Hydro-Powered Stang
6/9/04, 12:29 AM
#121
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: February 18, 2004
Posts: 874
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has been an interesting thread.
But not once has anyone remembered one important little detail:
Oil is used for more than just powering your car folks - it's also a critical component for lubricating ANY internal combustion engine...as well as other numerous key components. We might not need to burn it to power the cars of the future, but we still need it to lubricate the engine and other mechanicals...
...and if you want that PLASTIC dashboard, well, where do you guys think plastic comes from?
Bottom line: We'll still need to refine oil for many purposes for some time to come - and that process will never be environmentally friendly.
[This message was proudly brought to you by Halliburton Corp. ]
But not once has anyone remembered one important little detail:
Oil is used for more than just powering your car folks - it's also a critical component for lubricating ANY internal combustion engine...as well as other numerous key components. We might not need to burn it to power the cars of the future, but we still need it to lubricate the engine and other mechanicals...
...and if you want that PLASTIC dashboard, well, where do you guys think plastic comes from?
Bottom line: We'll still need to refine oil for many purposes for some time to come - and that process will never be environmentally friendly.
[This message was proudly brought to you by Halliburton Corp. ]
6/9/04, 03:00 AM
#124
Also, there are a lot of synthetic motor oils out there. Vegetable based oils are also another alternative, since the mulch left over can be used as fodder on farms.
As for plastics, they're are alternatives to everything that is plastic, and if it's not "cost effective" enough, then there is always recycled plastic as well as plastic derived from other oils, like, *gasp* vegetable oil.
Yes, oil refineries won't dissappear over night. Again that's a "I want instant gratification and I want it RIGHT NOW" type of situation. It's not going to happen.
As for this "hydrogen hitmen" thing, as the unofficial leader (or at least the most outspoken advocate for Hydrogen ICE here) I say no. It's too negative. It's like "Pro-Life Mafia" or "Clean Air Assassins". I'm not wanting to kill anyone, if anything I'm wanting to save lives by preventing the world from being choked to death with smog. I know it's meant as a joke, but it sends the wrong message to people who aren't sure of their opinion on the subject. I am not a Hydrogen Hitman.
All I ask from any of you is that you draw your own well-grounded opinion from all of this. Take one side with the other, weigh them out, do some research of your own. I don't care what you come up with, as long as you keep an open mind when reading each side's information. I've made clear how I feel about the situation, now make your own decision, and make it a well-informed one.
As for plastics, they're are alternatives to everything that is plastic, and if it's not "cost effective" enough, then there is always recycled plastic as well as plastic derived from other oils, like, *gasp* vegetable oil.
Yes, oil refineries won't dissappear over night. Again that's a "I want instant gratification and I want it RIGHT NOW" type of situation. It's not going to happen.
As for this "hydrogen hitmen" thing, as the unofficial leader (or at least the most outspoken advocate for Hydrogen ICE here) I say no. It's too negative. It's like "Pro-Life Mafia" or "Clean Air Assassins". I'm not wanting to kill anyone, if anything I'm wanting to save lives by preventing the world from being choked to death with smog. I know it's meant as a joke, but it sends the wrong message to people who aren't sure of their opinion on the subject. I am not a Hydrogen Hitman.
All I ask from any of you is that you draw your own well-grounded opinion from all of this. Take one side with the other, weigh them out, do some research of your own. I don't care what you come up with, as long as you keep an open mind when reading each side's information. I've made clear how I feel about the situation, now make your own decision, and make it a well-informed one.
6/9/04, 06:01 AM
#125
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: March 28, 2004
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
okay... I'll try to explain the problem with hydro-powered cars, okay? 
here you go:
There are, as stated earlier, two ways to make a car move using hydrogen:
1) Combustion engine. You put the hydrogen (maybe not in pure H2 form, dunno) into the engine that looks just like a gas engine and burn it.
2) Fuel cells. You put H2 and O2 together: H2 + 2O2 -> 2H2O and water is the result. This produces electricity which then powers an electric motor. Usually you don't use pure H2 due to the fact that it's dangerous and highly explosive, but rather Methanol or something like that. There are different approaches, some use frozen hydrogen under high pressure etc.
The problem about hydrogen powered engines, be it directly (combustion engine) or using fuel cells and electric motors (which aren't exciting if you ask me
) is that the hydrogen has to be produced before you can use it. This is done by electrolysis and works like this:
2H2O -> 2H2 + O2 (very simplified)
I won't go into details about this process, but you have to put electricity into it, and that way you split water into hydrogen and oxygen.
If you want the energy you put into the process back, you "burn" the hydrogen:
2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O
Which produces energy (and water). Now everybody knows that these processes both don't have a degree of efficiency of "1", but a smaller one, which means that if you put 1 Watt of energy into the electrolysis, you get maybe 0.80 Watts back. That's the first problem which goes along with the second problem:
I said we need electricity for the electrolysis. Due to the efficiency problem (see above), we always have to put more energy into the whole thing than we get out of it later. We usually would either buy hydrogen packages from gas stations or plug a cable into our car that connects to the power outlet in our garage and produces new fuel for us.
But it does not make sense to use electricity from the public electricity network. Power plants are burning oil, natural gas, whatever to produce energy.. The entire hydrogen thing is only economical if the electricity used to procude hydrogen is produced using wind energy, solar energy etc. As long as this doesn't happen, we actually use more oil to power our cars than if we were using good old gas.
-edit-
oh, and sorry if you didn't get something or my grammar sucks or I used wrong words etc... english is not my native language
here you go:
There are, as stated earlier, two ways to make a car move using hydrogen:
1) Combustion engine. You put the hydrogen (maybe not in pure H2 form, dunno) into the engine that looks just like a gas engine and burn it.
2) Fuel cells. You put H2 and O2 together: H2 + 2O2 -> 2H2O and water is the result. This produces electricity which then powers an electric motor. Usually you don't use pure H2 due to the fact that it's dangerous and highly explosive, but rather Methanol or something like that. There are different approaches, some use frozen hydrogen under high pressure etc.
The problem about hydrogen powered engines, be it directly (combustion engine) or using fuel cells and electric motors (which aren't exciting if you ask me
) is that the hydrogen has to be produced before you can use it. This is done by electrolysis and works like this:2H2O -> 2H2 + O2 (very simplified)
I won't go into details about this process, but you have to put electricity into it, and that way you split water into hydrogen and oxygen.
If you want the energy you put into the process back, you "burn" the hydrogen:
2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O
Which produces energy (and water). Now everybody knows that these processes both don't have a degree of efficiency of "1", but a smaller one, which means that if you put 1 Watt of energy into the electrolysis, you get maybe 0.80 Watts back. That's the first problem which goes along with the second problem:
I said we need electricity for the electrolysis. Due to the efficiency problem (see above), we always have to put more energy into the whole thing than we get out of it later. We usually would either buy hydrogen packages from gas stations or plug a cable into our car that connects to the power outlet in our garage and produces new fuel for us.
But it does not make sense to use electricity from the public electricity network. Power plants are burning oil, natural gas, whatever to produce energy.. The entire hydrogen thing is only economical if the electricity used to procude hydrogen is produced using wind energy, solar energy etc. As long as this doesn't happen, we actually use more oil to power our cars than if we were using good old gas.
-edit-
oh, and sorry if you didn't get something or my grammar sucks or I used wrong words etc... english is not my native language
6/9/04, 06:20 AM
#126
GTR Member
Join Date: May 27, 2004
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,748
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
As for this "hydrogen hitmen" thing, as the unofficial leader (or at least the most outspoken advocate for Hydrogen ICE here) I say no. It's too negative. It's like "Pro-Life Mafia" or "Clean Air Assassins".
2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O
James (far too bored to do any 'actual' work)
6/9/04, 10:23 AM
#127
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Posts: 969
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hey Wombert... see thats the thing there are other ways of creating the energy when the car is off. we've stated solor panels a few times now and u just did too. ive also stated on the last page at the bottem there that we do have another was of getting clean energy and that was by forcin water through a membrain screen that has holes in it thats only big enough to let water molecules go through it one at a time. all that pressure that gets built up creates more then enough energy to charge the car. if u've never heard of that trust me a professor here in my city of Edmonton discovered that last year and went and toured the world to show everyone it. his lil contraption that he made was like the size od a shoe box and created enough power to well power a 3000 square foot house... and yes i know "power" isnt technically what powers anything... i know cus ive takes physics and chem and bio throughout high school, and my uncle teaches the physics classes too.
but all im saying is that people have to stop believing that u have to cause pollution to create electricity because u dont there are more then sufficient way of creating electricity.
oh and another thing u being the guy using chem in what u posted should know this energy cannot be created nor distroyed... only transfered from one form to another but ill just go with u knew that already and that u just need to refraise ur statement. we all do it and it is okay.
oh and Jgsmuzzy where on earth did u come up with OWLS from? do we looks like a bunch of lil kids that would call themselves OWLs?!?!?! nevermind... [/rant]
but all im saying is that people have to stop believing that u have to cause pollution to create electricity because u dont there are more then sufficient way of creating electricity.
oh and another thing u being the guy using chem in what u posted should know this energy cannot be created nor distroyed... only transfered from one form to another but ill just go with u knew that already and that u just need to refraise ur statement. we all do it and it is okay.
oh and Jgsmuzzy where on earth did u come up with OWLS from? do we looks like a bunch of lil kids that would call themselves OWLs?!?!?! nevermind... [/rant]
6/9/04, 10:57 AM
#128
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: March 28, 2004
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yeah, sure it's not destroyed but transformed... sorry for not explaining that... that was the thing I mentioned, degree of efficiency... a certain amount of energy is not converted as intended but gets lost somehow (for example trough heat)
6/9/04, 11:40 AM
#129
Team Mustang Source
For those who were siting the Hindenburg as a detriment to hydrogen, it was not hydrogen that destroyed the airship. The skin was made of canvas coated with a aluminum oxide compund. If you do some research Aluminum oxied is the main componet in solid rocket fuel. What destroyed the Hindenburg was a static discharge that ingited the aluminum oxied on the skin. I am not saying that hydrogen is not explosive, but it was not the cause. I saw this in a show about the Hindenburg disaster on TLC or Discovery a couple years ago.
6/9/04, 11:48 AM
#130
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Posts: 969
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes but see when u put hydrogen into hydrides and fill tanks with the hydrides u can release the hydrogen at will by the excess heat thats given off all u need to do is run the excess coolant heat or even the exhast heat under the hydrides... and because heat rises; not as much heat will be lost it will just be put back into the system.
see the main problem is the way of storage. what is the best way to store the hydrogen. it is a fact that when u put hydrogen with hydrides the hydrides will soak up the hydrogen like a spung. so the hydrogen is there... not explosive at this point because its bonded to the hydride. but to release the hydrogen from a hydride all u need is heat to do this... not electricity... only heat to break the chemical bonds. so once the heat breaks the bonds then the hydrogen is released into the system which then is explosive and powers the ICE...
u cant use liquid hydrogen for the fact that its -400 degrees but it is really dense. gas alone isnt that dense so u cant really fit that much gas into tanks on its own (nevermind the fact that ud be a moving time bomb). but when the hydrogen bonds to hydrides they become stable; wont explode and will because very dense.
all u need is to produce the initial heat to warm up the the engine so that it will produce the exhaust heat to break the bonds. aye that is the rub because electricity alone (onboard a vehicle) wont produce the heat needed. so this is where without a doubt the problem is. see when u convert a gas ICE into a hydro ICE the engine still has the ability to run on gas if need be. so ud still have to warm up the engine with the gas and a sensor in the fuel line can sence the hydrogen being released and it can and does switch off the gas fuel and only allows the hydrogen fuel to move through the sytem. but the 5 minutes of running gas simply wont do jack all for pollution because thats just not very much pollution to begin with.
Hydro ICE's have the ablility to take polluted air and suck it into the intake (to allow the igniter to spark) and clean the air up much cleaner then it was when it came into the system. let me refraise that last statement. the air comes in polluted and exits clean and with H2O vapour. so the more Hydro ICE's on the road the more pollution will get turned into "clean" air theoretically. so the short amount of time that the vehicle is using the gas ICE wont make a huge difference because chances are there would be a hydro ICE car behind u (we all know the roads are crouded; lots of vehicles on the road and only getting worse) so those other cars will clean the polluted air exiting from the exhaust on the car when its running on gas and not hydrogen.
i hope that makes sence... anywho think of it as hydro ICE's as being trees... they take CO2 and convert it into O2.
all it really comes down to now is for companies to start selling kits and car companies to sell it as an option on their vehicles and people will buy it because its good for the enviroment and it does create power. and if done right u can change that powerloss into not being there or minimizing the powerloss. all u need to do is make sure u use metals with low ohms of resistance where u dont want to create heat and use metals that have high ohms of resistance where u do want to create the heat to break the bonds.
see the main problem is the way of storage. what is the best way to store the hydrogen. it is a fact that when u put hydrogen with hydrides the hydrides will soak up the hydrogen like a spung. so the hydrogen is there... not explosive at this point because its bonded to the hydride. but to release the hydrogen from a hydride all u need is heat to do this... not electricity... only heat to break the chemical bonds. so once the heat breaks the bonds then the hydrogen is released into the system which then is explosive and powers the ICE...
u cant use liquid hydrogen for the fact that its -400 degrees but it is really dense. gas alone isnt that dense so u cant really fit that much gas into tanks on its own (nevermind the fact that ud be a moving time bomb). but when the hydrogen bonds to hydrides they become stable; wont explode and will because very dense.
all u need is to produce the initial heat to warm up the the engine so that it will produce the exhaust heat to break the bonds. aye that is the rub because electricity alone (onboard a vehicle) wont produce the heat needed. so this is where without a doubt the problem is. see when u convert a gas ICE into a hydro ICE the engine still has the ability to run on gas if need be. so ud still have to warm up the engine with the gas and a sensor in the fuel line can sence the hydrogen being released and it can and does switch off the gas fuel and only allows the hydrogen fuel to move through the sytem. but the 5 minutes of running gas simply wont do jack all for pollution because thats just not very much pollution to begin with.
Hydro ICE's have the ablility to take polluted air and suck it into the intake (to allow the igniter to spark) and clean the air up much cleaner then it was when it came into the system. let me refraise that last statement. the air comes in polluted and exits clean and with H2O vapour. so the more Hydro ICE's on the road the more pollution will get turned into "clean" air theoretically. so the short amount of time that the vehicle is using the gas ICE wont make a huge difference because chances are there would be a hydro ICE car behind u (we all know the roads are crouded; lots of vehicles on the road and only getting worse) so those other cars will clean the polluted air exiting from the exhaust on the car when its running on gas and not hydrogen.
i hope that makes sence... anywho think of it as hydro ICE's as being trees... they take CO2 and convert it into O2.
all it really comes down to now is for companies to start selling kits and car companies to sell it as an option on their vehicles and people will buy it because its good for the enviroment and it does create power. and if done right u can change that powerloss into not being there or minimizing the powerloss. all u need to do is make sure u use metals with low ohms of resistance where u dont want to create heat and use metals that have high ohms of resistance where u do want to create the heat to break the bonds.
6/9/04, 11:49 AM
#131
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Posts: 969
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by bee bop@June 9, 2004, 11:43 AM
For those who were siting the Hindenburg as a detriment to hydrogen, it was not hydrogen that destroyed the airship. The skin was made of canvas coated with a aluminum oxide compund. If you do some research Aluminum oxied is the main componet in solid rocket fuel. What destroyed the Hindenburg was a static discharge that ingited the aluminum oxied on the skin. I am not saying that hydrogen is not explosive, but it was not the cause. I saw this in a show about the Hindenburg disaster on TLC or Discovery a couple years ago.
For those who were siting the Hindenburg as a detriment to hydrogen, it was not hydrogen that destroyed the airship. The skin was made of canvas coated with a aluminum oxide compund. If you do some research Aluminum oxied is the main componet in solid rocket fuel. What destroyed the Hindenburg was a static discharge that ingited the aluminum oxied on the skin. I am not saying that hydrogen is not explosive, but it was not the cause. I saw this in a show about the Hindenburg disaster on TLC or Discovery a couple years ago.
6/9/04, 01:47 PM
#133
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oh one thing about plastics. You don't need petroleum to make them. You can use any other hydrocarbon, which there are plenty. Lubrication -> see decipher's post.
Really I think we are so close in tying uo lose ends to actually make it all work out together.
Really I think we are so close in tying uo lose ends to actually make it all work out together.
6/9/04, 02:05 PM
#134
V6 Member
Join Date: May 22, 2004
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem that we have right now with hydrogen use seems to be the lack of efficiency producing it from water. It's actually a very simple process to separate. I did it myself in elementary school 35 years ago. It's just electrolysis. Nothing fancy. It was inefficient but it worked.
Did you realize that our nation's space program may be what allows the new technologies to be developed that will create cheap and efficient hydrogen production? Did you know that one of the reasons for the search for water on Mars and the moon are not just for drinking purposes but to create fuel. In other words they are going to separate the water into hydrogen and oxygen. In space you can't afford to be inefficient. The technology will come and it will work.
So for those saying that we would need government subsidies to develop the technology, well we already have it.
Did you realize that our nation's space program may be what allows the new technologies to be developed that will create cheap and efficient hydrogen production? Did you know that one of the reasons for the search for water on Mars and the moon are not just for drinking purposes but to create fuel. In other words they are going to separate the water into hydrogen and oxygen. In space you can't afford to be inefficient. The technology will come and it will work.
So for those saying that we would need government subsidies to develop the technology, well we already have it.
6/9/04, 03:34 PM
#135
GT Member
Join Date: March 14, 2004
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DEFENSE OF MY CLAIM THAT "I'll burn hydrocarbons till the day I die."
Or, why I don't buy into Hydrogen.
There is absolutely no proof that we're running out of oil. In fact, there is no proof that oil is even from 'rotting dinosaurs & vegatation' - that's mere speculation. It's another issue like global warming: a group of scientists jump to conclusions that throws the whole world into panic for 5-10 years. Sorta like McCarthy's red scare, but with a modern twist.
A lot of distinguished chemists, geologists, physicists, and other scientists actually believe that oil is made in a naturally occuring non-organic process that basically entails the polymerization of Methane (CH4; the simplest and most abundant tetrahedral) due to geothermal heat & geological pressure; it tends to 'pool' as a complex chain (crude) in certain less active areas under the earths crust, yada yada yada. I hate to say it, but there is NO scientific evidence anywhere saying were running out of oil, or for that matter, ever will. Period. There's lots of evidence against it, in fact.
Second; there's huge deposits of oil under the oceans. Even if the dino-bone theory is correct, we've got LIFETIMES of fuel sitting under the oceans, ripe for the drilling. Nobody knows how much oil we have, but we've been telling ourselves we've hit 'peak oil' (what a joke). We thought we hit peak oil in the 70's, then again in the 80s, now I'm hearing it again. We have no means of telling how much oil the earth has; but if trends continue; ie. considering the fact that far less than 1% of the ocean has been seriously considered for drilling, we'll have plenty of oil for decades, if not centuries, to come. Taking into account that there is a very good chance that oil is created in an inorganic process and not an organic one, this shouldn't even be a concern.
As for pollution... I do not believe in man-made global warming, in fact, less than half of the scientific community bites that bait, as once again, hard evidence has yet to link pollution to increasing temparatures (which are more likely the result of natural heating cooling trends) but I have not studied it enough to make an effective arguement, so I'll stick to what I can argue. However, I will put it on the table that pollution is not a major concern of mine and I'm really not planning on looking it up any time soon. IMHO It's going to take us a very long time to destroy this planet at the rate we're going at.
Or, why I don't buy into Hydrogen.
There is absolutely no proof that we're running out of oil. In fact, there is no proof that oil is even from 'rotting dinosaurs & vegatation' - that's mere speculation. It's another issue like global warming: a group of scientists jump to conclusions that throws the whole world into panic for 5-10 years. Sorta like McCarthy's red scare, but with a modern twist.
A lot of distinguished chemists, geologists, physicists, and other scientists actually believe that oil is made in a naturally occuring non-organic process that basically entails the polymerization of Methane (CH4; the simplest and most abundant tetrahedral) due to geothermal heat & geological pressure; it tends to 'pool' as a complex chain (crude) in certain less active areas under the earths crust, yada yada yada. I hate to say it, but there is NO scientific evidence anywhere saying were running out of oil, or for that matter, ever will. Period. There's lots of evidence against it, in fact.
Second; there's huge deposits of oil under the oceans. Even if the dino-bone theory is correct, we've got LIFETIMES of fuel sitting under the oceans, ripe for the drilling. Nobody knows how much oil we have, but we've been telling ourselves we've hit 'peak oil' (what a joke). We thought we hit peak oil in the 70's, then again in the 80s, now I'm hearing it again. We have no means of telling how much oil the earth has; but if trends continue; ie. considering the fact that far less than 1% of the ocean has been seriously considered for drilling, we'll have plenty of oil for decades, if not centuries, to come. Taking into account that there is a very good chance that oil is created in an inorganic process and not an organic one, this shouldn't even be a concern.
As for pollution... I do not believe in man-made global warming, in fact, less than half of the scientific community bites that bait, as once again, hard evidence has yet to link pollution to increasing temparatures (which are more likely the result of natural heating cooling trends) but I have not studied it enough to make an effective arguement, so I'll stick to what I can argue. However, I will put it on the table that pollution is not a major concern of mine and I'm really not planning on looking it up any time soon. IMHO It's going to take us a very long time to destroy this planet at the rate we're going at.
6/9/04, 03:48 PM
#136
Sorry, but that was weak. Even if we're not running out of oil, that doesn't mean we should burn it off. Global warming aside, look what the POLLUTION has done as far as health goes. Cases of Asthma and other breathing disorders are on a rapid rise, Cancer is at an all time high, why? Because we're choking ourselves to death. Even if it's not causing global warming (which more than 50% of the scientific community supports, this I know, since the ones who don't are almost all being funded by oil companies), we're still killing ourselves. The pollution IS digging a hole in the Ozone and there's nothing that can prove that to be false.
Oh, and WaveMan2k3, thanks for all the support etc in presenting facts, but I was wondering if you could use proper grammar when presenting arguements? Using things like u and not using caps at the beginning of a sentence tends to degrade credibility.
Oh, and WaveMan2k3, thanks for all the support etc in presenting facts, but I was wondering if you could use proper grammar when presenting arguements? Using things like u and not using caps at the beginning of a sentence tends to degrade credibility.
6/9/04, 04:02 PM
#137
Originally posted by Wombert@June 9, 2004, 5:04 AM
oh, and sorry if you didn't get something or my grammar sucks or I used wrong words etc... english is not my native language
oh, and sorry if you didn't get something or my grammar sucks or I used wrong words etc... english is not my native language
You gave a strong arguement. It was basically the same as what everybody else has said, but strong none the less. As I and other "pro-Hydrogen" people have said before, just because the efficiency isn't there right now, doesn't mean it won't be by the end of the decade. After all, look how inefficient gasoline refineries and engines were back in their beginnings.
6/9/04, 04:11 PM
#138
GT Member
Join Date: March 14, 2004
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A plurality of scientists support global warming, not a majority. There is no proof of global warming at all. The closest thing that can be proved beyond reasonable doubt is that chlorofluorocarbons have the potential to interfere with the ozone cycle, increasing the amount of high frequency solar energy that can reach the surface, resulting in health concerns up to and including skin cancer. There is no proof, nor any solid evidence, linking pollution to temparature in any way shape or form. Burning gasoline does not emit chlorofluorocarbons.
Additionally, it is highly probably that we are sitting on a limitless, or, at worst, nearly limitless supply of oil. If the earth's oil supply was a can of beer, we've only shaken it up and licked up the foam that's come out. Even the supporters of organic polymerization will admit that the most likely place for orgo polymerization to occur would be seabeds, and seeing how the tectonic plates that were oceanic 100,000,000 years ago are still oceanic today, we're not going to run out for centuries.
-----
Cases of cancer are on the rise for two reasons:
Pollution
Better Healthcare
Pollution is self explanitory. Many chemicals in standard industrial pollution are known carcinogens.
Better healthcare you ask? By this, I mean that 1) it's getting diagnosed. 100 years ago, someone who died of cancer would be written off as dead of natural casues. Additionally, we're living longer than we ever have before, and therefore we've got a longer life to contract cancer.
-----
Finally, how was my arguement weak? I posed one point: there is no scientific evidence backing claims of peak oil and a very limited oil supply. I don't see any fallicies nor weaknesses in my arguement; I conceded that I don't care about pollution nor the environment, my onlce concern, in this thread, at least, is oil. It's still the best choice, and will remain so until nuclear/submolecular fuels become the norm.
We live in an industrial society. I've gotten used to it, because it wont change. I'm off to work now; I'd love to continue this debate tomorrow.
Additionally, it is highly probably that we are sitting on a limitless, or, at worst, nearly limitless supply of oil. If the earth's oil supply was a can of beer, we've only shaken it up and licked up the foam that's come out. Even the supporters of organic polymerization will admit that the most likely place for orgo polymerization to occur would be seabeds, and seeing how the tectonic plates that were oceanic 100,000,000 years ago are still oceanic today, we're not going to run out for centuries.
-----
Cases of cancer are on the rise for two reasons:
Pollution
Better Healthcare
Pollution is self explanitory. Many chemicals in standard industrial pollution are known carcinogens.
Better healthcare you ask? By this, I mean that 1) it's getting diagnosed. 100 years ago, someone who died of cancer would be written off as dead of natural casues. Additionally, we're living longer than we ever have before, and therefore we've got a longer life to contract cancer.
-----
Finally, how was my arguement weak? I posed one point: there is no scientific evidence backing claims of peak oil and a very limited oil supply. I don't see any fallicies nor weaknesses in my arguement; I conceded that I don't care about pollution nor the environment, my onlce concern, in this thread, at least, is oil. It's still the best choice, and will remain so until nuclear/submolecular fuels become the norm.
We live in an industrial society. I've gotten used to it, because it wont change. I'm off to work now; I'd love to continue this debate tomorrow.
6/9/04, 04:33 PM
#139
Post *****
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Location: Berkeley/Redwood City, CA
Posts: 18,613
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
dude, think about it. you cant run off oil and gas forever. its just not possible. we're bound to run out sooner or later. and even if we did have enough to last until the sun dies, why bother using it if it only kills our planet and the people living on it. polution from gasoline and deisel cars will eventually kill us if we dont stop using them. it may not be for awhile, but unlesss we change its gonna happen. don't believe me? well go outside, put your mouth over your exhaust and start your car. tell me that isnt lethal. and its essentially what we're doing anyway by driving cars that use gas. c'mon man. we (meaning just about everyone who needs to drive) really need to start towards creating an economy that doesnt need to burn oil. and if your a person who doesnt give a flip about the environment, hey hydrogen is good for you too. being as plentiful as it is in our universe, the price of hydrogen will be alot cheaper than gas once we get past the intial phase of setting up a country where we can use it efficiently.
note: this post isnt aimed at any single person so dont take offense or anything
also here's a cool link if you want to find out a little more about hydrogen power:
http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/phydrofuel.asp
note: this post isnt aimed at any single person so dont take offense or anything
also here's a cool link if you want to find out a little more about hydrogen power:
http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/phydrofuel.asp
6/9/04, 04:37 PM
#140
GT Member
Join Date: February 1, 2004
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But why not improve the situation? You cant deny that there is more smog over cities that have more automotive activity than some industrial cities that dont. I think it is a major problem that needs some attention. And if we can make hydrogen work in cars, why not industry too? This can be something good for all levels of pollution.