The future of fuel...

[BIGDB]

What do you think the future of fuel is? Every idea from Hydrogen powered cars, to "bringing a star to earth" has been suggested as the next big move in the fuel industry... What do you guys think? What will be first? Which idea will be more successful? Which more revolutionary?

Hhhhmmm?

[Neo]

I was always facinated with... what is it called, Zero-Point Energy?

At any rate, for something more attainable, I really like the alternative fuels that work in... is it Diesal based vehicaled without any modification?

We certainly need to move away from oil/coal based, I mean there isn't an infinite supply of this stuff around.

-Neo

[Yoda]

I don't think that things are going to move away from fuel until they literally run out altogether (considering the Prime minister of the country that I live in). In which case, things would move to probably coal or something. I don't think any of the completely renewable things would get used in my lifetime.

Its a pity that solar energy can't be stored... that would be great if it could.

[Kingscrab]

Well, California seems to be heading in the right direction... :tup:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051214/ap_on_sc/solar_initiative

[Toucan]

At any rate, for something more attainable, I really like the alternative fuels that work in... is it Diesal based vehicaled without any modification?


Bio-diesal it's called mate, made from vegetable oil and ethanol, I will see if I can find a link for it.
Believe it or not, it's not new, it was the fuel that was used when diesal engine's where first invented. Oil based diesal was/is cheaper to make, so thats what became the standard.

Edit: that was easey
http://biodiesel.org/

[EvilEggCracker]

I think that we will probobly move to nuclear power. The only problem with that is that people generally associate nuclear power plants with explosions and nuclear missiles.

[singo]

I was always facinated with... what is it called, Zero-Point Energy?


Yeah, but what the hell is it? All I know about it is that bit in the back of 3001: Final Odyssey.

Nuclear Power is the obvious way forward for now, unfortunately greenpeace and other incoherent arguments are holding back decisions on it. The fact remains that it is non-polluting, cheap(er) despite having inital costs greater than other power stations AND has plenty of reserves.

I fail to understand why people seem convinced that nuclear plants are "accidents waiting to happen" or can explode. They are not and they cant.

Still, the next BIG thing will probably be controlled Nuclear Fusion. Which really IS interesting.

[Kingscrab]

I fail to understand why people seem convinced that nuclear plants are "accidents waiting to happen" or can explode. They are not and they cant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_accidents

This might have something to do with it.

The problem is, when accidents happen in a nuclear plant, they happen big and turn into huge news stories...

[GenocideAlive]

Fusion. Fusion and semi-compulsory, efficient mass transportation is the future.

[Tissue]

I can easily say that the future is cold fusion. You may scoff derision but there are some real breakthroughs going off in this area of physics. Some Candadian scientist manage to create tritium by poassing current tthough water in a special setup of which tritium is a by product of fusion. Also more heat was generated than expected of from resistance heating.

If you are really interested in this sort of area of life I suggest you read the new scientist magazine or an advanced physics magazine. This will probably save you time posting in a furom and you will instead form your own opinions.

[EvilEggCracker]

I thought he just wanted to hear other peoples opinions...

[singo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_accidents

This might have something to do with it.

The problem is, when accidents happen in a nuclear plant, they happen big and turn into huge news stories...

Well, if some arsewit at Chernobyl hadnt decided "Hey, I know, if we turn off all the safety systems we can get more power out of the reactors!" Nuclear Power wouldnt have NEARLY as much bad press.

Of course, Fusion is still probably the best way. That is predictable with current technology, and assuming that laws of conservation of energy hold true.

[Kingscrab]

Well, if some arsewit at Chernobyl hadnt decided "Hey, I know, if we turn off all the safety systems we can get more power out of the reactors!" Nuclear Power wouldnt have NEARLY as much bad press. That's why they're called "accidents". I doubt he turned them off hoping to kill a bunch of people. Even if the guy running the plant is a nitwit, the potential for huge damage is still there. Why don't they fuel space craft with nuclear power? I'm no expert, but if those babies blew up at launch, it would be radioactive trouble...

But i guess you could just as easily argue that electricity kills a lot of people every year.

[GenocideAlive]

Why don't they fuel space craft with nuclear power? I'm no expert, but if those babies blew up at launch, it would be radioactive trouble...
Because it's very difficult to contain that power. It'd be like asking, "Why don't you use a 6cyl motor to power that tricycle? Because if it leaked ignited gas, it'd burn everybody." Nuclear power on a small scale is generally inefficient.

[Kingscrab]

Because it's very difficult to contain that power. It'd be like asking, "Why don't you use a 6cyl motor to power that tricycle? Because if it leaked ignited gas, it'd burn everybody." Nuclear power on a small scale is generally inefficient. True. True.

Okay, let me rephrase. Many people have talked about long range space travel and the possiblity of using a nuclear power source for such a mission. Then i've read random articles stating that this would be too dangerous. Is it because of the reasoning you gave above or because it would be too dangerous to try to transport the components into space for fear that there might be an accident in the atmosphere? (and thus spewing radioactive badness all over the place...)

[GenocideAlive]

Okay, let me rephrase. Many people have talked about long range space travel and the possiblity of using a nuclear power source for such a mission. Then i've read random articles stating that this would be too dangerous.
Materials just sitting around by themselves are hardly dangerous. Usually those components leaking radiation are by and large the least of your worries. If something can crack open the lead mothers that those things are sealed in, then you'd best be worried about what it's going to do to your ship.

The problem with the nuclear power is that, well, it's just so damned complicated. It's a LOT of power, it's a LOT of dangerous materials (once up and running), and it's a LOT of failsafes to guarantee the passenger's safety in the event of something going wrong. If your engine compartment gets FUBAR'd in a particularly catastrophic event (terror-bomb), you've pretty much got two choices: risk losing half of your passengers in a horrible, grisly manner or jettison the engine.

Obviously once you get rid of your engine you can go out there and fix it, but it's going to be a giant dent in your supplies/capabilities to do so. Of course, this is all assuming that you can somehow get another supply of whatever materials you need to get it back up and running in safe condition. Harvestable materials aren't exactly in abundant supply in space, and it's not like you'd fire up a 2 trillion HP engine strapped to your ship if it's got cracks in it.

That's my take. I say do it anyway, though. :)

[Kingscrab]

That's my take. I say do it anyway, though. :) Okay.. that bit actually made me laugh! Nice one!

[BIGDB]

Meh... Sorry, got lost in my own stuff. Anyway, four days later... Here's my big input.

ITER - Bringing a star to earth (http://www.iter.org/)

Building in progress... Good stuff.
Genocide had posted something about that type of energy being inefficient on a small scale... I thought one of the more interesting ideas that had surfaced lately, was the idea of having a "small nuclear power plant" under the hood of your car. After a couple of years, you replace the core and keep on truckin'. I thought it sounded pretty cool myself. Why do you think that something of that nature wouldn't work... If that's the type of usage you were referring to. :)

[singo]

Why don't they fuel space craft with nuclear power?


The pioneer (at least I think its the pioneers) space probes ARE. although they are not full blown nuclear reactors.

Also, "proper" nuclear reactors are bloody heavy, so getting off the ground with one of the buggers is difficult.


Genocide had posted something about that type of energy being inefficient on a small scale... I thought one of the more interesting ideas that had surfaced lately, was the idea of having a "small nuclear power plant"

Fusion plants do need to be over a certain size or they use energy rather than releasing it.

Another good site is www.fusion.org.uk (http://www.fusion.org.uk)

But bunging a small nuclear power system under the car is unfeasable, either it would not move due to all the concrete sheilding or everyone enarby would get radiation poisioning.

[frazz]

But bunging a small nuclear power system under the car is unfeasable, either it would not move due to all the concrete sheilding or everyone enarby would get radiation poisioning.
Not to mention all the nuclear waste.

[william_clinch]

I think they should try and go the way of renewable energy sources
it would be good if they were able to harness the power of lightning, but I've no idea weather it would only be a puny amount compaired to what was needed
Solar pannels also need a lot of work (I think they're only 15% efficent at the momnet)

at the moment, cars running on batterys dont go very far, because batterys cant store that much energy, but I beleive that superconducting matierials will make greatly superior batterys. Vehicles are also not very efficient, of the fule, less than 50% of the energy is converted in to kenetic energy, and engines keep running any useing up fule, even if the vehicle is not moveing (at trafic lights, or in a jam)

So in general, I think renewable energy should be explored, as well as ways of reduceing energy waste

[GenocideAlive]

Are you 13? Because if you are, I need to cut you some slack. But if you're not 13, you really need to step up to the level of the IR, here. Everything you said is either completely salient or tangent-material.

[william_clinch]

How so? everything I've said is relevent to the topic

[singo]

Not to mention all the nuclear waste.

Technically yes, but "all the" is misleading. Very little "waste" is produced by nuclear reactors, and they run for years before you need to take it out anyway. then you need to keep it at the bottom of a swimming pool for twenty years for it to cool down. Self service fuelling stations would become a thing of the past :D

Okay, not a swimming pool, but they do resemble them.


But like I said so little nuclear waste is produced its not really a problem. Especially if it is being used for say, space exploration. Just bung it in a capsule and whang it towards the nearest star/gas giant.

[GenocideAlive]

But like I said so little nuclear waste is produced its not really a problem. Especially if it is being used for say, space exploration. Just bung it in a capsule and whang it towards the nearest star/gas giant.
I'm beginning to question your capability to speak on the matter. I seriously doubt you would put it in any kind of capsule, nor go through the trouble of firing it at any stars. Nearly every stellar body in space produces some sort of radioactivity, so throwing out some waste isn't going to cause any problems. And there's really no need to contain it in anything other than a plastic bag which would be there just so it doesn't splash the ship if repairs needed to be done.

What you're suggesting is the equivalent of putting urine in metal containers to throw them into the ocean while you're on a boating trip.

[singo]

I'm beginning to question your capability to speak on the matter.

Well no I cannot say that I am an expert on interstellar waste disposal, but since not many people are I dont suppose it matters.


What you're suggesting is the equivalent of putting urine in metal containers to throw them into the ocean while you're on a boating trip.

Well, if its rough seas leaning over the side is not an option. and if we assume that spacecraft will follow shipping routes then we do not want heavy elements floating about in them do we?

[GenocideAlive]

and if we assume that spacecraft will follow shipping routes then we do not want heavy elements floating about in them do we?
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were "assuming" that this was for "space exploration". Oh, no, wait, we weren't "assuming", it was what you wrote.

[GrimTerror]

Its not just fuel we need to worry about, our main sources of energy are coming from fossil fuels which will run-out in around 50-80 years time from now. Before then there needs to be some radical changes if the energy demand of the planet is going to be met. A combination of renewable energy sources is probably the best answer there is, but to meet the world's current energy demand i don't think it will be enough.

There are plenty of solutions, but whether the governments will put them into action in time is a different matter. Things like:

-Solar
-Hydro-electric power (HEP)
-Tidal
-Wave
-Wind
-Geothermic

In combination could keep us going, but not all places have condition for them all. Britain can use Wind power, Wave power and Tidal energy being an island (and obviously surrounded by coasts) but wouldn't be able to rely on solar power too much in the winter. Some countries that are near Volcanoes can harness Geothermal energy whereas others could not.

I'd like to see how this issue is resolved, but i probably wont be around when it happens.

[singo]

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were "assuming" that this was for "space exploration". Oh, no, wait, we weren't "assuming", it was what you wrote.

Eh? Was there a point to that post?

[GenocideAlive]

Eh? Was there a point to that post?
Are you intentionally being a fucking hypocritical retard?

[singo]

Could you please stop deliberately misinterpreting the point just to try and score cheap points at other people's expense?

[GenocideAlive]

Could you please stop changing the entire subject to downplay lame coverups of busted gaping holes in your logic?

[singo]

Explain just what you mean by that, point out any major flaws, and then say why you need to insult me about them please.

[GenocideAlive]

Especially if it is being used for say, space exploration.
Well, if its rough seas leaning over the side is not an option. and if we assume that spacecraft will follow shipping routes then we do not want heavy elements floating about in them do we?

Here's the major flaw that has brought us to this very whiney, feigned innocence point. If you can't follow a thread, maybe you shouldn't be in the IR.

[singo]

*Sigh* allow me to clarify and please refrain from deliberately missing the point this time.

Now then, It being used for space exploration. Okay, say that all the waste just gets chucked directly into space. Now, fast forward a hundred or more years, the routes through space that the exploratory missions scouted out are being used by other ships, in much the same way that it happened on earth with sailing ships.

Only occasionally there is several tonnes of heavy elements in ther paths each more than capable of putting a hole in the hull of a ship. After all, it can hardly sink to the bottom can it? And each ship that traverses those lines is now doing the same.

Now, can you imagine the media hue and cry if a passenger ship whangs into a few tonnes of derelict reactor fuel and is destroyed? It would be like the ship that crossed the Atlantic before the Titanic dropping icebergs into the sea.

[william_clinch]

there's also the problem of any waste being knocked back to earth (by colision by any number of things). Even if it some of it burns up in the atmosphere, it may still be a problem

[GenocideAlive]

there's also the problem of any waste being knocked back to earth (by colision by any number of things). Even if it some of it burns up in the atmosphere, it may still be a problem
Um, no. Just...no.
Now then, It being used for space exploration. Okay, say that all the waste just gets chucked directly into space. Now, fast forward a hundred or more years, the routes through space that the exploratory missions scouted out are being used by other ships, in much the same way that it happened on earth with sailing ships.
When sailing ships travel along a Z-axis in an area almost infinitely larger, you will get some idea of the amount of difference in the size of space vs. the size of the ocean. Not to mention that Fusion is much more efficient than Fission, so the amount of waste and its subsequent radioactivity shouldn't be so significant that we should be concerned about it encountering next-generation ships centuries in the future.

At any point that there exists the beginnings of traffic or the frequency of particular "preferred" routes through space, there might sensibly exist protocols for waste disposal. I'm almost certain that at any point traffic through space becomes commonplace, they'd more than certainly advocate storage of the waste until such time that it can be properly disposed of (or recycled), en masse, rather than each ship just randomly jettisoning shit into space.

In short, the waste generated from exploratory routes is by all means negligible and wouldn't even be remotely important until such times that frequency of travel becomes commonplace.

Much like Lewis and Clark probably didn't spend too much time cleaning up after themselves...the littering fucks.

[singo]

Ah, now we are talking.

Via a Vis FUSION then waste is not a problem until such time as the drive needs repairs/decomissioning, as it is the walls of the fusion reactor that get radioactive. I was talking about the use of fission reactors.

And yes, storage would in all likelyhood be a better option.

There, after a rather humourous communications arse up we agree no?

[Cyberspirit]

I did not read the entire thread.

There were all these big recognisable jargons thrown around space threatening to bore holes in the hull of my puny intellect.

So I will answer the thread starter directly.

Pardon me if the following has been mentioned before :

1. Bubble fusion - this is a variation of Cold Fusion.
some scientists believe that a collapsing air bubble inside a special liquid releases heat energy fast enough to initiate nuclear fusion !

The whole apparatus looks something like a normal flask supported by wires.
The liquid in the flask is bombarded with radiation to cause air bubbles to form in it and then collapse.
Imagine a big particle accelerating fusion reactor replaced by a big flask !!!!

2. "Earth energy" - some people believe that certain crystals can absorb ambient energy ( light, heat, sound... ) and store it until specially induced to release that energy.

We can just set these crystals up in special locations and "harvest" the energy from time to time !
Like fuel, this is a form of stored energy.

3. Antimatter - well the theory goes that if a particle and its anti-particle collide, they annihilate each other and all their mass gets converted into energy.

I wonder how we find that much antimatter, and how we store it.
I think if antimatter is ever made, it will more likely be used as weaponry than as fuel.

4. Higgs particles - well this isn't about fuel but it is related to the zero-point energy mentioned before.

It is said that under certain conditions, a large amount of photons, particles and anti-particles can be caused to "pop up" in an area of space, causing that area of space to expand. And if that area of space is over-stretched enough, new particles keep popping up.

Now assuming that even in normal conditions particles constantly and randomly "pop" and " unpop" in space, then there must be a way to increase the " unpopping" and reduce the "popping", thus causing space to shrink.

Now perhaps a spaceship can propel itself forward by shrinking space infront of it and expanding space behind it. To stop, maybe it can reverse the orientation of its "space-warping" drive or set both drives to their normal state.
...
More to come later...
...

Very exaggerated and fantastic, isn't it ?
Yeah, but the theories are being considered by scientists.

I just presented some of their wierder hypotheses here for everybody's amusement.

So GenocideAlive please ignore the logical flaws.
( If you want logic we can all be very logical but I sound very scary when I am into logic. Hehe...)
:D :D :D

[GenocideAlive]

So GenocideAlive please ignore the logical flaws.
( If you want logic we can all be very logical but I sound very scary when I am into logic. Hehe...)
:D :D :D
Yeah, I don't think I'm going to come anywhere near that. I don't have all day to untangle those knots.

[william_clinch]

Never heard of buble energy or the crystal things before, but they dont seem to promising. the crystal thing sounds a bit dodgy, like the kind that you can use to "channel your psychich energy" *cough cough*

Scientists have been able to make anti-matter, but only in tiny quantities, and the amount of energy needed is humongous

and particles dont just pop up out of nowhere, and only very large amounts of paricles can warp space (like black holes)

[Cyberspirit]

I hope you were amused. :D

I will post something more serious when I know more about this subject,

then again I would be subjected to GenocideAlive's "critique".

Not that I dislike her, but she gets obsessed with perfection sometimes.
Meanwhile I will just be content with posting obviously fantastic and exaggerated stuff ( whose theories involved are being considered by scientists ).

[EvilEggCracker]

Not that I dislike her, but she gets obsessed with perfection sometimes.

Amm, isnt Genocide male?

[GenocideAlive]

Amm, isnt Genocide male?
SHhhhh!! You're going to get derided for "critiquing" him!!

[EvilEggCracker]

Oh Noes!!Teh horrorz!

[Spartan-II]

Evil, keep your posts at IR level. (AKA: Actually discussing something.)

The future of fuel is with renewable energy sources. Fusion will be a large provider too, but things like Solar energy and HEP will still add to the energy pool.

[EvilEggCracker]

I dunno, renewable energy. It just doesnt seem to be working. (Well it doesnt seem to be able to produce enough energy anyway). Im still all for Nuclear energy. But what about countries who arent allowed to have a Nuclear program?What will they do?

[william_clinch]

If we create energy from fule in small locations, (powerplants) then natural energy might not provide enough, but if everyones house is able to draw energy from the enviroment, then they can easyly make more than enough enery for everyones needs

There are currently houses like that, and that's with todays current technology, so with future technology, all houses could be better than that

[Spartan-II]

And the post feature would come with a spellcheck. :/

Of course, if each house had it's own power source, we wouldn't have too many energy problems. But think of how expensive it would be in the beginning. It might pay for itself in years, but some people wouldn't have the money in the first place.

[william_clinch]

of course it wouldn't all happen overnight, and with better production methods, the technology will be cheaper. And it's unlikely people will convert fully n one go, they'd probably stay conected to the main power grid, whilst slowly increaceing there own power generateing capacity

[GenocideAlive]

The problem isn't that environmental power sources aren't any good, or aren't cheap enough (though cheap they ain't), but rather than all of them aren't year-round resources. Batteries don't really work, either. For solar cells, cloudy days are days without power. Works the same with wind generators.

[Prozerran]

I'd like to know what Hydrogen has done for fueling automobiles. I've heard arguments both for and against its use. I remember a professor at my college who actually designed his own hydrogen engine for his truck, and the only waste produced was water. I don't know how he did it, but it worked. We walked by his truck on the way to class everyday. Any takers on that?

[Dark_Magneto]

I remember a professor at my college who actually designed his own hydrogen engine for his truck, and the only waste produced was water.

I bet he was gritting teeth everytime his electric bill came in the mail.