interesting (i'm not too smart so i'll take your word for itOriginally posted by lynx@22 March 2004 - 07:50
A worrying article, but I would cast doubt on some of it, particularly the page on alternatives.
For example:
Hydro-Electric power currently supplies 2.3% of global energy supply. It is not a sufficient replacement for fossil fuels for the following reasons:
1. It is unsuitable for aircrafts and the present 800 million existing vehicles.
But is can be used to generate hydrogen. Hydrogen powered engines are already being developed. Part of the problem is that they are being promoted as clean engines, and environmental groups point out that this just moves the point of production of emissions from the vehicle to the power station. This argument ignores the fact that current large power stations are far more efficient than the internal combustion engine, and that energy from renewable sources does not cause this polution.
Other forms of hydro-electric power such as tidal power can produce massive amounts of power. In the UK the Severn Barrage, if fully implemented could supply 12GW of power, 10% of the country's electricity needs, and that is just one scheme.
Solar power currently supplies .006% of global energy supply. As a replacement for fossil fuels, it suffers from several deficiencies:
1. Energy from solar power varies constantly with weather or day/night.
This is nonsense. On a commercial scale energy production from one solar generator may go down due to a little local cloud, but at the same time production at other sites would rise because of the dispersion of local cloud. Energy arriving from the sun is unremarkably constant. And the day/night argument is nonsense too. Again, if used to create hydrogen production could stop overnight. Just like plants stop photosynthesis at night.
2. Not practical for transportation needs. While a handful of small, experimental, solar powered vehicles have been built, solar power is unsuited for planes, boats, cars, tanks, etc. . .
See above re hydrogen.
Wind
Wind power accounts for .07% of global energy supply. As a replacement for fossil fuels, its problems are:...
See above re solar power.
Hydrogen
Hydrogen accounts for 0.01% of global energy. It is not a true replacement for fossil fuels for the following reasons:
1. Hydrogen is currently manufactured from methane gas. It takes more energy to create it than the hydrogen actually provides. It is therefore an energy “carrier” not a source.
Hydrogen could easily be produced by electrolysis. The writer seems to have forgotten that he's already said that natural gas will run out, so it could not be used as a source in any case. He probably does not realise that methane is the main constituent of natural gas.
In any case, the argument that it takes more energy to produce something than it provides is poor: if we only get half a watt of useful energy from hydrogen, but have used 1 watt of otherwise wasted energy to produce it we have gained half a watt. The key is to use energy which we cannot otherwise utilise.
2. Liquid hydrogen occupies four to eleven times the bulk of equivalent gasoline or diesel.
So what? And which one is it? Liquid hydrogen occupies a known volume just like gasoline or diesel, it doesn't vary by 275% of it's volume. Again, the writer doesn't know his facts.
3. Existing vehicles and aircraft and existing distribution systems are not suited to it.
As stated earlier, development of hydrogen engines is will under way. I've seen (on tv) prototypes being driven around which were far more efficient than any vehicles we have at present (another blow for the inefficient production argument), performance was better too.
"Hydrogen Fuel Cells" should be called "Hydrogen Fool Cells." The "Hydrogen Economy" is a complete and utter hoax. Dr. Jorg Wing, a representative of the auto giant Daimler/Chrysler made this clear at the Paris Peak Oil Conference when he explained that his company did not view hydrogen as a viable alternative to petroleum-based engines.
Translation: we haven't done as much research as other companies and are going to be left behind.
I could go on, but I think I've destroyed enough of that piece already to show just how worthless it really is.
The point is that if we follow his arguments we won't do anything about the problem. He seems to be saying that we can't use anything other than oil so we should stop looking. Fossil fuels produce carbon dioxide. If we took steps to reduce CO2 emmisions by, say, 20% by 2015 we would already be well on the way towards meeting some of the deficit in energy requirements predicted. Funny, I seem to hear a little voice saying "Kyoto, Kyoto". Can't for the life of me think what it means.
Certainly there are going to be problems. We need to be looking at alternative solutions now, not bleating about how poor they are. The sooner we get some of those solutions in place the longer the existing oil will last, and the better the chance we have of finding other solutions before it is too late.). but all this will end with something big, do you think the greedy oil companies and conglomorates of earth will let this "new" technology, a new source of fuel, replace the oil that easily? lest we forget, most countries economy heavily relies on oil, thus WAR is enivatible. like i said, this is all going to end in one big finale before the people of earth (or more likely the people in charge of earth) accept this new fuel source. either that or we just kill all the leaders of the oil companies, it's all good
. oh one last thing, is cold fission (fussion? sorry, don't remember which one) really possible? and if so, why don't the leaders of the free world gather up the most brilliant minds and just set them to work with unlimited resources at their desposal and let them do their thing and find the secrets of make "free energy". if we start now we'll atleast be finished by the end of the century (before things really really get worst). if we start 2020 or 2030, then we're really gonna be screwed. (sorry, i have know prior knowledge of cold fission [fussion?]).
P.S. i have very bad spelling, damn street talk
). but all this will end with something big, do you think the greedy oil companies and conglomorates of earth will let this "new" technology, a new source of fuel, replace the oil that easily? lest we forget, most countries economy heavily relies on oil, thus WAR is enivatible. like i said, this is all going to end in one big finale before the people of earth (or more likely the people in charge of earth) accept this new fuel source. either that or we just kill all the leaders of the oil companies, it's all good 
. oh one last thing, is cold fission (fussion? sorry, don't remember which one) really possible? and if so, why don't the leaders of the free world gather up the most brilliant minds and just set them to work with unlimited resources at their desposal and let them do their thing and find the secrets of make "free energy". if we start now we'll atleast be finished by the end of the century (before things really really get worst). if we start 2020 or 2030, then we're really gonna be screwed. (sorry, i have know prior knowledge of cold fission [fussion?]).
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks