Oil prices

Demiurge

kevhed72 wrote: »

I just think this fact too often gets overlooked in the climate-change vs. hoax debate. I also think some people do not realize how much pollution they inhale just sitting in traffic every day...not good.

:rolleyes:

How on earth has our life expectancy gone up exponentially over the years with all of this unsustainable pollution?

You, as a human being, pollute simply by being alive. Why not go all in for the cause?

headrott

shack wrote: »

It's much more complex than that. Extremely high energy is required for fusion vs relative small amounts of energy required to spit the atoms (fission). Fusion is definitely the safer alternative...as uncontrolled fission can result in meltdowns...unlike fusion which will simply stop. Theoretically, fission can be self sustaining...and fusion cannot. Fission creates more waste when the reactions are halted. There are pros and cons for each. The fact that fission does not occur in nature doesn't mean it isn't a viable alternative.

I understand what you are saying Shack. The amount of energy to create a fission reaction is much less, but it also creates much less energy. For a long term energy source, I don't think that is a consideration being as there is no shortage of hydrogen to fuse into helieum (I am not talking about "readily available hydrogen" as some have pointed out. I mean hydrogen that is potentially "readily available".) The sun has only a limited amount of hydrogen in it's spherical mass, which is why it's fusion reaction can only last a few billion years. I think within a few billion years we can come up with a better alternative to fusion though.

The main reason for using fusion over fission is due to the fact that as you pointed out, fusion is a much cleaner fuel source and much greater energy potential compared to fission.

Greg

dkg999

nooshinjohn wrote: »

There are also smaller nuclear plants that could be online in as little as 18 months. These plants are in the 15 to 20 megawatt class, and can be factory built, and shipped to site for setup. They would be enough to provide power for about 60 thousand homes and businesses. These types of plants would need only 10-12 people to staff and maintain them.

I was trying to figure out what to do with the 80 acres on the north side of the farm, and bingo here's the answer! Can you get one of those off of eBay?

shack

headrott wrote:

The main reason for using fusion over fission is due to the fact that as you pointed out, fusion is a much cleaner fuel source and much greater energy potential compared to fission.

You are missing the point. With a breeder reactor, uranium is not the only viable energy soruce. Plus...by definition...it is creating more fuel than it consumes...potentially an unlimited source of energy. It has drawbacks...primarily cost and safety...but those could be overcome and the technology is currently more feasible than using hydrogen.

mrbigbluelight

Hoover Dam has a peak generating capacity of 2.074 Gigawatts.
(from the Font of All Knowledge, Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(power) )

The World's energy demands:
( http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/highlights.html )

Figure I heard the other day was that it would take 7500 Hoover Dams to supply the world's current electrical demands.
Having done any math to see if that figure jibes with the figures above, but one thing's for sure:

That's a lot of dams.

Multiply that figure by XXXXXX for equivalent wind generators and ..... !
Multiply that figure by XXXXXXXXXXXX for solar panels and ....... !!

Even if EVERYBODY received free electric car, courtesy of Uncle Sam, there'd still be the problem of ...... it takes electricity to recharge.

headrott

shack wrote: »

You are missing the point. With a breeder reactor, uranium is not the only viable energy soruce. Plus...by definition...it is creating more fuel than it consumes...potentially an unlimited source of energy. It has drawbacks...primarily cost and safety...but those could be overcome and the technology is currently more feasible than using hydrogen.

I think I understood your point Shack. But, in the same amount of time fusion reactors can produce a much greater amount of nuclear energy when compared to fission reactors. I don't think the amount of input of energy is a factor as both methods have a (virtually) limitless supply. The amount of energy output (effieciency) and the safety involved are the things to consider in nuclear energy as those are the concerns of the average person (especially safety). Granted, nuclear fission is the more viable oprion due to the technology we possess currently. But, if more effort were put into nuclear fusion I think we could get it working. The same with hydrogen cars instead of electric cars. But, hydrogen cars (like nuclear energy) would do away with he worlds' need for oil and coal. This spells disaster for those making bucks currently.

Greg

ben62670

If we go electric cars I see huge amounts of expired batteries polluting our land. Nuclear for power, and start drilling our resources. There are tons of offshore wells out there with no problems. Sometimes what happened to BP makes me wonder if it was an accident? I would like to see hydrogen make it, but the amounts needed in large cities would be tough to produce. I don't count bio-fuel out yet. It would be nice to see Americans creating jobs instead of shipping them out of the country.

virtualdean

headrott wrote: »

Yes Bob, but the engine design is more easily converted to burning cooking oil over a standard linear piston engine design (from what I understand anyway, but please correct me if I am wrong).

Greg

wankel is a gasoline engine. It featured v8 like power and economy but small size to fit into a Mazda. They had chronic problems with seals.
It cannot run biodiesel from cooking oil anymore than your regular gasoline engine can.
Biodiesel from cooking oil for Diesel engines...

virtualdean

cnoat wrote: »

I have an all electric car.The price of charging it compared to the price of filling up is huge.

My electric bill this time last year was 365.00.I have had my car for the past 9 months and the average increase is around 70.00 a month.

Before I started driving my bassonett on wheels I was dumping about 200.00 a month on gas.

Just a thought...before you got the bassinet on wheels, (love that!),
what were you driving? Nissan Armada? Toyota Sequoia or some other gas sipping import? LOL
How many gallons would you use if you drove a Ford Focus or Toyota Corolla?

cnoat

I was driving a 2004 Corolla.Still drive it just not back and forth to work everyday.

ryanjoachim

Heard on the news this morning that oil prices are starting to fall again...but the price at the pump is still going up. Gotta love capitalism!

kevhed72

Demiurge wrote: »

:rolleyes:

How on earth has our life expectancy gone up exponentially over the years with all of this unsustainable pollution?

You, as a human being, pollute simply by being alive. Why not go all in for the cause?

Ummm, so a person living in a polluted city will have the same rates of lung and heart disease as someone living on a farm in the country? Sounds completely logical. I think I will test your theory and....forget it. Pollution - GOOD.
Science and Facts - BAD.

tonyb

kevhed72 wrote: »

Ummm, so a person living in a polluted city will have the same rates of lung and heart disease as someone living on a farm in the country? Sounds completely logical. I think I will test your theory and....forget it. Pollution - GOOD.
Science and Facts - BAD.

You know he didn't say that, or even meant it.
No one can argue that pollution has to be kept to a reasonable level as population grows. The problem comes in at the extremes of either side. When you start killing cows and pigs because of farts, your over the edge in my book.
Maybe someday electric cars will be common place, but right now,it's putting the cart before the horse as battery technology has yet to develope to overcome it's shortcommings.
In my opinion, too many are looking for a one size fits all solution. We need all of it. Oil, nuclear,wind ,solar, until our tech evolves at the pace of our ideals.

treitz3

tonyb wrote: »

When you start killing cows and pigs because of farts, your over the edge in my book.

I hear what you are saying but there are some folks I know I'd like to kill because of it.

nooshinjohn

tonyb wrote: »

You know he didn't say that, or even meant it.
No one can argue that pollution has to be kept to a reasonable level as population grows. The problem comes in at the extremes of either side. When you start killing cows and pigs because of farts, your over the edge in my book.
Maybe someday electric cars will be common place, but right now,it's putting the cart before the horse as battery technology has yet to develope to overcome it's shortcommings.
In my opinion, too many are looking for a one size fits all solution. We need all of it. Oil, nuclear,wind ,solar, until our tech evolves at the pace of our ideals.

I read somewhere that if we all went back to horse and buggy that greenhouse gas emissions from the horses would be up to 5 times HIGHER than what our cars/trucks currently produce! This does not take into account all of the feed and water that horses need.

Maybe they want us all on bicycles instead.

bobman1235

nooshinjohn wrote: »

I read somewhere that if we all went back to horse and buggy that greenhouse gas emissions from the horses would be up to 5 times HIGHER than what our cars/trucks currently produce! This does not take into account all of the feed and water that horses need.

Maybe they want us all on bicycles instead.

It's these kinds of ridiculous overexaggerations that just make all of this a big circular argument.

It starts with someone reasonable saying "you know, pollution is kinda bad! we should fix it somehow..." and then someone on one side says "all cars should be outlawed or the WORLD WILL COME TO AN END!!" and someone on the other side says "if we all rode horses it would be worse!!! FOR EVERY ELECTRIC CAR I'M BUYING TWO HUMMERS AND DRIVING THEM IN DONUTS IN MY YARD!!" as if either of those extremes are reasonable or sane.

tonyb

Well, if one side starts off at a extreme level, what can be expected in return ?
I have heard even the epa's own guys state that if we got rid of every car on the planet, it would only bring us to 1990 levels of polution. True or not,I dunno. I only see that trying to micro manage everyones life is a can of worms best left shut.
I'm a firm believer in if the people want it, the free market, whats left of it anyway, will devise a way to give it to them. In other words, you can't force this stuff on people, or artificially create a need, without them wanting it. No matter how noble the cause.