| Author |
Message
|
| starlight |
 Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 12:20 am Post subject: Gas- becoming less dependent |
 |
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 91
|
The best transition away from gas is buying an electric motorcycle. Young crowds would love it . And the more motorcycles in the streets, the more safer it becomes.
What do you guys think? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Jon |
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 8:05 pm Post subject: No Way Out: only changed habits can bring renewal about... |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
Posts: 160
Location: Minnesota, U.S.
|
I think most electricity is derived from the burning of fossil fuels and that electric engines are about as helpful to the environment as their gas-guzzling counterparts.
In the end, the best transition from gas is to simply cut back on our wasteful practices. Instead of going for a drive to have fun, go for a walk, etc. Either that, or develope an engine that runs directly on non-greenhouse-gas-producing fuel(s). I've heard that progress is being made with water, perhaps someone can verify or refute this for me? I'm not really sure myself 
Jon
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Jellyologist |
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 8:12 pm Post subject: Re: Gas- becoming less dependent |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 330
|
| starlight wrote: |
The best transition away from gas is buying an electric motorcycle. Young crowds would love it . And the more motorcycles in the streets, the more safer it becomes.
What do you guys think? |
Over half the electricity in the USA (and growing) and a much higher percent in China (and growing), is produced from coal fired generators. Coal will continue to be 'the' source of growth in world energy generation in the next 50 years |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cat1981(England) |
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 4:20 pm Post subject: Re: Gas- becoming less dependent |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 09 Sep 2006
Posts: 827
|
| starlight wrote: |
The best transition away from gas is buying an electric motorcycle. Young crowds would love it . And the more motorcycles in the streets, the more safer it becomes.
What do you guys think? |
Good idea, its already becoming popular in London, helps with congestion as well. However (as Jon and Jelly pointed out) it is pointless all the while we produce electricity with coal and gas. Stop f**king about Blair, go nuclear !!!!
_________________
You may be an idiot, but that doesn't mean you need to act like one. My art teacher. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| starlight |
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 2:26 pm Post subject: Re: No Way Out: only changed habits can bring renewal about. |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 91
|
| Jon wrote: |
In the end, the best transition from gas is to simply cut back on our wasteful practices. Instead of going for a drive to have fun, go for a walk, etc. Either that, or develope an engine that runs directly on non-greenhouse-gas-producing fuel(s). I've heard that progress is being made with water, perhaps someone can verify or refute this for me? I'm not really sure myself
Jon |
How long does it take to recharge a battery operated car using solar? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ophiolite |
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 7:09 am Post subject: Re: Gas- becoming less dependent |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 4062
Location: Scotland
|
| Cat1981(England) wrote: |
| Stop f**king about Blair, go nuclear !!!! |
Well, as we see from the news, he is about to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Corona |
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 21 Jun 2007
Posts: 43
Location: Massachusetts
|
About 80% of the world is powered by either oil, gas, or coal. And that is a huge problem because once we reach peak oil...
Alternatives include Hydrogen, Biofuels, and other sources such as hydro-electric, wind, and nuclear. Of these, hydrogen would be best because it is the most abundant source in the Universe. Also, people really need to cut down on waste, especially here in America. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Hazz |
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 9:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 17 Mar 2007
Posts: 71
|
| Corona wrote: |
| Of these, hydrogen would be best because it is the most abundant source in the Universe. |
Yes but not on earth. How do you propose we get it down from the universe? (space)
I am also adamant that hydrogen is the way forward, but in a different way. Electricity is useless and runs out quickly. An electric car cannot go much over 40mph and can't drive further than about 80 miles on one charge. Hydrogen should be used, and the hydrogen should be got from electrolising water using electricity from geothermal power plants. These do not damage the environment in any way, are not particularly dangerous (unlike nuclear power plants), and the source of heat for the water will not run out until the earth dies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Corona |
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 21 Jun 2007
Posts: 43
Location: Massachusetts
|
| Hazz wrote: |
Yes but not on earth. How do you propose we get it down from the universe? (space)
|
We get our hydrogen from water. There is plenty of that around.
Another source of hydrogen is from hydrocarbons, such as ethanol.
My comment about it being the most abundant was just a statement of fact.
| Hazz wrote: |
I am also adamant that hydrogen is the way forward, but in a different way. Electricity is useless and runs out quickly. An electric car cannot go much over 40mph and can't drive further than about 80 miles on one charge. Hydrogen should be used, and the hydrogen should be got from electrolising water using electricity from geothermal power plants. These do not damage the environment in any way, are not particularly dangerous (unlike nuclear power plants), and the source of heat for the water will not run out until the earth dies.
|
The main problem with an electric car is not necessarily speed (We have been able to develop electric cars that go 80+ miles per hour) but duration because, as you said, it runs out too quickly. However, most people don't really drive more than 50 miles on a daily basis, and in some countries in Europe, where electric cars are more common, they are building parking lots with sockets in them so that the cars can recharge while they are at work, or school, or loading supplies. Also, cars in Europe aren't as big as the cars in the US so it works a lot better, lasts longer, and goes faster.
As for nuclear power plants, it depends on what you are using. Fission based ones are always at a risk for meltdown, and Fusion hasn't been fully developed yet. Nuclear Power Plants are much safer than is portrayed, and new ones are being built in most other countries around the world, including developing ones like India. Of course, you are always going to have humans in the equation, but there really isn't too many problems. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Nevyn |
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Posts: 827
Location: UK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| M |
| Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 5:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Junior
Joined: 26 Sep 2006
Posts: 274
|
| Quote: |
| ok then what about people that drive for a living? my dad does probably about 400-700 miles a week |
All the more reason to use a highly efficient method for transportation.
The interest in smart and efficient technologies is (slightly) picking up not because people suddenly realized that being wasteful is a bad thing, and conservation is morally the right thing to do. It's not because new technologies are cool (most people have no clue how a hybrid engine works or how a Diesel cycle is more efficient than than Otto). It's also not because they are bothered by dependence on the Middle East. Not even because of various damages that emissions cause. Those aspects have always existed and nobody seemed to care, nor do they have a significant impact on people's behavior today.
People are simply starting to see a *fincancial* benefit from being less wasteful as the increase of gas price is beyond general inflation. If there is one drive that can get us out of this mess, it's not going to be consideration and good-heartedness (ha ha...) but *greed*. That's why I am optimistic: There is no urge more powerful that good old greed! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| The P-manator |
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Bachelors Degree
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Posts: 485
Location: Toronto
|
In reply to that post on Blair... the U.K. is so afraid of building it's own nuclear plant they import 13% of the electricity created by French reactors.
_________________
Pierre
Fight for our environment and our habitat at www.wearesmartpeople.com. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| scpg02 |
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Junior
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 259
Location: Sacramento
|
| Corona wrote: |
We get our hydrogen from water. There is plenty of that around.
Another source of hydrogen is from hydrocarbons, such as ethanol.
|
We get most of our hydrogen from natural gas. Here in California, our wonderful governor has proposed building hydrogen highways. Robert Kennedy Jr is the one who wrote his environmental policy. Robert Kennedy Jr is part of the Natural Resource Defense Counsel. Both have monetary interests in natural gas. Go figure!
_________________
"every time government grows it is at the expense of personal liberty" - Ron Paul
 Corner Cafe
for relaxing adult conversation |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Old Geezer |
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Junior
Joined: 05 Jun 2007
Posts: 237
|
There's something very important here that some don't seem to realize yet. A hydrogen-based economy or electric vehicles without nuclear power just is NOT practical. In both cases - using electricity directly to power the car or hydrogen that comes from the electrolysis of water will STILL require burning carbon-based fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) unless it's supplied by nuclear plants.
Windmills and solar power are nice but they can never satisfy the energy needs of any but the world's tiniest countries.
Even extracting hydrogen from natural gas is uneconomic because, when you examine the whole production system involved you will find it's wasteful. And then you still have to transport it to places where people can get it to use it. It just doesn't make sense from an economical standpoint. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| The P-manator |
| Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Bachelors Degree
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Posts: 485
Location: Toronto
|
I agree. This is where most traditional environmentalists go astray. They believe they can solve the world's pollution problems through solar and wind power along with a nice little hydrogen economy. This will not happen. The world needs to adopt nuclear energy as a clean, safe, and reliable source of great amounts of energy. I believe the country that is currently best-suited for a true, zero-emissions hydrogen economy, is France. I'm not just bragging here, it is the truth. They are probably the only country with enough nuclear power to cleanly run a hydrogen economy. And now with nuclear fusion under development, there is a much brighter future shaping up. However, there are still those massive armies of unfortunately powerful mistaken environmentalists, such as David Suzuki.
_________________
Pierre
Fight for our environment and our habitat at www.wearesmartpeople.com. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
