Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
whirlwind

here's somthing to think about

Recommended Posts

Seems like hybrid and electric is the way to go. There already are distribution systems for gasoline, diesel and electricity. Hybrid technology could cut oil consumption in half. The crisis then goes away in a hurry. I wonder why they don't make a diesel hybrid. If a gasoline hybrid can get 50 mpg, a diesel hybrid would get 75 mpg.

 

Hmm. Okay, they are working on it. Diesel truck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's crap! Fuel cell technology is the only viable technology, because it requires about as much fossil fuels to make the hydrogen as a gas engine would. Getting us from place to place is a nice benefit, but everybody knows the purpose of transportation is to turn all the world's oil into CO2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's crap! Fuel cell technology is the only viable technology, because it requires about as much fossil fuels to make the hydrogen as a gas engine would. Getting us from place to place is a nice benefit, but everybody knows the purpose of transportation is to turn all the world's oil into CO2.
In THEORY, since electricity is used to produce hydrogen from water, you could use renewable sources like solar and wind power to generate the electricity. But in practice most of the electricity would be generated by fossible fuels, including coal which produces more CO2 per unit heat, but which the US possesses in abundance. All we got to do is push a few more mountains into steams in Appalachia and we've got all the coal we need. mad.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree, along with hydro cars home and busness energy need to be revamped, but the most import part is starting the procees now and not waiting another couple of decades to maybe see some change

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sarcasm...wazzup.gif

 

the trouble with fuel cells:

 

"Nuclear energy, solar energy, fossil energy are all primary energy sources. Hydrogen is not, it doesn't exist, it has to be produced. Electricity is not, it has to be produced," he said. "So in each case, with hydrogen or with electricity you have to produce them with a primary energy source. And in this country we produce almost all of our electricity with the primary source of coal."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

coal has to be mined and in some cases input of energy quite a bit, use solar to create hydrogen, in which case u only have to prodece solar panels,( which will also stimulate the economy) less polution, and more energy which is renewable and cheap, after the initail over head costs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All we got to do is push a few more mountains into steams in Appalachia and we've got all the coal we need. mad.gif

 

Oh boy, let's not go there...I work for the branch of the agency that regulates this. We're in a conundrum with this one and here's why:

 

You strip off the top of the hill to get to the low-sulfur coal. Low sulfur is the key word here, these coal deposits produce less sulfur dioxide (SO2) when burned. 65% of the SO2 emitted in the US comes from coal fired electric power plants. SO2 is what causes "acid rain" among other problems.

 

 

These are old, old mountains and the material being removed is highly compacted. Once it's out of the ground, the volume is greater and you simply can't put it all back where it came from when the mining is finished. Trucking the excess away is prohibitively expensive. You're on a mountain/hill/ridgetop. What do you do with it?

 

The big problem is, this material is unweathered and hence high in unoxidized sulfur compounds...primarily pyrite (FeS2). So in the absence of alkaline material to neutralize and assuming the presence of oxygen and water, you get a 4 step chemical reaction that oxidizes the FeS2 producing ferrous iron (Fe2+), that Fe2+ is oxidized to ferric iron (Fe3+), the ferric iron is hydrolyzed and you have acid (H+) as a result. There are other more compicated chemical reactions that also occur where the resulting ferric acts directly on the pyrite acting as a catalyst for generating ferrous iron, sulfate, and acid (FeS2 + 14 Fe3 + 8 H2O = 15 Fe2+ 2 SO4(2-) + 16 H+)

 

When these areas naturally weather, the acid production is low/slow. When you have a huge amount of surface area (i.e. tailings) with oxygen in the pores and water flowing through...it's ideal for producing acid.

 

Our mandate, along with EPA, is to regulate and protect the waters of the US. Unfortunately, we are an arm of the DOD. This is a policy issue that's a hot topic right now, and there aren't any good solutions. Countoured tailings piles with a geotextile barrier and water capture/collection and treatment is probably workable, but also expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
next time u pay 2+dollars a gallon at the pump, know that it isn't going to get any better while bush is around

 

Well you're kinda dumb if you think gasoline will get cheaper with anyone else in the White House.

 

Here's something else to think about: If Kerry is elected president he'll nationalize healthcare which will shift the burden from businesses to the people. This will relieve businesses of one of their largest expenses which ultimately will benefit shareholders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goddamit! It's 2004! Where's my nuclear-powered aircar that those fukkin' scifi authors promised me?!?!?! Damn right, I'm pissed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nuclear power would be a good clean way to make the electricity need to make Bush's hydrogen. Somehow, I don't think the people are going to go for that. If we had fusion power right now, wouldn't that be great? It would solve all our energy problems. It seems that fusion power may be a century away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can't even get alternative energy off the ground in the US. Bush is blowing sunshine up everyone's ass when he talks about Hydrogen Cells. It's a fucking pipe dream considering our current energy system. And Nuclear power isn't going to solve any problems either. We already tried in the 50's, 60's, and 70's, remember?

 

Alternative energy, and forward thinking leaders are our future, not failed energy sources from the past, and cars that aren't being built.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's crap! Fuel cell technology is the only viable technology, because it requires about as much fossil fuels to make the hydrogen as a gas engine would. Getting us from place to place is a nice benefit, but everybody knows the purpose of transportation is to turn all the world's oil into CO2.
In THEORY, since electricity is used to produce hydrogen from water, you could use renewable sources like solar and wind power to generate the electricity. But in practice most of the electricity would be generated by fossible fuels, including coal which produces more CO2 per unit heat, but which the US possesses in abundance. All we got to do is push a few more mountains into steams in Appalachia and we've got all the coal we need. mad.gif

 

Weak. Columbia River Gorge is a great place for cleanly producing hydrogen.

 

1) Set up wind-powered generator

2) Use electricity to disassociate H20.

3) Collect H2

4) Utilize H2 in Fuel Cell

 

Another clean(non-fossil fuel) source

 

1) Collect CH4 from anaerobic decomposition of garbage

2) Catalyze decomposition of CH4 into H2 and Cn

3) Utilize H2 in Fuel Cell

 

I once visited a "Trash Pit" near Seattle where the were collecting methane and burning it on site. They could have used the heat to produce electricity, but energy regulators were preventing them. WASTEFUL!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bush is blowing sunshine up everyone's ass when he talks about Hydrogen Cells. It's a fucking pipe dream considering our current energy system. And Nuclear power isn't going to solve any problems either. We already tried in the 50's, 60's, and 70's, remember?

 

Alternative energy, and forward thinking leaders are our future, not failed energy sources from the past, and cars that aren't being built.

 

Nuclear power is a great source of energy. The main problem with fission power is that poeple make mistakes, and mistakes lead to accidents, and accidents lead to disasters. Another problem is that there exists a hysteria towards anything "Nuclear". For example MRI (Magnetic resonace Imaging) is possible due to NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance), but people would freak out if you told them they were receiving something "nuclear".

As far as Bush and fuel cells, all of recent arm-flapping is BS, in that the money he has directed towrds fuel-cell research is specific to fossil-fuel based fuel cell technology, not H2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its a combnation of all the problems, the fact of the matter is that we need to stop being so wasteful, and no i don't think the gas prices will go down that was the point of the link there dipshit, and i hope they don't go down cause thats the only way to get people and buseness motivated to intergrate alternative sources of energy. oh and btw transportation costs on avg are the secound highest expence that most buisness' have, 2nd only to labor costs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as far as health care goes, if its natioanlized the employer's will be able to reduce expenditure, resulting in more jobs and cheaper products less of cource there consevatives then it'll just mean more profit, 50% of the population lack basic health, i personally would rather see tax money go to health care than funding an aready over funded military, go to that secound link, there is more than enough money out there that no one wants us to know about, roughly 3 time the defict has "disapeared"

http://www.buddycom.com/entertain/veejay/vj45.html

 

Edited by wirlwind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...then I don't care what you think, "dipshit". I was only clarifying some points. I love SUVs, and any form of wastefulness, for the simple fact that it will soon enough FORCE us to change our ways, when faced with ANNIHILATION.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, you must be referring to me then as I pointed out the problem wasn't gonna be solved with Kerry or Nader. No, I didn't read your link after seeing all the drivel you've posted so far this morning. Carry on with your liberal circle-jerk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×