For ages we have used oil and oil products for our fuel to run our machines and grant us electricity. Clearly there are a few reasons to stop using it:
#1 - It appears to be drasticaly affecting the stability of our planet's enviroment. Pretty sure most of us don't want there to be inland hurricanes all the time....
#2 - The limited supply suggests that we will have to come up with something else anyway might as well start now
#3 - higher water levels = less land = more crowded populations = less trees = less air, etc.
Our solution to this appears to be Hydrogen fuel cells. However, are we ignoring the reasons that we should completely avoid this fuel sorce? Are we making the same mistake we did when we took on oil as our fuel sorce? I believe so. The said hydrogen reaction uses hydrogen and oxygen to create water, idealy a "safe" biproduct. I disagree, there are several issues with the use of these things to create water:
#1 - We are removing oxygen from our breathable atmosphere. Couple problems with that, first of all we kinda need that to survive. Second of all we have already proven that if any portion of our atmosphere went off by even a tenth of a percent we would no longer be able to survive. Third of all we need to have oxygen in the atmosphere to react with UV radiation and create OZONE and back again!
#2 - By creating water as a biproduct, will we not be in effect raising the ocean levels anyway? Do we honestly think that adding MORE water to our planet's very tempermental enviroment will help? Doesn't water in effect contain more heat than most greenhouse gases?
My personal theory on a solution: Solar Power!
Before you all start saying thats been done, read how much larger of a scale I would propose than what we currently are using.
Ok part one, lots of streets and major highways in the world right? Over every single one of them we build semi-transparent SOLAR "domes". Thus creating a realy realy big energy sorce. Vehicles would drive along in these tunnels and be able to see outside, and they would stop at varius stations and plug-in to charge up directly from the tunnel. A great deal of power could be stored in battery-stations and cities themselves could derive power from the tunnel. All vehicles would have solar panels on them for travel on roads that were not covered by the tunnel. I'm mainly suggesting MAJOR highways, not every road in the world. Thats it! A rather expencive thing to achieve, yes. Imagine how much money we would save though!
Let me know what you think the solution is to the world's energy problems, something that can be ocomplished soon. (i relize that eliminates most fusion theories, but surely you can come up with something 
) Solar power is crap ... Even if you put solar panels on every roof of every house in the world, i think you'll barely reach the world's energy consumption. Plus you'd need loads of "if there's no sun" power plants that can be started at night and or during the winter.
You'll need the solar panels to work for 10 years before the C02 saved by it's use will equal the CO2 emissions needed to build it.
Personnaly, i don't believe solar power will ever be sufficient... but hey... if '
you think it looks nice
thats the point of battery stations, on top of that if you think of the amount of space taken up by roads.. if every inch of that had solar panels on it you could more than acount for the energy needs
well some one i knew ones told me that it might be possible to create mini sun. the only problem with his idea was that there is no way to contain it. (unsless maybe if we where able to create somekiend of magnetic force field) now something he said to me made sense to me, he said that it is most likely that one or two companies that suply gass and oil to the western world most likely already have a good alternative way to power our cars etc, he said that it would be logical to wait with using this technology when other ways run out. (get the only replacement on the market and become rich)
and about the solar power, it might be possible in the future because our ways of getting solar power are not nearly as efficiant compared to trees and plants. (for making oxygien etc)
Firstly I believe that the starting product in our protective layer from UV Radiation is OZONE and it gets broken down by the UV Radiation to produce free Oxygen Radicals that then re-form Ozone again.. this is also why CFS's are a problem because they break down the OZONE and dont allow it to affect Radiation.. anyway.
Solar power is extremely inefficient and needs alot of reasearch however combine Solar with something like Hydro and your getting somewhere, add Nuclear energy and your getting further.
Yes we have tried to create "mini suns" or rather use the same reaction that is currently going on in our sun (nuclear fusion) however the problem isnt so much containing it, its getting it started, the basis of Nuclear Fusion is that tremendous heat, we are talking millions of degrees make the atoms move very fast and when they collide the nucleus of each atome gets so close they overcome normal repullsion and clump together... creating and sustaining enough heat to kick start the reaction is damn near impossible 
as long as we're creating a solar panel shell around the planet, we ought to step up our efforts in wind and hydro power, as well
if we damn up every source of running water, and put up wind farms on every stretch of open land, we might be able to eliminate our coal use
just don't try to put up any of that infrastructure around Ted Kennedy's house!
Creating that many solar panels would probably destroy our environment anyways. Not to mention that the slightest natural disaster would wreck it all. Its a cute idea, but impractical. Forget how much energy you could get from it, imagine the byproducts of creating it, implementing it, repairing it (it's not like you can pave some more solar panel on top of a crack in the road).
It's just not real. Hydro is the best bet. I think if we dammed up every available source of renewable water, then we could do some major elimination. Also, creating new rivers and such with the oceans would create limitless potential in energy production.
i heard of an idea somewhere where you put massive solar arrays into orbit, then beam down the energy in the form of microwaves to a specific target, and then store that energy in batteries. This would solve the problem of clouds covering up the sun for earth based arrays. There would be the problem of microwaves possibly missing the target and killing anything in their path, but it shouldn't be too hard to fix...right?
The energy solar can better in some aspects, for example... YOu charge the solar panels in the morning, at the night, the charge can you use for turn on a light... this is very util and cheaper... There is no one right answer.
Renewable energy is a great option exactly because it has multiple answers to a single question. The right way to implement renewable energy is in layers.
Install tidal generators in conjunction with solar panels. Place solar heat power plants in the deep desert. Wind farms have proven their effectiveness in the US's plains and flatlands, along with hydro-power centralized around major rivers. A recently emerging technology that shows promise is biomass and landfill methane power generation. Iceland has harnessed the massive internal heat of the earth to run power generating turbines that supply a vast amount of its need.
Anyone who says that they have "The single answer" is not thinking globally enough. In trying to simplify you end up over-complicating. The layers of renewable energy technology are here, implement the ones that make sense where they make sense, don't just try to find a single solution to every problem.
i agree 100% with the previous post. wind power especially seems to be an untapped resource. it's neat to see that certain "green" businesses here and there have started putting up windmills to reduce their own electric bills - there's a construction company near my house that has done this.
certainly, at the present, i doubt there are many people who think we can totally eliminate fossil fuels as a power source in the near future, but we can certainly lessen their use by cleverly using the clean power sources mentioned above.
I just wanted to add... the person who started the thread seems to have missed that oxygen is a required component of combustion, i.e. burning fossil fuels or anything else for that matter. Using hydrogen-fueled vehicles is just replacing one type of oxygen use with another, but without generating extra CO2.
Well, I think solar power and wind power are great compared to burning up things that supossively destroies our atmosphere. It may not provide a lot of extra power, but it's certainly helpful.
And I don't know about you guys, but I think a few solar panels at my house right now would generate a bit of energy. lol
I think the greatest energy loss we experience is because of the negligence and ignorance of people.
For a stupid example if you plan your trips through town better you can put yourself in a situation to preserve a lot of energy.
If more people ride bicycles in stead of cars to word, they will all have better health and preserve a lot of energy.
Last edited by Wynand on Thu Oct 05, 2006 4:55 pm; edited 1 time in total
I which we could somehow use some of the heat produced in the "Discuss World News" threads. Then we could get rid of some nuclear plants and all the oil and coal plants in one go. 
Solar is not the solution.
Solar is something to help not a complete fix, if every house hold used solar the would eventually save a good few dollars and save some trees .
But, nuclear is the answer in my opinion. Clean and efficent, only problem is waste. New studies are finding ways to continue to use the waste for more energy also if u create high temp. oven and pop the radio active waste in there powed in saharia desert by solar panels would work.
Alternitive energy isn't a solution its solutions. | Yazz wrote: |
| Creating that many solar panels would probably destroy our environment anyways. Not to mention that the slightest natural disaster would wreck it all. Its a cute idea, but impractical. Forget how much energy you could get from it, imagine the byproducts of creating it, implementing it, repairing it (it's not like you can pave some more solar panel on top of a crack in the road). |
I'll remind you light can pass through things such as plexiglass, there is no need to have panels be the exposed layer. Under that plan, solar panels are to fragile to have them be exposed to the elements
| Quote: |
| I just wanted to add... the person who started the thread seems to have missed that oxygen is a required component of combustion, i.e. burning fossil fuels or anything else for that matter. |
I forgot to mention that, yes. However, my point remains, we are replacing one negative source with another
I will also agree that perhaps the many solutions need to be used in conjunction with eachother.
Ultimately perhaps using solar and wind power in "Electrolisis Plants" to create O2 and H2 for the vehicles would be better. That would move it from a negative source to a clean sorce in my opinion. I appreciate all the points made here my ideas are always open to revision | Garg wrote: |
Solar power is crap ... Even if you put solar panels on every roof of every house in the world, i think you'll barely reach the world's energy consumption. Plus you'd need loads of "if there's no sun" power plants that can be started at night and or during the winter.
You'll need the solar panels to work for 10 years before the C02 saved by it's use will equal the CO2 emissions needed to build it.
Personnaly, i don't believe solar power will ever be sufficient... but hey... if '
you think it looks nice |
Solar power is no crap. Ok, at the moment the research to it is an low level, but in Belgium (where i live) are a few students who created a solar car that has been participated a time ago in Australia. They have discovered that the solar panels can be upgraded and of course a lot of battery packs are installed in the car. The solar panels are so adjusted that even if the sun is not shining that the panels still absorb light energy.
Now are they going to bring this knowledge to other university's and to other researchers so that this new technology can be developed in the use of solar panels on the roof.
And in time it will give a much better result then you know have.
In the meantime the research to corefusion (energy form like the sun) is still also a great priority. Explaining this is for another topic. | LeviticusMky wrote: |
There is no one right answer.
Renewable energy is a great option exactly because it has multiple answers to a single question. The right way to implement renewable energy is in layers.
Install tidal generators in conjunction with solar panels. Place solar heat power plants in the deep desert. Wind farms have proven their effectiveness in the US's plains and flatlands, along with hydro-power centralized around major rivers. A recently emerging technology that shows promise is biomass and landfill methane power generation. Iceland has harnessed the massive internal heat of the earth to run power generating turbines that supply a vast amount of its need.
Anyone who says that they have "The single answer" is not thinking globally enough. In trying to simplify you end up over-complicating. The layers of renewable energy technology are here, implement the ones that make sense where they make sense, don't just try to find a single solution to every problem. |
I agree. Develope multiple solutions to reduce oil comsumption. We will NEVER eliminate its use. Besides generating power don't forget to recycle. Each time you recycle you reduce comsumption. Most products require oil in their production whether it is to power machinery, lubrication or as a component of the finished product (plastics, makeup, paint, etc.). | Aredon wrote: |
| thats the point of battery stations, on top of that if you think of the amount of space taken up by roads.. if every inch of that had solar panels on it you could more than acount for the energy needs |
That won't work ! Your road has to have a rough surface so that you can actually drive on it ! But the thing is solar panels are expensive in regard of the saving you'll make on your electric bill and CO2 emissions. | JoeFriday wrote: |
if we damn up every source of running water, and put up wind farms on every stretch of open land, we might be able to eliminate our coal use
|
In most countries, there aren't any possibilities for hydro-power simply because there aren't any mountains or high points.
Plus there are some issues regarding farms that use high quantities of water :
Rice cultures in the mekong delta, or the nile delta's
It's not always possible to put dams on every river !i hope the fusion thing comes along soon.... work has already begun.. the ITER project would be amazing! no more haz waste.. no dangerous gases!
check out the details of this project here: http://www.iter.org/ | kikass wrote: |
i hope the fusion thing comes along soon.... work has already begun.. the ITER project would be amazing! no more haz waste.. no dangerous gases!
check out the details of this project here: http://www.iter.org/ |
People I speak to put fusion at least 50 years away in terms of commercially viable power production. The latest reactors I have read about are still stuck with the problem of containment of the flux. The solution of this problem defines the two types of reactor we have today - magnetic and intertial confinement. Magnetic confinement seeks to use magnetic fields to hold the matter undergoing fusion; intertial confinement uses very small amounts of fuel in a 'conveyor belt' which means that no one fusion 'event' is enough to cause confinement problems.
It can be appreciated that the essential problem is how to deal with temperatures of 10e7 - 10e8 Kelvin. There is obviously no material way to confine a mass at this temperature since it would instantly melt or vapourise any normal matter. Magnetism is problematic since it requires a stable confinnement of a continuously varying mass which produces its own magnetic fields. Inertial confinement is the current best hope but I remain doubtful about the central thesis that a continuous supply of small pellets would be practical.
The field will certainly get a boost from recent pulicity which is all to the good.
ChrisAnyone knows of any good books that they read on renewable energy.
The one I'm reading now is called Fuelling the future. It takes about all kinds of ways to fix our future.
Hydrogen seems like it will be the next source of energy, the only thing is that we will still need to rely on either using hydro/nuclear (Relatively Clean) or Fossil Fuels to make the hydrogen as energy.
Let me know if you have any good books or sources to learn more. Thanks
| Garg wrote: |
| Aredon wrote: | | thats the point of battery stations, on top of that if you think of the amount of space taken up by roads.. if every inch of that had solar panels on it you could more than acount for the energy needs |
That won't work ! Your road has to have a rough surface so that you can actually drive on it ! But the thing is solar panels are expensive in regard of the saving you'll make on your electric bill and CO2 emissions. |
Read the first post... Unless you are planning on driving on the half-pipe covering the road.. i have no idea what point you just madeI read about scientist who build a completly efficient solar power house. This house also provide extra electic energy witch is converted into city electric system.
Exactly! If such a design was utilized properly we could generate enough power, in fact, we would have a SURPLUS of power. Now we just need a LOT of solar panels, rofl. There are many ways to solve the problem, the best would be to get started using more and more positive sorces of energy, that is to say sorces that generate power with little or no harmfull waiste, preferably ones that take very little to maintain. (wind, water, light.) Possabilities realy are endless, the question is, who will convince oil companies to let go of their greed for the advancement of human kind?
Well people for quite some time have been trying to harness the energy of Hydrogen. Well they have succeeded a couple of times but each time they did, it turned out that they needed more energy to use hydrogen then what they got out. So unitl they get it right, they are not gonna use hydrogen. Some people say that someone actually found a unlimitted and useful energy source. But no one knows what happened to him. Some people say he never exsisted but others say differently. People are suggesting that because the government are making so much money off of gas, they decided, had if this guy is right with his energy source then we'll go out of business. So these people had him killed.
What about nuclear fission? Is the best viable option available right now. I've read about Tesla's Machine but also read that the govt has put in under wraps (read secrecy) because of the political and financial implications for all governments. What a load of ****? But I feel that is the answer to our energy problems along with options (on a smaller scale for other non-conventional sources).
This will work only if there is a nuclear fission reactor! Nonetheless, there is research going on and am sure we'll have something in the near future! | ParkourJP wrote: |
| Well people for quite some time have been trying to harness the energy of Hydrogen. Well they have succeeded a couple of times but each time they did, it turned out that they needed more energy to use hydrogen then what they got out. So unitl they get it right, they are not gonna use hydrogen. Some people say that someone actually found a unlimitted and useful energy source. But no one knows what happened to him. Some people say he never exsisted but others say differently. People are suggesting that because the government are making so much money off of gas, they decided, had if this guy is right with his energy source then we'll go out of business. So these people had him killed. |
I'm ganna have to call BS on that one, Hydrogen fuel cells have been used on the space shuttles for a VERY long time and power the orbiter's primary computers and life support systems, as well as producing water for them to drink, the idea for hydrogen power STEMMED from the space program, just like sneakers, straws, etc. I'm going to call uber BS on that one, hydrogen power HAS been utilized sucsessfully. The problem isn't that it takes more power to run, in fact it takes almost none at all to get the reaction to happen. The problem lies in the amount of power produced, it is not enough to get a vehicle to go above 55mph at the moment, that in combination with the price to produce the cars has kept it from being utilized.The best energy solution would be to invest more and more into the science. That is one of the greatest problems of today. Large corporations and companies invest only in research of the "areas" of science that they need in order to sell more, acquire more wealth, expand etc... Those are all short-term researches in areas that have already been "invented" and are now only "refined".
Governments should do this as this is considered common wealth. Just like it is done with roads, police, etc... No single party really has an interest in fixing roads etc, so the government needs to step in. This should be done also in science, but internationaly. Today this is done up to some extent, but not nearly enough. Just to say we invest in science.
We are relatively young in science, in my opinion, and so we need to give more attention to science. Today many young people (who may be ingenious) don't choose to study natural sciences but something that brings more money. Today teaching jobs in schools as well as in higher education are one of the least payed positions of all other.
That is our main concern. Sorry if I got too far away from the subject of energy problem. The best solution for energy crisis that is now very alarming is the fusion. Nothing is more effective then the fusion in the core of the Sun. But of course it is very easy to say it and much more complicated to realize it, because there are many physiacal and technical complication. But I hope we are very close now. The solar panels, water energy and nuclear powerplants are good and green, but they are certainly not the solution of our problems with energy.
I agree that the solution to the energy crisis is not one thing. It is using all the ideas, solar, hydrogen, hydro, wind, etc together. One by itself will not meet the entire need.
One source that I have not seen mention which I think holds great potential is biomass. This can include agricultural residues (junk left after farm harvest) or animal waste. This has especially great potential in the area of transportation fuels such as ethanol, which can be made from agricultural resides, and hydrogen and methane which can be made from poop. Anyway, I am doing my graduate work on this and I love to talk about it so feel free to ask me questions!!
Coming from a lot of Reading energy solutions it seems are only choice is to use more than one source of energy.
Fossil Fuel Burning is destroying our earth. So we need to start now not in 30 years.
The Solution in a few decades will be hydrogen or maybe something better but right now we need to use the cleanest energy sources.
Brings us to Solar, Wind, Hydro, and probably least famous Nuclear.
If we use them all together and stop depending on Fossil Fuel this will be a tremendous load of our earth. By themselves this energies cannot produce enough (Exclude Nuclear) but working together they can, and we must develop newer and safer Nuclear plants (Though there are many objections to Nuclear Power) because we don't have a choice. We need to start cutting emissions now.
I live in Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
The province in which I live produces a majority of its electricity with Hydro Power which is relatively clean compared to fossil fuels that would be a good start and then we would try to place some Wind Mills to create the rest, and if necessary Nuclear power also. As long as we don’t burn more coal or natural gas.
I still need to learn a lot more on this topic but it is true that the only way we will prevent ourselves from destroying the planet is by using these renewable energy sources. Hydrogen Economy sounds fantastic the only thing it won’t happen yet so we need to change now.
If you agree we need a change and are interested in learning more you can start with “Fueling The Future” Edited by Andrew Heintzman And Evan Solomon
And does anyone know about using the earth’s core as a energy source too.
I don't really trust solar energy to solve the problem. It's popular among the green freaks, but is not particulary efficient. Same with wind: it costs so much to make solar panels and windmills, compared to the energy you get out of it.
Nuclear fusion seems to be promising if it can be developed into a working state. Fusion is basically the opposite of what happens in nuclear plants today (fission). It doesn't have radioactive byproducts, and has no carbon emissions. Yet it's able to produce great amounts of energy. The problem is that a lot of energy is required to get it started, and the method is currently being researched to make it work better.
As for hydrogen: you should know that making hydrogen out of water costs energy. Hydrogen is most useful to store energy, but it's not a source. It would be a source if there were large amounts of hydrogen under the ground or wherever, that could be extracted for less energy than the burning process supplies. Then you'd have a net energy profit like currently with oil.
I must agree that no one energy source appears to be sufficient for all our needs and that combinations of solar, wind, and tidal plants are helpful. Unfortunately, I know a lot less about this subject than I would like. I was a physics major for a while in college, but not for long enough. My hope (like that of many others) lies in fusion power. However, I don't know enough to say that this is anything more than just hope. If it is not, then I am slightly disappointed by the lack of consideration and funding that I have heard goes to fusion research (or so says my rocket scientist brother-in-law).
These solutions do ignore cars. It would be a rather bad idea to run cars directly off of wind or tidal power, and battery run cars have many drawbacks. I wonder if there is any possibility of having mini portable fusion reactors to meet this need (and power the car many times over) sometime in the (far, far) future.
If there is enough energy, cars could be powered by hydrogen. It takes electricity to make hydrogen, so right now it's not environmentally friendly at all. But if there's no more petrol and stuff like that, hydrogen is the solution since it's probably too expensive to build a reactor in your engine.
In addition to renewable energy sources, there are things we could do to cut down on our own energy consumption. I saw a couple mentioned - riding a bike or walking whenever possible, and recycling. But we could be doing a lot more, like making sure your windows and doors aren't drafty so you use less to heat and cool your home. Designing new buildings to be as energy efficient as possible using passive solar heating, shade tree cooling, and other architectural tricks to reduce power need. Rooftop gardens provide extra insulation as well as park space and air cleaning. Earth sheltered houses tend to be more energy efficient as well, and increase green space (think pleasant, cozy Hobbit holes for everyone). Energy efficient appliances help, and occasionaly doing things the old fashioned way - like hanging laundry on the line instead of using a dryer.
And of course, remember what your parents told you and turn off the lights if you are not using them 
I've often wondered if placing small windmill generators alongside the interstate to catch the wind produced by semi trucks would produce enough energy to be worth it. Bamboo seems to be one solution to energy needs,
http://www.e-pao.net/epPageExtractor.asp?src=education.Bamboo_light_energy_source_of_Manipur.html..
Appearantly it is the fastest growing plant on the planet, three feet in one day! Couple that with other energy sources such as solar, hydro, wind, nuclear, then we've got something. Of course everyone would have to make a sacrfice at first, it's not just going to happen. It will take everyone to step it up and look into alternative fuels. | Quote: |
| Appearantly it is the fastest growing plant on the planet, three feet in one day! |
huh. And I thought Kudzu grew fast. 
hmmm... now there's a thought that could solve two problems... burn Kudzu for fuel.
(If you don't know what Kudzu is, it's the vine that is taking over the American Southeast. It was imported from Japan I think for erosion controll, and now it is taking over.) | Quote: |
Within five years EnviroMission aims to be one of Australia’s leading producers of clean, green renewable energy.
We are a newly listed public company committed to establishing profitable,
large-scale renewable energy generation power stations for the Australian electricity market.
Our aim is to lead the renewable energy market with new energy technologies that do not consume fuel resources or produce greenhouse gas emissions.
EnviroMission owns the exclusive licence to German designed Solar Tower technology in Australia. Our first project will focus on developing this revolutionary technology into the world’s first large-scale solar thermal power station capable of generating enough electricity to supply 200,000 typical Australian homes.
An animation of this technology is available at:
http://www.enviromission.com.au/ |
Energy, what source is the best, most reliable, cheapest, most widely available etc? These are difficult questions, since most forms of energy have positive and negative aspects.
I think it is very important to be aware as a human spicies that we are living on a world that is currently over populated and raped from its energy sources. The most logical first step would be to reduce one's own energy expenditure. The second step is to look for an alternative energy source from oil. Bio-oil is an option, but with current techniques is still takes more energy to put in than you get out. Hydrogen sounds could but before you can have the recation between hydrogen and oxygen to get the energy you would have to split water to gain these materials..... and spitting water in to hydrogen and oxygen costs energy.
I think we should invest as much as possible in 'green' energy, the use of windmills, solar panels, water propelled energy etc. At the same time invest in finding alternative energy sources and minimize your own use of energy!
the people at home uses solar panels am eolic , the industries use other renovables energies or antimater
i relize that my thread hasn't been replied to in a while, but I would like to ask if anyone knows anything else about this technology? The problem has to be refocused. In the world we live today, in which the unlimited progress seems to be the aim of the whole mankind, there will not be any way of transforming the monstruous amount of enery needed without more or less affecting the environment. Also we have the disadvantage of being unable to predict the climate to more than a few days in future (and this fact won't change much in future), so any global energetic plan runs with the drawback of being highly unpredictable in its consecuences on nature. If we were truly responsable we should think more on our uses of the energy we have, so we can control the consumption and use the amount needed to have a resonable live. We, as humanity will realize that when we are run out of athmosfere, of course. The day we have to use oxigen bottles to breathe, we will learn how to use the energy we have.
Hi,
My name is Claudio Bianco. I am an inventor, and have just completed my last work called "Continual Wind-Up", with which I take advantage of water oscillations to wind up a cord, and thus generate electricity.
I believe to have opened a new research field for renewable energy, but since I am the father of this invention, my opinion does not matter.
I chose to use internet to make the invention known and I would appreciate your opinion.I would therefore like to invite you to discover a
new way of generating electricity without polluting on www.cuerdacontinua.com Until today, i thought that was the most heinous abuse of internet technology for the purposes of spam was Viagra ads.
Sadly, i have once again been shown that my imagination can never quite match the wonders... and horrors... of reality.
At least Viagra works - so I'm told.
I thought there was a clue in the title .... continual wind-up..? | Aredon wrote: |
#1 - We are removing oxygen from our breathable atmosphere. Couple problems with that, first of all we kinda need that to survive. Second of all we have already proven that if any portion of our atmosphere went off by even a tenth of a percent we would no longer be able to survive. Third of all we need to have oxygen in the atmosphere to react with UV radiation and create OZONE and back again!
#2 - By creating water as a biproduct, will we not be in effect raising the ocean levels anyway? Do we honestly think that adding MORE water to our planet's very tempermental enviroment will help? Doesn't water in effect contain more heat than most greenhouse gases? |
#1 i think the idea is that we break the H20 already on the earth and not make more water. Problem is that we can't create hydrogen from normal water without a lot of energy.
#2 we won't raise the water levels since we won't be creating more water. As for world temp from water. IDK what would happen there i would assume the water would raise world temp but im not sure if it would be to a large degree (we would probably lose most the heat to space)
for alternative energies i think we need to look to a combination not just solar
we need a more effective way if we want to use solar power since the process to make the panels is very harmful to the environment. (a biological solar "dye" has been in testing for a year or so now and if it works nicely could be used on your roof in you windows and painted on the outside of your house)
wind power is another great method (look to California they have alot of power being generated by just wind alone)
i think we have yet to see some of the best alternative energy sources yet and we probly won't until we end world hunger (how many people would live and add to the economy?) Think the U.S. has 300 million and about the same amount is scatted throughout the world if the world suddenly had 1,500,000 (.5% of 300 milllion) more people working to find an alternative energy think how much fast it would be found. | Bikerman wrote: |
At least Viagra works - so I'm told.
I thought there was a clue in the title .... continual wind-up..? |
i just glanced at it. PMM type 1? | Indi wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | At least Viagra works - so I'm told.
I thought there was a clue in the title .... continual wind-up..? |
i just glanced at it. PMM type 1? |
Yep....I reckon. Conservation is clearly violated. | Teal'c36 wrote: |
| Aredon wrote: |
#1 - We are removing oxygen from our breathable atmosphere. Couple problems with that, first of all we kinda need that to survive. Second of all we have already proven that if any portion of our atmosphere went off by even a tenth of a percent we would no longer be able to survive. Third of all we need to have oxygen in the atmosphere to react with UV radiation and create OZONE and back again!
#2 - By creating water as a biproduct, will we not be in effect raising the ocean levels anyway? Do we honestly think that adding MORE water to our planet's very tempermental enviroment will help? Doesn't water in effect contain more heat than most greenhouse gases? |
#1 i think the idea is that we break the H20 already on the earth and not make more water. Problem is that we can't create hydrogen from normal water without a lot of energy.
#2 we won't raise the water levels since we won't be creating more water. As for world temp from water. IDK what would happen there i would assume the water would raise world temp but im not sure if it would be to a large degree (we would probably lose most the heat to space)
for alternative energies i think we need to look to a combination not just solar
we need a more effective way if we want to use solar power since the process to make the panels is very harmful to the environment. (a biological solar "dye" has been in testing for a year or so now and if it works nicely could be used on your roof in you windows and painted on the outside of your house)
wind power is another great method (look to California they have alot of power being generated by just wind alone)
i think we have yet to see some of the best alternative energy sources yet and we probly won't until we end world hunger (how many people would live and add to the economy?) Think the U.S. has 300 million and about the same amount is scatted throughout the world if the world suddenly had 1,500,000 (.5% of 300 milllion) more people working to find an alternative energy think how much fast it would be found. |
The person you are arguing with posted this in July!People are so, ready to dissmiss a different idea and all the replies do not even mention HHO. The volatile gas that is safer when used in conventional internal combustion engines that ordinary gas. Not a lot of energy is required to produce it. Modern powerplants (like hydroelectric) have hours where they generate surplus energy this could be converted to HHO. The transmission of power over great distances requires a great deal of energy the stored fuel could be shipped under it’s own power saving a great deal of resources. Also seasonal power needs change so, an energy bank of HHO could reduce the need to build more and larger powerplants. The energy from the sun manifests itself in solar, wind, plant and wave energy with a safe storage method we could transport energy from places like the deserts to populated centers. Remember fossils may be relatively cheap but, soon there true destructive costs may all to evident. I believe HHO may be added to fossil fuels and assists in creating a higher burn rate thus further reducing pollution and help to get more from the fuels we are already using.
unfortunately i don't know what HHO is so i can't talk to much about that.
Most modern electric plants don't have hours of idle time they produce as much energy as is needed and when demand increases they produce more. That way there is little energy wasted.
i do know hydroelectric plants have their own set of problems (namely erosion)
The biggest problem is not that people just dismiss alternative energy its that they would need to spend more money to use it (HHO from what you said is something that would burn in a normal car so should be looked into). But hydrogen requires a special car so no one wants to spend money investing in it or making their car run on it or buying a new car because fossil fuels are everywhere and easy to get access to. i don't know of a local station that sells hydrogen.(i know of dozens of stations that sell regular unleaded).
| Teal'c36 wrote: |
| unfortunately i don't know what HHO is so i can't talk to much about that. |
That's because it's a bunch of HHoey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HHO_gas | Gagnar The Unruly wrote: |
| Teal'c36 wrote: | | unfortunately i don't know what HHO is so i can't talk to much about that. |
That's because it's a bunch of HHoey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HHO_gas |
LOL....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HHO_gasya after reading wikipedia HHO gas seems to be the answer to renewable energy. And since it is so simple to make and so efficient its too good to be true.
I agree HHO gas looks really fake kinda like how i claim to have found jesus' body despite having no body or evidence to support my claims.
Wake up you youngens! HHO gas works. I would not be so ready to dismiss this.
Well of course you wouldn't it was your suggestion. Provide evidence that it does what you claim it does, and if it does why isn't this being used instead of ethinol and other addatives?
I think like alotofpeoplehere seem to think that we should use soler power with thing wind power but i don't think thereis anything rong withusing hydrogen topowere things like cars it fore sure be alot better then gassx andoial and atlest won't put any harfual fueemsinto the assfearuie. but anothere good one that was notmenchend is burning garbich andusing oure grabich to make power someplaces are allready starting touse this
Aredone thats a very good question.
probably because they neglect to mention its as stable nitroglycerin. Or something about that bad. Some interesting facts most people don't know about hydrogen (i don't think i mentioned this)
1. While a good energy source it is only valuable in the gas form. In the form of water we need to split it apart. This requires energy and means we are putting more energy into then we are getting out (and where would this energy come from?)
2. In gas form it needs to be compressed to be used in your car meaning it is a driving bomb and if involved in an accident could pressurize.
I like the idea of buring garbage but it would need to be sorted because a lot of garbage would hurt the enviroment. (i heard that this method was being used to power portions of San Francisco or another large city)
Okay, the hydrogen and oxygen are made through some form of electrolysis of water. When burned, they create watter again.
So the concerns come from a lack of understanding of how it works. The fuel is made from water and the burning of the fuel makes water.
Heat is the only real byproduct I can think of that may still be of a concern.
We need to be thinking about getting off this planet. At least some of us. Build better technology as we learn new things about our universe. That sort of thing.
We could use this sort of thing off planet to fuel ships.
A guy that used to work for NASA built a car that ran on water. It reportedly would use 22 gallons of water to drive coast to coast. To bad someone killed him. His little VW buggy kicked butt.
Some posters here need a better understanding of basic physics. I read stuff about laws of physics here and there that are bad misunderstandings.
Another quick point:
We use oil now. Nasty stuff that makes a nasty mess the way we use it. You do not get as much energy out of your car as you put in it as fuel. That's a fact.
You can make oil burn cleaner with hydrogen fuel enhancers. A good first step.
The fact that you do not get every bit of energy you put into a machine back out in a useful manner is true of all forms of energy and is the nature of machines.
We are talking about a cleaner fuel. Not getting more out of something than you put in.
The oil companies want your money. More of it, not less. It is in thier interest to keep things messy. We cannot make them change. We must change. We must be pioneers. We must think and act outside their box.
Good luck!
From another topic... | Modern_Martial_Arts wrote: |
As far as I am concerned, most established sciences are flawed for the simple fact that they think they understand things. And they like to turn on people that show them that they didn't know as much as they thought about things.
Plain and simple, we humans do not understand nearly as much as we thing we do about how things work. Proof is in the performance. What's the guy gonna do about his discovery? Who is gonna benefit? Will the same powerhungry mad men that have ran things for the last few hundred years simply use it to make more money? |
You are entitled to that opinion, but... | Modern_Martial_Arts wrote: |
| The fact that you do not get every bit of energy you put into a machine back out in a useful manner is true of all forms of energy and is the nature of machines. |
Apparently you have no problem believing this from the flawed sciences. Why? Because it suits you, or is there any more systematic approach to what you accept from the established sciences and what not? | Modern_Martial_Arts wrote: |
| Some posters here need a better understanding of basic physics. I read stuff about laws of physics here and there that are bad misunderstandings. |
And you need a better understanding of chemistry. Electrolysis is nice for hydrogen production in the lab, but not for commercial-scale production. This is currently done mostly from methane... but that's an alkane and you don't seem to like alkanes. So it's more convenient to forget about them. Arnie at a guess you probably have more achademic knowledge than Modern_Martial_Arts and the both of you more than me. However there are examples of "nearly free energy" where the laws of "what you get out depends on what you put in" are not so relevent eg: Burning Sea Water to propel boats and Wind Power are 2 examples I can think of...
How are the laws "not so relevant" - are they broken or not?
I think the genuine scientists are talking about free energy in it's purest context (When they say free energy cannot exist)
For example to get hydrogen out of water you can use electrolysis but to power the electrolysis equipment you need power. The concept of powering a car with an "on board" electrolysis setup therefore does not work as not enough hydrogen could be produced to power the car which in turn powers the electrolysis.
When I say "not so relevent" I quote an example of wind power where energy is derived from the action of wind. This is not an example of "free energy" in the purest context.
Seems certain people are more interested in pigeon holing than finding something that works.
I said that they were flawed and for a specific reason. Sorry that you seem to take that so personal and are unwilling to explore it.
I did not say that everything we do think is wrong. The fact is we do not know nearly as much as we think. The truth is what suits me. Not getting personal and directing attacks at others.
I will admit that I am not looking at this on a mass production for max profit basis. I know that most current hydrogen production is from some form of hydrocarbon. Still produced from oil. Which I think is messy and unsafe. Oh, it makes the wrong people rich as he** for our suffering too.
I think it needs to be cheap and easy. Not some big corporate orgy of profits and destruction like we have in place now. There just has to be a better way.
Not to mention that there is always more than one way to skin a cat. We can both be right. But I don’t see oil just raining down from the sky. The ways I see being explored are really just an oil based economy continuing. Not hydrogen based at all. He**, why does it have anything to do with our economy.
| chasbeen wrote: |
I think the genuine scientists are talking about free energy in it's purest context (When they say free energy cannot exist)
For example to get hydrogen out of water you can use electrolysis but to power the electrolysis equipment you need power. The concept of powering a car with an "on board" electrolysis setup therefore does not work as not enough hydrogen could be produced to power the car which in turn powers the electrolysis.
When I say "not so relevent" I quote an example of wind power where energy is derived from the action of wind. This is not an example of "free energy" in the purest context. |
I think the free energy thing is a big distraction. Chasing your tail.
I think enough hydrogen can be produced. On board. Maybe not at this time. Till then it can be produced on board and be used to burn existing fuels better.
One of the reasons oil sucks is because it is so unclean. Mixed with hydrogen and oxygen it is much cleaner and more efficient. Better than what we currently do.
Perfect? No. Better? Yes. | Quote: |
| I will admit that I am not looking at this on a mass production for max profit basis. I know that most current hydrogen production is from some form of hydrocarbon. Still produced from oil. Which I think is messy and unsafe. Oh, it makes the wrong people rich as he** for our suffering too. |
Yeah, so I mention a more efficient process and you draw the rich-poor card. Hey, my methyl salicylate synthesis had a very low yield lately, so I wouldn't make profit off it, does that make me a good guy? You're looking awfully black-white here...
| Quote: |
| I think it needs to be cheap and easy. |
Which is the case with methane. And electrolysis of water scores as one of the worst options. Could it be that's why methane is used instead of electrolysis? No, it's because of the rich...
| Quote: |
| Sorry that you seem to take that so personal and are unwilling to explore it. |
Unwillingness to instantly accept what you say is healthy scepticism. Exploring is a word for new age floaters who can't stand a bit of scrutiny and expect people to echo everything they say. So yes, I do pay attention to your statements/ideas/suggestions but no, I'm not "exploring" them because I don't believe everything just like that.
| Quote: |
| I think enough hydrogen can be produced. On board. Maybe not at this time. Till then it can be produced on board and be used to burn existing fuels better. |
Funny thing is, we're burning conventional fuels to make the hydrogen in the first place. Until a different energy source like nuclear fusion can be used.
| Quote: |
| But I don’t see oil just raining down from the sky. |
I don't see hydrogen raining from the sky either (THANK GOD). But if by your comparison water=hydrogen, then CO2=oil and there's enough CO2 in the air.
Bottom line... | Quote: |
| Seems certain people are more interested in pigeon holing than finding something that works. |
The sort of exploration you seem to be referring to is a waste of time and resources. There are better ways to find something that works. Think first and then act, unless of course you want to neglect all the work that previous scientists have done - in which case you are welcome in the Amish community. Maybe you'll find a new energy source there? Or at the very least turn iron into gold. Although with that discovery you should beware of the rich oppressors.Still going after me instead of proving me wrong when it is so simple?
Using buzz words like new ager and black and white? Maginalizing my reasons instead of explaining why your way is better?
I am finding it hard to take you seriously. If that is how you advance science.
Methane gas seems to be used because that is the resource the current infrastructure has. Not because it is better.
I am not totally against oil based production. Or even gasoline for cars and other fuels. But it must be done better. Not with profit in mind. Which is how it is going right now.
Arnie is simply making the obvious argument. If you want to use hydrogen as a fuel source (hydrogen cells being the obvious choice) then how do you produce the hydrogen? It's a matter of simple science and economics - if it requires more energy to produce hydrogen from electrolysis then where do you get that energy from? In most cases the answer is from burning fossil fuels, which defeats the object.
| Modern_Martial_Arts wrote: |
| Methane gas seems to be used because that is the resource the current infrastructure has. Not because it is better. |
Do you know what Gibbs energy is? Look it up for methane and water... We currently have to burn fossil fuels anyway to make the hydrogen, whether from water or methane, but from methane less energy is required. And since fuel burning isn't a 100% efficient process it's actually better to start from methane. Making hydrogen from water requires more fossil fuels than making it from methane, the latter process including the methane itself and the fuels burned for the energy supply. This is valid until a good alternative energy source can be used so that fuel burning won't be required anymore: possibly nuclear fusion, as I mentioned before.
It has nothing to do with the current infrastructure for water vs. methane, because - and you argued this yourself - water is easily available. And in fact easier to transport and store than CH4 (a gas.)Your idea is good but these "semi-transparent SOLAR domes" will create the greenhouse effect which will warm earth. Secondly, where will we get the special materials in order to build the "domes", what about maintenance?
Since you're referring to the post that started this topic (and apparently never bothered to read the rest of the topic) I'll make a comment on that. Aredon's suggestion shows he doesn't understand the problem, because "solar power" and "hydrogen power" do not have the same purpose. In fact they are in two "classes" that are mutually dependent on eachother to create a full solution to the energy problem.
Solar power refers to the generation of electricity from sunlight - it is a source of energy. This alone is not useful because the amount of generated electricity varies greatly, depending on the intensity of the sunlight. A way to store energy for use in darker periods is thus required.
And that's where hydrogen power comes in. Hydrogen is not a source of energy for mankind because it's hardly available naturally - we to have invest energy to create it from water/methane/other available chemicals so there's no net gain in usable energy. But the advantage of hydrogen is that it (or rather high-energy compounds like hydrides) can be stored, transported, used on demand. You can see water as an "empty energy basket" and hydrogen + oxygen as a filled one. | Aredon wrote: |
| A great deal of power could be stored in battery-stations and cities themselves could derive power from the tunnel. |
Thus hydrogen could be used in these batteries. The alternatives are probably very unfriedly to the environment. But actually it's much more practical to put hydrogen compounds in the cars themselves so they don't need batteries and charging stations but just fuel stations similar to what we have now.
In any case, Aredon suggests to choose solar power over hydrogen power while each of them is pretty useless (for transportation) without the other. You can't make hydrogen without a primary energy source (e.g. solar) and you can't reliably power cars with just solar energy - you need a storage agent (e.g. hydrogen).
So I emphasize, hydrogen is not in the same class as solar/wind/nuclear energy because we can't use it to create energy, only to store/transport it. Conventional petrol is special because it is in both classes: it's an easily stored and transported source of energy.
And where we get the material to make the solar cells from... mostly out of sand (SiO2). But getting Si out of that compound requires energy, and where do we get the energy from? Researchers at my university made an energy balance for the production of solar cells, beginning all the way at the mining of the resources and including transportation etc. It turned out that it'll take approx. 2 years before a solar cell has produced as much energy as the production costed! And this was a mild calculation with favourable estimates (high efficiency, located in Spain or something, etc.) In Holland the figure would be more like 4 years. Nearly a year now since this thread got started and its still going... I don't know if that's good or really really sad.
In any event my opinion of Hydrogen cars has recently been changed by Honda's Fuel Cell car. At the moment the name escapes me, but I do know that they are currently leasing them to people in California (apparently the only place with enough solar 'hydrogen' stations). Currently they are just testing "what it is like for people to live with the cars". They've basically proven to me that it is possible to have a hydrogen car that doesn't produce waste. I've also read that apparently its top speed is 80mph. Which is about as fast as you need anyway.
The only issue I haven't read into would be the problem with hydrogen being pretty dang explosive in a collision. Not sure the facts on that.
Other than that hydrogen does look promising as a battery of sorts.
Well, obviously there is enough to say about this topic, as you just showed.
Nice Topic.
I feel the solar energy technology can be improvised and the scientists should concentrate on reducing the cost of solar energy solution. Solar energy is the good alternative to the currently available energy solutions but when it comes to mass production of solar energy the cost effect comes into picture. For small amount of power, solar solution is good and is currently being used but it lacks in terms of mass production for example to power an entire city with solar power. Forget city, we can't even power a street with solar energy because of the cost effect.
All solutions for the energy "problem" will not work in the long run if we do not stop wasting. We could easily do with 1/10 of the energy we are now using, but energy is so cheap we do not bother. The same accounts for wast of all kind of materials. I do not think any government can change the energy usage. It is a matter of concience we are burning up all resources of our planet. We are just not capable of thinking ahead more than 10 years or perhaps 50 years, but not beyond that, because of our mortallity. If we could have lived for centuries perhaps we would get frightened of all the damage we do ourselfs to nature and our habitat.
| norbert1 wrote: |
| All solutions for the energy "problem" will not work in the long run if we do not stop wasting. We could easily do with 1/10 of the energy we are now using, but energy is so cheap we do not bother. The same accounts for wast of all kind of materials. I do not think any government can change the energy usage. It is a matter of concience we are burning up all resources of our planet. We are just not capable of thinking ahead more than 10 years or perhaps 50 years, but not beyond that, because of our mortallity. If we could have lived for centuries perhaps we would get frightened of all the damage we do ourselfs to nature and our habitat. |
Meh I think it has more to do with not seeing the direct effects since we're so involved in keeping up in our own lives. People are too busy keeping up appearances to even notice the small effects of what they are doing. Even if we lived a century or two we'd still be working for most of it... the earth would just be more overpopulated We are at present also thinking about different types of energy sources we first wanted to have underground earth heating which is very good if it is coupled up to a small gas heater which gives it a little kick!
We then thought about an oil boiler but with oil very unstable at present we have now decided on wood as our main fuel.
To me energy problem can be solved by soloar panel usage is only about 20%. We should
use Wind and Tidal enery extracting methods. The countrys with long costal area should
use wind energy. The tamilnadu district has a made a successful soloution of their
electrical needs by only wind energy.
| Quote: |
energy problem can be solved by soloar panel usage is only about 20%. We should
use Wind and Tidal enery extracting methods. The countrys with long costal area should
use wind energy. The tamilnadu district has a made a successful soloution of their
electrical needs by only wind energy. |
chatrack,
you make a good point about the need to push to alternative energy.
The energy industry (and all industries for that matter) are driven by market forces.
What this means is that there needs to be a market or economic reason to invest in alternative forms of energy. We now have that with oil prices at record highs as seen in yesterday's (7/11) close of $147/barrel. What this means is that more money than ever will be invested by Venture capitalists and other private and public entities to form businesses using clean technology that will be an alternative to oil.
The oil industry will not be disappearing any time soon. Oil and related products are used for all types of consumer goods as well as machinery, etc. and will be in demand especially in developing countries well into this century. With that said, industrialized nations such as ourselves, need to develop alternative methods of power to succeed in this century and free ourselves from foreign dependence and competition for oil with developing countries.
Wind and tidal are both viable potential pieces to the energy puzzle, but currently are not stable producers of energy and have high infrastructure costs.
I'm most excited about the potential mass roll out of electric cars in the plug-in hybrid model starting in 1-2 years hopefully reaching a mass scale in the next 5-10 as Mercedes has stated to move away completely from the production of new cars using gasoline by 2015. The infrastructure (think electric outlets) is there, the technology is there (think laptop batteries) but still needs some refining (see A123Systems and others). What this means is a decreased dependence on (foreign) oil, decreased costs for consumers, and a stronger economy which will only cause more investment in clean technology.
As time goes on, solar costs (tightly linked to silicon costs) will decrease and scale, resulting in increased adoption of this technology in the consumer sector to power portions of theire homes with panels in the backyard and roofs as well as cars as Toyota has already announced for future models of the Prius. This will result in a low amount of power from the grid (which is powered by a variety of methods, most fossil fuels as these have been historically the most efficient, cheapest solutions). We may even have a surplus in some cases where individuals can sell power back to the utilities with the clean solutions they are using.
Wind is highly unpredictable currently and as a result, must be supported (backed up) by keeping generation stations running that are using primarily fossil fuels. This results in a higher cost than using the fossil fuels alone for generating power and the potential for outages if used as a sole source due to the unreliable and unpredictable nature of wind (at least currently).
The ocean I've longed believed is a potential source of power as it's the largest body on our planet. With that in mind, I feel that this is a longer term goal to be done right and needs to become much more efficient before it's ready to come out of the labs and into the marketplace. It also has the potential to be unsightly and dangerous.
Nuclear generation is a great source of power (efficient, cheap, reliable and safe) but unfortunately the current political and public sentiment toward it as an unsafe source of power, however unfair and unfounded as that may be, remains.
Nuclear fission also holds great potential with the work they are doing in europe but will not be a useful source of power for 15+ years at the earliest if it ever is.
The important thing is the ball is now rolling away from oil and towards other sources of energy which is what we need.[/quote] | Aredon wrote: |
#1 - We are removing oxygen from our breathable atmosphere. Couple problems with that, first of all we kinda need that to survive. Second of all we have already proven that if any portion of our atmosphere went off by even a tenth of a percent we would no longer be able to survive. Third of all we need to have oxygen in the atmosphere to react with UV radiation and create OZONE and back again!
#2 - By creating water as a biproduct, will we not be in effect raising the ocean levels anyway? Do we honestly think that adding MORE water to our planet's very tempermental enviroment will help? Doesn't water in effect contain more heat than most greenhouse gases?
|
Hi Aredon,
I agree solar power is probably the best solution. It wouldn't have to be too exotic - over roads or in space or anything. Doing it all in the same area would have massive scale savings. With expected improvements in efficiency, a small percentage of the Sahara desert could be covered with cells to provide all the electricity the world needs. There would be the problem of distributing it though. One suggestion is a super-conducting global grid. Another would be converting it to hydrogen. In this case, the power would only have to be cabled to the coast to use sea water to make the hydrogen.
Your stated problems #1 and #2 are not actually problems. We would have to make the hydrogen from water, and the same amount of oxygen that would be required to burn it would be made as a by-product. The same amount of water you started with would be re-formed when the hydrogen was used in a cell or during burning and the ratio of oxygen in the atmosphere would also remain the same. There would be an infinitesimal fall in sea levels representing the amount of Hydrogen in circulation and in infinitesimal increase in oxygen in the atmosphere.
Cheers,
Barmstonian
