How is BP still in business?
Yeah, we definitely need to get a new source of energy for our vehicles. Even if you don't believe in global warming, the simple fact is the oil is not a renewable resource, so what will we do when all the fossils are dried up?
Civilian vehicles are just a small fraction of energy consumption.
The big boys are the military, commercial airlines, and indoor electricity.
Military use is the really big one. It doesn't matter what kind of fuel Fords or Toyotas use. Until we can find something that can replace oil in military use, we'll never replace it. Right now nothing fills the bill.
Hydrogen might work, but it's not a fuel so much as a way to transfer energy. We'd need some other fuel to produce the hydrogen. And we'd have to build a serious infastructure to support the quantities we'd need.
The big boys are the military, commercial airlines, and indoor electricity.
Military use is the really big one. It doesn't matter what kind of fuel Fords or Toyotas use. Until we can find something that can replace oil in military use, we'll never replace it. Right now nothing fills the bill.
Hydrogen might work, but it's not a fuel so much as a way to transfer energy. We'd need some other fuel to produce the hydrogen. And we'd have to build a serious infastructure to support the quantities we'd need.
The best thing would be if we spontaneously found a few tons of anti-matter floating about in space (but somehow close enough so that we could harvest it without it taking years and using up ridiculous amounts of fuel anyway). We could use CERN's storage things but on a much larger scale.
Or if we could somehow escape the infinite confines of our universe, find a parallel universe made entirely of anti-matter, and capture it with magnetism. The only problem with that is that someone from that universe would simultaneously be trying to do the same thing with our universe...
Edit: That also has the problem every other fuel has - it isn't sustainable because we'd depend on it but might never find it again.
Maybe if we found a star and built a solar array that completely encompasses it and somehow transports the energy back to earth (with a giant cable possibly). I suggested this to helios a while ago and he told me that it had already been thought of, and he may have said it was impractical, but still it would be cool. 4 billion years worth of solar energy with extremely little loss (the solar panels completely encompass the star so no light can escape and we'd use superconducting materials for the cable).
The only impracticality I can think of with that right now is how long it would take to build a solar array that could encompass an entire star. And what happens when that star dies?
Perhaps we could do something similar -- a floating solar array that covers one side of the Sun. It still has to be massive and it still becomes useless when the sun dies; but if the Sun dies we'll have bigger issues to worry about than "where will we get electricity from now?".
The solar array could orbit the sun at exactly the same speed the Earth does so it never creates an eclipse.
Or if we could somehow escape the infinite confines of our universe, find a parallel universe made entirely of anti-matter, and capture it with magnetism. The only problem with that is that someone from that universe would simultaneously be trying to do the same thing with our universe...
Edit: That also has the problem every other fuel has - it isn't sustainable because we'd depend on it but might never find it again.
Maybe if we found a star and built a solar array that completely encompasses it and somehow transports the energy back to earth (with a giant cable possibly). I suggested this to helios a while ago and he told me that it had already been thought of, and he may have said it was impractical, but still it would be cool. 4 billion years worth of solar energy with extremely little loss (the solar panels completely encompass the star so no light can escape and we'd use superconducting materials for the cable).
The only impracticality I can think of with that right now is how long it would take to build a solar array that could encompass an entire star. And what happens when that star dies?
Perhaps we could do something similar -- a floating solar array that covers one side of the Sun. It still has to be massive and it still becomes useless when the sun dies; but if the Sun dies we'll have bigger issues to worry about than "where will we get electricity from now?".
The solar array could orbit the sun at exactly the same speed the Earth does so it never creates an eclipse.
Last edited on
You do realise that the amount of material in the cable that would have to be at least a couple of light years in length would probably be a great deal more than all the material in our solar system don't you?
Oh yeah.
Ok, what about the second one? The solar array that covers a small piece of the Sun (perhaps an entire side is a little impractical) and orbits at roughly the same speed as the Earth (so it doesn't cause an eclipse)?
Ok, what about the second one? The solar array that covers a small piece of the Sun (perhaps an entire side is a little impractical) and orbits at roughly the same speed as the Earth (so it doesn't cause an eclipse)?
| transports the energy back to earth (with a giant cable possibly) |
If you want to transport energy to earth, the most efficient way is by beaming it (i.e. using light, not necessarily visible). In other words, put up in orbit an electric power station that will beam a high energy beam to one of the poles (goddamn polish), where you collect the energy. Poles don't rotate and aren't populated, so you don't care too much if you miss.
On the other hand, building enough solar power plants in Africa would be easier. Now, if you are far away from Africa - say you are America - you can continue spilling oil and poisoning yourself (and ourselves).
Who cares about life in the US anyways? Does it matter if you are healthy when you can be rich? As far as the damned birds covered in oil are concerned: would any sane american sacrifice 10% of his driving time for a few stupid pelicans?
Last edited on
Solar energy will really only become popular when it's cheaper than gas and coal. Rest assured, they're already working on that.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/03/solaria-cheaper-solar-panels-pv-silicon.php
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/03/solaria-cheaper-solar-panels-pv-silicon.php
Last edited on
| Now, if you are far away from Africa - say you are America - you can continue spilling oil and poisoning yourself (and ourselves). |
America has more than enough open desert with intense year-round sunshine to power the entire country's infastructure (minus military use). The problem is harnessing and transporting electricity long distance is impractical.
| The problem is harnessing and transporting electricity long distance is impractical. |
As is harenessing/transporting oil, as BP has clearly illustrated.
| The US (and really the entire world economy in general) really needs to shift way more towards Socialism. Not that socialism isn't without its flaws, but they're certainly less severe than the flaws of capitalism. |
Really? So mass murder, elimination of property rights, government controlled media are all "less severe" flaws of socialism? The first and most important flaw of socialism is government controlled media. If the government controls all wealth and media then there can't be any reasonable checks and balances. Meanwhile socialist countries are becoming more capitalist out of necessity and you think that capitalist countries should become more socialist?
By the way, the government regulators approved BPs plan. How would more government have prevented this problem? More COMPETENT government may have helped to prevent the problem. I understand your anger but socialism isn't the answer. It couldn't be. Better, more competent government regulatory agencies might be the answer but that is not socialism. Socialism in its true form cannot be realized without mass murder and destruction of all individual liberty. I really don't think that people know what they are saying when they suggest that we need more socialism.
Capitalism in its true form would be a better solution for current problems. For every such accident if it costs billions in cleanup effort and lawsuits which results in costs being passed to consumers then it will be more likely that alternative energies will be found. The problem is that there are no legitimate alternative energies that are anywhere near as useful as hydrocarbons. Wind and water power are totally impractical. Solar only works in some areas. Nuclear results in waste that nobody wants to store. Honda is testing hydrogen cars through leasing programs in Orange County, CA right now. However I have no idea how long it will be before we have the ability to mass produce hydrogen cars or how the fuel stores will be created and transported. Even with the possibility of oil spill accidents there is no other form of energy that can come close to meeting our current needs at a reasonable cost.
"Yeah, we definitely need to get a new source of energy for our vehicles. Even if you don't believe in global warming, the simple fact is the oil is not a renewable resource, so what will we do when all the fossils are dried up?"
The current price of oil suggests that there is still quite a bit of it left. As the price continues to increase there will be more demand for alternatives which will become a catalyst for more alternative fuel development. At this point there is simply too much cheap oil for any alternative to be mass produced. Many alternatives are already being researched but the bottom line is that the research will increase as the price of gas increases. Alternative fuels need to be cost effective and they currently are not. In highschool, it was suggested by some teachers that by now America would be in dire straights. Bread would be $10 a loaf, oil would be running out, and so forth. Alternatives will be developed slowly but surely as they become necessary.
The current price of oil suggests that there is still quite a bit of it left. As the price continues to increase there will be more demand for alternatives which will become a catalyst for more alternative fuel development. At this point there is simply too much cheap oil for any alternative to be mass produced. Many alternatives are already being researched but the bottom line is that the research will increase as the price of gas increases. Alternative fuels need to be cost effective and they currently are not. In highschool, it was suggested by some teachers that by now America would be in dire straights. Bread would be $10 a loaf, oil would be running out, and so forth. Alternatives will be developed slowly but surely as they become necessary.
| So mass murder, elimination of property rights, government controlled media are all "less severe" flaws of socialism? |
Socialism does not imply more government (Again, a misconception. If something was a part of USSR it's not necessarily a part of socialism). It only implies government that cares about the people. While I do agree that creating 100% socialism might be impossible, that's mostly our problem and not the problem of socialism. Note that 100% capitalism doesn't exist either. In reality there's always a mix of the two.
I agree with hamsterman. Socialism!=communism (the latter being incorrectly synonymous to totalitarianism due to historical reasons that we all know)
Just a note: Germany, the country I live in now, names itself "socialistic". (the ruling party currently is called the Social-Democratic Party, SDP).
The country I come from, Bulgaria, used to be communist (soviet block). Now, there it is what I call "wild capitalism"= what happens when the ex-Party leaders take over.
(Party written with capital letters means "The Party").
As far as bulgarians are concerned, capitalism is closer to communism than any of them to socialism.
Just a note: Germany, the country I live in now, names itself "socialistic". (the ruling party currently is called the Social-Democratic Party, SDP).
The country I come from, Bulgaria, used to be communist (soviet block). Now, there it is what I call "wild capitalism"= what happens when the ex-Party leaders take over.
(Party written with capital letters means "The Party").
As far as bulgarians are concerned, capitalism is closer to communism than any of them to socialism.
Last edited on
I have a friend from bulgaria :O she told me she grew up a communist. So I guess that makes sense now :O
closed account (iw0XoG1T)
I would like to add emphasis to something previously said:
| These are not the flaws of socialism. They are only the flaws of totalitarianism. |