TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Energy

Energy

As a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the growing uncertainty with the situation in the Middle East, South America and Europe, the United States is now forced to re-think its energy policy so that it can lower energy consumption of and dependence on foreign oil. Just as the automobile replaced the horse-drawn carriage so it is time for the electric battery to replace the gasoline engine. We are at the dawn of a new age when one can plug their car into an electric outlet and re-charge it for travel up to sixty miles or more. But with any wholesale change comes the requirement of a transitional mechanism. Hence the need for a vehicle that can run alternatively on both gasoline and electricity. The goal of course would be to make a total conversion within a reasonable amount of time. Most of the electricity produced in the United States comes from coal-fired power plants so the concern by some is that a reduction in tailpipe emissions would be offset by an increase in air pollution from the power plants. Others argue that the sheer volume of reduced vehicle emissions would fall far greater than plant-produced air pollution. We may even see a coalition of military hawks and environmentalists as fuel efficiency brings about both security and a better climate.

Few would argue that two factors influence consumer's choice of transportation more than anything else: gas mileage and appearance. Ever since the automobile became available to the average consumer, it has always been considered a status symbol much like the clothing we wear and the houses we live in. The price of electricity is pale compared to the price of gasoline so this factor is virtually a no-brainer. The choice of appearance however, will always linger as long as we believe that "appearance makes the person". But this factor can also be addressed during the transition phase since it appears that most vehicles today can be modified to use both fuel sources. As for the future, the old tried and true marketing techniques will convince most people that buying the style of car available will guarantee that the "future won't pass them by". Just as Japanese cars promoting fuel efficiency in response to the oil embargo of the 1970's sparked the Big Three to respond accordingly so will the shift to electric vehicles change the market once again. Perhaps this time General Motors, Ford and Daimler Chrysler will get the "jump on the competition" and in so doing, save themselves from bankruptcy.

Well I don't really know if you want discussion about the topic. But, I would have to agree with most of what you are saying, although the American companies' have already come out with gas-electric hybrids, so I wouldn't hold my breathe on them going bankrupt. The transfer over should have happened years ago, as more money should have been poured into research, but oh well. I am excited to see this major shift in energy sources. Does anyone think that our attention with the Middle East will greatly diminish as oil becomes less important?

quote:

Originally posted by kush paintings Well I don't really know if you want discussion about the topic. But, I would have to agree with most of what you are saying, although the American companies' have already come out with gas-electric hybrids, so I wouldn't hold my breathe on them going bankrupt. The transfer over should have happened years ago, as more money should have been poured into research, but oh well. I am excited to see this major shift in energy sources. Does anyone think that our attention with the Middle East will greatly diminish as oil becomes less important?

Hmmmmm...let me think...

I would think it would be obvious, but there are those who believe the threat of terrorism and religious conflicts will continue our attention to stay on the middle east.

Yea was gonna mention that. I've recently been doing some readin on neoconservatism and in my opinion, when the oil is gone, they will still advocate spreading democracy there and stickin up for Israel. However, when the oil is gone, all that is left is ideological reasons to keep interfering there (which suits the neocons but not the traditional cons). I think when that happens the traditional conservatives will get more of a voice which could affect things. Of course, support for Israel is almost part of American culture and democrats and neocons would both be able to use that support to stay with Israel (and promote democracy in the Middle East)

Re: Energy

quote:

Originally posted by JOEBIALEK We are at the dawn of a new age when one can plug their car into an electric outlet and re-charge it for travel up to sixty miles or more.

...and where does THAT energy come from?

Energy

quote:

Originally posted by ShadoWolf ...and where does THAT energy come from?

From conventional powerplants, struggling to get 55% efficiency (far less then a explosion-engine). And nuclear.
You have to go nuclear for the next 50 years and fund thermonuclear fusion research, so that it's in the commercial stage by then.
Here's why:


And before you go all nuclear waste on me; I have had shitloads of courses at uni regarding that, it was taken into account formulating above statement.

^love the sig + avatar

If we generate as much electricity by nuclear means as we do now through fossil fuel means, nuclear fuels will dry up as quickly as fossil fuels will...so nuclear isn't really the answer to the energy crisis...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley If we generate as much electricity by nuclear means as we do now through fossil fuel means, nuclear fuels will dry up as quickly as fossil fuels will...so nuclear isn't really the answer to the energy crisis...

Good point, which is why we should fund research to breeder reactors that use Thorium 232, which is more abundant, instead of Uranium/MOX.

Yes, I remember from a Geoscience class the teacher talking about how because nuclear research has not been well funded, most nuclear facilities can only use the most basic and raw resources, like uranium. I have heard that it is very possible for us to be able to get far more longevity off of nuclear power through these resources than fossil fuels. By the way, I am looking for a good source on what the timeline on fossil fuels looks like. If anyone has one please post.

quote:

Originally posted by kush paintings Yes, I remember from a Geoscience class the teacher talking about how because nuclear research has not been well funded, most nuclear facilities can only use the most basic and raw resources, like uranium. I have heard that it is very possible for us to be able to get far more longevity off of nuclear power through these resources than fossil fuels. By the way, I am looking for a good source on what the timeline on fossil fuels looks like. If anyone has one please post.

^that's right, you're well informed.
http://www.iea.org/ should get you somewhere on that last item.

I know next to nothing about science other than humans are pretty clever and that we have lots of water and lots of sun so manybe thats where we need to concentrate?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Yea was gonna mention that. I've recently been doing some readin on neoconservatism and in my opinion, when the oil is gone, they will still advocate spreading democracy there and stickin up for Israel. However, when the oil is gone, all that is left is ideological reasons to keep interfering there (which suits the neocons but not the traditional cons). I think when that happens the traditional conservatives will get more of a voice which could affect things. Of course, support for Israel is almost part of American culture and democrats and neocons would both be able to use that support to stay with Israel (and promote democracy in the Middle East)

Hmm you make it sound like promoting democracy in the middle east is a bad thing.

Yea, fission materials aren't infinite either, but they will last a bit longer than fossil fuels, probably some 300 or so years. Hopefully that will give us enough time to reserach on effective thermonuclear fusion reactors.

Anyway, George, we do have a lot of sun and water, but they really aren't giving us as much electricity as we need. So while they do make a relatively good supplement to current energy production facilities, they can never be stand-alone producers of electricity. Unless we build huge accumulation lakes all over the world, but then their impact on the environment is not really negligible either.

China, however, seems to be going to water as a primary energy source.

China is still very active in building dams today. �At least 90 dams over 60 meters are under construction, including the Three Gorges dam on the Yangtze (175m).�(1) The three gorges damn, which is scheduled to be completed in 2009 will generate 18.2 gigawatts each year. (3)

Even with the approximately 85,000 dams in the country, China is only using 12% of its hydropower resources. In some developed countries between 50 and 90% of available hydropower locations are utilized. (2) This gives hydropower a bright future in China. The country can continue to expand its hydroelectric production, while countries like the United States have used up most of the good locations for hydropower plants and are unable increase their hydropower production. �Hydropower is expected to represent 27 percent of the country�s power generation capacity by 2005, a 3.5 percent rise from the current level.� (2)

1. Global Dam Statistics-China:Global Dam Statistics

2. State Eyes Hydropower to Relieve Pollution

3. China: Environmental Issues-US Energy Information Agency

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Hmm you make it sound like promoting democracy in the middle east is a bad thing.

Its not a bad thing but there are bad ways of going about it...

quote:

Originally posted by kush paintings China, however, seems to be going to water as a primary energy source. China is still very active in building dams today. �At least 90 dams over 60 meters are under construction, including the Three Gorges dam on the Yangtze (175m).�(1) The three gorges damn, which is scheduled to be completed in 2009 will generate 18.2 gigawatts each year. (3) Even with the approximately 85,000 dams in the country, China is only using 12% of its hydropower resources. In some developed countries between 50 and 90% of available hydropower locations are utilized. (2) This gives hydropower a bright future in China. The country can continue to expand its hydroelectric production, while countries like the United States have used up most of the good locations for hydropower plants and are unable increase their hydropower production. �Hydropower is expected to represent 27 percent of the country�s power generation capacity by 2005, a 3.5 percent rise from the current level.� (2) 1. Global Dam Statistics-China:Global Dam Statistics 2. State Eyes Hydropower to Relieve Pollution 3. China: Environmental Issues-US Energy Information Agency

Grr, my post got deleted so I'll put it shortly this time. Anyway, yes, hydro is a good energy source, but it usually can't supply 100% of a country's demand for energy. Aside from that, to build 3 gorges dam, China had to relocate some 3 million people, including a town of 1 million, and then flooded the whole region, sinking towns and some archeological finds deep beneath the lake.

quote:

Originally posted by kush paintings The three gorges damn, which is scheduled to be completed in 2009 will generate 18.2 gigawatts each year. (3)

Something's not right with that. Watt = Joule per second. So it' either 18.2 GJ per year, which, at first sight, seems plausible. Either it's working at 18.2 GW, every moment. That seems impossible to me, as modern nuclear reactors produce about 1GW.

edit, WOW, it is 18.2GW, f*ck me, that dam equals 18 nuclear reactors

quote:

Originally posted by Belgian Bonzai Something's not right with that. Watt = Joule per second. So it' either 18.2 GJ per year, which, at first sight, seems plausible. Either it's working at 18.2 GW, every moment. That seems impossible to me, as modern nuclear reactors produce about 1GW. edit, WOW, it is 18.2GW, f*ck me, that dam equals 18 nuclear reactors

Well, yeah, they wouldn't relocate 3 million people if they could have just built a single nuclear reactor instead

^makes sense

quote:

Originally posted by Belgian Bonzai ^makes sense

Yup, the thing is huge. I read that the lake that is/will be created by the Three Georges dam will actually shift the rotation of the earth by about .001 degrees or so due to the gravitational pull of the massive amount of water.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Three Georges dam will actually shift the rotation of the earth by about .001 degrees or so due to the gravitational pull of the massive amount of water.

Where is that statistic from?

Does anyone have any good (credible) projections for depletion of middle east oil?

replies

can't wait for my electric Camry...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak - article on Hubart Peak theory

http://uk.dir.yahoo.com/Science/Ene...oleum/Peak_Oil/ - yahoo! catagory "peak oil"

http://economics.about.com/cs/macro..._out_of_oil.htm - not to worry, this article says we'll never run out of oil! (altho he kinds of 'cheats' by saying as oil gets more sparce, the price will rise meaning the higher it gets the less people will be able to afford it! ie supply/demand theory)

Re: replies

quote:

Originally posted by JOEBIALEK can't wait for my electric Camry...

I really love this guy.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.