OT All this crap about hydrogen cars

Page 2 of 3  
Smitty Two wrote:

I don't have a plan because one isn't currently needed.
The Romans denuded the forests of Europe and North Africa for charcoal. When the trees were gone, the people of the region started mining coal (it was coal that powered the industrial revolution). When the coal got too expensive, the world turned to oil and natural gas.
We will never run out of oil, but it could become more expensive. Ultimately, too expensive to provide all the uses of today.
When that comes, we'll move on to some other method of energy production, be it nuclear power or millions of gerbils on little wheels.
I have, you see, unbridled confidence in human ingenuity while others are infected with doom.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Respectfully, no, you don't.
What are wind energy and solar power if not products of the very "human ingenuity" that you supposedly have unbridled confidence in?
When the Romans ran out of trees, they didn't just instantly switch over to cheap coal. Digging coal was expensive and inefficient in its infancy, and the wisdom of "pouring money down that proverbial rat- hole" was certainly called into question many times, Rome being the political clusterf*ck that it was...
When the easy coal started to run out, humanity didn't instantly switch over to cheap oil. Drilling oil was was expensive and inefficient in its infancy. The questioning of the wisdom of "pouring money down that proverbial rat-hole" is a matter of historical record. Movies have been made on the subject.
Right now we're in a phase of "what's next?" Maybe the earth is filled with oil, like a creamy nougat center, and this will all be for naught. Maybe not.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@rochester.rr.com wrote:

Because of science. I have little confidence in perpetual motion, cold fusion, and the other cousins of solar power and wind energy. We've got places in Texas where you have to get permits for windmills 'cause there isn't enough wind for more than one windmill per acre.

No, of course not - it was a gradual process. Digging coal, in the early years, was NOT expensive. You picked up lumps on the ground and chunked 'em in the stove. When all the coal chunks were gone, you found a seam and began pick-axing the stuff. Then you dug shafts into the cliff face. Mining development, too, was a gradual process.

You're right. There was a period of transition.
In the early days of oil exploration, drilling for oil was not expensive either. You scooped it up out of pools in the ground (think La Brea Tar Pits). Even Spindletop, in Texas, reached oil at a paltry 1,100 feet (and when it came in, the well blew 1,100 feet of pipe out of the well, shot a gusher 150' into the air, and took NINE DAYS to bring under control).

You think you jest, but there is a body of science that holds oil is being continually produced and replenished.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 10:55:30 -0800 (PST), snipped-for-privacy@rochester.rr.com wrote:

There's a line of bullshit.

Logic certainly isn't your strong suit.

So we should throw the economy away and switch away from cheap oil today?

Fine. We'll see what's next. Watermelons certainly don't have a clue about "what's next". What's next will be here when it's needed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

No, you don't think. That's obvious to all here.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

solar still takes far too much real estate to have any decent power output. It needs water to keep the panels or mirrors clean,and the places where solar works best are short on water. then there's the destruction of the environment in those areas.

yeah,mostly in places where it's not useable. and it's "theoretically" power the planet for a year. Not in practice.

that efficiency is NOT here NOW. nor will putting taxes and impediments on petro sources achieve that vaunted "efficiency" NOW or in the near future. If you want cheap,clean,plentiful electricity,build NUCLEAR plants.
Besides,solar isn't going to run your car,or the trucks that deliver your food,get the firemen to fires,accident victims to the hospitals,and so on.
right NOW and the near future,there's no practical substitute for oil.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yeah,during the day,and the output varies drastically with the weather. And it STILL has to be cleaned daily with scarce water,or it's output drops drastically.People are not going to WANT to do that. Tree sap is particularly hard to get off,especially after it gets baked on by the sun. There goes your efficiency gains. and it's not PRACTICAL. It's great for "tomorrow",but does NOTHING for us NOW or in the near future.
"Tomorrow,tomorrow, fa,la,lala....".

Who said research should stop? AFAIK,it hasn't stopped. It's just that government throwing money at it(while taxing or repressing other energy sources) isn't going to speed things up. Government is wasteful with money,for little gain. NASA's example should have taught you that;a lot of people earning really good salaries,and not advancing space launching much. (and now they're into muslim outreach,thanks to Comrade Obama!)
solar is not and will not be "practical" for widespread usage. just for special applications,as it is now.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Smitty Two wrote:

Excellent analogy. To carry the analogy in reverse, the environmentalists insist that paint manufacturers be shut down right now so that someday we'll all paint our houses with electric paint.

No one has any problem with research. What bugs the heck out of many is the government skewing the marketplace by taking tax dollars from the many to impose half-satisfactory solutions on the few. You can't waste much money in a laboratory, but to build a 10 Gw solar farm is a big deal.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

We do not have to talk in theory about what you can do today. The Germans are using state of the art solar plants in a government sponsored PV utility system. The power costs 0.55 Euro per KWH to produce, the customer pays 0.25 directly and the rest shows up in their tax bill.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 00:52:40 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote Re Re: OT All this crap about hydrogen cars:

$0.05/kWh nuclear power. We'll be that smart someday soon.
No wonder the Chinese are kicking our ass.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

and how often is that solar power available? how much conventional electric does it replace? I suspect there's a lot of "downside" you're NOT hearing about. Just like Holland's windmills.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Re Re: OT All this crap about hydrogen cars:

Apart from the very high cost and very low availability, there's not much downside to solar/wind. Of course, those two deficiencies alone make solar/wind virtually useless except for "feeling good".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Smitty Two wrote:

Huh?
Where have we thrown money to secure our oil interests elsewhere? The top 15 oil exporters to the U.S. are: Canada Mexico Saudi Arabia Venezuela Nigeria Columbia Algeria Iraq Angola Ecuador Brazil Kuwait Russia U.K. Indonesia
You have to get down to number 8 (Iraq) before you get to a place in which we've "thrown money" at the country. We import about 2 million barrels of oil a day from Canada and 340,000 bbl/day from Iraq. The top seven, combined, send us almost 7 million bbl/day. Compared to that, Iraq's contribution is almost negligible.
Which does prove, however, that if all the money spent on Iraq was to secure oil, we made a terrifically poor investment.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Have always found it interesting that the US is excoriated for taking out a dictator for oil while the French (who it should be noted tried to give SH a get out of jail free card by announcing a full two weeks before the vote that they would vote against military action in the Security Council) are let off the hook despite the fact that the French oil company, ELF, had the conscession already in Iraq. So, it is okay for the French to undermine the UN for oil.
--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to
koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
harry wrote:

Ah! That must be the "investment" our president is promoting.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Where might that be? OUR "oil interests" are mainly Canada,Venezuela,Mexico. Of course,securing the ME (or the world's sea lanes) helps world stability,which is also in our interest. It makes the US safer at the same time.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 09:53:27 -0800, Smitty Two

We are there to make the world safe for Israel.
The Arabs would sell us oil, no matter who was running the country with the wells. The idea that we attacked Iraq over oil is ridiculous. We only attacked them because we didn't like what Saddam was doing with the money he got from selling his oil.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 13:46:33 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote Re Re: OT All this crap about hydrogen cars:

Well put.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Israel can pretty much take care of itself.
The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) can field over 18 divisions of infantry and armor.
The authorized strength of the the United States ground forces is 12 divisions (10 Army and 2 Marine).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
harry wrote:

Should we have attacked Sadaam to protect our Jewish Fascist ENEMIES?
That would have been silly.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.