It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Oil Alternative

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 11:33 PM
link   
It is an outrage that alternatives to oil are not getting the profile, funding and respect that they should. The manipulation by oil companies is no longer acceptable but the voices of our leaders are silent.

The recent story of a car that was built by five kids from the auto shop program at West Philadelphia High School that runs on soybean oil is yet just another example. It will be interesting to see how long it takes for these young people and their teachers to be ridiculed and perhaps some even 'disappear'. Wouldn't be the first time.





www.cbsnews.com...

www.wanttoknow.info...




posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 11:52 PM
link   
I agree. It is totally reprehensible that big oil profits at the expense of the world. While I certainly think we should use soybeans to feed the starving people in the world instead of burning it in a car there are alternative energy sources that could be used.

Also, government should dictate that car companies make cars that are fuel effiecient whether it be gasoline or ethanol or electricity.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by arius

Also, government should dictate that car companies make cars that are fuel effiecient whether it be gasoline or ethanol or electricity.


they do. it's called 'cafe' or Corporate Average Fuel Economy

i still say screw california and bring over the high milage diesel's from europe.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Please explain Corporate Average Fuel Economy



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 06:52 PM
link   
hey, thanks for the link to the students who created the engine that runs on soybean oil. i hadn't even heard about this until now.

Yeah we should be developing something else and stop being dependant on oil... but what?



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Greetings Fellow Believers,

There should be NO alternative fuels for oil. Anything combustible pollutes.

A suggestion: if an alternative to oil needs to be harvested, it should be soybeans. However, there will have to be a sufficient balance of production verses the need to scrub the atmosphere of the pollutants and outgassing from automobiles.

Can you imagine the size of the soybean fields needed to filter the atmosphere? Can you imagine the impact these fields would have on local ecosystems?



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lady of the Lake
It is an outrage that alternatives to oil are not getting the profile, funding and respect that they should. The manipulation by oil companies is no longer acceptable but the voices of our leaders are silent.


First; don't blame the government. Blame the US citizens. It is their need for cheap and abundant energy that is the biggest barrier to introducing alternate sources/forms of energy.

Second; there isn't enough real estate in the US to grow the amount of soybeans necessary to fulfill the energy needs of America.

Third; If there was enough space, the cost would be astronomical as the care/nurturing needed to produce the soybeans would far exceed the cost of pumping oil from the ground. Would you be willing to pay $15.00 for the equivalent energy of a gallon of gasoline? I wouldn't. And neither would most of Americans.

The only alternative source of energy that could satisfy our energy needs and is cheap is nuclear.

[edit on 7-3-2006 by Freedom_for_sum]



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
First; don't blame the government. Blame the US citizens. It is their need for cheap and abundant energy that is the biggest barrier to introducing alternate sources/forms of energy.

Second; there isn't enough real estate in the US to grow the amount of soybeans necessary to fulfill the energy needs of America.

Third; If there was enough space, the cost would be astronomical as the care/nurturing needed to produce the soybeans would far exceed the cost of pumping oil from the ground. Would you be willing to pay $15.00 for the equivalent energy of a gallon of gasoline? I wouldn't. And neither would most of Americans.

The only alternative source of energy that could satisfy our energy needs and is cheap is nuclear.

[edit on 7-3-2006 by Freedom_for_sum]


I do blame governments. I particularly blame governments when so many of the ‘leaders’ have their hands in the trough when it comes to oil companies. There is a credibility gap that for me has never been answered.

If the US doesn't have the real estate to grow enough crops perhaps other countries do. This shouldn't be a barrier.

If more people really looked at what is happening globally as a result of the fight over oil and how some many third world countries are being ripped off you might just find that view and attitudes will start to change. It will take time granted but they will change.

Cost – there is more to life than cost. No I wouldn’t pay $15.00 for the equivalent energy of a gallon of gasoline. And neither would most of Australian’s for that matter. But neither you nor I, I suspect rally know exactly how much it would cost. The old chestnut of cost is always rolled out when potential viable alternatives come forth.


The only alternative source of energy that could satisfy our energy needs and is cheap is nuclear.


No it isn’t. It is one possible alternative but not the only one.






[edit on 7/3/2006 by Lady of the Lake]

[edit on 7/3/2006 by Lady of the Lake]

[edit on 7/3/2006 by Lady of the Lake]



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lady of the Lake

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
First; don't blame the government. Blame the US citizens. It is their need for cheap and abundant energy that is the biggest barrier to introducing alternate sources/forms of energy.

Second; there isn't enough real estate in the US to grow the amount of soybeans necessary to fulfill the energy needs of America.

Third; If there was enough space, the cost would be astronomical as the care/nurturing needed to produce the soybeans would far exceed the cost of pumping oil from the ground. Would you be willing to pay $15.00 for the equivalent energy of a gallon of gasoline? I wouldn't. And neither would most of Americans.

The only alternative source of energy that could satisfy our energy needs and is cheap is nuclear.

[edit on 7-3-2006 by Freedom_for_sum]


I do blame governments. I particularly blame governments when so many of the ‘leaders’ have their hands in the trough when it comes to oil companies. There is a credibility gap that for me has never been answered.

If the US doesn't have the real estate to grow enough crops perhaps other countries do. This shouldn't be a barrier.

If more people really looked at what is happening globally as a result of the fight over oil and how some many third world countries are being ripped off you might just find that view and attitudes will start to change. It will take time granted but they will change.

Cost – there is more to life than cost. No I wouldn’t pay $15.00 for the equivalent energy of a gallon of gasoline. And neither would most of Australian’s for that matter. But neither you nor I, I suspect rally know exactly how much it would cost. The old chestnut of cost is always rolled out when potential viable alternatives come forth.


The only alternative source of energy that could satisfy our energy needs and is cheap is nuclear.


No it isn’t. It is one possible alternative but not the only one.






[edit on 7/3/2006 by Lady of the Lake]

[edit on 7/3/2006 by Lady of the Lake]

[edit on 7/3/2006 by Lady of the Lake]


Pull your head out of your idealistic hell-hole.

There's more to life than cost?

Let's see...when in 1973 OPEC decided to give an Oil Embargo...guess what...dozens of South American nations went to civil war as their economies collapsed.

Would you like that? All the dead little South American babies because you don't like oil?

They can barely grow enough food to eat and you want to make oil out of food? Retarded.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lady of the Lake
If the US doesn't have the real estate to grow enough crops perhaps other countries do. This shouldn't be a barrier.


Sorry. Didn't see that you're an Aussie.

It is a barrier. There is not enough real estate in this world available to supply the global energy needs from soybeans.


Originally posted by Lady of the Lake
If more people really looked at what is happening globally as a result of the fight over oil and how some many third world countries are being ripped off you might just find that view and attitudes will start to change. It will take time granted but they will change.


How, exactly, are "third world countries" being ripped off?


Originally posted by Lady of the Lake
Cost – there is more to life than cost. No I wouldn’t pay $15.00 for the equivalent energy of a gallon of gasoline. And neither would most of Australian’s for that matter.


Cash is always king. And you just admitted that you have a limit that superscedes your principles regarding sources of energy.


Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
The only alternative source of energy that could satisfy our energy needs and is cheap is nuclear.



Originally posted by Lady of the Lake
No it isn’t. It is one possible alternative but not the only one.


Please post what other energy source is available that could satisfy our energy needs


[edit on 8-3-2006 by Freedom_for_sum]



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   

It is a barrier. There is not enough real estate in this world available to supply the global energy needs from soybeans.


I don’t recall talking about supplying the GLOBAL energy needs from soybeans. Even with my vivid imagination that wouldn’t be feasible. What is wrong however with meeting some needs from various sources? The point of the original story was that inventions that should perhaps be researched and talked about are suppressed.

I also don’t believe that either you or I are in a position to comment with full knowledge on the real estate availability across the globe. It is also a little clearer now that you were thinking global I was thinking more focused.


How, exactly, are "third world countries" being ripped off?

Do a little more research on the exploitation of some of the African nations in particular the people of Nigeria. There is more if you look.

Example:
news.bbc.co.uk...


Cash is always king. And you just admitted that you have a limit that superscedes your principles regarding sources of energy.


One of the problems with the world today is the fact money rules. I do think however that fear is used far too often to suppress people and stop them questioning more. Example an alternative might be worth looking those who seek to stop the development throw out the old line of ‘possible alternative – too expensive would cost you $15 a gallon’ this stops people in their tracks. We have to learn to question and demand more information.


Please post what other energy source is available that could satisfy our energy needs


Talking about cars, which is the focus of the article. Solar is a possible, water is a possible alternative and a lot of development has been done in this area in the past but we know what happened when the oil companies got involved. Just two examples.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lady of the Lake
I don’t recall talking about supplying the GLOBAL energy needs from soybeans. Even with my vivid imagination that wouldn’t be feasible. What is wrong however with meeting some needs from various sources? The point of the original story was that inventions that should perhaps be researched and talked about are suppressed.


In your original post, you stated:

Originally posted by Lady of the Lake
It is an outrage that alternatives to oil are not getting the profile, funding and respect that they should. The manipulation by oil companies is no longer acceptable but the voices of our leaders are silent.


I'm simply saying that the reason they aren't getting the kind of funding/respect you expect they should is because they aren't a viable subsitute to the amount of energy oil provides. The lack of funding you perceive has little, if any, to do with oil companies. After all; if alternative sources of energy were the suitable substitute to oil, don't you think the "oil" companies would be all over that?

Regardless, there is lots of funding, both public and private, going on to improve the technologies of alternate sources of energy. The problem, however, is that the local and global energy needs are far out pacing the technological improvements that would otherwise allow alternate energy to make a meaningful dent in the energy supply equation.


Originally posted by Lady of the Lake
I also don’t believe that either you or I are in a position to comment with full knowledge on the real estate availability across the globe. It is also a little clearer now that you were thinking global I was thinking more focused.


Unless you're talking about some unsofisticated tribe in the middle of nowhere, Solar, soybean, and wind energy combined would not provide the energy needs of a typical household. Think for a moment all the electrical appliances used in your home. While solar, wind, and wave energy are abundant, the cost to harness that energy is prohibitive. In addition, it would be detrimental to the environment. Imagine the effect of millions+ solar panels shading the land/sea beneath them. Imagine what the landscape dotted with millions+ wind turbines would look like and what effect they might have on the bird population. It's always something.

BTW: I think one of the greatest improvements to solar energy in recent history was developed in Germany and is being appied in your neck of the woods Lady. Follow this link

www.enviromission.com.au...

This project is probably one of the greatest improvements to solar energy harnessing and was all privately funded.


Originally posted by Lady of the Lake
Do a little more research on the exploitation of some of the African nations in particular the people of Nigeria. There is more if you look.


The problems in the Nigerian Delta are more about control and power (internally) than they are about Shell Oil. Shell has invested more than $80 million yet because of poor leadership inside the country and instability, abject poverty continues to be a problem. In other words, they are causing their own problems.


Originally posted by Lady of the Lake
Talking about cars, which is the focus of the article. Solar is a possible, water is a possible alternative and a lot of development has been done in this area in the past but we know what happened when the oil companies got involved. Just two examples.


Solar powered cars are impractical because they are slow and have very limited range.

When you say water, I assume you mean hydrogen. Hydrogen is not a viable source of energy. It is primarily a medium to store energy because the energy to make hydrogen has to come from somewhere. There are no practical abundant sources of hydrogen.

I've given this whole energy issue a lot of thought and appreciate your opinion on the matter. I believe the best thing that could be done is to completely change our paradigms in energy transport. Right now, both our nations, as well as Europe and every other modern country, use an electrical grid system to transport electricity from its source to end users. I believe this system should be changed from an electrical grid system to a hydrogen based grid system (remember; hydrogen is primarily a medium for energy, just like the electrical wires are a medium for electrical energy).

While solar, wind, wave, and other renewable sources of energy will likely never exonerate us from the grips of foriegn energy sources, our dependence could be somewhat mitigated if those sources could be easily provided to the end user--in the form of a hydrogen grid.

Using fuel cells, which would get their supply from the hydrogen grid, an entire home could be operated from the grid. You could even fuel your car in your garage--no need to go to the gas station. Nuclear power stations could supply the grid with enough energy that our dependence and foriegn energy would be all but elliminated. But Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and the "China Sydrome" have so significantly tarnished the image of nuclear energy that I don't believe we'll ever be energy independent. At least not in my lifetime.


[edit on 9-3-2006 by Freedom_for_sum]



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Greetings Fellow Believers,

Many things must be accomplished to allow all nations to be energy independent. Since I live in the United States--I can tell you what I tried to accomplish.

I submitted a proposal to the local utility company. I suggested that a radical decentralization of energy production and distribution would secure local demand for energy--and protect against major, longterm power outages.

Decentralized energy production could be accomplished with alternative energy systems tailored to energy districts--not only maximizing energy production by utilizing whatever alternative energy source would work best in these energy districts--but providing smaller and more secure energy distribution to these smaller energy districts.

Naturally, the response wasn't favored. My local utility provider favors the coal-burning steam plant--owned, operated, and overseen by the city government. Coal to power this steam plant is brought by train across the state line. They claim that the coal they use is high-quality--and produces neglibible pollution. They also believed that "...residents would not want huge wind turbines on the horizon because it would take away the visual splendor of the wide open spaces."

Let me tell you about these "open spaces". There is almost 10,000 square miles of NOTHING in my state. If this "open space" can be used for wind turbines--I say the heck with open spaces.

We live in a global economy--whether we like it or not. We assume that global extraction, production, and distribution of fossil fuels secures borders because foreign nations do not want to bomb their best customers.

I submit to you: decentralizing energy production for all nations is critical, and every nation must become energy independent from all other nations. This fact is second only for the need of a nation to be able to feed its own people.

The global economy has so many other products and services to offer that it is becoming foolhardy to allow energy monopolies to control global commerce.

Time to grow up, folks. Choosing between secure energy/food production--and driving gas-powered automobiles--isn't even a fair contest.



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Given the hostilities with Iran, Venezula, Iraq and now the UAE (because of the failed ports deal) it's quite evident that another major energy crisis is looming. Many times on ATS I've pointed out that we had an economy-jarring energy crisis waaaaayyy back in the 70's. Gas prices increased several fold, there was rationing, gas lines... things were bad. Talk of alternative fuels was rife and Gasahol was being offered at many gas stations.

So, we had our wakeup call back in the 70's. 30yrs ago. And what have we accomplihed since then? Where has our government been all this time? Think of what we could have done in 30yrs if the will had been there.

We import roughly 50% of the oil we use. 40% of the oil used in the US is used to make gasoline. Only about 30% of the oil we import comes from the middle east (2002 figures). If we had wisely spent those 30yrs introducing alternatives that simply replaced part of the oil we use there would be NO middle east problem. Or at least we wouldn't be at their mercy.

There is no question that alternative designs to the internal combustion engine exist that will allow it to run on alternative fuels --- even renewable fuels (like the soy bean oil car and many, many others).

Our government is unable, unwilling or actually against such advances. They are owned by big business (including oil) and make vast person fortunes as a result. They have no motivation for things to change. As a nation we need to turn to private enterprise to make this happen. We need to cajole, pressure and beg private people/companies with the resources to make this happen. Think of who are out there: Trump, Gates, Murdock and so many, many more. People with vast personal fortunes who, if inspired to work together, could make this a reality.

I know... this sounds like so much pipedream. But it's not. The nascent technology already exists. The funding and resources to develop it already exist. As a nation we simply need to find a way to put these two entities together and ram the solution down the government's throat. If we don't do something very, very soon it's going to be a very dark and cold future. The middle east is not going to simply wake up next month and decide to be nice to us.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 07:22 AM
link   
Wow, allot of people are still living in the 80s and 90s on this thread. Google up some Solar Cell companies, find their ticker symbol and look at their stock price since 9/11. Next try Wind power companies. You will see a trend, an upward trend in their stock prices. There is renewed interest in Alt Energy technology which is currently triggering a boom of investment by Venture Caps. Don't take my word for it, do the research yourself. I've made a bundle by just being faithful that Solar would be popular again.

Here is an interesting article.

www.worldchanging.com...

If you want to keep up with the changing landscape of the prospects of the "Bring Green Future," subscribe to the RSS feed of this site. It is the best in the in the blogosphere IMHO.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 08:13 AM
link   
It's a cool car but I don't think anyone is going to disapear over this.
Cars that run on biodiesel aren't exactly new and 50mpg is great but not revolutionary.

The speed is great for that type of mileage though.

The Volksgagon diesel racer takes 6.3 seconds to accelerate to 60mph instead of the 4 seconds of the car made by these kids. The VW has it beaten in mileage though, 69mpg vs. 50mpg.

VW Introduces the 69 MPG Diesel EcoRacer Concept

Another cool diesel is the Loremo that can get up to 157mpg but it's a lot slower than either of the above cars.

157 MPG Lightweight Diesel to Debut at Geneva

As far as Soybean is concerned as a crop for biodiesel, it's one of the least efficient crops to use.



en.wikipedia.org...

* Soybean: 40 to 50 US gal/acre (35 to 45,000 L/km²)
* Rapeseed: 110 to 145 US gal/acre (100 to 130,000 L/km²)
* Mustard: 140 US gal/acre (130,000 L/km²)
* Jatropha: 175 US gal/acre (160,000 L/km²)
* Palm oil: 650 US gal/acre (580,000 L/km²) [6]
* Algae: 10,000 to 20,000 US gal/acre (9,000,000 to 18,000,000 L/km²)



[edit on 11-3-2006 by AceOfBase]



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jack of Scythes

There should be NO alternative fuels for oil. Anything combustible pollutes.


Hydrogen doesn't pollute when it's combusted.
It actually cleans pollution from the air.

There can be some pollution or greenhouse gases during the creation of hydrogen such as a release of carbon dioxide during electrolysis but once it's created there's no pollution problem.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Greetings Fellow Believers,

Many of you speak of fantastic gas mileage of modern vehicles. However, I need to point out to all of you that automobiles have been capable of getting over 120 mpg since the 1920s.

A carburator was designed utilizing a glass mesh--similar to the meshes built into gas lanterns, to atomize the gasoline going into an engine to maximize combustion.

Naturally--this wasn't put into automobiles. The reason: oil extraction, refinement, and distribution is too lucrative have efficient automobiles.

If you go to the OPEC website, you will discover that OPEC will not support any alternative energy systems that isn't "economically viable". In short: there is no way that oil cartels will allow threats to their profits to survive--literally.

OPEC isn't to blame. They are only a facet of a global phenomenon. Every investor in oil futures gains by suppressing alternative energy.


MBF

posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 10:15 PM
link   
There is unused energy all around us. All we have to do is recognize what it is and how use it. The government doesn't have the interest in alternate forms of energy that they claim they do, we may have to develop these ourselves without government help. Even a savings of energy is as good as developing a new scource. Does anybody out there have any extra money to develop any new technologies?



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum


We have to keep an open mind and continue to seek alternatives. Whilst some of the alternatives may not at this point in their development be 100% practical we must continue to look. Solar is getting better and some solar cars have travelled vast distances (see Australia experience.

Best case we have 30-years of oil left worst case with India and China demanding more we have 20-years. Time is running away and as we rely more and more on global trade and travel we have to have an alternative NOW.

The attached is worth a read.

www.nexusmagazine.com...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join