Got this bit off a website on Rudolph Diesel: "The crowning achievement for Rudolph Diesel's invention came at the 1900 Paris Exposition where the diesel engine took the Grand Prix. To the amazement of all in attendance his engine was fueled by 100% peanut oil. It is essential to understand that Diesel believed the utilization of a biomass fuel to be the real future of his engine. He wanted to provide farmers, small industries and those in isolated communities the opportunity to produce their own fuel and to compete with the large monopolies that controlled all energy production at that time." it also goes on to add a little bit of info: "In 1913, Diesel was on his way to England when he disappeared over the side of the ship; his body was later found floating in the English Channel. Some suspect suicide, but others believe that there were political reasons behind his death. The French navy was already using diesel engines and may not have wanted to see the English navy acquire them. Diesel also opposed the politics of Germany and did not want the German navy to utilize his engine. His untimely death made it possible for the German submarine fleet to be powered solely by the diesel engine and soon after inflict heavy damage upon Allied shipping in World War I." http://www.boulderbiodiesel.com/tim/Rudolph/index.jsp (Additionally this site mentions his efforts towards solar power.)

Posted by: bridget on August 15, 2005 03:44 PM

Weren't we all protesting against nuclear energy twenty years ago? I think I still have my t-shirt.

Posted by: Neil on August 15, 2005 04:58 PM

Hmmm, with uranium supplies that low it may be a tight squeeze, but eventaully we should be able to get all the energy we need from orbital solar generators. They're already working on it and have made a lot of progress increasing efficiency and cutting costs. Given human ingenuity and greed, I bet they'll be ready to launch within a couple generations.

Posted by: Zetjintsu on August 15, 2005 05:38 PM

Discussing energy policy brings out the economist in all of us. There is a thread over at Jane Galt about 250 MPG cars and nuclear power.
About that National Geographic article: wasn't the idea of a windmill thrice the height of the Statue of Liberty incredible? Again, no numbers to assess the practicality of the project, but I can forsee a NIMBY response if that is tried over here.

Posted by: stephan on August 15, 2005 06:29 PM

Stephan, this issue does "bring out the economist in all of us", however, how successfully we understand the issue is another matter. If you take a quick look at these polls you will see how mucked up the thinking of many people is. Granted, the wording of the questions is bad-- a short coming of many polls--but the answers still leave me to conclude that the American people have no concept of basic economic logic.

Posted by: jess on August 15, 2005 07:09 PM

1) Using breeder reactors, we have plenty of uranium. 2) ethanol from sugar cane is a plus; ethanol from corn (US style) is an energy loser. It lives by subsidies.

Posted by: Rich Rostrom on August 16, 2005 12:42 PM

The man is right. Breeders multipy the effective amount of fissionable fuel by a factor of a hundred or so - more really, when you consider thorium breeders, which produce U-233.

Posted by: gcochran on August 16, 2005 02:28 PM

The developed nations of the world have spent 40 years and billions of dollars in an effort to commercialize breeder reactors. The effort to date has been a failure, probably because of a combination of technological, administrative and macroeconomic reasons.

Who knows, maybe the scientists and engineers will get it right one of these decades. Hopefully, at the same time they will address concerns that breeder reactors make nuclear/dirty bomb technology more readily available to potentially unfriendly nations and rogue actors.

Posted by: Laurence Aurbach on August 16, 2005 06:09 PM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?