Best Alternative to Petroleum [Archive]

View Full Version : Best Alternative to Petroleum

Entrails Konfetti

27th March 2006, 00:56

What do you guys see as the best alternative to fossil fuels, and why?

I think sources like Aqua-Fuel which are hydrogen based, because they are self renewing sources.

Eleutherios

27th March 2006, 01:09

"If all fossil fuels and their derivatives, as well as trees for paper and construction were banned in order to save the planet, reverse the Greenhouse Effect and stop deforestation; then there is only one known annually renewable natural resource that is capable of providing the overall majority of the world's paper and textiles; meet all of the world's transportation, industrial and home energy needs, while simultaneously reducing pollution, rebuilding the soil, and cleaning the atmosphere all at the same time... and that substance is — the same one that did it all before — Cannabis Hemp... Marijuana!" —Jack Herer, The Emperor Wears No Clothes

27th March 2006, 01:12

Nothing has the scale and efficency of petroleum, the amount of energy it puts out for the amount of energy put into extracting it can't be matched...if it could, the capitalists would clearly be all over it.

Entrails Konfetti

27th March 2006, 01:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 01:21 AM
Nothing has the scale and efficency of petroleum, the amount of energy it puts out for the amount of energy put into extracting it can't be matched...if it could, the capitalists would clearly be all over it.
Even hydro fuels need petroleum extration?

Well, if nothing can rival petroleum as of now, what do you see as the best alternative from the other alternatives?

piet11111

27th March 2006, 02:25

nuclear energy whatelse ?

untill we develop a better source there simply wont be an alternative.

Janus

27th March 2006, 02:26

Here's an interesting story that involves geothermal energy in Iceland.

BBC News

Geologists in Iceland are drilling directly into the heart of a hot volcano.

Their $20m project hopes to reveal more about the nature of mid-ocean ridges where new ocean floor is created. Such boreholes could ultimately yield 10 times as much geothermal power as any previous project.

Twenty years ago, geologist Gudmundur Omar Friedleifsson had a surprise when he lowered a thermometer down a borehole.

"We melted the thermometer," he recalls. "It was set for 380C; but it just melted. The temperature could have been 400 or even 500."

Speaking in the first of a new series on BBC Radio 4, called Five Holes in the Ground, he describes how this set him thinking about how much energy it might be possible to extract from Iceland's volcanic rocks.

At depth, the groundwater is way over 100C, but the pressure keeps it liquid. As Dr Friedleifsson puts it: "On the surface, you boil your egg at 100 degrees; but if you wanted to boil your egg at a depth of 2,500m, it would take 350."

Splitting floor

The landscape on the Reykjanes Ridge in southwest Iceland seems like an alien world.

There are pools of boiling mud and the hiss of steam escaping from fissures. There are also signs of industry - past, present and future - with an abandoned salt factory, working geothermal power stations and a big new drilling rig.
It is also an area of great natural beauty. Down on the shore, crashing Atlantic breakers are exposing fresh cliffs of pillow basalt, volcanic lava that has erupted under the sea and been rapidly quenched so that it forms features that look a bit like black toothpaste squeezed from a giant tube.

This is a young landscape. The most recent eruptions here occurred in the 13th Century and there could be new ones at any time.

Iceland is unusual geologically in that it exists above the ocean at all. It stands on the mid-ocean ridge system, the longest mountain range on the planet. This range runs around the world's oceans like the seam on a tennis ball.

It is here that new ocean floor is created as the continents drift apart.

For the most part, it is deep under the sea; it is the place where hydrothermal vents and their "black smokers" belch out super-heated water and dissolved minerals.

But Iceland stands on an additional plume of volcanic mantle rock that has lifted it above the Atlantic and made it accessible to geologists.

Hydrogen future

Iceland is already littered with geothermal power stations, producing most of the country's electricity from steam at around 240C, extracted from boreholes between 600 and 1,000m deep.

But now, the plan is to go much deeper. Omar Friedleifsson of the Iceland Geosurvey is leading the consortium of energy companies in the Iceland Deep Drilling Project.
Last year, they drilled down to a depth of 3,082m and since then have been conducting flow tests.

Later this year, they will put a pressure lining into their borehole and drill on down to more than 4km deep.

At that depth, they hope to encounter what is called supercritical water: water that is not simply a mixture of steam and hot water but a single phase which can carry much more energy.

Engineers on the project have calculated that increasing the temperature by 200 degrees and the pressure by 200 Bar will mean that, for the same flow rate, the energy extracted from such a borehole will go up from 5MW to 50MW.

Power station manager Albert Albertsson predicts that, by the end of the century, "Iceland could become the Kuwait of the North", exporting energy in the form of liquid hydrogen as part of a new hydrogen economy.
Interest in the Iceland Deep Drilling Project is not solely for energy production.
Geologists have never had the chance before to penetrate the volcanic heart of a mid-ocean-ridge geothermal system and there is much they would like to learn.

As they get deeper, bore teams will change from the rotary drill, which produces rock fragments but can drill up to 200m per day, to a slower drill that produces useful core samples.

The project wants to study the geology, the energy flow and the chemical environment at great depth.
Albert Albertson, at the nearby power station, likes to think of the energy as just a part of an integrated system.

Iceland's volcanic rocks are highly fractured and so, below about 50m, there is plenty of water.

For the next 40m or thereabouts, it is fresh drinking water, topped up by Iceland's generous rainfall. Below that, the water is salty; the ocean has managed to seep in.

However, it is the really deep supercritical water that is also laden with dissolved minerals. Mr Albertsson believes he may also be able to extract precious metals, such as copper, silver and gold from the water.

After the water has gone through his turbines, it is still at about 40C. Some of that excess energy is used for district heating and for horticulture in greenhouses.

It also warms one of Iceland's biggest tourist attractions: the Blue Lagoon, a vast outdoor lake which, even in March, greets bathers with the temperature of a hot bath.

There are supposed benefits from the silica rich water with its faint smell of sulphur, and the white silica mud is exported for health and beauty treatments.

Mr Albertsson told the BBC that he himself is a regular visitor.

"For me, the ideal time to take a dip is in the middle of winter, in the middle of the night, looking up at the stars and the Aurora Borealis, the Northern Lights."

Janus

27th March 2006, 02:28

Energy diversification should be very important.

BBC News

Onshore wind farms will provide about 5% of Britain's electricity by 2010, according to the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA).

In a new report, it says turbines are being installed faster than predicted.

If this is correct, onshore wind farms will take the government halfway to its target of generating 10% of electricity from renewable sources by 2010.

The report comes a day before the government unveils a major review of its climate change policies.

Entitled Onshore Wind: Powering Ahead, the report claims to be the most comprehensive assessment of the UK's onshore wind sector ever undertaken.

It forms part of the BWEA's response to another ongoing government review on energy which is due to conclude in the middle of the year.

Half full
The BWEA says that projects already constructed and those already approved will give a capacity of 3,000 megawatts (MW) by 2010.

Taking into account potential barriers such as planning consent and grid capability, it identifies a further 3,000MW capacity which it says is "forecast to be consented and built" by the decade's end.

"Onshore wind can play a hugely significant role in meeting renewable energy and climate change targets," said the BWEA's head of onshore, Chris Tomlinson.

"Our research proves, very clearly, that onshore wind will deliver, bringing major benefits to the economy and the environment while securing our energy supplies."
Onshore wind farms are more advanced than any other renewable energy sector in Britain, though installation lags well behind some other European countries such as Denmark and Germany.

A 2004 reform of the planning process aimed at easing approvals has proven only a partial success, with a number of recent applications refused or scaled down.

But despite opposition from a few high-profile figures such as TV naturalist David Bellamy, polls suggest the public approves, with a Guardian/ICM survey in 2005 showing about 70% of the population endorsing wind farm construction within 20 miles (32km) of their home.

If the onshore wind industry is as healthy as the new report suggests, the challenge for the government is to stimulate the remaining 5% of renewable capacity needed to reach its 2010 target.

BWEA figures show that only four offshore wind farms are currently in operation. Though output can be higher per turbine and wind more consistent, construction costs are also higher and grid connection is a bigger issue.

Photovoltaic solar panels produce less than 1% of the nation's electricity, and wave and tidal technologies remain in the development stage.

piet11111

27th March 2006, 02:46

geo-thermal energy is a beautiful thing but its not a possibility in most of the world.
but the hydrogen kuweit idea does appeal to me and would make hydrogen much more feasable.

Janus

27th March 2006, 02:53

geo-thermal energy is a beautiful thing but its not a possibility in most of the world.

Of course, just like solar and wind energy aren't feasible in some areas as well. I think that we rely on diverse energy types rather than just any one specifically.

piet11111

27th March 2006, 02:58

personally i always fantasized about turning the Sahara desert into farm lands and forrest.

with hydrogen as fuel (only exhaust is pure water) that could be a possibility.
the communists nations could really do some major development stuff in africa that would be like making all the ancient world wonders all at once.

apathy maybe

27th March 2006, 04:20

Burn fat, not oil.

Ride a bike, if you want your computer to work, ride a bike to turn the dynamo to charge the batteries, to enable you to use your computer.

Basically this society we live in uses too much energy. We have lights on all the time; TVs are left on (using the remote doesn't turn them off, you need to turn them off at the wall), heaps of electrical appliances use energy when they do not need to.

People drive their cars a block down the road, they fly rather then take a few more hours to travel on land (or sea).

Energy sources that can be used instead of oil (and are relatively non-polluting) are, wind and solar (need to be connected to batteries to store this energy), geothermal and (small scale) hydro are also good. (And fat as I mentioned above.)

For transport, ships with sails (and/or oars and/or paddles powered by bikes) could be used to travel across water. Across land, electric trains are good for long distance, bikes for short. Electric motors could be attached to bikes for those hard uphill bits. Electric cars could also be used, but rarely. Walking is good as well, and other forms of animal transport could be used in some places.

27th March 2006, 04:40

It should also be pointed out that petroleum is not only an energy source its also what plastics are constructed out of; even if petroleum could be replaced for electricity production it would be impossible to replace it for manufacturing. Also its the only efficent form of energy that can be transported, you can't put a hydroelectrical dam or a nuclear power plant in a car or plane. Another problem with developing and investing in alternative energy is that every step along the way, from shipping components of power plants in planes, boats and trucks, to powering construction machines, to building the components, to the material that goes into the components, are all from petrolium, so even if you make an alternative energy plant (nuclear power being the most practical), you'd still have had to invest a great deal of petrolium into its construction.

piet11111

27th March 2006, 05:22

27th March 2006, 12:04

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 27 2006, 04:29 AM
Burn fat, not oil.

Ride a bike, if you want your computer to work, ride a bike to turn the dynamo to charge the batteries, to enable you to use your computer.

Basically this society we live in uses too much energy. We have lights on all the time; TVs are left on (using the remote doesn't turn them off, you need to turn them off at the wall), heaps of electrical appliances use energy when they do not need to.

People drive their cars a block down the road, they fly rather then take a few more hours to travel on land (or sea).

Energy sources that can be used instead of oil (and are relatively non-polluting) are, wind and solar (need to be connected to batteries to store this energy), geothermal and (small scale) hydro are also good. (And fat as I mentioned above.)

For transport, ships with sails (and/or oars and/or paddles powered by bikes) could be used to travel across water. Across land, electric trains are good for long distance, bikes for short. Electric motors could be attached to bikes for those hard uphill bits. Electric cars could also be used, but rarely. Walking is good as well, and other forms of animal transport could be used in some places.
:cool: or we could drill the Alaska Arctic National Wildlife Refuge!!!!!

And by the way, while you're burning your fat not oil...where do you think your human fat comes from? From modern agriculture which relies on petrol based pesticides to keep crops from being eaten up, before they can be harvested with petrol powered farm equipement and brought to your local hippie-friendly market on petrol powered trucks, to be cooled by petrol powered refrigeration equipment lit under petrol powered light fixtures...before you get there with your bike. And my guess is that your body probably doesnt store energy nearly as efficently as petrol, or they'd be using hippies on treadmills for power instead. So in fact if you wanted to cut down on petrolium consumption, walking and biking eveywhere and raising your metabolism, raising your need for additional calories which basically come from petrolium, might not do it.

loveme4whoiam

27th March 2006, 14:26

i wont live in a cave because you have a problem with technology.
How the hell is that living in a cave? All he is suggesting is slowing life down a bit. Why pay a ridiculous amount, monetarily and environmentally, to get to somewhere in one hour when you can get there cheaply and green(ly) in three hours?

So in fact if you wanted to cut down on petrolium consumption, walking and biking eveywhere and raising your metabolism, raising your need for additional calories which basically come from petrolium, might not do it.
Give me a break. So you are saying that because I ride my bike to work and back everyday, rather than driving or catching a bus, I am in fact using up more petroleum than the other ways? Get real.

piet11111

27th March 2006, 16:39

when someone suggests poeple to be their own source of electricity then it usually means environmentalist nut.

and when talking about ships with sails and animal transport it seems to me he wants to regres civilisation back a couple of century's.

i say nuclear energy along with greener forms of energy like geo thermal and tidal energy.
and those cheap sources of energy can be used to produce hydrogen for vehicular transportation.

EnragÃ©

27th March 2006, 18:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 02:34 AM
nuclear energy whatelse ?

untill we develop a better source there simply wont be an alternative.
dude no! :o

talk about screwing up the planet

Goatse

27th March 2006, 18:11

when someone suggests poeple to be their own source of electricity then it usually means environmentalist nut.

Or somebody who doesn't want to spend more than they need to on overpriced energy sources...

talk about screwing up the planet

Screwing it up by offering a clean alternative to fuels which fill our lungs with tar?

Entrails Konfetti

27th March 2006, 23:37

Originally posted by TragicClown+--> (TragicClown)And my guess is that your body probably doesnt store energy nearly as efficently as petrol, or they'd be using hippies on treadmills for power instead.[/b]
HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

What better way to legitimise hippy-bashing!

Me:*WHIP* Faster you dope-head!
Hippie: OWWWW, Thats so un-cool!
Me: Green energy, not so "Groovy" now is it?

Was Redstar2000 a hippy :D ?

Originally posted by apathy [email protected]
Ride a bike, if you want your computer to work, ride a bike to turn the dynamo to charge the batteries, to enable you to use your computer.

Do you ride your bike to turn on your computer?
I doubt it.

Gee I can just imagine the fucker crashing on me when I'm doing a research paper, how practicle!

ScottishPinko
Or somebody who doesn't want to spend more than they need to on overpriced energy sources
Or someone who doesn't want to spend more than they need on inefficient energy sources.

Entrails Konfetti

27th March 2006, 23:50

Seriously now, I agree with Janus.

We're going to have to need a broader infrasturcture with muliple energy resources. Some of these will be dependent on petroleum, but in the long run it will lead to a cleaner environment.

I see hybrids and gasahol as the best alternative in transportation.
Well its not really much of an alternative.

I doubt the environment will ever be as clean as the days before industrialization.

And I only dislike impractical hippy ideas, and reformist hippy ideas.

StigmataLectron

28th March 2006, 05:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 04:49 AM
It should also be pointed out that petroleum is not only an energy source its also what plastics are constructed out of; even if petroleum could be replaced for electricity production it would be impossible to replace it for manufacturing. Also its the only efficent form of energy that can be transported, you can't put a hydroelectrical dam or a nuclear power plant in a car or plane. Another problem with developing and investing in alternative energy is that every step along the way, from shipping components of power plants in planes, boats and trucks, to powering construction machines, to building the components, to the material that goes into the components, are all from petrolium, so even if you make an alternative energy plant (nuclear power being the most practical), you'd still have had to invest a great deal of petrolium into its construction.
*coughcannabiscough*

You can make anything out of weed, especially clean fuel, and I think you can even make some kind of plastics. I've heard somewhere that making alcohol fuel isn't as efficient as marijuana and you'd be giving your car a better high. ^_^

</first post>

BuyOurEverything

28th March 2006, 08:37

Also its the only efficent form of energy that can be transported, you can't put a hydroelectrical dam or a nuclear power plant in a car or plane.

Perhaps not, but you could certianly use nuclear power to create hydrogen for hydrogen cells.

apathy maybe

28th March 2006, 09:03

Originally posted by TragicClown+--> (TragicClown)It should also be pointed out that petroleum is not only an energy source its also what plastics are constructed out of; even if petroleum could be replaced for electricity production it would be impossible to replace it for manufacturing.[/b]Hemp.

Originally posted by [email protected]
i wont live in a cave because you have a problem with technology.
I don't have a problem with technology. I am what might be classed as an "eco-anarchist", I want to use the good bits of technology and discard the bad. I want to go forward. (And where the fuck did I say anything about living in a cave or having a problem with technology?)

TragicClown
And by the way, while you're burning your fat not oil...where do you think your human fat comes from? From my local organic garden and local organic farm. Who needs petrol when everything is local?

Goatse

28th March 2006, 09:30

Or someone who doesn't want to spend more than they need on inefficient energy sources.

However their inefficient energy source doesn't release toxic chemicals, nor does its price fluctuate...

red team

3rd May 2006, 03:43

Ethanol fuel viable after all.

Ethanol Alternative (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/1/02726.shtml?s=lh)

3rd May 2006, 05:38

ethanol can't replace petroleum in manufacturing though.

redstar2000

3rd May 2006, 07:01

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO
Was Redstar2000 a hippy?

No...but I certainly knew quite a few. :)

When you go to
San Francisco,
be sure to wear
some flowers in your hair. :lol:

On the thread topic, I don't think apathy maybe's suggestions are practical for most people...though sometimes one of them might be useful.

If you are young and healthy and live in a mild climate, then riding your bike to and from work/school might actually be the pleasurable option...and not any kind of "Holy Sacrifice to the Great Green God".

Prototype fusion plants are now under development in France and China and Japan is also in on the project with France. I think that will be the long-range option...supplemented by local energy sources where available.

The continuing development of a "high-energy-use" civilization is irrevocable barring global nuclear war or astronomical catastrophe.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

apathy maybe

3rd May 2006, 08:03

Originally posted by TragicClown+--> (TragicClown) ethanol can't replace petroleum in manufacturing though.[/b]
Hemp. (Or other vegetable based sources of oil.)

redstar2000
The continuing development of a "high-energy-use" civilization is irrevocable barring global nuclear war or astronomical catastrophe.
Why? If the energy starts running out and fusion is not yet on the table, 'civilisation' will have to start using less energy. Besides which we have technology now that can enable us to use less resources (including energy), and as these technologies get better, people will hopefully use less energy.

Transport is the biggest use of energy I can think of.

redstar2000

3rd May 2006, 18:00

Originally posted by apathy maybe+May 3 2006, 02:24 AM--> (apathy maybe @ May 3 2006, 02:24 AM)
redstar2000
The continuing development of a "high-energy-use" civilization is irrevocable barring global nuclear war or astronomical catastrophe.

Why? [/b]
Because we humans resent expending our own personal energies when we can "get the job done" using some other energy source -- an animal, another human, a machine.

Escape from drudgery (unnecessary labor) is an ongoing "motif" of human behavior...why do you think we constantly innovate in the first place?

When faced with any task, a sensible person asks: is this task really necessary? and then what's the easiest way to do it?

That second question is the whole "history of human civilization" in one sentence.

Those who advocate substitutng human labor power for energy-driven machinery will be almost universally ignored.

No one but an idiot wants to spend their life busting their ass. :o

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

piet11111

3rd May 2006, 20:00

fortunatly the one good thing about my government is that they are looking to expand the % of energy aquired through nuclear means.
i concider nuclear energy an interim energy source untill we have something more efficient with less risks.

and about less risks the nuclear energy option is safer then anything else to my knowledge there where only accidents caused by human error.
today those accidents are almost impossible and im certain we can design the next series of nuclear reactors to be even saver then they are now.

just dont forget we need to have the lights on before we can create another source of energy

apathy maybe

4th May 2006, 06:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 03:21 AM
Because we humans resent expending our own personal energies when we can "get the job done" using some other energy source -- an animal, another human, a machine.

Escape from drudgery (unnecessary labor) is an ongoing "motif" of human behavior...why do you think we constantly innovate in the first place?

When faced with any task, a sensible person asks: is this task really necessary? and then what's the easiest way to do it?

That second question is the whole "history of human civilization" in one sentence.

Those who advocate substitutng human labor power for energy-driven machinery will be almost universally ignored.

No one but an idiot wants to spend their life busting their ass. :o

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
I agree basically with your what you are saying, what I am saying is that more energy efficient technologies and people accepting longer travel times will result in less energy use.

I can’t see anyone except a few weirdos going back to washing clothes by hand. Washing machines are one of the best inventions for helping women (at least in the over-developed world) around.

redstar2000

4th May 2006, 14:02

Originally posted by apathy maybe+--> (apathy maybe) I agree basically with your what you are saying, what I am saying is that more energy efficient technologies and people accepting longer travel times will result in less energy use.[/b]

Amtrak
Smoking and Non-Smoking Policies

All Amtrak trains, Thruway buses and stations are entirely non-smoking except for the Auto Train.

*
On Auto Train, passengers may smoke only in a designated, enclosed smoking room located on the lower level of the Lounge Car.
*
If such a car is not on a train due to an equipment substitution, then that entire train is non-smoking.

Passengers may smoke on station platforms at longer stops as announced by train crews.

*
Passengers must remain next to the train, ready to re-board immediately upon hearing the sound of the locomotive horn and the "all aboard" calls from Amtrak employees.
*
Smoking stops may be shortened or eliminated entirely if the train is operating late.
*
State or local laws may prohibit smoking on station platforms.

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServe...554498&ssid=351 (http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/am2Copy/Simple_Copy_Page&c=am2Copy&cid=1080080554498&ssid=351)

So things stand with rail passenger service in the U.S.

Buses and subways are the same, of course.

Leaving the smoker with no option except the private automobile.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

bunk

4th May 2006, 16:23

That is ridiculous RedStar. They have smoking areas also and you think a good enough reason for having a car is that you can smoke as you please?

redstar2000

4th May 2006, 18:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 10:44 AM
That is ridiculous RedStar. They have smoking areas also and you think a good enough reason for having a car is that you can smoke as you please?
Did you read my quotation from the Amtrak site? They do not have any "smoking areas" on any train except one...and even that is problematical.

Yes, I think smokers have a legitimate reason to use private automobiles as they are now "officially unwelcome" on all forms of public transit in the U.S. :angry:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

bunk

4th May 2006, 19:27

No, i didn't read the quote - i just opened the thread and it was on your post.

It isn't right that there's only one smoking area but i think smokers can manage. And a small campaign would probably achieve a few more smoking areas. It's not a good enough reason to take an automobile when there's a train available. What is the proportion of smokers in the American population anyway. If there was a fair proportion of smoking areas relative to the general population would you be happy?

piet11111

4th May 2006, 19:42

Josh do you have a problem with personal transportation ?

i concider having a car/motorcycle a basic human need and it certainly is something everyone would "want" after the revolution.
if we manage to produce a clean efficient means of powering our cars (i bet hydrogen) in sufficient amounts then we dont have any reason not to provide personal vehicles to everyone.

since redstar2000 is over 50 he would obviously be one of the first to be recieving one of the new vehicles.

Comrade Nikolai Vessey

7th May 2006, 14:06

Ethanol is not very efficent at all. Take this as an example; if every car in americ ran on ethanol 99% of its land mass would have to be used for its production.

More money should be put into research in nuclear fusion and hydrogen fuel cell technology to make them a viable energy source.

redstar2000

7th May 2006, 18:11

Number Pulled From Someone's Ass Alert (We could call it NPFSA Alert)

Originally posted by Comrade Nikolai Vessey
Take this as an example; if every car in America ran on ethanol, 99% of its land mass would have to be used for its production.

I've seen that number before myself. I've even seen some the assumptions that went in to it...like it takes so many acres of corn to produce enough ethanol to run one vehicle for one year.

But are the assumptions (known and unknown) accurate?

Neither you nor I nor any ordinary person is likely to know!

So it's just a number "thrown out there" to discourage production and use of ethanol.

Who benefits if we accept that number?

Note that, if I'm not mistaken, Brazil's entire fleet of cars, busses, and trucks runs on ethanol made from sugar cane. I seem to recall reading lately that Brazil has stopped importing oil altogether.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

OneBrickOneVoice

7th May 2006, 21:25

I think we should encourage ethanol cars and hyrbrid/electric/Solar cars. We should discouage Hummers and large unefficient SUVs.

piet11111

7th May 2006, 23:45

i agree on the SUV's but real 4x4's are indispensible where i live and btw if they can be converted to use alternative fuels what would be the objection against them ?

even hummers have their purpose even though dutch landrovers are pulling them out of the sand in afghanistan ;)
they are usefull for militia service and for transporting goods across rough terrain where
other vehicle's cant come.

apathy maybe

8th May 2006, 09:53

Does anyone know anything about thorium-fuelled nuclear reactors? They sound like they might be the next best thing to fusion.

See http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s1615070.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium for more information.

KomradeRikhi

18th May 2006, 23:21

How about water?
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseacti...d=731108261&n=2 (http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=731108261&n=2)

OneBrickOneVoice

19th May 2006, 03:22

DEPAVER

22nd May 2006, 13:17

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 26 2006, 11:20 PM
Burn fat, not oil.

Ride a bike, if you want your computer to work, ride a bike to turn the dynamo to charge the batteries, to enable you to use your computer.

Basically this society we live in uses too much energy. We have lights on all the time; TVs are left on (using the remote doesn't turn them off, you need to turn them off at the wall), heaps of electrical appliances use energy when they do not need to.

Thanks you for this post! I agree 100%.

There is no substitute for oil because nothing is as dense as oil.

Preparing for my morning commute via bike as soon as I hit the send button....

Brekisonphilous

22nd May 2006, 22:35

Every single energy source has its drawbacks. if we go nuclear, we endanger the whole planet, Uranium supply is unimpressive, nuclear waste storage is a huge issue... if we do hydrogen, there is no reliable source of it except for water, so water sources begin to diminish, wind and solar aren't too reliable either because wind levels and the amount of sun areas get fluctuates... Geothermal energy cannot be used everywhere, we are about out of petroleum, and its use leads to climate change....
catching my drift? Even the idea of using hemp has a downfall. we would all be living in hemp fields (i wouldn't have a problem with that!) soil quality would be diminished, not enough room for other crops to feed the people... So basically the more "advanced" human civilization gets, we will most likely not be able to overcome this energy problem unless aliens bring us what we need lol. The best solution possible would be to use every energy source equally, and not let one predominate the other, Or go back to simple ways of transportation such as by foot, bicycle... I really think a massive education program needs to sweep the world to get people more motivated to just walk and ride bikes more.
Houses (wherever possible) should be more self manageable. more efficiently using renewable resources to run the home i.e. wind, solar.

Also, I think not enough research has been put into using the laws of physics to produce energy. Like self powered cars and trains on a track that uses momentum and (insert physics term here) to get from point A to point B. Burn fat, not oil. I think people can get off their lazy asses and stop using the excuse "its hard." the people unable to do this who are limited by geography/disability can all commute by means of bus/train. but everyone who has the potential should be encouraged to do so.
Also, say goodbye to hummers and SUV's because they are completely unpractical. one does not need such a huge vehicle to get around town. cars should be kept as compact and efficient as possible.

Geothermal energy is freaking awesome. I believe it could be used a loooot more. like better drilling methods to reach those deep reservoirs. The perfect example of how it could be is iceland. they even turned the factory run off into a tourist attraction that helps to power the economy!

What if we used electricity from our skies to store potential energy that can later be used in production? More research needs to focus on renewable energy sources.

oh and by the way, transportation is not the biggest consumer of energy, it is in fact industry. Transportation being second...