NationStates Jolt Archive

With the newest repeal of hydrogen powerd vehicles, we are plunged into a question...Although we know non-renewable resources will not last forever...should we make all Nations with enough money and strong enough econmy's study new fuel sources...or should every U.N. country pay for a U.N. fund to be set up for the purpose of descovering a cheap, clean, plentiful fuel source that is good for the envornment?

I think nuclear power it where its at these days. Countries sould invest in this.

Yes but nuclear power will run out someday, you need uranium to have nuclear fission

The problem of legilslating on this in Nationstates is the wide variety of technologies employed by member states. Some will claim to be Future tech - meaning any legislation might actually drag their technology back a few millenia or whatever.

Others could claim a pseudo-magical source of energy.

And others would claim other scenarios I cannot possibly think of.

You'll get some support for a well written piece of legislation, but these are just the obvious objections I can think of.

Welcome to the UN, by the way

Yes but nuclear power will run out someday, you need uranium to have nuclear fissionUranium is an exceptionally common element; more common than antimony, tin, cadmium, mercury, or silver. The crap's everywhere.

And, once nations move beyond fission to fusion, it's even less of an issue.

And, once nations move beyond fission to fusion, it's even less of an issue.
That's assuming they can create a fusion reactor that produces more energy than it consumes. Hmm...why does that sound familiar? And impossible?

Also, there are more kinds of reactors (and weapons) than just those that use uranium.

Also, resolution 39 requires that automobile manufacturers contribute 1% of their profits towards the development of alternative fuels. If you want a new proposal to do the work of an existing one I think you'd have to chuck the first.

we have alternative ENERGY sources. solar has been proven and relyable for decades. hydro for centuries. and wind for millinea.

it is the adamant refusal to think outside the box of cars and combustion that is backward headed. and nuclear IS a form of combustion, even if it doesn't fart carbon.

it isn't more fuels we need but fewer fools.

and yes we can have, in only slightly more modest fassion, our comfort zones without oil or coal or using the burning of anything, even atoms, to generate energy and propell transportation. the only thing we need to burn anything for is home heating and cooking. and the fuels for THAT can come from biomass, mostly in the form of methane, with the remaining solids composted and returned to the earth.

it is only for again, the gratuitous box of centralized energy production that wind solar and micro-hydro would each alone be so entirely inadiquite that we keep hearing oil companies endlessly flogging on about.

shingle every roof with photovoltics, and bristle every windy hilltop with windmills, and make every drop that flows out of high elevation flood control and drinking water resivour dams turn a water wheel turning a generator, and there's all we really need to run our little computers, refrigeratiors and little amusement park sized trains to replace the insanely energy and environment inefficient automobile.

nuclear could perhapse help span the gap between converting to these real and proven alternatives while transitioning to them from our present addicted energy gluttony. but i don't see it making sense to ever expect or ask of it to take on the lion's share of energy production.

hydrogen is mostly pie in the sky too, for a number of reasons.
the problem isn't just the way energy is produced and transportation propelled, but the whole way of thinking behind how we look at these things.

the idea that comming up with some new fuel or new source of fuel is going to permit us to go on remaining dependent on existing assumptions without having to consider their realities in the larger context of all life and our interdependence with it, is just plain "blowing smoke".

=^^=
.../\...

Solar power can only go so far not to mention it is very expensive for little output. Wind energy isnt any better what about those nations who who dont get alot of wind example a desert country. Hydro electric cant reach may desert countries ethier.
Nuclear power is a option but again to costly and to dangerous for the general public.
What of kinetic energy of course the technology might still be a century off, but if we start looking now, we can maybe create a solution where in the future just walking can power you car for a week.

Sincerely,
WersTos-Dos Civil Ambassador to the U.N. Delegation.
Federation of the Civil Bodies

The representative of the Civil Bodies is misinformed with regard to the prevalence of wind that can be converted into power. In particular, an excess of wind is often a problem in desert areas, rather than too little. Personally we blame an excess of beans in the local diet, but the important fact is that wind power can entirely reasonably be extracted in desert regions, albeit at horrendous maintenance costs to combat the erosion common in such regions. Deserts are also a notoriously good location for solar power facilities.

The important factor to recall in these deliberations is that no single solution will be appropriate in all locations. One size does not fit all, as my Permanant Undersecretary is fond of pointing out, though we find that a little suspect as a rationale for her wearing steel-toecapped boots in the office.

Uranium is an exceptionally common element; more common than antimony, tin, cadmium, mercury, or silver. The crap's everywhere.

And, once nations move beyond fission to fusion, it's even less of an issue.

I propose that we harness the power of the most common element: stupidity. Nations could be required to gather their less intelligent citizenry into one organization and give some of them mindless tasks to do and others positions of leadership so that they feel important and competent. This will create so much wasted energy and tension that they could run their nation with it.

We could even create a large international body with a membership of idiots to run around talking all sorts of nonsense and creating all sorts of useless things. It would generate plenty of energy, enough to keep the UN running for years and years.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

We could even create a large international body with a membership of idiots to run around talking all sorts of nonsense and creating all sorts of useless things.

We already have those. We usually call them UN committees.

I propose that we harness the power of the most common element: stupidity. Nations could be required to gather their less intelligent citizenry into one organization and give some of them mindless tasks to do and others positions of leadership so that they feel important and competent. This will create so much wasted energy and tension that they could run their nation with it.

We could even create a large international body with a membership of idiots to run around talking all sorts of nonsense and creating all sorts of useless things. It would generate plenty of energy, enough to keep the UN running for years and years.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Look at this. He is taking the piss of all of us who like the amusement of idle chat as well as himself. Kind of a contradiction.

We already have those. We usually call them UN committees.

I think that may have been inplied in the piss taking.

<snip><snip>

Thank you, Captain.

http://masklinnscans.free.fr/4chan/captain_obvious.jpg

Okay, i should of worded it better...do we need to make an alternitive FUEL source...I think that hybrid's and water power vehicles should be required to use in the un...

Absolutley not, this is what the repeal of motion 18 is. Not all countries have the resources nor economy to produce or buy hybrids or most alternative cars. If there is a low cost and effective way to power cars i am not aware of please do tell. But most options i have come across are insufficent at best.

Sincerely,
Wers Tos-Dos, Civil Ambassador to the U.N. Delegation
Federation of the Civil Bodies.

we have alternative ENERGY sources.
Yes, but they meet only a fraction of the demand.

solar has been proven and relyable for decades.
Learn to spell. And reliable isn't the word I'd use for a source of power that is effectively shut down by a cloudy day.

hydro for centuries.
You need a fairly fast moving body of water for that.

and wind for millinea.
Windmills are in fact very energy-inefficient. It has been estimated that if you wanted to replace all of the UK's energy for wind, you'd have to build a vast, kilometers wide park of windmills that literally surrounds the island!

More technically, the problem is that the power a wind mill generates is proportionate to the third power of the wind speed. That's quite a mouthful, but simply put, it means that when the wind speed halves (say, from 6 Beaufort to 3 Beaufort), the power goes down not by 1/2, but by 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2. That's an amazing 88 percent less power! And you can't simply build a better wind mill. The 'power curve' is a physical property of wind. It is just how wind works!

The consequences of this are dramatic. A good, modern wind turbine only really generates electricity between wind forces 4 and 7/8. Less wind, and the mill will hardly generate any power at all (because of the power curve). Go above it, and the power will get so big, the wind turbine will have to shut down, to prevent damage.

The bottom line is this. On average, a wind mill only generates something like 16 percent of the power it should produce! So when you see a wind mill that has a tag "One megaWatt" on it, it only does so under ideal circumstances. On average, it only produces 160 thousand Watt. (Source: Dutch research, in: J.J. Halkema, "Windmolens, feiten en fictie")

it is the adamant refusal to think outside the box of cars and combustion that is backward headed. and nuclear IS a form of combustion, even if it doesn't fart carbon.
Combustion or burning is a complex sequence of exothermic chemical reactions between a fuel and an oxidant accompanied by the production of heat or both heat and light in the form of either a glow or flames. Fission is a nuclear reaction, decay of a nucleus resulting in the emission of alpha particles, beta particles, neutrons, and/or gamma rays. Learn and think before you post.

it isn't more fuels we need but fewer fools.
Tell that to the people on life-support in hosipitals that depend on the power provided by various sources of energy (usually hydro-carbons or nuclear fission) to live.

and yes we can have, in only slightly more modest fassion, our comfort zones without oil or coal or using the burning of anything, even atoms, to generate energy and propell transportation. the only thing we need to burn anything for is home heating and cooking. and the fuels for THAT can come from biomass, mostly in the form of methane, with the remaining solids composted and returned to the earth.
Without hydro-carbons, nuclear fission, and the various other sources of power you'd not be able to run the computer you used to make that poorly written post.

it is only for again, the gratuitous box of centralized energy production that wind solar and micro-hydro would each alone be so entirely inadiquite that we keep hearing oil companies endlessly flogging on about.
No, it's really not capable of producing enough power to meet demand. You'd need about 6 ping pong tables worth of solar panels to run the average car.

shingle every roof with photovoltics, and bristle every windy hilltop with windmills, and make every drop that flows out of high elevation flood control and drinking water resivour dams turn a water wheel turning a generator, and there's all we really need to run our little computers, refrigeratiors and little amusement park sized trains to replace the insanely energy and environment inefficient automobile.
Did you consider the cost of materials and energy that would be required for such an undertaking? And eliminating automobiles would limit personal freedom and mobility.

Please clean up your posts from now on.

Okay, i should of worded it better...do we need to make an alternitive FUEL source...I think that hybrid's and water power vehicles should be required to use in the un...
The water fuel cell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_as_fuel) is reportedly a perpetual motion machine. Such machines violate the known laws of physics. Claims of the development of such devices are considered pseudoscience by most scientists.

And when talking about the energy efficiency of a vehicle you must consider the dust-to-dust cost of the vehicle. CNW's 'Dust to Dust' Automotive Energy Report (http://www.cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/) provides data on the energy necessary to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from initial concept to scrappage. This includes such minutia as plant to dealer fuel costs, employee driving distances, electricity usage per pound of material used in each vehicle and literally hundreds of other variables. A hybrid such as a Prius would use more energy during its lifecycle than an SUV such as a Hummer H3. Keep in mind the cost and energy required to build and maintain these specialty vehicles will come down as production numbers increase but right now the best you can get is the Scion xB. Have you hugged a Hummer today?:p

Okay, i should of worded it better...do we need to make an alternitive FUEL source...I think that hybrid's and water power vehicles should be required to use in the un...
Good Lord, there's enough of a problem getting from room to room in the UN building now, and you want to add cars to the mix?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I propose that we harness the power of the most common element: stupidity.Ah yes. The bozon (http://www.wordspy.com/words/bozon.asp) theory of power generation.

Personally I think that this entire issue is pointless. If an alternate fuel source is required then it is not a matter for the U.N. Some states involved in the U.N have weak crippling economies that would be unable to cope with the research of a new fuel source. After the repeal of #18 it should be left to individual nations to research for an alternate fuel if they see fit becuase any legislation to propose a research would counter the reprisal. Once a new fuel has been developed then possible legislation into the U.N could help to make all U.N states better for the future. But until that day it is an individual states matter and one that my state is taking very seriously.