RRC Archives

busty wrote:

First of all, the technology is simply not there.

What is your basis for this comment? I tend to disagree with it. Even if there were a lack of technology relating to alternative fuels, I suspect we could come up with something in a fairly short time. Good grief, if we could put people on the moon in the 60s, surely we can come up with some cars that go a little farther than 20 to 30 miles per gallon or some other fuel sources.

You suspect, eh? You're probably right. After all, space travel and the production of an entirely new energy source are practically the same thing.

actually they kind of are.. last time you saw a chevron outpost on io? or neptune? or do you think they planned on using good ole gasoline? excuse me, diesel.. or how about hydrogen and oxygen? well that'll work for some things but not to go really far.. how about solar rays like a fan? or ions? or maybe microwaves?

so much for sarcasm, huh? any time you are looking to travel, it requires a store of energy. and by the way, where do you think the idea of hydrogen fuel cells came from?

You suspect, eh? You're probably right. After all, space travel and the production of an entirely new energy source are practically the same thing.

Thanks smartass TB, you completely failed to answer my question, and responded with an unnecessarily rude remark. But, kudos to Paul for his insightful thoughts.

OK, maybe I'm a bit of a tree worshiper but I kinda keep up on this stuff. IMHO, alternative fuels for cars will NOT be around in any global scale in our lifetimes. Maybe natural gas autos will increase but that's essentially the same thing we have now with CO2 issues, just a little cleaner. If anything new car gas mileage will increase with hybrids. Hydrogen cells are a fantasy, if not for this country definitely for the rest of the world. Even if we ignore the significant technological challenges there a huge amount of necessary infrastructure that simply doesn't exist.

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/002445.html

......The only thing not covered in the Ballard road map are issues of hydrogen production, distribution, storage in the vehicle and "pump time," all of which must be figured out in order for the hydrogen future to come about. Again, these are not impossible challenges. From a WorldChanging perspective, the one requiring the greatest effort will be production, if only because the less clean sources of hydrogen (that is, ones still relying on fossil fuels and producing carbon dioxide as an emission) are likely to be the cheapest in the short term. A hydrogen economy tied to non-renewable, extractive feedstocks -- e.g., coal and natural gas, the two most often cited -- is a bright green illusion at best.

Once again, what appears to be an issue of technology turns out to be instead a question of infrastructure.

hydrogen cells are the "in the future" excuse of the auto and oil industries for maintaining the status quo-stop buying Chinese goods at Wally World is something we can do that may have a more immediate effect by helping the trade imbalance- lets see if the Wally World bastards can live up to their word of providing US made goods, they fail miserably currently

My sarcastic reference was appropriate given the non-argument presented by busty. It went a little something like this: Take my logically incoherent rebuttal and don't come back until you have something solid to work with.

I had something to work with immediately - sarcasm. In either case, I had also attached a web-link for naysayers (like busty) to figure it out for themselves - you know, using reason to sort through data, picking out what seems legitimate, and generating their own answers without having someone explain it for them.

This time, however, with the unwitting entry of Paul, I am forced to come with some facts...of course, buttressed by sarcasm.

As per my comments to busty, getting to the moon (or into space at all) does in fact require alot of fuel as seen in the following:

http://www.astro.uu.nl/~strous/AA/en/an ... .html#v197

<i>You can get an indication of how much fuel is needed to go to space by comparing the launch and end weights of the Space Shuttle and the Saturn V rockets. The Space Shuttle weighs about 4.5 million pounds (2.0 million kilograms) at liftoff, and some 230 thousand pounds (100 thousand kilograms) at landing, so for each pound (kilogram) delivered to a low orbit in space it needs about 20 pounds (kilograms) of fuel. The Apollo/Saturn V combination weighed about 6.1 million pounds (2.8 million kilograms) at liftoff, and only some 110 thousand pounds (50 thousand kilograms) of that (namely the Apollo spacecraft) actually reached the Moon, so the Saturn V needed about 55 pounds (kilograms) of fuel for each pound (kilogram) delivered to the Moon. Travelling into space takes a lot of fuel.</i>

Now this fuel is not gasoline. The main engines in the orbiter burn hydrogen and oxygen from the external tank (the great big orange cylinder that the orbiter is attached to for launch). The Solid Rocket Boosters (those side things) burn some solid rocket propellant which is of little concern to our conversation. The space-age technology of burning hydrogen and oxygen is less efficient than hydrogen fuel cell technology (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... ctrol.html), which, itself, runs at only 70% efficiency (http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandf ... rogen.html). I especially like this quote from the Department of Energy: "The cost of this hydrogen, which depends on the cost of the electricity used to split the water, is typically $1.00-$2.00/lb". And electricity comes from....

I now move to deep space travel:
It has been my understanding that 'deep' space craft (the ones that travel outside the range of petrol stations) have primarily used the gravity of planets to slingshot them from orbit to orbit. But it seems they do in fact employ a super high tech fuel source - a radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG). It is a simple electrical generator which obtains its power from radioactive decay. In such a device, the heat released by the decay of a suitable radioactive material is converted into electricity using an array of thermocouples. RTGs can be considered as a type of battery and have been used as power sources in satellites, space probes and unmanned remote facilities. (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisoto ... _generator)

Can't wait to get that one on the road, Paul .

So let's put down the sci-fi books and at least google search (i mean what kind of database person are you) before we go stamping out what, for the moment, seems to be incredibly warranted sarcasm.

tommy

Wow, lookit how the widdle boy can google! You can find anything on the internet to back up any opinion. That does not make yours more well-thought-out or insightful. Your arguments lack substance relying solely upon insults and an apparent belief in your intellectual superiority.

So, let's put down your sarcastic criticism and argue like a grown up eh? It's one thing to hack on someone like me who consistently jumps into the frey with both feet but it's silly to screw up an intelligent discussion by attacking someone like Busty who never asks for it.

And for the record, I believe that we should all buy diesels and convert them to running on veggie oil! Not only would this make farmers happy but we'd all drive around producing yummy smells.

Interestingly enough, when Diesel invented his engine, there was no "Diesel" fuel. He designed the engine to run on damn near any type of fuel, primarily at that time coal water.

Thanks Sprag. We still don't have an answer to my original question tho since telling people to search on google just isn't an answer. Instead, we get a dialogue about space fuel. The fuel which gets us to space/moon wasn't my point at all. My point in comparing travel in space to discovering new fuels is this....we have highly developed technologies in a multitude of scientific areas. A good example of science working toward a fairly quick result was the development of the nuclear bomb through the Manhattan project. Similar efforts were made to develop our ability to travel in space. If humans can put their heads together and come up with these complicated solutions for other problems, then I am confident that we can come up with some alternative fuel solutions.

Oh, and if I googled something and cited it in my legal briefs and motions for my job, I'd get my ass laughed out of court. Google is nice, but you can't rely on it as the ultimate source on things.