Rising of oceans now apparently caused by god's tears..

[.josh]

I love it when it's your time of the month, John.  You get all frisky, and it turns me on.

[keldorn]

You guys know 1 barrel of oil has the power to do the work of 25,000 hours of human labour? Lets price oil to its realistic price, say minium wage $10/hour, so one barrel of oil should actually cost $250,000.

 

I got a good laugh out of that. I bet the barrel came up with that one!

 

25,000 hours is 2 years and 8 months of labour. Hardly nothing to joke about, your getting an incredible deal when you pay 50 bucks to fill up your car. lol

[448191]

It's indeed hardly nothing to joke about, rather plenty. Cause it is utterly ridiculous to compare fuel with manual labour. To level the field for the comparison the wage would have to be half a carrot.

[keldorn]

It's indeed hardly nothing to joke about, rather plenty. Cause it is utterly ridiculous to compare fuel with manual labour. To level the field for the comparison the wage would have to be half a carrot.

 

No its not ridiculous, anything that oil does a few humans can do to. I already gave an example of the farm, a tractor filled up with some diesel can to the same work as a 100 men can do in few short hours to plant or harvest a few acres of food. The pyramids? Same thing, theose mofo's moved those rocks with human labour and it took them a hundred years. We could do the same today in only year or so with oil powered machines.

[448191]

Oil "does" nothing. Hmaybe it'll reflect a little light and emit an odour. But that's pretty much it. And that's the core difference, although I can think of few other fundamental ones that make your comparison completely meaningless. For example for oil to be worth that much, all other sources of energy or the knowledge who to exploit them need to be non-existent. So yeah -- if you compare the labour it *saves* with raw manual labour in the stone ages, then maybe you'd get to 25k hours. But in the stone ages an hour of labour more or less equated to half a carrot, so there you are.

[KevinM1]

The thing is, atleast in the US, that the same people who try to spread Global Warming panic are the same people that don't allow us to gain energy independence... which would involve drilling for the great amount of oil we have under our own land, building new clean coal and nuke plants, etc

 

I actually have no problem with more nuke plants.  I'm more weary with oil and coal as, like John mentioned, the vast majority of our means of transportation cannot run on coal, and both are finite material (so is nuclear fuel, but its consumption rate is far less than fossil fuels).

 

I still have big hopes for solar.  Given the sheer amount of energy that comes from the sun, and the tiny little amount that we can actually harness, there's a ton of potential still left untapped.  It's also the renewable source that will require the least amount of cultural change.  Solar already powers homes, automobiles, and other electronics.  It doesn't require anything but a clear day.  If we can figure out a way to tap into the invisible spectrum, even that wouldn't be necessary.

[premiso]

Nuclear all the way. Just think if we can figure out how to make a nuclear powered vehicle (cars) which was safely contained. You would very seldom have to "fill up"...it is just crazy to think about, which is probably why it has not been looked into more.  I am no scientist by any means so I could be missing a big part of it, but if a sub marine can be powered by nuclear energy, why not cars (other than the obvious fact of possible radiation exposure).

[PugJr]

I'm more of a great effort for great reward person and little for little effort for little reward.

 

The former I'm taking about is a hydroplant vs a solar panel. Solar panels suck, lets face it. They die out in 20 years, produce not that much of energy, only practical in certain locations, etc. etc. etc.

 

Lets look at the Hoover Dam. Generates 4000 GWh annually. That is an INSANE amount of energy for what little effort is needed to keep it running. Exactly how many joules is 4000 GWh?

 

14400000(000)(000)(000) Joules. Thats alota joules. (Unless I miscalculated) The parenthesis is a decrease from giga to mega to kilo to normal. Rivers are not gonna stop flowing so thats a HUGE amount of energy. Hydropower is the way to go people!

 

 

Edit:

In 1999, a study by Mark. P. Mills [22] of the Green Earth Society reported that computers consumed 13% of the entire US supply.

 

More proof computers should be banned totally.

[smerny]

Yea that's good... but it doesn't cover everything... I say we should use what we have while constantly working to improve alternatives... give incentives for coming up with new things or improving existing things... that's what got us to the moon

 

I liked what Huckabee said,

I think ethanol and all biofuels are going to be an important part of the future energy needs of the country, but the accelerated pace at which we get there is critical for national security as well as for our own economic interest. We’ve got to come to the place where everything is on the table--nuclear, biofuels, ethanol, wind, solar--any and everything this country can produce. We once had a president who said, “Let’s go to the moon in 10 years,” and we were there in eight. And we did that when we started with a technology of bottle rockets when we got the thing launched. And we all saw that we can do it.

[448191]

Nuclear all the way. Just think if we can figure out how to make a nuclear powered vehicle (cars) which was safely contained. You would very seldom have to "fill up"...it is just crazy to think about, which is probably why it has not been looked into more.  I am no scientist by any means so I could be missing a big part of it, but if a sub marine can be powered by nuclear energy, why not cars (other than the obvious fact of possible radiation exposure).

 

Really. Nuclear powered cars. And they say proponents of renewable energy are being unrealistic. Well, aside from the fact that uranium is rare and expensive, a nuclear reactor is expensive, and the technology to put it in cars doesn't exists yet, I really wouldn't want to be around a car crash.

[448191]

Edit:

In 1999, a study by Mark. P. Mills [22] of the Green Earth Society reported that computers consumed 13% of the entire US supply.

 

More proof computers should be banned totally.

 

Come on, stop these lame attempts at sarcasm. Or maybe I'll join you instead. 28% of US energy is used for transportation. More proof cars should be banned. Lame, eh?

 

Seriously, what are you trying to mock here?

[keldorn]

Nuclear all the way. Just think if we can figure out how to make a nuclear powered vehicle (cars) which was safely contained. You would very seldom have to "fill up"...it is just crazy to think about, which is probably why it has not been looked into more.  I am no scientist by any means so I could be missing a big part of it, but if a sub marine can be powered by nuclear energy, why not cars (other than the obvious fact of possible radiation exposure).

 

yeah that idea just is not going to work, for one it gives everyone easy access to nuclear materials, 2nd vechicles sometimes leak, you ever see a car leaking oil while it driving? Well now imagine the ecological damage and health concerns with cars leaking radioactive waste. yeah..  Thirdly radioactive waste again, this stuff has to be disposed of somewher, 4th, what if you get into a car accident? Now you might have a small radioactive bomb going off and or radioactive waste all the over road. yeah there is so many problems with that idea, its just not doable.

Also if you dont know what nuclear waste is, I belive the uranium has to be spray with water constantly to keep it from "melt down" scenario, that water afterwards becomes radioactive and green , yeah and has to be put into barrels and burried. Such a waste of water, how do you soppose if someone would store tanks of waste water in their cars safely? not only that is a fine waste of water, so now we got a another probablem were wasting our all clean drinking water and turning into green slushies.

[Daniel0]

You're arguing about future technology based on today's technology. I don't see how that makes for a convincing argument. It's like saying bullet proof vests cannot exist because e.g. Kevlar didn't exist 100 years ago.

 

Anyway, radioactive "waste" is only radioactive because there is still energy potential in it. It is "just" a matter of figuring out how to better use it.

 

 

[keldorn]

You're arguing about future technology based on today's technology. I don't see how that makes for a convincing argument. It's like saying bullet proof vests cannot exist because e.g. Kevlar didn't exist 100 years ago.

 

Anyway, radioactive "waste" is only radioactive because there is still energy potential in it. It is "just" a matter of figuring out how to better use it.

 

I believe they have found a better way to use it, its turned into a popular drink that althelete use so they get huge "kcik" energy.

[premiso]

Now that made me laugh.  (The Gatorade comment)

 

As far as the nuclear energy, yea. It may sound like a "dumb" idea right now and impossible, but who knows what discoveries are to come. Just like everyone knew the world was flat...I am not saying I can or even know the basics of nuclear energy, I am just saying it could be a viable alternative to look into, how it can be done sure beats the hell out of me cause I am not a nuclear scientist, I was just simply stating an idea/opinion based on very minimal knowledge.

 

Thanks for trying to make my ass sore with those replies though, it was starting to feel less irritated lately.

[Daniel0]

Man this climate shit is annoying. The COP15 climate summit is going on in Copenhagen these days and helicopters are constantly patrolling the city. The noise from the rotor blades is driving me crazy

 

Fuck the climate. Maybe we should prohibit sport and other strenuous physical activities. People will need more oxygen and thus produce more CO2.

[keldorn]

I was just thinking, look how much we pollute the earth, it probably wont be before long in the future we'll be polutin the outerspace with junk. Actually the earth's space around it already polluted.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=40173

 

[ldb358]

what about hydrogen to fuel our cars a little more realistic than a nuclear reactor(i would think) and is im not mistaken they have the cars developed(or close) electric is another good option although we'll need a way to generate that electricity maybe that more where nuclear better fits

[smerny]

electrical cars can work for someone with a short commute who doesn't plan to take long trips... the technology isnt here yet to charge a battery fast enough for it to be practical... there is the chevy volt though which runs off electricity until that runs out and then switches to a gasoline hybrid... which is pretty cool...

 

oh yea and on the climate summit... i forgot the actual stats but they are leaving a bigger carbon footprint for that one event than many entire countries do... all the hypocritical rich climate freaks flying in on their private jets even -.-

[448191]

the technology isnt here yet to charge a battery fast enough for it to be practical...

 

Not true. The technology *does* exist. You just need a high powered outlet. But a full charge under 10 minutes is possible using a Lithium-titanate battery. These batteries increase the possible energy absorption and discharge rate by increasing the surface area. Several companies already produce these, including Altair/nano (which also delivers to the US military), Epyon (a small company started by three Technical University graduates), and Toshiba. These batteries are used in the Lightning GT EV.

 

Toshiba is currently investing in production capability for these type of batteries, marketed as SCiB (WikiPedia), and supposedly further developed to a 90% recharge in 5 minutes.

 

In summary, this technology does exist, it just very new and hasn't yet penetrated the mass market. I think one of the reasons why manufacturers are still a bit reluctant is that major strides are still being made in this area: say you invested hundreds of millions (as Toshiba did) and a new, even better technology comes along, you're gonna get screwed. For example this competing technology developed by MIT, which supposedly increases internal conductivity and would allow full charging in seconds instead of minutes and could start production in a little as 2 years. Or this, which supposedly has way lower production cost (by replacing some of the more costly materials with cheap Sulphur) and up to 3 times the energy density, which could mean the range of EVs could surpass that of exploding goo vehicles by over a factor of two. Some of these technologies might not be exclusive.

 

Of course you can wait forever in fear of investing in technology that is obsolete before your products hit the market. But I think Toshiba has the right approach -- aiming at industrial applications and in the near future consumer electronics and EVs (although reportedly Altair will attempt to do so as well but of course they don't have Toshiba's network). I mean even if you don't drive electric, it's quite nice if your laptop can recharge in 5 minutes and last hours, or your mobile phone in 30 seconds.

 

The Dutch government has committed to placing thousands of high powered charging stations, to kickstart EV usage. But my guess is as soon as oil companies start losing money by not offering charging stations, they'll change their mind and before long you were ever there's a gas station, you can recharge. These charging stations are currently being exploited by electricity producers such as Nuon and Essent, but before long I see companies like Shell buying them up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[448191]

Btw two of the above links refer to advancements in these techs:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_sulfur_battery

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_iron_phosphate_battery

 

Another interesting upcoming technology is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-fueled_lithium-ion_battery

[keldorn]

Lithium is not exactly a common element. It wont scale when you need to 6 billion people on the planet using it.

 

According to the Handbook of Lithium and Natural Calcium, "Lithium is a comparatively rare element, although it is found in many rocks and some brines, but always in very low concentrations. There are a fairly large number of both lithium mineral and brine deposits but only comparatively a few of them are of actual or potential commercial value. Many are very small, others are too low in grade."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium

 

 

 

[Daniel0]

Everybody hasn't got a car. I don't have one, and I don't foresee getting one in the near future. I simply have no need for a car.

[keldorn]

Regarding lithium, I found this on Digg.

http://green.autoblog.com/2009/12/14/domestic-lithium-source-could-be-geothermal-waste-water/

 

Geothermal power, plus source of lithium. win++

[448191]

Lithium is not exactly a common element. It wont scale when you need to 6 billion people on the planet using it.

 

According to the Handbook of Lithium and Natural Calcium, "Lithium is a comparatively rare element, although it is found in many rocks and some brines, but always in very low concentrations. There are a fairly large number of both lithium mineral and brine deposits but only comparatively a few of them are of actual or potential commercial value. Many are very small, others are too low in grade."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium

 

Maybe so, but:

 

- Only the cathode in a lithium battery is (partly) made from lithium. We probably wont run out for 2 or 3 hundred years.

- Batteries can be recycled, the lithium reclaimed. If everyone trades in his old car batteries when buying new ones the earth supply could last millennia. We're more likely to run out of other metals before that time.

- Batteries are currently developed with a life expectancy of 10 years, talk of 20 years. Unlike a tank of gasoline which has a life expectancy of maybe 2 days.

- Most importantly, lithium is only an implementation detail. Companies will continue to look for cheaper production, an obvious way to do so is using less rare materials (for example "Vanadium Boride air", Vanadium is a common element that is even found in living organisms -- some day we may be able to "grow" it through genetic engineering). When they develop a new type of battery not using lithium, you can just stick it in your existing EV.