Why I Am so Glad That Polywell Is Under The Radar

[Jccarlton]

If your goal is energy starvation, something like polywell would be a real upset:
http://alfin2300.blogspot.com/2011/03/o ... s-for.html
If anybody has another explanation for why Obama and his crew are doing what they are doing I would really like to know.

[ANTIcarrot]

To quote the daily show with reguards to deep sea oil, and the oil industry in general, "If your job destroys millions of square miles of natural habitat, and puts tens of thousands of americans out of work when you screw up, and historically you screw up on a regular basis - then maybe you don't deserve to keep your job."

Watch a typical american car advert, and see how proudly they boast of a fuel efficiency of (drumroll) 30mpg! While in europe there are cars that can manage 70-80mpg. Al Fin seems to be reacting like a spoilt rich kid who's suddenly been told their $1000/week allowance is not going to drop to $1100/week next year. Newsflash: Pull your finger out and make/buy some decent cars, and you suddenly wouldn't need that oil.

And stop the simplistic pro/anti nuclear power. I like the idea of nuclear power, but legacy BWRs and LWRs are really bad designs. And as demonstrated in Japan and by some on this forum, the nuclear industry is unwilling to honestly disuss issues of safety. Mostly because they think the public is too stupid to understand the concepts involved. If a car company told me I was too stupid to understand what a seatbelt or airbag was, and thus I had no right to know if the car came with them, then guess what: I wouldn't buy their products.

Changing the name from LWR to SMR doesn't change what they are, and doesn't tell us whether the active safety system problem is solved.

Plus the not so minor problem that there really isn't that much fuel to go around once you remember that there is a whole planet beyond the borders of america, and many of those countries want to use exactly the same sources you do. A bit like when people said peak oil was decades away - and then China and India started using cars in a big way.

[chrismb]

Personally, and this may or may not be the thinking, I would also revoke mining/drilling licences, if I was the premiere of a country.

This may not be for the same reasons as your current gov, but the reason is that once you've taken this stuff out the ground then you can't do it again.

Now, think this through - at the moment importing such energy resources is viable and generally affordable. Fast-forward to a moment in the future when the whole world is going up in chaos and the fuel supplies aren't shipping around the world. Then we have the double whammy of no energy and shredded economy.

Now play it forward where all the energy stockpiles of a country have been capped. In this scenario, it is simply a case of issuing the necessary permits again, revitalising a whole industry, employment for all, and all that lovely black stuff is still there, in the ground. What better way to plan to be the only one left standing after a global nightmare.

So, summary; whatever the reason for doing those things [in the link], it is a good strategy for future energy and economic security, even though it looks a bit backwards at the moment and feels like it is a bit of unnecessary pain.

[Jccarlton]

To quote the daily show with reguards to deep sea oil, and the oil industry in general, "If your job destroys millions of square miles of natural habitat, and puts tens of thousands of americans out of work when you screw up, and historically you screw up on a regular basis - then maybe you don't deserve to keep your job."

Watch a typical american car advert, and see how proudly they boast of a fuel efficiency of (drumroll) 30mpg! While in europe there are cars that can manage 70-80mpg. Al Fin seems to be reacting like a spoilt rich kid who's suddenly been told their $1000/week allowance is not going to drop to $1100/week next year. Newsflash: Pull your finger out and make/buy some decent cars, and you suddenly wouldn't need that oil.

And stop the simplistic pro/anti nuclear power. I like the idea of nuclear power, but legacy BWRs and LWRs are really bad designs. And as demonstrated in Japan and by some on this forum, the nuclear industry is unwilling to honestly disuss issues of safety. Mostly because they think the public is too stupid to understand the concepts involved. If a car company told me I was too stupid to understand what a seatbelt or airbag was, and thus I had no right to know if the car came with them, then guess what: I wouldn't buy their products.

Changing the name from LWR to SMR doesn't change what they are, and doesn't tell us whether the active safety system problem is solved.

Plus the not so minor problem that there really isn't that much fuel to go around once you remember that there is a whole planet beyond the borders of america, and many of those countries want to use exactly the same sources you do. A bit like when people said peak oil was decades away - and then China and India started using cars in a big way.

I don't think that peak oil is an issue:
http://www.energytribune.com//articles. ... -Resources
It seems that known reserves should last the country for centuries.
But if an administration makes willfull efforts to make sure you can't develop any of it then we have a problem. As for those high mileage European cards, well they pollute a lot and are death traps at highway speeds.
As for nuclear, well if you refuse to allow any of the new reactor technologies to be used, some of which date back to the sixties, and also make it impossible to replace existing plants with anything but very expensive natural gas plants then you have another. Frankly anybody who uses John Stewart as an expert on energy matters shouldn't be calling anybody else simplistic.

[chrismb]

As for those high mileage European cards, well they pollute a lot and are death traps at highway speeds.

You are clearly talking from a position of ignorance. The cars are the same cars, just with more efficient diesel engines, and many of the engines now run 4 way catalytic converters with regenerative particulate traps to achieve better than 'Euro V' regulations. Technology is so advanced for diesel engines that they can now actually exceed petrol engine particulate emissions standards. So such engines will be a case of 'coming to you soon' rather than what you suggested.

Here is an example of a 'full-sized' executive european car rated at 75 mpg, extra-urban cycle:

http://www.skoda.co.uk/GBR/Documents/br ... superb.pdf

[look for the 'greeline II' 1.6 diesel version with a 114g/km CO2 emission rating]

or if you don't need such a big car, from the same manufacturer, the 95mpg 1.2 diesel Fabia (pgs 6 and 7), at 89g/km of CO2 emission.

http://www.skoda.co.uk/GBR/Documents/br ... _fabia.pdf

I used to have one from this manufacturer, a 2000 model Ocatvia (in between model to these two), and the best I got from it on a run was 89.1 mpg, and it typically averaged 85mpg on my 22 mile commute to work.

[note: these are, ref, imperial gallons, rather than US gallons]

[Giorgio]

My Jeppesen pocket calculator quickly tells me that 95 mpg (imperial) is 79,1 MPG (US) or 33.6 Km/lt (for the non US or UK guys).

[ladajo]

Let's talk about the death trap part.
I have seen many a little car sprinkle in parts across the Autostrada while I lived in Italy.
I even remember one fun trip where a "SMART"(I prefer stupid given the appclication) Car was clocking along a highway flat out on its three cylinders, and a gust of wind relocated it from the left lane to the right lane with no driver input. Moments later another gust put it back in the left lane. I was impressed. I then pushed my gas a touch more, and left him behind in my Jeep Grand Cherokee, in which I could feel the wind gusts, but it was not affecting control at all.

You can build them lighter and lighter, and smaller and smaller, but it gets to the point where control and traction become optional, especially as you keep the speeds up. SMART is a good city car, especially a hybrid one, but long haul, or high speed. No freakin way. Good way to kill someone else or yourself.

[TallDave]

If your goal is energy starvation, something like polywell would be a real upset:
http://alfin2300.blogspot.com/2011/03/o ... s-for.html
If anybody has another explanation for why Obama and his crew are doing what they are doing I would really like to know.

Never attribute to malice what can be explained by mere incompetence.

I'm sure Obama would love to be remembered as the President who brought us into the fusion age.

I was a bit worried that PW might get the axe with the ARRA cuts. But I am increasingly optimistic with oil prices continuing to rise.

Hope we hear something from the FRC guys soon. I'm starting to think we may witness something similar to other techs, where three or four viable alternatives are suddenly developed in the same time frame.

[ladajo]

Let's talk about the death trap part.
I have seen many a little car sprinkle in parts across the Autostrada while I lived in Italy.
I even remember one fun trip where a "SMART"(I prefer stupid given the appclication) Car was clocking along a highway flat out on its three cylinders, and a gust of wind relocated it from the left lane to the right lane with no driver input. Moments later another gust put it back in the left lane. I was impressed. I then pushed my gas a touch more, and left him behind in my Jeep Grand Cherokee, in which I could feel the wind gusts, but it was not affecting control at all.

You can build them lighter and lighter, and smaller and smaller, but it gets to the point where control and traction become optional, especially as you keep the speeds up. SMART is a good city car, especially a hybrid one, but long haul, or high speed. No freakin way. Good way to kill someone else or yourself.

Oh, for Giorgio, if you have been down that way, the "flying SMART Car" event was near Potenza on A3.

[chrismb]

You can build them lighter and lighter, and smaller and smaller, but it gets to the point where control and traction become optional, especially as you keep the speeds up. SMART is a good city car, especially a hybrid one, but long haul, or high speed. No freakin way. Good way to kill someone else or yourself.

Did you take a look at the vehicles I took the time to link to? The fabia is twice the mass of a smart... and more economical. The Superb is 3 times the mass and is about 10% less economical.

NCAP test results:

Fabia [2600lbs and 95mpg]; 4 for adults, 3 for children
Superb [3190lbs and 75mpg]; 5 for adults, 4 for children

comparisons with US vehicles (that have gone through european NCAP rating):

Chrysler Voyager; 1.5 for adults, 4 for children
Dodge caliber; 4 for adults, 4 for children

[Jccarlton]

Let's talk about the death trap part.
I have seen many a little car sprinkle in parts across the Autostrada while I lived in Italy.
I even remember one fun trip where a "SMART"(I prefer stupid given the appclication) Car was clocking along a highway flat out on its three cylinders, and a gust of wind relocated it from the left lane to the right lane with no driver input. Moments later another gust put it back in the left lane. I was impressed. I then pushed my gas a touch more, and left him behind in my Jeep Grand Cherokee, in which I could feel the wind gusts, but it was not affecting control at all.

You can build them lighter and lighter, and smaller and smaller, but it gets to the point where control and traction become optional, especially as you keep the speeds up. SMART is a good city car, especially a hybrid one, but long haul, or high speed. No freakin way. Good way to kill someone else or yourself.

Anybody who drives a SMART on a highway should be locked up. But I still see them all the time. Whats amazing is how fast people will drive them and what they do, ie weaving and tailgating. I owned a Toyota Echo(Platz) until I hit some black ice around the corner from where live. Even that was squirly in high cross winds, though I never lost control.

[Giorgio]

Oh, for Giorgio, if you have been down that way, the "flying SMART Car" event was near Potenza on A3.

Yes, I know that Highway. Is the Salerno-Reggio Calabria, one of the most infamous we have here. Not that the other are better.
Even more dangerous than the smart we now have the MicroCars. They are practically a 400 CC engine with a fiberglass chassis. Total weight 350 Kg and you can drive them without a proper licence from 14 years of age.
They should be limited to 40 Km/h but kids remove the limit block in 5 mins and transform them in 140 km/h rockets.

Those are some real death traps, no safety at all.
http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/8788 ... trutta.jpg
http://www.corriereromano.it/public/img ... inicar.jpg

[Giorgio]

Anybody who drives a SMART on a highway should be locked up.

I would also lock up who allows them to enter the highway in the first place.

[CaptainBeowulf]

On some car forums I frequent, a lot of people are actually pissed off that Euro manufacturers don't important the good diesel models here. They seem to think that North Americans will only drive gas. They try to sell us huge SUVs with large displacement gas guzzling engines.

Take Volvo as an example. In Europe they sell a very nice V60 wagon with a diesel engine which gets good mileage. In North America, not only do they not import any diesels, but they don't even import the wagon. Want a modern Volvo with cargo space? You're stuck buying a 6 cylinder XC60 SUV which struggles to get 20mpg, or even worse, an XC90.

It's a chicken and egg cycle: they say north Americans don't like diesels, they say we don't like wagons, they say we don't like small hatchbacks, so they won't sell any. If they won't sell any, we can't buy any.

Hopefully Ford, GM et al. will produce some quality domestic diesel cars in the near future.

[CaptainBeowulf]

Ford building Euro-style small cars for North America, like the new Focus or whatever it is, is a step in the right direction.