Notices
Results 1 to 59 of 59

Thread: American's Not Purchasing Automobiles

  1. #1 American's Not Purchasing Automobiles 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    77
    The U.S. is experiencing an economic crisis with oil reaching as high as $70 a barrel. Gasoline prices soared over 4.4% in the month of August. Certainly hurricane Katrina contributed to the crisis by destroying the oil production rigs located in the Gulf of Mexico, which represented approximately 1/3rd of U.S. oil usage.

    Auto sales dropped a whopping 12% overall. In fairness, this could be attributed in part to the low interest rates associated with auto loans after the Clinton bubble burst, and then the U.S. being attacked by cowardly terrorists on 9-11.

    My thought is it is more so representative of increasing fuel costs as oil becomes more in demand around the world. There have been reports of completely depleting the world oil reserves in less than 100 years, more likely not even 100 years as the BRIC nations become more prominent in the world economy.

    While the U.S. has been making some progress towards independence of oil-based fuels, it has not moved fast enough contributing to the current crisis situation. My strong thought is the U.S. should declare a national emergency and allocate funding towards getting the new clean-fueled automobiles onto the market. A recent poll by Yale University stated 93% of U.S. citizens would purchase these vehicles if they were available, sadly not because they are concerned about polluting the planet, but more so because they want to be free of dependency on foreign oil.

    Perhaps automakers will realize Americans are not purchasing the oil-based vehicles, which is not good for profit, and actually speed up production of the vehicles Americans are demanding through their current lack-of-purchase statement.

    It has always been my firm belief capitalism is what saved us from an all out depression after the 9-11 attacks simply because we have gotten so very good at assessing risk factors into business structures. My guess is capitalism will be what brings us out of this crisis situation as well.

    Does anyone else have any commentary or thought as to what may be helpful in dealing with this particular crisis in the U.S.?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    same old message, Get Rid of the Fossil fuel system!

    it's obviously more profitable than renewable energy scources but the Fuels can't last forever and one day where going to see this same thing with Coal as it becomes rarer.

    you'd think that with all the barking everyones doing about Fossil fuels that there would be a greater effort in creating and manufacturing them asap.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    77
    Thank you, Wallaby for your reply!

    My thought is most everyone agrees there is a need to change from the fossil-fuels to more renewable sources. What are your thoughts on how to actually accomplish this task?

    Cyndi
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Build nuclear fast breeder reactors and split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Use the hydrogen to fuel the vehicles and that will be totally renewable and non polluting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    77
    Hi CosmisTraveler! Thank you for your thoughts.

    Have you given any consideration as to what a terrorist could do with a nuclear reactor? They wouldn't need bombs. They could blow us up with our own destructive technology.

    Is not there a hydrogen-based vehicle that is almost market ready that does not need a nuclear fast-breeder reactor to run? Do you have any thoughts on how to speed the process to bring these type vehicles into the U.S. marketplace? I read a survey recently that that stated 93% of the U.S. population would purchase clean fuel vehicles if they were available.

    My favorite technology for generating clean electricity and which could provide a weeks worth of energy without the use of batteries is the Solar Power Tower. It is cost effective as compared to current technology. Basically, it utilizes mirrors to heat molten salt which is stored in a thermal tank and used as needed by a conventional Rankinecycle turbine/generator system to create electricity. It is already being used in many countries, including the U.S.A.

    If there were someway to operate an electric vehicle without having to use a battery (I know!) this could be an answer. What do you think?

    Cyndi
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    they would also need a realy high temperature to create such an explosive reaction, not something you can do with the typical suicide bomb or car crash.

    i saw on TV a story about a hydrogen powered bus being tested on the public transport, i forgot how it faired but i know it was a success.

    at this stage i would say that even though we do badly need a source of renewable energy we should work on making the resources we have left more efficient.
    such as taking Methane or other waste gasses out of landfills and combining it with the coal to produce a slightly better, slightly cleaner way of burning coal.

    stuff like that realy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    You can protect them from attacks just like oil refineries can be.

    REYKJAVIK - Hydrogen, tested in buses from Amsterdam to Vancouver and used in the rockets of the US space shuttle, is a clean power that promises to break dependence on oil and gas -- at least in Iceland.


    "Sometimes I have to explain to passengers that it's just water vapour," the driver said of white clouds trailing after his bus along the streets of the capital, Reykjavik. "When it's very cold there's a lot of white steam."
    With almost unlimited geothermal energy sizzling beneath its surface, Iceland has an official goal of making the country oil-free by shifting cars, buses, trucks and ships over to hydrogen by about 2050.

    By then, in theory, the only oil used on the volcanic North Atlantic island will be in planes visiting Reykjavik airport.

    Other countries, such as the United States, where President George W. Bush is a strong backer of hydrogen, face a far tougher path.

    More:

    http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsst...8876/story.htm


    http://www.newenergy.is/newenergy/en...s/euro-hyport/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    77
    Thanks Guys!

    Wallaby: The hydrogen bus sounds interesting. Does it utilize methane or other waste gasses out of landfills combining them with coal to produce a somewhat cleaner way of burning coal or does it utilize an alternative method?

    Wallaby and CosmicTraveller: Would not the fallout from a nuclear reactor be much worse than an oil refinery explosion? I live in the Houston, Texas area. It gives me no comfort to compare a nuclear reactor exploding to an oil refinery explosion, especially in lieu of the fact refineries down here explode on a semi regular basis. Security issues pertaining to these refineries are laughable at best. Recently, the local news aired a story of how a maintenance company hired undocumented workers (no background checks) to enter into these refineries to work. ARGH!!!

    CosmicTraveller: Thank you for the links. I visited both of them. I had read 80% of Iceland, not 70%, utilized geothermal heat sources. I think it is great Iceland can utilize geothermal resources as a clean, hopefully cost effective source from which to derive their electricity and hydrogen. However, there have been a few issues with the natural water deposits they have been using to create the steam to generate their electricity drying up. It was my understanding this was initiating ground movement (i.e. earthquakes?). The last thing I read indicated Icelanders were attempting to fill the water pockets back up with water. Perhaps someone from Iceland could update us on to how this has been progressing?

    CosmicTraveller, perhaps you can help me to better understand, you are saying, and if I remember correctly, the article stated the U.S. does not have geothermal resources in which to utilize for clean energy. Is this correct? Would not there be some geothermal resources like say around Big Bend or in Arkansas? Don’t they have hot springs? Or am I really confused about this? Could someone please explain why these would not be resources for clean energy?

    If anyone would like to read about the Solar Power Tower, I would like to hear your comments as to why or why not this system would be or would not be a viable clean, large scale source to generate electricity? Here are some links:

    http://www.eere.energy.gov/state_ene...w.cfm?techid=4

    http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumeri...olar_tower.pdf

    Again, Thanks Guys!

    Cyndi
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    the hydrogen just runs on hydrogen.

    some of the Coal powerstations most namely the one that supplies my electricity uses some sort of pipe laid underneath landfills as well as a few fans or pumps to bring the waste gas from the landfill, which is a couple of killometers away i think to suck it up into the boiler where it is ignited and burned with the coal. this helps reduce methane emission from the landfill which as i was told provided a few problems to houses living nearby.

    as for the fallout from a thermonuclear explosion it depends apon the reactor design, location and more importantly the weather. as well as the yeild of the blast of course.
    however as i said earlier it would require extreame temperatures as well as poor design/maintinance and worker inefficiency.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    CyndiLoo, inherent in your suggestions and in your requests for input is the notion that we replace one form of conspicuous consumption with another. I would challenge that. We might be better off focusing on reducing the reliance upon automobiles that have significantly brought us to this point in the first place.
    The medium term (fifty to one hundred years) is not a problem. We shall have effective nuclear fusion plants by then. It is the first half of this century, as we transit through the phase of peak oil and begin the transition to other energy formats. One of the largest opportunites for addressing energy shortages is to reduce energy usage. That has my vote.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    77
    Ophiolite: Thank you for your comments!

    My thought about nuclear fusion is simply this: Nuclear fusion harnesses a reaction that also heats stars. How is this helpful to global warming?

    What are the long-term ramifications of fusing nuclei together to create energy? Are we trading one form of global warming for another? What studies have been conducted regarding this matter? Help me understand why you strongly consider nuclear fusion the only solution to dependency from fossil fuels.

    Could it be there is a stigma against using "conspicuous consumption" in some circles as it may not seem high tech or modern enough?

    A side note: Dynamo theory is also something we should carefully consider before we implement it during the process of nuclear fusion at least until we actually do understand the earth’s magnetism.

    Perhaps nuclear fusion has become one of those icons people divide over as attributed to political beliefs more so than finding what may or may not be in the planets best interest. Many people do not consider options other than nuclear fusion as a large scale energy resource, while others do not accept nuclear fusion as a viable energy option at all without having first researched it.

    As to becoming less dependent on vehicle usage, in the U.S. it would be unrealistic to believe there would be a significant reduction, if for no other reason the U.S. is a LARGE country. It would severely damage our economy as is evident in August 2005 economic indicators to not be able to use vehicles to traverse it.

    Wallaby: The idea of utilizing coal and methane from the garbage dump I think is a win-win. I will read more about it. I also will try to find more information pertaining to the bus that runs on hydrogen in Australia! Thank you!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by CyndiLoo
    My thought about nuclear fusion is simply this: Nuclear fusion harnesses a reaction that also heats stars. How is this helpful to global warming?
    The primary cause of global warming is not the heat energy released in the expenditure of fossil fuels, or any other power source, but the release of greenhouse gases, most significantly carbon dioxide. By eliminating the emission of carbon dioxide we eliminate the primary cause.
    Quote Originally Posted by CyndiLoo
    What are the long-term ramifications of fusing nuclei together to create energy? Are we trading one form of global warming for another? What studies have been conducted regarding this matter? Help me understand why you strongly consider nuclear fusion the only solution to dependency from fossil fuels.
    I don't consider it the only one, just the obvious one. Low risk, environmentally friendly (unlike renewable energy methods that require windmills, and strange mechanical contraptions messing up the countrside and the oceans, killing birds and scaring porpoises :wink: ) providing limitless (practically) supplies.
    There are a number of alternative fusion reactions. Helium is the principal byproduct of these. The impact on global warming is essentially zero - i.e. once the excess carbon dioxide we have pumped into the atmosphere is removed through natural processes everything is back to normal. Umpteen studies on all of this. There are some issues. [TANSTAAFL] They are all much more benign than the consequences of burning fossil fuels. [I mean we have this tremendous chemical feedstock - and we burn it!]
    Quote Originally Posted by CyndiLoo
    Could it be there is a stigma against using "conspicuous consumption" in some circles as it may not seem high tech or modern enough?
    Possibly. I'm against it because it is wasteful, inelegant and damaging. (Its the inelegance that especially riles me.)
    Quote Originally Posted by CyndiLoo
    A side note: Dynamo theory is also something we should carefully consider before we implement it during the process of nuclear fusion at least until we actually do understand the earth’s magnetism.
    Youve lost me here.

    Quote Originally Posted by CyndiLoo
    Perhaps nuclear fusion has become one of those icons people divide over as attributed to political beliefs more so than finding what may or may not be in the planets best interest.
    Again, you may be right, but I have no idea which political parties or movements or such are in favour of or opposed to nuclear fusion. I favour it because I think it offers is the best way (the most elegant way) of reconciling our demand for energy with protection of the planetary environment.
    Quote Originally Posted by CyndiLoo
    As to becoming less dependent on vehicle usage, in the U.S. it would be unrealistic to believe there would be a significant reduction, if for no other reason the U.S. is a LARGE country. It would severely damage our economy as is evident in August 2005 economic indicators to not be able to use vehicles to traverse it.
    1. Why do you need to travel across it? 2. Why do we need to transport food half way across continents and across the planet when much of it could be grown locally? 3. If we need to travel and ship foodstuffs, lets invest more in railways - a much more efficient system.
    4. If we insist on our love affair with the car, lets try more car pooling, smaller cars, occasionally walk - after all it was bipedalism that made us what we are today. Why abandon it?

    Sorry - long post. Just wanted to try to answer all your points even if some of the answers are rather sketchy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789

    CosmicTraveller, perhaps you can help me to better understand, you are saying, and if I remember correctly, the article stated the U.S. does not have geothermal resources in which to utilize for clean energy. Is this correct? Would not there be some geothermal resources like say around Big Bend or in Arkansas? Don’t they have hot springs? Or am I really confused about this? Could someone please explain why these would not be resources for clean energy?
    There's not enough geothermal sources to produce the quantities that America needs. Iceland has less than a million people residing there and few roads or cars to begin with.

    If a nuclear plant were to explode it would be very catastrophic as was the case when Chernoble exploded and killed thousands and made 100,000 or more very ill with radiation contamination. That's why safety and the use of a Breeded Reactor would be better implemented rather than the old style reactors in use in America today. Fase Breeded reactors are much less dangerous and use up over 99 percent of their fuel and leave les than 1 percent contamination, far less that the reactors of today.

    We need nuclear to produce the hydrogen and I'd say that the benifits outweigh the dangers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    fusion reactors do produce a lot of water vapor, 98% of which is captured and reused for the next cycle. the escaping water vapour would just add to the amount being eveaporated out of the ocean, so at most we would get a little more rain.

    from where i sit in Australia there is no harm in that at the moment. but thats where i sit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    fusion reactors do produce a lot of water vapor, 98% of which is captured and reused for the next cycle. the escaping water vapour would just add to the amount being eveaporated out of the ocean, so at most we would get a little more rain.

    from where i sit in Australia there is no harm in that at the moment. but thats where i sit.
    But Fusion is at least 50 to 100 years away and we need to get hydrogen to market way begore then IMO.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    that would be the main reason why we have not done more to enact renewable energy source ideas, the huge market which the vast majority of governments depend on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    77
    Wow! Some amazing and thought provoking commentary! Thank you, both!

    Ophiolite:

    Are we certain carbon dioxide is “causing” global warming, or is it contributing to a natural process of change within the earth? There is more than one point of view as to why the earth is warming. In fairness we should note it could possibly be a natural cycle of the earth. The earth has had many climates over its lifespan. Can we really disregard this possibility? The earth also has shifted many times throughout its lifespan. Could this also be a possibility?

    We agree eliminating carbon dioxide emissions is better for the planet. My thought is it would be for people as well.

    It is interesting to consider the long-term ramifications pertaining to nuclear fusion. It does harness a reaction that also heats stars. If it were used broadly as fossil fuel now is used, would indeed this not heat the earth? How can anyone say it would not without any research to support this assumption?

    Point taken and agreed about windmills, and the oceans. “Strange mechanical contraptions” made me smile. I think this is more of a point of view than a fact! I happen to think Solar Power Towers are beautiful, much like some modern art! They are amazing in their function and awesome to consider! LOL

    You stated: “There are a number of fusion reactions. Helium is the principal byproduct of these. The impact on global warming is essentially zero – i.e. once the excess carbon dioxide we have pumped into the atmosphere is removed through natural processes everything is back to normal. Umpteen studies on all of this.”

    Now I feel we are making some progress! Are there any links to some of these studies? I would like to read about them. [Not to disagree with your thoughts, but to better understand fusion and why everyone (including President Bush) seems to be so pro-fusion.]

    Thank you for being fair and mentioning, “that there are some issues [TANSTAAFL]. They are all much more benign than the consequences of burning fossil fuels. [I mean we have this tremendous chemical feedstock – and we burn it!]”

    CyndiLoo wrote: “Could it be there is a stigma against using “conspicuous consumption” in some circles as it may not seem high tech or modern enough?”

    Ophiolite responded: “Possibly. I’m against it because it is wasteful, inelegant and damaging. (It’s the inelegance that especially riles me.)

    The “inelegance” made me smile! Thanks Ophiolite! I can understand how “conspicuous consumption” could be considered wasteful. Could you explain what you mean by damaging?

    Dynamo theory: using magnetism to enhance fusion.

    One reason Americans need to travel across America is due to capitalism. Our society is built around capitalism. It is what drives our economy (pun intended! LOL) It makes perfect sense to grow food, and manufacture goods in the regions where they are best suited for highest yields and better crops.

    Trains are great!

    It is interesting you bring up “car pooling, smaller cars, occasionally walk – after all it was bipedalism that made us what we are today.” It has been my personal observation Americans do car pool, and do walk when our destination is close enough to do so. We also have mass transit in place, such as rail systems and busses, which are usually packed, so we are using them.

    Thank you for the longer post! You are appreciated!

    CosmicTraveller:

    You have made a very valid argument. Perhaps if I read a little more about breeder reactors, and consider it with what Ophiolite has contributed to the subject, I may better understand why you are so supportive of nuclear reactors. Chernoble is indeed on my mind during these discussions. In addition, wasn’t there an incident in either the 60s or the 70s (Sorry, I can’t remember the date exactly?) in the U.S. where a reactor leaked into the water system?

    Security is still an issue I am wrestling with pertaining to nuclear fusion. Perhaps if I did understand how they work, it may alleviate these thoughts somewhat. Do you have any links?

    Thank you, CosmicTraveller for taking the time to respond to my thoughts! You are appreciated as well!

    Cyndi
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    77
    Wallaby and CosmicTraveller:

    More rain sounds great! We are experiencing somewhat of a drought where I live! LOLMore seriusly, how would you propose to get it to market?

    There are hydrogen vehicles in the very near future. If it is as you say and they need fusion breeders to run, how is it these cars are about to be brought into the market?

    Thanks again, guys!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Check this out about hydrogen cars and you will learn hydrogen cars are already being made......

    http://www.bmwworld.com/hydrogen/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by CyndiLoo
    Are we certain carbon dioxide is “causing” global warming, or is it contributing to a natural process of change within the earth?
    Yes, and yes. Certainly, there have been changes and cycles in global temperatures. In some epochs temperatures have been substantially higher than those we experience today - so too have the sea levels, while the amount of 'livable' land has been substantially less. A broad, warm shallow sea is a great place to live if you are an ammonite. Primates will be less at home.
    Here are what I consider to be pertinent points. The current rate of increase appears to be higher than has been the norm. Rapid increase will place greater strains on ecosystems. (Remember that we are in the midst of a global extinction event, induced by human activity. Ecosystems are all ready strained close to the point of failure.) Even if we are in a period of natural temperature increase, perhaps part of a Milankovich cycle, this is being exacerbated by our output of greenhouse gases. Even if the temperature increase was not connected to human activity (say we were not generating those gases) we would want to seek some way of reducing their natural level in the atmosphere, since the change is going to have an unwelcome impact on the biospshere.
    If nuclear fusion were used broadly as fossil fuel now is used, would indeed this not heat the earth? How can anyone say it would not without any research to support this assumption?
    It doesn't require any research, but a handful of simple calculations. Take the current (no pun intended) level of power generation in the US. Double it. Work out the power per person. Apply that globally for a population of ten billion. Assume 100% of this power is converted to heat. Calculate the impact on global temperature. You will find (even in this extreme scenario) that the increase is a fraction of a degree. Again, global warming is not a consequence of the energy generated by burning fossil fuels, but by the greenhouse gases released.

    You asked for examples of studies indicating the low risks associated with fusion. I don't have any to hand. I'll google for something relevant. I'm basing my remarks on vaguely recollected articles from Scientific American, New Scientist and the Economist.

    I describe conspicuous consumption as damaging because:
    1) It damages the global climate through the energy required to produce the products.
    2) It damages the environment through ill managed extraction of resources. (e.g. destruction of tropical hardwoods)
    3) It damages our long term industrial capacity by 'wasting' primary resources.
    4) It damages the immediate environment through the need for huge landfills.
    5) There's more!
    Don't misunderstand me - I am not recommending a hippy existence, living in a tent, onrain water, sunflowerseeds and love. I am suggesting a more balanced lifestyle would be better for all.

    It makes perfect sense to grow food, and manufacture goods in the regions where they are best suited for highest yields and better crops.
    If that is what were happening this would be true. The high yields give a false impression of efficiency that is wiped out by the cost of transportation. This is a whole other topic - I would need to do some research to dig out the facts that would convince you of how pointless and wastefull much (most) of food transport is.

    It has been my personal observation Americans do car pool, and do walk when our destination is close enough to do so.
    I should confess to a bias in my judgement of the US in this regard. My primary exposure to the States is Texas, where I have lived and which I visit regularily. When I am sitting in the parking lot known as 610 just North of the Galleria at six in the afternoon the only vehicle with more than one person in it appears to be mine.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    77
    CosmicTraveller: This is a great link! Thank you.

    Ophiolite:
    Thank you for stating you are not promoting a "hippie" lifestyle! ARGH!

    By no means would I discourage anyone from planting a garden to grow food. My experience is....(OUCH!)....perhaps this is a good time to reitterate how much I appreciate the farmers who really know how to grow food crops, as some of my gardens seem to do better than others! LOL Some people live in the city, with even a smaller space in which to grow plants, or for that matter animals. It is necessity to grow food where it will grow the best crops and then transport it to where it is needed. You are correct Ophiolite in your thought this may be another thread!

    Texas is a big place. Houston is LARGE. I have sit in traffic as well in the area you are referring to as being a parking lot. Many of those drivers commute from out of Houston from places in which there are no others in which with to carpool! If you were to consider the mass transit options in Houston, you would find they are as I have stated, completely utilized. Perhaps in the Northeast United States the transit system spans a larger area than does Houston, but there are many more people in the northeast than there are here. Having lived in New Jersey and in Manhattan, I can attest the mass transit system is also fully utilized! (spoken softly and with respect, not meant to offend)

    We agree greenhouse gasses need to be eliminated. The thought of the natural warming of the earth and the possible end to life as we know it has been on my mind way, way too much lately. When I think about it I get knots in my stomach. Of course, I tend to overanalyze everything...

    Pertaining to the nuclear fusion calculation, (again spoken softly and with respect) first I do not believe 100% is an accurate figure. Even within this thread Wallaby has stated it is 99%. I will have to research this as well. My thought about this is pertaining more to physics. My limited (albeit growing) understanding of the fusion process is it is actually fusing together particles to utilize the energy created during the fusion process. What is the end result of fusing all these particles together? While I have been reading extensively to answer this question, I still have not come upon an answer. My understanding of quantum is we still do not fully understand the standard model or string theory or what is to follow string theory. We are still trying to work gravity into the equation. We are not even close to understanding the quantum interactions involved in these processes. How do we know we are not damaging the universe on an even larger scale by fusing the components that make it what it is, is?

    Thank you, Ophiolite for taking the time and effort to respond. I know it is a lot of work to seriously consider ideas, especially when they are an idea someone else initiated!

    Take care,
    Cyndi
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    What is the end result of fusing all these particles together? While I have been reading extensively to answer this question, I still have not come upon an answer.

    Neutrinos have very little mass and interact but rarely, but are made in large numbers inside the sun as a byproduct of fusion reactions.


    The proof of their success is the creation of neutrons, a subatomic particle that is a byproduct of fusion. The last time anyone claimed to have produced fusion, three years ago, it was in a process called "sonofusion," in which collapsing bubbles generate intense heat. That turned out to be a bust when other researchers tried to repeat the experiment and didn't see any neutrons. "Cold fusion"—the idea that fusion energy could be produced by running electricity through water and metal plates—didn't reliably produce neutrons either.

    The UCLA team's device is surprisingly low-tech. It relies on a common ingredient of sea water—deuterium—and a common crystal, often used in lasers, called lithium tantalate. The crystal is one of a group of pyroelectric materials, so named because they create electric fields when they change temperature. (A student of Aristotle noticed this when studying the gemstone tourmaline.) The team pumped air out of a narrow cylinder, filled it with deuterium gas—and inserted a chunk of lithium tantalate. They then warmed the device by 25 degrees Celsius, producing 100,000 volts. The voltage caused the gas to break up into positively charged ions (deuterium nuclei, or "deuterons") and electrons. The freed-up deuterons joined up with those in a solid deuterium "'target" inside the device. After only a minute or two, it began emitting neutrons. "You could take it from the freezer and put it on a countertop and get a measurable neutron signal," says team member Brian Naranjo.

    The device offers many potential applications. Because it emits X-rays, it could be used to aim the rays directly at a tumor to destroy it, says UCLA physicist Seth Putterman. It could also enable a handheld neutron scanner to identify explosives. The most tantalizing goal, cheap clean energy, is within reach, says UCLA chemist James Gimzewski, another member of the team. Although the device doesn't generate a net output of energy—the scientists used more energy to run the thing than they got out of it—scientists think it's possible, at least in theory, to produce energy by bunching many tiny versions. "If you recover the energy of 5 percent of the deuterium in the ocean, you could power the world for a million years," says Putterman. That sounds easier than drilling for oil in seabeds.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7693284/site/newsweek/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    77
    Thankyou, CosmicT! This one I will consider more and then post a reply.

    May I ask, have any of you gentlemen taken the time to even briefly view my Solar Power Tower links?

    Cyndi
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    77
    Here are two interesting links pertaining to nuclear fusion.

    Pro-Nuclear Fusion
    www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html

    Anti Nuclear Fusion
    http://www.sierraclub.org/nuclearwas..._factsheet.asp
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    If they were to build a fast breeder type of reactor there's very small anounts of waste unlike that of the type we have here in the USA today. The fast breeder uses the spent fuel to make more energy from thereby reducing the contamination to almost nothing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    77
    CosmicT: Just to let you know I am not ignoring your comments, I am still sorting through information! C
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    77
    CosmicTraveler: Your patience is appreciated! This week I am distracted because Rita is coming to Texas. She is not a welcome guest, but one for which I still must prepare! LOL

    Here are the two websites Hannah King, the DOE Library contact person, forwarded me to review:

    www.nucleartourist.org and www.nuclear.gov/home/public1.html


    According to the information in these two websites, nuclear reactors do not realize the initial cost it takes to implement them for at least 75 years. This is a GIGANTIC waste of time and money. In addition, the efficiency output of Nuclear production is only 20% when you take into consideration the amount of energy it takes to run them. This is not feasible.

    Solar Power Tower II is much more cost effective to implement and operate. They have a 30% electric efficiency output. They utilize a very impressive 85% of the sun’s rays. The molten salt stays hot in the thermal storage tank for a week, although they still can produce heat on a cloudy day. Because they store the salt in the tank, they do not have to run 24 hours.

    Solar Power Tower is still the best option!

    Cyndi
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    if we had a way of transmiting power from one place, say in orbit to another say on the ground our power problems would be solved, as this is the only place a solar power plant is most efficient.

    Money...Unfortunately they are right. until we make the proccess become much more efficient and construction/mass production costs as low as the average person can afford, Which coinsidentally requires a lot of money, nuclear power will not be efficient.

    though i believe that the reason that the efficiency power output is so much lower is because it must be controlled to a much greater degree, you can't just heat the hydrogen or else you'll blow the thing up, there are a lot of safety precautions that must be in place, hence we have intentionally lowered the power efficiency output just to minimise the risk of explosions.

    the first link you posted was interesting but i could not find much information on Hydrogen power, just Uranium/ Fission. could you point me in the right direction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    77
    Hi Wallaby!

    We agree nuclear generated power is not practical from a financial point of view.

    Wallaby, you state there is no feasible way to utilize solar power without going into orbit (a pun to make you smile). Clearly you have not reviewed the links I provided about the Power Tower II, which would not have to go into orbit in order to produce electricity. How can you state it is not feasible to do so without reviewing all the facts? You, CosmicTraveler, and Ophiolite all agreed nuclear fusion was the solution to providing large scale energy. Taking your thoughts into consideration, I have taken several days to find facts pertaining to nuclear fusion, read and review them, and post a reply.

    One place for you to research energy related information would be The U.S. Department of Energy website. In addition, CosmicTraveler has posted some really great informatin pertaining to hydrogen vehicles. Go back through the posts and find the link.

    Cyndi
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by CyndiLoo
    Hi Wallaby!

    We agree nuclear generated power is not practical from a financial point of view.

    Wallaby, you state there is no feasible way to utilize solar power without going into orbit (a pun to make you smile). Clearly you have not reviewed the links I provided about the Power Tower II, which would not have to go into orbit in order to produce electricity. How can you state it is not feasible to do so without reviewing all the facts? You, CosmicTraveler, and Ophiolite all agreed nuclear fusion was the solution to providing large scale energy. Taking your thoughts into consideration, I have taken several days to find facts pertaining to nuclear fusion, read and review them, and post a reply.

    One place for you to research energy related information would be The U.S. Department of Energy website. In addition, CosmicTraveler has posted some really great informatin pertaining to hydrogen vehicles. Go back through the posts and find the link.

    Cyndi
    on the contrary i think solar power is highly feasable but it would be more so when harnessing energy directly from the sun without having it pass through the atmosphere, as about 35% i think is deflected of into space. this would greater magnify the power output and is an example of the maximum power output of a solar powerstation.

    again i could not find any information on the Power Tower II, can you please point me in the right direction.

    ahh never mind http://www.solarpaces.org/solar_tower.pdf

    Solar 2 is the most recent and argueably the most efficient of the experimental towers producing 10MWe of electricity since 1996. stay tuned for Solar 3. scientists working on the project hope to have each plant working at between 50-200MW of electricity.

    as Fusion is still in it's early stages and there are so many different types the only data i could get that was close was this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus

    i also found an article on that hydrogen bus. http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1215269.htm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Another, more innovative US advanced reactor is smaller - 600 MWe - and has passive safety features (its projected core damage frequency is nearly 1000 times less than today's NRC requirements). The Westinghouse AP-600 gained NRC final design certification in 1999 (AP = Advanced Passive).


    Separate from the NRC process and beyond its immediate requirements, the US nuclear industry selected one standardised design in each category - the large ABWR and the medium-sized AP-600, for detailed first-of-a-kind engineering (FOAKE) work. The US$ 200 million program, half funded by DOE, is now complete. It means that prospective buyers now have firm information on construction costs and schedules.

    The Westinghouse AP-1000htt, scaled-up from the AP-600, has now received final design approval from the NRC and is expected to gain full design certification in 2005. It represents the culmination of a 1300 man-year and $440 million design and testing program. Capital costs are projected at $1200 per kilowatt and modular design will reduce construction time to 36 months. The 1100 MWe AP-1000 generating costs are expected to be below US$ 3.5 cents/kWh and it has a 60 year operating life. It is under active consideration for building in China, Europe and the USA, and is capable of running on a full MOX core if required.

    General Electric has developed the European Simplified Boiling Water Reactor of 1390 MWe with passive safety systems, from its ABWR design. This is now known as the Economic & Simplified BWR (ESBWR) and a 1500 MWe version is at pre-application stage for NRC design certification in the USA.

    Another US-origin but international project which is a few years behind the AP-1000 is the International Reactor Innovative & Secure (IRIS). Westinghouse is leading a wide consortium developing it as an advanced 3rd Generation project. IRIS is a modular 335 MWe pressurised water reactor with integral steam generators and primary coolant system all within the pressure vessel. Fuel is initially similar to present LWRs with 5% enrichment and burn-up of 60 GWd/t with fuelling interval of up to 4 years, but is designed ultimately for 10% enrichment and 80,000 MWd/t burn-up with an 8 year cycle, or equivalent MOX core. IRIS could be deployed in the next decade, and US design certification is envisaged by 2010. Multiple modules are expected to cost US$ 1000-1200 per kilowatt.

    See also DOE web site information.

    In Japan, the first two ABWRs, Kashiwazaki Kariwa-6 & 7, have been operating since 1996 and are expected to have a 60 year life. These cost about US$ 2000/kW to build, and produce power at about US 7c/kWh. A third unit started up in 2004. Future ABWR units are expected to cost US$ 1700/kW. Several 1350 MWe units are under construction in Japan and Taiwan.

    To complement this ABWR Hitachi has completed systems design for three more of the same type - 600, 900 and 1700 MWe versions of the 1350 MWe design. The smaller versions will have standardised features which reduce costs. Construction of the ABWR-600 is expected to take 34 months - significantly less than the 1350 MWe units.

    A large (1500 MWe) advanced PWR is being developed by four utilities together with Westinghouse and Mitsubishi. The first two are planned for Tsuruga. It is simpler, combines active and passive cooling systems to greater effect, and has over 55 GWd/t fuel burn-up. Design work continues and will be the basis for the next generation of Japanese PWRs. In addition, Mitsubishi is participating in development of Westinghouse's AP-1000 reactor.

    In South Korea, the APR-1400 Advanced PWR design has evolved from the US System 80+ and has been known as the Korean Next-Generation Reactor. The first of these 1400 MWe reactors will be Shin-Kori-3 & 4. Cost is expected to be US$ 1400 per kilowatt, falling to $1200/kW in later units with 48 month construction time.

    In Europe, four designs are being developed to meet the European Utility Requirements (EUR) of French and German utilities, which have stringent safety criteria.

    Framatome ANP has developed a large (1600 and up to 1750 MWe) European pressurised water reactor (EPR), which was confirmed in mid 1995 as the new standard design for France and received French design approval in 2004. It is derived from the French N4 and German Konvoi types and is expected to provide power about 10% cheaper than the N4. It will operate flexibly to follow loads, have fuel burn-up of 65 GWd/t and the highest thermal efficiency of any light water reactor, at 36%. Availability is expected to be 92% over a 60-year service life. The first unit is about to be built at Olkiluoto in Finland, the second at Flamanville in France.

    http://www.ap1000.westinghouse.com/http://www.uic.com.au/nip16.htm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    6
    hi!, don't know if you ever made a thought about his "environment-friendly" tech called Bi-fule cars or flexifule.

    Rubish! as ya'll ready know it takes more energy to produce this clean fule .. then it provides.

    so basically this fule does more damage to the environment then a regullar car..
    Don't know how your countries work. but the swedish coverment thinks they are doing a GREAT work .. so the use tax-relief to get more ppl to use this kind of transportation.


    The future is in the hand of H2, no doubt.. clean, extreamly powerful and transportable.


    Jets,cars and boats can all use it. How ever there is no time to wait.. this tech must be used before the oil come to an end.

    Please forgive my som what reduced ability to use proper English. and feal free to make an argue.
    Your dead, no mater what
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Wow we're closer to this technology than i thought.

    hydrogen for electricity can also last for millions of years, well the Duetrium supplies can the Tritium must be refined from lithium, which is abundant in the earths crust, but will only last for a thousand years.

    but we'll have a more efficient means of getting electricity by then i'm sure. Plus we need to implement this idea on Spacecraft as well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    77
    Wallaby, CosmicTraveler, and Meesa, Wow! You guys have been giving this some serious consideration! I can't wait to be able to seriously consider your thoughts! I did want to let you know, I am evacuating from hurricane Rita today, and it may be a while before I am able to post again. If my home stays together, I will be able to post again after a few days and the utilities are restored. If my home does not survive the storm, it may be a little longer.

    I am a person who finds motion to be very beautiful. Yet here is Rita swirling around in the Gulf and while the storm does hold a certain fascination, the motion of it is not beautiful because of the looming destruction and loss of life....

    Take care,
    Cyndi
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    6
    Can't do nothing then to wish you the best Cyndi. hope your house stays in one peice! (and the same place).
    Your dead, no mater what
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Yes CyndiLoo, do take care and I hope all those affected can seek proper shelter from the storm. Do you have a notebook computer? You could take it with you and stay connected to the net.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Good Luck.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Sophomore spidergoat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    165
    It's Americans, not American's. There is no need for an apostrophe there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    ohh jeez the Grammatical police are out in force again
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Quote Originally Posted by Meesa
    hi!, don't know if you ever made a thought about his "environment-friendly" tech called Bi-fule cars or flexifule.

    Rubish! as ya'll ready know it takes more energy to produce this clean fule .. then it provides.

    so basically this fule does more damage to the environment then a regullar car..
    Don't know how your countries work. but the swedish coverment thinks they are doing a GREAT work .. so the use tax-relief to get more ppl to use this kind of transportation.


    The future is in the hand of H2, no doubt.. clean, extreamly powerful and transportable.


    Jets,cars and boats can all use it. How ever there is no time to wait.. this tech must be used before the oil come to an end.

    Please forgive my som what reduced ability to use proper English. and feal free to make an argue.

    Check out these links for hydrogen generators that could be used at your home to produce the hydrogen needed to use in your car. Can you give examples where hydrogen hurts more than gas or diesel fuels that are burned? With hydrogen you can have a completly renewable sourse of energy but with others fuels you don't have that ability.


    Link 1

    Link 2

    Shortened links IS
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    i just like Hydrogen because it's abundant and extramly powerfull, about 17Mev is released from 2 nuclei (1x Duetrium and 1x Tritium). about 7500 times more power than it takes to stick them together.

    it is perfect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    More information about the hydrogen infrastructure being built....

    http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/

    Other types of power generation including solar and wind...

    http://www.eere.energy.gov/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    77
    Hi Guys! Thank you for being so patient. The hurricane went north and I am thankful to report my home was not damaged. My heart is very much with the people in Northeast Texas and Louisiana.

    Hydrogen:

    “Hydrogen is the simplest element. An atom of hydrogen consists of only one proton and one electron. It's also the most plentiful element in the universe. Despite its simplicity and abundance, hydrogen doesn't occur naturally as a gas on the Earth—it's always combined with other elements. Water, for example, is a combination of hydrogen and oxygen (H2O). Hydrogen is also found in many organic compounds, notably the hydrocarbons that make up many of our fuels, such as gasoline, natural gas, methanol, and propane.” www.nrel.gov/clean_energy/hydrogen.html

    Would there be a reason why hydrogen doesn’t occur naturally as a gas on earth? To clarify my question, the environment is about balance. It is designed to be able to support itself. We have all heard the phrase “circle of life” when referring to the ecosystem. Have there been any studies conducted as to what affect increasing the amount of water into the atmosphere is going to have on the earth?

    In addition, some of the information about Hydrogen propelled vehicles state “almost” clean energy. What’s up with that?

    While there may be an endless abundance of hydrogen, could there be limits to the amount of oxygen used in the process to create this “clean” fuel?

    Here is a link to a company that seems to be using a modification of Solar Power Towers to employ the heat of the sun by using mirrors to focus sunlight onto a chemical reactor using this as part of a process to operate a sun powered hydrogen engine for vehicle usage.
    www.shec-labs.com/processs.php


    Wallaby: You have made some really great comments and have asked some really intelligent questions! It would be truly, truly tragic if you did not continue after high school on to a college or university.
    Thank you for the new solar power tower link! I will add it to my list.

    CosmicT: Could you please provide statistical information for each of the reactor processors in the paragraphs you provided above as pertaining to each reactors electric efficiency (i.e. Total output percentage after deducting the amount of energy it would take to produce the said energy?) Regular reactors only have 20% output efficiency. How do the reactors above measure up? In addition, if each of these reactors have a 60 year life span, and it takes 75 years for them to pay for themselves, how is this progress?

    Meesa: We agree about biofuels. While they may burn cleaner than fossil fuel, the energy it takes to produce them makes them not practical for large scale usage. Having said this, I have read articles where innovative and creative people have fermented their own fuel in the family bathtub and this does seem to be an effective way to create and utilize biofuel without “spending” a lot of energy. There was an interesting article recently pertaining to a restaurant owner who used the grease from the deep fryers to fuel his automobile! This seems pretty energy output effective. It also recycles. A true win-win!

    Spidergoat: Thank you for your observation. May I say I did indeed intend to type “America’s” not “American’s”. The additional “n” is a typo. You may want to keep an eye out in addition for inverted words in my paragraphs, and on occasion I am not very clear when I attempt to describe something.
    You seem to be very passionate about the English language. It has been my observation people who love grammar also love literature. Perhaps you should consider starting a thread pertaining to a book you cherish. My thought is there are many in which you cherish as is the way with great minds. If you choose one more commonly known and read, you probably could have many interesting and provocative conversations with many people. There are at least two professional writers on this board, one poet, and perhaps some songwriters who do not yet know they are songwriters…..just a thought!

    Cyndi
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    The Westinghouse AP-1000htt, scaled-up from the AP-600, has now received final design approval from the NRC and is expected to gain full design certification in 2005. It represents the culmination of a 1300 man-year and $440 million design and testing program. Capital costs are projected at $1200 per kilowatt and modular design will reduce construction time to 36 months.


    The 1100 MWe AP-1000 generating costs are expected to be below US$ 3.5 cents/kWh and it has a 60 year operating life.


    It is under active consideration for building in China, Europe and the USA, and is capable of running on a full MOX core if required.


    http://www.ap1000.westinghouse.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by CyndiLoo
    Hi Guys! Thank you for being so patient. The hurricane went north and I am thankful to report my home was not damaged. My heart is very much with the people in Northeast Texas and Louisiana.

    Hydrogen:

    “Hydrogen is the simplest element. An atom of hydrogen consists of only one proton and one electron. It's also the most plentiful element in the universe. Despite its simplicity and abundance, hydrogen doesn't occur naturally as a gas on the Earth—it's always combined with other elements. Water, for example, is a combination of hydrogen and oxygen (H2O). Hydrogen is also found in many organic compounds, notably the hydrocarbons that make up many of our fuels, such as gasoline, natural gas, methanol, and propane.” www.nrel.gov/clean_energy/hydrogen.html

    Would there be a reason why hydrogen doesn’t occur naturally as a gas on earth? To clarify my question, the environment is about balance. It is designed to be able to support itself. We have all heard the phrase “circle of life” when referring to the ecosystem. Have there been any studies conducted as to what affect increasing the amount of water into the atmosphere is going to have on the earth?
    aparently it forms compounds due to its electronegetivity of 2.2 which causes it to form compounds with other non-metals. but thats just on Earth.

    i don't know if there have been any experiments as such yet but if most of the water, 98%, is recycled for the next reaction then the 2% water released will ultimately just cool in the atmosphere and fall as harmless rain water. we could sure use some of that.

    Wallaby: You have made some really great comments and have asked some really intelligent questions! It would be truly, truly tragic if you did not continue after high school on to a college or university.
    Thank you for the new solar power tower link! I will add it to my list.
    why thank you.
    i'm still a few years away from University but i've started to consider what i'll be doing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    77
    H y d r o g e n I n f r a s t r u c t u r e? Oh no, no, no, no… oh no. How absolutely awful. As a human being on the planet earth, I do not remember anyone asking me if I want hydrogen vehicles or a hydrogen infrastructure in place. ARGH!!! Just ARGH! You would think with something as important as this is we would have had an opportunity to vote for or against it, or for that matter even consider other options, which for some reason seems to be completely unacceptable. It is a repeating theme, “Hydrogen and fusion. No other option(s).” There are other safer, efficient, environmentally sound, amazingly much more cost effective options. Why is it only these two are being implemented wide scale? Perhaps the human race is just destined to destroy itself, and now the universe with it.

    Let’s review:

    1. Hydrogen and Helium are gasses inside the sun. The sun is hot. The sun gives off heat. Correct me if I’m wrong (with cold hard facts), but does it make sense to use hydrogen for energy on a planet that is experiencing global warming? It only takes a match to start a forest fire, so do not placate me with how small of an amount of these elements Hydrogen technology will be creating.

    2. Hydrogen in a separate state is not naturally occurring on the earth. There has to be a reason for this (Could it be the earth will increase in temperature?). No one has produced any scientific evidence as to why this is or what the widespread ramifications of creating and using it will be, yet onward we forge…..

    3. Hydrogen uses Oxygen. Excuse me, but suffocating to death is not very high on my list of things to accomplish.

    4. The process of using Hydrogen will create water in the form of rain. Okay. Well the polar caps are melting. Need I say more?

    ARGH!


    Wallaby, it is never too soon to consider universities or colleges. If you have a direction as to what you may want to study, it would be a good time to consider which institutions specialize in this area. Each institution has its own preference as to what it seeks in a student. Choose a couple and begin to focus on achieving entrance. Create a long-term goal as to how to accomplish this by breaking it down into short-term goals. Make a list. Cross each short-term goal off the list as you proceed forward to reach the overall goal.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    "1. Hydrogen and Helium are gasses inside the sun. The sun is hot. The sun gives off heat. Correct me if I’m wrong (with cold hard facts), but does it make sense to use hydrogen for energy on a planet that is experiencing global warming? It only takes a match to start a forest fire, so do not placate me with how small of an amount of these elements Hydrogen technology will be creating."


    Hydrogen creates as much heat as what we use now in our gasoline burning vehicles.



    "2. Hydrogen in a separate state is not naturally occurring on the earth. There has to be a reason for this (Could it be the earth will increase in temperature?). No one has produced any scientific evidence as to why this is or what the widespread ramifications of creating and using it will be, yet onward we forge….. "



    So is gasoline, it too isn't found naturally occuring anywhere in nature and must be extracted out of oil which takes energy to do so. It also takes time to explore for oil which takes energy. It takes time and energy to transport gas which takes even more energy. Hydrogen is made from water which is abundant and can be extracted with the same energy as it takes to get the oil to market.




    "3. Hydrogen uses Oxygen. Excuse me, but suffocating to death is not very high on my list of things to accomplish. "


    Gasoline burning vehicles also burn oxygen so there's really no differences. The real difference is that hydrogen is renewable and non polluting. Until a better fuel comes along it seems to be the best alternative that we have today for mass delievery to everyone.



    "4. The process of using Hydrogen will create water in the form of rain. Okay. Well the polar caps are melting. Need I say more? "


    It also reduces the amount of other harmful contaminates like sulfer oxide and hydrocarbons to nothing. Those cause the warming to speed up. Hydrogen will reverse that effect because it doesn't pollute.



    I hope this will enlighten you as to the benifits of hydrogen rather than the downside you seem to think hydrogen might have. Between the two, hydrogen and gasoline I'd much rather use the one that's better and less harmful wouldn't you as well?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by CyndiLoo
    There are other safer, efficient, environmentally sound, amazingly much more cost effective options. Why is it only these two are being implemented wide scale? Perhaps the human race is just destined to destroy itself, and now the universe with it.
    it is true there are more safer, cheaper options that are environmentally sound energy production systems but none of these are as energy efficient.
    by this i mean hydrogen reaction can produce 17MeV of energy, compared to the 13ev required to overcome the columb barrier and stick them together.

    when you look at it like that the cost effectiveness is changed as you don't need to build as many of these hydrogen power stations as you do of other types.

    i saw an add on TV the other day (does this supprise anyone) Honda have already begun Manufacturing, Marketing and selling these cars.

    thank you for your advice Cindi, i've started looking at university courses that are offered in the city i live in.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    77
    My apologies Gentlemen if I have been cranky.

    CT:

    First, you do not know if Hydrogen is damaging the atmosphere or not because there are no studies to verify this statement.

    Second, backing up to the financial aspect. If it takes 70 (to 75) years for a reactor to pay for itself and the lifespan is 60, my strong feeling is the consumer price you quoted as being remarkably low from a consumer perspective is likely to increase at some point to offset this decifit. This makes technologies such as Solar Power Towers even that much more attractive.

    Third, comparing hydrogen to gasoline is not a major step in a positive direction. Gasoline has been proven to not be healthy for the environment. Two wrongs do not make a right. Somewhere I have read (maybe on this board) that oxygen levels are decreasing. To be fair, this could be partly contributed to the fact we are cutting down the forests and paving over dirt, but it could also be manufacturing gasoline is contributing to it as well.

    Wallaby:

    These reactors appear to be able to produce more energy. When you compare them to solar power towers, or for that matter Erich's suncone technology, the reactor does not output more energy than either of these technologies. The reactor only outputs 20%, while the solar power tower and the suncone both output at 30%.

    In addition, if you honestly and truly compare the costs of implementing these technologies you will find the reactors are much more expensive to implement than these two solar technologies. You could build many solar power towers and/or suncones (These are the two I use because I am most familiar with them, there are likely others) for less than you could build the number of reactors it would take to create the same output of energy.

    The solar power towers are dependable, environmentally sound, easily integrated into current electrical technologies, and amazingly cost effective. Suncones are almost environmentally sound as they tend to use water not contained within the system for cooling purposes (i.e. a lake, pond, river, ocean, etc.), but are still amazingly dependable and easily integrated into current electrical technologies. It is really too bad the two technologies are not being combined into one technology. I believe they compliment each other.

    If in fact solar power towers were used to produce large scale electricity, then perhaps electric cars would be a safe, clean alternative to hydrogen.

    Cyndi
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    ok we don't yet know how much power the reactors can output because we do not yet have a fully functioning reactor, i was refering to the reaction itself, the reaction either produces 17MeV per 1 pair of nuclei or through the entire reaction. but i'm certain that it is per 1 pair of nuclei.
    at 20% this works to around about 3.4 Mev per reaction, well approx we can't remove the other variables yet.

    solar power tower 2 has run at 10MWe. if this is 30% then we get the total energy production at 33.3Mwe recuring, so my calculator tells me, that is impressive but obviously MeV and MWe are not the same thing and i don't know how to find out the amount of MWe from its Mev.

    In a Hydrogen powered car i believe you need electricity to sperate the Hydrogen from Water into Oxygen and Hydrogen, this needs to come from a renewable energy source and as Hydrogen reactor will not even be plausible for another 25 years Solar Power is the obvious candidate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    77
    Wow Wallaby! I am impressed! You have taken this complete discussion and analyzed it from a scientific point of view and have made some amazing conclusions! As to the math, I do not know either. The only formula I know of pertaining to watts and volts involves amps (E=P / I)!

    Hydrogen fueled vehicles: With hesitation, I am getting closer to accepting them simply because the process is contained inside the engine, and because after the initial separation, the hydrogen and oxygen are combined again to form water, I think.

    Still though, solar power towers ARE clean, dependable, and cost effective and still my first choice as an electrical power source.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Still though, solar power towers ARE clean, dependable, and cost effective
    They can only work during daylight. If there are clouds or rain then they would be diminished in capacity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    77
    Oh no, CT. The solar power towers do not have to run 24 hours because the molten salt stored in the thermal tanks stays hot for a week. Solar power towers can produce electricity for a week without any sunlight, although they do in fact function on cloudy days. This makes them very dependable as a power source. Suncones do run 24 hours according to the literature I read, and they do work on cloudy days. There could be some potential problems with the suncones as they depend on outside sources for water instead of having a contained cooling system....

    The temperature here is projected to be 100 degrees today, so my thought is we are likely to brownout again today, but until then I will try to continue to post!

    Cyndi
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    77
    [SIGH......]

    Well CosmicT and Wallaby, you guys will be very pleased to know Houston is now a part of the hydrogen infrastructure as there are jobs posted seeking experienced professionals in the hydrogen sector.....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    I'm glad they are at least heading in the right direction. Perhaps your ideas can and will be incorpoorated into making the hydrogen with your towers. I think any way that can manufacture hydrogen using the sun is a very good way to try.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    the Future will come one way or the other.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    i was watching the movie 'Sahara' the other day when i saw what appeared to be a solar power tower.

    in the Movie it was being used for vapourizing chemical waste, do you reackon this is plausable or ecconomical.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    70
    Interesting to hear politicians talk about reducing greenhouse emissions by 25% (WOW!) by 2050. That's 44 years from now, almost half a century, and by then we will have created so much carbon dioxide, that it will have caused severe climate changes for the following several centuries.


    Accelerating the pace to clean energy isn't easy, it depends on research and production efficiency. We could all drive on hydrogen today, but we would be paying 20$ a gallon, and it would cost a trillion to provide the infrastructure.

    Oil companies have too much power. And guess what, they don't like clean energy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    The main problem is the very system we live in itself. Capitalism and our current political system is wishful thinking (just as communism), it doesnt work, profit is the sole motivator, if an activity causes terminal cancer, kills people, destroys the environement, wastes water, contamnates soil for centuries but makes profit, it will be encouraged and alter politics to make sure it continues.

    The same way Tabbaco companie have known for decades that cigarette kills and have kept it from the public for years.

    Oil companies have bought patents that made car have better milage AND patents that made oil car obsolete.

    Patents are ripping off humanity, they should have a limit of two years MAX and then be made public for ALL to use. At this point in human history we are all using a cumulation of discoveries from the pre-historic wheel to computers, thousands of people throughout the ages have indirectly contributed to any discovery made today, and patents are often used to shelf a product so its not used or to hoard ideas without making crap until someoneelse actually implements a similar idea in order to leach the company that actually is using it to produce something concreate. Patents of genomes are the most ridiculous of all, owning a sequence in nature, as if someone filed a patent for fire and forced everyone to pay him to use fire. No patent should be left on shelves for more than two years, none.

    Hydrogen is a scam, a racket, a red herring encouraged by Oil companies that are laughing at the thought that efficient alternatives have existed for decades but that they own these technologies which will never see the light of day, ever. Our system has allowed these companies to halt progress in the name of the establishment the same way the dark ages churches also halted progress in the name of the establishment. They are allowed to buy patent, technologies and companies that offer an alternate service and kill it. Hydrogen will require an Oil like infrastructure which they will be owning in the end, that will be bloatedly inneficient and needlessly costly but will also be used to extort and suck money from consumer for each step, refining, transport, distribution etc. A whole industry of leeches and parasite that would be made obsolete by efficient virtualy no maintenance electric cars will be allowed to survive at the expense of consumers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •