Three words: "OH, THE HUMANITY!!"
The problem isn't hydrogen fuel exploding like a hydrogen bomb (nuclear reaction), but like, well, hydrogen (chemical reaction). See the above picture for an example.
| Homestar Runner Wiki Forum http://forum.hrwiki.org/ |
|
| Oil http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=11433 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | sam3611 [ Sun May 13, 2007 11:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | Oil |
Oil, the prices are rising, and and there is a very simple remedy to this problem. More refineries. The only way to succesfully lower gas prices for an extended period of time is to get those enviromentalists out of the way. And the enviromentalists won't even let us drill for oil in Alaska. Drilling for oil DOES NOT have a big impact on the area it is in. I know someone who owns an oil refinery in the rainforest, and it's not affecting the enviroment there at all. Also, discussions of alternative fuels belong elsewhere. |
|
| Author: | What's Her Face [ Sun May 13, 2007 12:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well, they do drill in Alaska - much of which gets exported to Asia. But anyway, here's a good site that I'd recommend for this issue. As regards the ANWR, it says: Gibson Consulting wrote: We currently (2004) import around 60% of our requirements — and we do not do that because there is a bazillion barrels of oil hidden somewhere in the US just waiting to be produced. The US is probably the most thoroughly explored large nation on Earth, and all the ANWRs and other possibles out there are tiny drops in the bucket of our gas-guzzling habits. It MIGHT be possible to achieve a modicum of "independence" through rigorous conservation, but that cannot happen in any short time frame (like a few years). To do so, EVERY person in the US would have to reduce their consumption by 60%. Are you willing to refrain from heating your home on 4 out of 7 days per week, all year long? Or not drive at all on 4 out of 7 days per week, forever more? Or cease buying products whose manufacture, packaging, and distribution are gasoline-intensive — such as all imported foods, or vegetables from California in winter that are hauled further than a few hundred miles, or a thousand other things. It's simply not gonna happen.
>>link>> That's about the issue of independence on foreign oil, of course, but it's got a grain of truth regarding the effectiveness of more drilling and more refineries. Within the US anyway. |
|
| Author: | DukeNuke [ Sun May 13, 2007 2:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well, there's only a limited ammount of oil in the earth, and it won't last forever. Besides, oil is not the only source of energy there is. Hydropower, anyone? |
|
| Author: | StrongRad [ Sun May 13, 2007 3:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
DukeNuke wrote: Well, there's only a limited ammount of oil in the earth, and it won't last forever. Besides, oil is not the only source of energy there is. Hydropower, anyone?
Hydro works pretty well, but it's one of those "supplement" sources. It can't provide all of the power, but it can sure provide a pretty good chunk. I'd like to see more nuclear. I know that, in North Alabama, the TVA is looking to add 3 more reactors (bringing Brown's Ferry 1 back online and actually finishing Bellefonte*). In Kentucky (for electricity), Coal is still king (as it is in most of the US). The plants aren't as bad for the environment as one might think (they're not great, by any stretch of the imagination, but they aren't the evil giants they were in the 70's or 80's). As for the solution to "oil" which is, I'm assuming, referring to gasoline, there's a lot that can be done. I'm one of those evil, money-hungry conservatives you've heard about, but it's pretty obvious that the oil companies are taking us to the cleaners. They say that the price of oil from OPEC is up. It is. However, their profits are also record-high. At first I thought "well, if you adjust their profits from EVERY year, to dollars of a common year (eliminates effects of inflation), you'd find that they're not THAT much higher". I was wrong. However, nobody's going to do anything about it until it's politically convenient** (also, I'm not entirely sure that politicians should have too much control over oil, as I believe the government should, more or less, let an individual run their company as they see fit). I don't think more refineries would be the answer (as oil companies are making record profits, which means their prices are higher than they "need" to be). More refineries WOULD, however, make it a lot harder for the oil companies to blame someone with a hangnail in a refinery for a 2-week, 15 cent/gallon price hike. Finally, there's the idea of Ethanol. However, when you look at it, it's not as environmentally friendly as some might think (it creates a larger ground-level ozone problem). It's also a bit of a problem as the price of the primary feedstock for the easiest ethanol production, corn, will go through the roof. While your fuel prices might be lower, you'll pay more for things like beef, pork, chicken, and corn, so you won't notice much of a difference in your overall cash flow. With that said, it WOULD help ween us from the teat of foreign oil. Also, they're working on ways to make ethanol from other feedstocks (certain grasses and pulp-mill waste are beginning to look promising) *Bellefonte was started but never finished. There are 2 reactors on-site, but they were never brought into operation (very long, funny story). Now, they have to be dismantled, and part of the "plant" has to be demolished so that the new reactors (way safer, more efficient) and supporting stuff can be built. ** On Thursday, Kentucky Attorney General Greg Stumbo filed suit against Ashland-Marathon alleging price gouging after Hurricane Katrina. (It should be noted that Stumbo is running for Lieutenant Governor in about 9 days from now). The suit would fine Marathon something like $20,000 for price gouging (which is about .1% of the profits he's alleging they made from the gouging). Stumbo's keeping quiet about THIS part of the suit (which, added to the timing, makes me think it's politically convenient, at best). |
|
| Author: | Didymus [ Sun May 13, 2007 3:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I am all about conservation. If you really care that much about high gas prices? Get a small vehicle with a fuel efficient engine rather than a hulking gas-guzzling SUV. Or take public transportation when available. When I lived in Britain, the Brits were paying OUTRAGEOUS gas prices, when compared to US gas prices. What Americans paid in dollars for a gallon of gas, the Brits were paying in Pounds for a liter. Do the math: with the exchange rate at that time, that meant nearly 6 or 7 times as much for gas! But Britain did have a decent transportation system to make up for it, whereas only large metropolitan centers in America even have them, and many of them are wholly inadequate. My answer to high gas prices? CONSERVE CONSERVE CONSERVE! In the long run, it's really the only answer to, not just the price problem, but also for the dwindling supply problem that will inevitably catch up with us. Also, I'd like to see fewer of our dollars going to countries that will turn around and use that money to try and kill us all. |
|
| Author: | DESTROY US ALL! [ Sun May 13, 2007 4:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well now for cars Toyota has announced a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle for under 25,000 USD. This is a crazy-awesome breakthrough. Gasoline consumption can drop rapidly if hydrogen fuel cells become the dominant energy source for vehicles in the next 20 or so years. Untill then the government needs to put restrictions on how fuel efficient a civilian vehicle needs to be. Don't let giant Hummer-type vehicles on the road without a tax penalty. And use this tax money to fund alternate-fuel research. Also I think high gas prices are wonderful for the environment. Taxing gas more would be a great way to get people to conserve more. And that additional money could be put to good use. |
|
| Author: | StrongRad [ Sun May 13, 2007 4:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
DESTROY US ALL! wrote: Well now for cars Toyota has announced a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle for under 25,000 USD. This is a crazy-awesome breakthrough.
Gasoline consumption can drop rapidly if hydrogen fuel cells become the dominant energy source for vehicles in the next 20 or so years. Untill then the government needs to put restrictions on how fuel efficient a civilian vehicle needs to be. Don't let giant Hummer-type vehicles on the road without a tax penalty. And use this tax money to fund alternate-fuel research. Also I think high gas prices are wonderful for the environment. Taxing gas more would be a great way to get people to conserve more. And that additional money could be put to good use. Hydrogen fuel cell cars are great, except for one teeny, tiny problem. How many hydrogen stations are there in your town? Exactly. Nobody's going to build the stations until there are enough cars on the road to make it worth their problem. Nobody's going to buy a car they can't fuel. Toyota also needs to make this hydrogen vehicle drive like a gasoline powered car. In other words, you get in, start it, put it in gear and drive like a normal car (like the Ford Escape Hybrid). The Priuses (Priui?) that my office have are a pain to drive. The Escapes, on the other hand, I don't mind. |
|
| Author: | DESTROY US ALL! [ Sun May 13, 2007 4:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hence why I said within the next 20 years. Hydrogen stations will start popping up in big cities once theres a market for it. Since there isn't right now, you don't see any. |
|
| Author: | StrongRad [ Sun May 13, 2007 4:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
DESTROY US ALL! wrote: Hence why I said within the next 20 years. My bad. Quote: Hydrogen stations will start popping up in big cities once theres a market for it. Since there isn't right now, you don't see any.
You're right, there will be stations when there is a demand, however, I'm still not seeing anyone buy a car until they have a place to fuel it. Perhaps Toyota or some other company will sell a "make your own hydrogen" plant to kickstart hydrogen car sales. |
|
| Author: | The Joe [ Sun May 13, 2007 4:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I remember reading somewhere that some people have installed little hydrogen pumps at their house, so I can see hydrogen cars being used for short-ranged trips pretty soon. Then, hydrogen pumps at gas stations should be soon to follow. |
|
| Author: | StrongRad [ Sun May 13, 2007 4:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The Joe wrote: I remember reading somewhere that some people have installed little hydrogen pumps at their house, so I can see hydrogen cars being used for short-ranged trips pretty soon. Then, hydrogen pumps at gas stations should be soon to follow. Well, there you go!
I must say, I'm pleased that nobody has said that "big oil" is holding back alternative fuels, nor has anyone posted "Hydrogen car?!? HYDROGEN CAR?!?! <pic of hydrogen bomb explosion>", as both of those sects of lunatics are usually well represented in discussions of this type. First off, ChevronTexacoBPSHELL has nothing to lose from alternative energy. Eventually, oil's gonna run out and they're gonna need a new way to make money. Might as well stick to the "fuel" market that they're so good at by using their existing business relationships, transportation systems, and existing stations to sell the "fuel of the future". Secondly, the idea that hydrogen cars can explode like a hydrogen bomb is even more less informed than the whole "Nuclear power plants are nuclear bombs" myth perpetuated by Greenpeace types. Seriously, folks, a hydrogen bomb explodes by fusing hydrogen into helium (a reaction that you need the energy of something like an atomic to start). Also, the Hindenburg analogy that some throw up for hydrogen cars is ridiculous. A hydrogen powered car is not made of wood and cloth, for starters. |
|
| Author: | Didymus [ Sun May 13, 2007 5:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Three words: "OH, THE HUMANITY!!"
The problem isn't hydrogen fuel exploding like a hydrogen bomb (nuclear reaction), but like, well, hydrogen (chemical reaction). See the above picture for an example. |
|
| Author: | StrongRad [ Sun May 13, 2007 5:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Didymus wrote: Three words: "OH, THE HUMANITY!!"
The problem isn't hydrogen fuel exploding like a hydrogen bomb (nuclear reaction), but like, well, hydrogen (chemical reaction). See the above picture for an example. That's true, but hydrogen cars aren't made of flammable fabric and wood. Also, the cars will be built so that, like gasoline cars, the danger of fire is minimized. |
|
| Author: | Amorican [ Mon May 14, 2007 12:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Didymus wrote: Three words: "OH, THE HUMANITY!!"
The problem isn't hydrogen fuel exploding like a hydrogen bomb (nuclear reaction), but like, well, hydrogen (chemical reaction). See the above picture for an example. This would be a great place to start a photo game: 
Anyway, I'm actually FOR high gas prices. The higher they go, the more seriously we will look into alternative energy sources. |
|
| Author: | Didymus [ Mon May 14, 2007 2:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'm not. The vast majority of it is going to line the pockets of greedy corporate types, while those of us who depend on our vehicles to make a living are being impoverished by them. If I thought that any of that higher profit margin went to help research and development of alternative fuels - and in the process did actually encourage conservation - I'd support it. But as it is, many people who depend on their vehicles now find that they have to spend inordinate amounts of money, and they don't have the option to conserve. In other words, the same amount of gas is being used, only now it's taking more money out of the pockets of working people. And let's not forget things like increased shipping costs, which in turn leads to increased mark-up on necessary goods and services that we depend on. And for what? So that some fat pig exec can wallow in the green while smoking his fine cigars and sipping his cognac from a gold-plated glass. |
|
| Author: | barwhack [ Wed May 16, 2007 7:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Some of the engineer in me will briefly come out here: hydrogen cars are based on fuel cells which use a sort of battery to store hydrogen away in a non-volatile (and non-flammable) form until just before it gets used in a combustion reaction, making water. The cell's architecture is why this technology is so long in coming; it's hard to find the right stuff. If it stored flammable gas, the gas would leak through any molecular chamber -- hydrogen atoms are smaller than any known molecular lattice; it leaks constantly -- not good for long haul car trips with no ready access to super deep freeze / high pressure coolers. Aside from all that, noting the "discussions on alternative fuel sources are for elsewhere" rule above, I'd like to point this out in support of the refinery idea: we haven't built a new refinery in the continental United States in 30+ years. Nor a nuclear power plant. Yet our consumtion per capita has climbed and our population has doubled. Responsibility in managing large human systems (which encompass the environment in which humans live), would demand a factoring of the suffering caused by shortage. We haven't done that recently... because... we're not responsible. That's it. People who argue that wild land should be preserved at the cost of quality of life for humanity, may have a point. But folks who argue that there never was any wild land that should have been tamed, and we should all die off and leave it be the way it was before us... they're missing something important. If you're God-centric, then we are stewards of all this; it is to be applied and used (but not abused). If you are not, then you are at least human, and you should consider us -- you own species -- as bettter fundamentally than the environment we fight for survival. So drill, if we need to; refine, if we need to; innovate, if we need to; conserve, if we need to. It is not a tenable option to return to the wagon and candles. And this doesn't even begin to address one of my suspicions: that one volcanic eruption of common size would be sufficient to exceed all of human pollution for all time. |
|
| Author: | PianoManGidley [ Wed May 16, 2007 12:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Just FYI: The actual cost of gas has increased, but with respect to inflation, we were actually paying more (in dollar value) at the pump in the 80s (when it was only $0.99 a gallon) than we are now. Not saying I'm using that to justify a further increase in price, but merely to put in perspective by saying that just because gas is at an all-time high doesn't mean we're suffering as badly for it from an overall economic standpoint. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|