Will The End Of Oil See The End Of My Town?

[MKSheppard]

Diesel will need to be phased out. We need to be switching to efficient electrical drive systems for a variety of reason. I'm sure upgrading current diesel-electrics could be done without total overhaul of the designs.

You're simply insane, and don't understand why the US infrastructure went nearly wholly diesel.

The entire reason electrics never caught on in the US is because the entire infrastructure is hideously expensive to install, and then maintain, and when Diesels arrived, they proved themselves to be massively superior to steam locomotives, while not requiring the horrid infrastructure investment of electrics.

To wit, Steam's vunerabilities:

1.) Steam engines do best at high speeds; which doesn't work so well when you have to lift a 12,000 ton coal train up a huge grade at 12 MPH....

2.) Steam engines have horribly long start up times; you realize how long it takes to bring thousands of gallons of water to a boil?

3.) Steam engines are manpower intensive. You need a guy to look out the window, another guy to watch the steam pressure valves; and one (or more) guys to either shove the coal in (or monitor the automatic coal feed system).

4.) You need lots and lots of decent quality water all over your system to feed the locomotive boilers.

When Diesels arrived, they were able to present an alternative to electric locomotives in all four of these major vunerabilities, and didn't need an expensive overhead catenary or third rail, which was important for quite a lot of railroads, especially those out West, like the Union Pacific and Santa Fe.

[Admiral Valdemar]

There's also talk of fully recyclable, as in made from practically all organic parts bar the standard metal parts for engines and more sturdy pieces of mechanics, cars that could be made for far less resource usage than vehicles today. Everything from non-rubber based tyres to upholstery made from organic fibres that also go towards the energy content needed to refine such materials and so on.

I'd rather we just moved away from cars altogether and focused on public transport and cycle lanes and so on, but we have to start somewhere I guess.

You're simply insane, and don't understand why the US infrastructure went nearly wholly diesel.

The entire reason electrics never caught on in the US is because the entire infrastructure is hideously expensive to install, and then maintain, and when Diesels arrived, they proved themselves to be massively superior to steam locomotives, while not requiring the horrid infrastructure investment of electrics.

To wit, Steam's vunerabilities:

1.) Steam engines do best at high speeds; which doesn't work so well when you have to lift a 12,000 ton coal train up a huge grade at 12 MPH....

2.) Steam engines have horribly long start up times; you realize how long it takes to bring thousands of gallons of water to a boil?

3.) Steam engines are manpower intensive. You need a guy to look out the window, another guy to watch the steam pressure valves; and one (or more) guys to either shove the coal in (or monitor the automatic coal feed system).

4.) You need lots and lots of decent quality water all over your system to feed the locomotive boilers.

When Diesels arrived, they were able to present an alternative to electric locomotives in all four of these major vunerabilities, and didn't need an expensive overhead catenary or third rail, which was important for quite a lot of railroads, especially those out West, like the Union Pacific and Santa Fe.

Hey, that's great. Now put that in a letter and send it off to Mother Nature. I'm sure she'll understand to make more fossil fuels because we can't run our trains without them.

[MKSheppard]

I think we'll see a similar shift in other areas of manufacturing as well, instead of building zillions of disposable piece of shit gadgets, there will be a shift back towards building things to last.

Which will never happen. I mean honestly, what the crap are you smoking? I know it's fashionable to hate modern manufacturing, but with today's production techniques and solid state electronics, if something doesn't fail on you in the first 6-8 months of use, it will last you quite a long time.

And besides, nice way to fuck the poor over. They're the ones who benefit the most from mass production of everything.

[MKSheppard]

Hey, that's great. Now put that in a letter and send it off to Mother Nature. I'm sure she'll understand to make more fossil fuels because we can't run our trains without them.

Before that happens, we'll have strip mined half of canada down to the crust to provide oil shale for oil; and dug out half of the USA's coal reserves for synthetic oil; we can always replace coal in power generation with nuclear.

[SirNitram]

Guess what they run on? Diesel or Diesel-Electric, if you're very lucky.

Hey moron, virtually every locomotive built today in the United States is Diesel-Electric, has been for the last couple of decades. It's only in really small applications like little tiny switchers, or specialized locomotives that you see geared diesels or diesel-hydraulics.

How braindamaged do you have to be to think deisel won't become unreasonably expensive for hauling around tens of thousands of tons of steel for this Orion project?

It takes roughly 37.5 gallons per mile to move a 12,500 ton train. So if we wanted to move that 12,500 tons some 3,000 miles; we'd require 112,500 gallons of diesel.

By comparison, it costs 6.3 gallons per mile to move a semi-trailer at 55 MPH or so. These semis can only carry 40 tons. So in order to move those 12,500 tons, we'd need 313 semi-trailers; and to move the same 12,500 tons to 3,000 miles, you would need 5,915,700 gallons of diesel.

Trains for the win!

Congratulations, you proved trains are more efficient than cars! Would you like a prize? Unfortunately, wasn't what was being discussed. Back into your hole, no-nothing troll.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Before that happens, we'll have strip mined half of canada down to the crust to provide oil shale for oil; and dug out half of the USA's coal reserves for synthetic oil; we can always replace coal in power generation with nuclear.

Please do not mention oil shale or any other heavy oil. They've never been profitable and likely never will.

Coal is a far better idea, again, you'll have to contend with the horrible pollution coming from that which is a major issue. I also believe coal production is full to capacity in the US as it is, so to improve on that means more spending on rail anyway as well as nuclear to free up the coal for CTL use (however long that may last, there are doubts over US coal reserves given the high energy content has already been used up).

[SirNitram]

Before that happens, we'll have strip mined half of canada down to the crust to provide oil shale for oil; and dug out half of the USA's coal reserves for synthetic oil; we can always replace coal in power generation with nuclear.

Please do not mention oil shale or any other heavy oil. They've never been profitable and likely never will.

Coal is a far better idea, again, you'll have to contend with the horrible pollution coming from that which is a major issue. I also believe coal production is full to capacity in the US as it is, so to improve on that means more spending on rail anyway as well as nuclear to free up the coal for CTL use (however long that may last, there are doubts over US coal reserves given the high energy content has already been used up).

There's plenty of the stuff still to come out of the ground; looking at the mountainside can show that. The issue is moving the damnable stuff. As diesel becomes prohibitive, it will become harder and harder to turn a profit shifting it to the powerplants.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The US has a lot of coal, no doubt about that. It's the energy content and how much energy is put in to get it out that matters. No good spending several tonnes of coal worth energy to extract one tonne worth at the end of the day. I'll have to find those reports on US coal production again, but I'm pretty sure you've used all your anthracite and bituminous now and are eating into the sub-bituminous. I even hear China is importing coal for the first time this year.

[aerius]

I think we'll see a similar shift in other areas of manufacturing as well, instead of building zillions of disposable piece of shit gadgets, there will be a shift back towards building things to last.

Which will never happen. I mean honestly, what the crap are you smoking? I know it's fashionable to hate modern manufacturing, but with today's production techniques and solid state electronics, if something doesn't fail on you in the first 6-8 months of use, it will last you quite a long time.

I used to work in the electronics industry before I became a government leech. Consumer products such as your computer, PDA, TV, DVD player and so forth are built to what is known as Class I standards. This is pure shit in terms of quality, parts aren't soldered down properly, there's too much or too little solder, parts are misaligned, flux ain't properly cleaned off, and a million other things. I've seen the insides of countless pieces of electronics gear, and frankly Class 1 standards are a joke.

I've also assembled and QC'd airbag control modules for cars, these are built to Class III, which is military/aerospace standards. Everything has to be perfect so the parts don't fail, when was the last time you heard about an airbag module failing?

Consumer electronics these days have also moved towards lead-free solder, wanna guess what this means? Pretty much everything built with lead-free solder is guaranteed to die within 5 years. There's a reason telecom, hospital equipment, and military/aerospace electronics all still use leaded solder and are exempt from RoHS and other such regulations.

[MKSheppard]

Congratulations, you proved trains are more efficient than cars! Would you like a prize? Unfortunately, wasn't what was being discussed. Back into your hole, no-nothing troll.

So you admit that we would still be able to move around the megatonnages needed to support an Orion program, even if oil prices went up dramatically, which is what started this whole tangent?

Link to USDOT Stat

There are 2,010,335 Combination Trucks registered with the US Dept of Transportation as of 2004.

Anyone care to figure out how much diesel fuel they're wasting performing long haul duties, which could be handled by the railroads? I'm sure the number would be mindboggingly astronomical.

[SirNitram]

So you admit that we would still be able to move around the megatonnages needed to support an Orion program, even if oil prices went up dramatically, which is what started this whole tangent?

Physically possible? Sure. Only an insipid retard would babble about physical possibility, though, when the discussion is about what would actually improve matters.

Economically feasible compared to the incredibly compact and powerful NTRs and NERs? Not at all.

[MKSheppard]

The issue is moving the damnable stuff. As diesel becomes prohibitive, it will become harder and harder to turn a profit shifting it to the powerplants.

No not really. Simply outlaw the use of trucks for long haul duties (hey, since we're in fantasy land here, judging from the way the Duchess would solve our energy problems with edicts and fiats...); and you've freed up an absurd amount of diesel.

[MKSheppard]

Economically feasible compared to the incredibly compact and powerful NTRs and NERs? Not at all.

It's feasible when you consider we have tens of thousands of nuclear weapons' worth of plutonium lying around since the "peace dividend" of the 1990s.

[SirNitram]

The issue is moving the damnable stuff. As diesel becomes prohibitive, it will become harder and harder to turn a profit shifting it to the powerplants.

No not really. Simply outlaw the use of trucks for long haul duties (hey, since we're in fantasy land here, judging from the way the Duchess would solve our energy problems with edicts and fiats...); and you've freed up an absurd amount of diesel.

Ah, the minds of the slow work in such simple ways.

We've pulled the most energy rich coal out already. Diesel is still being consumed, so it's price will rise. Your profit per ton will continue to fall.. And fall.. And fall... Until it's a total failure of the entire coal section of the power grid can no longer be supported economically.

[SirNitram]

Economically feasible compared to the incredibly compact and powerful NTRs and NERs? Not at all.

It's feasible when you consider we have tens of thousands of nuclear weapons' worth of plutonium lying around since the "peace dividend" of the 1990s.

Wow, you're really plumbing the depths of stupidity here. I'm not talking about the pulse units; I'm talking about the Orion LV, the crew supply LV, and the crew RV. None of which are addressed by this line of non-rebuttal.

[MKSheppard]

Please do not mention oil shale or any other heavy oil. They've never been profitable and likely never will.

If oil becomes incredibly scarce, then it'd become economically feasible. As it is with cheap oil, you're litteraly throwing money away if you try to do Oil Shale.

[Admiral Valdemar]

If oil becomes incredibly scarce, then it'd become economically feasible. As it is with cheap oil, you're litteraly throwing money away if you try to do Oil Shale.

Funny, because they said the same in 1946. They said oil would need to be $30 a barrel, then $50, then $70 and now it's over $100 a barrel. The law of receding horizons makes such oil useless, because as oil prices go up, so too, do steel and construction labour costs. This is the very reason that has killed most of the new refineries and rigs planned throughout the world.

The idea would have merit if oil was the only cost that went up, but since oil is tied to everything else, it is simply another trick to get gullible investors to work the Alberta, Colorado and Venezuela heavy oil deposits.

[MKSheppard]

I'm not talking about the pulse units; I'm talking about the Orion LV, the crew supply LV, and the crew RV. None of which are addressed by this line of non-rebuttal.

And what about them? If you really need to move outrageously sized loads, barge it.



Or do the simple solution:

Build it on the launching site!

There's no need to achieve uber precision with ten thousand tons of launch capacity.

[SirNitram]

I'm not talking about the pulse units; I'm talking about the Orion LV, the crew supply LV, and the crew RV. None of which are addressed by this line of non-rebuttal.

And what about them? If you really need to move outrageously sized loads, barge it.

Or do the simple solution:

Build it on the launching site!

There's no need to achieve uber precision with ten thousand tons of launch capacity.

Because barges have no fuel requirements!

Gods, you're stupid. Tens of thousands of tons, just for the Orion LV. And when the crew needs down? Well, we'll just have to abandon it or build a bulky, chemical-rocket powered crew LV because people like you are too stupid to read what's been posted repeatedly.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Why, on Earth, would we be building pointless rockets at an age where energy is at a premium and more funding for infrastructure and military power would be preferable? NTRs and other designs have been viable for decades, and even with growing energy supplies, we never touched them. Now you think we'll somehow start trying to emulate Star Trek when the world is going to shit?

Though you do have a point with barges. The canal and rail networks are the ones that need renovation for the future, not the far more inefficient highways that suck down loads of taxpayers' dollars.

[MKSheppard]

Because barges have no fuel requirements!

You know, there are days which I wonder about you. Build the missile components along the Mississippi river, and then barge it DOWNSTREAM to the launch site near the Gulf of Mexico, which only requires a moderate level of horsepower on a tugboat for general control. It's only pushing barges UPSTREAM that you need truly absurd levels of horsepower.

Gods, you're stupid. Tens of thousands of tons, just for the Orion LV.

Several points:

1.) It is by default a 10,000 ton space station when we place it into orbit. Beat that, ISS.
2.) Who says it even needs to be manned?

And when the crew needs down? Well, we'll just have to abandon it or build a bulky, chemical-rocket powered crew LV because people like you are too stupid to read what's been posted repeatedly.

Yes, because in Nitram World:

1.) Re-entry vehicles such as the following:



will not be installed on manned orions...

2.) Let's see what the major components of rocket fuel are:

Liquid Oxygen (Crackable from Seawater via nuclear power and then compressed)
Liquid Hydrogen (Crackable from Seawater via nuclear power and then compressed)

That's for liquid fuelled rockets.

For solid rockets:

ammonium perchlorate (oxidizer, 69.6% by weight)
aluminum (fuel, 16%)
iron oxide (a catalyst, 0.4%)
polymer (such as PBAN or HTPB, a binder that holds the mixture together, also acting as secondary fuel, 12.04%)
epoxy curing agent (1.96%).

It's the polymer and epoxy curing agent, some 14~ percent that is generally dependent on petroleum products.

[MKSheppard]

[quote="We've pulled the most energy rich coal out already.[/quote]

Then why do we have roughly 285 years of Coal left? Even if we double or triple the rate of useage, it'll last us 142.5 to 95 more years.

Diesel is still being consumed, so it's price will rise.

And Diesel is the only possible fuel for locomotives!

You can easily convert a diesel-electric locomotive to be powered by compressed natural gas; in fact, several such conversions have actually been done and operated as revenue paying engines for several years.

Gas turbine powered locomotives can be built which burn heavy fuel oil such as Bunker C (which is even cheaper to refine than diesel), or coal dust.

If you want to get really absurd, build a Steam-Electric in which instead of powering the locomotive via pistons going back and forth, it spins a steam turbine which generates electricity.

All these are feasible, because oil won't just disappear instantly, but over a period of several decades, allowing a gradual transition.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The US has peaked in coal energy. That you have 300 years of coal in the ground is meaningless if it's low grade crud not worth extracting. Coal reserves are also heavily overstated globally, as the EWG report highlighted recently. If coal really becomes the main energy boom, then we may have only a couple of decades left. This is why nuclear is the only way.

Also, the idea that oil diminishing will take "several decades" is so hopelessly optimistic as to nearly warrant no comment. We're seeing nations cut exports dramatically now. When they can barely produce enough to run their own growing population, do you think they'll let the Great Satan have some still? Not a chance. Ask Iran how their nuke plans are going. There's a reason they're going that route and it ain't simply to piss off the US.

[aerius]

On a sidenote, gasoline futures are currently trading at the highest levels since the height of the Israeli incident last summer. It's gone up from about $1.35 a gallon about 3-4 months ago to $2.44 a gallon right now. My fiancée and I will be able to buy a home much sooner than expected if this keeps up, and it looks like it will.

[MKSheppard]

On a sidenote, gasoline futures are currently trading at the highest levels since the height of the Israeli incident last summer. It's gone up from about $1.35 a gallon about 3-4 months ago to $2.44 a gallon right now. My fiancée and I will be able to buy a home much sooner than expected if this keeps up, and it looks like it will.

Better hope that house has a solar-electric panel system and wood heaters