| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/17/2004 06:59:11 PM · #51 |
Get smaller cars or do what us Wyomingites do. Ride horses to work. :-))
|
|
|
|
05/17/2004 07:23:39 PM · #52 |
That's not the problem...for all intents and purposes (after considering production, transportation, packaging etc) oil = food. As oil gets more expensive food gets more expensive. No oil = no food for 90% of the population.
That article is a bit alarmist. More conservative estimates place problems 50 or so years down the road. Still, there's no evidence that there is any technology in place (including solar, hydro, wind generators, geothermal etc) that are even close to being able to provide us with what fossil fuels do now.
Wars will (and already are, if you're able to look at it rationally) be fought for the control of oil and other resources long before Americans and other Westerners are fighting each other in the streets for food. The remaining 10% will be people like us, the rich Westerners whose governments will prevail and who will be able to pay the exhorbitant prices for guns, land and food.
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Get smaller cars or do what us Wyomingites do. Ride horses to work. :-)) |
Message edited by author 2004-05-17 19:27:48. |
|
|
|
05/17/2004 07:29:07 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Get smaller cars or do what us Wyomingites do. Ride horses to work. :-)) |
Let's see ... Manhattan rush hour ... 3.4 million people on horses ...
Do you realize how many diesel-guzzling dump trucks it would take just to remove the daily dung? I think at current population densities, horses are an impractical solution unless we graft ourselves on permanently, centaur-like, and remodel ourselves as Homo equinus. |
|
|
|
05/17/2004 07:45:46 PM · #54 |
On a large scale I would agree with you that there aren't the alternative energy sources to maintain life as it is now with centralized manufacturing and distribution of goods and services. The change that will come about by a shift from fossil fuels will be to a more localized economy where local resources and climate will shape the face of community and country.
But it's even harder to say how this will take place because it's more than likely that the world will turn to wars and invasions of other countries for scarce resources. I'm not as worried about oil reserve depletion as much as I am running out of other natural resources that we as humans cannot do without. Water is our most prescious resource and experts have been warning us that underground aquifers are drying up or getting polluted by our obscene living habits. Scientists have been equally concerned for our air which is causing a hole in our atomosphere. Deforestation of the tropics so the land can be used for agribusiness and cattle ranching contributes to the problem and moves indigenous peoples off their lands moving them to cities where there are no jobs for the majority of the people. Growing populations put increasing strains on natural and manmade resources. Land is currently being used to erect large scale homes that are uneconomical and for the very rich. The list goes on...these are just some of the issues that we and our leaders will have to address. Unfortunately, they have not been doing their jobs. We as a people will need to have the foresight and do without the conveniences and luxuries we now have. This wasteful system can not maintain itself. There will be no place to hide.
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
That's not the problem...for all intents and purposes (after considering production, transportation, packaging etc) oil = food. As oil gets more expensive food gets more expensive. No oil = no food for 90% of the population.
That article is a bit alarmist. More conservative estimates place problems 50 or so years down the road. Still, there's no evidence that there is any technology in place (including solar, hydro, wind generators, geothermal etc) that are even close to providing us with what fossil fuels do now.
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Get smaller cars or do what us Wyomingites do. Ride horses to work. :-)) |
|
|
|
|
|
05/17/2004 08:02:49 PM · #55 |
Hey, the milk here is $4 a gallon. Makes me want to give up milk and start driving.
Originally posted by Tranquil:
Gas near me was $2.20 today...what is the world coming to? |
|
|
|
|
05/17/2004 08:04:42 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by Herblacklist12:
Hey, the milk here is $4 a gallon. Makes me want to give up milk and start driving.
Originally posted by Tranquil:
Gas near me was $2.20 today...what is the world coming to? |
|
or do what i do and drink gasoline instead
|
|
|
|
05/17/2004 08:16:47 PM · #57 |
I start the pump filling my 30-plus gallon tank (Ford Expedition)and fume about the $2.20/gal price. While it is pumping, I step inside and plunk down $7.00 for a tall latte.
My, my, what a life. |
|
|
|
05/17/2004 09:11:12 PM · #58 |
| Here is a lovely table covering the cost/gallon of various liquids. |
|
|
|
05/17/2004 09:24:51 PM · #59 |
| I'll believe that black ink costs more than blood. Damn HP... |
|
|
|
05/17/2004 09:26:04 PM · #60 |
ROFL...great table! Have to use that one at school tomorrow for sure!
|
|
|
|
05/18/2004 10:19:54 AM · #61 |
I know I said I was done on this topic, but I just thought I'd post an article on the topic- from National Geographic. Some of you might consider that a more legitimate source.
//magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0406/feature5/
|
|
|
|
05/18/2004 11:12:57 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by ahaze:
I know I said I was done on this topic, but I just thought I'd post an article on the topic- from National Geographic. Some of you might consider that a more legitimate source.
//magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0406/feature5/ |
Andi,
You are right to be concerned about the impending end of oil as the mainstay of our economy. However, some of the items you are referencing are more then a little extreme in their alarmist beliefs.
For one, I highly doubt that 'everyone' is 'blind' to the impending end of oil as the websites you linked detail. If that was the case, then why would those web-sites exist?
Additionally, there are more people then you or I can imagine that are continually working on this problem. The idea that humanity is blind to this problem is, in my opinion, a very incorrect idea to hold.
For instance, just a few weeks back there was a story on NPR about an gentleman that has been working on things for a 'hydrogen economy' for nearly 40 years.
This is a man that has never attended any institutes of higher learning, yet has several honorary degrees from a handful of prestiges universities for his works in theoretical materials or what-not.
The story was regarding a conversion kit he has built that will make an Internal Combustion Gasoline Engine run on Liquid Hydrogen, safely and efficiently. The only issue with the current design is the storage system. Once that's worked out for size and safety, which shouldn't take long if a few inteligent people get onto it, current automobiles can become hydrogen powered vehicles.
From the story, it seems as though it is very probable for current gas stations to be converted to hydrogen stations with a change of the pumps from handling low pressure gasoline to high-pressure and very cold liquid hydrogen. All it would take is a little time, which we do have even with the current pessimistic time-frame touted by the sites you linked.
Beyond that, there are dozens of methods to generate power that could be used to offset and eventually replace oil power as the mainstay of our economic basis. Some of these currently take more energy to produce the power generating unit then is given off in a year, two years, 5 years and possibly even ten years, but some or most of those power generating systems could run for 15 to 20 years, eventually producing more power then went into its construction.
Humanity's greatest gifts, our intellect, our imagination and our quest to innovate, coupled with the drive to survive and have power will overcome this issue. For all we know, our government along with the oil companies and other interests could have a replacement power source ready to go right now.
The thing is, they just can't switch us over immediately. It can't be done without crushing the world's economy and tossing everything so out of whack that it could be just as bad or worse then forever losing power. This has to be phased in slowly, but also be ready to be launched within a 'moments' notice.
You have already made your decision though and it is a good one to make. The world always needs people ready and willing to give up on all of the gifts of our technological society, just in case.
Whatever happens, I am sure it will work out for the best. |
|
|
|
05/18/2004 02:22:54 PM · #63 |
Isn't it amazing that in the nearly 100 years since the first automobiles, they still rely on pretty much the same internal combustion engine that is about 60% efficient at best. (Proabbly Bush's fault)
When will we have cars that run on water? Don't laugh, it's very possible. A teaspoon of water has enough hydrogen to easily create the equivalent of a shotgun blast. The only emission from a hydrogen burning engine running off water would be oxygen.
The problem lies in separating the hydrogen and oxygen and storing the hydrogen (since it's highly explosive).
Although, today bottled water is more expensive then gas and where I live water is becoming a scarce resource. |
|
|
|
05/18/2004 02:34:34 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by louddog:
When will we have cars that run on water? Don't laugh, it's very possible. A teaspoon of water has enough hydrogen to easily create the equivalent of a shotgun blast. The only emission from a hydrogen burning engine running off water would be oxygen.
The problem lies in separating the hydrogen and oxygen and storing the hydrogen (since it's highly explosive). |
It's not explosive, it's only highly flammable. If you pierce a canister containing Hydrogen and set it aflame the fire shoots straight up into the air. There's an excellent video of this, I believe it is somewhere on the Underwriter's Laboratory web-site.
They show the same model autmobile with a fuel leak along with a fire.
The hydrogen car has a flame shooting straight up into the air that is no thicker then an average broom handle. The flame runs for several minutes, goes out when the hydrogen is gone and does minor damage to the vehicle. In fact, the vehicle is fully recoverable with only minor repair needed and no structural damage.
The gasoline automobile leaks fuel straight onto the ground and all around the car, the entire vehicle is engulfed in flames and burns for quite some time. In fact, the vehicle continues to burn after the gasoline is 'used up'. The vehicle is destroyed. Even if all the burnt components are removed from the car it could never be made safe for the road again due to the heat of the flames annealing the steel making the frame to soft to support the vehicle properly.
That's why I would rather be driving a hydrogen vehicle right now, even if it cost nearly 1/2 again as much as my current vehicle and cost 1/2 again as much for a similar travel distance worth of fuel. (Let's say it takes $10 to travel 100 miles with Gasoline, I would be okay with paying $15 to travel 100 miles using hyrdogen.) |
|
|
|
05/18/2004 02:35:55 PM · #65 |
I have watched a documentary about current progress with hydrogen fuel cells, with interviews of Jeremy Rifkin. Very, very impressive, and very real already.
Looking at the money and effort the major car manufacturers, companies like Shell, but also the EU and now the US are putting into that, it is sure going to be a major development.
On Iceland they already have a working setup. Iceland has enough natural resources to become totally self sufficient in energy supply.
If these fuels cells become economically available to everyone, the power (not the electrical power, but the political power) in the world will be distributed totally different.
|
|
|
|
05/18/2004 03:04:14 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by Nelzie:
Originally posted by louddog:
When will we have cars that run on water? Don't laugh, it's very possible. A teaspoon of water has enough hydrogen to easily create the equivalent of a shotgun blast. The only emission from a hydrogen burning engine running off water would be oxygen.
The problem lies in separating the hydrogen and oxygen and storing the hydrogen (since it's highly explosive). |
It's not explosive, it's only highly flammable. If you pierce a canister containing Hydrogen and set it aflame the fire shoots straight up into the air. There's an excellent video of this, I believe it is somewhere on the Underwriter's Laboratory web-site.
They show the same model autmobile with a fuel leak along with a fire.
The hydrogen car has a flame shooting straight up into the air that is no thicker then an average broom handle. The flame runs for several minutes, goes out when the hydrogen is gone and does minor damage to the vehicle. In fact, the vehicle is fully recoverable with only minor repair needed and no structural damage.
The gasoline automobile leaks fuel straight onto the ground and all around the car, the entire vehicle is engulfed in flames and burns for quite some time. In fact, the vehicle continues to burn after the gasoline is 'used up'. The vehicle is destroyed. Even if all the burnt components are removed from the car it could never be made safe for the road again due to the heat of the flames annealing the steel making the frame to soft to support the vehicle properly.
That's why I would rather be driving a hydrogen vehicle right now, even if it cost nearly 1/2 again as much as my current vehicle and cost 1/2 again as much for a similar travel distance worth of fuel. (Let's say it takes $10 to travel 100 miles with Gasoline, I would be okay with paying $15 to travel 100 miles using hyrdogen.) |
True, a small leak in the tank would yield the results you stated with an ignition source outside the tank. But a tank of compressed hydrogen that fully burst open, or was ignited inside or even under the tank would result in a big bang.
Either way, there is a way to make safe and simple. We just need to find it. |
|
|
|
05/19/2004 03:10:56 AM · #67 |
I started reading at the begining of this thread and wanting to complain too , cause I have to sell a car and stay at home more and I dont get to see my family up north often enough,,,And then I got to the second page of the thread and thought why worry about gas prices, what about milk? that is $4.89 a gallon.....And by that time I got to the third thread milk was mentioned ...I was already starting to think about something I have wanted to invest in for some time now....And of course already mentioned with the use of cars ...but how about like what it can do today with electricity.....millions had to do with out power blackout in 2003 July? August? (Cant remember)....Or when there is snow and ice here in south and millions go with out power 2002 my family did for 5 days..........this is what would make the difference... I know some people who have and it and really saves money.. One friend(Highest power bill for the whole year being billed monthly...$9.85 and some months the power co. pays him)..and it is more than likely more and more people will be changing over in the future generations to come....Solar power..
power
.H2
And I dont think that who ever is in office as president will really change the fact that people are greedy for money.......and the cost for everything will rise......To many depts world wide...
edit mispelled
Message edited by author 2004-05-19 03:17:12.
|
|
|
|
05/19/2004 03:14:29 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by tolovemoon:
I started reading at the begining of this thread and wanting to complain too , cause I have to sell a car and stay at home more and I dont get to see my family up north often enough,,,And then I got to the second page of the thread and thought why worry about gas prices, what about milk? that is $4.89 a gallon.....And by that time I got to the third thread milk was mentioned ...I was already starting to think about something I have wanted to invest in for some time now....And of course already mentioned with the use of cars ...but how about like what it can do today with electricity.....millions had to do with out power blackout in 2003 July? August? (Cant remember)....Or when there is snow and ice here in south and millions go with out power 2002 my family did for 5 days..........this is what would make the difference... I know some people who have and it and really saves money.. One friend(Highest power bill for the whole year being billed monthly...$9.85 and some months the power co. pays him)..and it is more than likely more and more people will be changing over in the future generations to come....Solar power..
power
.H2
And I dont think that who ever is in office as president will really change the fact that people are greety for money.......and the cost for everything will rise......To many depts world wide... |
When I saw what is going on in November of 2000 I said "good",these guys deserve some hardship,you have to suffer to become an Angel ! :-) |
|
|
|
05/19/2004 03:46:07 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by louddog:
True, a small leak in the tank would yield the results you stated with an ignition source outside the tank. But a tank of compressed hydrogen that fully burst open, or was ignited inside or even under the tank would result in a big bang.
Either way, there is a way to make safe and simple. We just need to find it. |
A lonnggg time ago Union Carbide Corp. (defunct in the aftermath of Bhopal(sp?) disaster) sponsored a technology show hosted by Walter Cronkite ("America's most trusted man") which addressed this in an episode. They found some titanium alloy which, when granulated, could adsorb onto its surface quite a bit of hydrogen at just above normal atmospheric pressure.
In their demonstration (not involving combustion), they laid a tank of hydrogen in a cradle on the ground and dropped a heavy weight to knock off the valve assembly. The "regular" tank took off a couple of hundred yards across the field like the rocket it had become. A tank filled with the metal granules holding a similar amount of hydrogen just sat there and hissed a bit.
Of course titanium is expensive and darned heavy ... |
|
|
|
05/19/2004 03:49:49 AM · #70 |
| Another overlooked method is a steam turbine arrangement using an external-combustion (very clean) system ... turbine technology has come a long way since this was last tried. |
|
|
|
05/21/2004 02:47:37 PM · #71 |
|
|
|
05/21/2004 03:49:26 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
A lonnggg time ago Union Carbide Corp. (defunct in the aftermath of Bhopal(sp?) disaster) sponsored a technology show hosted by Walter Cronkite ("America's most trusted man") which addressed this in an episode. They found some titanium alloy which, when granulated, could adsorb onto its surface quite a bit of hydrogen at just above normal atmospheric pressure.
In their demonstration (not involving combustion), they laid a tank of hydrogen in a cradle on the ground and dropped a heavy weight to knock off the valve assembly. The "regular" tank took off a couple of hundred yards across the field like the rocket it had become. A tank filled with the metal granules holding a similar amount of hydrogen just sat there and hissed a bit.
Of course titanium is expensive and darned heavy ... |
Titanium isn't all that heavy necesarily. If you have a chance go to a jewelry store and ask to see one of each of the following...
A Gold Ring
A Titanium Ring
and A Platinum Ring.
The Titanium Ring will weigh the least. In fact you will be quite surprised at how light it actually is. The Gold ring will be heavier, but the Platinum ring will be far heavier then the other two.
Titanium is only 'heavy' if you are talking about cost. It isn't the cheapest material around... |
|
|
|
05/21/2004 06:10:48 PM · #73 |
Gold Atomic weight: 196.96655
Platinum Atomic weight: 195.078
Titanium Atomic weight: 47.867
From that, I take that gold in pure form is actually heavier than platinum. The fact that you aren't normally buying pure gold (anything less than 24 carat is an alloy with another base) could well account for the differences.
Random Au factoid: It is estimated that all the gold in the world, so far refined, could be placed in a single cube 60 ft. on a side
Message edited by author 2004-05-21 18:13:16.
|
|
|
|
05/21/2004 06:14:45 PM · #74 |
Iceland - the most expensive as it gets
The gazoline costs over 5.00 us$ per gallon or 1.35 us$ per litre
NOW THATS WAY TO MUCH ! ! ! |
|
|
|
06/14/2004 08:43:36 PM · #75 |
Really, it's all about energy ...
From Dave Ross (CBS Radio):
Jun 9, 2004
ENRON
What would Reagan do. This is Dave Ross ....
The outpouring for Ronald Reagan has been beyond all expectations... no matter what you think of his presidency, that's how good he made Americans feel.
And with all this coverage, I can't help but apply the Reagan test to some of the OTHER stories in the news this week.
Like the latest Enron tapes outed by CBS:
Out-cue: daily basis][What we need to do is to help in the cause of, uh, the downfall of California...you guys need to pull your megawatts out of California on a daily basis...]
Sure, ANY company can keep your lights ON. But at Enron, we want to be the energy company that keeps yours light off! Think how long your light bulbs will last NOW!
Out-cue: get crushed][You gotta think the economy is gonna f*****g get crushed!]
And yet despite all this... the corrupt Enron contracts remain in force. Ratepayers get ripped off every month. Members of Congress have demanded refunds, but the Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission -- a commission appointed by the President -- says he has no authority.
So I wonder -- what would Ronald Reagan do? What would he do once he found out Enron had not only embarrassed the free market system, but was willing to CRUSH the economy of his beloved state of California?
No one really knows. But I'd like to think that he'd get a little ticked off. And that he would summon the press to the headquarters of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. And that he would say in a voice filled with quiet resolve, "Mr. Chairman... tear up this contract."
And how good it would feel. |
|
