About the refueling thing, I interned at an energy forecasting firm over the summer, and from the research I did there it looks like in the next few decades we might see enough fueling stations created/converted for it to be economically viable to switch trucks, buses, etc from diesel to natural gas (trucks obviously don't need as many fueling stations as cars).Abandon4093 said:But converting the entire population to using alternate fuel sources for their cars isn't feasible.CardinalPiggles said:This won't happen. It'll work with renewable energy to fuel the process of... creating fuel, but why not just increase the amount of renewable energy that gets produced and use that? Oil will always be needed but gasoline won't if engines just run off of other power sources.
It's not as simple as designing a bitching car that runs off of happy thoughts. You have to consider the titanic infrastructure changes you'd need to undergo. First and foremost is making it efficient, Honda have been trying for years to find alternate, efficient energy sources for cars. And then when they find it, they've got to find a way to conveniently allow people to refuel. It's not like back in the 30's when you could slowly introduce the concept of petrol stations. Adding 1 or 2 to every town over the course of a few years won't cut it. People expect to be able to refuel round the corner. And we're not at a point where we can make a mobile fuel source that can last seemingly indefinitely.
Like it or not, the best option is to find more efficient ways to get large quantities of fuel that's already in use.
There is no future. Only this very moment. O____oMorganL4 said:Yesterday, this was the future.... You are here now...... Welcome.Witty Name Here said:We get fuel out of the god damned air, how can we NOT be living in the future now?
I say we work on setting up a decent warp drive now...
But yeah, this is friggin' sweet, especially the fact that it removes carbon from the atmosphere instead of creates it.
This will NEVER happen. Conservation of energy states that you can't burn 1L of fuel to make 1 L of fuel. Not to mention trying to burn 1L of fuel to make more then that on the way out (unless you were making a worse fuel you could maybe turn 1L of octane into 1.5L ethane but that's again worthless). Never ever ever ever ever ever ever happen cause our universe is a harsh mistress.SteewpidZombie said:Think of it this way: If you can burn 1 Litre of Fossil fuels to power a machine that produces 2 Litres of Synthetic Fuel (or even 1.2Litres), you now have a machine that can power itself with it's own product. So if they can refine the process to make more fuel then they expend, they'll have created a literal self-powering machine that can produce a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels.
Wouldn't that be a violation of the first law of thermodynamics?SteewpidZombie said:Think of it this way: If you can burn 1 Litre of Fossil fuels to power a machine that produces 2 Litres of Synthetic Fuel (or even 1.2Litres), you now have a machine that can power itself with it's own product. So if they can refine the process to make more fuel then they expend, they'll have created a literal self-powering machine that can produce a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels.
What we really need is a new generation of batteries, made from an incredibly small molecule. Some scientists think that NanoTechnology capable of producing very thin plates (atoms thick) made of graphene will give us super batteries. We can place graphene plates in the same way we make capacitors today, just at the atomic level and get (in theory) energy storage close to petrol.Raiyan 1.0 said:Chemical batteries and hydrogen still come nowhere close to hydrocarbons in terms of holding energy per volume.CardinalPiggles said:This won't happen. It'll work with renewable energy to fuel the process of... creating fuel, but why not just increase the amount of renewable energy that gets produced and use that? Oil will always be needed but gasoline won't if engines just run off of other power sources.
Yes, but you're taking atoms from the air that already existed, not just from the fuel burnt to make it (So his math is wrong). However this is unlikely, it's more likely that these factories get their own dams, reactors or power farms for power.maninahat said:Wouldn't that be a violation of the first law of thermodynamics?SteewpidZombie said:Think of it this way: If you can burn 1 Litre of Fossil fuels to power a machine that produces 2 Litres of Synthetic Fuel (or even 1.2Litres), you now have a machine that can power itself with it's own product. So if they can refine the process to make more fuel then they expend, they'll have created a literal self-powering machine that can produce a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels.
Actually it still a useful innovation, for a liquid is much easier to conserve then pure energy like electricity. Also go ahead and try to do a quick refill of an electric vehicle, that just impossible in any kind of efficient manner, outside of going the Fallout universe road and having civilian vehicle work on nuclear fuel cell. =pCardinalPiggles said:This won't happen. It'll work with renewable energy to fuel the process of... creating fuel, but why not just increase the amount of renewable energy that gets produced and use that? Oil will always be needed but gasoline won't if engines just run off of other power sources.
Actually if we truly found a way to make unlimited gasoline, or cheaper gasoline, the oil companies wouldn't be able to do jack now.DugMachine said:How are world economies not throwing large sums of cash at this to speed up the process? oh right we're all held by the balls by big oil companies.
Yeah, well the first message shot across the internet was a grand total of two letters. They didn't just say, "Meh it wasn't a full word, let alone a full sentence, let's give up." They worked to improve the system and today I can type this entire paragraph, and not bat an eyelid.spartan231490 said:Yeah, these guys are idiots. It takes more energy to make the gas than you get out of it. Also, since this energy comes from coal, you end up getting a lot more pollution from making the gas than you take out of the air by making it. It's stupid.
this is true for most biofuels as well as battery cars last i read up, though its been a few years.spartan231490 said:Yeah, these guys are idiots. It takes more energy to make the gas than you get out of it. Also, since this energy comes from coal, you end up getting a lot more pollution from making the gas than you take out of the air by making it. It's stupid.
but thats the fault of an energy grid. we MUST shut down ALL fossil fuel power plants and put atomic plants in their place and we would have a 100% enviromentally friendly energy.cerebus23 said:this is true for most biofuels as well as battery cars last i read up, though its been a few years.spartan231490 said:Yeah, these guys are idiots. It takes more energy to make the gas than you get out of it. Also, since this energy comes from coal, you end up getting a lot more pollution from making the gas than you take out of the air by making it. It's stupid.
Because gasoline (well, liquid fuels in general) have orders of magnitude higher energy density than the other forms of energy storage we've got right now.CardinalPiggles said:This won't happen. It'll work with renewable energy to fuel the process of... creating fuel, but why not just increase the amount of renewable energy that gets produced and use that? Oil will always be needed but gasoline won't if engines just run off of other power sources.