[quote]Harry Flashman wrote:
Lumbernac,
the process you’re talking about was invented by the nazi’s in world war 2.[/quote]
good use of rhetoric , doesnt affect my opinion worth a damn though
[quote]Beatnik wrote:
There are so many issues with electric cars, etc.
Its not that the concepts don’t work, they do. But they have only been around a short time whilst normal cars have been around for about 100 yeas. If you have issues with these new cars you have to find someone who understands them, pay for parts that are very expensive, and may just end up having more problems. Whilst with normal cars parts are cheap, available and we have generally got mechanics that have seen every issues involved with them.
No one will buy electric cars because of this. Not atleast until electric cars are economically cheaper then standard cars. Once oil prices hit the roof, maybe. Until then most people would prefer to stay with their normal, minimal attention requiring car.[/quote]
it won’t happen , at least if electric cars are adopted on a mass scale. See my previous post about lithium batteries and prices. The fact that lithium is a rare element, and electric cars needing lithium in the batteries leads me to beleive that the batteries would be even more expensive than they are now if demand started heating up for them.
Ethanol, biodiesel,hydrogen, and coal-diesel are all alternatives to gasoline perhaps the awnser lies in a mixture of these.
Anyone doubt if this new technology were to actually be introduced to the consumer and grab a foothold in the market place that gas prices would suddenly and mysteriously drop to about a buck a gallon.
Buy a horse. Or a motorcycle. Or a bicycle. Ride the Bus. Take the Train. Learn to make Biodiesel.
…or keep driving your Bronco and wait for a massive corporation to develop nanotech that can assemble gasoline on a molecular level from matter available in dirt.
[quote]knewsom wrote:
Buy a horse. Or a motorcycle. Or a bicycle. Ride the Bus. Take the Train. Learn to make Biodiesel.
…or keep driving your Bronco and wait for a massive corporation to develop nanotech that can assemble gasoline on a molecular level from matter available in dirt.[/quote]
Again, the nanotech idea is thermodynamically unsound. How much energy do you think it would take for those nanobots to assemble the gasoline? Order is less favored in nature than disorder or entropy. To make order (gasoline) from disorder (random dirt) requires an input of energy beyond what you would receive in return.
The problem with energy isn’t the material per-se, but an efficient material that is easily renewable via natural processes.
Solar power for example is very easily renewable (won’t run out for another 4 billion years), but it the process of deriving electricity from it is HIGHLY inefficient, which is why it’s not a good replacement form of energy yet.
Fusion is actually possible! They’re building a hugeass reactor somewhere in Europe. However, the problem is that it’s not EFFICIENT enough: you can’t break even! The energy cost to control the fusion process is too high.
By the way, I agree to both the view that the technology just isn’t working well enough yet, and that there are so-called conspiracies keeping some of the technology off the market. Of course groups with a vested interest in oil would try to keep alternative forms of energy from being profitable. It’s just good capitalism…haha, I don’t know why people think it’s a conspiracy.
[quote]boomerlu wrote:
Again, the nanotech idea is thermodynamically unsound. How much energy do you think it would take for those nanobots to assemble the gasoline? Order is less favored in nature than disorder or entropy. To make order (gasoline) from disorder (random dirt) requires an input of energy beyond what you would receive in return.
[/quote]
It doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with thermodynamics. If I yell, causing an avalanche, the energy I put into the system (my voice) is not equivalent to the energy released by the resulting reaction. You’re ignoring the potential energy already present in the system. Same thing with nanotech. It may only take a small amount of energy to have some little doodad rearrange molecules, which would then allow the potential energy stored in the molecules to be released.
True, you can’t get more energy out of a system than “you” put in, but “you” also includes the processes of nature, etc.
That doesn’t mean, of course, that gasoline-creating-nanorobots are realistic.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
boomerlu wrote:
Again, the nanotech idea is thermodynamically unsound. How much energy do you think it would take for those nanobots to assemble the gasoline? Order is less favored in nature than disorder or entropy. To make order (gasoline) from disorder (random dirt) requires an input of energy beyond what you would receive in return.
It doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with thermodynamics. If I yell, causing an avalanche, the energy I put into the system (my voice) is not equivalent to the energy released by the resulting reaction. You’re ignoring the potential energy already present in the system. Same thing with nanotech. It may only take a small amount of energy to have some little doodad rearrange molecules, which would then allow the potential energy stored in the molecules to be released.
True, you can’t get more energy out of a system than “you” put in, but “you” also includes the processes of nature, etc.
That doesn’t mean, of course, that gasoline-creating-nanorobots are realistic. [/quote]
I think the point was that it would be easier to break down a large molecule into smaller molecules to get gasoline then to add a bunch of smaller molecules together to get it. There is “potential” energy in a bond which you “release” when you crack those long chains. You have to “add” energy to condense chains from single atoms or molecules and without some sort of cool catalyst or enzyme you’re not going to get more energy then that back.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
boomerlu wrote:
Again, the nanotech idea is thermodynamically unsound. How much energy do you think it would take for those nanobots to assemble the gasoline? Order is less favored in nature than disorder or entropy. To make order (gasoline) from disorder (random dirt) requires an input of energy beyond what you would receive in return.
It doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with thermodynamics. If I yell, causing an avalanche, the energy I put into the system (my voice) is not equivalent to the energy released by the resulting reaction. You’re ignoring the potential energy already present in the system. Same thing with nanotech. It may only take a small amount of energy to have some little doodad rearrange molecules, which would then allow the potential energy stored in the molecules to be released.
True, you can’t get more energy out of a system than “you” put in, but “you” also includes the processes of nature, etc.
That doesn’t mean, of course, that gasoline-creating-nanorobots are realistic. [/quote]
Thanks Neph, I thought I was going to have to give a class on kenetic VS potential energy. Friggin 8th grade science? This stuff isn’t that hard. Anyone who outright disbelieves in any of these alternate energy because they sound pie in the sky is just afraid of change. It’s actually quite ok, most people are. But unless you have a degree in quantumn physics, molecular biology and a host of other related sciences, best to just leave it at speculating for now. Nobody has all the answers, and I doubt that anyone really has even one answer. The only real true statement you could make for any of this is I don’t know, sure it seems possible, and I hope it works.
V
[quote]nephorm wrote:
boomerlu wrote:
Again, the nanotech idea is thermodynamically unsound. How much energy do you think it would take for those nanobots to assemble the gasoline? Order is less favored in nature than disorder or entropy. To make order (gasoline) from disorder (random dirt) requires an input of energy beyond what you would receive in return.
It doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with thermodynamics. If I yell, causing an avalanche, the energy I put into the system (my voice) is not equivalent to the energy released by the resulting reaction. You’re ignoring the potential energy already present in the system. Same thing with nanotech. It may only take a small amount of energy to have some little doodad rearrange molecules, which would then allow the potential energy stored in the molecules to be released.
True, you can’t get more energy out of a system than “you” put in, but “you” also includes the processes of nature, etc.
That doesn’t mean, of course, that gasoline-creating-nanorobots are realistic. [/quote]
Well for example, the mountain is certainly true, because you’re releasing energy already inherent in the system.
But, at least for the nanotech idea…the dirt is generally more stable than the oil you’d be trying to make. More stable means less potential energy. While I’m not 100% certain on the details, I would think that this is the case. If it is, then the the gasoline-creating-nanobots is just a pie in the sky idea because the only way to get from a lower energy state to a higher one is to put in energy somehow.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
nephorm wrote:
boomerlu wrote:
Again, the nanotech idea is thermodynamically unsound. How much energy do you think it would take for those nanobots to assemble the gasoline? Order is less favored in nature than disorder or entropy. To make order (gasoline) from disorder (random dirt) requires an input of energy beyond what you would receive in return.
It doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with thermodynamics. If I yell, causing an avalanche, the energy I put into the system (my voice) is not equivalent to the energy released by the resulting reaction. You’re ignoring the potential energy already present in the system. Same thing with nanotech. It may only take a small amount of energy to have some little doodad rearrange molecules, which would then allow the potential energy stored in the molecules to be released.
True, you can’t get more energy out of a system than “you” put in, but “you” also includes the processes of nature, etc.
That doesn’t mean, of course, that gasoline-creating-nanorobots are realistic.
Thanks Neph, I thought I was going to have to give a class on kenetic VS potential energy. Friggin 8th grade science? This stuff isn’t that hard. Anyone who outright disbelieves in any of these alternate energy because they sound pie in the sky is just afraid of change. It’s actually quite ok, most people are. But unless you have a degree in quantumn physics, molecular biology and a host of other related sciences, best to just leave it at speculating for now. Nobody has all the answers, and I doubt that anyone really has even one answer. The only real true statement you could make for any of this is I don’t know, sure it seems possible, and I hope it works.
V[/quote]
Well I don’t disbelieve the things I disbelieve because they sound pie in the sky, but because of sound scientific reasoning.
Like I believe that fusion (hell I said fusion is already possible on Earth) will be a good source of energy, as will solar power. In fact I may be working on plasma/fusion research in a year or two. The current research is geared towards having a plasma which is controllable with less and less mechanisms (ie, less input of work to control) so that it’s a more efficient process.
But no gasoline-creating-nano-tech robots please.
Actually, that is not to say such robots wouldn’t be useful. Even if you create certain molecules at an energy deficit, it could be worth it such molecules were easier to work with, or if such robots constructed catalysts, etc…and didn’t actually carry out the gasoline-creation process by THEMSELVES.
[quote]brucevangeorge wrote:
Yeah. But you realize how much money that would cost them?
Everyone’s got water. It’s practically free. What would they sell? Acessories for your water powered engines?[/quote]
Somebody’s got to build the engines themselves. And I suspect these are not trivial contraptions.
[quote]lumbernac wrote:
Headwaters Inc has a coal-liquification technology that it uses to turn coal into diesel.
The U.S. has about 200 years worth of coal, we’re like Saudia Arabia.[/quote]
200 years at present consumption levels, or 200 years worth at equivalent gasoline consumption levels?
If you can believe Popular Science, the most efficient cars are diesels, with some concepts approaching 80mpg, using light weight materials and advanced atomizing injectors. Unfortunately, the particulate emissions are still too high to meet pollution standards.
[quote]boomerlu wrote:
Actually, that is not to say such robots wouldn’t be useful. Even if you create certain molecules at an energy deficit, it could be worth it such molecules were easier to work with, or if such robots constructed catalysts, etc…and didn’t actually carry out the gasoline-creation process by THEMSELVES.[/quote]
Or if they were, say, powered by other natural processes (such as light) that would be too slow to use otherwise. That is, you can afford to wait for 50 years to make an oil field, if light is used to power some conversion process, at a loss. You probably can’t efficiently store the energy of the light directly and then harness it after the same 50 years.
I still want a mini nuclear power plant in my car…oh and I want it to float on an energy field instead of run on tires!
I drive an electric car to work every day. One charging takes the car up to 70km of driving economically. Enthusiasts have managed 100km. Takes about 3h to charge 70% and about 7h to 100%. The axeleration is higher in the lower speed ranges than most normal cars. The cars are quite common in Norway and have been so for some years. Zero road tax etc… And the right to drive in public transport lanes is very convenient in the rush hours.
[quote]UlaKhan wrote:
I drive an electric car to work every day. One charging takes the car up to 70km of driving economically. Enthusiasts have managed 100km. Takes about 3h to charge 70% and about 7h to 100%. The axeleration is higher in the lower speed ranges than most normal cars. The cars are quite common in Norway and have been so for some years. Zero road tax etc… And the right to drive in public transport lanes is very convenient in the rush hours.[/quote]
My guess is the average total commute to and from work in America is approximately 70 km.
It does not look like you can fit many groceries in that thing either.
I am sure there are many uses for electric cars but they cannot do what most people need their autos to do.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
UlaKhan wrote:
I drive an electric car to work every day. One charging takes the car up to 70km of driving economically. Enthusiasts have managed 100km. Takes about 3h to charge 70% and about 7h to 100%. The axeleration is higher in the lower speed ranges than most normal cars. The cars are quite common in Norway and have been so for some years. Zero road tax etc… And the right to drive in public transport lanes is very convenient in the rush hours.
My guess is the average total commute to and from work in America is approximately 70 km.
It does not look like you can fit many groceries in that thing either.
I am sure there are many uses for electric cars but they cannot do what most people need their autos to do.[/quote]
It’s registered for three people (can’t fit three T-men though:) ) and in the back compartment I have managed to stuff about 6-7 full grocery bags. Works for me, but not enough for a family both riding and shopping. It’s first and foremost a city car. As you said, it doesn’t fit most peoples use.
[quote]boomerlu wrote:
Vegita wrote:
nephorm wrote:
boomerlu wrote:
Again, the nanotech idea is thermodynamically unsound. How much energy do you think it would take for those nanobots to assemble the gasoline? Order is less favored in nature than disorder or entropy. To make order (gasoline) from disorder (random dirt) requires an input of energy beyond what you would receive in return.
It doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with thermodynamics. If I yell, causing an avalanche, the energy I put into the system (my voice) is not equivalent to the energy released by the resulting reaction. You’re ignoring the potential energy already present in the system. Same thing with nanotech. It may only take a small amount of energy to have some little doodad rearrange molecules, which would then allow the potential energy stored in the molecules to be released.
True, you can’t get more energy out of a system than “you” put in, but “you” also includes the processes of nature, etc.
That doesn’t mean, of course, that gasoline-creating-nanorobots are realistic.
Thanks Neph, I thought I was going to have to give a class on kenetic VS potential energy. Friggin 8th grade science? This stuff isn’t that hard. Anyone who outright disbelieves in any of these alternate energy because they sound pie in the sky is just afraid of change. It’s actually quite ok, most people are. But unless you have a degree in quantumn physics, molecular biology and a host of other related sciences, best to just leave it at speculating for now. Nobody has all the answers, and I doubt that anyone really has even one answer. The only real true statement you could make for any of this is I don’t know, sure it seems possible, and I hope it works.
V
Well I don’t disbelieve the things I disbelieve because they sound pie in the sky, but because of sound scientific reasoning.
Like I believe that fusion (hell I said fusion is already possible on Earth) will be a good source of energy, as will solar power. In fact I may be working on plasma/fusion research in a year or two. The current research is geared towards having a plasma which is controllable with less and less mechanisms (ie, less input of work to control) so that it’s a more efficient process.
But no gasoline-creating-nano-tech robots please.
Actually, that is not to say such robots wouldn’t be useful. Even if you create certain molecules at an energy deficit, it could be worth it such molecules were easier to work with, or if such robots constructed catalysts, etc…and didn’t actually carry out the gasoline-creation process by THEMSELVES.[/quote]
Many People have a misconception of nanotech bots as well. there would not be tiny metal machines with little octopus arms manuvering things around. What would realistically happen would be to take a bacteria, and modify it’s DNA strain so that the byproduct of it’s existance would be petrolium, not any host of other bio products from bacteria. You also engeneer them so that whatever materials you want to convert into petrolium are what the bacteria survive on. Take granite for example, You could theoretically alter a bacterias DNA sequence so that it consumes Granite, and the by product is petrolium. You might not get 100% of the potential energy from the granite as the bacteria are using some of that energy to survive and reproduce etc… but you don’t actually have to put any energy in the system, the bacteria simply use up some and give you the rest in a more useable form. For the record, I used granite for an example, I have no idea what we would actually choose to convert, but something with a high energy potential would be ideal.
There is research being done now with regard to debilitating diseases, scientists are using the common cold and removing the DNA parts that make us sick and changing them with DNA strands that people are deficient in, Cikle cell anemia, parkinsens, etc… I would classify this as nano bot technology and it’s already being researched on a small scale. Esentially they re-program these single cell or multi cell microscopic organisms to do useful things instead of harmful things. The downside to this is that in 100 years it will probably be possible for someone with bad intentions to control the technology enough to make super germ weapons and such.
V
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
It does not look like you can fit many groceries in that thing either.[/quote]
It does not look like you can fit one standard-size American into that thing either.
[quote]UlaKhan wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
UlaKhan wrote:
I drive an electric car to work every day. One charging takes the car up to 70km of driving economically. Enthusiasts have managed 100km. Takes about 3h to charge 70% and about 7h to 100%. The axeleration is higher in the lower speed ranges than most normal cars. The cars are quite common in Norway and have been so for some years. Zero road tax etc… And the right to drive in public transport lanes is very convenient in the rush hours.
My guess is the average total commute to and from work in America is approximately 70 km.
It does not look like you can fit many groceries in that thing either.
I am sure there are many uses for electric cars but they cannot do what most people need their autos to do.
It’s registered for three people (can’t fit three T-men though:) ) and in the back compartment I have managed to stuff about 6-7 full grocery bags. Works for me, but not enough for a family both riding and shopping. It’s first and foremost a city car. As you said, it doesn’t fit most peoples use.[/quote]
It actually looks like it would be fun to drive around town.
My in-laws drive their electric golf cart around town and rarely drive their car or truck except to travel.