my new hero

[kandrathe]

... I wonder when Aus. will look to integrate their power grids and sell excess energy to energy poor countries.  I suppose we have to wait for the oil to dry up a bit first.
...
[right][snapback]100817[/snapback][/right]

Does anyone move electricity across oceans?

[jahcs]

Does anyone move electricity across oceans?
[right][snapback]100857[/snapback][/right]

AFAIK only in L N G tankers ;)

[SwissMercenary]

Does anyone move electricity across oceans?
[right][snapback]100857[/snapback][/right]

Coal will continue to exist for a few hundred more years, so it won't happen until CO2 emissions are under control.

[aaa]

Isn't that required by the second law of thermodynamics?

-Jester
[right][snapback]100804[/snapback][/right]

Yes

And no.

While no energy is lost that does not mean that all of it is successfully transferred.
Some energy is probably lost in light/heat given off during the process.

So none of the energy is "absolutely lost", but some of the "potentially useful stored" energy is lost.

[Curt Dogg]

I really hope he doesn't push for the stupid ethenol that everyone seems to think is the answer.  It's already been proven to cost more energy to make than it produces.  Stupid marketing people pushing inefficient technologies.  :angry:
[right][snapback]100744[/snapback][/right]

What I'm thinking here is the poster is saying that we spend more energy in the production of ethanol while taking out the energy that the sun puts into the equation. Ie, we use more petroleum, electricity, ect energy than we get out of the process.

Here is a little food for thought.....
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-...l-sidebar_x.htm
I'm not saying that this is the absolute truth, but I believe that ethanol has the potential to help.

As someone who is at the ground level for one products the ethanol is currently produced from, corn, I think that the improving efficiencies of ethanol production are very encouraging. But, then the question of using a foodstuff as a fuel when there are large numbers of hungry people in the world comes into play, and that is a whole other can o' worms.

[Occhidiangela]

What I'm thinking here is the poster is saying that we spend more energy in the production of ethanol while taking out the energy that the sun puts into the equation. Ie, we use more petroleum, electricity, ect energy than we get out of the process.

Here is a little food for thought.....
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-...l-sidebar_x.htm
I'm not saying that this is the absolute truth, but I believe that ethanol has the potential to help.

As someone who is at the ground level for one products the ethanol is currently produced from, corn, I think that the improving efficiencies of ethanol production are very encouraging. But, then the question of using a foodstuff as a fuel when there are large numbers of hungry people in the world comes into play, and that is a whole other can o' worms.
[right][snapback]100898[/snapback][/right]

Plant more corn, less dope, problem solved, eh? :w00t:

Occhi

[Hammerskjold]

I think he meant the possible dilemma of foodstuffs being used for automotive fuel, when there's a huge amount of starving people in the world. It's obvious that the answer is starving people should be used for fuel instead. It's definitely an abundant resource.

I can't wait to drive a car that gets a 100 km on a single hobo. At least for city driving.

[Curt Dogg]

Plant more corn, less dope, problem solved, eh?  :w00t:

Occhi
[right][snapback]100907[/snapback][/right]

There is more than enough of that around....

And yes, Hammerskjold, that was what I meant to say, but you put it better than I did.

[eppie]

I think he meant the possible dilemma of foodstuffs being used for automotive fuel, when there's a huge amount of starving people in the world.  It's obvious that the answer is starving people should be used for fuel instead.  It's definitely an abundant resource. 

  I can't wait to drive a car that gets a 100 km on a single hobo.  At least for city driving.
[right][snapback]100913[/snapback][/right]

That dillema already exists in the "production" of meat, which is very inefficient. (but apparantly nobody cares)

About the ethanol though. French wine producers use a lot of their worst quality grapes to make bad wine...which still contains 12 % of alcohol. This does not cost a lot of energy, about the isolation and purification of the ethanol I'm not sure but I guess it can be done with a lot less energy than what burning of ethanol yields.

[Rinnhart]

I think he meant the possible dilemma of foodstuffs being used for automotive fuel, when there's a huge amount of starving people in the world.  It's obvious that the answer is starving people should be used for fuel instead.  It's definitely an abundant resource. 

  I can't wait to drive a car that gets a 100 km on a single hobo.  At least for city driving.
[right][snapback]100913[/snapback][/right]

STOP! This post wins the thread.

[Occhidiangela]

I think he meant the possible dilemma of foodstuffs being used for automotive fuel, when there's a huge amount of starving people in the world.  It's obvious that the answer is starving people should be used for fuel instead.  It's definitely an abundant resource. 

  I can't wait to drive a car that gets a 100 km on a single hobo.  At least for city driving.
[right][snapback]100913[/snapback][/right]

There is no dilemma. There is considerable land lying fallow, not under cultivation. The longer term qestion is water availability, which makes a "turn water into fuel" decision take a few intermediate steps. Water + photosynthesis and plant = Corn + harvesting + processing + distilling = fuel. :lol:

There is a choice.

No farmer is required to grow corn for someone else, no land must be cultivated solely to ensure that every mouth on the planet is filled. Corn is a commodity, and an opportunity cost comes with any choice on how to consume it: fuel for the human body or fuel for a small generator? Consider that the generator brings electricity to a village, which allows a doctor to save a few lives in his small clinic or a dentist to treat bad teeth. ;) Or an ambulance to carry an injured worker, on an irrigation canalproject, to a hospital to save his life.

Another choice: Do we pave that 70 acres over there, and put up houses or apartments since "affordable housing" is in short supply, or do we grow oats and corn on it?

Same sort of choice, only in this case, the decision isn't as flexible. It is almost irreversible, resource/commodity's usage wise, since I have not often seen land unpaved and returned to agricultural usage.

The advantage corn has is that one year you could sell it for fuel, another year for food. Depends on what is needed more at the time.

Occhi

[jahcs]

All the acres in the world planted with tobacco, poppies, marijuana, and coca could be turned over to food and ethanol production. Then those folks with a guilty conscience about powering their vehicles with food can rest a little easier. Oh yeah, that nice green lawn can be used for food too. Remember victory gardens? It's all a matter of priorities.

[Jester]

Yes

And no.

While no energy is lost that does not mean that all of it is successfully transferred.
Some energy is probably lost in light/heat given off during the process.

So none of the energy is "absolutely lost", but some of the "potentially useful stored" energy is lost.
[right][snapback]100879[/snapback][/right]

My point was that there is no fuel which magically "gains" energy, or really even breaks even. Any fuel that we have to synthesize will, by definition, require more energy put in than we get out of it.

If we don't have to synthesize it, then we're using a limited resource, like fossil fuels.

There is no free lunch. We will never find a fuel that gives us what we want, when we want it, for no net energy cost. Maybe we'll find a clean, efficient, abundant, drawback-free source of energy. But, for now, it's all about tradeoffs, and if clean-burning fuels require greater energy inputs, then so be it. It is to be expected.

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

My point was that there is no fuel which magically "gains" energy, or really even breaks even.  Any fuel that we have to synthesize will, by definition, require more energy put in than we get out of it.

There is no free lunch. We will never find a fuel that gives us what we want, when we want it, for no net energy cost.-Jester
[right][snapback]101047[/snapback][/right]

Methane. Starts as sunlight, transitions as grass, processes as stuff in a cows stomach, enters the energy market as a bovine fart.

All upside. Would I give you any downside? ;)
Occhi

[DeeBye]

Methane.  Starts as sunlight, transitions as grass, processes as stuff in a cows stomach, enters the energy market as a bovine fart.

All upside.  Would I give you any downside?  ;)
Occhi
[right][snapback]101081[/snapback][/right]

The problem is that any methods of capturing and storing those cowfarts would expend more energy than they take in.

There's no such thing as a free fart.

FART FART FART

[Rinnhart]

All the acres in the world planted with tobacco, poppies, marijuana, and coca could be turned over to food and ethanol production.  Then those folks with a guilty conscience about powering their vehicles with food can rest a little easier.  Oh yeah, that nice green lawn can be used for food too.  Remember victory gardens?  It's all a matter of priorities.
[right][snapback]100967[/snapback][/right]

Sure, as soon as those products don't sell for exponentially more than corn. No one's going to choose making enough money over making more than enough money.

[Occhidiangela]

The problem is that any methods of capturing and storing those cowfarts would expend more energy than they take in.

There's no such thing as a free fart.

FART FART FART
[right][snapback]101082[/snapback][/right]

Energy is not the only variable in the equation, cost per BTU is. Raise the price of petroleum products high enough, and suddenly a whole load of other ways to extraact energy become economically viable.

Occhi

[jahcs]

Sure, as soon as those products don't sell for exponentially more than corn. No one's going to choose making enough money over making more than enough money.
[right][snapback]101089[/snapback][/right]

I need a thumbs up smilie. If you can make enough money selling your dope that you can afford gasoline at $8.50 a gallon then what's the problem, right? ;)

[Ammonium]

Methane.  Starts as sunlight, transitions as grass, processes as stuff in a cows stomach, enters the energy market as a bovine fart.

All upside.  Would I give you any downside?  ;)
Occhi
[right][snapback]101081[/snapback][/right]

Ahem.

Methane = Hydrocarbon
Oil = Hydrocarbon

Buring Hydrocarbons = Carbon Dioxide

Carbon Dioxide = WORLD DESTRUCTION

Therefore, cow farts will destroy the world.

[Ammonium]

I really hope he doesn't push for the stupid ethenol that everyone seems to think is the answer.  It's already been proven to cost more energy to make than it produces.  Stupid marketing people pushing inefficient technologies.  :angry:
[right][snapback]100744[/snapback][/right]

The problem with ethanol is that it, like oil, produces CO2, which is the culprit of the greenhouse effect. Renewablility is only one factor. As far as I'm concerned, forget any fuel that produces CO2.

The greenhouse effect is real and is a very bad thing.


Addon:

Here's my idea. Develop ways to integrate solar panels into cars (with batteries that can be charged via conventional means as a backup.) From there, use the electricity to preform electrolysis on water to form hydrogen and oxygen, and use the hydrogen as fuel for the car itself.

In case you didnt catch that; you put water in the gas tank, gather energy from the sun to create the hydrogen fuel, burn that, and water comes out of the tailpipe.