P12
Member
The ONLY reason we are dependant on foriegn oil is the dang tree huggers.
Why isnt anybody talking about how to.....
- Thread starter Diesle
- Start date
- Status
Dorrin79
Member
There is no alt. fuel that has all the benefits of petroleum. Cost, availablity, ease of use, etc.
Period.
Ethanol? Please. I forget the exact figures but something like 1/2 the arable farmland in the world would have to be used to produce anually what the US alone uses monthly, in oil (and that's just for gasoline in cars - doesn't help at all for lubrication, plastics, heating oils, electricity generation, etc.)
Hydrogen? Not a terrible idea - it works, and it's clean. But it takes power to make hydrogen, and that power has to come from somewhere (like burning coal, for example). Hydrogen is just a way of transporting potential energy, not a true energy source. The lost emissions from gasoline/diesel etc would be more than made up for by the increased use of coal and natural gas at electrical plants. There are some small benefits from scaling, though.
LPG? Not really an improvement over gasoline; more expensive, less readily available, not much cleaner.
the rest of the alt. energy sources don't work in cars, (like solar, or biomass) and aren't feasible anyway.
The only realistic alternative to oil/gas/coal is nuclear fission. Unfortunately, political realities in this country keep us from using it as much as we could.
If we had 90% of the nation's power coming from fission, I think hydrogen powered cars would become a marketable alternative, and would eventually be a competitor for the internal combustion engine's market position.
The only way we're going to have alternatives as a market force before some leap in technology or major change in market realities is if the government forces change on the market, whether it be through regulations or subsidies. Both of those actions are singularly unattractive to me.
So, in the meantime, I'll keep driving my gas-powered cars, and the environmentalists can get over it
There is some good commentary on alt fuels and energy sources in the archiveshere
Period.
Ethanol? Please. I forget the exact figures but something like 1/2 the arable farmland in the world would have to be used to produce anually what the US alone uses monthly, in oil (and that's just for gasoline in cars - doesn't help at all for lubrication, plastics, heating oils, electricity generation, etc.)
Hydrogen? Not a terrible idea - it works, and it's clean. But it takes power to make hydrogen, and that power has to come from somewhere (like burning coal, for example). Hydrogen is just a way of transporting potential energy, not a true energy source. The lost emissions from gasoline/diesel etc would be more than made up for by the increased use of coal and natural gas at electrical plants. There are some small benefits from scaling, though.
LPG? Not really an improvement over gasoline; more expensive, less readily available, not much cleaner.
the rest of the alt. energy sources don't work in cars, (like solar, or biomass) and aren't feasible anyway.
The only realistic alternative to oil/gas/coal is nuclear fission. Unfortunately, political realities in this country keep us from using it as much as we could.
If we had 90% of the nation's power coming from fission, I think hydrogen powered cars would become a marketable alternative, and would eventually be a competitor for the internal combustion engine's market position.
The only way we're going to have alternatives as a market force before some leap in technology or major change in market realities is if the government forces change on the market, whether it be through regulations or subsidies. Both of those actions are singularly unattractive to me.
So, in the meantime, I'll keep driving my gas-powered cars, and the environmentalists can get over it
There is some good commentary on alt fuels and energy sources in the archiveshere
bogie
Member
Well, I like to be energy efficient. It's cheaper.
My little Mitsubishi gets 30+ MPG for city driving. My van, unfortunately, gets 15. Next van will be a diesel, and I may look into rigging it to recycle used cooking oil.
I use fluorescent lights. I like a LOT of light in my apartment - I've been working on what is becoming a sizable collection of lamps. The "bulbs" cost more, but they last a LOT longer, and use less juice. Works for me. I've got one lamp that is using a fluorescent fixture that was screwed in back around 1975 or so. It works fine.
I'd really like to experiment with wind power or solar, but the apartment sorta precludes that.
Self reliance takes many forms.
My little Mitsubishi gets 30+ MPG for city driving. My van, unfortunately, gets 15. Next van will be a diesel, and I may look into rigging it to recycle used cooking oil.
I use fluorescent lights. I like a LOT of light in my apartment - I've been working on what is becoming a sizable collection of lamps. The "bulbs" cost more, but they last a LOT longer, and use less juice. Works for me. I've got one lamp that is using a fluorescent fixture that was screwed in back around 1975 or so. It works fine.
I'd really like to experiment with wind power or solar, but the apartment sorta precludes that.
Self reliance takes many forms.
I really like the idea of ETOH based fuels. Japan liked the idea well enough to stockpile sugar during the seventies oil crunch. Instead of being the breadbasket to the world, the midwest corn surpluses could be fermented to alcohol. I got to believe that technology could solve any energy problems related to distillation (how about vacuum distillation techniques and solar powered stills?) and the emissions of aldehydes that come with alcohol burning. How many BTUs are in the alcohol refined from a million bushels of corn? I think we could be energy self sufficient, but no food surpluses for the rest of the world. Think how a major devaluation of oil coupled with worldwide food crunch would mess with the world economy.
Population problems in the third world are currently a political tool. A starving population does not have the energy or resources to oppose a dictator. Famine and pestilence help balance population against supporting infrastructure.
Population problems in the third world are currently a political tool. A starving population does not have the energy or resources to oppose a dictator. Famine and pestilence help balance population against supporting infrastructure.
chaim
Member
I think the usual arguement on energy is powered by false assumptions by both sides. It should not be a fossil fuels or alternative energy arguement.
First, both sides use false arguements. One side tells us that the supply of oil will dry up any day now. I remember back to elementary school (I'm 32 now) that they were talking about crude oil reserves drying up within 20-25 years. Well, they still haven't dried up, in fact I remember reading that at current levels there is enough out there (and more deposits being discovered all the time) for quite a few generations. The other side tries to ignore any negative to the status quo meanwhile we prop up repressive regimes in the Middle East and poison our planet.
We can become independent of Middle Eastern oil sources within a couple years. We have enough here to be nearly fully independent as it is, it is just that it isn't completely economical to reach it all (plus much is politicially hard to take advantage of- imagine drilling off the coast of Texas and Florida right now with a Texas Bush in the White House and his brother in the Fla governors office). Also, by tapping sources in the former Soviet Republics we could have enough cheap oil to last at least a generation and we'd (through free market oil sales) prop up the economies and contribute to the stability of some potentially very important allies in an important part of the world (though that would take a fairly large initial investment or US government aid either in the form of international aid payments or tax credits for oil companies).
To address the damage to the environment (and also lessen our dependence on foreign oil) we still don't have to completely abandon fossil fuels, and we have most of the technology already available to do a lot of good. Cars that mix ethanol and gasoline could produce much reduced levels of pollution and depending upon the mix current engines could already handle the fuel. Currently, gas/electric hybrids are already available with little or no loss of performance. Right now, they are subsidized by the car companies at a loss in order to be a large scale research project (you get an approx. $15K economy car for $20-22K that costs a few thousand more than that to make) but if this technology was produced in much larger numbers it could be done far more economically with a small increase in costs (and if put primarily in $30-60K SUVs and higher end cars no one would even notice the price increase). This technology can lower fuel consumption (and thus pollution) by about 50%. Nuclear power plants could be used for more of our electrical output. People worry about poisoning the environment with the wastes but is that any worse than poisoning our environment with greenhouse gasses and carcinogens from fueling our power plants with coal and oil? Natural gas powered busses and trucks are far cleaner than other fossil fuels and in a city (as opposed to interstate situations) very "doable" and relatively inexpensive in fleet applications plus we have more than enough right here in the US and we can get it economically. You and I can buy more florescent and other lower energy consumption light bulbs (I do like a few more traditional incandescent bulbs though since I do like the light quality they put out better).
Gas/electric hybrids, nuclear power, cleaner and/or more efficient fossil fuels and mixes, and buying oil elsewhere (and developing new oil fields) and we could ignore the Arab oil producers and have cleaner cities. What's even better is that it can be done with no change in our lifestyles and little (long-term) added cost, though it would involve an initial investment that may be fairly large- but if gas prices hit $2+ a gallon maybe we'd be more willing to pay the initial outlay of cash. Best of all since all the technological changes involve current technology and could use current fuels no one would have to run out and buy new cars as the new "system" would be totally "backwards compliant" technology. As cars wear out people could buy new gas/electric hybrids, as old power plants need to be replaced new nuclear plants could be built.
First, both sides use false arguements. One side tells us that the supply of oil will dry up any day now. I remember back to elementary school (I'm 32 now) that they were talking about crude oil reserves drying up within 20-25 years. Well, they still haven't dried up, in fact I remember reading that at current levels there is enough out there (and more deposits being discovered all the time) for quite a few generations. The other side tries to ignore any negative to the status quo meanwhile we prop up repressive regimes in the Middle East and poison our planet.
We can become independent of Middle Eastern oil sources within a couple years. We have enough here to be nearly fully independent as it is, it is just that it isn't completely economical to reach it all (plus much is politicially hard to take advantage of- imagine drilling off the coast of Texas and Florida right now with a Texas Bush in the White House and his brother in the Fla governors office). Also, by tapping sources in the former Soviet Republics we could have enough cheap oil to last at least a generation and we'd (through free market oil sales) prop up the economies and contribute to the stability of some potentially very important allies in an important part of the world (though that would take a fairly large initial investment or US government aid either in the form of international aid payments or tax credits for oil companies).
To address the damage to the environment (and also lessen our dependence on foreign oil) we still don't have to completely abandon fossil fuels, and we have most of the technology already available to do a lot of good. Cars that mix ethanol and gasoline could produce much reduced levels of pollution and depending upon the mix current engines could already handle the fuel. Currently, gas/electric hybrids are already available with little or no loss of performance. Right now, they are subsidized by the car companies at a loss in order to be a large scale research project (you get an approx. $15K economy car for $20-22K that costs a few thousand more than that to make) but if this technology was produced in much larger numbers it could be done far more economically with a small increase in costs (and if put primarily in $30-60K SUVs and higher end cars no one would even notice the price increase). This technology can lower fuel consumption (and thus pollution) by about 50%. Nuclear power plants could be used for more of our electrical output. People worry about poisoning the environment with the wastes but is that any worse than poisoning our environment with greenhouse gasses and carcinogens from fueling our power plants with coal and oil? Natural gas powered busses and trucks are far cleaner than other fossil fuels and in a city (as opposed to interstate situations) very "doable" and relatively inexpensive in fleet applications plus we have more than enough right here in the US and we can get it economically. You and I can buy more florescent and other lower energy consumption light bulbs (I do like a few more traditional incandescent bulbs though since I do like the light quality they put out better).
Gas/electric hybrids, nuclear power, cleaner and/or more efficient fossil fuels and mixes, and buying oil elsewhere (and developing new oil fields) and we could ignore the Arab oil producers and have cleaner cities. What's even better is that it can be done with no change in our lifestyles and little (long-term) added cost, though it would involve an initial investment that may be fairly large- but if gas prices hit $2+ a gallon maybe we'd be more willing to pay the initial outlay of cash. Best of all since all the technological changes involve current technology and could use current fuels no one would have to run out and buy new cars as the new "system" would be totally "backwards compliant" technology. As cars wear out people could buy new gas/electric hybrids, as old power plants need to be replaced new nuclear plants could be built.
chaim
Member
(continued to shorten the post size)
This could be done with little pain, it could fairly easily be phased in since (again) it is compatable with current technology, the costs (while there) aren't particularly high, and it could be done with no change in the American lifestyle yet the payoff in more energy independence and a cleaner environment (especially in the cities) would be immense. To me it is a no brainer.
Of course, it won't ever happen. It means both sides have to acknowlege they aren't totally right and they'd have to work together or at least stop demonizing each other. Even with current gas prices it is still relatively cheap (adjusted for inflation we don't pay any more than we did in the 60's, at least we didn't before the current hike, and we certainly pay less per gallon than in the 70's when adjusted for inflation and with more efficient automobiles we are far better off) so there is no incentive for a quick change over. It involves current technology so there is no prestige involved for someone who can introduce some revolutionary new technology so no one wants to really bother. The militant environmentalists have won the public relations battle over nuclear power so no one will want to see nuclear plants. Also, it is a blend of ideas that the right wing hates and others they love and also ideas the left hates and some they love. That alone means it can never happen.
My only hope to see something like this done is things may get bad enough that people may be willing to compromise. If we fight a war in Iraq that is mixed in popularity and is widely seen (inaccurately) as being over oil maybe the left wing would be more willing to consider nuclear power to lessen the likelihood of another "war over oil". If prices of gas start to hit $2 or more a gallon (not at all unlikely, my last tank was $1.70/gal) maybe people, both left and right, will start demanding more fuel efficient cars and trucks. However, large SUVs and powerful V-8 cars are still hugely popular, and even if we are willing to give it up we would prefer not to (we did mostly change to smaller 4cyl cars in the early '80s but look how fast we switched back when gas prices went down again). We could have both with gas/electric hybrids, and if we can have both good fuel efficiency and large vehicles I think that when car and truck buyers realize that they will probably demand them from car makers driving a new found demand for the gas/electric hybrids, though that is assuming gas prices go even higher (the threshhold is probably between $2 and $2.50/gal).
This could be done with little pain, it could fairly easily be phased in since (again) it is compatable with current technology, the costs (while there) aren't particularly high, and it could be done with no change in the American lifestyle yet the payoff in more energy independence and a cleaner environment (especially in the cities) would be immense. To me it is a no brainer.
Of course, it won't ever happen. It means both sides have to acknowlege they aren't totally right and they'd have to work together or at least stop demonizing each other. Even with current gas prices it is still relatively cheap (adjusted for inflation we don't pay any more than we did in the 60's, at least we didn't before the current hike, and we certainly pay less per gallon than in the 70's when adjusted for inflation and with more efficient automobiles we are far better off) so there is no incentive for a quick change over. It involves current technology so there is no prestige involved for someone who can introduce some revolutionary new technology so no one wants to really bother. The militant environmentalists have won the public relations battle over nuclear power so no one will want to see nuclear plants. Also, it is a blend of ideas that the right wing hates and others they love and also ideas the left hates and some they love. That alone means it can never happen.
My only hope to see something like this done is things may get bad enough that people may be willing to compromise. If we fight a war in Iraq that is mixed in popularity and is widely seen (inaccurately) as being over oil maybe the left wing would be more willing to consider nuclear power to lessen the likelihood of another "war over oil". If prices of gas start to hit $2 or more a gallon (not at all unlikely, my last tank was $1.70/gal) maybe people, both left and right, will start demanding more fuel efficient cars and trucks. However, large SUVs and powerful V-8 cars are still hugely popular, and even if we are willing to give it up we would prefer not to (we did mostly change to smaller 4cyl cars in the early '80s but look how fast we switched back when gas prices went down again). We could have both with gas/electric hybrids, and if we can have both good fuel efficiency and large vehicles I think that when car and truck buyers realize that they will probably demand them from car makers driving a new found demand for the gas/electric hybrids, though that is assuming gas prices go even higher (the threshhold is probably between $2 and $2.50/gal).
Mute
Member
Damn it! Why didn't someone tell me this sooner? I'd be glad to contribute.
T.Stahl
Member
Much higher!
I just filled up my Jetta at 1.129EU/l or 4.69$/gal (regular 91oct).
Guess what? It's still not high enough to make cars that consume as little as 3l/100km (78mpg) really popular.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
No longer on-topic for legal since the thread is over four years old.
- Status