Do you know why we don't have Hydrogen cars? Because of $$ of course! The petrol compagny buys all the Hydrogen projects, then after there's no more petrol, they're going to switch much easier. The only thing is that we're going to die before petrol extinct...
"We worry about not having petrol anymore... but I worry about not having humans on Earth anymore."
Nice, quote me XP.
Don`t get fooled from the propaganda of the politicans...
That makes alot of sense for a far advanced civilisation, But we are not.trumpet_is_cool wrote: Hydrogen is not a solution....Hydrogen is not an energy, it is a carrier for energy...You need energy to produce hydrogen...It isn`t very efficient to produce hydrogen, you need a lot energy for that...More than you get later out of the hydrogen.
Do you have a proven alternative, anything better than hydrogen would be good [free energy] but do we have a proven alternative?trumpet_is_cool wrote:Don`t get fooled from the propaganda of the politicans...
advanced or not...You need to put energy into the production of hydrogen, you can`t drill for hydrogen.survivor wrote:That makes alot of sense for a far advanced civilisation, But we are not.trumpet_is_cool wrote: Hydrogen is not a solution....Hydrogen is not an energy, it is a carrier for energy...You need energy to produce hydrogen...It isn`t very efficient to produce hydrogen, you need a lot energy for that...More than you get later out of the hydrogen.
And that`s the problem, we don`t have any alternative !! Imagine what would happen if the politicans would tell that they have no alternative...Please read this :Do you have a proven alternative, anything better than hydrogen would be good [free energy] but do we have a proven alternative?trumpet_is_cool wrote:Don`t get fooled from the propaganda of the politicans...
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ (Well, the title of the page looks like propaganda too but what is written makes a lot of sense)
Our generation will have a REALLY Big Problem and this within the next 20 Years !
From the above Page:
Nice future It`s a great adventure..."Big deal. If gas prices get high, I’ll just drive less. Why should I give a ***?"
Because petrochemicals are key components to much more than just the gas in your car. As geologist Dale Allen Pfeiffer points out in his article entitled, "Eating Fossil Fuels," approximately 10 calories of fossil fuels are required to produce every 1 calorie of food eaten in the US.
The size of this ratio stems from the fact that every step of modern food production is fossil fuel and petrochemical powered:
1. Pesticides are made from oil;
2. Commercial fertilizers are made from ammonia, which is
made from natural gas, which will peak about 10 years
after oil peaks;
3. With the exception of a few experimental prototypes, all
farming implements such as tractors and trailers are
constructed and powered using oil;
4. Food storage systems such as refrigerators are
manufactured in oil-powered plants, distributed across
oil-powered transportation networks and usually run on
electricity, which most often comes from natural gas or
5. In the US, the average piece of food is transported
almost 1,500 miles before it gets to your plate. In
Canada, the average piece of food is transported 5,000
miles from where it is produced to where it is consumed.
In short, people gobble oil like two-legged SUVs.
It's not just transportation and agriculture that are entirely dependent on abundant, cheap oil. Modern medicine, water distribution, and national defense are each entirely powered by oil and petroleum derived chemicals.
In addition to transportation, food, water, and modern medicine, mass quantities of oil are required for all plastics, all computers and all high-tech devices.
Some specific examples may help illustrate the degree to which our technological base is dependent on fossil fuels:
1. The construction of an average car consumes the energy
equivalent of approximately 20 barrels of oil , which
equates to 840 gallons, of oil. Ultimately, the
construction of a car will consume an amount of fossil
fuels equivalent to twice the car’s final weight.
2. The production of one gram of microchips consumes 630
grams of fossil fuels. According to the American Chemical
Society, the construction of single 32 megabyte DRAM
chip requires 3.5 pounds of fossil fuels in addition to 70.5
pounds of water.
3. The construction of the average desktop computer
consumes ten times its weight in fossil fuels.
4. The Environmental Literacy Council tells us that due to
the "purity and sophistication of materials (needed for) a
microchip, . . . the energy used in producing nine or ten
computers is enough to produce an automobile."
When considering the role of oil in the production of modern technology, remember that most alternative systems of energy — including solar panels/solar-nanotechnology, windmills, hydrogen fuel cells, biodiesel production facilities, nuclear power plants, etc. — rely on sophisticated technology.
In fact, all electrical devices make use of silver, copper, and/or platinum, each of which is discovered, extracted, transported, and fashioned using oil-powered machinery. For instance, in his book, The Lean Years: Politics of Scarcity, author Richard J. Barnet writes:
To produce a ton of copper requires 112 million BTU's or the
equivalent of 17.8 barrels of oil. The energy cost component
of aluminum is twenty times higher.
Nuclear energy requires uranium, which is also discovered, extracted, and transported using oil-powered machinery.
Most of the feedstock (soybeans, corn) for biofuels such as biodiesel and ethanol are grown using the high-tech, oil-powered industrial methods of agriculture described above.
In short, the so called "alternatives" to oil are actually "derivatives" of oil. Without an abundant and reliable supply of oil, we have no way of scaling these alternatives to the degree necessary to power the modern world.
P.S. There exisits NO alternative for aviation fuel !
Im not saying theres no pollution clearly theres tons of it, but Novak made a point about black body radiation and a principle of it in relation to CO2 [97% reflective of solar IR] that seems to suggest adding more CO2 wont decrease reflectivity of IR radiation from the atmosphere, into space. After looking into this, then looking back, again, at Toms paper, I wondered - why did he say 'so-called'? Its really about the hydrocarbons, to me. The mass media that talks about global warming never fairly mention the underwater volcanos or the fact of hydrocarbons being the source of the trapping heat, not co2.
Was that link earlier about Dr Nick Begich? He says peak oil is false. Either way though, Id prefer a different energy source, absolutely - like water fuel cells, or a type of magnetic motor [Begich also co-wrote w/jeane manning, 'angels dont play this haarp'. Manning herself wrote an excellent book which I own called 'the coming energy revolution', side note] - but then theres the issue of '3rd' world countries who want to industrially develop themselves and countries like us, uk, aus, etc will say no coal, use this expensive stuff you have to buy from us - always ends up being about money...as for aviation fuel - youre right, whatever alternative thats made, would mean having to totally revamp the way plane engines are manufactured. I know this article isnt exactly exciting but smaller models have flown successfully, as of this past august 06:
I found an IPCC graph that shows relationship of CO2 levels added to the atmosphere, with levels of HFCs like HFC-23. http://www.afeas.org/greenhouse_gases.html anyone know the black body radiation of this gas, or of hydrocarbons? In order for more people to believe this is a real threat, we need more honest and to the point papers that show what the black body radiation IR reflection levels of IC-engine/coal HCs are [reduction of IR heat reflection into space]. Most [if not all] only focus on the CO2.
[look at the black body radiation stats on hydrocarbons, do a find function for 'hydrocarbons'].
do a yahoo or google search, put in quotes, "low GWP alternatives to HFC", open the pdf, do the find function for 'black body' and you will see a graph and discussion. These two are the only scientific articles based on a search "black body radiation" + "HFC-23" I could find, anywhere on the net. Granted, you could replace the search term 'hfc-23' with hydrocarbon, and get more results.....it seems I may have overlooked the fact that HFCs are part of chemicals to blame for ozone depletion. Anyone know how much less of it worldwide is in use? Are people of earth using more, not less, of them? Al Gore talked about how we've greatly improved initiatives of preventing these chemicals from being in use, the ozone hole problem is less now he said, in his movie. Is this true?
I only focused on this hfc b/c it seemed to have a very long atmospheric half-life. What I meant to suggest is that it is the atmospheric hydrocarbons [not co2] that absorb more heat than release, and this is what should be focused on [again, my uneducated opinion]. This site http://www.geocities.com/prasoon_d/gdi.htm promotes a different type of petrol IC engine, saying its more efficient and reduces largely the HC emissions [soot?]. Clever but is it enough? Perhaps the reason why honest global warming skeptics continue to believe it isnt happening and the idea of it is a sham, is because most of the data that is popularized in politics and science for the most part, focus on co2 - most articles I see are blanket CO2 warnings, not HC warnings!
by the way, a while back I came across a site but I had to restart my computer when it froze, didnt get the chance to bookmark it, got distracted and forgot. Today I found something like it - a process called "thermal depolymerization" anyone know something about it do share. Im runnin out of 'steam' today.
I can't say I agree totally mate. Your last statement Don`t get fooled from the propaganda of the politicans... I CAN and will agree with.trumpet_is_cool wrote:Hydrogen is not a solution....Hydrogen is not an energy, it is a carrier for energy...You need energy to produce hydrogen...It isn`t very efficient to produce hydrogen, you need a lot energy for that...More than you get later out of the hydrogen.
Don`t get fooled from the propaganda of the politicans...
Yes, the poli's want us to use hydrogen as a source only because they can produce it for profit much like petrol. The key here is, and always has been is to produce hydrogen on the fly eg: a water engine IS the answer. The fuel is H20, producing hydro into the cyclinder heads on demand as you put the "pedal-to-the-metal". Now, science today love to say this cannot be achieved without a huge amount of engergy to do so - What a load of ***!
I'm sure most memebers here are aware of Browns Gas? It is on the right track, but yet unable to justify the means to produce hydro on the fly [I'm not sure if they're just content with what they've achieved and haven't researched any further or what?] There is a variant of this process, which you can see here: http://hytechapps.com/aquygen/hhos
I'm not suggesting this group IS the answer, but they're on the right track... more research is indeed needed.
I know of a person here in Melbourne, Aus. that is deveopling the most amazing energy source ever seen in our current civilization, but it is far from complete. I'd love to elaborate, but unfortunately can't at this stage for a few reasons. I'll see what info I can get on it and pass it on.
In this matter, we need to stand together like the people from Arki's planet did and make these bastards honest!
...sorry for the rant people, it bites me bad! I'm sticking to my bicycle in the mean time.
They also told me about guys they knew who had actually custom made their car to run of hydrogen.
I was signed up to the email of the nexus group in melbourne, if anybody knows about this could they please give me websites on the group so that I may resume contact. I lost contact when I had to make a new email address.
It is likely the government will do all they can to make hydrogen seem an expensive alternative and not worth thinking about. Is this not in their interests?
If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
they say browns gas implodes versus explodes right? That would translate to more engine efficiency in combustion [and obviously cleaner]. But I'm trying to get a direct conversion from a combustion engine running on gasoline, most system conversions if available, no matter the alternative fuel out there [biodiesel, hemp or grease oil] convert only either from diesel or CNG, which for most people on earth [Id assume] drive sail or fly petrol engine vehicles. Well, at least the cars anyway. I think there was an inventor who developed a gasoline/water mixture fuel of some sort that ended up burning less gasoline in an ordinary petrol engine, but its been a few years since I looked into this stuff.
whats the difference between the orgone 'joe cell' engine and the brown's gas, are they the same? At some point I may be interested in getting a 'beater' retrofitted w/this. For now I dont drive except locally [cold so biking is out].
btw Tom has posted on thefreedomforum regarding the Earth, check it out.
There are so many outcomes that I've heard of though, such as:
-Something about planet alignment that occurs once every X years, I forget.
-2012 is a year when the world will change as we know it, as in, a burst of spiritual development occurs.
-Stuff related to the 666 stuff.
-About 3 million people will die of a disaster.
My sources were from PSI related forums.
Either way, there will be some type of disaster, there is no way around it. Hopefully those who survive, if any, will learn something and start a new civilization.
I personally do not think that the planet will detonate itself, but there will be numerous earthquakes and volcanic eruptions that could very possibly cause global flooding. The volcanoes are there as a safety mechanism for the planet, to prevent it from exploding, and there is no doubt in my mind that many volcanoes will erupt, and major tectonic shifts will occur, possibly causing crevasses to open (just like in TP) and destroy all of our so called "civilisation"...
The no-mind not-thinks no-thoughts about no thing.