Going "Green"

James___ wrote:
GM is going to pursue a more carbon neutral policy which includes
exclusively offer electric light-duty cars and trucks by 2035
https://qz.com/1966116/electric-cars-will-speed-up-depreciation-of-everything-gm-owns/?utm_source=YPL

This is where improvements will need to be made in power generation. At the same time the nations electrical power grid might need to be updated.
This might also devalue oil quite a bit. And since China is trying to take over the South China Sea because of the oil below it, a possible war could be averted.

keepit wrote: Fracking natural gas and reduced GDP are the easiest things to do to combat global warming.

James___ wrote:
GM is going to pursue a more carbon neutral policy which includes
exclusively offer electric light-duty cars and trucks by 2035
https://qz.com/1966116/electric-cars-will-speed-up-depreciation-of-everything-gm-owns/?utm_source=YPL

This is where improvements will need to be made in power generation. At the same time the nations electrical power grid might need to be updated.
This might also devalue oil quite a bit. And since China is trying to take over the South China Sea because of the oil below it, a possible war could be averted.

keepit wrote:
Fracking natural gas and reduced GDP are the easiest things to do to combat global warming.

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote: Fracking natural gas and reduced GDP are the easiest things to do to combat global warming.

What about fracking petroleum as well?


.

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:
GM is going to pursue a more carbon neutral policy which includes
exclusively offer electric light-duty cars and trucks by 2035
https://qz.com/1966116/electric-cars-will-speed-up-depreciation-of-everything-gm-owns/?utm_source=YPL

This is where improvements will need to be made in power generation. At the same time the nations electrical power grid might need to be updated.
This might also devalue oil quite a bit. And since China is trying to take over the South China Sea because of the oil below it, a possible war could be averted.

And where is all that new electrical power coming from? Why would anyone want a truck to be electric powered? Trucks often have to drive all day. They don't have time to recharge.

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:
GM is going to pursue a more carbon neutral policy which includes
exclusively offer electric light-duty cars and trucks by 2035
https://qz.com/1966116/electric-cars-will-speed-up-depreciation-of-everything-gm-owns/?utm_source=YPL

This is where improvements will need to be made in power generation. At the same time the nations electrical power grid might need to be updated.
This might also devalue oil quite a bit. And since China is trying to take over the South China Sea because of the oil below it, a possible war could be averted.

And where is all that new electrical power coming from? Why would anyone want a truck to be electric powered? Trucks often have to drive all day. They don't have time to recharge.

HarveyH55 wrote: I remember reading about fusion reactors as a child. How we would have an unlimited energy source, cheap and clean... 50 years later... Is there even on fusion reactor operating commercially? Is there even one operating more than 73 seconds? Is there even one that produce electricity?

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote: I remember reading about fusion reactors as a child. How we would have an unlimited energy source, cheap and clean... 50 years later... Is there even on fusion reactor operating commercially? Is there even one operating more than 73 seconds? Is there even one that produce electricity?

The bottom line is that an unlimited energy source is an international political hot potato. On the one hand, it's like the international space station, i.e. every country wants/needs to be in on it, for funding, international regulation and concern and for diplomacy ... but in whose country will the prototype be built. Which country gets to have physical control of the total game-changer.

Well, somehow ITER was being developed in France ... and there has been no end to the bickering and the squabbles and the pulling out of the agreement and the withdrawing of funding and it has gone nowhere.

... but progress was made up to building the complex and the reactor housing. The actual reactor itself doesn't look like it's going anywhere.

On the technical side, the grand problem to overcome is how they will be able to leverage uber-powerful magnets to repel the 100-million degree plasma and keep it from touching the walls, i.e. maintain a sufficient gap between the plasma and the wall and prevent physical contact. Thermal radiation of that temperature can be handled with rapid circulation of mega-large volumes of heavily chilled fluid ... but nothing can prevent total meltdown if there is contact with 100-million degree matter.

Of course, they can't even get to the point of addressing the technical hurdles while the politics have everything shut down. At present, my understanding is that they continue to generate a little revenue by hosting tours of ITER that wow onlookers with amazing technical grandeur and just don't mention that there is little chance of the reactor accomplishing what they are imagining anytime soon.

In Korea, they have a fusion reactor that exists only for research purposes, namely to see how hot they can make plasma and for how long they can hold it. They aren't really pushing to make electricity.



There you go.

.

GasGuzzler wrote:North or South Korea?

keepit wrote:
IBD, I was thinking that all the power plants coming on line should be nat gas.
I think the cars should be hybrid which would cut petroleum consumption greatly.

keepit wrote:I think the cars should be hybrid which would cut petroleum consumption greatly.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:
GM is going to pursue a more carbon neutral policy which includes
exclusively offer electric light-duty cars and trucks by 2035
https://qz.com/1966116/electric-cars-will-speed-up-depreciation-of-everything-gm-owns/?utm_source=YPL

This is where improvements will need to be made in power generation. At the same time the nations electrical power grid might need to be updated.
This might also devalue oil quite a bit. And since China is trying to take over the South China Sea because of the oil below it, a possible war could be averted.

And where is all that new electrical power coming from? Why would anyone want a truck to be electric powered? Trucks often have to drive all day. They don't have time to recharge.

The link is to my post that answered your questions before you asked them.
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/going-green-d6-e3511.php#post_68030

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote: I remember reading about fusion reactors as a child. How we would have an unlimited energy source, cheap and clean... 50 years later... Is there even on fusion reactor operating commercially? Is there even one operating more than 73 seconds? Is there even one that produce electricity?

The bottom line is that an unlimited energy source is an international political hot potato. On the one hand, it's like the international space station, i.e. every country wants/needs to be in on it, for funding, international regulation and concern and for diplomacy ... but in whose country will the prototype be built. Which country gets to have physical control of the total game-changer.

Well, somehow ITER was being developed in France ... and there has been no end to the bickering and the squabbles and the pulling out of the agreement and the withdrawing of funding and it has gone nowhere.

... but progress was made up to building the complex and the reactor housing. The actual reactor itself doesn't look like it's going anywhere.

On the technical side, the grand problem to overcome is how they will be able to leverage uber-powerful magnets to repel the 100-million degree plasma and keep it from touching the walls, i.e. maintain a sufficient gap between the plasma and the wall and prevent physical contact. Thermal radiation of that temperature can be handled with rapid circulation of mega-large volumes of heavily chilled fluid ... but nothing can prevent total meltdown if there is contact with 100-million degree matter.

Of course, they can't even get to the point of addressing the technical hurdles while the politics have everything shut down. At present, my understanding is that they continue to generate a little revenue by hosting tours of ITER that wow onlookers with amazing technical grandeur and just don't mention that there is little chance of the reactor accomplishing what they are imagining anytime soon.

In Korea, they have a fusion reactor that exists only for research purposes, namely to see how hot they can make plasma and for how long they can hold it. They aren't really pushing to make electricity.



There you go.

.

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:
GM is going to pursue a more carbon neutral policy which includes
exclusively offer electric light-duty cars and trucks by 2035
https://qz.com/1966116/electric-cars-will-speed-up-depreciation-of-everything-gm-owns/?utm_source=YPL

This is where improvements will need to be made in power generation. At the same time the nations electrical power grid might need to be updated.
This might also devalue oil quite a bit. And since China is trying to take over the South China Sea because of the oil below it, a possible war could be averted.

And where is all that new electrical power coming from? Why would anyone want a truck to be electric powered? Trucks often have to drive all day. They don't have time to recharge.

The link is to my post that answered your questions before you asked them.
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/going-green-d6-e3511.php#post_68030

Personal nuclear reactors are impractical. People don't even maintain their cars, water heaters, furnaces, etc.

Putting a nuclear reactor in the home and fueling it? What could go wrong?!?
Fusion power is not available.

Uranium is not a renewable fuel. Neither is plutonium. Oil and natural gas are.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:
GM is going to pursue a more carbon neutral policy which includes
exclusively offer electric light-duty cars and trucks by 2035
https://qz.com/1966116/electric-cars-will-speed-up-depreciation-of-everything-gm-owns/?utm_source=YPL

This is where improvements will need to be made in power generation. At the same time the nations electrical power grid might need to be updated.
This might also devalue oil quite a bit. And since China is trying to take over the South China Sea because of the oil below it, a possible war could be averted.

And where is all that new electrical power coming from? Why would anyone want a truck to be electric powered? Trucks often have to drive all day. They don't have time to recharge.

The link is to my post that answered your questions before you asked them.
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/going-green-d6-e3511.php#post_68030

Personal nuclear reactors are impractical. People don't even maintain their cars, water heaters, furnaces, etc.

Putting a nuclear reactor in the home and fueling it? What could go wrong?!?
Fusion power is not available.

Uranium is not a renewable fuel. Neither is plutonium. Oil and natural gas are.

When you consider the world's economy, innovation will need to be the answer. A lot of people are working at different things. And you are right, oil is a renewable source of energy. Natural gas might not be renewed as efficiently as oil, but.......

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:
GM is going to pursue a more carbon neutral policy which includes
exclusively offer electric light-duty cars and trucks by 2035
https://qz.com/1966116/electric-cars-will-speed-up-depreciation-of-everything-gm-owns/?utm_source=YPL

This is where improvements will need to be made in power generation. At the same time the nations electrical power grid might need to be updated.
This might also devalue oil quite a bit. And since China is trying to take over the South China Sea because of the oil below it, a possible war could be averted.

And where is all that new electrical power coming from? Why would anyone want a truck to be electric powered? Trucks often have to drive all day. They don't have time to recharge.

The link is to my post that answered your questions before you asked them.
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/going-green-d6-e3511.php#post_68030

Personal nuclear reactors are impractical. People don't even maintain their cars, water heaters, furnaces, etc.

Putting a nuclear reactor in the home and fueling it? What could go wrong?!?
Fusion power is not available.

Uranium is not a renewable fuel. Neither is plutonium. Oil and natural gas are.

When you consider the world's economy, innovation will need to be the answer. A lot of people are working at different things. And you are right, oil is a renewable source of energy. Natural gas might not be renewed as efficiently as oil, but.......

Renewal is not about efficiency.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:
GM is going to pursue a more carbon neutral policy which includes
exclusively offer electric light-duty cars and trucks by 2035
https://qz.com/1966116/electric-cars-will-speed-up-depreciation-of-everything-gm-owns/?utm_source=YPL

This is where improvements will need to be made in power generation. At the same time the nations electrical power grid might need to be updated.
This might also devalue oil quite a bit. And since China is trying to take over the South China Sea because of the oil below it, a possible war could be averted.

And where is all that new electrical power coming from? Why would anyone want a truck to be electric powered? Trucks often have to drive all day. They don't have time to recharge.

The link is to my post that answered your questions before you asked them.
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/going-green-d6-e3511.php#post_68030

Personal nuclear reactors are impractical. People don't even maintain their cars, water heaters, furnaces, etc.

Putting a nuclear reactor in the home and fueling it? What could go wrong?!?
Fusion power is not available.

Uranium is not a renewable fuel. Neither is plutonium. Oil and natural gas are.

When you consider the world's economy, innovation will need to be the answer. A lot of people are working at different things. And you are right, oil is a renewable source of energy. Natural gas might not be renewed as efficiently as oil, but.......

Renewal is not about efficiency.

There's between 2 million and 3 million miles of natural gas pipelines. Gas companies are experimenting with hydrogen. This is because if everything goes away from natural gas or the demand for it decreases then that's help to maintain value in their assets.

HarveyH55 wrote:


Hydrogen has always had interesting potential, since it one of the most plentiful, and the simplest element. Unfortunately, most of it is already attached to other elements, a getting it separated, to use for something else, isn't free. Fossil fuels come out of the ground, ready to use. Some refinement is done, to reduce them down to other products, remove a few things, less desirable. make them burn consistently, and ship just the part needed, for the intended purpose.

Back in the 90s, hydrogen cars were a rage. There were a lot of scams, for separating water, off current from the existing alternator. You only need a quick jolt, to start your car, the battery recharges pretty quick, but that alternator keeps spinning, producing electricity. Seems likely, you could just use that 'free' electricity, to separate water, then inject the Brown gas into the carburetor, and burn it. You could easily reduce fuel consumption, and it should have been possible to run the entire car, off of water. I was on an electronics forum through that trend, and it was why I moved on. A new thread, at least weekly, seeking help, because they could seem to get any results, from the kit they bought on the internet. They either still hadn't figure out, consistently, which end of the soldering iron to pick up, or which parts are which, even with pictures. Mostly, they weren't saving much, or anything at the pump. They wanted to get better production of the Brown gas, with no understanding of electronics, or interest in learning. Most seem to be lacking a proper education, in general, and only wanted to argue about what was possible.

Most likely the oil companies, are just scamming for federal funding, and trying to calm and reassure investors. There is a believable enough potential, it sold well before...

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:


Hydrogen has always had interesting potential, since it one of the most plentiful, and the simplest element. Unfortunately, most of it is already attached to other elements, a getting it separated, to use for something else, isn't free. Fossil fuels come out of the ground, ready to use. Some refinement is done, to reduce them down to other products, remove a few things, less desirable. make them burn consistently, and ship just the part needed, for the intended purpose.

Back in the 90s, hydrogen cars were a rage. There were a lot of scams, for separating water, off current from the existing alternator. You only need a quick jolt, to start your car, the battery recharges pretty quick, but that alternator keeps spinning, producing electricity. Seems likely, you could just use that 'free' electricity, to separate water, then inject the Brown gas into the carburetor, and burn it. You could easily reduce fuel consumption, and it should have been possible to run the entire car, off of water. I was on an electronics forum through that trend, and it was why I moved on. A new thread, at least weekly, seeking help, because they could seem to get any results, from the kit they bought on the internet. They either still hadn't figure out, consistently, which end of the soldering iron to pick up, or which parts are which, even with pictures. Mostly, they weren't saving much, or anything at the pump. They wanted to get better production of the Brown gas, with no understanding of electronics, or interest in learning. Most seem to be lacking a proper education, in general, and only wanted to argue about what was possible.

Most likely the oil companies, are just scamming for federal funding, and trying to calm and reassure investors. There is a believable enough potential, it sold well before...

If hydrogen is produced using wind turbines or solar panels, then it could be used as fuel for cars. Cost will dictate the market in the end. With that said, the cost of EV batteries vs a hydrogen fuel cell could make a difference one way or the other. I checked and if current usage remains constant, the US has a 90 year supply of natural gas.

keepit wrote:I think they'll make [nuclear fusion] work though. Maybe they'll get luck with quantum tunneling.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:
GM is going to pursue a more carbon neutral policy which includes
exclusively offer electric light-duty cars and trucks by 2035
https://qz.com/1966116/electric-cars-will-speed-up-depreciation-of-everything-gm-owns/?utm_source=YPL

This is where improvements will need to be made in power generation. At the same time the nations electrical power grid might need to be updated.
This might also devalue oil quite a bit. And since China is trying to take over the South China Sea because of the oil below it, a possible war could be averted.

And where is all that new electrical power coming from? Why would anyone want a truck to be electric powered? Trucks often have to drive all day. They don't have time to recharge.

The link is to my post that answered your questions before you asked them.
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/going-green-d6-e3511.php#post_68030

Personal nuclear reactors are impractical. People don't even maintain their cars, water heaters, furnaces, etc.

Putting a nuclear reactor in the home and fueling it? What could go wrong?!?
Fusion power is not available.

Uranium is not a renewable fuel. Neither is plutonium. Oil and natural gas are.

When you consider the world's economy, innovation will need to be the answer. A lot of people are working at different things. And you are right, oil is a renewable source of energy. Natural gas might not be renewed as efficiently as oil, but.......

Renewal is not about efficiency.

There's between 2 million and 3 million miles of natural gas pipelines. Gas companies are experimenting with hydrogen. This is because if everything goes away from natural gas or the demand for it decreases then that's help to maintain value in their assets.

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:


Hydrogen has always had interesting potential, since it one of the most plentiful, and the simplest element. Unfortunately, most of it is already attached to other elements, a getting it separated, to use for something else, isn't free. Fossil fuels come out of the ground, ready to use. Some refinement is done, to reduce them down to other products, remove a few things, less desirable. make them burn consistently, and ship just the part needed, for the intended purpose.

Back in the 90s, hydrogen cars were a rage. There were a lot of scams, for separating water, off current from the existing alternator. You only need a quick jolt, to start your car, the battery recharges pretty quick, but that alternator keeps spinning, producing electricity. Seems likely, you could just use that 'free' electricity, to separate water, then inject the Brown gas into the carburetor, and burn it. You could easily reduce fuel consumption, and it should have been possible to run the entire car, off of water. I was on an electronics forum through that trend, and it was why I moved on. A new thread, at least weekly, seeking help, because they could seem to get any results, from the kit they bought on the internet. They either still hadn't figure out, consistently, which end of the soldering iron to pick up, or which parts are which, even with pictures. Mostly, they weren't saving much, or anything at the pump. They wanted to get better production of the Brown gas, with no understanding of electronics, or interest in learning. Most seem to be lacking a proper education, in general, and only wanted to argue about what was possible.

Most likely the oil companies, are just scamming for federal funding, and trying to calm and reassure investors. There is a believable enough potential, it sold well before...

If hydrogen is produced using wind turbines or solar panels, then it could be used as fuel for cars. Cost will dictate the market in the end. With that said, the cost of EV batteries vs a hydrogen fuel cell could make a difference one way or the other. I checked and if current usage remains constant, the US has a 90 year supply of natural gas.

Swan wrote:

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:


Hydrogen has always had interesting potential, since it one of the most plentiful, and the simplest element. Unfortunately, most of it is already attached to other elements, a getting it separated, to use for something else, isn't free. Fossil fuels come out of the ground, ready to use. Some refinement is done, to reduce them down to other products, remove a few things, less desirable. make them burn consistently, and ship just the part needed, for the intended purpose.

Back in the 90s, hydrogen cars were a rage. There were a lot of scams, for separating water, off current from the existing alternator. You only need a quick jolt, to start your car, the battery recharges pretty quick, but that alternator keeps spinning, producing electricity. Seems likely, you could just use that 'free' electricity, to separate water, then inject the Brown gas into the carburetor, and burn it. You could easily reduce fuel consumption, and it should have been possible to run the entire car, off of water. I was on an electronics forum through that trend, and it was why I moved on. A new thread, at least weekly, seeking help, because they could seem to get any results, from the kit they bought on the internet. They either still hadn't figure out, consistently, which end of the soldering iron to pick up, or which parts are which, even with pictures. Mostly, they weren't saving much, or anything at the pump. They wanted to get better production of the Brown gas, with no understanding of electronics, or interest in learning. Most seem to be lacking a proper education, in general, and only wanted to argue about what was possible.

Most likely the oil companies, are just scamming for federal funding, and trying to calm and reassure investors. There is a believable enough potential, it sold well before...

If hydrogen is produced using wind turbines or solar panels, then it could be used as fuel for cars. Cost will dictate the market in the end. With that said, the cost of EV batteries vs a hydrogen fuel cell could make a difference one way or the other. I checked and if current usage remains constant, the US has a 90 year supply of natural gas.

So you do not mind that wind farms might drive many bird species into extinction

Swan wrote: So you do not mind that wind farms might drive many bird species into extinction

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:


Hydrogen has always had interesting potential, since it one of the most plentiful, and the simplest element. Unfortunately, most of it is already attached to other elements, a getting it separated, to use for something else, isn't free. Fossil fuels come out of the ground, ready to use. Some refinement is done, to reduce them down to other products, remove a few things, less desirable. make them burn consistently, and ship just the part needed, for the intended purpose.

Back in the 90s, hydrogen cars were a rage. There were a lot of scams, for separating water, off current from the existing alternator. You only need a quick jolt, to start your car, the battery recharges pretty quick, but that alternator keeps spinning, producing electricity. Seems likely, you could just use that 'free' electricity, to separate water, then inject the Brown gas into the carburetor, and burn it. You could easily reduce fuel consumption, and it should have been possible to run the entire car, off of water. I was on an electronics forum through that trend, and it was why I moved on. A new thread, at least weekly, seeking help, because they could seem to get any results, from the kit they bought on the internet. They either still hadn't figure out, consistently, which end of the soldering iron to pick up, or which parts are which, even with pictures. Mostly, they weren't saving much, or anything at the pump. They wanted to get better production of the Brown gas, with no understanding of electronics, or interest in learning. Most seem to be lacking a proper education, in general, and only wanted to argue about what was possible.

Most likely the oil companies, are just scamming for federal funding, and trying to calm and reassure investors. There is a believable enough potential, it sold well before...

If hydrogen is produced using wind turbines or solar panels, then it could be used as fuel for cars. Cost will dictate the market in the end. With that said, the cost of EV batteries vs a hydrogen fuel cell could make a difference one way or the other. I checked and if current usage remains constant, the US has a 90 year supply of natural gas.

keepit wrote: I like the explanation of matter continually materializing and dematerializing

keepit wrote: and in that way occasionally matter moves from beyond a "wall" to the other side of that wall.

keepit wrote:
IBD,
I'm not specifically familiar with "subspace and extra dimensions" explanation of quantum tunneling.
I like the explanation of matter continually materializing and dematerializing and in that way occasionally matter moves from beyond a "wall" to the other side of that wall.

keepit wrote:
Swan,
Neutrinos aren't involved as far as i know.
It isn't about atoms being mostly empty space and particles being very small.
It's about energy and the ability of particle to make it through energy that pushes back on particles. Protons being positively charged is a good example of resistance to coming together (positive charges repel each other).
What it is, is almost magical but has been proven.
For example, in the sun , the temperature isn't high enough for protons to overcome the resistance to protons coming together. Yet they do. It isn't a frequent occurrence for any particular set of protons but there are so many protons in the sun that even occasionally, the number of protons coming together is a very big number, a big enough number to produce the energy leaving the sun and heading towards earth and other places.
What you might try to understand is that even though you don't understand this or that, there are professional scientists that do. Quantum tunneling is a good example.

keepit wrote:Swan, Neutrinos aren't involved as far as i know.

keepit wrote: It isn't about atoms being mostly empty space

keepit wrote: What it is, is almost magical but has been proven.

keepit wrote:For example, in the sun , the temperature isn't high enough for protons to overcome the resistance to protons coming together.