Search this blog
James Hansen promotes this FREE book as THE solution to climate change!
This free book analyses the limitations of intermittent, dispersed renewable energy
Free poster to download
Eclipse Now on This is my kind of solar! thechildrenofthorium on This is my kind of solar! Eclipse Now on Trump, the gift that keeps on… logiclogiclogic on Trump, the gift that keeps on… Eclipse Now on How low is Trump’s …
My political persuasion
My CategoriesAbolish State govts About this blog Activism Aircraft Alternative fuels Art and Design Biochar Biodiversity loss Biofuels Charismatic Christian climate change Coal Collapse Computers Creationism Denial Dirty fuels (Fracking, CTL, GTL) Doomer Ecology Economics Electric Vehicles Ethanol EU Family Food Futurism / Singularity Geo-engineering Global Governance Global Warming Gun control Health Hydrogen Industrial Ecosystems Mars Materials & Metals Movies and TV Music New Urbanism Nuclear nuclear power Ocean Open Source Open Source Hardware Peak Oil Phosphorus Plastic Politics Pollution Population Posters Rail Renewable energy Robot Cars Rubber Duck (Humour) Sci-Fi Simpol Social Justice Soil Solar Space Storing energy Stress trains Transport Uncategorized War Water Wind Writing / English
UNESCO: stop at 1.5 degrees or coral reefs will die. When planning your holidays over the next decade, please see the reefs before they’re gone. It’s inevitable now — this 3 minute video explains the maths.
SEVENTY-FOUR extra buses between 8 and 9am on already congested roads.
MORE than 5000 people boarding buses at Macquarie University Station in the evening peak hour.
FIFTY-EIGHT extra buses on Waterloo Rd, Macquarie Park, between 8 and 9am.
It’s a major interruption to Sydney’s second largest CBD area.
Unbelievable. For what? The Metro line does not make statistical sense. The arguments for a Metro are that as a mostly standing single deck train, it creates faster unloading and reloading, which in turn allows more single-decker trains one after the other. But statistically more single deckers does not offset the loss of the double deckers that carry 50% more people. The math doesn’t work. Not only that, but they are vandalising the current tunnels to make reverting back to double-decker trains impossible. The tunnel is going to be 40cm narrower than double-deckers require. This is permanent vandalism of the line, locking us into what might turn out to be an inferior service.
Again, this SMH article has more statistics showing that a single decker is just not as good as a double-decker, despite the slightly faster boarding times on the single decker. It’s madness.
Everything I’ve been saying about robot cars for years now, all in one brilliant 10 minute report!
I love this piece: reactors that *eat* nuclear waste, and where the law of gravity kicks in to shut down a reactor in a power failure.
- China are putting $300 million a year into researching MSR’s
- Full scale prototype in just 15 years.
I just added the following point to my Robot-Car summary page.
3. The end of the ‘chicken and egg’ Catch-22.
You know the ‘chicken and egg’ problem — no company wants to build a hydrogen highway because there are no hydrogen customers, and no customers want to buy a hydrogen car because they is no hydrogen highway yet. The companies don’t want to lose a billion dollars building infrastructure that may not get used, and the customer doesn’t want to invest $25,000 in a car that may not have fuel. The robot-cab-as-service solves all this. The car company already has guaranteed customers hiring their vehicles on an as-needs basis. The company just needs to figure out the most efficient technology to supply this, and can change car systems over gradually. Robot cars on the new charging or filling system will do what they can within the allowable range of their charging or fuelling infrastructure. If cars are limited one afternoon, they may even drive someone to the edge of their filling range, and then let the person swap robot-cabs into one on the established filling system. There would probably be an established discount if you have to car-swap on a trip. It will be that flexible.
Consumers are not making a decision about what car they’re buying for the next 14 years, but what car they are hiring for the next 14 minutes! Because we will just spot-hire the latest state of the art robot car, we will not care what the car runs on or how it was recharged. Think about what that means. Robot cars are expected to clock up so many miles they only last a year or two. They’ll always be running on the latest tech, and we’ll always be hiring the latest thing! So what kind of robot-electric will you hire? Will you care, as long as it is clean and gets you there on time, allowing a short nap in the meantime? You’ll be too busy reading, talking, or snoozing. This is an essential point: if a robot-cab company decides to change their charging infrastructure over to some new plug or gizmo (or even hydrogen hose), does it mean all the car charging ports in America have to change? I can’t see any reason it has to. They can test it on a small fraction of their customers in one city. They’ll have plenty of cars on the existing network to pick up any problems. You’ll just jump in and hire that car that day, and may not notice anything different. If there was a charging problem and the new robot-cab breaks down, another will be along to serve you. Indeed, one city might have dozens of different companies running dozens of different charging systems or hydrogen hoses, and we just would not care one way or the other. We’re just hiring that car for that trip. Even the hypothetical hydrogen economy actually becomes easier when a company decides they’re going to wean off expensive lithium in a (hypothetical future) world approaching lithium limits. They’ll move to a model where they just produce the hydrogen they require in their warehouses the night before they need it. After all, all a hydrogen fuelling station needs is water and a power source! Nuclear has the EROEI to drive all this.
I’m not being rude, as the vast majority of my life I was anti-nuclear out of sheer ignorance as well! There are 4 other reasons people are anti-nuclear, but from personal experience I this first one is the most powerful! As the Scientific American article says:
1. Ignorance: This simple reason remains remarkably pervasive. I am not trying to sound preachy or elitist here but reading two or three books would greatly benefit people who have a gut reaction against nuclear energy. The whole set of beliefs about any kind of radiation in any proportion being harmful, about nuclear plants releasing large amounts of radiation (when in reality they release fractions of what everyone naturally gets from the environment), about nuclear waste being a hideously convoluted and insoluble problem (the problem is largely political, not technical) can be dispelled by reading some basic books on radiation and nuclear energy. The most important revelation in this context is how, in our daily lives, we face risks that are hundreds of times greater than those from nuclear energy (transportation, air pollution etc.) without being nonplussed.In the half century during which almost 500 nuclear power plants have been steadily humming and providing energy to millions, there have been only two serious accidents – Chernobyl and Fukushima – one of which was a truly rare event and the other was entirely preventable. The number of deaths from these two accidents are a small fraction of the number from almost every other energy source, not to mention from indoor and outdoor pollution arising from chemical and fossil fuel sources. In addition coal-fired plants emit much more radioactivity than any nuclear power plant. The small casualty rate from even the two worst nuclear accidents in history attests to the generally outstanding record of nuclear safety all over the world and in the US in particular. The large-scale adoption of nuclear energy in the US has been thwarted more by political inertia and gut fears rather than by a sound assessment of the costs and benefits. The high costs are mostly capital and have stemmed from unrealistic standards and layers of bureaucracy. If you typically think of problems like waste reprocessing or disposal that on the surface seem like insurmountable technical difficulties, delving deeper will usually reveal that the real issues are political and social. Nobody thinks that waste disposal and making nuclear plants failsafe are trivial issues, but deeper investigation almost always reveals that the situation is much better than most people think and that the principal opposition has been human, not scientific.There’s several objective books that presents a balanced view of the topic. As a starting point I would recommend Richard Rhodes’s article in Foreign Affairs and his book Nuclear Renewal which talks about the extensive and safe deployment of nuclear energy by countries like France. Samuel Glasstone’s timeless classic Sourcebook on Atomic Energy is still excellent on basics, so is Bernard Cohen’s book. Gwyneth Cravens’s very informative “Power to Save the World” is particularly noteworthy since Cravens was vociferously against nuclear power before she educated herself and found herself in favor of it; it’s a remarkable example of how someone can change their mind in the face of evidence. Another informal, breezy and excellent treatment is Scott Heaberlin’s A Case for Nuclear-Generated Electricity: (Or Why I Think Nuclear Power Is Cool and Why It Is Important That You Think So Too). For those who are ok with a slightly heavier dose of science, I would strongly recommend David Bodansky’s Nuclear Energy. In addition there’s some very promising new technologies on the horizon in the form of advanced new-generation reactor designs and new thorium-based fuel cycles. These developments are geared toward increasing safety (both passive safety and proliferation resistance) and efficiency and reducing cost. Liquid fluoride thorium reactors are especially noteworthy in this regard and Richard Martin’s “Superfuel” does a very good job of explaining their function and advantages. The main obstacle to the testing and use of these designs is again political rather than scientific.