On Sun, Nov 11, 2001 at 02:09:04AM -0500, Jim Lange wrote:
> On Saturday 10 November 2001 02:43, you wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 02:20:40PM -0800, Justin Keyes wrote:
> > > The bottom line is that we need to switch to alternative energy sources
> > > ASAP. This is a huge achille's heel for our country.
> >
> > Umm, as soon as you find one, let us know. Not one existing, widely
> > known source of energy works as well as petroleum. Don't get me wrong--
> > I agree that petroleum is probably the worst way to power things. I
> > mean, eventually it will run out, if nothing else! But there simply
> > aren't feasible alternatives. Solar cars won't do it. Electric cars make
> > as much pollution at the power plant as gasoline cars do.
>
> That all depends on how the electricity is generated and from where. As for
> coal and petroleum based power plants, they are actually very efficient. The
> bigger the better. Then, it becomes viable to add processes that add
> efficiency, that would not be viable on a smaller scale. I used to work at
> both oil and coal power plants and the technology is amazing.
>
> But in Europe they use replaceable battery packs that are swapped out at
> stations similar to gas stations. Obviously, if these were to be charged up
> during the day with solar, it would be better.
>
I suspect you're right about efficiency, but I'm talking about waste
products. That's why everyone bitches about petroleum.
>
> One
> > possibility is hydrogen or methane. Problem is that there's no
> > infrastructure for it. And changing the existing infrastructure over
> > would take a couple of generations, _if_ everyone agreed that X was the
> > way to go. And the first time a hydrogen car blew up, there would be a
> > public outcry, as people forgot that gasoline cars blow up too.
>
>
> Yes, I agree with you there that the idea of transporting around hydrogen
> tanks would not be a good thing. Although, the fuel cell technology is
> coming along and could be viable in the near future.
>
The infrastructure _could_ be put in place to make hydrogen as safe as
gasoline. But it would take many years.
>
> > And consider: what if you _did_ have cars whose "pollution" was water?
> > Naturally no one every stops to consider what would happen if you dumped
> > three times the water vapor into the atmosphere as there is now.
> >
> > Wave power endangers ocean life and can only produce limited power at
> > seaside cities. Wind is a dismal failure. The vast wind farms in
> > California really produce very little power, and are only feasible in
> > places where there is a change from sea to land or valley to mountain
> > (good wind areas). Additionally, detritous on the blades severely limits
> > the efficiency of them (recent study on the effect of grim on wind
> > turbine blades). And they're a menace to birds, which create their own
> > kind of grime on them (ick!).
>
> Actually, wind power is a very viable energy source. Sure its gonna take a
> lot of them, but they offer many advantages. They can be built in very
> little time, virtually overnight. A coal or petro fired plant usually takes
> about 5 years to build. And yes there are certain places in the country that
> are better 'wind areas'. See: www.homepower.com/windmap.htm
> Coal or petro power plants have certain restrictions as to where they can be
> built as well. Usually, railways must be built or locations next to water so
> the vast amounts of non-renewables can be transported in. Most people don't
> want one in their back yard. If virtually the only maintenance is to clean
> the blades, thats not too bad! Coal and petro plants have to be completely
> shutdown, boilers disassembled, etc for maintenance. This can take a month.
> Therefore, it needs to be scheduled with other power plants in mind so that
> they don't create artificial shortages to raise prices like they did in
> California Coal and petro power plants do their share of killing birds and
> other creatures.
>
I think the problem with wind is that it produces less energy generally
than petro plants. It takes a lot of turbines to generate enough power
to be usable. Of course, comparing a coal plant to a wind farm is kinda
like comparing apples and oranges.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:02:18 EDT