"CRUDE" oil, an absolute must see program !!!

Ok hands up who thinks the ******* went to the moon, (mmm looking around) --not many. My hands are firmly at my side.

Oh this would be a good thread. I know a lot about this.

 

Boats?

 

Kubric movies...

 

OIL is not the problem,

Energy is not the problem,

The problem is moving the energy (cheaply) to where its needed,

And storing it for use when its being created , but the demand is low.


Battery tech is FINALLY starting to change (125 years waiting) , and the newest power transmission experiments seem to prove Edison (champion of DC) was right and Telsa (champion of AC) was wrong.

The Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times" is working , and the tech being perfected today will solve the "oil problem" as soon as it beats oil on price.

The use of Kerosene will probably continue in jet aircraft for at least 2 more model generations, but the days of oil or gas in personal transport is coming to a rapid end.

"Rick has a good point about the fact that new technologies take a significant period of years from initial development to useful and common commercial deployment. I don't accept 30 years as a given, but it is good to remember that efforts to develop technologies based, for example, on alternative fuels, will most likely take at least 15-20 years, perhaps more, to become commonplace."

REALLY ?

How long did it take the internet to change the world? As long as it took to bury some fiber cable in most places.

Why would cheap transportation take 3 decades for acceptance, when the internet took less than one?

AS usual politicians only need to step out of the way , to make advances.

FF

 

my dads whole house runs on 12v,,,,,,sad thing is he needs a generator to charge up his batteries hehe

 

Fred,

I agree with you on all of your comments above. They apply to many forms of energy. Hydrogen will become a viable energy source only when practical storage and transport methods are developed, or when the cost of dispersed generation plants becomes justifiable. As you said, development will accelerate with higher costs for oil and gasoline. You're right on electrical power also; the principle obstacle to practical electric power for autos has been battery development.

Here you and I disagree, although I think our difference is only over time estimates for technology deployment.

Cheap transportation would be accepted readily and rapidly ... but it's not here yet. It will take years of development to reduce the cost of producing plug-in or fuel cell powered vehicles, for example. Meanwhile there are the indirect but very real costs of alternative power. Nearly all technologies currently use energy and create waste products in large quantities in the process of making the alternative energy source.

Solar power seems like a relatively easy-to-implement technology, but it took more than 30 years of development to reach the current generation of more efficient PV cells. Developing and deploying the transportation and storage capabilities you correctly identify as major stepping stones on the road to practical alternative energy will take years, even without the interference of politicians. The Internet changed the world very rapidly, but I think you're wrong to call that a matter of a year or two. The technology that made the Internet possible is computer hardware and fiber optic cable. It took 30-40 years from initial prototypes to inexpensive desktop systems suitable for home use and fiber optic cable reliable and cost effective enough to be deployed across the oceans.

Your final comment on politicians is on target. Too often government subsidies go, not to support development of promising technologies, but to support technologies whose advocates have bought the ears of those who control government purse strings.

 

go corn,,,,it itch's ya insides fer ya

 

I'm watching it now, as I pay some bills.

Good stuff.

 

So what if it takes 30 years for a technology to develop and become widely accepted? Almost any alternative energy source and storage method being discussed today existed in labs decades ago, so the stipulated time has already elapsed. The problem is to achieve economy. As I see it, alternatives are creeping down in cost and fossile fuel is going up. My guess, which is nothing but a guess, is that the crossover will be somewhere around EUR 2 - 3per liter diesel (or it's energy equivalent). That's not going to stop me from using my boat. There are already bio diesel substitutes available for a fraction of what I would be willing to pay before I get sails.

At the onset of WW2 it took the Swedish car community a couple of years to convert to wood gas and to set up a distribution chain for the fuel. The need was there.

Erik

 

Erik,

All of our estimates of the crossover point are just that, estimates. Personally, I think it will be a process, already begun. The crossover will be a wide band, rather than a single point. Somewhere in the future we'll probably have a wide mix of energy sources in use, as well as far more efficient ways to convert energy into work.

 

all ya need is old vegetable oil and you can run ya diesels without changing anything,,,for long time use you jus need diff. injectors and filter.,,,,,is a safe way of keeping emergency fuel on board heh ,,,,plus it attracts all the fat women as ya motor along hehe

 

Hydrogen

Unless it's from a natural gas well, hydrogen is right now a form of energy storage not an energy source. It won't become an energy source until some means is found (perhaps artificial photosynthesis) that takes less energy to split hydrogen from water than what you get back.

 

The recycled old veggie oil routine is great. There is a technology based on heating organic material under high pressure to break it down into oil products, similar to the way synthetic diamonds are made. The best part of that is that the contents of landfills are a feedstock. Good way to recycle the huge amounts of waste we produce. The process was proven on a lab scale 10-12 years ago, then a pilot plant was set up in Philadelphia. After a year or two of successful development at that level, the company began construction of a small commercial plant, which is operating now. The process is claimed to be 80 - 85% efficient, meaning it uses much less energy than typical ethanol and hydrogen production processes.

Widespread use has been delayed by unforseen problems at the Missouri plant. Most of the problems are typical of development of a new technology: changes in outside circumstances affecting the business model, and complaints and lawsuits by neighbors relating to odors. It appears that many of the complaints were inaccurate, as the plant is in the midst of a region filled with industrial plants and a slaughterhouse and poultry processing plant, all of which produce odors, and several lawsuits cited odors during periods when the plant was not operating. Nearly all lawsuits have been ruled as being without merit, but new ones are filed.

These are typical teething problems for new technologies. Ultimately, I believe, they will be resolved and there will be another source of fuel not dependent on Third World governments or the diversion of farmland from food production. The end product would make a good fuel for diesels.

http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2003/Anything-Into-Oil1may03.htm

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