Alright, so there were a few threads I saw about how much gas prices suck (the US is finally starting to pay as much as the rest of the world has been ... SCREW THAT!!). I did not, however, notice where any viable alternatives were being talked about. Personally, I think hydrogen is by far the best alternative. To those who are against it due to having to redo the supply infrastructure in place for gas, all I can say is that before gas existed, that infrastructure had to be built from scratch as well. This is no different. Furthermore, we could power cars on water if they have onboard electrolysis. The added advantage of this is they output ... you guessed it, more water. So in theory that could be captured to re-combust as well. How's that for efficient? Personally I've never been a greenpeace supporter over all, but there are certain issues that demand attention which seem to be flagrantly ignored. The situation with petroleum seems to be one of them. No matter what anyone may say, think, or do - it will run out. We don't have any more decomposing dinosaurs. So like it or not, an alternative will have to come about.
Poll
What do you think we should to about our gasoline dependance?
| Nothing, I never noticed a problem, really ... OPEC!! | 3% | 3% - 3 | ||||
| Hydrogen all the way, screw the hindenburg | 49% | 49% - 41 | ||||
| I've always been up for a good blowing, yay wind! | 0% | 0% - 0 | ||||
| Sunshine and happiness | 9% | 9% - 8 | ||||
| Batteries not included, but should be | 0% | 0% - 0 | ||||
| onboard nuclear reactors ... | 14% | 14% - 12 | ||||
| I think all these ideas are wrong ... | 22% | 22% - 19 | ||||
| Total: 83 | ||||||
I don't believe any one of the choices will do. I believe all of the ideas need to be incorporated into everyday life.
meaning no one of those will solve the problem and we should use all of them? I guess I'm mainly dealing with vehicles rather than anything else ... should have made that more clear maybe.
[url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5829046/]Brazil figured out the solution to this problem already.[/url] But their government probably isn't in the pocket of the oil companies.
not really sure that solves the issue, 2/3 of the "alternatives" are still petroleum distolates. Alcohol still has the emissions issues, albeit to a lesser degree than gasoline.
Read this, sounds pretty good.
http://www.discover.com/issues/apr-06/f … il/?page=1
http://www.discover.com/issues/apr-06/f … il/?page=1
It's what's for dinner. Yuck.Capt. Foley wrote:
Read this, sounds pretty good.
http://www.discover.com/issues/apr-06/f … il/?page=1
GATOR591957 wrote:
I don't believe any one of the choices will do. I believe all of the ideas need to be incorporated into everyday life.
I think that's the worst idea ever, it doesn't address the emissions issue at all. Not that global warming is ultimately our fault anyway - volcanos do more than we ever have. But this is a band-aid on a bullet hole if I ever saw one. Even if this was researched as a viable replacement, production capacity could never match increasing demand.Capt. Foley wrote:
Read this, sounds pretty good.
http://www.discover.com/issues/apr-06/f … il/?page=1
If we had spent our $400 Billion on Fusion research instead of a war, we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now. Those physicists have never seen that kind of money...just imagine what they could have done with it!
I thought someone would go with nuclear power, which is why I put it in as an option ... but I'm not sure what wisdom lies in consumer nuclear devices whizzing about. Your car overheats and you get the ground a little moist and smell like brown sugar and syrup ... your car melts down and you have abercrombie & fitch hazmat suits as the latest fashion ... to say nothing of potential willful acts with fusion.whittsend wrote:
If we had spent our $400 Billion on Fusion research instead of a war, we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now. Those physicists have never seen that kind of money...just imagine what they could have done with it!
Fusion would allow virtually limitless generation of electricity. That electricity could be used to power cars and devices with batteries. There's no need to have a fusion reactor in the car or device itself.puckmercury wrote:
I thought someone would go with nuclear power, which is why I put it in as an option ... but I'm not sure what wisdom lies in consumer nuclear devices whizzing about. Your car overheats and you get the ground a little moist and smell like brown sugar and syrup ... your car melts down and you have abercrombie & fitch hazmat suits as the latest fashion ... to say nothing of potential willful acts with fusion.
Last edited by whittsend (2006-06-21 09:57:14)
This guy has apparently modified a car to run on water.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImGaraPrEo8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImGaraPrEo8
Alright, so batteries is your answer to vehicles. That gets back to weight and limitations on range based on battery charges. Then, after your batteries are gone, having to wait to recharge them. It would create the waste of used batteries too in the end. I don't disagree that fusion should be used as an energy source from a home/industrial power standpoint. I think the phobia generated by those who oppose it is asinine. Yes, there have been disasters, but in nearly all the instances it was a result of warnings being ignored and willful neglect.whittsend wrote:
Fusion would allow virtually limitless generation of electricity. That electricity could be used to power cars and devices with batteries. There's no need to have a fusion reactor in the car or device itself.puckmercury wrote:
I thought someone would go with nuclear power, which is why I put it in as an option ... but I'm not sure what wisdom lies in consumer nuclear devices whizzing about. Your car overheats and you get the ground a little moist and smell like brown sugar and syrup ... your car melts down and you have abercrombie & fitch hazmat suits as the latest fashion ... to say nothing of potential willful acts with fusion.
That's perfect! That is exactly what I'm talking about! Just needs the financial backing to produce it, I'm sure.thanks_champ wrote:
This guy has apparently modified a car to run on water.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImGaraPrEo8
Last edited by puckmercury (2006-06-21 11:08:08)
double posted for some reason - removing
Last edited by puckmercury (2006-06-21 11:04:10)
hydrogen is teh clean!!!!
Batteries are a possible answer. With fusion power several options make themselves available, as the price of electricity is based only on the infrustructure needed to create and deliver it. Fuel cost (i.e. coal/oil/uranium) is no longer an issue. If we can use batteries, that's great. If you would rather seperate out Hydrogen, we can finally do that without worrying about the initial cost of the energy to do it. Maybe they will come up with something else.puckmercury wrote:
Alright, so batteries is your answer to vehicles. That gets back to weight and limitations on range based on battery charges. Then, after your batteries are gone, having to wait to recharge them. It would create the waste of used batteries too in the end. I don't disagree that fusion should be used as an energy source from a home/industrial power standpoint. I think the phobia generated by those who oppose it is asinine. Yes, there have been disasters, but in nearly all the instances it was a result of warnings being ignored and willful neglect.
Your comments seem to indicate that you think I'm talking about fission. I'm not...I'm talking about FUSION, and regretting that we have pissed away hundreds of billions that would have been better spent on fusion research, as opposed to ensuring access to oil reserves. My point is that $400 Billion would have gone a long way toward enabling a viable fusion solution.
I am not opposed to fission, but that does not give us the undenyable energy freedom that fusion would.
the reason why we dont have that many cars not using re-usable energy is money. why do u think they chose gasoline when there are cheaper and cleaner options? coz ppl need to buy gas = money for the companies. its all about economics
Not sure where I implied fission, but fusion is where I was thinking anyway. As of now, the only way we can start fusion is by using fission, which rather defeats the advantages of fusion in the first place. And yes, Ninja ... Hydrogen is teh clean ... lol And I understand it is all about economics and Oil companies running the world, yadda yadda. Just curious what others view the most viable alternative to be. Also, what options may exist for bringing those alternatives to viability rather than feasible concepts.whittsend wrote:
Batteries are a possible answer. With fusion power several options make themselves available, as the price of electricity is based only on the infrustructure needed to create and deliver it. Fuel cost (i.e. coal/oil/uranium) is no longer an issue. If we can use batteries, that's great. If you would rather seperate out Hydrogen, we can finally do that without worrying about the initial cost of the energy to do it. Maybe they will come up with something else.
Your comments seem to indicate that you think I'm talking about fission. I'm not...I'm talking about FUSION, and regretting that we have pissed away hundreds of billions that would have been better spent on fusion research, as opposed to ensuring access to oil reserves. My point is that $400 Billion would have gone a long way toward enabling a viable fusion solution.
I am not opposed to fission, but that does not give us the undenyable energy freedom that fusion would.
Last edited by puckmercury (2006-06-21 11:20:53)
Give up cars and other inefficient modes of transport. Push bikes FTW!
Uh, I think we have different definitions of "efficient" ... point taken, though. Easier said and done in urban and densely populated areas than in more urban places.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Give up cars and other inefficient modes of transport. Push bikes FTW!
Where's the 'Invade Iran' option?
Nothing, I never noticed a problem, really ... OPEC!!CameronPoe wrote:
Where's the 'Invade Iran' option?
Riiiight. Well, CP, I was TRYING to keep this serious. But hell, if we're gonna invade, why not just carpet bomb the middle east and take it all. Wouldn't be all that difficult really. <rollseyes> Still a band-aid on a bullet hole. The reserves will run out, some have and the rest are well on their way. Oil fields that would spew their own oil out now have to be pumped with water to float the remaining supply to get the last bit of oil out.CameronPoe wrote:
Where's the 'Invade Iran' option?
The less oil there is left, the higher the price too. The horse and cart may well undercut the car as the price of oil rises.puckmercury wrote:
Riiiight. Well, CP, I was TRYING to keep this serious. But hell, if we're gonna invade, why not just carpet bomb the middle east and take it all. Wouldn't be all that difficult really. <rollseyes> Still a band-aid on a bullet hole. The reserves will run out, some have and the rest are well on their way. Oil fields that would spew their own oil out now have to be pumped with water to float the remaining supply to get the last bit of oil out.CameronPoe wrote:
Where's the 'Invade Iran' option?