|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jun 16, 2008 19:05:03 GMT -5
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,367642,00.html This is the one thing that could get the SUV 24-7 AC runners and the tree hugging no carbon foot print coward getting along.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jun 27, 2008 3:42:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Amalcas on Jul 10, 2008 20:12:48 GMT -5
I'm not sure "tree huggers" would be too glad about that. Oil burns as oil does, no matter the source. Honestly, I think it's a good thing we're feeling the crunch on oil; we need to switch over to stabler, more environmentally friendly sources of energy. On the other hand, I still think this research is a good thing, but not for fueling cars; oil is still needed for plastics (which need to be used responsibly in their own way, but are very useful), and I wouldn't want to try fueling a jet plane with ethanol, much less compressed air.
The air car is, at this point, essentially a ruse. You need energy to compress the air, and at this point, that energy is almost certainly coming from a coal or oil power plant. However, it's a step in the right direction, as it means we can transport usable energy in a environmentally friendly form. We still need to work on the problem of stationary energy, though; a lot of people seem to think that energy from the wall is clean, just because they can't see the smoke (not that I'm accusing you of that mentality, Mestemia; I just feel that the media plays towards that misunderstanding).
|
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jul 11, 2008 13:42:48 GMT -5
This bio oil thought takes more carbon out of the air to make that it release when it is burned. I can't think of much that makes most of the tree huggers happier than a process that lowers the total carbon levels in the air. True there are some who won't be happy untill the human population is <1 million, but I don't think we should cater to that idea.
Coal is a lot cleaner now than it was, but you are correct many of our "clean" power things still make use of fossil fuels to produce the clean fuel supply.
I think that having a solar panel and/or a few small wind turbines mounted on every home reasonable would be a big step towards reducing the use of coal for electricity, but its not powerful enough yet to be viable on a massive scale.
|
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jul 12, 2008 6:30:08 GMT -5
teancum, I think the solar panel/wind turbines direction is the way to go as well. I've even thought about looking into the cost -- though I suspect it is still prohibitive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amalcas on Jul 12, 2008 12:58:01 GMT -5
The problem is collection efficiency (and rate), really. The cost is rapidly dropping, but solar panels and wind generators simply don't collect that much energy. Attempts have been made to improve the efficiency of solar panels, many successful, but I think that they will ultimately never be more than a supplement to the energy grid. On the other hand, that isn't bad at all, and they do pay for themselves quickly enough, if you can make the initial investment.
|
|
