Comments on: Stuff enviornmentalists should be (more) concerned about… http://depletedcranium.com/stuff-enviornmentalists-should-be-more-concerned-about/ Bad Science And Scary Science Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:37:44 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: DV82XL http://depletedcranium.com/stuff-enviornmentalists-should-be-more-concerned-about/comment-page-1/#comment-14764 DV82XL Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:42:24 +0000 http://depletedcranium.com/?p=382#comment-14764 [quote comment="14757"]Assuming the nuclear renaissance proceeds and that fossil fuels are successfully banished from baseload electrical generation, the next step would be electrifying rail and road transportation. While large commercial ships would be good candidates for an MSR or ''nuclear battery,'' we probably don't want every schmuck with an 80' fishing boat to have his hand on radioactive material. At the end of the day, I'm pretty sure that aviation and small commercial shipping will be the last bastions of fossil combustion.[/quote] No question, but I could imagine that fuel cells will make some inroads into the small gauge end of that market.

        Chuck P. said:

Assuming the nuclear renaissance proceeds and that fossil fuels are successfully banished from baseload electrical generation, the next step would be electrifying rail and road transportation. While large commercial ships would be good candidates for an MSR or ”nuclear battery,” we probably don’t want every schmuck with an 80′ fishing boat to have his hand on radioactive material. At the end of the day, I’m pretty sure that aviation and small commercial shipping will be the last bastions of fossil combustion.

No question, but I could imagine that fuel cells will make some inroads into the small gauge end of that market.

]]> By: Chuck P. http://depletedcranium.com/stuff-enviornmentalists-should-be-more-concerned-about/comment-page-1/#comment-14757 Chuck P. Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:01:29 +0000 http://depletedcranium.com/?p=382#comment-14757 Assuming the nuclear renaissance proceeds and that fossil fuels are successfully banished from baseload electrical generation, the next step fould be eletrifying rail and road transportation. While large commercial ships would be good cantidates for an MSR or ''nuclear battery,'' we probably don't want every schmuck with an 80' fishing boat to have his hand on radioactive material. At the end of the day, I'm pretty sure that aviation and small commercial shipping will be the last bastions of fossil combustion. Assuming the nuclear renaissance proceeds and that fossil fuels are successfully banished from baseload electrical generation, the next step fould be eletrifying rail and road transportation. While large commercial ships would be good cantidates for an MSR or ”nuclear battery,” we probably don’t want every schmuck with an 80′ fishing boat to have his hand on radioactive material. At the end of the day, I’m pretty sure that aviation and small commercial shipping will be the last bastions of fossil combustion.

]]> By: DV82XL http://depletedcranium.com/stuff-enviornmentalists-should-be-more-concerned-about/comment-page-1/#comment-14752 DV82XL Sun, 22 Feb 2009 15:59:18 +0000 http://depletedcranium.com/?p=382#comment-14752 [quote comment="14751"]It would be very difficult to compete economically with the heavy fuel burning motor-ship.[/quote] That's very true of current navel reactors of the type now in service on military ships, however there are several designs of the so-called 'nuclear battery' type that would be most competitive in operating costs and that don't need a large crew. However it is calculated that annual emissions from the world's merchant fleet have already reached 1.12bn tonnes of CO2, or nearly 4.5% of all global emissions of this gas. About twice that of air transport. While this is not insignificant, it is not nearly as big an issue as electrical generation by fixed combustion plants.

        Chuck P. said:

It would be very difficult to compete economically with the heavy fuel burning motor-ship.

That’s very true of current navel reactors of the type now in service on military ships, however there are several designs of the so-called ‘nuclear battery’ type that would be most competitive in operating costs and that don’t need a large crew.

However it is calculated that annual emissions from the world’s merchant fleet have already reached 1.12bn tonnes of CO2, or nearly 4.5% of all global emissions of this gas. About twice that of air transport. While this is not insignificant, it is not nearly as big an issue as electrical generation by fixed combustion plants.

]]> By: Chuck P. http://depletedcranium.com/stuff-enviornmentalists-should-be-more-concerned-about/comment-page-1/#comment-14751 Chuck P. Sun, 22 Feb 2009 15:49:42 +0000 http://depletedcranium.com/?p=382#comment-14751 Heavy fuel oil is dirt cheap. Diesel engines are very low maintenance. Diesels are very mush easier to operate than steam plants (therefore permitting smaller crews). Most big container ships have crews smaller than 35 people. It would be very difficult to compete economically with the heavy fuel burning motor-ship. Heavy fuel oil is dirt cheap.
Diesel engines are very low maintenance.
Diesels are very mush easier to operate than steam plants (therefore permitting smaller crews).
Most big container ships have crews smaller than 35 people.
It would be very difficult to compete economically with the heavy fuel burning motor-ship.

]]> By: George Carty http://depletedcranium.com/stuff-enviornmentalists-should-be-more-concerned-about/comment-page-1/#comment-14750 George Carty Sun, 22 Feb 2009 13:39:52 +0000 http://depletedcranium.com/?p=382#comment-14750 About ship pollution, why are there no nuclear-powered container ships? About ship pollution, why are there no nuclear-powered container ships?

]]> By: drbuzz0 http://depletedcranium.com/stuff-enviornmentalists-should-be-more-concerned-about/comment-page-1/#comment-2265 drbuzz0 Sat, 09 Feb 2008 03:29:03 +0000 http://depletedcranium.com/?p=382#comment-2265 DME is just one more example of a fuel that can be made with relative ease and established chemical processes but which requires primary energy to make. DME is just one more example of a fuel that can be made with relative ease and established chemical processes but which requires primary energy to make.

]]> By: DV82XL http://depletedcranium.com/stuff-enviornmentalists-should-be-more-concerned-about/comment-page-1/#comment-2187 DV82XL Thu, 07 Feb 2008 01:05:01 +0000 http://depletedcranium.com/?p=382#comment-2187 The problem isn't getting process heat and hydrogen, the issue is getting CO2 without using so much energy that the process isn't worth it. The problem isn’t getting process heat and hydrogen, the issue is getting CO2 without using so much energy that the process isn’t worth it.

]]> By: drw http://depletedcranium.com/stuff-enviornmentalists-should-be-more-concerned-about/comment-page-1/#comment-2173 drw Wed, 06 Feb 2008 20:26:56 +0000 http://depletedcranium.com/?p=382#comment-2173 CO2 can be combined with hydrogen under heat and pressure to made fuel! DME! ch3-o-ch3 to be exact, just add heat and hydrogen. Where can you get it from? Nuclear power plants or electric fueled by some green technology. DME can replace propane and run on diesel engines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_ether http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FZX/is_11_72/ai_n16869530/pg_2 CO2 can be combined with hydrogen under heat and pressure to made fuel! DME! ch3-o-ch3 to be exact, just add heat and hydrogen. Where can you get it from? Nuclear power plants or electric fueled by some green technology. DME can replace propane and run on diesel engines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_ether

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FZX/is_11_72/ai_n16869530/pg_2

]]> By: DV82XL http://depletedcranium.com/stuff-enviornmentalists-should-be-more-concerned-about/comment-page-1/#comment-2114 DV82XL Wed, 06 Feb 2008 00:02:28 +0000 http://depletedcranium.com/?p=382#comment-2114 The comparison is by mass. Methane emissions have 25 times the impact on temperature of carbon dioxide emissions of the same mass over the following 100 years. Methane has a large effect for a brief period (about 10 years), whereas carbon dioxide has a small effect for a long period (over 100 years). Methane accounts for 20% of the total radiative forcing from all of the long-lived and globally mixed greenhouse gases. The comparison is by mass. Methane emissions have 25 times the impact on temperature of carbon dioxide emissions of the same mass over the following 100 years. Methane has a large effect for a brief period (about 10 years), whereas carbon dioxide has a small effect for a long period (over 100 years). Methane accounts for 20% of the total radiative forcing from all of the long-lived and globally mixed greenhouse gases.

]]> By: KLA http://depletedcranium.com/stuff-enviornmentalists-should-be-more-concerned-about/comment-page-1/#comment-2113 KLA Tue, 05 Feb 2008 23:41:31 +0000 http://depletedcranium.com/?p=382#comment-2113 Hi, I found several references to methane (natural gas) as greenhouse gas. Most give a factor of about 20 times that of CO2. What I don't know if this is on a mass basis or volumetric basis. Assuming volumetric it means that even 5% leakage releases as much greenhouse potential as burning it. 2-3% means its actual greenhouse gas contribution is 40-60% higher than what's "officially" stated. If russian pipelines loose as much as 20-30% as some claim, you might as well be burning coal and be better off as far as greenhouse gas release is concerned. Hi,

I found several references to methane (natural gas) as greenhouse gas. Most give a factor of about 20 times that of CO2. What I don’t know if this is on a mass basis or volumetric basis. Assuming volumetric it means that even 5% leakage releases as much greenhouse potential as burning it. 2-3% means its actual greenhouse gas contribution is 40-60% higher than what’s “officially” stated. If russian pipelines loose as much as 20-30% as some claim, you might as well be burning coal and be better off as far as greenhouse gas release is concerned.

]]>