Alternative fuels and energies [a not-so-concise summary]

2008-10-07 04:31:31

#26

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6966|Canberra, AUS

FEOS wrote:
I see the ecological impact of producing solar cells and batteries and whatnot has been left out of the equation. You have to look at the cradle-to-grave ecological impact of each technology before determining which is best for the long term.

Limited research time.

I'm presuming that stupidity does NOT prevail with regard to the extraction of the resources... and I am hoping that people will adopt a cradle-to-cradle approach in future.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2008-10-07 04:32:01

#27

Burwhale: Save the BlobFish!; +136|6514|Brisneyland

I know you touched on geothermal, however it really is a very convincing option. Never runs out. Base load energy. Already being used in Iceland. May not be applicable for every location but will work in many.

2008-10-07 04:33:14

#28

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7053

usmarine wrote:
Spark wrote:
And where, pray, are you going to get the electricity from?
coal

2008-10-07 04:50:07

#29

Burwhale: Save the BlobFish!; +136|6514|Brisneyland

Coal will eventually run out. One group forecast that coal isnt as abundant as currently thought and will hit a Peak Coal situation in 15 years.

Energy Watch Group wrote:
Coal: Resources and Future Production[13], published on April 5 2007 by the Energy Watch Group (EWG), which reports to the German Parliament, found that global coal production could peak in as few as 15 years.[14] Reporting on this, Richard Heinberg also notes that the date of peak annual energetic extraction from coal will likely come earlier than the date of peak in quantity of coal (tons per year) extracted as the most energy-dense types of coal have been mined most extensively.

Honestly no one knows, but it wont last forever. Uranium is in the same position and will eventually run out ( predictions for Peak Uranium vary wildy so I wont bother printing them). Going towards renewables is the most sensible option. After the inital set up cost the price gets much cheaper.

2008-10-07 04:50:19

#30

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6966|Canberra, AUS

usmarine wrote:
usmarine wrote:
Spark wrote:
And where, pray, are you going to get the electricity from?
coal

No shit, that was the point.

Last edited by Spark (2008-10-07 04:50:40)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2008-10-07 04:51:20

#31

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6966|Canberra, AUS

Burwhale the Avenger wrote:
I know you touched on geothermal, however it really is a very convincing option. Never runs out. Base load energy. Already being used in Iceland. May not be applicable for every location but will work in many.

I'm going to do a piece on geothermal. I completely forgot about it.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2008-10-07 04:56:58

#32

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7053

Spark wrote:
No shit, that was the point.

lulz

2008-10-07 05:24:54

#33

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|6912|London, England

.Sup wrote:
Don't go with bio fuel! That fuel is made out of food and people are starving somewhere!

There's plants out there that won't take up space for food crop. Read my post earlier on in the topic.

We will eventually get off the fossil fuels, just have to wait abit. I'm thinking countries are mainly going to go down the Nuclear/Solar/Wind and Bio route. Fusion power is in development, once we can nail that then that's another big step forward. And Batteries and other modes of electric storage are developing quite fast too.

Don't look at the US for being a key player in all of this though, you need to look at Europe and Asia imo.

2008-10-07 05:30:21

#34

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7053

Mek-Stizzle wrote:
Don't look at the US for being a key player in all of this though, you need to look at Europe and Asia imo.

right. why doesnt europe stop being russias bitch because of oil first before you make assertions like that.

2008-10-07 05:33:05

#35

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6444|what

Where do you suggest that get the oil from, then?

2008-10-07 05:40:23

#36

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7053

TheAussieReaper wrote:
Where do you suggest that get the oil from, then?

africa. reclaim the old colonies.

2008-10-07 05:42:35

#37

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6444|what

usmarine wrote:
TheAussieReaper wrote:
Where do you suggest that get the oil from, then?
africa. reclaim the old colonies.

https://burrowowl.net/shimmie/get.php/15422%20-%20explosion%20gorilla%20nice%20shark.jpg

2008-10-07 07:15:03

#38

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|6912|London, England

usmarine wrote:
Mek-Stizzle wrote:
Don't look at the US for being a key player in all of this though, you need to look at Europe and Asia imo.
right. why doesnt europe stop being russias bitch because of oil first before you make assertions like that.

Russia as an external force can't influence the development of alternative fuels in Europe, as much as Internal Big Oil companies can in the US.

2008-10-07 11:06:10

#39

jord: Member; +2,382|6969|The North, beyond the wall.

Mek-Stizzle wrote:
usmarine wrote:
Mek-Stizzle wrote:
Don't look at the US for being a key player in all of this though, you need to look at Europe and Asia imo.
right. why doesnt europe stop being russias bitch because of oil first before you make assertions like that.
Russia as an external force can't influence the development of alternative fuels in Europe, as much as Internal Big Oil companies can in the US.

Check and mate.

2008-10-07 11:08:44

#40

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7101|Nårvei

I thought Russia mainly delievered natural gas to Europe ...

If you wanna kick Russias butt, buy Norwegian natural gas

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2008-10-07 11:09:44

#41

jord: Member; +2,382|6969|The North, beyond the wall.

Varegg wrote:
I thought Russia mainly delievered natural gas to Europe ...

If you wanna kick Russias butt, buy Norwegian natural gas

I don't have a problem with Russia, I think they're real swell guys. Keeping me warm in winter and what not...

2008-10-07 12:14:15

#42

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7053

jord wrote:
Mek-Stizzle wrote:
usmarine wrote:

right. why doesnt europe stop being russias bitch because of oil first before you make assertions like that.
Russia as an external force can't influence the development of alternative fuels in Europe, as much as Internal Big Oil companies can in the US.
Check and mate.

not really

2008-10-07 17:30:03

#43

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6702|'Murka

.Sup wrote:
Whats your point? I don't get t.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_green

Spark wrote:
Limited research time.

I'm presuming that stupidity does NOT prevail with regard to the extraction of the resources... and I am hoping that people will adopt a cradle-to-cradle approach in future.

eh?

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-10-08 01:20:35

#44

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6966|Canberra, AUS

FEOS wrote:
.Sup wrote:
Whats your point? I don't get t.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_green

Spark wrote:
Limited research time.

I'm presuming that stupidity does NOT prevail with regard to the extraction of the resources... and I am hoping that people will adopt a cradle-to-cradle approach in future.
eh?

Probably a bit too cryptic, sorry...

Limited research time = I didn't have unlimited time to gather info, so I left out most of the manufacturing aspect and left the unspoken assumption that:

1. The manufacturers do their job properly, efficiently and don't discharge toxic waste all over the place (China, looking at you)
2. Likewise with the extraction of the resources - unfortunately I don't know enough about this area to comment in detail.
3. The biggest assumption is that IN FUTURE the practices for extraction, manufacturing as well as the products themselves will improve and nullify a good part of this factor.

But it's still important, I agree - I just don't know enough to comment here.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2008-10-08 03:14:09

#45

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6702|'Murka

Spark wrote:
FEOS wrote:
.Sup wrote:
Whats your point? I don't get t.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_green

Spark wrote:
Limited research time.

I'm presuming that stupidity does NOT prevail with regard to the extraction of the resources... and I am hoping that people will adopt a cradle-to-cradle approach in future.
eh?
Probably a bit too cryptic, sorry...

Limited research time = I didn't have unlimited time to gather info, so I left out most of the manufacturing aspect and left the unspoken assumption that:

1. The manufacturers do their job properly, efficiently and don't discharge toxic waste all over the place (China, looking at you)
2. Likewise with the extraction of the resources - unfortunately I don't know enough about this area to comment in detail.
3. The biggest assumption is that IN FUTURE the practices for extraction, manufacturing as well as the products themselves will improve and nullify a good part of this factor.

But it's still important, I agree - I just don't know enough to comment here.

Those are horrifically flawed assumptions...which was my initial point. If you're going to talk about environmentally-friendly technologies, you HAVE to look at the entire ecological budget for the development and manufacture of those technologies.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-10-08 03:18:12

#46

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6966|Canberra, AUS

Last line.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2008-10-08 03:19:37

#47

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6702|'Murka

Spark wrote:
Last line.

Understand. But if you're going to research it, you need to research a lot more...which would rectify the situation described in your last line. All I'm saying.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-10-08 03:24:01

#48

Burwhale: Save the BlobFish!; +136|6514|Brisneyland

Although FEOS has a good point , ie that the total cost of looking at alternative energy should include waste products it takes to make the alternative power in the first place, it should also be pointed out that the coal fired power station also produces huge amounts of waste products other than CO2.

Eg. Mercury- Coal fired power stations emit large amount of mercury into the air. In 1999 the amount of Mercury pollutants from US coal fired stations was 4.8 tons. China contribution was also very large.

Radioactive trace elements.-

wiki wrote:
A 1,000 MW coal-burning power plant could release as much as 5.2 tons/year of uranium (containing 74 pounds (34 kg) of uranium-235) and 12.8 tons/year of thorium. The radioactive emission from this coal power plant is 100 times greater than a comparable nuclear power plant with the same electrical output; including processing output, the coal power plant's radiation output is over 3 times greater

Not to mention particulate matter, and CO2 in Coal fired stations.
Makes renewables look like a good alternative.

2008-10-08 04:03:19

#49

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6966|Canberra, AUS

Burwhale the Avenger wrote:
Although FEOS has a good point , ie that the total cost of looking at alternative energy should include waste products it takes to make the alternative power in the first place, it should also be pointed out that the coal fired power station also produces huge amounts of waste products other than CO2.

Eg. Mercury- Coal fired power stations emit large amount of mercury into the air. In 1999 the amount of Mercury pollutants from US coal fired stations was 4.8 tons. China contribution was also very large.

Radioactive trace elements.-
wiki wrote:
A 1,000 MW coal-burning power plant could release as much as 5.2 tons/year of uranium (containing 74 pounds (34 kg) of uranium-235) and 12.8 tons/year of thorium. The radioactive emission from this coal power plant is 100 times greater than a comparable nuclear power plant with the same electrical output; including processing output, the coal power plant's radiation output is over 3 times greater
Not to mention particulate matter, and CO2 in Coal fired stations.
Makes renewables look like a good alternative.

Of course, but FEOS is talking about the renewable sources vs. each other - i.e. solar, which needs very specialized materials only available in certain locations and is quite industry-intensive in the extraction of said materials, versus wind - which really is just big aluminium blades stuck to a gearbox + generator (the HAWT version at least)

Geothermal is done btw.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2008-10-08 04:06:34

#50

jsnipy: ...; +3,277|6814|...

usmarine wrote:
cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
usmarine wrote:
i like oil tbh
But them Arabs controlz its
nah...we can gets some in africa also

AFRICOM online sir

BF2S Forums Alternative fuels and energies [a not-so-concise summary]

FEOS wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Spark wrote:

Energy Watch Group wrote:

usmarine wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Spark wrote:

Burwhale the Avenger wrote:

Spark wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

usmarine wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

Varegg wrote:

jord wrote:

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

usmarine wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Spark wrote:

FEOS wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Spark wrote:

Spark wrote:

FEOS wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Spark wrote:

Spark wrote:

wiki wrote:

Burwhale the Avenger wrote:

wiki wrote:

usmarine wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Board footer