Oil Alternatives!

[Joey D]

You live in Ireland, here in America people don't care what kind of nuclear energy it is.

 

[GT4 genius]

I think your being a bit harsh on your own people maybe the aren't as ignorant as you think. Besides at least you have power plants we're too small to even bother with one.

Just incase some of you have completely lost us we are now dicussing the nurmerous methods of electricity generation other than buring oil, which will power the generation of whichever form of proplusion cars will use in the near future.

Heres everything you need to know about fission and fusion, and alot more!!
http://www.princeton.edu/~chm333/2002/spring/Fusion/tour1/index.htm

 

[Joey D]

A majority of Americans are that ignorant. And there is a need for power in this country, we use way to much of it. America is a very wasteful nation when it comes to things like energy.

 

[GT4 genius]

But leaving energy issues aside for a minute is the general thought that bio-fuels will be a short term transition to a hydrogen based motor industry.

 

[High-Test]

Hydrogen cells? I sure hope not in my lifetime. I'd wager a bet that most people who post in this forum have a passion for automobiles, trucks, or anything else with an audible exhaust note. I've got to be able to hear that exhaust note while the car is in operation. Those high-pitched variations in the frequency of pressure waves is what keeps us "car guys" going. Hydrogen cells so far seem to take the fun out of driving. For the people who envision cars with LCD tvs as windshields while the car zooms down the highway on autopilot, driving is drudgery. For most of us, it's a joy. The ability to venture out in the world away from parents was augmented by the automobile. It went from a new horse and buggy to a "bordello on wheels".

I believe that the Internal combustion engine is perfectly fine as a propulsion system for our world's transportation. We've continually developed it since it's invention by Nicolaus Otto in 1876. What people blow up in it has to change. We can't increase the amount of liquid dinosaur in the world.

E85 could pose a big problem. Food prices and the prices of thousands of other products would rise due to demand for corn made by filling stations. That, and Corn is a greedy crop that needs tons upon tons of Ammonium Nitrate to keep the ground fertile. Brazil has been independent for years, haven't they? But, Brazil has a climate suited to growing sugar cane- which ferments very rapidly into alcohol. Companies across the US are working on developing and mass producing a biomass to ferment prairie grasses. One variety, switchgrass, grows up to six feet tall without human input. And, It's a perennial plant. Think about how much land lies fallow due to US government subsidy. Switchgrass has the potential of yielding 1000 gallons of Ethanol per acre -Corn yields 400 gallons. The thousands of acres of fallow land in Kansas alone could become major ethanol producers. But, there is debate as to whether or not switchgrass is the best option. If we can come up with a way to amass the bacteria needed for fermentation, biofuel is the way to go.

But, shouldn't prices be kept high enough so it isn't wasted?

"It's called NIMBY. Not In My Back Yard!" -George Carlin

 

[Casio]

I haven't done any research at all, but how effective are big solar thingys or hydroelectric stuff be at producing electricity?

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Just incase some of you have completely lost us we are now dicussing the nurmerous methods of electricity generation other than buring oil, which will power the generation of whichever form of proplusion cars will use in the near future.

💡 solar power

While it probably wouldn't work out if we were 100% dependent on it, I think a larger portion of our electricity should come from solar power.

 

[Prosthetic]

Actually talk to BP about that, they are dumping a ton of chemicals into Lake Michigan...I'm sure the birds are already dead.

Even if so, there are ways to make the windmills point in a different direction and or slow down so birds don't get hit by the props. It's just not as efficient.

You live in Ireland, here in America people don't care what kind of nuclear energy it is.

I highly doubt it, you obviously never lived in California, we have some crazy green people that don't like it, and do care. But it goes for many other states. Mostly people that don't care for other species are the ones that only care about them, friends, family, American flag, and god. Not specifically all but I sure have met a lot of them. And they certainly don't know what the hell is going on in this world. :S

I think I'm going to have to agree with YSSMAN, even know I rarely agree with him in these kind of things, but I defiantly think that the new way to drive a car is diesel. I usually hate the stuff cause it smells like crap that comes out of an person that has there area code, and it causes asthma, if they can make more clean diesels I'm all for it.

 

[Philly]

PS i'm not a nimby just stating the facts, i would support fission had there been no such thing as fusion.

I thought the researchers on Fusion stated that we could not replicate a useful and sustainable fusion reaction...

I haven't done any research at all, but how effective are big solar thingys or hydroelectric stuff be at producing electricity?

Out west we do a lot of hydroelectric stuff. It provides a pretty good source of electricity. But then again, everybody is pretty spread out there. I don't think the east could support itself on hydro power though.

I did hear that the 3 Gorges Dam was going to account for like 10% of China's energy consumption, so I guess we can produce a lot of energy that way.

 

[Gil]

I like the idea of bio-diesel. Though I see the same problems with it that High Test mentioned.
There is a great potential there.
However, it will interfere with food prices.
Then you have to think about crop rotation to maintain the fertility of the earth that we're growing switchgrass, soybeans, canola, etc.
Plus, we gotta eat.
And what will it mean for countries that rely on imported crops like we rely on imported oil?

 

[YSSMAN]

In theory, yes. The bonus for us (Americans) is that we make much of that food already, so its pretty much a reversal of the current situation, in our favor of course...

 

[High-Test]

Interesting point, Gil.

With more and more Farmers' attention turning to fuel crops, would we actually see food prices rise?

What about Aid packages of wheat and corn to places in need around the world? If we were to continue with corn-based ethanol, I believe that prices at the supermarket will have significant price hikes. Plastics, Carbonated Beverages, and snack foods will be more expensive. Not to mention... Corn. Would increased demand for certain crops lead to them not being used in aid packages?

 

[Philly]

In theory, yes. The bonus for us (Americans) is that we make much of that food already, so its pretty much a reversal of the current situation, in our favor of course...

The only problem is that I don't see us growing quite enough food to satisfy a large chunk of our oil needs and feed 300 million and contribute to the demands of the rest of the world. We would probably be importing quite a bit from places like Brazil, where bio-diesel is very important.

 

[GT4 genius]

I thought the researchers on Fusion stated that we could not replicate a useful and sustainable fusion reaction...

Not quite yet but there getting there, and it looks promising in the near future, i just think that building a fission plant now would be like buying a PS2 last febuary before the PS3 was released in March.

And at the very best renewable energys would only make up 25% of the worlds needs. With regards to solar power here in Ireland i think i seen the Sun ehh maybe twice this summer! However we do have several wind farms popping up every where. And dams aren't great either i think we would all rather see some other form of energy generation being built beside us rather than our whole community being relocated because our land was going to be flooded.

 

[FoolKiller]

Hydrogen cells? I sure hope not in my lifetime. I'd wager a bet that most people who post in this forum have a passion for automobiles, trucks, or anything else with an audible exhaust note. I've got to be able to hear that exhaust note while the car is in operation.

I used to think the exact same thing, then I witnessed the Audi R10 in person.

I haven't done any research at all, but how effective are big solar thingys or hydroelectric stuff be at producing electricity?

To give you an example: Hoover Dam powers Las Vegas. One dam, one high energy sucking city. Not bad. Solar power is much less and it is very reliant on weather conditions. Also solar panels are fragile.

Estimates say that about 50 nuclear power plants would power the entire US. Suddenly that one large dam looks very, very small.
Wiki for reference

Mostly people that don't care for other species are the ones that only care about them, friends, family, American flag, and god. Not specifically all but I sure have met a lot of them. And they certainly don't know what the hell is going on in this world. :S

I don't care too much for other species when it comes to the survival of my own species (survival of the fittest), but I like to think I am aware of what is going on in the world. I surely know the differences between fission and fusion, I overly examine everything on these alternative fuels and renewable energies, and quite frankly if it comes down to people freezing/starving/over heating or killing some birds, I am killing those birds.

I think I'm going to have to agree with YSSMAN, even know I rarely agree with him in these kind of things, but I defiantly think that the new way to drive a car is diesel. I usually hate the stuff cause it smells like crap that comes out of an person that has there area code, and it causes asthma, if they can make more clean diesels I'm all for it.

They do make more clean diesels. The new diesel standards are for near zero emissions. Go check out the Audi R10 TDI race car in LeMans - zero emissions. Besides, I thought California outlawed all emissions, except for smug clouds (South Park reference).

I like the idea of bio-diesel. Though I see the same problems with it that High Test mentioned.
There is a great potential there.
However, it will interfere with food prices.
Then you have to think about crop rotation to maintain the fertility of the earth that we're growing switchgrass, soybeans, canola, etc.
Plus, we gotta eat.
And what will it mean for countries that rely on imported crops like we rely on imported oil?

If the technology can make it more efficient in terms of plant to fuel it will work, but otherwise I think it is just an intermediary for the US.

With more and more Farmers' attention turning to fuel crops, would we actually see food prices rise?

It's already caused milk prices to go up. The price of corn is going up due to supply and demand issues created by ethanol, so that increase makes its way into your dairy prices.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/301672/ethanol_corn_milk_prices_increase.html

Would increased demand for certain crops lead to them not being used in aid packages?

Have you ever known an extreme environmentalist to be concerned over humans before the environment? Environmental legislation already prevents developing countries from getting what they need, why should this change now? If we can turn a blind eye to malaria epidemics I am positive we can turn a blind eye to starvation.

The only problem is that I don't see us growing quite enough food to satisfy a large chunk of our oil needs and feed 300 million and contribute to the demands of the rest of the world.

At the current technological stance we don't have enough land just to replace our fuels needs much less feed ourselves too. And Brazil is still running maybe half on ethanol, so they aren't ready to export yet.

The problem is that if the entire world switched to ethanol there isn't enough farmland that can support the need. Countries like Brazil, with good climates for growing more effective crops will be able to sustain themselves but there are many more temperate climates on Earth that don't have ideal growing conditions.

When it comes to ethanol we need better technology or a something else.

 

[Philly]

To give you an example: Hoover Dam powers Las Vegas. One dam, one high energy sucking city. Not bad. Solar power is much less and it is very reliant on weather conditions. Also solar panels are fragile.

That's a lot of dam power

Estimates say that about 50 nuclear power plants would power the entire US. Suddenly that one large dam looks very, very small.

How about Europe? They have a good portion of their energy demands coming from nuclear power. With twice as many people living in half the area, nuclear plants there are like coffee shops in Seattle.

How does the output of a nuclear plant compare to a dam?

I don't care too much for other species when it comes to the survival of my own species (survival of the fittest), but I like to think I am aware of what is going on in the world. I surely know the differences between fission and fusion, I overly examine everything on these alternative fuels and renewable energies, and quite frankly if it comes down to people freezing/starving/over heating or killing some birds, I am killing those birds.

Having a few thousand birds die to help save some people definitly sounds more appealing than "Hundreds of people are suffering to save a thousand seagulls..." We could use less of those things anyway. We kill cows and chickens to feed people already, don't we?

They do make more clean diesels. The new diesel standards are for near zero emissions. Go check out the Audi R10 TDI race car in LeMans - zero emissions. Besides, I thought California outlawed all emissions, except for smug clouds (South Park reference).

With diesel technology where it is, I'm wondering if diesels are cleaner that gasoline engines now. Diesels are really only said to be dirty, at least in cars. Shipping doesn't seem to be all that clean, but they do burn huge quantities of the stuff, so naturelly they would have higher emissions.

It's already caused milk prices to go up. The price of corn is going up due to supply and demand issues created by ethanol, so that increase makes its way into your dairy prices.

And if the price of corn goes upk, then other food will follow. And if food prices go up overall, we can only assume other things will start to cost more.

At the current technological stance we don't have enough land just to replace our fuels needs much less feed ourselves too. And Brazil is still running maybe half on ethanol, so they aren't ready to export yet.

The problem is that if the entire world switched to ethanol there isn't enough farmland that can support the need. Countries like Brazil, with good climates for growing more effective crops will be able to sustain themselves but there are many more temperate climates on Earth that don't have ideal growing conditions.

When it comes to ethanol we need better technology or a something else.

Another problem is that the energoy basically comes from the ground. We need the energy in the ground to be in our foods to power the human body. Even if ethanol was only a temporary solution, would the depletion of the soil be worth it? We wouldn't see this problem immediatly, but it may couse problems further down teh road...

 

[FoolKiller]

How does the output of a nuclear plant compare to a dam?

It depends on size and number of units.

Plant Vogtle has two nuclear units in their plant. According to their Website they each have a capacity of 1,215 megawatts (1.21 gigawatts!). That puts the plant itself at over 2.4 gigawatts. That is a 1980s plant. I know the nuclear plant in Japan that shut down due to an earthquake last month was the worl'd largest and had at least four units. Assuming the same output per unit, that puts it at close to 5 gigawatts. http://www.southerncompany.com/southernnuclear/vogtle.asp

Hydroelectric dams vary as it depends on size and so forth. I believe Hoover Dam can actually peak at close to 2,000 megawatts, and that is with 17 generator units.
http://www.physics.umd.edu/perg/abp/aha/hoover.htm

The problem with hydroelectric is the availability of places to put the dams and that you have to essentially destroy thousands of acres of land. It is hard to convince an entire town to uproot from their waterfront property so you can give everyone else electricity.

 

[GT4 genius]

You Americans talk about diesel like we, europeans, did 10yrs ago. In ireland over 40% of all new cars are diesel. Its rare to see a BMW 320i far more likely to see a 320d.

I've noticed that no one has voted for electric cars, but consider it for city cars, eg smart fortwo, i doubt you see many of them on the autobhans or route 66, so if they were electric and were recharged by induction charging which could be available all over a town or a city they could be charging continuously and may never run out as long as they didn't leave the town or city.

 

[Joey D]

Americans want diesel cars, it's just most auto makers don't think they would sell here so we have slim pickings when it comes to them. We can buy bigger pick-ups of course, but for the most part we can get a couple of VW's and Audi's.

 

[Philly]

So I guess maybe two average hydroelectric dams can produce around the average of a nuclear plant? Or is it more one to one?

The problem with hydroelectric is the availability of places to put the dams and that you have to essentially destroy thousands of acres of land. It is hard to convince an entire town to uproot from their waterfront property so you can give everyone else electricity.

There are ways around that, but it really depends on the dam. The Columbia river is all clogged up with dams and they generally do not create an especially huge resivoir. True, people will have to move, but a relatively small dam won't move them all that far, and then they get lakefront property, which would much more appealing than riverfront land. Even the Grand Coulee just makes the river wider a long ways up th river.

There are ways of getting around having to displace hundreds of housands of people like what is happening in the Three Gorges area.

 

[Philly]

You Americans talk about diesel like we, europeans, did 10yrs ago. In ireland over 40% of all new cars are diesel. Its rare to see a BMW 320i far more likely to see a 320d.

I've noticed that no one has voted for electric cars, but consider it for city cars, eg smart fortwo, i doubt you see many of them on the autobhans or route 66, so if they were electric and were recharged by induction charging which could be available all over a town or a city they could be charging continuously and may never run out as long as they didn't leave the town or city.

I'm sure we would have diesels all over the roads if only there were enough for sale.

You have to realize that the situation here in American is VERY different from Europe with regards to small cars. We do not have city cars here. We do not need them. We are much more spread out. There is room for more cars and distances are far larger, and freeway driving is much more important this side of the pond. There are areas that are tight where a city car would fit in, but they are relatively far apart and to get anywhere you have to drive between them.

Americans want diesel cars, it's just most auto makers don't think they would sell here so we have slim pickings when it comes to them. We can buy bigger pick-ups of course, but for the most part we can get a couple of VW's and Audi's.

The diesel car seems be the perfect match for the American roads. You havall the torque that is useful for accelerating like hell from a stoplight, yet great fuel mileage on the freeway, where we do a lot of our driving.

And if somebody could merge this post with the one I made above, that would be great. Thanks.

 

[FoolKiller]

So I guess maybe two average hydroelectric dams can produce around the average of a nuclear plant? Or is it more one to one?

Depends on the size of the plants/dams and with hydroelectric a small river will not produce as much pressure as a large river. It seems as if a hydroelectric dam can produce at the sam, or more than one nuclear unit, but a one unit nuclear plant isn't very cost effective.

There are ways around that, but it really depends on the dam. The Columbia river is all clogged up with dams and they generally do not create an especially huge resivoir.

Careful that you do not confuse flood/flow control with hydroelectric. There are dams all over the place designed for controlling flow and flooding, but they are not large enough to produce a beneficial amount of electricity.

There are ways of getting around having to displace hundreds of thousands of people like what is happening in the Three Gorges area.

Geography will play a large part in this, thus making your available space limited.

And since the idea behind hydroelectric is to have little effect on the environment, any kind of damming upsets local ecology.

And then of course, even with renewable energies you still get a large amount of NIMBY-ism.

 

[Joey D]

The diesel car seems be the perfect match for the American roads. You havall the torque that is useful for accelerating like hell from a stoplight, yet great fuel mileage on the freeway, where we do a lot of our driving.

I'm in 100% agreement with you.

 

[YSSMAN]

Americans want diesel cars, it's just most auto makers don't think they would sell here so we have slim pickings when it comes to them. We can buy bigger pick-ups of course, but for the most part we can get a couple of VW's and Audi's.

Exactly. Only VW/Audi and Mercedes were ever "serious" about offering diesels in the United States, which is truly unfortunate. Times are changing quite quickly, and I believe almost every company (except Ford and Toyota) plans to offer at least one diesel vehicle (with the exception of HD Pickups) in the very near future. My guess is that once the VWs explode onto the scene (they should be very, very soon), GM gets back into diesel power, and Honda puts the diesel in the Accord, we'll see the popularity of the engine flourish around the country.

I'd like to see the end of these gas/hybrid shenanigans soon, but the diesel/hybrid game is just starting. As I understand it, GM already has plans on the shelf to sell an Astra and a Vectra diesel with their two-mode hybrid setup. Its not a bad idea, and if they can do it for cheap, I'm sure they'll sell quite a few...

===

But if we want to talk electric cars, we really can't. The closest anyone will seriously come to doing it will likely be the plug-in models like the Chevrolet Volt in the near-future. Having the 60-mile range on a charge should be quite interesting, but it will still have the gas/diesel/hydrogen engine to charge the batteries when they get low.

===

I'm still betting on diesel power as the future here in the US, bio-diesel for the rest of the world...

 

[Joey D]

Diesel hybrids would be awesome, talk about some serious mpg's. I would wager at least 80mpg on many average sized models which I think would be something everyone would want. I couldn't even imagine driving from Detroit to Orlando on one tank of fuel.

 

[Philly]

Hmm. Maybe a diesel hybrid Prius would be able to get out of it's own way. I'm thinking that the hybrid boat will be sinking if not taking on lots of water once diesels come to their own. If Toyota keeps playing their hybrid game, they may run into a few issues.

The only problem I see with straight diesel is that it comes from the same oil we use in our cars. So might we run into the same gas shortage that we are facing? Or even upset any balance in the useage of different petroleum products, which would make us consume more and dig ourselves a deeper hole?

 

[GT4 genius]

Seemily toyota wanted to use lithium batteries in there 2009 prius that they said would do 113mpg, but they couldn't due to the overheating problems that they were having just like sonys lithium powered laptops. Also this isn't even a long term solution, if 50% of all cars had lithium batteries how long before we would reach peak lithium!

And with regard to diesel it is far from a solution, it may save some time before we run out of oil but we still will, and by some time i mean at best 10yrs before we reach peak oil.

However with bio-diesel we may save just enough time to be able to change to a hydrogen based economy as i said before and will say again it is just an INTERMIDIATE fuel

Finally if or when we reach peak oil, probably within the next 8yrs, fuel prices will be soo expensive our precious cars will be just pices of art to view in are garages, or play with on our playstation when the wind is blowing strong enough to power our electricity! Something will have to be done soon because if we reach that stage the world would be unrecognisable, in a very bad way...

 

[Joey D]

What? Oil is not going to run out in 10 years, I would like to see some source on that that isn't horrifically slanted towards this whole nonsense. I've seen some of these sites say we peaked in 2005, but I find that hard to believe. Granted I give our current rate about 25-30 years, possibly up to 40 depending on if we find more oil somewhere in the world. I just can not believe that 8-10 years from today we will not have any affordable oil.

By using diesel we will greatly slow the rate of consumption, and when the time comes it will be easier and cheaper to switch diesel models over to alternative fuels.

Believe me, I'm all for alternative ways to power our cars. Hybrids are not the answer though, since the nickel used to make the batteries tends to be just as harmful to the environment. I can't remember the town name but one of our members lives near there in Canada, and the nickel mining has destoryed the environment around the town

 

[GT4 genius]

The highly rated encarta encyclopidia belives that there is only 34yrs of oil left in the ground. Now say that only 50% of this is being tapped then theres 17 yrs left. Then say all the easy bits are used within the next 10yrs, then surely oil production will begin to fall as current rates can't be maintained due to the slow and difficult process it would be to produce this oil. And peak oil dosen't mean no oil, heres the definition:

As first expressed in Hubbert peak theory, Peak Oil is the point or timeframe at which the maximum global petroleum production rate is reached.

Yes these are worse case senarios but we still have to start acting, look at the climate change crises not enough was done and now its practically too late. Western and southern europe have all seen the hottest summer on record, greece is actually on fire and nothern europe has seen one of the wettest summers on record, midland england was flooded for several weeks. In recent years american hurricane seasons have been so bad they've knocked out oil supplies and shown the country how bad peak oil will be, winter 2005-2006 hurricane Julie.

Scientists aren't taking about not letting climate change start or even how to stop it anymore they are taking about how to control it!

Now i dont want to see the future american presidents and other world leaders trying to control the planets people in a permanent oil crises.

 

[Joey D]

See I'll buy the 34 year estimate.

I know about the peak theory, it's something they constantly talk about in an economics class. But I don't know how much I believe it. Doomsayers always seem to think our oil will run out tomorrow, but on the same token you have some that believe we will have oil forever. I know we will eventually not be able to use it anymore.

I don't think the burning of oil is affecting the climate all that much, we've only been burning fossil fuels for what 150 years? If that even? That's a minor blink in the time span of the earth. People need to realise that the earth's climate goes in cycles. Yes there is global warming, but it's not exactly the result of the motor car.

I know all about the flooding in England, I was in Oxford most of the summer.