I have been trying to comment here for about a day and a half -- here and on that other thread about hydrogen firing. Every time I get a few sentences in, that Kalmbach-sanctioned iPhone-virus scam triggers and wipes out everything. Isn't it interesting that it only happens when on this forum ... not in Classic Trains, not on MR. I don't find that circumstantial...
charlie hebdoMany areas of the oceans have been over-fished, such as the North Sea. Solutions to all of these except energy are not on the horizon.
I did considerable work on an aquaculture startup in Newport, RI in the early '80s; this involved suspending a carefully-designed network of ropes (using repurposed 600-gallon HDPE syrup barrels from Brazil as floats!) and encouraging mussel growth in 3D in the plankton column. We had about 40 acres of Narragansett Bay under culture at the time we finished the initial processing train (using, of all things, Dutch machinery specialized for mussel culture) and this was scalable well beyond that. One of the studies (I regret I didn't keep cites on it) pointed out that if this approach were implemented in the various bays and coves along the Eastern Seaboard, that alone would provide enough fully-renewable protein -- and good-tasting protein, not some vegetable Soylent Yellow horror -- to feed the current world population effectively. (Note that there are many other applicable coastlines elsewhere in the world...)
This of course is a bit idealistic, and some of the factor costs of production don't scale as economically with greatly increased volume -- but it would be perfectly feasible to conduct a large number of parallel harvesting operations, and processing the output for storage and shipping is not highly difficult in parallel either. The principal issue we encountered with 'quality' was opportunistic parasitization by things like pea crabs (we had a joke marketing approach that called these "George Washington Crabs" the way the C&O was "George Washington's Railroad" and that if you found one in your mussel it was to be considered a rare delicacy...) but separating these in processing, or indeed using them as 'additional assimilable protein', poses little real difficulty.
I think most of the issues with "world hunger" are largely political on the one hand and logistical on the other. Both should be addressed, but I suspect we may need more than one revolution or singularity before modern society actually steps up to a plate to accomplish what is technically possible.
I have spent many years agitating for something that ought to be a fundamental human right: free access to clean water. Here, too, there are surprisingly easy things -- my housekeeper's husband, when I lived in Englewood, worked with the CDC and developed a simple filter-based approach to solve the problems with schisto. Many other issues of water quality are similarly amenable to sensible and 'appropriate-technology' solutions. I helped set up a response to the Haitian hurricane crisis a few years ago -- instead of sending bottled water to be 'distributed' by profiteers, we sent crews of well-drillers and equipment to keep drilling clean wells, intentionally long past the time Haitian social institutions had recovered from the immediate crisis. Something I hope Biden and Harris prioritize is a return wholesale to the kind of Peace Corps activity that puts practical engineering, and practical resource management, in the hands of actual experts with actual morality and selfless dedication to bettering humanity -- perhaps we can shame other nations into doing the same. (Note that I think we learned from the Green Revolution and similar failures what 'not' to do in these regards, too...)
Euclid"Clean Meat" appears to be on the horizon ... Consumer acceptance might be a problem, but maybe just the worry that it might be in the food supply, indistinguishable from real meat, will discourage consumers from eating real meat, and thus satisfy the green goal of reducing meat consumption.
I always think of ostriches when someone brings up alternatives to 'cattle' and 'hog' meat. My father had a broker who was always calling up to propose various wild-hair schemes to make the world a better place, and he introduced me to the Great Emu Farming Scam when it was only about 2 generations in. According to the tale, emus produce a large percentage of lean red meat, similar "enough" to beef that lots of consumers could be induced to eat it, and if enough of a production system could be developed, perhaps 10% as an initial target of American beef production could be supplanted. (This being calculated 'correctly' as cleaned and dressed tonnage, not 'on the claw' or whatever you ought to call it for the live stock...)
Of course, to 'get there' you needed a very large number of rather big and not very bright birds ... first to breed up to large herds, and then support the desired volume of 'harvested' or culled stock. And to this end, the fairly bright idea of unenlightened self-interest was brought forth. The great 'business opportunity' was not to breed birds for meat, but as microchipped breeding pairs to sell to entrepreneurs who would ... breed more microchipped breeding pairs to sell toe engrepreneurs who would breed more microchipped breeding pairs to sell to ... well you get the idea.
By the time this scam had had about its 19th MLM-style 'doubling' I was in Springhill with B&S, and lo and behold! one of Mr. Boucher's brothers-in-law WAS a practicing emu raiser. I wish now that I'd taped him when he got on the subject of 'those $@#&$ birds' -- there were thousands of issues that would cause them to 'fail to thrive', like some hideous labyrintspel of aviculture ... almost all of which would result in them 'throwing up their heads and yelling' and then falling dead on the spot. Whether or not anyone actually went beyond test-marketing that stuff -- I did see a few trials in supermarkets here and there -- I never found out. But it certainly isn't being touted as an alternative to the proven problems with conventional meat, at least where I can see.
Relevant to your Narragansett Bay piece:
https://www.nbweconomy.org/economic-sectors/aquaculture/
There are links at end of article to studies.
One hazard to aquaculture mentioned is AGW. Another is population growth. It takes some guts to discuss the latter factor.
charlie hebdo https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0926337320303908 A technology to use far less platinum in fuel cells.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0926337320303908
A technology to use far less platinum in fuel cells.
Yes, you are correct, the technology to use far less platinum in fuel cells will save the Earth. We have the word of a couple of people publishing in a for-profit Elsevier journal that this is indeed the case. I am greatly relieved that this problem has been solved and that you have brought this to the attention to all of us on this Forum.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
charlie hebdo Relevant to your Narragansett Bay piece: https://www.nbweconomy.org/economic-sectors/aquaculture/ There are links at end of article to studies. One hazard to aquaculture mentioned is AGW. Another is population growth. It takes some guts to discuss the latter factor.
I am unfamiliar with why it takes courage to discuss population growth. Please fill me in on some of the reasons for this.
Paul MilenkovicI am unfamiliar with why it takes courage to discuss population growth.
To a certain extent, "population control" can be enhanced by certain nominally acceptable methods. Encouraging legalized abortion, for example, is one. So is increasing the cost to bear and raise children effectively. However, many social programs intended to benefit mothers and children can have the effect of enhancing 'successful reproduction' -- even serial reproduction -- often with outright social subsidization or 'mandatory tolerance' of the "right" to large families.
Population control can also be enhanced by restricting immigration, though there is a lot of disagreement about whether it is appropriate.
Keep in mind that a large number of "first world" countries have a birth rate less than replacement rate.
The market for fuel used in rail transportation is gigantic. So, if someone could develop and alternate fuel that was significantly cheaper, they would become fabulously wealthy. This incentive thus attracts the most brilliant minds constantly seeking substitute fuels that reduce cost enough to replace diesel fuel.
I believe there is a common, but faulty, conclusion that anything we decide we want can be developed and made practical and available. All we need to do is decide to develop it. This seems to be the underlying belief in all of the alternative energy dreams. But what this overlooks is that there are real obstacles that may have no immediate solution, so they may only become achievable after long periods of time of trial and error and depend on many concurrent other developments moving forward in their own scale of progress. It is not as if these breakthroughs have never been desired and that alone is what holds them back. In many cases, they have been wanted and pursued for centuries without success.
Alternative energy in particular seems to be regarded as something we can have now just because we decided we want it. So, it follows that all that is needed is to pay to develop it now. But the doors that must be opened to achieve that are closed and locked, waiting for their time when many other new developments converge and finally open those doors. You can’t just buy a breakthrough because you want one.
In the meantime, successful development is possible if one condition yields and that condition is that the winning alternative must be cheaper than diesel. That has to go out the window. And without that there is no market incentive, so to solve that problem, the solution is market coercion such a government mandates. But even mandates must have a convincing justification.
Mandates alone can be a road leading to fabulous wealth coming from the sale of products that are mandated, but not able to be made cost effective. All that government mandates require is the public perception of necessary purpose. And what better purpose can there be than saving the planet from total destruction that is sure to happen within only a decade or so?
One must decide whether this call to action to save the planet is really based on true need, or on a pretext for need, which will then be forced by mandate.
Another area plans to switch to alternatives to diesel (Scotland) by 2035. Battery and hydrogen cell will be used on lines where electrification infrastructure costs can't be justified by traffic.
https://cleantechnica.com/2021/01/01/scotland-banks-on-hydrogen-fuel-cell-trains-for-zero-emission-railway-by-2035/
Erik_Mag Population control can also be enhanced by restricting immigration, though there is a lot of disagreement about whether it is appropriate. Keep in mind that a large number of "first world" countries have a birth rate less than replacement rate.
Restricting immigration only helps the overpopulation problem in one place, all those people who aren't immigrating still exist, they are just somewhere else. And since they are somewhere else it is not your problem if they starve.
Family planning and educating women tend to lower the birthrate, but there is still quite a bit of opposition to those tactics from certain parts of modern Earth society.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Family sizes in LDNs decrease dramatically as their economic outlook and educational opportunities improve, all without draconian measures being imposed.
Euclid The market for fuel used in rail transportation is gigantic.
The market for fuel used in rail transportation is gigantic.
In 2019, the US consumed 18.27 billion gallons of aviation fuel and 3.656 billion gallons of railroad fuel.
With family size: Social Security is another factor that reduces the needs for large families to take care of parents in their old age. OTOH, Social Security is effectively a Ponzi in the money to pay retired folks comes from younger working folks. A birthrate below replacement rate will require adjustments to the program that could include higher taxes on workers, lower benefit payments or raising the retirement age (note "or" is intended to be inclusive "or" not exclusive "oro").
Erik: Good point.
Keep in mind that Social Security was never intended to be a retirement system - it's a safety net.
I do quite well with my retirement annuity. Social Security is a bonus.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Erik_Mag Euclid The market for fuel used in rail transportation is gigantic. In 2019, the US consumed 18.27 billion gallons of aviation fuel and 3.656 billion gallons of railroad fuel.
The points I made in the above post would apply to either fuel use. They certainly do apply to the railroad fuel, which is the point of this thread.
And the US DoD makes those numbers look like a rounding error
tree68 Keep in mind that Social Security was never intended to be a retirement system - it's a safety net. I do quite well with my retirement annuity. Social Security is a bonus.
Took a while to find this.
Railway Age article that contains interesting details of some of the options and suppliers,from an interesting source:
https://www.railwayage.com/news/zero-emission-locomotives-on-u-s-railways/
Interesting that they consider natural gas as a renewable resource. Last I knew, it was a fossil fuel...
tree68 Interesting that they consider natural gas as a renewable resource. Last I knew, it was a fossil fuel...
If you read the fine print it seems they are referring to 'biogas', which is produced from renewable sources like manure, or perhaps municipal sewage.
I'm surprised at the claim of zero NOx emissions, even with urea aftertreatment.
Eric, in my wrining I use "and" when I mean and (&), "or'" when I mean exclusive or, and "and/or when both possibilities are present and/or are meant to be present.
I'm not complaining or criticizing; just wished to suggest anther option.
daveklepperEric, in my writing I use "and" when I mean and (&), "or'" when I mean exclusive or, and "and/or" when both possibilities are present and/or are meant to be present.
The point being that the prospective change in rail carbon usage would have relatively 'limited' impact on actual overall carbon emissions.
Now, we can discuss whether the prospective reductions are meaningful (perhaps on the 'every little bit helps' model) or are more on the scale of virtue signaling, but the discussion changes from the number of lb. or kg. carbon 'not released' to the percentage reduction of overall transportation-carbon reduction. (ISTR a recent report of successful adaptation of synthetic fuel from renewable sources as aviation fuel, but it is relatively unlikely that hydrogen carrier in any form would be adaptable to commercial turbofan propulsion (and hypersonics still pose more security risk than they would provide economically-viable transportation service) so the prospective development of zero-net-carbon is even more leveraged as beneficial.)
That of course does not mean that zero-carbon technology shouldn't be advanced, or that selective hydrogen use and distribution shouldn't be undertaken. But if actual stabilization of rate of increase in atmospheric carbon is a true priority it should be clear that zero-net-carbon will have a far greater impact for far less money and far less risk.
Overmod, there is no "problem." I was referring to Eric's posting on increasing longevity, with the possibility of lower birthrate, and the effect on Social Security, not the posting on fuel-use and Climate Warming. Increasing taxation, and/or reduced benefits, and/or raising the minimum retirement age can keep Social Security solvent. But if the birth-rate should fall, dosn't immigration make-up for it or can it do so?
And I always appreciate your wise and thoughtful comments.
daveklepperOvermod, there is no "problem." I was referring to Eric's posting on increasing longevity, with the possibility of lower birthrate, and the effect on Social Security, not the posting on fuel-use and Climate Warming.
If you would, please quote a little of the actual context the next time you dangle grammatical catnip. It will help avoid ASSumptions of the kind I made...
And I'd concur... having read down a couple more column-inches... that the usually-despised "and/or" would be a good choice for the inclusive-or sense that was meant.
Getting back on topic.....
CP appears to have selected a SD40-2F for their prototype hydrogen locomotive. CP/CMQ 9024 was loaded onto a heavy truck at Niobe, AB today. This unit has sat at the Ogden shops for some time before being moved the other day, and has been sandblasted and painted in grey primer.
Word on the street (from a CP source) is that this unit suffered a major engine failure some time ago, and has been gutted internally.
No word yet on its destination.
Interesting that CP is doing this.. one would think one of the locomotive builders would be doing it. CP says they want to build a test bed hydrogen locomotive and then present it to the builders with "here's what we want.. build it". Good for CP for taking the initiative regardless of the reason behind.
Ulrich...one would think one of the locomotive builders would be doing it...
Nothing against the locomotive manufacturers, but if CP has the know-how, why should they pay the overhead/profit to the manufacturers if they can do it in-house?
tree68Nothing against the locomotive manufacturers, but if CP has the know-how, why should they pay the overhead/profit to the manufacturers if they can do it in-house?
I doubt CP has the manufacturing facilities to build their own locomotives, especially in volume. If they develop some unique intellectual property during the project and patent it, they can license it to the manufacturers.
Just seems odd that the "customer" is doing the innovation part of it. It would be like my customer showing me how to operate a flatbed truck.. Maybe a wakeup call to the manufacturers.. you guys are supposed to be doing the innovating here when it comes to locomotive design and manufacturing.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.