Fuel again - different take
Submitted: Friday, Sep 09, 2005 at 19:28
ThreadID:
26320
Views:
2357
Replies:
6
FollowUps:
7
This Thread has been Archived
F4Phantom
I Have been thinking about all this fuel talk latley and here on this
forum everyone seems to discuss it a bit. I have a view that perhaps some people may relate too. It seems that most scientists agree that we have consumed a fair amount of the earths oil
reserves and that as we are speeding up the consumption we may not last too long on the stuff. This introduces some probs, first when we run out of the stuff the society we live in will change to what it was like perhaps 100 years ago (as in no easy long distance travel) and secondly even if we had unlimited oil we would kill our habitable environment for ourselves. Stuff all the animals, we may not be able to ensure our own survival! Anyway does any one care? or do we just think that becuase one person cant do a hell of a lot about it we should just work hard, earn more money, buy more fuel so we can burn more in our 4x4's. I am thinking that because we are running out, gone are the days of very cheap fuel. Although to put into perspective it is calculated that 1L of Petrol is roughly equal to 1 months labour for one man in pure energy. This means we burn through lots of man hours of energy every day in our cars. It also explains why the poorest labourer today lives better than the richest kings of old as we use so much energy to support our life styles. So basicly $1.50 for a month labour = cheap. This brings me to the last thought of our consumption, instead of complaining about the government (on tv & radio) and trying to lower the price of fuel to get us back to the good old days when we burned heaps for no real cost, i think the emphasis should be on trying to acheive our lifestyle we are used to with less fuel, meaning use less for the same result, i dont want to live in a comune with out the internet and no 4x4. Perhaps we should consider that any car/4x4 which uses over 10L per 100km is unacceptable to the car buying public, make the manufactures change the way they make cars so they have to do what we want them to. "I want a large powerful 4x4 which can tow a boat and use no more than 10L" I dont actually expect this to happen, cause i think we take what manufactures say for the truth, that this type of economy is unrealistic, but if the consumer demanded it, it would happen. Hybrids diesels could go along way to solving our problems but i really dont think the manufactures give a damn about economy, only pretend to cause they think they need to be seen to care to sell cars. The holden ceo on tv last night was a classic example of not giving a damn, said something like "we are looking at hybrids as a back up plan to move on to if we need to in the future" i interpret this as "we dont care about using less fuel and dont want to spend money investigating economy or hybrids, but am throwing these words in to make you all think we are doing something in the background to help" "the future" denotes that we do not have to act now! it' s a word used by procrastinators who want to do nothing different, not people or companies who want things to change. So anyway thats about it, i run 2 cars, i dont care about fuel prices, i kind of look past me, now, to what may happen to us all one day if things dont change. I recon short term we should use bio fuel, in efficient modern diesels with hybrid technology, i reocn this is the way foward to having what we have now with much less energy consumption. Am interested for anyone else's opinions on the subject.
P.S. Of all the people who post stuff like the above, i am sure its younger poeple like me (under 30) who say it, and have the most to say! I read exploder is
young today and i assumed he was not
young - and he also has a lot to say. I think the older guys dont ask big questions, i recon they sit back laughing as this stuff, glad they are past trying to solve the worlds problems on an internet
forum. It would be interesting to see how old all the people are who regularly post Q's and A's here as it would make me feel better if older people also say stupid things and put their feet in their mouths.
Reply By: Footloose - Friday, Sep 09, 2005 at 19:30
Friday, Sep 09, 2005 at 19:30
There's no fool like an old fool...and boy should I know :))
AnswerID:
129374
Follow Up By: V8troopie - Saturday, Sep 10, 2005 at 00:16
Saturday, Sep 10, 2005 at 00:16
The post above yours would be soooo much easier to read if there was a paragraph inserted every 5 lines or so.
Please consider the readers when you fire away lengthy missives, many might loose interest when the closely typed text gets difficult to read on a screen.
thanks in anticipation
Klaus
FollowupID:
383880
Reply By: Member - John C (QLD) - Friday, Sep 09, 2005 at 20:17
Friday, Sep 09, 2005 at 20:17
Agree with you mate.
When the car was introduced it solved a major environmental problem in some cities. End of the 19th century, london had to great rid of 2000 tons of horse manure a day. The petrol engine saved the day.
Now we have gone full circle, and have major pollution problems again.
But oil isn't only used for fuel, also for making plastic and other items. No crude oil, no plastic or nylon or lubricating oil. That is going to be one big full stop and a spanner in the works.
As you say biodiesel is one solution for part of the problem. Maybe India did the right thing staying with coal fired railway locos.
Also, in the western world have you thought about the total environmental and energy cost of making a car or any other product? We are certainly living beyond the worlds means. And I am the biggest hypocrite of all sitting here typing on my lap top watching TV with 2 lights on.
AnswerID:
129379
Reply By: Willem - Friday, Sep 09, 2005 at 20:50
Friday, Sep 09, 2005 at 20:50
According to my research, which is rather scant, it is claimed that there is around 1000 years of fuel deposits left. Within the next 20 years a number of alternative engines will be on the market using an array of alternative power sources.
I might not be here to see it but I have been a happy chappy burning up what was available in my time on this Third Rock from the Sun lol
AnswerID:
129387
Reply By: Member - Davoe (Widgiemooltha) - Friday, Sep 09, 2005 at 21:08
Friday, Sep 09, 2005 at 21:08
Hows the fitch going? (serios question)
AnswerID:
129391
Follow Up By: F4Phantom - Friday, Sep 09, 2005 at 21:43
Friday, Sep 09, 2005 at 21:43
Results unconclusive, i was getting a little disapointed but then recently noticed that every
tank fill up the econ has got better, 15L/100km to 12 to 11.5 and now just under 11. Over the next month I will be able to establish a bit more clearly where it will fall. It has to go below 10L consistently to beat the non-fitch engine. After it gets to that stabilised point, i will remove the fitch and see what the econ does, if it increases consumption again i will replace the fitch, if it goes down again i will be happy to say it does work, still a little while away but not all negative so far.
FollowupID:
383853
Reply By: Member - Chrispy (NSW) - Friday, Sep 09, 2005 at 21:25
Friday, Sep 09, 2005 at 21:25
We'll be forced to turn to the most abundant element in the universe - hydrogen. We should have done it decades ago. With the oil company execs "when you're on a good thing - stick to it" attitude, is there any wonder why we didn't?
That's 43-year old logic for you.
AnswerID:
129396
Follow Up By: F4Phantom - Friday, Sep 09, 2005 at 21:55
Friday, Sep 09, 2005 at 21:55
I went through the hydrogen stage but unfortunatly dont believe hydrogen will ever work. It has a couple of serious problems. It is ultimately the best element to burn cause there is zero pollution. The problem is you cannot make hydrogen and you cannot store hydrogen. When you make H you use stacks of electricity, so much that it is far better to use the electricity to charge a battery. Also once you have made it, you cant store it. eg in the mercedies A class hydrogen car, the
tank is the whole under floor, pressureised with H to 10,000PSI, it only holds 4kg of the stuff, with that you can only go 150km or so. Electric cars have already thrashed this range. Damn, thats the hydrogen thing out the door, it's a farce. I still recon diesel hybrids running off bio diesel made from home grown aussie crops is the way to go. The growing crops act as a carbon sink to absorb the fumes coming out of the exhaust. (we could make plenty of hydrogen if we could have free unlimited electricity from say nuclear power stations, they are the cleanest form of energy around with only 1 cubic meter of waste per reactor per year)
FollowupID:
383857
Follow Up By: Member - Davoe (Widgiemooltha) - Friday, Sep 09, 2005 at 21:56
Friday, Sep 09, 2005 at 21:56
there is a catch! currently it takes more energy to liberate hydrogen into a useable form than the energy it provides.
Personally I reckon if Brazil can make cars that run on ethonal because they have heaps of sugar (an expensive way to make fuel) then instead of giving the chinese our gas for free (
well as good as) we should use this gas to power our vehicles and industry and electricity etc and instead of sending iron ore overseas and gas. We should get them to set up the industrys here (this would take huge consescians like allowing chinese people to work for slave labour in their steel mills)
But I reckon it would still be better than waving our gas and iron ore goodbye only to have it return in the form of cheap garden spades and cut price generators etc
And btw
MINE URANIUM ----- AND STORE NECLEAR WASTE!!!
FollowupID:
383858
Follow Up By: Member - Chrispy (NSW) - Friday, Sep 09, 2005 at 22:06
Friday, Sep 09, 2005 at 22:06
I hope that all it takes to solve the hydrogen problem is...... development. Given that we have an inexhaustible supply of sea
water on earth, it HAS to be be way of the future for us.
Fuel cells will become more efficient, and already the proton-exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell start their reaction at 150 deg F rather than 1900 deg F - making it less expensive to liberate your hydrogen. Fuel cells are getting lighter, more efficient and cheaper to make, so we WILL see them one day soon IMHO.
FollowupID:
383860
Follow Up By: F4Phantom - Friday, Sep 09, 2005 at 22:49
Friday, Sep 09, 2005 at 22:49
you are probably right, there is no problem which cannot be solved through thought. What we are really trying to do here is move from ancient sun power to modern sun power which falls on the earth today rarther than the sun light which fell on the earth over the past millions. We have to harness the sun wether it be crops for bio fuels, solar, wind, whatever, we need to find a way of keeping our large 4x4's and running them on current energy. The thing is nuclear power is clean and with the output it only takes 200 years or so for it to reach radio active levels at which it was when dug from the gound so it is kind of feasable + with breeder reactors it will mean there is thousands of years left of nuclear material. Hey what about this one - geo thermal, if we dig down to where it gets hot (apparently the centre of the earth is hotter than the centre of the sun) we can run steam generators, this sounds like such a good idea i bet someone can already tell me why this is not feasable.
FollowupID:
383870
Follow Up By: Member - Davoe (Widgiemooltha) - Friday, Sep 09, 2005 at 23:47
Friday, Sep 09, 2005 at 23:47
Neccessity is the muther of all inventions and while we are grumbling about the price of fuel the reality is it is still the cheapest way of making go go mobiles go and allow factories to spew waste. HOWEVER as it becomes more expensive then serios R and D will go into alternatives. At the moment getting a return on your development buck is still a few years off so relitivly little gets spent on it this will change - just dunno when, it is all a question of money ie how much can be made from it.
F4 Geothermal is old news it has been tried here in oz on a station along the
birdsville track but was left to decay due to a lack of intrest (and dare I say it cost) not because it didnt work.
I also believe (I will stand corrected if wrong) Greenland or iceland produces geothermal power and sells it (dont ask me how you do that!!) as an export comodity
FollowupID:
383878
Reply By: Truckster (Vic) - Friday, Sep 09, 2005 at 23:30
Friday, Sep 09, 2005 at 23:30
can someone redo all that mess with a few paragraphs to make it possible to be bothered reading?
AnswerID:
129421