Dan Posted November 11, 2008 Posted November 11, 2008 It's not that it's not politically acceptable it's just not feasable to get water from the northeast to the southwest. Just throwing this out there, but we pipeline gas from the gulf coast to all over the country. Why can't we pipeline water around? As a more general thought on this thread in general.. its always fun to watch people pick ideas apart. It's interesting that so many things got done in the past because people found solutions to over come and now people just find problems. Imagine someone, initially, proposing the interstate system. Imagine someone, initially, proposing we tame the Colorado river. Imagine someone proposing we walk on the moon. Imagine so many great things this country has done because we said we wanted to. It's a shame quite honestly that so much of the real American spirit is lost. If we want to get ourselves off of Foreign Oil we can. The question is, and always has been, do we really want to? Whether it be for global warming, reduction in sending money to foreign nations, getting Americans back to work, or whatever; does anyone not think an idea like this (granted one that may actually work) would be great for this country and perhaps exactly what we need. I think it'd be refreshing to see our political leaders engage in a serious discussion and then serious attempt to actually do something about the mess we're in with the economy, foreign oil dependence, and environment (forget GW, what about acid rain, smog, species extinction, etc.). It's funny how every politician for decades has talked about the same issues, but nothing ever gets done. Change. Yes we need it. Will this new administration finally do something? I doubt it. But, I'd welcome it with renewed enthusiasm. What's the worst that could happen... we get nowhere and spend a few hundred billion $ - seems like we've been there, doing that. What's the best that could happen - we rid ourselves of dependence on foreign oil while creating a new economy and direction for the next century. Not a tough choice for me.
ieatcrayonz Posted November 11, 2008 Posted November 11, 2008 Just throwing this out there, but we pipeline gas from the gulf coast to all over the country. Why can't we pipeline water around? The pipes would rust.
Chef Jim Posted November 11, 2008 Posted November 11, 2008 As a more general thought on this thread in general.. its always fun to watch people pick ideas apart. It's interesting that so many things got done in the past because people found solutions to over come and now people just find problems. Imagine someone, initially, proposing the interstate system. Imagine someone, initially, proposing we tame the Colorado river. Imagine someone proposing we walk on the moon. Imagine so many great things this country has done because we said we wanted to. It's a shame quite honestly that so much of the real American spirit is lost. Imagine if someone opposed the Iraq war.
Dan Posted November 11, 2008 Posted November 11, 2008 The pipes would rust. I knew there was something I was missing. Hey maybe we could dehydrate the water and make it easier to ship? Imagine if someone opposed the Iraq war. They'd be unpatriotic and terrorist lovin' muslims? Or smart? I'm not sure which though.
Gene Frenkle Posted November 11, 2008 Posted November 11, 2008 Just throwing this out there, but we pipeline gas from the gulf coast to all over the country. Why can't we pipeline water around? As a more general thought on this thread in general.. its always fun to watch people pick ideas apart. It's interesting that so many things got done in the past because people found solutions to over come and now people just find problems. Imagine someone, initially, proposing the interstate system. Imagine someone, initially, proposing we tame the Colorado river. Imagine someone proposing we walk on the moon. Imagine so many great things this country has done because we said we wanted to. It's a shame quite honestly that so much of the real American spirit is lost. If we want to get ourselves off of Foreign Oil we can. The question is, and always has been, do we really want to? Whether it be for global warming, reduction in sending money to foreign nations, getting Americans back to work, or whatever; does anyone not think an idea like this (granted one that may actually work) would be great for this country and perhaps exactly what we need. I think it'd be refreshing to see our political leaders engage in a serious discussion and then serious attempt to actually do something about the mess we're in with the economy, foreign oil dependence, and environment (forget GW, what about acid rain, smog, species extinction, etc.). It's funny how every politician for decades has talked about the same issues, but nothing ever gets done. Change. Yes we need it. Will this new administration finally do something? I doubt it. But, I'd welcome it with renewed enthusiasm. What's the worst that could happen... we get nowhere and spend a few hundred billion $ - seems like we've been there, doing that. What's the best that could happen - we rid ourselves of dependence on foreign oil while creating a new economy and direction for the next century. Not a tough choice for me. Sorry, it's much easier to shoot big ideas down. Why fix it if it ain't broke?
ieatcrayonz Posted November 11, 2008 Posted November 11, 2008 Sorry, it's much easier to shoot big ideas down. Why fix it if it ain't broke? I agree with you. Some of the geniuses on this board get all fixated on physics and stuff. If we can saves billions, why not invest trillions to do it?
DC Tom Posted November 11, 2008 Posted November 11, 2008 Sorry, it's much easier to shoot big ideas down. Why fix it if it ain't broke? Yeah, big ideas are always worth chasing, no matter how idiotically unrealistic they are.
Nanker Posted November 11, 2008 Posted November 11, 2008 It's not that it's not politically acceptable it's just not feasable to get water from the northeast to the southwest. That is until we can get your mother's fat ass out of the way. Besides, Kanukistan owns half of it anyway, so now they can't sell it to Asia and we can't pump it to Phoenix regardless of who's fat ass is in the way. Holy! Did you SEE that ass?
RkFast Posted November 11, 2008 Posted November 11, 2008 Sorry, it's much easier to shoot big ideas down. Why fix it if it ain't broke? Big ideas that mean ca-ca. Why fix it if it isnt broken? BECAUSE IT ISNT BROKEN. I have a BiL in the oil industry. Hes been to countless seminars about the merits of alternative energy. And at the end of each one the consensus is that is just isnt freaking worth it to just up and ditch oil to develop a product or products that produce not even CLOSE to the amount of energy oil does "pound for pound." Its would be like the Air Force ditching jet fighters for biplanes from WWI. We are "addicited to oil" becuase its the best product for energy production out there.
elegantelliotoffen Posted November 11, 2008 Posted November 11, 2008 I have a BiL in the oil industry. Hes been to countless seminars about the merits of alternative energy. And at the end of each one the consensus is that is just isnt freaking worth it to just up and ditch oil to develop a product or products that produce not even CLOSE to the amount of energy oil does "pound for pound." Its would be like the Air Force ditching jet fighters for biplanes from WWI. And why is that a surprise? Does Letterman talk up Leno?
Chef Jim Posted November 11, 2008 Posted November 11, 2008 And why is that a surprise? Does Letterman talk up Leno? If he could make $$ off of it you bet your ass he would.
RkFast Posted November 12, 2008 Posted November 12, 2008 If he could make $$ off of it you bet your ass he would. Thank you for pointing out the fact that elliot the retard failed to miss.
Gene Frenkle Posted November 12, 2008 Posted November 12, 2008 something to be said about someone's 1. Al Gore says, "New high-voltage, low-loss underground lines...". Well, that would be a trick, since these lines do not exist in the real world and violate every law of physics. It is not physically possible to transmit electricity for thousands of miles. I agree with you. Some of the geniuses on this board get all fixated on physics and stuff. If we can saves billions, why not invest trillions to do it? After some research (as opposed to just regurgitating whatever is posted on this board), I fail to see the impossibility of long-distance power transmission. The exploitation of remote energy sources at low cost (e.g. hydro or mine-mouth, coal-fired plant suitable for producing electricity at a cost of the order of 10 - 25 mills/kWh) is now feasible and economical for distances never before entertained. For example, transmission systems can be set-up over a distance of as much as 7000 km in d.c and 3000-4000 km in a.c. such that, by offering an acceptable reliability level for the receiving system concerned, present costs small enough (from 5 to 20 mills/kwh) as to make advantageous the exploitation of those sources, when compared to generation at 30 - 35 mills/kWh located in the vicinity of load centers. The unit cost of the electric power, transmitted by d.c, shows only small increases when increasing transmission distance: for every additional 1000 km the increase is of the order of 1.5 and 2.6 mills/kWh for transmission of 10 GW and 2.5 GW respectively. By consequence, variations in the cost of energy produced close to consumption centers (as determined by market prices) that may even be smaller than those registered during the past ten years, results in shifts of hundreds (or thousands) of km in the competitive distances of remote sources. http://www.geni.org/globalenergy/library/t...ems/index.shtml Did we find a way to violate every law of physics? I can't wait for faster-than-light travel!
Gene Frenkle Posted November 12, 2008 Posted November 12, 2008 Incidentally, the distance from NYC to LA is approximately 2444 miles (3933 kilometers), not that we'd actually have to transmit power from NYC to LA or vice-versa in any case.
Gene Frenkle Posted November 12, 2008 Posted November 12, 2008 Big ideas that mean ca-ca. Why fix it if it isnt broken? BECAUSE IT ISNT BROKEN. I have a BiL in the oil industry. Hes been to countless seminars about the merits of alternative energy. And at the end of each one the consensus is that is just isnt freaking worth it to just up and ditch oil to develop a product or products that produce not even CLOSE to the amount of energy oil does "pound for pound." Its would be like the Air Force ditching jet fighters for biplanes from WWI. We are "addicited to oil" becuase its the best product for energy production out there. Really? The oil industry you say? Forgive my skepticism. And in reality, it would be almost nothing like the Air Force ditching jet fighters for biplanes from WWI. It would be more like the Air Force continuing to use biplanes from WWI just until they finish developing jet fighters as a viable alternative.
DC Tom Posted November 12, 2008 Posted November 12, 2008 transmission systems can be set-up over a distance of as much as 7000 km in d.c and 3000-4000 km in a.c. How?
Gene Frenkle Posted November 12, 2008 Posted November 12, 2008 How? Did you read the article? It seems to be a commonly accepted measurement, but I'm just a moron, so don't take it from me. Here's the Wiki page I found the link on. Check out the Loses section. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission Reading is fun even if Einstein is rolling over in his grave!
Gene Frenkle Posted November 12, 2008 Posted November 12, 2008 Then there's this (from the same Wiki page): Superconducting cables High-temperature superconductors promise to revolutionize power distribution by providing lossless transmission of electrical power. The development of superconductors with transition temperatures higher than the boiling point of liquid nitrogen has made the concept of superconducting power lines commercially feasible, at least for high-load applications. [26] It has been estimated that the waste would be halved using this method, since the necessary refrigeration equipment would consume about half the power saved by the elimination of the majority of resistive losses. Such cables are particularly suited to high load density areas such as the business district of large cities, where purchase of a wayleave for cables would be very costly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission I guess the lesson I learned today is that it's easy to say something is impossible or violates every law of physics. It's also easy to accept everything you read on a message board as gospel, especially if it coincides with your preconceived notions and/or worldview. Thankfully, it's also easy to use Google as an alternative to the above.
Wacka Posted November 13, 2008 Posted November 13, 2008 Then there's this (from the same Wiki page): Superconducting cables High-temperature superconductors promise to revolutionize power distribution by providing lossless transmission of electrical power. The development of superconductors with transition temperatures higher than the boiling point of liquid nitrogen has made the concept of superconducting power lines commercially feasible, at least for high-load applications. [26] It has been estimated that the waste would be halved using this method, since the necessary refrigeration equipment would consume about half the power saved by the elimination of the majority of resistive losses. Such cables are particularly suited to high load density areas such as the business district of large cities, where purchase of a wayleave for cables would be very costly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission I guess the lesson I learned today is that it's easy to say something is impossible or violates every law of physics. It's also easy to accept everything you read on a message board as gospel, especially if it coincides with your preconceived notions and/or worldview. Thankfully, it's also easy to use Google as an alternative to the above. DC can't be transmitted far without major losses. That's why we use AC (Thank you Nicolas Tesla). High temp superconduction is not room temperature. How much will it cost to cool the transmission lines?
DC Tom Posted November 13, 2008 Posted November 13, 2008 Did you read the article? It seems to be a commonly accepted measurement, but I'm just a moron, so don't take it from me. Here's the Wiki page I found the link on. Check out the Loses section. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission Reading is fun even if Einstein is rolling over in his grave! Again...how? Then there's this (from the same Wiki page): Superconducting cables I guess the lesson I learned today is that it's easy to say something is impossible or violates every law of physics. It's also easy to accept everything you read on a message board as gospel, especially if it coincides with your preconceived notions and/or worldview. It's impossible and violates every law of physics. Even if it were economical (it's not, high-T superconductors are still hideously expensive), you can't transmit high voltage over long distances with them, because high voltages cause superconductors to not be superconductors. And now, I'm telling you AS A PHYSICIST, who specialized in statistical physics and actually edited a graduate-level textbook on high-T superconductors. I could explain the subject in execrable detail...but I won't. Because you're an asshat. But keep trying. I'm sure you'll get something right someday.
Recommended Posts