Full Version: Recession Ahead?
From: Ken D. (KDEVORY) [#90]
26 Aug 2005
To: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#89] 26 Aug 2005
Harvey,
What is your crystal ball saying about degree and duration?
From: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#91]
26 Aug 2005
To: Ken D. (KDEVORY) [#90] 26 Aug 2005
Personally I think that all has to do with oil prices at the moment. I only get a feel of today and the very near future, (few weeks maybe). It all depends if conditions change and if the government can do anything about the conditions that are the root cause.
Bush did work out an increased oil production deal with Opec, but for 2009. A bit too late for what I see.
The only good that may come out of this is better alternative sources of energy. Wind and water are the best, non polluting and absorbing energy from the environment so when it is used we are back to whee we began. No net gain in energy to the environment. (Solar will do the same.)
From: Ken D. (KDEVORY) [#92]
26 Aug 2005
To: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#91] 26 Aug 2005
I saw something years ago on proposed underwater turbines, powered by the ocean currents. They were supposed to be huge but slow, so no fish would be hurt. And out of sight for no "not in my back yard". And give consistent power due to the nature of the currents. I wonder what happened?
When I was in college I had a summer job one year at GE Nuclear, with the ALMR project. (Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor) It used sodium in the core instead of water for higher efficiencies. The system was designed with safety as the top priority. Its amazing how inherently safe the design was. Another advantage, it could be powered by the "spent" fuel cells from the existing nuclear infrastructure. I suspect it was canned because it could function as a breeder reactor. (It could be set up to make its own fuel, while generating electricity.)
From: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#93]
26 Aug 2005
To: Ken D. (KDEVORY) [#92] 26 Aug 2005
There are different types of 'breeder reactors'. I remember the info on liquid sodium transfer reactors, but that seemed to disappear fast for some reason.
A liquid sodium leak would be devastating, it would burn furiously on contact with air. Also liquid metals tend to dissolve other metals into it. I always wondered how they overcame that problem, maybe it was only a short term solution, (pun).
I also always wondered why spent fuel was not just mixed with the dirt of the uranium quarries as new uranium was mined. It would return only about the same radioactive amounts that were removed originally giving a basically null effect on the environment.
From: trophyman (MIKEBERGER) [#94]
26 Aug 2005
To: Cindy (CINDYM) [#81] 30 Aug 2005
You are right on with this. My grandparents came here from Germany during WI and also HAD TO LEARN English.
Now we are not only giving them everything BUT ALSO are required to provide them EVERYTHING in their language.
The grocery and fast food industry has become a foreign country to us when we try to communicate there. Just my 2 cents but it upsets me that my ancestors made the effort to do it legal.
A friend just got laid off from a job that he had for nearly 10 years, trying to get ANY assistance was all a TOTAL JOKE and RUN AROUND, but yet the illegals get the RED CARPET rolled out.
Mike
From: Ken D. (KDEVORY) [#95]
26 Aug 2005
To: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#93] 28 Aug 2005
Interesting idea of returning the radioactive waste to its source. I see no reason why they couldn't be worked out, but some issues might be transport, and distribution/disbursement. Its a lot more concentrated then when it was first removed. Then there is a trickier issue, if it was originally in stone and is returned to the dirt, will rain leach/wash it out.
I was in the controls group so I don't know the details of liquid metal. They did have a leak detection system. It used a series of sensitive microphones. A signal processor would look for common signals. (The same "noise" at multiple locations is really a signal too weak to detect at just one. The location can then be determined by looking at the time shift and triangulating.) - The whole project seemed to have more politics then engineering. Though its amazing what the engineers were doing with the little money that trickled down.
Another group was working on a liquid lithium unit for a space reactor. I heard that was canned because of space reactors coming out of Russia; they weren't all that safe or long lasting, but they were cheap enough to be considered disposable.
Like everyone else I don't want a power plant in my back yard. But given the choice I'd choose the liquid sodium system they were working on over one that burns fossil fuels. - Maybe someone will design a man-made photosynthesis process for separating oxygen and hydrogen, to power fuel cells. Or an efficient long lasting solar cell.
From: UncleSteve [#96]
26 Aug 2005
To: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#87] 28 Aug 2005
No, actually I MEANT Congress.... (as a whole body!) since PROgress is to move forward and CONgress.... well, you get the idea....
Uh, BTW, is Dee making KoolAid again? LOL!
EDITED: 26 Aug 2005 by UNCLESTEVE
From: Mick [#97]
26 Aug 2005
To: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#91] 28 Aug 2005
It would have helped if the oil companies would have been permitted to build more refineries, but no, can't build them because of the enviroment. The oil companies can't even up the supply side by drilling for more oil in and offshore in our own country !!!! When the companies can produce more the price will come down.
Poke holes in ANWAR, the caribou will survive !!
From: UncleSteve [#98]
26 Aug 2005
To: Mick [#97] 27 Aug 2005
Got to do something about the tree huggin', owl kissing, fanatics that don't know or even want to know the facts.
The only person that should complain are the "nimby's", "Not In My Back Yard" and, to the best of my knowledge, Anwar isn't anybody's backyard!
From: Cindy (CINDYM) [#99]
30 Aug 2005
To: Ken D. (KDEVORY) [#92] 30 Aug 2005
Oregon State University is in the process of setting up what you describe a mile off the Oregon coast - and still people complained that it would ruin the view!! If you can see a mile off the coast with all the fog we get it would be a miracle.
I'm excited about this process of harnessing the ocean for power. Every time I visit the coast I think of all the potential in those powerful waves and currents.
Starting next week I will be car pooling to save on gas. We have a little car and a big truck for hauling our stock and supplies for our farm. I prefer to drive the truck (much more comfortable, better stereo system, a/c, power steering, auto everything - none of which our 95 Prism has), but it is time to get smart, not comfortable, about our gas consumption.
I heard that if we all decreased our gas consumption by 15% it would make a difference to the bottom line of the oil companies, who have just cleaned up profit wise during this oil "crisis".
Cindy M
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#100]
30 Aug 2005
To: Cindy (CINDYM) [#99] 30 Aug 2005
If the focus on energy ever turns away from oil, guess which companies will be at the forefront of the new technologies?
My guess: The same companies that are cleaning up now.
From: laserman (MIKEMAC) [#101]
30 Aug 2005
To: Cindy (CINDYM) [#99] 30 Aug 2005
Cindy,
If everyone stopped buying GAS for just One day it would make a serious dent in there pocket books!!!
You are doing the right thing! We are all to dependent on government regulated fuel sources.
From: Ken D. (KDEVORY) [#102]
30 Aug 2005
To: Cindy (CINDYM) [#99] 30 Aug 2005
Cindy,
It can't be the same thing I had read about years ago. The thing I'm referring to is completely under water. Think of an under water windmill powered by the currents that don't change/move. Though powerful, the blades were so big and slow the fish would/could swim right by them. (Maybe Oregon is using the things that float up and down on the waves?)
I'm not familiar with the Oregon project. The people objecting, I wonder what alternative they would prefer; somehow I doubt anyone has asked. Sometimes the best way to handle the objectors is to include them in on the process. But it must be done early enough in the process to seriously evaluate their positions. When all the information is truly on the table they might agree, or maybe a different approach is better. - It would be an interesting approach, to include (the interested) people in on the decisions that effect them. There are always trade-offs, in all decisions.
Cars get more efficient, gas tanks get smaller; Prices go up. Prior to this spike, I was paying the same per tank as I did with my first car. Less gas, same distance. At this point I'm hoping my car holds out until I have the money for a new one. Me and my wife have very different needs. Earlier this year she bought a Honda CR-V; I liked the Toyota Prius.
From: Cindy (CINDYM) [#103]
30 Aug 2005
To: Ken D. (KDEVORY) [#102] 30 Aug 2005
In the newspaper article about this a couple of months ago, it appears the project will be a mile out and everything will be below the ocean surface, so eye pollution is minimal. They will have a boat or station built out there, but it will be small. You might be able to find out more at Oregon State University's website. It sounded very interesting.
Cindy
From: UCONN Dave & Lynn too (DANDL48) [#104]
30 Aug 2005
To: laserman (MIKEMAC) [#101] 30 Aug 2005
Sorry, but that won't work since twice as many people would buy gas the following day. Now, if they didn't drive their car for a day, that could work but than again they might have twice the errands to run the day after.
Dave
From: laserman (MIKEMAC) [#105]
30 Aug 2005
To: UCONN Dave & Lynn too (DANDL48) [#104] 30 Aug 2005
From: Ken D. (KDEVORY) [#106]
30 Aug 2005
To: laserman (MIKEMAC) [#105] 30 Aug 2005
Somewhere between here and there, other alternatives will become feasible/economical. The two questions are: at what price? and after ramping up production, what could it drop to?
From: basehorawards [#107]
30 Aug 2005
To: Ken D. (KDEVORY) [#106] 30 Aug 2005
From: Ken D. (KDEVORY) [#108]
30 Aug 2005
To: basehorawards [#107] 30 Aug 2005
Before even looking at the price tag, I'd ask about byproducts and where all the coal would come from. If the break even is really $30/barrel, I suspect others are also evaluating the option.
I don't know the details, but I've read that some of the bio-fuels made from farmed crops can be mixed in with gas, up to 20-30%, for use in existing cars. (It bothers me that the government is paying farmers to plow under crops. Use the money to help explore other markets/uses. Using biodegradable packing material made from corn is much better for the country then the stuff made from oil.) Subsidize development for the future, don't pay people to not work.
The government should help those who can't take care of themselves, not those who won't. And when possible the same money should be used to help two or more groups at once. (One group needs help, another work, put them together.) The best solutions minimize or eliminate the problems that created them.
From: laserman (MIKEMAC) [#109]
30 Aug 2005
To: Ken D. (KDEVORY) [#108] 30 Aug 2005
Ken,
You are so right, The big thing that bothers me is the government knows the alternative sources. But they won't do anything about it because this is a huge paycheck toward there deficit. If everyone is going to continue to buy the gas at the price they control then they will continue to sell it and probably keep raising the prices until someone says enough is enough.
Show messages: 1-9 … 30-49 50-69 70-89 90-109 110-122