TEA Parties

[sugarpop]

Whatever. There is more than one reason to get off of oil. Electric cars are only one way to go. I would prefer we have choices. Electric, biofuel, compressed air, hybrids...

I would also prefer no more coal plants be built, and people who own those plants have to pay big taxes. There is no such thing a "clean" coal.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

It may make us feel better and make the coal companies and power companies rich, but it is not going to improve the environment.

I really think that we will have to go nuclear soon. The safety standards have been raised and it is cleaner and more practical than any other option. Although, a lot of research is going into other clean alternative energy sources (wind, solar) and in a few decades, those will start to become more viable options as well.

[tw]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Electric cars are only one way to go. I would prefer we have choices. Electric, biofuel, compressed air, hybrids...

There is no viable replacement for fossil fuels (petroleum). The electric car is the hybrid. Hydrogen was never a viable fuel - could not even work in theory. Compressed air - do the thermodynamics. Also not viable. Biofuels - myths. Yes, there are exceptions just like some farmers still use the old wind mill for backup electricity. But face reality. We have no viable alternative to current petroleum transportation systems for the next 30 years. And then, only in limited applications.

Time to start getting smart about it. The only solution is doing more with less. Smart as in letting scientists – not White House lawyers – write the science papers.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by tw

Biofuels - myths.

Originally Posted by tw

I never said they are a myth.

Tw, if you were fully competent, you'd copyedit -- it might help with your memory problems. But oh, no, that might make you less the wacko extremist we all know you are. (You make adhominem attacks on you mandatory, you know. Or you don't know, and demonstrate that exquisite incompetence yet again.)

You continue your bad behavior here:

Originally Posted by tw

You cannot post logically. Everything is typical of extremists complete with the Rush Limbaugh insults.

-- an instant adhominem bellow of your own, and with what need? And you'll never ever improve, you damned fool. You never wanted to. Your emotional development came to a halt at about age four, five tops. It is grotesque. Vulcan, schmulcan; your personality prevents adult thinking ever being manifest, owing to the stupid emotional needs of your ruling lizard brain. Look at how well the anti-Limbaugh Left is served: it has you! Mister Thoughtless.

Now in the hope that you might demonstrate some rare flash of competence, let's hear this "quantum physics" idea explained more fully, and how it might have anything to do with powering transportation.

Or are we to suppose you believed every word of The Republican War On Science?

[sugarpop]

They are viable now. I'm sick of people saying they aren't viable. They are.

[glatt]

sure, they are viable when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. Neither of those things are happening at the moment here.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

They are viable now. I'm sick of people saying they aren't viable. They are.

They aren't nearly as efficient as they could be. Here in Minnesota they identified a very strong wind draft that occurs about 500ft (or meters) above the surface that happens every night. If that can be exploited, it can create a lot of energy. More research as that will push the technology significant steps further.

Either way, these technologies need to prove themselves to the public before mainstream use. That is in the process. The technology will grow.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

They aren't nearly as efficient as they could be. Here in Minnesota they identified a very strong wind draft that occurs about 500ft (or meters) above the surface that happens every night. If that can be exploited, it can create a lot of energy. More research as that will push the technology significant steps further.

Either way, these technologies need to prove themselves to the public before mainstream use. That is in the process. The technology will grow.

They have proven themselves. But to be clear, are you arguing we shouldn't do it because they aren't as efficient as they could be, even though they are already more efficient than what we're using now? yea, that makes a whole lotta sense.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

They have proven themselves. But to be clear, are you arguing we shouldn't do it because they aren't as efficient as they could be, even though they are already more efficient than what we're using now? yea, that makes a whole lotta sense.

Are they realistic to use? Whats the price?

[sugarpop]

The sun shines here almost all of the time. And in California and the southwestern states.

[sugarpop]

That is complete bullshit. The Tesla is an all electric vehicle and is already being sold. Granted the original car is a sports car that many people can't afford, but they also have a family car coming out. It is about the price of a Lexus or Mercedes. The cars can go up to 300 miles on a single charge. http://www.teslamotors.com/

Biofuels are not a myth. I know several people who changed their diesel engines over to biofuels. Willie Nelson's tour bus runs on biofuels. We have trolly car in Savannah that is a hybrid; it is an electric trolly that uses biofuels. So please stop spreading lies about alternatives.

[tw]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Biofuels are not a myth.

I never said they are a myth. After all, golf carts have been operating for generations. Ethanol has been in Brazil for decades. But I said replacements for petroleum based transportation fuels are not viable. We have and are stuck with petroleum energy sources for generations to come. Even in theory, there is no viable alternative. There is just no other energy source that packs so many joules in that same weight.

Current solutions are the same ones we needed to implement even in the 1970s. In ten gallons of gasoline, how much energy actually does any productive work? Between one and two gallons. The rest gets wasted - does nothing productive. Therein lays the problem. Even upping that number to three out of ten gallons is a major accomplishment. Not only are we stuck with petroleum. Look at the numbers. Solutions are possible. But only if we stop listening to wacko extremists and start demanding more innovation.

Where could other energy sources come from? Even nuclear is not a viable solution if we do not solve the waste problem? But quantum physics - a potential source of future solutions - has been seriously impeded in America. Especially when White House lawyers rewrote research papers for the greater glory of their political agenda. Part of the contempt for "doing more with less" that has been particularly promoted by extremists of the past decade. Even quantum physic research must now leave America for nations that more wanted to advance mankind.

Yes, there are other energy sources that can supplement our petroleum demands. But we are stuck with and have no *viable* alternatives to petroleum.

[slang]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Biofuels are not a myth.

Hello SP

I must say in all honesty that most everything that you post makes my trigger finger twitch and the word "bullshit" slip out of my mouth quite loudly.

We do however agree on the biofuels issue. Food for fuel? That does not have to be the case. How many people eat marine algae as a food stapel? Not many. I believe that ethanol is viable through algae.

Ethanol alone is not the answer and wont replace gas as a motor fuel. It seems possible to me that 50/50 gas ethanol would make a huge difference in energy imports and allow more job/business opportunities here in the US. Not bullshit census jobs, real jobs that pay and that are sustainable.

With some luck and good planning I should be able to study and experiment more on the subject in the coming months on my next great adventure back to the Philippine islands.

The coastal waters are warm enough year round to allow continuous harvesting of algae and the islands combined have about 25k miles of coastline to accomplish this. The US, on the other hand has about half of that length of coastline and much of that is out of the temperature range of many types of algae.

This is something that I'm quite serious about investigating. It seems possible that with all the conditions present today that the PI could provide a good portion of alcohol to it's fuel market as well as possibly China's.

Lots of "ifs" in there but it's technically possible IMO.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by slang

Lots of "ifs" in there but it's technically possible IMO.

It's being done. Boeing is pushing it bigtime, convincing several jet engine makers and the US Air Force to test it successfully. Teeming up with a couple of Aussie outfits to work on reliable mass production techniques from algae. It's not ready for prime time but they've made impressive progress and see it as a viable solution for aircraft.

[slang]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Teeming up with a couple of Aussie outfits to work on reliable mass production techniques from algae.

Which coastline are they proposing to set up production?

Southern Cali would be nearly perfect. That means it will not be done there the way things work.

I've not seen the published data on the emissions but heard in an interview that it's "nearly as clean as hydrogen while being much more economical."