@ Dan-i-Am

I'm all for alternative energy exploration, but it's up to the private sector. The (American) government is out of money.

Also, I think Al Gore's doomsday predictions are a little far-fetched. Back in the '70s, environmentalists said we wouldn't see the year 2000. An economic doomsday due to hyperinflation is much more likely.

Also, I really hope the recent events in Japan don't scare people away from nuclear power. It's the only practical solution to fossil fuels. You would need a solar panel the size of Arizona to power the United States. Wind power isn't much better.

Energy is dangerous. Refineries can blow up and nuclear plants can melt down. Wind and solar aren't going to meet our energy needs.

Hydro power is quite lucrative and renewable...Niagara Falls powers quite a bit of New York and Ontario. But I also think that nuclear is a good way to go.

The problem with hydro is that it is limited. You run out of rivers after a while.

@Warrior

Yeah, but solar and wind can be used to mitigate the amount of other types of energy sources.

We are basicly out of Hydro sources in the US, and Europe. Geo thermal might be viable in some areas. Even older mountains like the Ozarks and the Appalachians still have hot spots that might be usable.

@Warspite
We are basicly out of Hydro sources in the US, and Europe.

Presumably you are not including tidal and wave sources in this 'Hydro' assertion?

@ The Master warrior
I'm all for alternative energy exploration, but it's up to the private sector.

Trouble is that there are powerful vested interests who like things just the way they are.

"Trouble is that there are powerful vested interests who like things just the way they are."

A close relative of mine teaches electrical engineering at a semi-prominent California university, and has done work for a lot of big companies and institutions that are household names. He says Big Oil buys up all the patents on cost-effective energy technology to keep them off the market and keep us all hooked on the Black Gold.

Big oil can only buy patents that are for sale. If someone invents a better mouse trap and wants to change the world they can refuse to sell the patents and lease the rights to the company of their choice.

That's right Draugnar, the oil companys have just been lucky these past 6 decades or so, and Santa Clause is real as well!

@ Tolstoy

It is not only about oil, there are big fish in the nuclear lobby too.....

Pass this one on to your relative, it reports the actions of a brave and principled man:

''Never before had the head of a renewable energy programme been kept out of a conference to discuss his own discipline. Grove-Palmer, and his friends, found it almost unbelievable that the government planned to discuss wave energy without the presence of the head of the programme. But they did.''

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2002/oct/02/guardianobituaries

@ TMW: Wind, solar, hydro powers aren't going to do it alone, but those combined with nuclear and less of a dependence on fossil fuels would work great. Solar and wind, in the correct areas, can work wonders!

Another side rant, There are people who are against wind power because it "makes the area wind turbines and such are in less appealing" and that it will "kill wildlife". Can anyone present a logical side to that argument, because I'd love to hear it! I think windmills look a lot better than a smokestack. And Okay, a handful of birds may die per windmill, how about the massive amount of wildlife affected by the remnants of fossil fuels.

Further to my last post, the most promising of these devices was/is ''Salter's Duck'', here is how the establishment dealt/deals with it

Salter’s Duck emerged from being put through the mill with a strongly favourable report: this was handed to RPT who “reproduced it with a number of ‘nots,’ just simple
negations, and put it into their final report to ETSU

Enemies of progress Scuppering the waves: how they tried to repelm clean energy

from

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/beech/spp/2002/00000029/00000001/art00003

or

http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/beech/03023427/v29n1/s3.pdf?expires=1300350389&id=61775696&titleid=898&accname=Guest+User&checksum=1076AD33E5E80216D5BEC4A6E4389A00

This reminds me of a documentary I watched called "Who killed the electric car?" I mean the new electric car that is about 2x more efficient than an internal combustion engine. It had a trial run, it was a huge success, but for whatever reason, they stopped wanting to sell it, and scrapped all the trial cars and buried the designs. I think the government forced them to at least attempt to market it so they could reach their targets for 2012, so what happened was the company "advertised" it by pointing out all the flaws and avoiding any of the benefits in a series of telemarketing calls.

They then moved onto hydrogen powered cars, which are completely stupid because they're the same as electric cars, but with an extra inefficient process. (electricity to chemical back to electricity) The suspicion is that they wouldn't sell the electric cars because the fuel comes off the grid, rather than a petrol station where royalties are possible. (like hydrogen fuel)

You have to remember that, while electric cars are seemingly efficient, electric current still has to be produced, most often from coal, oil, or uranium.

Biggest problem electric cars have is the battery, which can hold only limited energy. Untill bateries are wastly improved, hybrid car is the practical alternative.

Back to topic...
Politicians deciding on global warming is pretty... selfserving. They are obviously protecting big CO2 producers, while big mayority of scientiest believe that decrease in CO2 production is a worthwhile long term goal.

@fiddler - Sarcasm aside, the problem is only big oil and their friends are funding the alternative energy research on automobiles. So the people with no interest in seeing change control any potential for change. E85 is an example where big oil wasn't big enough to buy out the patent because the farm industry found a new way to make money with it. Flex fuel vehicles are all over the road in the Midwest and most stations have at least one E85 pump and many have biodiesel too.

So rathervthan be a sarcastic grabass fucktard, research the topic a bit and you won't look like you have pudding for brains.

To address the "unappealing wind farms" issue...those suckers are loud. Cosmetically not so bad, but noise is a definite issue. As for hydro power being tapped out...we're still getting an awful lot of it, and will continue to do so. We can't find new rivers, but we can improve processes.

Has anyone looked into LP as a means of generating energy? It's manufacturable and clean.

The funny thing about FlexFuel is that it was around for a lot longer than we knew it was around. The Big Three made the FlexFuel engines to get their cars better fuel economy to meet federal guidelines, and then decided there was no need to manufacture two types of engines, one that was Flex and one that was not. So a number of cars that aren't advertised as FlexFuel actually ARE Flex, but make sure to research it before you go ahead and pour some in.

"Even older mountains like the Ozarks and the Appalachians still have hot spots that might be usable. "

like centralia, PA.

That's not a hotspot, that's a coal fire. There's a difference.

details.

Not all wind farms have to be noisy. Horizontal axis wind turbines are a lot smaller, and can be used to power individual buildings and such. If you live in a frequently windy area, why not have one installed on every roof or something? If they become common, their cost will drop and it will help clean up energy consumption

"Wind, solar, hydro powers aren't going to do it alone, but those combined with nuclear and less of a dependence on fossil fuels would work great. Solar and wind, in the correct areas, can work wonders!"

I agree.

@ fulhamish

""I'm all for alternative energy exploration, but it's up to the private sector."

Trouble is that there are powerful vested interests who like things just the way they are."

You're right, but the government doesn't have the money to develop alternative energy. Oil prices are going up. Eventually, consumers will be forced to buy electric and/or hydrogen powered cars. In 30 or 40 years, "Big Oil" won't be very powerful. Never underestimate the power of the free market.

I'm personally more excited about hydrogen than I am about electric cars. Electric cars would (at least in the near future) be powered mostly by coal, the dirtiest of fossil fuels. Hydrogen is one of the most common elements on Earth, and water (also quite common) can easily be decomposed into hydrogen fuel and oxygen gas through electrolysis. The electrical current required for electrolysis could be provided by alternative energy sources. The hydrogen car would release water vapor as exhaust, and the water would go back into the water cycle.

The only problem is the extreme flammability of hydrogen gas. If they can figure out how to make a fuel tank that doesn't explode, the hydrogen fuel cell car will be a reality.

Bounce. I spent a lot of time typing that, and, frankly, some acknowledgement would be appreciated.

Anybody?

The problems with Hydrogen is the storage density. That is the volume needed to store the gas form compared to the equilvent energy as propane, NG or gasoline. Liquid Hydrogen is difficult and expensive to create and store. Than the amout of energy used to covert H2O into H2 is a large negative also. However the good news is that the flammability problem is no worse than gasoline. Numerous gas fires are started by a static charge every year at the pump. Simple quick connects like that are used for propane or NG could work better and be safer than pouring gas into a open tank.

In a significantly less informed note, I find those floating wind generators interesting.

@ warsprite

The nice thing about hydrogen is that it is fairly close to gasoline in terms of practicality. Once we figure out how to transport it and store it, we'll have the problem solved. You can refuel a hydrogen car much like a conventional car. You don't need to wait for it to charge, like an electric car.

warsprite, wouldn't hydrogen gas explode violently, instead of burning evenly like gasoline?

@ Warspite re electric/hydrogen powered cars.
I am honestly not being deliberately difficult but why do we need to put another step in the process? We alrady have the electricity transmission network (national grid) in place, what would be the overwhelming benefit of introducing another energy distribution system?

The_Master_Warrior: The electrical current required for electrolysis could be provided by alternative energy sources.

But didn't you say that electric cars wouldn't work because the electricity would be generated mainly by coal? How then. can you say that electrolysis, which requires just the same amount, if not more electricity, can be powered by alternative energy sources?
That doesn't make sense. Admit it.

@Gobbledydook
But didn't you say that electric cars wouldn't work because the electricity would be generated mainly by coal?

To be fair to Warspite what nobody has yet said is theat electric cars don't ''work'' because of battery weight and life problems. It is not my field but I understand that these are being increasingly addressed. Of course, if a fraction of the resources were to be put into this problem as opposed to, say, the exploitation of the tar sands, it would have been resolved long ago. That, however, is capitalism for you, it often moves against the general interest as a consequence of protecting the interests of the rich and powerful.

yeh but hydrogen makes a lot of sense on many levels. It is reasonably complicated so it keeps mechanics in work, it keeps the fuel companies in business, and most important of all, it means we can all have throaty V8s!

You're right, but the government doesn't have the money to develop alternative energy. Oil prices are going up. Eventually, consumers will be forced to buy electric and/or hydrogen powered cars. In 30 or 40 years, "Big Oil" won't be very powerful. Never underestimate the power of the free market.

No one is suggesting that the government should actually be responsible for actually inventing alternate energy sources, that's not the government's job. But at the moment the government isn't really in a position to provide tax incentives or legislation friendly to the development of new energy sources by companies, the way big oil has the government in it's pocket. If there are no hydrogen or electric cars on the market then no one can buy them. I understand your argument about the free market but that's a fairy tale, a hypothetical. The market isn't free. It's corrupted by collusion and cartels of fossil fuels. And it's also not isolated from the rest of society. Lots of other things have an influence as well, and unfortunately one of those things are the incredibly powerful lobby groups for established corporate interests like... any guesses? If you said Big oil, you just won a free all expenses paid trip to Saudi Arabia, flying in an airplane (which won't be powered by hydrogen or electricity any time soon). OK I'm not actually buying you a trip anywhere, but I think my point stands.

Errr, Sorry I meant to copy something TMW had said into that comment to make it clear that was a reply to him. Sorry.

Err wait, i did quote TMW, I just forgot to put it in quotes and attribute it. My bad.

@Mafiaalligator
The market isn't free. It's corrupted by collusion and cartels of fossil fuels.

Absolutely, but I would add nuclear to this list of cartels.

I certainly would not remove nuclear from said list of cartels.

@TMW I think it depends on concentration, if it's not in an enclosed area, it could just flashburn. The Hindenburg burned and did not explode. Gasoline fumes can also explode, recall that's how internalcombustion engines works. Hydrogen also disperses quicker were gasoline fumes being heavyer than air can hang around in vaper pools for awhile. A few fools have blown up their garage or home buy filling the mower indoors or storing gas near a water heater. I think it's more a matter of using comman sense. Hydrogen storage issue for cars and alternate means of production could be viable soon. Than it would be an issue of the infrastructure.

@ Gobbledygook

Yeah, that doesn't make sense. But I figured by the time hydrogen cars are developed and electrolysis plants are built, we'll have renewable energy developed to an extent.

@ Mafialligator

Free market isn't perfect, but I think it is the best type of economy in prosperous times. In economic downturns like the current one, I advocate strong protectionism.

@ warsprite

Actually, internal combustion is not an "explosion", but a very, very, rapid burn. When the fuel "explodes", it is actually called "detonation", or "preignition", and is very bad for the engine. Poorly tuned cars or piston airplanes burning the wrong fuel can experience detonation.

@TMW A very very rapid burn, explosion, your spliting hairs. An chemical explosion can be described as a very very rapid burn, and the other way around. Preignition is a very very rapid burn just at the wrong time.

I am not splitting hairs if we are talking about internal combustion engines. Detonation and regular operation are very different.

TMW Actually you are. The difference between preigintion and controled ignition is the timeing and source of ignition. They both still are basicly explosions. per wiki "An explosion is a rapid increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases." This describes what happens in a engine even under normal operation.

Okay, you have me on preignition. But detonation and normal ignition are different.