Jason's blog

Sunday, May 18, 2008

Global warming sequestration successful demonstrated: http://www.gizmag.com/go/7341/

COINTELPRO surveillance FBI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO#Range_of_targets

Saturday, May 10, 2008

[img]http://www.theoildrum.com/files/biofuels_compare.gif[/img]

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3963#more

I can assure you that they won't save us especially Australia, a place that lacks water. Recent food shortages should wake some people up but apparently, there are "some people" who still advocates biofuels. Most governments won't know about biochar and even if they do, it doesn't stop soil erosion, it only helps the soil retain the nutrients. I think the most important statement I should make is that all these biofuels depends on this one big machine and it's called the tractor which requires a lot of diesel. The EROEI of most is negative.



[quote]
[b]Other silicon chemicals[/b]

Carbon
The manufacture of [b]high purity charcoal[/b] suggests potential for high quality activated (commonly with steam) carbon used in the gold extraction industry. (Though the carbon is of a specific form and hardness that is commonly produced from coconut shell, there are price premiums for superior-performance forms. The prospects for manufacturing special grades of carbon are described.

Pyroligneous chemicals
Producing charcoal from timber generates substantial amounts of pyroligneous tars and volatiles that are recycled as fuel by Simcoa. Whereas up to 10 per cent by weight of wood tar is produced, the only one-time commercially viable by-products are methanol, methyl acetate and acetic acid (as once produced at Wundowie, east of Perth) that are now more cheaply produced in large scale petrochemical plants. [/quote]

http://www.chemlink.com.au/silicon.htm

[quote]Silicon is commercially prepared by the reaction of high-purity silica with wood, charcoal, and coal, in an electric arc furnace using carbon electrodes. [/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon

If it's wood or sugar canes, you plant them using petrochemicals so that it grows faster. If it's coal, I don't need to explain CO2.

A lot of people hide behind the fact that solar thermal just uses mostly steel but that is not looking at the big picture. The computers are used so that the parabolic plates can track the sun. Those computers contain very high quality silicon microchips. A lot of deforestation of willow trees/sugar canes, production of those plants, open-pit ming of coal and transportation of silicon to computer manufacturing facilities (not surprising since they're not near rails and if a few are, it doesn't mean they're electrified) require oil.

[Must see] This video demonstrates how toxic the silicon industry is and how many chemicals they use (other sources say thousands):

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9023755547560462354

FOUND THE SOURCE:
[quote][b]1000s[/b] of Chemicals are Used in Electronics Production

Just one computer can contain hundreds of chemicals, including lead, mercury, cadmium, brominated flame retardants (BFRs) and [b]polyvinyl chloride (PVC)[/b]. Many of these chemicals are known to cause cancer, respiratory illness and reproductive problems. They are especially dangerous because of their ability to travel long distances through air and water and accumulate in our bodies and the environment. [/quote]
http://www.etoxics.org/site/PageServer?pagename=svtc_toxics_in_electronics




For cargo:

[img]http://www.robl.w1.com/Transport/90-0452.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.robl.w1.com/Transport/M000895.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.robl.w1.com/Transport/M000884.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.robl.w1.com/Transport/M000838.jpg[/img]

This combined with the limited area of distribution of rails and we should have a tough time.

At the beginning of this year, I was a 40% doomer. Now, after more research, I'm more of a 80% doomer. Personally, I have something bad to say for every proposed solution to this mess. Make no mistake, though. I can confidently say that society will use all these solutions after peak oil but in a very very very limited scale. The amount of difference it makes for most of society will be minimal. The rich will be well-off and able to use renewable energy while the poor will have to suffer a lot. Raw materials prices will rise, all liquids fuels whether natural, synthetic or biological (biofuels) will rise in price. Judging that CTL were the most used alternative fuel after the 1973 and 1980 fuel crisis, we can expect huge CO2 emissions and huge chunks of glaciers melting, raising water levels and warming the planet.

[img]http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/07/05/business/20060705_COALFUEL_GRAPHIC.gif[/img]

But even that will be a very limited alternative. I think it's a no-brainer to realize that society is not prepared for this (we got 1 to 2 years before terminal decline). There's no debate about that. In order for these solutions to have an impact to soften the blow from peak oil, we should've built them from 1980 onwards. Again, make no mistake. It's not that alternative energy can't provide the transition [i]given limitless time[/i]. But, we left it too late. Way, way, wayyyy too late. Even if we 100% prioritized renewable energy production, it wouldn't make too much of a difference and it may worsen it if no other investment is made to health care, security, agriculture, welfare, water, mining, housing, education (train engineers), etc.. Let's see the fastest renewable energy shource:

[img]http://www.upcrenewables.com/images/charts/chart1.jpg[/img]

It took 8 years to get from 5GW to 20GW (during a time when diesel was cheap) while oil provides 18TW. It's naive to think that it'll make a difference even if we don't mention the fact that diesel is required. A lot of people mention biodiesel so let's look at the picture:

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/World_energy_usage_width_chart.svg/741px-World_energy_usage_width_chart.svg.png[/img]

The ability for biodiesel to help us replace diesel works but it is very very limited. Like I said, it will hardly make a difference including solutions to electrify the rail. Refer to the other threads on what diesel is required for including ballast regulators, rail spikers, cargo transloading from land onto trains, bulldozers, tractors, scrapers, graders, road rollers, gantry cranes, rail threaders, concrete mixers (concrete is the foundation for the steel masts for overhead lines).

Detailed technical info:

[quote]Preparing the trackbed

The work on a high-speed line (ligne à grande vitesse, or LGV) begins with earth moving. The trackbed is carved into the landscape, using scrapers, graders, bulldozers and other heavy machinery. All fixed structures are built; these include bridges, flyovers, culverts, game tunnels, and the like. Drainage facilities, most notably the large ditches on either side of the trackbed, are constructed. Supply bases are established near the end of the high-speed tracks, where crews will form work trains to carry rail, sleepers and other supplies to the work site.

Next, a layer of compact gravel is spread on the trackbed. This, after being compacted by rollers, provides an adequate surface for vehicles with tyres. TGV tracklaying then proceeds. The tracklaying process is not particularly specialized to high-speed lines; the same general technique is applicable to any track that uses continuous welded rail. The steps outlined below are used around the world in modern tracklaying. TGV track, however, answers to stringent requirements that dictate materials, dimensions and tolerances.

[edit] Laying the track

To begin laying track, a gantry crane that rides on rubber tires is used to lay down panels of prefabricated track. These are laid roughly in the location where one of the tracks will be built (all LGVs have two tracks). Each panel is 18 metres (60 feet) long, and rests on wooden sleepers. No ballast is used at this stage, since the panel track is temporary.

Once the panel track is laid, a work train (pulled by diesel locomotives) can bring in the sections of continuous welded rail that will be used for the permanent way of this first track. The rail comes from the factory in lengths varying from 200 m (660 ft) to 400 m (1310 ft). Such long pieces of rail are just laid across several flatcars; they are very flexible, so this does not pose a problem. A special crane unloads the rail sections and places them on each side of the temporary track, approximately 3.5 m (12 ft) apart. This operation is usually carried out at night, for thermal reasons. The rail itself is standard UIC section, 60 kg/m (40 lb/ft), with a tensile strength of 800 newtons per square millimetre or megapascals (116,000 psi).

For the next step, a gantry crane is used again. This time, however, the crane rides on the two rails that were just laid alongside the temporary track. A train of flatcars, half loaded with LGV sleepers, arrives at the site. It is pushed by a special diesel locomotive, which is low enough to fit underneath the gantry cranes. The cranes remove the panels of temporary track, and stack them onto the empty half of the sleeper train. Next, they pick up sets of 30 LGV sleepers, pre-arranged with the proper spacing (60 cm, or 24 in), using a special fixture. The sleepers are laid on the gravel bed where the panel track was. The sleeper train leaves the worksite loaded with sections of panel track.

The sleepers, sometimes known as bi-bloc sleepers, are U41 twin block reinforced concrete, 2.4 m (7 ft 10 in.) wide, and weigh 245 kg (540 lb) each. They are equipped with hardware for Nabla RNTC spring fasteners, and a 9 mm (3/8 in.) rubber pad. (Rubber pads are always used under the rail on concrete sleepers, to avoid cracking). Next, a rail threader is used to lift the rails onto their final position on the sleepers. This machine rides on the rails just like the gantry cranes, but can also support itself directly on a sleeper. By doing this, it can lift the rails, and shift them inwards over the ends of the sleepers, to the proper gauge (standard gauge). It then lowers them onto the rubber sleeper cushions, and workers use a pneumatically operated machine to bolt down the Nabla clips with a predetermined torque. The rails are canted inward at a slope of 1 in 20.

[edit] Joining track sections

The sections of rail are welded together using thermite. Conventional welding (using some type of flame) does not work well on large metal pieces such as rails, since the heat is conducted away too quickly. Thermite is better suited to this job. It is a mix of aluminium powder and rust (iron oxide) powder, which reacts to produce iron, aluminum oxide, and a very large amount of heat. This last property is what makes it ideal to join pieces of rail.

Before the rail is joined, its length must be adjusted very accurately. This ensures that the thermal stresses in the rail after it is joined into one continuous piece do not exceed certain limits, resulting in lateral kinks (in hot weather) or fractures (in cold weather). The joining operation is performed by an aluminothermic welding machine which is equipped with a rail saw, a weld shear and a grinder. When the thermite welding process is complete, the weld is ground down to the profile of the rail, resulting in a seamless join between rail sections. Thermal stresses in the rail due to varying ambient temperatures are absorbed without longitudinal strain, except near bridges where an expansion joint is sometimes used.

[edit] Adding ballast

The next step consists of stuffing a deep bed of ballast underneath the new track. The ballast arrives in a train of hopper cars pulled by one or two diesel locomotives. Handling this train is challenging, since the ballast must be spread as evenly as possible. If the train stops, ballast can pile over the rails and derail it.

A first layer of ballast is dumped directly onto the track, and a tamping-lining-levelling machine, riding on the rails, forces the stones underneath the sleepers. Each pass of this machine can raise the level of the track by 8 cm (3 in), so several passes of ballasting and of the machine are needed to build up a layer of ballast at least 32 cm (1 foot) thick under the sleepers. The ballast is also piled thick on each side of the track for lateral stability. The machine performs the initial alignment of the track. Next, a ballast regulator distributes the ballast evenly. Finally, a dynamic vibrator machine shakes the track to perform the final tamping, effectively simulating the passing of 2500 axles.

[edit] Finishing construction

Now that the first track is almost complete, work begins on the adjacent track. This time, however, it is not necessary to lay a temporary track. Trains running on the first track bring the sleepers, and then the rail, which is unloaded directly onto the sleepers by dispensing arms that swing out to the proper alignment. The Nabla fasteners are secured, and the ballast is stuffed under the track as before.

The two tracks are now essentially complete, but the work on the line is not finished. The catenary masts need to be erected, and the wire strung on them. Catenary installation is not complicated; it will suffice to give a brief summary of specifications. The steel masts are I-beams, placed in a concrete foundation up to 63 m (206 ft) apart. The supports are mounted on glass insulators. The carrier wire is bronze, 65 mm² cross section, 14 kN (3100 lbf) tension. The stitch wire is bronze, 15 m (49.21 ft) long, 35 mm² cross-section. The droppers are 5 mm stranded copper cable. The contact wire is hard drawn copper, 120 mm², flat section on the contact side, 14 kN tension. The maximum depth of the catenary (distance between carrier and contact wires) is 1.4 m (4.59 feet). The contact wire can rise a maximum of 240 mm (9.44 inches) but the normal vertical displacement does not exceed 120 mm (4.72 inches).

Now that the catenary is complete, the track is given final alignment adjustments down to millimeter tolerances. The ballast is then blown to remove smaller gravel fragments and dust, which might be kicked up by trains. This step is especially important on high-speed tracks, since the blast of a passing train is strong. Finally, TGV trains are tested on the line at gradually increasing speeds. The track is qualified at speeds slightly higher than will be used in everyday operations (typically 350 km/h, or 210 mph), before being opened to commercial service.[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGV_construction

Picture of a [size=200][b]rail threader[/b][/size] (whose ultimate job is to align and place the rails on the ground):

[img]http://www.railroad.net/santucci/Threading_rail2.jpg[/img]

It has rubber wheels and it needs diesel.

The I-beams's foundation is concrete and it requires cement. Cement is a huge industry that must require fossil fuels:
[quote]Most cement kilns today use coal and petroleum coke as primary fuels, and to a lesser extent natural gas and fuel oil. [/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cement#Cement_business

Prices for concrete and steel will rise exponentially.

Wednesday, May 07, 2008

stuff

solar sails: http://www.biztoolbelt.com/2007/11/solar_ships_to_carry_san_franc.html

for trains: ballast regulator (way of maintenance)

Sunday, April 20, 2008

http://sydneypeakoil.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=283&sid=9ff792d00d9bc6849425a5435800c951

[b]Reminder: This is for North America only. [/b]

Coal:
http://sydneypeakoil.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=265

Don't come to Canada for coal. We only have 0.7% of world coal supplies. Coal imports won't last long especially with peak oil.
[quote]It is also important to note that ‘peak coal exports’ should come even earlier, as lower-energy-density coals are not worth transporting long distances.[/quote]
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/2396

Natural Gas:
[quote]
A. I recently submitted an academic article on that with a graduate student in Chicago. We see about 2007 as the peak date for North American natural gas production.One of the interesting things with natural gas, though, is that the technology is so good that reserves are being depleted much faster. This means the peak may hold out a little longer, maybe even until 2008, then it will be followed by an even sharper fall.[/quote]
http://www.energybulletin.net/11789.html

More: http://sydneypeakoil.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=282

And one more unconventional source: [quote]The Barnett Shale is known as a "tight" gas reservoir, indicating that the gas is not easily extracted. The shale is very hard, and it was virtually impossible to produce gas in commercial quantities from this formation until recent improvements were made in hydraulic fracturing technology and horizontal drilling, and there was an upturn in the natural gas price.[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_Shale


Don't think about importing natural gas in a world of peak oil. LNG is particularly expensive to import and terminals are limited.
[b]
Reminder: This is not only for North America but also for the world. [/b]

Oil: (Self-explanatory)

Uranium: http://sydneypeakoil.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=184

Everything else is either not developed yet or they are simply not cheap to produce. Clearly, we have gone past the point of cheap non-renewable energy resources in North America. Conclusion from my research: All conventional non-renewable resources have peaked in North America.

For the world, our cheap coal and cheap natural gas can last just around another decade.

You may or may not want to sticky this. It's been a long time since I've posted an ultimate summary post.

The USA, being the second largest producer, have already passed peak production of high quality coal in 1990 in the Appalachian and the Illinois basin. Production of subbituminous coal in Wyoming more than compensated for this decline in terms of volume and – according to its stated reserves – this trend can continue for another 10 to 15 years. However, due to the lower energy content of subbituminous coal, US coal production in terms of energy has already peaked 5 years ago – it is unclear whether this trend can be reversed.

http://peakoil.com/fortopic28299.html
http://www.energywatchgroup.org/files/Coalreport.pdf

More evidence from TheOilDrum:
USA
The USA, then, as we have all heard, has reported proven coal reserves that would allow continued production at current rates for more than 200 years. Three federal states (Wyoming, Montana, Illinois) hold about 60% [4] of US coal reserves, but the low production rates relative to reported reserves in Montana and Illinois cast some doubt on the reliability or suitability of those reported reserves. As many of these reserves are of low quality, with high sulphur content and/or other drawbacks, it may be considered doubtful that they will ever be produced. Measured in terms of produced tons per miner, US productivity steadily increased until 2000, but has declined since, which also implies that ‘easy coal’ is running short.

The USA had passed peak production of anthracite (by far the rarest form) by 1950 and peaked in bituminous coal in 1990, but sub-bituminous coal more than made up for this decline in terms of tonnage. However, due to the lower energy content of softer coals, the total energy content of annual US coal production peaked in 1998.

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/2396

Included in natural gas resource estimates are:

* Associated resources – discovered along with oil fields, through drilling for oil.
* Non-associated resources – free flowing natural gas discovered without petroleum.
* Tight gases – natural gas in dense shale or sandstone deposits that requires extensive drilling and fracturing to recover.
* Coal bed methane – gas released from coal deposits that again requires extensive drilling and fracturing to recover.

http://energybulletin.net/2332.html

Q: “Your forecasting back in 2001 on natural gas production in the Gulf of Mexico appears to have been pretty close to the mark. Where do you see North American natural gas production headed between now and 2020?”

A: Back then, I was on the pessimistic side, but maybe I wasn’t pessimistic enough.
By 2006, slightly over half of Lower-48 gas was already coming from unconventional gas sources, including tight sandstones, coal-bed methane, deepwater and ultra-deepwater. We’re moving towards more and more marginal resources. Getting more increases after 2015 seems unlikely. Texas gas production has been increasing pretty consistently this decade, and Barnett shale has been a big contributor. We’re getting a boost in gas from the Independence Hub in the Gulf, but how long-lived will production from those wells be? My guess is not very long. I don’t yet see anything comparable coming on line soon. In Canada, coal-bed methane isn’t panning out the way they thought it would. About 25% fewer wells will be drilled in Canada this year, due to a combination of high costs and low gas prices. So I’m quite sure North American natural gas production will not be higher in 2020 than it is today. It could be lower by some degree, maybe as much as 10% to 20%.

http://energybulletin.net/35504.html

And North America is increasingly relying on them. There's one more and that is sour gas.

The peak in global production was achieved in 1980, amounting to 69 683 tU from 22 countries. In 2003, uranium production totaled 35 600 tU from 19 countries.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/2006/vance.htm

In general, global uranium mining has decreased since 1991, but development in the individual countries varies considerably. Whereas Australia increased its uranium generation by 1.7 times, uranium production in Western Europe has been almost completely suspended. France, for instance, has markedly reduced its share since 1997 and now produces only about one fifth of the uranium quantity of 1991. Canada has occupied the leading position in global uranium mining for many years.

http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/u/uranium-mining-global.htm

Peak uranium production reached 12 million pounds per year in 1980 declining to less than 2 million pounds per year during the last few years of depressed uranium prices.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2005_Feb_23/ai_n10019842

Friday, February 15, 2008

Western: 6321

Queen: 0041404360-20080215

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Sahelanthropus tchadensis

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Switch Lim Ji Hye to "Lim Ji Hae" forum