Predictions, anyone?

Those post WW 2 Messerschmitt 2 seaters were pretty cool.It had a 200 cc Sachs 2 stroke and would do over 60 mph and prob.got close to 100 mpg.What is needed are specialized commuter vehicles,light,low profile,with a 25 HP,2 cylinder diesel with a CVT transmission seating 2 people.The Messerschmitt was fun to drive and quite stable, but hard to get in and out of and a bit underpowered.
 
augidog said:
it seems to me we have the perfect solution to curb tobacco-use...right now the US has a lot of agricultural acreage that's being used to kill people...

hehe...i predict "Winston-Salem" gas stations ;)
Click to expand...

Using food crops is not the solution. There is not enough current acreage to supply all of our fuel needs and food needs simultaneously. I used to be able to get 12 ears of corn for a buck, now they are 44 cents apiece in Colorado and 33 cents apiece in Arkansas.

Ethanol is not the answer anyway. Our best bet is carbon neutral algae based production of biodiesel. With biodiesel you don't need to have a tiny car to get good fuel economy. My 06 Jetta TDI sits 5 pax and has a trunk that can easily fit two dead bodies in it and easily gets 47mpg at 70-75mph. If I slow down to 65mph, I break 50mpg and 600-650 miles between refills is nothing. Compare the fit, feel of a Jetta TDI to a tinbox hybrid and you'll never want to consider another vehicle again.

My wife's diesel Jeep Liberty SUV can break 30mpg at 65mph and regularly averages 24mph in mixed driving. 500-550 miles per tank with plenty of reserves. Gas Liberty is lucky to break 20mpg on the highway.

Right now we need to work on alternative energy and extract more oil to hold us over. Eliminate oil and gas fired power plants and build as many nuclear plants. Nukes are the best bet to provide our electrical needs in the future. No CO2 emissions, a relatively small amount of waste, and no pollution into the air we breathe. We are already have places in the country that are experiencing brownouts and blackouts due to electrical shortages...for crying out loud this is the USA and not a third world country. we need to wake up and fix this mess.

Conservation is only a small part of the equation but to think we can conserve ourselves out of an energy crisis is absurd. Al Gore was criticized for his energy usage at one of his mansions. He had solar power panels, florescenct light bulbs installed and made other energy efficient changes and ended up using MORE electrical energy than last year.
 
i see potential in algae (aka pond scum). grows in almost any kind of water. it can some day be made into biodiesel in adequate quantities. saw a lot of info on youtube on it.
 
This country has stupidly allowed the nuclear power industry to wither away,the expertise&knowhow that normally is transmitted from generation to generation of designers is gone.Consequently (re)startup costs are high.Our government is not noted for looking ahead,or having any kind of longterm energy policy.
 
Skyliner70cc has some excellent points. Alcohol isn't the best engine fuel because it produces fewer BTU's per pound than gasoline. As a matter of fact, diesel produces more than gasoline and diesel engines are very efficient.
The future will hold technologies that are impractical now but we must live in the now, we must make the most efficient use of proven systems and resources. To put it another way, DRILL, DRILL, DRILL. Did I mention my preference to drill now and drill often.

Commuter cars that get 50 or even 70 mpg can become a commonplace with current IC technologies, and they don't need to cost an arm and a leg. If gas goes to $8 a gallon, many of us will be out of work due to the stock market crash and following depression. That will be good for me because I can pickup your homes, bikes and cars for a song but I really don't want it to go that far.
 
US DoE, together with the Dept of Commerce and the State dept, have funded development of a nuclear power station design that is standardized, plug in the module, and very compact. On an approximately one acre site, in about 12 months from start of construction to delivery of power, it is possible to emplace a 5 MW power reactor and all associated machinery, inside an earth berm and security zone. In addition, the design is such that it has an approximately 12-15 year life cycle before decommissioning, and once decommissioned it is simply entombed in situ. Built as a unit, delivered on site as a unit, operated in an absolutely standardized fashion, within a standardized containment facility. It was developed originally as an export project, and a way to spread the benefits of nuclear power without the possibility of nuclear proliferation worldwide.

It is silent, it runs with a 4 person crew per shift, and its emissions are electricity. Transport systems to get the workers there would produce vastly more measurable pollutants. If multiples are emplaced contemporaneously, one can put up to 8 of them into that same acre of ground, inside that same security zone, which means that they are that much cheaper to operate and secure.

Power extraction is by magnetohydrodynamic means, coupled with thermoelectric conversion, from a liquid metal coolant stream. That coolant is primarily lead, which is an incredibly efficient heat transfer mechanism, and when it is shutdown solidies into an encapsulating jacket of solid metal, inside more and harder solid metal, inside a massive concrete jacket, under a man made burial mound.

No technology is perfect. Anything man made can be and inevitably will be catastrophically misused and/or abused. What is needed is a methodology of design/use which maximizes useful return while minimizing potential risk. Insofar as I am aware, this reactor design does just that. It was offered to the Indian government in 2001, if I recall correctly, who quite properly declined the offer. Not because as a design it was flawed - but because of the conditions of delivery/use which our government was insistent upon.

We need new power generation plants here, in the US, quite badly. Both to meet current and projected demands, and to retire some very old and very tired stations still being desperately patched and prayed over, to keep them running. Unfortunately, NIMBY strikes again.
 
A few years back I heard of a nuclear power plant developing in South Africa that sounds a bit like the one that SimpleSimon described above. One difference, if I understood right, is that the reactor is encased in some sort of ceramic allowing much higher operating temperatures. This would give the advantage of using this heat to distill fresh water and, perhaps, to allow water to be "decomposed" to hydrogen and oxygen. If this pans out, then we'll have the answer to the hydrogen supply for our fuel cell vehicles.

I only heard about it that once and I've heard nothing since. But I sure hope it works; it sounds very promising.
 
All great ideas and if we start today they will replace their first barrel of crude by 2028. Since I'll probably be nearing the end of my prime, won't matter much. It amazes me that many on this forum that cheer $8 gas, are the ones that will lose the most by it. Shelter, food and transportation are the necessities, as these items increase in cost, the amount of discretionary spending will decrease. This decrease will slow the economy and increase hardship on American families. There is no good to come of it.

At the height of the Great Depression, unemployment was at 25% or 5 times the current rate. It took a world war to pull us out, do we really want to repeat history?
 
kerf said:
All great ideas and if we start today they will replace their first barrel of crude by 2028. Since I'll probably be nearing the end of my prime, won't matter much. It amazes me that many on this forum that cheer $8 gas, are the ones that will lose the most by it. Shelter, food and transportation are the necessities, as these items increase in cost, the amount of discretionary spending will decrease. This decrease will slow the economy and increase hardship on American families. There is no good to come of it.

At the height of the Great Depression, unemployment was at 25% or 5 times the current rate. It took a world war to pull us out, do we really want to repeat history?
Click to expand...
Valid points, although we were recovering from the great depression before the war got rolling, even in europe.

It will likely take that long, yes. Frankly, I oppose imperial presidency tactics, but if ever there was a "clear and present danger" to the security and the future of this nation, the looming economic collapse ought to qualify. Should it come (a near inevitability), a Presidential finding to that effect would short-circuit much of the NIMBY opposition to implementing modernized nuclear power systems.

By that point, unfortunately, it may well be too late.
 
There is nothing to applaud about expensive energy per se except to the extent that it is a wake-up call that we're beginning to run out of inexpensive fossil energy sources, while global demand is increasing rapidly,hence the recent anticipatory run-up in prices.It is ironic that we spend fortunes on space exploration while neglecting our precious abode,this planet.We should be spending far far more on research into all VIABLE alternate energy sources,not just this silly pork-barrel ethanol boondoggle.So far the hydrocarbon cronies of GWB have had the inside track.All this clamour for drilling is just part of a head in the sands mentality,that refuses to look to the future.There is no more time to waste.The appropriations the DOE need to be increased substantially,instead we put our resources into subsidising the Midwest farmers,who are busying themselves depleting the Ogalala aquifer at a record rate,but you can be sure that they will be taken care of,even if it makes no economic sense whatsoever.
 
Back
Top