, though.
>
> Point well taken.
>
> However, we are forgetting that the discussion should be whether
> the other methods are better. The answer that I keep defending
> is NO. You're pointing out potential hazards with nuclear energy;
> however, you're disregarding the *non-potential*, the very real
> (real as in "they're happening") hazards of the other, inefficient
> forms of producing energy (well, I'm mainly referring to burning
> petroleum), for which, IMHO, the only possible defense is that
> "well, the infrastructure is already there, and it is already
> working, so it's economically unsound to throw that away".
>
> Hydro-electric energy is an entirely different beast; it might as
> well be *the* perfect energy source, if only it were available
> everywhere. And still, not that perfect; it doesn't cause damage
> and waste on a per-megajoule basis, but it does cause a one-time
> ecologic damage that could be quite considerable.
>
> Wind is perhaps an even better source in that sense -- except
> that it has to be far less efficient (I'm guessing here), and
> again, it's not necessarily accessible everywhere.

Why is no one here considering fusion? Does it seem so out of reach
that we don't consider it? Are our minds too small to think that an
actual, practical plasma containment field and the remaining problems
are actually solvable?

If we, somehow, actually did get such an energy source practically
working, can you predict the impact? What would "free and abundant
energy" mean to mankind?
--
% Randy Yates % "Midnight, on the water...
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % I saw... the ocean's daughter."
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Can't Get It Out Of My Head'
%%%% <[email protected]> % *El Dorado*, Electric Light Orchestra
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

Randy Yates wrote:

> Why is no one here considering fusion?

Errr.... I thought we were... I thought we were always talking about
nuclear fusion when referring to nuclear energy. I remember reading
(long time ago) about the difficulties in using nuclear fusion and
keep it under control (as in, using it for something other than
nuclear weapons). I somehow thought solutions to those problems
were already within our reach -- perhaps I overestimated that part?


Carlos
--

Carlos Moreno <[email protected]> writes:

> Randy Yates wrote:
>
>> Why is no one here considering fusion?
>
> Errr.... I thought we were... I thought we were always talking about
> nuclear fusion when referring to nuclear energy. I remember reading
> (long time ago) about the difficulties in using nuclear fusion and
> keep it under control (as in, using it for something other than
> nuclear weapons). I somehow thought solutions to those problems
> were already within our reach -- perhaps I overestimated that part?

As far as I know we don't have a practical fusion reactor yet, and
all current "commercial" nuclear reactors are fission.
--
% Randy Yates % "The dreamer, the unwoken fool -
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % in dreams, no pain will kiss the brow..."
%%% 919-577-9882 %
%%%% <[email protected]> % 'Eldorado Overture', *Eldorado*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

Carlos Moreno wrote:
> Jerry Avins wrote:
>
>>> Launching nuclear waste to outer space is just an example;
>>> there may be other alternatives that Scientists and Engineers
>>> could come up with *if* they could count on massive amounts
>>> of energy that is produced at a reasonable cost; again,
>>> perhaps you don't even need other methods; perhaps with
>>> massive amounts of energy, one could improve and make the
>>> burial solution much more efficient and safe?
>>
>>
>> It's a glorious thought! It will make nuclear energy practical when we
>> learn how to implement it. Not before, though.
>
>
> Point well taken.
>
> However, we are forgetting that the discussion should be whether
> the other methods are better. The answer that I keep defending
> is NO. You're pointing out potential hazards with nuclear energy;
> however, you're disregarding the *non-potential*, the very real
> (real as in "they're happening") hazards of the other, inefficient
> forms of producing energy (well, I'm mainly referring to burning
> petroleum), for which, IMHO, the only possible defense is that
> "well, the infrastructure is already there, and it is already
> working, so it's economically unsound to throw that away".

Fossil fuels are harmful. That harm is increased because the energy used
by each of us harms all of us, and our numbers are increasing
frighteningly fast. Whatever the "long term" solution may be -- fusion
would be great -- it won't work in the long term if population continues
to grow. Ocean temperatures are a degree warmer that they were not long
ago. The weather consequences of that should be clear to everyone by
now. Still, better the devil we know than the devil we don't. How much
land will we lose to Chernoble-like incidents before that too seems to
be a problem? (Tell me it can't happen here. Right!)

Whatever energy source we use, the problem can be greatly mitigated, but
people in power don't want to spend and power is so cheap that users
don't want to save. The US rejected the Kyoto accords because they would
have hurt a few of the President's favored industries. Sulfur dioxide in
stack emissions can be scrubbed almost completely.

Enough power is wasted in the US alone just on unused powered-up
computers to supply all of the energy needs of Switzerland and Luxemberg
combined. There are ways to reduce atmospheric pollution without
poisoning the earth. We're too cheap to control stack emissions in known
and relatively inexpensive ways. Are you so naïve as to imagine that
money will nevertheless be found for permanent disposal of spent nuclear
fuel or adequate fusion research?

> Hydro-electric energy is an entirely different beast; it might as
> well be *the* perfect energy source, if only it were available
> everywhere. And still, not that perfect; it doesn't cause damage
> and waste on a per-megajoule basis, but it does cause a one-time
> ecologic damage that could be quite considerable.
>
> Wind is perhaps an even better source in that sense -- except
> that it has to be far less efficient (I'm guessing here), and
> again, it's not necessarily accessible everywhere.
>
> This article about Space Elevators (the one I mentioned in another
> branch of this thread) talks about the possibility of putting
> solar cells out there, where there's *a lot more* solar energy
> than down here where it has been filtered by the (outer) atmosphere,
> and send the energy directly by cables -- they mention that when
> Space Elevators reduce the cost of putting materials and
> infrastructure out there (outside the atmosphere), then that
> strategy as a source of energy might become feasable. When you
> think about it, yes, it seems silly that we have to be discussing
> here about nuclear vs. non-nuclear energy, when we have at merely
> 150 million kilometers, a source of such a brutally high amount
> of energy :-) Nature has known to take advantage of it; why
> couldn't we?

One needs unobtainium to build a space elevator. A material is
characterized by density in lbs/in^3, and allowable stress in lbs/in^2.
Dividing one property by the other gives the length before the material
breaks of its own weight. Density/allowable stress = allowable length/g.
(Converting pounds force to pounds mass introduces g.) Why don't you
calculate the allowable lengths of a hanging pieces of structural steel
and music wire, and also of a Kevlar thread? After your enlightenment,
consider that any elevator structure would have to withstand hurricane
winds. Good luck!

Talking through one's hat is easy, but fortunately the voice is muffled
in a way that's recognizable by people who've heard it all before.
You're a technical man. Before letting yourself run away with youthful
enthusiasm, do some simple calculation to check orders of magnitude.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Carlos Moreno wrote:
> Randy Yates wrote:
>
>> Why is no one here considering fusion?
>
>
> Errr.... I thought we were... I thought we were always talking about
> nuclear fusion when referring to nuclear energy. I remember reading
> (long time ago) about the difficulties in using nuclear fusion and
> keep it under control (as in, using it for something other than
> nuclear weapons). I somehow thought solutions to those problems
> were already within our reach -- perhaps I overestimated that part?

The most optimistic estimates I have heard since i962, when I moved near
the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory and some of my neighbors worked
there, was that fusion would become practical in about 20 years. The
estimates have grown to 25 years, but not much else has changed.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Carlos Moreno wrote:

> All I'm doing is trying -- the best I can -- to explain
> what I once was explained. I'm sorry that that offends
> you (actually, no, I'm not really sorry, now that I think
> about it :-)).

Neither would I be in your shoes... In my mind, the way you make
qualitative points in pseudo-quantitative language just doesn't
serve to show very much at all, and I'm sure the folks who changed
your mind didn't do that. I point this out because, since you're
partaking in this discussion in the first place, it seems reasonable
that you might want to know when and why you're not getting through
to someone. I was actually equally annoyed by this juggling on one or
two earlier occasions, but the topic wasn't hot enough to make me
tell you. Probably dumb to allow you to skip so easily over my
suspicion that shooting nuclear waste into the sun would only push
the problem around, not to mention political feasibility of the
required logistics. What's more, it would be an unaffordably high-
risk strategy compared to other potential means of disposal -- shit
does happen. And yes, I understand it was just an example.


Martin

--
The drowning girl will remark how pretty the coral.
--Sara Swanson, Malignant

Jerry Avins wrote:

> Whatever energy source we use, the problem can be greatly mitigated, but
> people in power don't want to spend and power is so cheap that users
> don't want to save. The US rejected the Kyoto accords because they would
> have hurt a few of the President's favored industries. Sulfur dioxide in
> stack emissions can be scrubbed almost completely.

Can not agree more... In fact, a few posts ago, in the middle of my
defense to a mechanism to get more energy, I was about to add something
like "the ironic detail is that I wonder if we *really* want a buffet-
style all-you-can-consume source of energy"...

As an amateur astronomer, I keep "hating the world" (figure of speech,
of course -- don't send an army of psichiatrists to treat me :-))
because of the way energy is wasted in the form of light; you talk
about the energy wasted in powered-up computers. Well, add the
energy wasted in all of the Mall and Parks/baseball/football fields,
Highways and buildings lights (yes, the thousand-watts-grade lightbulbs)
that are kept on all the way from 10PM, when they're no longer needed,
until the sun rises... :-( (I'm not saying that clear skies for us,
lovers of astronomy, is the reason why the world would change -- just
mentioning one very handy example, a detail in which I personally
relate to the issue).


>> This article about Space Elevators (the one I mentioned in another
>> branch of this thread) talks about the possibility of putting
>> solar cells out there, where there's *a lot more* solar energy
>> than down here where it has been filtered by the (outer) atmosphere,
>> and send the energy directly by cables -- they mention that when
>> Space Elevators reduce the cost of putting materials and
>> infrastructure out there (outside the atmosphere), then that
>> strategy as a source of energy might become feasable. When you
>> think about it, yes, it seems silly that we have to be discussing
>> here about nuclear vs. non-nuclear energy, when we have at merely
>> 150 million kilometers, a source of such a brutally high amount
>> of energy :-) Nature has known to take advantage of it; why
>> couldn't we?
>
>
> One needs unobtainium to build a space elevator. A material is
> characterized by density in lbs/in^3, and allowable stress in lbs/in^2.
> Dividing one property by the other gives the length before the material
> breaks of its own weight. Density/allowable stress = allowable length/g.
> (Converting pounds force to pounds mass introduces g.) Why don't you
> calculate the allowable lengths of a hanging pieces of structural steel
> and music wire, and also of a Kevlar thread? After your enlightenment,
> consider that any elevator structure would have to withstand hurricane
> winds. Good luck!
>
> Talking through one's hat is easy, but fortunately the voice is muffled
> in a way that's recognizable by people who've heard it all before.
> You're a technical man. Before letting yourself run away with youthful
> enthusiasm, do some simple calculation to check orders of magnitude.

Why don't you read the article -- written by the person hired by NASA
to perform the feasabiity study -- before attacking me? :-)

(you know, I'm *not* talking about Arthur Clarke's allusion to a space
elevator back in the 60s :-))

He does talk about the material to be used -- in fact, he does mention
that for more than a century, the idea existed but was restricted to the
realm of science fiction, until 1991, when a Japanese scientist's
discovery of something he calls "carbon nanotubes" turned that sci-fi
idea into something that realistically can be expected within the next
few decades. He seems to be a technical man -- he talks about the
possibility of oscillation, and calculates the mechanical resonance
frequency, or rather, takes into account the constraint of avoiding a
resonance frequency anywhere near 1 day or 28 days (otherwise the
Earth's rotation would make it oscillate, if 1 day, or the Moon's
orbiting would make it oscillate, if 28 days).

I'm not going to fiercely defend the feasability of such thing or the
technical merits of the study, and have to admit that no, I did not
sit and carefully check any numbers; but the analysis presented in the
article seems technically sound and convincing. He discusses many
technical and non-technical challenges to be faced (including hurricanes
on the technical side, and including even terrorism, for the non-
technical side).

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/aug05/1690, in case you're curious.


I'll throw the ball back at you, saying: C'mon, you're a technical
man, how can you so radically dismiss the idea? -- I remind you that
it was merely 110 years ago that was said, and widely accepted as a
fact, that "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible to build"
(Lord Kelvin, 1895).

Only 60 years later, we were putting these flying machines on the
Moon!!!!


Cheers,

Carlos
--

Jerry,
But we can!
CSIRO in Australia have developed CINrock.
It is a vitrivation process that seals and secures the ashes in a rock srtucture,
with the stability of the oldest rocks.
This solves the problem of securing the radion waste for its lifetime.

It has been proposed that it is stored deep in the most stable geological structures.

All the problems with energy generation distills down to political/economic problems now.
The science/technical problems have been solved.
I have believed that the "Final solution" is to get the "ashes" back to the sun.
This is getting more possible but is still in fantasy in this real world.
Ian

"Jerry Avins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> [email protected] wrote:
>> Jerry Avins wrote:
>>
>>>Carlos Moreno wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Where do you propose to put the ashes?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, the trick is that for every trillion of terawatts
>>>>that you generate with nuclear energy, you generate less
>>>>ashes than when generating a gigawatt by burning petroleum,
>>>>or equivalently, cause less damage to the environment than
>>>>hydro-electric energy (which BTW is too limited anyway --
>>>>it's not accessible everywhere, as thermo-electric
>>>>potentially is, and nuclear could be)
>>>
>>>I can form non-nuclear ashes into cinder blocks, and build things with
>>>them. You can't do that with nuclear waste.
>>
>>
>> What makes you think that the total radioactive content of all those
>> cinder blocks (plus the carbon that went up the smokestack) is less
>> than that of your share of the output of a nuclear power plant?
>
> I tell you what: propose as a way to dispose of nuclear waste,
> distributing it in tiny quantities in all brick hereafter manufactured.
> With it so diluted and spread out, that ought to be acceptable to you. One
> could look at a brickyard and see a new meaning for "atomic pile".
>
> Jerry

You mean like the amounts of radon gas found in homes ?
Seems to depend on type of construction materials used
and soil content of uranium and radium.

It is a a problem not just in the US, can get especially high levels here in
Australia especially in some new homes.

Sometimes not so minute amounts either.
http://www.epa.gov/radon/
http://www.oasisllc.com/abgx/environment.htm
http://www.radon.com/pubs/hmbyguid.html
http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/e...don/index.html
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/radon/myths.html
http://www.epa.gov/radon/zonemap.html

http://www.uic.com.au/ozuran.htm

Burning coal also releases radioactive particles into the atmosphere.
The remaining fly ash can contain quite a bit.

Alex

Carlos Moreno wrote:
> Jerry Avins wrote:
>
>> Whatever energy source we use, the problem can be greatly mitigated,
>> but people in power don't want to spend and power is so cheap that
>> users don't want to save. The US rejected the Kyoto accords because
>> they would have hurt a few of the President's favored industries.
>> Sulfur dioxide in stack emissions can be scrubbed almost completely.
>
>
> Can not agree more... In fact, a few posts ago, in the middle of my
> defense to a mechanism to get more energy, I was about to add something
> like "the ironic detail is that I wonder if we *really* want a buffet-
> style all-you-can-consume source of energy"...

What is your disagreement?

> As an amateur astronomer, I keep "hating the world" (figure of speech,
> of course -- don't send an army of psichiatrists to treat me :-))
> because of the way energy is wasted in the form of light; you talk
> about the energy wasted in powered-up computers. Well, add the
> energy wasted in all of the Mall and Parks/baseball/football fields,
> Highways and buildings lights (yes, the thousand-watts-grade lightbulbs)
> that are kept on all the way from 10PM, when they're no longer needed,
> until the sun rises... :-( (I'm not saying that clear skies for us,
> lovers of astronomy, is the reason why the world would change -- just
> mentioning one very handy example, a detail in which I personally
> relate to the issue).

The only reason for street lights to radiate upward is that energy is
cheaper than reflectors.

>>> This article about Space Elevators (the one I mentioned in another
>>> branch of this thread) talks about the possibility of putting
>>> solar cells out there, where there's *a lot more* solar energy
>>> than down here where it has been filtered by the (outer) atmosphere,
>>> and send the energy directly by cables -- they mention that when
>>> Space Elevators reduce the cost of putting materials and
>>> infrastructure out there (outside the atmosphere), then that
>>> strategy as a source of energy might become feasable. When you
>>> think about it, yes, it seems silly that we have to be discussing
>>> here about nuclear vs. non-nuclear energy, when we have at merely
>>> 150 million kilometers, a source of such a brutally high amount
>>> of energy :-) Nature has known to take advantage of it; why
>>> couldn't we?

Let's talk about when/if it becomes feasible. Now, it's not.

>> One needs unobtainium to build a space elevator. A material is
>> characterized by density in lbs/in^3, and allowable stress in
>> lbs/in^2. Dividing one property by the other gives the length before
>> the material breaks of its own weight. Density/allowable stress =
>> allowable length/g. (Converting pounds force to pounds mass introduces
>> g.) Why don't you calculate the allowable lengths of a hanging pieces
>> of structural steel and music wire, and also of a Kevlar thread? After
>> your enlightenment, consider that any elevator structure would have to
>> withstand hurricane winds. Good luck!
>>
>> Talking through one's hat is easy, but fortunately the voice is
>> muffled in a way that's recognizable by people who've heard it all
>> before. You're a technical man. Before letting yourself run away with
>> youthful enthusiasm, do some simple calculation to check orders of
>> magnitude.
>
>
> Why don't you read the article -- written by the person hired by NASA
> to perform the feasabiity study -- before attacking me? :-)

I read the article. I don't remember it saying when he expects
nanotubules to be up to the task. He acknowledges that they aren't now.
The longest are an astonishing six centimeters or so. Means of joining
them end to end are not available. While they are very strong for their
size, they are in absolute terms very weak. (You couldn't hang your hat
on it.) There's a lot of work left to be done just to see if it might be
feasible, yet you seem to think it's available. I think that's naive. If
you take that as an attack, I hope you get over it.

> (you know, I'm *not* talking about Arthur Clarke's allusion to a space
> elevator back in the 60s :-))

Basically, you are.

> He does talk about the material to be used -- in fact, he does mention
> that for more than a century, the idea existed but was restricted to the
> realm of science fiction, until 1991, when a Japanese scientist's
> discovery of something he calls "carbon nanotubes" turned that sci-fi
> idea into something that realistically can be expected within the next
> few decades. He seems to be a technical man -- he talks about the
> possibility of oscillation, and calculates the mechanical resonance
> frequency, or rather, takes into account the constraint of avoiding a
> resonance frequency anywhere near 1 day or 28 days (otherwise the
> Earth's rotation would make it oscillate, if 1 day, or the Moon's
> orbiting would make it oscillate, if 28 days).
>
> I'm not going to fiercely defend the feasability of such thing or the
> technical merits of the study, and have to admit that no, I did not
> sit and carefully check any numbers; but the analysis presented in the
> article seems technically sound and convincing. He discusses many
> technical and non-technical challenges to be faced (including hurricanes
> on the technical side, and including even terrorism, for the non-
> technical side).
>
> http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/aug05/1690, in case you're curious.
>
>
> I'll throw the ball back at you, saying: C'mon, you're a technical
> man, how can you so radically dismiss the idea? -- I remind you that
> it was merely 110 years ago that was said, and widely accepted as a
> fact, that "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible to build"
> (Lord Kelvin, 1895).
>
> Only 60 years later, we were putting these flying machines on the
> Moon!!!!

I built some of the equipment on the first orbital flight. Well before
that, in 1949, I was questioned by the FBI because I seemed to know more
about the space program than I ought to have. My conjectures -- that we
would build a launch facility at Cape Canaveral, abandoning White Sands
as our major rocket facility, that much of the development work would be
(and was probably being) done at nearby Redstone Arsenal, that the first
trip to the moon would be on a multi-stage rocket from earth, rather
than from an orbiting space station (Wiley Ley notwithstanding) -- were
only that, and I thanked the agents for confirming them. There's more to
that incident that's fun, but not pertinent to illustrating that I'm
open to ideas and conjectures. Our difference is that before I put an
idea forward, I try to find reasons not to.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Alex Gibson wrote:
> "Jerry Avins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]..

...

>>I tell you what: propose as a way to dispose of nuclear waste,
>>distributing it in tiny quantities in all brick hereafter manufactured.
>>With it so diluted and spread out, that ought to be acceptable to you. One
>>could look at a brickyard and see a new meaning for "atomic pile".
>>
>>Jerry
>
>
> You mean like the amounts of radon gas found in homes ?
> Seems to depend on type of construction materials used
> and soil content of uranium and radium.

Radon tends to collect in basements. Venting is usually a fix. That's
not really good, but let's not make it worse.

...

> Burning coal also releases radioactive particles into the atmosphere.
> The remaining fly ash can contain quite a bit.

I oversee an incinerator that burns sludge from our sewage plant. A lot
of shit comes in with the shit -- mercury, chromium, silver, and more,
but none of it escapes from the stack. Gas scrubbers, chemical traps,
and afterburners ensure that. It can be done, but most don't bother.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Ian Summers wrote:
> Jerry,
> But we can!
> CSIRO in Australia have developed CINrock.
> It is a vitrivation process that seals and secures the ashes in a rock srtucture,
> with the stability of the oldest rocks.
> This solves the problem of securing the radion waste for its lifetime.
>
> It has been proposed that it is stored deep in the most stable geological structures.
>
> All the problems with energy generation distills down to political/economic problems now.
> The science/technical problems have been solved.
> I have believed that the "Final solution" is to get the "ashes" back to the sun.
> This is getting more possible but is still in fantasy in this real world.

Well, when we see it working, let's use it and get on with the job.
With any luck, the world's population can increase as many times in my
grandchildren's lifetimes as it did in mine. What will it be like when
population quadruples again?

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Jerry Avins wrote:
> Carlos Moreno wrote:
>
>> Jerry Avins wrote:
>>
>>> Whatever energy source we use, the problem can be greatly mitigated,
>>> but people in power don't want to spend and power is so cheap that
>>> users don't want to save. The US rejected the Kyoto accords because
>>> they would have hurt a few of the President's favored industries.
>>> Sulfur dioxide in stack emissions can be scrubbed almost completely.
>>
>>
>>
>> Can not agree more... In fact, a few posts ago, in the middle of my
>> defense to a mechanism to get more energy, I was about to add something
>> like "the ironic detail is that I wonder if we *really* want a buffet-
>> style all-you-can-consume source of energy"...
>
>
> What is your disagreement?

????

Are you sure you read my paragraph correctly?? (double check the
very first phrase of my paragraph above)

>> As an amateur astronomer, I keep "hating the world" (figure of speech,
>> of course -- don't send an army of psichiatrists to treat me :-))
>> because of the way energy is wasted in the form of light; you talk
>> about the energy wasted in powered-up computers. Well, add the
>> energy wasted in all of the Mall and Parks/baseball/football fields,
>> Highways and buildings lights (yes, the thousand-watts-grade lightbulbs)
>> that are kept on all the way from 10PM, when they're no longer needed,
>> until the sun rises... :-( (I'm not saying that clear skies for us,
>> lovers of astronomy, is the reason why the world would change -- just
>> mentioning one very handy example, a detail in which I personally
>> relate to the issue).
>
> The only reason for street lights to radiate upward is that energy is
> cheaper than reflectors.

Kind of goes with my point of philosophically questioning myself on
"is *free and abundant* energy what Mankind really needs?". I mean,
as I said with teh example above -- wasting energy and abusing the
availability of energy is the source of many problems on the planet;
some of them *very bad* (like global warming and its effects, air
pollution from cars and industries, etc.), some of them bad to a
certain extent (such as my example of light pollution -- well, maybe
that problem *is* indeed worse than simply an inconvenience to those
who like to enjoy a view of the night sky). So, then, you go and
figure: "oh my God, with energy being an expensive and limited
resource, we spend and waste such brutal amounts of it just
because it is less expensive than other things, imagine if we did
have a source of abundant and almost-free energy!!!"


>> Why don't you read the article -- written by the person hired by NASA
>> to perform the feasabiity study -- before attacking me? :-)
>
>
> I read the article. I don't remember it saying when he expects
> nanotubules to be up to the task.

I'll refresh your memory :-)

Quote (*exact*, as in copy-n-pasted) from the article:

"Outside the lab, bulk carbon-nanotube composite fibers have already
been made in kilometer-long lengths, but these composite fibers do not
yet have the strength needed for a space elevator cable.

However, we think we know how to get there. There are two methods being
examined at academic institutions and at my company, Carbon Designs
Inc., in Dallas. The first approach is to use long composite fibers,
which are about as strong as steel and have a composition of 3 percent
carbon nanotubes, the rest being a common plastic polymer. By improving
the ability of the carbon-nanotube wall to adhere to other molecules and
increasing the ratio of nanotubes to plastic in the fiber to 50 percent,
it should be possible to produce fibers strong enough for the space
elevator cable.

The second approach is to make the cable out of spun carbon-nanotube
fibers. Here, long nanotubes would be twisted together like conventional
thread. This method has the potential to produce extremely strong
material that could meet the demands of the space elevator. Both
processes could be proved in the next few years. "

Yes, carbon nano-tubes are not up for the task *today*, but he does
claim that realistic possibilities about their use for this application
do exist and his estimate is a few years for those possibilities to
become reality.

Here is where my anecdotic claim about how unbelievably fast things
advance (not always, of course) fits -- 10 years before the first
launch of a rocket to the outer atmosphere you hear someone talking
about it, and without any doubt, the unanimous consensus would have
been that that person was on some serious drug, and that it would
have to be immediately institutionalized (?? is that a word?)


> There's a lot of work left to be done just to see if it might be
> feasible, yet you seem to think it's available. I think that's naive. If
> you take that as an attack, I hope you get over it.

Oh, not to worry -- I thought it was clear that my remark about
you attacking me was totally kidding :-)

> open to ideas and conjectures. Our difference is that before I put an
> idea forward, I try to find reasons not to.

No, that's not really our difference. Our difference in this
instance seems to be that we read things differently (not
necessarily different as in "correct" and "incorrect"; just
different)

Carlos
--

Jerry Avins wrote:

> With any luck, the world's population can increase as many times in my
> grandchildren's lifetimes as it did in mine. What will it be like when
> population quadruples again?

Two options:

1) Complete and total apocalypse (in the form of World War III that
could wipe out 3/4 or more of the population)

or

2) Colonization of other planets and/or Moon; and/or construction of
planets or habitable moons.

Carlos
--

Carlos Moreno wrote:
> Jerry Avins wrote:

...

>> What is your disagreement?
>
>
> ????
>
> Are you sure you read my paragraph correctly?? (double check the
> very first phrase of my paragraph above)

Sorry. It was late.

> Kind of goes with my point of philosophically questioning myself on
> "is *free and abundant* energy what Mankind really needs?". I mean,
> as I said with teh example above -- wasting energy and abusing the
> availability of energy is the source of many problems on the planet;
> some of them *very bad* (like global warming and its effects, air
> pollution from cars and industries, etc.), some of them bad to a
> certain extent (such as my example of light pollution -- well, maybe
> that problem *is* indeed worse than simply an inconvenience to those
> who like to enjoy a view of the night sky). So, then, you go and
> figure: "oh my God, with energy being an expensive and limited
> resource, we spend and waste such brutal amounts of it just
> because it is less expensive than other things, imagine if we did
> have a source of abundant and almost-free energy!!!"
>
>
>>> Why don't you read the article -- written by the person hired by NASA
>>> to perform the feasabiity study -- before attacking me? :-)
>>
>>
>>
>> I read the article. I don't remember it saying when he expects
>> nanotubules to be up to the task.
>
>
> I'll refresh your memory :-)
>
> Quote (*exact*, as in copy-n-pasted) from the article:
>
> "Outside the lab, bulk carbon-nanotube composite fibers have already
> been made in kilometer-long lengths, but these composite fibers do not
> yet have the strength needed for a space elevator cable.

That's correct, but "bulk carbon-nanotube composite fibers" are not
nanotubes and don't have the strength of nanotubes. Maybe a matrix equal
to their strength will be developed, but it's not in sight.

> However, we think we know how to get there. There are two methods being
> examined at academic institutions and at my company, Carbon Designs
> Inc., in Dallas. The first approach is to use long composite fibers,
> which are about as strong as steel and have a composition of 3 percent
> carbon nanotubes, the rest being a common plastic polymer. By improving
> the ability of the carbon-nanotube wall to adhere to other molecules and
> increasing the ratio of nanotubes to plastic in the fiber to 50 percent,
> it should be possible to produce fibers strong enough for the space
> elevator cable.
>
>
> The second approach is to make the cable out of spun carbon-nanotube
> fibers. Here, long nanotubes would be twisted together like conventional
> thread. This method has the potential to produce extremely strong
> material that could meet the demands of the space elevator. Both
> processes could be proved in the next few years. "
>
> Yes, carbon nano-tubes are not up for the task *today*, but he does
> claim that realistic possibilities about their use for this application
> do exist and his estimate is a few years for those possibilities to
> become reality.

Maybe. Good luck with it. I worked for several years on a project to
make superconducting memory. We got as far as working 128-by-128 planes
on a 2-by-2 glass substrate, but it was eventually proved on theoretical
grounds that the results couldn't scale to smaller sizes or larger
numbers. It looked very promising, though, for the first few tens of
millions (1960 dollars) spent.

> Here is where my anecdotic claim about how unbelievably fast things
> advance (not always, of course) fits -- 10 years before the first
> launch of a rocket to the outer atmosphere you hear someone talking
> about it, and without any doubt, the unanimous consensus would have
> been that that person was on some serious drug, and that it would
> have to be immediately institutionalized (?? is that a word?)

I've told you that many people were taking space flight very seriously
then, FBI included.

>> There's a lot of work left to be done just to see if it might be
>> feasible, yet you seem to think it's available. I think that's naive.
>> If you take that as an attack, I hope you get over it.
>
>
> Oh, not to worry -- I thought it was clear that my remark about
> you attacking me was totally kidding :-)

I'm relieved. (No sarcasm.)

>> open to ideas and conjectures. Our difference is that before I put an
>> idea forward, I try to find reasons not to.
>
>
> No, that's not really our difference. Our difference in this
> instance seems to be that we read things differently (not
> necessarily different as in "correct" and "incorrect"; just
> different)

That's certainly true. The idea I want to leave you with is that we
should not ignore practical solutions to real problems because there are
_potentially_ nicer solutions that _might_ come along later. When we
worked on superconductor memories, other teams worked on semiconductor
memories. Neither was practical back then.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Carlos Moreno <[email protected]> wrote:

>What I mean is the following: perhaps the *only* viable
>solution to dispose of nuclear waste is burial *because*
>we're producing just a bit of energy, not enough to make
>some other solutions viable -- when you think about it, if
>you have a lot of extra energy, then perhaps a 5 or 10% of
>inefficiency given by having to spend massive amounts of
>energy in launching those containers with nuclar waste to
>outer space could become realistic -- launching those to
>outer space is today ridiculously unrealistic because the
>energy is too expensive -- because we do not have an
>extremely efficient source of it. The argument is kind
>of recursively self-enforcing -- what a beauty! :-)).

Both these methods assume it's desirable to put the nuclear
waste somewhere where you can forget about it. A much better
plan is to keep it somewhere where you can watch it -- also
pretty expensive.

Steve

Carlos Moreno wrote:

...

> BTW, given that we're already off-topic for comp.dsp (:-)),
> I'll take the opportunity to ask you how's Isabelle doing?
> You haven't mentioned anything (well, or I haven't been
> reading the newsgroup enough and missed it, if you did),
> so I'm hoping that no news in this case is good news?

I'm sorry that I missed this before. Isabelle continues to recover. she
is beginning to take food, and withdrawal from the strong narcotics that
kept her unconscious or semi-conscious through the worst of her ordeal
is coming along. Speculation about the date of her homecoming is
beginning. Thanks for asking.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Jerry Avins wrote:

>> ????
>>
>> Are you sure you read my paragraph correctly?? (double check the
>> very first phrase of my paragraph above)
>
> Sorry. It was late.

That happens :-)

>> [...]
>
>> Here is where my anecdotic claim about how unbelievably fast things
>> advance (not always, of course) fits -- 10 years before the first
>> launch of a rocket to the outer atmosphere you hear someone talking
>> about it, and without any doubt, the unanimous consensus would have
>> been that that person was on some serious drug, and that it would
>> have to be immediately institutionalized (?? is that a word?)
>
> I've told you that many people were taking space flight very seriously
> then, FBI included.

But still, in the mind of many people, that seemed so ridiculously
far-fetched and science-fiction-like.

My point -- putting aside the flight to the Moon, which was nothing
more than the example I chose to make my point -- is that in the
past century, Mankind has witnessed many technological leaps that
10 years earlier would seem *far* more far-fetched than the space
elevator looks to me after reading that article.

You do have a point, that the comparison is not fair -- comparing
technological leaps *after the fact*, vs. predictions based on
potential technological leaps (well, you didn't phrase it that
way, but I'm sort of "translating/rephrasing" your point of view).
Perhaps what you're saying boils down to: for each technological
leap that was seen as far-fetch a decade earlier, there were
perhaps tens or hundreds of other ideas that people would have
thought possible never turned into reality?

I guess I would have to agree with that -- still, the "optimistic"
point of view is kind of based on the fact that after seeing such
an unbelievable rate of technological progress in the last century,
nothing should surprise us at this point.

Or look at it this way: the jump from today's state of technology
to 10 years from now with space elevators is far smaller than the
jump from 1896 thinking that building a flying machine was impossible
to today's state after just one century. If I had lived in the
late 19th century and someone had told me that what Verne or
H.G.Wells were writing (time machine notwithstanding :-)) could
one day become reality, I really would have laughed very hard,
and even seriously considered institutionalizing that person.
But seeing the world today, nothing surprises me (this does not
contradict your point that if things are unsound from the Physics,
then we should be skeptical -- for instance, if someone tells me
that perhaps in a few years we'll have super towers that reach
outer space that are built with concrete, then sure, I'd laugh
at that).

Carlos
--

Jerry Avins wrote:

>> BTW, given that we're already off-topic for comp.dsp (:-)),
>> I'll take the opportunity to ask you how's Isabelle doing?
>> You haven't mentioned anything (well, or I haven't been
>> reading the newsgroup enough and missed it, if you did),
>> so I'm hoping that no news in this case is good news?
>
> I'm sorry that I missed this before.

I was a bit surprised that you didn't comment on that, and a
bit worried that it might have meant that there were bad news
that you were reluctant to talk about. I'm glad to hear that
it was not the case.

> Isabelle continues to recover. she
> is beginning to take food, and withdrawal from the strong narcotics that
> kept her unconscious or semi-conscious through the worst of her ordeal
> is coming along. Speculation about the date of her homecoming is
> beginning. Thanks for asking.

Wow, I'm sad to hear that it's been a quite long and hard
time, but I'm glad to hear that she keeps getting better and
better. My sympathies and thoughts remain with you and your
family.

Carlos
--

Carlos Moreno <[email protected]> writes:
[snip]
> I'll throw the ball back at you, saying: C'mon, you're a technical
> man, how can you so radically dismiss the idea? -- I remind you that
> it was merely 110 years ago that was said, and widely accepted as a
> fact, that "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible to build"
> (Lord Kelvin, 1895).
>
> Only 60 years later, we were putting these flying machines on the
> Moon!!!!

You need to check your arithmetic or clarify what you meant.
1970 - 1895 = 75.

Isn't there an old saying that respected scientists
are usually wrong when they say something is impossible?