Alternative fuels - my gripes...

[trunksrs]

/ stuff about hydrogen + water /

 

That's all well and good if you have enough fresh water to actually pull that off.

 

But the energy required to make that a viable power source, atm, is more than is produced.

 

At least last time I was aware of such experiments :-?

 

 

 

O ya, it wouldn't be an effective energy source electricity, just a clean fuel for something like cars, which could be unsafe. If they were to figure out some safety features, I'm sure it could eventually be doable, but I don't think I'll want to be in one until a couple of year's after they come out.

[ford_rule]

nuclear energy would be viable if smarter people were in control of it

 

Nuclear physicists not smart enough for ya sparky?

 

 

 

ever hear of chernobyl? have you ever heard of three mile island?

 

 

 

nuclear physicists werent running the plant at chernobyl, there were just workers on shifts that probly got like a basic engineering degree or less. besides,

 

 

 

the best energy source in the world without a doubt is wave energy.. look into it, its insane.

 

 

 

http://www.wavegen.co.uk/

[meesa]

Iceland are doing some very impressive work converting over to hydrogen.

 

 

 

Very impressive indeed! At the end, they say there is a lot of work. i.e., cost is 2-3 times more than gas. But without eating that cost right now, there will be now way to advance that technology.

 

 

 

Kudos to Iceland.

[BlueTear]

 

ever hear of chernobyl? have you ever heard of three mile island?

 

 

 

So? In Chernobyl they were testing the system by removing the moderation rods. No one is ever going to be stupid enough to do that again, and why they were doing it in the first place, remains to be solved as it goes without saying that removing the moderation rods is like asking for a meltdown.

 

 

 

The second incident didn't kill anyone, and lead to broad security policy , equipment design and personnel training changes.

 

 

 

Saying that it isn't viable due to these incidents is like saying cars aren't viable, because a car without breaks is going to crash and one once did so, killing people, and once, a quarter of a century ago, a car got demo'd because the designers hadn't thought of adding a gauge that some component failures used.

 

 

 

Nuclear power is a lot safer today.

[RoyalKnight]

The fact is they aren't going to introduce new sources of power when there's still billions to be made off of fossil fuels.

 

 

 

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/ ... tm?cnn=yes

 

 

 

 

Even big oil companies like Royal Dutch Shell and Exxon Mobil are funding ethanol research.

 

 

 

Just that the moronic thing is Exxon gave their former CEO $400 million dollars while they pledged about $100 million ($10 million/year on a 10 year project).

[Barihawk]

They'll probably finish off the coal in the world. I laughed when I ehard of hydroge fuelling cars; if there's a crash...

 

 

 

We've only used up about half the petroline in the world so far, so I guess we still got a century or so left of petrol-fuelled cars. petrol prices are crazy nowadays.

 

 

 

Nuclear power would be too dangerous.

 

 

 

Try 70 years of oil worldwide, and rising consumption will make that number drop as time goes on. In addition, prices will skyrocket due to the high demand and low availability. Coal has a 1500 year supply now, but rising consumption will crap it out in 75 years.

 

 

 

In essence, the youngin's are screwed, I will be 95 years old and not give a hoot.

[Giordano]

They'll probably finish off the coal in the world. I laughed when I ehard of hydroge fuelling cars; if there's a crash...

 

 

 

We've only used up about half the petroline in the world so far, so I guess we still got a century or so left of petrol-fuelled cars. petrol prices are crazy nowadays.

 

 

 

Nuclear power would be too dangerous.

 

 

 

They is more demand for pertrolin every day, so it'll run out soon. Plastic is also made by pertoline, so just look into a Toys R Us.

[trapical]

I say up with the nuclear power. A golf ball sized chunk of U-238 can run a nuclear submarine for 7 monthes. There are several billion tons of uranium in the Australia, Canada, Russia, and the US (countries listed biggest to smallest in terms of Uranium stores).

 

 

 

Its also extremly safe, nuclear plants can't explode, they can melt like the one at 3 mile island did, but now days thats almost impossible and even when one does melt it does so in such a way that its no threat to people.

[indy500fan]

nuclear physicists werent running the plant at chernobyl, there were just workers on shifts that probly got like a basic engineering degree or less. besides,

 

 

 

So? In Chernobyl they were testing the system by removing the moderation rods. No one is ever going to be stupid enough to do that again, and why they were doing it in the first place, remains to be solved as it goes without saying that removing the moderation rods is like asking for a meltdown.

 

 

 

The second incident didn't kill anyone, and lead to broad security policy , equipment design and personnel training changes.

 

 

 

Saying that it isn't viable due to these incidents is like saying cars aren't viable, because a car without breaks is going to crash and one once did so, killing people, and once, a quarter of a century ago, a car got demo'd because the designers hadn't thought of adding a gauge that some component failures used.

 

 

 

Nuclear power is a lot safer today.

 

 

 

the point i was making was that had smarter people been in control of it, we wouldnt have had those problems. leaving workers with basic engineering degrees in charge is probably not a good idea. once there are more people capable of overseeing operation of a facility, then they could make more plants.

[assassin_696]

Although they couldn't be used for cars, i think geothermal energy and tidal energy are two promising sources. Both continous, and non dependant on the weather like wind and solar.

 

 

 

I guess if hydrogen cars do come in we'll see even more violent explosions in films when the good guy shoots the bad guys fuel tank travelling at 70mph with a pistol :P

[____]

I say up with the nuclear power. A golf ball sized chunk of U-238 can run a nuclear submarine for 7 monthes. There are several billion tons of uranium in the Australia, Canada, Russia, and the US (countries listed biggest to smallest in terms of Uranium stores).

 

And it's ours, all ours :twisted:

[DaN]

The Cheapest viable option at the monent is to run on gas.

 

 

 

Its cheap and clean burning

 

 

 

the promblem is its not as powerful and explodes easily.

 

Plus you can only put gas into a petrol engine diesels can only one on diesel.

 

 

 

I run on Petrol but an considering getting a gas converter for better fule economy on long trips.

 

 

 

Altho my car goes quite far for a 3.8liter as it is.

[trapical]

I say up with the nuclear power. A golf ball sized chunk of U-238 can run a nuclear submarine for 7 monthes. There are several billion tons of uranium in the Australia, Canada, Russia, and the US (countries listed biggest to smallest in terms of Uranium stores).

 

And it's ours, all ours :twisted:

 

 

 

Yea jeez, and since a recent discovery of a massive mine deposit you also have like 90% of the worlds Titanium stores, we all know Titanium as the godly metal used in all space craft and/or anything else that wants to be awesome.

 

 

 

In 200 years Austraila will have some fun :wink:

[jaklumen]

nuclear physicists werent running the plant at chernobyl, there were just workers on shifts that probly got like a basic engineering degree or less. besides,

 

 

 

So? In Chernobyl they were testing the system by removing the moderation rods. No one is ever going to be stupid enough to do that again, and why they were doing it in the first place, remains to be solved as it goes without saying that removing the moderation rods is like asking for a meltdown.

 

 

 

The second incident didn't kill anyone, and lead to broad security policy , equipment design and personnel training changes.

 

 

 

Saying that it isn't viable due to these incidents is like saying cars aren't viable, because a car without breaks is going to crash and one once did so, killing people, and once, a quarter of a century ago, a car got demo'd because the designers hadn't thought of adding a gauge that some component failures used.

 

 

 

Nuclear power is a lot safer today.

 

 

 

the point i was making was that had smarter people been in control of it, we wouldnt have had those problems. leaving workers with basic engineering degrees in charge is probably not a good idea. once there are more people capable of overseeing operation of a facility, then they could make more plants.

 

 

 

I'm very tired and don't have the patience to look up all the research on nuclear power. At a quick glance, Google yields plenty of hits and the Wikipedia entry looks pretty informative. From what I recall, nuclear power is the only source of large scale consistent energy aside from petroleum.

 

 

 

I think the main thing people are worried about is nuclear waste. We had some breeder reactors out here, but due to the current political climate, DOE is entirely focused instead on cleanup. There are a number of ways to do this-- most of it has been done by waste storage in the basalt out here, but there is an ongoing project to build a vitrification plant (waste is stored in glass rods). Work on the plant is going very slow, however.