Notices
The Basement Non-Honda/Acura discussion. Content should be tasteful and "primetime" safe.

why dont we burn ethanol?

Thread Tools
 
Old Jul 5, 2003 | 07:07 AM
  #31  
Morpheus's Avatar
Morpheus
Banned
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,405
Likes: 0
Default

Originally posted by brtecson
I thought it would be more like the year 2050
me too
:werd:
Reply
Old Jul 5, 2003 | 07:09 AM
  #32  
Fujiwara Takumi's Avatar
Fujiwara Takumi
Thread Starter
It's my first day.
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 13,635
Likes: 0
From: Grafton, WI.
Default

Originally posted by brtecson
I thought it would be more like the year 2050

AHHAHAHAHAHA

thats hilarious. are you kidding?

you dont seem to understand how imminent 2000 or so years is. that is a blink of an eye in terms of earth's history.

you ALSO have to remember that they can only estimate how much oil is left as we wouldn't really have any for sure idea considering its buried.
Reply
Old Jul 5, 2003 | 07:10 AM
  #33  
Fujiwara Takumi's Avatar
Fujiwara Takumi
Thread Starter
It's my first day.
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 13,635
Likes: 0
From: Grafton, WI.
Default

Originally posted by Morpheus
hydrogen is.
yes but you can't just take a ziploc bag and grab it out of the air. it takes power to seperate it from the oxygen, and that's costly. its also predicted that leaking hydrogen machinery would damage the ozone layer, but the statistics on their theorys are so far off it's not even funny.
Reply
Old Jul 5, 2003 | 07:10 AM
  #34  
Sadiztik-R's Avatar
Sadiztik-R
Kittie Pr0n
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,054
Likes: 0
From: South Dakota
Default

Originally posted by Shingoblade-GSR
Good question.

With the current rate of petroleum consumption and assuming the rate of new sources found is kept constant, we'll run out of petroleum in 2050 years.

Oh, and ethanol isn't "unlimited".

Shingo
yet someone else who believes the hype

we are honestly good up for fuel for about 200-300years

regarding ethenol use, it can damage the fuel systems of current cars

there are cars out there that can burn it, but the US government wont let them go pass minor production as it "hurts" the oil industry to do so
Reply
Old Jul 5, 2003 | 07:14 AM
  #35  
Morpheus's Avatar
Morpheus
Banned
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,405
Likes: 0
Default

Originally posted by Fujiwara Takumi
yes but you can't just take a ziploc bag and grab it out of the air. it takes power to seperate it from the oxygen, and that's costly. its also predicted that leaking hydrogen machinery would damage the ozone layer, but the statistics on their theorys are so far off it's not even funny.
But what if we coudl use nuclear power to seperate it. IT would be clean to produce and clean to burn.
Reply
Old Jul 5, 2003 | 07:18 AM
  #36  
Fujiwara Takumi's Avatar
Fujiwara Takumi
Thread Starter
It's my first day.
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 13,635
Likes: 0
From: Grafton, WI.
Default

Originally posted by Morpheus
But what if we coudl use nuclear power to seperate it. IT would be clean to produce and clean to burn.
the problem with nuclear power is you are still left with poisionous left overs that we have LITERALLY NOTHING to do with. there is NOTHING to do with the waste left from fission. The NRC has set rules prohibiting any further development of nuclear fission reactors. it would take an act of god to see another one built.

you know that the loss of chernobyl still causes birth defects on our side of the world?
Reply
Old Jul 5, 2003 | 07:20 AM
  #37  
Morpheus's Avatar
Morpheus
Banned
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,405
Likes: 0
Default

Originally posted by Fujiwara Takumi
the problem with nuclear power is you are still left with poisionous left overs that we have LITERALLY NOTHING to do with. there is NOTHING to do with the waste left from fission. The NRC has set rules prohibiting any further development of nuclear fission reactors. it would take an act of god to see another one built.

you know that the loss of chernobyl still causes birth defects on our side of the world?
I dont get why we just dont send the stuff up with space shuttles and blast it out of orbit.
Reply
Old Jul 5, 2003 | 07:20 AM
  #38  
Sadiztik-R's Avatar
Sadiztik-R
Kittie Pr0n
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,054
Likes: 0
From: South Dakota
Default

Originally posted by Fujiwara Takumi
the problem with nuclear power is you are still left with poisionous left overs that we have LITERALLY NOTHING to do with. there is NOTHING to do with the waste left from fission. The NRC has set rules prohibiting any further development of nuclear fission reactors. it would take an act of god to see another one built.

you know that the loss of chernobyl still causes birth defects on our side of the world?
why i support use of nuclear power in space, good use for leftover plutonium

but the ****in UN bans nuclear detonations in space , I mean what will it hurt when a nuclear powered spaceship is going past mars?
Reply
Old Jul 5, 2003 | 07:27 AM
  #39  
HatchVX's Avatar
HatchVX
Driving a Turbo 2L Terror
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 4,212
Likes: 0
From: Stafford, VA
Default

Chysler turned one of the popular Town and Country minivan to a Soap fuel vehical. It was called the Town and Country natruim. I belevie they called the Natruim b/c of the nitrates, like in borax soap. But it was only a prototypeArticle
Reply
Old Jul 5, 2003 | 10:07 AM
  #40  
Deagle's Avatar
Deagle
Nüb
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Default

Originally posted by Fujiwara Takumi

you dont seem to understand how imminent 2000 or so years is. that is a blink of an eye in terms of earth's history.
Fossil fuels are estimated to run out by the year 2050 and not 2050 years from now... in 2050 years the human race won't be around anyway. Robots will rule and will use liquified humans as an environmentally friendly energy source, or, apes will be our masters. Any way you look at it, we're fckt.


Originally posted by Morpheus
I dont get why we just dont send the stuff up with space shuttles and blast it out of orbit.
Well, right now, it actually costs more to dispose of nuclear waste than it does to buy the fuel, and run a nuclear reactor. To dispose of 1 cubic metre of low level waste (rubber gloves and paper towels etc... that have less activity than the tritium in your watch) costs more than $15,000 US. Even decommissioning a nuclear reactor is extremely expensive. If you want to lauch nuclear waste into space, then be prepared to pay 20x more on your energy bill? Are you nuts? There's a reason why astronauts are only allowed one luggage and one carry on
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:23 PM.