Alternative Fuels

Here is a viable alternative to running your car on gas. It's a kit that you can install onto several gasoline-run late-model automobiles, which modifies the engine slightly to be able to run in four tanks of hydrogen you keep in the trunk, and your car can still run on gas if you want. You recharge the hydrogen tanks with new hydrogen at home using electrolysis via solar panels. The one big problem they have with it is that it takes several days to recharge the tanks because the solar panels don't provide that much energy, and according to their site, there is a worldwide shortage of solar panels.
 
Alec, you are a gloomy one. What's up (you can pm me).

I think the point above about hydrogen cars and also Alec's point about how fossil fuels are necessary for the alternatives are good point.

But once those alternatives are constructed they could remove some of the dependence on foreign oil. At least until population and economic development catches up and we're back in trouble.

The question is time. How much time exists to come up with viable alternatives. The article points out that the Europeans are doing a good job coming up with sources. The problem is that gas powered combustion engines are too easy and to cheap.

So I hope it's less about inevitable than whether alternatives can be created in time. Sure enough, we're using up the fossil fuels at an increasing rate.

Oh an my wife drove an alcohol powered car in Brazil- it sucked, but it beat walking.
 
quietfanatic said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just dump all the waste on the All Blacks over there in NZ. Eh eh eh


Why is it more accepted to say, "We are dependant on fossil fuels and will use them till we destroy ourselves."
Then as I said before, "We will not destroy ourselves. We will find another option."
I get tooled for being unrealistic. lol
 
We are going to be fucked. In a big way. That doesn't necessarily mean the end of society, though, it just means that society will have to adapt to the changes. There's going to be a Have-Have Not social dichotomy, so try your best to be a Have instead of a Have-not.

What'll be key, is whether or not the Haves can accept that the Have-Nots will have to die, and are willing to protect their possessions with force.

That's the worst case scenario, assuming that a solution for food production and distribution isn't found.
 
well if everyone's so sure there wont be any reserve for fossil fuels, why countries havent started to develop a new, non fossil dependent fuel? instea those countries rather invest on hi tech and other popular market trades.

maybe because there isnt such a threat at the present time.
 
Because, uh. Governments aren't always clear-thinking and reasonable?
 
I've got no idea what is going to happen regarding personal transport
(make the distinction between coal and oil, we've only got enough oil for 30 years, but enough coal for 300), although for electricity geothermal does seem to be an attractive option, where it is viable. It's clean, effcient, quiet, no emissions, lots of energy, uses current technology and only requires a deep thin hole, turbines and water. It's only problem is it can't be put everywhere.

Note: It is possible to turn coal into something very similar (and effectively the same as) oil. They were doing before 1945.
 
Biofuels contain 30% less energy per unit than fossil fuels. It requires more energy to process and transport biofuels than can be extracted from them. The technology is a giant boondoggle from midwestern states trying to make a market for their corn. And due to the vagarities of US politics they can fund it and brainwash the public into thinking it's a good idea. And it still pollutes the environment.

Solar requires lots of upkeep per kwatt energy derived.

Geothermal requires lots of upfront investment.

Nuclear is good, but transport and disposal of fuel is dangerous. Probably the most limited fuel of all choices too.

Hydrogen is expensive to produce and transport.

Fusion is the only viable solution that will let us keep our standard of living, not to mention saving the environment. If their is a company developing fusion power I want to invest in it.

But all of this has been said in previous threads, as are my arguments.
 
And from what I understand, most of these technologies still requires some usage of fossil fuels.
 
True, Pope, I don't think we'll be completely weened form fossil fuels for a very long time. Applications such as lawnmowers or other small equipment will be difficlut to change to renewable/non-polluting energy sources. But that's not the point, it's the cars and power plants that are destroying the environment, and are most in need of conversion, as they pollute the most and provide most of the engine for the modern world.

Collectively, even horribly inefficient and polluting (per their size) items like chainsaws are irrelevent next to cars and power plants, and could probably continue to be used at current levels ad infinitum without adverse environmental effects.
 
Murdoch said:
True, Pope, I don't think we'll be completely weened form fossil fuels for a very long time.
Click to expand...

In the SF stuff I'm working on right now, it's three hundred some odd years in the future and jet fighters are still using fossil fuels because the storability and power-to-weight ratio can't be beat really. Even if electric turbines could produce the same kind of thrust, there's still charging time and something has to charge all of those aircraft. Each airport would need it's own power plant basically. - Colt
 
Stop dreaming. No really: STOP DREAMING.
The next 10 years will wake you up.
There is no alternative.
Western civilization needs fossil fuels to do everything.
EVERYTHING.
You need fossil fuels to manufacture solar panels, harvest the crops that produce bio diesel, make the batteries for hydrogyn fueled cars, transport wind mills to sea shores or deserts.
Peak oil is near if it hasn't already happened.
Fuel prices will only go up from now on until only the rich can afford to drive a car -- and then the super rich -- and then the ultimate elite.
Whilst they will still be driving their cars to god knows where, people will be starving.
You can't keep 6,5 billion people alive without fossil fuels.
Billions will die and no one will be able to do anything about it.
There is a 99% chance that you will die.
The unlucky bastards that will survive this Götterdammerüng will find themselves in the new middle ages.
Small communities, that's all.
Think about it. No fossil fuels means no food, no clean water, no medicine, no mail, no new clothes, no job, no money.
The vehicle of the future is the bicycle.
Not the I-don't-know-who-invented-this-hoax-hybrid-engine-car.
Buy a McGyver knife whilst thou still have the chance.
Learn your survival skills, 'cause you'll need them.
And don't believe them stupid political bastards out there.
You're fucked whether you like it or not.
The world of Fallout is closer than you might think.
 
Just because we currently USE fossil fuels for everything right now, doesn't mean we NEED to use fossil fuels for everything. The two aren't the same thing.

200 years from now, someone will still be pumping oil. We aren't going to "run out" of oil. All peak oil means is that the world's supply of oil will decline. That's it.

What does that mean? Well, the price of oil will rise constantly until demand starts to go down due to price. There isn't going to be a sudden crisis, so Alec, quit being so alarmist. 2.5 Billion people in the world ALREADY live without oil in their daily lives. If people stopped driving cars and all took public transport, the demand for oil would fall drastically. The first world countries that drive cars to work every day and depend on manufactured products only account for about 1 billion people total. It's these one billion people that peak oil will effect the most.

I will say this; if the USA suddenly disappeared off the earth, there would be no crisis at all.

Seriously, I'm getting sick of all of you guys who think you're so clever just because you think you "knew about this crisis way before it even happened". You sound like the morons I have to deal with any time anyone tells me their opinion on communism and state the easiest most obvious opinion of "It looks good on paper but doesn’t work in real life". It may be true, but it’s not the whole story and you come off as someone who wants to seem less ignorant rather than someone who actually is.
 
calculon000 said:
2.5 Billion people in the world ALREADY live without oil in their daily lives.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but do you have any idea HOW these people have to live their lives?

Oh, and 200 years from now no one, and I mean no one will be pumping oil. You just don't get it. There's still a lot of oil out there, but the oil that is still out there is the hardest and most expensive to pump. I think nowadays it takes about one barrel of oil to pump three barrels. In about 5 years (but probably sooner) it'll take one barrel to pump two barrels. One day it'll take one barrel to pump one barrel. Get it?

Western civilizaton will of course be effected the most by peak oil and its consequences, but get this: western civilization is all you've ever known. You won't even have clean tap water without Western civilization. No plasma tv and no friggin' broadband connection. You got diarrhea, you die without Western civilization. Even a simple flu will be lethal.
 
Go watch the documentary called the End of Suburbia. Please. Peak oil is not the end of western civilization. Get some god damn sources other than the stupid peak oil site.

Also, I live in a country, much like Australia, that can support itself with the oil and other energy in it's own country for the next 150 years. Unless of course the USA invades us. Which they love to do.
 
I will say this; if the USA suddenly disappeared off the earth, there would be no crisis at all.
Click to expand...

/strike

If Japan fell off the face of the Earth/strike

If Europe fell off the face of the Earth/strike

If China fell off the face of the Earth/strike

If India fell off the face of the Earth/strike
 
calculon000 said:
Also, I live in a country, much like Australia, that can support itself with the oil and other energy in it's own country for the next 150 years. Unless of course the USA invades us. Which they love to do.
Click to expand...

The US? Pah, Alaska's coming to get your ass, Calculon my boy. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top