Pathetic....

steingar said:
Henning has said he thinks we should dock all the boomers and use their nuclear plants to power our cities and make hydrogen. I can't say how realistic this is, as I suspect that our needs would quickly dwarf the ability of the ships' generators. But I will not claim to know the specifics. Henning may, though I strongly doubt it. I find it hard to believe that the military would share that kind of information.
Click to expand...

The Russians are aready doing this.

<---<^>--->
 
azure said:
We had a colloquium about this a few years ago. I haven't followed whatever recent developments there may have been, but at the time the cost of extracting hydrogen from water by electrolysis was several times that of the useful energy returned by burning it. Yes, generating the needed electricity from fission could cut that cost drastically if the infrastructure was in place, probably by enough to make it cost effective (though I haven't done the math) -- but if so, then you are really talking about turning to nuclear energy as the dominant energy source. That's not a technological problem so much as a political one.
Click to expand...

The difference though is in the water. Only with fuel cell conversion do you also produce fresh water as the exhaust. Burning hydrogen causes no pollution and that is good. A fuel cell on the other hand gives us the benefit of water without having to spend energy on reverse osmosis or other reclamation, and it gives us the ability to clean up contaminated and toxic water supplies as well as desalinate ocean water, and you get to ship 2 products at once while only paying to transport a small fraction of it.

The technology has never been allowed out of its infancy. Compared to computers, the evolution of the Hydrogen Fuel cell is along the lines of a TRS-80. You have to trust and if you are in the position create, improvements in the efficiency of it.

These arguments are nothing but PATHETIC!!!

Quit being so damned lazy. You'd all rather ***** an moan and lie around in the filth that creates than put forth and believe and get it done.
Lazy and pathetic, all of you.

Get your a$$es out there and make it happen, or provide a better option. Those are the only 2 choices you have that can effect a change for the better. Y'all ****ing and moaning here only makes it worse.

I'm doing everything I can think of, sending the page to anyone I can send it to.

This is my mission. I may be defeated in it, and I can accept that. I'll have done my best and I can die with a clear conscience knowing I tried to make the world a better place, I really did. I'm just not a good enough leader to get people off their asses, but not for lack of trying.
 
I'm no nuclear engineer, but I understand that cooling systems are necessary to condense the used steam for recycling in the core. Nuclear plants use cooling towers; I would imagine that a sub uses heat exchangers in contact with the seawater.

Now, a nuclear sub running at 70% power will have a lot of waste heat. That's fine if it's moving and releasing that heat to the surrounding flow, but a stationary sub is just going to boil the water it's sitting in, I think.

Dan
 
Only comment I'd make is on your marketing, Henning.
You might have a genius idea (although I wonder how the Navy would feel about losing all their boats!), however I suggest you will get more following if you don't berate those who haven't even read it! ("pathetic","stupid","lazy", the SHOUTING.)
Good luck.
:)
 
pilot_dude said:
How many subs have you ordered? Just trying to figure out if you're a doer or whiner.
Click to expand...

Haven't ordered any yet, I'm trying to get hold of the ones we already have in surplus that are part of the debt that is bankrupting the nation. With those I can sell electricity and start ordering more with the profits. Apple started in a freaking Garage, THOSE people had vision, all you have is antagonism. You are a poor human being.
 
Dan Thomas said:
I'm no nuclear engineer, but I understand that cooling systems are necessary to condense the used steam for recycling in the core. Nuclear plants use cooling towers; I would imagine that a sub uses heat exchangers in contact with the seawater.

Now, a nuclear sub running at 70% power will have a lot of waste heat. That's fine if it's moving and releasing that heat to the surrounding flow, but a stationary sub is just going to boil the water it's sitting in, I think.

Dan
Click to expand...
Hmmm, so another source of energy to tap then - the boiling water.

Ryan
 
Henning, are you OK? I am not being flippant.
 
Henning said:
Haven't ordered any yet, I'm trying to get hold of the ones we already have in surplus that are part of the debt that is bankrupting the nation. With those I can sell electricity and start ordering more with the profits. Apple started in a freaking Garage, THOSE people had vision, all you have is antagonism. You are a poor human being.
Click to expand...
I take it you're a whiner from this response.
 
We currently have 104 nuclear reactors running at power plants in the US. Designed specifically to generate power efficiently and deliver it for consumption in cities. Are you seriously telling me that 10 LA class subs are going to "save us"

I agree that nuclear power is an excellent source of energy
 
And what exactly is your plan to harness energy from these subs? And how would it be better than an existing nuclear power plant / reactor?
 
Burning hydrogen produces what?
 
dell30rb said:
We currently have 104 nuclear reactors running at power plants in the US. Designed specifically to generate power efficiently and deliver it for consumption in cities. Are you seriously telling me that 10 LA class subs are going to "save us"

I agree that nuclear power is an excellent source of energy
Click to expand...

LA class subs are 35,000 shp, which equates to about 26 Mw of power. In contrast, the Comanche Peak nuke plant south of Dallas has multiple reactors, each >1,000 Mw. Looks like each sub will generate about as much as 26 wind turbines.
 
Bob Noel said:
Burning hydrogen produces what?
Click to expand...

Energy and water. Problem with hydrogen is source. It is the most plentiful element in the universe, but not on planet Earth. You can get it by passing an electrical charge through water, but you get far less energy from the burn than you put in originally. Right now I believe it is stripped out of natural gas. But there you are once again dependent on a fossil fuel and its availability.
 
Egggactly, hydrogen is just a battery.

A good battery but a battery none the less.
 
steingar said:
Energy and water. Problem with hydrogen is source. It is the most plentiful element in the universe, but not on planet Earth. You can get it by passing an electrical charge through water, but you get far less energy from the burn than you put in originally. Right now I believe it is stripped out of natural gas. But there you are once again dependent on a fossil fuel and its availability.
Click to expand...

Energy translate to heat, right?

Not all the heat generated in the burning of Hydrogen would be captured, right?

One consideration that would need to be dealt with is the heat waste (or "pollution"), would it be less than the heat loss from other sources for the equivalent amount of energy delivered to the end use?

It is my understanding that using hydrogen from natural gas results in less energy than could be generated using the natural gas itself.
 
Matthew said:
If it can turn a screw, it can turn a turbine. (Yeah - I know, it's not really that simple.)
Click to expand...
Actually, it is that simple.....nuclear reactor produces steam which turns the turbine which turns the screw.
 
T. Boone Pickens couldn't even convince people to use more natural gas and he has all the access in the world to the media.

I like your moxie Henning, but I also know something about human nature... if it were cheaper than the oil, there'd be big money already trying to purchase used nucs. People with connections who paid for the Senator's seat would be already building this.

It won't become interesting until the oil producing countries cut us off. Then it (and a bunch of other things) WILL get done.

We're Americans... we do *everything* the wrong/hard way for years until we get it right.
 
Henning said:
Because you're too mentally lazy to figure it out. You can't even see that this is just the seed money to start the hydrogen/water economy we need to have in place in 20 years, and we as a nation can profit from that, and we as individual Americans profit from it because we use the profits from the Hydrogen/Water Utility (with fuel cells you can ship water and electricity all over the world, with only the need to transport the hydrogen component because the atmosphere transports the Oxygen component.

In 20 years, Fresh Water will be the prime commodity on Earth. With 10 Los Angeles class submarines running at <70% power we can replace all the oil we import from Saudi Arabia with equivalent energy output from Hydrogen Fuel Cells.

Everybody dismissed this because it's "too good". It can't be possible.

It's a freaking gift from God for laying down the weapons, and you all spit on it saying it can't happen.

You are correct, IF EVERY ONE OF YOU DOES NOT PUT IN THE EFFORT TO MAKE IT HAPPEN, IT WILL NOT.

You can be a positive force in the universe or you can be a negative one. What you say in life does not make any impression on God. It's what we do in life that settles or fate.

You can be a doer or a complainer. Looks like most people would rather be lazy and just complain.
Click to expand...
Cap'n, what you're asking for is an army of volunteers. You can't force them at tongue point to join.

Ironic ain't it, you complaining about the complainers.

As for me, I'd be fine postively bumpin around the cosmos.

PS: is this your 10/70 plan?
 
denverpilot said:
We're Americans... we do *everything* the wrong/hard way for years until we get it right.
Click to expand...
Exactly why we keep looking for new energy sources but do nothing about the f'd up grid that we are currently using.

Kind of like trying to install an upgraded more powerful engine on an airplane using all the original accessories and hoses.
 
Richard said:
Do you also think meat is made at grocery stores? Rather than being dismissive, why not acknowledge the point that water is our most plentiful commodity.
Click to expand...

We are relatively blessed with the largest natural fresh water reservoir on Earth. In addition, little of our fresh water is derived from glaciers. We are unlikely to see shortages of fresh water caused by climate change, though overpopulation could certainly tax the water supply.
 
Fearless Tower said:
About the only thing I have seen work is a ship powering a small town in Maine.
Click to expand...
In the aftermath of hurricane Iwa making landfall on Kauai, a nuke powered sub prepared to restore power to the entire island.

Following the Indonesian earthquake of 2004, a nuke powered aircraft carrier did supply power to ...um, somewhere.

Following the earthquake in Haiti, a nuke powered aircraft carrier did supply power to the island nation.
 
Richard said:
In the aftermath of hurricane Iwa making landfall on Kauai, a nuke powered sub prepared to restore power to the entire island.

Following the Indonesian earthquake of 2004, a nuke powered aircraft carrier did supply power to ...um, somewhere.

Following the earthquake in Haiti, a nuke powered aircraft carrier did supply power to the island nation.
Click to expand...

Those are not far off powering a town in Maine.

I have also seen us fail miserably to power San Diego.
 
Also, providing limited power to an area after a natural disaster wipes everything out is alot different from powering the daily demands of a typical city.
 
Richard said:
In the aftermath of hurricane Iwa making landfall on Kauai, a nuke powered sub prepared to restore power to the entire island.

Following the Indonesian earthquake of 2004, a nuke powered aircraft carrier did supply power to ...um, somewhere.

Following the earthquake in Haiti, a nuke powered aircraft carrier did supply power to the island nation.
Click to expand...


After the 1998 Montreal ice storm, which tore down power lines and left a lot of folks in the dark and cold, two railroad locomotives were taken off the tracks and down the streets and used to provide power to some neighborhoods. Even these big things can't power all that many buildings.

img_3508.jpg



Dan
 
Fearless Tower said:
Also, providing limited power to an area after a natural disaster wipes everything out is alot different from powering the daily demands of a typical city.
Click to expand...
I suppose. But isn't Henning talking of supplying power through a more efficient means although from the same source?
 
steingar said:
Yeah, it turned on both light bulbs.
Click to expand...

I don't know how much power was being transferred from the carrier to the island, but I do think the desalinization plants were providing huge quantities of clean water.
 
jesse said:
Could someone provide some type of hard evidence to suggest that they could even come close to generating the massive quantities of energy Henning says? Some real numbers are needed here.
Click to expand...
Actually, you don't even need those numbers. The inefficiency of our use of nuclear fuel is the number that is need. Imagine for a moment, that reactors on the subs are infinitely powerful and can supply all the electricity that we demand. Then, without the French- or Soviet-style reprocessing, the nuke plants are going to burn up all the available uranium in 50 years or less. But greenies will never let reprocessing be restarted in America.

As for hydrogen for an energy medium, I happen to agree with Dr. Zubrin's arguments against it (don't know if I share his outlook at alcohol, but at least hydrogen is for people who have no clue).
 
Last edited:
Richard said:
I meant to provide other examples. I reckon these evolutions are part of a plan; that they don't just come up with the idea on the spur of the moment.
Click to expand...
My point is not that we can't use a ship to provide power to the shore (I've seen it done personally myself). It is that providing some power to an area after a disaster is alot different than providing power to a city on a daily basis.

As I said earlier, the problem with Henning's idea isn't the power source - it is the freakin' grids. They are ancient, they are not efficient and they need serious upgrades. Look at the blackout we had in SoCal a couple months ago - San Onofere (an already existant nuclear plant) should have been able to handle the load when Yuma dropped offline.....but the draw on the system was so great that the protective features of the electrical system couldn't keep up. We load shedded EVERYTHING....and it took forever to get power restored one substation at a time.
 
This idea is absurd and a waste of time. Henning, sorry man, this dog ain't gonna hunt. Put your energy (pun intended) into promoting ( in no particular order) nat gas, new oil fields, nuclear power ( conventional means) and promoting conservation. That is the best solution for the coming 100 years. Trying to invent the wheel while alienating everyone is not going to accomplish anything but put you on meds.

Steve Jobs was a jerk, don't be Steve Jobs.
 
Last edited:
Richard said:
Ex Liberty ship, Sturgis, refitted with nuclear to power the Panama Canal Zone from 1967 to 1976.

From your flippant comment I can see why Henning is upset.
Click to expand...

Seriously?

The idea underestimates the necessary reactors by 2-3 orders of magnitude.

It's not a serious idea:no:...nothing wrong with flippant in this circumstance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top