Hybrids and why they may the be wrong idea...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sonic

IMO we'll still be using oil products to power the majority of our cars for the next 50-100 years.

---

The other dirty little secret about cars and oil is that even if you don't power them with gas, or desiel, etc. there is still a bunch of oil used. Oil to lubricate moving parts. Oil to make plastic panels. Oil to make the carpets. Oil to make the foam padding. Oil in the tires. And that's just IN the car. There is still plenty of oil used in the machinery to MAKE the car too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sonic

I read an article recently which claimed there is more oil left in the ground than has been used in the whole history of mankind.

It is more expensive to get at than simply drilling a well and sticking in a pipe but it is there and technology is already available to recover it. Whereas electric or even hydrogen cars have simply too many flaws for the foreseeable future.

Oh and ps; who you ask has most of this "trapped" oil? You guessed it - the good old US of A. Lucky blighters!

---

There is a funny little voice in the back of my head wondering if this is and has been the plan for a while now. Suck up the worlds oil quickly and cheaply. Then when everyone else is hooked on the stuff and out of it, we can step up our own production and be a great power again? But maybe I'm giving the "powers that be" WAAAAY too much credit.

First off, we are not getting out of the oil economy any time soon. The "trapped" oil that will be the next major reserve when the light sweet crude is tapped out is mainly oil shale in places like Colorado and Wyoming, and the massive oil sands of Northern Alberta and Saskatchewan.

The problem with both of these sources is there is a price that will be paid for remediating the soil and terrain that may be too expensive. In the case of the oil shale, more research is required because I don't think levelling half the Rocky Mountain's is feasible nor ethical.

The oil sands of Canada however are proving to be financially viable. The companies up there are trying as things move along to be more proactive and careful with the damage and remediating the soil. There are areas where the oil just oozes out of the sand and nothing grows in patchs, so it isn't like mother nature doesn't have a dirty hand in this. Apparently the companies up there are replacing the cleaned soil (removing the oil) and planting trees and the like on the oil free sand. Now I haven't dug up all the links, but believe me, no oil company up there is getting a free ride from the public and the government on getting that oil out of the ground. There are standards to be met.

Getting away from this oil is our future however, but in the meantime we have to get the most out of our oil economy. So I don't grasp why politicians in the US think not drilling for oil ( there are still untapped reserves that are easy to get at in the US) in new areas while buying it from Canada and Mexico ( contrary to popular belief, the US gets very little oil from the Middle East) is any more "Green".

We need this hydrogen thing to work. We need to get on with fusion technology, and we need to figure out a way of creating a hydrogen distribution network. I think it will happen when the oil companies can figure a way to use their existing network and infrastructure and transport hydrogen instead of oil products. This will happen when two things happen:

One, hydrogen can be isolated for use in large quantities, and two, there is an incentive for them to do so.

Not sure how all that happens, but I do know Nuclear power is going to be more important, and ideally Fusion would be the solution, but it it is decades if not further away right now....

As for those who think I am accusing all the greenies of being left wing reactionaries, most of the greens who jump on the manipulation of society to create their utopia are actually left of center pols who are using the fears of climate change and ecological change to get their way. Al Gore is the poster child for this, as is many who protest the wind farms, protest the creation of solar farms in the deserts of California (where the hell else would you put 1000 solar panels?) and protest nuclear plants being built.

The assertion tho that all green minded people should be lumped in with these lefties is wrong, and I apologize to those who are not raving socialist reactionaries, for I do know many people on my side of the political fence who care deeply for preserving the enviroment. I think tho that their voice is being trampled on and manipulated by the same raving loons who attack politicians at events like Copenhagan who are from the other side of the fence, and not for any other reason.

I have to say, until the green movement gets a voice that is above taking sides in the politcal fray, they will always lack credibility.

I am all for conservation. I have a lower carbon footprint than most of the enviro weeenies in the media, I recycle (even though our municpal recycling programs are costing us more money than if we buried it as trash) and I have always been conscious of spending less in driving fuel efficient cars (nothing but 4 cylinders save for one rotary). That said, we have to be practical. We need power, our society stops dead without it, and if the world's population is growing, then we need to find more efficient and clean ways to do it and THAT is good business, not just being green. The problem I have with the rabid greenies of the left is they don't want solutions that don't dovetail in with their political model, and as the climate change fiasco has proven, they are quite willing to lie, cheat and manipulate data to create the illusion they are right.

The jury is still out on what all this CO2 is doing to the climate. The fact is cap and trade is socialism brought to bear on the nation-state level, and doesn't actually solve anything but move money around. Remember, the one American company who was all for the US signing Kyoto and playing the cap and trade game was ENRON, and we all know how ethical THEY were now don't we?

No....you want to reduce CO2, then get on with nuclear power, create the hydrogen economy, and do more UNBIASED research on climate change, what is causing it (CO2 the trigger or is it a symptom? ) if it is actually happening. Solar energy levels from the sun could be a cause, and the climate changed up and down long before we showed up with SUV's. People may not want to hear this, but we are NOT that important......mother nature can do what she likes and we are powerless to stop her...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

... The question then is how easy is it to transport hydrogen? Can it be put into tankers or pipelines...

---

Therein lies a major problem with hydrogen. It's extremely volatile and dangerous to transport.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Ok I guess I misunderstood your stand. I would agree with this statement



Exactly. And a point that is missed by many, many "green" advocates.



Are you sure that batteries don't suck up just as much energy from the grid, if not more, than splitting water? I don't know for sure either, I'll do some digging, but I remember hearing some outragous numbers for engergy to build a battery. Then you have to dispose of them somehow, and some batteries are just about as toxic as nuclear waste.

---

Well I'm fairly sure that the processes used to make hydrogen are more energy intensive than just charging a battery.

I think good green technology should make financial sense and people should be stupid not to adopt it. I mean who here would choose the less fuel efficient of two tyres if they were both suitable in terms of grip, wear and cost?

I mean http://www.michelin.co.uk/michelinuk...312100246.html 4g/km of CO2 is not the biggest saving but it probably equates to maybe a 2% CO2 reduction which in the big scheme of things will make a difference.

But instead many people just buy what the tyre guy tells them to and in a lot of cases it's just what the tyre guy has stock of or what he's getting the biggest kickback to sell at that moment in time.

Then there are kitchen appliances, TV's, computers etc to consider. In the last 2 and a bit years we've bought a dishwasher, fridge and washing machine and have always gone for the most water and energy efficient models which were reasonably priced. We've got two PC's which both have energy efficient power supplies and the efficiency of the components chosen was also a factor for me as well.

None of this is difficult stuff to research but the fact is that most people don't have the inclination or it simply doesn't occur to them that this sort of thing can save them money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schmenke

Therein lies a major problem with hydrogen. It's extremely volatile and dangerous to transport.

---

Hydrogen also leaks easily and apparently turns pipelines brittle.

They are currently facing problems in Scotland. In the north of the country there are massive wind farms and hydro schemes, with much more coming online very soon. But to transport the power from these a new line of pylons is needed. Trouble is the pylons go through some areas of outstanding natural beauty, so obviously there is quite a bit of opposition to the building of them.

But of course, without them, all the renewable schemes are pointless!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

The other dirty little secret about cars and oil is that even if you don't power them with gas, or desiel, etc. there is still a bunch of oil used. Oil to lubricate moving parts. Oil to make plastic panels. Oil to make the carpets. Oil to make the foam padding. Oil in the tires. And that's just IN the car. There is still plenty of oil used in the machinery to MAKE the car too..

---

If we are going to need oil for all of that, might as well take that 10 or 15% of that "waste" product gasoline and burn it right? That was the irony. Oil was used in the 1800's by the US to replace Whale oil for lighting lamps and oiling machinery. Gasoline was a byproduct of early refining and they had no use for the stuff at first. Just burned it off......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

There is a funny little voice in the back of my head wondering if this is and has been the plan for a while now. Suck up the worlds oil quickly and cheaply. Then when everyone else is hooked on the stuff and out of it, we can step up our own production and be a great power again? But maybe I'm giving the "powers that be" WAAAAY too much credit.

---

Your politicians and mind are liked stopped clocks. They are only right by accident maybe two times a day....

The reason you Americans have loads of oil under your borders not being exploited is because the green lobby is against it. The same mindset is against allowing the windfarms off Nantucket (The Kennedy's and John Kerry musn't have their view spoiled) and the idiots running around Sacramento telling the politicians there to not allow a solar farm in the Mojave desert so some ground rat can work on his tan. Schwarznegger said it best "if we cannot put a solar panel array in the desert, where else should we put it? Downtown Los Angeles?" It is just silly political games.

When the pols and the public decide green is the better option, and try to get away from carbon fuels for power, all the sudden windmills are dangerous, more dams are damaging, nukes are no good, solar farms are no good. These idiots who are against anything but useless cap and trade policy think a lap top I guess can be plugged into trees? The population of even nations with moderate to low birth rates are still growing due to immigration and they will need more power, no matter how much effort we put in to conservation. So fine, build solar farms, build windmills, build nukes. They are all carbon friendly and then we can really get on with alternatives for gasoline, and figure out once and for all whether there is a negative effect to the CO2 issue, and how to adjust to the effects. As I said before, the earth has warmed and cooled a few times in the last million years. SUV's and man's silly insistence on electricity has only been around for a blink of that time...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Well I'm fairly sure that the processes used to make hydrogen are more energy intensive than just charging a battery.

---

I'm not talking about charging the battery. I'm talking about making the battery and disposing of the battery when it's used up. THAT has to be energy intensive. Although quick searches aren't turning up anything concrete on this, just a bunch of fluff on why you should drive a hybrid etc. I'll keep looking for solid number though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

I think good green technology should make financial sense and people should be stupid not to adopt it. I mean who here would choose the less fuel efficient of two tyres if they were both suitable in terms of grip, wear and cost?

I mean http://www.michelin.co.uk/michelinuk...312100246.html 4g/km of CO2 is not the biggest saving but it probably equates to maybe a 2% CO2 reduction which in the big scheme of things will make a difference.

---

I agree with you in principal. However, in practice the fuel efficient tires are not up to the same standard for grip, wear, or cost. I can tell you with absolute certainty that grip and fuel efficiency (rolling resistance) are inversely proportional, ie as one goes up the other goes down, and vice-versa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Then there are kitchen appliances, TV's, computers etc to consider. In the last 2 and a bit years we've bought a dishwasher, fridge and washing machine and have always gone for the most water and energy efficient models which were reasonably priced. We've got two PC's which both have energy efficient power supplies and the efficiency of the components chosen was also a factor for me as well.

None of this is difficult stuff to research but the fact is that most people don't have the inclination or it simply doesn't occur to them that this sort of thing can save them money.

---

Yes, if people do their research properly into this they can find out that they may actually be able to save themselves money in many cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

If we are going to need oil for all of that, might as well take that 10 or 15% of that "waste" product gasoline and burn it right? That was the irony. Oil was used in the 1800's by the US to replace Whale oil for lighting lamps and oiling machinery. Gasoline was a byproduct of early refining and they had no use for the stuff at first. Just burned it off......

---

Yep, if we had never discovered kerosene we wouldn't be in this mess now. :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Your politicians and mind are liked stopped clocks. They are only right by accident maybe two times a day....

The reason you Americans have loads of oil under your borders not being exploited is because the green lobby is against it. The same mindset is against allowing the windfarms off Nantucket (The Kennedy's and John Kerry musn't have their view spoiled) and the idiots running around Sacramento telling the politicians there to not allow a solar farm in the Mojave desert so some ground rat can work on his tan. Schwarznegger said it best "if we cannot put a solar panel array in the desert, where else should we put it? Downtown Los Angeles?" It is just silly political games.

When the pols and the public decide green is the better option, and try to get away from carbon fuels for power, all the sudden windmills are dangerous, more dams are damaging, nukes are no good, solar farms are no good. These idiots who are against anything but useless cap and trade policy think a lap top I guess can be plugged into trees? The population of even nations with moderate to low birth rates are still growing due to immigration and they will need more power, no matter how much effort we put in to conservation. So fine, build solar farms, build windmills, build nukes. They are all carbon friendly and then we can really get on with alternatives for gasoline, and figure out once and for all whether there is a negative effect to the CO2 issue, and how to adjust to the effects. As I said before, the earth has warmed and cooled a few times in the last million years. SUV's and man's silly insistence on electricity has only been around for a blink of that time...

---

You are right, of course, but I have a bit of a consipracy theory streak in me. So feeding that demon I see two possiblities. One is that we are in it for the long term and we are going to screw the rest of the world when they are out of oil and we have it all. Two is that they all really belive that humans are a virus that must be irradicated in order to save the planet.

The truth, I'm sure, lies somewhere in the middle. But sometimes it's fun to think of grand schemes going on behind the scenes. Everybody needs a good Luminati or Templars theory to pass the time, right? :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

They are currently facing problems in Scotland. In the north of the country there are massive wind farms and hydro schemes, with much more coming online very soon. But to transport the power from these a new line of pylons is needed. Trouble is the pylons go through some areas of outstanding natural beauty, so obviously there is quite a bit of opposition to the building of them.

But of course, without them, all the renewable schemes are pointless!

---

I agree that if the areas are of outstanding national beauty that there is a problem but a lot of the places just have problems with NIMBYS.