spridgets
[Top] [All Lists]

[Spridgets] What do YOU think?

Subject: [Spridgets] What do YOU think?
From: bjshov8 at tx.rr.com (bjshov8 at tx.rr.com)
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:50:06 -0500
I have thought about this subject a lot.  We someday will have more oil 
shortage than we have now.  We have other forms of energy- nuclear, solar, 
wind, hydroelectric, that can continue into the future and can be developed 
more, and we will have to convert to these.

Vehicles need a power source that they can carry with them, and gasoline is a 
good material for storing energy.  It stores a lot of energy with respect to 
its mass, and the mechanism needed to make use of that energy is well developed 
and not too heavy or expensive.  So we need something that we can synthesize 
and use in place of gasoline.  I'm not a chemist so I don't know what fluids 
could be synthesized with the input of energy, but I know that hydrogen can be 
generated with the input of energy.  So if you had a factory that used 
electricity to generate hydrogen, you could then transport the hydrogen to 
where people needed it and use it to power cars.  Hydrogen generated from 
wind/solar/etc. would generate no hydrocarbon pollution nor would it take away 
from our supplies of oil.

I've noticed advertisements for the Nissan Leaf and Chevy Volt, which can both 
function as all-electric vehicles.  Certainly if we can generate electricity 
with non-polluting sources and use it in vehicles, then that doesn't generate 
any hydrocarbon pollution either.  I don't know if we are close to the point of 
manufacturing enough batteries of enough capacity to replace a significant 
portion of current automobiles but who knows how this will develop in the 
future.

Convincing people to move away from gasoline/diesel vehicles is another 
problem.  And developing electricity generating plants that don't use coal and 
oil is another problem.  As I understand it we have a lot of coal and could 
generate cheap electricity with it for a long time.  Someday it will run out 
too.  But as someone also said, if you generate the pollutants at one location 
then that makes it theoretically easier to control, capture or clean up the 
pollutants.

All of this discussion is with respect to automobiles and trains.  Trucks and 
airplanes are a different story.  I don't think electric trucks are feasible, 
but maybe most long haul truck transport would revert back to trains.  I don't 
think we will ever have electric OR hydrogen powered airplanes, so we will 
always need a liquid fuel source for them.  We may have to retain some form of 
oil fuel for airplanes, even if it is generated from algae or something similar 
to that.

I'm an engineer but I sometimes wish I was a chemist so I could go farther with 
these ideas.  Surely we have smart chemists somewhere but I don't think they 
are doing all that they can do to develop alternate sources of energy.


> Air-powered cars work fine.  But it is silly to think they have no 
> pollution.  That comes from whatever engine compresses the air - power plant 
> or diesel compressor, etc.  And the perpetual motion idea demonstrates that 
> the maker of the video hasn't a clue about how the thing works or even basic 
> grade school physics.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>