User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 33 to 40 of 47

Thread: an answer to the oil shortage

  1. #33
    Let's positive thinking! seedjar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Olympia, Washington
    Posts
    4,064
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (schloaty @ July 25 2006,3:55)]What kills me is solar energy. Was just at the planetarium this weekend, and found out that the amount of energy that reaches the earth from the sun in one minutes is a little more than the US uses in a whole year.

    Now, I understand that a) we cannot collect solar energy efficiently - maybe a 2% draw from the total energy. Ok, so that makes it a hour to power the county for a year.

    Then, we have less that the whole earth (because we aren't the only country, after all). Say, we have 1% of the surface area to deal with.

    that means a few days to power the country for a year.

    Still better than we're doing now!
    The problem with solar is twofold at best. We don't have the means to collect sunlight effectively. Not only that, but even the most modern techniques for producing solar panels take more energy to produce a panel than that panel will ever collect before falling apart. Solar energy seems like a good choice to the consumer, but that's only because the true economic and environment costs of solar panel production are obscured by inflation and renewable energy subsidies.
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (zac @ July 26 2006,10:16)]Cold fusion, which is the theory that a fusion reaction could take place at room temperature and at normal pressure is still under debate. A panel of 18 scientists met in 2004 to discuss it and two-thirds were not convinced that the theory would translate into a working reaction.
    Cold fusion has recieved a lot of bad rep since the 80's when a group of researchers falsified lab reports to support their fusion method. However, there's a growing body of evidence to support that fusion is possible at room temperatures when certain alloys are used to exert enormous amounts of magnetic (or maybe weak nuclear) force on deuterium. I read a series of papers once documenting some sort of microbe (I think it was a fungus) that accumulated tritium - an isotope of hydrogen produced on Earth only by nuclear reactions - when grown in a closed environment, suggesting that the whatever-it-is performs fusion as a part of it's life process.
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (CopcarFC @ July 26 2006,10:50)]From what I understand, HHO is not new. Its been around forever but has never made it big because the people who invented ways to use it were sucked up by oil companys so they could keep us on oil instead.
    This is precisely what's happening with cold fusion research as well. There's a lot of pressure to keep cold fusion under wraps; cold fusion reactors would allow anyone to have a safe, efficient power plant in their own home, running off of ordinary water. It would totally destroy the energy economy as it presently exists, as well as a number of other businesses that have sprung up around our methods of energy production (mining, emissions cleanup, etc.) Thus, big surprise, big oil and other energy concerns spend a lot of time and money lobbying against cold fusion research.
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (jimscott @ July 27 2006,3:51)]Hydrogen can be produced from abundant domestic resources including natural gas, coal, biomass, and even water.

    Combined with other technologies such as carbon capture and storage, renewable energy and fusion energy, fuel cells could make an emissions-free energy future possible.
    Note the sources they list for hydrogen. Natural gas and coal? Still burning things, still relying on resources that are spectacularly slow to renew. Biomass is a little more reasonable, but the water part is complete and utter non-scientific hogwash. The next paragraph is a nice little scientifically accurate disclaimer; although it seems innocuous enough, what they're basically saying is that you need additional power to use hydrogen as a fuel source, IE we don't actually have any energy to gain by using it. They say, 'Combined with... renewable energy...' but hydrogen power is supposed to be that renewable energy. We're not solving the problem, just convoluting it. Circular logic anyone?
    ~Joe
    o//~ Livin' like a bug ain't easy / My old clothes don't seem to fit me /
    I got little tiny bug feet / I don't really know what bugs eat /
    Don't want no one steppin' on me / Now I'm sympathizin' with fleas /
    Livin' like a bug ain't easy / Livin' like a bug ain't easy... o//~

  2. #34
    Tropical Fish Enthusiast jimscott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Western New York
    Posts
    18,768
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Maybe we should just go with lightening, a bell tower, and a flux capacitor. It's been around since 1955 and capable of generatiing 121 Jiggawatts of power.

  3. #35
    Tropical Fish Enthusiast jimscott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Western New York
    Posts
    18,768
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (Lauderdale @ July 26 2006,10:47)]I saw no mention of nuclear or fusion power in this discussion. Would someone care to expound?
    I wouldn't trust our species to use nuclear fuel for just energy production. There are far too many crazies out there and there have been accidents, in spite of safeguards. In my opinion, we will either be held hostage or destroyed - or both.

  4. #36
    Cardiac Nurse JB_OrchidGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    3,818
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Is E85 different than the ethinol top fuel dragsters use? because someone said that they produce lass hoursepower, but it has been my experience that alcahol drasters produce more hoursepower than the race fuel drasters. I could be wrong.

    BMW made the first hydrogen/gas powered car, and because it needs to be tuned to use both fuel sources both MPG are down, but if it could be tuned to use strictly hydrogen than it get better gas miles. I am glad to see mazda getting in the mix of burning hydrogen.

    It is my understanding that energy is neither created nor destroyed. So theroeticly when you burn gas the output is heat and the expolsion power used to turn the motor. We loose alot of that convertion into heat. Thats why its not efficient as converting one thing to another.

    Now, this is a theory I have. Call me a loon, but don't bash me. Its just a theory. Keep in mind I do nto know how the earth goes about producing oil. I know its a fosil fuel, but other than that I don't know. Everyone firmiliar with the tar sands in Canada? Have you ever noticed that it seems like oil is found in areas of high sand content? Atleast to my knowledge anyways. Remember I'm just thinking outloud. I know that it has been said that trees and plants clean the air and help remove polution. Although no where in a plants respriation does it use the polutants from the air. Atleast thats not what I learned in Bio. So now I ask myself if plants don't realy filter out the bad stuff in the air then what does? I know polution has been on the increase, but some has to be removed or we would have overwhelmed ourselves already. All the forest fires and other things burning since the begining of time should have accumulated over time and we should have been overwhelmed by now. So not to get to my theory and point of this ramble. What if all those byproducts of oil some how accumulate in the sandy area of the world and over time pool into the pockets of oil we are now collecting. What if they somehow convert from the gass byproducts back into the oil they were once? I duno it could be far fetched, but I was just thinking outside the box. If atoms never get destroyed but they just recombine, unless we split an atom, but then don;t those components recombine after the reaction?

    I know just enough to eb dangerous, but not enough to know really what I am talking about.

    What about if someone built a hybred that when the engine was running it had 2 or 3 alternators running on the exuast lines generating more elestricity while the engine was running. It might help the engine run less to recharge the batteries. Just a thought.

    Here is another, and I planned on building it, but EVERYONE says it will not work. You know the whole idea of can't get energy for free. What I have thought about doing was having an enetric motor funning a large pully or maybe a planitary gear or something where for every rotation of the motor pully you get Many rotations of the output gear. That ourput gear would then turn 2 or 3 alternators that are pretty free spinning. Now the motor would be running off 3 to 12 batteries in parrallel (parrallel would keep it a 12 volt system right?), and then the alternators would be recharging those batteries. I would think that the one motor running the 2 or 3 alternators would use less energy than the alternators were producing therefore, having a surplus of energy to be used to power something. I also thought about using a 6 volt motor to power the system, and charge the 12 volt batteries. Just had to find a 6 volt motor strong enough to run the system without sucking to much energy. Now I don't have the funds to impliment such an idea, and everyone I share this with tells me that it wouldn't work. The energy needed t oturn the alternators would accualy be more than the alternators would produce this that and the other. I just think that that is not the case if a high efficency motor was used and high output alternators were used. You know tha 190 amp big boys. Or even bigger if they make them, but they would have to be free spinning to reduce drag on the electric motor. I know the laws of physics says it will not work, but my twisted thinking outside the box tells me it will work. If I ever get the funds to make it, and I am able to get the system to power my car stereo for an extended period of time, then I would consider it a success.
    JB
    Friend me on facebook with JB_orchidguy@yahoo.com.
    Growlist Updated 05/08/13

  5. #37
    Cardiac Nurse JB_OrchidGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    3,818
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Wow I didn't think the post was that long. Sorry everyone!
    JB
    Friend me on facebook with JB_orchidguy@yahoo.com.
    Growlist Updated 05/08/13

  6. #38
    Lauderdale's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Fort Lauderdale
    Posts
    1,077
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    JB_OrchidGuy
    Top fuel dragsters are supercharged, use Nitromethane, chemical formula CH3NO2, for fuel and produce in the neighborhood of 8000 hp from a 500+ cubic inch engine. The last time I looked, the 1/4 mile record is under 4.5 seconds and over 330 mph. They are the quickest accelerating man made vehicles on the planet.

    Alcohol dragsters use methanol ($52 per gallon) not ethanol, for fuel. While they are very quick, about 7+ second quarter mile times, they do not even come close to the horsepower per cubic inch capability of the top fuel cars.

  7. #39
    rattler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    missing, presumed dead
    Posts
    8,554
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    JB, oil isnt commonly found in sand, its normally found fairly deep underground between hard layers of rock that keep it trapped in place. in a few areas due to earth quakes and just normal continental drift these pockets get broken and the oil will make its way to the surface into areas such as the tar sands in Canada or the Labrea Tar pits in LA
    cervid serial killer
    Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety
    I didn't get stimulated but he kept his promise on change, that's about all I got left!
    http://www.wolfpointherald.com/--http://www.safety-brite.net/

  8. #40

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    guelph
    Posts
    394
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Just another point to add.

    Oil is currently an efficient source of fuel for extraction, but it is getting less efficient despite our increases in technology. In the 1950's they could extract 5-10 barrels of oil/for every barrel used to run the machines. Today the return ratio is 2-3 barrels/barrel. Mostly because the new oil sites are the tar sands/pits or they are extremly deep underground and require much more energy to extract. Oil sites become inefficient when 1 barrel only extracts another 1 barrel. These sites are then deserted even though they still contain more oil, it's just out of "efficient" reach. The tar sand/pit sites usually become unefficient fairly fast. Small increases in our current technology set back the 1/1 ratio by a few months at a time, but as the technology slows down and demand increases they too will become inefficient.

    Zac
    "You can never underestimate the stupidity of the general public" -Scott Adams-

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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