Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Jan 19, 2018 10:22 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Dec 12, 2008 8:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3383
Location: Alabama
Tom Blees wrote:
Yoon Chang explained in the post above how it's done. I've worked with him for years and I can tell you he is not one to make idle claims. If he says we can adjust the system to reach 0.1% or less, I believe him. If anybody would know it would be him.

Does Yoon have an email where we can extend an invitation for him to join the forum?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 13, 2008 9:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 25, 2008 2:07 am
Posts: 4
Actually, Kirk, I was just thinking today that I'll ask Yoon and Eric from GE if it's okay for me to give you their email addresses. You know how it is, we of course try to be discreet about such things, but your questions about reactivity coefficients and other such matters could be fielded by them to clear up your concerns. I'll ask them, and you make a list! But please keep it private if they do say yes, okay? If they'd be interested in posting here, that would of course be best, but I know Eric is always swamped. Yoon may have a little more time, he just retired in October (though retirement in his position means still busy).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 28, 2008 10:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Feb 21, 2007 7:06 pm
Posts: 97
David wrote:
Regarding boron as a energy carrier, I`d also agree it is a leading candidate but I would not think trying to burn it in a pure oxygen environment has much hope of success. It is far simpler to just bring along some water and use the boron to produce hydrogen on demand. You can then burn that in a slightly modified engine or fuel cell.


Simpler?

Google my previous remarks on this with the key "olfactory detectability". B2O3 doesn't form gaseous compounds with oxygen, so if you burn B in excess oxygen, the ash simply falls out. If you burn it in steam, some of it stays up in the steam, and you still have to deal with the hydrogen that you have freed, which is, of course, also in the steam.



--- G.R.L. Cowan (How fire can be domesticated)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 29, 2008 1:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Feb 21, 2007 7:06 pm
Posts: 97
Along with Blees' help, the International Journal of Nuclear Hydrogen Production and Applications also gave boron energy some exposure by asking me to write up my reasons why their journal's subject isn't going to happen, and I did, and they said, no way, dis is bogus. So I submitted it elsewhere, same result, and then they asked again, and this time it went through. Here is the abstract:

Combustion dies at the interface between breathable air and macroscopic pieces of certain involatile fuels. If fed only them, in a compressed oxygen chamber, it makes an almost sunlike flame that cannot run wild. If upon dilution to manageable coolness the ash drops to the chamber bottom, and from there can be removed without the diluent, true harnessbrokenness is possible. Excess oxygen can be the diluent without thereby being wasted. It can rid itself of the diluted flame’s heat, and spare many trees from becoming newsprint bearing motor fuel mishap reports, by working in a thermodynamic cycle. Some ashes, especially boria, both precipitate well from the diluted flame and travel well. By visiting faraway solar or fission power stations, and returning to the chamber as regenerated fuel, they can make combustion both docile, and subsidiary to docile primary energies.

You can find it on the web. I try to work from the idea of harnessbrokenness down to physical and chemical details, and in the process mention some attributes of hydrogen energy systems as examples of what to avoid.

--- G.R.L. Cowan (How fire can be domesticated)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 29, 2008 4:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mar 07, 2007 11:02 am
Posts: 914
Location: Ottawa
GRLCowan wrote:
David wrote:
Regarding boron as a energy carrier, I`d also agree it is a leading candidate but I would not think trying to burn it in a pure oxygen environment has much hope of success. It is far simpler to just bring along some water and use the boron to produce hydrogen on demand. You can then burn that in a slightly modified engine or fuel cell.


Simpler?

Google my previous remarks on this with the key "olfactory detectability". B2O3 doesn't form gaseous compounds with oxygen, so if you burn B in excess oxygen, the ash simply falls out. If you burn it in steam, some of it stays up in the steam, and you still have to deal with the hydrogen that you have freed, which is, of course, also in the steam.



--- G.R.L. Cowan (How fire can be domesticated)


While I know very little about the boron to hydrogen proposal it sounds quite simple to me. We`ve all seen how sodium reacts with water, it bubbles off hydrogen but also gives off heat so you have to be careful it does not ignite the liberated hydrogen. You may be more aware of potential problems of that concept than I am but it does not sound very hard to generate a relatively pure stream of hydrogen (even if you are wasting some potential energy in heating the water during the reaction). From hydrogen you can then use a modified combustion engine or fuel cell.

In your concept the vehicle must carry equipment to separate oxygen from air and have high temperature combustion in a pure oxygen environment and not clog with B2O3 ash. That certainly doesn`t sound simpler to me. Please prove me wrong though as I am all for any good ideas that can forge the link between nuclear power and the transportation sector.

David L.

P.S. You probably don`t want to hear this, but writing your articles full of jokes and funny made up jargon might be fun but it makes it quite hard for other people, especially publishers, to take you seriously.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 29, 2008 7:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Feb 21, 2007 7:06 pm
Posts: 97
David wrote:
GRLCowan wrote:
... In your concept the vehicle must carry equipment to separate oxygen from air and have high temperature combustion in a pure oxygen environment and not clog with B2O3 ash. That certainly doesn`t sound simpler to me. Please prove me wrong though as I am all for any good ideas that can forge the link between nuclear power and the transportation sector.

David L.

P.S. You probably don`t want to hear this, but writing your articles full of jokes and funny made up jargon might be fun but it makes it quite hard for other people, especially publishers, to take you seriously.


In a Na/steam reactor, the sodium ash tends to confine itself to a condensed phase at the bottom and the hydrogen to the gas phase up above; you can get mixed steam and hydrogen out the top. In a B/steam reactor, the B2O3 comes out both top and bottom.

As I pointed out here, that means the best way to burn the boric acid-perfumed steam-hydrogen mix is with pure oxygen. So you do not avoid the need for equipment to separate oxygen from air.

My stylistic errors, I may not want to hear about, but if they prevent my being taken seriously, I certainly need to. Please be specific.


--- G.R.L. Cowan (How fire can be domesticated)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 30, 2008 7:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 04, 2006 8:41 am
Posts: 166
Location: Espoo, Finland
Quote:
It can rid itself of the diluted flame’s heat, and spare many trees from becoming newsprint bearing motor fuel mishap reports, by working in a thermodynamic cycle.


Sorry for going offtopic, but that's in my view a stylististical nono. The thought is hard to follow and there are inconsequential leads (trees, newsprint etc) that make the reader confused.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 30, 2008 9:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Jul 16, 2008 8:34 am
Posts: 27
Location: France
Quote:
Sorry for going offtopic, but that's in my view a stylististical nono.
Actually Meiza, you are not alone. I have found myself quite dense to follow GRL Cowan's comments several other times. It is probably due to his poetic style that his first paper didn't get accepted in the journal.

In my opinion, all smart people have their own idiosyncrasies :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 31, 2008 12:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Aug 11, 2008 4:08 pm
Posts: 13
vakibs wrote:
In my opinion, all smart people have their own idiosyncrasies :)


Everyone has their own idiosyncrasies, myself included.

The question is "what are you committed to?" Are you committed to clear communication? Are you committed to making a difference with your audience? If so you will actively look for barriers to communication and overcome them.

I consider myself to be a fairly smart person. I actively am working on ways to remove idiosycrasies from my speech and writing. By doing so it is possible to connect with audiences, be related and make a powerful difference.

_________________
I took the Landmark Forum in July 2005 and it was the turning point in my life.

http://www.landmarkeducation.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 02, 2009 10:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 04, 2006 8:41 am
Posts: 166
Location: Espoo, Finland
Yes, I'm sorry if the response came off totally negative. Don't stop posting! I'm just trying to be helpful.

In a novel or in poetry such text would be right at home, but in my opinion (I might be wrong!) its a bit hard for people like me to read. It's not that well fitting for a text where the main purpose is trying to explain some ideas and logical structures.

I find myself constantly editing my sentences and making them shorter and less self-referencing or ambiguous. Maybe I learned something when writing a software specification a few years ago (though still ordinary speech or forum posting is very far from that). Boring it is. :/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 02, 2009 10:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Feb 21, 2007 7:06 pm
Posts: 97
meiza wrote:
Yes, I'm sorry if the response came off totally negative. Don't stop posting! I'm just trying to be helpful.

In a novel or in poetry such text would be right at home, but in my opinion (I might be wrong!) its a bit hard for people like me to read. It's not that well fitting for a text where the main purpose is trying to explain some ideas and logical structures.

I find myself constantly editing my sentnces and making them shorter and less self-referencing or ambiguous. Maybe I learned something when writing a software specification a few years ago (though still ordinary speech or forum posting is very far from that). Boring it is. :/


Probably a big part of the difficulty is I was asked to write to a 7,000 word slot, with an abstract 150 words or fewer, and ended up working the words hard. Rather as I would have cars do with oxygen. Oops, parallelism.

I bet if David L. would deign to quote some of the jokes he thought my article was full of, we could learn they weren't actually jokes at all, and stop talking about my prose style in favour of boron power. And that is, after all, one of Blees' subjects, so it's on topic.

--- G.R.L. Cowan (How fire can be domesticated)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 20, 2009 10:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 19, 2006 11:01 am
Posts: 396
Location: Knoxville, TN
So I've read the book cover to cover, and I really enjoyed it, good work Tom! The book was already summarized above, so my remarks follow:

* I have a suggestion - what about adding a link to http://prescriptionfortheplanet.com/ Something like a summary - Problems (fossil fuel pollution, resources wars, waste in landfills, climate change, ...) | Solutions (IFR, plasma converters, boron economy, etc) with links to other resources than the book itself, and perhaps a discussion linked form a (new) specific threads herein.

* I was missing any discussion of synthetic fuel (methanol, DME, etc) production insitu of nuclear produced hydrogen, but that is not important.

* I really liked the book until the discussion of "GREAT", the global government owning all the nuclear energy infrastructure. Now this issue has so many facets that is sort of out of the scope of this thread, let me just say that socialism does not work, mostly because of total absence of pricing, and anyone who lived in this system (i.e. former east block) and was observant of how such economy "works" can confirm that.
Government should regulate and oversee the industry, but not run the industry; and governent has a part of setting research priorities as a part of more general education strategy, etc.
The contemporary problem is that the rules and regulations in the energy sector is absurdly skewed towards fossil fuels, and recently towards "renewable" resources such as the corn ethanol biofuel scam; and this problem - as Rod often says - is the one created by humans, not nature, and as such should be easier to overcome than any obstacle mounted by nature.

Actually this forum and the concept of LFTR shows the deficiency of such "GREAT" system - before it is even conceived, the bazaar of thoughts came up with a possibly better solution, than a LMFBR.

In my opinion both routes should be investigated by prompt international research efforts, aiming to production of several prototypes in 4-5 years time-frame. If the promises of cheaper than coal are seen as achievable with some of these prototypes, their designs should be certified for mass production - such machines would be in high demand all over the place and it makes no sense to prohibit private investors running the show. Government will have a lot of work with research, certification, and oversight - the actual production, operating, and servicing of the plants can and should be done by private companies.

Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY) used to say that it was in a way not NASA who put the man on the moon, but companies like Northrop-Grumman on Long Island, NY (which is his constituency ;)) who manufactured all the stuff. Government/academia runs the research and gets bids from companies for their programs. This works pretty good, IMHO insofar the best from all approached to balance this problem.

On the other hand, the laws and regulations need to accommodate public utilities established by citizens as coops or alike. Such enterprises exist in retail, manufacturing, condominiums ...

* Either way, in practice in the short term, the research needs to start (on both IFR and LFTR style advanced nuclear plants), and the regulation systems shall be reformed, and new taxes constituted to disincentive fossil fuel combustion: gas/diesel fuel tax to at least cover road maintenance and policing; redistributed general carbon tax, and a floor on gasoline price to improve gas millage -- to fund all the research above. (Sorry for being so shy :mrgreen: )


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 21, 2009 5:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Feb 21, 2007 7:06 pm
Posts: 97
ondrejch wrote:
...and new taxes constituted to disincentive fossil fuel combustion: gas/diesel fuel tax to at least cover road maintenance and policing;


Why should road maintenance depend on governments' success in suppressing fuels other than gas/diesel?

Do you really think policing should depend on gas/diesel revenue? Mightn't that lead to lax or nonexistent speed limit enforcement, and unnecessary road carnage?

Wouldn't it be better if the amount by which government revenue on those fuels fell short of some mark determined police budgets?


--- G.R.L. Cowan (How fire can be domesticated)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 21, 2009 8:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 19, 2006 11:01 am
Posts: 396
Location: Knoxville, TN
GRLCowan wrote:
ondrejch wrote:
...and new taxes constituted to disincentive fossil fuel combustion: gas/diesel fuel tax to at least cover road maintenance and policing;


Why should road maintenance depend on governments' success in suppressing fuels other than gas/diesel?

Do you really think policing should depend on gas/diesel revenue? Mightn't that lead to lax or nonexistent speed limit enforcement, and unnecessary road carnage?

Wouldn't it be better if the amount by which government revenue on those fuels fell short of some mark determined police budgets?


--- G.R.L. Cowan (How fire can be domesticated)


well what I meant is that the fuel tax should cover at least road maintenance & policing, which it as of yet does not cover (in the US).

You have a point that once the alternative fuels start to catch up enough to decrease the revenues below what is needed for maintenance & policing, the scheme to finance public road system would have to be reconsidered.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 22, 2009 9:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Feb 21, 2007 7:06 pm
Posts: 97
ondrejch wrote:
GRLCowan wrote:
Why should road maintenance depend on governments' success in suppressing fuels other than gas/diesel?

... Wouldn't it be better if the amount by which government revenue on those fuels fell short of some mark determined police budgets?


--- G.R.L. Cowan (How fire can be domesticated)


well what I meant is that the fuel tax should cover at least road maintenance & policing, which it as of yet does not cover (in the US).

You have a point that once the alternative fuels start to catch up enough to decrease the revenues below what is needed for maintenance & policing, the scheme to finance public road system would have to be reconsidered.


And according to you, that time for that reconsideration did not arrive any time in the last 40 years, and isn't here yet, because ... ____ ____ ____


--- G.R.L. Cowan (How fire can be domesticated)


(Yes, your explanation must be exactly three five-letter words!)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group