Steve GannNew Zealand Air Crew Gets Naked For Safety
July 7th 2009 05:17
| 61 |
| Vote |
Add Comments
HIgh Speed Rail In The U.S.
May 31st 2009 05:58
Its clear that high speed rail has been a success in both China and Europe, but would it work in a country where Americans value both their automobile and privacy?
I for one love train travel. I take Amtrak every chance I get because I love the feeling of lying in a sleeper car and seeing parts of the country that can't be seen from the sky or the interstate. I also enjoy sitting in the club car and meeting fellow travelers. Its unfortunate that many people today seem reluctant to take the time to talk with their fellow travelers. I think they are missing out on some wonderful stories and possibly some lifelong friendships.
The problem with Amtrak is that they don't own the rails and therefore have a woeful on time record. They also lose money each year and would probably not exist without government support.
I think the idea of high speed travel would definitely work in the NE corridor and possibly the Pacific NW. Other parts of the country seem a little too spread out for any service to be self supporting.
We'll just have to see what Sec. LaHood has to say after his Spain trip. My hunch tells me that after a week of sightseeing that beautiful country by rail will inspire him to move forward with Obama's wish here.
| 70 |
| Vote |
[ Link ]
Posted By: Steve Gann - Category: The Cost of Success
The Nuclear Debate and Renewable Alternatives
February 27th 2007 12:55
First off, I am not anti-nuclear. I believe that nuclear energy will eventually play an important role in supplying energy. My belief is that that time is not yet. I have followed the progress of this technolgy and the various steps it has made over the years.
There are two significant problems. One, is that these massive heat engines operate at very high temperatures. The second problem is that the fuel material, whatever it is, operates in a central core topolgy. This is done to concentrate the energy generated and to pass it then through a heat exchanger which boils the water to drive turbines. Because of the high temperatures used and the inherent problems in controlling nuclear materials at a sub-critical level, there is danger of equipment failure or material degeneration. It is difficult to anticipate and hard to montor these aspects in fully operating plant. Think of three of these reactors operating side by side and it does start to get complicated, even dangerous.
My recommendation for a nuclear program would be to design and engineer better technology. From this can come greater efficiency and greater safety. That's another problem with the current state of nuclear reactors. Although they should operate with greater efficiency, even outperforming coal in terms of cost per unit produced, this is usually not the case. The pro-nuclear lobby will tell you differently, but the truth is they don't give the full picture.
There hasn't been enough developemnt. The engineers need more input in the planning and design. Nuclear reactors have not been looked at with enough innovation. The reason for that is simple. Our nuclear physicists and their engineering partners are not given the incentives or the overall support. Give them another eight to ten years. They can work on the problems of containment and control. Then we have the possibility, almost certainty, of greater safety with effective management processes. How long would it take to come up with a true shift into newer safer technology? This is hard to say. At the moment it is a possibility, but not with our scientists being shackled - without any chance to find the correct solution.
How long? Say a dozen years, maybe more. So what do we do in the meant-time? One thing is for certain, we don't build nuclear reactors in their current state of development. We look for alternatives - clean alternatives - and we work at cleaning up the pollution in any way we can.
Some quick notes on that direction. Encourage the planting of trees.
For every tree cut down, plant 10 in it's place. For every human born there should be a tree planted in their first year. In the second year, four trees, in the third 10 and then ten trees each year, for the rest of his life.
Solar cells will become cheaper, when the volume increases. Similarly wind machines will become more economical, the more they are utilised. Cut down emissions and plant trees: This should be your mantra.
No I take it back! The mantra should be plant trees - straight and simple. But in truth, it will be a mix of all these processes that save our planet.
So nuclear, maybe. At some time in the future, when the operation is as safe as switching on a light. That is what we should be looking for and it ain't there yet. The answer at the moment, still lies in the future.
That being said, we can't sit around hoping things will go the way we want them to. We have to make an effort. Otherwise, what's it all for?
PS Plant more trees. Plant more trees. Plant more trees.
There are two significant problems. One, is that these massive heat engines operate at very high temperatures. The second problem is that the fuel material, whatever it is, operates in a central core topolgy. This is done to concentrate the energy generated and to pass it then through a heat exchanger which boils the water to drive turbines. Because of the high temperatures used and the inherent problems in controlling nuclear materials at a sub-critical level, there is danger of equipment failure or material degeneration. It is difficult to anticipate and hard to montor these aspects in fully operating plant. Think of three of these reactors operating side by side and it does start to get complicated, even dangerous.
My recommendation for a nuclear program would be to design and engineer better technology. From this can come greater efficiency and greater safety. That's another problem with the current state of nuclear reactors. Although they should operate with greater efficiency, even outperforming coal in terms of cost per unit produced, this is usually not the case. The pro-nuclear lobby will tell you differently, but the truth is they don't give the full picture.
There hasn't been enough developemnt. The engineers need more input in the planning and design. Nuclear reactors have not been looked at with enough innovation. The reason for that is simple. Our nuclear physicists and their engineering partners are not given the incentives or the overall support. Give them another eight to ten years. They can work on the problems of containment and control. Then we have the possibility, almost certainty, of greater safety with effective management processes. How long would it take to come up with a true shift into newer safer technology? This is hard to say. At the moment it is a possibility, but not with our scientists being shackled - without any chance to find the correct solution.
How long? Say a dozen years, maybe more. So what do we do in the meant-time? One thing is for certain, we don't build nuclear reactors in their current state of development. We look for alternatives - clean alternatives - and we work at cleaning up the pollution in any way we can.
Some quick notes on that direction. Encourage the planting of trees.
For every tree cut down, plant 10 in it's place. For every human born there should be a tree planted in their first year. In the second year, four trees, in the third 10 and then ten trees each year, for the rest of his life.
Solar cells will become cheaper, when the volume increases. Similarly wind machines will become more economical, the more they are utilised. Cut down emissions and plant trees: This should be your mantra.
No I take it back! The mantra should be plant trees - straight and simple. But in truth, it will be a mix of all these processes that save our planet.
So nuclear, maybe. At some time in the future, when the operation is as safe as switching on a light. That is what we should be looking for and it ain't there yet. The answer at the moment, still lies in the future.
That being said, we can't sit around hoping things will go the way we want them to. We have to make an effort. Otherwise, what's it all for?
PS Plant more trees. Plant more trees. Plant more trees.
| 70 |
| Vote |
[ Link ]
Self Promotion or Blowing Your Own (s)Trumpet
November 13th 2006 01:05
One of the problem in self promotion is: Where do you draw the line? I send the odd email introducing my plays, scripts, whatever to prospective producers from time to time. But I ain’t very good at it.
Let me paint you a picture, sketch a few details or if you prefer give you a feeling for what I am talking about. I have been writing for over 30 years - plays and scripts for film and TV. So far nothing has been produced at a professional level. Now there could be a number of reasons for this. The first and most obvious possibility is that my writing is crap. Let us examine that possibility for a moment. Nah, that's not it -- and the modesty gland collapses again! So what could it be? What holds me back from the threshold of success and the accolades and rewards that go with it? As near as I can figure it out, it's a combination of dumb luck and my inability to promote myself. I'm not very good at it. I have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the word processor where I sit debating with myself[ Click here to read more ]
Let me paint you a picture, sketch a few details or if you prefer give you a feeling for what I am talking about. I have been writing for over 30 years - plays and scripts for film and TV. So far nothing has been produced at a professional level. Now there could be a number of reasons for this. The first and most obvious possibility is that my writing is crap. Let us examine that possibility for a moment. Nah, that's not it -- and the modesty gland collapses again! So what could it be? What holds me back from the threshold of success and the accolades and rewards that go with it? As near as I can figure it out, it's a combination of dumb luck and my inability to promote myself. I'm not very good at it. I have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the word processor where I sit debating with myself
| 53 |
| Vote |
Read More[ Link ]
Posted By: JohnH - Category: The Cost of Success
Steve Gann's Blogs
Moderated by Steve Gann
