New fuel for cars

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


They are still LOUD!

What's the problem? Are diesel engines drowning out the ambient gunshot sounds in your neighbourhood?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by PLATO
I still believe that Hydrogen is the answer. It can be mass produced using electrolysis...and the power for that can come cheap, safe, and clean from nuclear.

Nuclear is neither cheap, clean, nor safe. Wave bells and tidal turbines ftw!

[PLATO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by PLATO
I still believe that Hydrogen is the answer. It can be mass produced using electrolysis...and the power for that can come cheap, safe, and clean from nuclear.

Nuclear is neither cheap, clean, nor safe. Wave bells and tidal turbines ftw!

Sure it is!

It only needs a standardized reactor design and people in Yucca mountain to understand.

I do like the others as well, but they will never supply what we need.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Wave bells and tidal turbines ftw!

Did you hear about the planned-attempt to tap into the power of the Gulf Stream off of Florida by putting turbines at the bottom of the sea? The problem with it I see is that, at least initially, they appear to be copying the design of wind turbines and putting them underwater. I think that the water pressure will prove to much for those thin blades and that they should go to helix-shaped blades instead. But we shall see.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Nuclear is neither cheap, clean, nor safe.

No offense, but that is clean and pure BS.

[pchang]

Nuclear power

is not cheap.

[Perfection]

it's cheap enough

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Properly tuned diesel engines are actually quite clean and less polluting than gasoline. Especially biodiesel.

Problem is that the Brazilians are massively cutting rainforest to produce biodiesel. The net effect is negative.

What we should do is replace the ineffective and ravenous moneywasting sugar/-.... farming that is subsidized by the EU for example and use the available assets for biodiesel. That's still not what's happening. Maybe only a little bit

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by BlackCat


No offense, but that is clean and pure BS.

It's not cheap. Prices are artificially reduced. Alternative power sources don't get the same opportunities by the State (I'm talking about Belgium here of course) that nuclear power suppliers receive.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

while true that alternative is overlooked, nuclear is much better than what we have, and if anything we have to thank the French who lead the way

80% of their electricty supply is nuclear.. .the side effects (apart from a site where the waste will be stored) are lower reliance on middle east/Russian oil and natural gas, less dependance on oil price increases, cleanest air in the industrialized nations, a lot less contribution to greenhouse issue, etc...

if US as worlds biggest economy was following the French exmple, a lot of the current issues both in foreign policy, and the environment would be easily averted...

environmentalists would want too much too fast, and there is not enough $$$ behind to push their ideas enough... in any case wind/solar is more expensive as it is, and wind is not without it's own minor issues either...

[OneFootInTheGrave]

not that you can put nuclear into cars, but perhaps we can make more of the transport/all other power electrical, with the nuclear backbone...

bit more on the French success

claims that, due to their reliance on nuclear power, France's carbon emissions per kWh are less than 1/10 that of Germany and the UK, and 1/13 that of Denmark, which has no nuclear plants. Its emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide have been reduced by 70% over 20 years, even though the total power output has tripled in that time.[10] In the same Ipsos poll, 88 percent of the population believe that reducing the greenhouse effect was a major reason to continue using nuclear power.[6] French environmentalist Bruno Comby started the group Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy, and says, "If well-managed, nuclear energy is very clean, does not create polluting gases in the atmosphere, produces very little waste and does not contribute to the greenhouse effect".[11]

[Perfection]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
if US as worlds biggest economy was following the French exmple, a lot of the current issues both in foreign policy, and the environment would be easily averted...

Not really, we mine our own coal. Our problem is with oil used in transportation, not grid power.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Did you hear about the planned-attempt to tap into the power of the Gulf Stream off of Florida by putting turbines at the bottom of the sea? The problem with it I see is that, at least initially, they appear to be copying the design of wind turbines and putting them underwater. I think that the water pressure will prove to much for those thin blades and that they should go to helix-shaped blades instead. But we shall see.

Isn't there a distinct possibility that the flood of cold water from melting glaciers up north (due to global warming) will short-circuit the Gulf Stream? I know it happened at the end of the last ice age. Of course, if that happens an obsolete power plant or two is the least of our worries, but still...

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Perfection
Not really, we mine our own coal. Our problem is with oil used in transportation, not grid power.

going by this

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

which shows that you "have to" use about 28% of all energy use from oil, for transportation, while in reality Oil is about 40% of all energy use in US... and coal/gas all that can be relatively easily replaced by nuclear has the bulk of the rest, so that nuclear is only about 10% of the total, with renewable sources adding a few % points on top...

reliance on nuclear would off course kill the whole Kyoto/environmental issues, but also you would cut the oil reliance in half roughly (I as sure that a good % of transportation can be made electrical as well, like trains for example... to put transport a few % points into electric sources ) so you could relatively easily cut from current 20bn barrels a day almost 10bn by going nuclear, and electrical in transportation where feasible... and you already produce about 6bn per day - .you could cut the imports by 2/3rds - foreign policy would be reigned in as I am sure you could get the rest easily from Canada/Venezuela.. and cut the dependence on ME and "volatile" states completely...

but off course this is not the current trend in US, only a viable scenario...

[Impaler[WrG]]

Nuclear power is the most expensive form of power ever invented, the French chose it back in the 70's as their national power source because at that time Wind and Solar were still hugely expensive. Now Wind is so cheap its within striking distance of Coal and Solar is half what Nuclear cost. Thus their is no intelligent reason to go Nuclear now. The same money spent now on Nuclear would provide less power then the same money spent on Wind and Solar power. Night time power consumption could be satisfied by storing Solar/Wind power or use of Geothermal which has been ignored far too long.