Koala Cull
Pages
| Author | Topic: Koala Cull |
|---|---|
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Friday, May 7 2004 15:48
Profile
Homepage
I posit thus: most third-world industries are too poor to upgrade their systems if there is not a tremendous jump in efficiency or affordability. I posit thus: hydrogen will not be cost-efficient for some years, and hydrogen engines will remain at a high price for some time due to their high demand and technical complexity. I extrapolate thus: the third world will not adopt hydrogen power until it is far past the cutting edge. I posit thus: petroleum reserves will undergo drastic shortages at current usage rates within two decades. Further reserves exist at present rates of extraction into the early 22nd century, but are too isolated to be cost-efficient for extraction at any price level. I posit thus: the third world is the industrial base from which the consumerized world draws raw resources at useful prices. I posit thus: the third world's industrialization has reached a stage at which a fuel supply shock would be inherently devastating. I extrapolate thus: prices for raw petroleum shall, within the next 20 years, reach such prices that the third world is financially and industrially strangled in the cradle. I elaborate thus: while replacements for gasoline exist, adapting gasoline engines to burn coal or wood is an expensive, inefficient, and damaging process, and an inherently stopgap measure. The funds to adapt old engines do not exist, and the funds to replace old engines are out of the question; it follows the only remaining option for third-world industry is death. I elaborate thus: based on previous position, the first world as it knows itself will be destroyed. I conclude thus: hydrogen is not feasible on a large scale, and we are hosed. [ Friday, May 07, 2004 15:49: Message edited by: Custerbly Numb ] -------------------- AnamaFreak (3:59:56 AM): Shounen-ai to the MAX ...there really is nothing that can compare to hot gay sex with a mythological icon. --665 Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 1993
|
written Friday, May 7 2004 17:46
Profile
As long there is oil somewhere to loot, industrial countries have no reason to hurry up with changing to renewable energies ... At present, gasoline is far too cheap. It should cost about five times as much, to cover all the follow-costs. We all support the cheap use of gasoline with our taxes (and our health). There exist - beside hydrogen power - some good efforts with solar technlogy. People in car industry are not stupid. They know about the limits of oil and they all have their developments of gasoline-free cars in reserve. And yeah, they slowly start to make small cars with low use of fuel. We even have some few electrocars driving around yet. But well, no, it's not going to be feasible on a large scale within a useful period, as long as an oil-dealer and his cronies rule the world. -------------------- ^ö^ Vegetarians are sexy. Solar power is the wave of the future. Posts: 1420 | Registered: Wednesday, October 2 2002 07:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Friday, May 7 2004 22:28
Profile
Homepage
Alternate forms of energy, besides nuclear power -- which every green I've spoken to hates for knee-jerk reasons -- do not exist at a level of technology to be remotely practical. Hydroelectric only works on rivers and one or two spots on the ocean, geothermal is a century or more away from being in the same neighborhood as useful, wind power is like hydroelectric, only less useful and even more environment-exclusive, and solar is still weighed down by a lot of impractical requirements. I'm all for nuclear power; if we end up doing the hydrogen thing, it's going to be necessary. The most efficient way of producing hydrogen in fuel-useful forms is with a power supply; same goes for most parts of cars, jets, and so on. Issue that everyone fails to realize is that even if *insert deity here* came down from the sky and replaced every gasoline or diesel car engine with an efficient hydrogen one, we a. lack the infrastructure to produce storable hydrogen on a large and commercially useful scale and b. are still almost completely dependent on petroleum derivatives for power. The demand for power is only going to increase, and the only form of alternate power, failing finding a lot of Elerium-115 lying around, is going to be nuclear power. Solar is a novelty and the rest are jokes, and nuclear power has one of the best environmental track records out there. It's killed/maimed fewer people than oil or coal plants; living near a nuclear plant actually exposes you to about a third as much residual radiation as living near a coal plant (and much, much less than, say, living in the mountains). Nuclear plants are so vigorously upkept and safeguarded that casual accidents -- Three Mile Island, for instance -- usually result in the release of mildly hot gas and not much else. On the other hand, if anything much goes wrong on a coal or oil plant, kaboom! There goes half the town. On the subject of 'leakage' and so forth, nuclear waste is guarded so carefully that it's very unlikely to happen, and great care is taken to ensure that radioactive metals remain in the same place if anything DOES go wrong, that they avoid water supplies, and so on. Take, as a counterexample, the Exxon Valdez. One man gets drunk and bang, acres and acres of coast and lots of wildlife are dead. Solar power is clean, but it's not efficient, and plenty of reasonable people -- myself included -- would prefer that everyone, not just the moneyed elite, get to have electric power for affordable prices. Solar-dependence would kill the average man, and that worries me. [ Friday, May 07, 2004 22:33: Message edited by: Custerbly Numb ] -------------------- AnamaFreak (3:59:56 AM): Shounen-ai to the MAX ...there really is nothing that can compare to hot gay sex with a mythological icon. --665 Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 618
|
written Friday, May 7 2004 23:18
Profile
Homepage
Ah, hate to burst your bubble Alec, but they are already making hydrogen cars I'm not sure of the exact specs of the one I saw the other day, but it was 30K AND very much hydrogen run. When I saw hydrogen, I, of course, mean water. The best thing for them to do from this is two things, one, adapt it to work with sea water or suchlike, bejaysus knows we've got plenty of that! Two, make it work on a larger power-generating scale. The only reason we today aren't using it, is because of many decades of resistance from the energy conglomerates, especially the oil business. Christ! Who woulda guessed you for an X-Commer? -------------------- I like to say quack because I can, I like to say moooo because I can, but I don't like saying ergle flmp because I can never pronounce phenomenon first try. In conclusion, quack, moooo and phenonemenonmenonnon... Oh Poo. http://s4.invisionfree.com/Ultimate_RP/index.php Try it! Posts: 1487 | Registered: Sunday, February 10 2002 08:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Friday, May 7 2004 23:41
Profile
Homepage
I know that hydrogen cars exist; I've seen them on the news myself. The problem is that you have a choice between gaseous fuel, which avoid (leaks would be undetectable and lethal, and sudden impact would incinerate the vehicle and everyone in it), liquid fuel, which would drink power like nobody's business, or some kind of gelling process -- I'm not sure on this one, but this is either going to involve various emulsifiers and stabilizers which will cause the same problems as gasoline additives anyway or it's going to involve a process which we haven't invented yet. Unless I'm missing something, it's creating a national hydrogen fuel network at reasonable prices that would make keeping H2 engines running a difficulty. -------------------- AnamaFreak (3:59:56 AM): Shounen-ai to the MAX ...there really is nothing that can compare to hot gay sex with a mythological icon. --665 Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, May 8 2004 00:03
Profile
Homepage
Current thinking, I believe, is to keep it liquid using high pressure; the main problems are that this leads to catastrophic failure if the tank ruptures, and you still can't pack in the same amount of energy as an equivalent volume of ordinary petrol, so it won't run as far on a full tank. A longer-term problem is that due to its small size, hydrogen tends to leak through the spaces between atoms. Obviously, this is a bad thing in itself. Worse still, crystalline solids such as metals have their structure disrupted in the process, which will eventually cause the tank you're keeping the hydrogen in to become brittle and unsafe. And yeah, getting hydrogen in the first place is still going to require a bunch of energy from somewhere. Regarding solar power, modern photovoltaic cells get efficiencies of around 20%, which is a damn sight better than plants manage to do with chlorophyll. However, it's been seriously suggested that the best way to use the sun for energy might be just to reflect concentrated sunlight onto water and use the steam produced to drive a turbine. EDIT: Just realised FBM has picked up the "car that runs on water" meme. Just so everyone knows, hydrogen cars don't run on water, they produce it. [ Saturday, May 08, 2004 00:13: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- I'd be tender, I'd be gentle And awful sentimental Regarding love and art I'd be friends with the sparrows And the boy who shoots the arrows, If I only had a heart. Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
This Side Towards Enemy
Member # 3098
|
written Saturday, May 8 2004 05:12
Profile
What about biodiesel? I'm informed that it's somewhat cleaner than normal diesel and might be practicable in Britain if we increased the level of oilseed rape production fivefold, but is the efficiency hamstrung by the process of getting the biodiesel from the rape? -------------------- "I particularly like the part where he claims not to know what self-aggrandisement means, then demands more wing-wongs up his virgin ass" Posts: 961 | Registered: Thursday, June 12 2003 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Saturday, May 8 2004 06:28
Profile
Homepage
I happen to agree with Alec's rather overlooked point. We have technology to produce energy that is cheap and clean, waste storage aside, with nuclear power plants. We already have cars adapted to run on electric engines. Nuclear energy solves almost all the problems without requiring any drastically new techniques. Paranoia aside, the chance of a meltdown is infinitesimal. Security, both through human oversight and computer monitoring, is far better than it was at the time of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Disaster isn't a credible threat. Radioactive waste storage is a problem, but it still beats losing clean air, water, and/or the ability to produce electricity. It really is a shame that power companies can play so well on public fear of meltdowns. The chance of getting nuclear power seems slimmer than the chance that all our energy needs will be provided by coconuts by the year 2050. ?Alorael, who always supposes one could drop lead boxes of depleted radioactive material into oil fields, as long as nobody needs to use them. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Babelicious
Member # 3149
|
written Saturday, May 8 2004 07:01
Profile
Homepage
The Biodiesel Production Process The technology of converting vegetable oils and animal fats into biodiesel is a well established process. The most commonly used and most economical process is called the base catalyzed esterification of the fat with methanol, typically referred to as "the methyl ester process". Essentially the process involves combining the fat/oil with methanol and sodium or potassium hydroxide. This process creates four main products - methyl ester (biodiesel), glycerine, feed quality fat and methanol that is recycled back through the system. The primary product, methyl ester, is better know as biodiesel. The glycerine and fats can be sold to generate added income from the process. -- http://www.agecon.uga.edu/~caed/biodieselrpt.pdf The process is primarily chemical. It's still cheaper to distill biodiesel from petroleum since petroleum is cheaper right now, but that won't be true for long. Essentially any fat or oil can be used, including used cooking oil -- this is really popular around here with the hippies. The United States is the world's #1 producer of corn. If a substantial amount of the feed corn we make was diverted to production of corn oil, or those fields were planted with oilseed rape. The big issue is "secondary pollution" -- the pollution produced by the machinery used to grow plants. The argument is that the energy needed in fuel to grow a given plot of oilseed rape is in excess of the energy produced as biodiesel. I'm not sure I believe this, but I haven't seen any solid evidence either way. In any case, a hybridized fuel system is necessary. Bringing back the IFR and other advanced nuclear programs would be key. Decentralizing the power grid (with semi-local wind farms and local solar panels) would be another important step. Incentives would be provided to promote energy conservation. Excess oils would be used for biodiesel (because it'll be hard to make an electric truck any time soon; not enough torque). Consumer cars would first be moved towards a gasoline/electric hybrid; as fuel-cell technology became feasible, that may be the next logical step. (But who knows? Maybe battery technology will increase to the point where pure electric could power vehicles.) With government support, a program like this could probably remove all US reliance on petroleum except for plastics in the next 20 years at most. [ Saturday, May 08, 2004 07:03: Message edited by: Maaya ] -------------------- Beatoff Valley: A story told out of order. Posts: 999 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Saturday, May 8 2004 07:05
Profile
Homepage
quote:Enzymes, baby! One current area of research involves enzymes that seem to take water and split it apart without requiring people to put in [EDIT: Khoth's right, without MUCH] energy. It's considerably cheaper than electrolysis, our current method -- and by considerably cheaper, I mean that it costs on the order of a sixth as much. Electrolysis brings the price of hydrogen above the price of gasoline, so that it would be more expensive at the moment to use hydrogen power, but if the enzyme method works, hydrogen would actually be cheaper than gasoline. Storage is still an issue, though. I am under the impression that people are researching as hard as they can on this. This and the cost issue are the major reasons that countries haven't made the conversion yet, not, as FBM said, because of the evil energy companies. As an interesting example, Iceland is in the process of converting to a hydrogen-based system right now. I think their mass transit is significantly hydrogen-run at this point, although I don't know percentages. And yeah, nuke power seems like a good idea to me. About solar power: my school, UC Berkeley, installed solar panels on top of a lot of its larger buildings recently. Now, instead of being a significant consumer of power, we generate almost all the power that we need, and in some months, we generate more and send it back to the power grid for a refund. We are in fact a power plant. If a lot of large univerisities, factories, and businesses did this, we would cut power consumption noticeably. [ Saturday, May 08, 2004 07:57: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!! (The home of BoA's HLPM v1.1!) Rate my scenarios! Northern Kingdom 0: Prologue High Level Party Maker Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Babelicious
Member # 3149
|
written Saturday, May 8 2004 07:19
Profile
Homepage
The primary issue with solar power is that photovoltaic panels currently require a good deal of energy to produce. In addition, a number of very nasty chemicals need to be bandied about in order to produce them. As a result, it can take quite a while for a photovoltaic panel to make up for the damage to the environment caused in its production. Solar water heating is a pretty good idea, though. It's been suggested that a large amount of energy could be saved just by designing houses and buildings for maximal use of solar energy and insulating them well. -------------------- Beatoff Valley: A story told out of order. Posts: 999 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 618
|
written Saturday, May 8 2004 07:30
Profile
Homepage
Actually with car that I saw, it was a simple matter of filling it up with water and all it would emit is oxygen. Don't know how and if explained to me probably still wouldn't. I do, however, know of experiments to make it extremely efficent. The most efficent vehicle I saw was a one-man vehicle, which on 50mls of water could go for 30 miles. Plain old tap water aswell. -------------------- I like to say quack because I can, I like to say moooo because I can, but I don't like saying ergle flmp because I can never pronounce phenomenon first try. In conclusion, quack, moooo and phenonemenonmenonnon... Oh Poo. http://s4.invisionfree.com/Ultimate_RP/index.php Try it! Posts: 1487 | Registered: Sunday, February 10 2002 08:00 |
|
Post Navel Trauma ^_^
Member # 67
|
written Saturday, May 8 2004 07:56
Profile
Homepage
You can't get hydrogen from water without some kind of energy input, even if you use enzymes. You can't run a car at all on pure water. That hasn't stopped scams based on the idea, though. -------------------- Grammar wenches beware: This is the house that the malt that the rat that the cat that the dog that the cow that the maiden that the man that the priest that the cock that the farmer kept waked married kissed milked tossed worried killed ate lay in. My Website BoA BetterEditor for MacOS X desperance.net - Leave your sanity at the door Posts: 1798 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 59
|
written Saturday, May 8 2004 08:08
Profile
quote:Yup, if hunting works for keeping the Swedish elks at bay now that the bears and wolves aren't numerous enough, why couldn't it work for koalas? Posts: 950 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 1993
|
written Saturday, May 8 2004 08:11
Profile
I am surprised to see, that America is not as solarly retarded, as everybody could assume, looking at his current chief warrior. I found some interesting links within short time. It seems, that Clinton already promoted the development of green power - thus, it might be only a question of time, to make altered energies fitting for majority. In Switzerland, electricity companies offer the consumers already, to buy solar power - to a light increased price. And people pay that price, even my mother, who is generally rather conservative. The companies have problems to find enough solar power to supply the big demand. I think, green power is faesible, it's a question of political will. -------------------- ^ö^ Vegetarians are sexy. Solar power is the wave of the future. Posts: 1420 | Registered: Wednesday, October 2 2002 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Saturday, May 8 2004 09:43
Profile
Homepage
quote:EVERY Green, Alec? -------------------- Rate My Scenarios! Streila Spies Unbalanced Accounts Inn of Blades Echoes Echoes: Assault Echoes: Black Horse Echoes: Pawns Bandits Echoes: Combat/Skirmish Two Strands Bandits II: Ballad of the Red Star Roses of Reckoning (BoE) Corporeus The Claim Roses of Reckoning (BoA) Nebulous Times Hence Emerald Mountain Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Saturday, May 8 2004 10:14
Profile
Homepage
Yes, every. 'Green' in the European sense, anyway. In other words, I don't tend to count people as Green unless their primary issue, or one of them, is idealistic environmentalism. There's an obvious divide between idealistic environmentalism and nonidealistic environmentalism; NIE says 'what you're doing is going to kill/maim people, knock it the hell off', whereas IE is every bit as concerned with spoling nature and doing things not directly or even obliquely harmful to humans which results in harm to the environment. [ Saturday, May 08, 2004 10:16: Message edited by: Custerbly Numb ] -------------------- AnamaFreak (3:59:56 AM): Shounen-ai to the MAX ...there really is nothing that can compare to hot gay sex with a mythological icon. --665 Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 1814
|
written Saturday, May 8 2004 19:48
Profile
I don't think that hydrogen powered cars will ever be a major thing. I mean, All those fuel companies will at some point get really aggressive about preventing a replacement fuel source. As for environmental reasons for hydrogen power, Its a good idea but you need to get the hydrogen. A lot of electricity could be used to get it locally from water. But then power plants will work harder. Most of them are very polluting. I'm not even green and I can tell you that. To really cut down on pollution you need to replace the plants with nuclear power. Its clean and safe And don't say that chernobl is an excuse to not use it, those guys went out of their way to cause an accident. I mean they rushed production, skipped inspections, Deactivated safeties. They were careless in the extreme. Further more, uranium does have a long half-life,but where do they get uranium? The ground. All they need to do is replace the nuclear waste back where they got it. Also, there isn't as much of it as everyone says and its far less radioactive than it used to be. Why else would powerplants get rid of it? -------------------- The great light bulb converses its thoughts in a fashion most particular to its complicated nature. Posts: 215 | Registered: Friday, August 30 2002 07:00 |
|
This Side Towards Enemy
Member # 3098
|
written Sunday, May 9 2004 02:45
Profile
Iceland switching to hydrogen may work for them, but they're also one of the few countries in the world which gets most of its energy from hydroelectric sources. I presume it would be rather more difficult with a more populated place in a different location? Over here the government pays part of the costs if you have solar panels installed in your house. Then it takes about a decade of selling excess energy back to make it profitable. This seems to me to be a good idea - making money is going to draw plenty in who aren't that bothered about saving the environment. To get by on nuclear power wouldn't we need many more plants? I'm told that the ones we have in Britain only supply a few percent of the National Grid's total energy. -------------------- "I particularly like the part where he claims not to know what self-aggrandisement means, then demands more wing-wongs up his virgin ass" Posts: 961 | Registered: Thursday, June 12 2003 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Sunday, May 9 2004 11:25
Profile
Homepage
In America I think about 10% of power comes from nuclear plants. Many more would have to be constructed, obviously, but any solution to the oil crisis will require some expenditure of money. Nuclear power is a safe bet, because the technology is already in place. All that's needed now is some construction to get it going. ?Alorael, who would opt for construction before there is no oil left, not after. Trying to build power plants without any power is a difficult proposition. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 1814
|
written Sunday, May 9 2004 21:40
Profile
Of course more plants would have to be built. The point is to replace the fossil fuel plants. Doesn't nuclear power produce more energy than coal or oil anyway? -------------------- The great light bulb converses its thoughts in a fashion most particular to its complicated nature. Posts: 215 | Registered: Friday, August 30 2002 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 1993
|
written Monday, May 10 2004 03:47
Profile
quote:They do it here too! They even support you, when you buy energy-saving lamps for your household. Saving energy has become some kind of national sport. Environmental protection probably works only, if the government is willing to do something and make it worthwile to the majority. -------------------- ^ö^ Vegetarians are sexy. Solar power is the wave of the future. Posts: 1420 | Registered: Wednesday, October 2 2002 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 22
|
written Monday, May 10 2004 05:46
Profile
Am I the only one here who opposes nuclear power? It's certainly not a cheap form of power. When everybody had the idealistic dream that nuclear power was going to solve all their problems very cheaply, they forgot to factor in paying Securicor to guard the waste dumps for hundreds of thousands of years. In addition, though I hate to be a terror scare-mongerer, there is is the little issue of some nasty people getting hold of nuclear power and causing mass destruction. As use of nuclear power increases, people will inevitably become lax about the security of the power plants, leading the risk of nuclear terrorism to increase. There are people still dying of radiation related cancer in Hiroshima and Chernobyl. It only takes one lapse of security to send the world into a nuclear winter (OK, maybe two or three). Nuclear power is only at the state it is today because billions of pounds and dollars have been poured into its research - and in a lot of branches of research, nuclear power failed miserably. If alternative power had had the same amount of money poured into it, I have no doubt it would be in a similar situation. There's also a whole school of thought that says the increased use of nuclear power will inevitably lead to a police state - but I'm not going to go into that, because I'm not nearly well versed enough in it. -------------------- KazeArctica: "Imagine...wangs everywhere...and tentacles. Nothing but wangs and tentacles! And no pants!" Posts: 2862 | Registered: Tuesday, October 2 2001 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 1993
|
written Monday, May 10 2004 07:45
Profile
Nuclear power is certainly the wrong way. As you name it, nuclear plants would be a great goal for terrorist attacs. And how can we leave waste, that poisons the world over decades? How can we leave such a mess to our children? We should go for harmless energies like solar, water or wind power. But as it looks now, nuclear plants will be inevitable. Except, the Americans would suddenly start to save current and turn off their air conditions. But who cares about nature, when the personal comfort is threatend? You could raise the matter to your politicians. Vox populi is never better heard than before elections. Catch that guys on their tours and ask them about environmental future. @> ( ^ "")) -------------------- ^ö^ Vegetarians are sexy. Solar power is the wave of the future. Posts: 1420 | Registered: Wednesday, October 2 2002 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Monday, May 10 2004 08:06
Profile
It is possible that Americans could start conserving, but it's pretty much a pure function of price - when commodities start costing more, people conserve. It was the case with oil in the late 70s - the oil crisis caused Americans to use less oil generally, and the rate of consumption only returned to similar levels in 1997 - and also I believe with the more recent California power crisis. In defense of Americans and their air conditioners, the climate in America is a bit less hospitable in the summer than in Great Britain, to be certain. Twenty days + in a row of 34 C + temperatures takes its toll. In fact, wasn't it the case last year that a heatwave of temperatures comparable to regular US summer temperatures struck Europe and caused hundreds of deaths? [ Monday, May 10, 2004 10:20: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |