Ok...So in the JJ we got into a debate about fuel sources and cars. What do you all think as a whole (Americans, EU, Australians, etc...) about the situation since it effects us all...?? Do you think it's going to lead to a down fall...or a little hiccup in our world's economy? Or do you think something else will happen? Give us your thoughts!

Can I vote for the eletric and hydro options

Lmfao....

Sure???

Curses, didn't work

It happens...

So far Hydrogen is winning...

I'm curious as to why...

Because people don't really understand it and it looks fun .

Electric we have seen and been slightly underwhelmed by

I vote for human backhair as the perfect fuel source And if that's not working, you can make an excellent rope outta it!

From an educated American's view.

Stick with what we have:
Pros- no change is necessary to our infrastructure. We don't have to redesign cars or fueling stations, and the cars we have will still work. Fossil fuels have an excellent energy rating, so why not get the most out of it?
Cons- fossil fuels are non-renewable. We will run out of them, regardless of what some politicians say. They also release tons of CO2 into our atmosphere, possibly affecting the world's climate.

Go with the hydrogen option:
Pros- renewable and relatively easily accessible through electrolysis. It's also safe; the way hydrogen is stored in such vehicles is in a non-explosive state, and even if there was some conceivable leak that caught on fire, hydrogen gas is lighter than air, so the flames burn straight up, as opposed to gasoline fires. Non-polluting; the only emission is water vapor.
Cons- changing the infrastructure to include appropriate fueling stations, the cost of adding conversion kits to older, gas-powered internal combustion engines, and the stigma hydrogen power has in our society due to its use in weapons of mass destruction.

Stay electric:
Pros- renewable to an extent. Clean and non-polluting in itself.
Cons- The electricity to power these vehicles has to come from somewhere. Their effectiveness is in direct correlation with the power plants that provide the electricity. That point, however, belongs in another thread. They also have a relatively short distance they can conceivably reach with battery technology where it is. Also, fueling stations would have to convert as well.

At the moment, it's almost a horse a piece. But that's why the government needs to focus on finding practical new solutions.

Now the way you put it, hydro cars sound better to me , but then again I didn't know it was used in weapons .

You know, fuel is also dangerous.....so I don't know why people are biasing hydro cars....

They created a few hydrogen bombs, supposedly more powerful than nuclear warheads, but they haven't seen any use, as far as I know. And I think I would notice a giant hole in the earth. Also, hydrogen is just notoriously explosive. Fill a balloon with hydrogen gas, then light the string tied to it on fire. You'll see then.

How did you NOT know that!!!!???? Hydrogen bombs were created right before Nuke bombs!!! Or was that the Atomic bomb after Hydrogen...

And yea Dorian....you make a good point with the Hydrogen fuel source..

Ohhh yeah, the hydrogen bomb. Sorry I know more about politics, people and religion than I do about weaponry. Weaponry changes but the first 3 don't .

the name "combustion" engine should say something

Also, whats everyone's opinions on hummers. I have put this in JJ and told to redirect it to here

Cuz Hummers use fuel

Hummers are, well likely to get you lynched, in Europe. They are horrible things, even to me *shudder* I am usually accomidating towards different cultures, but if I am honest hummers make me feel ill.

Nuclear is the future, both of energy and space exploration(due to fuel efficiency).

Obama, and McCain both support nuclear energy reforms and further research on Thorium Reactors. Before she dropped out Clinton supported it also, along with every other major candidate(most notably Ron Paul).

When they say green energy sources they mean nuclear, because it's the most efficient power source currently. The typical "green" technologies that jump to mind for people such as wind, solar, etc are just not efficient enough in their conversion rates to be effective on a large scale without taking up massive amounts of land and huge initial investments. Also in order for the "sell back" system to be used it would require an overhaul of the U.S. power grid because it's not designed to accept energy from private homes further increasing the costs.

Nuclear energy makes up around 30% of all energy needs in several countries(including the UK) who never had a Chernobyl, or Three Mile Island(thanks in great part to the lessons those mistakes taught the world) to stunt the growth of their nuclear programs.

Currently many states in the U.S. have one or more functioning nuclear reactors and more are scheduled to come online, my state has five.

Are you getting your energy from nuclear sources?

I hope so, I like nuclear power

For now, i would say hydrogen would be the best option to pursue. However, it like ethonal and fossil fuels still works on the principle of destroying something to create propulsion. It is arguable though that it truly isnt destroying transforming matter which can later be harvested again though. I dont really know the specifics off the top of my head and do care to research but, with it, at least you get the byproduct water, which is much better than carbon emissions that the others produce. Plus, with the rise in the new ethanol fuel systems, we have seen a dramatic change in the types of crops being grown here in the US. This in turn means that crops that used to be grown here for food are disappearing, and that coupled with the rise in fossil fuel prices which we currently USE to ship what food we do produce, we see a dramatic rise in food costs.

A-bombs (atomic/fission bombs) and H-bombs (hydrogen/thermonuclear bombs) are both types of nuclear weapons. Just FYI.

Nuclear power is green on the outside, but still produces radioactive waste which we have not yet discovered a safe means of disposal for. This becomes an even greater worry in less prosperous countries when the expense of safe storage becomes a financial burden.

As far as biofuels go, switchgrass and algae get my vote - if we can ever develop the infrastructure. Here's a great site for oil related topics: www.theoildrum.com

Yes I know this already thank you DC. I just couldn't remember the creation order. Nuke was the final outcome. I love history and Aced it....plus I'm military...I just forget things sometimes.

Right now, they're pathetic. But as technology advances, it gets smaller and more effective, so soon we should be able to store lots of energy with them, and have a powerful output.


*Headdesk*

Electrolysis is an effective way of getting hydrogen. However, it requires just as much energy as the hydrogen releases.


Hindenburg!


Bury it. Launch it into space. Use it to build nukes and conquer the world. It's easier to get rid of than CO2.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80707192643.htm
That would support using hydrogen. Or at least it would make using it cheaper.
There are a few different versions of cars using hydrogen, or should I say types? I think that hydrogen will be the future for cars and other small vehicles/things that need power. It is the thing that gives energy to us so why not to our creations?
It would be a rather clean energy source and we have quite a lot of it and don't actually lose any of it.

There are a few downsides though. Building the infrastructure that would be based on hydrogen would cost large amounts of money. Storing hydrogen has also a few difficulties. First of all it is very sensitive to temperature and mixing with air isn't a good idea. That means a leak could actually cause an explosion, it depends on where it's stored though. (So maybe in the future we can really see that the producers at Hollywood were right - a car does explode when it hits a tree.) The other thing about storing hydrogen is that in it's liquid and gas forms it has a smaller energy density per unit volume than our traditional sources of energy, which means that we can have less fuel in our car at any given time with hydrogen than with diesel.
Also there's the greenhouse effect problem. Using hydrogen creates water vapor and as far as I know water vapor makes up most of the greenhouse effect so that could be a problem.

Oh and using hydrogen as a weapon is pretty much the same as using oil as a weapon. (And I mean making normal bombs out of it.) To get a nuclear reaction for hydrogen you need tens, or was it hundreds, of millions of degrees of temperature. So unless you want to drive your car to the center of the sun (the pressure will lower the temperature need so it doesn't need that much temperature there) or park it next to an exploding nuclear fission bomb you will be relatively safe of it.


I think that electricity will also play a huge role in our future of fuels. But I think that hydrogen will be the energy carrier when electricity will be used in cars. I don't really know much about this because I didn't really learn anything too interesting about it. (Other than some theoretical stuff which isn't of any help here.)


We could also keep using carbon based fuels and grow plants. There was one plant which would give quite a lot of fuel for the area it covers but it was expensive to grow. If I find the link I'll post it.


We could also use solar panels. Yes, it would cost very much to set up and the risk of terrorism would be rather high but we do have the area for it. Especially in places like deserts. (Half of North Africa is empty and there's quite a lot of sunlight there.)
But our best energy source will still be thermonuclear energy. Yes, I know that it isn't effective yet because of the magnetic field needed to create to hold the production under control. It is very clean and yields a huge amount of power, but right now for the creation to be stable and under control too much energy is required. But I do believe that in the future we will switch over to thermonuclear energy.
Why didn't I mention fission energy? Well, we already use fission reactors and there's a problem with people's mentality. Other than that it is an excellent source of energy. We could even send the nuclear waste into the space with the energy we get from it. Or from the fuels we don't use because of nuclear energy.

So I do think that hydrogen (and water) will be our future sources of energy.

I wonder what happens if a thermonuclear bomb explodes on Jupiter.

Don't quote me on it, but I think that some sort of solar panel paint has been devised. Or something similar to that that's very cheap.
...
I like this guy.

First off, this thread is about different sources of fuel, which, at least as the general topic began, revolved around mobile fuels for vehicles and such.

But more to the point, other renewable sources of energy for electricity, such as wind, solar, etc., can be very efficient and cost-effective. Wind energy is about as clean as you can get, and the turbines can be put in large fields (especially in the USA) also used for pasture or, even better, to grow native switchgrass to use for biofuel. Despite the energy cost of making photovoltaic cells, areas such as the American Southwest and other areas near the equator get enough sunlight annually to make them efficient and effective. And for the etc., scientists are developing the means to harvest the tidal energy in the oceans (I don't know much about this at the moment; I just know they're working on it, so I don't have more details).

Nuclear energy isn't bad. I think it has its place. But I think that other, more truly green energy sources should be explored.


The radioactive waste produced by nuclear power plants is minimal at most considering the pollutants spewed by coal and natural gas. The only factor that turns me off nuclear is the human error factor. No matter how mechanically safe we make the plants, a human is still at the controls, and can slip up. Also, nuclear power plants make excellent targets for surgical air strikes by enemies.

Like I said, I want everyones thoughts! As long as fuel and energy sources are related, if you want to talk about energy go for it....As long as it pertains to the topic still...

That's why I said 'at least as the general topic began'. If it morphs into this, I'm fine with it. Sorry if it sounded like I was berating there. It wasn't intentional.

No no...I was just using your quote as an example..I want people to know as well as the Mods that way no one bitches about being off topic and having this closed. I personally think we can learn a lot from eachothers perspectives (Skewed or not) especially on this subject since it effects the world as a whole. I'd like to see how far this thread goes and to see how much I can learn from it and others.

It can only be applied to steel(the paint), though currently the steel industry is one of the worlds leading recyclers(something like 87% of all steel in the world is recycled). Solar panels do not yield a huge source of energy(neither does the paint), the power conversion rate is crap and the efficiency bumps come slowly. Clouds, smog, etc all reduce their effectiveness. Even trees planted for shade would hinder their effectiveness, the paint would also hinder the rooftop garden projects in some cities since the common idea is to apply steel panels to the roof.

Electronics are increasing the energy demand of houses, businesses, etc everyday(so you'd constantly be upgrading, or adding additional panels, turbines, etc to keep up with demand). The Playstation 3 for instance requires the energy of five refrigerators costing you an extra $300 per year in energy costs. PC's use loads of energy as well(server cooling also), and the costs only get higher the more powerful it becomes. With as slowly as advances in solar, wind, etc come it wouldn't keep pace with demand from electronics. Only when solar panels reach a 25-30% conversion rate would they be economically feasible on a largescale(including a much wider area, rather than just areas like deserts since those more advanced panels would make better use of what little light they do get in less than ideal conditions).



Electricity is a mobile fuel for vehicles, batteries are the tank and it's refilled by plugging into the power grid(which gets some of it's power from nuclear reactors).

It's hard to choose here, but I suppose we're stuck with what we have until the ITER project gives the desired results. Other than that, all so-called "renewable" power sources do have a large impact on the enviroment. Hydroelectric dams mess up the river ecosystems and flood valleys, wind power plants slice&dice migrating birds, and a solar power plant to power a medium-sized city would have to nearly be as big as the said city, now try powering Tokyo, Sao Paulo or New York with it.

Renewable or no, ANY means of energy generation provides us with an enviromental problem.

I support nuclear. True we have that nasty waste disposal problem, but frankly, there IS a way around the problem while there's no way around, say, flooding a valley for hydroelectric plants.

But as I said, I hope ITER gives the desired results soon.

Hydrogen? Yes, as Gry pointed out, electrolysis requires AT LEAST as much energy as the resulting hydrogen releases, so, no go.

I don't think about it, not really. I don't have the experience or education in global economics or power generating technologies to hazard an intelligent guess. I imagine that the oil companies, when their proverbial cash cow starts to run dry, will back the formation and refinement of a new power source that they can milk.


But the weapons change those three. There was a relative shift in political machinations when we got the ability to demolish cities of millions in a matter of hours.


You know, that is a very good question.

Would Jupiter burn?


Efficiency and power increase exponentially as you put more money into looking at it.

Look at processor speeds for computers. Our phones are more complex than super computers thirty or forty years ago and they're less than a thousandth the size. Even planes are considerably faster, safer and all around more efficient these days.

If we actually dedicated to any particular energy type, we could probably make it worth our while. The trick is to back the one with the highest energy output, meaning nuclear or hydrogen is likely to get the funding. We've lost focus. The more we advance each field of knowledge, the more specialisations we can have. We're still advancing and making headway, it's just that we're spreading out our clever people thinner and thinner. It is a concern. I want to be alive when they set up a space elevator, damnit!


As I understood it, even vaguely competent design would make the chances of a forced meltdown from surgical air strike negligible. They'd find it more efficient to simply launch nuclear missles in the middle of suburban areas to maximise panic or into urban areas to maximise casualties.

I think it's atmosphere is primarily methane, so it should.

That would be awsome.

would that make it the 2nd star in our solar system?

i remember hearing somewhere that jupiter was a failed star

That's one theory about it.

But it wouldn't make it the second star. It'd probably burn out within a week or two, and stars use fusion to make their heat and light.

Speaking of fusion...

While it may seem inconceivable, fusion could be an excellent source of energy in the future. Right now, it's still experimental. They barely get half the energy they put into the reaction back out. But still, it's not something to fully write off yet.

We should do it.

Maybe learn something. It couldn't have that severe an effect and if running risks wasn't a part of science, why'd they build a large hadron collider?

My dad works at that.

But now all we need to do is acquire a nuke and launch it at Jupiter.

Doesn't even have to be a large one. We'll settle for a small one.

In the name of science!

Isn't America trying to get rid of them?

Use them on Jupiter!

This degraded pretty fast. And no, you cannot justify the ignition of Jupiter as an attempt to create a harvest-able energy source.

Sure you can.

Fire is effectively an oxidation, so without oxygen you can have all the inflammable substances, explosive even, clumped up into a planet, but you can't set them on fire. And to burn the entire Jupiter would take more O2 than the Earth's atmosphere contains.

Not in the name of creating energy.

In the name of awesome.


Maybe not fire but surely there'd be some kind of reaction. If there isn't, why could nuclear missles simply be sent up into space and detonated. Actually, you don't really need to detonate them. Jettisoning them would probably work as well.

Just another use for a space elevator.

Not sure, really. For a chemical reaction you need all the components or it won't run.

Cure our oxygen rich atmosphere! Who knows what interesting stuff could happen with a nuke into Jupiter.

Well, since we can't really hypothesise, there's only one solution.

Nuke Jupiter?

A propos, power problems, there is one power humanity has not yet learned to harness - lightning bolts.

If they can't be used to animate corpse golems, I'm not supporting it.

Lightning rods.

Well the ratio there is like not that good, most of the energy gets grounded.

If we could capture the heat of a lightning bolt, we could possibly have a feasible source of temporary power. But lightning's too infrequent for anything more than just a hobby or scientific experiment.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/craig_v...hetic_life.html
According to that our future fuel source could be in biology. The idea behind this is pretty good in my opinion. We make lifeforms that will turn our used up fuels back into fuels. So I do think that octane could also be useful and carbon based fuels that are made out of CO2.

The Jupiter question. I am not entirely sure about this, but here's what I think. About 70% of the mass of Jupiter is made up of Hydrogen. A thermonuclear bomb uses a nuclear fission reaction to heat the Hydrogen inside the bomb to a temperature high enough for it to create a fusion reaction, which will give lots of energy. I believe that the Hydrogen on Jupiter could start also reacting and thus creating a huge chain reaction. That explosion would be devastating, maybe even destroy the Earth. (Oh and it is very unlikely that Jupiter would then become a second star. The mass is too low and also wouldn't all the Hydrogen react right away?)