What We Need What We Want What we pay 4?
- Thread starter yyiiyyii
- Start date
Nodsu
Posts: 5,451 +7
There ya go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_cycle
Now go and do something useful like telling people about the greenhouse effect and stop this "running out of oxygen" rubbish.
Now go and do something useful like telling people about the greenhouse effect and stop this "running out of oxygen" rubbish.
MetalX
Posts: 1,364 +4
I have to agree though. We have to stop using oil. It is killing the environment, sure, but the main reason is that at the rate we use it, we only have about 45 years left before we run out totally.
So most of the world is going to shut down in 45 years, because everyone knows that humanity as a whole never REALLY SERIOUSLY tries to fix something until something really bad happens.
Look at any human history. It's everywhere.
So most of the world is going to shut down in 45 years, because everyone knows that humanity as a whole never REALLY SERIOUSLY tries to fix something until something really bad happens.
Look at any human history. It's everywhere.
Nodsu
Posts: 5,451 +7
Yes, it is completely inevitable and goes like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
kitty500cat
Posts: 1,391 +6
That's why we need to transition to biofuels. http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html
Maybe this article is a little far out, but hey, it's still better than hydrogen IMO.
Maybe this article is a little far out, but hey, it's still better than hydrogen IMO.
MetalX
Posts: 1,364 +4
Better than hydrogen?!? Hydrogen powered cars (not fuel cells) have 0 emissions. Only pure water comes out the exhaust.
And if we did use biofuels, not only would we still be polluting, but the amount of bio-oil that we would need would mean that a vast amount of farming space worldwide that would normally be used for growing food, would be growing biofuel instead. So then we'd have a solution to the lack of oil, but the world would starve before we really got to use that solution.
Whereas with hydrogen, it is A) the most plentiful substance in the universe, B) lets out 0 emissions, and C) would pretty much last us forever, since it can also be fused into helium in fusion power plants (scientists are trying to get them to actually work).
And if we did use biofuels, not only would we still be polluting, but the amount of bio-oil that we would need would mean that a vast amount of farming space worldwide that would normally be used for growing food, would be growing biofuel instead. So then we'd have a solution to the lack of oil, but the world would starve before we really got to use that solution.
Whereas with hydrogen, it is A) the most plentiful substance in the universe, B) lets out 0 emissions, and C) would pretty much last us forever, since it can also be fused into helium in fusion power plants (scientists are trying to get them to actually work).
Nodsu
Posts: 5,451 +7
Heh.. Hydrogen is not that easy. It may be the most plentiful in the universe, but we are not actually going to space to fetch it, are we?
We get hydrogen from water. Also, when hydrogen "burns", it turns to water.
According to laws of nature, we therefore have to put in more energy to produce hydrogen than we will ever get from burning it.
So where do we get the energy to produce hydrogen?
Fossil fuels mostly..
We get hydrogen from water. Also, when hydrogen "burns", it turns to water.
According to laws of nature, we therefore have to put in more energy to produce hydrogen than we will ever get from burning it.
So where do we get the energy to produce hydrogen?
Fossil fuels mostly..
Rage_3K_Moiz
Posts: 5,403 +43
And the cycle continues...
kitty500cat
Posts: 1,391 +6
Why not just produce biofuels? According to the link I posted before, they shouldn't take away much, if any, farmland.
twite
Posts: 907 +2
Of course it would. If you are a farmer, and you have a choice of growing potatoes,to sell for consumption, and get paid $10,000, or to grow corn, to sell to make fuel, and make $50,000, which one are you going to choose?
I personally think hydrogen and solar energy is the way to go. Another interesting thing is antimatter. It was something like 1/1000 of a gram of antimatter could power a car for its lifetime. Unfortunately it currently costs billions to produce.
I don't think the sun is going to "run out" anytime soon, unlike other sources of energy; That is why it would be great to figure out how to use it efficiently.
kitty500cat
Posts: 1,391 +6
Rage_3K_Moiz
Posts: 5,403 +43
Not only that, anti-matter is very difficult (and costly) to isolate completely from matter, since any contact with matter produces a very violent elimination reaction of sorts. The reaction of a kilogram of antimatter with the same amount of matter produces energy equal to burning about 5 and a half billion liters of gasoline.twite said:
twite
Posts: 907 +2
The United States military is looking into because of that feature. It could potentially be an alternative to nuclear weapons (not sure if that is good or bad)
Nasa has also done a lot of research on the potential of using it as a fuel for a spaceship, that could take us to the "unreachable" parts of are universe.
As you said, it is very hard to isolate, and very hard to turn into energy..well in apportioned amounts at least.
Nasa has also done a lot of research on the potential of using it as a fuel for a spaceship, that could take us to the "unreachable" parts of are universe.
As you said, it is very hard to isolate, and very hard to turn into energy..well in apportioned amounts at least.
Nodsu
Posts: 5,451 +7
Yet again.. Unless we find a huge chunk of antimatter somewhere (unlikely), we would have to produce it from "normal" matter. And, according to laws of nature, we would have to put in more energy than we would ever gain from antimatter.
Both antimatter and hydrogen are realy good to reduce pollution and make a great power source for moving things, but they are not a solution to the energy problem.
The only real solutions are "green" power sources (wind, sun, waves, bio* etc), traditional nuclear power, fusion power.
Both antimatter and hydrogen are realy good to reduce pollution and make a great power source for moving things, but they are not a solution to the energy problem.
The only real solutions are "green" power sources (wind, sun, waves, bio* etc), traditional nuclear power, fusion power.
SNGX1275
Posts: 10,615 +467
twite said:
Same thing applies here. Plus how are you going to capture it, or even find it?Nodsu said:
Solar, Wind, Hydro are the only really clean ways. If we have to go hydrogen, then the only logical source of energy for mass production is nuclear, we are still a long ways away from having solar panels being good enough for serious consideration. Wind requires special locations and vast fields, hydro is also pretty limited. Wind will piss off PETA because it kills birds, and hydro will piss off lots of people because you either have to flood areas, or make unsightly coastlines and also destroy some wildlife habitats.
twite
Posts: 907 +2
Yeh, thats great in all, but considering that global warming itself does all those things,1000 times over..i don't think anyone would have any right to be pissed off if it is all in an effort to stop global warming.
Wind may piss PETA off, but co2 emissions, which are linked to rising temperatures, that are changing the migratory cycle of those birds, therefor killing them and the fact that b/c of global warming "up to 30% of the species are at risk of extinction", will piss PETA off more then some windmills pushing around the air.
Where did you get this from? Why would you have to "flood" areas to make hydrogen fuel?
Even if that is the case...which would you prefer..flooding areas, in an effort to slow down global warming..or just not doing anything, and have those areas flood anyway b/c of rising sea levels. Or, deal with "Unsightly" coastlines, in an effort to stop global warming, and help save thousands of species from extinction, or do nothing?
Wind may piss PETA off, but co2 emissions, which are linked to rising temperatures, that are changing the migratory cycle of those birds, therefor killing them and the fact that b/c of global warming "up to 30% of the species are at risk of extinction", will piss PETA off more then some windmills pushing around the air.
Where did you get this from? Why would you have to "flood" areas to make hydrogen fuel?
Even if that is the case...which would you prefer..flooding areas, in an effort to slow down global warming..or just not doing anything, and have those areas flood anyway b/c of rising sea levels. Or, deal with "Unsightly" coastlines, in an effort to stop global warming, and help save thousands of species from extinction, or do nothing?
T
tifc8lraz
Stacey said:
Not all of us are able to afford new hydro-electric cars, or install solar panels on our home remember. It's not that we don't care about the environment.....I mean, I will be in the suffering generation (I'm 16 right now), and I don't want to be, although I can't help an extrodinary amount with my schooling and upcoming job opportunities so you really can't say things like that with such generalism.
