<!--QuoteBegin-Soylent green+Feb 13 2004, 07:27 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Soylent green @ Feb 13 2004, 07:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for fuel for cars, many different forms are being tried: Electricity, Hydrogen fuel cells, all with encouraging results. The most encouraging thing is that hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, and can be obtained very easily, through electrolosis or other means.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The least encouraging thing about hydrogen is that it is usually manufactured from hydrocarbons(methane, mostly) and electrolysis. This makes hydrogen as dirty and non-renewable(in the sense that it is too difficult or impractical to renew it, even if possible) as anything else. Electricity, while "clean" in itself is also dependant on other forms of energy, such as burning oil.
Unless you find a good fuel source like fusion power(another non-renewable fuel source, but it is clean and the materials needed are in abundance) and use that for hydrogen gas or electricity production or manage to make super-cheap solar cells or something then neither electrical or hydrogen powered cars seem like a good idea to me.
Fuel cells seem like a good idea if they ever get them to work fast enough for cars. If we have a surplus of cheap fermentable crops we could make lots of ethanol and run cars of off fuel-cells(which would be more efficient than a normal alcohol burning engine). A lot of a plants material is sadly cellulose and such which can't be fermented unless you manage to chop it down to glucose with some enzyme or something. Plants are like really cheap solar cells in a way... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If we did have fusion power (and eventually the knowledge) we could keep manipulating fusion until it becomes inefficient and then begin breaking it down with fission ( if we somehow got to supernova-esque power to create elements that large).
No fuel in the universe is renewable, as the laws of thermaldynamics state entropy is always increasing, so the universe is becoming colder and colder...and unless the universe starts collapsing instead of expanding, eventually the universe will be a chilled wasteland infinitely approaching absolute zero.
...of course, if the universe started contracting, eventually it would collapse...and we'd all die that way too...so, we're kind of screwed either way...although that's billions, if not trillions of years in the future and it's not really worth talking about.
Fusion (in our time frame) is probably the most efficient form of power generation we'll ever get (unless we find a solar system of anti-matter or something...but we'd need a whole lot of anti-matter to create anything usable by the whole planet).
So...actually the end point is, I completely agree with you. Unless we master fusion power or another form of creating electricity very efficiently, hydrogen powered cars would be unrealistic...as it would take electricity to run them (in effect)..but the same is true for electric cars (and gas powered cars, that rely on the oil we're trying to eliminate here.
So basically we'll just have to make solar powered cars or something...except then you can't drive anywhere if it's cloudy (or if your battery gets charged by the energy: if it's constantly cloudy).
We could just grow a bunch of trees and have wood powered everything...there we go! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-MonsieurEvil+Feb 12 2004, 12:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Feb 12 2004, 12:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-taboofires+Feb 12 2004, 11:46 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (taboofires @ Feb 12 2004, 11:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Okay, let's get a few facts straight first.
1) Trying to make oil from coal or plants is silly in the long run. You can't come anywhere close to meeting demands, and the process produces almost no net energy. Instead, we need to use the the energy that created the plants (which eventually became the coal) the sun! Or something like it. The further we go down the energy chain, the more energy is wasted. There's only about a 10% or so efficiency per step, so by step 4 (what humans are at or around) you're got a whole 0.1% left. Not good. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is not precisely correct, especially if you bother to read my previous linking to the use of biological waste in oil creation. When you use a largely available waste product to form oil, you can of course come close to meeting energy demands. It's a question of infrastructure, nothing else. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Okay, my other answer was getting longer and more detailed than anyone probably wants to read, so I'll skip to the goods: making fuel out of the stuff we eat is a bad idea. The stuff that allows the food to grow (various chemicals) is being taken out of the system, and we're going to end up with the same problem we had with peak oil: it's now too expensive to grow enough food for everyone to eat, so lots of people will starve. <i>All</i> chemical energy solutions are unsufficient. This includes chicken waste or whatever. Using it for a direct power source is extremely wasteful.
<!--QuoteBegin-MonsieurEvil+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As I said before, most energy we use is wasted in its transmission long before it powers anything. Beating that problem is one of the most important goals of science in my opinion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Right, that's where the Hydrogen comes in. Less waste via transmission and more controllable pollution, if we get good at it. That and making the energy source more local, and reduce transmission costs that way. <!--QuoteBegin-UltimaGecko+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UltimaGecko)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Last time I checked water was made out of hydrogen and oxygen. Electrolosis seperates it into H and O (I think the negative lead creates the hydrogen, but I can't remember off-hand). Flame returns the two back to water (burned hydrogen combines with oxygen and forms water).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Gecko, it would be wonderful if energy worked that way, but it doesn't. The energy to elecrolyze Hydrogen from water comes from oil, not thin air. Uranium from a plant is just condensed more when it starts to decay, basically removing the waste, and throwing more Uranium in. Breeder reactors are exactly the same(Uranium -> less protonated elements + neutrons + energy), but less wasteful and more dangerous. <a href='http://library.thinkquest.org/3659/nucreact/reactors.html' target='_blank'>mmmm... chemistry</a> (click "visit site")
<!--QuoteBegin-Cronos+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cronos)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->3: Reclamation. This is difficult to explain, but it involves making use of every scrap of energy. For example, in electrolysis, only the hydrogen is collected and used. If we used the oxygen as well in a different reaction, that would involve the process of reclamation. It also has a purpose on nuclear power. When spent uranium comes out and plutonium is extracted, the plutonium can be used as a nuclear fuel in hybrid reactors.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Heat is usually the form waste energy takes. Heat can be used to boil water and power turbines, or heat homes. Venting it off into the air is where the waste comes in. It's basically the same with other forms of waste energy (sonic, etc.) but those are harder to turn into electricity.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cronos+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cronos)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There are many things that we can only speculate about. Will Vacuum Energy prove to be worthwhile? Is there some quirk in quantum mechanics that we can take advantage of? Will our distant descendants mould the universe to their specifications to form red dwarf stars? (These stars can last up to 100 Billion years and support an earthlike planet, albiet tidally locked). Will our final descendants be dependent on a black holes evaporation to survive?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Haha, these are kinda funny. Somebody's been reading too much science fiction. You can't gain energy out of a vacuum: space itself is disrupting you by filling it up, and you are going to have no net gain. At best you could use that energy to almost keep the vacuum going.
Any star can reasonably provide an energy source, the hard part is finding a hospitable planet. Black holes don't release usable energy, as you have to be too far away to collect useful quantities to not be sucked in or be poisoned (x and gamma rays).
We won't really need to resort to anything so exotic as long as stars still exist, but good thinking anyways.
On a side note, the chicken waste product oil was created from chicken bones and feathers and stuff. The waste was going to landfills anyway (not the organic landfills either, the ones with styrofoam and chemicals that take millenia to biodegrade). Of course, the problem always goes back to producing electricity to actually start anything going.
In our day and age it takes electricity to make electricity (not much manual labor to stoke our fires anymore), and our chemicals. And the proposed most efficient way to make energy is fusion, which still isn't viable.
Until we have a working efficient fusion reactor, we'll need to rely on directly renewable resources like solar, tidal, wind and geothermal power. It'd be better for the future if we spent more money investing in nuclear reactors and viable sources of energy instead of wars and $50,000 white house toilet seats <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> .
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It is widely held that one atom of plutonium can kill you if it gets into your lungs. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> from your chemistry site...heh, I remember that line from Metal Gear Solid....heh, ahh, the marvel of weird video games 6 years ago <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> . Except they didn't say it was widely held, they stated it as fact...and you usually can't trust everything in video games (physics class > video games anyway <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> ).
There is no such thing as too much science fiction <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<a href='http://perimeterinstitute.ca/people/researchers/dgottesman/infoloss.html' target='_blank'>Black Hole Evaporation</a> is far too inefficient for our current generation, but speaking in terms of hundreds of trillions of years from now, it may well be the only source of energy left in the universe.
Not to mention, provided one has two black holes in orbit about each other, that use could be made of their gravitational energy (Gravity -> Force -> Energy).
Also, not how I phrased the vacuum energy part of my post as a question, not as a statement of fact <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Haha, these are kinda funny. Somebody's been reading too much science fiction. You can't gain energy out of a vacuum: space itself is disrupting you by filling it up, and you are going to have no net gain. At best you could use that energy to almost keep the vacuum going. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't believe that's what he is refering to. It is not known wheater it is feasable that energy can be extracted from vacuum or not(i.e wheter vacuum has an energy density and wheater you can use it for your purpose).
Ok this is going to seem really disjointed but it would take hours to put everything togheter in a proper way.
The existance of a vacuum has been argued since ancient times. In recent times James Clerk Maxwell proposed that there was an ether, a sort of substance of some sort that covered all of space(even vacuum) that propagated electromagnetic waves(light and other forms of electromagnetic radiation). The Michelson-Morley experiment totally failed to find evidence of an ether such as the one proposed with extraordinary accuracy. That led to an interesting situation, the speed of light in maxwells equations must be relative to something, how can something wave-like in nature not have a medium to which it's speed is relative? That was solved by Einsteins special theory of relativity.
Einsteins general theory of relativity introduced a cosmological constant(which Einstein himself has called his biggest mistake). He introduced it in order for general relativity to predict a static Universe(one that was not expanding or collapsing).
A chap namned Edwin Hubble discovered that there are other galaxies in the Universe than our own in 1924(you can bet that made people go <i>"**** the Universe is f****** huge!!!</i> at the time <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->. It's only trivial now because we're so used to accepting that as a fact) and that everywhere you look, everything seems to be heading away from us at a speed proportional to the distance.
This is what led Einstein to regret the cosmological constant.
It also lead to the big bang theory to explain the everywhere expanding Universe. After all, if the Universe is expanding everywhere, wouldn't there have to have been a time where all matter was congregated in one place?
So now that ether wasn't needed anymore it didn't appear as though vacuum needed to contain anything.
It was found that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allowed for particles to be created and destroyed in vacuum out of nothing as long as they dissapeared before violating it(dt*dE = h is the relevant form here). This was realized as Richard Feynman and others developed the quantum theory of matter, empty space should be full of virtual particles. Some physicists began suspecting that vacuum might contain energy in the form of vertical particles.
There is something very weird going on. It appears as though the rate of expansion of the Universe is actually increasing. A "dark energy" has been hypothesized to solve this problem and is currently looking like a good candidate. Dark refering to not observable and energy because if it drives expansion it has to do work. It has been suggested that this is vacuum exerting a pressure and that vacuum has an energy density.
Different theories give VERY different estimates or constraints for the possible energy density of vacuum.
Using general relativity and astronomical observations of the curvature of spacetime the energy density of vacuum can be estimated. This gives an upper bound of ~10^-29 gram per cubic centimeter(in terms of mass).
With various sets of assumptions different people active in quantum field theory have arrived at estimates not determinable, zero, infinite and enormous(10^93 g/cm^3 <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->), the assumptions made are kind of iffy at best as you'd imagine by the results.
The currently popular "concordance model" of the universe predicts that the Universe is composed of ~5% ordinary matter, 25% "dark matter"(as in hard to observe and of unknown nature. This includes things such as neutrinos and exotic particles) and ~70% dark energy(which by some is speculated to be vacuum energy). This model has support by data from the WMAP(<something> Microwave Anisotropy Probe ) satelite and the Sloan Digital Sky survey, the largest mapping of the Universe so far covering 200 000 galaxies(other evidence suggest that there must be much more matter in the universe than the observed matter, this study shows roughly how much matter there is in the Universe which gives an indication of how much dark energy and dark matter must exist).
So, if vacuum had an energy density of 10^93 g/cm^3 wouldn't it be nice if we could get at it somehow? Along those lines of thinking some people have come to the conclusion that empty space might be a usable source of energy with a craptasticly high energy density...(or how does ~10^107 J/cm^3 sound?)
I'm more inclined to believe the ~10^-9 J/cm^3 estimates given by astronomical observations and general relativity(as well as some cosmological assumptions).
Wouldn't extracting that kind of energy from a vacuum be the same as extracting it from any space, whether it contained matter or not (at least effectively)?
I though he was just referring to the phenomenon in which a vacuum will spontaneously begin to contain particles of matter, which is just the potential of the vacuum changing state to become more stable. This only happens in a serious vacuum (not like space, which has small amounts of junk floating around), but no net energy is created. All that really happens is that the energy you use creating the vacuum is turned into mass, and because of <100% efficiency, you're actually losing energy on the whole deal.
edit: haha, and Cronos I didn't mean any offense, it just reminded me of how lots of SciFi will contain plans based on exotic physics that are brilliant, except that they ignored simpler mechanics or thermodynamics, and thus have a bit fancy nothing.
While I personally find the subject of the last few posts really interesting (and in my subject of study, BTW), unfortunately they're pretty off-topic and academic concerns compared to our current problems of how we obtain our energy in the next few generations (well, excepting fusion energy).
Just a quick intro on fusion power: <a href='http://www.fusion.org.uk/' target='_blank'>http://www.fusion.org.uk/</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I though he was just referring to the phenomenon in which a vacuum will spontaneously begin to contain particles of matter, which is just the potential of the vacuum changing state to become more stable. This only happens in a serious vacuum (not like space, which has small amounts of junk floating around), but no net energy is created. All that really happens is that the energy you use creating the vacuum is turned into mass, and because of <100% efficiency, you're actually losing energy on the whole deal.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think he is refering to "zero point energy. URL=http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html]here[/URL] is a "popularized explanation" from California institute for physics and astrophysics(It's better than me trying to explain more clearly without having a thorough understanding).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->While I personally find the subject of the last few posts really interesting (and in my subject of study, BTW)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah, you too? Have only gotten a smattering of quantum mechanics yet, which would be relevant to continue this discussion in greater depth sadly(but much to the joy of those who doesn't like threads getting de-railed I'm sure <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->)...
<!--QuoteBegin-Maveric+Feb 12 2004, 11:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Maveric @ Feb 12 2004, 11:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Solar power is a good choice, but the sun will blow up eventually, and it wont work well enough in deep, deep space (no stars = no light = no power) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Last time I checked, we have a few billion years before the sun goes boom and engulfes Earth, among other things. You really think that humans will live for a few billion years? Hah, yeah. It's more likely that:<ul><li>The male genotype will not exist anymore - procreation will be impossible (unless... umm I won't say anything here)</li><li>The carbon (or some other element) will completely break down</li><li>A black hole will travel through our solar system</li><li>Earth will be hit by an asteroid</li></ul>than the Sun exploding while we are still alive. So the Sun is quite possibly a very good method of obtaining energy. I might get a solar panel of something... I'm scared <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-2_of_8+Feb 28 2004, 10:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (2_of_8 @ Feb 28 2004, 10:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Maveric+Feb 12 2004, 11:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Maveric @ Feb 12 2004, 11:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Solar power is a good choice, but the sun will blow up eventually, and it wont work well enough in deep, deep space (no stars = no light = no power) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Last time I checked, we have a few billion years before the sun goes boom and engulfes Earth, among other things. You really think that humans will live for a few billion years? Hah, yeah. It's more likely that:<ul> </li><li>The male genotype will not exist anymore - procreation will be impossible (unless... umm I won't say anything here) </li><li>The carbon (or some other element) will completely break down </li><li>A black hole will travel through our solar system </li><li>Earth will be hit by an asteroid </li></ul>than the Sun exploding while we are still alive. So the Sun is quite possibly a very good method of obtaining energy. I might get a solar panel of something... I'm scared <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Those first two are dead wrong.
There are female-only species of animals right here on modern earth (<a href='http://www.desertmuseum.org/books/whiptails.html' target='_blank'>whiptails</a> are the first one I remembered, scroll down to life history, third sentance). So, imagine what we can do with science! No males would hardly present an evolutionary challenge, but rather would help negate the problems we gained by removing the selective breeding part of natural selection.
I don't even know where to start on the chemistry.
But other than in the specifics, you're right: it's not a worthwhile adventure (at least yet or for a long time) to make contingency plans for the destruction of earth or the sun.
I'll just make a list of all power sources I know of(most thanks to the local science magazine)... do correct or add on if I miss something.<ul><li>Windpower.</li><li>Fuel cells... looks promising.</li><li>Wave power. These need protection against storms however.</li><li>Dams, from lakes on higher ground through turbines... 16% of all the electricity.</li><li>Tidal dams... Water from high tides is held back and let out during low tides, through turbines. Disrupts nearby ecosystem though.</li><li>Fission power(Nuclear). 17% of all the electricity. No CO².</li><li>Sun chimney- The sun heats the air under a huge glass roof, so that it goes up through a very high chimney which has turbines in it</li><li>Solar heat, where the sun heats water. No electricity, though.</li><li>Solar power. The suns beams are made into power directly. Even works in shadows... But not during the night.</li><li>Fossil fuels. Easy to distribute, use, and get, but DIRTY and finite.</li><li>Fusion. No known way to sucessfully use this however, so maybe it shouldn't be on this list.</li><li>Biomass. Energy is extracted from organic materials - everything from wood to waste can be used.[im not sure what this is, maybe its just burning logs kind of energy?]</li><li>Geothermic energy! Drill far enough into the earth, and the temperature is astonishing. It's pretty costly though.</li><li>Tidal power! A tidal plant is put on the bottom of the ocean, where the tides create powerful currents.</li><li>Methane(hydrate). It is created when the temperature is low or when the pressure is high, and lies on the ocean floor. Especially under areas with permanent ice- like the north&south poles.This is another "future" power source, and is much like oil. It might even be it's replacement.</li></ul>
Umm... wood or something? Or is that included in "biomass"? <i><span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>I don't see a need for that list...</i></span>
Align, a bunch of those are duplicates (either immediately (a bunch of tidals, which are really just wind power anyway), or different ways of harvesting the same resources).
And fuel cells (hydrogen) are an energy transporter, not energy source.
Methane is a fossil fuel, just a different kind. It's often enough found in the same place as crude oil.
Other than the resources that we can't even harvest for energy without a huge leap in technology, that pretty much covers it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Feb 12 2004, 04:23 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Feb 12 2004, 04:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> We can recycle plastics easily now, so if we do run out of oil, recyling will become a must. We could always go back to cardboard for packaging and such like. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> i dont want to go back to cardboard for my grandmommy's IV.
<!--QuoteBegin-taboofires+Mar 1 2004, 06:12 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (taboofires @ Mar 1 2004, 06:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Methane is a fossil fuel, just a different kind. It's often enough found in the same place as crude oil. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't know how to translate it, it's something like "hydrated methane", but... Yes, it is a fossil fuel, but it's a new type, so to speak. Like coal and oil are different types.
fuel cells: oops, you're absolutely right. But the reaction which occurs in them(?) is a power source, isn't it?... Like batteries I suppose...
<!--QuoteBegin-MonsieurEvil+Feb 12 2004, 10:50 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Feb 12 2004, 10:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I dunno, CWAG, what happens? You're missing my point, which is that if people are going to talk about oil running out here, they need to get some actual facts and figures, not 'I heard from a guy in an IRC channel last year that...' My disdain is for the 'talking out one's arse' nonsense because people here would often rather post from a position of utter ignorance than do a bare amount of research.
Yes, oil pumped from the ground will someday run out. That's why there are so many programs being researched right now for fuel cells, for example. It would help greatly if there wasn't this blind ignorant fear of nuclear power as well, since that resource is considerably more efficient, environmentally friendly, and inexpensive. It would also help to research something more advanced than our hilariously antiquated power distribution systems used around the world, which waste far more energy in transmission than any other cause. It would also help if people weren't so **** hypocritical about wasting energy, as they drive to their earth day parades... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Few questions Monse.
1) Did you read the entire article? If so, you'd note that the author of the site not only repeatedly uses valid sources, but those sources happen to be the leaders in their respective fields (namely geosciences, etc.). The sources just happen to be published works and/or academic reports. That's a far cry from "i heard it from a guy in #nsradio that we're gonna die rofflemywafflebbqlololololololololololz"
2) So nuclear power does what for us, outside of providing electricity to non-dynamic locations (fixed buildings, etc.)? Where's the nuclear reactor that's going to fit under the hood of my car? How is that nuclear reactor going to pump out plastics to replace the thousands of things I use <i>daily</i> that are composed of petro-based plastics?
3) Where's the refutation of the scientific laws that have been developed that cover the development/exploitation/mapping of petroleum resevoirs that shows they tend to follow an almost perfect bell curve in production/distribution? Where is your allowance for the fact that technology, especially in the areas of geoscientific mapping and computation, has found hard facts supporting peak oil better than it has ever had the capability to do?
For the rest of the people, especially later posts, I also suggest you read the article completely, and browse through the cited sources. It's commonly held scientific fact that hydrogen, ethanol and methane are energy-dependents, not energy-creators. It takes more energy to generate them than they generate in turn. That's like turning on your car so that it runs your microwave to cook your Hot Pockets--it is ineffecient and irresponsible.
Lastly, I'll leave you with this. Imagine how bad what they're saying is. Imagine the horror it would be to have billions die. Scale that back to 30% of what they think. If that's not sufficiently horrific in its own right to spur you to do something (ie, speak to your congressman about the issue, educate others about peak oil, etc.), then why do you bother reading anything relatively serious at all? Think about what it would be if the guy was only partially right and just 50-100 million died...that in itself is worth looking into.
<!--QuoteBegin-Align+Mar 1 2004, 08:57 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Align @ Mar 1 2004, 08:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> fuel cells: oops, you're absolutely right. But the reaction which occurs in them(?) is a power source, isn't it?... Like batteries I suppose... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, just like batteries. Just big, weight efficient and minimally polluting ones that we can run cars and home generators off of.
Rat, I love that car-microwave analogy. Mmmmm, devilshly wasteful hot pockets...
Comments
The least encouraging thing about hydrogen is that it is usually manufactured from hydrocarbons(methane, mostly) and electrolysis. This makes hydrogen as dirty and non-renewable(in the sense that it is too difficult or impractical to renew it, even if possible) as anything else. Electricity, while "clean" in itself is also dependant on other forms of energy, such as burning oil.
Unless you find a good fuel source like fusion power(another non-renewable fuel source, but it is clean and the materials needed are in abundance) and use that for hydrogen gas or electricity production or manage to make super-cheap solar cells or something then neither electrical or hydrogen powered cars seem like a good idea to me.
Fuel cells seem like a good idea if they ever get them to work fast enough for cars. If we have a surplus of cheap fermentable crops we could make lots of ethanol and run cars of off fuel-cells(which would be more efficient than a normal alcohol burning engine). A lot of a plants material is sadly cellulose and such which can't be fermented unless you manage to chop it down to glucose with some enzyme or something. Plants are like really cheap solar cells in a way... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If we did have fusion power (and eventually the knowledge) we could keep manipulating fusion until it becomes inefficient and then begin breaking it down with fission ( if we somehow got to supernova-esque power to create elements that large).
No fuel in the universe is renewable, as the laws of thermaldynamics state entropy is always increasing, so the universe is becoming colder and colder...and unless the universe starts collapsing instead of expanding, eventually the universe will be a chilled wasteland infinitely approaching absolute zero.
...of course, if the universe started contracting, eventually it would collapse...and we'd all die that way too...so, we're kind of screwed either way...although that's billions, if not trillions of years in the future and it's not really worth talking about.
Fusion (in our time frame) is probably the most efficient form of power generation we'll ever get (unless we find a solar system of anti-matter or something...but we'd need a whole lot of anti-matter to create anything usable by the whole planet).
So...actually the end point is, I completely agree with you. Unless we master fusion power or another form of creating electricity very efficiently, hydrogen powered cars would be unrealistic...as it would take electricity to run them (in effect)..but the same is true for electric cars (and gas powered cars, that rely on the oil we're trying to eliminate here.
So basically we'll just have to make solar powered cars or something...except then you can't drive anywhere if it's cloudy (or if your battery gets charged by the energy: if it's constantly cloudy).
We could just grow a bunch of trees and have wood powered everything...there we go! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
1) Trying to make oil from coal or plants is silly in the long run. You can't come anywhere close to meeting demands, and the process produces almost no net energy. Instead, we need to use the the energy that created the plants (which eventually became the coal) the sun! Or something like it. The further we go down the energy chain, the more energy is wasted. There's only about a 10% or so efficiency per step, so by step 4 (what humans are at or around) you're got a whole 0.1% left. Not good. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is not precisely correct, especially if you bother to read my previous linking to the use of biological waste in oil creation. When you use a largely available waste product to form oil, you can of course come close to meeting energy demands. It's a question of infrastructure, nothing else.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay, my other answer was getting longer and more detailed than anyone probably wants to read, so I'll skip to the goods: making fuel out of the stuff we eat is a bad idea. The stuff that allows the food to grow (various chemicals) is being taken out of the system, and we're going to end up with the same problem we had with peak oil: it's now too expensive to grow enough food for everyone to eat, so lots of people will starve. <i>All</i> chemical energy solutions are unsufficient. This includes chicken waste or whatever. Using it for a direct power source is extremely wasteful.
<!--QuoteBegin-MonsieurEvil+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
As I said before, most energy we use is wasted in its transmission long before it powers anything. Beating that problem is one of the most important goals of science in my opinion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right, that's where the Hydrogen comes in. Less waste via transmission and more controllable pollution, if we get good at it. That and making the energy source more local, and reduce transmission costs that way.
<!--QuoteBegin-UltimaGecko+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UltimaGecko)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Last time I checked water was made out of hydrogen and oxygen. Electrolosis seperates it into H and O (I think the negative lead creates the hydrogen, but I can't remember off-hand). Flame returns the two back to water (burned hydrogen combines with oxygen and forms water).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gecko, it would be wonderful if energy worked that way, but it doesn't. The energy to elecrolyze Hydrogen from water comes from oil, not thin air. Uranium from a plant is just condensed more when it starts to decay, basically removing the waste, and throwing more Uranium in. Breeder reactors are exactly the same(Uranium -> less protonated elements + neutrons + energy), but less wasteful and more dangerous. <a href='http://library.thinkquest.org/3659/nucreact/reactors.html' target='_blank'>mmmm... chemistry</a> (click "visit site")
<!--QuoteBegin-Cronos+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cronos)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->3: Reclamation. This is difficult to explain, but it involves making use of every scrap of energy. For example, in electrolysis, only the hydrogen is collected and used. If we used the oxygen as well in a different reaction, that would involve the process of reclamation. It also has a purpose on nuclear power. When spent uranium comes out and plutonium is extracted, the plutonium can be used as a nuclear fuel in hybrid reactors.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Heat is usually the form waste energy takes. Heat can be used to boil water and power turbines, or heat homes. Venting it off into the air is where the waste comes in. It's basically the same with other forms of waste energy (sonic, etc.) but those are harder to turn into electricity.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cronos+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cronos)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There are many things that we can only speculate about. Will Vacuum Energy prove to be worthwhile? Is there some quirk in quantum mechanics that we can take advantage of? Will our distant descendants mould the universe to their specifications to form red dwarf stars? (These stars can last up to 100 Billion years and support an earthlike planet, albiet tidally locked). Will our final descendants be dependent on a black holes evaporation to survive?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Haha, these are kinda funny. Somebody's been reading too much science fiction. You can't gain energy out of a vacuum: space itself is disrupting you by filling it up, and you are going to have no net gain. At best you could use that energy to almost keep the vacuum going.
Any star can reasonably provide an energy source, the hard part is finding a hospitable planet. Black holes don't release usable energy, as you have to be too far away to collect useful quantities to not be sucked in or be poisoned (x and gamma rays).
We won't really need to resort to anything so exotic as long as stars still exist, but good thinking anyways.
In our day and age it takes electricity to make electricity (not much manual labor to stoke our fires anymore), and our chemicals. And the proposed most efficient way to make energy is fusion, which still isn't viable.
Until we have a working efficient fusion reactor, we'll need to rely on directly renewable resources like solar, tidal, wind and geothermal power. It'd be better for the future if we spent more money investing in nuclear reactors and viable sources of energy instead of wars and $50,000 white house toilet seats <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> .
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It is widely held that one atom of plutonium can kill you if it gets into your lungs. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> from your chemistry site...heh, I remember that line from Metal Gear Solid....heh, ahh, the marvel of weird video games 6 years ago <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> . Except they didn't say it was widely held, they stated it as fact...and you usually can't trust everything in video games (physics class > video games anyway <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> ).
<a href='http://perimeterinstitute.ca/people/researchers/dgottesman/infoloss.html' target='_blank'>Black Hole Evaporation</a> is far too inefficient for our current generation, but speaking in terms of hundreds of trillions of years from now, it may well be the only source of energy left in the universe.
Not to mention, provided one has two black holes in orbit about each other, that use could be made of their gravitational energy (Gravity -> Force -> Energy).
Naturally, this wont solve peak oil <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Also, not how I phrased the vacuum energy part of my post as a question, not as a statement of fact <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I don't believe that's what he is refering to. It is not known wheater it is feasable that energy can be extracted from vacuum or not(i.e wheter vacuum has an energy density and wheater you can use it for your purpose).
Ok this is going to seem really disjointed but it would take hours to put everything togheter in a proper way.
The existance of a vacuum has been argued since ancient times. In recent times James Clerk Maxwell proposed that there was an ether, a sort of substance of some sort that covered all of space(even vacuum) that propagated electromagnetic waves(light and other forms of electromagnetic radiation). The Michelson-Morley experiment totally failed to find evidence of an ether such as the one proposed with extraordinary accuracy. That led to an interesting situation, the speed of light in maxwells equations must be relative to something, how can something wave-like in nature not have a medium to which it's speed is relative? That was solved by Einsteins special theory of relativity.
Einsteins general theory of relativity introduced a cosmological constant(which Einstein himself has called his biggest mistake). He introduced it in order for general relativity to predict a static Universe(one that was not expanding or collapsing).
A chap namned Edwin Hubble discovered that there are other galaxies in the Universe than our own in 1924(you can bet that made people go <i>"**** the Universe is f****** huge!!!</i> at the time <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->. It's only trivial now because we're so used to accepting that as a fact) and that everywhere you look, everything seems to be heading away from us at a speed proportional to the distance.
This is what led Einstein to regret the cosmological constant.
It also lead to the big bang theory to explain the everywhere expanding Universe. After all, if the Universe is expanding everywhere, wouldn't there have to have been a time where all matter was congregated in one place?
So now that ether wasn't needed anymore it didn't appear as though vacuum needed to contain anything.
It was found that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allowed for particles to be created and destroyed in vacuum out of nothing as long as they dissapeared before violating it(dt*dE = h is the relevant form here). This was realized as Richard Feynman and others developed the quantum theory of matter, empty space should be full of virtual particles. Some physicists began suspecting that vacuum might contain energy in the form of vertical particles.
There is something very weird going on. It appears as though the rate of expansion of the Universe is actually increasing. A "dark energy" has been hypothesized to solve this problem and is currently looking like a good candidate. Dark refering to not observable and energy because if it drives expansion it has to do work. It has been suggested that this is vacuum exerting a pressure and that vacuum has an energy density.
Different theories give VERY different estimates or constraints for the possible energy density of vacuum.
Using general relativity and astronomical observations of the curvature of spacetime the energy density of vacuum can be estimated. This gives an upper bound of ~10^-29 gram per cubic centimeter(in terms of mass).
With various sets of assumptions different people active in quantum field theory have arrived at estimates not determinable, zero, infinite and enormous(10^93 g/cm^3 <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->), the assumptions made are kind of iffy at best as you'd imagine by the results.
The currently popular "concordance model" of the universe predicts that the Universe is composed of ~5% ordinary matter, 25% "dark matter"(as in hard to observe and of unknown nature. This includes things such as neutrinos and exotic particles) and ~70% dark energy(which by some is speculated to be vacuum energy). This model has support by data from the WMAP(<something> Microwave Anisotropy Probe ) satelite and the Sloan Digital Sky survey, the largest mapping of the Universe so far covering 200 000 galaxies(other evidence suggest that there must be much more matter in the universe than the observed matter, this study shows roughly how much matter there is in the Universe which gives an indication of how much dark energy and dark matter must exist).
So, if vacuum had an energy density of 10^93 g/cm^3 wouldn't it be nice if we could get at it somehow? Along those lines of thinking some people have come to the conclusion that empty space might be a usable source of energy with a craptasticly high energy density...(or how does ~10^107 J/cm^3 sound?)
I'm more inclined to believe the ~10^-9 J/cm^3 estimates given by astronomical observations and general relativity(as well as some cosmological assumptions).
I though he was just referring to the phenomenon in which a vacuum will spontaneously begin to contain particles of matter, which is just the potential of the vacuum changing state to become more stable. This only happens in a serious vacuum (not like space, which has small amounts of junk floating around), but no net energy is created. All that really happens is that the energy you use creating the vacuum is turned into mass, and because of <100% efficiency, you're actually losing energy on the whole deal.
edit: haha, and Cronos I didn't mean any offense, it just reminded me of how lots of SciFi will contain plans based on exotic physics that are brilliant, except that they ignored simpler mechanics or thermodynamics, and thus have a bit fancy nothing.
Just a quick intro on fusion power: <a href='http://www.fusion.org.uk/' target='_blank'>http://www.fusion.org.uk/</a>
I think he is refering to "zero point energy. URL=http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html]here[/URL] is a "popularized explanation" from California institute for physics and astrophysics(It's better than me trying to explain more clearly without having a thorough understanding).
Ah, you too? Have only gotten a smattering of quantum mechanics yet, which would be relevant to continue this discussion in greater depth sadly(but much to the joy of those who doesn't like threads getting de-railed I'm sure <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->)...
Last time I checked, we have a few billion years before the sun goes boom and engulfes Earth, among other things. You really think that humans will live for a few billion years?
Hah, yeah. It's more likely that:<ul><li>The male genotype will not exist anymore - procreation will be impossible (unless... umm I won't say anything here)</li><li>The carbon (or some other element) will completely break down</li><li>A black hole will travel through our solar system</li><li>Earth will be hit by an asteroid</li></ul>than the Sun exploding while we are still alive.
So the Sun is quite possibly a very good method of obtaining energy. I might get a solar panel of something... I'm scared <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Last time I checked, we have a few billion years before the sun goes boom and engulfes Earth, among other things. You really think that humans will live for a few billion years?
Hah, yeah. It's more likely that:<ul>
</li><li>The male genotype will not exist anymore - procreation will be impossible (unless... umm I won't say anything here)
</li><li>The carbon (or some other element) will completely break down
</li><li>A black hole will travel through our solar system
</li><li>Earth will be hit by an asteroid
</li></ul>than the Sun exploding while we are still alive.
So the Sun is quite possibly a very good method of obtaining energy. I might get a solar panel of something... I'm scared <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Those first two are dead wrong.
There are female-only species of animals right here on modern earth (<a href='http://www.desertmuseum.org/books/whiptails.html' target='_blank'>whiptails</a> are the first one I remembered, scroll down to life history, third sentance). So, imagine what we can do with science! No males would hardly present an evolutionary challenge, but rather would help negate the problems we gained by removing the selective breeding part of natural selection.
I don't even know where to start on the chemistry.
But other than in the specifics, you're right: it's not a worthwhile adventure (at least yet or for a long time) to make contingency plans for the destruction of earth or the sun.
edit: third! woohoo counting!
<i><span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>I don't see a need for that list...</i></span>
And fuel cells (hydrogen) are an energy transporter, not energy source.
Methane is a fossil fuel, just a different kind. It's often enough found in the same place as crude oil.
Other than the resources that we can't even harvest for energy without a huge leap in technology, that pretty much covers it.
i dont want to go back to cardboard for my grandmommy's IV.
I don't know how to translate it, it's something like "hydrated methane", but...
Yes, it is a fossil fuel, but it's a new type, so to speak. Like coal and oil are different types.
fuel cells: oops, you're absolutely right.
But the reaction which occurs in them(?) is a power source, isn't it?... Like batteries I suppose...
Yes, oil pumped from the ground will someday run out. That's why there are so many programs being researched right now for fuel cells, for example. It would help greatly if there wasn't this blind ignorant fear of nuclear power as well, since that resource is considerably more efficient, environmentally friendly, and inexpensive. It would also help to research something more advanced than our hilariously antiquated power distribution systems used around the world, which waste far more energy in transmission than any other cause. It would also help if people weren't so **** hypocritical about wasting energy, as they drive to their earth day parades... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Few questions Monse.
1) Did you read the entire article? If so, you'd note that the author of the site not only repeatedly uses valid sources, but those sources happen to be the leaders in their respective fields (namely geosciences, etc.). The sources just happen to be published works and/or academic reports. That's a far cry from "i heard it from a guy in #nsradio that we're gonna die rofflemywafflebbqlololololololololololz"
2) So nuclear power does what for us, outside of providing electricity to non-dynamic locations (fixed buildings, etc.)? Where's the nuclear reactor that's going to fit under the hood of my car? How is that nuclear reactor going to pump out plastics to replace the thousands of things I use <i>daily</i> that are composed of petro-based plastics?
3) Where's the refutation of the scientific laws that have been developed that cover the development/exploitation/mapping of petroleum resevoirs that shows they tend to follow an almost perfect bell curve in production/distribution? Where is your allowance for the fact that technology, especially in the areas of geoscientific mapping and computation, has found hard facts supporting peak oil better than it has ever had the capability to do?
For the rest of the people, especially later posts, I also suggest you read the article completely, and browse through the cited sources. It's commonly held scientific fact that hydrogen, ethanol and methane are energy-dependents, not energy-creators. It takes more energy to generate them than they generate in turn. That's like turning on your car so that it runs your microwave to cook your Hot Pockets--it is ineffecient and irresponsible.
Lastly, I'll leave you with this. Imagine how bad what they're saying is. Imagine the horror it would be to have billions die. Scale that back to 30% of what they think. If that's not sufficiently horrific in its own right to spur you to do something (ie, speak to your congressman about the issue, educate others about peak oil, etc.), then why do you bother reading anything relatively serious at all? Think about what it would be if the guy was only partially right and just 50-100 million died...that in itself is worth looking into.
But the reaction which occurs in them(?) is a power source, isn't it?... Like batteries I suppose... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, just like batteries. Just big, weight efficient and minimally polluting ones that we can run cars and home generators off of.
Rat, I love that car-microwave analogy. Mmmmm, devilshly wasteful hot pockets...