Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Energy Dependence
Topic Started: Aug 16 2004, 12:56 PM (385 Views)
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
doctortobe
Aug 16 2004, 10:58 PM
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.

It could, but remember that it is under pressure. There are a lot of possibilities for a leak. I'm sure there are regulations determining natural gas transportation. Gasoline, being a liquid, is not under pressure.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

You keep talking only of present technologies. I'll say it again, future technologies should be developed -- i.e., invested in or encouraged by the Federal government.
| Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
I think we have to deal with the power of special interest from both sides of the aisle standing in the way of progress.

Whether is be fat cats who want to preserve their position in the petroleum industry, or others who want to gain position by generating false environmental or health scares about competing products.

Both sides have been accused of this including our two Presidential candidates.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
I think in a country like the USA nuclear power could be a viable solution. In terms of greenhouse gases it has the advantage of having almost no emissions.

The other thing that might be worth looking at is solar power. I did post a while back that researchers here in Europe had worked out how to collect power from North Africa through the use of massive solar "farms", store it and tranfer it back to Europe for use. Its only a matter of money and diplomacy to implement. I wonder if the same technology would be possible in some of the hot and dry areas of the USA?

The key though I think to energy policy should be diversity. If we get to stuck on one fuel source I dont think thats a good thing. Diversity means if one stream goes down you have others to compensate.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
Quote:
 
The key though I think to energy policy should be diversity

I would agree with that.

The problem with nuclear power is that it has become a fear word among the eviro-weenies of the left. If we try to build a nuclear power-plant we hear about 3-Mile and Kiev. Nukes are very expensive to construct as well.

I don't know if solar power will ever be more than a drop in the bucket. Maybe tidal power. :shrug:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
gvok
Aug 17 2004, 06:45 AM
You keep talking only of present technologies. I'll say it again, future technologies should be developed -- i.e., invested in or encouraged by the Federal government.

Of course I keep talking about present technologies. Why? Because they are there and aren't being utilized. Shouldn't we be developing tested technologies before going off and spending money in areas that are unproven? \

As for having the federal government fund this, I say only indirectly. By that I mean give tax breaks to companies to research this. You remove a layer of bureaucracy and become more efficient.

Regarding present technology... to put it bluntly, "Ya go with what ya know."
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

I guess it all depends on how much time we have left before finite resources run out. With China starting to increase its consumption I am a bit leary of not agressively persuing new options through research.
| Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
First, let's get off the idea that we'll run out of petroleum sometime next week. That just ain't gonna happen. Even at current rates of growth, we still have over a century of proven reserves. Besides, what is to stop CHINA from doing their own exploration? Nothing, because they already are. In addition, we have years of untapped reserves that are "out of bounds" because of the anti-capitalist enviro-wienie squeaky-wheel lobby.

I don't plan on trading in my LX470 for a golf cart any time soon, and neither should anyone else.

The current solution to current "problems" is to build more refineries. Even with China's increased demands, those will shift as their industry starts becoming powered by resources aside from oil. That's right... it ain't cars, it is factories running on crude. As they modernize there will be a move away. As their economy grows, though, there will be a shift back... for consumers. WE STILL NEED TO BUILD REFINERIES FIRST!

Here's the thing. We have needs now. They need to be solved now. Let us expend our financial resources where they will do the most good now. Yes, we need to develop for the future, but our current needs far outweigh a fusion-powered personal jetpack (by Ronco) or Zero Point Energy-engined Yugo.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
CV6 Enterprise
Member Avatar
Captain
Wind power is another way. I know some company wanted to put a wind farm off the coast of Nantucett, but Kerry, Kennedy, and thier friends opposed it. Instead, they want to put it in central Iowa. Which is fine. I don't live in the central part of the state, but if they put one around where I live, I'd be fine with it also. I guess the liberals are all for renewable energy, just not in their part of the country.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

BILL, I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT DRIVING GOLF CARTS OR JET PACKS. I DON'T SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH REASEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE. I DO AGREE THAT WE SHOULD MAKE USE OF WHAT WE'VE GOT WHILE WE'VE GOT IT...

ALSO, THERE'S NO NEED TO HAVE YOUR CAPS LOCK ON WHEN YOU RESPOND TO ME.
| Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Energy independence for the USA is a pipe-dream , it will never happen, not while the internal combustion engine rules.

Gvok:
China has stupendously huge reserves of coal, NG and coal seam gas and oil, they have not developed their oil reserves significantly yet. They are however a problem and will stress global energy suppliers for the forseeable future until they develop their own resources - for them it's easier to buy their coal and NG and oil right now.

Bill:
Quote:
 
WE STILL NEED TO BUILD REFINERIES FIRST!
And that doesn't happen overnight - more like several years to construct and a few more years to ramp to full production.
Question: Are existing oil refineries in USA currently operating at 100% capacity ?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
^^so, you're one of those "cup is half empty" guys. :lol:

They also said that we would never get to the moon.

Anyway, necessity being the mother of invention, we haven't needed to be completely energy independent at this point. From what I can tell we have bought off some of the Arabs. It would be nice, IMO, to rid ourselves of this dependency though.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
I remember a game I used to play called Sim City 2000. There was a form of power production called Microwave. In essence, a satillite would be launched and would gather solar power into itself. It would then beam the energy to a solar array of sorts. Is this form viable at all? Just think of the military applications (ants under magnifying glass)!

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
^^
Can be done - but is horrendously inefficient.

Microwave energy transmission is very lossy and gaussian and so the beams attenuate in power density rapidly and fan out as well.

38:
Quote:
 
^^so, you're one of those "cup is half empty" guys. 
Not at all - I put my chemical engineering cap on to make that response. Next time you are in a town where there is a major oil refinery operating, take at look at the complexity of the process and sheer scale of the unit operations and of the overall plant. They are huge, and incredibly complex.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
But hey, it can cook the heck out of a frozen burrito.

I think that the orbital power would be susceptable to weather problems as well, and who would want to live within 100 miles of the receiver? Not me.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus