Exciting News, Sweden constructs world’s first electric vehicle charging road

Sweden constructs the world’s first “Dynamic Charging Road” which is a road that recharges EV (Electric Vehicles) batteries while they drive. The prototype public road is 2km long but nationwide charging road is already being drafted. The road is similar to electric trains in that a small rod slides along an electrical track which calculates energy consumption allowing costs to be debited per vehicle use.

dynamic charging electric road in sweden

What is Thorium and how can we use it as an clean, alternate fuel source? [VIDEO]

What is Thorium

What is Thorium? 

Thorium is a slightly radioactive metal with small ammounts naturally being found in small amounts in most rocks and soils. It is three times more abundant than uranium. Within soil, there is an average of 6 parts per million of thorium. Thorium is insoluble and unlike uranium, is plentiful in sands but not in seawater. Thorium is a single isotope, Th-232, which decays very slowly. It has a half-life of about three times the age of the Earth.

 

What does Thorium look like?

Thorium is a silvery white metal that retains its lustre for several months. However, when it is contaminated with the oxide, thorium slowly tarnishes in air, becoming grey and eventually black. When heated in air, thorium metal ignites and burns brilliantly with a white light.

What does Thorium look like

 

What do we use Thorium for?

Thorium oxide (ThO2), also called thoria, has one of the highest melting points of all oxides (3300°C) and so it has found applications in light bulb elements, lantern mantles, arc-light lamps, welding electrodes and heat-resistant ceramics. Glass containing thorium oxide has both a high refractive index and wavelength dispersion, and is used in high quality lenses for cameras and scientific instruments.

 

How much Thorium is there?

The most common source of thorium is the rare earth phosphate mineral, monazite, which contains up to about 12% thorium phosphate. World monazite resources are estimated to be about 16 million tonnes.Thorite (ThSiO4) is another common thorium mineral. A large vein deposit of thorium and rare earth metals is in Idaho,United States.

 

How can we use Thorium as an energy source?

Thorium (Th-232) is ‘fertile’ and upon absorbing a neutron will transmute to uranium-233 which is an excellent fissile fuel material similar to uranium-238 which transmutes to plutonium-239. All thorium fuel concepts require the Th-232 is first irradiated in a reactor to provide the necessary neutron dosing to produce protactinium-233. The Pa-233 that is produced can either be chemically separated from the parent thorium fuel and the decay product U-233 then recycled into new fuel, or the U-233 may be usable ‘in-situ’ in the same fuel form, especially in molten salt reactors (MSRs).

 

Using thorium as a fuel:

Another option for using thorium as a fuel is a ‘fertile matrix’ for fuels containing plutonium that serves as the fissile driver while being consumed (and even other transuranic elements like americium. Mixed thorium-plutonium oxide (Th-Pu MOX) fuel is an analog of current uranium-MOX fuel, but no new plutonium is produced from the thorium component, unlike for uranium fuels in U-Pu MOX fuel, and so the level of net consumption of plutonium is high. Production of all actinides is lower than with conventional fuel, and negative reactivity coefficient is enhanced compared with U-Pu MOX fuel. In fresh thorium fuel, all of the fissions (thus power and neutrons) derive from the driver component. As the fuel operates the U-233 content gradually increases and it contributes more and more to the power output of the fuel. The ultimate energy output from U-233 (and hence indirectly thorium) depends on numerous fuel design parameters, including: fuel burn-up attained, fuel arrangement, neutron energy spectrum and neutron flux (affecting the intermediate product protactinium-233, which is a neutron absorber). The fission of a U-233 nucleus releases about the same amount of energy (200 MeV) as that of U-235.

An important principle in the design of thorium fuel systems is that of heterogeneous fuel arrangement in which a high fissile (and therefore higher power) fuel zone called the seed region is physically separated from the fertile (low or zero power) thorium part of the fuel – often called the blanket. Such an arrangement is far better for supplying surplus neutrons to thorium nuclei so they can convert to fissile U-233, in fact all thermal breeding fuel designs are heterogeneous. This principle applies to all the thorium-capable reactor systems.

 

What type of reactors are able to use Thorium?

  • Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs)
  • High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactors (HTRs)
  • Accelerator Driven Reactors (ADS)
  • Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs)
  • Fast Neutron Reactors (FNRs)
  • Pressurised (Light) Water Reactors (PWRs)
  • Boiling (Light) Water Reactors (BWRs)

Thorium Facts:

  • Thorium is a cleaner, safer, and more abundant nuclear fuel that has the potential to revolutionize energy production.
  • Thorium is more abundant in nature than uranium.
  • It is fertile rather than fissile, and can only be used as a fuel in conjunction with a fissile material such as recycled plutonium.
  • Thorium fuels can breed fissile uranium-233 to be used in various kinds of nuclear reactors.
  • Several significant demonstrations of the use of thorium-based fuels to generate electricity in several reactor types have been displayed in early trials.
  • Molten salt reactors are well suited to thorium fuel, as normal fuel fabrication is avoided.
  • A thorium fuelled reactor operated from 1977 to 1982 at Shippingport in the USA.
  • The use of thorium as a new primary energy source can be a cost effective, clean fuel due to its latent energy value.
  • Norway’s Thor Energy is developing and testing two thorium-bearing fuels for use in existing nuclear power plants.
  • In India, some heavy water reactors have been used thorium-bearing fuel bundles.
  • Several North America and Europe utilities are initiating feasibility studies to investigate the use of Thorium as a fuel source.
  • The thorium-fuelled MSR is sometimes referred to as the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor which has been bred in a liquid thorium salt blanket.

 

Switching to clean energy will take a massive social change

Global climate change, driven by human emissions of greenhouse gases, is already affecting the planet, with more heatwaves, droughts, wildfires and floods, and accelerating sea-level rise.

Devastating impacts on our environment, health, social justice, food production, coastal city infrastructure and economies cannot be avoided if we maintain a slow and steady transition to a zero-carbon society.

According to Stefan Rahmstorf, Head of Earth System Analysis at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, we need an emergency response.

A big part of this response needs to be transforming the energy sector, the principal contributor to global warming in Australia and many other developed countries.

Many groups have put forward ideas to transition the energy sector away from carbon. But what are the key ingredients?

Technology is the easy bit
At first glance the solution appears straightforward. Most of the technologies and skills we need – renewable energy, energy efficiency, a new transmission line, railways, cycleways, urban design – are commercially available and affordable. In theory these could be scaled up rapidly.

But in practice there are several big, non-technical barriers. These include politics dominated by vested interests, culture, and institutions (organizational structures, laws, and regulations).Greenpeace activists demonstrating

Vested interests include the fossil fuel industry, electricity sector, aluminum smelting, concrete, steel and motor vehicles. Governments that receive taxation revenue and political donations from vested interests are reluctant to act effectively.

To overcome this barrier, we need strong and growing pressure from the climate action movement.

There are numerous examples of nonviolent social change movements the climate movement can learn from. Examples include the Indian freedom struggle led by Gandhi; the African-American civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King Jr; the Philippine People Power Revolution; and the unsuccessful Burmese uprising of 1988-90.

Several authors, including Australian climate scientist Matthew England, point out that nations made rapid socioeconomic changes during wartime and that such an approach could be relevant to rapid climate mitigation.

Learning from war
UNSW PhD candidate Laurence Delina has investigated the rapid, large, socio-economic changes made by several countries just before and during World War 2.

He found that we can learn from wartime experience in changing the labor force and finance.

However, he also pointed out the limitations of the wartime metaphor for rapid climate mitigation:

  • Governments may need extraordinary emergency powers to implement rapid mitigation, but these are unlikely to be invoked unless there is support from a large majority of the electorate.
  • While such support is almost guaranteed when a country is engaged in a defensive war, it seems unlikely for climate action in countries with powerful vested interests in greenhouse gas emissions.
  • Vested interests and genuinely concerned people will exert pressure on governments to direct their policies and resources predominantly towards adaptation measures such as sea walls, and dangerous quick fixes such as geoengineering. While adaptation must not be neglected, mitigation, especially by transforming the energy sector, should be primary.

Unfortunately it’s much easier to make war than to address the global climate crisis rapidly and effectively. Indeed many governments of “democratic” countries, including Australia, make war without parliamentary approval.

Follow the leaders!

According to Climate Action Tracker, the 158 climate pledges submitted to the United Nations by December 8 2015 would result in around 2.7℃ of warming in 2100 – and that’s provided that all governments meet their pledge.

Nevertheless, inspiring case studies from individual countries, states and cities could lead the way to a better global outcome.

Greenpeace activists fly a hot air balloon depicting the globe next to the Eiffel Tower ahead of the 2015 Paris Climate Conference COP21Iceland, with its huge hydroelectric and geothermal resources, already has 100% renewable electricity and 87% renewable heat.

Denmark, with no hydro, is on track to achieve its target of 100% renewable electricity and heat by 2035.

Germany, with modest hydro, is heading for at least 80% renewable electricity by 2050, but is behind with its renewable heat and transport programs.

It’s easier for small regions to reach 100% renewable electricity, provided that they trade electricity with their neighbors. The north German states of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Schleswig-Holstein are generating more than 100% net of their electricity from renewables.

The Australian Capital Territory is on track to achieve its 100% renewable electricity target by 2020. There are also many towns and cities on programs towards the 100% goal.

If the climate action movement can build its strength and influence, it may be possible for the state of Tasmania to achieve 100% renewable energy (electricity, heat and transport) and for South Australia to reach 100% renewable electricity, both within a decade.

But the eastern mainland states, which depend heavily on coal for electricity, will need to build new renewable energy manufacturing industries and to train a labor force that includes many more highly trained engineers, electricians, systems designers, IT specialists and plumbers, among others.

Changes will be needed to the National Electricity Market rules, or at least to rewrite the National Electricity Objective to highlight renewable energy, a slow task that must obtain the agreement of federal, state and territory governments.

Australia has the advantage of huge renewable energy resources, sufficient to create a substantial export industry, but the disadvantage of a declining manufacturing sector.

There are already substantial job opportunities in renewable energy, both globally and in Australia. These can be further expanded by manufacturing components of the technologies, especially those that are expensive to ship between continents, such as large wind turbine blades, bulk insulation and big mirrors.

Chinese solar power on the waterTransport will take longer to transform than electricity generation and heat. Electric vehicle manufacturing is in the early stage of expansion and rail transport infrastructure cannot be built overnight, especially in car-dependent cities.

For air transport and long-distance road transport, the only short-term solution is biofuels, which have environmental and resource constraints.

How long would it take?
The timescale for the transition to 100% renewable energy – electricity, heat and transport – depends on each country or region and the commitment of its governments.

Scenario studies (see also here), while valuable for exploring technological strategies for change, are not predictions. Their results depend upon assumptions about the non-technical strategies I have discussed. They cannot predict the timing of changes.

Governments need to agree on a strategy for transitioning that focuses not just on the energy sector, but includes industry, technology, labor, financial institutions, governance and the community.

Everyone should be included in developing this process, apart from dyed-in-the-wool vested interests. This process could draw upon the strengths of the former Ecologically Sustainable Development process while avoiding its shortcomings.

The task is by no means easy. What we need is a strategic plan and to implement it rapidly.

 

Written by Mark Diesendorf for The Conversation

Mark Diesendorf for The Conversation

Shanxi province in China attempts to save coal industry by sacrificing environment and people.

Children must suffer with the pollution from the Changzhi, Shanxi province coal mines

 

Environmentalists warn that Shanxi’s fight to save its ailing coal industry by handing out tax cuts will increase pollution, damage the environment and hurt it’s people.

 

The centre of China’s coal industry is in steep decline. Shanxi province, in northern China, has long relied on its natural coal resources, but is now suffering from a drop in domestic demand amid China’s economic downturn. Coal prices have plunged to their lowest level in four years.
Continue Reading This Post

Here are TEN energy sources you can expect to see powering our future.

 

From Biofuel and Algae to Flying Wind Turbines and Nuclear Waste, learn about some really brilliant methods for powering our vehicles our homes, our cities and even our planet. Which one is your favorite? Would you like to see one of these powering your city?

#biofuels #hydrogen #nucleasrfusion #windfarms #solar #nuclearwaste #geothermal #algae #tidalpower #flyingwindturbines

Toyota Unveils ‘Game Changer’ Hydrogen-Powered Car!

The Toyota Mirai (From mirai (未来), Japanese for “future”) is a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, one of the first hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles to be sold commercially.

Under the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cycle, the 2016 model year Mirai has a total range of 502 km (312 mi) on a full tank, with a combined city/highway fuel economy rating of 66 mpg-US (3.6 L/100 km; 79 mpg-imp) equivalent(MPG-equivalent), making the Mirai the most fuel efficient hydrogen fuel cell vehicle rated by the EPA, and the one with the largest range.

 

https://ssl.toyota.com/mirai/

 

 

Neat commercial for the Sinclair C5, one of the first hybrid electric micro cars.

Sinclair C5 Hydro Electric vehicle

 

 

The Sinclair C5 was one of the first hybrid electric micro cars. It was called an electric tricycle at the time. This allowed it to be marketed as a vehicle that can be driven on the sidewalks by anyone over the age of 14 without a license or insurance. It is similar to the Wycycle (see video). However, the early Wycyclles did not have pedals for moving. And the Wycycle could be folded up and had a top to cover the person. What may be interesting is to see a kind of C5 Wycycle which embraces the latest technology for achieving strenght, weight reduction, motor power and energy efficiency, along with latest battery technology (such as lithium polymer batteries).

Wood gas generator, gasifier gasification from The Colony

If you watched The Colony season 1 from the Discovery Channel you will remember that they powered a small engine from the fumes of heated wood.  Is it possible? what’s your opinion?

In this video, John the scientist explains how he is going to create a gassifier. skip to 7:39 if you like.

PART ONE

PART TWO

 

This is the video of their first attempt.  Not enough heat and the container is too large:

I have not found the video of the working gasifier yet, it is on youtube somewhere, I will find and post it here right away.

 

image image image

 

COMMENTS:

Junior Member

 
One of the reasons why I like the show is that it gives me some idea how to construct stuff in case of a real emergency like the wood gas generator made out of a 5 gallon gas can tossed into a fire. 

However, after doing some research, that couldn’t have possibly worked. The gasses produced by such a device are just the volitile wood compounds like tar and would quickly be sucked out of the can. You could torch it like was shown, but after that, it is just a charcoal maker and you couldn’t run an engine on it for any length of time.

Interestingly, the web site shows a real FEMA design styled downdraft wood gas generator that would have worked and must have been what they were really using. I am disapointed that they showed a completely unworkable gas generator in the show, yet had a real generator on hand. In a real emergency, what they showed was useless and I would have rather seen a demonstration of something that actually worked. Maybe they couldn’t build a real generator in a day, so they showed the unworkable one.

Another thing that was strange to the point of irresponsible was showing the use of engines in an indoor environment. That is an instant recipe for carbon monoxide poisoning and I am surprised the producers wouldn’t have at least put in a mention of how dangerous that is. They shouldn’t have been worried about their gas generator blowing up, they should have been more worried about gassing themselves since wood gas is largely composed of deadly carbon monoxide.

I am wondering how much of the other stuff they show wouldn’t actually work.
 
Registered: 09-03-09 Reply With Quote

Senior Member

  Hide Post
You can’t call John C. a liar. He has too much integrity.

In John C.’s blog, he writes:

"I remember how absolutely amazed I was that we were actually making electricity out of wood fumes.. .. I hope the sense of ‘can that really be working ..?!?!’ came through. For those who are wondering.. we got about 3 hours of generation from every charge of wood. .. which was sufficient to top off our batteries. One thing I really loved about the show was that everything they showed that worked.. actually worked.. if it didn’t work.. they’d show that it didn’t work.. That was really important to me."

John also talks about the gassifier in a podcast. I had kind of wondered if he had read up on gassifiers before the show to prepare himself, but actually he had heard about them in his younger days in Austria, listening to two old women talking about using a gassifier for a car, I think during World War II. My recollection is hazy, but as I recall, the interviewer asks, "Wouldn’t the tar gum up the engine?" And John C. says yes, for extended use you’d need filters, declining to say more, explaining that we’ll just have to watch and see what happens.
 
Registered: 09-02-09 Reply With Quote

Senior Member

  Hide Post
Well, with respect, before you someone a liar you should seriously know the facts.

As to gas powered engines and carbon monoxide in a building. Buildings all over this country are running gas powered engines indoors!

Ever been in a factory? As long as the air quality remains within approved margins, they’ll run lift trucks and semis right past you…indoors.
 
Registered: 07-29-09 Reply With Quote

Senior Member

  Hide Post
plus that plaace is drafty (full of air holes) and very tall ceillings.
 
Registered: 08-04-09 Reply With Quote

Senior Member

  Hide Post
if i remember correctly there was an open window just above the generator where the fuel tube came in
 
Registered: 08-12-09 Reply With Quote

Junior Member

  Hide Post
FEMA’s design will pump out tar if not properly sized to the motor. Myself,I was actually surprised that they didn’t use a filter. without a constructed filter for the engine it will tar up something fierce.
Also to be considered, the distance traveled by the hose at an up grade may have been enough to keep the tar flowing backwards to the gasifier.
Where it would be consumed.
The 5 gallon unit will run an engine. It’s just not a sophisticated as other updraft / downdraft designs. Also before you decry any design, you might look around on the web and find that some folks who have built the fema design can’t get their gas to light/flare.
 
Registered: 09-14-09 Reply With Quote

Senior Member

  Hide Post
tar build up also depends on the type of wood used. 
now a cord of pine will produce 15X the amount of tar a cord of oak will make. 
most of what they are useing are oak pallets.
 
Registered: 02-25-07 Reply With Quote

Senior Member

  Hide Post
You can’t see or smell Carbon Monoxide. The only way to be sure that it’s a safe is to use a gas detector. I certainly hope there was at least one being used off camera at all times. 

CO builds up in the blood stream in such a way that exposure to even small amounts over time can cause problems. OSHA recommends exposure to no more than 50PPM continuously over 8 hours. 800 PPM can kill you in 2 hours.
 
Registered: 01-09-08 Reply With Quote

Junior Member

  Hide Post
Ya’ll better look up more info on wood gas.

The exhaust from a small engine running it is—-?
It’s definitely not the same as running the engine on gas, diesel, or propane.

The gas from the gasifier is more dangerous than the exhaust from the engine.
Hence they operate the dangerous part outside and run the generator engine indoors.
In a large building like they have, You could operate more engines and also not worry about the smoke from the cook barrel.

I’ll repeat that again…there is more CO and CO2 from the gasifier direct than from the exhaust of the engine it’s running…Look it up.
 
Registered: 09-14-09 Reply With Quote

Senior Member

  Hide Post
You just can’t know for sure it’s safe without a detector. You can guess, like when John C. drank the ozonated water, but you don’t know for sure. All I’m saying is that if I were the insurance company behind the show, I’d want gas detectors in the building.
 
Registered: 01-09-08 Reply With Quote

Junior Member

  Hide Post
Running small engines in a shop this size is a not an issue. Running big diesels would be, even with the doors open. 
I question the design/size of the gasifier.
The engine on the old Ford is 460-507 ci, with that big pump sucking in the gas, the fire box is going to be more like a blast furnace! What they were using for the genny was fine for a 100 cc engine but for the truck it would need to be closer in size to that of a small steam Loco to run the truck,especially with the load of passengers,cargo, wood and added body. 
I wouldn’t want to think about adding climbing a grade like Grapevine or Cajon Pass. Wouldn’t do it, period.
 
Registered: 09-03-09 Reply With Quote

Junior Member

  Hide Post
quote:
You just can’t know for sure it’s safe without a detector. You can guess, like when John C. drank the ozonated water, but you don’t know for sure. All I’m saying is that if I were the insurance company behind the show, I’d want gas detectors in the building.


After a disaster, a detector is a bird or just someone in your crew that no one likes.
I can’t help you understand that you are worried about one small engine in a building that would see the operation of several forklift engines in the course of a normal day.
The volume of the building is very large…In a situation such as the colony…I would have set you out on the curb and locked the door already.
The one thing that drives me nuts about the show . Is they portray every situation dramatically. Totally inaccurate. There is no time for drama in a do it now situation. Fact is there is no time for the chalk board discussions… I find them hilarious. Still need a CO detector. For realism, Use a Leetle bird in a leetle cage and hang the cage near the exhaust of the genset. ****I know for sure you didn’t look up the stats for emissions from engines operated by wood gas.

 
Registered: 09-14-09 Reply With Quote

Senior Member

  Hide Post
Since birds are kind of hard to catch, I would say they shouldn’t have eaten all the rats, one could’ve been their "canary in the coal mine"
 
Registered: 08-05-09 Reply With Quote

Junior Member

  Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Dieseldog13:
Running small engines in a shop this size is a not an issue. Running big diesels would be, even with the doors open. 
I question the design/size of the gasifier.
The engine on the old Ford is 460-507 ci, with that big pump sucking in the gas, the fire box is going to be more like a blast furnace! What they were using for the genny was fine for a 100 cc engine but for the truck it would need to be closer in size to that of a small steam Loco to run the truck,especially with the load of passengers,cargo, wood and added body. 
I wouldn’t want to think about adding climbing a grade like Grapevine or Cajon Pass. Wouldn’t do it, period.


The gassifier required would be about 16-18 inches at the grate.with about 70 lbs of fuel in the hopper. going by the 460. that would fit in a 50-70 gallon water heater tank.
The engine will have to be operated at higher revs around 3 k and I hope its a standard to get the max outa the wood gas. They develop around 70% of the horsepower that gas does @ a rate of 1-1.5 pounds of wood to the gallon of regular gas, so that equates to about one gear lower for climbing hills. now they are gonna need several hundred pounds of fuel to make the trip in a 9 mpg(?) truck. That trucks gonna need some serious filters to keep from Gooing up the motor on the trip. I can’t wait to see how they did it.

 
Registered: 09-14-09 Reply With Quote

Junior Member

  Hide Post
I’m also interested in seeing how it works out. If if it slow, even almost walking speed, that truck can carry a lot more weight than they could possibly carry, the biggest question I would have would be range…..better take an axe and stop to "refuel".
 
Registered: 09-12-09 Reply With Quote

Senior Member

  Hide Post
John V. stated a range of 150 miles.

I do suspect that tar will play a role in the finale. Even if they remember to use a filter on the truck’s gassifier, the filter is going to gunk up, so they better remember to bring spare filters.
 
Registered: 09-02-09 Reply With Quote

Junior Member

  Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Maiklas3000:
John V. stated a range of 150 miles.

I do suspect that tar will play a role in the finale. Even if they remember to use a filter on the truck’s gassifier, the filter is going to gunk up, so they better remember to bring spare filters.



Design often conflicts with reality. If it was designed and manufactured in better circumstances from non-scavenged parts, I’d be more prone to believe it would make it that far. As it is, regardless of how far it goes, it will carry a great deal of weight much farther than the colonists could ever hope to carry it on-foot. I personally think the idea is pretty ingenious.

 
Registered: 09-12-09 Reply With Quote

Junior Member

  Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by RedLeg_1_7:

quote:
Originally posted by Maiklas3000:
John V. stated a range of 150 miles.

I do suspect that tar will play a role in the finale. Even if they remember to use a filter on the truck’s gassifier, the filter is going to gunk up, so they better remember to bring spare filters.



Design often conflicts with reality. If it was designed and manufactured in better circumstances from non-scavenged parts, I’d be more prone to believe it would make it that far. As it is, regardless of how far it goes, it will carry a great deal of weight much farther than the colonists could ever hope to carry it on-foot. I personally think the idea is pretty ingenious.



There are some wood gas groups on the web.
And I have been playing with the idea since gas went to 2 bucks a gallon.
Right now I’m planning a conversion to my jeep.

To answer several of the questions:
Yes the filter is gonna gunk up but can be burnt in the gas reactor as fuel…filters can be constructed from fuel for the gassifier. such as wood chips or straw. some folks use two filters the first of combustible material to catch tar and a fiberglass one to catch dirt.

Better carry all the dry fuel they can because the process works best on dry fuel. fuel also can be the charcoal they made with the small unit.

Scavenged parts: most of the gassifiers running the roads in America today are from scavenged materials. The reaction does not depend on what you construct them from, It is rather how you construct it.You have to keep air out of certain areas of the system.

Engine size: The bigger the better as the engines ability to vacuum or suck the gas improves with size.

Top speed: Similar to its gas engine counterpart. Difference being, long wind up to speed and having to climb hills in a lower gear.
The truck they are using should top out at about sixty.

The main components are:
Gassifier/reactor vessel.
Cyclone or settling tank.
at least one filter with medium to catch tar and dirt. a properly constructed system produces very little tar.
blower to prime the system.
flare tube to check the quality of the gas. Produced gas is flared before turning off the flare and opening the system to the engine.
cooling apparatus
Misc piping
mixing valve to control fuel air ratio to engine.

It is tricky to do but I expect them to be able to make it work well.

 
Registered: 09-14-09 Reply With Quote

Junior Member

  Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Elderdragon:

quote:
Originally posted by RedLeg_1_7:

quote:
Originally posted by Maiklas3000:
John V. stated a range of 150 miles.

I do suspect that tar will play a role in the finale. Even if they remember to use a filter on the truck’s gassifier, the filter is going to gunk up, so they better remember to bring spare filters.



Design often conflicts with reality. If it was designed and manufactured in better circumstances from non-scavenged parts, I’d be more prone to believe it would make it that far. As it is, regardless of how far it goes, it will carry a great deal of weight much farther than the colonists could ever hope to carry it on-foot. I personally think the idea is pretty ingenious.


It is tricky to do but I expect them to be able to make it work well.


Interesting. In the last 5-6 weeks since mike and john got the truck running we’ve yet to see it move under it’s own power. The driveline is untested. What is the Tranny? 5 speed? Does it have a 2 speed split rear? What about brakes?
I drove a few gas jobs back in the day and with good HO fuel you could get out and walk faster.
The after cooler will help but with a fire in a
moving truck there are just too many variables.
In my PAW I would find heavy cylinders of CNG.

 
Registered: 09-03-09 Reply With Quote

Junior Member

  Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Maiklas3000:
John V. stated a range of 150 miles.

I do suspect that tar will play a role in the finale. Even if they remember to use a filter on the truck’s gassifier, the filter is going to gunk up, so they better remember to bring spare filters.


150 miles in what direction? South is none/light grades. North is 6% grade unless you run 101 along the coast.(my choice) Canyon brush would burn hot and fast, as we so often see with the wild fires.

Barataria Bay Oil Spill, Tugboat collision causes 20 foot tall geyser!

Oil spewing into air at Plaquemines Parish After Being Hit By Tugboat

NEW ORLEANS – (AP) Oil is spewing from a damaged well north of a bay where officials have been fighting the spill from the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

The Coast Guard says a tow boat called Pere Ana C. hit the wellhead near Mud Lake early Tuesday. No injuries were reported.

The Coast Guard did not know who owns the small well or how much oil has leaked. But a sheen has been spotted in the lake. Jefferson Parish Councilman Chris Roberts says oil is spewing from the wellhead.

Coast Guard Lt. Brian Sattler says a helicopter has been dispatched to survey the area, which is accessible only by boat.

Mud Lake is part of a network of bayous and lakes north of Barataria Bay, an ecologically sensitive coastal estuary where authorities have been fighting waves of oil from the Gulf spill.  See photos below of the leak, click to enlarge photos.

image

Oil spews from a wellhead in Barataria Bay on the coast of Louisiana after it was struck by a tugboat, Tuesday, July 27, 2010. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

image image image

India Oil Spill, Chitra & Khalijia Collide! (photos)

MUMBAI, India (AP) —

Indian coast guard vessels and helicopters worked Monday to contain oil spilling from a stricken container ship that collided with another vessel in the Arabian Sea, India’s defense ministry said.

The Panamanian-registered MSC Chitra smashed into the St. Kitts-registered MV-Khalijia-II on Saturday near Mumbai’s Jawahar Lal Nehru port. The accident caused the MSC Chitra to run aground and list heavily, ministry spokesman Capt. Manohar Nambiar told The Associated Press.

Helicopters sprayed chemicals on the oil spill to prevent it from spreading, Nambiar said.

The amount of oil leaked was unclear. The environment minister of Maharashtra state told reporters Monday about 2 tons of oil was pouring into the water every hour.

The MSC Chitra was carrying several thousand tons of oil products such as diesel and lubricants, Environment Minister Suresh Shetty said, adding the government was consulting foreign experts on how best to contain the spill.

The ship was still listing deeply Monday. The MV-Khalijia-II had less damage and posed less risk; its cargo wasn’t disclosed.

The Jawahar Lal Nehru port was closed at least until Wednesday because of the collision and spill.

 

image

This handout photograph provided by the Ministry of Defence, shows "Chitra" ship that collided, at an unknown location near Mumbai, India, Saturday, Aug. 7, 2010. Ships Chitra and Khalijia collided Saturday resulting in an oil spill. (AP Photo/Ministry of Defence, HO)

Government officials in coastal areas near Mumbai have been asked to test sea water in their area to check how far the oil may have spread, Chhagan Bhujbal, another senior minister told reporters.

The captains of both vessels have been asked to appear before local officials to explain how the collision happened, police said.

At least 250 containers from the damaged vessel fell off and port officials were trying to salvage them to avoid navigational hazards to other ships, officials said.

Crews from both vessels were rescued without any serious injuries, Nambiar said.

image

Waste from the Panamanian-registered container ship MSC Chitra that had Saturday collided with the MV-Khalijia-II, a St. Kitts registered ship, unseen, is seen in the Arabian Sea, close to Mumbai, India, Monday, Aug. 9, 2010. Indian coast guard ships and helicopters are working to try and contain an oil spill from dangerously tilting container ship that collided with another vessel near Mumbai, a spokesman for India’s defense ministry said Monday. (AP Photo/Rafiq Maqbool)

image

image 

The Panamanian-registered container ship MSC Chitra that had Saturday collided with the MV-Khalijia-II, a St. Kitts registered ship, tilts in the Arabian Sea, close to Mumbai, India, Monday, Aug. 9, 2010. Indian coast guard ships and helicopters are working to try and contain an oil spill from the dangerously tilting container ship following the collision near Mumbai, a spokesman for India’s defense ministry said Monday. (AP Photo/Rafiq Maqbool)

image

image 

image

image

US Taxpayers may foot 10 BILLION dollar BP oil spill bill!

So, the clean-up of BP’s Gulf oil spill may cost U.S. taxpayers after all.

President Obama has insisted BP would bear the entire cost of cleaning up the spill and making the injured business and wildlife whole again. And yet BP said today it plans to claim $9.9 billion in U.S. tax credits based on the $32.2 billion charge it reported related to costs for the Gulf oil spill. That means that $9.9 billion that might have been going into the federal government’s general fund will be used to cut BP’s spill costs by a third.

imageAt issue are tax-code provisions that allow companies to take refunds for losses. A company can’t pay taxes if it doesn’t have any income. “We have followed the IRS regulations as they’re currently written,’’ outgoing BP CEO Tony Hayward told investors on a conference call this morning.

To the White House, that must sound like fingernails scratching a blackboard. Don’t be surprised if this becomes the latest political hot potato in the BP spill.

We have seen this movie before. This year, J.P. Morgan Chase dropped its plan to claim a $1.4 billion tax credit that was owed to Washington Mutual, which the New York bank acquired at a firesale during the financial crisis. At the time, the tax credit didn’t seem like great public relations for a bank that had taken (and repaid) $25 billion in federal bailout money to be seeking a tax break.

Goldman Sachs Group agreed not to claim a $187 million tax break on the $550 million fine as part of its settlement with the SEC over the agency’s Abacus mortgage lawsuit.

BP hasn’t been fined for the spill, yet, so the issue is based on losses, not a penalty. But there is another difference between Wall Street’s dropped credits and BP.

For those companies, the tax credits were arguably gravy. For BP, the roughly $10 billion deduction is part of its strategy to keep the company’s cash flowing. BP has made a lot of concessions to the White House during the oil-spill crisis. It will be interesting to see if BP digs in its heels on this one.

credit for this article to djreprints.com

7 Toxic chemicals in seafood you may NOT have heard about.

uPBDEs: Flame Retardants

image

PBDEs, a common flame retardant, have been detected in various fish across the West Coast in the United States. A 2006 report from the Environmental Working Group uncovered the flame retardant in Washington rivers and lakes. From 1997 to 2003, levels of PBDEs (prolybrominated diphenyl ethers) doubled in San Francisco Bay fish, such as striped bass and halibut. PBDEs are often used in electronics, furniture, carpets and textiles. The chemicals are traceable in rivers, estuaries, oceans, house dust and water.

 

PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls)

image

While PCBs were outlawed from manufacturing in 1977, PCBs continue to reside in the nation’s waters. They collect in sediments at the bottoms of rivers, lakes, streams and along coastlines. These highly toxic persistent organic pollutants infiltrate water systems and contaminate wild fish populations accumulating in the fatty tissue of the fish. The industrial chemical is also found in farmed fish.Striped bass, sturgeon, and shad are all fishes with dangerous traces of PCBs.

 

 

Chlorinated Dioxins

image

High levels of chlorinated dioxins, an industrial chemical and known carcinogen, are often detected in wild and farmed fish populations and in most animal based proteins in the average American diet: eggs, milk, butter, turkey, beef and pork. The Environmental Defense Fund advises limiting the intake of farmed or Atlantic salmon because of the elevated dioxin rate.

 

 

DDT: Pesticides

image

DDT, one of the most infamous pesticides, has infiltrated the aquatic food chain, impacting most fish, crayfish, and shrimp populations. In 1952, the United States Department of Agriculture celebrated the use of DDT because of its "cost, ease of handling, safety to humans, effectiveness in destroying the pest, and safety to wildlife." In 1974, DDT was banned from use by the Environmental Protection Agency, however DDT residue remains

 

OIL

image

Amongst the chaos of the gulf oil spill recovery, one "solution" for contamination detection has been the smell test. With fishing permitted again in Louisiana, fishermen have begun to catch redfish, speckled trout and mullet. Oysters and blue crabs remain off-limits.

 

 

ARSENIC

image

Coal ash combustion wastewater does not only disperse mercury but also arsenic, which causes detrimental harm to the environment, fish health, and a variety of human health problems such as liver poisoning, and liver and bladder cancers. With low water levels, arsenic levels rise as occurred in 2007 in Okeechobee, Florida (pictured).

 

 

Melamine

image

In 2008, China’s reputation as the world’s largest fish importer was tarnished by one chemical: melamine. Melamine was often added to fish feed. This industrial chemical is also famous for tainting infant formula. Last month, the United Nations set a maximum level of melamine contamination in the world’s food and infant formula.

 

image

Washington Response: We will not slack-off in Gulf oil cleanup

Washington vows no slack-off in Gulf oil cleanup
Gulf Coast beaches and fisheries are reopening after the BP oil spill as optimism grows for a final kill of the blown-out well this month, the top U.S. spill response official said on Sunday.

 

 

Washington vows no slack-off in Gulf oil cleanup
U.S. Gulf Coast beaches and fisheries are reopening after the BP oil spill as optimism grows for a final kill of the blown-out well this month the top U.S. spill response official said on Sunday.

 

 

Recovery from oil spill is Obama priority: Navy secretary
President Barack Obama’s administration sees the restoration of the Gulf Coast after the BP oil spill as a national priority and the president should not be blamed for the disaster, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus said on Saturday.

 

 

Video of underwater Top Kill operation at BP oil spill site

BP is running tests and expected to decide shortly if it will go ahead with an effort to choke off its oil gusher by force-feeding it heavy drilling mud and cement. “Top kill’ is an operation in which heavy mud and cement would be shot into the blown-out well to plug it up.

The oil company BP says it should become clear within hours whether its efforts to seal the leak in the Gulf of Mexico have been successful. Engineers are carring out so-called ‘top kill’ operation which is set to block a breached oil well with mud, which will eventually be topped with cement. The chances of the procedure working, are estimated at 60 to 70 per cent.
Video Rating: 3 / 5