Government milking us like cows; Oil [Archive]

russ_watters

Oct24-05, 03:51 PM

well that's kind of my point... we already have alternative energy sources that could run cars, using no oil at all... I don't think there are any alternatives that are viable. That's why I asked: What is the alternative? It wasn't a rhetorical question, I am really asking you what you think the alternatives are.

You mentioned "solar and electric" - well solar is electric, but if you mean direct solar power and battery power, do you understand that neither is currently capable of coming anywhere close to the performance of gas/diesel powered cars? And at the same time as they give you much, much less performance, they also cost much, much more.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "government milking us" - are you talking about gas taxes?

Mental Gridlock

Oct24-05, 06:46 PM

I'd never wanna live in a world full of nuclear power.

Guess the news, you do!

Mental Gridlock

Oct24-05, 06:48 PM

Let's stop being sheep, and speak out, i'm not going to buy a hybrid...

How many people on the road now drive hybrids? 1/1000? 1/500. Hell I never see 'em. Baaah Baaah sheep!! I can't wait to jump on the Prius bandwagon!

Pengwuino

Oct24-05, 06:51 PM

How many people on the road now drive hybrids? 1/1000? 1/500. Hell I never see 'em. Baaah Baaah sheep!! I can't wait to jump on the Prius bandwagon!

I do! I even try to run them off the road!

Not sure why though... surpressed anger?

Anyhow... dgoodpasture2005, you need to give us an alternative before you continue to rant. You're argument is about as credible as me going "why are we using electricity when we can use ectoplasmic slime wire plasma, the government is fooling you, you are a sheep".

What's with these people? They just come on and say these insane things and I'm at a loss of words to even try to explain what mental processes were occuring (or not occuring) that made them write what they write. Is this the effects of drugs that i've heard so much about?

And wait wait... the government is milking us? That government with the multi-100$billion debt? The government that doesn't own oil companies? The government without any stock in GMC or any other major motor company?

Mental Gridlock

Oct24-05, 06:56 PM

...but by the time everyone has one, the number of drivers on the road is going to have doubled, tripled, possible quadrupled, and the same amount of emissions will still be being put out because of this!

Exactly! If there's 4 times as many drivers but making 1/4 the pollution, there would be the same ammount of pollution, rather than 4 times as much polution. You totally mentioned the problem right there. Overpopulation. Those extra drivers are gonna be there, as might as well have them tax the environment less. But there will be more and more drivers as years go by, and THAT is the problem we need to nip in the butt. In the meantime, overpopulation creates many problems including running out of recources in the future, so as might as well find ways to ease the symptoms (such as high gas prices). The more people drive a hybrid instead, the less you have to pay to fill up your Monte Carlo. And since fossil fuels are non renewable recources, as might as well TAKE STEPS to work towards decreasing our dependencey on it. Granted the hybrids aren't as practical now, they are still good. Nobody just snaps their fingers overnight and has instant technology fix. Moving away from petroleum as energy is quite a daunting project, but an essential one.

Smurf

Oct24-05, 08:12 PM

Even if we'll still have 4 times the population by the time everyone gets a hybrid and producing the same pollution, that'll still be better than no one getting a hybrid and producing four times the pollution.

Kakarot

Oct25-05, 05:33 AM

why doesnt the government just set up its own hydrogen production factories all over. then we pay for it through taxes and such for maintenance and they sell it to consumers at non profit prices.

russ_watters

Oct25-05, 07:45 AM

why doesnt the government just set up its own hydrogen production factories all over. Because, at the moment, we don't have anything with which to power them. Manufacturing hydrogen requires energy. Lots of energy. ...then we pay for it through taxes and such for maintenance and they sell it to consumers at non profit prices. When has the government ever been able to do anything efficiently enough to beat a private company in price? This is the same government that buys $300 toilet seats.

dgoodpasture2005

Oct25-05, 09:38 AM

I do! I even try to run them off the road!

Not sure why though... surpressed anger?

Anyhow... dgoodpasture2005, you need to give us an alternative before you continue to rant. You're argument is about as credible as me going "why are we using electricity when we can use ectoplasmic slime wire plasma, the government is fooling you, you are a sheep".

What's with these people? They just come on and say these insane things and I'm at a loss of words to even try to explain what mental processes were occuring (or not occuring) that made them write what they write. Is this the effects of drugs that i've heard so much about?

And wait wait... the government is milking us? That government with the multi-100$billion debt? The government that doesn't own oil companies? The government without any stock in GMC or any other major motor company?

Wow i hardly considered this a rant! I think it is 100% truth... why the high gas prices? easy... the government needs money, they're greedy, and they're scandalous. So what do they do? Raise prices... hm why?! well i can think of a number of reasons, but i'll just name two. There is a war going on right now, that is not only costing lot of money, but the vehicles of the United States military are not exactly gasoline proficient. Two, well as mentioned above.. what's a way to slow petrolium useage without losing money? Raise the prices extremely high. We seem to be having a lot of trouble with the atmosphere today, the ozone hole is the third largest it's ever been, global warming is all over the headlines... now regardless of if you believe it's the sun or not, the fact remain today, we just don't know. So why not be on the safe side? We're going to drive ourselves into extinction because we still have animal instincts, we can't just let go of something for the better. I.E. Nuclear pwer etc. And the government very well could easily create an alternative energy society run on American Taxes... but for some reason it's not in their best interests. Now i'm not one of those anti-government guys, and i'm not a conspiracy worm. But i can see a problem when it exists... so what's the point of getting a hybrid, you say, "oh good there will be 4 times less polution then there would have been!" But who really cares? It's just justifying a world wide problem through numerical nonsense. A big play on words. There's going to be the same amount that's already ruining the Earth today. No problem will be taken care of, it's an illusion. And yes... the government with the multi-billion dollar debt would have a perfectly good and sane reason to milk the american people anywhere they can for money, and where better then gas? We have solar, we have electric, we have hydrogen, we have vegetable, heck we could even look into some type of wind powered vehicle, minerature windmills on the top of a car, hundreds of them. There's endles possibilites, but we're addicted to gas and money. They don't really care about survival, they care about power and greed. I really think nothing will get done by the government as far as energy goes, it's going to be up to private businesses and the american people/other countries. I guess i am ranting a little now, as far as a long post goes. but oh well. peace, much love you guys. And always sleep with one eye open or you might never wake up in this world.

David

russ_watters

Oct25-05, 10:53 AM

...why the high gas prices? easy... the government needs money, they're greedy, and they're scandalous. So what do they do? Raise prices... hm why?! You do understand that the government does not sell gas, right? You do understand that most gas taxes (including the federal one) are fixed sums (not percentages) per gallon, right? You do know that after Katrina, many states suspended their gas taxes, right? You do know that today, gas prices are lower than they were before Katrina, right? And the government very well could easily create an alternative energy society run on American Taxes... HOW? ...i'm not a conspiracy worm. You are pushing the envelope.

We have solar, we have electric, we have hydrogen, we have vegetable, heck we could even look into some type of wind powered vehicle, minerature windmills on the top of a car, hundreds of them. There's endles possibilites... No, no, no, no, no, and no. None of those can compete with gas. Hydrogen is the only one with even a chance, and it isn't ready yet. I guess i am ranting a little now, as far as a long post goes. Yes, you are. It would be a lot more helpful if you would actually engage in conversation. You might find that this idea of yours doesn't really hold water.

dgoodpasture2005

Oct25-05, 11:04 AM

You do understand that the government does not sell gas, right? You do understand that most gas taxes (including the federal one) are fixed sums (not percentages) per gallon, right? You do know that after Katrina, many states suspended their gas taxes, right? You do know that today, gas prices are lower than they were before Katrina, right? HOW? You are pushing the envelope.
No, no, no, no, no, and no. None of those can compete with gas. Hydrogen is the only one with even a chance, and it isn't ready yet. Yes, you are. It would be a lot more helpful if you would actually engage in conversation. You might find that this idea of yours doesn't really hold water.

i never said anything about katrina, if anything that proves the point even more... wouldn't you expect gas prices to rise if oil barges were stalled, and rigs were damaged?! why did they lower? what's really going on? My point really does hold water, a hydrogen economy would be great, literally. All of those power sources i mentioned... they are able to produce enough electricity to run a car if money was raised to make way for further research. Not only could you run a car on solar power alone, but even at night you could create an artificial light/laser to power it. plus electricity. Unless you think yuo have to do 70 on the highway. Life's full of sacrifices, let's start making some so our children can be here without the same problems we face today.

russ_watters

Oct25-05, 11:23 AM

i never said anything about katrina, if anything that proves the point even more... wouldn't you expect gas prices to rise if oil barges were stalled, and rigs were damaged?! why did they lower? Uh, prices did go up after Katrina, but now that the refineries are coming back online and people are conserving, they are going back down. That's economics 101. My point really does hold water, a hydrogen economy would be great, literally. It would be great if it were possible, but it isn't (yet). All of those power sources i mentioned... they are able to produce enough electricity to run a car if money was raised to make way for further research. Not only could you run a car on solar power alone, but even at night you could create an artificial light/laser to power it. PROVE IT: what is the theoretical maximum capacity of a solar cell (assume it is 100% efficient, and operating with the sun directly overhead) with a footprint the size of a car? How does that capacity compare to the energy usage of today's most efficient cars?

Have you heard of the SUNRACE (http://www.sunrace.com.au/)? How could you start with cars like those and end up with anything that even remotely compares with current cars?

You are saying thing that sound good in your head, but you don't know what you are talking about. What you are saying is quite simply not true. Not even the fantasy about pouring money into a problem to generate scientific advances. Those advances cannot violate the laws of physics. Unless you think yuo have to do 70 on the highway. Life's full of sacrifices, let's start making some so our children can be here without the same problems we face today. Ok, be more specific: What sacrifices do you think are reasonable? Lets start with heating and air conditioning in your car: you can't have either. Power steering, brakes, air bags, your radio, headlights (we'll need to eliminate night driving), your trunk...

russ_watters

Oct25-05, 11:33 AM

Here are some numbers for you to use in answering that question I asked in the previous post:

Maximum solar flux: 1.4kW/m^2
Typical car footprint: 2.5x4.5m
kW in a horsepower: 0.75kW/hp

With those numbers, you can answer this: How many horsepower could a 100% efficient solar cell the size of a car, coupled with a 100% efficient electric motor provide with the sun directly overhead?

Blahness

Oct25-05, 11:46 AM

...Someone please get the world record for the world's most Fuel-Efficient car, please.

dgoodpasture2005

Oct25-05, 01:07 PM

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/06-08-2000/0001238772&EDATE=

"Relatively unknown to the U.S., the Lupo 3L TDI made history last year in
Europe when it was introduced, becoming the first production car to meet the
long-standing environmental challenge of being able to travel 100 kilometers
(62 miles) on just 3 liters (0.79 gallons) of fuel."

I wonder why? Maybe 'cause someone doesn't want the U.S. to know.. so they can continue to milk?! hmmm... if you had something as profound as this, wouldn't you want evreyone to know about it in todays global warming fear.

dgoodpasture2005

Oct25-05, 01:10 PM

Ok, be more specific: What sacrifices do you think are reasonable? Lets start with heating and air conditioning in your car: you can't have either. Power steering, brakes, air bags, your radio, headlights (we'll need to eliminate night driving), your trunk...

Sacrifices, like not being able to drive as fast. Not being able to always have as much horsepower as you need, spending extra money on taxes so that our scientists have welllllllllllll more than enough money to experiment with anything and everything they could ever imagine to take care of this problem that is supposidly so huge and endangering the survival of mankind and it's inhabitants... i mean i see it on the news everyday... but it doesn't seem to big of a deal to anyone.

Ivan Seeking

Oct25-05, 03:12 PM

Since this is really a thread about the desired social and political actions that should be taken in regards to energy, I''m moving this to politics.

Russ is correct. We don't have the technology as was suggested. Personally, I have been anti-nuclear most of my life but I no longer see any other option. I think we must start building nuclear power plants as part of the long term strategy to implement a hydrogen economy.

Anttech

Oct25-05, 03:27 PM

No, no, no, no, no, and no. None of those can compete with gas. Hydrogen is the only one with even a chance, and it isn't ready yet.

[off topic]heh Sometimes I think your going to blow a gasket, but then again this is your feild of expertise[/off topic]

So Russ.. what is a viable solution? Do you not think that you Americans should be using more efficient cars, untill our scientists come up with a better solution?

pattylou

Oct25-05, 03:41 PM

Why are we introducing hybrid cars? So some of them reduce emissions by 50%, 75%... but by the time everyone has one, the number of drivers on the road is going to have doubled, tripled, possible quadrupled, and the same amount of emissions will still be being put out because of this! Let's stop being sheep, and speak out, i'm not going to buy a hybrid, it's a wast of money, and a bad idea, if you want to introduce something environmentally friendly, then go for the finish line, don't stop half way.We bought our hybrid (love it) and bike wherever we possibly can, now.

There's no single solution.... but a hybrid is better than a hummer. And walking is better than both. And sometimes you can't walk to your destination.

pattylou

Oct25-05, 03:43 PM

How many people on the road now drive hybrids? 1/1000? 1/500. Hell I never see 'em. Baaah Baaah sheep!! I can't wait to jump on the Prius bandwagon!Saw a new one being driven by a neighbor just today.

(You get to learn the secret handshake when you buy one, too. )

pattylou

Oct25-05, 03:45 PM

Hydrogen is the only one with even a chance, and it isn't ready yet. isn't hydrogen available in Germany? Refueling stations and the whole bit?

russ_watters

Oct25-05, 03:46 PM

[off topic]heh Sometimes I think your going to blow a gasket, but then again this is your feild of expertise[/off topic] Just in case you missed it, the reason for 6 "no"s was the 6 alternatives listed. It wasn't a rant. So Russ.. what is a viable solution? Do you not think that you Americans should be using more efficient cars, untill our scientists come up with a better solution? It may be time to re-up my thread on the subject: YOU!: Fix the US Energy Crisis! (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=42564&highlight=fix+energy+crisis)

In short: nuclear power, hybrid cars, mandatory "clean" coal, and heavy research for about the next 20 years, then phasing out coal and oil for the next 20 years after that.

edward

Oct25-05, 04:22 PM

I say this a bit tongue in cheek, but how about steam powered vehicles?
In 1909 a Stanley steamer (automobile) set a speed record of 109 mph. That record stood for nearly two decades.
Most of our electricity is produced by steam, even nuclear power plants use steam to drive the turbines.

I do remember that a long time ago "Lear" (the guy who built the Lear jets) had a prototype bus that used a closed circuit system that used heat to evaporate freon and run it through a turbine which then powered the bus. The freon then passed through a condenser and re-liquified. I think he burned natural gas but was looking towards using hydrogen. He used a tube bank rather than one large tank to store fuel. The tube bank was also a part of the buses understructure to save weight.

When the price of gasoline went back down in the eighties, Lear's ideas went by the wayside.
I know this is far out in left field and a bit off topic, But is there any way to produce heat that is clean and low in pollutants.? Some catalytic process?
And no, I don't mean to take a battery and hook it up to a hot plate.:smile: although....:wink:

Art

Oct25-05, 05:45 PM

This discussion reminds me a little of a Monty Python sketch I saw years ago where a guy goes into a shop and asks for

"burger with ham and cheese please".
"we don't sell burgers"
"Oh, then I'll have just burger and cheese then"
"I said WE DON'T SELL BURGERS!!"
"Well there's no need to shout, I'll just have a plain burger then please."

Discussions on alternative energy always seem to begin by assuming the car is sacrosanct and so any alternative must facilitate it's continuing use.

Why not consider real alternatives such as mass transit systems which can be far more efficient and environmentally friendly.

Just to give a couple of examples;

Given that (prior to the special tax on cars entering London) the average mph for journeys within that city were slower than when people travelled by horse and cart it would seem that a far wider adoptance of trams for example would benefit everybody whilst Britain's canal network which was once highly extensive is a great way to move bulk loads between cities whilst creating next to no pollution.

The Smoking Man

Oct25-05, 05:50 PM

Britain's canal network which was once highly extensive is a great way to move bulk loads between cities whilst creating next to no pollution.
In China, I still see them using the Canal system. I see the barges on the main canal here and they are lined up like a superhighway in the sates carrying eveything from sand, cement, gravel and coal to cardboard for recycling.

pattylou

Oct25-05, 07:43 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_watters
Hydrogen is the only one with even a chance, and it isn't ready yet.
isn't hydrogen available in Germany? Refueling stations and the whole bit?
Hey Russ,

I sometimes leave questions for you that I think you are knowledgeable about and can answer ... and often you don't seem to realize my questions are not rhetorical (you don't respond.)

Do you know if Germany has production of hydrogen cars, and refueling stations, and so on?

thanks in advance,
Patty

Pengwuino

Oct25-05, 07:57 PM

Do you know if Germany has production of hydrogen cars, and refueling stations, and so on?

Don't use me as a source... but i THINK one of the german automobile companies has a test setup of hydrogen refueling stations and vehicles. I vaguely remember something a while back about that (but then again maybe it was a commercial, who knows)

Art

Oct25-05, 08:09 PM

Hey Russ,
I sometimes leave questions for you that I think you are knowledgeable about and can answer ... and often you don't seem to realize my questions are not rhetorical (you don't respond.)
Do you know if Germany has production of hydrogen cars, and refueling stations, and so on?
thanks in advance,
PattyHere's a reference for you Patty. Germany | 13.11.2004
Fill It Up With Hydrogen

Drivers in Berlin can fill up their cars with hydrogen at the world's largest service station for fuel cell vehicles. Opened on Friday, the project paves the way for widespread use of alternative energy.

In what was probably the most high-profile turn-out for a service station opening, some 100 managers from four international carmakers, energy experts, environmentalists and a minister for transportation all convened at a Berlin service station to watch the first fleet of fuel cell-driven cars fill their tanks with hydrogen.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1396039,00.html

GENIERE

Oct25-05, 08:32 PM

Here's a reference for you Patty.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1396039,00.html

Art and Pattylou -

Please tell us what energy source they are using to generate the hydrogen.

Art

Oct25-05, 08:39 PM

Art and Pattylou -
Please tell us what energy source they are using to generate the hydrogen.steam methane reforming

GENIERE

Oct25-05, 08:45 PM

That is a process. Please Answer the question?

The Smoking Man

Oct25-05, 08:51 PM

That is a process. Please Answer the question?Could be fired by Metane doncha think? I just KNOW you are trying to get them to say electrolysis and then jump on them, right?:devil:

pattylou

Oct25-05, 09:06 PM

Here's a reference for you Patty.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1396039,00.html
Thank you Art.

This raises the question of how soon we could switch, or at least introduce hydrogen cells here.

Is it, then, correct to say that hydrogen "isn't ready yet," as Russ posited earlier on the thread?

In other words, could we switch over at least partially, in the US, in the short term? And if not, why not? Energy independence seems like something every American, regardless of political position, could get behind.

Don't you agree? And wouldn't it be nice if we could all unite behind something again?

pattylou

Oct25-05, 09:07 PM

Art and Pattylou -
Please tell us what energy source they are using to generate the hydrogen.
I don't know. Do you? I'd love to know how they are making it work, and whether it is more efficient and cleaner than petrol.

Thanks Geniere, I appreiciate your time on this.

Art

Oct25-05, 09:08 PM

That is a process. Please Answer the question?Ah, your request for information was purely rhetorical. You should have said so and I wouldn't have bothered replying.

Patty asked for a reference and I found one for her. I am not endorsing LH2 as an alternative to gasoline. In fact if you had read my earlier post you would have seen this.

Art

Oct25-05, 09:15 PM

Thank you Art.
This raises the question of how soon we could switch, or at least introduce hydrogen cells here.
Is it, then, correct to say that hydrogen "isn't ready yet," as Russ posited earlier on the thread?
In other words, could we switch over at least partially, in the US, in the short term? And if not, why not? Energy independence seems like something every American, regardless of political position, could get behind.
Don't you agree?The main problems with hydrogen Patty are;
due to it's low density even in liquid form it takes ~4 times the volume of gasoline to produce the same energy (thus a huge fuel tank).
It requires insulation (extra bulk and weight).
It leaks and so is difficult to transport.
Although it can be produced quite cheaply using the process I listed as the base material is currently cheap if demand rose substantially so would it's cost.

There are other alternatives to hydrogen which some people claim are superior. I've heard Boron touted but I don't know any details about how it works. I guess it's all at the VHS vs Betamex stage at the moment so although BMW are producing production models that run on hydrogen (and so in answer to your question hydrogen is ready) it is not yet certain that this will become the future standard.

The Smoking Man

Oct25-05, 09:16 PM

I don't know. Do you? I'd love to know how they are making it work, and whether it is more efficient and cleaner than petrol.
Thanks Geniere, I appreiciate your time on this.Using hydrogen itself as a fuel source results in the production of H2O from the combustion process.

Now it can be argued that if you use electrolysis to create the hydrogen you may be burning oil or coal to produce the hydrogen and thus defeating the purpose.

Thre are other sources of power however such as wind and solar not to mention nuclear (nucular for you Bush supporters) which are relatively clean.

If they could do electrolysis to produce hydrogen using wind power, this would be absolute poetry.

The only 'pollution' would thus be thermal.

Art

Oct25-05, 09:23 PM

Could be fired by Metane doncha think? I just KNOW you are trying to get them to say electrolysis and then jump on them, right?:devil:lol I think they call it entrapment. However if that was what he was looking for he'll be disappointed as apart from the process I mentioned there is also a thermochemical process for splitting water that is claimed to be twice as efficient as electrolysis called the sulfur-iodine cycle and I believe there is some way of producing hydrogen direct from a nuclear reactor.

Pengwuino

Oct25-05, 09:25 PM

This raises the question of how soon we could switch, or at least introduce hydrogen cells here.
Is it, then, correct to say that hydrogen "isn't ready yet," as Russ posited earlier on the thread?
In other words, could we switch over at least partially, in the US, in the short term? And if not, why not?

It's going to take a while because it's not ready. The difference between the US and European nations is that whatever gets introduced into the US must be able to handle the driving habbits of an American driver. Because of our size, we drive very large distances even in cities! Some cities in the US seem to just go on and on and on and on and on.

Thus, we need a large "gas tank". The problem here, as mentioned, is that in the gaseous form, its a bit dangerous and means we can only go short distances without needing to be refilled because of how low a density gas has compared to solids and liquids. Research is currently going into solid H2 cells that will make the idea more feasible.

Plus fo course, we need to figure out how we are going to produce the hydrogen. An odd problem is that wind and solar are great for wide open spaces (solar moreso actually)... but hydrogen power's main problem in the US is the fact that we have wide open spaces. Plus there are only certain areas in the US suited for solar and wind and there are many places in the US where both are absolutely infeasible. So really... in a lot of the US, you can't put up renewable energy sources for hydrogen and anything other then renewable sources is stupid if you're polluting to make the hydrogen in the first place. Nuclear power is probably one of the only things that can tie up these loose ends but the anti-nuclear left wing lobby has nearly put the nail in the nuclear industry coffin.

Townsend

Oct25-05, 09:25 PM

Using hydrogen itself as a fuel source results in the production of H2O from the combustion process.

If this was a video game forum I could understand the need to post that but around here it's trivial at best.

Now it can be argued that if you use electrolysis to create the hydrogen you may be burning oil or coal to produce the hydrogen and thus defeating the purpose.

Now if you take out the 'be' and replace the word 'can' with 'is', then you would be more correct.

Thre are other sources of power however such as wind and solar not to mention nuclear (nucular for you Bush supporters) which are relatively clean.

If they could do electrolysis to produce hydrogen using wind power, this would be absolute poetry.

The only 'pollution' would thus be thermal.

There are problems with wind, nuclear, and solar energy sources. I would encourage you to research the problems and draw your own conclusions.

I think the worlds best hope is being built in France. In the mean time, I think that fuel should be taxed up to a cost of about 4.00 a gallon. People are too wasteful and need the incentive to cut their fuel consumption.

GENIERE

Oct25-05, 09:25 PM

Could be fired by Metane doncha think? I just KNOW you are trying to get them to say electrolysis and then jump on them, right?:devil:

Not at all, I am simply stating that a source of energy must be used to generate the hydrogen. As you stated they are burning the fossil fuel `methane'. They are investigating many processes to reduce the CO2 emissions from methane as well as coal and oil. They are also studying the use of nuclear power, a power source that could be used for `electrolysis’ with minimal environmental impact.

See Ivan's posts in the sub-forums. I'm sure you will that it was a painful for him to alter his view of the use of nuclear power.

As I stated in other posts, there is no shortage of fossil fuels when the price is right. No one wants to pollute the atmosphere. Nuclear power is the least evil of the evils.

...

loseyourname

Oct25-05, 09:32 PM

isn't hydrogen available in Germany? Refueling stations and the whole bit?

Hydrogen cars and refueling stations exist in Los Angeles. No need to look to Germany.

Pengwuino

Oct25-05, 09:33 PM

In the mean time, I think that fuel should be taxed up to a cost of about 4.00 a gallon. People are too wasteful and need the incentive to cut their fuel consumption.

You do realize that would criple the economy right? Trucking doesn't happen with rockets.

Pengwuino

Oct25-05, 09:34 PM

Hydrogen cars and refueling stations exist in Los Angeles. No need to look to Germany.

What are the details of hte hydrogen generation?

Townsend

Oct25-05, 09:37 PM

You do realize that would criple the economy right? Trucking doesn't happen with rockets.

I guess I should specify that I wouldn't tax diesel fuel as much since it is much more efficient than gasoline.

At first, it would be hard for to people to get used to driving smaller more efficient vehicles but they would get use to it and the economy would bounce back.

Art

Oct25-05, 09:37 PM

Not at all, I am simply stating that a source of energy must be used to generate the hydrogen. As you stated they are burning the fossil fuel `methane'.
...A small correction, they don't burn the methane (or at least they don't have to) the process uses a heater but it really doesn't matter to the process what energy source is used to fuel that.

loseyourname

Oct25-05, 09:39 PM

What are the details of hte hydrogen generation?

I think it depends on who is running the station. The first one was opened in July of 2001 by Honda and uses solar power to generate the hydrogen.

Pengwuino

Oct25-05, 09:39 PM

The first one was opened in July of 2001 by Honda and uses solar power to generate the hydrogen.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Oh god that must suck

The Smoking Man

Oct25-05, 09:54 PM

A small correction, they don't burn the methane (or at least they don't have to) the process uses a heater but it really doesn't matter to the process what energy source is used to fuel that.That was what I was getting at. If Methane is available for the process, then it is also available as the fuel source. :biggrin:

loseyourname

Oct25-05, 09:55 PM

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Oh god that must suck

Here's a little bit from a report on it that I found online:

In July 2001, Honda R&D Company, Ltd. and U.S.-based Honda R&D Americas, Inc. opened its first solar powered hydrogen production and fueling station. The station uses an array of photovoltaic (PV) cells to extract hydrogen from water via electrolysis. When power from the PV array is unavailable or insufficient (e.g., due to cloud cover, etc.), electricity from the grid is used for the electrolysis process. The station is shown in Figure 1. The only other similar facility in the United States that uses solar energy to produce hydrogen for FCVs is the facility at SunLine Transit Agency in Thousand Palms, CA, where hydrogen is generated for fuel cell-powered city buses and small urban vehicles such as golf carts.

http://www.ieahia.org/pdfs/honda.pdf

So apparently they take power from the grid when their photovoltaic cells don't do the trick. I'm not sure what the source of electricity is on the grid in Torrance, but I would imagine it's either nuclear power from the generators at San Onofre or hydroelectric.

For patty, since you live in the area, the address is:

1900 Harpers Way
Torrance, CA 90501

There have been others built since then, and there are a limited amount of hydrogen-powered vehicles in use on the streets. I did see them every now and then driving through the city back when I was still going to LACC, and you'll see signs for the refueling stations on the highways.

pattylou

Oct25-05, 09:57 PM

The main problems with hydrogen Patty are;
due to it's low density even in liquid form it takes ~4 times the volume of gasoline to produce the same energy (thus a huge fuel tank).
It requires insulation (extra bulk and weight).
It leaks and so is difficult to transport.
Although it can be produced quite cheaply using the process I listed as the base material is currently cheap if demand rose substantially so would it's cost.
There are other alternatives to hydrogen which some people claim are superior. I've heard Boron touted but I don't know any details about how it works. I guess it's all at the VHS vs Betamex stage at the moment so although BMW are producing production models that run on hydrogen (and so in answer to your question hydrogen is ready) it is not yet certain that this will become the future standard.Hmmm. Thank you. I appreciate your time on this, and you have given me good food for thought.

pattylou

Oct25-05, 10:00 PM

Hydrogen cars and refueling stations exist in Los Angeles. No need to look to Germany.Wow! Thank you.

The Smoking Man

Oct25-05, 10:00 PM

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Oh god that must suck
Always nice to hear encouragement for progress.

I suppose you were against Henry Ford and his automobile too until the world revealed The Mustang.

You must be a treat in Brainstorming sessions.:rolleyes:

(Hey ... gotta keep Evo on her toes, right? And yeah, I read what you wrote about me in the poll site you big Teddybear:!!) )

GENIERE

Oct25-05, 10:19 PM

That was what I was getting at. If Methane is available for the process, then it is also available as the fuel source. :biggrin:

THIS is the steam reformation process:

(CH4 + 2 H2O >>> 4 H2 + CO2).

Note that the process releases hydrogen and CO2.

CO2 is a gas that contributes to global warming.

Do you want to continue using a process, any process that generates greenhouse gasses?

Methane is a greenhouse gas.

The Smoking Man

Oct25-05, 10:32 PM

THIS is the steam reformation process:
(CH4 + 2 H2O >>> 4 H2 + CO2).
Note that the process releases hydrogen and CO2.
CO2 is a gas that contributes to global warming.
Do you want to continue using a process, any process that generates greenhouse gasses?
Methane is a greenhouse gas.Hey I agree ... I'm an advocate of alternate fuel source electrolysis myself.

We may be unable to run on water directly however generating electricity from falling water to split water into it's elements merely produces O2 don't you agree?

Now it can be argued to the minute detail that oil must still be used to lubricate the process too but lets work it through one step at a time.

We have a goal and we must make steps in achieving that goal ... there will be transitionary steps. After all, we didn't immediately go from the wheel to a set of Goodyear all season radial in one step.

But thanks for keeping us on our toes.

Many people forget about the production of the fuel source itself. It always helps to keep people informed and working on the problem.:wink:

Skyhunter

Oct25-05, 10:46 PM

The solution is reduction in energy use in conjunction with renewable clean sources of energy.

I agree with Townsend tax fuel and promote conservation. I would phase in the tax, and and raise registration fees for inefficient vehicles. It should be done in phases so that people and industry would have time to adapt. Hybrids are an excellent bridge between technologies. Few people keep their everyday cars for more than 10 years, so when FC or whatever vehicles become available, the poor will be able to buy more efficient used vehicles.

Redesign our cities and the surrounding areas to reduce the need for driving and the transporting of goods over long distances. Build more green sources of energy. Solar combined with conservation and more efficient technology will go a long way. If we reduce consumption we won't need nuclear power.

The American way of life is going to change radically in the next 50-100 years. We might as well start now so as not to leave future generations with a crisis of astronomical proportions.

GENIERE

Oct25-05, 10:55 PM

...The American way of life is going to change radically in the next 50-100 years. We might as well start now so as not to leave future generations with a crisis of astronomical proportions.

If you assume the American way of life will change, you must also consider the effect of a lack of energy resources to the global population. The lack of energy will sentence billions of people to death, slowly and horribly.

Townsend

Oct25-05, 10:57 PM

Skyhunter

Oct25-05, 11:08 PM

If you assume the American way of life will change, you must also consider the effect of a lack of energy resources to the global population. The lack of energy will sentence billions of people to death, slowly and horribly.
I have. That is why I advocate that we begin now to address the problem before it becomes a disaster of epic scale. I am greatly concerned for the survival of modern society, if we do not alter our current consumption practices.

Skyhunter

Oct25-05, 11:10 PM

:frown: ....this is just another reason I will never have kids.
But, your kid may contribute to the solution. Especially if given the nurturing and support of a good mother and father.:smile:

Townsend

Oct25-05, 11:14 PM

But, your kid may contribute to the solution. Especially if given the nurturing and support of a good mother and father.:smile:

There are other reasons why I don't want to have kids. Those reasons may change in the future and I always have the option open to me if I ever think the time is right. :wink:

Pengwuino

Oct25-05, 11:15 PM

But, your kid may contribute to the solution. Especially if given the nurturing and support of a good mother and father.:smile:

Don't listen to that BS

parenthood. Its a trick. :devil: :devil: :devil:

edward

Oct25-05, 11:16 PM

Does anyone have a link on how much energy is consumed to produce a gallon of gasoline? I think it would be quite high. If the crude is pumped in Saudi Arabia then transported to a U.S. refinery, then pumped through pipe lines to tank farms, then trucked to your local gas station where the final bit of energy is used to pump it into your tank.

Refineries use electricity, most probably generated by fossil fuels, even coal. The coal has to be mined and shipped to the power plant. All of the stages of transportation and processing use fossil fuels.
Gees no wonder we have pollution.:yuck:

GENIERE

Oct25-05, 11:50 PM

I am greatly concerned for the survival of modern society, if we do not alter our current consumption practices.

The former depends on the later; you need to increase the scope of your analysis.

GENIERE

Oct26-05, 12:20 AM

Skyhunter

Oct26-05, 04:48 AM

The former depends on the later; you need to increase the scope of your analysis.
We are getting off topic.

I should have said enlightened society. Modern society is infected with consumerism, but it has many institutions that aid individuals on their path to enlightenment. I would like to see more enlightenment and less consumerism.

Mercator

Oct26-05, 06:41 AM

I don't think there are any alternatives that are viable. That's why I asked: What is the alternative? It wasn't a rhetorical question, I am really asking you what you think the alternatives are.
You mentioned "solar and electric" - well solar is electric, but if you mean direct solar power and battery power, do you understand that neither is currently capable of coming anywhere close to the performance of gas/diesel powered cars? And at the same time as they give you much, much less performance, they also cost much, much more.
Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "government milking us" - are you talking about gas taxes?
Solar is not electric. I have a solar powered water heating machine on the roof, which consists of a tank and plastic, coated tubes. It's common in the Chinese countryside and it's one of the reasons why China consumes but a fraction of Amercian energy consumption and Chinese still look clean.

Mercator

Oct26-05, 06:43 AM

We are getting off topic.
I should have said enlightened society. Modern society is infected with consumerism, but it has many institutions that aid individuals on their path to enlightenment. I would like to see more enlightenment and less consumerism.
How many Watts of enlightment?:biggrin:

Mercator

Oct26-05, 07:07 AM

QUOTE=edward]Does anyone have a link on how much energy is consumed to produce a gallon of gasoline? I think it would be quite high. If the crude is pumped in Saudi Arabia then transported to a U.S. refinery, then pumped through pipe lines to tank farms, then trucked to your local gas station where the final bit of energy is used to pump it into your tank.
Refineries use electricity, most probably generated by fossil fuels, even coal. The coal has to be mined and shipped to the power plant. All of the stages of transportation and processing use fossil fuels.
Gees no wonder we have pollution.:yuck:[ /QUOTE]

I believe about 10% of the crude is required to obtain the gasoline distillate. Heating oil and diesel fuel require less. The later are more efficiently made but produce more particular pollutants when used. I don’t know about the losses incurred in transport, maybe Mercator will comment.
The efficiencies of producing alcohol from grain or biomass may, at least according to some researchers, be negative. Proponents may say otherwise. I don’t know enough to comment. It is a lot less efficient than gasoline production but may have other benefits to consider.
Every direction I’ve explored has always lead me to the nuclear option.
Depends on location and sofort, but average 10 % of the potential energy from a crude is indeed wasted to produce fuels. Biofuels may help us a bit but are no long term solution. All of us should have read "Visions" of our beloved Dr. Kaku. To be able to survive as a species we have to go to a next level of energy which is indeed only achievable the nuclear way. Fuse me baby!
The evaporation losses and related emmissions during production, transport and storage of hydrocarbons are a bigger factor in total emmisions than these coming from combustion in vehicles. With other word, refineries are worse than the cars they feed.
Let me say it again: let's keep oil to produce invaluable chemicals and not burn it. Do it the Belgian way and produce 90% of your energy by nuclear power. Fission as long as fusion is not commercially available.

Mercator

Oct26-05, 07:10 AM

QUOTE=edward]Does anyone have a link on how much energy is consumed to produce a gallon of gasoline? I think it would be quite high. If the crude is pumped in Saudi Arabia then transported to a U.S. refinery, then pumped through pipe lines to tank farms, then trucked to your local gas station where the final bit of energy is used to pump it into your tank.
Refineries use electricity, most probably generated by fossil fuels, even coal. The coal has to be mined and shipped to the power plant. All of the stages of transportation and processing use fossil fuels.
Gees no wonder we have pollution.:yuck:
I believe about 10% of the crude is required to obtain the gasoline distillate. Heating oil and diesel fuel require less. The later are more efficiently made but produce more particular pollutants when used. I don’t know about the losses incurred in transport, maybe Mercator will comment.
The efficiencies of producing alcohol from grain or biomass may, at least according to some researchers, be negative. Proponents may say otherwise. I don’t know enough to comment. It is a lot less efficient than gasoline production but may have other benefits to consider.
Every direction I’ve explored has always lead me to the nuclear option.[/QUOTE]
Depends on location and sofort, but average 10 % of the potential energy from a crude is indeed wasted to produce fuels. Biofuels may help us a bit but are no long term solution. All of us should have read "Visions" of our beloved Dr. Kaku. To be able to survive as a species we have to go to a next level of energy which is indeed only achievable the nuclear way. Fuse me baby!
The evaporation losses and related emmissions during production, transport and storage of hydrocarbons are a bigger factor in total emmisions than these coming from combustion in vehicles. With other word, refineries are worse than the cars they feed.
Let me say it again: let's keep oil to produce invaluable chemicals and not burn it. Do it the Belgian way and produce 90% of your energy by nuclear power. Fission as long as fusion is not commercially available.

Mercator

Oct26-05, 07:27 AM

I guess I should specify that I wouldn't tax diesel fuel as much since it is much more efficient than gasoline.
At first, it would be hard for to people to get used to driving smaller more efficient vehicles but they would get use to it and the economy would bounce back.

Agree on the efficiency of vehicles, but a refinery with a certain crude oil can only tune it's yield of diesel, gasoline and other fractions to a limited extend. It is not possible to turn crude oil in 100% diesel fuel. So the tax issue should perhaps be brought to the refinery level, to get them to optimize yields for environmental efficiency, in stead of putting it on the consumer.