Posted on 08/19/2012 8:25:56 AM PDT by Wuli
"Carbon fiber fabric and lightweight honeycomb materials, plus mobile manufacturing platform, make infinite pipeline technology cheaper and greener while boosting local economies."
-snip-
"Instead of conventional concrete or steel, Ehsani's new pipe consists of a central layer of lightweight plastic honeycomb, similar to that used in the aerospace industry, sandwiched between layers of resin-saturated carbon fiber fabric."
"In combination, these materials are as strong, or stronger, than conventional steel and concrete pipes, which are time-consuming and expensive to manufacture and transport."
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
Interesting idea. The binding resins, if capable of resistance to attack by hydrocarbons, would make for reliable pipelines for transporting oil and natural gas, and would have “give” also.
>>American made, American invented and just in time for...
...Myth & Co. to sell it to sinopec / the Chinese popular front for Royal Eurotrash?
Ping
Pong
Ping
Pong
Left 2, Right 2 - American middle class ZERO.
Can't allow this to be employed. naturalists will claim it's bad for enviorment and is not natural
And lookie who who funds the "naturalists"....
====================
So, who are these guys at the NRDC? Well, it’s an interesting list.
Natural Resources Defense Council Board of Trustees
Chairman
Frederick A. O. Schwartz, Jr.
Partner, Cravath Swaine & Moore; (a British Law Firm) Former New York City Corporation Counsel (under Mayor Ed Koch)
Executive Director
Frances Beinecke
Co-founder, The New York League of Conservation Voters (with RFK Jr.)
Trustee
Laurance Rockefeller
Private philanthropist; Former Chairman, Rockefeller Brothers Fund; Former chairman, Citizens Advisory Committee on Environmental Quality; Trustee, the Laurance Rockefeller Charitable Trust
Trustee
Thomas A. Troyer
Partner, Caplin & Drysdale; Former Chairman, the Foundation Lawyers’ Group; Former member of the IRS Commissioner’s Advisory Group on Tax-exempt Organizations; (no conflict of interest there?) Board member, the Carnegie Corporation of New York
Pres & Co-founder
John H. Adams
Former Assistant US Attorney (New York)
Vice Chair
Adam Albright
Board member, Redefining Progress; Board Chair, Population Communications International; Program Chair, Conservation International
Vice Chair
Alan Horn
Chairman & Chief Operating Officer, Warner Brothers
Vice Chair
Burks Lapham
Chairman, Concern Inc.; Director, Chesapeake Bay Foundation (a relatively benign group)
Vice Chair
George Woodwell
Founding Director, Woods Hole Research Center; Co-founder, Environmental Defense Fund (they banned DDT, Alar, etc.)
Co-founder & Treas
Richard E. Ayres
Partner, Howrey & Simon; Former Chairman, National Clean Air Coalition
Trustee
Patricia Bauman
Member, Pew Environmental Health Commission; Former Manager, National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences; Co-Director, The Bauman Foundation
Trustee
William Richardson
Former US Secretary of Energy; Former US Ambassador to the United Nations; Former US Congressman (D-NM)
Trustee
Michael Finnegan
Managing Partner, J.P Morgan Securities
Is this "Natural Resources" defense, or natural resource SUPPLIERS defense?
Now, let’s look at who gives the NRDC money, shall we?
Top Funders of NRDC
Funder
Total Donated
Comments
Descriptions in bold are major energy investors
Pew Charitable Trusts
$11,568,000.00
Sunoco money
Blue Moon Fund
$7,818,735.00
This is W. Alton Jones Money (Citgo)
Energy Foundation
$6,965,000.00
Launched by The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, The Pew Charitable Trusts, and The Rockefeller Foundation. The Joyce Mertz-Gilmore Foundation joined as a funding partner in 1996, and The McKnight Foundation joined in 1998. In 1999, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation joined to support two programs: the U.S. Clean Energy Program (now the Climate Program) and the China Sustainable Energy Program. In 2002, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation joined to support advanced technology transportation and clean energy for the West.
John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
$5,636,500.00
Bankers Life and Casualty money (investment portfolio unknown)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
$4,681,097.00
Your tax dollars at work subsidizing the interests of whom?
Turner Foundation
$3,795,167.00
CNN, and a lot more
Public Welfare Foundation
$3,500,000.00
Too confounded to determine
Joyce Foundation
$3,309,445.00
Timber Wealth
Charles Stewart Mott Foundation
$3,022,340.00
General Motors
Ford Foundation
$2,733,300.00
Ford
Beinecke Foundation
$2,150,000.00
Major player at Yale.
J. M. Kaplan Fund
$2,057,500.00
William Bingham Foundation
$1,995,000.00
Homeland Foundation
$1,733,000.00
San Francisco Foundation
$1,654,739.00
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
$1,377,510.00
Them again
McKnight Foundation
$1,365,500.00
Robert Sterling Clark Foundation
$1,310,000.00
Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation
$1,310,000.00
Bauman Family Foundation
$1,226,000.00
Nathan Cummings Foundation
$1,220,000.00
Educational Foundation of America
$1,210,000.00
Richard & Rhoda Goldman Fund
$1,205,000.00
Mertz Gilmore Foundation
$1,201,000.00
Carnegie Corporation of New York
$1,200,000.00
Park Foundation
$1,198,010.00
New York Community Trust
$1,186,821.00
Overbrook Foundation
$1,182,585.00
Surdna Foundation
$1,147,000.00
Bullitt Foundation
$1,122,675.00
William & Flora Hewlett Foundation
$1,075,000.00
Note also the participation with the Energy Foundation
Quod erat demonstratum.
Most, if not all of these people at NRDC are energy investors.
=================
http://www.wildergarten.com/wp_pages/articles/nrdc_energy_racketeering.html
(with the usual Kudos to FReeper Carry Okie)
What about secondary containment pipe? You can’t move gasoline without it. Plus, I can’t imagine this saving much money using carbon and epoxy. Also, mandrel-wound composite pipe is structurally inferior to pipe centrifugally cast inside a hollow mandrel. When they can come up with a mobile centrifugal casting process then they’ll really have something. And they wont need expensive carbon fiber to overcome the strength compromise. But none of this could work in secondary containment applications.
From the article;
“That is a big, big breakthrough in the pipeline industry that has implications for natural gas, oil, water, and sewer pipes.”
These guys are gonna get rich! But they didn’t build that.
Carbon fiber is NOT cheap and when it breaks, you need to replace the entire component. It shatters on failure.
Great for F1 car chassis as the shattering absorbs the impact. Then you throw it away and build a new one.
Sounds like a bit of oversell...
Reminds me of the village steel mills China tried to create in the 1960s.
Lastly, what NDT techniques does he propose to examine the pipeline material for wall thinning, possible erosion/corrosion, etc? I doubt ultrasound or xray imaging is going to work very well on such composite materials.
An endless pipe is a torus. Whattayagonnadowithat?
the science info is the science info
the political correctness crap is from the editors&writers at science daily
i subscribe to science daily’s free email updates for the science - “what’s happening” - and menatlly bypass the embedded editorials in any artiole
I do that only because they do cover a wide range of “what’s new” in science, and I don’t have to buy
a bunch of print or electronic versions of other
science magazines
write to them about ther embedded editorials; as I found, you likely will get no answer at all
You could probably ask the scientists, about:
“Lastly, what NDT techniques does he propose to examine the pipeline material for wall thinning, possible erosion/corrosion, etc? I doubt ultrasound or xray imaging is going to work very well on such composite materials.”
by Email at: UA@engr.arizona.edu
It’s a good question.
“Carbon fiber is NOT cheap and when it breaks, you need to replace the entire component. It shatters on failure.
Great for F1 car chassis as the shattering absorbs the impact. Then you throw it away and build a new one.”
All the transportation expense of all the heavy steel and cememt is not “cheap” either.
There are many types of “carbon fiber” materials, depending on the precursor material(s), the manufacturing process of the carbon fibers, and beyond that the type of materials the carbon fibers, or the carbon fiber end product, is integrated, or not, with other materials.
http://web.utk.edu/~mse/Textiles/CARBON%20FIBERS.htm
It is the resulting end-product materials that matter, and among them the brittleness of each is different.
Also, as the article pointed out, the particular carbon fiber sheets they plan to use are being integrated with a nother product, making for a composite structure of the walls of the pipe.
Also, as pipelines are buried, for the most part, it is not “direct impact” that their stability is most concerned about.
Lastly, when reading the “near endless” manner of constructing the pipe, it would seem that “patching a break” whould involve similar methods, so it’s not likely that “a whole section of pipe” would have to be replaced.
I don't think so as these are direct quotes from Professor Ehsani. But there could be a couple of explanations: 1) the writer was making up quotations out of whole cloth or 2) the writer was subtly encouraging the professor to add the PC commentary by asking leading questions, e.g., "Do you think your work will help create jobs in impoverished third world countries?"
But I think most professors, even in the hard sciences and engineering, are steeped enough in PC crap to spout this on their own in order to keep the funding tap turned on.
“What about secondary containment pipe? You can’t move gasoline without it.”
Why is that an issue?
“I can’t imagine this saving much money using carbon and epoxy.”
You might be right, or then again the lead scientist/engineer maybe crunched the numbers, including the alternative numbers for all the cement & steel, and considering their transportation costs, and thinks there is an economic opportunity. I don’t know that answer, they do.
“Also, mandrel-wound composite pipe is structurally inferior to pipe centrifugally cast inside a hollow mandrel.”
I wonder if that holds true for “mandrel wound” pipe made with the different materials involved in making this pipe.
“When they can come up with a mobile centrifugal casting process then they’ll really have something.”
They talk about a mobile process they intend to engineer (not finished on that yet they say) for their “wound mandrel” method. Given your first question about “wound mandrel” cast pipes, I think your last question requires their answer to your first.
“But none of this could work in secondary containment applications.”
Why? I’m ignorant and just asking.
“What about secondary containment pipe? You can’t move gasoline without it.”
Why is that an issue?
“I can’t imagine this saving much money using carbon and epoxy.”
You might be right, or then again the lead scientist/engineer maybe crunched the numbers, including the alternative numbers for all the cement & steel, and considering their transportation costs, and thinks there is an economic opportunity. I don’t know that answer, they do.
“Also, mandrel-wound composite pipe is structurally inferior to pipe centrifugally cast inside a hollow mandrel.”
I wonder if that holds true for “mandrel wound” pipe made with the different materials involved in making this pipe.
“When they can come up with a mobile centrifugal casting process then they’ll really have something.”
They talk about a mobile process they intend to engineer (not finished on that yet they say) for their “wound mandrel” method. Given your first question about “wound mandrel” cast pipes, I think your last question requires their answer to your first.
“But none of this could work in secondary containment applications.”
Why? I’m ignorant and just asking.
Fill two of them with oil & float down the Mississippi. One for you, one for your cooler.
Someone’s put enough water back into the Mississippi to do that? OK, I’m game as long as I get to stock the cooler.
I can’t get my head around anyone making a pipe like that within a another pipe like that in the field. EPA rules for underground systems carrying just about anything other than water require secondary containment, including petroleum.
As far as single pipe, something field-fabricated would save a ton of money in terms of labor and logistics. But I’m not sure how the expense of carbon fiber would fit into that equation. What I meant earlier is that if they used fiberglass which is cheaper with a stronger fiberglass process (centrifugal casting) then they would ahve something really cool ... but still the whole idea just seems like a pipe dream. And I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. ;^)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.