Re: Brin-l Digest, Vol 377, Issue 3
William T Goodall wrote: So we don't really know how available some minerals are until we start looking for them harder? It happened with oil and gas. Brazil was considered with no oil back in the 1930s - they were almost right, considering the technology of the time. Probably the UK and Norway were also considered places with no oil. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin-l Digest, Vol 377, Issue 3
On 02/05/2008, at 4:21 AM, Dan M wrote: Why do you think mainstream science is wrong on global warming? Why do you think people will willingly die before using nuclear power? Just out of interest - what about the environmental costs of getting and refining uranium ore? It's not like the deposits are in accessible areas. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin-l Digest, Vol 377, Issue 3
The worst-case estimates I've seen put the carbon produced at arround 4% of coal, Charlie. And true, the deposits are not in the best areas..but neither are the oil reserves, for different reasons. I'd rather depend on Canada and Australia than the OPEC countries. AndrewC On 2 May 2008 at 22:27, Charlie Bell wrote: On 02/05/2008, at 4:21 AM, Dan M wrote: Why do you think mainstream science is wrong on global warming? Why do you think people will willingly die before using nuclear power? Just out of interest - what about the environmental costs of getting and refining uranium ore? It's not like the deposits are in accessible areas. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin-l Digest, Vol 377, Issue 3
Original Message: - From: Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 22:27:45 +1000 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Brin-l Digest, Vol 377, Issue 3 On 02/05/2008, at 4:21 AM, Dan M wrote: Why do you think mainstream science is wrong on global warming? Why do you think people will willingly die before using nuclear power? Just out of interest - what about the environmental costs of getting and refining uranium ore? It's not like the deposits are in accessible areas. Well, the richest deposits are located in wind areas of Australia, I understand that. And, domenstic US and Canadian production are inherently higher cost, due to the lower grade of the ore. But, I have a buddy working on a uraninium minining detector project in the US. The market for uranium has come out of the doldrums of the last 20+ years, so folks are actually looking now. Last year, the US, for example, used about 25-30 tons of uranium for its plants. Canada alone has proven reserves of about 180k tons. One reserve (McCrthur River) is extremely high grade (26%), so the total amount that needs to be mined to get the uranium is low. So, the local impact would be far lower than the present local impact of coal mining. I realize that the newly discovered, offline, Australian reserve is in a national park. Its reasonable to expect the utmost care to be taken in that area. But, given the fact that people haven't looked all that hard for uranium deposits, due to the low historical prices, it seems reasonable that we will signficantly increase the proven deposits when we look hard for uranium. So, it may be that we can choose to ignore deposits in National Parks, or to mine them in such a way that has minimal, temporary impact on the local environment. But, without a doubt, if we went to substitute reactors for coal plants we would see a net dip in environmental effects from mining alone. Dan M. mail2web.com Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft® Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin-l Digest, Vol 377, Issue 3
On 3 May 2008, at 02:24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But, I have a buddy working on a uraninium minining detector project in the US. The market for uranium has come out of the doldrums of the last 20+ years, so folks are actually looking now. Last year, the US, for example, used about 25-30 tons of uranium for its plants. Canada alone has proven reserves of about 180k tons. One reserve (McCrthur River) is extremely high grade (26%), so the total amount that needs to be mined to get the uranium is low. So, the local impact would be far lower than the present local impact of coal mining. So we don't really know how available some minerals are until we start looking for them harder? Geology Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons. - Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin-l Digest, Vol 377, Issue 3
On 03/05/2008, at 11:24 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I realize that the newly discovered, offline, Australian reserve is in a national park. Yes, and in indigenous land. But it's not that that I mean. National Parks aren't inherently more sensitive, they're just areas reserved for non-development and wilderness. What I'm talking about is the distances - the NT reserves are several hundred km from Darwin across some of the most unpleasant and difficult terrain. Jungle, biting insects, dry half the year and flooded the other half (there are rivers in the area that change depth by more than 30 metres through the year), and crocodiles. The ore either needs to be refined in situ, which leads to energy generation and chemical waste locally, or refined somewhere else which means trucking the ore out, which means a lot of diesel in trucks or diesel in locomotives if they put a railway in. But I talk your point about other reserves being discovered or becoming viable as the price of U increases, or as the carbon taxes or carbon offsets or carbon licensing schemes increase the coal/oil burning costs closing the gap to nuclear. I'm not against nuclear power in principle, ftr. Certainly Australia has enough U to be totally self-sufficient (instead, we're selling it to China - there are only a couple of very small scale research reactors in Oz for creating medical radioactives) Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Brin-l Digest, Vol 377, Issue 3
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of hkhenson Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 4:03 PM To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Brin-l Digest, Vol 377, Issue 3 At 12:00 PM 4/17/2008, Dan M wrote: (Keith wrote) What do you want? The current 747 cost about $300 million and dry masses out to about 185 mt or $1.6 million a ton. Produced in similar tonnage, do you see any reason these rockets would cost more than per ton than a 747? If so, why? For the rocket itself, not counting all the other expenses associated with launches, that's not an unreasonable cost. Agreement! Right, but that's for the rocket itself. Not a shuttle, a rocket. The .pdf was recommended as a good reference by Hu Davis of Eagle Engineering. Look him up. What has he built? The Eagle as in the Eagle has landed. OK, I asked because I've seen so many experts who never had to do things. He does have great experience leading successful space design teams. So, I looked up the website of the space company he and Buzz Aldrin are leading http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/rlvs/starbooster_sum.shtml From my perspective, this shows the difficulties inherent in reusable craft. He is not discussing a rocket that can hit near orbit, launch a system to geocentric orbit, and then re-enter the atmosphere. Rather, he is presenting a far more modest goal: salvaging the first stage of a present system. The cost of doing this is 32 tons extra weight that is carried throughout the first stage. If you want, I think I can calculate the decrease in payload that results from this, but I know it's not insignificant (what I'd do is cut the weight of the upper stages by this amount and cut the payload proportionally.) I'm not faulting him for this. I think it reflects the modest goals that are realistic. I looked at the links from this website and noted that the X-33 was the furthest along of all the reusable near orbit systems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-33 I Googled for reusable orbital vehicles and found SpaceX's Falcon one as the one that's furthest along. The Falcon 1 has a first stage that is designed to parachute down to earth and be reusable. Later versions are suppose to have stages that can reach orbit and re-enter the atmosphere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX As of two years ago, the owner has spent 100M of his own money, and has had two failed launches. The first one was fairly spectacular, but the second one was a guidance failure at the end of the mission. He hopes for Air Force contracts if the third one (with a small Air Force payload) succeeds. But, he was also quoted as saying If we have three consecutive failures [.] it's not clear to me that we know what we're doing and maybe we should go out of business. So, I consider him at the razors edge. As you know, I can cite a number of programs that have failed in developing reusable orbital vehicles. I think a recoverable, reworkable first stage, with a parachute drop and an ocean retrieval, might be workableand save some money in the long run. But, re-entry is an extremely harsh environment. Right now, besides NASA and the US Air Force, there are five groups that can provide launch capacity (Russia, the EU, Japan, China, and India). None of them, as far as I can see, are going towards reusable orbital vehicles. Given the problems NASA has had, given the failure of the X-33, a prudent person would consider such a task difficult and expensive in the present environment. So, the step which I strongly disagree with is assuming that such a vehicle can be built for the cost of a disposable rocket. No, that *is* the capital cost. I just have not discussed operating and maintenance costs which I have not estimated. This design uses 49 SSME in it and they are only expected to last 40 flights. How much labor is it going to take to pull 40 engines out of the first stage and 9 out of the second stage every 40 flights? On average they would be changing out 12 a day so they should get good at it. What's the closest model we have for airline operations? Or for that matter, railroad operations? A SSME has got to weigh less than a locomotive engine! That's not where the biggest problems have been for NASA. Maintaining the heat shield has been a nightmare for NASA. If you were flying them every day instead of ever 100 days could you do it with the same number of people? They were suppose to fly once a week...with far fewer people than are needed to fly them once every 100 days. Part of the cost is the very low production rate for spare parts. Another big chunk is paper pushing. NASA is inefficient, I won't argue with that. But, the fundamental problems remain. If it were easy, don't you think one of 7 non-NASA groups would have done something by now? Some years ago I read that the effort to recover and refurbish
RE: Brin-l Digest, Vol 377, Issue 3
On 1 May 2008 at 13:21, Dan M wrote: Why do you think mainstream science is wrong on global warming? Why do you think people will willingly die before using nuclear power? Because certain politicans of the cold war played up the links between nuclear warheads and nuclear power. There's a vast resevoir of fear there in the older generation. Or how Chenoybl was so atypical... (and caused in itself by an inefficient, dangerous cold war design of reactor). AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin-l Digest, Vol 377, Issue 3
Dan M wrote: I'd guess $75, because of the fall of the dollar, but with the big Brazil findand the fact that two countries with tremendous reserves (Venezuela and Iraq) are marginal producers for political reasons. Only Venezuela and Iraq? What about Nigeria, Iran, Russia, Alaska... As for the brazilian big oil fields, there's something I must say: these F $s��^�SVW3ۋt$ U NO CARRIER ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Brin-l Digest, Vol 377, Issue 3
At 01:29 PM Thursday 5/1/2008, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 1 May 2008 at 13:21, Dan M wrote: Why do you think mainstream science is wrong on global warming? Why do you think people will willingly die before using nuclear power? Because certain politicans of the cold war played up the links between nuclear warheads and nuclear power. Elected or vocal complainers who wanted to be elected? (IOW, as is typically found on forms next to the choice Other, please specify __ . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin-l Digest, Vol 377, Issue 3
On 18/04/2008, at 7:02 AM, hkhenson wrote: What gives you the idea space is harsh? Now a wind generator standing in salt water, that's harsh. Vacuum ablation. Extreme UV and other radiation. Huge temperature differentials between sun and shade... (although they should be using that differential to generate power...). The .pdf was recommended as a good reference by Hu Davis of Eagle Engineering. Look him up. What has he built? The Eagle as in the Eagle has landed. Hehehe pwned. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin-l Digest, Vol 377, Issue 3
At 12:00 PM 4/17/2008, Dan M wrote: (Keith wrote) What do you want? The current 747 cost about $300 million and dry masses out to about 185 mt or $1.6 million a ton. Produced in similar tonnage, do you see any reason these rockets would cost more than per ton than a 747? If so, why? For the rocket itself, not counting all the other expenses associated with launches, that's not an unreasonable cost. \ Agreement! First and second stage mass 619 tons, (third stage is mostly power sat parts) so if they cost on a par with a 747, they would cost just a hair over a billion each, with one coming off the production line every 20 days, or about 31 mt a day. That might sound like a lot, but I have worked in a locomotive factory that made 30 times that much a day in product (8-9 locomotives a day at 113 mt each). At peak production 747s were coming off the line at a slightly higher tonnage per year. If you use them for 200 flights the capital cost per flight is $5 million /200,000kg or $25/kg. Here's where you throw in the unspecified assumption. A simple disposable rocket, like the ones being used by all launch facilities but the shuttle, could cost about what you said. But, then you talk about reusable rockets and assume that the initial capital cost is the critical factor. No, that *is* the capital cost. I just have not discussed operating and maintenance costs which I have not estimated. This design uses 49 SSME in it and they are only expected to last 40 flights. How much labor is it going to take to pull 40 engines out of the first stage and 9 out of the second stage every 40 flights? On average they would be changing out 12 a day so they should get good at it. What's the closest model we have for airline operations? Or for that matter, railroad operations? A SSME has got to weigh less than a locomotive engine! The fantasy of the space shuttle was that it could be reused easily. 10 years into the mission, it was supposed to require a very small ground crew, getting lift costs to near earth orbit down to about $25/kg or some such number. But, the maintenance is very high and expensive. If you were flying them every day instead of ever 100 days could you do it with the same number of people? Part of the cost is the very low production rate for spare parts. Another big chunk is paper pushing. There is a neat trick using recent technology to virtually eliminate paper pushing. And a lot of the cost is for crew training. These things would be no crew, and maybe only one a week would carry passengers, if that. The shuttle costs a lot of money to fly, even though we are not buying new shuttles, the big fuel tank is the cheapest part of the assembly, and the solid fuel rockets are recoverable. Some years ago I read that the effort to recover and refurbish the segments cost more than just letting them sink. So, I've seen no estimates for this, just the same arm waving I heard about the shuttle years ago. I can think of Russia, Japan, the EU, the US, and China all having significant lift capacity, and Russia is the cheapest available one I know of. I tend to look at actual costs and their trends as a guideline, not estimates that make unproven assumptions. 2000 tons per day is an entirely different model. You can't apply much of what we know about government space programs to it. I realize that I'm considered a nay-sayer because of this, but I would argue it's because I've had to design hardware/software systems that work remotely under harsh conditions. What gives you the idea space is harsh? Now a wind generator standing in salt water, that's harsh. snip The .pdf was recommended as a good reference by Hu Davis of Eagle Engineering. Look him up. What has he built? The Eagle as in the Eagle has landed. snip The main point is that there are very few options that are big enough and possibly low enough in cost to replace the bulk of fossil fuels. It depends on what type of calculation one uses. If one uses hard engineering numbers for project X and arm waving unsubstantiated numbers for project Y, then project Y should win virtually every time. When power sats are not considered (and they usually are not) then you get statements like this: No combination of renewable energy systems have the potential to generate more than a fraction of the power now being generated by fossil fuels. -- Jay Hanson http://www.drmillslmu.com/peakoil.htm I can think of a number of different projects that are far more feasible for the 20-200 year time frame. After 200 years, I'd argue that fundamental discoveries will be sufficient to radically change what is practical. It would surprise me if there were any physical state humans left on the planet by 2100. Even though you sell it to the investors as long term, I can see it being abandoned when the singularity hits. This is about a project to start in the next few years and having the
