You just go do that you tower of intellect and knowledge you. I will be recovering for days from this mental exercise.

 

These are interesting: http://www.magenn.com/

I read about these a little while ago.

-S-

 

Your right this is interesting and the first I have heard of them or anything like them. But I'm not sure I saw what size they are.

I can see though where the portability and versatility would be a big advantage to a lot of different uses.

 

Just another hohum example of the government doing something they claim is better and it just has the opposite effect, like nearly everything they do.

And the catalytic converters emit sulfuric acid and acryllic monomer.

 

After reading a little back I just have to interject this neat little piece of Ford Motor Co. stupidity. One of my "war stories."

In the 1978 (was it 1878 Fords, the backing plate of plastic for the printed circuit dashboard was made of polycarbonate.

Polycarbonate came along in about 1965 as the greatest plastic invented. If you had a lighting fixture outdoors with a polycarbonate enclosure you could not break it with impacts. I had a mfr rep take me out one night to throw rocks at one of their products.

So he convinced me. I started specifying it for exterior incandescent lighting fixtures at doors on school buildings. Shortly after the first ones were built, we got a notice from the manufacturer. They had fixtures rated to 300W, I think I used 200W. The bulletin said:

Due to a previously unknown factor about polycarbonate, we are asking that you install no larger than 60 watt lamps in all fixtures. Heat makes the polycarbonate disintegrate.
It turns into a white powder.

When I had problems on the 1978 Ford, on the dashboard lighting and the gauges, I went into the instrument panel and found: A WHITE POWDER all over behind the dash cover and most of the backing board formerly of polycarbonate had disappeared, turning into powder, leaving no support for the lamps or connectors. That was in about 1997. I replaced the original board with cardboard cut out to fit the original pattern. The cardboard is still there, 10 years later..

Polycarbonate is now being used as a lens material for glasses. WARNING. If you have a prescription of 5,6, or 7, do not get these "lightweight" lenses. The only place they are focused perfectly is dead center. The polycarbonate refractive index screws up your focus everywhere else.

 

It's only free when it's not subsidized, sweets. Check out The Last Oil Shock. I forget the author's name, but he goes through biofuels and the like in some detail. Let the free market work and it will still settle on oil for some time to come.

If your ultimate goal is to make the world a better place, I'm not sure biofuels are the way to go. Think people in oil filled countries have problems now? Wait until all the corn, sugar cane, etc in the world is being burned for fuel. Like I've said before, markets respond to money, not to need. Think global warming via excess CO2 is bad now? Wait until the rain forests are completely obliterated by slash and burn agriculture in an effort to provide for the world's food and fuel needs.

Think you'll fight the man by going biofuels rather than oil and gas? Not likely. The energy companies can afford to buy patents and even if they weren't able to, all you'll create is a different man in a different suit.

 

That is because there is no free market when it comes to oil. Oil is a monopoly and has been since nearly the beginning. Everything is geared to that and they have global power and are actually controling and manipulating both the supply and price while they eleminate other forms of competition.

The solution is to heavily subsidize new and renewable forms of energy and make it a global effort. Here is the us we use 25% of the world's oil and we are like 5% of the population. We could produce 90% of our petreolum needs with Biomass production of hemp with an additional 6% of our land.

That is again where biomass production of hemp comes in. Its an easy crop that does not need prime farm land. It is not a major food sources so would not cut into the food supplies like ethanol from corn is doing now. Hemp is 10 times more productive for ehanaol than corn and other grains. There would be no need to slash and burn the rain forests or other prime areas because it can grown in rather poor conditions. Hemp is the one obvious solution that some experts could be brought on line is as little as five years with the proper allocation of resources. And it is the one solution no one wants to talk about.

Acually I think it is a very practical and viable option and the only thing that would be necessary to make it a reality is the decission to put the resources behind its initial development. All this has been know and researched since the 1970's.

 

somebody else who's hip to solar collection technology! Hurrah! All is not lost.

 

While this concept, in it's scope, is not likely to be realised in the immediate future, it is an example of but one of many solutions that do not involve using carbon fuels.

Geo thermal, wind, ocean tides & currents, increased efficiency hydroelectric, hydrogen fuel cells, photo-voltaic, etc. all could play a part in eliminating the combusion methods of harnessing energy for public use.

To continue to keep the internal combustion engine as the main means of producing power for transportation is self-stagnating. It is one of the least efficient ways to produce power in use today. By working so hard to develop new fuel sources we waste time, money and energy that could be used to develop a more permanent solution.

Regardless of the fuel used, either the production of the fuel or the actual combustion process (or both) contributes to the greenhouse gas problem, as well as the multitude of health problems from other pollutants.

 

It seems to me you contradict yourself here. In your first statment you concede that things like solar generation are concept and scope than can not be realized in the immediate future. You then go onto sight several other sources of non-carbon based and renewable energy sources that are in different stages of development and exerimentation. Which are also not ready for wide spread use.

But then you contend that "To continue to keep the internal combustion engine as the main means of producing power for transportation is self-stagnating. It is one of the least efficient ways to produce power in use today. By working so hard to develop new fuel sources we waste time, money and energy that could be used to develop a more permanent solution."

The contradiction I see there is that right now today we have no other practical or affordable methods of transportation available than the internal combustion engine. We also have biofuels available today but not in enough quanties to meet demand. And while they may have their drawbacks, they are certianly outweighed by the benefits which would include at least reducing green house gases over using petroleum, cheaper to produce and use, and achieveing energy independence instead of being dependent on importing foreign oil.

How can further development of what we have available right now be a waste of time and money while we wait for the other technologies to become practical. Aren't you saying even though biofuels have several demonstrated benefits we should just keep burning oil until things like hydrogen fuel cells or some other techonolgy comes along? That to me seems both contradictory and senseless. And exactly what we have already been doing for the past 40 years instead developing the other energy sources you mention.

 

Sorry you misunderstood my answer to Old Tool, I was referring to the post that he was responding to, did you watch the video in the link that Igor posted??

That is what I was rerring to as not likely to be seen any time soon. Solar power systems are in use today, providing hundred of thousand of kw to thousands of applications, large and small.

 

Something can to mind just now, the current discussion about energy and the best way to insure long term independence in availability, kind of reminded me of Eastman Kodak.

For years Kodak basked in the glow of a perfect industry, they made cameras, made photographic film and sold processing (and processing products) for that film. Fuji came along and threatened Kodaks domination in the industry.

Kodak put all of their R&D into improved cameras, films and processes while the Japanese companys developed digital imaging. While Kodak was saving their market share of the photographic film business, that business shrunk to almost nothing.

Now Kodak has discharged thousands of workers, leveled many plants and now are trying to catch up in the digital images industry. They might make it, but they will be a shadow of their former self.

My point is, do we keep dumping our R&D resources into keeping an inefficient power system alive or do we move ahead, ahead of our global competetors who are working quite diligently on those same premises?

 

Yes I did watch the video that Igor put up and also looked at the information ShakeZula put up but that really has no bearing on what I feel is your contradiction that it is a waste of time and money and energy to pursue biofuels for the internal combustion vehicles we drive right now when there is no other practical alternative available right now.

Just like what you said about the solar generation Igor and Old Tool are referring to being not in the immediate future, neither is mass production of affordable hydrogen fuel cell or electrical vehicles available now. And even when they do become practical and affordable there will be an extended transition period. That's why I said I thought it was senseless not to pursue biofuels now, for the benefits they offer for the environment, the economy and energy independence.

So I don't believe I misunderstood your post at all.

 

The fallacy I see with this illustration is that a camera is something very optional to most people while personal transportation is not.

I'm all for putting all the resources we can into new technologies for renewable energy and even phasing out the internal combustion engine. But because of very practical reasons that will take at least a decade or more and what you seem to be suggesting is in the meantime we do nothing to take advantage of the Biofuel technology that is available and practical right now and has as I have already mention several advantages over our continued use of oil which does not make sense to me.

Yes by all means we should be putting resources into R&D to develop alternative and renewable energy sources, but right now biofuels is the most practical and beneficial new technology available for us today. And we should also be considering which of those biofuels holds the most promise which is hemp.

 

I don't mean to speak for tenguy (are you still convinced he and I are the same person, by the way? ), but the decision to be made is one of priority. We've got "X" amount of resources (time, money, talent), and to what proportion should these resources be placed in supporting current technologies vs. developing long-term solutions. I would suggest that supporting the burning of anything organic to provide power is chasing our tail and we ought to give that only enough time and attention to get us to the next phase. Wouldn't you agree?

 

The technologies for fuel cells, solar, wind and tidal power is here right now also.

Do we convert a huge portion of our productive farm land or reclaim vast regions of land used as sileage and timber, to produce enough bio-mass to make a difference? Or do we use what land is available, but put our resourses behind accelerating the perfecting of other systems.

To be sure, I wouldn't continue to try to salvage an inefficient, obsolete and enviromentally unfriendly technology.

You know what the Kodak example was made for ,it is example of inward thinking at a time when the horizon is out there.

 

Ahh, the dreaded paradigm shift. The classic example is watches. Fifty years ago, the "headquarters" of watch production was Switzerland. They had developed the making of watches and clockwork mechanisms to the level of art, and they made the finest in the world. But then someone came along and invented the quartz drive, and voila! In a very short time, watch production dominance shifted to....Japan. The Swiss never knew what hit them.

 

Yep, bet they're outspending us on alternative energy R&D.

Whoops, they are, darn think they know something?

 

Trust me, if they could manipulate the price, you'd be paying more and would have been paying more for a long time.

[/quote=Stumbler]The solution is to heavily subsidize new and renewable forms of energy and make it a global effort. Here is the us we use 25% of the world's oil and we are like 5% of the population. We could produce 90% of our petreolum needs with Biomass production of hemp with an additional 6% of our land.[/quote]

While I haven't the energy at 4 am to search for numbers either validating or contradicting you, I will treat such a claim as skeptically as I treat any other claim to a global panacea. The point of the matter is that if it can't survive without subsidies, it probably doesn't deserve to survive. Also, and forgive me for being cynical here, I think a global effort is a myth. Without forcing people to comply, it won't happen. As regards that, I resent being made to suffer for anyone who I don't choose to suffer for. Call me crazy.

As to America's energy consumption, we produce about 48% of our own oil and a larger portion of our own total energy. That means, as far as oil production is concerned, this 5% of the total population produces about 12% of the total oil. Not too shabby considering we're competing with entire groups of nations whose sole goal is to produce more oil rather than, like it is here, choking potential productivity.

The point isn't that hemp won't work, only that if people can make more money farming for fuel than they can farming for food, they will farm for fuel. If I have a choice between planting an acre of corn for X number of dollars and an acre of hemp for 2X number of dollars, I will plant hemp. And so, food prices will rise.

Of course, farmers could clear more land and plant the hemp there, but they won't have to. The can plant hemp on the land they've already cultivated and save themselves the additional capital expenditure. There's also the fact that if anybody has money lying about to buy land for hemp, it's the energy industry. The energy industry and Ted Turner. Or maybe the government could take the land and grow the hemp for the "greater good." Surely, that would eliminate the problems. Until it becomes obvious that the government controls absolutely your ability to move and to light and heat your home. Like I said, the same man or a man in a different suit.

Trust me, the energy industries don't give a damn about producing oil and gas. They care a lot about making money. That's the stated goal. If they could make the billions of dollars that you think they can by planting hemp, they'd do it in another country. I'd be willing to wager that America would have zero problem buying cheap fuel from another country, regardless of where it came from. Again, call me crazy.

On the slash and burn agriculture, again it's not a matter of having to, it's a matter of will do. Think that they're devastating the rain forests for food crops? How much greater would the impetus be is there was an absolute certainty of finding a continually renewable source of oil there?