Aa
Breached pipeline spills up to 50,000 gallons of oil into Yellowstone River
http://rt.com/usa/224183-oil-spill-yellowstone-river/
I did a little research (basically, poor what trash from South Louisiana with internet access) on Elon Musk and The Hyperloop. My ADD was kicking in until a ran across this-
Crystal Palace pneumatic railway
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Crystal Palace pneumatic railway was an experimental atmospheric railway that ran in Crystal Palace Park in south London in 1864.
·
History[edit]
The railway was designed by Thomas Webster Rammell, who had previously built a pneumatic railway for the London Pneumatic Despatch Company to convey letters along tunnels in large vacuum-driven wagons. A similar principle was applied to this railway, where a carriage fitted with a large collar of bristles was sucked along an airtight tunnel that measured 10 feet (3.0 m) by 9 feet (2.7 m).[1] The bristle collar served to keep the tunnel "partially airtight".[2] It operated for just over two months, and may have been a demonstration line for a more substantial atmospheric railway planned between Waterloo and Whitehall, construction of which was started under the Thames but never completed.
The power was provided by a large fan, some 22 feet (6.7 m) in diameter, that was powered by a steam engine.[2][3] On return journeys, the fan was reversed to create a vacuum to suck the carriage backwards, whilst the carriage used its brakes to come to a stop.[1] Although not positively known, it is possible that the GWR broad gauge (7 ft 0 1⁄4 in (2.14 m)) was used. The single coach might have also been a conversion of a GWR coach, and the steam engine that powered the fan from an old GWR locomotive.
Remnants of the tunnel have been found ca. 1992 in Crystal Palace Gardens.
Operations [edit]
The tunnel ran for 600 yards (550 m) between the Sydenham and Penge entrances to the park, and had to negotiate a difficult bend along the line. Tickets cost sixpence each.[4] Trains ran between 1pm and 6pm and the journey time was 50 seconds.[1] The line operated from August 27, 1864[5] to October 31, 1864.[6]
Legacy [edit]
It is unclear what became of the line, as records do not state what happened after it ceased to operate, although it has been suggested that Rammell had originally constructed the small line as a test for a larger atmospheric railway that was to run between Waterloo and Whitehall.[7]
Crystal Palace pneumatic railway
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Crystal Palace pneumatic railway was an experimental atmospheric railway that ran in Crystal Palace Park in south London in 1864.
·
History[edit]
The railway was designed by Thomas Webster Rammell, who had previously built a pneumatic railway for the London Pneumatic Despatch Company to convey letters along tunnels in large vacuum-driven wagons. A similar principle was applied to this railway, where a carriage fitted with a large collar of bristles was sucked along an airtight tunnel that measured 10 feet (3.0 m) by 9 feet (2.7 m).[1] The bristle collar served to keep the tunnel "partially airtight".[2] It operated for just over two months, and may have been a demonstration line for a more substantial atmospheric railway planned between Waterloo and Whitehall, construction of which was started under the Thames but never completed.
The power was provided by a large fan, some 22 feet (6.7 m) in diameter, that was powered by a steam engine.[2][3] On return journeys, the fan was reversed to create a vacuum to suck the carriage backwards, whilst the carriage used its brakes to come to a stop.[1] Although not positively known, it is possible that the GWR broad gauge (7 ft 0 1⁄4 in (2.14 m)) was used. The single coach might have also been a conversion of a GWR coach, and the steam engine that powered the fan from an old GWR locomotive.
Remnants of the tunnel have been found ca. 1992 in Crystal Palace Gardens.
Operations [edit]
The tunnel ran for 600 yards (550 m) between the Sydenham and Penge entrances to the park, and had to negotiate a difficult bend along the line. Tickets cost sixpence each.[4] Trains ran between 1pm and 6pm and the journey time was 50 seconds.[1] The line operated from August 27, 1864[5] to October 31, 1864.[6]
Legacy [edit]
It is unclear what became of the line, as records do not state what happened after it ceased to operate, although it has been suggested that Rammell had originally constructed the small line as a test for a larger atmospheric railway that was to run between Waterloo and Whitehall.[7]
I agree !
Part of the problem is our bright young minds are being paid to come up with a newer cooler online game ( for example) instead of important things such as a better engine..
Part of the problem is our bright young minds are being paid to come up with a newer cooler online game ( for example) instead of important things such as a better engine..
Don't worry, it won't be long before Elon Musk is shooting you through tube to your destination like one of those pigs I mentioned in an earlier post!! :*)
That was a good read that explained a lot but, I am still not convinced that we cannot come up with something better than Internal Combustion or Electrical Powered Engines. Take the Microwave Oven for example. I can remember when 7-11s first got Microwave Ovens and having them in homes was pretty much unheard of. Now you pick up cheap ones on sale for about $25. Same thing with Cell Phones. The only time we would see them was Mobile Phones, in the Movies and only Rich People had them. Now even little kids have them and they are more like little computers. Same thing applies to computers.
This was only about 40 years ago.
Microwaves are a form of "electromagnetic" radiation. It seems to me, with the evolution of technology, we have witnessed over the last four decades, no one has invented an engine that is powered similar to the Microwave. I know there is a big difference between warming up a cup of coffee and powering a car. I am just throwing that out there as an example.
We can send an unmanned space ship to Mars carrying a Rover but when it comes to a car engine, we are stuck.
On another note, if a reliable/affordable car engine were invented, what would that do to the Global Economy?
This was only about 40 years ago.
Microwaves are a form of "electromagnetic" radiation. It seems to me, with the evolution of technology, we have witnessed over the last four decades, no one has invented an engine that is powered similar to the Microwave. I know there is a big difference between warming up a cup of coffee and powering a car. I am just throwing that out there as an example.
We can send an unmanned space ship to Mars carrying a Rover but when it comes to a car engine, we are stuck.
On another note, if a reliable/affordable car engine were invented, what would that do to the Global Economy?
"The key words are reliable and affordable" True, but one also has to look at
potential energy per volume fuel carried for transportation purposes, whether that be gasoline/diesel/lng/cng or stored electricity.
(remember, we're talking about a traveling vehicle that has to carry it's own energy)
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, based on the National Defense University.
Energy density and the cost, weight, and size of onboard energy storage are important characteristics of fuels for transportation. Fuels that require large, heavy, or expensive storage can reduce the space available to convey people and freight, weigh down a vehicle (making it operate less efficiently), or make it too costly to operate, even after taking account of cheaper fuels. Compared to gasoline and diesel, other options may have more energy per unit weight, but none have more energy per unit volume.
On an equivalent energy basis, motor gasoline (which contains up to 10% ethanol) was estimated to account for 99% of light-duty vehicle fuel consumption in 2012. Over half of the remaining 1% was from diesel; all other fuels combined for less than half of 1%. The widespread use of these fuels is largely explained by their energy density and ease of onboard storage, as no other fuels provide more energy within a given unit of volume.
The chart above compares energy densities (both per unit volume and per unit weight) for several transportation fuels that are available throughout the United States. The data points represent the energy content per unit volume or weight of the fuels themselves, not including the storage tanks or other equipment that the fuels require. For instance, compressed fuels require heavy storage tanks, while cooled fuels require equipment to maintain low temperatures.
Beyond gasoline and diesel, other fuels like compressed propane, ethanol, and methanol offer energy densities per unit volume that are less than gasoline and diesel, and energy densities per unit weight that are less than or equal to that of gasoline. Natural gas, either in liquefied form (LNG) or compressed (CNG), are lighter than gasoline but again have lower densities per unit volume. The same is true for hydrogen fuels, which must be either cooled (down to -253oC) or compressed (to 3,000 to 10,000 psi).
However, considering only energy density leaves out the relative fuel economies associated with vehicles capable of using other fuels. The typical fuel economy of an internal combustion engine in a light-duty vehicle is around 25 miles per gallon. On an equivalent basis, electric vehicles with fuel cells powered by hydrogen can double the fuel economy of a similarly sized gasoline vehicle, while battery-powered electric vehicles can achieve a quadrupling of fuel economy, but the costs of fuel cells, hydrogen storage, and batteries are prohibitively expensive to most consumers and the availability of refueling and charging facilities is extremely limited. In addition, the improvement in fuel economy of these vehicles does not compensate for the lower fuel densities of hydrogen and various battery types like lithium ion, lithium polymer, and nickel-metal hydride batteries that result in limited driving range relative to gasoline-powered vehicles.
Tags: alternative fuel vehicle, alternative transportation fuel, diesel, gasoline, transportation.
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=9991#
potential energy per volume fuel carried for transportation purposes, whether that be gasoline/diesel/lng/cng or stored electricity.
(remember, we're talking about a traveling vehicle that has to carry it's own energy)
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, based on the National Defense University.
Energy density and the cost, weight, and size of onboard energy storage are important characteristics of fuels for transportation. Fuels that require large, heavy, or expensive storage can reduce the space available to convey people and freight, weigh down a vehicle (making it operate less efficiently), or make it too costly to operate, even after taking account of cheaper fuels. Compared to gasoline and diesel, other options may have more energy per unit weight, but none have more energy per unit volume.
On an equivalent energy basis, motor gasoline (which contains up to 10% ethanol) was estimated to account for 99% of light-duty vehicle fuel consumption in 2012. Over half of the remaining 1% was from diesel; all other fuels combined for less than half of 1%. The widespread use of these fuels is largely explained by their energy density and ease of onboard storage, as no other fuels provide more energy within a given unit of volume.
The chart above compares energy densities (both per unit volume and per unit weight) for several transportation fuels that are available throughout the United States. The data points represent the energy content per unit volume or weight of the fuels themselves, not including the storage tanks or other equipment that the fuels require. For instance, compressed fuels require heavy storage tanks, while cooled fuels require equipment to maintain low temperatures.
Beyond gasoline and diesel, other fuels like compressed propane, ethanol, and methanol offer energy densities per unit volume that are less than gasoline and diesel, and energy densities per unit weight that are less than or equal to that of gasoline. Natural gas, either in liquefied form (LNG) or compressed (CNG), are lighter than gasoline but again have lower densities per unit volume. The same is true for hydrogen fuels, which must be either cooled (down to -253oC) or compressed (to 3,000 to 10,000 psi).
However, considering only energy density leaves out the relative fuel economies associated with vehicles capable of using other fuels. The typical fuel economy of an internal combustion engine in a light-duty vehicle is around 25 miles per gallon. On an equivalent basis, electric vehicles with fuel cells powered by hydrogen can double the fuel economy of a similarly sized gasoline vehicle, while battery-powered electric vehicles can achieve a quadrupling of fuel economy, but the costs of fuel cells, hydrogen storage, and batteries are prohibitively expensive to most consumers and the availability of refueling and charging facilities is extremely limited. In addition, the improvement in fuel economy of these vehicles does not compensate for the lower fuel densities of hydrogen and various battery types like lithium ion, lithium polymer, and nickel-metal hydride batteries that result in limited driving range relative to gasoline-powered vehicles.
Tags: alternative fuel vehicle, alternative transportation fuel, diesel, gasoline, transportation.
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=9991#
I find it hard to believe that with all the technology this world has, we are still dependant on the Gasoline combustion engine. Surely by now, we could have come up with a reliable and affordable alternative. Even though it has evolved we’re still talking about an engine that was built in the late 1800s. The key words are reliable and affordable. I believe the technology is there and has been for quite a while.
Where I live the schools, elementary, middle and high schools are covered in solar panels which generate their electricity.
I also have met people with electric cars who use electricity from solar panels and saved in batteries to run their vehicles.
The technology is there, and has been for years.
It can be done !.
I also have met people with electric cars who use electricity from solar panels and saved in batteries to run their vehicles.
The technology is there, and has been for years.
It can be done !.
At this moment, I don’t have time to read the links but I didn’t think about WWTPs. I once did a Renovation and Addition to one. I was amazed at the constant flow into the plant (we joked about going “Brown” Water Rafting). Even though the Effluent Lines are Raw Sewage it seems to me someone could come up with an idea to convert the flow into energy before it entered the plant.
Locally we generate electricity by dumping WWTP effluent into the ground and letting it come back up as steam. As long as the Earth has a molten core and I keep flushing my toilet -- Voila! 0% dependence on fossil fuels for power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geysers
http://geothermal.org/PDFs/Articles/lakeco.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geysers
http://geothermal.org/PDFs/Articles/lakeco.pdf
I was in the water and wastewater treatment/distribution business for 20 yrs and much like pipelines, once those water/wastewater lines get put into the ground, they don't get looked at again, until something goes wrong. Unfortunately, buildings and roads get built over top of them, etc. And like everything else, budgets get cut.
When you mentioned the "pigs", I had to look them up... lol
Until I started researching Keystone, I had no idea there were 2.5 million miles of existing pipelines in the U.S. I can't help but wonder why there's so much stink over another 1100 miles, most of which is already in place and much of is in use... makes no sense.
When you mentioned the "pigs", I had to look them up... lol
Until I started researching Keystone, I had no idea there were 2.5 million miles of existing pipelines in the U.S. I can't help but wonder why there's so much stink over another 1100 miles, most of which is already in place and much of is in use... makes no sense.
Good link Barb. I'm sure you can tell that this stuff really interests me. When you think about all the water main leaks you read about in the cities, it amazes me there aren't more petroleum pipeline leaks than there are to be honest. As you mention, like our bridges and roads, many are old. It is massively expensive to build a new pipeline, billions and billions of dollars.
I've been ready lots of articles on capital investment in the energy sector being slashed, 30-40% of budget and much of that is jobs, lots of jobs.Company employees, land buyers, drillers, pressure pump frackers, completion guys, truck drivers, offshore drillers, pipe layers and pump makers, and on down the line. It's estimated that over 30% of all capital invested by the S & P 500 companies is energy related and good paying jobs.
That said I now own shares in Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Occidental Petroleum
I've been ready lots of articles on capital investment in the energy sector being slashed, 30-40% of budget and much of that is jobs, lots of jobs.Company employees, land buyers, drillers, pressure pump frackers, completion guys, truck drivers, offshore drillers, pipe layers and pump makers, and on down the line. It's estimated that over 30% of all capital invested by the S & P 500 companies is energy related and good paying jobs.
That said I now own shares in Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Occidental Petroleum
And who is going to pay for this? Oh the Rich right who already pay 90+% of the taxes.
Yes, I agree Brice, we should indeed put our people to work on our failing infrastructures. Good idea !
Thanks... So "pigs' don't work so well or we don't use "pigs" often enough? God forbid you put the pipeline above ground and actually pay a group of people to inspect the damned thing.... sounds like some shovel ready jobs for Obama. I'd actually be for those jobs.
So we don't use oil for energy...what do we use? Unreliable wind power? Or unreliable and expensive solar power? What if a building is too close to the solar panels and starts on fire? What if we put up a lot of wind turbines and they fall over?
You can come up with a downside to ever source of energy, but guess what oil is what we use and while we develop other sources to cut us off oil is suicide.
You can come up with a downside to ever source of energy, but guess what oil is what we use and while we develop other sources to cut us off oil is suicide.
https://www.nde-ed.org/AboutNDT/SelectedApplications/PipelineInspection/PipelineInspection.htm
Interesting.
Interesting.
You use a "pig" for inspection.
According to what I read, this particular pipeline had last been inspected in either 2011 or 2012. Now, my question is, how do you "inspect" a pipeline 8 feet under ground?
Here's a link I posted on another thread this morning that shows a map of existing pipelines in the United States, already. With 2.5 millions of already existing pipelines, for everything from oil to hazardous waste, Keystone is a mere drop in the bucket.
http://www.propublica.org/article/pipelines-explained-how-safe-are-americas-2.5-million-miles-of-pipelines
From what I'm reading, maybe it's time they start regulating the pipelines that are already there... some have been in place since 1928 and probably should have been replaced by now. Once put in the ground, they are never looked at again, until a disaster occurs... not a good practice!!
http://www.propublica.org/article/pipelines-explained-how-safe-are-americas-2.5-million-miles-of-pipelines
From what I'm reading, maybe it's time they start regulating the pipelines that are already there... some have been in place since 1928 and probably should have been replaced by now. Once put in the ground, they are never looked at again, until a disaster occurs... not a good practice!!
I posted this to show what could happen if we allow keystone. Pipelines can and do break.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
