high revs engine

[heliox]

as Palo mentioned before,Wankel motors are great to play with,
for a pushrod high rever one off, bolt 2 Suzuki Hayabusa blocks onto a home made V8 crank.The heads have already been worked and its light.All you have to make is the crank & housing(plus distributor drive etc)
around 300bhp+ for a 2.6.
heliox

[grahambell]

Hey Roospuppet,

Hope you're reading this because here's some info about a new publication that sounds made for you. Due to be launched soon, it's called Race Engine Technology and is from the people behind Race Tech magazine.

Written by experts in high performance powertrain engineering it should be a far more informative source of info about engine manufacture/ development than Pistonheads can be.

For more info go to www.racetechmag.com

[JonGwynne]

lotusguy said:

JonGwynne said:

Captain Muppet said:

JonGwynne said: ...I wouldn't overestimate the innovational tendencies of giant car companies though. They would have to balance that cost against the benefits to them in terms of doing it. After all, they're not making cars for their health and they do not have our best interests at heart.

To redesign does cost billions, but to include an inovation in a new design just costs millions, most of which will be paid by the tier 1 supplier of that component.

But completely redesigning the valve train of an engine would be a pretty major step. Plus, there would be considerable resistance from engineering types who tend to believe there is only one way to do something... their way.

Jon,

I have to disagree with you on this one. While you are correct when you state that:"After all, they're not making cars for their health and they do not have our best interests at heart." you stopped short of stating what they are interested in, namely profits. And profits are mainly derived in two ways; selling more units, and/or reducing the cost per unit produced.

An innovation promising the very real improvements in performance, fuel economy, lowered maintenance costs is going to be very accepted by the public, thus increasing sales. And one which offers the potential of easier manufacturing, lower parts caosts (electronic components massed produced cost very little and as Cap'n Mup suggested:"...most of which will be paid by the tier 1 supplier of that component." is very real), thus lowering production costs.

Add to that, it takes only one car maker to step forward with such an advanced design and all the rest will be in a scrambled frenzy to catch up and keep pace. We've seen this time and again, especially in the competitive Auto Industry. Happy Motoring...Jim '85TE

In theory, you're absolutely right. That's how the free market is supposed to work.

In practice, it is a different story. These large companies are run by bean counters. They are, to use their own phrase, "risk averse". If they can make a profit by doing the same thing tomorrow that they did today, they will cheerfully do so.

They also like to stay with familiar (read: "proven") technology. Look at how long fuel-injection took to catch on. Look at how long it took Detroit to embrace things like disk brakes, OHC engines, multiple valves/cyclinder.

Also, one person's idea of what is "better" is often different from that of others. I can (quite convincingly, I think) argue that ABS, traction-control and airbags are bad things for some cars and that the people who want to mandate their inclusion on all cars are making a foolish mistake.

In the meantime, people will still buy cars regardless of whether or not they have ABS or engines with poppet-valves.

[lotusguy]

JonGwynne said:

lotusguy said:

JonGwynne said:

Captain Muppet said:

JonGwynne said:

...

Add to that, it takes only one car maker to step forward with such an advanced design and all the rest will be in a scrambled frenzy to catch up and keep pace. We've seen this time and again, especially in the competitive Auto Industry. Happy Motoring...Jim '85TE

In theory, you're absolutely right. That's how the free market is supposed to work...

In the meantime, people will still buy cars regardless of whether or not they have ABS or engines with poppet-valves.

Jon,

Perhaps you are right. But, as the internal combustion engine is pretty close to reaching it's absolute developmental limits in terms of efficiencies, the point may be moot.

Due to uncertain Global political situations, environmental concerns and depleted fossil fuel sources, Alternative Technologies such as Hybrid, Hydrogen Fuel Cell, Electric and Performance Diesel engine technologies seem to be what the world's Auto Manufacturers are betting their futures on. Happy Motoring...Jim '85TE

[roospuppet]

thakyou grahambell, i have looked into that link, and am very interested in the book, when in comes out, i have been away gettin costs and estimates for such an engine, need to save up a few student loan cheques, lol.

also tryin to find an autoclave for the makin of carbon fibre, is teh autoclave nessary, do u need the high pressure, can a kiln just do it, obviously it wont be as strong, but a lot cheaper,

i think i am going to do a cheaper project before i undertake this one, fiting a 2.9 24v cosworth lump ina mini, am tryin to do it with the aid of carbon fibre, btw im a mini fanatic, am a tad crazy too, b4 u say it can be done, and has been doen b4, its just the finished product wasnt so light it nearly weighed a tonne due to teh roll cage and strengthening of teh chass, with tubular steel, i want one that weights half that, around 500 kg, mmmm,

[JonGwynne]

lotusguy said:

JonGwynne said:

lotusguy said:

JonGwynne said:

Captain Muppet said:

JonGwynne said:

...

Add to that, it takes only one car maker to step forward with such an advanced design and all the rest will be in a scrambled frenzy to catch up and keep pace. We've seen this time and again, especially in the competitive Auto Industry. Happy Motoring...Jim '85TE

In theory, you're absolutely right. That's how the free market is supposed to work...

In the meantime, people will still buy cars regardless of whether or not they have ABS or engines with poppet-valves.

Jon,

Perhaps you are right. But, as the internal combustion engine is pretty close to reaching it's absolute developmental limits in terms of efficiencies, the point may be moot.

Due to uncertain Global political situations, environmental concerns and depleted fossil fuel sources, Alternative Technologies such as Hybrid, Hydrogen Fuel Cell, Electric and Performance Diesel engine technologies seem to be what the world's Auto Manufacturers are betting their futures on. Happy Motoring...Jim '85TE

Yes, they're betting their futures on these absurd technologies because their marketing departments can "spin" them well.

Electric cars are a joke. Even when you discount the issues with battery technology, there is still the question of where the power is going to come from. The fact that there is no exhaust is irrelevant to how polluting they are.

Hydrogen power (whether burning it or using it in fuel cells) is also a dead-end until and unless someone develops a cheap way to extract it from water. Even then, there are all sorts of unforeseen environmental ramifications to tying up a significant percentage of the world's water in production and storage of hydrogen. What's the other option? Capturing ice asteroids and bringing them back to Earth?

I disagree with your contention that internal-combustion engines have "hit the wall" in terms of efficiency. Direct Petrol Injection looks poised to offer an even bigger increase in efficiency than the switch from carbs to EFI gave us.

Also, there is a long way to go in terms of improving the car as a whole. Look at what Lotus has done with the Elise. An ordinary Rover K engine but nearly 50mpg in a high-performance sports car. How? Its all down to weight. The lighter the car, the more efficient it is. I think we'll see future cars getting lighter and lighter. A 700kg car is a freak today. I think they will be commonplace in a decade.

Also, who told you that fossil-fuel reserves are depleted? Last time I checked, there were, at the current rate of use/increase, about 600-odd years of petroleum left in the ground.

Of course, if my silly countrymen (and women) would stop buying those stupid Ford Explorers and Lincoln Navigators (they've acutally seduced Porsche into building an SUV, can you imagine it?) then that might extend things a bit.

Brits are a little more sensible about the silly SUV, and since they allow people to drive Lotus Elises on the road to sort of even things out, I don't begrudge them the occasional Landrover or Toyota Landcruiser.

Personally, I think the oil companies will eventually figure out a way to convert some vegetable-based resource to something that can be used as an alternative to petroleum in ordinary. It is already possible with diesel engines.

The first rule of alternative fuels is that if the existing oil companies can't make money on it, it is a non-starter. Sic transit hydrogen and electric power.

[GreenV8S]

Isn't hydrogen 'power' actually hydrogen power storage? A hudrogen cell is just another way of storing energy, it doesn't create it. You have to put the same/more energy in to split the water in the first place. And guess where the energy comes from? National grid is my guess.

[lotusguy]

Jon,

Without trying to start a 'Flame War' here, I have to say I believe that you are waaay off base.

Nor do I wish to reply in a lengthy fashion to counter your claims, except to say that internal combustion as a means of converting energy to perform mechanical work is inherently inefficient. With only 65% of the work potential of petroleum being captured by today's most efficient engines, and only a ten percent increase in this efficiency potentially possible, it's pretty clear that alternatives not only must be explored, but will in the end, win out.

I am no 'Tree Hugger' in terms of the environment, but petroleum depletion is a fact not some trumped up oil company myth. Add to this the problems experienced with acquisition (both technical and political), transportation and storage, not to mention rising costs, and again, in order to serve the ever expanding population of car owners, not to mention the population in general, alternatives must be found.

Personally, I don't like it (I still think driving is America's greatest sport), but I'm afraid that significant change in cars, driving and the like will occur. Not for the better I think, but I'm certain that it will. Just glad that at age 48, I had the opportunity to experience cars and driving in their 'HayDay'...Peace...Happy Motoring...Jim '85TE

[deltaf]

Internal Combustion....its the only way to fly.

[grahambell]

JonGwynne said:

Personally, I think the oil companies will eventually figure out a way to convert some vegetable-based resource to something that can be used as an alternative to petroleum.

They've been running cars on plant derived fuel in Brazil for years. Can't remember which plant off hand, but proves it can be done. And what is this plant derived fuel? Well, basically it's alcohol - so they have to put something in it that makes it undrinkable to stop all the piss heads hogging the pumps...

[lotusguy]

grahambell said:

JonGwynne said:

Personally, I think the oil companies will eventually figure out a way to convert some vegetable-based resource to something that can be used as an alternative to petroleum.

They've been running cars on plant derived fuel in Brazil for years. Can't remember which plant off hand, but proves it can be done. And what is this plant derived fuel? Well, basically it's alcohol - so they have to put something in it that makes it undrinkable to stop all the piss heads hogging the pumps...

Graham,

Well put, but unfortunately, alcohol based fuels do not have nearly the energy potential of gasoline (HP/unit volume). So, more must be burnt to achieve the same useful work.

This, along with the environmental impact of the plant waste produced in the process makes this just as polluting a source of energy as gasoline or very close.

While it's a fact that cars are now 90% more clean in terms of environmental impact than they were in 1970, the fact that there are now about ten times as many cars on the road as there were back then yielding essentially no gain as regards the Eco system. One needs only look at the dramatic change in Global weather to see the impact (certainly cars are not responsible for this effect in total, but are major contributors) of this.

The most appropriate replacement is some form of hydrogen technology. This has a few bugs and drawbacks, but fewer it would seem than many other alternatives. Water can be broken down via electrolysis powered by the Sun to release free Hydrogen which when burned produces Oxygen and water as it's by-products. Storage issues (Both for distribution and in the car itself) must be concieved and admittedly are still very much in their infancy. But eventually, I believe this posesses the greatest chance of becoming petroleum's sucessor. I would also like to see a continuance in developing alcohol derivation technologies, but to serve man in other ways...Happy Moptoring...Jim '85TE




>> Edited by lotusguy on Thursday 16th January 22:00

[kevinday]

Jim, I have to rufute one item in your last post, re climate change.

I have never seen or heard of any proof that there is indeed any climate change above the change that can be caused by normal variations over time, relating to sun activity etc. As far as car pollution is concerned, cars contribute less than 3% in overall terms to the so-called 'greenhouse' gas pollution in the atmosphere. Therefore on a pollution basis I see no reason for change in fuels, however in fuel supply terms I do not have any information on oil reserves but would be surprised if there was 600 years worth left as somebody else stated (surprised but happy ).

[lotusguy]

kevinday said: Jim, I have to rufute one item in your last post, re climate change.

I have never seen or heard of any proof that there is indeed any climate change above the change that can be caused by normal variations over time, relating to sun activity etc. As far as car pollution is concerned, cars contribute less than 3% in overall terms to the so-called 'greenhouse' gas pollution in the atmosphere. Therefore on a pollution basis I see no reason for change in fuels, however in fuel supply terms I do not have any information on oil reserves but would be surprised if there was 600 years worth left as somebody else stated (surprised but happy ).

Kevin,

You could very well be right. I agree with you that cars pose the smallest contribution to 'greenhouse' gasses.

I also agree that the extreme climate variations could be caused by normal variations, but I suspect that this is not the case.

While not empirical, due to current computational limitations on meteorological modeling, the fact that 2000 was one of the coldest years in terms of mean temp for over a century, recent evidence that the antarctic ice shelf is thinning at a much faster rate than was predicted, and the hole in the ozone layer, it looks like we may have affected the Eco system. While I agree that these do not constitute any 'Direct Proof', many things do look suspicious.

As far as supplies of petroleum, while I'm not sure anyone knows exactly what reserves exists, but, it's certain that we have depleted some supplies and have been forced to look at more hostile regions and at greater depths for additional supplies and must use ever more complex drilling methods to extract these raising a cost issue.

I'm not certain of anything in this area, but many people, much more learned and intelligent than I am, express concerns. I'd welcome hearing more of your views. Happy Motoring...Jim '85TE


>> Edited by lotusguy on Friday 17th January 08:41

[grahambell]

lotusguy said:

alcohol based fuels do not have nearly the energy potential of gasoline (HP/unit volume). So, more must be burnt to achieve the same useful work.

This, along with the environmental impact of the plant waste produced in the process makes this just as polluting a source of energy as gasoline or very close.

Hi Jim,

Admittedly alcohol based fuels might not have quite the energy potential of petroeum based fuels, but they can still give you plenty of power as any Top Alcolhol (more specifically methanol) dragster pilot will attest.

Have to disagree about the environmental impact of plant waste as this is organic and therefore decomposes naturally. And as any keen gardner will tell you, the compost you get when is does don't half make the plants grow.

Appreciate your points regarding hydrogen, but just wanted to point out that alcohol fuels from renewable plant sources offer a possible solution for us internal combustion junkies.

OK, anyone know how to set up a still in the garden shed...

[JonGwynne]

lotusguy said:

Graham,

Well put, but unfortunately, alcohol based fuels do not have nearly the energy potential of gasoline (HP/unit volume). So, more must be burnt to achieve the same useful work.

This, along with the environmental impact of the plant waste produced in the process makes this just as polluting a source of energy as gasoline or very close.

While it's a fact that cars are now 90% more clean in terms of environmental impact than they were in 1970, the fact that there are now about ten times as many cars on the road as there were back then yielding essentially no gain as regards the Eco system. One needs only look at the dramatic change in Global weather to see the impact (certainly cars are not responsible for this effect in total, but are major contributors) of this.

The most appropriate replacement is some form of hydrogen technology. This has a few bugs and drawbacks, but fewer it would seem than many other alternatives. Water can be broken down via electrolysis powered by the Sun to release free Hydrogen which when burned produces Oxygen and water as it's by-products. Storage issues (Both for distribution and in the car itself) must be concieved and admittedly are still very much in their infancy. But eventually, I believe this posesses the greatest chance of becoming petroleum's sucessor. I would also like to see a continuance in developing alcohol derivation technologies, but to serve man in other ways...Happy Moptoring...Jim '85TE

Solar power? Look, I'm not trying to pick on you or start a flame war or anything, honest... but you're making it difficult for me to not respond. ;-)

Solar power is another pipe dream along with hydrogen based transporation. It looks good as part of an environmental-activist's publicity pack but is utterly impractical in the real world.

The problem that solar-advocates never seem will to address (or even recognize) is the issue of waste heat. The most efficient form of solar power generation is heat-collecting panels that are used to boil water and run steam turbines. Even if you get past the fact that these things will only work on sunny days the waste heat generated is appalling and the people who are worried about global warming would never go for it.

What's the other option? Photovoltaics? Even if photovoltaics were ever to reach a level of efficiency where they would be acceptable for real-world usage (decades away if ever) they still have the same problems with waste heat though just not as badly as the other method.

Ironic, isn't it that the best form of power-generation from the perspective of those worried about global warming is nuclear power... ;->

Even alcohol as a fuel is problematic because of the large number of engines in the world which cannot practically be converted to use it.

The real solution is for the oil companies to figure out an alternative raw material to produce fuel compatible with existing engines.

Think about it, petroleum is just a hydrocarbon molecule. Far simpler to figure out a situable alternative that still yields a fuel compatible with existing technology.

re:"climate change". A couple of points. First, the weather on this planet has changed far more in the last 10,000 years than it has in the past 100. When I was growing up in the 1970s, the big worry was "global cooling". Now it is global warming? These people should make up their minds before they start ringing alarm bells.

Second, as far as CO2 output goes. Cars (at leats those in countries which have emissions standards) are a tiny offender. One of the biggest is human beings. In the last 100 years, there have been an extra 4.5 BILLION people dopped onto this planet's surface who weren't here before. Each of them generates an average of about a half-ton per year of CO2. The math is pretty easy from there.

>> Edited by JonGwynne on Friday 17th January 10:56

[lotusguy]

JonGwynne said:

lotusguy said:

Graham,

Well put, but unfortunately, alcohol based fuels do not have nearly the energy potential of gasoline (HP/unit volume). So, more must be burnt to achieve the same useful work.

This, along with the environmental impact of the plant waste produced in the process makes this just as polluting a source of energy as gasoline or very close.

While it's a fact that cars are now 90% more clean in terms of environmental impact than they were in 1970, the fact that there are now about ten times as many cars on the road as there were back then yielding essentially no gain as regards the Eco system. One needs only look at the dramatic change in Global weather to see the impact (certainly cars are not responsible for this effect in total, but are major contributors) of this.

The most appropriate replacement is some form of hydrogen technology. This has a few bugs and drawbacks, but fewer it would seem than many other alternatives. Water can be broken down via electrolysis powered by the Sun to release free Hydrogen which when burned produces Oxygen and water as it's by-products. Storage issues (Both for distribution and in the car itself) must be concieved and admittedly are still very much in their infancy. But eventually, I believe this posesses the greatest chance of becoming petroleum's sucessor. I would also like to see a continuance in developing alcohol derivation technologies, but to serve man in other ways...Happy Moptoring...Jim '85TE

Solar power? Look, I'm not trying to pick on you or start a flame war or anything, honest... but you're making it difficult for me to not respond. ;-)

Solar power is another pipe dream along with hydrogen based transporation. It looks good as part of an environmental-activist's publicity pack but is utterly impractical in the real world.

The problem that solar-advocates never seem will to address (or even recognize) is the issue of waste heat. The most efficient form of solar power generation is heat-collecting panels that are used to boil water and run steam turbines. Even if you get past the fact that these things will only work on sunny days the waste heat generated is appalling and the people who are worried about global warming would never go for it.

What's the other option? Photovoltaics? Even if photovoltaics were ever to reach a level of efficiency where they would be acceptable for real-world usage (decades away if ever) they still have the same problems with waste heat though just not as badly as the other method.

Ironic, isn't it that the best form of power-generation from the perspective of those worried about global warming is nuclear power... ;->

Even alcohol as a fuel is problematic because of the large number of engines in the world which cannot practically be converted to use it.

The real solution is for the oil companies to figure out an alternative raw material to produce fuel compatible with existing engines.

Think about it, petroleum is just a hydrocarbon molecule. Far simpler to figure out a situable alternative that still yields a fuel compatible with existing technology.

re:"climate change". A couple of points. First, the weather on this planet has changed far more in the last 10,000 years than it has in the past 100. When I was growing up in the 1970s, the big worry was "global cooling". Now it is global warming? These people should make up their minds before they start ringing alarm bells.

Second, as far as CO2 output goes. Cars (at leats those in countries which have emissions standards) are a tiny offender. One of the biggest is human beings. In the last 100 years, there have been an extra 4.5 BILLION people dopped onto this planet's surface who weren't here before. Each of them generates an average of about a half-ton per year of CO2. The math is pretty easy from there.

>> Edited by JonGwynne on Friday 17th January 10:56

Jon,

I have no desire to start throwing flames at you either, but have you seriously considered what you've written here? Your arguments contain little logic.

As far as solar energy being used to power electrolysis plants, this is a very viable technology which has existed for decades. In fact, due to the very low levels of electric power necessary to initiate the electrolytic process, solar is ideal.

As far as waste heat is concerned, I'm not sure that you have thought this one through at all. The sun imparts approximately 1,500 Watts/m² of energy to the earth's surface. This energy is constant and includes only the average amount of energy actually hitting the surface of the earth taking into account energy reflected back into space due to weather and the atmospheric dust. This energy hits the planet whether it is captured for useful 'work' or not.

If this were the only source of heat on earth, the average temperature would be calculated to roughly 44°F while the actual average temperature is closer to 59°F. The difference comes from the decay of radioactive materials in the earth's core and the conversion of energy from it's stored chemical, mechanical and kinetic forms to heat energy by man. It is this conversion, of primarily chemical energy, into heat and the release of carbon molecules in the process which causes the Greenhouse heating of the atmosphere.

But as Maxwell states, energy is never lost, it is always accounted for through conversion into other forms. So, collecting solar energy and converting some of it to mechanical work actually reduces the amount of residual heat left over by the factor of mechanical or electrical energy produced over the energy which would otherwise remain as heat. Granted, this energy is concentrated, but to the 'closed' system of the environment, the total heat remains the same or less, therefore there really isn't any waste heat - no net gain in heat to the environment. Now, if you were burning fossil fuels to convert chemical energy into heat energy, you would realize a net gain to the total amount of heat energy in the environment. This explanation covers your argument about waste heat from either solar heat collectors (better labled concentrators) and photovoltaics.

I do agree with your observation of the irony of Nuclear power generation, but must add that all power we have is sourced from nuclear power really. For example, Nuclear reactions in the Sun produce light which plants use to capture carbon through photosynthesis. These plants die, are converted by nuclear heat generated in the earth's core into petroleum, which we refine into gasoline to release this stored carbon to create heat energy and convert the heat energy into mechanical energy in our cars to produce 'work'.

Your reference to the use of alcohol based fuels draws the proper conclusion, but from the wrong argument. The world can easily adapt to another kind of engine. It took only a couple decades to convert from animal power (primarily horses) to mechanical power (both steam and internal combustion). With today's more efficient means of production, a similar conversion to another source of power would slash this timespan dramatically. The real problem with alcohol is that it produces more waste and polution than petroleum, especially in the area of 'Greenhouse Gasses'. This is due to the release of methane and other hydrocarbons as a result of the decomposition of the plant matter, be it corn, soy or other plant material, from which the alcohol is derived. Same problem comes from incinerating it, only you use more energy to accomplish this. Add to that the cost and fuel to buy, clear and farm additional lands, and the cost/benefit is worse than that of fossil fuels.

You state that: "The real solution is for the oil companies to figure out an alternative raw material to produce fuel compatible with existing engines.

Think about it, petroleum is just a hydrocarbon molecule. Far simpler to figure out a situable alternative that still yields a fuel compatible with existing technology."

Again, you are wrong from the standpoint that you are releasing energy which was stored raising the amount of heat and reflective carbon molecules into the Eco system. When these were in a benign, stored form, they posed no threat. But, once released, this is not the case. In using Hydrogen fuel cell technologies, the only heat released is from friction due to mechanical inefficiencies of the drive system itself which is electrically powered. Burning Hydrogen, while it does create added heat, does not release the heat reflecting hydrocarbons that burning petroleum products do into the atmosphere further aggrevating any 'Global Warming' effect.

With respect to your claims of 'Global Warming', it's true that there is no absolute Proof that such is the case, but these scientists are improving their computational models all the time, and observable, measurable changes seem to be lending at least some credence to their arguments. Say thay are only half right, this alone would warrant the exploration of more benign forms of producing power.

Finally, you state: "Second, as far as CO2 output goes. Cars (at leats those in countries which have emissions standards) are a tiny offender. One of the biggest is human beings. In the last 100 years, there have been an extra 4.5 BILLION people dopped onto this planet's surface who weren't here before. Each of them generates an average of about a half-ton per year of CO2. The math is pretty easy from there."

You are correct, but you overlook the fundamental flaw in this argument, namely that you can limit the numbers of cars much easier than you can limit the number of people populating the earth. Also, each of these people will want a car, only exascerbating the problem and making the development of alternative forms of energy even more necessary from the standpoints of availability, cost and their environmental impact. Happy Motoring...Jim '85TE


>> Edited by lotusguy on Friday 17th January 19:26

[JonGwynne]

lotusguy said:

Jon,

I have no desire to start throwing flames at you either, but have you seriously considered what you've written here? Your arguments contain little logic.

As far as solar energy being used to power electrolysis plants, this is a very viable technology which has existed for decades. In fact, due to the very low levels of electric power necessary to initiate the electrolytic process, solar is ideal.

---

So long as we're both on the same wavelength - to me this is a good-natured and spirited debate.

I'm not sure what you mean by "low levels of electric power" need to separate hydrogen from oxygen. Could you be more specific? How many watt/hours per M3 of hydrogen are we talking about here?

I used to fool around with electrolysis with I was a kid and I remember that it was very difficuly to get plain water to split even under relatively high voltage/current levels. I had to use an electrolyte. Table salt was the only one I had ready access to which played hell with my copper electrodes for obvious reasons. But I digress...

My point is that the amount of hydrogen I was able to produce was minimal so I'm curious what sort of yield you thought was possible using solar power and what form of solar power you were intending to use (photovoltaics or solar collectors driving steam generators).

As far as waste heat is concerned, I'm not sure that you have thought this one through at all. The sun imparts approximately 1,500 Watts/m² of energy to the earth's surface. This energy is constant and includes only the average amount of energy actually hitting the surface of the earth taking into account energy reflected back into space due to weather and the atmospheric dust. This energy hits the planet whether it is captured for useful 'work' or not.

If this were the only source of heat on earth, the average temperature would be calculated to roughly 44°F while the actual average temperature is closer to 59°F. The difference comes from the decay of radioactive materials in the earth's core and the conversion of energy from it's stored chemical, mechanical and kinetic forms to heat energy by man. It is this conversion, of primarily chemical energy, into heat and the release of carbon molecules in the process which causes the Greenhouse heating of the atmosphere.

But as Maxwell states, energy is never lost, it is always accounted for through conversion into other forms. So, collecting solar energy and converting some of it to mechanical work actually reduces the amount of residual heat left over by the factor of mechanical or electrical energy produced over the energy which would otherwise remain as heat. Granted, this energy is concentrated, but to the 'closed' system of the environment, the total heat remains the same or less, therefore there really isn't any waste heat - no net gain in heat to the environment. Now, if you were burning fossil fuels to convert chemical energy into heat energy, you would realize a net gain to the total amount of heat energy in the environment. This explanation covers your argument about waste heat from either solar heat collectors (better labled concentrators) and photovoltaics.

---

Boy, that was a long run for a short slide. You still haven't taken into account that heat being absorbed and conducted into the air which otherwise would have been reflected.

I do agree with your observation of the irony of Nuclear power generation, but must add that all power we have is sourced from nuclear power really. For example, Nuclear reactions in the Sun produce light which plants use to capture carbon through photosynthesis. These plants die, are converted by nuclear heat generated in the earth's core into petroleum, which we refine into gasoline to release this stored carbon to create heat energy and convert the heat energy into mechanical energy in our cars to produce 'work'.

Your reference to the use of alcohol based fuels draws the proper conclusion, but from the wrong argument. The world can easily adapt to another kind of engine. It took only a couple decades to convert from animal power (primarily horses) to mechanical power (both steam and internal combustion). With today's more efficient means of production, a similar conversion to another source of power would slash this timespan dramatically. The real problem with alcohol is that it produces more waste and polution than petroleum, especially in the area of 'Greenhouse Gasses'. This is due to the release of methane and other hydrocarbons as a result of the decomposition of the plant matter, be it corn, soy or other plant material, from which the alcohol is derived. Same problem comes from incinerating it, only you use more energy to accomplish this. Add to that the cost and fuel to buy, clear and farm additional lands, and the cost/benefit is worse than that of fossil fuels.

---

1. I disagree with your premise that "the world can easily adapt to another kind of engine". There are large and influential organizations who would be put to considerable expense and inconvenience if a substantially new technology were introduced. I don't see them standing quietly by and allowing themselves to be put out of business.

Also, the transition from animal and man-power to mechanical power wasn't exactly smooth. Check out the origins of words like "Luddite" or "sabotage".

2. Alcohol as a fuel may indeed be less efficient - I can't comment on that one way or another, but your argument about its environmental ramifications compared to petroleum fails to take into account an important fact. The carbon released by plants today is already "in circulation". The carbon released by burning petroleum was removed from the environment millions of years ago.

There is a substantial difference between growing corn, converting it to ethanol and then burning that as fuel compared with digging up the petroleum resultant of organic materials many millions of years old and burning that. The carbon released from burning the corn was absorbed by the corn during its growth. The carbon released by burning the petroleum hasn't seen daylight in millions of years and it isn't going back where it came from for millions more. For all intents and purposes, it is being added to a closed system.

You state that: "The real solution is for the oil companies to figure out an alternative raw material to produce fuel compatible with existing engines.

Think about it, petroleum is just a hydrocarbon molecule. Far simpler to figure out a situable alternative that still yields a fuel compatible with existing technology."

Again, you are wrong from the standpoint that you are releasing energy which was stored raising the amount of heat and reflective carbon molecules into the Eco system. When these were in a benign, stored form, they posed no threat. But, once released, this is not the case. In using Hydrogen fuel cell technologies, the only heat released is from friction due to mechanical inefficiencies of the drive system itself which is electrically powered. Burning Hydrogen, while it does create added heat, does not release the heat reflecting hydrocarbons that burning petroleum products do into the atmosphere further aggrevating any 'Global Warming' effect.

---

Why do you refer to carbon compounds as "heat reflecting"? The reason people like Al Gore are upset is that carbon compounds like methan and CO2 are absorbers of heat rather than reflectors of it.

But, as I explained above, the problem is not necessarily with burning hydrocarbon-based fuels per-se but with burning petroleum-based fuels. The real is is not with gross Cx emissions but with the net.

With respect to your claims of 'Global Warming', it's true that there is no absolute Proof that such is the case, but these scientists are improving their computational models all the time, and observable, measurable changes seem to be lending at least some credence to their arguments. Say thay are only half right, this alone would warrant the exploration of more benign forms of producing power.

---

I'm all for 'more benign' forms of producing power. But to quote Richard Feynman, "In order for a technology to be successful, reality must take precedence over public-relations. For nature cannot be fooled".

All these people like Al Gore and his "eco-warrior" pals can yell all they like about how the sky is falling but until there is some science on their side with regards to both the problem and any proposed solutions, they should think more and talk less.

Finally, you state: "Second, as far as CO2 output goes. Cars (at leats those in countries which have emissions standards) are a tiny offender. One of the biggest is human beings. In the last 100 years, there have been an extra 4.5 BILLION people dopped onto this planet's surface who weren't here before. Each of them generates an average of about a half-ton per year of CO2. The math is pretty easy from there."

You are correct, but you overlook the fundamental flaw in this argument, namely that you can limit the numbers of cars much easier than you can limit the number of people populating the earth. Also, each of these people will want a car, only exascerbating the problem and making the development of alternative forms of energy even more necessary from the standpoints of availability, cost and their environmental impact. Happy Motoring...Jim '85TE

---

You're absolutely right. It is MUCH easier to limit the number of cars than it is to limit the number of people on this planet. But the problem isn't the number of cars on the planet it is (if you believe the golbal-warming theories) the amount of CO2 being added to the atmosphere.

Limiting cars or making them more efficient is only distracting attention from the real issue.

This is the nature of modern politics: Who cares what the real problem is, what can I do so it APPEARS I'm doing something about the problem.

Witness things like speed cameras, drug laws, cigarette taxes and government groups complaining about what's on television. Perfect examples of what happens when egotistical simpletons are allowed to exert control over others and dip their sticky fingers into the public purse.

[MEMSDesign]

Without bothering to quote many pages of back and forth, what are you on about with 'waste-heat'? Could you elaborate on why you think this is such a problem? I'm not following.

[lotusguy]

JonGwynne said:

So long as we're both on the same wavelength - to me this is a good-natured and spirited debate.

I'm not sure what you mean by "low levels of electric power" need to separate hydrogen from oxygen. Could you be more specific? How many watt/hours per M3 of hydrogen are we talking about here?

I used to fool around with electrolysis with I was a kid and I remember that it was very difficuly to get plain water to split even under relatively high voltage/current levels. I had to use an electrolyte. Table salt was the only one I had ready access to which played hell with my copper electrodes for obvious reasons. But I digress...

My point is that the amount of hydrogen I was able to produce was minimal so I'm curious what sort of yield you thought was possible using solar power and what form of solar power you were intending to use (photovoltaics or solar collectors driving steam generators).

Without getting into complex scientific equation and discussion, there are many ways to perform electrolytic reactions which will release hydrogen with lower levels of power. One of which is to use a membrane of special material (some ceramics or metals) which accomplishes separation of the molecular bond. Also, catalytic metals in the anode/cathodes generate a greater reaction with the same energy level. A prime low level example is the simple wet cell battery which under low power gives off vast amounts of hydrogen. Lest you go off about the complexity and toxicity of using H²SO4, I'm merely using it in example.

As far as waste heat is concerned, I'm not sure that you have thought this one through at all. The sun imparts approximately 1,500 Watts/m² of energy to the earth's surface. This energy is constant and includes only the average amount of energy actually hitting the surface of the earth taking into account energy reflected back into space due to weather and the atmospheric dust. This energy hits the planet whether it is captured for useful 'work' or not.

If this were the only source of heat on earth, the average temperature would be calculated to roughly 44°F while the actual average temperature is closer to 59°F. The difference comes from the decay of radioactive materials in the earth's core and the conversion of energy from it's stored chemical, mechanical and kinetic forms to heat energy by man. It is this conversion, of primarily chemical energy, into heat and the release of carbon molecules in the process which causes the Greenhouse heating of the atmosphere.

But as Maxwell states, energy is never lost, it is always accounted for through conversion into other forms. So, collecting solar energy and converting some of it to mechanical work actually reduces the amount of residual heat left over by the factor of mechanical or electrical energy produced over the energy which would otherwise remain as heat. Granted, this energy is concentrated, but to the 'closed' system of the environment, the total heat remains the same or less, therefore there really isn't any waste heat - no net gain in heat to the environment. Now, if you were burning fossil fuels to convert chemical energy into heat energy, you would realize a net gain to the total amount of heat energy in the environment. This explanation covers your argument about waste heat from either solar heat collectors (better labled concentrators) and photovoltaics.

---

Boy, that was a long run for a short slide. You still haven't taken into account that heat being absorbed and conducted into the air which otherwise would have been reflected.

You assume that this heat is reflected back into space, which is simply not the case. Much is 'used' in conversion to other forms of energy, the rest would largely remain either heating the air directly or indirectly after being released from the ground once absorbed. Air is pretty transparent to infrared energy, but, dust and water vapor, not to mention complex hydocarbons are not.

I do agree with your observation of the irony of Nuclear power generation, but must add that all power we have is sourced from nuclear power really. For example, Nuclear reactions in the Sun produce light which plants use to capture carbon through photosynthesis. These plants die, are converted by nuclear heat generated in the earth's core into petroleum, which we refine into gasoline to release this stored carbon to create heat energy and convert the heat energy into mechanical energy in our cars to produce 'work'.

Your reference to the use of alcohol based fuels draws the proper conclusion, but from the wrong argument. The world can easily adapt to another kind of engine. It took only a couple decades to convert from animal power (primarily horses) to mechanical power (both steam and internal combustion). With today's more efficient means of production, a similar conversion to another source of power would slash this timespan dramatically. The real problem with alcohol is that it produces more waste and polution than petroleum, especially in the area of 'Greenhouse Gasses'. This is due to the release of methane and other hydrocarbons as a result of the decomposition of the plant matter, be it corn, soy or other plant material, from which the alcohol is derived. Same problem comes from incinerating it, only you use more energy to accomplish this. Add to that the cost and fuel to buy, clear and farm additional lands, and the cost/benefit is worse than that of fossil fuels.

---

1. I disagree with your premise that "the world can easily adapt to another kind of engine". There are large and influential organizations who would be put to considerable expense and inconvenience if a substantially new technology were introduced. I don't see them standing quietly by and allowing themselves to be put out of business.

This is a political problem and similar to the 'Buggy Whip' lobby, cannot stand up in the face of a superior technological innovation. History is full of examples of inferior technologies falling by the wayside, albeit not always passively, in the face of superior technology.

Also, the transition from animal and man-power to mechanical power wasn't exactly smooth. Check out the origins of words like "Luddite" or "sabotage".

You overstate these examples in an effort to boost your argument. The 'Luddites' were in fact French weavers who broke into a single factory and set it ablaze. This ocurred in a time when facilities were open, unmanned after hours, and in fact didn't slow the advance of a new technology (the Jacquard Loom) at all.

2. Alcohol as a fuel may indeed be less efficient - I can't comment on that one way or another, but your argument about its environmental ramifications compared to petroleum fails to take into account an important fact. The carbon released by plants today is already "in circulation". The carbon released by burning petroleum was removed from the environment millions of years ago.

Not at all true. The carbon which plants take up is a stable form found in the earth, not a small molecule oxide form which can exist in the atmosphere. Add to that that plants do not release much carbon at all through transpiration, only when they are burned does this carbon cycle through the atmosphere.

There is a substantial difference between growing corn, converting it to ethanol and then burning that as fuel compared with digging up the petroleum resultant of organic materials many millions of years old and burning that. The carbon released from burning the corn was absorbed by the corn during its growth. The carbon released by burning the petroleum hasn't seen daylight in millions of years and it isn't going back where it came from for millions more. For all intents and purposes, it is being added to a closed system.

Correct, but for all intents and purposes, the carbon released to the air from plants is also taken from the earth and converted from a benign form to one less so. Besides, the only real argument for using alchohol, or any other plant derived fuel, is that it becomes a renewable resource, and one which does not make us dependent upon another country to supply it. It's potential to be 'cleaner' is not a good argument as more of it must be burned to yield the same amount of 'work' and therefore polution levels are not significantly altered.

You state that: "The real solution is for the oil companies to figure out an alternative raw material to produce fuel compatible with existing engines.

Think about it, petroleum is just a hydrocarbon molecule. Far simpler to figure out a situable alternative that still yields a fuel compatible with existing technology."

Again, you are wrong from the standpoint that you are releasing energy which was stored raising the amount of heat and reflective carbon molecules into the Eco system. When these were in a benign, stored form, they posed no threat. But, once released, this is not the case. In using Hydrogen fuel cell technologies, the only heat released is from friction due to mechanical inefficiencies of the drive system itself which is electrically powered. Burning Hydrogen, while it does create added heat, does not release the heat reflecting hydrocarbons that burning petroleum products do into the atmosphere further aggrevating any 'Global Warming' effect.

---

Why do you refer to carbon compounds as "heat reflecting"? The reason people like Al Gore are upset is that carbon compounds like methan and CO2 are absorbers of heat rather than reflectors of it.

But, as I explained above, the problem is not necessarily with burning hydrocarbon-based fuels per-se but with burning petroleum-based fuels. The real is is not with gross Cx emissions but with the net.

Again, you are correct, except that as with anything, a molecule's heat absorbing abilities are finite. They can only absorb so much heat. After this, many hydrocarbons are larger than the wavelength of infrared energy and thus do in fact reflect this energy.

With respect to your claims of 'Global Warming', it's true that there is no absolute Proof that such is the case, but these scientists are improving their computational models all the time, and observable, measurable changes seem to be lending at least some credence to their arguments. Say thay are only half right, this alone would warrant the exploration of more benign forms of producing power.

---

I'm all for 'more benign' forms of producing power. But to quote Richard Feynman, "In order for a technology to be successful, reality must take precedence over public-relations. For nature cannot be fooled".

All these people like Al Gore and his "eco-warrior" pals can yell all they like about how the sky is falling but until there is some science on their side with regards to both the problem and any proposed solutions, they should think more and talk less.

This bit appears to be your own political view, one which it would seem is in contrast to 'Al Gore's'. Personally, I think they are extremists and I don't follow them at all. My views are based solely upon scientific facts. Hydrogen burning yields only water as it's by-product and some heat. The same is true of fuel-cell technology. One has only to plot the reaction to see this is true. Polictical motivations drive most of the Eco debaters, but it doesn't mean that the underlying fundamental science is wrong. I agree with you that it is optimized to further their cause, but it should be distilled to it's essential facts and reacted to on that basis. It's not sufficient to write it off merely because it's been overblown or overstated. And, I have never quoted any environmental source, my argument is based upon physics and chemistry, not someone's biased opinions.

Finally, you state: "Second, as far as CO2 output goes. Cars (at leats those in countries which have emissions standards) are a tiny offender. One of the biggest is human beings. In the last 100 years, there have been an extra 4.5 BILLION people dopped onto this planet's surface who weren't here before. Each of them generates an average of about a half-ton per year of CO2. The math is pretty easy from there."

You are correct, but you overlook the fundamental flaw in this argument, namely that you can limit the numbers of cars much easier than you can limit the number of people populating the earth. Also, each of these people will want a car, only exascerbating the problem and making the development of alternative forms of energy even more necessary from the standpoints of availability, cost and their environmental impact. Happy Motoring...Jim '85TE

---

You're absolutely right. It is MUCH easier to limit the number of cars than it is to limit the number of people on this planet. But the problem isn't the number of cars on the planet it is (if you believe the golbal-warming theories) the amount of CO2 being added to the atmosphere.

Limiting cars or making them more efficient is only distracting attention from the real issue.

The problem is caused by many issues and so needs to be addressed with many, rather than a single, solution. You do what you can and this means more efficient cars or even (heaven forbid) better mass transit. This last bit is politically unacceptable, I for one would fight it all the while realizing that it is a 'better' way. I just want the individual freedom of having my own vehicle to go where and when, and how I choose. But, I admit this is not the best solution. And, this means demystifying and de-vilifying some technologies such as nuclear which, while they may present some problems, offer a greater solution than the techniques currently in use. Nuclear energy, be it fission or fusion, will be the energy of the future whether the eco-guerillas like it or not.

This is the nature of modern politics: Who cares what the real problem is, what can I do so it APPEARS I'm doing something about the problem.

Witness things like speed cameras, drug laws, cigarette taxes and government groups complaining about what's on television. Perfect examples of what happens when egotistical simpletons are allowed to exert control over others and dip their sticky fingers into the public purse.

Absolutely no disagreement here. But, it is a separate issue and doesn't justify the argument that nothing be done about pollution, oil depletion and maximizing the efficiency of automobiles. What you describe is a political problem which people, using their power of the vote, must address separately, but no less importantly. But, given people's perpensity to concentrate on 'making their nut' and pursuing leisure pleasure rather than getting informed on issues and acting upon this information, I'm much less optimistic of reform in this area than the reduction of pollution and dependence on fossil fuels.

---

[JonGwynne]

---

lotusguy said:

Without getting into complex scientific equation and discussion, there are many ways to perform electrolytic reactions which will release hydrogen with lower levels of power. One of which is to use a membrane of special material (some ceramics or metals) which accomplishes separation of the molecular bond. Also, catalytic metals in the anode/cathodes generate a greater reaction with the same energy level. A prime low level example is the simple wet cell battery which under low power gives off vast amounts of hydrogen. Lest you go off about the complexity and toxicity of using H²SO4, I'm merely using it in example.

But you didn't answer my question. You say that a lot of hydrogen can be produced using little power.

You're being too vague.

How much hydrogen and how little power?

lotusguy said:

You assume that this heat is reflected back into space, which is simply not the case. Much is 'used' in conversion to other forms of energy, the rest would largely remain either heating the air directly or indirectly after being released from the ground once absorbed. Air is pretty transparent to infrared energy, but, dust and water vapor, not to mention complex hydocarbons are not.

Which is exactly my point. If the sun shines on a patch of ordinary ground, much of the heat is reflected away and only a portion of it is absorbed by the various things you mentioned (dust, carbon componds, etc).

If you then build something on that patch of ground which absorbs the radiant energy and convert it to thermal energy, some of that thermal energy will be conducted directly to the air in contact with the device. This air will, being warmer than the surrounding air, rise and be replaced with air that is not as warm. Thus, the process is repeated and will continue even after sun sets until the temperature of the object in question falls to that of the surrounding air.

Still, you propose building vast numbers of solar collectors to generate power for the production of hydrogen in order to combat global warming.

The question of whether the cure is worse than the illness is worth asking.

Jon Gwynne said:
1. I disagree with your premise that "the world can easily adapt to another kind of engine". There are large and influential organizations who would be put to considerable expense and inconvenience if a substantially new technology were introduced. I don't see them standing quietly by and allowing themselves to be put out of business.

lotusguy said:

This is a political problem and similar to the 'Buggy Whip' lobby, cannot stand up in the face of a superior technological innovation. History is full of examples of inferior technologies falling by the wayside, albeit not always passively, in the face of superior technology.

History is also filled with examples of superior technology causing more problems than the allegedly inferior technology it replaced.

Also, you say "superior" and "inferior" as if these were black-and-white terms, easily quanitifiable and subject to unanimous agreement.

The Commodore Amiga was a superior computer to the IBM PC and the Apple Macintosh but where is it now? OS/2 was a superior Operating System to Windows. Where is it now?

Jon Gwynne said:
Also, the transition from animal and man-power to mechanical power wasn't exactly smooth. Check out the origins of words like "Luddite" or "sabotage".

lotusguy said:

You overstate these examples in an effort to boost your argument. The 'Luddites' were in fact French weavers who broke into a single factory and set it ablaze. This ocurred in a time when facilities were open, unmanned after hours, and in fact didn't slow the advance of a new technology (the Jacquard Loom) at all.

Yeah, the original Luddites were pretty obscure. However their mentality has a lot of sympathy and support all over the world - even by people who wouldn't consider themselves to be "Luddites".

So, would I then be entitled to claim that you understate evolutionary inertia?

lotusguy said:
Not at all true. The carbon which plants take up is a stable form found in the earth, not a small molecule oxide form which can exist in the atmosphere. Add to that that plants do not release much carbon at all through transpiration, only when they are burned does this carbon cycle through the atmosphere.

I beg your pardon? I'm no biologist but I seem to recall that plants take their carbon from the atmosphere by absorbing CO2 from the air, extracting the carbon using photosynthesis and release the freed oxygen back into the air.

Also, don't plants release a great deal of greenhouse gas (mostly methane) when they decompose?

Anyway, my point is that the CO2 used by plants and then released when those plants are consumed (e.g. eaten, burned, allowed to quietly decompose) already exists in the atmosphere.

lotusguy said:
Correct, but for all intents and purposes, the carbon released to the air from plants is also taken from the earth and converted from a benign form to one less so. Besides, the only real argument for using alchohol, or any other plant derived fuel, is that it becomes a renewable resource, and one which does not make us dependent upon another country to supply it. It's potential to be 'cleaner' is not a good argument as more of it must be burned to yield the same amount of 'work' and therefore polution levels are not significantly altered.

It depends on the sort of pollution you're talking about. If you're concerned about CO2, burning alcohol is significantly better than burning petroleum for the reasons I point out above. If you're talking about pollution created by the growing of plants to create the alcohol or the processing of those plants into alcohol then those levels of pollution should be compared to petroleum extraction and refining.

lotusguy said:
Again, you are wrong from the standpoint that you are releasing energy which was stored raising the amount of heat and reflective carbon molecules into the Eco system. When these were in a benign, stored form, they posed no threat. But, once released, this is not the case. In using Hydrogen fuel cell technologies, the only heat released is from friction due to mechanical inefficiencies of the drive system itself which is electrically powered. Burning Hydrogen, while it does create added heat, does not release the heat reflecting hydrocarbons that burning petroleum products do into the atmosphere further aggrevating any 'Global Warming' effect.

You're right there. Burning hydrogen is a clean way of getting energy. The problem is getting the hydrogen in the first place. Until there is at least a theoretical method for getting enough hydrogen to make it a viable and cost-effective fuel, the argument is going to remain an academic one.

Jon Gwynne said:
Why do you refer to carbon compounds as "heat reflecting"? The reason people like Al Gore are upset is that carbon compounds like methan and CO2 are absorbers of heat rather than reflectors of it.

Again, you are correct, except that as with anything, a molecule's heat absorbing abilities are finite. They can only absorb so much heat. After this, many hydrocarbons are larger than the wavelength of infrared energy and thus do in fact reflect this energy.

So, you're saying they are both heat-absorbant and heat-reflective at the same time? Or are you saying that everything rflects heat but the only question is how much it can absord?

Sounds like you're going to an awful lot of trouble to cover up a simple mistake. ;->

lotusguy said:

This bit appears to be your own political view, one which it would seem is in contrast to 'Al Gore's'. Personally, I think they are extremists and I don't follow them at all. My views are based solely upon scientific facts. Hydrogen burning yields only water as it's by-product and some heat. The same is true of fuel-cell technology. One has only to plot the reaction to see this is true. Polictical motivations drive most of the Eco debaters, but it doesn't mean that the underlying fundamental science is wrong. I agree with you that it is optimized to further their cause, but it should be distilled to it's essential facts and reacted to on that basis. It's not sufficient to write it off merely because it's been overblown or overstated. And, I have never quoted any environmental source, my argument is based upon physics and chemistry, not someone's biased opinions.

Fine but you're not looking at the big picture. Hydrogen power may look great on paper because of its obvious advantages but there are practical problems that have to be solved before it can be viable.

lotusguy said:

The problem is caused by many issues and so needs to be addressed with many, rather than a single, solution. You do what you can and this means more efficient cars or even (heaven forbid) better mass transit. This last bit is politically unacceptable, I for one would fight it all the while realizing that it is a 'better' way. I just want the individual freedom of having my own vehicle to go where and when, and how I choose. But, I admit this is not the best solution. And, this means demystifying and de-vilifying some technologies such as nuclear which, while they may present some problems, offer a greater solution than the techniques currently in use. Nuclear energy, be it fission or fusion, will be the energy of the future whether the eco-guerillas like it or not.

Nuclear energy has its own set of serious problems. One of the reasons I'm so dubious about the possibilities of hydrogen power is how effectively those who trumpeted nuclear energy as the "ideal solution" failed to take practical considerations into account. The result is that nuclear energy has a irreparably tarnished reputation and rightfully so.

Nuclear fission is utterly impractical because of insurmountable design problems and waste-disposal. I say "insurmountable" not because it would be impossible to solve these problems at all but rather impossible to solve in a cost-effective manner.

Fusion is even worse. Even if it ever becomes possible to build a plant that would generate enough power to recoup the construction and operation expenses, it would pose unacceptable safety risks that dwarf those of fission reactors.

lotusguy said:

Absolutely no disagreement here. But, it is a separate issue and doesn't justify the argument that nothing be done about pollution, oil depletion and maximizing the efficiency of automobiles. What you describe is a political problem which people, using their power of the vote, must address separately, but no less importantly. But, given people's perpensity to concentrate on 'making their nut' and pursuing leisure pleasure rather than getting informed on issues and acting upon this information, I'm much less optimistic of reform in this area than the reduction of pollution and dependence on fossil fuels.

I never argued that nothing should be done about these problems, just that it is better to do nothing while those who know what they're doing carefully investigate options than it is to do spin off and do something pointless and even possibly counterproductive.

Also, things need to be discussed - even things which are "taboo". Take the drug issue for example. No one is seriously talking about legalizing drugs and so the pointless and idiotic "war on drugs" continues - wasting billions of dollars, costing thousands of lives and yet no politician and precious few voters will seriously discuss any alternatives.

(climbs down off soapbox)

>> Edited by JonGwynne on Tuesday 21st January 10:27