Fuel Cells

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Innominate
As for nuclear power, I'm all for building secure storage facilities in the middle of nowhere and leaving it to be dealt with in the future.  If in 500-1000 years, humanity hasn't progressed to the point where we can do something final with it(Proccess it further, or launch it into space, and into the sun), then we deserve whatever horrible fate it causes us.

But you see, WE won't be the ones who have to pay, it will be a completely different generation.  

Sounds like a rationalization for polution to me.

WE can't make nuclear waste safe, so WE'RE going plant it the ground.  

If YOU can't figure out how to neutralize it so it doesn't kill you, well it's not OUR fault, YOU'RE the stupid ones.

Pretty screwed up logic there.  It doens't negate our moral responsibility for putting poison in the ground that we don't have an antidote for.

[funkedup]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Why not hydrogen?

Anybody found any naturally occuring hydrogen on this planet?

Sagefin has a good idea though.  

[Thrawn]

All the world is waiting for, is the efficient solar cell.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by funkedup
Anybody found any naturally occuring hydrogen on this planet?

Sagefin has a good idea though.  

Uh..I always thought the "H" in H2O stood for Hydrogen

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Correct, but we can still hold out hope for electric cars- which will end all automotive polution forever....  Yes, yes then finally well be able to stop the evil gas/energy corporations...  
 

So let me guess...automotive pollution is really good for us?

[ra]

All the world is waiting for, is the efficient solar cell.

The world may have a long wait.  I know an electrical engineer who works for a company that manufactures solar cells.  He says that solar cells will never offer the kind of cheap, abundant energy the 70's hippies dreamt of.  There is only a certain amount of energy reaching each square foot of earth.  Even if you could harness 100% of that energy per square foot, you would need to pave huge areas of land with solar panels to generate significant energy.  And you will never get 100% efficiency, 50% would be amazing.  He says they're up to something like 20% now.  Solar cells are good for trickle charging batteries and augmenting power supplies.  It is not a growth industry.

ra

[Hangtime]

what the world is waiting for is a truly efficeint battery. We've got the capaicty issue pretty much solved, the only thing keeping cap'n kirks hand phaser outta production is the lack of a battery with a low enough internal impedance.

solve the battery capaicty/impedance problem, and any one of a large number of cheap charging sources could be utilised.. hydro/electric, tidal, nuclear, solar.. matters not what the source of the cheap energy is, the issue remains how to store and deliver the energy.

[popeye]

Americans seem willing wage Oil Wars, and drill in their grandmother's front yard, before making the slightest effort to conserve energy.  Everyone is driving 12 mpg monsters and worrying that we are "dependent on foreign oil", but expect some future technology to save us.

Guess it's not too surprising with General Motors and Exxon in the White House.

[GRUNHERZ]

Yes its awful to have GM and Exxon in the white house!  During the Clinton years it was Ford and Shell and things were so much different....  

But again we all must know it's only the republicans who get money from the evil unamerican corporations (made up of green space aliens and monsters and not real people and controlled by dick cheney) while the democrats make do with wholesome union money and a few quarters from little Jenny's bake sale.

BS BS BS

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Hortlund
So let me guess...automotive pollution is really good for us?

Oh Absolutely... Damn Steve thats pretty weak coming from you, how exactly do you think all that extra electricity would be created if suddenly we had to power hundreds of millions of new electric cars. The source of polution would just shift from the roadways to the new electricty plants. And since lefties will never allow nuclear power again, or for that matter probably new hydroelectric - you see dams and reservoirs might make some spotted something or other extinct and urban leftist elietes would feel bad - that new energy source will create polution. Like somebody said you cant just solve the energy/pollution issue by powerig everything with AAA batteries.

Im no physicyst but I dont think seperating the H from the H20 is all that trivial a matter.

[Betown]

There are other ways of powering vehicles, ladies and gentlemen... You just have to stop thinking of fuel and start thinking about the engine it's self.

Internal combustion engines are the bad things. There are other ways to power a car and actually make it more efficient. Ever thought that it was being held from us?

A whole lot of our economy is based on fuel, tax on fuel, whole countries economy are actually supported buy the selling of petroleum.

Remove it and you have some major problems with some major players in the global economy...

[GRUNHERZ]

"There are other ways to power a car and actually make it more efficient. Ever thought that it was being held from us? "

What exactly? And if so why isn't the military using it on their tanks and vehicles, or are US oil companies more powerful than the miliaries of the world and supressing these wunder technologies even from them?

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by ra
Even if you could harness 100% of that energy per square foot, you would need to pave huge areas of land with solar panels to generate significant energy.  

There's that I idea of sticking a crapload of them in orbit and microwaving the engery back to an earth groundstation.

Of course you could do the same with a ferrous metal bar in orbit traveling through the earth's magnetic field.

Nice thing about these technologies, no waste is produced.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Oh Absolutely... Damn Steve thats pretty weak coming from you, how exactly do you think all that extra electricity would be created if suddenly we had to power hundreds of millions of new electric cars. The source of polution would just shift from the roadways to the new electricty plants. And since lefties will never allow nuclear power again, or for that matter probably new hydroelectric - you see dams and reservoirs might make some spotted something or other extinct and urban leftist elietes would feel bad - that new energy source will create polution. Like somebody said you cant just solve the energy/pollution issue by powerig everything with AAA batteries.

Im no physicyst but I dont think seperating the H from the H20 is all that trivial a matter.

Bah, how hard can it be? H20 = H2 + O (remove the latter part) and voila, H2.

As for the rest of your post. Give me some time, I've been banned for the last 3 months remember. I'll be back in the game soon enough.

Let me just point out the obvious flaw with your line of reasoning. You are assuming that the number of cars must be constant or increasing. There are other options.

[GRUNHERZ]

I will shoot at you if try to take my car away....  Ill have to buy a gun first but I will shoot at you. Therein lies the weakness of your argument, in America alone there are probably more cars than people - so figure some 300,000,000 milion or so cars and over 50% of their owners have guns. Not everyone will agree to give up their cars. And dont forget europe is at least as big or bigger car market than the USA, but fortunately for your plan theyt have less guns.   All jokes aside I will never support any sort of socialist "no more cars" campaign or any alternative non individual choice transport device. Ive had my fill of taking the bus as a kid.  My Mustang is too heavy, creaks, handles bad, and all around prolly sucks but it's mine and if I wanted to eat a dozen Krispy Kreme donuts this instant I know I could get them at their drive through window in my own car in 5 minutes...


God Bless the USA!