Downside of that - other than the body count - is that tech born in an arms race tends to stay restricted to military use until either something better comes along or the military no longer needs it.
To each their own
- Thread starter Cougini5591
- Start date
Some great points and valid reasons why certain transport methods are not EV compatible in the next decade or more. However, the one thing that the last 150 years have shown is that innovation is happening at a quickening pace. I remember reading articles in the late 90's saying that computer processing was limited because of our inability to make chips small enough for Moore's Law to continue to be valid. Despite that, chips have continued to be more powerful and smaller on a regular basis.
In the 1980's, it was difficult to find car engines with more than 225 hp. There were "supercars" with more than that, but it was rare. Today, a Honda Accord with a 2.0L engine would smoke just about any ponycar from the 80's and put the fear of god into most muscle cars of the 90's. 1000hp cars are out there in the wild. Cars can reach 60 mph in under 3 seconds today.
Our cell phones surpass the imagination of science fiction writers in the 60's.
Technological innovation in areas where money is focused happens at an incredible rate these days and the innovations accelerate the process. We hear talk of "energy independence" and developing more oil wells, but the reality is that our truest path to energy independence is to abandon ICE powered vehicles except cases (like hauling heavy loads) where EV technology is not adequate. Once folks truly buy into that idea and we re-embrace nuclear power generation or other technologies, there is going to be an absolute explosion of innovation that will make all of these conversations moot.
When the car was invented, the vast majority of people thought it was a fad that was too unreliable and expensive to be reasonable for the normal person to own. We know how that went. Despite all of the critics out there......the same applies to alternately powered vehicles. The age of internal combustion is ending. Not in every vehicle...but they will become rare in the not too distant future.
For my part, I'm not sure the US would have "won" the space race if the transistor didn't exist. There are some amazing videos on YouTube about the Apollo guidance computer and how it was made. The transistor was a key component to that computer, and I don't think we successfully land on the moon without it.
Now, I definitely think it was a two way street. The transistor came first, but its use in the space program fed back into the research on manufacturing and use. There was some resonance between the use in the space program and the research into transistors themselves. And the same thing happens today between industry and universities and research centers. The improvements in things like cell phone technology really are more of a collaboration between industry and research organizations, rather than just a feed forward where universities/research centers think up new things and capitalists run with it.
For example, when I was in graduate school, twice a year my committee head would take all of us RAs with him to the pitch for funding (every summer at Government Camp at Mt Hood, which was a great place or hiking and camping). The booklet had all the professors and all the projects, and the majority of the targets for the "sales pitch" were industry folk. Now, being an electrical engineer with a focus on semiconductors, it was the like of Intel, HP, TI, IBM, etc. But there were other projects too. I remember one professor (Dr Fischer? Dr Belzer?) who had more of a focus on information theory, and I remember Ericsson, Qualcomm, Harris, and others there as well. Sure, there were government projects from DoD and others there as well. I know I have one of those books around still, but I'm pretty sure at least 90% of the attendees were from private industry. And my committee head was heavily funded by private industry, mostly Hitachi and Linear Technologies.
The point I ultimately wanted to make is that while so much is made of the space race and the technology that came out of it, I think we should remember that all of that work was done in a partnership with private industry. I don't think you meant it to be a one-way street--and I'm probably projecting--but it seems so many think government created the technology and private industry used it in some novel way for common use. I think it more like the government allocated the dollars and funded the research toward a specific goal, and partnered with industry to get it done.
My concern with government funding in general for "pure research" is that there is no specific goal. Nothing focuses people and projects like a goal. And a tangible one at that. Remember there was a real, tangible rivalry with the USSR and we wanted to win. Same thing with DoD funding during the Cold War--we needed technology to "win." I'm not so sure there is that kind of focus on something like hydrogen cells or other such alternative fuels. I don't think enough people are concerned enough to provide that focus necessary to quickly succeed. And in the end, we'll get a bunch of random government grants for random projects with random goals. We might get a few good things out of it, but it won't have nearly the efficiency or urgency we saw with the space race.
The problem with accelerating innovation theory is when it butts heads with the laws of physics. Star Trek like space travel seems very unlikely because you can't travel at or above the speed of light if you have mass. Energy production isn't the problem, effective energy storage is. There have been significant improvement in battery tech over the last 125 years, but it hasn't kept up. We have had the same refrain for decades, "within 5 years." In 2022, the best large scale energy storage facility, by far, remains a reservoir at the top of a hill, a pump station at the bottom and a turbine between. This is Westinghouse/Tesla era tech, it is 127 years old at this point. This isn't to say that game changing battery tech isn't unthinkable, but the challenge is far more daunting than people realize, it is right up there with cold fusion.
Dick Tracy was talking through his watch in the 1930s.
I generally agree, but I don’t think a mass movement to EV is going to happen without 2 things:
- their range has to reach 300 miles on a charge. Especially in places like E.WA, where it’s a longer distance from A to B, the current 150-200 miles makes them less than practical.
- More importantly, the price has to come down to where it’s competitive with ICE vehicles. Few are going to pay a premium to buy a car that’s more expensive and less capable
Unless someone figures out cold fusion, it’s going to be at least another generation before nuclear is welcomed back. I think hydro is a better alternative, but it needs to be smaller units that don’t dam the river. Use waterfalls and rapids instead, or smaller impoundments that have an elevation drop. Generation will be lower, but they’ll be very low environmental impact, and far more reliable than wind & solar.
Thanks, guys. Good comments.
When I mentioned a "space race" for a practical fuel cell, I meant it in the same way that Suudy's explanation outlined. My brother in law (another Coug!) just retired from NASA. I think he and I have agreed many times (over many, many libations) that NASA's programs tend to be most effective when they are both collaborative and have specific goals, or at least specific milestones. Energy storage is clearly a limitation for many of the non-fossil fuel energy sources. Energy distribution is also a big deal, particularly for those countries lacking significant infrastructure. Fuel cells are scalable, require essentially no storage (though they can certainly work with storage when peak capacity needs make it desirable to do so) and require minimal infrastructure. Small fuel cells would be a Godsend to third world countries. Might even be able to make them practical at the personal transit level.
I am not a conspiracy theorist, mostly because: 1) I've never known even a small group to be able to keep a secret; and 2) there is a level of competence required to keep a secret that is very rare, and the bigger the secret, the more competence is required. Most of the time those two "tests" defeat any conspiracy theory. But I've got to admit that I can't figure out why fuel cells have never been a national priority...
When I mentioned a "space race" for a practical fuel cell, I meant it in the same way that Suudy's explanation outlined. My brother in law (another Coug!) just retired from NASA. I think he and I have agreed many times (over many, many libations) that NASA's programs tend to be most effective when they are both collaborative and have specific goals, or at least specific milestones. Energy storage is clearly a limitation for many of the non-fossil fuel energy sources. Energy distribution is also a big deal, particularly for those countries lacking significant infrastructure. Fuel cells are scalable, require essentially no storage (though they can certainly work with storage when peak capacity needs make it desirable to do so) and require minimal infrastructure. Small fuel cells would be a Godsend to third world countries. Might even be able to make them practical at the personal transit level.
I am not a conspiracy theorist, mostly because: 1) I've never known even a small group to be able to keep a secret; and 2) there is a level of competence required to keep a secret that is very rare, and the bigger the secret, the more competence is required. Most of the time those two "tests" defeat any conspiracy theory. But I've got to admit that I can't figure out why fuel cells have never been a national priority...
That’s an easy answer. Money. Giving people fuel cells (or any renewable energy source) means they buy from you less often. So to make it worthwhile, the price has to be higher….which means fewer people buy it.
Only way anyone wants to sell them is if everyone has to buy at your price point, or if you can ensure that you’ll either have regular upgrades or planned obsolescence to maintain the market. Which means creating a market to eliminate the one that already exists (in petroleum).
No doubt there are also organized efforts by big oil to suppress research dollars toward anything that will undercut their market.
If only we had a federal government with excess billions that gets seemingly squandered on... you name it, but departmental bloat, congressional perks, foreign aid to countries that give two fcks about anything, just to start... yeah, maybe if that were the case we could afford to fund said program.
Its not a conspiracy. You can go back and find where Big Oil literally squashed competition through various methods, whether they be above board or not, but most of the time just through lobbying and/ or market manipulation.
Pretty sure that started the minute Rockefeller first refined kerosene.
The major problem with hydrogen fuel cell tech right now is that it takes far more energy (electricity) to separate the hydrogen than the energy the hydrogen produced can generate. Whether it be battery or hydrogen fuel cell, there are huge scalability problems that we aren't remotely able to address. How do you power 150 million cars, daily while keeping the lights on at the same time, while going clean? This is not something NASA considers. They deal in tech the micro world, not the macro environment. NASA doesn't care if fuel cell tech is extremely inefficiency, so long as it works. They don't care that it takes 10 kilowatts to store 2. But that isn't workable in the real world/macro environment.
Someone above noted that there is work on using algae farms to generate the hydrogen. The sun provides the energy.
Hydrogen from Algae
Genetically modified algae could be efficient producers of hydrogen and biofuels.
And in theory you could put these farms in the ocean.
But how do you store it? That's the real question. I was talking with a guy who owns a short line railroad. A guy he interfaces with has his own and has quite a bit of money he's been playing with. He's been investing in a company in hydrogen storage and has found it to be problematic. Hydrogen is the smallest element (just 1 proton and 1 electron). So the seals have to be extremely tight. And how do you keep the seals tights when it rattles and bumps down the track/road/waves/etc? How do you keep it from leaking? And if they do leak, how do you keep the system safe in the case of a fire?
Hydrogen is a challenge in its own right, but it sounds like there is real progress on generation, I think.
My god this thread started with Rolo's suit, turned into a vax thread, big pharma, into a Trump, big oil, EVs, fuels cells, and now Hydrogen, it's time to blow up and end it.
My knowledge of Hydrogen
My knowledge of Hydrogen
that was meSomeone above noted that there is work on using algae farms to generate the hydrogen. The sun provides the energy.
Hydrogen from Algae
Genetically modified algae could be efficient producers of hydrogen and biofuels.www.technologyreview.com
And in theory you could put these farms in the ocean.
But how do you store it? That's the real question. I was talking with a guy who owns a short line railroad. A guy he interfaces with has his own and has quite a bit of money he's been playing with. He's been investing in a company in hydrogen storage and has found it to be problematic. Hydrogen is the smallest element (just 1 proton and 1 electron). So the seals have to be extremely tight. And how do you keep the seals tights when it rattles and bumps down the track/road/waves/etc? How do you keep it from leaking? And if they do leak, how do you keep the system safe in the case of a fire?
Hydrogen is a challenge in its own right, but it sounds like there is real progress on generation, I think.
FWIW, the first new nuclear power plant in the United States to be started in a long time is getting ready to happen in the tri-cities area in the very near future. An associate of mine works for one of the companies involved with the design and construction of that plant. It will be a while before we see a bunch of new nuclear plants....but the future might be sooner than you think.
There’s an application under review for Twin Falls. Not one for Tri-cities.
Two new reactors in Georgia are supposed to open next year.
I don’t feel great about a reactor in south Florida. Doesn’t seem like the best idea.
NRC applications
They may have changed their mind but I know someone that works for Day & Zimmerman. In August, he said that he had been spending most of the summer in Washington working on preliminary planning with folks from X-Energy and Burns & McDonnell on a new plant in the Tri-cities area.
As long as we’re wandering through random topics….
can anyone explain to me why we don’t use carbon monoxide for executions? If it was painful, we wouldn’t see whole families dying from it every winter.
My take on that is the slow speed. You would need some combination of a sleeping pill and CO.
The nuke thread reminds me of a conversation I had over 30 years ago with a guy who is now one of my partners who was one of Rickover's navy nukes and was an instructor at their plant outside Idaho Falls for a while. He then went to Flour to work San Onofre for a while before moving into the digital controls side of our industry. I asked him what the main difference was between a navy run nuke plant and a private contractor run nuke plant.
He thought for a minute and said, "at a navy plant if an alarm happens, everybody leaps to do what they were trained to do. At a private plant, if an alarm happens, everybody is pulling 3 ring binders off the shelf to figure out what to do."
I think that pretty much says it all.
He thought for a minute and said, "at a navy plant if an alarm happens, everybody leaps to do what they were trained to do. At a private plant, if an alarm happens, everybody is pulling 3 ring binders off the shelf to figure out what to do."
I think that pretty much says it all.
Nah. CO works really fast if you spike the concentration. A couple of breaths to unconsciousness, minutes to death.
My dad was one of Rickover’s too - also spent time at Idaho falls, on subs and at Hanford. I think he’d agree with your friend’s sentiment.
As news came out of the Chernobyl & Fukushima accidents, he diagnosed pretty accurately what happened, and what would happen, in no small part based on the likely actions of people who didn’t understand the systems they were working on.
This might be the most schizophrenic thread in the history of WazzuWatch.
Trump, football, electric vehicles, vaxx, religion, Fast Times and god knows what else.
Carry on.
Trump, football, electric vehicles, vaxx, religion, Fast Times and god knows what else.
Carry on.
If you want to learn more about that, Jimmy Akin has a spectacular episode on it. And *why* it was filled with hydrogen, rather than helium.
What Happened to the Hindenburg? (Air Disaster)
MYS189: The Hindenburg was one of the most impressive airships ever to fly, and when it crashed in 1937, it shocked the world. Jimmy Akin and Dom Bettinelli discuss the Hindenburg crash, what happened to ...
My father was a nuke, but I'm not sure if he was one of Rickover's. Though he did say he met him at one point. My father enlisted right out of high school and his first tour was on the USS Von Steuben, and others including the Lafayette and Daniel Webster. He passed suddenly in 2010 before I could pick his brain more. When my parents divorced he was forced to the "target fleet" as he called it serving on sub tenders, totally switching technologies to diesel.
As for Rickover's criticism of the civilian run reactors, it was clear he thought they were incompetent and lacked the accountability to succeed. His report on TMI is quite critical in these areas (though he does say the changes afterward are positive).
I'm having trouble finding it, but I saw an interview with Rickover (on YouTube?) where he talks about the Navy never having a single nuclear incident (Thresher wasn't a nuclear accident in the sense of a meltdown/venting of nuclear material) and he put it squarely on individuals doing their jobs. It was something like, "The difference between the Navy running a reactor and civilians running a reactor is that if a sailor makes a mistake, he is court martialed while if a civilian makes a mistake, he is merely fired from his job."
If, in fact, there is a new nuclear facility in Idaho Falls, we may want to start poking around there for some NIL assistance.
Might be some extra cash floating around.
People may recall the UW won a co- national championship with the help of a guy out of IF and a Camaro driving QB.
Might be some extra cash floating around.
People may recall the UW won a co- national championship with the help of a guy out of IF and a Camaro driving QB.
And to further take this thread down the schizo path, the best logo in all of high school athletics:
Nuclear plants with 2020 tech, strict regulation and a national waste disposal plan is the best long term solution we have. However, there will likely be strong environmental push back, but as a movement many within it realize that having being against virtually everything in the past is at least partially to blame for where we were at now.
As an aside, when I was in private practice in the 1990s, would you believe, we had to do battle against environmentalists who fought relicensing and who wanted to dismantle all hydroelectric plants in the Northwest. With friends of the environment like that who needs anti-environmentalism. Its not like environmentalists once favored plastics over paper, were anti-solar, anti-wind -- oh, yeah they were. Hopefully, as a movement, the reactionary phase is largely over, and thoughtful, realistic, solution based, watchdog environmentalism has begun. We can hope!
Every few years some group says it’s offensive and tries to get it changed. Someday they’ll probably succeed, and it’ll get changed to something benign and lame.And to further take this thread down the schizo path, the best logo in all of high school athletics:
And when that happens, there will be a huge run on bomber gear.
One day, maybe they’ll realize that they can’t save the whales/owls/trees/eagles/hawks/salmon/rivers/ground squirrels. They’re going to have to choose.
My whole point was to show its okay to be a Rolo and Dickert supporter at the same time.
That and I believe Rolo was right to not be forced to take "the vaccine".
I'm still amazed how many people got their panties in a bunch.
But hey, if it leads to the breakdown of nuclear power on subs with possible carbon monoxide poisoning for new employment in the Tri-Cities...
Roll the dice!
This is how conversation works. You move from topic to topic as things come up. Message boards are like those people who you see itching to say their piece, and go back five topics to get their point in. In live, personal conversations, these are the people where you roll your eyes and look for someone else to talk with.
And too often I'm that guy ....
Missing in this thread: "You're a fcking idiot, nazi/ commie so fck off and die." Tends to stifle healthy back and forth...
