Alternative Fuel

[Fine Vol]

I know we have the ability to start moving toward a better fuel source. I dont believe in Con. theorys but I really believe all the money made by oil companys, there is to much control and they will not let this happen. Am I crazy?

 

[MG1968]

the oil companies will get their money regardless. do you realize how many products in your home are petrochemical based?

 

[therealUT]

I know we have the ability to start moving toward a better fuel source. I dont believe in Con. theorys but I really believe all the money made by oil companys, there is to much control and they will not let this happen. Am I crazy?

If people are still willing to pay for gasoline, where is the incentive for these private businesses to produce alternative fuels?

The market will continue to take care of itself. Stop worrying.

 

[TennTradition]

Actually, some of the biggest oil companies are aggresively (compared to the recent past) seeking alternative fuels. BP and Shell Oil are two examples...not suprisingly, these are European companies. I haven't seen the same kind of push from Exxon yet. I'm guessing that is because of public opinion in the states compared to Europe. But, I do know that Exxon is looking at it. They have a pretty good research group...it was better in the past, and I think that they are relying primarily on research contracts for this research. I think that the amount of pandering that Bush has been doing to Brazil as of late is a sign of a significant change in US perspective.

 

[Tenn_Vol_Authority]

Easy solution to energy problems in 3 steps...

1. Invest more in nuke power plant construction
2. Use the nuke plants for hydrogen production
3. Invest in material science research that will give us better materials that can withstand heat and will not deteriorate due to reacting with hydrogen

Reserach in material science can increase efficiency of current combustion engines if they are able to handle higher temperatures, and the research can also be used to make better combustion engines for hydrogen, which have been known to decrease the strength/reliablity of the engine because the hydrogen reacts with the metals...

 

[TennTradition]

Easy solution to energy problems in 3 steps...

1. Invest more in nuke power plant construction
2. Use the nuke plants for hydrogen production
3. Invest in material science research that will give us better materials that can withstand heat and will not deteriorate due to reacting with hydrogen

Reserach in material science can increase efficiency of current combustion engines if they are able to handle higher temperatures, and the research can also be used to make better combustion engines for hydrogen, which have been known to decrease the strength/reliablity of the engine because the hydrogen reacts with the metals...

Unfortunately, the energy problem is far from limited to automobiles ... and nuclear fuel is far from renewable on the scale of global energy requirements. I am, in general, in favor of nucelar becoming a more significant part of our national energy strategy. But, I don't think it is the lone answer.

 

[Tenn_Vol_Authority]

Unfortunately, the energy problem is far from limited to automobiles ... and nuclear fuel is far from renewable on the scale of global energy requirements. I am, in general, in favor of nucelar becoming a more significant part of our national energy strategy. But, I don't think it is the lone answer.

What other alternatives do we have besides nuclear? And the energy generated from nuclear can be used for hydrogen production.

 

[WA_Vol]

I think in the next few years advances in lithium battery technology will make electric cars practical. You will be talking literally a couple of dollars to charge the batteries that will be able to drive as far as you can now in a gasoline powered car. Not to mention an electric car with lithium batteries is much simpler and lighter then a car with an internal combustable engine.

To meet the extra demand for energy nuclear power plants need to be built in conjuction with desalination plants to take advantage of the excess heat generated to provide some additional water where needed; i.e. western United States.

The 145 Bilion being spent in Iraq could have made this possible much faster.

On another topic there is enough oil shale in Utah and Colorado to provide the petroleum needs for the U.S. for the next 150 years. Instead of spending 145 billion in Iraq for people with close ties to Iran, why not develop technology to take advantage of this resource?

 

[TennTradition]

What other alternatives do we have besides nuclear? And the energy generated from nuclear can be used for hydrogen production.

I think that energy efficiency is a must, really. That will account for the "largest" portion of energy by 2050. What I mean by that is that the energy efficiency gains between now and then (in energy units) will be about equal to the largest energy contributor in our infrastructure (in energy units)...that is, if we do it right. Biofuels and other true renewables will play an important role, I think. Nuclear has to have a position, and in my opinion - a bigger one than some want. Fossil Fuels will continue to have a place in future energy infrastructures...particularly oil and gas.

I know what you meant by hydrogen production from nuclear...and that hydrogen is nothing more than a fuel carrier. Whether we utilize new materials for engines or develop advanced hydrogen fuel cells, it would be great to power our automotive fleet with hydrogen so that we can sequester CO2 at the point of hydrogen production (if produced from hydrocarbons)...something that we don't have to worry about with electrolysis from nuclear power.

 

[Tenn_Vol_Authority]

I think in the next few years advances in lithium battery technology will make electric cars practical. You will be talking literally a couple of dollars to charge the batteries that will be able to drive as far as you can now in a gasoline powered car. Not to mention an electric car with lithium batteries is much simpler and lighter then a car with an internal combustable engine.

Do you know why they are lighter? Because the batteries don't have the amount of umph as a gasoline engine. Gasoline contains more energy per unit volume/mass than a battery. That is simple physics. Batteries are not the long term solution. Combustion engines are the only reasonable solution that will provide the power we need.

 

[WA_Vol]

Do you know why they are lighter? Because the batteries don't have the amount of umph as a gasoline engine. Gasoline contains more energy per unit volume/mass than a battery. That is simple physics. Batteries are not the long term solution. Combustion engines are the only reasonable solution that will provide the power we need.

Lithium battery technology is changing on a yearly basis. The new technology is using different materials and different elctrodes will make an electric car in the near future a reality.

 

[TennTradition]

I think in the next few years advances in lithium battery technology will make electric cars practical. You will be talking literally a couple of dollars to charge the batteries that will be able to drive as far as you can now in a gasoline powered car. Not to mention an electric car with lithium batteries is much simpler and lighter then a car with an internal combustable engine.

To meet the extra demand for energy nuclear power plants need to be built in conjuction with desalination plants to take advantage of the excess heat generated to provide some additional water where needed; i.e. western United States.

The 145 Bilion being spent in Iraq could have made this possible much faster.

On another topic there is enough oil shale in Utah and Colorado to provide the petroleum needs for the U.S. for the next 150 years. Instead of spending 145 billion in Iraq for people with close ties to Iran, why not develop technology to take advantage of this resource?

Shell and BP are very rapidly checking out the oil shale out west. They have some pretty wild ideas for it, really. They collaborate with a prof on my thesis committee so I've heard about some of the ideas through him. I went to a lecture by the CEO of Shell a few months ago and at it, he practically promised that the shale would produce $15-20 / barrell oil .... others weren't so optimisitc. Regardless, that is a huge resource.

I really don't know much about Li battery technology...but from what I've read/heard, I would expect that the time frame would be more than just a "few years". I think that a lot of the safety issues will take longer than a few years to sort out, no?

 

[Tenn_Vol_Authority]

Shell and BP are very rapidly checking out the oil shale out west. They have some pretty wild ideas for it, really. They collaborate with a prof on my thesis committee so I've heard about some of the ideas through him. I went to a lecture by the CEO of Shell a few months ago and at it, he practically promised that the shale would produce $15-20 / barrell oil .... others weren't so optimisitc. Regardless, that is a huge resource.

I really don't know much about Li battery technology...but from what I've read/heard, I would expect that the time frame would be more than just a "few years". I think that a lot of the safety issues will take longer than a few years to sort out, no?

And what about the environmental concerns that were recently raised about battery production in Canada for the Toyota Prius?

Seems like the material science path to developing a more heat/corrosion resistant metal is a lot easier than the batter technology.

 

[TennTradition]

And what about the environmental concerns that were recently raised about battery production in Canada for the Toyota Prius?

Seems like the material science path to developing a more heat/corrosion resistant metal is a lot easier than the batter technology.

Like I said, I don't know a lot about Li batteries...but we can't forget the environmnetal concerns associated with the nuclear reactors. Granted, if we revamp the way we produce nuclear power - a lot of the waste problem will change. But, surely there is something similar associated with the batteries.....again, though, I don't really know.

 

[therealUT]

I, and I feel many other Americans, could really care less about our energy source. However, I do care if the government starts spending my tax dollars on this. If private coorporations want to try their luck in this science, then I am all for it.

 

[TennTradition]

I, and I feel many other Americans, could really care less about our energy source. However, I do care if the government starts spending my tax dollars on this. If private coorporations want to try their luck in this science, then I am all for it.

I think that there is certainly a place for government investment in future energy sources. It is hard for shareholders to warrant investment in technology that has a long leadtime. Usuallly, technologies that are within years of implementation - or where there is a clear path to implementation that may take a while - the government leaves most investment to private industry. There are examples that contradict this - but I think those could be tied directly to pork-barrell lobbying (which I too have a problem with). However, for some technologies, the risk is sufficient (but the benefit attractive enough) that the government warrants some level of investment. I know that this can go to far (as I believe it did with fusion energy in the past), but I think that there is certainly a place for it. For example, if one buys into the idea that CO2 emissions are leading to global warming, that the effects of global warming will be severe, and that we are already locked into certain damaging changes - then government investment in technologies to reduce CO2 emission make sense (over what private industries will invest as well). If it can shorten the timetable required to reduce emissions / sequester CO2, and this is of great welfare to the public, then government investment makes sense.

 

[therealUT]

I would have to disagree wholeheartedly with your post. I understand that the government intrusion into the private sector, in this instance, would lead to the greater good. However, I am not completely concerned with the greater good. Everytime the government intrudes in the private sector, the government grows in numbers and in power. Does anyone honestly believe the government is going to simply relinquish said power once this technology is off the ground?

 

[WA_Vol]

Like I said, I don't know a lot about Li batteries...but we can't forget the environmnetal concerns associated with the nuclear reactors. Granted, if we revamp the way we produce nuclear power - a lot of the waste problem will change. But, surely there is something similar associated with the batteries.....again, though, I don't really know.

I'm a fan of nuclear power plants built in conjuction with desalination plants its a great way to take advantage of waste heat from the nuclear plant and provide clean water in areas where its needed, i.e. California, Arizona. It has great promise.

 

[WA_Vol]

I think that there is certainly a place for government investment in future energy sources. It is hard for shareholders to warrant investment in technology that has a long leadtime. Usuallly, technologies that are within years of implementation - or where there is a clear path to implementation that may take a while - the government leaves most investment to private industry. There are examples that contradict this - but I think those could be tied directly to pork-barrell lobbying (which I too have a problem with). However, for some technologies, the risk is sufficient (but the benefit attractive enough) that the government warrants some level of investment. I know that this can go to far (as I believe it did with fusion energy in the past), but I think that there is certainly a place for it. For example, if one buys into the idea that CO2 emissions are leading to global warming, that the effects of global warming will be severe, and that we are already locked into certain damaging changes - then government investment in technologies to reduce CO2 emission make sense (over what private industries will invest as well). If it can shorten the timetable required to reduce emissions / sequester CO2, and this is of great welfare to the public, then government investment makes sense.

Agreed. Good post.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I, and I feel many other Americans, could really care less about our energy source. However, I do care if the government starts spending my tax dollars on this. If private coorporations want to try their luck in this science, then I am all for it.

yesterday you didn't seem to care about a $9 billion rounding error in Iraq, but today you're concerned about YOUR tax dollar.

presumably, you're about to go berserk over NASA funding.

 

[therealUT]

yesterday you didn't seem to care about a $9 billion rounding error in Iraq, but today you're concerned about YOUR tax dollar.

I guess the government project to create new energy sources would use every last dollar very efficiently...

 

[therealUT]

Also, I seem to recall that the men who wrote the Constitution said that there was one right the government possessed but the private citizen did not...

Oh yes, the right to wage war. I apologize if I desire that our government actually look to the Constitution as law in the US...

 

[BigPapaVol]

I guess the government project to create new energy sources would use every last dollar very efficiently...

....but we sure spend them efficiently in the military

 

[BigPapaVol]

Also, I seem to recall that the men who wrote the Constitution said that there was one right the government possessed but the private citizen did not...

Oh yes, the right to wage war. I apologize if I desire that our government actually look to the Constitution as law in the US...

Somehow convoluting this jibberish into: we're better off spending money overthrowing governments than spending R&D bucks in something that might help end our need to nation build in the Middle East is just plain absurd.

Do private citizens make laws? print legal tender? provide police?

 

[therealUT]

The government should not be spending any R&D money for products that are to be sold in the private sector. Period.