15 Apr 08
Do you think that the development of ANY other power source than oil, eg. Solar, Wind, Nuclear, Whatever comes to mind, have been deliberately sidetracked/delayed/hidden or sabotaged by the oil cartells or the oil industry at large?
Because I cannot believe that the human race isn't capable of developing a new technology other than burning million year old fuel deposits. In this day and age.... isn't it strange? or is the something I don't understand....
15 Apr 08
Originally posted by ysterbaardI agree
Do you think that the development of ANY other power source than oil, eg. Solar, Wind, Nuclear, Whatever comes to mind, have been deliberately sidetracked/delayed/hidden or sabotaged by the oil cartells or the oil industry at large?
Because I cannot believe that the human race isn't capable of developing a new technology other than burning million year ...[text shortened]... eposits. In this day and age.... isn't it strange? or is the something I don't understand....
15 Apr 08
Originally posted by ysterbaardSounds a little like a conspiracy theory to me 😛
Do you think that the development of ANY other power source than oil, eg. Solar, Wind, Nuclear, Whatever comes to mind, have been deliberately sidetracked/delayed/hidden or sabotaged by the oil cartells or the oil industry at large?
Because I cannot believe that the human race isn't capable of developing a new technology other than burning million year ...[text shortened]... eposits. In this day and age.... isn't it strange? or is the something I don't understand....
If you think about it, its actually in the oil companies' best interest to develop alternative power sources; if they do, they won't lose out when oil supplies run dry, as they will in the next one hundred years.
As far as sabotage is concerned, most alternative sources are deemed too inefficient, ugly or dangerous. The only real hope in this area is hydrogen fuel cell research, which is going on all the time, often funded by oil companies themselves. These combine hydrogen and oxygen and produce only water, making them a clean and renewable source.
However, at present they require an external power supply to operate, so they are not renewble. The person(s) who find a way to make this reaction occur spontneously will revolutionise the power industry and make themselves a fortune!
16 Apr 08
Originally posted by ysterbaardElectric cars were definitely sabotaged but I am not sure by whom or why. The car industries sabotaged them but possibly due to pressure from the oil cartels and possibly for their own reasons.
Do you think that the development of ANY other power source than oil, eg. Solar, Wind, Nuclear, Whatever comes to mind, have been deliberately sidetracked/delayed/hidden or sabotaged by the oil cartells or the oil industry at large?
Because I cannot believe that the human race isn't capable of developing a new technology other than burning million year ...[text shortened]... eposits. In this day and age.... isn't it strange? or is the something I don't understand....
However, when it comes to alternative energy sources, the issue is not whether we have developed them but simply price. Currently there are plenty of alternatives but they are not always cheaper than oil. Some of the alternatives are nevertheless heavily used and are cheaper than oil- hydroelectric and nuclear power for example, but they have their own drawbacks.
The current rising price of oil is in fact driving new technology development right now because many ideas which were previously not economical now are, or soon will be. I suspect that the oil cartels are driving up the price of oil artificially and in doing so are actually going to end up causing their own demise.
16 Apr 08
If you have two systems for cars, you tend to chose the one that is cheapest to develope, cheapest to run, and most efficient.
Petroleum didn't cost much (at the time the car industry started), how to construct engines was well known (at those times), and batteries was unefficient (at those times). So the petrol engines won over the electrical ones.
Petrol is not so cheap anymore and its future is limited, batteries is still not very efficient, but electrical motors and their controlsystems are nowadays well known. Electrical cars are coming as hybrides.
I don't think that petrol cars can win in the long run, but I'm not sure that the electrical cars will win the struggle.
I think the future will bring us hydrogen fuelled cars. The H2 will come from splitting the water molecule with the aid of electricity coming from nuclear sources. We'll see when we come there.
16 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasElectric cars were tried and they worked over 20 years ago. The car companies sabotaged them. I have seen several documentaries on the matter.
If you have two systems for cars, you tend to chose the one that is cheapest to develope, cheapest to run, and most efficient.
Petroleum didn't cost much (at the time the car industry started), how to construct engines was well known (at those times), and batteries was unefficient (at those times). So the petrol engines won over the electrical ones.
Something similar is happening now. Electric cars are viable yet car companies have only been pushing hybrid technology.
keep in mind also that the US has dragged its feet in the area of electric cars and is only doing something now for fear of loosing out to Toyota and others.
I think the future will bring us hydrogen fuelled cars. The H2 will come from splitting the water molecule with the aid of electricity coming from nuclear sources. We'll see when we come there.
Why? I keep reading reports about the coming hydrogen economy etc etc yet I have never seen a justification for it. I also notice that such reports are confined to the US. That makes me think that there are political interests involved.
I know of many arguments for why electricity is a better option than hydrogen and not one single one for the reverse. Why do you think hydrogen is better? Which corporation do you work for?
16 Apr 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadOh, you think I am part of the grand conspiracy? I can assure you that I don't work for any company involved in this matter.
Electric cars were tried and they worked over 20 years ago. The car companies sabotaged them. I have seen several documentaries on the matter.
Something similar is happening now. Electric cars are viable yet car companies have only been pushing hybrid technology.
keep in mind also that the US has dragged its feet in the area of electric cars and is ...[text shortened]... le one for the reverse. Why do you think hydrogen is better? Which corporation do you work for?
I have opinions, and this is all there is about it.
However, there is a problem with electrical cars - batteries. For city cars they perhaps are enough, but with my petrol engine driven car I can take myself 500 km in one full tank. I need quite a heavy load of batteries to do that trip with an electrical car.
16 Apr 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasDon't worry I was just joking.
Oh, you think I am part of the grand conspiracy? I can assure you that I don't work for any company involved in this matter.
However, there is a problem with electrical cars - batteries. For city cars they perhaps are enough, but with my petrol engine driven car I can take myself 500 km in one full tank. I need quite a heavy load of batteries to do that trip with an electrical car.
So your belief that hydrogen will win out over electricity as the storage mechanism in the car is based on the storage capacity? I guess that is an important point. In addition to that the charging time required for a pure electrical car is an issue. You cannot simply fill up and continue your journey.
However, I think a lot of people would be willing to put up with those issues if the cost of running the car is significantly lower than petrol. In Zambia, electricity is about half the price of petrol, the main reason we don't use electric cars there is the high price of the cars and the cost of replacing the batteries - but that will change as battery technology improves.
I think the hybrid option with the possibility of charging is probably the way to go. I don't see the whole hydrogen thing happening in a hurry unless some political motivators see some direct benefit to them. It would require such large scale changes and massive infrastructure.
I have heard about cars which run on compressed air - but they haven't been brought to market yet. Right now they would be fantastic because most filling stations don't charge for compressed air, though they would change that quickly once they figured out I was using it as fuel!
I don't think hydrogen will take over as long as petrol is available. Its just so much easier to store and transport a room temperature liquid.
In South Africa about half our petrol is made locally from coal.
16 Apr 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasEven having high energy storage batteries, which are coming BTW, I posted a link to new technologies along that line. But considering the idea that a battery can store enough energy for a 500 Km trip, even so, the energy does not come from the battery but an external source so we are back to square one on the energy generation front. The real problem is generating enough energy. Nuclear can certainly do it but that industry has its own set of severe problems such as the extremely high price for an individual reactor and then several years later you get to severe problem #2, disposing of nuclear waste. That problem is MUCH greater than the simple cost of the original reactor so any development that greatly reduces the nuclear waste issue will pay many dividends down the line. The best of all worlds in nuclear of course is fusion, no heavy plutonium waste products because it starts with hydrogen or helium, low atomic mass # stuff and can never end up with million year half life products. The 50 year wait till it becomes real poses a big problem in the short term but 70 years from now it will be apparent fusion is by far the best way to generate energy, along with minor help from solar, wind, wave, geothermal, etc. Even when fusion power comes online, there will still be countries like Iceland who have special resources (geothermal in their case) and won't need fusion, same goes for places with natural hydroelectric, that is a pollution free source too, with its own set of ecological problems for sure but you can see niche areas still being fed by alternative means even 100 years from now. Especially if developments like this new technology of solar cell paint put on cars that can generate energy while parked in the sun, maybe even enough to get back and forth to work for zero fuel cost. I would really like to be around 100 years from now to see how it plays out. For instance, right now, as I said in another post, new battery technology from Stanford University is showing how to stuff ten times the energy in the same kind of lithium ion cell. There seems to be a down side to that even if it goes commercial, in a short life cycle, maximum # of times it can be charged, but other technologies are working to eliminate that problem too so I see batteries coming online in 5 years or so that will hold at least as much energy as petrol.
Oh, you think I am part of the grand conspiracy? I can assure you that I don't work for any company involved in this matter.
I have opinions, and this is all there is about it.
However, there is a problem with electrical cars - batteries. For city cars they perhaps are enough, but with my petrol engine driven car I can take myself 500 km in one full tank. I need quite a heavy load of batteries to do that trip with an electrical car.
Hydrogen is an intriguing technology for sure but you need an entirely new infrastructure of hydrogen stations just like we have thousands of gas pumps today so that is not a small problem either. But you still have to make hydrogen and work is going on making that more efficient energy wise. I remember a freshman HS physics experiment where we electrolyized water with a bit of salt to make it conductive and 300 volts DC on two electrodes stuck in the water which made hydrogen on one electrode and oxygen on the other, a great way to power a car but the downside was that simple means had an energy efficiency of about 3% so to get 1Kw of hydrogen power required over 30 Kw of electrical power input so you obviously can't build a hydrogen economy on that but newer work is getting that up to 30% efficient, even so, that means if you want 30 Kw of hydrogen you have to supply the apparatus with 100 Kw of energy, still not very good in the overall picture. I think the answer there is energy recovery, if heat is developed, there are new technologies that can convert waste heat directly into electicity so eventually hydrogen can compete with petrol also. There are also newer technologies for storing hydrogen in a solid gel like substance that can accept and give up hydrogen at relatively low temperatures so there is a lot of effort going into that technology but will if be a commercial success? Finances and politics will answer that question.
16 Apr 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadDon't worry I was just joking.
Don't worry I was just joking.
[b]However, there is a problem with electrical cars - batteries. For city cars they perhaps are enough, but with my petrol engine driven car I can take myself 500 km in one full tank. I need quite a heavy load of batteries to do that trip with an electrical car.
So your belief that hydrogen will win out over electric ...[text shortened]... om temperature liquid.
In South Africa about half our petrol is made locally from coal.[/b]
Oh, you are a joker, are you.
So your belief that hydrogen will win out over electricity as the storage mechanism in the car is based on the storage capacity?
Yes. H2 is the energy carrier. The source of H2 is infinit, it is the splitting of H2O that demands energy. Therefore, where you have cheap energy there you can also produce H2 from pure water.
A car driven with compressed air is a story coming from - eh - thin air. No future in this. Or was it a joke too?
I don't think hydrogen will take over as long as petrol is available. Its just so much easier to store and transport a room temperature liquid.
Agree. I think Iceland, with its geothermic energy in abundance, will switch to H2 driven cars, in the future, if their plans is accepted by the population (the market).
In South Africa about half our petrol is made locally from coal.
Not very environmentally healthy for the atmosphere...
16 Apr 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasNo it was no joke. I don't know if it is entirely true but you can look it up for yourself:
A car driven with compressed air is a story coming from - eh - thin air. No future in this. Or was it a joke too?
http://www.gizmag.com/go/7000/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_vehicle
http://www.theaircar.com/acf/index.html
In South Africa about half our petrol is made locally from coal.
Not very environmentally healthy for the atmosphere...
But a lot of that could be due to processing methods. In fact I don't know how much CO2 is produced at the conversion plant. But using the petrol in hybrids would cut vehicle emissions.
16 Apr 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadCoal is a fossil fuel, therefore it's emmision will enrich the atmosphere with CO2.
No it was no joke. I don't know if it is entirely true but you can look it up for yourself:
http://www.gizmag.com/go/7000/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_vehicle
http://www.theaircar.com/acf/index.html
In South Africa about half our petrol is made locally from coal.
[b]Not very environmentally healthy for the atmosphere...
But a lot ...[text shortened]... produced at the conversion plant. But using the petrol in hybrids would cut vehicle emissions.[/b]
Even if you process it, what will you do with the CO2?
16 Apr 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasThere is a technology called CO2 sequestering, that is, putting it in a solid like limestone, creating a solid out of CO2 or adsorbing it on a highly pourous high surface area substance that will trap large volumes of CO2 per cubic meter.
Coal is a fossil fuel, therefore it's emmision will enrich the atmosphere with CO2.
Even if you process it, what will you do with the CO2?
17 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseThat only applies at the power plant or in this case the processing plant. If the resulting fuel is used in vehicles there is no known method for stopping the CO2 from being released into the air.
There is a technology called CO2 sequestering, that is, putting it in a solid like limestone, creating a solid out of CO2 or adsorbing it on a highly pourous high surface area substance that will trap large volumes of CO2 per cubic meter.
However, as I said, the use of hybrid technology would at least reduce the amount of CO2 released.
The popular belief that we must completely stop releasing CO2 into the atmosphere is nonsense. We do need to cut down if we don't want dramatic climate change but cutting down is not the same as stopping.
We can:
1. Reduce the amount we release wherever it is economically viable to do so - possibly with the encouragement of subsidies or fines.
This includes both finding alternatives and making what we have either more efficient or cleaner in its emissions.
2. Find ways to extract the greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere.
3. Find ways to cool the earth down - eg release dust into the upper atmosphere, paint rocks white etc