Thread Tools

**buddhaHybrid** · February 7th, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComradeMolyneux

I hate coming into discussions too late...

Buddahybrid, are you still in High School?

Yes I am! Why do you ask my good sir?

**Jinjiro** · February 7th, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buddhaHybrid

Yes I am! Why do you ask my good sir?

Wait, you're in high school? With a supercharged M3? What the hell?

-Jin

**ComradeMolyneux** · February 7th, 06:30 PM

I knew he was in high school from his writing style. Am I good? or am I good

**buddhaHybrid** · February 7th, 06:41 PM

What cued you? Use of "although/despite/however/etc."?

Yeah, I try to write with eloquence (for school papers) but the essay-form regiment of english and history class just kills prose. And it shows up everywhere now. However,...

How do i eradicate this garbadge.

***NYY*** · February 7th, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComradeMolyneux

I knew he was in high school from his writing style. Am I good? or am I good

When 90% of the forum goers are high schoolers, it's only a matter of probability.

**sNoW PIrAnHa** · February 7th, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buddhaHybrid

Let me explain my stand point: my posts have been pretty ridiculous since I haven't explain why.

It really won't matter which one of them gets into office (thats my opinion). Honestly, I think they will accomplish (or lack thereof) the same thing. Social security is ****ed, as we use to have 35 workers for every retired person in the '40s, now we have about 3, and its only going to decrease while the amount of retired people increases. So, we will either increase taxes a lot or abolish the system... and we won't abolish it b/c the AARP is the MOST powerful voting force AND the 2nd most persuasive lobbying force. After the NRA of course.

Finding an alternative to oil is, IMHO, the biggest issue. War in the Middle East isn't going to end; sorry all, sorry Bush. By ten years we will be having brownouts nationwide that will quickly become permanent blackouts. Any fix of this requires federal intiative and federal dollas. Also, productions have begun to peak (hello grains!) and our economy is hurtin'.

In context of those issues, their (Clinton's and Obama's) plans are pretty much the same. I see those issues as the most important. Thus, I think there will be little difference in our nation regardless of who is elected. Support our troops! Support electrolysis!

Alternative to oil? We have solar panels that are very efficient, the Dakotas have enough wind power to power the entire country (thats not very practical though), nuclear power could work but it has a bad public image and a hard way to dispose of waste, we also have a very easy way to switch most cars to clean burning hydrogen. The answers are there, its just implementing them.

Our economy might be hurting because we've poured more than 500 billion dollars into our quarrels in the Middle East. War in the Middle East can end if we go about it correctly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by buddhaHybrid

Nuclear power plants are essentially powered by oil, at least so I was told.

A lot of US nuclear power plants are powered by dismantled soviet warheads. Oil is not radioactive.

**buddhaHybrid** · February 7th, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sNoW PIrAnHa

Alternative to oil? We have solar panels that are very efficient, the Dakotas have enough wind power to power the entire country (thats not very practical though), nuclear power could work but it has a bad public image and a hard way to dispose of waste, we also have a very easy way to switch most cars to clean burning hydrogen. The answers are there, its just implementing them.

Our economy might be hurting because we've poured more than 500 billion dollars into our quarrels in the Middle East. War in the Middle East can end if we go about it correctly.

Yes, that is idealistic interpretation. Indeed the war is draining our sterling economy and hurting our ability to upgrade our technologies, but we are still a long way from a national break-through. As of now I don't feel like arguing with all your energy solutions (lazy, tired, and a bit..

), so I will just debate the implementation of hydrogen as a fuel for automobiles.

Haha--easy to switch cars to hydrogen? Hilarious... do you have any idea how much more energy hydrogen releases upon conflagration than octane fuel? Implementing everything.. of course that's the problem--isn't that obvious? We have known the different forms of energy for centuries. Transporting the "easy fuel" of hydrogen is ridiculous. Just look at it's phase diagram. Every gas station would have to be rebuilt to safely handle hydrogen (this also applys to cars as besides the energy and temp. differnces, it will make questionable the integrity of certain materials b/c of hydrogen embrittlement). Think a car makes a big explosion? Like a firecracker compared to hydrogen! Spontaneous combustion, too, is possible if exposed to normal atmospherical conditions.

Don't get me wrong, H2 is a very hopeful candidate as our main replacement for oil--especially via electrolysis--but it's useful involvement is unlikely for some time.

so as far as i know easier said than done

Edit: to clear something up: I am well aware of the process of Nuclear Power (hello lots of chem and physics).. I was told that the OPERATION of the power plants was powered by heat energy from oil, not from the power of the plant.

Edit2: i'd rather discuss energy for now, but i'd be interested in why and how you think middle eastern peace is feasible.

**sNoW PIrAnHa** · February 8th, 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buddhaHybrid

Yes, that is idealistic interpretation. Indeed the war is draining our sterling economy and hurting our ability to upgrade our technologies, but we are still a long way from a national break-through. As of now I don't feel like arguing with all your energy solutions (lazy, tired, and a bit..

), so I will just debate the implementation of hydrogen as a fuel for automobiles.

Haha--easy to switch cars to hydrogen? Hilarious... do you have any idea how much more energy hydrogen releases upon conflagration than octane fuel? Implementing everything.. of course that's the problem--isn't that obvious? We have known the different forms of energy for centuries. Transporting the "easy fuel" of hydrogen is ridiculous. Just look at it's phase diagram. Every gas station would have to be rebuilt to safely handle hydrogen (this also applys to cars as besides the energy and temp. differnces, it will make questionable the integrity of certain materials b/c of hydrogen embrittlement). Think a car makes a big explosion? Like a firecracker compared to hydrogen! Spontaneous combustion, too, is possible if exposed to normal atmospherical conditions.

Don't get me wrong, H2 is a very hopeful candidate as our main replacement for oil--especially via electrolysis--but it's useful involvement is unlikely for some time.

so as far as i know easier said than done

Edit: to clear something up: I am well aware of the process of Nuclear Power (hello lots of chem and physics).. I was told that the OPERATION of the power plants was powered by heat energy from oil, not from the power of the plant.

Edit2: i'd rather discuss energy for now, but i'd be interested in why and how you think middle eastern peace is feasible.

You're pretty smart. You just don't know much. United Nuclear - Hydrogen Fuel Systems

Hydrogen is safer than gasoline when compressed in hydrides. Fuel cells are a terrible idea, basically an inefficient electric car. You replace gasoline with hydrogen and you've still got a combustible gas, except its renewable and can be made from a generator in your garage.

I should've said our war in the Middle East will end. Not war in general. Iraq is in a very vulnerable but promising state right now. They no longer have an oppressive, genocidal dictator in power. They have an incredible amount of oil. If we help them set up a government correctly we could be out of there and actually have accomplished something that other nations will admire us over. There is no doubt that uniting the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds will have trouble getting along. The Kurds have wanted their own nation for a while now. It wouldn't be easy.

**ComradeMolyneux** · February 8th, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYY

When 90% of the forum goers are high schoolers, it's only a matter of probability.

That's part of the reason. That and you high schoolers all 'sound' so alike.

(There's a lot of lounge rats in college now though)

**DuoDSG** · February 8th, 03:11 PM

A few things:

Whoever said that solar panels are very efficient has no idea what they're talking about. Photovoltaic cells peak at a 15% energy conversion rate, and the type that continuously track the sun to gain maximum exposure still don't get much higher than 40%. That's not "very efficient". Not to mention that if you want the higher efficiency you sacrifice the zero maintenance you get with stationary cells.

As for hydrogen, there are a host of problems yet to be overcome (so the statement that we've got the knowledge but just need to implement it is totally off-base). It is not cheap to make and some methods require more energy to be used in creating it than the energy output of the same quantity of hydrogen (not to mention that renewables are not in use enough to create a zero-emissions production process of hydrogen, count those in as well). Until we figure out how to store hydrogen at lower pressures and higher densities, it will not be inexpensive enough to compete with gasoline in its production chain costs.

Not to mention that creating a national network of hydrogen fill stations for automobiles to meet national demand (if the whole nation is on board the hydrogen car concept) would probably top out over half a trillion dollars. That still doesn't take into account getting rid of all the conventional gasoline stations, issues with the oil industry (how are you going to compensate them? They always have and will continue to fight against alternative fuels) and so on. With a national debt in excess of 9 trillion dollars, that will sure "boost" our economy huh.

Don't get me wrong- I am all for getting rid of our dependency on the Middle East for oil, our presence for half a century is enough evidence of the trouble that comes from that. But the political process in this country is in such gridlock from special interests that all this wishful thinking will get us nowhere. The majority of our country is either too stupid or too selfish to go onto renewables- it will be at least a century before the kind of change we're talking about ever occurs, if it ever does.

**Jinjiro** · February 8th, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuoDSG

Until we figure out how to store hydrogen at lower pressures and higher densities, it will not be inexpensive enough to compete with gasoline in its production chain costs.

United Nuclear - Hydrogen Fuel Systems

According to that page, the issue of storing hydrogen has been solved.
"There are materials call Hydrides that absorb Hydrogen like a sponge absorbs water. Typically, the tanks are filled with granulated Hydrides, and Hydrogen is pressurized into the material. Hydrides have many advantages over liquid & gas. One is that the density of the Hydrogen stored in the Hydride can be GREATER than that of liquid Hydrogen. This translates directly into smaller and fewer storage tanks.
Once the Hydride is "charged" with Hydrogen, the Hydrogen becomes chemically bonded to the chemical. Even opening the tank, or cutting it in half will not release the Hydrogen gas. In addition, you could even fire incendiary bullets through the tank and the Hydride would only smolder like a cigarette. It is in fact, a safer storage system than your Gasoline tank is.
Then how do you get the Hydrogen back out? To release the Hydrogen gas from the Hydride, it simply needs to be heated. This is either done electrically, using the waste exhaust heat, or using the waste radiator coolant heat."

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuoDSG

Not to mention that creating a national network of hydrogen fill stations for automobiles to meet national demand (if the whole nation is on board the hydrogen car concept) would probably top out over half a trillion dollars. That still doesn't take into account getting rid of all the conventional gasoline stations, issues with the oil industry (how are you going to compensate them? They always have and will continue to fight against alternative fuels) and so on. With a national debt in excess of 9 trillion dollars, that will sure "boost" our economy huh.

This would be true if the government were the one to push this. Thankfully though we live in a free market economy, meaning once the technology is there entrepreneurs who enjoy making money will accomplish all of this for us. Whether it be that they create new H2 stations, convert gas stations to H2 stations, or offer both at the same place, it won't cost the government or taxpayers anything. The oil industry is probably the biggest barrier, but depending on who is president and what our congress looks like, it may not be a big issue for long.

-Jin

**ComradeMolyneux** · February 9th, 02:56 AM

Jin's bangin' with the logic in his last post.

***DarkTamer*** · February 9th, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComradeMolyneux

Jin's bangin' with the logic in his last post.

Ayuh.

**ComradeMolyneux** · February 9th, 01:04 PM

Entrepreneurs will even invent the technology if you let them.

***NYY*** · February 9th, 01:40 PM

Yep.
If we privatized our space program, we would have been on Mars decades ago.

**DuoDSG** · February 9th, 02:12 PM

Thanks for correcting me on those facts, Jin- I was hoping I'd get a better idea of what the real deal with the storage is. Producing hydrogen is still more expensive than gasoline, and that's gotta go down if suppliers are gonna think it's worth it to get into that business.

Absolutely true- if the private sector is allowed to do the work, we could be sipping water from our car's tailpipes in no time. The pursuit of money can drive people to do incredible things- look at the industrial revolution and just about every technology.

It's a bit of a catch-22- trying to get the government to give its stamp of approval on this without letting the oil lobby sink the concept out of self-interest. The reason I'm skeptical is because as I said before, the majority of the people in this country are totally uninformed on these and other issues so the chances of them voting someone into office that would be gung-ho about getting it accomplished are nil. And that doesn't even count Congressional elections, it would take amazing national solidarity to get everyone on board and the way our decentralized government is set up that's nearly impossible.

**Jinjiro** · February 9th, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComradeMolyneux

Entrepreneurs will even invent the technology if you let them.

Aren't you supposed to be a Commie or something?

-Jin