Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: FiLtH on September 01, 2005, 03:38:33 PM
-
Someday we will run out of fuel. What do you think will happen?
1. The governments of the world will work together to find alternatives to save humanity, before it becomes critical.
2. The world will as we know it will collapse overnight, plunging us into a new dark age.
I predict (and Im so in the know on this stuff :p) that small countries will gently ween themselves off from fossil fuels, while the major powers will work toward alternatives, BUT...in order to buy some time, will use their weapons against other major powers while they still can. If the weapons that give you power are powerless, then pure numbers will be the powerful. Those numbers will have to be eliminated in order to remain in the game.
-
We already have alternative fuel sources, but for some reason we aren't using them. Such as E85. I just put a post all about it, but it got closed. If you want me to repost it here, I have my post saved I can, But i fear that Skuzzy is going to close this whole thread or wipe my post from existence. -DropW
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
Someday we will run out of fuel. What do you think will happen?
I guess I wont be able to put gas in my car.....
-
Hehe DropW...hold off on it till we get a lil more input. For now...do you think option 1 or 2?
-
When all the Oil is certifiably gone. Not some propoganda spewed out by the enviro-nazis, I mean verifiably GONE, an alternate source will be created. It is how the capitalist system works. Right now there is no profit incentive to create this alternative because the producers know that there is enough oil supply for the forseeable future. We do not have a problem with supply we have a problem with refinement and distribution and this storm has only made that problem worse.
The last refinery was built in the 1970s, Now why do you think that is? Same goes for nuclear power plants, cheapest, cleanest, safest source of electricity.
-
I am beginning to believe that it is option 1. There are already several types of alternative fuels out there. Such as Biodesiels, E85, electric, etc. In fact, it looks like E85 is probably gonna be just what the governments are going to put out. It is made of 15% petroleum and 85% Ethonal. This type of fuel goes into FFVs (Fuel Flexible Vehicles). In fact, major motor companies have been making FFVs since 2000. You can find out about this information if you google search it. The government already uses it, and some public stations in the midwest have it. Also, many peoples cars that have recently bought are FFVs and they don't even know it. ARG, I already had a whole post about it, and it got closed. I wrote an e-mail to Skuzzy already, trying to get it unclosed. If you all are interested in this information, please post a reply. I am ready to resend the post that got closed. -DropW
-
DropW, there is no problem discussing alternate fuel solutions. The manner in which you approached read like SPAM/advertising, which I do have a problem with.
Your second thread wanting to confront me about it on the board is not the way to deal with things. Had you simply emailed or PM'd me, the matter could have been handled much better than trying to get into a confrontation on the bulletin board.
Discuss away, but keep in mind, this is a discussion board, not a board for spamming or advertising on.
-
Ok..ok...(puts bottles of Scotch under the counter)
You guys take this back out in the street..dont be trashin my bar!
-
It's got to be Hydrogen. I'm no chemist, but I do know that placing sodium in water although a volatile reaction, produces hydrogen gas. 70% of the earth is covered in salt water, doesn't seem like it should be that hard. But like I said I'm no chemist.
-
Originally posted by DropW
I am beginning to believe that it is option 1. There are already several types of alternative fuels out there. Such as Biodesiels, E85, electric, etc. In fact, it looks like E85 is probably gonna be just what the governments are going to put out. It is made of 15% petroleum and 85% Ethonal. This type of fuel goes into FFVs (Fuel Flexible Vehicles). In fact, major motor companies have been making FFVs since 2000. You can find out about this information if you google search it. The government already uses it, and some public stations in the midwest have it. Also, many peoples cars that have recently bought are FFVs and they don't even know it. ARG, I already had a whole post about it, and it got closed. I wrote an e-mail to Skuzzy already, trying to get it unclosed. If you all are interested in this information, please post a reply. I am ready to resend the post that got closed. -DropW
Ethanol comes from plants right? (saw your link)
Were can you grow enough of it without it having to compete with land for growing food?. How do you prevent poorer countries growing "fuel" instead of food for their hungry inhabitants. This is already a problem in some areas were drugs gets a better price than food.
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
When all the Oil is certifiably gone. Not some propoganda spewed out by the enviro-nazis, I mean verifiably GONE, an alternate source will be created. It is how the capitalist system works. Right now there is no profit incentive to create this alternative because the producers know that there is enough oil supply for the forseeable future. We do not have a problem with supply we have a problem with refinement and distribution and this storm has only made that problem worse.
The last refinery was built in the 1970s, Now why do you think that is? Same goes for nuclear power plants, cheapest, cleanest, safest source of electricity.
Enviro-nazi? Just because one realises that buring oil destroys the enviroment and can and maybe has caused what we now see in NO ?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Enviro-nazi? Just because one realises that buring oil destroys the enviroment and can and maybe has caused what we now see in NO ?
This should be good...
-
Originally posted by Sandman
This should be good...
Care to share?
-
Were hurricanes created by the increase of CO2 due to the burning of fossil fuels? Hmm..I thought they were around before then.
-
The burning of fossile fuels like oil raises the temperature. Water temperatures have risen and hurricanes forms if the water temp is above 27 degrees celcius.
Yes there has been natural hurricanes since.. well forever but the warmer the climate gets the more hurricanes we will get.
-
Hey all. In regards to my earlier posts, I have been doing more research about E85 fuels and have found quite a bit about the negative effects it has. I just noticed that my earlier posts that got closed were one sided posts. I have been conducting further research and have found that there are lots of possible negative effects as well. Check this forum out: http://www.autoblog.com/entry/1234000233056148/
I no longer know what to think. So many contradicting views can be found on the internet about this. I am no where near a professional in this topic. I therefore am no valid source of information. Please find information about this on your own through the web or other means. It is something to look into. I currently have no stance on the subject as I have yet to understand everything. If you all want to contribute information, both for and against for general public knowledge, I say more power to you! I'm signing out, later. -DropW (Joshua)
-
When the oil runs out you will see the countries run by Islamic Law crumble and hopefully some moderates will take over and confront their religion as a whole...and join the rest of the human race.
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
Were hurricanes created by the increase of CO2 due to the burning of fossil fuels? Hmm..I thought they were around before then.
Hurricanes have always been around - the current discussion revolves around what appears to be much more violent hurricanes - the number of such events has remained static.
If global warming heats the sea surface temp expect even worse - now would be the time to move away from the ocean view and start enjoying a mountain retreat.
-
Dropw,
I am not a fan of ethanol in gas. I'm from AZ and spent 50 years there. Since they started putting ethanol (MTBE) the mileage in my vehicles dropped off noticably as did the power. In addition to that I had mechanical problems. The stuff sours very very fast in the tank. It has destroyed the rubber fuel hoses and the rubber based fuel pump vibration damper in the tank on my motorcycle, a 90 BMW K75. They got turned to a tar like substance. It also siezed up the fuel pump. So far the stuff has caused me over $700.00 in fuel pumps and related items alone in the last 2 years. As a result of this experiance I want nothing to do with this stuff. Nope it wasn't a pure scientific test but it was a long term test.
Another factor is how much farm production will be relegated to ethanol and how much to food? The amount of fuel used in the US will exceed the production of food very quickly if not immediately. It may be a possible stop gap measure but certainly not a replacement. The same for using old frying oil for diesel. There aren't enough restaraunts to supply the need. It's a nice supply for experimentation but not for everyday use.
-
Production is heavily subsidized through most of the world, so new markets for corn could help the farmer more than hurt I'd bet.
Well, from SCIENCE DAILY, consider this:
....snip...
UC Berkeley geoengineering professor Tad W. Patzek thinks that's a very bad idea.
For two years, Patzek has analyzed the environmental ramifications of ethanol, a renewable fuel that many believe could significantly reduce our dependence on petroleum-based fossil fuels. According to Patzek though, ethanol may do more harm than good.
"In terms of renewable fuels, ethanol is the worst solution," Patzek says. "It has the highest energy cost with the least benefit."
Ethanol is produced by fermenting renewable crops like corn or sugarcane. It may sound green, Patzek says, but that's because many scientists are not looking at the whole picture. According to his research, more fossil energy is used to produce ethanol than the energy contained within it.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050329132436.htm
Which only proves that we're not there yet. It also shows (once again) that Politically Correct certified green activities may be more politics than truth.
Hydrogen, converted from water by clean energy sources, seems to be the most likely portable energy choice. However, the infrastructure to manufacture, transport, and use hydrogen will be horrendously expensive -- and wont be explored until absolutely necessary. Also, i remeber reading in Scientific American that the chemistry of fuel cells actually favors smaller applications like cell phones... but I'll shut up because I'm in over my head.
-
Coupla' points:
The US has, at present, enough hydrocarbon energy to fuel the present rate of consumption for several hundred years in the form of oil shale and most especially coal. Fischer-Tropsch oil synthesis from coal technology was used by the nazis, so it is not any new idea. There is a plant in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming now. South Africa and China have running FT industy.
Canada has several times the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia in the form of oil sands.
Hydrogen is not a source of energy*. It is a storage medium. Energy must be used to seperate h20 into its constituant elements, and physics says you need to put in more energy than the freed hydrogen will provide. The energy needs to come from some other source.
It will not be #1, government needs to get out of the way. Profit drives innovation.
*unless we figure out fusion.
-
Doubtfull that any companies are hurrying to find alternatives when they can squeeze all these dollars out of the people with high gas prices.
The "Oh shi-" will come when its two days of supply left and last-minute stuff will be done to make a new source of energy.
-
Would it be worth it to start investing in horses?
-
The whole issue is one of economics and technology. Whatever technology is most economical will be used on a large scale. I don't know if there is a name for that, but for now I'll call it Malta's Law. Where "economical", is a broad term considering base costs, ecological, and political costs.
As such, when (or if) hydrogen storage and distribution becomes economical it will be used. Similarly, as the price of gasoline and diesel rise, other tecnologies are used per Malta's Law. For example, as petroleum diesel cost approachs the cost of biodiesel, biodiesel will be used.
I have not done any analysis, but if the cost of E85 becomes competitive or less expensive than gasoline then it will be adopted. I think there is some uncertainty in determining the total cost for petroleum substitutes. Also, most energy using devices (cars, planes, appliances) are optimized for petroleum or electricity. That requires new petroleum substitutes or new electricity storage technology for use in current devices.
Coal, shale, or oil sands must be converted into a petroleum substitue which will probably require oil to be nearly depleted before they will be used per Malta's law. New technology using electricity, such as hydrogen fuel cells, high energy density batteries, and ultra capacitors can be readily used by current devices. However, If new devices are invented which can use coal, shale, or other energy sources efficiently they will be adopted in accordance with Malta's law.
Myself, I see electrical energy storage with high efficiency solar cells as a solution to the polluition and energy issue provided the energy storage can be provided economically. The biggest benefit of petrochemical products is the energy stored per weight (energy density) and cost for the energy. I am not certain, but even with gasoline at $3.00 per gallon, petroleum fuel products may obey Malta's law.
The US, for whatever reason, has not focused on electrical energy storage as a priority. Fortunately, many other countries need energy and have intelligent scientists and researchers that have. Specifically, Japan and China are leaders in that technology.
Regards,
Malta
-
I wonder what the amish are thinking...
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Dropw,
I am not a fan of ethanol in gas. I'm from AZ and spent 50 years there. Since they started putting ethanol (MTBE) the mileage in my vehicles dropped off noticably as did the power. In addition to that I had mechanical problems. The stuff sours very very fast in the tank. It has destroyed the rubber fuel hoses and the rubber based fuel pump vibration damper in the tank on my motorcycle, a 90 BMW K75. They got turned to a tar like substance. It also siezed up the fuel pump. So far the stuff has caused me over $700.00 in fuel pumps and related items alone in the last 2 years. As a result of this experiance I want nothing to do with this stuff. Nope it wasn't a pure scientific test but it was a long term test.
Another factor is how much farm production will be relegated to ethanol and how much to food? The amount of fuel used in the US will exceed the production of food very quickly if not immediately. It may be a possible stop gap measure but certainly not a replacement. The same for using old frying oil for diesel. There aren't enough restaraunts to supply the need. It's a nice supply for experimentation but not for everyday use.
Maverick -
MTBE is NOT Ethanol. According to the EPA's website,
MTBE (methyl tertiary-butyl ether) is a chemical compound that is manufactured by the chemical reaction of methanol and isobutylene. MTBE is produced in very large quantities (over 200,000 barrels per day in the U.S. in 1999) and is almost exclusively used as a fuel additive in motor gasoline. It is one of a group of chemicals commonly known as "oxygenates" because they raise the oxygen content of gasoline. At room temperature, MTBE is a volatile, flammable and colorless liquid that dissolves rather easily in water.
MTBE is also responsible for contamination of groundwater aquifers if the gasoline mixed with it is spilled or leaks from its storage tanks, because its water soluble. It is very nasty stuff, but was the oxygenate of choice for many refiners I think due to a cost benefit over ethanol.
-
Problem if I remember correctly with Hydrogen is Producing hydrogen creates more pollution and costs more than burning gasoline.
I say Grain Alcohol. Renewable. burns clean, and if a couple of unemployed, uneducated backwoods rednecks with little or no money using parts they find laying around can make it.
Then multibillion corporations that employ and have thousands of top notch scientists and engineers can. Probably with parts they also already have on hand (hmm maybe they should start hiring rednecks to show em how)
Not to mention how it would help the farming industry thus killing two birds with one stone.
also there is the gasses created by our own waste (garbage)
Some places are already using these gases for electrical plants. Others And I see it all the time. Just burn it off
-
Hey all. What about steam engines? I bet if scientists really put their minds to it they could create awesome steam engines with todays technology. Any ideas? -DropW
-
"
also there is the gasses created by our own waste (garbage)
Some places are already using these gases for electrical plants. Others And I see it all the time. Just burn it off"
not quite that simple, but i suppose there is a way to collect it, compress it, and use it in a diesel engine, which is going to be the only real sticking point, everything else its used for has relativly cheap and readily available alternatives...
i imagine some kind of coast to coast race to determine the replacement, because weve got to have to have some kind of single replacement, even if other alternatives make more sense in different regions
-
Methane (landfill gas) is burned in gas turbines at municipal landfills all over the US and I am sure the world. It is fairly common.
Ethanol needs power to produce and it is being produced in the USA now but the energy balance is in question. Brazil has a huge percentage of its motor fuel in Brazil produced ethanol but equatorial regions growing sugar cane can get a bunch more ethanol per acre and btu in than corn in the temperate clime.
FT coal to liquid fuel technology is working worldwide, and the break even point was when Oil was at $40 to 45 a bbl, so it is profitable now.
Hydrogen is not a power source. You lose energy if you electrolyse hydrogen from water instead of just shoving the electricity directly into car batteries. What hydrogen does is allow you to store more energy in a tank in a car than you can store energy in a battery.
What all this means is that the energy landscape in the future will need to be diverse.
-
Originally posted by DropW
We already have alternative fuel sources, but for some reason we aren't using them.
Not much to wonder about there.
-
Hydrogen is not a power source. You lose energy if you electrolyse hydrogen from water instead of just shoving the electricity directly into car batteries. What hydrogen does is allow you to store more energy in a tank in a car than you can store energy in a battery.
What all this means is that the energy landscape in the future will need to be diverse. [/B]
But Hydogen in cars are still better than batteries right? If you have access to lots of hydro electic power then it will be more effective to make hydrogen for cars etc than it is to use pure electric power as fuel... or am i wrong?
-
lack of infrastructure is one of the primary reasons for other energy alternatives have not been embraced in large scale.
When we went from horse and buggy to gasoline transportation, it took decades, not months, to change the entire infrastructure of our country over.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
The burning of fossile fuels like oil raises the temperature. Water temperatures have risen and hurricanes forms if the water temp is above 27 degrees celcius.
Yes there has been natural hurricanes since.. well forever but the warmer the climate gets the more hurricanes we will get.
I'm not sure how you can be certain in your conclusion. Even scientists disagree whether or not it is contributing to hurricanes:
"The people who have a bias in favour of the argument that humans are making the globe warmer will push any data that suggests humans are making hurricanes worse, but it just isn't so ... These are natural cycles."
Source: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article309214.ece
To make a statement like you have is to simply follow the logic on one side of the issue only, without weighing in all the facts.
Personally, jury is still out for me, as I see no significant data proving one theory or another.
-
Originally posted by DropW
Hey all. What about steam engines? I bet if scientists really put their minds to it they could create awesome steam engines with todays technology. Any ideas? -DropW
Well you'd have to boil water somehow and after high-pressure steam is used in steam engine it needs to be condensed back to liquid = wastes energy and needs plenty of area/space.
Best alternates for gasoline are alcohols, natural gas and hydrogen and all of those have better coefficient when used in ordinary Otto engines or fuel cells.
I see alcohols and natural gas best option for this day and close future and hydrogen used in either otto engines or in fuel cells in future.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Personally, jury is still out for me, as I see no significant data proving one theory or another.
Say...
Someone is pointing your head with a shotgun and says he's not sure if the gun is loaded or not.
Do you really want to find it out in a hard way?
I wouldn't but guess that's just me.
-
Actually the shotgun is aimed to your childrens and their childrens; not against you.
-
Originally posted by Suave
It's got to be Hydrogen. I'm no chemist, but I do know that placing sodium in water although a volatile reaction, produces hydrogen gas. 70% of the earth is covered in salt water, doesn't seem like it should be that hard. But like I said I'm no chemist.
Hydrogen? Remember the Hindenburg!
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Staga
Say...
Someone is pointing your head with a shotgun and says he's not sure if the gun is loaded or not.
Do you really want to find it out in a hard way?
I wouldn't but guess that's just me.
So you'd rather just assume that anything told to you is the truth? Funny, alot of German people felt the same way when Goebbels spoke to them.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
lack of infrastructure is one of the primary reasons for other energy alternatives have not been embraced in large scale.
When we went from horse and buggy to gasoline transportation, it took decades, not months, to change the entire infrastructure of our country over.
Ripsnort speaketh trutheth.
-
IMO the future of fuel rests in hydrogen.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
So you'd rather just assume that anything told to you is the truth? Funny, alot of German people felt the same way when Goebbels spoke to them.
I think you're grasping thin air Rip :)
Using your way of think we could also say GWB is like Goebbels in 1944; preaching how well everything goes and how final victory making road for 1000 year empire is already in sight.
And look what happened. Hell thanks for Bringing Goebbels into this; I bet we can have many nice comparisons between him and couple politicians ;)
Anyways the beef in this case is YOU DO NOT KNOW if global warming is true or not (neither do I) but that's one thing I do not want to play with.
Cutting down pollution won't hurt anyone and it's like turning the shotgun barrels away from your own children IMHO.
Feel free to disagree and I'm sure you will :)
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
But Hydogen in cars are still better than batteries right? If you have access to lots of hydro electic power then it will be more effective to make hydrogen for cars etc than it is to use pure electric power as fuel... or am i wrong?
Hydrogen allows a more dense energy storage in a car. Better range, easier "recharge". So in that way it is better than battery electric cars.
My point was that hydrogen is not just out there for the gathering, it needs to be manufactured. It takes more energy to maufacture than you will get out of the final product. Hydrogen is not an energy source.
Coal you can dig up out of the ground for very little energy expended and shovel it into a fire box and get a tremendous amount of useful energy. It takes less energy to produce coal derived fuel than you get out of the final product. Coal is an energy source.
If you have some other source like hydopower or nuclear you could produce the hydrogen required, and that is fine. But the USA will need to replace the equivalent energy of the petroleum industry in nuclear (probably) and then some to go to a hydrogen economy.
-
How many hydrogen fuel stations are there in Iceland now? I know their buses run on hydrogen. There is a hydrogen fuel station in Tokyo, does tokyo have hydrogen fueled buses too ?
-
The englishmen were pioneering on alternative fuels.
Late 19th century they used mummies from egypt to fuel the heating furnaces (according to Mark Twain).
Also brown butcher paper was manufactured from them.
Alternative fuels will kick in with force immediately when the society feels its in their best interest to do so. Many many options.. You can create fuel from crops. From used frying fat. From manure. Even a small waste dump creates tons of methane every day - absolutely free energy evaporating in the air every day PLUS to the fact that methane is a greenhouse gas.
If governments wanted alternative energy, we'd have it today.
-
In seventies we had Saab 99s with two fuel tanks; one for alcohol distilled from wood (ethanol) and one for ordinary gasoline (to get engine running).
However our government got greedy and taxed the experiment to death f...ing morons.
Cars came popular amongst some guys; engines were having lower compression ratio and chance was done by using parts from Turbo Saabs. All they needed was a refurbished Garrett and car got nice power boost.
-
What people need to realize is the difference between "creating" energy and "storing" energy. Hydrogen, fuel cells, batteries are all storage methods. You still have to get the energy from some place.
People talk about solar power, wind, hydro, etc... Imagine the amount of energy we would be extracting from our planets environment to replace the capacity of a nuclear reactor. You are talking about changing weather patterns, building damns, etc... It still takes more energy to produce a solar panel than it will ever generate over it's entire life span! These environmentally friendly power sources are not so friendly when you scale them up to the levels needed to provide the majority of the power supply.
Hydrogen producing algae look like the best long term solution. Methanol and Ethanol will just never be an overall energy efficient strategy.
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,54456,00.html
Can't find the article, but I read a good report that stated we would need algae production approx. equal to 40% of our current domestic agriculture production to take care of our current energy needs 100%.
There is simply too much financial momentum for anyone to change untill there is simply no other alternative.
g00b
-
Solar panel efficiency has increased and manufacturing processes have improved: http://www.otherpower.com/otherpower_solar_new.html
There is one fundamental source of energy known to mankind (so far) and that is nuclear energy. Our Sun (i.e. the closest star to our planet) is a huge fusion reactor. All other energy on earth (other than from nuclear sources and geothermal) comes from the Sun. Petroleum oil, shale, coal, wind, wood, hydraulic, organic energy, and the food we eat are forms of solar (fusion) energy. It's no wonder ancient civilizations worshipped the Sun. It could be considered the source of life on earth.
The oil we burn is just chemical energy converted from solar very long ago. Chemical (not electrical) forms of stored energy are the most stable and easily converted into heat. Nature converts solar into chemical energy very well, although it seems to take quite a bit of time by our standards. We now have the abilty to convert solar energy into electricity at practical efficiencies. The problem remaining is good battery technology to store electricity in a useful form. Standard lead-acid battery technology, invented in 1860, is out dated.
Regards,
Malta
-
things rarely get efficient without actually using them...20 years ago it cost 40 bucks to produce a barrel of oil from tar sands (i know i use that example a lot, but at least with it im not talking out my arse) 30 years ago we couldnt get 250+ horsepower without leaded fuel.
hell, if people worried about efficiency, steam engines wouldnt have been built, and we'd still be drawing water from a well
sooner we try different energy "sources" on a largish scale, the faster we can get the technology (or some combination of the technologies) to a decent level of efficiency.
oh, and all storage methods require more engery than they release, i think thats some third law somewhere...
-
I saw a post about what if we used todays tech with steam engines. Isnt that what a nuke reactor is basically?
-
Yes, a nuclear reactor is a heat source. Various means have been used to get the heat away from the reactor such as liquid metals and other fluids. Space based reactors have considered using heat pipes and two-phase fluids. Water (as low tech as that sounds), which has been deionized and removed of impurities, has a half life of about 10 seconds and makes a great coolant.
At one time in the 1950's there was a nuclear aircraft being designed and built for the cold war. The idea being that it could stay airborne for months with resupply from other aircraft, similar to the concept of nuclear submarines. Unfortunately (or fortunately), water and lead are very heavy and the aircraft could never fly.
Basically, a nuclear reactor is a steam generator. The only 'trick' to GE and Westinghouse made nuclear reactors, aside from the waste we don't know what to do with, is making sure they have adequate cooling. That was the problem at 3 mile island in the 1970's. The night shift operators heard the cooling pumps cavitating due to low water levels caused by a stuck open valve and shut them off. Fortunately, the day shift arrived a few hours later and turned them back on, but it was too late for the reactor because part of it melted. Chernobyl was a completely different accident due to reactor design. Chernobyl exploded. Naval reactors are the same basic design as those used at 3 mile island, btw.
Regards,
Malta
-
How can the personnell of a nuclear plant be so stupid that they turn off the reactor cooling without shutting down the reactor, this I can't understand.
-
when the price of easily recoverable oil gets too high we will get into coal conversion and oil shale recovery... as that get's too high we will do more exploration... during this time we will invest in nuke and solar and hydro for energy....
with allmost free electricity we will be able to advance electric and hydrogen cars.
None of this can happen till we burn up the easy peasy reserves...
If you are not doing your part to burn up this oil then you are stopping progress... if you car get's more than about 12 mpg you are just dragging your feet and hindering progress and acting in a selfish manner.
lazs
-
If I remember right electricity in US is also bit scarce and when consumption goes up I don't think they're going to lower the cost.
I know I wouldn't :)
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
How can the personnell of a nuclear plant be so stupid that they turn off the reactor cooling without shutting down the reactor, this I can't understand.
Not to defend these folks and their "stupidity", it was my impression that the investigation showed the damping rods that were supposed to have controlled the reaction jammed and couldn't be dropped once the cooling started dropping. They couldn't shut the reaction down. Poor design, yep but that was not the fault of the reactor workers.
-
Biodiesel, then the farmers will not need government subsidies. When Rudolph Diesel invented his engine, it ran on peanut oil. His vision was the use of the engine would enhance agriculture of the countries that used it.
That + all other alternative fuels, it seems we keep all our eggs in one basket when it comes to fuel in the form of petro
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
How can the personnell of a nuclear plant be so stupid that they turn off the reactor cooling without shutting down the reactor, this I can't understand.
The reactor automatically shut down long before the operators shut off the cooling pumps. What the night operators didn't understand was the pumps still had to run for about 12 hours after the reactor is shut down to remove residual heat. They were trying to save the pumps which were cavititating due to low water and lost the reactor. The day crew knew what to do, but it was too late.
Regards,
Malta
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Not to defend these folks and their "stupidity", it was my impression that the investigation showed the damping rods that were supposed to have controlled the reaction jammed and couldn't be dropped once the cooling started dropping. They couldn't shut the reaction down. Poor design, yep but that was not the fault of the reactor workers.
I believe what Maverick is referring to was not 3 mile island in the 70's, but another reactor problem. I vaguely remember hearing about it but can't quite place the details. Control rods sticking is a problem with commercial reactors to this day.
Regards,
Malta
-
Maybe Sellafield.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Hydrogen? Remember the Hindenburg!
Karaya
The Hindenburg incident happened because it was painted with flammable paint, not from hydrogen.
There are several myths about the safety of using hydrogen and what you stated is one of the biggest.
In fact Hydrogen is safer than gasoline, hydrogen rises and escapes into the air very quickly, unlike gasoline, which spreads.
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
I saw a post about what if we used todays tech with steam engines. Isnt that what a nuke reactor is basically?
Nuclear reactors split atoms into the elements they are made of. These elements break other atoms when they hit them and so on and so forth. That is the chain reaction.
The energy that is released from this activity is then transformed into electricity.
Nothing is created, only transformed.
-
Well actually several things are also created in the process Avro - plutonium for one.
-
and tree-hugger enviormental activists for another.
-
yep... no problem... when the soccer moms want to watch desperate housewives on TV or nuke a meal for the family and the power is off.... they will throw the tree huggers into the furnaces for fuel.
When we want electricity we will make it.
lazs
-
You guys do realize the oil companies have the plans for an engine that runs on water right? They're just holding it back til the oil runs out, when global warming kicks in and they own all the major water supplies. Don't believe me? Check Arab ownership of glacial valleys!
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
You guys do realize the oil companies have the plans for an engine that runs on water right? They're just holding it back til the oil runs out, when global warming kicks in and they own all the major water supplies. Don't believe me? Check Arab ownership of glacial valleys!
And what's that hiding under the bridge???
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I wonder what the amish are thinking...
They're thinking the diesel that runs the air compressor that runs the water pump and milking machine is expensive. What people that aren't from this area don't realize is the Amish use many of the same machinery and conviences we do it just has to be difficult. They use propane lights and refrigerators, washing machines and hay mowers and balers with gasoline engines.
-
Originally posted by stantond
I believe what Maverick is referring to was not 3 mile island in the 70's, but another reactor problem. I vaguely remember hearing about it but can't quite place the details. Control rods sticking is a problem with commercial reactors to this day.
Regards,
Malta
that happened at cheryonobil.the rods stuck too far out ...so far out that the reactor went our of control and from there on it was OH SHI**" uncontrolled reactor = Hiroshima(btw i know the area around cheronobyl wasnt razed, the explosion was "muffeled" by the reactor housing.)
-
Chernobyl didn't suffer a nuclear explosion. It was a pressure explosion from the coolant being vaporized. It blew up like a steam boiler.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf Well actually several things are also created in the process Avro - plutonium for one.
By created I meant that they appear out of thin air.
I know that new elements are found in the reactor after the reaction. But their are no more protons and neutrons then their was at the beginning of the reaction. So their was no creation of matter.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. :(
-
Originally posted by jpeg
The Hindenburg incident happened because it was painted with flammable paint, not from hydrogen.
So the 7,000,000 cu ft of burning hydrogen had nothing to do with it?
The Los Angeles was full of Helium and painted with the same stuff. Did it explode?
The biggest problem with hydrogen is that it is not a source of energy. Oil, Coal, Wind, Geothermal, Gas, Nuclear, Solar, something needs to provide the power to store in the form of hydrogen so we can burn the hydrogen.
-
AVRO doesnt the nuclear reaction only make the water hot enough to make steam and turn turbines and generate electricity?
As for hydrogen, trapping a big balloon of the stuff in my opinion would be dangerous, but there must be safer ways to contain it today to power things.
-
Originally posted by FalconSix
Chernobyl didn't suffer a nuclear explosion. It was a pressure explosion from the coolant being vaporized. It blew up like a steam boiler.
oh yeah DUH thx now i remember
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So the 7,000,000 cu ft of burning hydrogen had nothing to do with it?
IIRC it happened because of Hindenburg's paint was charged with electricity and flame arc ignited the gas. There's your reason and consequence.
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
AVRO doesnt the nuclear reaction only make the water hot enough to make steam and turn turbines and generate electricity?
I doubt that a nuclear reactor only heats water to 100° C (212° F). I think it creates higher temps which gives very high pressure. More pressure means more energy with turbines.
Fuel efficiency is the best thing about nuclear energy.
-
Renuable rescources
Ethenol, which btw does not take a lot of power to produce. You can produce ethonol in your kitchen with a 5 gal bucket, some sugar, water, & yeast.
The trick is seperating it from the water afterwords.
I think the answer for that would be a semipermiable membrane that lets alchohol pass through, but stops water.
Vegetable oils, what the original desel motors ran on. Sunflower, soybean etc.
Yes these take a bit of power to crush & press to get the oil out. Could use a better process here as well. Something that removes more impuritys.
Mix of Veg Oil & alcohol, perhaps the best of both worlds.
Hydrogen, this one has major potential.
Anyone read Clive Cusslers novel "Blue Gold"? Has lots of answers!
The key to unlocking hydrogen is not brute force electrolisis like we do now.
Its finess, the right catylist, the right container and frequency is going to be the key. Instead of high pressure Hydrogen (which is dangerous) Think small gas producing cylinders in the car.
Fill up with water, it produces hydrogen & oxygen which you burn and away you go. NO by products worth mentioning.
You can catch, cool & drink the exhaust, its pure water.
-
Originally posted by AVRO1
I doubt that a nuclear reactor only heats water to 100° C (212° F). I think it creates higher temps which gives very high pressure. More pressure means more energy with turbines.
Fuel efficiency is the best thing about nuclear energy.
Most power generating nuclear reactors boil water to make superheated steam about 500 psi. You need superheated steam to run through steam turbines. Any water droplets that would be present in saturated steam passing through turbine blades erodes the vanes and blades quickly, destroying the turbine in short order.
Some coal plants bring the steam to 3000 psi, Geothermal plants use steam in te 50 to 100 psi range. Some geos need to use a working fluid other than water (like ammonia) due to heat source conditions.
Geos can put out a tremendous amount of nasty gasses... Sulfer dioxide, CO2, and a slew of others are released as those gasses are in solution in the subterrainian water.
Obviously Hydro dams rivers and effects fish migration, fossil fuel releases CO2 and is non renewable. Wind turbines makes noise that neighbors do not like in the rural locations. The Audibon (sp) society has sued wind turbine farms in Cajon pass due to bird kills.
Nuclear's best facet is that none of the above problems apply. Breeder reactors and especially fusion could be powered indefinitely.
-
Originally posted by Meatwad
IMO the future of fuel rests in hydrogen.
I saw a working, moving hydrogen fuel cell vehicle--fully developed for producibility--at the Detroit auto show this January. The GM people are setting it up as a modular vehicle, and it looks viable. The only issue is hydrogen distribution, and the potential danger of having pressurized liquid hydrogen fuel escape in an accident.
I like the idea of a steam powered car, by the way. If the condenser is under a serious vacuum, a steam system can be very efficient--much more so than any internal combustion engine. Look up the numbers on the internet, if you like. The real drawback to any new version of the Stanley Steamer (a real car from the early 1900s) is the delay in getting going, what with boiling the water and all. I propose that we use a steam-hybrid system, with a small steam boiler and engine charging a storage battery. The storage battery can be used for quick starts, and the steam plant can fire up and recharge the battery...similar to the diesel-electric plants used on submarines. A singular advantage of using the steam plant is the ease of providing multi-fuel capability.
Any entrepreneurial takers out there? We could get RICCCCHHH.
-
Gosth,
You need more than sugar water and yeast to make ethanol. Those are just some of the ingredients for the process. In order for them to work you need someting to use to ferment. That would be some kind of starchy product, corn, potato's and so on. Now that means you have to have a FARM to get those items. Since a farm is required, it will also require fuel to run the equipment on the farm. The farm also has to grow food for consumptionj as you can't take all the corn to run cars and so on.
How many barrels of ethanol are you going to get per acre and how many yielsd per acre are you expecting vs how many millions of barrels per day will be needed to maintain the economy at it's current level? Lastly how much fuel will be needed to produce the crops, distill the ethanol, move it to distribution and store it for use?
Renewable? Maybe, but a viable possibility, not at this time.
The recycled restaraunt iol. Yep one McD's poduces about 250 to 250 gallons per month. That wouldn't supply the usage of more than a couple cars and certainly not nearly enough for a single larger truck. ( A semi uses that much in a day or so) Now how many McD's are there in your town? How many gas / diesel stations. How many THOUSANDS of gallons of fuel do those stations dispense in a week? Check the math there.
Now couple that with the fact that the oils still has to be provided to the restaraunt. It doesn't magically appear. It comes from a farm crop. likely corn oil. But wait, the corn is being used for ethanol isn't it. HHHMMM seems to be a conflict in supply here not to mention there is a cost in fuel to produce the vegatable oil again. I agree that the use of the oil is a good thing but some power plants also use it to make electricity so now you have an additional competition for a small level of product.
None of the vegetable products come close to providing the lubricants and other chemicals used in making modern things like plastic and other products that use petroleum. Still it shows some thoughts on the subject.
Frankly IMO we need something along the lines of the "Mr Fusion" reactor they stuck in the movies Back to the Future. Granted it was a fantasy situation they put in there, but less than 100 years ago space flight was a pure fantasy as well.
-
Maverick,
You could use virtually any product that contains sugar, or starch/carbs that can be converted to sugar. Anything from tree sap, corn squeezings, whole grain, sugar beets, Sugar Cane, potatoes, the list goes on & on.
Barley runs 2.25 $ a bushel, that much barley made into malt could easily produce 10 - 20 gallons of mash. Using a good yeast figure 20% alcohol production.
In a good year in my area Barley will run from 60 to 75 bushels per acre. Barley prices have not really changed in over 50 years. My dad got the same price for the last bushel of barley that he raised as he did for the first.
Granted it takes some time, to brew good hootch. But you don't need to worry about the farmers.
If you could buy a plastic film like Saran Wrap that would seperate Alcohol from water they'd make their own juice!
We don't need to reinvent the wheel.
But yes we could invent a few things that would seriously help.
BTW just in case your wondering where I'm coming from, ask how the beer manufacturers make light beer.
They "filter" the excess alcohol out of it.
As to maintaining the economy at its current level. Quote me where I said we
need to switch over tommorow?
Alternatives are just that, alternatives.
Something to work towards. If we had a true alternative that was 100% fuelproof, and cost effecient you think you'd still be burning gas? I know I wouldn't be.
As to the plastics side, Every gallon of gas that we do NOT make, leaves more oil for those materials that we can not live without. Like Plastics.
Although a lot of stuff is being made out of soybean meal, cornstarch, & other similar products.