High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource

Go Back   High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource >
Rules HDTV Forum Gallery LINK TO US! RSS - High Def Forum AddThis Feed Button AddThis Social Bookmark Button Groups

Car Forum Talk about your favorite cars, setups, garages (got pics?)!

Anyone altering their driving habits due to outrageous gas prices?

Reply
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-18-2007, 12:14 PM   #106  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Barrington, Il.
Age: 67
Posts: 2,324
Default

If I understand this correctly it uses aluminum?

If we were to go in a completely new direction for a fuel source would we want to use something that is non-renewable, like oil?

Seems to me E85 using corn which is renewable is the best so far.

Please correct me if I'm wrong here.
Emil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2007, 12:35 PM   #107  
HD Fan
 

Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Little Rock, Arkansas
Posts: 1,023
Default The aluminum would be processed & re-used

Emil,

I re-read the article and have come to the conclusion that the aluminum pellets would be processed and re-used. There would be an energy cost (not competative with gas right now). Here is the line I am using for this logic:

With internal combustion engines, the cost of recycling the aluminum oxide must be reduced to make the process competitive with gasoline at $3 a gallon.

I think that using E85 is part of the answer, but we cannot grow enough corn to fully replace oil, which is my own personal goal for our country. I think it will take a mix of fuel sources to do the job.

Once the technology is perfected for using non-food biomass (such as switchgrass, hay, etc), E85 will be more competative and beneficial, since it will not compete with food production or require the amount of water needed currently using corn. If this can be done through natural fermentation rather than using natural gas or electricity, it will truely be a fully renewable energy source (solar, indirectly).
SLedford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2007, 12:46 PM   #108  
UNOTIS
 
unotis's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: FLORIDA
Age: 64
Posts: 4,139
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil View Post
If I understand this correctly it uses aluminum?

If we were to go in a completely new direction for a fuel source would we want to use something that is non-renewable, like oil?

Seems to me E85 using corn which is renewable is the best so far.

Please correct me if I'm wrong here.
He is discussing one professor's find as to how to produce Hydrogen fuel inside the car itself with no need to refuel from an outside source, I believe.

The new Honda Hydrogen Fuel Cell car coming out in the next 3 years will use initially an HES "Home Energy Station", that you will place at your home (probably your garage) and it will use initially natural gas to be broken down to Hydrogen fuel to both run you car and to produce the electrical energy to power your home (with a 60% savings over normal ways to power it).

Naturally when the numbers of Fuel Cell Cars increase we will see the present gas stations add Hydrogen fuel pumps to the stations inorder to take advantage of the new market.

Then the only problem would be to increase the electrical power grid to supply the power to produce the Hydrogen Fuel needed.

If we can get some backing from someone in the Government, we could influence and educate the public to the advantages that the safe clean new technology nuclear power plants have to offer ( I think we could use the same methods used by Public Relations firms, easy to understand slogans and advertisements), If we would build a total of 400 nuclear power plants across the country we could easily produce enough electricity to run the entire country and supply everyone with Hydrogen fuel for all their power needs in both cars, trucks and even homes.

And the new technology nuclear power plants cannot produce enough heat to ever have a meltdown like Chernobly and remember even 3 Mile Island's partial meltdown did not injure anyone nor even give anyone more radiation exposure then a normal X-ray would. Because of 3 Mile island, we have not built any new nuclear power plants since the mid 1970s and the 110 we do have produce around 20% of all the electrical power we need (and the new ones are much cheaper/faster to build and are much more efficient)

Then we would not need to worry about the problems of global warming nor dependancy on oil producing countries that hate us and use the money to fund organizations that are actively trying to kill us.

Think about it no more, energy crisis, global warming, pollution, wars over oil and ultimately maybe all the terrorist organizations would run out of money. Then we could use our farmlands to feed the hungry instead of using them to grow crops to produce biofuel to run our cars.

Last edited by unotis; 05-18-2007 at 12:56 PM..
unotis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2007, 05:12 PM   #109  
High Definition is the definition of life.
Thread Starter
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 7,120
Default

I have big concerns with that professors proposal. I know that the aluminum could be reprocessed and reused, but that sounds like it would be a LOT of hassle considering that a car would need roughly 350lbs worth of aluminum pellets. Can you imagine how unpractical this would be? Then you also have the concern of obtaining refined aluminum which BTW is a very energy intensive process. I disagree with that guy that this is not the start of a revolution. How practical is it to find ways to ship 350lbs of aluminum off to a recycling center as often as you would need, not to mention the costs of transporting and then refining the aluminum oxide back to aluminum metal. Then are are the safety concerns of obtaining hydrogen this way as it would be far more complicated than trying to keep petrol in a tank.

Another area of concern is that pure aluminum metal oxidizes extremely quickly into aluminum oxide as soon as it touches air. Expensive methods and processes would need to be created to keep this from happening. I think this professor might be the only person with an ego problem here as there are so many barriers to getting this to work. Every car having to carry an extra 350lbs would also create other incidental costs such as perhaps requiring a beefier suspension, a sturdier frame, and perhaps would cause increased tire wear. Tires consume a lot of oil as well.
junehhan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2007, 05:21 PM   #110  
High Definition is the definition of life.
Thread Starter
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 7,120
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by unotis View Post
He is discussing one professor's find as to how to produce Hydrogen fuel inside the car itself with no need to refuel from an outside source, I believe.

The new Honda Hydrogen Fuel Cell car coming out in the next 3 years will use initially an HES "Home Energy Station", that you will place at your home (probably your garage) and it will use initially natural gas to be broken down to Hydrogen fuel to both run you car and to produce the electrical energy to power your home (with a 60% savings over normal ways to power it).

Naturally when the numbers of Fuel Cell Cars increase we will see the present gas stations add Hydrogen fuel pumps to the stations inorder to take advantage of the new market.

Then the only problem would be to increase the electrical power grid to supply the power to produce the Hydrogen Fuel needed.

If we can get some backing from someone in the Government, we could influence and educate the public to the advantages that the safe clean new technology nuclear power plants have to offer ( I think we could use the same methods used by Public Relations firms, easy to understand slogans and advertisements), If we would build a total of 400 nuclear power plants across the country we could easily produce enough electricity to run the entire country and supply everyone with Hydrogen fuel for all their power needs in both cars, trucks and even homes.

And the new technology nuclear power plants cannot produce enough heat to ever have a meltdown like Chernobly and remember even 3 Mile Island's partial meltdown did not injure anyone nor even give anyone more radiation exposure then a normal X-ray would. Because of 3 Mile island, we have not built any new nuclear power plants since the mid 1970s and the 110 we do have produce around 20% of all the electrical power we need (and the new ones are much cheaper/faster to build and are much more efficient)

Then we would not need to worry about the problems of global warming nor dependancy on oil producing countries that hate us and use the money to fund organizations that are actively trying to kill us.

Think about it no more, energy crisis, global warming, pollution, wars over oil and ultimately maybe all the terrorist organizations would run out of money. Then we could use our farmlands to feed the hungry instead of using them to grow crops to produce biofuel to run our cars.

If every car stopped producing CO2, it still wouldn't slow down global warming from a historic standpoint. Geologists and other scientists have concluded that climates have shifted many times during the history of the earth even well before man walked it. If we wern't pumping CO2 into the atmosphere back in those days, then why did the earth's climate still shift many times in a cycle? The point we're gonna have to face is that some day many thousands of generations down the line, our children at some point are likely going to have to contend with these problems whether cars are pumping out CO2 or not. After all, nature is the biggest contributor of greenhouse gases into the earth's atmosphere and its not like we can kindly ask mother nature to stick a cork in her ass for us. Are we accelerating global warming? Sure we are but we are powerless to stop a historical cycle. CO2 emissions also arn't the entire story. I would be willing to take a bet that deforestation and desertification of our lands is more responsible for global warming than CO2 emissions are. We have been losing our forests at alarming rates in the last 100 years, which is precisely when we've also noticed a rapid rise in the earth's average temperature. As we know, we also have to worry about reflection and absorption of the suns energy on our planet. The fact is that this increased deforestation and often resulting desertification of the terrain is changing the relective properties of the surface and allowing our planet to absorb more of the sun's energy and reflect less of it. There are just too many variables out there and I believe that its extremely closeminded how some econazi's and activists have blinded themselves into thinking that only one source is causing global warming.
junehhan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2007, 05:44 PM   #111  
HD Fan
 

Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Little Rock, Arkansas
Posts: 1,023
Default Less concerned with CO2 as with our addiction to oil

junehhan,

You have hit the nail on the head as far as the impact on global warming. Even the most optimistic predictions show a minimal impact on the future temperature, even if all CO2 emissions stopped. That doesn't mean we don't make some effort, but it should be a reasonable effort rather than a heroic effort.

That is why I am satisfied with the move to multiple alternatives that help reduce oil consumption (and our addiction to this product). If everyone switched to economy cars our oil consumption would be cut in half. If we introduced various non-oil alternatives (E85, biodiesel, hydrogen, electric vehicles) I dare say we could cut the oil addiction in half again, if not more.

Yes it will be messy for a while, especially for refueling stations. Just what we have mentioned here would require:
(1) Premium gasoline pump
(2) Regular gasoline pump
(3) E85 pump
(4) Diesel pump
(5) Biodiesel pump
(6) Hydrogen refueling station

It is possible that the regular gas / ethanol pumps could be combined - just pick you ethanol mix (from 0% to 100%). Same with diesel / biodiesel.

I noticed the same comment about the weight and had the same thoughts about recycling that you mentioned. If is any hassle at all it will not happen except for the very commited.

I am looking at 2010 for replacing my current 2000 Dodge Caravan (22 MPG consistantly). Right now I don't know if I will pick up a cheap commuter car (like the Smart Car or Chevy Volt concept) and keep the Caravan, or if I replace the Caravan outright. Changes are on the way and the landscape in 2010 will be very different from what is offered right now. And no telling what gasoline will cost.
SLedford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2007, 06:33 PM   #112  
High Definition is the definition of life.
Thread Starter
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 7,120
Default

You nailed it with your comment. I am sick of how some of these close minded people in the world are willing to go through economically disastrous pieces of legislation to reduce CO2 emissions when there are other areas as you mentioned that I believe we should be focusing on. Our number one addiction is to an oil based economy for transportation and industry. If we focus more on reducing this and switching to alternative fuels, the reduction in CO2 emissions are going to come along for the ride anyway along with more reduction in the often forgotten smog forming pollutants that also can cause acid rain. Many left wing groups and politicians seem to have been brainwashed into thinking CO2 is the biggest problem we are facing when it might be the least of our worries. As unotis mentioned, stop feeding these questionable countries with our oil money(in the long run as this won't happen anytime in the short future), and perhaps we can even solve some more social problems that we have in the world with these nutjob dictators that use all of that oil based revenue for dubious purposes instead of using them to help their poverty stricken citizens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SLedford View Post
junehhan,

You have hit the nail on the head as far as the impact on global warming. Even the most optimistic predictions show a minimal impact on the future temperature, even if all CO2 emissions stopped. That doesn't mean we don't make some effort, but it should be a reasonable effort rather than a heroic effort.

That is why I am satisfied with the move to multiple alternatives that help reduce oil consumption (and our addiction to this product). If everyone switched to economy cars our oil consumption would be cut in half. If we introduced various non-oil alternatives (E85, biodiesel, hydrogen, electric vehicles) I dare say we could cut the oil addiction in half again, if not more.

Yes it will be messy for a while, especially for refueling stations. Just what we have mentioned here would require:
(1) Premium gasoline pump
(2) Regular gasoline pump
(3) E85 pump
(4) Diesel pump
(5) Biodiesel pump
(6) Hydrogen refueling station

It is possible that the regular gas / ethanol pumps could be combined - just pick you ethanol mix (from 0% to 100%). Same with diesel / biodiesel.

I noticed the same comment about the weight and had the same thoughts about recycling that you mentioned. If is any hassle at all it will not happen except for the very commited.

I am looking at 2010 for replacing my current 2000 Dodge Caravan (22 MPG consistantly). Right now I don't know if I will pick up a cheap commuter car (like the Smart Car or Chevy Volt concept) and keep the Caravan, or if I replace the Caravan outright. Changes are on the way and the landscape in 2010 will be very different from what is offered right now. And no telling what gasoline will cost.
junehhan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2007, 05:37 AM   #113  
Muscle Cars Forever!
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 47,456
Default

Until such time that we switch ALL of our electric plants over to nuclear, whatever options you have outlined for the car will simply be a spit in the bucket.

And as we all know . . . THAT is just not going to happen with the fear of Nuclear.

We live in a world where no one wants to make sacrifices and the dollar is king of the globe.

Oh . . . it gets worse . . . alot worse . . .

In the next 20 to 50 years they expect a reversal of the earths magnetic field where the North Pole becomes the South Pole . . . and our entire GPS system goes in the toilet. . . along with a bunch of other technologies.
Lee Stewart is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2007, 09:54 AM   #114  
UNOTIS
 
unotis's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: FLORIDA
Age: 64
Posts: 4,139
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post
Until such time that we switch ALL of our electric plants over to nuclear, whatever options you have outlined for the car will simply be a spit in the bucket.

And as we all know . . . THAT is just not going to happen with the fear of Nuclear.

We live in a world where no one wants to make sacrifices and the dollar is king of the globe.

Oh . . . it gets worse . . . alot worse . . .

In the next 20 to 50 years they expect a reversal of the earths magnetic field where the North Pole becomes the South Pole . . . and our entire GPS system goes in the toilet. . . along with a bunch of other technologies.
I have pointed out several times before that the whole global warming debate is way too heavily tilted towards "It's our fault for driving gasoline vehicles" when anyone with any brains knows cars now run extremely clean compared to 20 years ago and the largest contributer to greenhouse depleating gases is strangely "Cattle" each seperate cow puts out over 50lbs of ozone depleating gas per day times several billion worldwide that is alot of gas, some sources say that is 80% of the pollution problem.

So what are we going to do about that?

Put some kind of catalytic converter on them?

And as far as nuclear power, we can overcome the public ill-founded reluctance to use it, we need to educate them using easy to understand advertisements and slogans, like those used by Public Relations firms and we need some sort of leadership to come from the government (someone we will trust to know what is true).

I still believe with the combination of nuclear power to produce enough electricity and Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicles, the very least it will do is help with global warming a little and stop our dependancy on foreign oil.

It will also shut Al Gore up and we can stop being brow beaten by the liberal environmentalists.

Sounds like a Win, Win!
unotis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2007, 10:09 AM   #115  
HD Fan
 

Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Little Rock, Arkansas
Posts: 1,023
Default Timing & the view of the future

I was an engineering student in the early 70's at FSU till I switched to accounting. One of my engineering teachers was a strong environmentalist who believed that engineers & technology would save the human race.

He showed us a model that he worked up (this was before desktop PCs) that showed the world running out of energy in all forms (except natural renewable) by XXXX (don't remember the date). His calculations were wrong, of course - he couldn't have anticipated that cars would get 50 - 70 MPG, etc., but the conclusion was valid. At some unknown time in the future all the coal, natural gas, uranium, etc will be gone and all that we will have is the "natural" energy sources such as solar, wind, tidal, geothermal.

His message to us future engineers was that we needed to nudge the world towards renewable energy sources. At that time (early 70's) the options were fairly limited and the economics were even worse than they are today. The economics become better when the non-renewable sources start to show stress (like with oil today). Eventually the renewable sources become cheaper.

So the question is one of timing. When do we start moving away from non-renewable to renewable sources of energy? Are we at that point now?

Clouding the issue is one that Junehan brought up - this must be a global effort, not just a US or European effort. Add in the population equation (which affects energy and is at least as big an issue) and it really gets tricky. Factor in the "free will" issue - does anyone really have the right to tell me how many kids I can have, or what kind of light bulb I use, or that I must drive an economical car? - and the future looks gloomy.

If we were on a large space ship on an extended journey from our sun to another (requiring multiple generations on the ship) the authority of the captain would not be questioned. His right to limit your food intake, number of kids, activities would be understood. Democracy would still exist, but with limits.

Is our earth not a space ship of sorts? So the question, again, is timing. When do we start moving to renewable energy sources? When do we start putting limits (and how do we enforce) on family sizes? If Adam and Eve had this discussion, the timing would have been too soon. With only two people in the world, population control and pollution were not a negative issue. So is the timing right for now, or do we still have some time?

Last edited by SLedford; 05-19-2007 at 10:11 AM..
SLedford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2007, 11:00 AM   #116  
UNOTIS
 
unotis's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: FLORIDA
Age: 64
Posts: 4,139
Default

We have some time but, I think now is the time to start to nudge the public to looking into changing over to renewable souces of energy.

We cannot force them but, with them seeing the advantages in both savings and less enviromental impact I think they will come around.

Right now we have the technology to at least start to do this and maybe by the time we have effected the change we will not have driven our selves into a dangerous corner where we are finally panicked into forced action.

It will take baby steps, first biofuels and Hybrids, then we can cross over to Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicles or even electric (with improvements coming to batteries) and increased electrical capacity with nuclear power.

But, I think every intelligent educated person knows we need to do something, at least start and not put it off until too late.
unotis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2007, 09:07 AM   #117  
Muscle Cars Forever!
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 47,456
Default

UNOTIS:

Remember the catch phrase . . . "NIMBY"

Stood for "Not In My Back Yard"

NO ONE and I repeat . . . NO ONE wants spent nuclear fuel traveling through their town on the way to Yucca Mtn. for proper storage.

It is no longer the melt down fear of nuclear . . . but what will happen - and it will happen when an "accident" occurs . . . and a town/city becomes unhabitable?

No matter what item is transported, at one time or another, there has been an accident.

Now the spent fuel stays at the reactor site in a pool. But eventually, the pool fills up and it needs to be moved and there lies the problem.

And keep in mind that it takes about 20 years to approve and build a nuclear power plant so this is a far reaching solution, as far as time.

We Americans have a high tolerance to financial pain. Gas could go to $5.00 a gallon and we will still pay, as most of us depend on the car for transportation.

Yes the economy will hit the skids as gas prices continue to rise. People will travel less, they will not buy new cars unless there is a marked difference in the MPG. The war is sucking the life out of our economy and will coninue to do so until we have a new president who will stop it the day after he takes office.

Meanwhile, we will be how much in debt? hundreds of billions? a trillion?

Last edited by Lee Stewart; 05-20-2007 at 09:14 AM..
Lee Stewart is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2007, 10:59 AM   #118  
1080p=WhereYaWannaBe
 
enmoco's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 795
Default

Aha,Nostradamus.....so,it's all George's fault.....dogs and cats living together...etc....etc....LOL..
enmoco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2007, 01:28 PM   #119  
HD Fan
 

Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Little Rock, Arkansas
Posts: 1,023
Default Tolerance for pain

On the way home from church today I saw that Sam's Club has regular gas at $3.15 (discounted to a "cheap" $3.10 for members). We are on our way the $5 per gallon that Lee Stewart mentioned.

As far as tolerance for pain, yes we will pay the $5 per gallon, since we do not have realistic choices in this country (unless you live in a city with good mass transit). But that will be $5 that will not be spent somewhere else.

Lee is right about one thing - the nuclear option will be a hard sell in this country. The best option for disposing of spent nuclear fuel (IMO) is to put it in a leakproof container, onto a rocket and fire it into the sun. But that will never happen - too much concern about an accident, with the leaking container falling back to earth.

I had hoped to make car payments to myself for the next 3 years (to my money market) then get the best and latest high mileage auto to replace my trusty Caravan (22 MPG). I may not be able to wait 3 years if the price of gas keeps going up.

Tough times cause innovation and change, so it will be interesting to see what comes out of the woodworks if we do get to $5 per gallon.

If I were the Saudis, I would make sure that the $5 price didn't happen quickly. They can sneak up to $5 over a few years and we just adjust a little at a time, but a quick $5 price causes the market to look for alternatives. Not good for oil producers.
SLedford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2007, 02:29 PM   #120  
UNOTIS
 
unotis's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: FLORIDA
Age: 64
Posts: 4,139
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post
UNOTIS:

Remember the catch phrase . . . "NIMBY"

Stood for "Not In My Back Yard"

NO ONE and I repeat . . . NO ONE wants spent nuclear fuel traveling through their town on the way to Yucca Mtn. for proper storage.

It is no longer the melt down fear of nuclear . . . but what will happen - and it will happen when an "accident" occurs . . . and a town/city becomes unhabitable?

No matter what item is transported, at one time or another, there has been an accident.

Now the spent fuel stays at the reactor site in a pool. But eventually, the pool fills up and it needs to be moved and there lies the problem.

And keep in mind that it takes about 20 years to approve and build a nuclear power plant so this is a far reaching solution, as far as time.
Again the people worrying about possible accidents occurring during transportation of the nuclear waste is an example of ignorance (them not knowing any better)

The containers used to transport nuclear waste, have in tests withstood being hit by train locomotives at speeds up to 60 mph, with no real damage to the container and no leakage at all. They've even set the container in a pool of aircraft fuel set the pool on fire and at tempratures of up to 1400 degrees for over an hour and again they had no leakage or real damage. And even if the stored nuclear waste came out of the container, it takes long term exposure, in fact weeks when the waste is in that state for it make anyone sick. Clean up crews could literally just scoop it up and place it back into the container and suffer no ill effects, because they would only have short term exposure.

We need to educate the public so they stop believing the false overblown dangers that have been circulating as part of a incorrect "common knowledge".

And as far as the 20 year approval, we have not built a nuclear power plant since the mid 1970s and the approval could easily be done within months presently.

We could approve and build all the nuclear power plants we need to deliver us all the electriclal energy this entire country needs with 2 to 3 years (if we would just decide to do it).

We now have 110 nuclear power plants running in the US, if we produced 290 additional new plants we could quite literally have all the energy production we would need to get away from the use of fossil fuels totally.

Remember in the US no one has ever died from nuclear power, where many have died mining for coal and oil in the last 10 years.

So which method is really the more dangerous?
unotis is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Go Back   High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource >
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


to Anyone altering their driving habits due to outrageous gas prices?
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LCD TV Monitor Panel Prices on the Rise eHDMI High Definition News & Informative Articles 1 08-24-2006 03:02 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:23 PM.



Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2018, MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands