| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Energy Dependence | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 16 2004, 12:56 PM (382 Views) | |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Aug 16 2004, 12:56 PM Post #1 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Fine. Let us drill off the Pacific and Gulf Coasts and in ANWR. That will be the first step to energy independence. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Aug 16 2004, 12:58 PM Post #2 |
|
Unregistered
|
I'm not in charge of US energy policy. I was thinking more along the lines of developing renewable energy forms instead of continuing our reliance on finite and increasinly expensive fossile fuels. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| gvok | Aug 16 2004, 01:15 PM Post #3 |
|
Unregistered
|
Something will eventually have to replace oil. Why not devote resources to develop new technologies like hydrogen? As an aside, isn't the US running at full refining capacity already? |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Aug 16 2004, 01:33 PM Post #4 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Yup, we need to build more refineries. This means that the envirowienies have to sit down, shut up, and stop protesting every time someone wants to build a refinery. Funny thing... I saw a Nader sticker on the back of a Suburban on Saturday. We have been buying gasoline from Canada! Our last refinery opened in 1976. I have no problem with developing new resources, but not at the expense of current resources. In other words, if there is a market for CNG/LNG cars, then great. We've had them for years. Hydrogen is a bad fuel for a number of reasons. One, it is colorless and odorless, and being the lightest element, dissipates rapidly in air. Fuel tanks would have to be hydrogen-tight, not just fluid tight. All cars would need an H2 detector that won't freak out any time Mom opens a bottle of Aquavia while on the freeway. In addition, hydrogen is EXPENSIVE. You have to supply the energy for water electrolysis or separation from natural gas. (Natural gas is primarily methane (CH4), with small amounts of ethane (C2H6) and other hydrocarbons). Hydrogen, as a fuel is available for the equivalent of $5.00 per gallon. Of course there is no hydrogen infrastructure, so the cost would be a lot higher in mass production... unless we go back to building nuclear plants. Nukes are the key. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Aug 16 2004, 01:40 PM Post #5 |
|
Unregistered
|
I'm certainly not an expert on this subject, but I think it is foolhardy to rely on a finite resource and not work to develop new technologies. You mentioned the problems with hydrogen, well that's why the technology needs to be invested in and developed. Again, something eventually has to replace oil because it is finite and demand is increasing. In the meantime, I personally have no problem with continued use of oil. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Aug 16 2004, 01:49 PM Post #6 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Build nuclear power plants. They are SAFE, and the technology has been around for decades. Of course, once again, the envirowienies will have to sit down, shut up, and get over themselves and their untrue scare tactics. Once power needs are taken care of for businesses and homes, then you can deal with transportation. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Aug 16 2004, 01:52 PM Post #7 |
|
Unregistered
|
^^^ We can do that too, but I think developing new technologies is not something to be afraid of. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Hoss | Aug 16 2004, 02:30 PM Post #8 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
I hope I split this correctly, it was beginning to feel like trying to talk to someone while two other people are trying to talk across your line of talking. :lol: |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Aug 16 2004, 04:09 PM Post #9 |
|
Unregistered
|
You did well 38. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| CV6 Enterprise | Aug 16 2004, 05:19 PM Post #10 |
![]()
Captain
|
I've heard that methane is being studied as a possibility. That'd be nice for a car. If you run out of gas, all you need to do is take a dump in the tank and off you go. seriously, though, in the short term, we need to build more refineries, drill off the coast and in ANWR, and cut back on exporting oil to other countries. I've heard that of all the oil we drill out of Alaska, only about 25% of it gets used domesticly. Correct me if I'm wrong. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Aug 16 2004, 06:10 PM Post #11 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
I think that we can improve our oil supply and refining capacity to get more life out of fossil fuels until technology is developed that will take us past fossil fuels. The key here, in my opinion, is to improve our petroleum infrastructure while at the same time researching the technology to take us past that. I don't think that the petroleum dead end is as near up the road as many do, but there is a dead end up the road. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Aug 16 2004, 06:56 PM Post #12 |
|
Unregistered
|
The problem with developing both oil and alternative fuel technologies at the same time is that some people view the development of alternative fuel technologies as threats to the oil industry. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Aug 16 2004, 07:42 PM Post #13 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
The oil industry could very easily segue into natural gas delivery for cars. They already drill for it, produce it, and deliver it to industry and power generation plants. CNG/LNG is absolutely no threat to oil companies because they produce it. The only problem is infrastructure. Gasoline is delivered by truck from refineries. The same technology does not work efficiently with natural gas. YOu'd be laying pipelines everywhere and I'm sure the NIMBYs would have a fit. But, natural gas is NOT the end-all fuel for cars. It has roughly half the BTUs of the equivalent in gasoline. That means half the mileage, half the power, and the same cost as gasoline. It doesn't make economic sense to develop it. Hydrogen is another problem. Most research pushes toward fuel cells (because it is an existing technology), but there is no way they'd give the same performance as a car, unless it was for something like a city street delivery vehicle, or someone's Metro transit bus. Diminishing returns versus the size and mass of fuel cells and the cost of production make this a dead-end technology for highway vehicles. I've already laid out why gaseous hydrogen is a bad idea. Some possibilities: Methanol. It is safe enough (a methanol fire can be extinguished by water), is cleaner than gasoline too. The drawback is that it isn't cheap to make (Indy cars use it) and it works best on high compression engines (I'm talking 13:1 ratios or higher). Nitromethane. A great deal of BTUs per gallon, but it is more volatile than gasoline. Methanol-fuel cells (same problem as above). |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | Aug 16 2004, 11:58 PM Post #14 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
Couldn't natural gas, such as in the form of propane, be transported in tanks also? I know that it is sold in tanks. I actually know a person who has a propane tank strapped to his pickup as a "reserve tank". He will hardly ever use it except in an emergency though because of the cost and hassle of refilling it. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| lister | Aug 17 2004, 12:51 AM Post #15 |
![]()
fly on the wall sees all
|
I work on electric vehicles every day and they are not a viable choice for most people. I work on golf carts and small industrial vehicles. Last year the government had a incentive program for no emition vehicles NEV's (neiborhood electric vehicles) were considered ok to meet the reqirerment for the automakers. For every car they put on the road they got $20,000 in enviomental credits. The big three found golf carts that were modified to meet dot regulations. Toward the end of last year they were giving them away. It was a scam on tax payers in the name of the enviorment. Retail cost of the carts is around $6,500 even giving them away they still made a profit. Down side to the consumer is that the car dealers can not repair the carts and we can not legally work on them because they are classified as automobiles and we do not have a automobile repair lisence. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |





3:24 AM Jul 11