Therefore the tip of the blades will be 150 feet from the hub...At the low point it will be 100 feet above the water. At the high point it will be 400 feet above the water.
The reason X-ray diffraction needed a regular crystal not because it was impossible to get information but because there are limits on sensitivity and computation.
The first protein that X-ray crystallography was successfully used on was myoglobin. The processing included housewives recording the position of small,medium and large dots.
Now the sensitivity is much higher and the processing ability is astounding. This article is saying that they have figured out how to isolate the x-ray signal from a single protein. There is no reason that you can't get a high enough resolution to see the domains of a protein which often do have a regular crystal structure even if the whole protein doesn't.
Actually refolding is fairly rare and almost always results from an environmental change (the protein get shoved into a membrane or it is surrounded by chaperon proteins). There are hinges and the like which affect functionality but thoes are very specific domains typically including a proline which isn't really an amino acid. Whole sale spontaneous refolding is essentially unheard of.
I went to a public high school and an engineering college. I heard the oil-drop model of proteins until I took biochem as a junior in college. The Biochem I took was actually a graduate level course.
The internal consistency of a protein more closley matches a very tight crystal than a hydrophobic amalgum.
It is absolutly true that hydrophilic amino acids are often on the surface except for specific circumstances like you mentioned. However these amino acids tend to adopt the most energetically efficient form possible which is usually crystaline.
What I was refering to is that for most of modern biology there was an assumption that since the consistency of the individual hydrophobic amino acids was very much like a oil that therefore the internal consistency of the protein should be similar. A more detailed analysis of densities, x-ray diffraction, fNMR and computer modeling proved that the internal structure of a protein is actually a very hard crystal with very little mobility of the individual atoms.
The older assumption is still often taught up through undergraduate level. When I was in High school proteins were described as a drop of oil surronded by hydrophilic amino acids.
There are a lot of protein superstructures in the body. Many of them are larger than viruses. I am thinking immune cell communications, mitrocondrial kreb cycle, ribosomes etc.
This system can be used to eveluate the actual difference a point mutation makes. That will allow better models of protein folding and therefore more accurate predictions of final protein function.
If you look at the density of a protein (which is pretty much all of a virus) it looks like a crystal. The common high school idea of a protein as a drop of fatty amino acids surrounded but wet amino acids is very false.
I wonder when they will start imaging other proteins?
Actually, most of the world reprocesses nuclear waste. The US is really the only one who doesn't. It is a purly political decision.
You are aware that coal power plants put out dramatically more radiation than nuclear....
The amount of un-processable nuclear waste created by all US nuclear power plants in a year put together would fit in a small closet. That is the weapons grade people are worried about...
Quote from the first message:
Once we start reprocessing the waste, we'll be able to sustain output for a long time. Quote from the second message:
Yeah, but the problem is we can't use anywhere near all that power without cooking ourselves. Seriously, greenhouse gases or not, there's enough potential energy in reprocessed waste that the heat generated from using it all would cause massive environmental destruction, far worse than Al Gore's scenarios. Message 2 was talking about the power in message 1 and message 2 even specifically stated reprocessed waste. Message 1 was talking about reprocessing spent nuclear fuel.
Now I agree the writer probably intended to talk about all fissionable material. However this is also an assumption since he probably REALLY meant Uranium. Remember, anything heavier than iron is produce energy through fission....
You are comparing the overall cost of coal to the efficiency of converting the joules of heat to watts of electricity.
Coal does have very high efficiencys converting joules to watts because of the SIZE of the plant. In small plants (like locomotives) coal if very inefficient. The 80% number comes from gassification and fuel cell type direct conversion NOT from burning it. Coal burning actually does reach close to it's Carnot efficiency of 60%.
The reason loco's turned to Disel is because they didn't have to carry water. They then didn't need to maintain the water supply routes along the track. Pound for pound Disel is actually less effective at converting jouels to watts but they are far cheaper for "small" power supplies like engines.
For instance, to do a 50KW-H charge in 5 minutes continuously would requier a high-voltage power line.
Therefore if I was going to run a "gas" station for electric cars I would get a direct hook up. Large consumers can already do this for factories and the like. I would get enough electrical storage to cover unexpected usage (a line of cars) and when I had low service (like at night) I would recharge. Therefore most of the power would come directly from the power lines but I would maintain a small buffer just in case.
Fast "fill ups" just like cars. When electric cars are like gas cars everyone will switch as quickly as reasonably possible. If you can also charge at home for even cheaper, so much the better!
Another issue is batteries cannot accept a charge that quickly without risking damage. Trully fast charging demands ultracapacitors or flywheels. Batteries probably won't ever be able to handle it because of the chemistry involved.
#1 With reprocessing the amount of nuclear waste created in a year by ALL US nuclear plants that is unusable/dangerous would fit into a standard closet. If you then include that into the fuel for breeder reactors the danger time period drops to about 50 years at which point that one ton of material a year is as radioactive as coal ash. Or you can use this extremely highly radioactive waste to generate even more energy and do so for the next few hundred years...
#2 The same is true of ANY big money operation. Go watch Erin Brockovich. That was a coal fired power plant. In your power plant example, there is actually no reason to expect that a honeycombed wall would compromise safety. So long as the reactor was built well the other walls of the building don't matter much, it's not GOOD but it's not more likely to irradiate you. Also note that the inspections process worked...
I am sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that one way or another.
Rather since coal fired plants are generally accepted as "safe" and since they are very common, it is only reasonable to use them as a benchmark.
Do you have the sources you promised earlier? Everything I have heard about nuclear is generally positive with the exception of the waste disposal issue which is purley political in nature.
From everything I've read, a single coal fired power plant releases more radioativity than all nuclear power plants in the world have ever released (with the exception of chernoble) put together!
More people die from one coal fired power plant in one year than have did from all nuclear power plants put together (including Chernoble) in the history of the industry.
Because of the perception of problems with construction and waste disposal, nuclear power plants are unisurable so the federal government insures them (this is the only subsidy they get). A strict reading of actuarial tables suggest that nuclear plants are some of the safest things to insure.
Also good to note, once the 80% has been absorbed as heat it is no longer any different than the heat created in a nuclear power plant.
Once we stop putting excess CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperature issue is really a non-issue.
The most concerning global warming issue is the fact that the sun is warming up on it's own (typical solar lifecycle). In about 10,000 years the earth won't be inhabitable without direct intervention (the solleta or moving the planet further out).
As you can see, you were talking about reprocessed waste NOT all fissionable material.
The number I quoted is easy to calculate. The average solar power at ground level is 1000 watts/square meter. The average solar insulation is 5 hours/day. The earths surface is 510,065,600 square KM. There are 1,000,000 square meters per KM. Multiply everything together.
Solar surface albedo (the amount of light reflected rather than absorbed) is about 20% globably however most of that is in the poles where solar insulation is least. However to be absolutly fair, take the total solar power and divide it by 5. That is the amount of heat the earth absorbes from the sun every day. Since the temperature is not going up several degrees a day, the Earth radiates off essentially 100% of that heat.
It also has the capability of radiating off almost double that without dramatic temperature increases.
from your very first message which I replied to:
Once we start reprocessing the waste, we'll be able to sustain output for a long time. Yeah, but the problem is we can't use anywhere near all that power without cooking ourselves. Seriously, greenhouse gases or not, there's enough potential energy in reprocessed waste that the heat generated from using it all would cause massive environmental destruction, far worse than Al Gore's scenarios.
Battery efficiencies are in the 90% range so long as you don't push it.
Electric motors are in the 90-95% range.
Electric (and hybrid) vehicles allow for the possibilty of regenerative braking.
A true electric car will have an electric motor on each wheel that will also double as the primary brake. The only moving part of the vehicle will be the wheels and suspension. You dramatically reduce the weight of the vehicle by removing the engine, fuel tank, transmission, most of the radiator etc. Not to mention the price of maintaining all that equipment in the car.
If you want to include transmission costs then you must also include the costs of piping, trucking and supporting the filling stations for Gasoline.
That's not what I'm talking about, not at all. I'm talking about the waste heat produced by nuclear reactors. Where do you think the heat comes from? It comes from converting a percent or two of the mass into energy.
But when we use the reprocessed fuel to create energy, guess what? The energy released by the process is heat, some of which is converted into useful electricity, and some of which is released into the environment. Wrong...100% of it gets dumped into the environment. Even the portion that gets turned into electricty ends up as heat from your AC unit, your car, your computer etc.
True, but the total heat output from burning all fossil fuels would be a tiny tiny tiny (orders of magnitude) fraction of the total heat output from using all fissile fuel. Not true...all the fossil fuels actually have more chemical energy than we will be able to extract from the currently existing nuclear waste (there is still a LOT of fossil fuels but I do agree with your sentiment).
Growth rate of electricity consumption + waste heat from nuclear power generation + some decades of time => heat dumped into the environment faster than it can be radiated into space => massive global warming That is true but misleading. The major issue is the ability of the planet to radiate heat. This is why CO2, methane and a few others are so important. They reduce the planets ability to lose heat. Therefore reduce the atmospheric level of these gasses and you reduce the temperature.
However you are correct in saying that nuclear generates heat and this heat will lead to global warming. It is inaccurate to state that it is a problem even in the long term (centuries). Currently the sun blasts us with about 5 Kilowatts-hours of heat per square meter every day. This amounts to 2550328000000000000000 KW-H of heat every day. Even under the most aggressive energy growth projections, it will be centuries before we are even a percent or two of this number. The Earth has a good margin for additional heat radiation. Even when that margin is filled, as the atmosphere warms up it will expand, increasing the surface area and providing a better radiating "surface" which regulates the higher energy production for a very long time. With CO2 in the air this expansion actually increases the insulation and makes the heating worse.
If you are really worried about global warming then you should advocate the creation of a solleta. A large lens system between us and the sun. You can block about 1/3 of the light without affecting plant life or effective light levels. Since we are talking centuries before this becomes an issue, I am not very concerned.
Remember, right now the power it takes to drive an electric electric car (sedan) is between $7-$10. To fill a tank and drive 300 miles is $50.
Electricity has been cheaper than oil for more than 50 years.
The problem is power storage and recharge times.
Currently it is impracticle to get much more than cummuter range on most electric cars. To get that range it can take 5-8 hours to charge. Now true this covers 80-90% of all driving but the problem is that Americans will only buy vehicles that fit 99.99% of the potential driving they will do.
We Americans will not buy a cummuter car than rent a long distance car as needed...
While I DO think electric cars are the next stage of transportation, reducing the price of electricity won't solve anything.
What is interesting are Ultracapacitors, flywheels and battery technology. These are increasing the power density EXTREMLY quickly and the recharge times are dropping almost as fast.
I am looking forward to this year and next year. Several plug in hybrids, the volt not to mention ZENN and EEstor.
Yes, if you suddenly convert 2% of several thousand tons of waste into energy you probably don't want to be near by.
But then again, if we burnt all available fossil fuels all at once you probably wouldn't want to be near by either!
How about instead of using it all at once we reprocess the nuclear waste and use that as fuel instead of just mined Uranium? We reduce the waste, we are creating as much energy as we would have anyway AND no one gets cooked!
The source of the feedstock doesn't matter which is why this is exciting. This is a way of converting almost worthless leftovers into useful petroleum products.
It'd be more realistic to have big trays(kilometers long) set up in the desert, and use some automatic process to filter the algae down to the end of the tray. Some get recycled back up to the top of the tray, while the rest get processed.
The process uses fermentation...this mean no light is needed and air is VERY VERY VERY bad!
Think of this as more brewing than anything else. You toss in everything at the beginning, all the energy the system needs it starts with comes in with the feedstock. You close up the tank and come back in a week. You now have a barrel of oil, probably some methane and other "sludge" which may or may not be useful to burn for heat.
Using your idea would be the Least effective way. We don't need a lot of ground space just a lot of volume.
In addition, this is a test bio-reactor. You could double the hight, double production without changing the square footage at all.
Slashdot Mirror
The hub is 250 feet up.
The blades are 150 feet long.
Therefore the tip of the blades will be 150 feet from the hub...At the low point it will be 100 feet above the water. At the high point it will be 400 feet above the water.
According to TFA there are also tourists.
But that only begs the question...who would go to Delaware for a vacation?
The reason X-ray diffraction needed a regular crystal not because it was impossible to get information but because there are limits on sensitivity and computation.
The first protein that X-ray crystallography was successfully used on was myoglobin. The processing included housewives recording the position of small,medium and large dots.
Now the sensitivity is much higher and the processing ability is astounding. This article is saying that they have figured out how to isolate the x-ray signal from a single protein. There is no reason that you can't get a high enough resolution to see the domains of a protein which often do have a regular crystal structure even if the whole protein doesn't.
Conceded. Protein's primary amino acid structure is too random (in most cases) to trully form a crystal.
But it is still cystaline. The local environment of most atoms resembles a cyrstal even if the more macro level does not.
Actually refolding is fairly rare and almost always results from an environmental change (the protein get shoved into a membrane or it is surrounded by chaperon proteins). There are hinges and the like which affect functionality but thoes are very specific domains typically including a proline which isn't really an amino acid. Whole sale spontaneous refolding is essentially unheard of.
I went to a public high school and an engineering college. I heard the oil-drop model of proteins until I took biochem as a junior in college. The Biochem I took was actually a graduate level course.
That is exactly what I am arguing is wrong.
The internal consistency of a protein more closley matches a very tight crystal than a hydrophobic amalgum.
It is absolutly true that hydrophilic amino acids are often on the surface except for specific circumstances like you mentioned. However these amino acids tend to adopt the most energetically efficient form possible which is usually crystaline.
What I was refering to is that for most of modern biology there was an assumption that since the consistency of the individual hydrophobic amino acids was very much like a oil that therefore the internal consistency of the protein should be similar. A more detailed analysis of densities, x-ray diffraction, fNMR and computer modeling proved that the internal structure of a protein is actually a very hard crystal with very little mobility of the individual atoms.
The older assumption is still often taught up through undergraduate level. When I was in High school proteins were described as a drop of oil surronded by hydrophilic amino acids.
There are a lot of protein superstructures in the body. Many of them are larger than viruses. I am thinking immune cell communications, mitrocondrial kreb cycle, ribosomes etc.
This system can be used to eveluate the actual difference a point mutation makes. That will allow better models of protein folding and therefore more accurate predictions of final protein function.
If you look at the density of a protein (which is pretty much all of a virus) it looks like a crystal. The common high school idea of a protein as a drop of fatty amino acids surrounded but wet amino acids is very false.
I wonder when they will start imaging other proteins?
This could be a boon to proteinomics!
Actually, most of the world reprocesses nuclear waste. The US is really the only one who doesn't. It is a purly political decision.
You are aware that coal power plants put out dramatically more radiation than nuclear....
The amount of un-processable nuclear waste created by all US nuclear power plants in a year put together would fit in a small closet. That is the weapons grade people are worried about...
Now I agree the writer probably intended to talk about all fissionable material. However this is also an assumption since he probably REALLY meant Uranium. Remember, anything heavier than iron is produce energy through fission....
Yes I am being pedantic...but I am still correct.
You are comparing the overall cost of coal to the efficiency of converting the joules of heat to watts of electricity.
Coal does have very high efficiencys converting joules to watts because of the SIZE of the plant. In small plants (like locomotives) coal if very inefficient. The 80% number comes from gassification and fuel cell type direct conversion NOT from burning it. Coal burning actually does reach close to it's Carnot efficiency of 60%.
The reason loco's turned to Disel is because they didn't have to carry water. They then didn't need to maintain the water supply routes along the track. Pound for pound Disel is actually less effective at converting jouels to watts but they are far cheaper for "small" power supplies like engines.
Not necessarily...
For instance, to do a 50KW-H charge in 5 minutes continuously would requier a high-voltage power line.
Therefore if I was going to run a "gas" station for electric cars I would get a direct hook up. Large consumers can already do this for factories and the like. I would get enough electrical storage to cover unexpected usage (a line of cars) and when I had low service (like at night) I would recharge. Therefore most of the power would come directly from the power lines but I would maintain a small buffer just in case.
Fast "fill ups" just like cars. When electric cars are like gas cars everyone will switch as quickly as reasonably possible. If you can also charge at home for even cheaper, so much the better!
Another issue is batteries cannot accept a charge that quickly without risking damage. Trully fast charging demands ultracapacitors or flywheels. Batteries probably won't ever be able to handle it because of the chemistry involved.
#1 With reprocessing the amount of nuclear waste created in a year by ALL US nuclear plants that is unusable/dangerous would fit into a standard closet. If you then include that into the fuel for breeder reactors the danger time period drops to about 50 years at which point that one ton of material a year is as radioactive as coal ash. Or you can use this extremely highly radioactive waste to generate even more energy and do so for the next few hundred years...
#2 The same is true of ANY big money operation. Go watch Erin Brockovich. That was a coal fired power plant. In your power plant example, there is actually no reason to expect that a honeycombed wall would compromise safety. So long as the reactor was built well the other walls of the building don't matter much, it's not GOOD but it's not more likely to irradiate you. Also note that the inspections process worked...
I am sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that one way or another.
Rather since coal fired plants are generally accepted as "safe" and since they are very common, it is only reasonable to use them as a benchmark.
Do you have the sources you promised earlier? Everything I have heard about nuclear is generally positive with the exception of the waste disposal issue which is purley political in nature.
Please provide details.
From everything I've read, a single coal fired power plant releases more radioativity than all nuclear power plants in the world have ever released (with the exception of chernoble) put together!
More people die from one coal fired power plant in one year than have did from all nuclear power plants put together (including Chernoble) in the history of the industry.
Because of the perception of problems with construction and waste disposal, nuclear power plants are unisurable so the federal government insures them (this is the only subsidy they get). A strict reading of actuarial tables suggest that nuclear plants are some of the safest things to insure.
Please provide sources for your claims.
Also good to note, once the 80% has been absorbed as heat it is no longer any different than the heat created in a nuclear power plant.
Once we stop putting excess CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperature issue is really a non-issue.
The most concerning global warming issue is the fact that the sun is warming up on it's own (typical solar lifecycle). In about 10,000 years the earth won't be inhabitable without direct intervention (the solleta or moving the planet further out).
Sorry, I hit the wrong button :-)
As you can see, you were talking about reprocessed waste NOT all fissionable material.
The number I quoted is easy to calculate. The average solar power at ground level is 1000 watts/square meter. The average solar insulation is 5 hours/day. The earths surface is 510,065,600 square KM. There are 1,000,000 square meters per KM. Multiply everything together.
Solar surface albedo (the amount of light reflected rather than absorbed) is about 20% globably however most of that is in the poles where solar insulation is least. However to be absolutly fair, take the total solar power and divide it by 5. That is the amount of heat the earth absorbes from the sun every day. Since the temperature is not going up several degrees a day, the Earth radiates off essentially 100% of that heat.
It also has the capability of radiating off almost double that without dramatic temperature increases.
Battery efficiencies are in the 90% range so long as you don't push it.
Electric motors are in the 90-95% range.
Electric (and hybrid) vehicles allow for the possibilty of regenerative braking.
A true electric car will have an electric motor on each wheel that will also double as the primary brake. The only moving part of the vehicle will be the wheels and suspension. You dramatically reduce the weight of the vehicle by removing the engine, fuel tank, transmission, most of the radiator etc. Not to mention the price of maintaining all that equipment in the car.
If you want to include transmission costs then you must also include the costs of piping, trucking and supporting the filling stations for Gasoline.
However you are correct in saying that nuclear generates heat and this heat will lead to global warming. It is inaccurate to state that it is a problem even in the long term (centuries). Currently the sun blasts us with about 5 Kilowatts-hours of heat per square meter every day. This amounts to 2550328000000000000000 KW-H of heat every day. Even under the most aggressive energy growth projections, it will be centuries before we are even a percent or two of this number. The Earth has a good margin for additional heat radiation. Even when that margin is filled, as the atmosphere warms up it will expand, increasing the surface area and providing a better radiating "surface" which regulates the higher energy production for a very long time. With CO2 in the air this expansion actually increases the insulation and makes the heating worse.
If you are really worried about global warming then you should advocate the creation of a solleta. A large lens system between us and the sun. You can block about 1/3 of the light without affecting plant life or effective light levels. Since we are talking centuries before this becomes an issue, I am not very concerned.
Remember, right now the power it takes to drive an electric electric car (sedan) is between $7-$10. To fill a tank and drive 300 miles is $50.
Electricity has been cheaper than oil for more than 50 years.
The problem is power storage and recharge times.
Currently it is impracticle to get much more than cummuter range on most electric cars. To get that range it can take 5-8 hours to charge. Now true this covers 80-90% of all driving but the problem is that Americans will only buy vehicles that fit 99.99% of the potential driving they will do.
We Americans will not buy a cummuter car than rent a long distance car as needed...
While I DO think electric cars are the next stage of transportation, reducing the price of electricity won't solve anything.
What is interesting are Ultracapacitors, flywheels and battery technology. These are increasing the power density EXTREMLY quickly and the recharge times are dropping almost as fast.
I am looking forward to this year and next year. Several plug in hybrids, the volt not to mention ZENN and EEstor.
Yes, if you suddenly convert 2% of several thousand tons of waste into energy you probably don't want to be near by.
But then again, if we burnt all available fossil fuels all at once you probably wouldn't want to be near by either!
How about instead of using it all at once we reprocess the nuclear waste and use that as fuel instead of just mined Uranium? We reduce the waste, we are creating as much energy as we would have anyway AND no one gets cooked!
Your argument was a little silly...
but I don't see where in the article they describe what "n" is.
I think it relates to the mass creating the lens but since the mass is not an integer I don't see how the math could work.
Does anyone have a link or maybe an explanation?
Ohh, that is completly different.
The source of the feedstock doesn't matter which is why this is exciting. This is a way of converting almost worthless leftovers into useful petroleum products.
The process uses fermentation...this mean no light is needed and air is VERY VERY VERY bad!
Think of this as more brewing than anything else. You toss in everything at the beginning, all the energy the system needs it starts with comes in with the feedstock. You close up the tank and come back in a week. You now have a barrel of oil, probably some methane and other "sludge" which may or may not be useful to burn for heat.
Using your idea would be the Least effective way. We don't need a lot of ground space just a lot of volume.
In addition, this is a test bio-reactor. You could double the hight, double production without changing the square footage at all.