I read you comment about a possible break threw in fusion technology this spring, but everyone has to remember, Fusion has been only 20 years away since 1945. On large projects like Fusion, the time drag is enormous.
Now people like pointing out the Atomic Bomb Program during WWII and the Apollo program of the 1960s as very fast developments. If you look at BOTH, the main reason both went so quick was both projects did NOT have to make any real Scientific breakthroughs, just increasing the Scale of what was known.
For example in the Manhattan Project several Scientists had come close to Atomic Fusion in the late 1930s (Mostly in Germany), but the problem had been getting enough URANIUM 235 to make it work. How to convert u-238 to u-235 was also know by the late 1930s, what was needed was the resources to do it on a large scale. In affect scale was more important then any real scientific break thrown. Plutonium was even theorized by the late 1930s and its main characteristics were known by 1942. With Plutonium you did need some minor scientific breakthroughes. One such problem was figuring out a way to do an "implosion" so you can have enough Plutonium to go super critical. Plutonium, unlike Uranium 235 does NOT like itself in large quantities, in large groups it quickly breaks down into non-supercritical elements, thus unlike the simple tube system on the Uranium bomb, you had 16 small groups of Plutonium that had to be smashed together, all at once, for the bomb to go supercritical. Except for making the Plutonium and Uranium 235 this was the hardest part of making the bomb. Notice the problems were minor or one of Scale, not any real need for a major scientific breakthrough. The Research had been done over the previous 40 years, ever since radiation was first discovered.
The same goes for the Apollo program. Rockets had been undergoing Research since WWI (Rockets had been around since the middle ages, but lets concentrate on large long range rockets). Like atomic Bomb Research it peaked during WWII with the V-2. Post WWII research (which in the US combined the German V-2 program with Goddard's Rocket Research in the 1920s and 1930s, Goddard had solved several of the problems that pestered the German WWII program, but during WWII the German Scientists had no access to those records. After WWII, employed by the US military, the German Scientist did have access and solved many of the problems that pestered them during WWII. By the mid 1950s the only remaining problem was how to re-enter the atmosphere from Space. The Russian launched Spunik in 1957 ignoring this problem (leaving it burn up in the atmosphere) while the US effort could re-enter. The Russians soon solved the problem and thus both sides could launch men into space, knowing the men could return. Once re-entry was solved, the remaining problem to get to the moon was one of Scale, not scientific break throw. Like the WWII Manhattan Project it went fast, because it did NOT have to overcome any problem other than scaling up the existing technology.
Thus my first Question regarding Fusion is this just the first of many breakthrough needed (or more correctly the latest one in a string of breakthroughs that have been needed)? i.e. are more fundamental scientific breakthroughs needed? If yes, it will take much more time then the 5-10 years of the Manhattan and Apollo projects. This sounds like the last breakthrough needed, but only time will tell.
Second, is how long AFTER the design is finalized and working can the technology be built in other locations? Atomic Research took off during WWII, but the first Electrical generating plant (Shippenport PA) did NOT go on line till 1957 (and this was an experimental reactor). After Shippenport showed Nuclear power could produce Electricity successfully, larger commercial ones were built. I.e. it may take 20 years before any fusion technology actually produces power, it took 15 years for Fission, a much "simpler" design. My point is, even if successful and no major problems, it will take more than five years to build the plants needed.
For more on Shippenport see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shippingport_ReactorFurthermore, you have the problem of where to build the plants. The ideal location is close to major cities (To minimize electrical loss as the Electricity goes through the lines to people's homes). Even before we had the modern environmental movement it took ten years of planning to big any large projects. For example when the Kinzu Railroad viaduct was to be re-built in 1900, the rebuilding took only 3 months, but after almost ten years of planing (The railroad knew it had to rebuild the bridge, but wanted in down for the shortest time possible, thus extensive planning, pre-construction of parts were done even before work on the actual bridge ever started).
Even then the re-build had a fatal flaw, that cause the bridge to collapse in 2003. My point is something like a power station will have to be carefully selected, testing of the ground to make sure it is solid, careful design of the actual device to make sure it works as designed. All of this will take time and NO ONE WILL EVEN START THE DESIGN WORK TILL YOU HAVE A SUCCESSFUL OPERATION. Planing where the plant will go an occur at the same time as the design of the plant, but both will take at least ten years before we even BUY where the plant will go.
More on the Kinzu Bridge:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinzua_ViaductAs to environmental concerns, these will be handled at the same time as designing the actual plants. I do NOT see environmental concerns slowing down a project, for such concerns will be considered as the plant is designed and sites selected. The major concerns will be to make the plant "Safe" from an operating point of view (i.e. solid foundation, away from earthquakes areas etc).
As to Steam, you have to be kidding. In 1900 the Pennsylvania Railroad (PRR) had a problem. How to gets its trains into New York City. Prior to 1900, the Pennsylvania Railroad (PRR) trains stopped in New Jersey and its Passengers took boats across New York Harbor to New York City. This was a tremendous disadvantage compared to the New York Central which had a station right in New York City. Finally the PRR decided it had to have a station in Manhattan. A bridge was out, to large an area needed on both sides to anchor the bridge. What PRR decided to do is built a 14 mile long Tunnel to Manhattan. To propel trains through this tunnel the PRR decided to buy its first electric railroad engines. The Steam engines would produce to much smoke, so electric drive was needed. Electric drive was quickly found to be cheaper, easier on the tracks, crew and passengers. The main reason for this was that all steam engines needed a "kick" to get them moving. The old movies use to make fun of this. The trains would compress whenever they came to a stop, then start to roll back-wards as the cars decompressed. The Brakemen would run from car to car to set these brakes (This was done by air after Air Brakes were invented in 1869). The reason the brakes were set was when the engine had to move forward it was given the needed kick by releasing all the breaks on the compressed cars. The old movies of the Silent era and till the 1950s made fun of this, showing the passengers being thrown to the front as the train came to a stop and the brakes were set as the train came to a stop, and then showing the passengers being kick forward as the brakes were released to give the steam engines the needed kick. Electric drive eliminated this problem for the electric engines could pull the engine even from a dead stop.
The main reason railroads did NOT electrify after 1900 (in the US, most of the rest of the World did) was a refusal by railroads to build electric lines over their tracks. The main reason was do to the fact that Steam locomotives were so dirty and wet if these ran on the same lines as electric engines, the steam engines exhaust would coat the electric lines so that the electric engines could not pull electricity from the lines. Third rail was a solution to this, but given most railroad lines were NOT fenced a third rail system on such non-fenced track were just a system waiting to kill children (THrough used on protected electric trains like the New York Subway). Thus unless the line could secure its rail from trespassers it had a choice steam or electric drive but NOT BOTH even for a transition. Given this problem electric lines were rare. The Pennsylvania line on the East Coast was the largest (The PRR was also the most profitable so willing to spend the money needed to go all electric on that line, ran out of money before it could electrify the line from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh, but did more then most).
Diesel did replace Steam, but only because Diesel "solved" the problem of Electric drive. Diesel Engines are really Diesel generators generating electric power that is used by the Electric motors of the Diesel Engines. The more correct term for such engines is Diesel-Electric not Diesel. Since they was no overhead wire for the steam engines to coat, both Diesels and Steam engines could be used on the same lines. The First Diesels were used on PASSENGER TRAINS for the simple reason the Diesels did NOT need the kick start of a Steam engines. Once introduced in the 1930s, Diesels slowly took over and replaced most steam engines by the late 1950s (Notice it took more than 20 years to do so and during that time Diesels and Steam engines often operated on the same tracks). In fact most of the old electric railroads also converted to Diesels for the Diesel could operate on the electric lines without the problems steam had produced. Furthermore you could take the Diesel engines off the old electric railroad system and onto the Steam system without any problems. In fact Diesels have replaced the FREIGHT engines even on the old Pennsylvania Railroad East Coast lines (Though AMTRAK runs Electric Trains on those same lines).
Anyway, once you understand steam, it limitations and the fact the best way to use steam is in a Steam turbine system (Which most electric generators are) it would be better to produce Steam in a Steam Turbine used to produce Electricity then any direct drive system. I.e. the best solution would NOT be to return to Steam, but Electric drive powered by electricity produced in Steam Turbines. This also gives the engines access to any excess electrical produced by Solar, Wind, Nuclear and even experimental fusion power, etc. Yes a long write to say no to Steam but you have to understand steam to understand its limitations AND its Strengths.
Railroad Electrification:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_electrification_systemBuilding the PRR tunnels into Manhattan:
http://www.accesstotheregionscore.com/THE_Tunnel.htmhttp://www.newsday.com/community/guide/lihistory/ny-history-hs706a,0,7223235.story?coll=ny-lihistory-navigationhttp://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/18229http://mikes.railhistory.railfan.net/r009.htmlhttp://www.hudsoncity.net/tubesenglish/2-constructiondescription.htmlhttp://www.northeast.railfan.net/classic/PRRdata9.htmlAs to your third question. If you are looking at something to replace ALL oil and gas, the answer is NO. Some experts have said the Solar power needed to replace oil would have to cover almost all of the plant. It is NOT enough, but like Fission and Fusion power, solar and wind power will be part of the solution. Similar areas are needed for Crops to be used to make Ethanol, given this HUGE demand we will NOT produce enough Ethanol to replace oil. Ethanol will be part of the solution, but by itself it can NOT solve the problem of peak oil.
Remember also, while oil production is expected to DROP, we will be producing oil for at least another 140 years. Hubbert's bell curve is exactly that, a statistically relevant Bell Curve starting at approximately 1860 (The oil age is generally held to start in 1859, but I am using round numbers for ease of dating), peaking in 2005 and going to Zero about 145 years later or about 2150. During this time period use will drop to reflect the drop in production, use will also drop to reflect who has the remaining oil. For example the US peaked in 1970, thus we are producing as much oil as we did 35 years BEFORE peak (we are 35 years after peak). That is what we produced in 1935 (and if we go back to the Clinton years we produced as much oil as we did during WWII, both 25 years from peak). In 1935 we were the number one oil exporter and producer (The US was #1 till the 1980s when the Soviet Union passed us and then peaked and then Saudi Arabia passed the US). World wide use peaked in 2005, but we had a good amount of oil in 1990, and we will have the same amount produced in 2020. Thus we have plenty of oil left, the problem is demand will exceed supply and when that happens price will go up. Please note the 1970 date I am using is for the lower 48 states oil NOT Alaskan oil, which is on its own, much quicker curve (Started later will end sooner).
This is complicated by the fact the Third world (Lead by India and China) have increased their use of oil and in ways that are very profitable to them. Thus these countries will be willing to pay MORE for a gallon of fuel to keep their industry humming than Americans may be able to pay to keep their cars humming. Now I expect to own and drive a car for the next 20 years. It will get smaller and smaller (for increase fuel economy) and the drives I put it to will be less often AND less total distance over that 20 year period (i.e. I see myself taking many shorter trips on bicycle to cut gas usage, I see many people moving closer to their work so they do NOT have to drive etc). At the same time, cars will continue to be the quickest way to get from point A to Point B, the issue will be am I willing to pay for the speed? As time goes on I see the Answer becoming NO more often.
The key to the future will follows three paths ALL AT THE SAME TIME:
1. People will have to Conserve. This is the best way to keep the price of Gasoline down, don't use it. It is a lot harder then people think for people no longer live near their work and that will have to change to conserve oil (and that change will take time).
2. Increase use of Solar Power. The recent breakthrough in price regarding a plastic sheet that is a Solar Panel promises to help make homes generators of Electric Power not consumers of it, but no one is saying it is enough to power your car in addition to your home (and it does NOT appeal to be enough to provide a power replacement for oil used in transportation or in home heating).
3. Creative use of Computers. If you look at books and how their were transported in the past, it took a lot of energy to move them around. A better solution may to be provide power to the net and give people access via the net then via books. As computers become more energy efficient you may be able to power one with an hand held generator (Or a generator off a bicycle) with enough power to reach a phone, cable or other connection. Shooting Satellites into space to handle such transmissions may be more cost effective then reverting to books. I can see farmers making 100% alcohol out of their crops, hauling down to the local railroad station by horse drawn wagon, to the electric driven train powered by electricity powered by a Fusion reactor. The train taking the alcohol to a central location where it is used to make rocket fuel which propels a Satellite into space. That looks like it may be more energy efficient then buying a book and having that book hauled across the country.
4. Return to Animals in rural areas. People forget that horses were the main source of Farm power till after WWII. Tractors were important before WWII, but horses were a greater source of power (For example horse could be used to plow between already planted crops to remove weeds, tractors could not do that till the three point hitch was introduced into the US in 1939 (It had been invented in England in 1926, took decade to get across the Atlantic). Widespread use of it did NOT begin till after WWII. Admiral Rickover of Nuclear Sub fame pointed out in the 1950s that while mechanized farming was more productive per worker, it was NOT as productive per acre. In many ways that is still true. In pre-mechanical days you could plant Corn, peas and pumpkins all in the same field. The peas would climb the Corn plants, the Pumpkins could climb along the base and smother out any weeds trying to break through. The problem was when it came to harvesting, such triple crops had to be harvested by hand, while single crops could be harvested by machine. I see a return to such operations as the price of oil goes up. Converting Electric power to a battery is just to inefficient (Direct power lines are the best and that restricts how Electricity can be used). A fuel Cell does a better jog at converting power. Batteries are only considers about 20% efficient, fuel Cells 50%, Fly Wheels 90%, with efficiency defined as energy in, compared to energy out. With a direct use Electric drive (i.e. Electric Train to Streetcar) you have 100% electrical power in and out for the Drive uses the power directly. Batterers, Fuel Cells and Flywheels are "Charged" by an electrical input and then expended when the stored powered is used. Fly wheels are the most efficient, but the idea of moving a rotating high speed wheel over uneven ground, as what happens in farming, I do NOT think is wise. Furthermore, given the cost of producing the electrical power may relate to converting something to electric, it may be feeding grain to a horse is more efficient than burning it to produce an electric current.
My point is over all efficient in Rural areas may be to revert back to animal use on farms, smaller farms, connected by horse drawn wagons to rail heads. This may be a better solution than relying on fusion to save us and to provide the power needed by farmers to plant and harvest their crops (Yes I see the price of food going up, but get use to that).
It is getting late and I need to get to bed so I am quiting here, but just some thoughts on Peak oil and where it will lead us over the next 140 years.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
