other energy sources

21 posts

Flag Post

biofuels,Biomass,Geothermal,Hydro power, tidal power, wave power, and wind power.

I don’t know but im going to be a driver soon I hope and im not going to pay all this fucking money for gas we need to change what we run on.

why don’t we make the change.

In brazil they use ethenol from sugar cane.

why can’t we change is it cause someone is making too much money from gas.

some companys are starting to change. But does not seem like our goverment care this is why we don’t have money.

if you were prident what would you do to slove the problem?

 
Flag Post

If I where president, I’d get out of the way as best I can and nothing else. The war and deficit spending is causing a significant portion of the price inflation your probably seeing.

Nothing more is needed. As the price of fossil fuels increases and alternative energy technologies become more sophisticated, the incentive to switch will become much stronger.

Until then, the high price on fuel should provide a strong incentive to conserve energy. Consider getting double pane windows. Learn to cook and watch your budget before eating out. Don’t buy that hummer. Walk if you don’t have far to go. A lot more people are riding buses these days – expect to see routes and schedules become more accommodating.

Also, government subsidies for alternatives tend to be expensive and counterproductive. What you don’t pay directly to merchants in this regard ends up being paid for through taxes collected against your labor, even if you’d prefer to have no part of it, whether or not you need the money for something else, like food.

 
Flag Post

buses are for kids your not really going to ride the bus when your 25 are you.

 
Flag Post

why not?

 
Flag Post

Well, since you assert that the bus is beneath you, by reason of age, then I don’t see why you bother complaining about the expensive transportation – you’re obviously willing to pay for the luxury.

 
Flag Post

Right now even solar energy is more expensive… Despite what you call “High Prices”, this is relatively low compared to alot of the world (look at Britain). You must have grown up when energy was super cheap (even cheaper than now)

We shouldn’t switch to biofuels, because that messes up the world economy big time (many food products have doubled their prices), and it still emits greenhouse gases[=bad].

What would I do if I was president? Stop tampering with other countries and start trying to fix my own.

 
Flag Post

I like that USA frist I think or your country what ever it may be.
but gas is the reason why were low on money and the economy is bad

 
Flag Post

The answer is in our space programs-it’s a completion with china! There’s a university that has perfected
(on a computer) a method of nuclear every based of 1 molecule with no waste! It can supply many gigawats of energy all off 1 atom of H3, 1 problem, h3 is only found on the moon, and any samples we have taken back have dropped that electron to become a helium molecule. China also has these plans, it’s a race to the first to recover a canister of this H3. Since Chinas people have basically no say in what the government does, and we have to many liberals saying no to nasa, what ever they are doing, china will probably beat us to this, to any person this isn’t a problem, they would say that this would say that the people in the states would wise up, then retrieve it for ourselves, problem there is china will have unlimited energy, they then want to claim and start a city on the moon. The amount of time it would take is long, but if the states don’t start until china has succeeded, china will have the time. As how this effects oil companies, they are going to charge more as the states or china gets closer, 1 to build a nice little sum of cash to live on because when some1 perfects the h3 generator they will need like 1 barren a month to oil this machine, it will all be electric, 2, it will prolong the launch of the missions since the rockets use the oil.-that’s my summary, if you want more info google “h3 generator” if you want me to read a response I wont be on here much for the next week or so, so post it as a shout on my page.

 
Flag Post

Do you have a source for any of that because it seems really unlikely to me. Sounds more like the premise for a Michael Crichton novel or something.

 
Flag Post

Yo guys, you forgot the nuclear fuel rods. If they explode, you will all die from the gamma radiation.

 
Flag Post

Hardly anyone died when Chernobyl blew up. Also, its highly unlikely that those things blow up, and with everyone being so cautious with them these days, I don’t think they ever would.

 
Flag Post

http://www.canada.com/topics/technology/science/story.html?id=27d00cc6-f0b8-444b-9934-5ebbaf685279

 
Flag Post

Bigger is better.

 
Flag Post

As I understand it, modern nuclear power plants could easily meet our electrical grid needs while facilities like Yucca Mountain could deal with the waste products with negligible environmental damage. Fueling cars is a little bit trickier, assuming that hydrogen fueling is truly as inefficient/limited/expensive/unpromising as I hear it is. Then again, with cheap, plentiful powering from nuclear plants, perhaps electric cars and home-based charging stations could become realistic.

 
Flag Post

have you guys heared of the air car there working on

 
Flag Post

Okay, seriously. You think that we’ll get more energy from these chemicals on the moon than we lose from rocketing up giant space ships to pick them up? That’s just silly. Also, most all of these “green” energy sources aren’t really that green (name one and I will tell you why). They are renewable, but that won’t do us any good if the entire world is a scorched wasteland by the time we would have run out of oil anyway. Really, I’d rather keep gas prices up so that everyone stops pouring CO2 into the atmosphere. Let’s put it this way. Venus has roughly the same amount of greenhouse gases as Earth. The main difference is that Venus’s gases are in the atmosphere. The temperature on Venus is 864 degrees Fahrenheit. And, as we know, it is hotter than Mercury despite being further from the sun, so we know that it’s mainly the greenhouse gases causing it to be so hot. Now, this probably doesn’t fit too well with humanity’s little strategy of pumping carbon out of the ground and into the atmosphere as fast as possible, now, does it?

Edit: I may have lied, actually. Nuclear power isn’t even close to entirely green (they only last so long, and plenty of CO2 is released in the production of the plant), but it may be green enough that we wouldn’t be entirely scorched by the time we would have ran out of oil, had we not switched. Wonderful thought, isn’t it?

 
Flag Post

make a man-made substance that is very durable,renewable and make thousands of generators on the moon.place several robots there to make sure everything is o.k. put all the fossil fuels in containers.try to somewhat speed up time and create more fossil fuels.Try mining on other planets.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by micdoter:

make a man-made substance that is very durable,renewable and make thousands of generators on the moon.place several robots there to make sure everything is o.k. put all the fossil fuels in containers.try to somewhat speed up time and create more fossil fuels.Try mining on other planets.

A 4 year bump for gibberish?

 
Flag Post

I realise this is a very old, necroed thread, but I would like to tear apart one ofthe last pre-necro replies:

Originally posted by Mirage37:

Okay, seriously. You think that we’ll get more energy from these chemicals on the moon than we lose from rocketing up giant space ships to pick them up?

If we were to do it that way, no. However, we don’t have to.

Mine the materials on the moon, process them into alloys on the moon itself. This prevents pollution from the heavy industry affecting Earth’s atmosphere.

Then, load the materials into a capsule, and launch using a rail gun, fueled itself by materials native to the moon, and photonic panels on unused lunar surface. Given tht the moon is only approx one sixth the mass ofthe Earth, this becomes economical. We’re not looking to slingshot the capsules at the Earth, but only send them into orbit with escape velocity from the moon. Let Earth’s natural gravity well work for us. it’ll capture the escaping shells and drag them down towards it.

What does it matter if they take a couple of years of drifting to get from the moon to Earth orbit this way? They’re only materials. They’ll keep.

Maintain one (or more) orbital facility to intercept these pods via small-thrust units. They’re launching from orbit, not from a planetary surface, so these tugs are cheap to run. To get the pods down to Earth, fit them with parachutes, and aim them from orbit at a moderately large body of water such as a lake, for a splash-dive. The water’ll soak up a lot more impact trauma than land will, and a landlocked lake will deal with impact waves in a controlled fashion whereas coastline will not. Combined with the chutes, this’ll get the minerals to Earth very cheaply and effectively, with very little use of our own resources.

No ‘giant rockets’ required.

Later, when we have space tethers, they can take the place of the capsule free-fall, with vertical trains running up and down their length. However, that is very much a more longterm proposition.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator