Hydrogen isn't an energy source. You spend as much electricity to make it as you get out of it. It's best to think of it as a kind of battery. It may be that hydrogen cars will be a big thing in the future, but the fundamental problem of where the power comes from won't be answered by hydrogen.
Unless someone comes up with a way to generate (or, I suppose more accurately isolate) hydrogen more efficiently. Bacteria do it naturally, but slowly. Penn State engineers recently figured out a way to speed up the little buggers, roughly quadrupling the hydrogen output, by zapping them with a small amount of electricity. In an ideal situation, that electricty can come from the same cell that the bacteria are producing hydrogen for. It wouldn't be a closed loop, because there would have to be an input of organic stuff to fuel it, but that could even be beneficial (cleaning wastewater, for example).
We can't afford the infrastructure, especially since most of it will have to be built offshore and shipped here. Certainly not without neglecting all our other infrastructure problems. Its hard to enjoy the plentiful electricity when you're dying of thirst.
Well if retards wouldn't keep trying to grow rice and other water intensive agricultural crops in low rainfall places that wouldn't be as much of a problem.
Ethanol, as a large scale solution, is a definite no-go. Barring totally revising our tarriffs and getting really chummy with, say, Brazil, there simply isn't enough land mass in the United States to produce the amount of corn needed for Ethanol and keep our food production at a sustainable level. There's also a huge amount of energy lost in the conversion, so in the end Ethanol is simply inefficient.
I agree with elm on the nuclear power subject. Yes, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were/are very scary prospects. Yes, there's nothing we can really do with nuclear waste (yet... I've heard about some developments that are looking at using nuclear waste as an additional energy source). Nuclear is still the most efficient and, ironically enough, clean power generation we've got at the moment and can start building. More nuclear power means more access to electricity operated options, like electric cars.
However, in the very short term, Americans need to learn to be responsible. Individuals who drive, say, enormous goddamn SUVs to work and back every day either need to fill those SUVs with coworkers or get a smaller and more efficient vehicle if their work does not require the use of an enormous goddamned machine. Walking or biking to local markets rather than driving there, etc. We are, as a country, horribly energy inefficent because Americans are, by and large, retarded. Getting people and companies to change those inefficent behaviors would do us a world of good until we can get an infrastructure up that's more efficient.
I have a friend that lives on a farm. They have many acres, all of it surrounded by housing developments. They've been offered millions of dollars to sell their farmland to be developed. And we're going to grow enough corn to feed and fuel the world? Riiiight.
I have a friend that lives on a farm. They have many acres, all of it surrounded by housing developments. They've been offered millions of dollars to sell their farmland to be developed. And we're going to grow enough corn to feed and fuel the world? Riiiight.
Well, we don't actually need to feed the world. It's just financially in farmers' interests to do so.
However, in the very short term, Americans need to learn to be responsible. Individuals who drive, say, enormous goddamn SUVs to work and back every day either need to fill those SUVs with coworkers or get a smaller and more efficient vehicle if their work does not require the use of an enormous goddamned machine. Walking or biking to local markets rather than driving there, etc. We are, as a country, horribly energy inefficent because Americans are, by and large, retarded. Getting people and companies to change those inefficent behaviors would do us a world of good until we can get an infrastructure up that's more efficient.
This is unfortunately a free market issue. The only real option I see for some much needed rationalization of our current transport arrangements is the price of oil continuing to increase until people are forced to scale back the cars they drive to within necessity.
That said, I'm not a fan of that option because it's highly indiscriminate and far more likely to negatively impact those with the necessity for a large vehicle then those who should be more conservative but can afford the costs of not being so.
EDIT: The other issue is, letting the free market sort out oil dependence is only really viable socially/economically within the context of government programs to move to alternatives. A really awesome start would be getting god damn trucking off the fucking highways - it's terrible environmentally and safety-wise in the way we treat truckers. Around the city we could seriously consider providing for battery powered electric-vehicles - within an appropriate subsidization program, oil costs could make them viable and have local environmental benefits. Combine it with say a government lease scheme so people don't feel committed to a technology they're not sure about, and it would be a good way to get the concept off the ground. If only we could get people to invest, if only the vehicles were commercially available with standard charging interfaces etc.
I say we do away with transportation and instead start putting serious thought into overhauling business to working and schooling from home. Beyond those needs, transportation is largely unnecessary. Couriers can be given delivery vehicles on a limited basis. And we can force families and friends to live together.
Someone was bitching about how solar panels don't work in places where it snows or is cloudy. I had a professor that has panels on his house in Cleveland, Ohio. Cleveland "6 inches on the ground 8 months out of the year" Ohio. He made back his investment in 8 years. Even with the efficiencies of 2000. So much for inefficiencies, snow, and clouds making them completely impractical.
The colder temperatures actually increased the efficiency and power generated by comparable exposure in warmer climates.
Ethanol, as a large scale solution, is a definite no-go. Barring totally revising our tarriffs and getting really chummy with, say, Brazil, there simply isn't enough land mass in the United States to produce the amount of corn needed for Ethanol and keep our food production at a sustainable level.
As a country the US eats enough corn that they're pretty much MADE of corn. Bringing up the costs of corn(due to it's use as a fuel) is going to be disastrous.
I'm of the mindset that the future is solar/wind/nuclear and hydrogen. Get as much as you can from solar/wind, stabilize it with nuclear. Use hydrogen for the storage for cars and such.
Hydrogen. The only company to even be ready or close is the only independent automobile maker in the world. Honda is a close second. American car companies? What a joke. Ford is at least a decade away. I hope they all go bankrupt.
Seconded. It's a better alternative than ethanol and electric combined. But I thought GM was pushing the tech pretty hard too and thats why they gave up on the electric car?
I'm certain that both Ford and GM have working hydrogen vehicles. No one is prepared to put them into production because they cost so much to produce that consumers would be looking at pricetags of a couple hundred thousand dollars, at least. Hydrogen fuel cells are not cheap to make at all.
Solar power is fine for use in a home as supplemental energy. Any you can glean is fine, and in the summer you can sell the extra juice to the power company.
But it is not a solution for large-scale usage. Solar and wind are both too inefficient to be used as total replacements. Really, we should be building more nuclear power plants, but the fucking propaganda about them is so ingrained into our culture now that no one will do it.
Nuclear power generates a metric fuck ton of waste. We already have more than we know what to do with and we can only store it. You can't dump it or recycle it. All it can do is sit somewhere safe. A facility is being constructed right now in a giant mountain to store it. It will not be finished until 2017 and we already have more than enough to fill it up. We're close to being able to extract more energy out of the waste though so it won't be quite as bad. It still is not the answer.
If we'd just build breeder reactors (which we've known how to build since the seventies) we'd be producing like one percent of the nuclear waste we currently produce. But we can't because Jimmy Carter banned all such research back in the seventies because of retarded stupid shit.
and ultimately, why hydrogen is commonly proposed (because you can get it from seawater via electrolysis).
I heard something about the energy required for the electrolysis being greater than the energy you get from the extracted hydrogen. True or false?
edit: ok, answered on page 2. Now if only I could remember high school chemistry. :P
Every energy conversion loses some energy, so you can never get more out of hydrogen than was used to produce it. However, since only electricity is used to produce hydrogen (in most cases) that electricity can come from any source.
A good example is how the Prius uses regenerative braking. You spend gas and stored electricity to create kinetic energy, then regenerative braking translates kinetic energy back into stored electricty. Even discounting the energy used to actually go somewhere, the amount lost between those two conversions is quite a bit.
Does anyone know what the consequences of wave power are? Considering waves are created by the moon's gravity, will sucking up that energy do anything to the moon's orbit rather than letting them crash on the shore?
Nuclear:
We could recycle the waste through fast breeders or reprocessing, like all other civilized countries do, to dramatically reduce the storage problem. It is more expensive than oil/gas/coal plants, since carbon has a price of 0. The relevant comparison group are carbon-neutral, solar/wind plants. It is cheaper than those. Of course, where possible, water/geothermal is best. If you still doubt, look to France. 80% nuclear and it works, today.
Ethanol:
Sugarcane ethanol is a reasonable solution. Corn ethanol is stupid and the secondary effects evil.
Hydrogen:
Hydrogen is not an energy source, it's energy storage. It nicely complements hybrid for an effectively all-electric car, since we produce hydrogen through electrolysis. Carbon neutral electricity generation has to come first, see Nuclear.
Does anyone know what the consequences of wave power are? Considering waves are created by the moon's gravity, will sucking up that energy do anything to the moon's orbit rather than letting them crash on the shore?
I'm pretty sure that harnessing enough power to effect the moon's orbit would be overkill. Does it even work that way?
Malkor on
0
Options
SmasherStarting to get dizzyRegistered Userregular
Does anyone know what the consequences of wave power are? Considering waves are created by the moon's gravity, will sucking up that energy do anything to the moon's orbit rather than letting them crash on the shore?
I'm pretty sure that harnessing enough power to effect the moon's orbit would be overkill. Does it even work that way?
Does anyone know what the consequences of wave power are? Considering waves are created by the moon's gravity, will sucking up that energy do anything to the moon's orbit rather than letting them crash on the shore?
I... don't think that's how it works.
In any case, ethanol isn't going to save shit. It might shave off a tiny portion of our energy needs but only with great cost to the corn industry which in turns fucks up the raising of pigs, chickens and cows since they eat corn basically.
The best bet would be to cozy up with nations with lots of suger canes or palm oil. Africa is also a pretty good place to grow tons of corn if money was actually spent to stabilize and develop their land. Increased development of solar, wind, tidal and hydro cant be overlooked too. The most key thing to do however is to conserve energy. Easier said than done of course.
Does anyone know what the consequences of wave power are? Considering waves are created by the moon's gravity, will sucking up that energy do anything to the moon's orbit rather than letting them crash on the shore?
I... don't think that's how it works.
In any case, ethanol isn't going to save shit. It might shave off a tiny portion of our energy needs but only with great cost to the corn industry which in turns fucks up the raising of pigs, chickens and cows since they eat corn basically.
The best bet would be to cozy up with nations with lots of suger canes or palm oil. Africa is also a pretty good place to grow tons of corn if money was actually spent to stabilize and develop their land. Increased development of solar, wind, tidal and hydro cant be overlooked too. The most key thing to do however is to conserve energy. Easier said than done of course.
You don't totally understand the corn industry, do you? :P
Does anyone know what the consequences of wave power are? Considering waves are created by the moon's gravity, will sucking up that energy do anything to the moon's orbit rather than letting them crash on the shore?
I... don't think that's how it works.
In any case, ethanol isn't going to save shit. It might shave off a tiny portion of our energy needs but only with great cost to the corn industry which in turns fucks up the raising of pigs, chickens and cows since they eat corn basically.
The best bet would be to cozy up with nations with lots of suger canes or palm oil. Africa is also a pretty good place to grow tons of corn if money was actually spent to stabilize and develop their land. Increased development of solar, wind, tidal and hydro cant be overlooked too. The most key thing to do however is to conserve energy. Easier said than done of course.
You don't totally understand the corn industry, do you? :P
Not particularly, just going by what little I know, enlighten me
I saw a "green tech" documentary on the History Channel a few months ago that made reference to an algae based solution for generating oil. Is there someone more enlightened on the subject that could argue for or against its possibilities in this thread?
Ethanol is a stupid idea. It's clinging vapidly to the notion of the internal combustion engine while simultaneously subverting arable land from needed local food production.
This.
Ethanol to replace gasoline has got be one of the biggest pipe dreams ever. Though wishing a magical hydrogen economy into existence is up there on the list too.
CONSERVATION. I cant even begin to bold this enough. From increased MPG, to energy efficient appliances. No magical unicorn sperm is going to be found tommorrow that will solve our energy needs, so reducing inneficiency and cutting waste is one of the simplest, cost effective ways of solving some of our problems. Even my more government=bad sensibilities would be ok with imposing hellacious taxes on buying a fucking H2 or a plasma screen TV that uses more juice than my entire house. (Seriously, Hummer owners, you need to be kicked squarely in the balls.)
From there,
NUCLEAR. So many advances have been made that people that go "Lolz 3 mile island yall!" need to stfu and read a fucking book already.
Solar/Wind/Geothermal. I really shouldnt lump these, because each one has its own huge benefits and ideas, but suffice it to say, renewable needs to be taken much more seriously. HitlerBush, who according to many enviromentalists I have spoken to, rapes baby seals and then clubs them, has given more subsidies and incentives to the development of alternative energy than any other president before him....but it is still a laughable ammount considering the potential suppliment to the U.S. energy needs. Florida alone has enough solar energy hit in a DAY that if a quarter of its population had solar panels on their roofs that they would generate more elctricity than is consumed by the entire eastern seaboard. Mind you, the grid structure would only be able to power those people with panels and MAYBE the rest of the state, but still.
And yes, FUCKING THERMAL DEPOLYMERIZATION BITCHES.
Seriously, fucking waste to oil. WHY THE FUCK DOESNT THIS HAVE A BILLION DOLLARS IN SUBSIDY LIKE RIGHT THIS FUCKING INSTANT.
My ideal goal for electricity is 50% nuclear, 25% renewables, 10% NatGas MicroPlants, 15 % coal.
You can argue about fucking electric cars and highways all day long.....power generation in this country is the number one consumer of fossil fuels, and you want to throw the load for 100 million cars on the grid too? LETS BURN SOME MORE FUCKING COAL, YEAH!!
*disclaimer. I am not aiming my hostility at anyone here, this shit just really pisses me off.
Yeah, ethanol (especially corn-based) is stupidly inefficient. If all corn grown in the US were to be used for ethanol, it would displace 12% of all fuel consumed. Cellulose-based ethanol is slightly less stupid but still creates greenhouse gases.
Oh and I just want to say that the whole "nuclear waste crisis" is bunk. Building breeder reactors and stopping stupidly opposing and delaying long-term construction sites is all you need to do. And the magnitude of this crisis is far below that of the estimated one million people killed with air pollution by the only other viable base-load alternative, coal.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
I saw a "green tech" documentary on the History Channel a few months ago that made reference to an algae based solution for generating oil. Is there someone more enlightened on the subject that could argue for or against its possibilities in this thread?
Haven't heard of that, but I find the concept of generating oil somewhat less than what I'd consider "green." Oil = carbon = global warming = lose.
jotate on
0
Options
ShogunHair long; money long; me and broke wizards we don't get alongRegistered Userregular
I'm certain that both Ford and GM have working hydrogen vehicles. No one is prepared to put them into production because they cost so much to produce that consumers would be looking at pricetags of a couple hundred thousand dollars, at least. Hydrogen fuel cells are not cheap to make at all.
A gentleman from Ford stated not two weeks ago that they were at least a decade away from putting one on the road. Honda on the other hand will release their model next year to a limited market. BMW has already released theirs to a limited market. My thing about hydrogen powered cars is if every one got on board and worked together (asking a lot, I know) this issue would probably be solved already. American car companies have been ridiculously short-sighted. That is typical of America when it comes to things like energy and whatnot though. People always see it as the next generation's problem or the generations after that. That is partially why we're in this mess now.
What currently sucks about hydrogen is that despite the fact it is the most abundant molecule in the universe it has other stuff stuck to it. Stuff we have a hard time getting off the hydrogen. Today it still requires electricity to create hydrogen. For Honda's hydrogen vehicle they have a system that uses natural gas from your home to create hydrogen and you can fill your car up at your house. What remains to be seen is if the savings from this outweigh the usage of gasoline. Of course the car produces no pollution but we also would like to see some monetary savings. The car gets something like 170MPG though so I'm really optimistic. I just think if all the car manufacturers had jumped on board with this twenty years ago and worked together (again, I know, like asking for peace in the middle east) I think we would be in a better position than we are today.
I saw a "green tech" documentary on the History Channel a few months ago that made reference to an algae based solution for generating oil. Is there someone more enlightened on the subject that could argue for or against its possibilities in this thread?
Haven't heard of that, but I find the concept of generating oil somewhat less than what I'd consider "green." Oil = carbon = global warming = lose.
In the short term, this is the only article I could find on the subject.
I saw a "green tech" documentary on the History Channel a few months ago that made reference to an algae based solution for generating oil. Is there someone more enlightened on the subject that could argue for or against its possibilities in this thread?
Haven't heard of that, but I find the concept of generating oil somewhat less than what I'd consider "green." Oil = carbon = global warming = lose.
Not quite. Consider where the carbon is coming from in each case. With fossil fuels carbon which has been locked up in the ground is released into the atmosphere. In the case of "making" oil (depolymerization, ethonal, this algea stuff etc...) carbon is remove from the atmosphere (in growing the corn or whatever) then returned to the atmosphere shortly afterwards.
It's worse than nuclear in terms of carbon but it is still essentially carbon neutral.
RiemannLives on
Attacked by tweeeeeeees!
0
Options
ShogunHair long; money long; me and broke wizards we don't get alongRegistered Userregular
edited November 2007
I want to hear more about this depolymerization. Anyone care to hit me with (good) links?
Seriously the amount of plastic and organics we toss every day is truly ludicrous. Imagine if all of that was instead converted to energy. Yes, you'd contribute to global warming (although less so than with traditional fossil fuels), but you'd also drastically reduce the size of landfills and would be generating nigh-free (from an economic perspective) energy.
Now imagine that we cheaply leased TDP to developing nations. Do you have any idea how much the global standard of living would improve with free fucking energy? Because I would strongly argue that it would more than offset the decline associated with global warming.
Salvation122 on
0
Options
ShogunHair long; money long; me and broke wizards we don't get alongRegistered Userregular
Seriously the amount of plastic and organics we toss every day is truly ludicrous. Imagine if all of that was instead converted to energy. Yes, you'd contribute to global warming (although less so than with traditional fossil fuels), but you'd also drastically reduce the size of landfills and would be generating nigh-free (from an economic perspective) energy.
Now imagine that we cheaply leased TDP to developing nations. Do you have any idea how much the global standard of living would improve with free fucking energy? Because I would strongly argue that it would more than offset the decline associated with global warming.
Landfills create energy though. Currently all the landfill-to-energy projects in America can provide energy to over 1,000,000 homes. There's only like 400-something projects though. I am going to read more about this though as I have yet to hear much about it until this thread.
Is it feasible? I mean, does less energy go in than comes out?
It's about 85% efficient, in that 15% of the energy made usable in any given batch is then used to run the next batch. This also varies based on feedstock - plastics are more efficient, sewage less efficient.
If we'd just build breeder reactors (which we've known how to build since the seventies) we'd be producing like one percent of the nuclear waste we currently produce. But we can't because Jimmy Carter banned all such research back in the seventies because of retarded stupid shit.
If we'd just build breeder reactors (which we've known how to build since the seventies) we'd be producing like one percent of the nuclear waste we currently produce. But we can't because Jimmy Carter banned all such research back in the seventies because of retarded stupid shit.
Another reason to hate Jimmy Carter.
Didn't Reagan reverse that ban but since US technology was so far behind it was not economically possible?
Posts
Unless someone comes up with a way to generate (or, I suppose more accurately isolate) hydrogen more efficiently. Bacteria do it naturally, but slowly. Penn State engineers recently figured out a way to speed up the little buggers, roughly quadrupling the hydrogen output, by zapping them with a small amount of electricity. In an ideal situation, that electricty can come from the same cell that the bacteria are producing hydrogen for. It wouldn't be a closed loop, because there would have to be an input of organic stuff to fuel it, but that could even be beneficial (cleaning wastewater, for example).
It's certainly not THE ANSWER, and the scale is small so far, but it's promising. You can check it more information here: http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=27789
IOS Game Center ID: Isotope-X
I agree with elm on the nuclear power subject. Yes, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were/are very scary prospects. Yes, there's nothing we can really do with nuclear waste (yet... I've heard about some developments that are looking at using nuclear waste as an additional energy source). Nuclear is still the most efficient and, ironically enough, clean power generation we've got at the moment and can start building. More nuclear power means more access to electricity operated options, like electric cars.
However, in the very short term, Americans need to learn to be responsible. Individuals who drive, say, enormous goddamn SUVs to work and back every day either need to fill those SUVs with coworkers or get a smaller and more efficient vehicle if their work does not require the use of an enormous goddamned machine. Walking or biking to local markets rather than driving there, etc. We are, as a country, horribly energy inefficent because Americans are, by and large, retarded. Getting people and companies to change those inefficent behaviors would do us a world of good until we can get an infrastructure up that's more efficient.
Okay, we're screwed.
Well, we don't actually need to feed the world. It's just financially in farmers' interests to do so.
That said, I'm not a fan of that option because it's highly indiscriminate and far more likely to negatively impact those with the necessity for a large vehicle then those who should be more conservative but can afford the costs of not being so.
EDIT: The other issue is, letting the free market sort out oil dependence is only really viable socially/economically within the context of government programs to move to alternatives. A really awesome start would be getting god damn trucking off the fucking highways - it's terrible environmentally and safety-wise in the way we treat truckers. Around the city we could seriously consider providing for battery powered electric-vehicles - within an appropriate subsidization program, oil costs could make them viable and have local environmental benefits. Combine it with say a government lease scheme so people don't feel committed to a technology they're not sure about, and it would be a good way to get the concept off the ground. If only we could get people to invest, if only the vehicles were commercially available with standard charging interfaces etc.
Oil problem solved.
The colder temperatures actually increased the efficiency and power generated by comparable exposure in warmer climates.
http://tv.boingboing.net/2007/10/22/king-cornpurikura.html
As a country the US eats enough corn that they're pretty much MADE of corn. Bringing up the costs of corn(due to it's use as a fuel) is going to be disastrous.
Burning carbon = lose.
I'm certain that both Ford and GM have working hydrogen vehicles. No one is prepared to put them into production because they cost so much to produce that consumers would be looking at pricetags of a couple hundred thousand dollars, at least. Hydrogen fuel cells are not cheap to make at all.
If we'd just build breeder reactors (which we've known how to build since the seventies) we'd be producing like one percent of the nuclear waste we currently produce. But we can't because Jimmy Carter banned all such research back in the seventies because of retarded stupid shit.
I heard something about the energy required for the electrolysis being greater than the energy you get from the extracted hydrogen. True or false?
edit: ok, answered on page 2. Now if only I could remember high school chemistry. :P
A good example is how the Prius uses regenerative braking. You spend gas and stored electricity to create kinetic energy, then regenerative braking translates kinetic energy back into stored electricty. Even discounting the energy used to actually go somewhere, the amount lost between those two conversions is quite a bit.
Does anyone know what the consequences of wave power are? Considering waves are created by the moon's gravity, will sucking up that energy do anything to the moon's orbit rather than letting them crash on the shore?
We could recycle the waste through fast breeders or reprocessing, like all other civilized countries do, to dramatically reduce the storage problem. It is more expensive than oil/gas/coal plants, since carbon has a price of 0. The relevant comparison group are carbon-neutral, solar/wind plants. It is cheaper than those. Of course, where possible, water/geothermal is best. If you still doubt, look to France. 80% nuclear and it works, today.
Ethanol:
Sugarcane ethanol is a reasonable solution. Corn ethanol is stupid and the secondary effects evil.
Hydrogen:
Hydrogen is not an energy source, it's energy storage. It nicely complements hybrid for an effectively all-electric car, since we produce hydrogen through electrolysis. Carbon neutral electricity generation has to come first, see Nuclear.
No, it doesn't.
I... don't think that's how it works.
In any case, ethanol isn't going to save shit. It might shave off a tiny portion of our energy needs but only with great cost to the corn industry which in turns fucks up the raising of pigs, chickens and cows since they eat corn basically.
The best bet would be to cozy up with nations with lots of suger canes or palm oil. Africa is also a pretty good place to grow tons of corn if money was actually spent to stabilize and develop their land. Increased development of solar, wind, tidal and hydro cant be overlooked too. The most key thing to do however is to conserve energy. Easier said than done of course.
And be done with it.
And feed them corn.
You don't totally understand the corn industry, do you? :P
FUCK YO' CORN
Not particularly, just going by what little I know, enlighten me
This.
Ethanol to replace gasoline has got be one of the biggest pipe dreams ever. Though wishing a magical hydrogen economy into existence is up there on the list too.
CONSERVATION. I cant even begin to bold this enough. From increased MPG, to energy efficient appliances. No magical unicorn sperm is going to be found tommorrow that will solve our energy needs, so reducing inneficiency and cutting waste is one of the simplest, cost effective ways of solving some of our problems. Even my more government=bad sensibilities would be ok with imposing hellacious taxes on buying a fucking H2 or a plasma screen TV that uses more juice than my entire house. (Seriously, Hummer owners, you need to be kicked squarely in the balls.)
From there,
NUCLEAR. So many advances have been made that people that go "Lolz 3 mile island yall!" need to stfu and read a fucking book already.
Solar/Wind/Geothermal. I really shouldnt lump these, because each one has its own huge benefits and ideas, but suffice it to say, renewable needs to be taken much more seriously. HitlerBush, who according to many enviromentalists I have spoken to, rapes baby seals and then clubs them, has given more subsidies and incentives to the development of alternative energy than any other president before him....but it is still a laughable ammount considering the potential suppliment to the U.S. energy needs. Florida alone has enough solar energy hit in a DAY that if a quarter of its population had solar panels on their roofs that they would generate more elctricity than is consumed by the entire eastern seaboard. Mind you, the grid structure would only be able to power those people with panels and MAYBE the rest of the state, but still.
And yes, FUCKING THERMAL DEPOLYMERIZATION BITCHES.
Seriously, fucking waste to oil. WHY THE FUCK DOESNT THIS HAVE A BILLION DOLLARS IN SUBSIDY LIKE RIGHT THIS FUCKING INSTANT.
My ideal goal for electricity is 50% nuclear, 25% renewables, 10% NatGas MicroPlants, 15 % coal.
You can argue about fucking electric cars and highways all day long.....power generation in this country is the number one consumer of fossil fuels, and you want to throw the load for 100 million cars on the grid too? LETS BURN SOME MORE FUCKING COAL, YEAH!!
*disclaimer. I am not aiming my hostility at anyone here, this shit just really pisses me off.
Oh and I just want to say that the whole "nuclear waste crisis" is bunk. Building breeder reactors and stopping stupidly opposing and delaying long-term construction sites is all you need to do. And the magnitude of this crisis is far below that of the estimated one million people killed with air pollution by the only other viable base-load alternative, coal.
Haven't heard of that, but I find the concept of generating oil somewhat less than what I'd consider "green." Oil = carbon = global warming = lose.
A gentleman from Ford stated not two weeks ago that they were at least a decade away from putting one on the road. Honda on the other hand will release their model next year to a limited market. BMW has already released theirs to a limited market. My thing about hydrogen powered cars is if every one got on board and worked together (asking a lot, I know) this issue would probably be solved already. American car companies have been ridiculously short-sighted. That is typical of America when it comes to things like energy and whatnot though. People always see it as the next generation's problem or the generations after that. That is partially why we're in this mess now.
What currently sucks about hydrogen is that despite the fact it is the most abundant molecule in the universe it has other stuff stuck to it. Stuff we have a hard time getting off the hydrogen. Today it still requires electricity to create hydrogen. For Honda's hydrogen vehicle they have a system that uses natural gas from your home to create hydrogen and you can fill your car up at your house. What remains to be seen is if the savings from this outweigh the usage of gasoline. Of course the car produces no pollution but we also would like to see some monetary savings. The car gets something like 170MPG though so I'm really optimistic. I just think if all the car manufacturers had jumped on board with this twenty years ago and worked together (again, I know, like asking for peace in the middle east) I think we would be in a better position than we are today.
Shogun Streams Vidya
In the short term, this is the only article I could find on the subject.
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18138/page1/
It sounds interesting, although its definately not the magic unicorn sperm solution that everyone so desperately wants.
Not quite. Consider where the carbon is coming from in each case. With fossil fuels carbon which has been locked up in the ground is released into the atmosphere. In the case of "making" oil (depolymerization, ethonal, this algea stuff etc...) carbon is remove from the atmosphere (in growing the corn or whatever) then returned to the atmosphere shortly afterwards.
It's worse than nuclear in terms of carbon but it is still essentially carbon neutral.
Shogun Streams Vidya
BAM
Seriously the amount of plastic and organics we toss every day is truly ludicrous. Imagine if all of that was instead converted to energy. Yes, you'd contribute to global warming (although less so than with traditional fossil fuels), but you'd also drastically reduce the size of landfills and would be generating nigh-free (from an economic perspective) energy.
Now imagine that we cheaply leased TDP to developing nations. Do you have any idea how much the global standard of living would improve with free fucking energy? Because I would strongly argue that it would more than offset the decline associated with global warming.
Landfills create energy though. Currently all the landfill-to-energy projects in America can provide energy to over 1,000,000 homes. There's only like 400-something projects though. I am going to read more about this though as I have yet to hear much about it until this thread.
Shogun Streams Vidya
It's about 85% efficient, in that 15% of the energy made usable in any given batch is then used to run the next batch. This also varies based on feedstock - plastics are more efficient, sewage less efficient.
Another reason to hate Jimmy Carter.
Didn't Reagan reverse that ban but since US technology was so far behind it was not economically possible?