IceCreamMan
X-rated Bob wrote
IceCreamMan wrote
GuitarDoge wrote
And luckily, South African universities don't have a 30% pass rate and are still up to good standards. ?
I have worked at a tertiary education facility, I don't share your optimism..,, the ramifications of a 30% pass mark required is felt everywhere.... I have seen students graduate even though they have failed....
Well... the word "university" is more liberally applied these days. What used to be Technical Colleges (then Technikons) are now "Universities". I studied first at Technikon and I don't feel ashamed of it or anything, but years later I enrolled at UNISA which still teaches at traditional university level and jikkel! There's a difference.
This is a game being played by politicians all over the world. They promise you that Little Johnny will have a better education, a better shot at tertiary education and blah be blah. But they can't make the Little Johnnies of the world any brighter, so they dumb down education systems, force marks to fit curves and so on. There's been repeated complaints in the UK where A-level pass rates rise and rise and rise, but the universities see more and more first year students who are barely literate and numerate.
Not good. But the old way of doing things is too easily labelled "elitism" and who wants to be tarred with that brush?
there in lies my concern. An no reflection on any of the students at any institution but this is fact..... universities rely on government to survive but govt is quite prescriptive in its funding and that is around pass rates and the like ....thus some students graduate with marks as low as 20% in their final year ...we not even talking just missing the grade, we talking being way off. its a reality and its universal as you point out. in some instances students are not even accepted who have vastly superior matric results due to these quotas that have to be filled.
happening all over the wolrd, the movie idiocracy )or whatever its called) is becoming a reality.
anyhow, I hope when the govt decides to build nuclear stations they use different project teams than the sad lot Eskom are using for medupi who just keep missing the switch on dates and give themselves bonuses.....
nuclear is the way to go though , no 2 ways about it
V8
GuitarDoge wrote
psyx wrote
GuitarDoge wrote
Also, DEMO is planned to be operational by 2033 as the first fusion power plant.
I really hope that it will happen! But we all thought that hydrogen fuel cells would be widespread by 2015 and,well... That doesn't seem to be happening all that fast either
Hopefully the lack of coal and petrol will force us to change for the better(instead of going backwards in lifestyle) in a few decades. Right now, petrol and coal are still cheap enough.
Petrol cheap? Really? I think of R2.43/l as cheap (1997). I could run my (very thirsty) V8 as a daily commute and chuckle when 'economy' was around 2km/l.
Now I'm thinking an electric car that claims 11.7kw/100km as cheap vs my current car that gets around 8l/100km - that's R15 vs R110 to travel 100km's!
As a consumer - I don't really care if it's any 'greener' or if I've moved emissions from tailpipe to power plant - the costs of going X km's isn't really comparable vs petrol anymore.
The only issue is the is the initial investment in an electric car (you can say the limited range of batteries, but 90% of the time you travel < 160km in a trip - when you need to road trip, hire a petrol car). But within 5-10 years, technological advancements and economies of scale will allow the average consumer to have a electric car.
I'm still holding thumbs for hydrogen fuels cells, my brother reckons that hydrogen is the future in storing energy (vs batteries) that wind farms, solar panels, etc... produce. We'll see, ATM though, advances in battery tech seems to be outpacing hydrogen fuel cells (for use in cars anyways).
Bob-Dubery
G-Man wrote
X-rated Bob wrote
Hydrogen as a solid? Or as a constituent of some solid compound?
Sorry Bob I'm not very scientific at all, but what I understand is that it is a powder like solid that absorbs the hydrogen in a non volatile way (ie non gaseous, non explosive) and then releases the hydrogen as a gas after it is heated to certain temperatures.
Well, he was talking about a hydride - which suggests a compound. In either way there is a problem. If you want to liberate the hydrogen from a hydride you must supply power to make that happen. If you want to keep the hydrogen solid you have to supply power to make that happen. So the car cannot run exclusively on hydrogen. There must be some other power source (presuming that it's not frozen hydrogen which would be very, very cold and would need to be kept cold) to at least initially heat the hydride to liberate the hydrogen (which is what he talks about). So the car can't run entirely on hydrogen as when it's first turned on there won't be any until some other thing start the liberation process.
OK... this might be like arguing that my car is an electric car because the initial input from a cold start is from a battery.
There's other issues like the claim that only as much hydrogen as necessary is released at a time - so how does the system that heats the hydride to release the hydrogen anticipate the driver's demands? Modern diesel engines solve this problem with a high pressure supply that carries more than the engine usually needs. The injectors take what they need and the rest is recirculated - but you can't safely do that with hydrogen. And you don't have to do something to some other substance first to produce the diesel.
Well there you go! The hydride has to be heated at high temperatures to release the hydrogen. It takes a lot of energy because the compound is pretty stable. Of course, if you liberate all the hydrogen you must end up with some other waste compound which has to be removed and disposed of or exhausted somehow.
And see towards the end of that article - there's a big problem if that stuff catches fire as conventional extinguishers aren't suitable. So there's a reason for it not being adopted - even if it works.
Read the Wikipedia page on Lazar himself. There's another set of problems there.
RobbieZ
I have sitting back and reading this thread and a lot of things was said that makes a lot of sense. I believe that we, the world can get away from using fossil fuels by creating our own. I wrote a letter to Popular Mechanics a few months back, that was not published, but here it is.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear readers, please do not just dismiss what you will read in this article, but sit back and think about it. The objective of the article is to ask questions and give possible solutions. Maybe, just maybe, someone will take this further.
The main issue we all currently face, irrespective of where you live are climate change. To a certain extent, I believe that it is a natural phenomenon that is made worse by our hunger for energy. I further believe that it is possible to slow down the phenomenon and over time reverse the effects of climate change. Complete reversal, will not happen in our lifetime, but it can start in our lifetime. It can start by us asking difficult questions to the “powers-that-be”. It can start by thinking differently to problems and not just dismiss possible solutions as economically unviable, or even impossible. Nothing is impossible, if the will is there and the resources are available. It is a matter of priorities. What is more important, money, or the future of our planet?
Currently we mainly rely on fossil fuels for our energy needs. These will run out. It depends on who you listen to or who you choose to believe, when this will happen, but it will happen. We need to start thinking now on what will happen when these fuels run out. I, for one, do not want to go back to the Stone Age and use natural wax candles and wood fires to keep warm.
There are a lot of alternative energy sources and they all have their place in our society. Examples of these are solar energy, wave energy and a few more. Those energies can supply us with electricity, but what if we have to travel long distances? Electric planes? And, no, I am not joking, with current battery technology, how many batteries does a 747 have to carry to fly from Johannesburg to London? Somehow it does not seem very practical. Military ships are starting to use nuclear reactors and the latest ships only have to refuel every 20 years. But again, it does not seem very practical to drive a 747 using a nuclear reactor. Bottom line, it does seem that the internal combustion engine as well as the jet engine is here to stay. But to keep them running a reasonable cost, now there is the problem that needs solving!
Unless there is a major change in battery technology, I do not see how electric cars will become the norm. For city traffic, yes. For long distance driving, no. I feel that there must be a focus on an alternative feed stock. Granted, there is also a need to make the current internal combustion engine more efficient.
The way I see it is the answer lies in a gas that is abundant and harmful to the environment. The answer lies in the splitting of carbon and oxygen in carbon monoxide (CO) gas and carbon dioxide (CO2) gas. There is currently research being done into this and the problem is that it produces more of these gasses to split them than what the yield will be. However, I do believe that it is possible if enough resources are diverted to the problem.
Just for one moment think about the resources that are being wasted in the name of science and so-called safety.
It costs on average $4.5 billion to build an aircraft carrier. It will cost approximately $6 billion to place a man on Mars. Does the world really need another carrier? We know there is no life, or likelihood of life in the near future on Mars, so is it really beneficial? And this is just two examples, what about all the other projects? If some of these funds can be diverted to the research into the splitting of these two gasses. Then the top minds of the 21st century can do what they do best and that is to apply their minds into solving a single problem.
When, not if, but when they succeed in splitting carbon and oxygen efficiently, there are a few problems that will be immediately solved.
1. Due to the fact that we basically only need the carbon (add hydrogen to get hydrocarbons), the oxygen can be vented. This will be beneficial for the environment and we will all benefit from a healthier environment.
2. The grains that are currently grown for bio-fuels can be diverted to feed the hungry around the planet.
3. Who knows what additional spin-offs will there be.
There can only be positive spinoffs in this kind of technology. Unfortunately, there is always a flip side. In this case, like in so many others, is greed. Who will control the technology? What will it cost? A few people are going to walk away with all the spoils and the rest of us will have to pay for it. Because of those reasons, I feel, that the world needs to get together to fund this project, that will save the planet for our children and their children. Something like this to ensure a healthier environment for all of us. The world has already proved that we can work together; a perfect example is the international space station (ICC).
The question that world powers need to ask is “How much is enough?” How much money does the energy magnets need to make before it is all too late? How much pollution do we need to accept before we cannot grow food anymore? I sincerely hope that someone with influence will stand up and say “Yes, we need to do something; Yes we need to do something, now!”
There are many more possibilities out there to save the environment, this is just one. One that I feel that can supply the energy for our cars, plans, trains, generators… and still help the environment. With this technology, the current petro-chemical factories can keep running with a small change to their feed stock.
With this technology, there is an unlimited amount of raw material, because every engine will generate additional CO’s.
The question that needs to be asked is: do we really need to know if there is an “earth-like” planet light years from here? Do we really need to know if there are magnetic waves that distort space-time? Do we really need more war equipment? Yes, these issues are also important, but is it not time that the human race stand together for the good of our one and only earth?
As I see it, currently, we are all losers. With these kinds of technologies, we can all be winners. Just think about it.
