So, what is really holding back the research and application of alternative fuels?

[1EZduzit]

Nice link, thanks.

If I was to put a wind turbine up, it would be one as big as the local REA coop would let me. My farm is located out in the sticks and nobody out there would really care how it looks. We already have all kinds of microwave towers on all the highest points. If the few neighbors we have thought it was a good investment I'll bet they would look into doing it themselves.

I don't live at my farm right now, but will retire there someday so a small generator wouldn't really save me any utliity costs at this point. I would do it as an investment to supplement my retirement income. As a natvie of the area, I know we have enough wind to make it pay (although Clipper Energy put up a test tower less then a mile away from our farm) and we are higher then all the surrounding area. We also have a big ridge running thru the land that the towers could be constructed on.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
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.

You were comparing the cost of trains to airplanes, not cars. So don't say "actually" and bring up cars, ok?
And yes, it does matter if the government subsidizes it and you need to compare apples-to-apples costs, not simply ticket price and think that represents the total cost. Contrary to liberal myth, the government does not grow money on trees. As for environmental benefits of trains over cars and planes, that's questionable at best. It's still fossil fuels being burned, and they still require extensive amounts of invasive infrastructure.

This is a thread about the research and application of alternative fuels. Let's stay on topic, eh?

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
wind mills are being rejected on aesthetic grounds not because of practical or necessity.

Currently happening in my state. My fiance will tell you how riproaring pissed I get when people reject the idea of wind power based on aesthetic grounds. What a bunch of misplaced focus that is. Our energy prices are some of the highest in the country, and when the topic of placing a few hundred wind turbines along a mountain ridge basically as a trial, some moron writes into the local newspaper rejecting the idea on the basis that it would make the mountain ridges ugly...he went on to say that we should 'put more power lines under ground, because they were an eyesore.' Nevermind the fact that wind power is clean and essentially free, or that underground powerlines cost signifigantly more to install and maintain than aerial lines.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
wind mills are being rejected on aesthetic grounds not because of practical or necessity.

Currently happening in my state. My fiance will tell you how riproaring pissed I get when people reject the idea of wind power based on aesthetic grounds. What a bunch of misplaced focus that is. Our energy prices are some of the highest in the country, and when the topic of placing a few hundred wind turbines along a mountain ridge basically as a trial, some moron writes into the local newspaper rejecting the idea on the basis that it would make the mountain ridges ugly...he went on to say that we should 'put more power lines under ground, because they were an eyesore.' Nevermind the fact that wind power is clean and essentially free, or that underground powerlines cost signifigantly more to install and maintain than aerial lines.

Kind of the same thing has been ongoing in Nantucket.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections...b_windmills030725.html

At the marina, some people agreed, a wind farm would mar their public resources.

"I don't like it because I think it just ruins the natural beauty of the water," said one yacht owner.

Really? The "natural beauty" includes yachts like his, ferries, jet skis, all kinds of noisy boats. But a wind farm would ruin it?

It'll be interesting to see if the rich and influential actually end up scuttling this proposal.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
wind mills are being rejected on aesthetic grounds not because of practical or necessity.

Currently happening in my state. My fiance will tell you how riproaring pissed I get when people reject the idea of wind power based on aesthetic grounds. What a bunch of misplaced focus that is. Our energy prices are some of the highest in the country, and when the topic of placing a few hundred wind turbines along a mountain ridge basically as a trial, some moron writes into the local newspaper rejecting the idea on the basis that it would make the mountain ridges ugly...he went on to say that we should 'put more power lines under ground, because they were an eyesore.' Nevermind the fact that wind power is clean and essentially free, or that underground powerlines cost signifigantly more to install and maintain than aerial lines.

Yeah I watch some news about some idiot whining that a wind farm would ruin his view of a rusting world war II radar tower.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
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.

You make some good points about the current state of our rail system being part of the problem, and you are correct it would to some extent meet an intermediate need for medium distance transportation. (planes being long distance and cars being relatively short distance.)

But just because you build this system, doesn't mean people will use it. One of the reasons I'm not a proponent of public transportation is that I, myself, refuse to use it. As you've said, its unreliable and its range/availability is limited. Public transportation is almost taken for granted in Europe, and I believe it works well there. But it would have to become signifigantly better before I would even consider using it all, and even then it would only be an occasional use. And I think I'm in the majority with this because as some one else pointed out, America is a society that almost revolves around automobiles.

And if people aren't going to use it, why should we sink tons of money into building an additional infrastructure? I don't know what its like where you live, but the road system in my state is always in a constant condition of disrepair. If we can't even keep on top of properly maintaining the roads we have right now, what makes you think we'll be able to split hairs even further and support an additional transportation infrastructure at the same time?

Again, Europe is densely populated and I think the rail system makes sense there, but America is really a different animal.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Vic
You were comparing the cost of trains to airplanes, not cars. So don't say "actually" and bring up cars, ok?
And yes, it does matter if the government subsidizes it and you need to compare apples-to-apples costs, not simply ticket price and think that represents the total cost. Contrary to liberal myth, the government does not grow money on trees. As for environmental benefits of trains over cars and planes, that's questionable at best. It's still fossil fuels being burned, and they still require extensive amounts of invasive infrastructure.

This is a thread about the research and application of alternative fuels. Let's stay on topic, eh?

:roll: And here I thought we were actually having a real discussion. Thanks for the unwarranted piss in my Cheerios.

Try reading what I said again. The government is subsidizing the airlines as we speak. Further, the environmental impact and decrease of fossil fuel requirements for mass transit trains can't be debated. It's easily seen by basic thermo (work is not a state function: less force is required to move one large vehicle with a lot of people than many small vehicles with the same people, simply because the overhead mass is lower for a train - one train car can fit 50+ people for only about 5x the weight of a car). Not trying to be malicious, just trying to tell you what I know, as I have been forced to work out such problems for the last five years.

Mass transit is an alternative mode of transportation, thus an alternative to alternative fuels. Thus, it is on topic.

Originally posted by: PingSpike
You make some good points about the current state of our rail system being part of the problem, and you are correct it would to some extent meet an intermediate need for medium distance transportation. (planes being long distance and cars being relatively short distance.)

But just because you build this system, doesn't mean people will use it. One of the reasons I'm not a proponent of public transportation is that I, myself, refuse to use it. As you've said, its unreliable and its range/availability is limited. Public transportation is almost taken for granted in Europe, and I believe it works well there. But it would have to become signifigantly better before I would even consider using it all, and even then it would only be an occasional use. And I think I'm in the majority with this because as some one else pointed out, America is a society that almost revolves around automobiles.

And if people aren't going to use it, why should we sink tons of money into building an additional infrastructure? I don't know what its like where you live, but the road system in my state is always in a constant condition of disrepair. If we can't even keep on top of properly maintaining the roads we have right now, what makes you think we'll be able to split hairs even further and support an additional transportation infrastructure at the same time?

Again, Europe is densely populated and I think the rail system makes sense there, but America is really a different animal.

But if we build a reliable system, I think people would use it. I don't know anyone that actually LIKES commuting two hours a day sitting in traffic. I do know one guy that rides the train in to Chicago two hours every day and doesn't mind it nearly as much, as he's not burning his own gas. Basically, mass transit is an alternative to sitting in traffic every day. You can commute farther in less time for less money. The Metro in DC (only real public transit that I'm familiar with) is ridiculously popular for this very reason. I know people that live in DC without cars. Parking is prohibitively expensive ($75/mo or more), and traffic is equally prohibitive. The key is to have a transit system that you can rely on to get you from point A to point B without having to worry about it. If it's unreliable, then people worry and will just take their car rather than risk getting fired for not showing up on time.

Even if it's just updating the existing railways along the east coast and around major cities, it's better than nothing. I think you're right about population density being a big factor.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
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.

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.

Call me a damn socialist if you like, but the cost is why I think it should be a community wide effort. You know that whole love thy neighbor bit......
(and yes it takes ALOT of freakin 'mills to run a city. But it's definately a start.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
But if we build a reliable system, I think people would use it. I don't know anyone that actually LIKES commuting two hours a day sitting in traffic. I do know one guy that rides the train in to Chicago two hours every day and doesn't mind it nearly as much, as he's not burning his own gas. Basically, mass transit is an alternative to sitting in traffic every day. You can commute farther in less time for less money. The Metro in DC (only real public transit that I'm familiar with) is ridiculously popular for this very reason. I know people that live in DC without cars. Parking is prohibitively expensive ($75/mo or more), and traffic is equally prohibitive. The key is to have a transit system that you can rely on to get you from point A to point B without having to worry about it. If it's unreliable, then people worry and will just take their car rather than risk getting fired for not showing up on time.

Even if it's just updating the existing railways along the east coast and around major cities, it's better than nothing. I think you're right about population density being a big factor.

I'm in agreement with you for our larger cities. I never said otherwise. Driving and parking is nuts, and its just not worth the effort when you could read a book on the train and not have to worry about where to park. But don't these cities already have reliable train systems, that are in fact working well? I just don't think these same would transplant well to other areas is all.

 

[piasabird]

You might be able to make a Fuel Cell car, but where would you fill it up?

I think Infrastructure is one key factor.

Also the car manufacturers do not like to change much. They have had a long time to get to know and love the combustion engine. This is an awful large industry to challenge.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
I'm in agreement with you for our larger cities. I never said otherwise. Driving and parking is nuts, and its just not worth the effort when you could read a book on the train and not have to worry about where to park. But don't these cities already have reliable train systems, that are in fact working well? I just don't think these same would transplant well to other areas is all.

I'm not allowed to agree with you?

There are some cities with working mass transit systems. There need to be more. I didn't see one in LA while I was there, though I wasn't downtown at all, so maybe there is one. I'm painfully aware of the extensions that they're making to the one in St. Louis. They begin work on a new metro stop outside my window every morning at 6:00 on the dot.

 

[piasabird]

I live next to the Mississippi River and cant see why we dont have Hydro Electric Power in St Louis, MO Regional area. They claim it is more expensive. However, the govt doesnt mind making everyone in my area get a vehicle emission test! The stupid EPA people drive me nuts. They put some additive in the GAS that poisins the water and then want us to pay more taxes. If we had one formulation of gas it would be easier to supply and make more sense.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: piasabird
You might be able to make a Fuel Cell car, but where would you fill it up?

I think Infrastructure is one key factor.

Also the car manufacturers do not like to change much. They have had a long time to get to know and love the combustion engine. This is an awful large industry to challenge.

The car industry is part of the problem, though I don't think it's for these reasons. I just think that Americans love gas-powered anything. Throaty V8 >>> silent electrical motor.

Originally posted by: piasabird
I live next to the Mississippi River and cant see why we dont have Hydro Electric Power in St Louis, MO Regional area. They claim it is more expensive. However, the govt doesnt mind making everyone in my area get a vehicle emission test! The stupid EPA people drive me nuts. They put some additive in the GAS that poisins the water and then want us to pay more taxes. If we had one formulation of gas it would be easier to supply and make more sense.

There are reasons that you can't have just one formulation of gas though. Gas has to be produced with a volatility depending on the region it is going to so it will function properly in the cars. It's pretty complicated, but necessary, and no one would love simplifying it more than the oil companies.

 

[sandorski]

Good thread! :thumbsup:

I think we are all in agreement that we need to get off Oil ASAP. Of course, how soon can it be done is not entirely known, but we certainly can reduce our useage to varying degrees over a period of time.

Immediately(0-5 years)

1) We could Mandate better Fuel Consumption in the Market(not a popular idea)
2) Consumers can choose more Fuel Efficient vehicles
3) Consumers could replace inefficient Light sources with more efficient ones
4) Old inefficient household Appliances can be replaced with more efficient ones
5) Turn off stuff not in use
6) Use Public Transportation where available
7) walk/bike to the 7/11 down the street
8) Begin to plan for Population Density

Mid-Long term

1) Establishing new or Improving old Public Transportation systems. --Public Transit is a geat way to integrate Alternative Fuels into Society and to help establish the begining of Infrastructure for delivery of those Fuels

2) Continue Mandating tougher Fuel Consumption rates
3) As Alternative Fuel sources become useable, establish the Infrastructure needed
4) Continue Research


When these topics are discussed I think some look at the task of change and throw their hands up in the air lamenting the difficulty or the weaknesses of current Alternatives. Certainly Solar or Wind generated power can not(at least at this time) replace Traditional sources of energy, but they can reduce dependence on those sources and that is a significant improvement alone. Fortunetly those Alternatives are seriously being pursued practically everywhere at the moment. I believe in time those 2 Alternatives will be vastly improved and become even cheaper sources as advances in the Technology and Production are realized. I can see a time when Solar is integrated into the Windows of one's Home, as an example.

Also(related to using Solar/Wind in one's home), I think that even though it would be impossible for a Home Owner to unplug themselves from the grid, a 20-30% drop in useage off of the grid would, with enouigh Homes doing it, have a significant benefit to solving Energy issues.

Hydrogen Fuel can be produced cheaply using Active Volcanic areas as a source of Free energy, perhaps even areas with active Hot Springs could provide enough energy to produce Hydrogen fuel(? some maybe, others maybe not). Iceland is already planning on producing and using Hydrogen Fuel from their Volcanoes(perhaps Czar could turn us on to some links about it ). Hawaii(sp) could be used in a similar fashion. I'm sure there are other volcanoes consistently active around the world, but off hand I can't think of any.

Whatever happens, whoever developes the Technology First or Best is going to become stinking Rich. So far it seems like Japan and Europe are taking the issue the most seriously and (props)Canada seems to be poised to make Fuel Cell Technology(Ballard Power Systems) commonplace. I'm sure the US could quickly get in on the race, but as long as the Oil companies have a stranglehold there, it's going to be tough to Cash in on change.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: sandorski
...

:thumbsup:

I don't think we'll 'get off oil' for the foreseeable future, as it's integral to our lives in many other ways (source for plastic raw materials, other necessary chemicals). I think what I'm for is reducing our slavery to it as an energy source. I think this is what you're saying, just wanted to clarify.

I would also add 'improve insulation in houses' to your list of things that can be done to save power. Heat loss through walls/roof is astronomical in the average house. My apartment is an old POS that hasn't been renovated since the 60's (by my reckoning). The windows in my bedroom are so old that they're totally useless for insulation purposes. Modern windows will save anyone a TON of money heating and cooling. I have to just shut my bedroom door all day to keep it from heating up the entire apartment.