| Alternative Fuels and Renewable Engery are also know sometimes as Green Energy. This can consist of Solar Engery, Wind Turbines, Biofuels and Hybrids. The short-sightedness is not investing in the development of alternative fuels, many of which are known right now. Concentrate on developing those and making them economically feasible by mass-producing them, which is all it would take; and then - who cares about oil?"
|
|
The Latest News
|
|
This is the thread at a discussion board (permission granted to reprint here) that started my thinking that a website was desperately needed to dispel the many myths out there about alternative fuels. |
GOP Leaders Urge Oil Industry To Build More Refineries
Oil Companies Expected To Announce Massive Profits
October 26, 2005
CAPITOL HILL -- House Republican leaders are fearful of a voter backlash over huge oil industry profits following record price spikes at the gas pump.
GOP leaders are calling on the oil industry to use its wealth to build new refineries and pipelines. House Speaker Dennis Hastert said the firms need to use huge profits to "invest in America's energy infrastructure and resources."
The largest oil companies are expected to announce in coming days that they made massive profits from July through September. Some analysts predict those profits could top $20 billion.
Congressional Democrats are faulting Republicans for failing to address what many consumers view as price-gouging and have called for a windfall profits tax. They also say legislation approved this month that gave energy firms production incentives was an unneeded subsidy to already cash-rich oil companies.
My question is simply, if we know that they are making a profit, then how do they expect any one to believe for an instant that the infated BS gas prices are anything but an "Enron Energy" type of scam?
20 billion.... O M G!
Not to be political, I am ashamed to admit that I am a Republican and that I cannot wait to see the Republicans all fired for their support of the oil companies and their price gouging along with their support for the bankruptcy bill that passed.
I value my rights, I want to keep what I have, but I cannot turn a blind eye to the blantant self serving nature of many of those who have been elected to office. I know that if the Democratic party wins, not if, when, I will be sad, but given the way the Republicans have conducted themselves in recent months, I would understand.
My good God.... 20 billion dollars! Pardon me but WTF are they thinking? Slap those greedy SOB's around and take their fricking money and give us back what they stoled from us!
Pass legislation that takes immediate and punative action against companies that employ gouging tactics. 20 billion!!!!!!!!!!!! That is just insane!
Perhaps it may be time for price controls or heavy taxation. Problem is, you tax them and they will just raise prices again.
Capitalism works, until you get some greedy SOB who cheats.
They don't need to build more refineries. They just need to re-open ones they voluntarily closed in the not-so-distant past. For example, about a year and a half ago Shell closed one of the largest refineries in the country (it's in California), which was also one of their most profitable ones. Didn't need to be "upgraded", was in great shape, etc. Didn't sell it--they refused to, didn't demolish it....just shut it down.
People act surprised when it comes out the industry has been gouging us. C'mon.
From yesterday's WSJ:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113020184327078349.html?mod=todays_us_money_and_investing
Excerpt:
Oil Firms Seen Soft-Pedaling Record Profits
By RUSSELL GOLD
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
October 25, 2005; Page C1
The world's five biggest oil companies are expected to collectively report record-breaking third-quarter earnings of almost $28 billion beginning this week. Don't expect to hear a lot of crowing.
Energy companies are facing pressure for raking in banner profits while consumers are paying high gasoline prices and are soon expected to face high home-heating bills. The result is that many analysts believe the oil giants will soft-pedal their record earnings. In addition, companies could load up on special charges, such as repairs to hurricane-damaged infrastructure, and emphasize possible marketing losses.
It's not so much cost vs. price as it is supply vs. demand.
Even though it cost the refineries the same amount of money to make that 1 gallon of gasoline, if there are more people who want to buy it than there are available gallons of gasoline, it drives up the price.
The gas stations that NEED to fill their supply for the consumers have to bid against each other for the limited supply from the refineries.
Lets say there are only 400 gallons of gasoline on hand. Two gas stations are running low and both need 400 gallons. The gas stations, in turn, bid for that remaining fuel and the one willing to pay the most for it gets it. That, in turn increases the price at the pump for the gas station that sucessfully obtains the fuel.
The only way to reduce gasoline costs is to increase the output of the refineries. Since all the US refinerys have been running at 110% capacity for the past year, two things have happened. The existing refineries are starting to break down because they can't be taken off-line for maintenance long enough and the storms causing shutdowns of nearly 40% of US refineries put a crimp on supply for a time.
The truth is, we have plenty of oil. We have tons of it stockpiled. As a matter of record, the Saudi's and North Africa have been shipping us more oil than we have the ability to refine...so the choke point is in the conversion of light-sweet (which means low sulphur content) crude into usable fuels.
The government has actually restricted the building of new refineries for the past 20 years. Activist groups and other environmentalists don't want any new refineries built and have lobbied local, State and Federal agencies to quash any new ones being built. Well that was very short-sighted since now we don't have enough refineries to meet demand!
I have read that 24 refineries have closed since '94. Was there something wrong with these refineries, or was it just the oil companies' way of decreasing supply to increase profits?
Methuss wrote:
The truth is, we have plenty of oil. We have tons of it stockpiled. As a matter of record, the Saudi's and North Africa have been shipping us more oil than we have the ability to refine...so the choke point is in the conversion of light-sweet (which means low sulphur content) crude into usable fuels.
I must disagree. Even Shell Oil has said that they have not been able to find renewable resources to keep up current output. I have heard from other places (forgive me for not knowing the precise source) that we will be in a shortage by 2040.
Methuss wrote:
The government has actually restricted the building of new refineries for the past 20 years. Activist groups and other environmentalists don't want any new refineries built and have lobbied local, State and Federal agencies to quash any new ones being built. Well that was very short-sighted since now we don't have enough refineries to meet demand!
Actually, IMHO, the short-sightedness is not investing in the development of alternative fuels, many of which are known right now. Concentrate on developing those and making them economically feasible (by mass-producing them, which is all it would take) and then - who cares about oil?
Barbara Walters did an interview with the current ruling prince of Saudi Arabia just two weeks ago. In that interview it was confirmed that the US indeed is receiving more oil right now than we can process through the refineries. (40% of oil in the US is refined into gasoline)
It was also divulged that Saudi Arabia -- which holds 25% of the world's oil reserves -- has approximately 50 years worth of oil left at current usage rates, before their wells run dry.
I agree we need alternatives to oil. But all they've been able to bring to market so far are hybrids...which isn't the answer. Hybrids only save fuel in city driving where they can tap the electrical system. They consume fuel at the same rate as any other vehicle in highway driving where the electric motor doesn't even run.
Hydrogen is not only unavailable at your local fill-up station, but it is incredibly dangerous. Gasoline is bad enough, but if you get into a wreck with a tank full of hydrogen, there won't be enough left to scrape into a petri dish.
Methane is nearly as bad as hydrogen as far as safety goes.
Ethanol, and other biodiesels/alcohols, has it's own problems. Mainly that as they burn they create varnishes that muck up the internal workings of the engine. Sure the fuel is renewable, but having to replace an entire engine every 50,000 miles because it's mechanics are messed up isn't very economical or environmentally friendly either.
And none of the above addresses the further issue that you still need oil to lubricate the moving parts and to create consumables like wiper blades and tires.
The most practical solution to replace combustion engines would be a micro-fusion reactor powering a closed liquid system electrical generator. The problem is no one can do it right now. The fusion process creates so much heat that it melts every known material used for construction of mechanical devices. Scientists have only been able to produce micro-fusion in small test systems by suspending the reaction in a magnetic field for a few seconds before the magnetic fields break down. A sustainable magnetic field to contain the fusion reaction has yet to be achieved. If they can manage to accomplish this feat of quantum engineering, then it would be practical. Your car would become your trash disposal...eliminating another environmental problem...just dump your non recyclable trash into the micro-fusion reactor and let it use that for fuel. The failsafe to prevent disaster in a wreck would be a simple catalyst that stops the reaction if the containment field breaks down.
Forgive me, but this one of my specialties as an engineer, so I can't resist responding.
Methuss wrote:
Barbara Walters did an interview with the current ruling prince of Saudi Arabia just two weeks ago. In that interview it was confirmed that the US indeed is receiving more oil right now than we can process through the refineries. (40% of oil in the US is refined into gasoline)
The operative word is now.
Methuss wrote:
It was also divulged that Saudi Arabia -- which holds 25% of the world's oil reserves -- has approximately 50 years worth of oil left at current usage rates, before their wells run dry.
Yes, of course they are saying this, they are the suppliers. But let's ignore this for now. The word is *current* usage rates - they didn't factor in China and India, which are projected to outstrip US demand in less than 10 years. So what does this say? The world's consumption will at the very least TRIPLE in 10 years. The need to find an alternative source could not be more pressing.
Quote:
I agree we need alternatives to oil. But all they've been able to bring to market so far are hybrids...which isn't the answer. Hybrids only save fuel in city driving where they can tap the electrical system. They consume fuel at the same rate as any other vehicle in highway driving where the electric motor doesn't even run.
If you modify a hybrid to add batteries and the ability to run only on batteries alone, and charge the battery (at a cost of 25 cents per night), you can get 100-250 mpg. There is a professor at UCLA who has modded a Suburan to get this kind of gas mileage. You may also be interested in this website:
http://www.calcars.org/
Methuss wrote:
Hydrogen is not only unavailable at your local fill-up station, but it is incredibly dangerous. Gasoline is bad enough, but if you get into a wreck with a tank full of hydrogen, there won't be enough left to scrape into a petri dish.
It is not dangerous, as has been proven by the many government vechicles in California (and regular public ones) also in that state. Hydrogen is available here in Phoenix for fueling up and in a number of public stations in California. In addition. The technology currently exists to extract hydrogen as is needed by a hydrogen-based vechicle on demand from methanol. The technology is not new, it's been around since the 70's. The gov of California (yes, Arnie) drives a hydrogen-based Hummer.
Methuss wrote:
Methane is nearly as bad as hydrogen as far as safety goes.
There are also many propane vechicles on the road, which truthfully, I am not that excited about, as well as the ones which use natural gas (also a source of on-demand hydrogen). Propane is just as explosive as methane, but here in Phoenix, many city buses run on it.
Methuss wrote:
Ethanol, and other biodiesels/alcohols, has it's own problems. Mainly that as they burn they create varnishes that muck up the internal workings of the engine. Sure the fuel is renewable, but having to replace an entire engine every 50,000 miles because it's mechanics are messed up isn't very economical or environmentally friendly either.
Actually, Willie Nelson's bio-diesal company is currently selling this fuel in Texas and big-rig truckers are lining up as it is cheaper than diesal from oil, and they report no problems. Europeans have been using biodiesal in their unmodified Mercedes and Jettas for years with no adverse effects. The story about mucking up the engines is a total myth - prolly put out by the oil companies.
Methuss wrote:
And none of the above addresses the further issue that you still need oil to lubricate the moving parts and to create consumables like wiper blades and tires.
Actually, this is not true either, there are many plant based oils used as lubricants (Mobil1 oil is one of them - a synthetic oil commercially available for years), and also, plastics are currently being made out of soybeans. So there is really no need for oil.
Methuss wrote:
The most practical solution to replace combustion engines would be a micro-fusion reactor powering a closed liquid system electrical generator. The problem is no one can do it right now. The fusion process creates so much heat that it melts every known material used for construction of mechanical devices. Scientists have only been able to produce micro-fusion in small test systems by suspending the reaction in a magnetic field for a few seconds before the magnetic fields break down. A sustainable magnetic field to contain the fusion reaction has yet to be achieved. If they can manage to accomplish this feat of quantum engineering, then it would be practical. Your car would become your trash disposal...eliminating another environmental problem...just dump your non recyclable trash into the micro-fusion reactor and let it use that for fuel. The failsafe to prevent disaster in a wreck would be a simple catalyst that stops the reaction if the containment field breaks down.
You are right, this is one alternative not yet figured out, but from my post, I hope you see there are many other options.
It also costs more energy to produce biodiesel than you save. As far as plugging the car in at night, where do you think the electricity is coming from? Instead of the vehicle making pollution and burning fuel, the power plant does.
Until a new technology comes out, you are relatively restricted in alternative fuels.
Natural gas is dangerous for vehicles, as is any pressurized gas. Look up the term BLEVE. Besides, increased demand will cause higher prices.
Solar is a nice novelty, but not feasible for widespread use.
Nuclear is viable, but unpopular.
Coal, especially in the new clean burning combined cycle plants, is a good way to go, especially since the US has an abundant supply.
Methuss wrote:
Then you are not talking about a hybrid but an electric. If it still runs on gasloine in any way, you're still gonna eventually run out of petroleum. It only prolongs the inevitable.
Yes, still talking about hybrids. It runs in electric mode for 30-50 miles, then the rest of the way on electric/gas mode. True, this method does rely on gas, but it does get more out of gasoline than now - plus, they are developing hybrids which run on bio-fuels as well. The point is that we can't just say "let's increase our oil refining capacity" as a solution.
Methuss wrote:
Not sure where this came from but hydrogen is one of the most explosive raw substances known. We used to collect hydrogen in chem-lab and ignite it with a spark. The resulting explosion is fast, and powerful; and just a 1 liter bottle worth of gaseous hydrogen was enough to create a shockwave powerful enough to knock everything off the tables for a 20 foot radius. (we couldn't hear too well after that for a day or to either Laughing )
Where did this come from? I didn't just make it up, I've been studying it for a year. It is a technology currently used by the California government on some of their municipal vechicles. I know that hydrogen is volatile, but so is gas (I know not as much) and propane is certainly as explosive as hydrogen. It is being used successfully now.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3180817/
http://ch2bc.org/Tech_Corner.htm
Methuss wrote:
Diesel fuel has to be mixed with oil. You don't use diesel fuel straight. What comes out of the pumps at filling stations is pre-mixed. Race-car engines use straight alcohol, which is why they are good for 1 race before they must be rebuilt.
Not true in the least. Obviously you haven't ever seen the diesal cars runs which have never touched a drop of oil. Diesal is mixed with diesal. Check this out:
http://www.wnbiodiesel.com/technology.html
You need to check your facts. Renewal energy has come a long way in the past 10 years.
Just to state up front, my background is in mechanical and aerospace engineering. I know what I'm talking about.
divemedic wrote:
It also costs more energy to produce biodiesel than you save.
Not true, the cost of producing bio-diesal is less than gas or oil-based diesal. Bio-diesal is selling for 60 cents cheaper in TEXAS than oil-based diesal.
http://www.wnbiodiesel.com/technology.html
divemedic wrote:
As far as plugging the car in at night, where do you think the electricity is coming from? Instead of the vehicle making pollution and burning fuel, the power plant does.
This is true in some cases. However, in Arizona, we don't burn fossil fuels as much as we use: nuclear power is tops, solar (yes, Arizona Public Service gets 10% of its power from solar energy), and hydro-electric (we get some from Hoover Dam, the rest goes to Vegas). We also get hydro-electric from our Salt River System. Fossil-fuel burning is less than 20%.
divemedic wrote:
Natural gas is dangerous for vehicles, as is any pressurized gas. Look up the term BLEVE. Besides, increased demand will cause higher prices.
Natural gas is used in many of the municipal vechicles, as well as propane in Arizona. It is totally feasible.
divemedic wrote:
Solar is a nice novelty, but not feasible for widespread use.
Not true, see above, on my reference to our Power company. Toshiba has just opened a solar panel manufacturing plant in Tennessee. Sharp and Kyocera have invested heavily in this technology. A small company which has just made a break through in the production of cheap thin-film solar panels is called Nanosolar. Major investors in Nanosolar are the starters of Google:
http://www.nanosolar.com/
divemedic wrote:
Coal, especially in the new clean burning combined cycle plants, is a good way to go, especially since the US has an abundant supply.
We should immediately abandon this form of fuel due to the toxic effects not only on the miners who work in the mines but also the effects on the environment.
How can we accurately calculate supply and demand when they are in control of the numbers?
Sorry to beat this dead, but:
http://www.hydrogennow.org/Facts/Safety.htm
The Nature of Hydrogen:
Hydrogen is less flammable than gasoline. The self-ignition temperature of hydrogen is 550 degrees Celsius. Gasoline varies from 228-501 degrees Celsius, depending on the grade. When the Hindenburg burned, it took some time before the hydrogen bags were ignited.
Hydrogen disperses quickly. Being the lightest element (fourteen times lighter than air), hydrogen rises and spreads out quickly in the atmosphere. So when a leak occurs, the hydrogen gas quickly becomes so sparse that it cannot burn. Even when ignited, hydrogen burns upward, and is quickly consumed. By contrast, materials such as gasoline and diesel vapors are heavier than air, and will not disperse, remaining a flammable threat for much longer. Hydrogen is a non-toxic, naturally-occurring element in the atmosphere. By comparison, all petroleum fuels are poisonous to humans.
Hydrogen combustion produces only water. When pure hydrogen is burned in pure oxygen, only pure water is produced. Granted, that’s an ideal scenario, which doesn’t occur outside of laboratories and the space shuttle. In any case, when a hydrogen engine burns, it actually cleans the ambient air, by completing combustion of the unburned hydrocarbons that surround us. Compared with the toxic compounds (carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and hydrogen sulfide) produced by petroleum fuels, the products of hydrogen burning are much safer.
Hydrogen can be stored safely. Tanks currently in use for storage of compressed hydrogen (similar to compressed natural gas tanks) have survived intact through testing by various means, including being shot with six rounds from a .357 magnum, detonating a stick of dynamite next to them, and subjecting them to fire at 1500 degrees F. Clearly, a typical gasoline tank wouldn’t survive a single one of these tests.
DocDon wrote:
How can we accurately calculate supply and demand when they are in control of the numbers?
There are "impartial" commissions and scientific communities around the world who are basically saying the same thing. What scares me is when an oil company like Shell hints that there is trouble ahead.
There's no question it's going to run out.
I mean these so-called shortages (sounds a lot like the rolling blackout scam) that do nothing but rake in the cash for the oil companies. Are we really naive to think they'll actually do something with that money to help the situation?
Er. You're an engineer...the temperature of a spark is...
Granted that temperature is dependant upon the material that discharged the electrons, but the range in typical automobile materials is 1800 degrees centigrade (copper) to 3800 degrees centigrade (EDM/Graphite).
As you point out the Hindenburg was a nice bright ball of fire from a simple static discharge in it's containment area. So hot it melted the steel girders into puddles in mere minutes.
None of the tests listed (bullets, dynamite, and fire) are even remotely similar to the forces exerted during a severe crash. I can tell you for a fact that 300 tons of packed commuter train striking a car at 60 miles per hour is far more force than a stick of dynamite. I've been in the presence of more than one wreck like that and I can tell you TNT would have done far less damage. (military pilot...so I do know my explosives) We have a bomb in the airforce called a daisycutter. It's basically a big hydrogen/fuel can with a sparkplug on it. It can level a square mile.
BTW, I'm having a 10kw solar system put on the roof of my new house that is being built. State pays for half and the rest is depreciated as a tax deduction over the next 5 years. Because Federal law requires power companies to allow you to connect into the grid, the power company has to pay you for any excess electricity that you don't use which gets sent back into the public grid. Very Happy Next year, I won't be having any electricity bills anymore. So I'm all for solar/wind use at home.
Just one more time... Smile And I really would like you to read up on the cars that are running on both hydrogen and propane.... *sigh*
The Facts on the Hindenburg Disaster:
1. The bags of hydrogen that provided the lifting force for the Hindenburg were NOT the main contributor to the fire. The surface of the ship was coated with a combination of dark iron oxide and reflective aluminum paint. These components are extremely flammable and burn at a tremendously energetic rate once ignited. The skin of the airship was ignited by electrical discharge from the clouds while docking during an electrical storm. This reaction has been proven chemically for years, and was demonstrated with actual remnants of the Hindenburg sixty years later, which burned as vigorously as on the day of the disaster.
2. The hydrogen burned quickly, safely, above the occupants. When the escaping hydrogen was ignited by the burning skin of the airship, it burned far above the airship, and was completely consumed within 60 seconds of the ignition. During this period of time, the airship descended to the ground from the 150-foot docking tower.
3. Almost all deaths were caused by jumping or falling from the airship. Of the 35 deaths from the disaster, 33 were caused by jumping or falling. Only two deaths were caused by burning, and it is likely that those two were from proximity to the burning skin of the airship, or from the stores of diesel fuel that were ignited by the covering. Whereas the hydrogen burned within one minute of ignition, the diesel fires burned for up to ten hours after the ignition.
4. The Hindenburg would have burned if it had been filled with inert helium gas. Even if the Hindenburg had not been lifted by hydrogen, the ignition of the covering would still have happened, and would then have set ablaze the diesel stores, resulting in the same disaster.
5. The main cause of the disaster was pilot error. The only way to prevent the disaster would have been if the pilot had chosen to land in better conditions elsewhere, which was very feasible, considering he had had enough fuel remaining to reach all the way to California.
Good for you on the solar panels... two thumbs up Thumbs Up!
Too much reading for someone half-dead (man, ain't hypoglycemia grand?) but there are some things I noticed wrong as I was skimming.
Meth is right--hydrogen powered cars are not only somewhat dangerous (they can't take a collision at 50 miles per hour directly to certain parts of the vehicle), but incredibly expensive. Arnold never got his Hummer retrofitted with a hydrogen engine like he claimed he would. The reason? It was going to cost over $100,000 to do it. One car. About 6 people would buy a $30,000 car that cost $130,000 if they went to market.
Biodiesel is NOT cheaper than regular diesel. Out here we have one place that sells biodiesel...for $4.70 a gallon. Regular diesel runs 2.85.
The most logical solution is a hybrid that runs off natural gas--cars have been running off that for close to 20 years now, one can fill up at their home, it's safe, efficient, and there's a ton of it out there to draw from. The problem is, it's not profitable for the industry (you can buy it at gas stations for around 35 cents a gallon), so they don't want to promote it.
the market determines the price. that about sums it up.
there was quite a shortage of gas here in the florida panhandle after hurricane katrina. gas jumped up about $1.50 overnight and there were still lines at the pumps.
if i'm given the choice to pay $3.50 per gallon and be able to wait 15 mins in line to completely fill up my tank, i'll take that over paying $2.20 per gallon and waiting in line for hours, only to have the station run out.
of course the oil companies are going to make a larger profit as a result of this.
what i think they should do is:
1. ration the supply
2. provide car manufacturers insentives to produce more hybrids (the kind that don't need to be plugged in via using the energy wasted when one breaks to power up the battery).
3. give a larger tax credit to those who purchase hybrids. (there is a tax credit right now, isn't there?)
Xanathos wrote:
Biodiesel is NOT cheaper than regular diesel. Out here we have one place that sells biodiesel...for $4.70 a gallon. Regular diesel runs 2.85.
In Texas it is cheaper. California/Oregon is always more expensive. Cool
What does it take, guys??!! I've presented so many facts here - hydrogen cars are safe and efficient. They are proven! There are cars right now that are running on it - gasoline is more volatile than hydrogen.
There is no conclusive evidence on the cause of the Hindenburg disaster. Here's the poop from the History Channel:>
Although the evidence is by no means conclusive, a reasonably strong case can be made for an alternative theory that the fire was started by a spark caused by static buildup. Proponents of the "static spark" theory point that the airship's skin was not constructed in a way that allowed its charge to be evenly distributed, and the skin was separated from the aluminium frame by nonconductive ramie cords. A potential difference between the wet Zeppelin and the ground may have been created. The ship passed through a weather front where the humidity was high. This made the mooring lines wet and therefore conductive. As the ship moved through the air, its skin may have become charged. When the wet mooring lines connected to the aluminium frame touched the ground, they would have grounded the aluminium frame. The grounding of the frame may thus have caused an electrical discharge to jump from the skin to the grounded frame. Some witnesses reported seeing a glow consistent with St. Elmo's fire along the tail portion of the ship just before the flames broke out, although these reports were made after the official inquiry was completed.
Another popular theory put forward referred to the film footage taken during the disaster, in which the Hindenburg can be seen taking a rather sharp turn prior to bursting into flames. Some experts speculate that one of the many bracing wires within the structure of the airship may have snapped and punctured the fabric of one or more of the internal gas cells. They refer to gauges found in the wreckage that showed that the tension of the wires was much too high. The punctured cells would have allowed hydrogen out of the Hindenburg, which could have been ignited by the static discharge mentioned previously. This, however, remains speculation, because no concrete evidence has shown that the gas cells were punctured, and no eyewitness accounts back up this hypothesis.
Initial fuel for combustion
Most current analysis of the accident assumes that the static spark theory is correct. There is still a debate, however, as to whether the fabric itself or the hydrogen used for buoyancy was the fuel for the initial fire.
Proponents of the "flammable fabric" theory, first posited by Addison Bain in 1997, point out that the coatings on the fabric contained both iron oxide and aluminium-impregnated cellulose acetate butyrate dope. Cellulose acetate butyrate dope is known to be flammable, and iron oxide is well-known to react with aluminium powder. In fact, iron oxide and aluminium are sometimes used as components of solid rocket fuel or thermite. (However, the oft-cited claim that the ship was "coated in rocket fuel" is a significant overstatement.) While the coating components were potentially reactive, they were separated by a layer of material that should have prevented the reaction from starting.
After the disaster, the Zeppelin company's engineers determined this skin material, used only on the Hindenburg, was more flammable than the skin used on previous craft and changed the composition for future designs. Nonetheless, the Hindenburg had flown for over a year (and through several lightning storms) with no reports of adverse chemical reactions, much less fires on the fabric.
The proponents of the "flammable fabric" theory also point to fact that the naturally odorless hydrogen gas in the Hindenburg was "odorised" with garlic so that any leaks could be detected, and that there were no reports of garlic odors during the flight or prior to the fire. Again the proponents of the flammable fabric theory invoke that observation while elsewhere claiming that hydrogen and its resulting fire escapes and burns upwards. The Hindenburg was also seen to stay aloft for a relatively long amount of time after the fire started, instead of immediately tilting and falling as it would have if the hydrogen cells were ruptured.
Rate of flame propagation
The proponents of the "flammable fabric" theory also contend that the fabric coatings were responsible for the rapid spread of the flames. They point out that hydrogen burns invisibly (emitting light in the UV range), so the visible flames (see photo) of the fire could not have been caused by the hydrogen gas. Also, motion picture films show downward burning.
Opponents of the "flammable fabric" theory point out that once the fire started, all of the components of the ship (fabric, gas, metal, etc.) burned. So, while it may be that the combustion of the metal and fabric changed the color of the flame, the presence of color does not imply that hydrogen did not also burn. Further, while all fires generally tend to burn upward, including hydrogen fires, the enormous radiant heat from the burning of all of the materials of the ship would have quickly led to ignition over the entire surface of the ship, thus explaining the downward propagation of the flames.
Further, the recent technical papers point out that even if the ship had been coated with typical rocket fuel (as is often stated in the press), it would have taken many hours to burn—not the 34 seconds that it actually took.
Also, a set of modern experiments that recreates the fabric and coating materials contradicts the "flammable fabric" theory. These experiments conclude that it would have taken about 40 hours for the Hindenburg to have burned if the fire had been driven by a fabric fire. The actual burn time was 37 seconds. These experiments, as well as other industrial tests of the coating materials, conclude that the covering materials were combustible but nonflammable. Two additional scientific papers also strongly reject the "flammable fabric theory".
Since there is no conclusive evidence on the Hindenburg, it's a bad example to use for either side of this debate. I list this here and highlight the alternative points to previous discussion just to clarify that it isn't set in stone what happened to the airship.
1) You're safer if your gas tank ruptures than if your hydrogen tank ruptures--if your hydrogen tank ruptures, you're screwed.
2) As I said...it costs too much to produce and sell hydrogen engines. My car is worth about 40 grand...if I walked onto the lot the day I got it and they tried to sell it to me for a HUNDRED and forty grand under the guise that I'd save all this money in fuel, I woulda been laughing so hard as I left the lot I probably would have gotten into a wreck due to getting a cramp in my side.
I mean hell, the industry is having a hard time selling people on this hybrid technology at a 10,000 premium. People see that they can buy an Escape for 20 grand...but get this 50 mpg hybrid for starting at 30...guess which one is still selling better. Now try comparing 20 grand vs. 120 grand.
Xanathos wrote:
1) You're safer if your gas tank ruptures than if your hydrogen tank ruptures--if your hydrogen tank ruptures, you're screwed.
NOT TRUE!!
"BMW conducted numerous crash tests to see what would happen if the hydrogen tank was punctured or damaged. Their engineers report the liquid hydrogen dissipated harmlessly into the air."
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/science/03/16/hydrogen.cars/#3
For other results which should convince you:
http://www.bellona.no/en/energy/hydrogen/report_6-2002/22966.html
Xanathos wrote:
2) As I said...it costs too much to produce and sell hydrogen engines. My car is worth about 40 grand...if I walked onto the lot the day I got it and they tried to sell it to me for a HUNDRED and forty grand under the guise that I'd save all this money in fuel, I woulda been laughing so hard as I left the lot I probably would have gotten into a wreck due to getting a cramp in my side.
Absolutely true - now. That's only because these vechicle are NOT mass-produced. We need to start switching now so we can make this an affordable option, which is what I have been saying.
Hydrogen not flammable? Tell that to the crew of the Challenger.
The issue is not the auto ignition temperature, that is when the material ignites with no source of ignition. A source of ignition is often present in the real world.
The flammable limits of hydrogen are 4% to 75%. The flash point is -75 deg F.
Gasoline flammable limits are 1.4% to 7.6%. Flash point is -50 degF.
Propane flammable limits are 2.1% to 9.5%. Flash point is -156 degF.
Hydrogen has a wider flammable range than gasoline and propane, and a lower flash point than gasoline.
*Sigh*
Ok, I was an engineer on the Space Shuttle Oxidizer Turbo Pump in 1986. I performed detailed analyses of the accident as part of my job and find ways to make it (the turbopump) safer (which was a joke - more of that later).
I can tell you the precise cause of the Challenger explosion. The Challenger accident was caused by failure of the sealing mechanisms in the solid fuel system, which provided extra propulsion during takeoff, which caused the hydrogen tanks to rip, and the vechicle to be destroyed. At the point the end results would have been the same, whether or not the hydrogen tank exploded.
However, the explosion afterwards yes, it indirectly involved Hydrogen - BUT also the presense of PURE Oxygen, both in highly compressed pure forms. When Oxygen and Hydrogen combine (to form water) and in such massive amounts, then, yes, there would be an explosion. This is NOTHING like the conditions in a car. In a car crash, the hydrogen gas would merely escape into the atmosphere, as has been demonstrated time and time again.
Hydrogen in cars is SAFER, SAFER, SAFER than gasoline, PERIOD, end of story.
Hydrogen car to the left Gasoline car to the right
A picture from a video which compared fire from a leak in a gasoline engine car and the same kind of leak from a hydrogen car. The pictures are taken at one minute after ignition. The hydrogen flame has begun to subside, the gasoline fire is intensifying. After 100 seconds, all the hydrogen was gone and the interior of the car was undamaged. The gasoline car continued to burn for a long time and was totally damaged.[Swain 2001]
In 1958 the company Arthur D. Little carried out a series of detonation tests involving discharges of LH2 in quantities ranging from 5 litres up to almost 20,000 litres. The tests confirmed that hydrogen never detonated from impact – not even when bullets were shot through the tank.
You're missing the point. We're not talking about a LEAK. In a severe collision, the tank would crack open like an eggshell. I've seen cast iron engine blocks crack in collisions where the material was over 4 inches thick; stainless steel tubular frames bent like twizzlers; aluminum honeycomb structures that are supposed to be stronger than steel broken into pieces like shattered glass. No structre survives a severe collision unscathed.
All it takes is a small spark when the tank cracks open and BOOM. It's like throwing a can of hairspay in a fire. The photo as proof of safety is, frankly, rediculous. That shows a puncture or maybe a valve malfunction, not what happens when the car gets slammed from behind by a semi-truck at 50 mph.
Your own link provided to bellona.com says this:
"Hydrogen creates flammable and explosive mixtures of air over a broad spectre (see Table 5). These mixtures need very little energy to ignite."
I'd say that's pretty dangerous. That's also why the federal government regulates the transportation of Hydrogen by requiring transport trucks to be properly labeled for carrying explosive contents and the drivers of such transport trucks must be specially licensed to transport class 1 explosives.
The secret is to enclose the tank - they do this for refilling SCBA and SCUBA tanks - in a "blast tank" so to speak.
If a collision is strong enough to damage the tank inside the protective chamber, then chances are you won't survive the accident anyway.
Also have to consider with current technology that some of these humongo SUV's can hold close to 50 gallons of gas. Since fuel tanks are designed to rupture and not explode (like they did on CHIP's), imagine knocking over a 55 gallon drum of fuel and igniting it.
Who's to say that all those police officers who died in their Crown Vics when the fuel tanks ruputred may have survived an impact with a protected fuel cell... Question
The rumor right now is that the oil companies are manipulating the efficiency of gas in order to force people to buy more. You can tell if your gas mileage has gone down and you have to buy more gas than you normally need too. We have noticed it here where I live and many people have raised the question; "Why isn't the Government doing anything?"
It has been widely theorized that Car manufactures have an agreements in place with the oil companies to limit the mileage of new engines in order to keep the demand for oil high. In exchange the oil companies have engineered their products to fail sooner thus causing expensive repairs. Ever wonder why they say your cars oil is only good for about 3,000 miles? Who normally, prior to independent lube shop, did you have change your oiled on your car? The dealership.
I recall reading at some point that way back in the mid 70's an inventor working in his back yard shop made one of the first EFI carburetion systems. It was so efficient that Ford bought his patent and then sat on the technology. It was even reported that they destroyed the prototype.
A really dumb question is this, if we can make synthetic oils, why can we not make a synthetic fuel?
As to bio-fuels, only those that are alcohol based, like ethonohol, really damage engines.. And they don't do it as badly as you might think. The real problem with them are the chemicals they use to refine the product, and the fact that there is no way in hell that we could ever produce enough corn to meet the nation wide demand that gasoline currently fills.
Bio-Diesel (sp) is a great short-term expensive alternative. But it too could never fill the demand. (And now that it has been getting some notoriety, the price for bio-diesel has jumped up to three times that of regular diesel.)
There is a mathematician; I forget his name that has a book out that explains the Oil Bell Curve and how one-day demand and growth will lead to our extinction. The dwindling oil reserves are but a symptom of a much greater problem that one-day will lead to a new dark age.
For example, if 10 people were stranded on an island with enough supplies to last 10 years, how long would it take 1 of them to figure out that if he bumped off the other 9, he would have enough supplies to last a 100 years?
The problem is one that will continue to expand as the world’s population continues to grow. In twenty-five years the world population will be into the seven billion mark. Twenty five years after that, it will be near 10 billion, twenty five years later it will be 20 billion and so on.
Growth becomes exponential. If you had a bottle and you drop a jelly bean into it every minute, doubling the amount each time, (1, 2, 4, 8, 16, etc) and it took you 30 minutes to reach the halfway point, how many minutes would it take you to fill the bottle?
Sarris wrote:
The rumor right now is that the oil companies are manipulating the efficiency of gas in order to force people to buy more. You can tell if your gas mileage has gone down and you have to buy more gas than you normally need too.
Yeah I have noticed that. It's possible the octane rating is not what it is supposed to be, which will reduce mileage considerably. The octane rating is tested by State officials usually only once per year.
Weather can also affect mileage. As the on-board fuel injection computer adjusts for changes in weather it may burn more fuel than usual during the fall months as it adjusts to the higher air density and moisture levels.
Ethanol content also can reduce engine efficiency. I know this first-hand. In Illinois gasoline is padded with 10% ethanol. My Eclipse GTS runs like crap on regular with Ethanol. I drove to Michigan where there is no Ethanol in the gas at all and my car ran much better on plain old 87 octane. It wasn't just a wee-bit better. It was very noticable.
Methuss, in a severe car crash, the H2 gas would expell into the atmosphere and not ignite. This has been proven. There is NO danger. I think YOU are missing the point.
I disagree. Any time you have a pressurized, combustible gas, you have the potential for a BLEVE.
The temperatures and conditions you are referring to are for SELF ignition. The pages you are getting your information from are not including data on external ignition causes.
IWith a flammable range from 4% to 75%, you do not need pure oxygen to sustain a fire, being that the atmosphere contains 20.9% oxygen anyway. I think it is far understating the problem by saying there is no danger.
As far as biodiesel, you have to remember that the fuel being produced by Willie Nelson is recycled oil from restaurants. I agree that recyling used cooking oil into fuel is 50% cheaper than producing diesel. However, when attempting to produce bio-diesel from raw product (corn, soy beans, etc.) the costs rise to the point where it is not feasible.
I doubt there is enough used cooking oil (even though we do eat alot of fried food!) to supply America's fuel needs.
divemedic wrote:
I disagree. Any time you have a pressurized, combustible gas, you have the potential for a BLEVE.
The temperatures and conditions you are referring to are for SELF ignition. The pages you are getting your information from are not including data on external ignition causes.
IWith a flammable range from 4% to 75%, you do not need pure oxygen to sustain a fire, being that the atmosphere contains 20.9% oxygen anyway. I think it is far understating the problem by saying there is no danger.
OK, I guess a large block of empirical evidence and research showing that hydrogen gas does not explode upon impact doesn't mean anything. This is not opinion, it's fact.
And yes, if it ignites, it does catch on fire, but you are totally discounting the fact that hydrogen is lighter than air and rapidly dissipates into the atmosphere. That's why hydrogen engines are safer than gas ones - gas hangs out and burns the immediate environment, where hydrogen escapes immediately.
divemedic wrote:
As far as biodiesel, you have to remember that the fuel being produced by Willie Nelson is recycled oil from restaurants. I agree that recyling used cooking oil into fuel is 50% cheaper than producing diesel. However, when attempting to produce bio-diesel from raw product (corn, soy beans, etc.) the costs rise to the point where it is not feasible.
Wrong again, the Europeans are already doing it.
divemedic wrote:
I doubt there is enough used cooking oil (even though we do eat alot of fried food!) to supply America's fuel needs.
It's one of the alt fuel sources. The potential for growing enough fuel is there. We can also make biodieasal from the inedible parts of corn and soybeans. Another is solar, which would power electric cars and provide an additional energy boost to hybrids. Another is wind, which would power electric cars.
Exxon released theirs today. 9.9 billion dollars in net profit for the last quarter alone. To put that in perspective, that's more than everything they made in the entire YEAR of 2003.
That's not supply and demand. That's gouging and price fixing. Government really needs to look into this.
Xanathos wrote:
Exxon released theirs today. 9.9 billion dollars in net profit for the last quarter alone. To put that in perspective, that's more than everything they made in the entire YEAR of 2003.
That's not supply and demand. That's gouging and price fixing. Government really needs to look into this.
Ya, but how much of that 9.9 billion is going to go towards greasing some palms? Money talks, everything else walks.
Profits Likely Won't Mean New Refineries
October 28, 2005
WASHINGTON - Don't expect the oil industry to boost fuel production merely to deflect criticism from Congress about soaring prices and profits.
Energy executives and analysts insist that in spite of the supply crunch that has kept oil above $50 a barrel for much of the year, demand and prices are still prone to ups and downs, so the industry should not rush to drill wells and expand refineries just because it is flush with cash.
"A surplus of supply is not good for the industry," Shell Oil Co. president John Hofmeister said in an interview on Friday. "Just as a surplus of demand is not good for industry. We strive for balance."
Hofmeister, speaking by phone from his corporate jet upon leaving Washington, said "we will continue to work as an industry to increase supplies to the American people." But he said Shell executives were still debating whether it makes economic sense to expand the capacity of refineries it owns jointly with Saudi Refining Inc.
The companies said in September they were considering adding 100,000 to 300,000 barrels per day of capacity to plants in Louisiana and Texas.
Keep in mind, Hofmeister said, that "high-priced oil at 60-plus dollars leads people to seriously question their use of energy. And as they question that use of energy, they use less ... let the market do it's work."
-----------------
So we use less, which means less demand, which would lead to surplus, which is something you won't allow to happen according to your first statement, which means you cut production to keep up demand, which means the price remains high.
So.... up yours. The price of oil soared in a number of days - demand didn't increase that quickly. It was manipulated.
Enjoy your looted profits, John. It'll come in handy when you have that heart attack you so desperately deserve. Prick.
I've been reading all this and I have to add some input here.
Venezuela ((Im almost positive)) is required by LAW to have cars that run on ethanol. GMC and Ford both make cars to sell there.
The ethanol they use is based off of sugar production. It is cheap to make.. it's carbon neutral(Meaning the pollution is minimal) and they get the same amount of miles per gallon as a car.
Ethanol costs about.. oh.. 87 cents a gallon.
You cant tell me that a company requires people to have cars that need to be replaced after 5000 miles. I call BS.
This company made it LAW that cars had to run on either ethanol or gas. The reason they use gas is because when its cold you need the power of gas.. once the car is warm then the car AUTOMATICALLY switches to ethanol. The technology is there. THe US car companies have it..
Why aren't we using it?
Oh.. because gas profits would plummet... people wouldn't buy gasoline if they knew they could buy Ethanol so much cheaper, it's cleaner and neverending.
I got ALL this information off of a TV show on the discovery channel on Sugar. It's not BS.. I think it was even on Modern Marvels.
The point of the matter is... there are PLENTY of alternative fuels ect out there but there is no way in HELL the government is going to use them because the politicians would lose their asses.
Life sucks huh?
OK....we heard from admin as an engineer...now my 2 cents as a chemist.
I currently work for a major chemical company. Before here I worked for chevron at a Mississippi refinery.
My current project...completed and on line in Jan is an SMR or steam methane reformer. It is, simply, a way to crack natural gas to produce 98% pure hydrogen. The other 2% are offgasses including methane, pentane and the like.
The hydrogen is used to produce H2O2 or peroxide of variable strength.
In and of itself hydrogen is a combustible gas, nothing more.
Auto ignition, while possible in my field requires 968 degrees F. Not something the average driver would be involved in. For contact ignition you are talking 125 degrees or so.
From a chemistry point of view the biggest worry comes from exposure to incompatible material. This includes any oxidizing agent, lithium, and halogens.
Nows the plusses...at least IMO.
No, zip, zero ozone depletion. And no marine pollution. And the new generation hydrogen cells are hardly comperable to the loose gas we all know. This alone accounts for the much lowered explosion from release theory.
The chemicals most of you use in daily life are far more dangerous to produce and transport than hydrogen.
That all being said......GROUP HUG...
And on a side note...our natural gas prices have risen nearly 415% in 2 years. The refinerys also use this in production. Some increase can be expected from this. Example....Jan. 2004 gas bill $115,000.00. Jan. 2005 $424,000.00. Same usage. The bottom line is we will deplete crude oil reserves. When....I don't know. But now is the time to find alternatives.
Now where was that hug line forming.......
The rumor right now is that the oil companies are manipulating the efficiency of gas in order to force people to buy more. Why isn't the Government doing anything?"
Gasoline is taxed by the gallon. Why would they want you to buy less?
It has been widely theorized that Car manufactures have an agreements in place with the oil companies to limit the mileage of new engines in order to keep the demand for oil high. In exchange the oil companies have engineered their products to fail sooner thus causing expensive repairs.
Yet the product is not failing sooner. 20 years ago, GM had a 100K average engine life, today it is 175K.
I recall reading at some point that way back in the mid 70's an inventor working in his back yard shop made one of the first EFI carburetion systems. It was so efficient that Ford bought his patent and then sat on the technology. It was even reported that they destroyed the prototype.
It's on the shelf next to the 100mpg carb and the 125mpg fuel vaporizer.
Once EFI hits the stoicheometric ratio, no further efficiency can be gained there. From that point, it's resistance and weight.
A really dumb question is this, if we can make synthetic oils, why can we not make a synthetic fuel?
We can. And like synthetic oils, it costs 4X as much.
As to bio-fuels, only those that are alcohol based, like ethonohol, really damage engines.. And they don't do it as badly as you might think. The real problem with them are the chemicals they use to refine the product,
Not true, alchohol burns quite clean and leaves few deposits. By comparison, gasoline and diesel are considerable dirtier.
Racing alcohol fuelers are overhauled after every race, but not due to the fuel used.
and the fact that there is no way in hell that we could ever produce enough corn to meet the nation wide demand that gasoline currently fills.
We can, the problem would be the effect on the world food supply. We'd have to divert most or all of what we currently sell as grain to foreign countries.
The problem is one that will continue to expand as the world’s population continues to grow. In twenty-five years the world population will be into the seven billion mark. Twenty five years after that, it will be near 10 billion, twenty five years later it will be 20 billion and so on.
Most of the population growth is in countries that have few automobiles, scarce electricity and little infrastructure, with the exception of China and India.
The industrialized countries for the most part, especially Europe and including the USA, are shifting into a declining population mode.
Ethanol, Hydrogen, Natural gas and Propane are all reasonable choices for quick alternatives to gasoline. Each is already successfully being used for that very purpose, each has it's own set of varying safety issues, as does gasoline.
The reason they aren't used more extensively is that there just isn't any real demand for it.
As long as people continue buying gasoline powered vehicles without screaming for other options, that's what will be produced.
It'll take an outside force (such as government mandates) to get the ball rolling, or a severe and permanant shortage of crude oil. Hopefully, it'll be the first option and not the second.
admin wrote:
OK, I guess a large block of empirical evidence and research showing that hydrogen gas does not explode upon impact doesn't mean anything. This is not opinion, it's fact.
And yes, if it ignites, it does catch on fire, but you are totally discounting the fact that hydrogen is lighter than air and rapidly dissipates into the atmosphere. That's why hydrogen engines are safer than gas ones - gas hangs out and burns the immediate environment, where hydrogen escapes immediately.
Hydrogen does not ignite from compression as gasoline and diesel fuels do. It requires external ignition, whereas vaporized gasoline and diesel can ignite from compression alone.
But that's not it's real advantage. Hydrogen, unlike fossil fuels does not give off radiant heat as it burns.
A gasoline fire can burn you severely from a distance, a hydrogen fire requires direct contact for a burn to occur.
Hydrogen tends to dissipate quickly into the atmosphere and disappear, while gasoline remains at ground level and spreads out, making gasoline fires much longer-lived than hydrogen.
Add the fact that gasoline wicks to the skin if contact occurs while hydrogen has no adhesive properties and you'll understand why a gasoline fire engulfing the passenger compartment is more likely to kill than similar a hydrogen fire.
Radi8 wrote:
and the fact that there is no way in hell that we could ever produce enough corn to meet the nation wide demand that gasoline currently fills.
We can, the problem would be the effect on the world food supply. We'd have to divert most or all of what we currently sell as grain to foreign countries.
Not a concern, bio-fuels can be made out of the non-edible parts of the grain/soy.
