Lavos represents 20th century humanity. Here's why..

[Daniel Krispin]

The new fuels are coming.

Unfortunately I think there are still some problems. The problem with something like Hydrogen is, well... most people know it burns cleanly. H2 burned with O2 makes H2O and all that. But the problem is, it makes just about Carbon Dioxide to make the bloody hydrogen as burning fuel, so at the moment that's rather counter-productive. Actually, I took a combustion engines class last year, and the last chapter was about alternative fuels. I'd be able to say more about it, but, well... I fell asleep. Yeah, not good, but I was so very tired. Anyway, the professor teaching is one working on alternative fuels, so I guess things are making progress.

But you're right. They are coming. A first step are those cars that run more efficiently, charging a battery by the turning of the axel and supplying that back to the car, minimizing energy loss. Fossil fuels are great, but we've learned since Diesel wanted to use that good German fuel: coal. I think he ended up using peanut oil for a while, come to think of it... but anyway, I wonder how long it will be. It's not quite here yet, otherwise the reasearchers at the University wouldn't be working on it anymore, but it is quite near. I just wonder what it will be... maybe a combination of hydrogen, solar, and various other things. That would be rather efficient.

Oh, and about the gasoline... that's one reason why I do not want to work in the Oil and Gas industry. Yeah, sure, it's the reason my province's economy is the best in the country right now (you'd think we'd get cheaper prices, what with these massive oil reserves, but no, bloody king Ralph is sending all the oil south to the US... bloody Yankees...) But joking aside, though the industry pays a lot right now, and thought there are rather large reserves remaining, I'm not putting much faith in its continuation. It will be rendered obsolete, and when it does... well, I'd rather not be living in this province then. We'll go from richest in the country to poorest in a year. The short sighted fools running this government here are putting too much emphasis on a non-renewable resource.

[Radical_Dreamer]

The new fuels are coming.

Unfortunately I think there are still some problems. The problem with something like Hydrogen is, well... most people know it burns cleanly. H2 burned with O2 makes H2O and all that. But the problem is, it makes just about Carbon Dioxide to make the bloody hydrogen as burning fuel, so at the moment that's rather counter-productive. Actually, I took a combustion engines class last year, and the last chapter was about alternative fuels. I'd be able to say more about it, but, well... I fell asleep. Yeah, not good, but I was so very tired. Anyway, the professor teaching is one working on alternative fuels, so I guess things are making progress.

But you're right. They are coming. A first step are those cars that run more efficiently, charging a battery by the turning of the axel and supplying that back to the car, minimizing energy loss. Fossil fuels are great, but we've learned since Diesel wanted to use that good German fuel: coal. I think he ended up using peanut oil for a while, come to think of it... but anyway, I wonder how long it will be. It's not quite here yet, otherwise the reasearchers at the University wouldn't be working on it anymore, but it is quite near. I just wonder what it will be... maybe a combination of hydrogen, solar, and various other things. That would be rather efficient.

Oh, and about the gasoline... that's one reason why I do not want to work in the Oil and Gas industry. Yeah, sure, it's the reason my province's economy is the best in the country right now (you'd think we'd get cheaper prices, what with these massive oil reserves, but no, bloody king Ralph is sending all the oil south to the US... bloody Yankees...) But joking aside, though the industry pays a lot right now, and thought there are rather large reserves remaining, I'm not putting much faith in its continuation. It will be rendered obsolete, and when it does... well, I'd rather not be living in this province then. We'll go from richest in the country to poorest in a year. The short sighted fools running this government here are putting too much emphasis on a non-renewable resource.

I agree whole-heartedly with the dismissal as foolish the reliance on finite resources. I, personally, am a big proponent of biodiesel, and that's already start to spring up at the pump in the states, and there is the hydrogen injection system that they have up in Canada. Not sure how that works, exactly, but more power to them!

This week Ford (a company I am not terribly fond of, but credit should be given where it is due) unveiled a concept diesel-electric hybrid with solar panels to assist charging. It gets 65mpg. Where do I sign?

This is why I plan on getting a diesel vehicle when the time comes to get a new car. Better gas milage, and the ability to be weaned off of finite fuel and on to renewable. When gasoline is $5 a gallon, and B100 is $2 a gallon, I'll be laughing it up at the pump; and nature will laugh with me.

[GrayLensman]

GWB announces the discovery of a new energy source deep beneath the ocean floor?

[Tonjevic]

Another pocket of oil?

[AuraTwilight]

Ah, George Bush. He doesn't care unless it's oil That's because he takes after his redneck dad.

[Sentenal]

Ah, George Bush. He doesn't care unless it's oil That's because he takes after his redneck dad.

Lets not make idiot posts in a thread like this.

I personally think we should be investing money into energy-cels and nuclear energy.  Its clean, and provides alot of power.

[Tonjevic]

Nuclear energy may be clean in terms of emissions, but what of the nuclear waste? It is very toxic, and very hard to get rid of. Nuclear power is not a sure substitute. There are problems with Biodieselas well, such as land degradation: massive tracts of land would be required to grow the amounts of bamboo, or hemp, or whatever product you are using. Such a large area would take a heck of a lot of maintenance and as stated, land degradation would ensue.

[Sentenal]

I'd say nuclear waste is hard to get rid of because people are afraid to invest the money to develop it.

[GrayLensman]

No one seemed to get my joke.  How about this:

GWB announces the discovery of a new energy source deep beneath the ocean floor.

"Fossil Fuels are a thing of the past.  We don't need the energy of this tired old planet anymore."

[Radical_Dreamer]

Nuclear energy may be clean in terms of emissions, but what of the nuclear waste? It is very toxic, and very hard to get rid of. Nuclear power is not a sure substitute. There are problems with Biodieselas well, such as land degradation: massive tracts of land would be required to grow the amounts of bamboo, or hemp, or whatever product you are using. Such a large area would take a heck of a lot of maintenance and as stated, land degradation would ensue.

Actually, coal produces more radioactive waste than nuclear power. But no matter.

As for your biodiesel claims, they are flawed on two fronts:
1) You wouldn't need to soley use plants harvested specifically for making biodiesel.

2) It wouldn't take as much land as you think.

Both points are addressed in this article.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-01-10-algae-powerplants_x.htm

And Gray, that gave me a laugh. That'll be the day, huh?

[Zaperking]

No one seemed to get my joke.  How about this:

GWB announces the discovery of a new energy source deep beneath the ocean floor.

"Fossil Fuels are a thing of the past.  We don't need the energy of this tired old planet anymore."

Your previous post didn't have that last part. Were you serious though?

And I got the joke XD Lol Zeal and Mammon Machine XD Damn, that's funny XD

Also, as for Nuclear waste, the nuclear waste can be dealt with. The radiation dies by itself in a few weeks, and that process can be sped up if it is left contained in lead.

[JossiRossi]

Also, as for Nuclear waste, the nuclear waste can be dealt with. The radiation dies by itself in a few weeks, and that process can be sped up if it is left contained in lead.

Huh? Nuclear waste remains deadly for centuries...

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/radwaste/402-k-94-001-tru.htm

This says for up to 24,000 years. You can't just toss this out and think it'll be ok next year.

Also containing it in Lead doesn't speed anything up. Radioactive materials release radioactivity at a specific rate. The lead will contain some (perhaps most) of the emmited particles, but it won;t make it go any faster.

[Zaperking]

Also, as for Nuclear waste, the nuclear waste can be dealt with. The radiation dies by itself in a few weeks, and that process can be sped up if it is left contained in lead.

Huh? Nuclear waste remains deadly for centuries...

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/radwaste/402-k-94-001-tru.htm

This says for up to 24,000 years. You can't just toss this out and think it'll be ok next year.

Also containing it in Lead doesn't speed anything up. Radioactive materials release radioactivity at a specific rate. The lead will contain some (perhaps most) of the emmited particles, but it won;t make it go any faster.

There was a documentary on it on 60 minutes, and the energy from nuclear energy needed to power a country like france only produces enough nuclear waste to cover your pinky finger.
And as for the radiation, they can reuse it and if they don't, it still runs out after a couple of months.

[JossiRossi]

I have a feeling that they may have been talking about a technology not yet fully developed, because that seems nothing but wrong right now.

Also how do you reuse radiation?

[Daniel Krispin]

No one seemed to get my joke.  How about this:

GWB announces the discovery of a new energy source deep beneath the ocean floor.

"Fossil Fuels are a thing of the past.  We don't need the energy of this tired old planet anymore."

Were RD and I the only ones who got that joke the first time? It seems the near everyone else thought you were serious.


But in regards to nuclear waste... yeah, the thing is, almost every single energy source has a drawback that I know of. The only true way to make Nuclear wholly clean is if they ever get a space elevator working (which isn't so far fetched, I've heard - the idea was made up by the same peson who wrote 2001 who, incidentially, also aided in coming up with geostationary sattellites.) So, maybe, in time, nuclear waste can be dealt with, by sending it to the sun perhaps, and it would become essentially 'clean'; if nothing else, it and solar would probably be the best if or when humanity finally gets into space for the long-term. But as for now... almost every source, even the so called 'clean', have their drawbacks. Hydro-power disrupts the ecology with damns, and wind power might affect the wind-currents. I don't think solar has any drawbacks environment-wise, but you need huge fields to get enough power. Tidal power is pretty clean, I think, but again doesn't give much. It's a really difficult position we're in in this age.