Author Topic: Just a thought (Read 654 times)

Gunslinger · « **Reply #15 on:** April 03, 2005, 02:17:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by oboe
I was in Palm Springs a couple of weeks ago. They have a wind farm there with thousands of the generators. I thought it was a beautiful sight, especially in the context of friggin crazy Muslims with what, 70% of the world's oil?

I agree. Wind farms are pretty cool looking if you ask me. BUT, when you want to add a couple hundred more right next to the back yard of somone's $500,000 vacation home they tend to protest it.

I don't understand environmentalist. If you got all the animal lovers and environmentalist in one room you'd have the biggest argument ever of what/who/how to protect.

Nash · « **Reply #16 on:** April 03, 2005, 02:23:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Don't worry Ripper, developing Canada's tar sands...

Just a point of fact. They're not called tar sands anymore, but oil sands. It's already developed - prodution costs are now down to about 12 bucks a barrel - and 50% of the oil produced and consumed comes from them.

ygsmilo · « **Reply #17 on:** April 03, 2005, 02:35:43 PM »

A thought,

Futures markets reflect demand for products,

When demand is greater than supply, the futures markets invert, ie the front month is higher than the next month ex. May crude would be at $50 and June would be $45.

When supply is greater than demand futures markets go to a carry, ie the front month is lower than the next month, ex May crude would be at at $50 and June would $52.

The closes on Friday CLK5 $57.27 (May) CLM5 $58.29 (June)

soooooo the market is at a carry in fact crude is at a carry all the way out to Oct.

There is a huge speculative bubble in this market right now and it will break as the fundamentals would not support prices at these levels.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #18 on:** April 03, 2005, 02:40:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by OIO
Well I dont know if this is possible but...

if the hydrogen fuel cell was comercially avaliable for vehicles and trucks (I know, they working on it), wouldnt it be a good 'investment' for the US gov to launch a program where they subsidize vehicle manufacturers so that anyone who owns a gasoline powered vehicle can trade it in for a brand new hydrogen vehicle?

Say, for 5 years.. and in those 5 years the US becomes largely free of gasoline powered cars and largely free of foreign oil dependency... plus it also gets to become the world's first 'large' producer of hydrogen fuel and hydrogen vehicled which can be sold to other nations as they switch over to the hydrogen tech.

My understanding is that hydrogen fuel cells arnt the answer but just another delay in the inevitable. To my knowledge they are highly inefficient as a power source and you still have to use huge amounts of power to make them. So the trade off is less fuel consumption by cars more by the plants.

nirvana · « **Reply #19 on:** April 03, 2005, 03:06:08 PM »

They had a hydrogen convention sometime showing how cool, efficient, pollution free hydrogen cars were. Heck they even had a hydrogen refueling station. I'm not supporting any of that but to make it into the tank in a liquid nature it would have to be cooled in the holding tanks and all the way into the car. Remember hydrogen normally exists in a gaseous state down to below 100 degrees fahrenheit I believe. Anyway if they could kept it cooled down to actually be combusted it might work i'm not counting on it though. Coal liquification might be a good start though.....why haven't we discussed those much loved solar panels yet? Expensive, not a huge energy out put, but hey slap some on the roof for a backup energy supply and you might be able to get away with it.

Vulcan · « **Reply #20 on:** April 03, 2005, 03:29:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by nirvana
They had a hydrogen convention sometime showing how cool, efficient, pollution free hydrogen cars were. Heck they even had a hydrogen refueling station. I'm not supporting any of that but to make it into the tank in a liquid nature it would have to be cooled in the holding tanks and all the way into the car. Remember hydrogen normally exists in a gaseous state down to below 100 degrees fahrenheit I believe. Anyway if they could kept it cooled down to actually be combusted it might work i'm not counting on it though. Coal liquification might be a good start though.....why haven't we discussed those much loved solar panels yet? Expensive, not a huge energy out put, but hey slap some on the roof for a backup energy supply and you might be able to get away with it.

Hydrogen cars? Well, it'd make pileups on the motorways fairly interesting to watch.... and drive by shootings could get a bit more action packed.

john9001 · « **Reply #21 on:** April 03, 2005, 05:20:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Vulcan
Hydrogen cars? Well, it'd make pileups on the motorways fairly interesting to watch.... and drive by shootings could get a bit more action packed.

what are you trying to say, that gasoline fumes don't explode?
what do you think makes your car go down the road?

ASTAC · « **Reply #22 on:** April 03, 2005, 05:25:30 PM »

Hydrogen is much more unstabe and volitile...though the polution factor is much lower...I'm sure they are working to find a way to make it safer.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #23 on:** April 03, 2005, 05:35:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by ASTAC
Hydrogen is much more unstabe and volitile...though the polution factor is much lower...I'm sure they are working to find a way to make it safer.

Gasoline is about as bad an explosion hazard as you can get and still be liquid.

The problem with hydrogen is you can't drill or dig for it. You must produce it with other forms of energy, like nuclear, oil, wind, coal, solar, etc.

Hydrogen is not a source of energy, it is a storage medium.

Rolex · « **Reply #24 on:** April 03, 2005, 05:42:50 PM »

Not trying to rain on your parade, Holden.

I understand the chemistry and appreciate that there are numerous alternatives to our overall energy system, but technical feasability is rarely a catalyst for action in the US. Corporate investment is short term and maximizing return as long as possible with old technology is common place.

America does new ideas well, but doesn't develop or apply them, or transition to them well. Broadband, cell phones, high definition TV, hydrogen cars - there are numerous examples of American business unwilling to invest and consumers being a generation or 3 behind in technology.

The long term energy goal of the US is to pump everything dry, them we'll worry about what to do later. The oil companies make money at any price of oil. Pumping everything dry and creating a crisis atmosphere will relieve them of any responsibility to invest - they'll cry poor mouth to Congress and get the American taxpayer to do their investing.

Technology and cost effectiveness of it (post capital investment) takes a back seat to short term profit in most industries. Markets are not as free as people think they are. There are convoluted controls and biases that mold markets. If the cultural cool (derived from advertising) were to drive cars with over 15km/l fuel efficiency, the oil would last a lot longer and be cheaper right now.

Sorry for using metric, but my point is that if the US can't even transition to the metric system, what are the chances of a smooth transition to alternative fuels or alternative transportation means? We use too much oil. We're focused on using the same old fuels for the same old cars with same old big engines.

We don't want to look at the cure, we want to keep treating the symptoms.

vorticon · « **Reply #25 on:** April 03, 2005, 05:45:59 PM »

methane is as good a choice as any, better, really, since if were pulling from waste, it wont run out.

culero · « **Reply #26 on:** April 03, 2005, 05:47:08 PM »

This is an interesting discussion I'm unfortunately not up to speed on regarding recent technical developments. Thanks for having it. I'd really like to see us using less foreign oil.

Question: where does fuel cell technology stand in all this?

culero

ASTAC · « **Reply #27 on:** April 03, 2005, 05:55:44 PM »

Maybe if we stopped hoarding our oil for a disaster that is very unlikely..and start using it..we can get by a little longer while these technologies mature..not to mention get our prices down a little.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #28 on:** April 03, 2005, 06:00:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Rolex
The long term energy goal of the US is to pump everything dry, them we'll worry about what to do later. The oil companies make money at any price of oil.

That's why it would have to be a government inititive to help industry make the transition now. Tax breaks, maybe even no tax for a decade for a company that would be starting up a coal to liquid refinery. Liquid fuels from coal would not require any technical change to automobiles and would buy years of transition to a hydrogen economy without being addicted to outside sources of oil, and all the political and economic problems associated with that.

No problem with the metric system personally. I would rather divide by 10 than 3 or 8 or 12 or 5280 anyway.

ASTAC · « **Reply #29 on:** April 03, 2005, 06:09:57 PM »

could care less about the measuring system we use...hell a metric speedometer makes you feel like you are going FAST..however, I way too used to measureing stuff using fractions.