The Road Not Taken

What's new is often old.

SOLAR 7: History - Solar 1 - MIT

"Solar I, completed in 1939, was the first house in America to be heated by the sun's energy. A single story house-like structure on the MIT campus, Solar One used solar radiation as a heat source for the winter, but projects were also conducted on summer air conditioning and power generation."

The Road Not Taken

What's new is often old.

SOLAR 7: History - Solar 1 - MIT

"Solar I, completed in 1939, was the first house in America to be heated by the sun's energy. A single story house-like structure on the MIT campus, Solar One used solar radiation as a heat source for the winter, but projects were also conducted on summer air conditioning and power generation."

Air Travel is a Gas

As we now know, travel by air generates a massive carbon footprint for individuals using it these days. Here are two folks (one responding to the other) talking about how hydrogen might or might not fit into this equation. Serial eco-troublemaker George Monbiot starts things up and Mike Koefman, secretary of the Campaign for a Hydrogen Economy,makes counterpoints.

My own guess is that we'll see more biodiesel being converted to jet fuel use before we see much in the way of hydrogen airships or aircraft.

If There is a God, He's Not Green. Otherwise Airships Would Take Off - Guardian (UK) - 06 May 08

"Hydrogen's great advantage - that it produces only water when it burns - turns into a major liability: in the stratosphere, water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas. The commission estimates that hydrogen planes would exert a climate-changing effect 'some 13 times larger than for a standard kerosene-fuelled subsonic aircraft'. But there is another use for this gas, though I am aware that it will go down like a lead balloon with most of my readers. The word airship elicits a fixed reaction in almost everyone who hears it: 'What about the Hindenburg?'."

Airships Might Not Work, But Hydrogen Planes Could - Guardian (UK) - 16 May 08

"There is no question of a hydrogen-powered aircraft being 'filled with gas': it would carry its fuel in the ultra-cold liquid form. Monbiot is almost correct to observe that 'hydrogen contains just a quarter of the energy as the same volume of jet fuel', but is mistaken to declare that this is a 'prohibitive issue'. Hydrogen does indeed demand more onboard tankage than kerosene, but it also embodies a huge aeronautical advantage - it contains three times as much energy per unit of weight as kerosene. In other words, the weight saved in stored fuel can contribute to an increased passenger capacity.

Moreover, hydrogen-powered planes would not 'need much wider bodies than ordinary jetliners'. The basic configuration of such a machine has already been fixed through thousands of design hours spent - independently - over the last 30 years by Tupolev/DASA, Lockheed, Dornier and others."

Air Travel is a Gas

As we now know, travel by air generates a massive carbon footprint for individuals using it these days. Here are two folks (one responding to the other) talking about how hydrogen might or might not fit into this equation. Serial eco-troublemaker George Monbiot starts things up and Mike Koefman, secretary of the Campaign for a Hydrogen Economy,makes counterpoints.

My own guess is that we'll see more biodiesel being converted to jet fuel use before we see much in the way of hydrogen airships or aircraft.

If There is a God, He's Not Green. Otherwise Airships Would Take Off - Guardian (UK) - 06 May 08

"Hydrogen's great advantage - that it produces only water when it burns - turns into a major liability: in the stratosphere, water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas. The commission estimates that hydrogen planes would exert a climate-changing effect 'some 13 times larger than for a standard kerosene-fuelled subsonic aircraft'. But there is another use for this gas, though I am aware that it will go down like a lead balloon with most of my readers. The word airship elicits a fixed reaction in almost everyone who hears it: 'What about the Hindenburg?'."

Airships Might Not Work, But Hydrogen Planes Could - Guardian (UK) - 16 May 08

"There is no question of a hydrogen-powered aircraft being 'filled with gas': it would carry its fuel in the ultra-cold liquid form. Monbiot is almost correct to observe that 'hydrogen contains just a quarter of the energy as the same volume of jet fuel', but is mistaken to declare that this is a 'prohibitive issue'. Hydrogen does indeed demand more onboard tankage than kerosene, but it also embodies a huge aeronautical advantage - it contains three times as much energy per unit of weight as kerosene. In other words, the weight saved in stored fuel can contribute to an increased passenger capacity.

Moreover, hydrogen-powered planes would not 'need much wider bodies than ordinary jetliners'. The basic configuration of such a machine has already been fixed through thousands of design hours spent - independently - over the last 30 years by Tupolev/DASA, Lockheed, Dornier and others."

McCain Goes Nuclear - Part Deux

Cheery bits are almost a daily occurrence when it comes to nuclear power. Looks like we'll have a 100 year celebration in Bristol to coincide with our departure from Iraq (ala McCain - Original Flavor). Wait, he modified his position on that (flip-flop) to one that's in line with the terrorist loving, surrender monkey Democrats. Out by 2013. I'm thinking maybe the near perpetual war model he was pushing up till then wasn't selling very well.

Below we find him doing a bit of historical revisionism on nukes as it was Gerald Ford that started the nixing on recycling nuke waste not the evil terrorist loving, surrender monkey Jimmy Carter. See Wikipedia reference below on this tidbit. Loan guarantees for nukes means that "investors" can't lose with this deal. Any default would flop right into the taxpayer's lap. Gotta love these free market types.

Clean-Up Job That Will Take More Than 100 Years - This is Bristol (UK) - 15 May 08

"For 40 years, Oldbury nuclear power station has been providing energy for many thousands of homes.But when it closes in December, it will be another 110 years before the site is returned to its natural state - and even then, the experts do not know how much contamination could remain."

Subsidize My Love - Grist - 15 May 08

"'I think the biggest problems with nuclear power are of our own making. Jimmy Carter decided back in '77 or '78, I don't remember exactly what year it was, but he said that we wouldn't reprocess spent nuclear fuel. That was a huge setback.' [said McCain]"

"So there you have it.

Except that McCain's 'advocacy' and 'support' for nuclear power have him calling for a lot more than just R&D funding. The climate plan he unveiled this week includes 'loan guarantees for the construction of new [nuclear] plants and a program to assist with the first-of-its-kind engineering needs,' plus 'measures to further encourage investor confidence [in the nuclear industry] through improved safety, expanded manufacturing base, and waste disposal solutions.'

So he's against 'subsidies,' except when they are 'support.' Even when 'support' means tons of taxpayer cash."

Nuclear Reprocessing - Wikipedia

"In October 1976, fear of nuclear weapons proliferation (especially after India demonstrated nuclear weapons capabilities using reprocessing technology) led President Gerald Ford to issue a Presidential directive to indefinitely suspend the commercial reprocessing and recycling of plutonium in the U.S. This was confirmed by President Jimmy Carter in 1977. After that, only countries that already had large investments in reprocessing infrastructure continued to reprocess spent nuclear fuel. President Reagan lifted the ban in 1981, but did not provide the substantial subsidy that would have been necessary to start up commercial reprocessing."

McCain Goes Nuclear - Part Deux

Cheery bits are almost a daily occurrence when it comes to nuclear power. Looks like we'll have a 100 year celebration in Bristol to coincide with our departure from Iraq (ala McCain - Original Flavor). Wait, he modified his position on that (flip-flop) to one that's in line with the terrorist loving, surrender monkey Democrats. Out by 2013. I'm thinking maybe the near perpetual war model he was pushing up till then wasn't selling very well.

Below we find him doing a bit of historical revisionism on nukes as it was Gerald Ford that started the nixing on recycling nuke waste not the evil terrorist loving, surrender monkey Jimmy Carter. See Wikipedia reference below on this tidbit. Loan guarantees for nukes means that "investors" can't lose with this deal. Any default would flop right into the taxpayer's lap. Gotta love these free market types.

Clean-Up Job That Will Take More Than 100 Years - This is Bristol (UK) - 15 May 08

"For 40 years, Oldbury nuclear power station has been providing energy for many thousands of homes.But when it closes in December, it will be another 110 years before the site is returned to its natural state - and even then, the experts do not know how much contamination could remain."

Subsidize My Love - Grist - 15 May 08

"'I think the biggest problems with nuclear power are of our own making. Jimmy Carter decided back in '77 or '78, I don't remember exactly what year it was, but he said that we wouldn't reprocess spent nuclear fuel. That was a huge setback.' [said McCain]"

"So there you have it.

Except that McCain's 'advocacy' and 'support' for nuclear power have him calling for a lot more than just R&D funding. The climate plan he unveiled this week includes 'loan guarantees for the construction of new [nuclear] plants and a program to assist with the first-of-its-kind engineering needs,' plus 'measures to further encourage investor confidence [in the nuclear industry] through improved safety, expanded manufacturing base, and waste disposal solutions.'

So he's against 'subsidies,' except when they are 'support.' Even when 'support' means tons of taxpayer cash."

Nuclear Reprocessing - Wikipedia

"In October 1976, fear of nuclear weapons proliferation (especially after India demonstrated nuclear weapons capabilities using reprocessing technology) led President Gerald Ford to issue a Presidential directive to indefinitely suspend the commercial reprocessing and recycling of plutonium in the U.S. This was confirmed by President Jimmy Carter in 1977. After that, only countries that already had large investments in reprocessing infrastructure continued to reprocess spent nuclear fuel. President Reagan lifted the ban in 1981, but did not provide the substantial subsidy that would have been necessary to start up commercial reprocessing."