alternative fuel

[Bolson13]

I think the world will see a larger energy mix. For instance, the hydrogen might not be efficient yet but once you connect the hydrogen plant to a nuclear power plant (hopefully fission in the future) then it doesn't have to be efficient. because you require the hydrogen as a "mobile" energy source.


And for cars, there will probably be
- more techniques (they are making that system of energy storage in those toy pull back and let go cars for real cars at traffic lights for instance)
- mixes of techniques (part electric and part hydro or part biofuel)
- Selection depending on the functionality. (In heavy populated areas a second "moms grocery" car can easily be an electric car. You don't drive huge distances in it).

Similar for houses, it will probably be a mix of:
- solar,
- wind (those small windmills you start seeing in cities these days)
- earth heat

Things like that.

We probably will be shifting from a very one way energy source to maximising efficiency of all energy sources.

[Deleted]

@ above poster , you probely ment fusion power not fission were using fission these days as nuclear power.

[Bolson13]

@ above poster , you probely ment fusion power not fission were using fission these days as nuclear power.

Yes, my apologies.

[haxartus]

Hydrogen takes a lot of space and it's very easily combustible.
Imagine that you get in to a small accident with the car, it fractures the high pressure hydrogen bottle, which causes the whole thing to explode and rip the car in to shreds. Which then reacts with the oxygen and creates a huge fireball, burning everything around it. Not only that it would kill everyone in the car, but anyone around it too.

[Puremallace]

Hydrogen takes a lot of space and it's very easily combustible.
Imagine that you get in to a small accident with the car, it fractures the high pressure hydrogen bottle, which causes the whole thing to explode and rip the car in to shreds. Which then reacts with the oxygen and creates a huge fireball, burning everything around it. Not only that it would kill everyone in the car, but anyone around it too.

This paranoia works under the theory that gasoline is not flammable lol

[haxartus]

This paranoia works under the theory that gasoline is not flammable lol

Gasoline is not held under insane pressure and it's not a gas.

[Masark]

This paranoia works under the theory that gasoline is not flammable lol

Gasoline is liquid at STP and thus provides reasonable energy density and doesn't need to be stored at pressures that will blast a tank through 1 1/2 cinderblock walls.

[haxartus]

Gasoline is liquid at STP and thus provides reasonable energy density and doesn't need to be stored at pressures that will blast a tank through 1 1/2 cinderblock walls.

And that should be about 2000 psi. Imagine 10 000.

[The Riddler]

But I look at it as a good premise with some interesting engineering challenges to overcome. I get the sense that you view it as a bad premise with impossible engineering challenges that can't be overcome. As far as I know, we've never attempted such a thing before, even on a small scale, and I refuse to believe the challenges involved are insurmountable. Certainly having a technology with a connector "smart" enough to actively seek a "rail" (whatever the rail/mesh/groove looked like) wouldn't be difficult at all. Probably the durability of the materials would be an issue, but again, I'm not fully convinced that can't be worked out.

I conduct experimental research for a living. I spend the better part of my days trying to design a study that will obtain valid results, so I'm pretty familiar with the "theory versus reality" conundrum. There are a lot of things that sound really good in theory. However, when you try to turn them into a practical application they are highly unreliable - which in a consumer product for the mass market is not acceptable. The whole "3rd rail for consumer vehicles" is one of those things. Even a basic examination of the premise concludes that it is not a feasible way to deliver power to a moving vehicle with an individual driver in an uncontrolled environment.

On the engineering side - it may be possible to design a system that works under controlled conditions such as in a lab or over short distances. But taking that system into the real world would result in constant failures of the system, and no way to reliably compensate for them. Any system that would work would be so complex and/or expensive that it would not be worth the effort.

I think it would be a good idea to build a national slingshot system that lets you get around town by flinging you through the air. It is POSSIBLE to engineer a system that will work. That doesn't make it practical, or a good idea.

[Grummgug]

Solar power efficiency is growing by leaps and bounds. The percentage of our energy needs met by solar power is doubling every 2 years. It currently stands at 1%. This process is very stable and very predictable. So let's walk it through.

2012: 1% of our energy needs met by solar.
2014: 2%
2016: 4%
2018: 8%
2020: 16%
2022: 32%
2024: 64%
2026: 100%

We are on pace to meet ALL of our energy needs by the late 2020s. Maybe 2030 if you factor in the growth of our energy needs as well.

By 2030, global warming will be a non-issue. We will have conquered global warming and a TON of our pollution issues. Good times ahead!

As usual, societies problems get solved by technological breakthroughs, not politicians debating in session.

[Linkedblade]

We also need to create devices that work on a lot lower amperage. That way if more green methods are available we don't use as much of the resource.

[tombstoner139]

A third rail system for hooking an auto too is a reasonably viable idea. the only benefit i see is a reduction in on board storage and or power generation needs. this translates into weight savings making such a system more efficient, but you are limited to a short range from the rail. OK for heavily urban areas. safety concerns would limit placement to restricted areas like in subway systems. unless you place the rail directly above the road, but now you have a ugly looking set of power lines.

hydrogen can be used, but damage to storage units i think are problematic vs. gas/gas substitutes. cost is a prohibitive factor.

synthetic bio fuels are what i consider the best option. they are a drop in replacement for diesel

non renewable's are out cause they are nonrenewable

The question of alternative fuels if you take one step higher, becomes how do we generate power for our civilization for the long term?
Then whats the best way to distribute that energy.

[Gamdwelf]

A third rail system for hooking an auto too is a reasonably viable idea. the only benefit i see is a reduction in on board storage and or power generation needs. this translates into weight savings making such a system more efficient, but you are limited to a short range from the rail. OK for heavily urban areas. safety concerns would limit placement to restricted areas like in subway systems. unless you place the rail directly above the road, but now you have a ugly looking set of power lines.

hydrogen can be used, but damage to storage units i think are problematic vs. gas/gas substitutes. cost is a prohibitive factor.

synthetic bio fuels are what i consider the best option. they are a drop in replacement for diesel

non renewable's are out cause they are nonrenewable

The question of alternative fuels if you take one step higher, becomes how do we generate power for our civilization for the long term?
Then whats the best way to distribute that energy.

Tesla wireless electricity

[sandmoth12]

Electricity is by far mostly generated by gas and coal power plants. Hydrogen is clean but I am not a big fan of using the worlds water supply as our fuel source.

[Masark]

Hydrogen is clean but I am not a big fan of using the worlds water supply as our fuel source.

What exactly do you think happens when you burn hydrogen?

[The Riddler]

Solar power efficiency is growing by leaps and bounds. The percentage of our energy needs met by solar power is doubling every 2 years. It currently stands at 1%. This process is very stable and very predictable.

That is the opinion of Ray Kurzweil, but it there is no real evidence to support it. Solar power has been around for decades and still isn't any more than a tiny fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of our total energy output. By his logic, the entire planet should have been running on solar power over 20 years ago.

[The Riddler]

Although hydrogen does have problems with storage, I really don't see the need for mass panic over explosions. Do people panic when pumping a flammable, vapor combustible fluid into their cars currently? I didn't think so. Besides, the tanks are designed to not explode on accident already.

Well - IF (and this is IF) a car was running on compressed gaseous hydrogen, the vehicle would need to be carrying around at least 20 cubic feet of hydrogen under 10,000 PSI. Now - I don't know how much you know about physics, but carrying around 16 tanks of hydrogen at 10,000 PSI per tank is EXTREMELY dangerous. If one of the tanks was compromised in an accident it would literally go off like a bomb and would have enough energy to leave a 10 foot smoking crater in the road. The explosion would be fatal within a range of about 20 feet, and severe damage would occur to any structure or car that was within 50 feet to 100 feet. We're talking about 1,800 cubic feet of pure hydrogen. That is FAR more dangerous than gasoline. Yes - people are right to be frightened of that.

Regardless... Gasoline is not combustable unless it is AEROSOLIZED. Gasoline fumes burn, but gasoline itself is not explosive. You can take a tank of gas and light it on fire and it will not explode. It'll burn, but it is not going to kill everyone within a 20 foot radius. It'll just slowly burn out the car - generally giving you plenty of time to escape the vehicle. Cars to not explode except in the movies because gasoline is not explosive by itself.

[Puremallace]

Solar power efficiency is growing by leaps and bounds. The percentage of our energy needs met by solar power is doubling every 2 years. It currently stands at 1%. This process is very stable and very predictable. So let's walk it through.

2012: 1% of our energy needs met by solar.
2014: 2%
2016: 4%
2018: 8%
2020: 16%
2022: 32%
2024: 64%
2026: 100%

We are on pace to meet ALL of our energy needs by the late 2020s. Maybe 2030 if you factor in the growth of our energy needs as well.

By 2030, global warming will be a non-issue. We will have conquered global warming and a TON of our pollution issues. Good times ahead!

As usual, societies problems get solved by technological breakthroughs, not politicians debating in session.

Wonder when idiots will realize that electric companies are already using solar to power your houses and we are paying for energy they are getting for free lol

If you live in Phoenix go take a trip past some of those power sub stations and count the sheer number of solar panels.

That is the opinion of Ray Kurzweil, but it there is no real evidence to support it. Solar power has been around for decades and still isn't any more than a tiny fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of our total energy output. By his logic, the entire planet should have been running on solar power over 20 years ago.

US dropped like 1 billion into solar research and companies like Solyndra. China dropped 30 BILLION into it. We are all going to be buying solar panels that say "Made in China".

Republicans have managed to demagogue solar power just like they did with Ethanol. I wish President Obama had the balls to push this more.

[Reeve]

Wonder when idiots will realize that electric companies are already using solar to power your houses and we are paying for energy they are getting for free lol

If you live in Phoenix go take a trip past some of those power sub stations and count the sheer number of solar panels.

That's hardly free.

[The Riddler]

US dropped like 1 billion into solar research and companies like Solyndra. China dropped 30 BILLION into it. We are all going to be buying solar panels that say "Made in China". Republicans have managed to demagogue solar power just like they did with Ethanol. I wish President Obama had the balls to push this more.

More? Obama threw away much more than a billion. Solar Trust, Solyndra, Energy Conversion Devices, LSP, Sun Power, Beacon Power, Ecotality, UniSolar, Azure Dynamics, Ener1, A123 Solar, Abound Solar, Evergreen Solar, Spectra Watt, Amonix, NRG Energy, Bright Energy... Just to name a FEW of the companies that have either gone completely bankrupt, or otherwise had to downsize/fold. Between them all, Obama has sunk more like around 25 billion into Solar. That's not even touching all the money he's flushed down the toilet with the Volt, Fisker, Tesla, and all these other unprofitable money pits.

Regardless of that... So what if China has dumped that much money into panels? Solar is still far over 5 times more expensive than coal or natural gas as a means of generating electricity. There's no shortage of coal or gas. Why forcibly change over to a more expensive energy when there is no need for it? I say let China be the king of solar panels, and let the US stay on coal/gas for the next 100 years by which time something far better then crappy, expensive, inefficient photovoltaic panels and dirty, heavy, inefficient, expensive batteries has come along - making the current "solar" market utterly irrelevant.