Announcement

**Technoid** · 1 November 2002, 07:48

That would be fun

**GNEP** · 1 November 2002, 07:51

Fuel cells: technology is just about there.

Fuel distribution and storage: with hydrogen, this is still a little bit of a problem, but solvable with a bit of will.

Energy sources: well, even if hydrogen is being used as a "battery", we have still got to produce it no? And natural gas/oil is still the cheapest way of doing it.

So the "Manhattan Project" effort really has to go into Solar/Wind/Tidal/Hydro/Biofuel/Fusion(?) sources, not fuel cells themselves as I see it.

Basically, a big reservoir of energy that is cheap to get at and extract sitting under the ME countries is just too tempting an alternative.

How about some effort on the other side: reduction of energy demand through higher heating/aircon efficiencies, or just a bit more tolerance for temperatures either side of the "optimal"?

**Dr Mordrid** · 1 November 2002, 08:15

Solar: getting there, but still needs $$

Wind: proven tech, but some enviro-wacko will it claim takes a lot of space some mutant jackrabbit might need and kills stupid birds.

Tidal: some other enviro-wacko will claim it kills seaweed, scrub fish and coral

Biofuel: works great, but "odiferous". Would you want one of those plants upwind from your neighborhood?

Fusion: yup...but throw the money at the Fusor and get the DOE off its tokamak kick

You want a cheap resource? Try the methane hydrate (methane ice) deposits off every continental shelf....enough just off the US for thousands of years

Dr. Mordrid

**Jessterw** · 1 November 2002, 08:21

In somewhat related news, it appears that Toyota (IIRC) is moving towards all their vehicles being hybrids. I'll have to find the news article I read on it.

It's long overdue.

Edit: Here's the article...

Auto.com - Toyota plans all gas-electric vehicles by 2012

This really doesn't go far enough to solving the problems you guys are talking about in the previous posts. This won't be implemented till 2012 (as per all the vehicles being hybrid, we will see various ones before then) and the cars are still, in part, reliant upon gasoline. It seems the main drive here is to reduce emissions, but that's a good thing too.

**RichL** · 1 November 2002, 08:26

We dont need a 'Manhattan Project' approach. We just need to ask Liquid Memory and hPar_ to show us their cold fusion reactors made from string and old coffee tins running at 125% efficiency.

IMHO the Infernal Combustion engine still has a long life ahead of it. Just because petroleum based fuels might become expensive or rare, doesnt mean the technology is worthless.

Its easy to run diesel engines on vegetable oil. USED vegetable oil even. And I'm told that being a natural product it produces a lot less harmful emissions than regular diesel. It's becoming so popular that the Police and Customs and Excise are having a major crackdown on people buying twenty bottles of cooking oil and pouring it straight into the tank. It even made the news.
The French already use 'biodiesel', which is regular diesel with a percentage (IIRC about 10%) of Rapeseed Methyl Ethynol (RME) added.

Diesel engines are in fact far more efficient and less polluting than petrol engines anyway. The more people that use them the better for everyone - excepting the people who tax fuel.

**Dr Mordrid** · 1 November 2002, 08:28

I don't know if there are enough McDonalds and Burger Kings throwing out oil to support all those big rigs

Also: those diesels are actually MORE polluting because of their particulate emissions. These have been found to be more harmful than previously suspected.

Dr. Mordrid

**RichL** · 1 November 2002, 08:34

Originally posted by Dr Mordrid

I don't know if there are enough McDonalds and Burger Kings throwing out oil to support all those big rigs

Also: those diesels are actually MORE polluting because of their particulate emissions. These have been found to be more harmful than previously suspected.

Dr. Mordrid

Particulate emissions are, quite frankly, a load of hogswash used by governments who want us to drive petrol vehicles (which use more fuel and generate more revenue) or tree-huggers who want us to stop using cars altogether. (Damn, I'm starting to sound like hPar!

)

OLD diesels and poorly setup diesels will often produce smoke. However, with advances in engine design and electronic control of injection timing etc, modern diesels are very low polluting indeed.

**Greebe** · 1 November 2002, 08:52

Not true Rich, not so many years ago the Trucking industry here was busted in a big way by altering the emission test results.

Makes you wonder when you're driving down the road and a Semi start blasting HUGE amounts of black smoke... and that rig just passed the tests!

**RichL** · 1 November 2002, 09:11

Yeah, in other words, they werent old technology engines or improperly setup.
I'm sure you get as many badly tuned diesels as you do petrol engines, except with a diesel its a lot more obvious as you get clouds of black smoke.

I dont think diesel is too popular in the US for family cars, but in Europe they've really taken off.
The latest units from the likes of PSA, BMW and VW are superb.
Even Ford have managed to produce a good small diesel!

**ZokesPro** · 1 November 2002, 09:16

I heard that Europeen diesel engines are far more advanced than in North American diesel ones.

I also heard that they have stricter rules on pollution and emissions testing.

**KRSESQ** · 1 November 2002, 10:31

Brazil has made enormous strides in developing an ethanol-fuel infrastructure for automobiles. Many cars currently manufactured in Brazil run exclusively on ethanol manufactured from sugar cane.

Can't say whether we have enough cropland in the US to raise enough corn to produce enough ethanol to run even a small percentage of the cars in this country. Definitely deserves more effort, though.

Kevin

**GNEP** · 1 November 2002, 10:38

I think that it still makes more sense to get the oil out of the ground as we do at present, and use it, but work hard on the energy efficiency side of things.

Renewable energy sources are maturing gradually, and will eventually replace oil/gas as the primary source of energy, but the key thing is not the supply of energy. It is managing the demand for it.

Honestly - better insulation of houses (helps for hot AND cold weather), smaller, more efficient cars, more public transport etc are the way forward. Do you really need that 6 litre gas-guzzler to get you on your own 30 miles back and forth to work? With aircon on all the way???

**Wombat** · 1 November 2002, 10:47

Not especially. Ethanol doesn't burn very cleanly.

IMHO, we need to get people more educated about current fission technology. Nuclear plants are incredibly safe when run well. All the people that are worried about radiation and therefore think other fuel sources are better are very misinformed. The coal plans in this country put out about 15 tons of radioactive thorium and uranium <I>every day</I>, and it's left to float about in the air we breathe...

**The PIT** · 1 November 2002, 10:51

I've just farted and if you could tap into that you'd have enougth energy for years.

A few beers at weekend is all the refilling I need.

Maybe with 90% fewer petro-dollars they'll cause 90% less trouble....or at least be so busy fighting each other for them they'll leave the rest of us alone

DR M it would still be all your the wests fault whether you spent the money or not.

Announcement

Converging interests: Russia & US....

Converging interests: Russia & US....

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment