Alternative Fuels

welsh

welsh

Junkmaster
If we run out of fossil fuels what next? Are there alternatives? Does civilization end when the fuel gauge hits E?

Maybe not-

National Geographic magazine did a bit on contemporary alternative sources. Forget Hydrogen Cars for now but maybe later? What about Biofuels? Wind and Solar power?

Check out the article Future Power

Looks like the Europeans have the right idea. Instead of scurrying around for the few fossil fuels that remain, time to invest in alternatives while you can.

Is this what the future might look like?

gallery.1.2.jpg
 
We obviously need to look more at alternative fuel supplies rather than just trying to get the last drop out of the bucket. I think our best bet right now is fusion. We need to start putting more money into research and development for it considering it "burns" water, no waste, and it's not radioactive.

Regardless of fusion though, nuclear power is still a pretty good idea. Thanks to the media and fear mongers, quite a bit of the population has been brainwashed into thinking that nuclear power plants are inherently dangerous and will blow up every day. Coal and oil plants have pumped more radioactives into the atmoshpere than all of the nuclear disasters as far as I know.

Regarding bio fuels and the like: Anything Into Oil: Technological savvy could turn 600 million tons of turkey guts and other waste into 4 billion barrels of light Texas crude each year. - Colt
 
I've recently come across some info regarding cars powered by Alcohol or Natural Gas. Such cars are already in use in quite a few countries but not on such a grand scale. One drawback of using such vehicles is relatively "low" speed (up to at least 150km/h I think, and acceleration is really really slow). and I'm also not sure about how much such vehicles would cost. Will try to find a link or something.

Fusion is obviously what we should look into developing (I think France has the rights to developing it... :roll:), but it will probably take a lot of time.

The Solar and Wind Generators we currently have are good for powering small settlements, but impractical on a larger scale because it would take thousands of them, placed on a very large area, to power larger cities...
 
i have a lot of beef with nuclear power myself, the producing of power is almost free of pollution with now standards. but after the 20 years of aging(of the power plant) the contaminated materials are burried in the ground or in the oceans, causing much ecological damage.

another source of power which has been known to be totally not worth is solar power, which takes so much maintance on the glasses plus the huge area which produce comparedly small power...

the last thing i heard is this though which is prett cool:
http://www.theaircar.com/

it works on air and on fossil fuel. not sure about efficancy, but definitly pollution free,
 
I read an article that said how alcohol is actually too expensive to use as an alternative fuel. The alcohol fuel industry fought that claim, showing low numbers, BUT ADDED the US subsidy that cuts billions off their actual numbers.
 
We're fucked. Whether you like it or not.
The biggest problem of them all is this: not a lot of people out there truly understand how dependent we are on fossil fuels.
We don't just need them to feed our cars and heat up our appartments. We need fossil fuels to - basically - do everything we do nowadays. Transport our food, grow our food, make the plastic garbage we are so fond of, create electricity in one way or another, and so on. Everything you own was brought to you thanks to fossil fuels - your tooth paste, your pesto, the internet, the condom you used to shag that girl you like so much, the can of beer you're drinking right now.
There is NO ALTERNATIVE. You think solar energy is going to save your arse? What the fuck do you think we need to build those panels, eh? That's right: FOSSIL FUELS. Oh, turbines, eh? Let the wind take care of our energy, eh? Well, what the fuck do you think we need to build them turbines? That's right: fossil fuels. Cars that run on water? Don't make me laugh. We need fossil fuels to build those cars or engines or batteries or whatever.
Bio diesel is the new hoax, you know. If we want to run all of the existing 700 million cars on bio diesel, we basically have to use whole continents just to grow the vegetables and plants that will give us the necessary bio diesel.
And so on.
We're fucked and you know it. There is no alternative. Not for the 7 billion people out there. Maybe for a 100 million, but not for the whole pack.
In the coming 10 years the world will change into a slaughterhouse. Survival of the strongest (read: richest) it will be. And it won't be pretty. It'll be hell on earth.
Politicians know this. Scientists know this. Heck, even a lot of humans know this, but there is nothing one can do about it.
So stop this sorry Däniken-like crap about a brave new world with fusion crap and bio diesel driven engines. All of you guys are in for a real treat. You all have front row tickets to the end of Western civilization. So stop moaning, stop dreaming and stop the stupid hoaxes. Just grab that popcorn and enjoy the end.

-- alec, drunk as hell, but honest
 
Yeah, that was pretty heavy on the doom lol

And as for the fossil fuels, oh no, if we run out..... we will have to walk!!!!!! and do more manual labor!!!!!! and heat our houses with wood!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If we run out we will be fine, there will just be alot more amish and alot less fat people :P lol
 
I recently rented a documentary called The End of Suburbia, and while it dealt with the exact same points and subjects as that peak oil site, it wasn’t nearly as depressing and seemed less alarmist to me. I recommend it to anyone who would like to see a level-headed perspective on this issue.

Oil will still be around, we just can't keep using an increasing supply of it after the peak is all.
 
aegis said:
i have a lot of beef with nuclear power myself, the producing of power is almost free of pollution with now standards. but after the 20 years of aging(of the power plant) the contaminated materials are burried in the ground or in the oceans, causing much ecological damage.

another source of power which has been known to be totally not worth is solar power, which takes so much maintance on the glasses plus the huge area which produce comparedly small power...

the last thing i heard is this though which is prett cool:
http://www.theaircar.com/

it works on air and on fossil fuel. not sure about efficancy, but definitly pollution free,
Click to expand...

Actually solar power has been developed to the point you can drill holes through 30% of a given panel and it will still receive the same amount of energy as they did without the holes. These particular solar panels can receive the same amount of energy rain or shine. Allen Alda did PBS special regarding this topic. It was very informative I suggest checking it out to those interested in alternate fuels.
 
aegis said:
i have a lot of beef with nuclear power myself, the producing of power is almost free of pollution with now standards. but after the 20 years of aging(of the power plant) the contaminated materials are burried in the ground or in the oceans, causing much ecological damage.
Click to expand...

Actually, At the moment the spent rods from the reactor are contained in a large pool of water on the grounds of the reactor in most cases, that is, untill the nuclear waste storage facility is completed. It's burried deep in a mountian, in the desert in the western US.. As it is, currently the environment is NOT being harmed by nuclear power plants in the US. But then again, i cannot speak for other countries who's waste disposal policies may include, throwing the spent rods out the window of a moveing car in the suburbs..

I'd like to see the sources of your information.
 
there are countries like ukriane(i think i spelled right) that makes money from disposing of nuclear waste cheap, and they just toss it to the ocean near them.

in the US there are hundrends of miles areas which are radiactive from old nuclear waste, quite a few rivers as well which the waste that was burried near them contaminated thier underground sources.
i can bring examples from the internet if you want.

fact is nuclear power is great cheap power. but the waste is pollution free until it touches the eco system it was burried in it. usually the underground waters become radiactive after touching the exposed waste(which became exposed after a few decades).
 
aegis said:
there are countries like ukriane(i think i spelled right) that makes money from disposing of nuclear waste cheap, and they just toss it to the ocean near them.

in the US there are hundrends of miles areas which are radiactive from old nuclear waste, quite a few rivers as well which the waste that was burried near them contaminated thier underground sources.
i can bring examples from the internet if you want.

fact is nuclear power is great cheap power. but the waste is pollution free until it touches the eco system it was burried in it. usually the underground waters become radiactive after touching the exposed waste(which became exposed after a few decades).
Click to expand...

Uh, please do. I'd like to know the exactly locations of these sites... Even if you count all of the now slightly radioactive blast areas from tests, I'm not sure that it would amount to "hundreds of miles". - Colt
 
http://www.detnews.com/2005/nation/0507/21/A12-254193.htm

http://www.terradaily.com/news/pollution-05l.html

http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/nuclear_disposal.asp

http://www.waterconserve.info/articles/reader.asp?linkid=30202

in the US-

EPA charged with understating impact of Yucca Mountain nuclear dump on Nevada drinking water supplies
May 03, 2002: Environmental groups and the state of Nevada are charging that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency illegally manipulated standards for protecting groundwater from radioactive contamination around the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear repository site. The groups demonstrated the illegality of the EPA's actions in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington today, and asked the court to require the EPA to rewrite the groundwater standards it established specifically for Yucca Mountain.

The NRDC-Nevada court documents show that EPA "gerrymandered" the compliance boundary of the Yucca Mountain site because the projected groundwater contamination would not meet Safe Drinking Water Act standards. To ensure the government could license the repository, EPA extended the compliance boundary to further dilute radioactivity emanating from the site. NRDC and the state of Nevada also pointed out to the court that EPA, in support of its proposed boundary, argues that no one would drill a well for drinking water and irrigation in the area surrounding Yucca Mountain despite the fact there are already wells in the vicinity.

"Everyone knows Yucca Mountain leaks like a sieve," said Thomas B. Cochran, Ph.D., director of NRDC's Nuclear Program. "EPA has committed outright scientific fraud in constructing its drinking water compliance boundary around the Yucca Mountain site. The agency's proposal will permit a radioactive septic field in a region that relies solely on groundwater for drinking water and irrigation."



those are just recent events

countries like kazakhstan and ukraine are making huge profits from accepting nuclear waste with great fees, which makes it even thier primary income.

that is well known subject, here's a nice article which sums it up much nicer than i could:

http://library.thinkquest.org/3471/nuclear_waste_body.html
 
The thing is that Kazachstan and Ukraine have sealed - off areas, already contaminated by previous radiocative mishandlings. Ukraine has the whole Pripyat/Czernobyl zone to dump shit into, and Kazachstan has tons of abandonned nuclear missile factories/sites.

Furthermore, no country nowadays can "dump radioactive shit into the ocean" like you stated. Several international organs, such as the UNEP, take track of such things, and severely sanction anyone attempting to do it. The Czernobyl nuclear plant was shut down relatively recently mainly by UN and EU pressure.
 
Ah yes, those articles are 100% TEH TRUTH.

Articles about the US' groundwater pollution. They don't deny in any way what I posted.
 
Locked In Stases Field

Locked In Stases Field




National Science Foundation had a film out around 1972 or 1973, when the Russian magnetic donut looked like a breakthrough to containing a fusion reaction long enough to net useable energy. First period theoretical professor did the old chalk board thing and showed only a fraction of a second - more - was needed.

Nano's baby!

Unless someone knows something timely, i'll propose that fusion as a commercial energy source has been stuck in a ""Stases Field"" for over 30 years.

Colt:
Regardless of fusion though, nuclear power is still a pretty good idea. Thanks to the media and fear mongers, quite a bit of the population has been brainwashed into thinking that nuclear power plants are inherently dangerous and will blow up every day. ...
Click to expand...

A nuke plant is, and most likely any future fusion plant will be, a large construction project.
On the way to satisfying stock holders and flogging the contractors to get that magic ''low bid'', large construction projects can be engineered and creatively accounted into failure.

I offer you the Davis Bessie Nuke plant on Lake Erie as proof of collective mediocrity and the resulting dysfunctional consequences of the American nuclear industry.

Toss aside the hysterics of Luddites and Greens, the nuclear industry has cried all the way to the bank. You can bet that all those high on this Ponsey pyramid carted off their compensation. In-spite of the dangers of mistakes and over sights, the design, construction, and maintenance compromises are there. Will be there for the radioactive half life and more.
The poor reputation of American nuclear facilities has been EARNED.

Pity for the powerful that have designed, built, and maintained nuclear facilities that were """"good enough"""" , if not a a propagandist deceit, is a codependent plea to be robbed and, or, radiated,

Why apologize for engineers, scientists, accountants, lawyers and power utility CEOs that have taken the money and run?

And will gleefully DO IT again, if allowed.

Actual radioactive releases may have been limited over the decades, but the record for down time for maintenance may be the true indicator if one can trust those that always pay themselves first.

So even if a hot new design for a nuke plant showed up yesterday, or if a viable fusion reactor design appeared tomorrow, these facilities would still be shook down and looted by the waste, fraud, and abuse that is the corporate construction industry.

And it's O.K. because the utility lobbies have contributed to the campaigns of our best and brightest, faith based politicians. Your utility lobbies have PAID TO PLAY ...

It's O.K.

Your ""Erected"" official will bless these cathedrals of compromise, and be damned sorry whenever the rads, or lights are out.

Maintenance, a.k.a. SAFTEY, down time is what will determine if we will - see - the utility bills, or freeze in the dark. .....





4too
 
In Australia we have large reserves of fossil fuels and uranium and a small population. Some are getting nervous about plans to do big deals with China, because then we would run out of uranium at a much greater rate.

We are still working on technologies such as synrock to try to safely contain nuclear waste and there is controversy now about a new nuclear dump and possible isolation of CO2 pumped underground.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top