Whatever. Are you going to be the first to change your appetite? In a capitalistic society the only thing to do that will be the price of energy, shortages, etc. Do we want to wait that long before we start doing something about it?
Whatever. Are you going to be the first to change your appetite? In a capitalistic society the only thing to do that will be the price of energy, shortages, etc. Do we want to wait that long before we start doing something about it?
PingSpike
Lifer
- Feb 25, 2004
- 21,758
- 603
- 126
That is what I've been saying all along. Americans have been b|tching about gas prices but thats because they're all brain dead retards with no sense of scope. To people who b|tch about gas prices: Did you think a limited commodity was going to go down in price dumbass? Or were you hoping we'd have been drilling on the moon by now?
People have no idea how much worse it could easily get, this little increase here is nothing and we act like there's nothing we could do about it. Tax gas heavy. Not as heavy as the europeans for they have a more dense population base and less of a reliance on cars, but tax it much heavier than it currently is. Make farmers and commerical vehicles exempt to keep it from choking the economy. And then dump those extra funds into alternate energy research and construction of a new infrastructure.
But its a two pronged strike. It will further our reseach and prepare us, but it will also force more fuel efficient gas vehicles onto the road. Why are gas guzzlers so popular? Because they can be. Gas is cheap here, no matter what people think. Make the people demand from the automakers more fuel efficient vehicles and those automakers will make them. You can't blame [insert automaker here] for building SUVs and not innovating on fuel efficiency...they're just giving people what they want. You can only blame the people for demanding it.
In short, light a fire under their ass.
You use energy to get energy, but the energy you get is stored in a more useable form. It's still quite profitable (from an energy standpoint) to convert coal to oil. We need oil instead of coal for one reason: gasoline.
Everything increases profitability when you scale into mass production. that's the entire point of mass production. The capital costs of alternative energy methods is huge, but the ones you mention have no operating costs. Oil also had a huge capital cost that has already been spent, plus it has a huge operating cost. This operating cost will eventually rise and provide the driving force for change.
The government (or some company, though I doubt any company has the means or desire to get such a huge thing rolling) needs to provide mass transit first. Nationwide trains, baby! This is what the Euros have that I want. I think we NEED an alternate mode of transportation.
You'll never replace the power generating plants, wind energy isn't that reliable. It would have to be used as a addtional source.
I don't have any figures, but I think they are bigger then you think.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Fuel cells are not at this time a viable alternative energy source. The energy cost of obtaining the hydrogen is considerably more than is received back in the fuel cell, making the fuel cell not only inefficient but not viable as a primary source of energy.
In order words and to answer ElFenix's question, fuel cells are an alternative energy transport mechanism and not an an actual alternative energy source. It takes more energy (which must be obtained from fossil fuels) to make a fuel cell work than is received back.
The difficulty with this subject IME is that most people have no idea how energy is obtained or how it works. They have fanciful ideas of electric cars without stopping to realize that the energy to create the electricity has to come from somewhere. Like hybrids, fuel cells hold a promise in being more efficient in their use of fossil fuels than ICE's, but that does not make them an alternative fuel... we would still be dependent on oil.
The earth is loaded with a tremendous amount of energy that we receive from the sun, I'm sure we'll find a new way soon. If we want to do something now, I would recommend a conversion to hydrogen-powered ICE as an alternative to gasoline. More efficient, extremely clean, very inexpensive to convert, and would enable multiple existing primary energy sources to be involved in its production.
In order words and to answer ElFenix's question, fuel cells are an alternative energy transport mechanism and not an an actual alternative energy source. It takes more energy (which must be obtained from fossil fuels) to make a fuel cell work than is received back.
The difficulty with this subject IME is that most people have no idea how energy is obtained or how it works. They have fanciful ideas of electric cars without stopping to realize that the energy to create the electricity has to come from somewhere. Like hybrids, fuel cells hold a promise in being more efficient in their use of fossil fuels than ICE's, but that does not make them an alternative fuel... we would still be dependent on oil.
The earth is loaded with a tremendous amount of energy that we receive from the sun, I'm sure we'll find a new way soon. If we want to do something now, I would recommend a conversion to hydrogen-powered ICE as an alternative to gasoline. More efficient, extremely clean, very inexpensive to convert, and would enable multiple existing primary energy sources to be involved in its production.
PingSpike
Lifer
- Feb 25, 2004
- 21,758
- 603
- 126
While I like trains for their sheer novelity...I think the reason they've largely died out in the United States is because they don't really make sense here. Subway systems exist in our cities because the population is dense and they were well there. They are popular in Europe because the majority of Europe is fairly dense population centers. The United States has some dense cities, some extremely sparsely populated areas and a lot of more lightly populated areas. A train doesn't make sense if your neighbors house is 2 miles away...you're not going to lay tracks down to every house, and people aren't going to pay to be dropped off 2 miles from their home. Those people need a car and they'll always need a car.
Trains are great, but they just don't make sense in a country that is so large with such a well spread out population. There are undoubtably areas of the country that would benefit greatly from this kind of system, but I think that those are few compared to the number of places where it would be borderline useless.
Edit: As far as nationwide...planes will always control that market here. There are vast distances that must be transversed in our very large country...planes can make that trip in a pretty short time....trains fair little better than cars do in that respect.
They are making 2.7 megawatt wind turbines for land and over 3 megawatt turbines for sea. I see Germany and some other countries are getting 5% of their electricity from wind power as compared to the 1% here in the US and the new big turbines are getting the costs down to 5 cents and under per kilowatt, which is competitive with coal.
It used to cost 30 cents per killowatt back in the 70's for wind power.
It used to cost 30 cents per killowatt back in the 70's for wind power.
PingSpike
Lifer
- Feb 25, 2004
- 21,758
- 603
- 126
To me, wind and solar power should definately brought into the fold more than they are. No, they are not as reliable as traditional sources and they will never replace those traditional sources because of that. But, aside from initial cost and some maintience, they provide virtually free electricity with no real impact on the envirnoment. While they shouldn't be the focus of our energy production, I don't think we're using them as much as we should be. If nothing else, they could lower costs a bit and take the edge off during peak season.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Can you ever do more than make poor and invalid asumptions?
I have already changed my appetite and I'm not the first by any stretch of the imagination. I've done a lot personally to reduce my electric consumption at my house (new windows, seals, increased insultation, energy-savetr plan, blah, blah, blah) and I'm looking at the possibility and validity of purchasing a hybrid vehicle as a replacement for my currentl vehicle.
What about you?
The question is not whether we want to wait that long. The question is can we actually force a shift in economic reliance on petroleum that is so globally entrenched? History points to no as the answer since typical social behaviour is not to move before supply and/or economic factors force such a move. Complaining that society is the way it is is a futile gripe.
Nor are we "waiting that long." Alternatives are and have been available for some time. We have been doing something about it. Exactly when society is going to adopt those alternative wholesale is another issue.
I've done everything you have and I've put in a dual energy furnace that uses cheap electricity, but kicks out and runs on gas during the peak electricity hours. I have had an "economy car" since 1989 that gets 45 mpg, got another slightly bigger more comfortable one that gets 35 gpm, and the family car that gets 26 mpg which we only use for long trips now. I believe in the "right tool for the job".
You are the one who suggested that "until OUR appetite changes, until we as a whole begin to move away from oil and begin purchasing alternative fuel sources". Then you show how our appetite has already changed. Are you agreeing, disagreeing or just looking for an argument?
Nor are we "waiting that long." Alternatives are and have been available for some time. We have been doing something about it. Exactly when society is going to adopt those alternative wholesale is another issue.
[/quote]
Other countries, coincidently ones that aren't fighting a war in Iraq, are already getting 5% of their electricity from wind power. We need to do what we can to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Wind power is already cost competitive, it just needs to be pushed a little harder to become more mainstream. It would cut into the profits of the big energy companies, but would be good for the country and ALL the rest of the people.
What are we waiting for??
unfortunately what works for other countries may not work in this country.
we have few areas that are high in winds. we have a spread out population vs most of the other countries, especially europe, who have denser populations. also, we have a very insane lobby system. many worthwhile initatives (such as TD plants) have been shut down because of NIMBY. everyone is in favor of alternate energies until it comes right next door. wind mills are being rejected on aesthetic grounds not because of practical or necessity.
thank the PACs and lobbyists for that mess.
we have few areas that are high in winds. we have a spread out population vs most of the other countries, especially europe, who have denser populations. also, we have a very insane lobby system. many worthwhile initatives (such as TD plants) have been shut down because of NIMBY. everyone is in favor of alternate energies until it comes right next door. wind mills are being rejected on aesthetic grounds not because of practical or necessity.
thank the PACs and lobbyists for that mess.
judasmachine
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2002
- 8,515
- 3
- 81
what needs to happen is that individual and regional communities need to get together and decide what is best for themselves. Like I live on a high plain here in Texas where all year we have Sun, and Wind, and alot of it. Some communities here have built wind farms, but they are ineffective for you people who live in large cities but perfect for small communities here on the High Plains. The solution won't come from the federal government, nor will we have to rely on huge corporations to slowly become eco-friendly. We have to do it ourselves and with our own communities. Petition your local goverments, they are more apt to listening to their voters than are the federal, and some state governments.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Good job. Glad you're doing what you can.
Aren't you the one that accuses me of reading comprehension problems every once in a while?
Do you understand the difference between "OUR appetite, we as a whole," meaning the whole of society around the world (which was the context I was speaking in initially before we began discussing it on a personal level) and individuals like you and I? While you and I are part of society we are definitely NOT the end-all and be all, nor are our individual actions representative of the whole.
Does that clear up the supposed inconsistency?
You are preaching to the choir here pal. I don't know why you think I'm arguing aginst your point that we need to adopt more alternative fuels. I'm not. I'm a huge advocate of alternative fuels and research into the same, particularly fusion research. Maybe you are confusing my evaluation of societal behaviours with my personal opinion?
Agreed. They need to make it economicaly worth while to the residents of the area. Then they will see them as "clean industry" instead of "eyesores".
I would put one up myself if I could afford to. I think many people would, but how does one get permission to pur up a farm and run the lines etc. needed? I think it will take the fed's to do that.
I think your right. The only differnce we seem to have is whether we reached the point that the Fed's should be pushing for this or not. I think they should put more effort into it then they have.
judasmachine
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2002
- 8,515
- 3
- 81
Yeah, I didn't mean individually setting up a Wind Farm yourself, although maybe one or two mills on your own property.
Anyway, yeah the Fed would have to help in someways, but relying on them to do it all is futile. Besides alot of communities here are fairly well off but are going to be devestated by Peak Oil, so some are jumping the gun and building alternative fuels NOW. Pampa, TX is a prime example, built by the oil boom of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and maintained by the large Phillips 66, and Celenese plants there. This community of about 25,000 is already generating about 5% of it's electricity from wind, and plans on building more. The only help they've had from the Feds is the permissions to do so, and a tax break. The tax break is universal for communties will to do so. But who knows, they signed all this while Clinton was in office, and I don't know if it's still on the books, although I would hope that Bush didn't undo it, and he prolly didn't as they are still building new farms. All I am saying over all is that we can take some of these matters into our own hands, and we should.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Go here:
http://www.awea.org/faq/
While wind generators sound ideal, they are not really very effective or efficient at providing electrical power for a home at a reasonable cost. An average home will require anywhere from 5kW to 20kW of electricity and wind generators that can provide that kind of power cost well over $50,000, assuming local ordinances and zoning laws would even allow a wind generator at your home. In some places, your local utilities will help to offset or defer such costs, but it's probably cheaper to try solar power instead since it's already fairly well developed tech and you can usually tie a solar system back into the power grid and your local utility is bound by law to buy any excess power that you generate through the system.
In Florida there was a guy from Gainesville in the news recently that has his home running entirely on solar power and he sells back his excess. It cost him about 60+ grand to install such a system and it won't pay for itself for a long time, but the self-sufficiency gained by having it seems well worth it if you can afford the initial outlay.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
Planes are an order of magnitude more expensive than trains. People don't take planes to get around Europe because the rail system is so cheap and almost as fast. If I could go from here to NYC for $50 one way in ten hours, I'd go this weekend. It would cost me way more than that in gas and time in a car, and waaay more in money if I flew. This is the point of an alternative. The reason it takes current trains so long to get anywhere (it would take me about 30 hours to get to NYC instead of 10) is because our passenger trains (and even our freight trains) are horribly outdated.
We need reliable mass transit everywhere. If I were in Germany, I could get a bus to anywhere in the city with scheduling to the minute for almost nothing. Here, a bus might not even show up. Reliability.
Originally posted by: rbloedow
Honda is perfecting it's fuel cell program, and they're leading the front with Hybrid vehicles - we're moving in the right direction, but more incentive from the government would be great
I beleive honda as well as most of the auto industry is using fuel cells from ballard.
I would have to agree our rail systems need to be updated. They are probably fine for freight, but too slow for moving people. Gov Perry of Texas has proposed updating the transportation ingrastucture between major cities. His proposal includes multiple rail lines(freight/passenger), truck only highways and telecom conduits. This would be a good idea to pursue nationwide.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
I think there's a problem with adopting any forms of mass transit in the US because of the ingrained culture of love between people in their US and their automobiles. Cars provide us with a freedom of mobility and scheduling that mass transit does not afford, in addition to the psychology of identity many Americans have in that the cars they drive define them (mainly as mechanized penile/breast enhancements, imo). Unless we somehow change that behaviour or unless economic factors force that behavioural change, mass transit seems doomed to failure in almost any form short of a Trekish transporter that can instantly zap us from place to place.
Actually, the cost of operation of a single train to transport 100 people from A to B will always be much lower than 50 cars taking the same people the same distance. Even if the government does subsidize it, is that so bad? We're currently subsidizing the airline industry. The environmental benefits provided would be worth subsidy, IMO. The extent of subsidy would be the key to feasibility, of course.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter