Opel GT Forum banner
1 - 20 of 40 Posts

·
Opel Tinkerer and Rescuer
Joined
·
7,700 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Someone on the mailing list brought up using E85 which is available in the Midwest I believe (haven't seen it in our area). Which put a fork in my rear on a pet peeve. So feel free to chime in, kill me or whatever.

Interestingly studies supported by environmentalist groups and corn producers find Ethanol is good. Yet independent university studies at both University of California-Berkeley and Cornell (Both respectable and not what you would call conservative schools) have shown it takes more energy to produce Bio fuels currently than they make.

The short synopsis of it is, in terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, the study found that:

Corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced;

switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.

In terms of energy output compared with the energy input for bio-diesel production, the study found that:

soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, and sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil
energy than the fuel produced.

(Complete article at:
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html)

So while Bio-Fuels are a good idea in theory and admittedly they can make them from the husks of plants and cast offs of farm industry and I am sure will be a main source of fuel in the future. Not to mention the lower gas mileage causes an overall increase in pollution per mile of travel.

So I guess what I am saying is, going to E85 to be green is a very brown idea. Buy a Toyota Prius or turn you Opel into an electric car that gets charged at home with a solar paneled charging station. But remember if your in a area that uses coal or natural gas, the pollution generated to charge your vehicle negates any benefit of having a all electric car. Not to mention the toxins and oil consumed to produce the solar panels and the electric batteries, etc. in the car only balances itself on the energy chart about 75%
into the lifetime of the Car and Solar cells. So plan on using your electric GT for 15 years or so before you ecologically balance the equation.

Personally for a cleaner water and air and independence from foreign oil the solution is simple. Build new modern Nuclear plants using new safer
technology, and close the old 20-50 year old disasters waiting to happen. To handle the waste build new recycling plants to recycle the nuclear waste and open Yucca Mountain for what's left. Until Fusion (Possible if we are willing to invest in it.. the sun runs on it.. hello.. its not if it can be done it is how can it be done without blowing up the planet) or perpetual motion (Obviously a fantasy that can not happen) exists it will be the most friendly thing we can do to for the environment.

The reality is we need more power each year and we only have so many mountain tops to cut down, only so much oil to drill for, and so much gas to pull out of the ground and it's not going to change. Putting our heads in the sand to look for environmentally friendly fuels, or think that conservation will change things, is looking to short sighted and not accepting the facts.

Anyway since E85 will damage your Opel and there really is no environmental benefit to using it.. I wouldn't worry about adjusting your carbs anytime soon. In the meantime I will keep enjoying my gas hog until gas is too expensive and I have to go electric. But at least I live in a area where we have two nuclear plants providing most our power so at least here our electric power is environmentally friendly. Don't get me wrong I think Fission power is not the best option, I think its the best option we have until we can come up with something better that actually gives us more power than we put into it. Nuclear is the most efficient power source we have, and the waste is containable and not spread into the air and in the water. We just need a safe place to put it until technology catches up and we find a use for it (Which we will in the upcoming decades). Its a matter of looking out 50 years and getting there without doing any further damage to our planet. To do that we need to invest in fission again.

Sorry, I digressed... but this is one of my biggest gripes with the Media (For giving half baked science legitimacy) & Uber-Liberals (For not seeing the trees through the forest) & Uber-Conservatives (that think we can out drill the problem and feel we can spend 300 billion to secure Iraq's oil for us but not 15 billion into fusion research which WOULD solve all our energy problems) & Eviromentalists that do more harm than good because of the first three.

Charles
 

·
boomerang opeler
Joined
·
5,670 Posts
charles how about a clue as to what you want to say ??????????
are you pro bio fuel ? anti bio fuel?
anti american imperialism(iraq invasion to grab oil rights)
pro american imperialism(iraq invasion to grab oil rights)
whats E85 ? i know we get a hand cream here for dry skin that is E45
sorry to ask but i dont know what your pet peeve is and unless we know we wont have a clue as to what this very (to me ) disjointed post is about

just came back to this and reread it and guess E85 is a bio fuel , that you are against it and you dont like the ecology of eco cars that take 15 years to balance eoc cost to make and charge (as against what for a gasoline car)

btw any nuclear power station will cost more in the long run because decomissioning costs in cash and to the enviroment make it 1 of the worsed systems to use in studies done here 5 or so years ago

but we can always bury it for our grand kids to deal with(yes im anti nuke)
 

·
Opeler
Joined
·
35 Posts
Woah, Cool post on the uselessness of Biodiesel and Ethanol, Much like the wasted raw material spent on Hybrid Vehicles, To balance the saving of fuel, Most cases roughly 10-20MPG max, you must take into a account all the extra systems involved. Meaning your Hybrid Civic Is actually less environmentally friendly than the same standard civic, until you drive a certain amount of miles

Although I'm gonna have to come to a Screaming diatribe on this here:
GoinManta said:
But at least I live in a area where we have two nuclear plants providing most our power so at least here our electric power is environmentally friendly. Don't get me wrong I think Fission power is not the best option, I think its the best option we have until we can come up with something better that actually gives us more power than we put into it. Nuclear is the most efficient power source we have, and the waste is containable and not spread into the air and in the water. We just need a safe place to put it until technology catches up and we find a use for it (Which we will in the upcoming decades). Its a matter of looking out 50 years and getting there without doing any further damage to our planet. To do that we need to invest in fission again.
I could not disagree more, A push to Nuclear right now would be a horrendous operation. I dont mean to be to negative, but firstly, We will never get more energy out than in. thermodynamics man. Secondly, Fusion? I'd have to step in and say where is all the Hydrogen coming from. Water. If you look at the Worldbank Attrocities in south america, it's pretty safe that if we go fusion, and vast quantities of Hydrogen are required, Most non Radiated Water sources (third world countries supplies) Will become Privatized, AKA, owned by Corporations or the like. Which if you think the MiddleEast Oil crisis is bad, Picture half a Continent forced to Pay for water it's had for free for centuries and tell me how US relations will be then, Of course you could go the other route and Fusion-atize Pu239 But then you are taking Weapons Grade Fuel from LMFBR's (liquid metal fast breeder reactors) which i'll get to in a minute, and double-atizing it, So to keep us updated, while the only physical byproduct of using Hydrogen is eventually Iron, It will most likely cause Water crisis, something more critical in my opinion than Oil, Or you'l end up using other hydrogen manufacture methods which are dirtier than Gas anyways. OR you could go with Using Pu239, or if you are not concerned at all with emissions probably Ur238 or some wickedly dirty Barium Fusion system. Which leaves Weapons grade and better nuclear bombs/fuel.

Now to fission. you hit it on the nose with the 50 year old crap (reactors) problem, except that the new reactors are crap as well. We used MSTB's (Molten Salt Thermal Breeder's) for the first 30-40 years, then with the quest for more efficiency came the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactors (LMFBR) the differences being that the end product of the older systems was Ur233, and the new system uses Pu239, I'm sure we've probably alll heard some line in a movie about Terrorist securing Plutonium to blow up things, but the reality of it all is frightening, In the newer sytem we developed, after the Fuel has been fully used, it must be shipped through New York and other big cities to reach proccessing plants, Karl Z. Morgan speculated that if the average shipment of Pu239 were to be hijacked (one ton) The destructive power would be enough to wipe a city the size of jerusalem or Tel Aviv. Not too mention the program making this bomb would only have to seperate the Ur238 and Pu239 to have the Raw material, Like shipping Firecrackers packed in sand. Where as The older systems used stricly Uranium, which could be Made impotent by denaturing with depeleted Uranium, Making backround levels of gamma radiation way to difficult to work with and premature Neutron Ejections and predetonation (A problem I dont have!) nearly impossible to make a bomb with. another huge issue is that LMFBR cannot remove fissionable material in small doses to help with processing, so in essence ou have billions of curies lying around the whole life cycle of the fuel, just waiting for an explosion to occur. This is not a concern with the MSTB's as they constantly remove and rifine small amounts of the Fissionable gasses in the reactor at all times. So guess which Reactor Type we just lifted the ban on in the UnitedStates!

Then again I'm not suggesting We use MSTB's either or any other older Reactors RMBK, BWR's, PWR's. Look at Three Mile Island or Chernobyl. While these were largely human error, the results were devasting.

Also you mention Nuclear power as Clean Energy, But I'd rather have the polution from Coal Fumes Pumped into my face than say 75 Rads of Neutron Radiation. I'd rather just die, as opposed to passing on Radiated genes leading to Hereditorial Defects.

I think we need to stop focusing on Iraq and look at the what shell is doing in Africa. The Shell Nigeria Pump Is one of the largest single sources of polution in the world, and Ken Saro Wiwa and more than 2,000 others have been executed their NON-violent protests on shell.

anywho, I'm done rambling, just my $1.05

Edit: Tee hee realized I had read GM's post a few hours ago, left it open, posted now, refreshed and realized Baz said what I was going for in like 1000 words less, ooops, BTW, bury it solution, decently effective. I'm not Anti Nuke, As there are critical events and nuclear reactions in nature itself!!!! I just feel we need to wait maybe 15 for the AEC board to cycle members or have the whole effort run by the IRPA.

double Edit: Seems there is a Fusion reactor being built in Southern France, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER
They say the power out put is high and it produces less waste and will not have issues with runaway Chain reactions. Runs on hydrogen
expected date of completion, this is just a test facilitity, wont even make electricity. so another 10 years after that till we see some actual plants most likely. I do not wanna see how expensive water will be then.
 

·
Opel Tinkerer and Rescuer
Joined
·
7,700 Posts
E85 is a 85% ethanol mix, supposedly Ethanol will save us from the bane of foreign oil. Which is what got me started.. its BS science and a BS politically motivated solution to the energy problem we will most defiantly have to deal with in my lifetime.

Am I anti-Biofuel? YES I am for more research into it to make it sustainable though. But until it is, it will cost us more than it saves us.

Am I anti-Iraq? Lets just say we could take over and occupy all of the mid-east and it won't solve the long term problems we will be facing as far as Energy is concerned. Won't open that can of worms here.

I am as you can tell definitely Pro-Nuclear.

From what I read scientists in the field say Fusion could be a reality within 10-20 years if the government made it a priority. They expect it would cost about 10-20 Billion to develop. Obviously the European agrees.. The US invested virtually nothing on it last year, and has nothing for it in the new Energy bill passed yesterday. As for where to get the hydrogen, the ocean is full of it and if we can develop fusion I am sure we can develop ways to efficiently remove it from ocean water. Look into the ITER reactor, here we have France about to build one. If Europe gets the technology and implements it and the US does not, we will be reliant on foreign sources of energy from their Fusion plants.

As for Fission, again not a perfect solution, PBMR reactors are very safe and the material is easy to handle. They can literally shut off the reactor at anytime without fear of melt down. Is it a perfect solution, no. Is it a stop gap until better technology is developed? Yep.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

The technology exists to build plants that can recycle the current waster from old reactors to make energy AND convert the waste into usable fuel for PMBR reactors.

As for what to do with the waster and decommissioning, bury the waste... Sorry Yucca Mountain is in the middle of f****n no where. So we have a rear that is uninhabitable because of the waste. Hello its uninhabitable NOW, that's why no on lives there. The cost of decommissioning the sites will be expensive, but it only costs money, not energy to decommission them. Again if the sites have the radiation contained at the site. Then what harm does it do being there. Its just a few hundred acres we can't use. Compare that to the mountain topping and oil fields. Those are areas that can't be used again either.

My problem is environmentalists want us to quit using power. Because obviously if you think Fusion and Fission are bad. Then we must have to use Wind, Geothermal or Wave power all which are just as bad from the technology, maintenance and cost sides as Bio-fuels.

No matter what energy source is used there are trade offs. Nuclear is the ONLY one that keeps the waste, and environmental problems in contained locations. Coal, Oil, Gas, all pollute the air and water for millions, the effects are not limited to a small area of a couple hundred acres. No they ruin entire forests, provide acid rain for large sections of the country, etc...etc...

When balancing the energy needs, with energy sources, and specific environmental damage caused by each solution. Nuclear is the only option we currently have for at least the next 20-50 years if we want to continue to using energy at the rate we are.

Environmentalists and generally Anti-Nuclear groups (fission or fusion for that matter), never seem to have a real alternative to the big problem. They can only be against the solutions but don't have any of their own. Other than silly concepts like wind farms in the ocean where the material, and maintenance of these facilities never seem to be considered or of course thier holy grail BioFuel.
 

·
Opel Tinkerer and Rescuer
Joined
·
7,700 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 · (Edited)
Stan Arza said:
the differences being that the end product of the older systems was Ur233, and the new system uses Pu239, I'm sure we've probably alll heard some line in a movie about Terrorist securing Plutonium to blow up things, but the reality of it all is frightening
If you believe the BS fed you OK... Most those elements can be recycled to make graphite or oxide coated pebbles for PBMR reactors. I was reading a article that said about 80% of of our current nuclear waste could be recycled as fuel for PBMR reactors, and fuel 20 of these reactors for about 20 years. Before you started to have to mine new uranium.

I thought environmentalism was about recycling?

Anyway, the waste from PMBR reactors is coated in ceramic and is hard to separate, thus in terrorists hands the pebbles would do nothing more than kill them. While they tried to figure a way to get the radioactive material out of them, which they couldn't.

Not to mention ever see a Hijacker try to take a big convoy? No.. Ever hear of a nuclear truck being hijacked? No. Every year tons of nuclear material is transferred all over the country in special tractor trailers and rail cars. These rail cars and trucks have the waste in such a protective blanket zero leakage would occur in the worst of train accidents or if the truck fell off a 300 foot cliff. They are very safe. I have family that drove the trucks that carried the waste. So far no kids with 6 fingers or three eyes, and all are in perfect health. They wore special badges to detect radiation. My uncle hauled nuclear material for 10 years, he got more radiation exposure over those years from the X rays at his dentist.

All of your arguments are straight scare tactics by Greenpeace and other Anti-Nuclear groups.


Stan Arza said:
Also you mention Nuclear power as Clean Energy, But I'd rather have the pollution from Coal Fumes Pumped into my face than say 75 Rads of Neutron Radiation. I'd rather just die, as opposed to passing on Radiated genes leading to Hereditorial Defects.
Me too.. good thing in the 25 years I have lived in Virginia, within 40 miles of two large nuclear power plants I haven't had any exposure what so ever from them. No one ever will. Not to mention the fish in the area all have 2 eyes, and look normal. The trees and landscaping around the facilities are green and healthy.. quite a contrast from the looks of the areas around the coal facilities to the north.

If they closed North and South Anna Nuclear Power Plants and mothballed them. No one would ever get exposed either. Would the land around it be contaminated for a few generations? Yes of course. Ever look into the cost of decommissioning a Coal Plant? It isn't cheap either. Also the area around the coal plants is also lost for any future generations. So its a wash as far as land loss goes.

Also consider this, look at the land used by our two nuclear plants and then take a trip into West Virginia Coal country and look at all the damage that has been done to the mountains there... the run off from mountain topping, etc.. Then look at satellite photos of the appalachian mountains.. notice all the dead trees from the acid rain....

In short radiation is containable, acid rain, sulphur dioxide, CO2, the particulates and all the other pollution coming off the coal and gas plants AND the mining and drilling operations is not.

Nuclear is not only more environmentally friendly than coal or oil, its also more efficient 1 Nuclear plant vs 3 Coal to get the same amount of electricity.

Charles
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
Being part of the nuclear navy for ten years and working within 25ft of the reactor core, with proper sheilding and precautions I am no worse for wear, I wore my dosimitry to measure the radition I absorbed and it was way down the scale. Nuclear power plants are one of the best sources of power are there long term issues sure but what power source does not have that. My submarine went 20 years on the same fuel rods before decommissioning and the left over material was disposed of carefully and cleanly. With the technology that we have now the storage and containment of waste material is the safest for all of us.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,842 Posts
Here in Colorado they go back and forth winter to summer in gas from normal to what they call an oxygenated blend with several types of additives. I won't fill up the Opels in the winter because the blends destroy the seals in the carbs in short order. I'm not fond of the stuff.

On the other issue Cotter corp. mines plutonium and runs a disposal facility here in town. Within about a 5 mile radious the land is worthless and they get in trouble constantly. One of the water tables in the area is so poluted the cancer rate has sky rocketed for anyone that lives there. There are other issues besides just what's used at the power plant itself.
 

·
Opel Tinkerer and Rescuer
Joined
·
7,700 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
73 gt man said:
Being part of the nuclear navy for ten years and working within 25ft of the reactor core, with proper sheilding and precautions I am no worse for wear, I wore my dosimitry to measure the radition I absorbed and it was way down the scale. Nuclear power plants are one of the best sources of power are there long term issues sure but what power source does not have that. My submarine went 20 years on the same fuel rods before decommissioning and the left over material was disposed of carefully and cleanly. With the technology that we have now the storage and containment of waste material is the safest for all of us.
You mean it's safer than "enviromentalists" would lead you to beleive :eek:

BTW how did they ship that waste? Was it hijacked in route? :rolleyes:

Charles
 

·
Opel Tinkerer and Rescuer
Joined
·
7,700 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
nobody said:
Here in Colorado they go back and forth winter to summer in gas from normal to what they call an oxygenated blend with several types of additives. I won't fill up the Opels in the winter because the blends destroy the seals in the carbs in short order. I'm not fond of the stuff.

On the other issue Cotter corp. mines plutonium and runs a disposal facility here in town. Within about a 5 mile radious the land is worthless and they get in trouble constantly. One of the water tables in the area is so poluted the cancer rate has sky rocketed for anyone that lives there. There are other issues besides just what's used at the power plant itself.
I can give you similar horror stories for all the families that live near the coal mining facilities in West Virginia. Mining is a nasty and uneviromentally friendly endeavor no matter whats getting mined.

As a side note, a large section of a nieghboring county was just notified of high level of uranium content in the water. They also had problems with cancers, etc.. It occured natrually in the water table. So while I am sure the mining isnt helping the area or the water, they are mining plutonium. Which means it is naturally occuring in the rock in the area.

Again, I am not saying its a perfect solution. I am just saying its better than any of the alternatives, and look at the plants we have now, yes they are nasty and they are old and dangerous. But we can't decommision them until they are replaced, we can't turn off the coal facilities until they are replaced. Modern technology is a LOT different now than in 1985 when the last nuclear plant was commissioned. So new PMBR reactors and special reactors to recycle the old waste would make things safer, and cleaner than they currently are.

Doing nothing is not an option..

Charles
 

·
101st Airborne 1/327 Inf
Joined
·
1,324 Posts
It All Comes Down to Fuel

You know this is a great thread and I for one thank all who added to it. Funny that it included politics, your future of mechanical and automotive movement, but then came back to our OPEL. The current price, and the future price of fuel (what ever type we choose) is a lot to think about. ENJOY THE DRIVE WHILE WE CAN.
 

·
Old Opeler
Joined
·
5,564 Posts
Old Opels ARE Environmentally Friendly!!

One of the best things that can be done to "help" the environment is continuing to use a car that has already been made as it saves all the pollution generated by the manufacture of a new one - and transport of all the globally sourced components.

As for sustainable energy sources; nuclear is the way to go! The nuclear fusion reactor that we orbit around - the SUN - puts out enough energy to power the whole planet using a concept proposed by Authur C. Clarke. He proposed the construction of five vast orbiting "power" satellites which converted solar energy ( "nuclear" - BTW ) to micro-wave radiation that could be used to transfer energy down to the earth in narrow "beams" then converted to electricity that would be distributed via the upgraded electrical power grids that already exist. Five power satellites are needed at a cost of around $50 billion each - who ever holds the "high-ground" of Space will control the future energy supplies of the planet .......

Computer technology and GSP tracking is now so good that "micro-wave" powered airplanes could be directly "fuelled" by beams of energy from the orbiting power satellites.

BTW: Coal fired electric plants put out MORE nuclear radiation than well run nuclear plants simply by the fact that coal fired plants "pump" the combustion products into the air and coal contains "nuclear" elements which go along for the ride in the plant emissions! Ever heard of "Carbon Dating" - that is based upon the "radio-active" decay of Carbon-14 and coal contains Carbon!
 

·
Opeler
Joined
·
35 Posts
Thanks for the Info on the PBMR's see, the thing that's scary is that next to all the safety features are the words most and usually. brakes only effective if used as an always solution. This is the heart of matter in my opinion, you have people in the department of energy with personal gain in mind over public safety and these features are then not always but usually and most of times now. If we wait till we can get Dick/Bush out of the office before a push to nuclear it would be in everyone best interest. (O no! an violent Democrat you say!) you look at Bush families involvment in the Deregulation both Natural gas and Electricity and then you will be a little more hesitant about the quality of anything commisioned this term. I'm not saying I'm anti nuclear, I'm just point out that with how dangerous a lot of the plants already are, relying on this D.O.E. seems like giving Ted kyzinski a job at the post office. I know I am biased. sorry.

As to the Mining of Plutonium WHY!!! We freaking have enough already, not to mention If you leave some Ur238 lying around in high radiation environments (in a reactor) stray neutrons bombard it turning it to Pu

This is to address the issues of radiation. it's my understanding that unless you are receiving WAY WAY too much radiation, IE 60 Rads you most likely will not be able to feel immediate results. Can you feel "hot particles" landing on your skin, or being injested because it landed on your lunch, no. Can you feel the same Alpha particle radiating in your lungs......no. And then you look at cancer, most exposures to high level radiation require years or decades for cancer to show up, can you really say you haven't been affected? not too mention the safety standards we use today were mostly set decades ago, meaning that while the government may say you are technically in an area meeting the requirements for backround radiation, you could still be receiving way more than optimal. this is all heresay, but with three years left of Bushes term, I think it would be best to stick it out on Fossil Fuels. I say burn em all up, finish em out, tap out the globe. if we end up conserving we will have a plastic crisis in 50 years anyways, in my opinion.

another point of conflict here, is the statement about getting Hydrogen from the ocean, yes, but I imagine it would need to be distilled, which costs energy, you then need to seperate it, requiring electricity. and having a byproduct of Co2. So the dillema is like that of an alternator. in that it takes electricity to make electricity. And right now, we dont have the technology to make the output greater than the input in my opinion, and this administration is not going to spend money on things that dont fly at impoverished nations and explode. Just by $1.05
 

·
boomerang opeler
Joined
·
5,670 Posts
setting aside the eco debate for 2 min

would our american posters please refrain from using the word fri**in in posts as i will delete it
in the US i know it was used to replace fu**ing but in a lot of the english speaking world it is a slang term for female masterbation
also i know that in the states you use the word fa**y for a bottom /behind but some of the rest of us use it as a word for a ladys front bottom
the crusade to get the americans back on track with there language continues :D

BTW PLEASE KEEP THE POLITICAL DEBATE FOR THE PUB IT WILL KILL A FORUM FAST AS A WINK OF THE EYE
 

·
crazy opeler
Joined
·
558 Posts
Stan Arza said:
if we end up conserving we will have a plastic crisis in 50 years anyways, in my opinion.
From what I have read the oil that is used for making plastics and that which is used for gasoline comes from different sources. Not because of logistics but more so because of the type of oil. As in the oil used for plastics can't be suitably refined for gasoline and vice versa.

I see hydrogen powered cars as the future of automobiles, the only obstacle left is the fact that it takes too much energy(money) to produce hydrogen. I think these hybrid electric cars are laughable. Most don't get their rated MPG, and there have been cars for years that get very close to that anyway. The price savings really aren't that significant. And most ridiculous is the fact that to produce them you are expelling a lot more energy than you are making up for in MPG. So if you were really concerned with saving the environment you would buy a used car.

I have been looking at getting a new everyday car as my van is crapping out and I can't make the oil stop leaking out of my Eagle Talon for the life of me. With the prices of gas right now I figured I would only spend $10 more a week on gas with a GMC Denali than I am right now with my Talon. I am willing to spend that extra money to have a nice big car that I can tow (opels*) with. Which is exactly the problem in the US. Gas is too cheep. If gas was $10 a gallon I would be driving a geo metro, but with the prices as they are right now I would rather drive the Denali. Now compare that to Europe, most of the cars in Europe are small compact cars, so nobody really complains about the high cost of gas over there(at least I never hear about it). Now granted America is much more suburbanized, there is still no real reason for all the big cars I see on the road. I can't tell you how many childless housewives I know that drive expeditions/excursions/Suburbans.

I'm not that worried about oil though. When gas power raises to the price of alternative power, companies will be quick to offer alternatively powered vehicles. The real problem is Electrical power generation.

The last company I worked for built power plants so I know a thing or two about them. The short answer to the long term problem is that only coal, gas ,and nuclear will be able to support the power needs. There is around 300 years of coal supply left, 50-75 years of Nuclear fuel left, and and only slightly more gas supply. Maybe by that time Fusion will become a reality. Until then the power generation companies will go with whatever is the cheapest form of production. Heck we changed from constructing gas fire to coal fire plants in two years because the cost of gas went up.

What are the alternatives?

Wind? Wind could never take over a large percentage of power generation. There are too few places where there is enough wind to power them. As of now the cost of building them $/kw is still more than coal or gas.

Solar, still too costly. Will probably be years before it is cheep enough to compete, even then it will only account for a small portion. Peak hours for electricity are at night anyway, good thing the sun is out at night....oh wait.

Geothermal. I have personal experience with this one. I was involved with the design and construction of a geothermal plant in California. At a site where there were 6 geothermal plants only two were actually working at the time, and working way under their design parameters. Most of them were broken down because of all the acidic chemicals in the brine pumped through them. The life span of those pants is extremely short. A 130MW plant will run around $400M, and be in need of constant repair. Whereas a 800MW gas-fire plant will set you back around $500M. What kind of plants do you think the utility companies are going to purchase? Sure a geothermal plant uses free energy, but that doesn't do you much good when it doesn't work in the first place. Geothermal also faces the same problem of only being available in select areas.

So what’s my outlook? You hear a lot of people predict that there is only 30-40 more years of oil, I think it will be more like 70-100. China's demand will level off, and there is a lot of new technology being put into use to extract untold amounts of oil from the frozen Canadian tundra. Also the running out of oil will never really happen, prices will just rise to a point where alternative fuels become more practical. Most of those alternative fuels require some form of electricity, whether it be energy expelled to produce hydrogen, or fully electric cars. So there will be a sharp rise in the need for power generation. So that 300 years of coal will run out a lot faster and unless fusion becomes a reality there will either be a world war or a drastic change in lifestyle.


*Note reference to Opels
 

·
boomerang opeler
Joined
·
5,670 Posts
chris as a european who was paying $9.24 for gas last year im surprised you did not hear me complaining without the internet
we to have 3-400 years of coal reserves but if you upset a woman who later becomes prime minister you are out of work quick time :mad: we now have 8 deep mines left and almost all electric gen is by gas and nuke
i agree about hybrid cars look at honda , it used to cost them $13000 to sell you there hybrid car
as for wind farms you could put them in the mid west ,we see its windy every summer when in the season or on the gulf coast (texas would be good it was always windy on dallas) :D we had a nice twister here yesterday ,only get 1 every 2 years or so and a hurricane once every 20 years or so but we have wind generators all over the place

from charles's post earlyer about nuclear being the only one to keep its waste contained in 1 place ,come over here and enjoy the expidential jump in cancers after the cloud from chenobel drifted by a few years ago
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,361 Posts
WTF? OK, when you live close to the arctic you just get used to putting up with whatever source of heat you can warm your fa**y on. OOPS, sorry baz, my bad!

Hey, burn more of that clean Canadian natural (don't you just love that word!) gas. And maybe even buy some shares in Junior Oil & Gas companies, so I can retire to the south of France a bit earlier than planned. Like, in 2092....

There, one good ramble deserves another. Go Flames, Go!

( :D baz )
 

·
crazy opeler
Joined
·
558 Posts
baz said:
chris as a european who was paying $9.24 for gas last year im surprised you did not hear me complaining without the internet
I guess what I meant was that if it cost that much in America there would be MUCH more complaining, a lot more switching to compacts, and a lot more carpooling. Here in America that is.

baz said:
as for wind farms you could put them in the mid west ,we see its windy every summer when in the season or on the gulf coast (texas would be good it was always windy on dallas) :D we had a nice twister here yesterday ,only get 1 every 2 years or so and a hurricane once every 20 years or so but we have wind generators all over the place
Have a look Here you can see that the midwest and Texas are not really the best places. Marginal at best. You have to consider the cost of constructing them vs. their output in those areas. They are much more cost effective in the north east. I was even offered a job by a company that builds wind power stations in the north west(edit: said east). The wind doesn't exactly blow constantly either. Since there is no suitable way to store the mass ammounts of energy that they would produce they can only act to alleviate the load of a conventional plant grid.
 
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top