Us Energy Strategy

[cavallino 2]

I would suggest you read up on the air car, it is infact a reality, and the premium model self charges its compressed air tanks as you drive.

It doesn't self charge (unless it's a flintstones car). It can store some of the energy wasted in braking etc to 'recharge' a little bit. Which is Toyota Prius technology - marginal if any savings in fuel efficiency, but still completely dependent on fossil fuels.

Are you trying to argue that to fill the air tanks up would use around 20 litres of petrol?

Or the same in gas/ coal/ some other fossil fuel. Obviously. Where else is the energy going to come from, to compress the air. It's simple science - I wish Murray would drop by. You have air at normal pressure right, that we breathe. Now this car works on the concept that we can compress this air and use that compressed air to move a car - think of blowing on something to move it, same principle. Now to compress the air, you use energy. And when you use that air to drive a car, the air gets 'decompressed' again. So you're just using air to store energy, you are not generating any usable energy from thin air! It's convenient that it can be driven from the electricity grid and is probably better than an electric car that uses huge heavy toxic batteries, but it does nothing to solve the question of what will power the electricity grid that in turn powers the car.

Lets say fossil fuels will run out in 1 year, would you expect governments to say "oh well, nevermind, lets have a cup of tea!"

Judging by how ill informed most people on this forum are, how do you expect the government to know any better?

1 solar panel may take 10 litres of petrol, but I imagine (certainly in warmer climates) it will give back more then this in its first few weeks - nevermind the decade plus lifespan it has.

weeks? More like 30 years. I'll come back to this.

I also base my arguement on the oil companies having alternatives on the fact they would lose trillions in profits should said technology be released.

HAve you anythign, anything at all to base this on? I ask a genuine question, because you aren't the only one here to believe this, that the oil companies are sitting on an awesome energy source that will solve everything, which they will release once the oil runs out.

[HandyNZL 1]

Not an energy "source", Cav, but technology that is more efficient than the current technologies on the market.

Also, no one technology in the future will be used - it will be a mix-match of technologies performing all sorts of things. Methane produced by effluent run-off can be used to fully power a farm, plus have power left over to put into the grid. Buildings can be made more eco-friendly (read less power consumptive - christ, even Frank Lloyd Wright had better working buildings than we do now). Wind and waves can be harnessed to provide power to smaller communities. It's not about the be all and end all - it's about getting a good mix, and doing it now to reduce the need for carbon based fuels.

[David Adams 0]

The car is self charging Cav, have you not done the research on the car?

I am aware it requires fuel to go to a "gas" station to recharge the cylinders, however my point was simple, a 3 minute compressed air tank recharge does not use 20 litres or equivalent of fossil fuels to recharge it, it uses severely less. All of which can be provided by alternatives to fossil fuels (whether they do or not is not the topic here).

I'd sure like your answer on the 30 years topic, I am obviously mis-informed by the mass media machines regarding this technology so I'll await more before commenting on this one...

And no, as I said, I have nothing to base my ASSUMPTION on, as I said to begin with, I am of the opinion the oil companies have that TECHNOLOGY, not the alternative fuel source. Basically what Handy said :-) I base my assumption/opinion on what I already said.

I like how you enjoy the debate here also, arguing against many comments whilst not taking a stand point on the actual topic, you seem to be on the side of stop the fossil fuel burning, but the cynical side of everyones comments.

Makes for a more fun topic :-)

[cavallino 2]

The car is self charging Cav, have you not done the research on the car?

Nothing is self charging, of course it cannot magically charge itself, air cannot magically compress itself. What it probably uses is technology similar to hybrids - think about braking. You're travelling down the street at 60kph, you suddenly have to stop for a traffic light. So you stopped within 30m. You know that if you hadn't pressed the brakes, your car would have rolled for perhaps 300m. So by braking, you wasted energy that could have taken you another 270m. Hybrids, and this car harness some of that wasted energy, which boosts fuel efficiency and it is a mighty nice thing, but a saving of a few percent doesn't solve our energy problems. So the 'self' charging' car might go 110 miles instead of 100 on one fill up. It doesn't charge itself, so you can't just charge it once and keep going forever.

I am aware it requires fuel to go to a "gas" station to recharge the cylinders, however my point was simple, a 3 minute compressed air tank recharge does not use 20 litres or equivalent of fossil fuels to recharge it, it uses severely less.

Of course it does. It's simple elementary physics. If it doesn't use 20 litres worth of fuel, it won't take your car 20 litres worth of miles. Where else is the energy going to come from?

Please please don't go by anything you read in the media. It's fair enough that you don't have a background in physics, but then either find out or ask people who do, you cannot just make assumptions like that.

All of which can be provided by alternatives to fossil fuels (whether they do or not is not the topic here).

That is entirely the point. There are no known viable alternative sources that could provide that. So it can't be provided.

One option is as someone pointed out moving back to a coal economy. That might last our lifetime, and perhaps our kids. We'll completely f$%k up the environment in the bargain.

I'd sure like your answer on the 30 years topic, I am obviously mis-informed by the mass media machines regarding this technology so I'll await more before commenting on this one...

Yes I have to make a post on that.

And no, as I said, I have nothing to base my ASSUMPTION on, as I said to begin with, I am of the opinion the oil companies have that TECHNOLOGY, not the alternative fuel source. Basically what Handy said :-) I base my assumption/opinion on what I already said.

I doubt if they have done extensive research into nuclear energy without everyone finding out - that the oil companies would have pulled out the best trained nuclear scientists of the world, put in the billions needed to fund nuclear energy research without anyone finding out? No way, this isn't even a plot for a Tom Clancy novel, forget real life.

No other known source exists.

I like how you enjoy the debate here also, arguing against many comments whilst not taking a stand point on the actual topic, you seem to be on the side of stop the fossil fuel burning, but the cynical side of everyones comments.

I favour extensive funding for nuclear fission and fusion research, maximizing hydroelectric energy, complete elimination of biofuels, a worldwide audit of oil, gas and coal reserves, the systematic elimination of cars as a mode of transport in urban areas, encouraging production of food that actually feeds people i.e. limit production of foods that are high energy and land input, low output.

All that based on realism and pragmatism, not communism.

[AleHop 0]

Nuclear energy is the only possible alternative. It is global warming friendly but it has some problems like radioactive waste and accidents. We might never find a perfect energy source, we should face it, but there are many things we can do to improve performance and save.