Something Random

[ddrueding]

You want all the elements of a high standard of living, but you don't want any of the infrastructure & backbone needed to to deliver it. This isn't a Gene Roddenberry utopia and never will be.

Not entirely true. He wants lots of infrastructure, probably more than you do, just not of the sort you are after.

I'm open to any idea, but it needs to be neutral with regards to finance and the environment.

 

[Stereodude]

Not entirely true. He wants lots of infrastructure, probably more than you do, just not of the sort you are after.

Not really... He wants the sorts of crap you always would read about in Popular Science and Popular Mechanics about the flying car, and all these other new pie in the sky ideas. Something like a real life Jetsons or Star Trek where there's no pollution, no homeless, clear skies, perfect weather, no heavy industry, no one working away in factories, but beautiful cities with full of conveniences like public transportation, houses full of high tech gadgets, etc.

How are you gonna do that without large ugly power plants? What about oil to make all the plastics and all the other petroleum based products such a society will use? Where are the flying cars & fancy electronics going to be made? Until someone invents the replicator and small, cheap, & portable nuclear fusion or matter / antimatter reactors what JTR is after is a pipe dream. You don't get all the trappings of modern life without the "ugly" infrastructure that makes it all possible.

 

[jtr1962]

You know, I had a lengthy reply typed up, but it just isn't worth arguing with you. We're not going to find any common ground. You want all the elements of a high standard of living, but you don't want any of the infrastructure & backbone needed to to deliver it. This isn't a Gene Roddenberry utopia and never will be.

Sorry you feel that way. And the position you described actually is closer to that of what you might describe as the tree-hugger crowd, of which I'm most definitely not. These people want to keep our modern standard of living, but say no to every single thing which fails to meet their impossibly high standards. No nukes because nuclear power is evil, no windmills because they kill birds, no solar power because solar panels are dirty to manufacture, no motorized transportation at all because roads/railroads require clearing natural habitat, etc.

Solar, wind etc. is great but if it can't meet all demands then I'm all for nuclear power. In fact, I say stick Fukushima-type reactor clusters right in Manhattan if need be. Modern reactor designs are inherently safe, far safer than burning shit to provide power. Infrastructure? As Dave says, I'm for tons of it, but of the type which makes sense for it's intended use.

I'll leave it at that. Bottom line is what we have today just isn't working all that well, really hasn't for a long time, so maybe we need to try something different. I offered one set of suggestions.

 

[Bozo]

What I don't understand is why we aren't looking to natural gas for cars. Propane or LNG. Maybe even methane. It burns clean, we have plenty of it, we can even extract methane from land fills. Gasoline and diesel engines can be converted to burn it. It can even power jet turbine engines to produce electricity. Most of the infrastructure is already installed...virtually any place that can refill your gas grill can fill a car.
What am I missing? (probably big oil won't make a gazillion dollars off of it)

 

[jtr1962]

Putting aside the huge risk of contaminating drinking water supplies from hydrofracking natural gas, I'm not sure the supplies are abundant enough to make much of a dent in oil supplies. Assuming they are, and assuming we can find a better way to extract the natural gas which doesn't put water supplies at risk, I think the answer to your question should be obvious. Ever since the 1970s, we've been going from one energy crisis to another. If not energy, it's terrorism, or war, or nuclear weapons, or some other major crisis, and this has been ongoing since at least the mid 20th century. All these crises justify the existence of politicians to "solve" them. Without the crises, the need for a lot of those who benefit from this chaos would mostly vanish. I'm throughly convinced nobody in charge really wants to offer viable long-term solutions to any problems, be they energy, medical, education, whatever. The solutions are there. Some are fairly easy and cheap to implement. Even a simple thing like giving big tax credits for any company letting its employees telecommute would put a huge dent in the demand for energy. Other solutions are longer term and more expensive, but they would practically be guaranteed success. Your idea might be a good medium-term solution, until we can get to more permanent, sustainable ways to power society.

Like I said, I'm pretty much convinced those in charge have little incentive to fix anything. Remember that people generally look for leaders when they have problems they don't know how to fix themselves, not when everything is going fairly well. If the problems got solved, those running the show lose their power. To keep the status quo they spread propaganda to make people think everything is great. When someone comes along suggesting changes they're instantly derided by the brainwashed populace. Just look at what's going on nowadays on some message boards. Anyone suggesting anything similar to what I did earlier is called a socialist, communist, envirowacko, utopiast, or just plain nuts by people clueless to what is the real problem. It's particularly hilarious reading unemployed people defending things like bank bailouts, or huge tax cuts for the wealthy. I won't even speculate on the reasons those in charge have for holding an entire planet hostage to satisfy their megalomaniac desire for control. Maybe it's an ego thing-once you have the power, you just can't bear to let go?

Bottom line-if anyone has a solution to a problem which is going to work very well or perfectly, nobody is interested.

 

[time]

I'll take a stab that it takes up too much space and weight in a car? Newer buses in my city run off natural gas; the tanks are huge.

LPG (liquefied petroleum gas) is standard for taxi cabs here.

 

[jtr1962]

You know something, time, your mention of LNG buses just reminded me of a whole sequence of events which actually more or less proves what I just wrote. As you're undoubtedly aware, back in the late 1800s/early 1900s, trolleys served essentially the same function buses do today. And they served that function much better. They didn't need engine tuneups, oil changes, tires, etc. They didn't pollute. They were fast. You bought them new, and pretty much could run them for 50 years, just occasionally regrinding the wheels and perhaps replacing motor/current pickup brushes.

Of course, this meant nobody except the trolley companies could really make much money here, so eventually GM started buying up trolley lines for the sole purpose of dismantling them. Some were converted to bus lines, and even those eventually disappeared in favor of automobiles. In short, you replaced a simple, inexpensive solution which worked very well with a complex one which bought with it all sorts of problems. Now you needed 50 cars, each with a driver who needed to be trained, to do what one trolley did. You sold the public on this sham bill of goods with slick advertising.

Now the chickens are finally coming to roost. The long term problems of the so-called "new and better" are finally becoming untenable (i.e. pollution, traffic jams, peak oil), so we're looking for answers. Sure, LNG buses are certainly a big improvement over diesel buses, no arguing that. The real solution though is staring everyone in the face. Just string up some wires and you have the perfect way to power buses. You don't even need to lay down tracks or develop the elusive "better battery". They had buses operating this way 75 years ago ("trackless trolley"). And we may yet do it, ironically because it's cheap, and because it's getting to the point we can't afford anything more expensive.

Let's stop using Rube Goldberg solutions to solve simple problems, many of which were already solved nearly to perfection a century ago. Electrified transportation just works, period.

 

[Bozo]

I'll take a stab that it takes up too much space and weight in a car? Newer buses in my city run off natural gas; the tanks are huge.

LPG (liquefied petroleum gas) is standard for taxi cabs here.

The tanks could be made to fit where the gasoline tank is now. They would be heavier though. The MPG of propane vehicles is about the same as gasoline, so a tank would only have to be about the same size.

Installing the infrastructure for an electric buss system would be extremely expensive. Better to use a cable car system like they have in San Fransisco.

 

[ddrueding]

Got a pressure washer to prep the outside of the house for paint. I didn't want the trouble of a gas motor so I got the most powerful electric available locally (1800psi). I've never played with one of these before, it looks pretty fun.

 

[Sol]

It just occurred to me that television would be vastly improved by just taking all the proliferating super-series like CSI and Stargate, and swapping all the subtitles around so you end up with Stargate Miami and CSI Atlantis.

...Well, somewhat improved...

 

[jtr1962]

Television could be vastly improved by just getting rid of the commercials. If people see at the end of their program a quick announcement "This program sponsored by company A, makers of widget B", they might actually be inclined to buy the product. Most commercials have exactly the opposite effect, at least for me anyway. And the prescription drug commercials just have to go altogether, period, for many good reasons.

 

[Sol]

When I refer to television I actually just mean episodic shows in a 20 or 40 minute format. I haven't really watched old-school television with radio waves and commercials and everything in almost 10 years.

 

[LunarMist]

Television could be vastly improved by just getting rid of the commercials. If people see at the end of their program a quick announcement "This program sponsored by company A, makers of widget B", they might actually be inclined to buy the product. Most commercials have exactly the opposite effect, at least for me anyway.

That was popular 50+ years ago on TV and radio, but it does not create enough revenue now.

And the prescription drug commercials just have to go altogether, period, for many good reasons.

I don't think they are so bad compared to many other commercials. There are frequently nauseating commercials about unpleasant disorders and biological functions from the over the counter products too.

What about the awful Honda commercials lately? Do we need to be subjected to the troll, nature freak, zombie, horny ninja girl, etc. in those Civic cars?

 

[Pradeep]

From Wikipedia: "Singapore is a parliamentary republic with a Westminster system of unicameral parliamentary government representing constituencies. The Constitution of Singapore establishes representative democracy as the political system."

Maybe not a democracy like the US, but certainly not a socialist country.

Pretty sure its basically a single party that stays in power. So democracy in name, autocracy in practice.
There is no real debate there, even the slightest hint of dissension and you can be charged with libel etc. No freedom of the press. If you are a good worker bee all is well, if you decide to question the state of affairs....

 

[Pradeep]

What I don't understand is why we aren't looking to natural gas for cars. Propane or LNG. Maybe even methane. It burns clean, we have plenty of it, we can even extract methane from land fills. Gasoline and diesel engines can be converted to burn it. It can even power jet turbine engines to produce electricity. Most of the infrastructure is already installed...virtually any place that can refill your gas grill can fill a car.
What am I missing? (probably big oil won't make a gazillion dollars off of it)

As time mentioned, LPG (bbq propane as we know it in the US) is used in taxis in Aus. It used to have a huge delta compared to petrol costs, which made the payback for the conversion/install a rapid process. Surprisingly, LPG cost increased and now seems to be equal to petrol cost. No shenanigans there. The energy density of LPG is about 75% of petrol, so you need to burn more to get the same distance. Many vehicles remain "dual fuel" where you can switch between LPG and petrol, giving you flexibility if far away from an LPG servo. The tank in the boot does take away from some luggage space.

The bigger buses would tend to use CNG or LNG, LNG requires larger insulated double wall tanks as the liquid needs to remain below -160 c. Energy density is about 60% of diesel. CNG needs high pressure tanks to hold the 200 bar pressures, and has about 25% energy density compared to diesel.

 

[time]

Thanks Pradeep, I looked it up and they're using CNG. So tanks four times larger than diesel before we talk about the reinforcement to deal with 3000psi.

 

[Pradeep]

The one US exception is the Civil GX (CNG powered, can buy a "Phill" unit and install in your garage, and compress your domestic natural gas into CNG overnight.

http://www.insideline.com/honda/civic/2007/long-term-test-2007-honda-civic-gx.html

Biggest downside is limited range (equivalent to around 8 gallons of petrol). My neighbour has one (state vehicle), of course he gets to fill it at various stations the general public can't access.

 

[Bozo]

But they are cleaner than gas or diesel, and go farther than electric. They also can be filled at any place that fills propane tanks.

 

[LunarMist]

The one US exception is the Civil GX (CNG powered, can buy a "Phill" unit and install in your garage, and compress your domestic natural gas into CNG overnight.

http://www.insideline.com/honda/civic/2007/long-term-test-2007-honda-civic-gx.html

Biggest downside is limited range (equivalent to around 8 gallons of petrol). My neighbour has one (state vehicle), of course he gets to fill it at various stations the general public can't access.

You could power it with nuclear tubules, but it would still be a Civic.

 

[time]

They also can be filled at any place that fills propane tanks.

Are you getting the difference between LNG and CNG (mostly methane) and LPG (propane + butane)? The only thing they have in common is that we burn them, and the machinery for that is quite different.

A propane station is just a large tank of LPG under pressure. A CNG station has to achieve > 3000 psi in the vehicle tanks. The filling is hazardous from a pressure rather than combustibility perspective, but more to the point you need an equivalent to the "Phill" compressor that Pradeep mentioned.

 

[ddrueding]

The other day a friend and I took an extended lunch break, rented an aircraft, and flew 100 miles just for lunch at the airport and a prompt return.

Probably the most expensive lunch I've ever had (including the plane nearly $300), but man that was fun.

 

[LunarMist]

I had to eat 12 manual tacos in a row. uke-l:

 

[Howell]

I had to eat 12 manual tacos in a row. uke-l:

Merc, swing away!

 

[LunarMist]

Why Merc?

 

[Handruin]

You were setting yourself up for a joke/euphemism.

 

[Mercutio]

I am not touching that one. Someone else can do it.

 

[Howell]

Ok moving on.

Lunar we must know,
What is the difference between a manual and automatic taco?

 

[Handruin]

It could have been Manuel taco.

 

[Howell]

Maybe if Manuel were full of tinier men.

 

[LunarMist]

Ok moving on.

Lunar we must know,
What is the difference between a manual and automatic taco?

I mean each one was a personal taco, prepared by hand.

 

[ddrueding]

Ah. As opposed to the impersonal taco, prepared with the feet.

 

[LunarMist]

Well it was not a commercially prepared taco. Does it really matter? I was suffering the aftermath all day.

 

[ddrueding]

That is unfortunate. Sorry if I was picking on you too much...

As a matter of fact, I think Taco Bell is in my near future...

 

[ddrueding]

Thanks to Chewy509 for contributing over 1000 posts in his time here. Much appreciated.

 

[Tannin]

And damn good ones too.

 

[CougTek]

Yeah, congratulations for the thousand posts. May your insany continue for a while.

 

[Mercutio]

A thousand posts is a very respectable number of posts to have.

 

[jtr1962]

Congratulations, Chewy! :drunk: :tgif:

 

[LunarMist]

Yeah, 1000. :beer:

 

[Chewy509]

Re: 1000 Posts

Thanks guys.

This is about the only forum that I post to regularly, simply becuase it's such an easy going and very knowledgable group to be part of.