NationStates Jolt Archive

Another huge natural gas reserve was found in Canada, and experts predict that it contains enough gas to supply ALL OF CANADA FOR TWO MONTHS! WOW! (insert sarcasm) Yes, that is a heck of a lot of gas...but celebrations are certainly NOT in order. Two months is not a lot of time. In any case, we will likely sell that gas to the U.S rather than using it for those 2 months, and no matter WHO uses it, once it is gone, that's it. End of reserve.

Sure, there will be others reserves found, and announced with as much excitement, but the fact is, petroleum is a dwindling resource. We all know it, we are just in varying levels of denial about it.

My question to you is, how are you preparing for the eventuality of extreme petroleum scarcity? Energy costs are already rising, but will become quite prohibitive in the (not to far away) future. What do you know about alternative energy, and how are you planning to deal with an energy shortage in your, and your childrens' lifetime?

I'm learning to do without lube during....

Brazil use alcohol to fuel cars. Dunno how effective it is though

im working on a car souly power by chciken poop :D

Brazil use alcohol to fuel cars. Dunno how effective it is though
Here is a great source to find out more about alcohol cars: http://payson.tulane.edu:8085/cgi-bin/gw?e=t1c11misc-envl-1-T.1.B.9.1-500-50-00e&q=&d=T.1.B.9.5&a=t

It is a very efficient fuel, but there are some issues to consider. In Brazil, land that was once used for food production was turned over to sugar cane (or other biomass material) production in order to produce alcohol. Any major switch from petroleum to another form of energy will have to be done slowly, so as not to cause major environmental and economic disruptions, which is why we should be starting NOW before it becomes an emergency.

im working on a car souly power by chciken poop :D
Glad to hear...now could you power your spell-check on it too? :p

Glad to hear...now could you power your spell-check on it too? :p

i could do also but that would give you 1 less the to moan about seriously though when it runs out it might be a good thing

From what I've learnt so far, alternative forms of energy seem to be either expensive, or use large amoutns of land (think wind farms) yadda yadda yadda...

It's kinda scary to think of the day when our energy resources actually run out.

From what I've learnt so far, alternative forms of energy seem to be either expensive, or use large amoutns of land (think wind farms) yadda yadda yadda...

It's kinda scary to think of the day when our energy resources actually run out.

solar power? thats ok aint it?

solar power? thats ok aint it?

Nope. Apparently it uses so much energy to create a solar panel it isn't worth it.

Personally, I think we should just try to consume less. Go back to subsistence farming, that's the way to go!

Nope. Apparently it uses so much energy to create a solar panel it isn't worth it.

Personally, I think we should just try to consume less. Go back to subsistence farming, that's the way to go!

like the middle ages?

like the middle ages?

I was thinking of something along the lines of Mad Max, but with pedal powered tractors.

I was thinking of something along the lines of Mad Max, but with pedal powered tractors.

ahhh i see i was thinking horse's swords arrow etc :D

Solar power would be far more efficient if we placed the solar power panels in orbit. You could beam the power back down to the ground as microwaves to be picked up by an antenna farm.

Could also be a great weapon.

There are no power sources that any radical environmentalist would accept.
1. Solar panels on the ground take up room and destroy habitat.
2. Wind farms kill birds and make noise.
3. Nuclear fission is Bad.
4. Nuclear fusion is Bad, because it has the word Nuclear in it.
5. Orbital solar is bad, because it uses microwaves to bring the energy down
6. Fossil fuels are bad.
7. Fuel cells would be nice, but you need power to crack hydrogen and oxygen, so that's out.
8. No wave motion generators - they kill fish
9. No thermal ocean taps - they upset the environment

If we ever hope to avoid a major crisis as the oil runs out, we'll have to kill the environmentalists first.

Geothermal power?

By the way, there is a type of diesel that can be made from vegetable oil. It's more costly to produce than regular diesel but it's going to be brought out in Britain with government subsidies so it'll cost the same amount for the customers. Apparently it doesn't pollute the environment as much, it can be made from used chip fat (not REALLY heavily used stuff, though) and it smells like a deep fat fryer.

Nope. Anything that involves a change in thermal transition on a major scale (whether you're pulling the heat from the center of the earth or the ocean) is environmentally bad.

The worst part is disposing of the waste heat, and at least 60% of the heat will be wasted. Plenty of lawsuits already about the dumping of waste heat from virtually all power generation today. Warm water kills rivers and lakes.

Sealed fuel cells would probably be acceptable to enviros. But you would have to generate that hydrogen and oxygen through another source of power - fuel cells only store energy that has already been created.

And just tell someone you're going to drill down to the mantle and tap power from the earth. I can see the lawsuits and Not In My Backyard types coming out of the woodwork.

Solar power would be far more efficient if we placed the solar power panels in orbit. You could beam the power back down to the ground as microwaves to be picked up by an antenna farm.

Could also be a great weapon.

There are no power sources that any radical environmentalist would accept.
1. Solar panels on the ground take up room and destroy habitat.
2. Wind farms kill birds and make noise.
3. Nuclear fission is Bad.
4. Nuclear fusion is Bad, because it has the word Nuclear in it.
5. Orbital solar is bad, because it uses microwaves to bring the energy down
6. Fossil fuels are bad.
7. Fuel cells would be nice, but you need power to crack hydrogen and oxygen, so that's out.
8. No wave motion generators - they kill fish
9. No thermal ocean taps - they upset the environment

If we ever hope to avoid a major crisis as the oil runs out, we'll have to kill the environmentalists first.

So basically you're saying we shouldn't bother developing any alternative energies because some radical environmentalists (I love how you paint them all with the same brush) won't like it. Please. It's certainly better than current practices.

I already used geothermal heating in my house. It cost $10,000 and it's good for 50 years with minor maintenance. Compare that to $120,000 for 50 years of using gas (that's an average of $200 per month in heating bills, assuming gas prices never go up). Geothermal energy can also be used for cooling in the summer. This is a well developed technology that has been in use for decades.

Solar panels are relatively cheap to produce. They are made from silicon wafers and usually coated with plastic (derived of course from petroleum, though new technologies are being perfected to make plastics from plant oil). They are not incredibly efficient (yet) and are usually used with wind generators (or geothermal heating). Most of them are placed on rooftops. In many places, individual households are able to sell excess energy back to the power company. As well, many communities that are far removed from major power centres simply can not afford to be connected to a grid. These communities (in India, Bolivia, Nepal and Peru among others) turned to solar energy out need. It was that, or wait another couple of decades for conventional power to be brought TO them.

Many options are available, but most governments aren't pushing them. That is because these methods are usually a one-time-only expense, and do not support major industries throughout their use. They foster self-reliance instead of life-time reliance on power generators. People are uncertain that these methods work because they don't hear a lot about them. However, the power of proof is very strong...I recently moved to a rural community in Alberta, Canada, where there are two families (mine included) that have geothermal heating. Word got out, and I often have complete strangers knocking on my door wanting to see how it works! The other family has encountered the same interest. There are already plans for other homes in this community to be outfitted with the same system. When people can see it in practice, get a real dollar amount and talk to someone about how to do it, it becomes a no-brainer. Why be tied to fluctuating gas prices, (when most of us are on fairly fixed incomes), when you can do this? The town made sure it was zoned for geothermal heating, and has plans to make the public pool geothermal as well. They are also looking at heating the community greenhouse this way.

Sustainability should be the goal. That takes individual effort, such as recycling, reusing, turning to alternative energies, and education. When you find a method that works...share it! Let people know how you did it? For financial reasons, more than simply environmental ones, others will become interested.

I deal with alternative energies from both these viewpoints: financial and environmental. It is cheaper for me to do things this way, and it is a concrete way to participate in sustainability. It is more real for me than recycling cans, because I FEEL the results.

Is there anything, My Gun Not Yours, negative about this?

Nope. Anything that involves a change in thermal transition on a major scale (whether you're pulling the heat from the center of the earth or the ocean) is environmentally bad.

The worst part is disposing of the waste heat, and at least 60% of the heat will be wasted. Plenty of lawsuits already about the dumping of waste heat from virtually all power generation today. Warm water kills rivers and lakes.

Why are you assuming that alternative energy will produce MORE heat waste than current practices?

Sealed fuel cells would probably be acceptable to enviros. But you would have to generate that hydrogen and oxygen through another source of power - fuel cells only store energy that has already been created. This one always cracks me up...the way electric or hydrogen cars are currently powered uses SO MUCH electricity, it really isn't cutting down on our reliance on fossil fuels. This is definitely a technology that needs to be worked on.

And just tell someone you're going to drill down to the mantle and tap power from the earth. I can see the lawsuits and Not In My Backyard types coming out of the woodwork.

Just to make it clear...geothermal energy can be done in 3 ways:

- dig down the same vertical length as a water well (one is good enough for an average sized house).
- dig a foot down, spreading the pipes out in a fan-shaped pattern (you need a fair-sized yard for this, but it's good even in places where the ground freezes at that depth)
- lay a fan-shaped pattern down on the bottom of a body of water (the pipes need to be just under where the water freezes, and of course, you need to have access to the water. This is my least-favourite method).

My favourite alternative to petroleum is butter. Face it: even flavoured lubes have that nasty petrol aftertaste.
Butter is more natural and is yummy to boot, which makes the act more erotic. :)

Just to make it clear...geothermal energy can be done in 3 ways:

- dig down the same vertical length as a water well (one is good enough for an average sized house).
- dig a foot down, spreading the pipes out in a fan-shaped pattern (you need a fair-sized yard for this, but it's good even in places where the ground freezes at that depth)
- lay a fan-shaped pattern down on the bottom of a body of water (the pipes need to be just under where the water freezes, and of course, you need to have access to the water. This is my least-favourite method).

Environmentalists will say you're disturbing the water table and contaminating the groundwater by drilling or laying pipes. And never lay pipe under frozen ground, or you'll be accused of destroying permafrost. And no altering the temperature of lakes!!!

Bad! Bad!! Nature hater! Anti-environmentalist!

<sarcasm off>

One word: synfuel. Just google it, since I don't have time to write too much.

Basically there's a chemical process called the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis that converts coal to whatever other fuel (syntheric fuel, hence synfuel) you want: gasoline, diesel, propane, methanol, etc. It is sort of expensive but it was used on a mass scale by the Germans in WW2 when they didn't have any way to get oil. The present-day experts are the South Africans, in particular a South African company called Sasoil. At oil prices above $50/barrel, synfuel will be competitive. The reason why you don't see any large synfuel plants being built now is because there is no reason to believe that oil will actually stay over $50 soon... but if and when it does, there is a near-infinite supply of synfuel waiting at that level (well, figure in a few years for the plants to be built).

My take: we will not convert to anything non-hydrocarbon based for the forseeable future, especially for vehicles. There is also no chance of running out of anything, because of the ease of the coal-to-oil-products conversion. (btw there is enough coal to last for thousands of years) Fuel cells running on hydrocarbon fuels (probably methanol or ethanol) may become popular over the next ten years or so, and some rather interesting cleaner ways of burning coal (for fixed powerplants) such as carbon-arc or slurry may also come up.

If I was the U.S. government and wanted to make sure that we became energy independent, I would declare that 1) for the next 5 years I will buy *any* domestically-produced quantity of synfuels from the producers at $50/barrel and resell them on the open market, and that 2) after 5 years, any imported oil products will be taxed to bring the price to $55/barrel. This should give private industry the confidence to invest the billions of dollars needed to construct synfuel plants, and because of economies of scale I expect the eventual price should end up in the mid-40's per barrel. Price stability is key for build decisions like this.

So long as governments don't try to subsidize gas and oil, they will run out the same way as whale oil did: Scarcity will cause price rises, and eventually, another cheaper source of energy (not cheaper yet) will replace oil. As that begins to replace oil, more research will be poured into it, as research can now bring immediate profit, and, as even more efficient solutions are found, the price of that energy source will fall further, and eventually we will be just as well off as before the oil shortage in that category, if not better.

(note: yes, i know whale oil was used for lamps, not heating and internal combustion, but the petrol used for the lamps was eventually adapted to other applications. Similar things will probably occur to replace petrol, though maybe in a slightly different way)

Environmentalists will say you're disturbing the water table and contaminating the groundwater by drilling or laying pipes. And never lay pipe under frozen ground, or you'll be accused of destroying permafrost. And no altering the temperature of lakes!!!

Bad! Bad!! Nature hater! Anti-environmentalist!

<sarcasm off>

You are talking about a few radicals who would probably be much happier if two thirds of the population of the earth died off so we could practice low-impact hunting and gathering environmentalism. Don't stereotype...the majority of environmentalists are not nutcakes:) I lived in the Arctic for 3 years...you don't dig wells in the Arctic because of problems with the permafrost (not that it disturbs it, but rather, it's too darn hard to dig through!). Homes in the Arctic are built high, on pilings, so as not to touch the ground and melt the permafrost with latent heat. The other option is building on the ground, with refrigeration units to keep the permafrost frozen. This is done so that the ground doesn't thaw and shift, causing cracks in foundations and like.

However, the Arctic is also full of bodies of water, which would allow for pipes to be lain along the bottom. Drinking water in the North comes from rivers or lakes...the digging would not be done there. Heat coming through the pipes is minimal and would not transfer to the water, or ground. The main expense of a geothermal system is the heat converters, which take that heat, compress it and create more heat. For a more detailed explanation, see: http://www.geothermal.ca/whatis.html.

Heat is not being lost...in fact, it is conserved to an extreme degree. The heat loss would come once the heat was radiated throughout the house, and that depends on the insulation factor of your home. If you can find any environmentalist who doesn't like this system, please give me their arguments (or web page). Otherwise, this hysteria is unnecessary.

One word: synfuel. Just google it, since I don't have time to write too much. Where do you get the figure that there is enough coal for thousands of years? Are you factoring the incredible jump in usage that would occur if synfuel was used on a wider global scale? Coal is a non-renewable resource that is ALSO being tapped to its limit...it will eventually run out (in how many years is up for debate). However, unless a process is designed to reduce the amount of CO2 emissions from such a fuel, we are still in the same boat. The pollution caused by the burning of such fuels is cause for very real concern, on an individual level (human health) as well as a global one. Moving from one inefficient and polluting fuel source to another is not a solution. It's a stop gap, and it does not address the problem. There are 6 billion of us using energy on this planet, and the developing world is turning more and more to coal (something we gave up in favour of petroleum). Unless we develop less polluting and efficient technologies, we will be swimming in the CO2 emissions of China, India and other developing nations. Gas masks anyone?

There won't ever be an "extreme petroleum scarcity" crisis.
The All-Powerful Goat example of whale oil is a great example. It was oince considered a highly important substance, but technology surpassed it. Several technologies are already avalable to surplant petroleum, once it is no longer economically feasable.

time to start analyzing whats in those toy cars that you can power on random household fluids..

Biodiesil will work well. My extended family is planning on investing in about 10 or so different alternative energy companies in the next three years. If we cover our bases properly a tidy profit should be made once the oil crisis well and truly hits.

There won't ever be an "extreme petroleum scarcity" crisis.
The All-Powerful Goat example of whale oil is a great example. It was oince considered a highly important substance, but technology surpassed it. Several technologies are already avalable to surplant petroleum, once it is no longer economically feasable.

Yes, and petroleum will no longer be economically feasible when the 'extreme petroleum scarcity crisis' finally hits. One could argue we are in the middle of it, and that certainly hasn't stopped oil production...it has increased it to a fever pitch in order to use every last drop before someone else does. You seem to forget just how much power the oil lobby has. The 'whale oil' lobby wasn't nearly as globally entrenched. Alternative technologies are available, but as I've said before, many are a 'one time' cost that would not support an entire industry. It is going to take a CRISIS before people change their dependencies. Economics will make those technologies attractive, but oil prices will have to go through the roof before governments take real action.

Biodiesil will work well. My extended family is planning on investing in about 10 or so different alternative energy companies in the next three years. If we cover our bases properly a tidy profit should be made once the oil crisis well and truly hits.
Shhhhh...or EVERYONE will be buying stocks! :p

My main point is...the technology exists, but people are too timid to use it. Unless governments start pushing it, and encouraging citizens to do it, people are just going to go the 'safe route', even though it makes more economic sense to switch.The biggest argument against alternative technologies is ignorance. "I don't know how it works, so it must not work". I blame that on a lack of information, and the stereotyping of those who DO use this energy as 'hippy weirdos'.

My main point is...the technology exists, but people are too timid to use it. Unless governments start pushing it, and encouraging citizens to do it, people are just going to go the 'safe route', even though it makes more economic sense to switch.The biggest argument against alternative technologies is ignorance. "I don't know how it works, so it must not work". I blame that on a lack of information, and the stereotyping of those who DO use this energy as 'hippy weirdos'.
and the power of the oil industry

Diatomic algae produce copious quantities of oil in a far smaller area then other oil crops. Widespread algeal cultivation could well help us acert environmental problems for a while longer. http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/05/289306.shtml

Bio-diesel made from algae could replace diesel fuel in this country. Oils grown in this manner could also be used as petroleum substitutes in other areas.

Great water conservation tip: get new toilets! Old toilets often use 20 litres (about 5 gallons) of water per flush! Newer toilets use about 3 litres (.79 gallons) of water.

Bio-Diesel can be produced from a great number of feedstocks, waste veggie oil, Corn, Soy, rapeseed oils ( basically ANY vegitable based oil ) including Algae. You can also use waste vegtable matter to produce ethanol...but this takes the nigtrogen rich waste matter and keeps it from returning to the soil...maybe not such a great idea...

One form of Algae contains nearly 50% oil by weight grows well in warm shallow water needs little in the way of care just fresh sea water and sunslight does the trick. An estimated 11,000 square miles of shallow ponds would provide enough growing space to replace all petroleum fuels used for transportation purposes, and additional 28,000 square miles would replace the oil and natural gas used for power production. This fuel source is carbon neutral in the environment since the algae takes up carbon dioxide from the sea water to grow and the now carbon dioxide depleted water absorbs carbon dioxide from the air. Once the oil is pressed out of the algae the dried material could be used as fertilizer for the ponds. Or used as a nitrogen rich fertilizer awywhere for that matter

Can find the white paper for this but it may take a while... I think the price tag for replacing all petroleum oil was something to the tune of 500 billion and a 10 years ramp up time frame...and oh...some state that does not freeze in the winter ( or is willing to build some Big Assed Greenhouses) would have to give up a 200 x 200 square mile chunk of land to support this. ( or several states could give up smaller bits of land )...Texas is large enough, flat enough and has a source of sea water from the gulf of Mexico. But we would all have to convert to diesel cars and the one really Big drawback for BioDiesel is it has a short shelf live, I think 6 months is the longest storage figure I have seen due to the fact it is subsceptable to bacterial degradation. So we have to produce as we use....no stratigic oil reserves from Bio Diesel


Also another company is proposing to turn any carbon based waste stream (Rubber tires, paper, wood, meat byproducts, bone, manure, sanitary sewer waste streams, used plastics, pretty much anything with large amounts of carbon in the material into a very fine light oil or kerosene or gasoline or diesel. While this system does not add carbon to the overall environment it does release it into the air when burning the oils...where it can be taken up by plants to support their growth...but not in the quantities we would need to use it or otherwise we wouldnt have a rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere today....

http://www.discover.com/issues/may-03/features/featoil/

You have to be a subscriber to veiw the article ..sorry....but its basically a thermal depolymorization with an 85% efficency ( in other words you can run the macine on 15% of its output, the basic energy is already there in the feedstock so its not violating any laws of physics ) The plant has been built and as of May this year they were preparing to go into full production. Converting 600 million tons of Turkey offal and other waste into 4 billion barrels of light oil. Not a bad start....but not the best of alternatives either

Build one of these in front of your waste water treatment plant and you dont need a waste water treatment plant anymore.... just storage tanks...

Advanced Solar cells are running at about 18% efficiency and have a 20 year life span, and are a hazardous waste if not recycled to make new solar cells...and we dont have a lot of gallenium. And the dont operate at all at night...thus requiring some form of storage....Overall Not cost effective compared to most other sources

Combining Thermal Solar collector ( think satilite dish ) with a Striling engine is a unique idea and has a good potential...still doesnt work at night so you still need the storage system...still expensive but the stirling engines can be as high as 85% efficient ( at about $100K) or 50% efficeint ( At $2.5K) looks to be more cost effective than the Solar Cells and no hazardous components...and if you can work on a car engine you have a fairly good chance of being able to troubleshoot the stirling engine......try doing that with a solar cell....


Fuel cells are a nice dream, but truthfully hydrogen has several draw backs as a fuel. One it takes more energy to produce pure hydrogen than you will get back from the fuel cell, Secondly storage of hydrogen is an issue that is just so complicated its not even funny. Thirdly Fuel Cells are expensive to build and have a limited life span...I think its approximately 10 but not sure....very expensive way of producing power

Wind power is a great supplemental power source, but like solar they only work when conditions are right....given enough though you can produce huge amounts of power...Costs are dropping like a rock as more Towers are built and the economics of scale kicks in....

Geothermal and Hydro power are well known if not well utilized...basically they are good for decades but the cost can be enormous,

Nuclear has a bad PR but we have on hand...already mined and just sitting around something like 2000 years worth of fuel at current use levels. Build 2000 Nuclear power plants and give everyone an electric car and free electricity and you can use the oil reserves in Texas alone for lubrication purposes for a couple of hundred years...just enough time to work out Fussion power...( Yeah...right...)

Coal and Oil shale.....Ugh...lots of it...but nasty stuff as far as the environment is concerned....plants built to lower the emissions of these fuels can be built but are expensive and you have to find something to do with the waste....and there is lots of it....but a possibility..and relatively cheap power...if you dont count environmental costs

Did I miss anything??

Have a great day

AAhhzz

We could trap our own bodily gases...

That, and all the effluvia from this forum would satisfy the energy demands...

I know of the Autonomy, GM's fuel cell car.
I know of Fuel cell buses in Vancouver and Tokyo (could be Osaka)
I know of ethanol, which is only useful because it makes Iowans think that we give a shit about corn for oil. Hey! its like oil for food backwards, food for oil!
The problem with all of these is that even with things like Hydro power, people think that it is damaging to the ecosystem while there is a giant hole in the ozone layer. Environmentalists will never accept any of these things and prefer that everybody lives in caves with the furry woodland creatures. hopefully hydro-cells will come into use soon and we can use a clean way to run industry throughout the world.

Environmentalists will never accept any of these things and prefer that everybody lives in caves with the furry woodland creatures. hopefully hydro-cells will come into use soon and we can use a clean way to run industry throughout the world.

Again, you speak of a few radicals, stereotyping all environmentalists. Do you seriously think it is the environmentalists who are opposing greener energy? How backward thinking is that? And how typical...the oil companies who are desperate to hold onto their profits would absolutely love the smear campaign you have just become a spokesperson for. Let's think of a slogan...how about: Environmentalists hate the environment!

Nice ring to it.

Advanced Solar cells are running at about 18% efficiency and have a 20 year life span, and are a hazardous waste if not recycled to make new solar cells...and we dont have a lot of gallenium. And the dont operate at all at night...thus requiring some form of storage....Overall Not cost effective compared to most other sources
You are referring to the solar cells used in satellites. Domestic solar cells are generally made from crystalline silicone and do not use gallenium. You are right that they are not all that efficient yet, and storage becomes a problem, which is why they are rarely the only form of energy generation used in a particular situation, however, they are hardly a hazardous waste material.


Geothermal and Hydro power are well known if not well utilized...basically they are good for decades but the cost can be enormous,

Don't lump hydroelectric power in with geothermal...they are two distinct forms of energy generation. Geothermal systems are NOT prohibitively expensive. There is an up front cost, but after that, you will not pay another heating or cooling bill for the lifespan of the system (50 years, with minimal upkeep).

I know that alternatives exist, but I can't say I use them. Why? For one, I don't drive. For another, it seems a bit impractical. Conservation on a personal level works well enough for me.

I know of several alternatives, but I don't drive a car or heat my home with oil. So it's kinda meaningless for me.

My goodness...Dobbs Town, I'm disappointed! I don't drive either...though it has less to do with conservation than a deep down distaste of the act:) How exactly DO you heat your house? Guaranteed, that unless you DON'T heat your house, or you are using a wood or coal cookstove, you are using some sort of non-renewable energy and paying utility bills. I AM talking about conservation on a personal basis...conservation more meaningful than taking in bottles to be recycled. Yes, it cost me a bit up front, but my geothermal system will be paid off in 4 years in terms of the money I've saved in heating bills (that's 4 years altogether, since I installed the system 6 months ago). Plenty of alternative energy could be used OUTSIDE of our dependency on automobiles...

That geothermal thing sounds groovy, never heard of it before. The bus' round here use BioDiesel (gotta love hippy town).

Me, however, I do not own my digs and I drive (when it works) a '67 VW Bus, as it is it's pretty upset that the gas doesn't have lead in it. I only drive when buses won't do, but I have no say in where the power for where I live comes from and since I'm poor as hell which oddly enough involves a bit of moving about I don't have the sauce to demand the place I live switch sources. So at best, when I daydream of my bigass old school caddy low rider I imagine it having a bio-diesel engine.

Why wouldn't nuclear fusion and fission work? They sound like good ideas to me.

Why wouldn't nuclear fusion and fission work? They sound like good ideas to me.
well unless you found a way to safely dispose of nuclear waste...

time to start analyzing whats in those toy cars that you can power on random household fluids..

A very simple engine that someone with the expertise could probably turn out in a garage workshop. The proper fuel is meths and castor oil mixed to about 80%/20% respectively, and smells like a frying pan when it's going.

It may not be a good idea to use something like that for a car though. A backfire on a glowplug engine can blow burning fuel all over a model as the carb is just a tube straight into the cylinder, with a needle in it for spraying the fuel. Standard glowplug fuel has a near invisible flame, so the first you'd know about your car catching alight would be the sudden increase in heat.

The thing with nuclear fission / fusion is that it doesn't produce any dangerous stuff; it's what goes on in the sun constantly. The hard part is making it stop once it's got going... so as yet it isn't used.

I personally think the best idea is orbital solar. I studied this about a year ago, and you need a few square kilometers of solar panels up in orbit to power the whole planet. The best thing is, they would be up in the sun all the time, without any clouds and so on and so forth in the way, pointing directly at the sun. The worst thing is it would cost a ridiculous amount to produce... but once it had been made: free electricity for life! As for microwaves being bad for things, I think a lot of satelites use (different frequency, lower energy) microwaves as communications, although I might be wrong.

The problem with biofuel is that if all of humanity survived from them the same way we survive from oil, we would need rather a lot more space on the planet than there currently is. George Monbiot did a good article a couple of weeks ago. http://www.monbiot.com/ (under feeding cars not people)

Where do you get the figure that there is enough coal for thousands of years? Are you factoring the incredible jump in usage that would occur if synfuel was used on a wider global scale?

I'll just talk about the USA if you don't mind. The known coal reserves are 508 billion tons of which 2/3 are economically feasible to extract at current prices (http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/coalreserves.htm). Coal contains 20 GJ/ton of energy and oil 6.4 GJ/barrel. The USA imports 4.5 billion barrels per year (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html). Also we already produce and use 1.1 billion tons of coal per year. The coal-to-synfuel process is only about 80-85% efficient. Therefore if we replaced oil imports with synfuels from coal we would have enough coal for 120-180 years. Enough to figure out some other source and/or a good way to reduce energy use.

The rest of the world? Not really our problem ;) Especially since we'll be letting them have all the oil we used to import. I should mention China and Russia have coal for over a hundred years of this type of use as well.

You still haven't answered my question about the effects of continuing to burn inefficient and polluting fossil fuels rather than use the technology available NOW to cut down on as much of that as we can. What I mean by that is, although geothermal energy obviously will not help you run your car, if more homes and business used it for heating and cooling, there would be less of a drain on the energy now being produced. This energy is non-polluting, and it is much cheaper. We could conserve our petroleum resources for things that are more essential...like plastics. Why go through the trouble to convert everything to run on a fuel made from coal (I'm assuming some conversion would be necessary, but correct me if I'm wrong please) when that fuel source will only be good for an ESTIMATED 100 years or so? That may seem like a long time to you right now, but it isn't in the grand scheme of things. That means another 100 years of a 'who cares about anyone else' attitude. Look at what we have done to this world in just the past 100 years...do we want to continue making that sort of negative impact simply because we are too silly to switch? I say silly, and not lazy, because it would take an enormous amount of energy to change over to synfuel, whereas we could use existing technology to make an immediate difference. I'm not understanding the rationale behind sticking with fossil fuels especially when:

1) ALTERNATIVES EXIST

2) SOME ALTERNATIVES ARE MORE ECONOMICAL than using fossil fuels

I remember doing a class report my Freshman year in high school on geothermal fuels, with the argument of it being the best.

Alas, this is the first I've heard of it since then; I did that report back in 1995...

We could trap our own bodily gases...

That, and all the effluvia from this forum would satisfy the energy demands...

They actually do something like that in SE Asia. You poop into a large contraption that turns waste into energy and lights the house.

Another huge natural gas reserve was found in Canada, and experts predict that it contains enough gas to supply ALL OF CANADA FOR TWO MONTHS! WOW! (insert sarcasm) Yes, that is a heck of a lot of gas...but celebrations are certainly NOT in order. Two months is not a lot of time. In any case, we will likely sell that gas to the U.S rather than using it for those 2 months, and no matter WHO uses it, once it is gone, that's it. End of reserve.

Sure, there will be others reserves found, and announced with as much excitement, but the fact is, petroleum is a dwindling resource. We all know it, we are just in varying levels of denial about it.

My question to you is, how are you preparing for the eventuality of extreme petroleum scarcity? Energy costs are already rising, but will become quite prohibitive in the (not to far away) future. What do you know about alternative energy, and how are you planning to deal with an energy shortage in your, and your childrens' lifetime?

Not to nit-pick...but petrol and natural gas are two different things.

You still haven't answered my question about the effects of continuing to burn inefficient and polluting fossil fuels rather than use the technology available NOW to cut down on as much of that as we can.

Carbon dioxide is hugely overrated as a problem. Other types of pollution from fossil fuels are minimized with careful engineering. Aerial polution was much worse in 1900 when the total amount of energy produced was a tiny fraction of what it is now (mostly because of free-burning wood), and it was much worse in 1970 when there were much fewer cars on the road than now. Why? Our plants and car engines are vastly better. Basically pollution in the USA (and other "first-world" countries) has been consistently decreasing for the past century, even as our energy use has increased dramatically.

Why go through the trouble to convert everything to run on a fuel made from coal (I'm assuming some conversion would be necessary, but correct me if I'm wrong please) when that fuel source will only be good for an ESTIMATED 100 years or so?

The engines don't need any conversion whatsoever. The output from the synfuel process is exactly the same as regular automotive gasoline (or diesel or jet fuel if that is what you want to make).

That may seem like a long time to you right now, but it isn't in the grand scheme of things.

Um, a hundred years ago there were (almost) no cars... at this rate in a hundred years we can reasonably expect to have something like fusion-powered shuttles with orbital capability (unless something goes very wrong).

it would take an enormous amount of energy to change over to synfuel

Nope. Building a synfuel plant is about as hard as building a petroleum refinery... yeah it is a large money investment (a few billion), but in terms of energy flows it is miniscule.

I'm not understanding the rationale behind sticking with fossil fuels especially when:

1) ALTERNATIVES EXIST

2) SOME ALTERNATIVES ARE MORE ECONOMICAL than using fossil fuels

1) *NO* alternatives exist for practical vehicle use. Hydrocarbons have very high energy density, and are easy to handle (i.e. compact/light/safe storage and compact/light/safe powerplants). Almost nothing else matches those two criteria with technologies available now. Certainly not any kind of electical battery, compressed air, metal-hydride, super-flywheel, hydrogen fuel cells or a dozen other things that have been tried. (However, methanol fuel cells are promising, but that is a hydrocarbon as well). That is the main reason for "fossil" fuels.

2) When people start saying things like that, they usually ignore the "energy budget" and just look at the money cost. True, biodiesel is cost-competitive with diesel (for example) but mostly because you get the stuff as a cheap byproduct. The plain fact is that for most biofuels you would use most of the fuel for the cultivation of the crop itself... no net energy gain. Ditto, solar panels can be cost-competitive under some circumstances, but again they use a lot of energy to make... about as much as they produce in the first 10 years of their operation (out of a useful lifetime of 20, maybe 30 years).

Practical exercise: look at solar cells. How much energy do they take to produce, total? How fast could we produce them with existing spare generating capacity? How long would it take to convert completely to solar power at that rate? Ignore money cost.

You are referring to the solar cells used in satellites. Domestic solar cells are generally made from crystalline silicone and do not use gallenium. You are right that they are not all that efficient yet, and storage becomes a problem, which is why they are rarely the only form of energy generation used in a particular situation, however, they are hardly a hazardous waste material.

Your quite right, I was thinking of the advanced solar cells bring researched by Air Force Research labs that do use elements such as gallenium, cadmium and other elements to provive the required disruption to the silicone matrix that provides for the production of current, instead of the phosporous or boron doped silicon cells, These advanced cells are breaking the 20% efficeincy rating but are horrendously expensive. The flexible solar cells use these more exotic materials as well.


Don't lump hydroelectric power in with geothermal...they are two distinct forms of energy generation. Geothermal systems are NOT prohibitively expensive. There is an up front cost, but after that, you will not pay another heating or cooling bill for the lifespan of the system (50 years, with minimal upkeep).

I was thinking of the construction of mega watt power stations for tapping Geothermal heat at depths of thousands of meters, not Geothermal pumps for the heating / cooling of a building....Tremendous initial cost and some concern about the proces fluid being contaminated.....I failed to make that clear...my appologies.

Respectfully

AAhhzz

2) When people start saying things like that, they usually ignore the "energy budget" and just look at the money cost. True, biodiesel is cost-competitive with diesel (for example) but mostly because you get the stuff as a cheap byproduct. The plain fact is that for most biofuels you would use most of the fuel for the cultivation of the crop itself... no net energy gain.

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/05/289306.shtml

For biodiesel this is not the case, Read last paragraph ( just above the responses on the page )

Also
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

NREL's research showed that one quad (7.5 billion gallons) of biodiesel could be produced from 200,000 hectares of desert land (200,000 hectares is equivalent to 780 square miles, roughly 500,000 acres), if the remaining challenges are solved (as they will be, with several research groups and companies working towards it, including ours at UNH). In the previous section, we found that to replace all transportation fuels in the US, we would need 140.8 billion gallons of biodiesel, or roughly 19 quads (one quad is roughly 7.5 billion gallons of biodiesel). To produce that amount would require a land mass of almost 15,000 square miles. To put that in perspective, consider that the Sonora desert in the southwestern US comprises 120,000 square miles. Enough biodiesel to replace all petroleum transportation fuels could be grown in 15,000 square miles, or roughly 12.5 percent of the area of the Sonora desert (note for clarification - I am not advocating putting 15,000 square miles of algae ponds in the Sonora desert. This hypothetical example is used strictly for the purpose of showing the scale of land required). That 15,000 square miles works out to roughly 9.5 million acres - far less than the 450 million acres currently used for crop farming in the US, and the over 500 million acres used as grazing land for farm animals.

Respectfully

AAhhzz