Oil Alternatives!

[Joey D]

So to create hydrogen for cars you basically need to use a ton of electricity that is produced typically by burning fossil fuels...that doesn't seem great to me, which is why I don't really support hydrogen cars quite yet. Until we can devise a way to have an alternative fuel that doesn't require burning fossil fuels to produce it I think more efficient diesel and petrol engines are the way to go.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Except electricity doesn't have to be made by burning fossil fuels. Renewable sources and Nuclear would ideally be the source.

 

[Philly]

I have often thought about the hydrogen car idea. While I think that the idea of a hydrogen car is great, the feasibility just takes so much away. As has been said earlier, producing the hydrogen is energy intensive. Currently, the method to produce it is to split hydrogen from oxygen in water, using electricity the comes from the burning of fossil fuels, which actually adds to the problem because of the energy lost in the entire process.

The best solution, as ExigeExcel said, would be to use renewables to generate the electricity. This is a huge task as well. If our goal was to phase out fossil fuels, we would have to build a huge amount of new renewable source plants (because we will basically be powering every car electrically, plus the overall inefficiency that will be enountered) AND we would have to work on replacing our plants that currently burn fosssil fuels. Basically, it would probably be similar to rebuilding the entire US electrical grid, and that is something nobody will be willing to support with tax dollars. Not to mention the requirement of a huge network of pipelines ect. required for getting the stuff around.

I guess there is another alternative that could give us some hydrogen, but not nearly enough to run a country. It's a thing called HTE (High Temperature Electrolysis). Cooling water from a nuclear power plant exits the facility at an enormous temperature. There is some process that can be done to this water to split it up and produce hydrogen. Personally, I think we should be looking into that to get the ball rolling on a fossil-fuel-free society.

 

[Joey D]

Except electricity doesn't have to be made by burning fossil fuels. Renewable sources and Nuclear would ideally be the source.

It doesn't have to be, but like I said people in the US will not go for nuclear energy because they fear another 3 Mile Island will happen. A majority of the people do not understand that nuclear energy has come a long way.

We can't have wind energy because people think the windmills are ugly, noisy, and will hurt the birds as YSSMAN pointed out.

Hydroelectric power through dams still affects the environment around it in a negative way so people tend to be iffy on those.

I know it's not this way in other countries but here in America we tend to be a bit stupid.

 

[ExigeEvan]

The USA is on two of the greatest oceans in the world, plus, alot of the population live on these coasts. So why not tidal? It's less obtrusive and can be above or below surface level.

And for the central areas there's also the option of solar power as is already being used. Also, in such sunny areas, the use of domestic energy sources such as solar panels shoudl be used. This won't make you independant of the grid, but will reduce the demand on it. And American's have already proved that they'll buy expensive, impractical but "environmentally friendly" just to keep up with celebrities

 

[Joey D]

The USA is on two of the greatest oceans in the world, plus, alot of the population live on these coasts. So why not tidal? It's less obtrusive and can be above or below surface level.

And for the central areas there's also the option of solar power as is already being used. Also, in such sunny areas, the use of domestic energy sources such as solar panels shoudl be used. This won't make you independant of the grid, but will reduce the demand on it. And American's have already proved that they'll buy expensive, impractical but "environmentally friendly" just to keep up with celebrities

You would think, but people make a stink about that to saying it's damaging the oceans. We tried this on the Great Lakes and I remember a bunch of people complaining that it was hurting the wildlife. I don't understand where people's heads are some times.

I know when I have a house of my own I will have some sort of solar power system integrated in to reduce my power consumption.

 

[Philly]

It doesn't have to be, but like I said people in the US will not go for nuclear energy because they fear another 3 Mile Island will happen. A majority of the people do not understand that nuclear energy has come a long way.

People need to understand that the engineers who design the places know that they are dealing with very unstable and very dangerous stuff. I'm sure they overdesign the safety of the beasts so that there is very little risk of anything going wrong. I'm guessing there is a reason that only two major nuclear disasters have occurred in the last 50 years, and one of those was because of a major procedure breach and very poor design. I wouldn't be at all suprised if there was less risk of death in a nuclear-powered country that one powered by coal.

We can't have wind energy because people think the windmills are ugly, noisy, and will hurt the birds as YSSMAN pointed out.

Too bad wind power could be very useful. Because the towers have a very small footprint, they could easily be integrated into farmland. The farmers could probably even get the government to pay them to have them on their land. Wind power, while not very powerful, would probably be a very low impact source.

Hydroelectric power through dams still affects the environment around it in a negative way so people tend to be iffy on those.

Again. People shoud realize that we can harness a lot of power from a hydroelectric dam. I'm sure there is a way to design them so they don't do too much environmental damage.

I have also thought about how a society free of fosssil fuels would get energy. A little fantasy a la Sim City and new technologies has led me to believe that we can produce a lot of elecricity through a combination of dams, tidal power, nuclear, solar for the summers, and possibly orbiting solar panels that can send power down to earth. (How, I'm not sure. It would be cool and probably give us a lot of energy.

 

[Joey D]

Oh there are literally hundreds of ways to create power without fossil fuels, people just need to realise you need to give up a bit of the surrounding environment to do so. Killing a few fish or birds is a small price to pay to have an overall cleaner atmosphere.

 

[Philly]

It really depends how far you want to take it to see the benefits. If you really want to go so far as to say that by sacrificing a few little fishies and tweet-tweets, you are saving the planet from huge climate shifts and the possible extinction of many species, go for it. Maybe you can convince them tree huggaz that switching from fossil fuels isn't such a bad idea after all.

Basically, we are putting ourselves in a pickle that will result in the doing nothing. Environmentalists want us to abandon fossil fuels NOW yet every alternative given to them, they shut down. It seems like America wants to rid herself of fossil fuels, they just want it to magically appear. We have to realize that that won't happen.

I'm willing to sacrifice a little to have a cleaner atmosphere and city and whatever. We jsut need the rest of the place to do the same.

 

[Joey D]

I don't really look at it from an environmental side, but more of an economical side. Power is getting very expensive, I think my families July electric bill was just about $300 from running the air and my mom's equipment she uses for her work. That's quite a bit considering a few years ago the same power usage would have only ran about $175. If we can find a cheap way to produce power I'm all for it, and if it's cleaner that just an added benefit.

I understand we have to keep the air clean, but I don't want to sacrifice the economy to do so.

Oh and Americans always seem to think solutions will drop out of thin air. Here is to wishful thinking .

 

[FoolKiller]

And for the central areas there's also the option of solar power as is already being used. Also, in such sunny areas, the use of domestic energy sources such as solar panels shoudl be used. This won't make you independant of the grid, but will reduce the demand on it. And American's have already proved that they'll buy expensive, impractical but "environmentally friendly" just to keep up with celebrities

My parents had solar panels that helped to power the heat during the winter. All we ever had to do was oil it every fall.

I always think that when I have my house I will probably put some solar panels on the roof for heating purposes. That seems to eb when teh most expensive energy costs come into play and if I can go electric with solar panels it would definitely be cheaper than natural gas.

I have also thought about how a society free of fosssil fuels would get energy. A little fantasy a la Sim City and new technologies has led me to believe that we can produce a lot of elecricity through a combination of dams, tidal power, nuclear, solar for the summers, and possibly orbiting solar panels that can send power down to earth. (How, I'm not sure. It would be cool and probably give us a lot of energy.

I believe the combination approach is the most likely to happen. Different sources will be used based on location.

And the oribiting solar power has been a long theorized idea.

 

[Philly]

I don't really look at it from an environmental side, but more of an economical side. Power is getting very expensive, I think my families July electric bill was just about $300 from running the air and my mom's equipment she uses for her work. That's quite a bit considering a few years ago the same power usage would have only ran about $175. If we can find a cheap way to produce power I'm all for it, and if it's cleaner that just an added benefit.

Problem: Aren't coal an doil among the cheapest methods of producing power currently known to us? Changing to a method that will be cleaner or more efficient will probably only make your lights more expensive to operate.

 

[Joey D]

Problem: Aren't coal an doil among the cheapest methods of producing power currently known to us? Changing to a method that will be cleaner or more efficient will probably only make your lights more expensive to operate.

It will be more expensive at first, which I understand and accept, but after the initial cost is taken care of it will be cheaper to use solar, wind, or nuclear power. The price of coal is only going to go up as the supply decreases, so either way we will have to spend greater amounts of money on energy, except with alternatives to fossil fuel, the cost will eventually decrease or level off.

 

[Philly]

It will be more expensive at first, which I understand and accept, but after the initial cost is taken care of it will be cheaper to use solar, wind, or nuclear power. The price of coal is only going to go up as the supply decreases, so either way we will have to spend greater amounts of money on energy, except with alternatives to fossil fuel, the cost will eventually decrease or level off.

Good point. We could hypothetically produce solar, wind or hydroelectric power for free. Construction costs are the issue here. And I'm sure a lot of those costs will come from taxes, not power bills.

EDIT: Wow. According to one site, in the Northwest we are paying a minimum of around $4 per whatever and a maximum of $6. Out here in the midwest, it ranges from $6 t $12. In the Northwest we do a lot of renewbles like dams, whereas here it seems like a lot more coms from fossil fuels.

 

[FoolKiller]

The price of coal is only going to go up as the supply decreases,

Please, come visit Kentucky. We are far from running out. Natural gas is the one that kills your price. Kentucky uses mostly coal for electricity and we have some of the lowest energy costs in the US. In fact, coal is so cheap and abundant Kentucky just negotiated a deal with a company to open a coal to natural gas plant.

 

[Joey D]

Oh I know we aren't going to run out for a long time, but every bit used is a step towards a lower supply. In general the supply will go down while the price will go up.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Oh I know we aren't going to run out for a long time, but every bit used is a step towards a lower supply. In general the supply will go down while the price will go up.

That's actually had an interesting effect in Wales.

During the industrial revolution Wales was basically one big coal mine (I could point out 3 within a mile of my house, and no doubt there's a few old mine shafts beneath my house) and so by the 1980's we were having to dig deep to find it, but this was getting expensive so the mines closed.

Now the coal price has gone back up, 1 new deep cast mine has opened up and several companies are looking into re-opening more of the larger ones.

 

[Philly]

There are going to be areas with lots of coal production and areas that are slowing down. The areas like Kentucky will obviously use the stuff and get it cheaply and think that coal is an abundant global resource. What we have to worry about are the places that are slowing down. Their prices will go up and they and possibly whoever they sold coal to will have to adopt new methods to get that energy.

 

[FoolKiller]

Their prices will go up and they and possibly whoever they sold coal to will have to adopt new methods to get that energy.

Nah, coal will still be cheap, but we will turn it into natural gas and sell it that way. It burns cleaner, gets us more money, and is more widely used.

 

[Philly]

It'll be cheap for you because in your area you will have much more supply than demand. As the mines in Kentucky start to slow down, then the people you guys sold it to will start to suffer and have to pay more because they will have less.

 

[High-Test]

Here in Fargo, I constantly see windmill parts being delivered on I-29. Have you ever been passed by a truck carrying a windmill blade on the highway? The blade is over sixty feet long!

Actually, If one were to have a grid-tapped system with solar cells on his or her house, one can make money from the solar panels. Grid tapped systems have solar panels on the home but are still connected to the power grid. The panels generate electricity, and the home uses what it needs to use at any time, and any surplus power is sent to the system. The electrical meter then spins backwards, and when the "meter maid" comes around, you get a credit on your heating bill. Nice, huh?

 

[Gil]

I'm in Kansas, and I'm bewildered by the fact that we use so little wind power.
It's not like we don't get more than our fair share of wind.

While it won't effectively power our cars, it can provide a great deal of electricity for our homes.

Yes, they are not super pretty, But a fairly effective means of generating power.

Every bit of power that is generated by using something other than oil reduces our dependence on foreign oil, and loosens OPEC's grip on our wallet.

I've heard somewhere that OPEC threatened to raise oil prices if alternate forms of power were discussed at the G8 conference.

It would have been smarter to lower prices if we promised not to talk about alternate forms of power.

 

[Philly]

I'm in Kansas, and I'm bewildered by the fact that we use so little wind power.
It's not like we don't get more than our fair share of wind.

Screw that. Stick a few of them bad boys in the Gulf and watch as we harness a whole hurricane. Power our country for a year. Save a few houses too.

 

[Joey D]

I'm in Kansas, and I'm bewildered by the fact that we use so little wind power.
It's not like we don't get more than our fair share of wind.

And what really gets me is farmers out there could lease small portions of their un-farmed and make a killing in the money they would receive. They get paid not to farm x amount of land by the government anyways so why not just make more money buy putting wind farms up? It would make great economical sense to me.

While it won't effectively power our cars, it can provide a great deal of electricity for our homes.

No but it could power the hydrogen producers, power electric combines to harvest the corn in order to make bio-diesel, etc. Wind power could really help out if we had enough power being generated from them.

 

[Casio]

I don't know about you guys, but I'd prefer to live next to a bunch of slow spinning giant fans, then a noisy, dirty, smelly, coal plant any day. I hate when people complain about wind farm's because 'They ruin the scenery', when the alternative is 100 times worse.

 

[Philly]

While it won't effectively power our cars, it can provide a great deal of electricity for our homes.

You got a problem with wind powered cars? I hear Toyota is trying to develop them.

And what really gets me is farmers out there could lease small portions of their un-farmed and make a killing in the money they would receive. They get paid not to farm x amount of land by the government anyways so why not just make more money buy putting wind farms up? It would make great economical sense to me.

The problem with designating a whole area to just wind farming is that that would have an enormous footprint. A wind farm would probably take up more land than a solar plant producing the same amount of power. What the farmers would do is put them up among their crops and grazing cattle. Then the only wasted space it the footprint of the tower itself, and the effect is just like having a large light post in the pasture, except it produces power.

I don't know about you guys, but I'd prefer to live next to a bunch of slow spinning giant fans, then a noisy, dirty, smelly, coal plant any day. I hate when people complain about wind farm's because 'They ruin the scenery', when the alternative is 100 times worse.

There is more than just the spinning fan versus the power plant. With coal power, you have one plant producing electricity for a large area. You only need one. Not too many people will be affected by it. With a wind farm, you have a lot of towers producing power for a smaller area. Thus, a lot more people are affected. Would you rather live by a giant spinning fan or nothing at all? And then there is noise. Maybe a coal plant makes nosie. I don't know. The only one I have ever experienced is two miles away powering Holland. But the blades of a wind fan are said to be able to reach speeds of up to 100 mph. At that speed, nothing, especially that big can be silent. Now try to fall asleep with a constant VOOM, VOOM, VOOM over your head.

 

[ExigeEvan]

There is more than just the spinning fan versus the power plant. With coal power, you have one plant producing electricity for a large area. You only need one. Not too many people will be affected by it. With a wind farm, you have a lot of towers producing power for a smaller area. Thus, a lot more people are affected. Would you rather live by a giant spinning fan or nothing at all? And then there is noise. Maybe a coal plant makes nosie. I don't know. The only one I have ever experienced is two miles away powering Holland. But the blades of a wind fan are said to be able to reach speeds of up to 100 mph. At that speed, nothing, especially that big can be silent. Now try to fall asleep with a constant VOOM, VOOM, VOOM over your head.

I spent a week on a caravan site near a wind farm, it's not all that bad.

They aren't audible during the day due to general background noise (and there wa slittle of it. We were in the middle of a countryside and the "main road" was 500m away atleast.). In the night however you could hear the hum but it was not anything that would disrupt your sleep. Hell, it probably helps you go to sleep.

The big problem however, was television and radio signals. May not be a problem with the digital signal.

 

[YSSMAN]

I don't know about you guys, but I'd prefer to live next to a bunch of slow spinning giant fans, then a noisy, dirty, smelly, coal plant any day. I hate when people complain about wind farm's because 'They ruin the scenery', when the alternative is 100 times worse.

Quite right; Problem is, the idiots here in Grand Haven and Holland refuse to allow us further inland to build the giant fans. Furthermore, I believe that we were suggesting to put them further out in the water, not on the shore, so they wouldn't be quite the nuisance that they seem to think they will be.

 

[GT4 genius]

I am not sure about this but can't hydrogen be produced by putting certain metals in the water eg a tiny amount of platnum. With no need for an electric current.
And aren't some companies working on technologies that allow you to just pour water into your car and the hydrogen is split off the oxygen whenever you need it by a similar method to the one above.
I'll look for sites to back this up.

 

[Joey D]

Even a tiny bit of platinum is unbelievably expensive.