Slashdot Mirror

Chinese? We invented Pebble bed Carbon Helium Nuclear Energy.

http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/membersonly/feb08/features/pebbles/pebbles.html

http://www.pbmr.co.za/

Westinghouse is working with South Africa on it.

Sorry dude, but you're wrong. Driving a wheeled vehicle on the ground with irregular obstacles is a LOT harder than flying a traditional UAV by autopilot. When you're flying, you can avoid any obstacle with "go a bit higher" and your path planning simplifies down to "stay straight and level, and fly towards the next waypoint".

These guys flew an autonomous UAV across the Atlantic back in '98. It's even been done by a bunch of dedicated amateurs. And then there's the guy in New Zealand who's built his own cruise missile.

-fractoid (anon to preserve moderations

Just use Pebble-bed Nuclear Power Plants without the concern of Plutonium.

http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/membersonly/feb08/features/pebbles/pebbles.html

Westinghouse's research with South Africa--the first nation to disarm their nukes--surpasses the power outputs possible for quite a long stretch, compared to Wind and Solar. I'm for both of those but we can use Nuclear that isn't the crap we use right now; and was actually patented and invented by the US in the early 1940s.

When people read the article and see that the first act of the Atomic Energy Commission was to cancel their production, one begins to see the insidious history of the future Arms Race.

When Nuclear Power generation finally switches to Pebble bed Modular Reactors [first invented in the US and blocked by the Atomic Energy Commission (1944) for it's lack of military options] using Liquid Cooled Helium then I'm sure someone would rather adapt a small-scale solution, using a material medium other than water, for motherboards to do this than just using a giant water sink to account for the data center, as a whole.

ME Magazine: Pebbles making Waves, ME Magazine

PBMR Corporation

US Westinghouse takes stake in PBMR

a) even if you capture and burn the stuff that's bubbling up, you're still reducing the overall GHG load, but even better, if you
b) capture the effluent CO2, it may be possible to push it into the sediments in replacement for the methane clathrates.

What's even better is to reform the methane into hydrogen.

Falcon

The problem with nuclear is waste, which we currently have no way of disposal.

What we *NEED* is ultra efficient storage of energy. "Batteries" that can store the energy produced from sunlight and windmills and store it until it is needed at night. Trick is, their production needs to be lower environmental impact than nuclear.

Picture solar concentrators in orbit sending focused beams of intensified sunlight to solar stations on the planet surface which is converted and stored for use later.

Or switch the Pebble-bed based Nuclear Energy that was patented in the early 1940s and banned as the first action by the Atomic Energy Commission's formation.

http://www.memagazine.org/contents/current/features/pebbles/pebbles.html

You'd be surprised what Liquid Helium and Uranium encased in Graphite can do without Cooling rods or Towers.

...but the approach.

As a Mechanical Engineer I encourage folks to read up on Pebble Bed based Nuclear Power.

What is it you ask?

Enjoy:

http://www.memagazine.org/contents/current/features/pebbles/pebbles.html

Don't be too pissed that when the focus of weaponry and the Atom Bomb arrived that we put the best solution and actually safe one aside for that lovely side-effecting of uranium decaying into plutonium.

Seems that very few people work the total cost per mile of any fuels. I've seen only 1 study that mentions that for any vehicle.
Here's an article on "well to wheel" costs http://www.memagazine.org/mepower03/gauging/gauging.html

I've thought through this and run a few numbers over the last few years. Ethanol is simply stupid. The conversion costs are too high. Hydrogen is worse, **unless** the power to convert water into H2 is renewable, cheap, and locally produced. No large company will support that infrastructure since it removes their reoccurring profits.

Sadly, the solution will have to be evolutionary, not revolutionary.
Steps:
  1) electric car - done, but not in numbers or distances acceptable to consumers
  2) rechargeable at home cars - say 4-6 hours to recharge
  3) create hydrogen at home to power as much as possible (solar or wind or other conversion)
  4) Recharge / refuel car in less than 5 minutes.
  5) convert electric cars into hybrid electro-hydrogen cars
  6) 300+ mile range - hydrogen comes in here
  7) build hydrogen storage facilities (gas station replacements), but with most homes producing their own hydrogen, there will be many more sources.

Without hydrogen being produced decentralized, we'll be back where we are today with big oil or big auto makers doing everything they can to ensure parts are needed every 3,000 miles. When was the last time an electric car needed an oil change?

I know I've missed something really important AND sadly, where I live, wind power will never work. There's no river or creek nearby for hydroelectric power either. If you've made it this far and want to think a little deeper, there's more here ... http://jdpfu.com:60080/#%5B%5BThoughts%20On%20Energy%5D%5D

Why is the author comparing a Car to a lawn mower, saying that "Well, if you just cut your lawn with a gas mower, congratulations, you just put out more pollution in one hour than these cars do in 2,000 miles of driving."

It's a horrible comparison because he's comparing a car to a two stroke engine. They emit more smoke, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and particulate matter than the gas-only four-stroke engines found in newer motorcycles. "One of these two-stroke engines produces the same amount of pollution as 50 Honda Accords,"

This is just horrible reporting and bad journalism. Quit comparing apples to oranges, and keep it accurate.

You're missing a vital point. Regardless of overall efficiency, an electric vehicle can be powered by any form of electricity generation. Nuclear, using an Integral Fast Reactor, is 'as good as it gets' in terms of power generation. Carbon neutral, no long-term radioactive waste output, inherently safe, and very efficient in terms of uranium usage (99.5% energy recovered as compared with ~1% in a standard nuclear reactor). In terms of CO2 output, switching to electric vehicles has no immediate negative impact and long term very positive impact.

According to this, the most efficient well-to-wheels technology is a hybrid drive burning a petrol/methane mix. However, hybrids still require fossil fuels which ultimately lead to carbon emissions, and they are orders of magnitude more complex to build than battery electrics, which are currently expensive only due to companies trying to recoup R&D investment costs, rather than inherent manufacturing expense.

Only if the wind is blowing at the design speed, which it rarely does.

Anyway, photovoltaics really lend themself to distributed, rather than centralized, generation. Let's see, combine Boeing's concentrator technology with the broad-spectrum solar cell material being developed at the University of Toronto (http://www.memagazine.org/nanoapr05/morerays/more rays.html), which can boost effeciency over conventional solar cells by nearly 5 times (and is far cheaper to produce!) and now we have something veeery interesting. (BTW, I claim IP rights on this idea!)

The typical home installation of about 4500 watts currently costs about $25,000 (US), with pay-back periods of 15-20 years (your mileage may vary). That gives the masses little incentive to undertake the project. Now, if you adjust cost and pay back numbers by a now seemingly achievable factor of 4, the upfront costs go down to $6,250 and the pay-back goes to 4 years, in which case I ask "Where do I sign up?"

Take a look at this article on micro turbines. Another option would be super capacitors. It also doesn't need significant range or endurance. It could be deployed from a UAV like an ultra-smart bomb, from quite close to the intended target. It could even glide to its destination. Since it doesn't have to be shaped anything like a real hornet (and some of the largest wasps are classified as hornets), it could also be quite large.

DARPA has been funding this kind of thing for years. Small turbines have resulted. DARPA was originally trying to develop bird-sized unmanned aerial vehicles. That R&D program produced some flyable devices, but they didn't have the low cost and 2-hour endurance DARPA wanted.

DARPA-funded work at MIT resulted in some microturbine parts back in 1997. Progress has been slower than expected, but it's happening.

The microgenerator thing was intended as a military application. The idea is to have something small, maybe even wearable, a soldier can use to recharge all the battery-operated gear. Battery recharging in the field, where power outlets are rare, is getting to be a huge hassle in the US military. Current technology is to put power outlets on everything with wheels and an engine, but that creates its own headaches.

Mechanical Engineering Power did a study that came up with much the same results as the white paper already linked -- see here. (gas engine for comparison -- about half the well-to-wheel efficiency.)

In general, your back-of-the-envelope numbers are mostly wrong. Generating plants often exceed 50% efficiency), transmission loss is about 7%, switching chargers lose in the range of 5-20%, and overall drivetrain loss is around 55% for an electric motor, for a total of about 22% (as above).

That huge drivetrain loss is known as the "tank-to-wheel" efficiency, and it's what really kills the gas car -- those have about 14% efficiency for that process, giving them 11-12% overall efficiency (also known as "well-to-wheel" efficiency). So in general a gas-powered car takes about twice the energy to run that an all-electric car does, with hybrids somewhere in the middle. Google "well-to-wheel" and you'll find a great deal more on this.

Manufacturing costs play some role in overall energy requirements, but it's pretty minor. A typical car in the US fleet will see about 160,000 miles; at 22mph (average), that's about $22,000 of gas (at $3/gallon), which totally dwarfs the energy costs involved in constructing the car in the first place. Careful about total-lifespan costs, though -- there was a deeply bogus study that came out a few months ago that used nonsensical assumptions (e.g., "cars last for 100,000 miles, trucks for 250,000" even though the figure as measured for the US fleet is 150,000 vs. 170,000), so there's some false claims floating about.

> That 250 mile range estimate is probably at significantly lower speeds.

"The LiIon tzero will drive 250 miles in left lane traffic, in LA that means 75-80 mph.
Alan Cocconi (AC Propulsion founder and chief engineer) drove it to San Diego and back
without charging. On any type of standardized drive cycle it will go over 300 miles." link

> If I remember right, electric motor efficiency and power typically increase with load,
> but fall off with speed

"Efficiency: 90% average, 80% at peak power" torque chart

> 1000 pounds of batteries...are equivalent to about 1.5 gallons of gas (6.3 pounds/gal).
> Divide that by an efficiency of around 30% and you've got a 32:1 energy density ratio
> in favor of gasoline.

Internal combustion vehicles are about 15% tank-to-wheel energy-efficient. link
An all-electric vehicle is about 44% tank-to-wheels energy-efficient. link
The car's web site puts its efficiency at 2.2km/MJ, vs. 0.6km/MJ for the gas cars (see here).

So an electric vehicle needs to carry about 30% the energy of a gas vehicle.

Another way to look at this is to compare to the Lotus Elise, which consensus is saying is the closest regular car on the market. The Elise gets 25mpg, and so would need 10 gallons -- 63 pounds -- to travel 250 miles, giving us a ratio of 16-to-1 in required weight.

The fuel tanks on this Peterbilt model range from 40 to 150 gallons, with an apparent midpoint of 83 gallons, giving us 525 pounds of gas or 8320 pounds of batteries. The suspensions seem to cluster around 40,000 pounds, suggesting that batteries would need to replace about 20% of the max weight capacity of a truck in order to get the same mileage as a tank of gas (although that's not taking into account weight savings in the engine and similar components).

That's a lot -- it's probably 25-30% of the freight capacity of the truck. Batteries are dense, though, so it'll take up little of the truck's volume, potentially making the result feasible for cargo that is more limited by volume than by weight. Still, I think it offers a good argument that long-haul trucking is likely to stay a liquid-fuelled activity for the forseeable future.

You are quite right in saying so, and it was entirely my intention to make that point. As I said, the industry has quite some time before growing beyond its infancy. However, the main point to be made is that people are attempting to be forward thinking and, indeed, pragmatic enough to realize that the requisite infrastructure for the elevator must be established. Only then may genuine progress be made towards making what today remains science fiction into reality.

As for current realities: many promising, potentially useful applications are developed every year.

Definitely not my area of expertise, but I believe nickel nanoparticles can now be used to replace platinum as a catalyst:

http://www.memagazine.org/supparch/nanoapr05/spher es/spheres.html

Much more available and cheaper than platinum. Anybody know of any downsides to this?

...if a way can be found to get enough gas through it.

It still won't as simple as this.

Wild guesses:

There are no big bird swarms in the desert. It's not like pigeons in Venice (Italy, that is). Plus self-cleaning glass coatings ("lotus effect").

Sterling engines that are nearly maintenance-free:
"Once the engine gets going, however, it can, in theory, run reliably for a long time. To find out just how long, ask the folks at Stirling Technology Co. in Kennewick, Wash.

The company has a number of projects in hand to generate electricity on Earth and in space. One is a generator being prepared for NASA. It combines high efficiency and longevity, properties critical for a deep-space probe. A test unit with a 10 W output last August passed an operating landmark, more than 87,600 hours of continuous service, or 10 years' running with no maintenance or decline in performance."

Wood: 6,800 Btu/pound
Coal: 12,000 Btu/pound
Oil/gas: 20,000 Btu/pound

The entire Apollo program cost approximately as much as Queen Isabella spent to send Christopher Columbus to the new world.

In percentages, it's about 0.12% of our GDP at its peak.

Although I can't find substantiation online, I know that Robert Heinlein asserted that the DoD spends NASA's YEARLY budget every single day of the year.

All that money. *snort*

RTFA: "The tiny turbines would likely consume less than 10 grams per hour of hydrogen fuel, according to the MIT team's estimates"
See acticle about the turbine

They've been working on this since 1993, and in 1997 they said they'd have it working in three years. In 2004, they say they'll have it working in three years.

It doesn't work yet. They can fabricate the individual parts, but it doesn't really generate power.

It's not an unreasonable idea, but if this was going to work, there should already be little gas turbine powerplants a few inches long, machined out of metal by standard techniques. The smallest turbines available weight around 1.5Kg, and are used for model aircraft, and they don't have to run for very long. There's a "microturbine" industry, but they mean 10KW units taller than a man.

Little turbines are hard. Automotive turbines and light-plane turbines have been attempted many times, but have never been cost-effective.

Lots of cool pictures and info on the Visby at the following sites:

http://www.kockums.se/News/photostock/photosurface .html
http://www.kockums.se/surfacevessels/visby.html
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/visby/
http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/jan01/feature s/stealth/stealth.html

3D! Da corn is popping in your face inna... [throws popcorn in his own face] 3-D! -The Swedish Chef

Taipei Times Picture of the Visby.

Detailed Article including Construction Information and many pictures.

it doesn't take a genius to look up and go "you know if that building were twice as high...

The picture shows a hydrogen canister, not a methanol cardridge.

Expect something more like this.

Mechanical Engineering Magazine (from ASME) has a couple of related articles on Disney Animatronics, for those interested:

Wild mouse in the funhouse (2000)

The fantastical meets the practical (1997)

Mechanical Engineering Magazine (from ASME) has a couple of related articles on Disney Animatronics, for those interested:

Wild mouse in the funhouse (2000)

The fantastical meets the practical (1997)

Mechanical Engineering Magazine (from ASME) has a couple of related articles on Disney Animatronics, for those interested:

Wild mouse in the funhouse (2000)

The fantastical meets the practical (1997)

If I remember correctly, Gorbachev was the one who quite correctly decided that it was better to let go of the reins than to switch to a hot war.

But the other major influences on the end of the Cold War were the Catholic Church [Pope JPII], the Polish unions, and the Baltic separatists.

Reagan simply accelerated things. At that, though, I'm not sure that Russia isn't burying the US, by having let go of the reins for what turns out to have been a very short time. [I consider Putin to be close to a communist dictator. Like, 10%, but on a political scale that's very close indeed.]

That said, I do love America, and I did enjoy living on the James while my wife worked at NNS.

• Requires a smaller upgrade to existing infrastructure than having mass transit everywhere
• Include the flexibility of of a car
• Will reduce traffic by having cars travel in "packs"
• Have an upgrade path from "legacy" cars

• Maybe they can be incorporated into some type of rail system, where our freeways now stand, to gain fuel efficiency. This seems like the most time efficient way to travel in the future, short of the flying car.

  Here is an article.

Yes, this is would be a good argument if it was based on fact.

Here is a detailed discussion regarding TDI emissions: here

We don't have anyone to blame for these emissions except ourselves and our elected government. The fact is most of these emissions are due to the exceedingly crappy refining standards for diesel fuels in the US. Fuel quality is far higher in Europe where impurities are all far lower since they've been removed from the fuel before they arrive at the pump. Sure, this may not change your mind and you may be tempted to dismiss the thought but we all breathe in the emissions from heavy trucks that use diesel. What kind of diesel emissions do you want to breathe in?

If that doesn't turn your crank, how about using biodiesel in your TDI: requires no conversion, just the challenge of finding a pump. But that's worth it right? Or is saving the environment only interesting if its also easy? Biodiesel is now commercially available in major metro areas, you just have to find it.

Mechanical Engineering's Take on Diesel
Note where VW has to import Euro Diesel to showcase its cars in the US
VW's take
A whole whack of info on the future of [bio]diesel

As cameras get smaller, smarter, and eventually mobile, privacy is simply going to evaperate. Wireless swarms of cameras the size of flies will be everywere (this technology is already being tested) recording your every movement.
Small surveillance Plane
Camera size of a quarter
6 inch flying camera

Even without trying, most people get on surveillance video a few times a day: the bank, the local 'quicky mart', the gas station.

The only way to preserve privacy is to make preserving privacy a top concern of your government. Many people seem eager to trade their privay for security, but this only works when the security is in the hands of someone you trust, who would never abuse that power. Of course, no western government would ever abuse its power, right? Just ask Steve Jackson.

People who are willing to trade their privacy and freedom to the government for security are abdicating their adulthood, and letting the government be their babysitter.

A nice link to a readable and somewhat technical overview of fuel cells.
http://www.memagazine.org/contents/current/feature s/pems/pems.html

A nice Scientific American article.
http://www.sciam.com/explorations/122396exploratio ns.html

Two nice links to NEC's proton polymer battery.
Asian Biz Tech article.
EE Times article (short and sweet).

I'm still waiting for the car that runs on happy thoughts and chocolate that John Stewart promised me.

For one, like you say, they are very expensive. They obviously fly much faster than traditional prop R/C and require a much larger flying field. Most fields in the area here around Chicago either have grass strips or short asphalt.

Another problem would be the noise. It is hard enough these days to get away with 2-stroke gas prop engines. Many of the fields around here are now sitting close to residential areas and restrictions on flying hours have been imposed because of noise (you did see the park-district R/C field out the back _before_ you bought your $400,000 town house, right?).

And aside from all that, they are harder than hell to fly. I've obviously never personally flown one, but I have the Dave Brown simulator that let's you fly R/C planes, helicopters and jets on the PC. Flying a jet is _damn_ hard. (no, actually _landing_ is the tricky bit.)

In addition to turbojets, there have been ducted-fan propelled 'jet' models around for a while too. These still have a prop for propulsion and are quite a bit slower than turbojets, but are much less expensive and heavy (doesn't need to fly as fast to generate enough lift to overcome weight) and can been seen at larger AMA events.

The environment is not radioactive.

Yes it is. One of the design issues of the space suites is to protect against radiation from the sun. IMO that is part of the environment.

Water was not found on the moon
Ummmm.... NASA tends to disagree

Other links....
another NASA article

More water than original estimates

Info on Prospector

For instance, goods falling into earth's atmosphere would need to be assured of a safe reentry.

I never said that! Please read what I wrote...

These goods would fall into orbit around the earth and be used for whatever... A space station or brought back to earth for sale.

That is brought back to earth for sale. Most likely by a space craft similar to the space shuttle!

A steel produced in a vacuum is stronger. Read it here

Anyway if you try to refute statements please back them up with facts like this. I was just making a comment not submitting a report.

Maybe I am just responding to a troll.

Thinking is one of hardest types of work.

Thinking is one of hardest types of work.

Just think, Da Vinci did founding work and research on the subject five-hundred years ago!