Comments on: FAQ: Guide to alternative fuels
Here's a handy guide to the major players in the alternative fuel world.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- Escaped convict continues to update Facebook
December 27, 2009 9:15 PM PST
- AT&T ceases online iPhone sales in NY area
December 27, 2009 7:45 PM PST
- Flexing the boundaries of flash memory
December 27, 2009 4:50 PM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
petroleum, what is to prevent a competition between food and
fuel crops? Just because switchgrass grows where food crops
don't doesn't mean that it, or some other fuel crop, can't be
grown where food crops can. Do we really want to find out how
expensive food can become if energy crops, which as you say
take tremendous amounts of land per unit energy, become
attractive to farmers?
Poo-troleum sounds better, but how much fuel can be produced
this way? From numbers I looked up on the internet, it seems
that the production from 33 million acres of poo ponds would
be required to replace the 22 million barrels of oil we use per
day. That's a bit larger than 1 percent of the land area of the U.S.
Seems doable, but is there enough poo to fill the ponds?
petroleum, what is to prevent a competition between food and
fuel crops? Just because switchgrass grows where food crops
don't doesn't mean that it, or some other fuel crop, can't be
grown where food crops can. Do we really want to find out how
expensive food can become if energy crops, which as you say
take tremendous amounts of land per unit energy, become
attractive to farmers?
Poo-troleum sounds better, but how much fuel can be produced
this way? From numbers I looked up on the internet, it seems
that the production from 33 million acres of poo ponds would
be required to replace the 22 million barrels of oil we use per
day. That's a bit larger than 1 percent of the land area of the U.S.
Seems doable, but is there enough poo to fill the ponds?
Taken as a whole I believe electric cars can meet most peoples needs. How often do you actually have to drive over 100 miles in one go ? I expect like me it is probably one maybe twice a year.
But, what we need to look at is the source of electricity. If it is still from oil/coal burning power plants then we are just moving the carbon emissions.
For this reason I believe that alternative fuels only work when the product process is factored in. For electricity we need to crack wind/solar/wave/?
Then the source of electricity will be greener and the affect will be overall less pollution.
I like the concept of the Cellulosic Ethanol. I saw a show on History channel (might have been TLC ro Discovery) the other day. And this stuff is can be created from the left over stalks from food crops (stuff that is normally just burned off). they are also looking at creating it from wild grasses.
The only downside I see to that concept (which also applies to standard ethanol and the biodiesel is that if we continually take away all the stalks and crops from the land without putting those nutrients back in... we will end up with fields that can no longer grow crops. It is the same thing that happened years back before the concept of rotating crops and fields took hold.
If this is the future fuels are crop or crop byproduct based... the US will have to put more emphasis on farms and farmers.
Taken as a whole I believe electric cars can meet most peoples needs. How often do you actually have to drive over 100 miles in one go ? I expect like me it is probably one maybe twice a year.
But, what we need to look at is the source of electricity. If it is still from oil/coal burning power plants then we are just moving the carbon emissions.
For this reason I believe that alternative fuels only work when the product process is factored in. For electricity we need to crack wind/solar/wave/?
Then the source of electricity will be greener and the affect will be overall less pollution.
I like the concept of the Cellulosic Ethanol. I saw a show on History channel (might have been TLC ro Discovery) the other day. And this stuff is can be created from the left over stalks from food crops (stuff that is normally just burned off). they are also looking at creating it from wild grasses.
The only downside I see to that concept (which also applies to standard ethanol and the biodiesel is that if we continually take away all the stalks and crops from the land without putting those nutrients back in... we will end up with fields that can no longer grow crops. It is the same thing that happened years back before the concept of rotating crops and fields took hold.
If this is the future fuels are crop or crop byproduct based... the US will have to put more emphasis on farms and farmers.
-----
http://mortgage.emigrantas.com - all info about mortgages
-----
http://mortgage.emigrantas.com - all info about mortgages
just shifting the energy consumption from one bad source to
another. As an example if you charge you car's batteries with
household electricity, you are increasing the consumption of
Coal (to some degree) to generate that increase electricity usage.
Using Einstein's famous equation ( energy can not be created or
destroyed ) then it seems to me that a true hybrid should
substitute a true clean energy source for gasoline. An example (
although not practical ) would be a an electric car that could
recharge its batteries with solar panels built in to the body of the
car, and/or using solar panels at home to recharge it's batteries
when we are not using the car.
However, they still have the problem of batteries that are very expensive and contain nasty chemicals that present other environmental risks. They may burn less gas, but dollar for dollar they really don't save any money.
Second, while it is true that an electric car (not a hybrid) moves generation from one place to another, not all sources are equally efficient. A large clean coal generator can be five times as efficient as an average gas car (and fivefold is already a HUGHE difference). But other energy generation methods are even more efficient and have lower environmental impact.
Finally, you can feed an electric car with energy generated in house, wether it's solar or wind power (the sun energy falling over the surface of a car, even with perfect efficiency, is not enough to run any decent car), so you get a car that's 100% clean.
just shifting the energy consumption from one bad source to
another. As an example if you charge you car's batteries with
household electricity, you are increasing the consumption of
Coal (to some degree) to generate that increase electricity usage.
Using Einstein's famous equation ( energy can not be created or
destroyed ) then it seems to me that a true hybrid should
substitute a true clean energy source for gasoline. An example (
although not practical ) would be a an electric car that could
recharge its batteries with solar panels built in to the body of the
car, and/or using solar panels at home to recharge it's batteries
when we are not using the car.
However, they still have the problem of batteries that are very expensive and contain nasty chemicals that present other environmental risks. They may burn less gas, but dollar for dollar they really don't save any money.
Second, while it is true that an electric car (not a hybrid) moves generation from one place to another, not all sources are equally efficient. A large clean coal generator can be five times as efficient as an average gas car (and fivefold is already a HUGHE difference). But other energy generation methods are even more efficient and have lower environmental impact.
Finally, you can feed an electric car with energy generated in house, wether it's solar or wind power (the sun energy falling over the surface of a car, even with perfect efficiency, is not enough to run any decent car), so you get a car that's 100% clean.
Explain why the United States had its maximum oil production in 1970, and with the greatest number of oil wells, expertise, transparency and technology in the world, has not been able to increase production ...
Explain why the United States had its maximum oil production in 1970, and with the greatest number of oil wells, expertise, transparency and technology in the world, has not been able to increase production ...
I mean if we ever got over the stigma of the word nuclear this could be a real option.
If fact from what I have read the main Con would be in securing the material so it could not be removed by terrorist.
We might even be able to use nuclear waste material we are having trouble getting rid of now.
The vehicle I read about had pretty much no chance of contamination in an accident.
It seemed to actually be much more sound than anything else.
Let's not let our fear of this type of energy let us rule it out. We should be very sure it has low risk but it really is an option.
radioisotope thermal generator? Once upon a time, pacemaker
batteries using that technology were developed and built, but I
don't know if any were used for that purpose. They did make dandy
calibration standards for neutron measurement systems, though.
Which of course means that they emitted neutrons. Which of course
would freak a lot of people out.
I mean if we ever got over the stigma of the word nuclear this could be a real option.
If fact from what I have read the main Con would be in securing the material so it could not be removed by terrorist.
We might even be able to use nuclear waste material we are having trouble getting rid of now.
The vehicle I read about had pretty much no chance of contamination in an accident.
It seemed to actually be much more sound than anything else.
Let's not let our fear of this type of energy let us rule it out. We should be very sure it has low risk but it really is an option.
radioisotope thermal generator? Once upon a time, pacemaker
batteries using that technology were developed and built, but I
don't know if any were used for that purpose. They did make dandy
calibration standards for neutron measurement systems, though.
Which of course means that they emitted neutrons. Which of course
would freak a lot of people out.
Of course it would be clean, and wouldn't require any farming, or labs. Seems like a cheap/clean alternative to me.
tanks to store the compressed air. As for taking advantage of the
air entering the grill becoming pressurized, it will, but even at
mach 1 the pressure gain would only be about a factor of 1.9 over
atmospheric. That's why ramjets are only used above mach 2 or so.
Of course it would be clean, and wouldn't require any farming, or labs. Seems like a cheap/clean alternative to me.
tanks to store the compressed air. As for taking advantage of the
air entering the grill becoming pressurized, it will, but even at
mach 1 the pressure gain would only be about a factor of 1.9 over
atmospheric. That's why ramjets are only used above mach 2 or so.
long time at least. I'm certainly not afraid of Nuclear power, but
plenty of people are. Instead, I think we should be putting more
effort in research towards nuclear fusion. The world has an
almost limitless supply of hydrogen in the world's oceans. The
only drawback of Nuclear fusion is that it is very difficult to
accomplish, as it requires insanely hot temperatures, at least in
the hundreds of millions. However it is completely
environmentally friendly, with zero radioactive products. If you
ran one of hydrogen from seawater, you would only get
electricity, oxygen, useful helium product and some similarly
useful excess hydrogen, perfect for running cars. Of course a
small portion of the electricity generated would be used to
sustain the fusion process and electrolyse the desalinated water.
Almost unlimited amounts of extremely cheap energy, and
hence almost unlimited amounts of extremely cheap hydrogen
(and desalinated water for all us drought affected Aussie
readers).
There are two problems with compressed air. One is it is
outstandingly inefficient, and therefore any car would have a
shockingly short range. Also the concept of using the
compressed air at the front of the car to top up the tanks
violates half a dozen fundamental physics principles, the most
important being you can't get energy for free, or at least not in
that way. Ramjets don't need air compressors, but they still need
fuel.
Lastly, it is always better to take enrgy from the powerpoint than
to make it in your car. Petrol engines are only about 8% or
something efficient. Full power stations have the money and the
space to employ methods of power generation that are much,
much more efficient, therefore more power is produced in
relation to carbon dioxide in a power station than a car, whether
it's a gas guzzler or a Prius.
very far away indeed. Needs temperatures much higher than D-T
(deuterium-tritium) fusion, and we haven't really accomplished
that yet. And of course, as you probably know, D-T fusion
produces energetic neutrons that would activate a lot of the
structure, which would have to be periodically replaced, creating
radioactive waste.
Plus, all those neutrons are not needed to sustain the reaction,
so they could be used to surreptitiously produce plutonium by
introducing natural uranium into the neutron field, close to but
outside of the reaction chamber.
D-T fusion would have important advantages, but it would not
be problem free.
- A whole lot of Quibbles
- by Erasmus_Dave February 1, 2007 2:53 PM PST
- Firstly, I doubt whether Nuclear power will be used in cars for a
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- Fusion would be great..
- by billmosby February 1, 2007 5:05 PM PST
- If you are talking about H-H fusion, like the sun uses, that is
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (81 Comments)long time at least. I'm certainly not afraid of Nuclear power, but
plenty of people are. Instead, I think we should be putting more
effort in research towards nuclear fusion. The world has an
almost limitless supply of hydrogen in the world's oceans. The
only drawback of Nuclear fusion is that it is very difficult to
accomplish, as it requires insanely hot temperatures, at least in
the hundreds of millions. However it is completely
environmentally friendly, with zero radioactive products. If you
ran one of hydrogen from seawater, you would only get
electricity, oxygen, useful helium product and some similarly
useful excess hydrogen, perfect for running cars. Of course a
small portion of the electricity generated would be used to
sustain the fusion process and electrolyse the desalinated water.
Almost unlimited amounts of extremely cheap energy, and
hence almost unlimited amounts of extremely cheap hydrogen
(and desalinated water for all us drought affected Aussie
readers).
There are two problems with compressed air. One is it is
outstandingly inefficient, and therefore any car would have a
shockingly short range. Also the concept of using the
compressed air at the front of the car to top up the tanks
violates half a dozen fundamental physics principles, the most
important being you can't get energy for free, or at least not in
that way. Ramjets don't need air compressors, but they still need
fuel.
Lastly, it is always better to take enrgy from the powerpoint than
to make it in your car. Petrol engines are only about 8% or
something efficient. Full power stations have the money and the
space to employ methods of power generation that are much,
much more efficient, therefore more power is produced in
relation to carbon dioxide in a power station than a car, whether
it's a gas guzzler or a Prius.
very far away indeed. Needs temperatures much higher than D-T
(deuterium-tritium) fusion, and we haven't really accomplished
that yet. And of course, as you probably know, D-T fusion
produces energetic neutrons that would activate a lot of the
structure, which would have to be periodically replaced, creating
radioactive waste.
Plus, all those neutrons are not needed to sustain the reaction,
so they could be used to surreptitiously produce plutonium by
introducing natural uranium into the neutron field, close to but
outside of the reaction chamber.
D-T fusion would have important advantages, but it would not
be problem free.