Magnetic levitation: Maglev car tests reach 140mph

[mrjovel24]

Look you can make these cars fly without using aviation air run away take off nor use a spinning helicopter ascend . The alternative would the car under would need a parallel operating adjacent magnetic forces that would lift the car . Running on a power source the lift of the car would be a corner magnetic field using electric charges that would dissipate on a funnel cone that would launch the car into so feet . And that funnel would put all the "energy" into a mobilizing

 

[Endymio]

Indeed. But what many forget about nuclear, is what to do with nuclear waste.... which will outlive the planet

Outlive the planet? You might want to learn some of the basic science here. The truly dangerous high-level radionuclides are gone in six months or so. Weaker alpha emitters like 137-Cs last a few centuries only. That leaves plutonium, which we should be burning anyway, rather than discarding -- and even it lasts only an eyeblink compared to the age of the planet.

There's an inverse relationship between half-life and the the degree of radioactivity -- the very air you breath and your body itself contains many radioactive isotopes with half-lives of millions or billions of years. They're not dangerous precisely because they're long-lived. The faster an isotope decays, the more radioactivity it emits, which is why every nuclear reactor has a cooling pond where spent fuel is kept for a few months before being moved to long-term storage.

As for that long-term storage, that's a non-issue.. Reactors generate an incredibly tiny amount of waste. Most US reactors have been operating for a half-century or more. Since ignorant fools deny us a more practical centralized waste storage facility, those reactors typically store that half-century of waste on-site ... generally in one small building. Is it dangerous for centuries? Yes -- but remember, toxic non-radioactive elements like mercury, lead, cadmium, etc are deadly forever. They never break down.

For additional perspective, remember that, if you live in a New England or Rocky Mountain state, the topsoil of your own backyard contains hundreds of pounds of radioactive thorium, uranium, and polonium -- radioactive waste from when Mother Nature made the planet.

 

[bibihk]

Well, pity that the journalist who wrote this article didn't mention at all that the Maglev train in Shanghai is based on the German Transrapid designed by Siemens and ThyssenKrupp which were testing their train for years. Basically the Chinese did the civil engineering and the assembly of the train Made in Germany...

 

[Avro Arrow]

Indeed. But what many forget about nuclear, is what to do with nuclear waste, (the reatctor's "food" need to be replaced)..... which will outlive the planet and everybody wants it buried "somewhere" away from their backyard!

Actually, I saw a video from someone that I've come to trust over the years about how nuclear waste is handled in such a way that it's actually safe. Kyle Hill, the host of the YouTube channel "Because, Science" has his own channel under his name and he has produced two videos that demonstrate the misconceptions about nuclear energy:

I had seen literally dozens of Kyle's "Because, Science" videos over the years and he has always been 100% spot-on with his analyses. What he says here makes perfect sense so I stopped worrying about it. Hydro is technically "safer" but the biggest advantage that hydro has is that it's literally endless and far less expensive to build and operate. The cost of fission reactors is no joke and I know this because Ontario uses two giant nuclear stations with CANDU reactors.

People in Ontario pay about double for electricity that they would in Quebec which is a hydroelectric superpower. Quebec's installed capacity is an absurd 35.34GW (37.2GW x 0.97). Keep in mind, that's a Canadian province, not the entire country. I don't really understand why we bother with any non-hydro source in Canada because we have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to hydro potential (>2,000,000 lakes, >8,500 named rivers). As a country, our current hydro capacity is just insane. At 81GW installed capacity (producing 400 TWh per year), we're third after Brazil and China (and Hydro-Quebec wants to finish the James Bay Project which, when complete, will produce 27GW on its own). China has an installed capacity of 356 GW which is more than 4x Canada's output but China has 47x our population. So, per capita, Canada puts out over 10x more hydropower than China and is highest among the top-5 hydroelectric producers.

The USA has rich hydro capacity as well, especially in the mountainous states and should really be paying more attention to what is possible without having to burn fossil fuels. While not as rich as Canada or Brazil in that regard, the USA could probably pout out more than 20x the hydropower that it does.

 

[BadThad]

More evidence of Chinese stolen IP!

 

[Endymio]

I don't really understand why we bother with any non-hydro source in Canada because we have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to hydro potential...

Very true. Canada has enough untapped hydro potential to power not only itself, but all of North America. (though it would take major grid upgrades to carry it south, obviously) The problem is that environmentalists hate hydro more than fossil fuels, even. Hydro requires dams ... and the anti-dam movement is strong.

The US, for instance, built nearly 75,000 dams from 1900 to 1975 (most for flood control, with power being a secondary consideration). But since then, we've built only 5 major dams (all of which were delayed by protests and environment lawsuits) and torn down or removed several hundred.

 

[Avro Arrow]

Exactly. in 0 atmosphere, the speed would be endless. But here on our wonderful planet, air-gravity-mothernature say "bring it on, I'll send you to your maker"

Well yeah, but that's true about every mode of transportation. Maglev is still far faster, cleaner and more efficient than what we're currently using. Even without a vacuum tube, a maglev would still be able to break Mach 1 (1,235 km/h). I'd still be happy with that.

 

[MakeMSGreatAgain]

Pretty awesome but precisely controlled propulsion would be nice. Can't wait to play Wip3out for real though!

 

[gamerk2]

While nuclear would be great, it's really expensive to implement and operate. Therefore, I think that hydro is an even better choice in places that can implement it. It doesn't cost anything for a river to flow.

Except those rivers are all drying up due to a variety of reasons, all related to overuse and rising temperatures. So Hydro isn't a great long-term solution (though obviously is comically efficient when adequate water supplies exist).

I'm not *opposed* to nuclear, but costs need to get under control, the "worse case" outcome for a bunch of monkeys in the control room needs to be "safe shutdown", and there needs to be a long-term storage facility for spent fuel (ideally one *not* built on an active fault line, encased in relatively porous rock formations that would allow leakage into a major water supply should the containers leak).

 

[gamerk2]

Very true. Canada has enough untapped hydro potential to power not only itself, but all of North America. (though it would take major grid upgrades to carry it south, obviously) The problem is that environmentalists hate hydro more than fossil fuels, even. Hydro requires dams ... and the anti-dam movement is strong.

The US, for instance, built nearly 75,000 dams from 1900 to 1975 (most for flood control, with power being a secondary consideration). But since then, we've built only 5 major dams (all of which were delayed by protests and environment lawsuits) and torn down or removed several hundred.

The problem with dams is they essentially ruin the local wetlands, which in turn causes numerous long-term environmental impacts. Farther, the loss of those wetlands *greatly* increases the odds of flooding, which is becoming a major problem in communities built along the banks of these rivers.

You also have the long-term problem where most major waterways are drying up, due to both overuse and rising global temperatures. This makes constructing new dams a *very* tough sell as the payoff may not be there.

 

[gamerk2]

Indeed. But what many forget about nuclear, is what to do with nuclear waste, (the reatctor's "food" need to be replaced)..... which will outlive the planet and everybody wants it buried "somewhere" away from their backyard!

Frankly, there needs to be exactly ONE global storage facility for spent nuclear fuel. Less chance of the worse constructed/maintained one causing issues. Also lowers costs since every country with at least one reactor can chip in on the costs.

 

[Endymio]

Except those rivers are all drying up due to a variety of reasons, all related to overuse and rising temperatures. So hydro isn't a great long-term solution.

Where does absurdity like this originate from? Rising temperatures increase rainfall, the source of all river water:

"Since 1901...precipitation in the contiguous 48 states has increased at a rate of 0.20 inches per decade"

Climate Change Indicators: U.S. and Global Precipitation | US EPA

This indicator describes trends in average precipitation for the United States and the world.

www.epa.gov

Some few rivers have seen declining levels *only* because large quantities of water are being extracted for irrigation purposes. But the beauty of hydro is that it consumes no water in the process -- the same water that generates electricity can then irrigate a field.

nuclear [costs] need to get under control, the "worse case" outcome for a bunch of monkeys in the control room needs to be "safe shutdown"...

1) Nuclear costs are high because every project gets delayed by legal action for 20+ years, raising financing costs four-fold or more. And, during that time, the EPA, the NRC, and other regulatory bodies generally change requirements several times as well, leading to expensive redesign of the construction already in progress.

2) Japan's Fukushima reactor was a worst-case scenario for a western-style reactor. Despite all the media hype, no one died directly from the accident, and the excess cancer deaths predicted did not happen:

Trend in Cancer Incidence and Mortality in Fukushima From 2008 Through 2015 - PubMed

We interpreted the incidence statistics of cancer for Fukushima residents from 2008 through 2015. Our results will provide fundamental statistics for subsequent researchers to assess the relationship between the disaster and cancer incidence among Fukushima residents in the long term.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Endymio]

The problem with dams is they essentially ruin the local wetlands, [which] *greatly* increases the odds of flooding

The only world in which dams increase flooding is one where the law of gravity has been suspended.

Paving a wetland into a parking lot will increase runoff and potentially cause flooding, sure. But flooding a wetland through a downstream dam controls the water flow far more effectively than that wetland ever could. Before the US began its large-scale program of dam construction in the early 1900s, most river communities had to deal with flooding on an annual or near-annual basis. One century and 75,000 dams later, major floods are now so rare they make national news.

 

[gamerk2]

Where does absurdity like this originate from? Rising temperatures increase rainfall, the source of all river water:

"Since 1901...precipitation in the contiguous 48 states has increased at a rate of 0.20 inches per decade"

Climate Change Indicators: U.S. and Global Precipitation | US EPA

This indicator describes trends in average precipitation for the United States and the world.

www.epa.gov

Not true at all; many river sources are fed primarily by snowmelt during the spring/summer months. Warmer temperatures lead to less snow, and thus less snow melt. Most Central European rivers are a prime example of this effect; they are fed primarily from runoff from the Alps, not by rainwater.

You are "technically" correct that warm air holds more moisture, but are technically incorrect in your assumption that rivers are fed primarily by rainwater.

Some few rivers have seen declining levels *only* because large quantities of water are being extracted for irrigation purposes. But the beauty of hydro is that it consumes no water in the process -- the same water that generates electricity can then irrigate a field.

"Some few rivers" include:

Colorado
Elbe
Poe
Loire
Rhine
Danube
Rhone
Seine
Yangtze

Those are the ones I can think of offhand; I'm sure there's plenty of others. And many of them have had flat or even declining drawoff due to irrigation; there's simply less water input going in to refresh them.

1) Nuclear costs are high because every project gets delayed by legal action for 20+ years, raising financing costs four-fold or more. And, during that time, the EPA, the NRC, and other regulatory bodies generally change requirements several times as well, leading to expensive redesign of the construction already in progress.

2) Japan's Fukushima reactor was a worst-case scenario for a western-style reactor. Despite all the media hype, no one died directly from the accident, and the excess cancer deaths predicted did not happen:

Trend in Cancer Incidence and Mortality in Fukushima From 2008 Through 2015 - PubMed

We interpreted the incidence statistics of cancer for Fukushima residents from 2008 through 2015. Our results will provide fundamental statistics for subsequent researchers to assess the relationship between the disaster and cancer incidence among Fukushima residents in the long term.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Focusing on your second point in particular: It's only been a decade. And the end result of "We had to output radioactive materials into the Pacific to prevent a total meltdown" is...not ideal.

 

[Avro Arrow]

The problem with dams is they essentially ruin the local wetlands, which in turn causes numerous long-term environmental impacts. Farther, the loss of those wetlands *greatly* increases the odds of flooding, which is becoming a major problem in communities built along the banks of these rivers.

It does, but that's pathetically small compared to the GLOBAL effects of burning fossil fuels. Nothing is perfect and I honestly think that geo-thermal would be the best route to go in all situations, but convincing people of that is borderline impossible.

You also have the long-term problem where most major waterways are drying up, due to both overuse and rising global temperatures. This makes constructing new dams a *very* tough sell as the payoff may not be there.

This just means that it should have been implemented sooner, before the burning of fossil fuels got us where we are. I did say that it should be used in places where it can be because it's less expensive to build and operate than nuclear. Of course I didn't mean it should be implemented where it's not suitable. In those locations, nuclear would be the obvious option.

 

[Endymio]

many river sources are fed primarily by snowmelt during the spring/summer months. Warmer temperatures lead to less snow, and thus less snow melt.

Surely you see the fallacy in this. If precipitation doesn't fall as snow, it falls as rain instead. Less snowmelt merely means the rainfall feeds more water in winter months, rather than spring/summer.

Every drop of water in every river in the world derives from precipitation. Increased rainfall means more overall river flow, period:

Streamflow levels are increasing [across] most of the US. In the largest rivers, including the Ohio, Missouri, and Mississippi, the number of days with high stream flow [has] risen over the past 30 years (1987-2016)."

1940-2018 map:

Climate Change Indicators: Streamflow | US EPA

This indicator describes trends in the volume of water carried by streams across the United States, as well as the timing of peak flow.

www.epa.gov

Focusing on your second point in particular: It's only been a decade.

You realize that cancer cases follow a distribution pattern, right? If you've seen no cases after a decade, then the number you can possibly expect within 20 or 30 years is extremely limited. The tsunami that caused the meltdown killed 18,000 people in an instant. The slight possibility of an infinitesimal increase in cancer rates 30 years later is nothing compared to that -- and insignificant compared to the risks from other power-generation sources. Windmills alone kill more people than that.

the end result of "We had to output radioactive materials into the Pacific to prevent a total meltdown" is...not ideal.

Why? Do you not realize how many trillions of tons of radioactive thorium, uranium, and radium are already in the Pacific -- "nuclear waste" left over from when Mother Nature created the planet.

 

[gamerk2]

It does, but that's pathetically small compared to the GLOBAL effects of burning fossil fuels. Nothing is perfect and I honestly think that geo-thermal would be the best route to go in all situations, but convincing people of that is borderline impossible.

Which is a somewhat fair point, but the flooding risk, combined with the lowering of rivers worldwide due to said warming makes building farther dams a tough economic sell.

Surely you see the fallacy in this. If precipitation doesn't fall as snow, it falls as rain instead. Less snowmelt merely means the rainfall feeds more water in winter months, rather than spring/summer.

Also incorrect; rain is *much* more likely to either evaporate or get absorbed into the ground compared to snow. So that rainwater contributes far less to outflows then snowfall does.

You realize that cancer cases follow a distribution pattern, right? If you've seen no cases after a decade, then the number you can possibly expect within 20 or 30 years is extremely limited. The tsunami that caused the meltdown killed 18,000 people in an instant. The slight possibility of an infinitesimal increase in cancer rates 30 years later is nothing compared to that -- and insignificant compared to the risks from other power-generation sources. Windmills alone kill more people than that.

Right, but that assumes you are able to report and track every case, then tie it back to the disaster, which is hard to do for a variety or reasons. But cases exist (I've seen a number of reports based on various methodologies, so you can certainly "fit" the data to fit your viewpoint), but I wouldn't expect to see a the"hump" of the distribution for another decade or so. We'll have a better idea of the total cases then.

Why? Do you not realize how many trillions of tons of radioactive thorium, uranium, and radium are already in the Pacific -- "nuclear waste" left over from when Mother Nature created the planet.

Trace amounts actually; as those are heavier elements they tend to be confined to the Mantle/Core. The outflows were measurable relative to the normal background. Whether or not that those levels were/are "dangerous" is another debate.

 

[Endymio]

rain is *much* more likely to either evaporate or get absorbed into the ground compared to snow. So that rainwater contributes far less to outflows then snowfall does.

Lol, what do you think happens to water that is "absorbed into the ground"? All of it eventually winds up in a stream or river, and eventually back to the sea. The same for water that evaporates -- it doesn't vanish to another dimension. It merely becomes precipitation elsewhere.

Trace amounts [of radioactivity in seawater] ; as those are heavier elements they tend to be confined to the Mantle/Core. The outflows were measurable relative to the normal background.

No. All seawater is naturally radioactive. The "outflows" from Fukushima were measurable not because they were large, but only because isotopes like 137-Cs have a different gamma spectrum. Monitoring stations in the Pacific detected excess 137-Cs in the range of 1 to 3 Bq/m^3. So let's compare that to other sources:

Pb-210, seawater: 1 Bq/m^3
U-235, seawater: 33 Bq/m^3
Rb-87, seawater: 1100 Bq/m^3
K-40 , seawater: 11,000 Bq/m^3
C-14 in human body: 15,000 Bq (per person average)

By the way, the EPA maximum safe limit for 137-Cs in drinking water is 7,400 Bq/m^3. So claims of potential dangers from Fukushima are sheer absurdity.

that assumes you are able to report and track every [cancer] case, then tie it back to the disaster, which is hard to do

That's not how statistical analysis works. If excess cases are found, they may or may not be a causal result of the accident -- but if no excess cases exist, the disaster can't possibly be causing any.