Fossil fuels vs. renewable energy sources

[Prebe]

What do you guys think? Is big oil money going to suppress research, development and application (to an even larger extent) of renewable energy sources?

I'll lead your way and vote yes. For the simple reason: why shouldn't they?

Edit: You might want to move this to the tank Darth Revan, but that's gonna get a lot of votes on option 3

[sindatur]

I vote a resounding yes. Everytime you hear about some guy with a new "mixture", he goes away quickly. I don't think that's an indication that they are ALL liars or don't have a good product.

We have lots of land for Windmill power, yet I've only seen 1 windmill collection.

Prebe has pointed out an alternative fuel source in Denmark, but, we don't hear anything about it.

[Kinslaughterer]

The Oil companies are energy companies so in many cases they are buying these guys out for the time being and are preparing to release different energy sources once oil becomes to costly/runs out in the near future. They are still going to profit...

[Prebe]

New I could count on you guys

Kins: You are probably right. So the issue is trying to reduce the demand on oil and oil products. Because as long as people are forced to pay whatever the oil companies want to charge, they will milk the wells to the very last drop at any price BEFORE they introduce us to their collection of bought scientists.

You say they are going to profit. You are probably right, but they are still scared out of their minds, that they will only earn money on construction and maintenance of new renewable energy facilities.

Prebe has pointed out an alternative fuel source in Denmark, but, we don't hear anything about it.

I am sure that in the US sugar cane will be a better energy crop than canola (you have the climate for it, at least in the south). Alcohol works fine for the Brazilians. As a matter of fact standard cars can run on a mixture of 60/40 alcohol/gasoline (something the oil companies tried to keep hidden for a long time. Just like the ethyl-lead compound being completely redundant). Small reconstructions of the engine can make it run on pure alcohol.

[Cail]

I don't like the choices, so I'm not going to vote. Big oil and the car companies are leading the way in alternative fuel sources because they want to be the ones making money from them.

We don't have windmill farms because the greenies keep protesting them (they chop up birds). Ditto on nuclear power, hydroelectric, and solar. If we converted all our electrical power generation to nuclear, we'd never talk about fuel shortages again.

[kevinswatch]

The big problem with hydroelectric is that it REALLY screws up water ecosystems. Makes life hard for fish and every other aquatic creature in the lake/river where the dam is located.

The big problem with alternative hydrocarbon fuels is that it continues the whole "pumping CO2 into the atmosphere" problem.

And while nuclear is nice, there still is the huge problem of what the hell we can do with all of that nuclear waste. That stuff is nasty. And there really isn't any good way to get rid of it without having a negative effect on the environment.

I don't see what environmentalists would have against solar power, though... I just don't see any problems with it environmentally.

But I do agree, in that I would hope of all of the people in the world, the owners of big business oil companies know exactly how much oil we have left, and how much longer it will last. They of all people should know that they can't milk the oil cow forever. So you would "think" (and hope) that they realize that they also have to develop alternative fuels. If they are not researching alternative fuels now, then they are only shooting themselves in the foot long term. And most companies tend to want to ensure their life in the future.

The only problem I see with this is that the big oil companies are always interested in making the "quick, easy" money for themselves. Why else would they be pushing oil so much right now? So my only concern is that they will push for the next "quick, easy" alternative energy fuel, which may not be the best answer for the environment long term.

DAMMIT! Where the hell is my hydrogen fuel cell research!-jay

[Reisheiruhime]

Why don't we just blast the nuclear waste into space? Can't be that hard.

And Solar power is a teensy bit unreliable. What if you have a big huge storm, eh? Not only will the Sun be blocked (not completely, but enough that the panels won't get as much power) but the panels will probably be damaged too. (Solar power is still fresh in my mind.... did a school project on it two years ago....)

I'm one of those poeple who go "Yay!" every time anything nuclear is mentioned. Mmm.... Plutonium....

[Alynna Lis Eachann]

Why don't we just blast the nuclear waste into space? Can't be that hard.

Unless the rocket explodes on the way up. Think Challenger disaster. It is not efficient to transport nuclear waste into space in quantities small enough to be protected from major explosions, and large quantities of nuclear waste are too vulnerable to getting scattered all over the atmosphere in the event of a malfunction. It'd be like chucking an armed "dirty" bomb into the sky and hoping it didn't go off. The results of such an explosion would be not only deadly but globally-spread.

[Prebe]

Big oil and the car companies are leading the way in alternative fuel sources because they want to be the ones making money from them.

And you don't think that they will fight off these energy sources as long as they possibly can?

Jay: CO2 from hydrocarbons from plants have been recently fixed by the plants. So burning this is CO2 neutral as opposed to fossil
hydrocarbons.

because the greenies keep protesting them (they chop up birds).

Then your "greenies" (please refer to what I think about using that term in the thread about temporary fuel shortage) are obviously daft, or you hear that side of the debate, because oil paid media prefer to focus on the protests of a few "ornithopaths", because it's excellent material to ridicule people that are serious about renewable energy sources. People chaining themselves to oil tankers and nuclear waste transports have never stopped these. So I seriously doubt that the Audubon Society could stop windmills if any state really wanted to build them.

No. Come to think of it, I don't even think it is the oil paid media. I think it is the oil paid politicians (on both sides of the fence), that have spent the better part of 50 years brainwashing US citicens into believing that renewable energy is nothing but make believe, like Elfs, Gremlins and Eskimos! And whatever it is, renewable energy is something very un-American, tantamount to communism. And certainly not cool. “We can’t use an energy source that no one can earn money on. What kind of thinking is that?”

And while nuclear is nice, there still is the huge problem of what the hell we can do with all of that nuclear waste. That stuff is nasty. And there really isn't any good way to get rid of it without having a negative effect on the environment.

I agree.

Edtit: Thought it was Edge Jay. You confuse me with those almost identical avatars

DAMMIT! Where the hell is my hydrogen fuel cell research!-jay

The good thing about hydrogen, is that is can be generated directly by using renewable energy sources. The bad thing is, that it is difficult to store and transport. And of course, as many people tend to overlook, hydrogen is not a renewable energy source, as it take energy to generate (in fact at least as much as you get out of it). It is a way of storing energy made by other means. Including energy generated using fossil fuels.

Storing energy is vital if using power sources of varying effect, such as solar cells or windmills, and if we want to use the energy from renewable sources for propulsion purposes. In the first case, I think hydrogen would be suitable for an on location storage buffer. In the latter case, as the storage and transportion technology is now, I advocate the use of biofuels (ethanol and plant oils).

[Cail]

Once again Prebe, you're not paying attention. I'm all for windmills, the greenies (eco-weenies) won't allow them to be built. John Kerry (The Great White Hope) was against the one built off Martha's Vineyard.

Hydrogen fuel cells are a great idea, but worthless until someone can figure out a way of generating hydrogen inexpensively.

[Prebe]

Once again Prebe, you're not paying attention. I'm all for windmills, the greenies (eco-weenies) won't allow them to be built. John Kerry (The Great White Hope) was against the one built off Martha's Vineyard.

Did you read what I wrote about the "effect" of grass root movements? I'll repeat: If people chaining themselves to oil tankers and nuclear waste transports won't stop these. How can a few tree hugers stop the building of windmills, providing someone really want to build them? And herein lies my point: I don't think that states or the federal government are interested in building windmills, because of the effect on the oil companies. It has nothing to do with a few birds.

Hydrogen fuel cells are a great idea, but worthless until someone can figure out a way of generating hydrogen inexpensively.

Which is pretty much what I wrote. So did you read my post? There is nothing expensive in generating hydrogen. The problem is storing and transport. You probably saw it created in your high-school physics class. (electrolysis of water). The energy you put into this process can be regained almost completely afterwards.

[Nathan]

Nuclear power is ideal. For every kg of uranium used you'd need (theory and practice differ on this one) between 20,000 and 1,000,000 times as much coal to produce the same amount of energy. The efficiency of nuclear power plants is amazing, the relatively small amount of dangerous by-products can be safely disposed of in one of the many place on the earth where nobody ever goes.

I find it annoying that so many people are terrified of anything with "Nuclear" in the name.

[Prebe]

Say that to the people of Kiev Nathan.

Nice to know that you DO believe in alternative energy sources Cail (not sarcastic).

[Nathan]

Which is pretty much what I wrote. So did you read my post? There is nothing expensive in generating hydrogen. The problem is storing and transport. You probably saw it created in your high-school physics class. (electrolysis of water). The energy you put into this process can be regained almost completely afterwards.

Energy which, if generated using Nuclear fission of Uranium or, even better, Hydrogen fusion some time in the future, will be almost inexhaustable.

All this electrolysis of water could help out with global warming's rising sea levels too! It's such a great solution in every way!

[Cail]

Pretty insulting there Prebe. We want reactors. We want windmills. Hell, everybody wants cheap energy. It is quite literally a few fringe groups who stall the process.

And at this point in time, it takes a ton of energy to create hydrogen (unless you're using a reactor).

[kevinswatch]

Prebe, CO2 is CO2 is CO2. It doesn't matter where it comes from. All hydrocarbons, when you burn them through combustion, release CO2 into the atmosphere. And when CO2 is in the atmosphere, it will act as a greenhouse gas. It doesn't matter if they come from fossil fuels or from plant oil. At least this is what I've been lead to believe. If I'm mistaken, then I would like some sort of good scientific articles to presuede me that you're right.

As for solar, I still don't see any negative side effects on the environment from using them. The fact that they're unreliable right now is no reason to ignore them. If anything that means we should be putting more research into these things so that they become reliable.

The same thing with Hydrogen cells. I know there are many problems holding them back right now, but that's why we need to put reseach into these things. So we can develop them to be more efficient.

Dubya said 5 years ago that he was going to put money into Hydrogen cell research, but I still haven't heard anything out of this. Where is all of this money going?-jay

[Cail]

I don't know about federal money, but GM has done quite a bit of work on fuel cell vehicles.

www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/400_fcv/

[Nathan]

Interesting stuff:

A study completed earlier this year by the French environment and energy agency Ademe and the World Energy Council indicates that over nearly 30 years, the average fuel consumption of European cars has dropped by more than 20% to around 6.5 l/100km, or 43 mpg. By contrast, average fuel economy of new cars in the US is now 29.3 mpg.

[Cail]

There's 2 factors to that.

-America has a "bigger is better" mentality. This is partially because the country's so big, and there's a lot of wide open space that Europe simply doesn't have. We also don't have 500 year old cities with narrow streets.

-Europe has low-sulphur diesel fuel, and they're willing to use it. America is crippled with eco-weenies who won't allow us to have diesels, even though we get the low-sulphur fuel here next year.

[Prebe]

Cail: I am sorry if you were offended. This was not my intention. Pragmatic as I am, I am not to fond of eco-greenies myself. I consider myself a level-headed and informed believer in a future of renewable energy. I did get the feeling that you consider me an eco-weenie which kind of offended me.

I wonder what it was you found offensive? I was simply trying to make the following point: I believe that big wallets speak louder to legislative ears than eco-greenies. Why? I will give you a couple of examples again:

1: Was nuclear power banned because of all the eco-greenies protesting it? No. And we are talking quite a serious amount of eco-greenies that were against nuclear power.

2: Was Monsanto's GMO's banned because of all the eco-greenies? No. Why? Because Monsanto like the oil industry have some of the best lobbyists and plenty of cash to burn.

As for the hydrogen, I suppose you can procure some kind of documentation that it takes "tons" of energy to get hydrogen from water? I have found an article, that is sceptic about the use of hydrogen as an energy carrier (exactly as I am) that still gives the figure 75% efficiency for water hydrolysis (meaning, if you put 100 kJ into hydrolysis, you will get 75 kJ out as hydrogen) Now, that I would scarcely call "tons" of energy. If you get it from fossil fuels, yes, it would be stupid. I give you that. But it is a small price to pay for converting ephemeral kinetic energy from wind power to potential energy.
www.daleglaser.com/h2/General_Articles/ ... conomy.pdf
If the hydrogen is used on site and kept under low pressure.

Jay: CO2 is CO2, in that you are right.

Let me explain what I mean:
I plant a seed, the plant grows and fixes CO2 from the atmosphere in a process called photosynthesis (the light of the sun being converted into chemical energy in the plant). Let's say the plant takes up X units og CO2. The atmosphere will now have X units of CO2 less, than before I planted the seed.

When I burn this plant for energy i re-release the X units of CO2 that my plant just removed. That is called CO2 neutrality.

If I burn fossil fuels they release CO2 that was removed from the atmosphere 50 to a 100 million years ago. SO if I burn X units of fossil fuels I increase the net amount of CO2 in the air by X.