View Full Version : Toyota Prius, transport, and the future.
the_lone_wolf
11-02-10, 12:16 PM
Because the energy needs to come from somewhere, and we can't just create energy. Fundamental universal law.
Don't forget the caveat "within a closed system"
The earth is not a closed system, there is a vast amount of energy available in the form of solar power, enough to power our needs many many times over - The problem is collecting it efficiently
Don't forget the caveat "within a closed system"
The earth is not a closed system, there is a vast amount of energy available in the form of solar power, enough to power our needs many many times over - The problem is collecting it efficiently
You can't create energy. You can only transfer it. Open, closed, whatever.
the_lone_wolf
11-02-10, 12:33 PM
You can't create energy. You can only transfer it. Open, closed, whatever.You misunderstand, I never said you were "creating" energy - The thermodynamic law states that the total energy only remains constant within a closed system, the earth is not a closed system as it is being supplied with vast quantities of energy from the nuclear reaction in the sun, there's nothing thermodynamically to stop us using this energy to create synthetic fuel
metalmonkey
11-02-10, 12:34 PM
Yes nuclear fusion, fission is a another dead end in the future, ofcourse its not been perfected otherwise we wouldn't be having this discusion lol.
Yep mass is energy, the energy gained from the difference is mass is more than the power used to power the lasers etc etc.
Why is it a dead end? Just becasue the reaction can't be stablised doesn't mean it can't happen. As I pointed out, it is trying to reproduce how a star prodcues energy. Do you have any idea how hot the plamsa is these experiments?
There is one thing that has been missed here, which is out power trasmission system which aren't that great really. Alot of electricty is lost through heat and sheer distance power is carried, one reason at why its at such high voltage. If we looked how we transmit power and reduce waste and how devices use it, then less power will need to be generated.
I was in New York in 2003, when the power grid overloaded we were without power for I would say about 12-18 hours. It wasn't that we didn't have light, we didn't have water...So yes this is very important, espically as the national grid is creaking under the current load being put on it.
There is so much ingorance around nuclear power, who told you it wasn't safe in the first place good intenetions won't keep your warm at night, cloth and feed you.
I do belive in harness nature to generate power, but you live in the real world, how efficent is form of power production I really think for out mass gredd of power in the 1st World it won't be enough, nor is efficent enough yet. YEs if we changed out life styles, and though about what we do we would use less power it is totally possibale. I have lived on research base using sustiable living. Again so much c*** is talked about this too.
As for peak oil it seems that no one knows when it will happen, there is a lot more new fields still being found. I think issuess with getting to this oil is not so much expense of digging it up, but where it is in very unstable parts of the world. My dad heard of someone going to work in on project in one of these places, he was shot dead within months. So you see the problem can't you.
As an Island nation we should be looking how we can exist as we did before, without the hel of other nations.
What it comes down too, there is no respect for each other let alone the Earth. Until that happens, yes we are doomed to fail.
You misunderstand, I never said you were "creating" energy - The thermodynamic law states that the total energy only remains constant within a closed system, the earth is not a closed system as it is being supplied with vast quantities of energy from the nuclear reaction in the sun, there's nothing thermodynamically to stop us using this energy to create synthetic fuel
I didn't misunderstand. Yes we can get energy from a variety of off-world sources, theoretically, including gravity as well. I was merely pointing out that it's not like making oil for lubrication, as the energy must come from somewhere.
the_lone_wolf
11-02-10, 12:52 PM
I was merely pointing out that ... the energy must come from somewhere.You said energy couldn't be created
Which is odd because I never said it could be:confused:
If you're going to make comments totally unrelated to what I'm saying don't quote me when you make them, otherwise it gives the impression that they were directed at me:rolleyes:
Don't forget the caveat "within a closed system"
Like this?
Unfortunately even though the trains have been de-nationalised you only normally get one operator on any line. No competition equals higher fares. Busses are generally cheper as you can get two or more operators on effectively the same route - but busses are for the poor and the unemployed as far as I'm concerned.Not so in london, its not the operators that set the cost, its the government, or the mayors office. Maybe in rural areas, but LRT set the oyster fares and the tube fares. Also on buses and tubes there are no peak journeys, just a flat fare no matter what. Trains, peak time when epople need to get to work.
I also agree with orphic about the energy thing, but its the sum of all parts at the end of the day. What would be the most efficent way of dealing with the lack of fuel when it runs out, thats the thing. Again, chagring all the leccy cars/bikes/busses etc, or producing trillions of gallons of synthetic fuel for std combustion engines or the Honda Firestorm?
I think a point raised earlier is probably more poinent than aything else said on thsi thread. The population of the world needs to be slowed, and that is a far more difficult challenge than any of the 'Where the fuel is going to come from' Ok, i know that China, and i think Japan (Stand to be corrected) have slapped a single child policy on thier epople, but thats dictatorship for you! Would it work in Europe? The French would go on strike, and the UK would have so much child benefit that we could go and invade another country that doesnt need invading!
the_lone_wolf
11-02-10, 01:04 PM
Like this?
No, That was correcting your mis-quotation of the law
No, That was correcting your mis-quotation of the law
By introducing an invalid constraint.
the_lone_wolf
11-02-10, 01:19 PM
By introducing an invalid constraint.How is it invalid?
How is it invalid?
Because no constraints apply.
the_lone_wolf
11-02-10, 01:35 PM
Because no constraints apply.
The 1st law of thermodynamics disagrees:
"The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings."
The system, whether it's closed, isolated or open, is fundamental to the principle of conservation of energy
The 1st law of thermodynamics disagrees:
"The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings."
The system, whether it's closed, isolated or open, is fundamental to the principle of conservation of energy
How does that disagree with what I said?
yorkie_chris
11-02-10, 01:40 PM
Its like i cant understand why we cant produce Synthetic fuel. We can create syntetic oil which is better, and fuel is an oil...
We can, it's just cheaper to dig it up, y'dig? :-P
the_lone_wolf
11-02-10, 01:43 PM
How does that disagree with what I said?
If you can't see why then there's little point in me trying to explain it - the concept of thermodynamical systems is part of the definition of conservation of energy, without it the definition is meaningless - it should be obvious:confused:
If you can't see why then there's little point in me trying to explain it - the concept of thermodynamical systems is part of the definition of conservation of energy, without it the definition is meaningless - it should be obvious:confused:
I understand the concept, just not aware of anything I've said that contravenes it.
the_lone_wolf
11-02-10, 01:52 PM
I understand the concept, just not aware of anything I've said that contravenes it.
If you understood the concept you'd understand your mistake dude:smt101
If you understood the concept you'd understand your mistake dude:smt101
Go on then, help me, point it out.
the_lone_wolf
11-02-10, 02:21 PM
Go on then, help me, point it out.
In response to a query of why we can't produce synthetic fuel, you said that we couldn't because "we can't just create energy" - which is true but is a vague description that doesn't give any definition to what you're trying to say - it's like saying to someone "you can't park over there" and waving your arm towards a set of bays when in fact what you mean is that they can't park in the first four bays because they're reserved. Without the framework of the conditions where you may not park the phrase is meaningless when applied
The most accurate description of the principle of conservation of energy is given in the 1st law of thermodynamics quoted back up there ^^^
"The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings."
The concept of systems gives the law meaning when applied to situations. If we define our system as the planet earth and it's atmosphere the amount of energy would remain constant within the system and we wouldn't just be able to produce synthetic fuel without using energy derived from somewhere else in the system if it were isolated. The problem comes when the system is not isolated, as is the case with the earth, because a huge amount of energy is being pumped into the system by the sun. This is, at it's most basic non-literal description, the "energy added by heating the system" described in the first law and it's just as reasonable to use this energy to create synthetic fuel as it is to use the potential energy derived from nuclear reactions that already existed within the system. For the purposes and timescales of our requirements the energy added to our system by the sun is effectively limitless, hence why I said it wasn't a case of conserving energy or converting one type to another but harnessing and using the energy that already presents itself more efficiently
No doubt you'll have holes to pick up on, I'll give you extra credit if you can spot my thermodynamics fail (not that it affects the argument);)
In response to a query of why we can't produce synthetic fuel, you said that we couldn't because "we can't just create energy" - which is true but is a vague description that doesn't give any definition to what you're trying to say - it's like saying to someone "you can't park over there" and waving your arm towards a set of bays when in fact what you mean is that they can't park in the first four bays because they're reserved. Without the framework of the conditions where you may not park the phrase is meaningless when applied
In fact a better example would be saying, you can't park over there, when in fact you can't park in the first 4 spaces, or any others on the planet. There is no case when it isn't true. I already overconstrained it with the use of the subject "we" - nothing else can either. I was pointing out that it's fundamentally impossible.
At no point did I say it was impossible to get energy from elsewhere. In fact I stated that the energy would have to come from somewhere. If you make that viable, you've solved the problem.
yorkie_chris
11-02-10, 03:31 PM
I was pointing out that it's fundamentally impossible.
E = mc^2 :smt101
E = mc^2 :smt101No, sorry its E=MChAmmEr
The concept of systems gives the law meaning when applied to situations. If we define our system as the planet earth and it's atmosphere the amount of energy would remain constant within the system and we wouldn't just be able to produce synthetic fuel without using energy derived from somewhere else in the system if it were isolated. The problem comes when the system is not isolated, as is the case with the earth, because a huge amount of energy is being pumped into the system by the sun. This is, at it's most basic non-literal description, the "energy added by heating the system" described in the first law and it's just as reasonable to use this energy to create synthetic fuel as it is to use the potential energy derived from nuclear reactions that already existed within the system. For the purposes and timescales of our requirements the energy added to our system by the sun is effectively limitless, hence why I said it wasn't a case of conserving energy or converting one type to another but harnessing and using the energy that already presents itself more efficiently
No doubt you'll have holes to pick up on, I'll give you extra credit if you can spot my thermodynamics fail (not that it affects the argument);)
I haven't disputed any of the above. And I'll leave the hole picking to those much more practised at it than myself :p
E = mc^2 :smt101
Matter is "potential energy" :p
the_lone_wolf
11-02-10, 03:38 PM
I was pointing out that it's fundamentally impossible.
No it isn't, there's no thermodynamic reason why you can't use any form of energy to create synthetic fuel:confused:
No it isn't, there's no thermodynamic reason why you can't use any form of energy to create synthetic fuel:confused:
fundamentally impossible to create energy, not to create fuel.
metalangel
11-02-10, 03:46 PM
As an Island nation we should be looking how we can exist as we did before, without the hel of other nations.
You'll be going back to the dark ages. Britain hasn't been able to feed itself for a very long time.
just a quick question about all this stuf about cars getting heavier why ? i mean we ride around with a helmet and gear on and thats it but when it comes to cars its air bags hear there and evory where and then all the other stuf as well making them heavy, i think its unesosary to have all this extra protection on new cars making them use more fuel when we can still hop on a bike but naked and only a helmet on and be perfectly legal
Cars are bigger and heavier because they're safer, and less likely to crush you when you hit something. Of course, there's nothing to stop you driving a car with poor crashworthiness (Rover Metro) but why would you want to, in case you crash?
the_lone_wolf
11-02-10, 03:46 PM
fundamentally impossible to create energy, not to create fuel.
That wasn't what Viney said...
Why do you keep quoting people and making comments that have nothing to do with what they said??? It's bizarre :smt043
That wasn't what Viney said...
Why do you keep quoting people and making comments that have nothing to do with what they said??? It's bizarre :smt043
You'll have to quote where I've done this. All relevant as far as I can see.
yorkie_chris
11-02-10, 04:08 PM
An interesting deviation from a minor modification to some ABS software...
An interesting deviation from a minor modification to some ABS software...
yeah I thought that as well - although I don't think that was the entire original point. You're forgiven for not wading through the entire thread.
the_lone_wolf
11-02-10, 04:33 PM
You'll have to quote where I've done this. All relevant as far as I can see.
Given your lack of ability to see it the first time it was pointed out I can't see the mileage in pointing it out again:rolleyes:
Given your lack of ability to see it the first time it was pointed out I can't see the mileage in pointing it out again:rolleyes:
Just seems more like you're ducking out of it.
the_lone_wolf
11-02-10, 04:40 PM
Just seems more like you're ducking out of it.:rolleyes:
No point in continuing arguing with someone who cannot or does not grasp the subject
:rolleyes:
No point in continuing arguing with someone who cannot or does not grasp the subject
True. But not the case.
yorkie_chris
11-02-10, 04:46 PM
In response to a query of why we can't produce synthetic fuel, you said that we couldn't because "we can't just create energy" - which is true but is a vague description that doesn't give any definition to what you're trying to say -
That's a weak point for a 40 post argument...
It is correct, it's too expensive to convert energy gathered from any process into chemical fuels when the chemical fuels are available as oil, which "we can't just pull energy out of our 'rse" seems to cover fine :-P
the_lone_wolf
11-02-10, 05:02 PM
That's a weak point for a 40 post argument...
That wasn't even part of the argument, it was a sidetracked explanatory point on mis-quotation of scientific laws and misunderstanding of other people's posts...
When you add the caveat of there being readily available fossil fuels it changes the argument entirely, and the cost was nothing to do with the point in the first place...
yorkie_chris
11-02-10, 05:06 PM
When you add the caveat of there being readily available fossil fuels it changes the argument entirely, and the cost was nothing to do with the point in the first place...
You were arguing about energy conservation, which is the same whatever you have readily available to you, whether you are on the moon or lighting a ciggy in a petrol station.
And everything is to do with cost.
the_lone_wolf
11-02-10, 05:09 PM
And everything is to do with cost.
Of course it is...
But when we're running out of fossil fuels relative cost will radically alter our perception of what is expensive and what isn't
Simples
yorkie_chris
11-02-10, 05:15 PM
Of course it is...
But when we're running out of fossil fuels relative cost will radically alter our perception of what is expensive and what isn't
Simples
Preaching to the choir ;)
beabert
12-02-10, 02:53 AM
Why is it a dead end? Just becasue the reaction can't be stablised doesn't mean it can't happen. As I pointed out, it is trying to reproduce how a star prodcues energy. Do you have any idea how hot the plamsa is these experiments?
There is one thing that has been missed here, which is out power trasmission system which aren't that great really. Alot of electricty is lost through heat and sheer distance power is carried, one reason at why its at such high voltage. If we looked how we transmit power and reduce waste and how devices use it, then less power will need to be generated.
I was in New York in 2003, when the power grid overloaded we were without power for I would say about 12-18 hours. It wasn't that we didn't have light, we didn't have water...So yes this is very important, espically as the national grid is creaking under the current load being put on it.
There is so much ingorance around nuclear power, who told you it wasn't safe in the first place good intenetions won't keep your warm at night, cloth and feed you.
I do belive in harness nature to generate power, but you live in the real world, how efficent is form of power production I really think for out mass gredd of power in the 1st World it won't be enough, nor is efficent enough yet. YEs if we changed out life styles, and though about what we do we would use less power it is totally possibale. I have lived on research base using sustiable living. Again so much c*** is talked about this too.
As for peak oil it seems that no one knows when it will happen, there is a lot more new fields still being found. I think issuess with getting to this oil is not so much expense of digging it up, but where it is in very unstable parts of the world. My dad heard of someone going to work in on project in one of these places, he was shot dead within months. So you see the problem can't you.
As an Island nation we should be looking how we can exist as we did before, without the hel of other nations.
What it comes down too, there is no respect for each other let alone the Earth. Until that happens, yes we are doomed to fail.
Fission is the dead end, not fusion, but after a bit of reasearch theres now alternatives to using uranium.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/world-oil-supplies-are-set-to-run-out-faster-than-expected-warn-scientists-453068.html
155 years of coal!
Fission is the dead end, not fusion, but after a bit of reasearch theres now alternatives to using uranium.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/world-oil-supplies-are-set-to-run-out-faster-than-expected-warn-scientists-453068.html
155 years of coal!
from the quoted article:
This scenario is flatly denied by BP, whose chief economist Peter Davies has dismissed the arguments of "peak oil" theorists.
"We don't believe there is an absolute resource constraint. When peak oil comes, it is just as likely to come from consumption peaking, perhaps because of climate change policies as from production peaking."
Let's pull out the interesting bit:
"We don't believe there is an absolute resource constraint."
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but without an absolute resource constraint, is he not claiming that there is an infinite amount of oil available?
Might as well claim that the world is flat.
Biker Biggles
12-02-10, 11:10 AM
I dont think it will come to resource exhaustion.I think we will destroy ourselves sooner than that by technology failure.We rely so absolutely on technology to enable our societies to function that we would all starve or freeze or poison ourselves within a few weeks of a major technological breakdown.Think of your workplace.What would happen if the work computers failed totally?Multiply that to national or international failure and there would be no food in the shops,no fuel,no power,no transport,no healthcare,no media.Nothing.How long would we survive that?Could be the technological age version of a mass extinction.
Think of your workplace.What would happen if the work computers failed totally?Multiply that to national or international failure and there would be no food in the shops,no fuel,no power,no transport,no healthcare,no media.Nothing.How long would we survive that?Could be the technological age version of a mass extinction.What, you mean we'd all live in Birmingham?:shock:
Biker Biggles
12-02-10, 11:19 AM
What, you mean we'd all live in Birmingham?:shock:
Something like that except Brummies are not extinct yet.:reaper:
Something like that except Brummies are not extinct yet.:reaper:
That's not an excuse not to try :p
metalangel
12-02-10, 03:01 PM
I dont think it will come to resource exhaustion.I think we will destroy ourselves sooner than that by technology failure.We rely so absolutely on technology to enable our societies to function that we would all starve or freeze or poison ourselves within a few weeks of a major technological breakdown.Think of your workplace.What would happen if the work computers failed totally?Multiply that to national or international failure and there would be no food in the shops,no fuel,no power,no transport,no healthcare,no media.Nothing.How long would we survive that?Could be the technological age version of a mass extinction.
As the narration says at the beginning of The Road Warrior, we've built a house of straw. You need only look at Hurricane Katrina or Haiti to see what would happen.
It's what survivalists prepare for - they have the means to go out and feed themselves and protect themselves from those who'd try to take their supplies.
We need to move to the next stage, where there aren't such long supply chains crucial to keeping everything going. I don't necesarily mean Star Trek-style replicators.
Biker Biggles
12-02-10, 03:13 PM
We saw a little preview of this a few years ago with the fuel protests.It only took a few hours for panic buying to start and a day or so for there to be no petrol on the forecourts.Special measures had to be put in place for essential workers and emergency services to get fuel,with nominated garages open only to those poeple.All that from something as trivial as a handfull of lorry drivers going slowly down to an oil refinary.
I do think the survivalists,barking as they appear,have a point.
metalangel
12-02-10, 04:58 PM
Not to mention people 'panic buying' during the recent snow. Jesus wept.
Someone on here saying their local Morrisons was out of bread as some daft bint had just bought eight loaves.
metalmonkey
12-02-10, 06:10 PM
When the Hemel fuel depot blew up a few years ago, I was driving to work on Sunday am, the petrol station was backed up onto the road. I was like WTF manily as I had aviod the idiots blocking the road.
It was until I got phone call saying the martial arts class wasn't happening as the hall was being used a ops point, where we trained, I was like oh that explains the panic buying of petrol. I mean it wasn't that bigger deal to buy up all the petrol, it was pain trying to get fuel that week.
Oh no power, means no water. Let alone anything else.
I really doubt the vast majority of people in the 1st world would surive, I mean people have to use Sat Nav's casue they can't read a map. It seems people think chicken nuggets is how chicken comes:rolleyes:
metalangel
12-02-10, 06:46 PM
TBH the 1st world is based around our technology, our tightly packed cities and the like can only function with modern transport and food supplies and such, as even if I turned my entire back yard into a working garden I doubt I could grow enough to feed the two of us.
yorkie_chris
12-02-10, 08:04 PM
It's what survivalists prepare for - they have the means to go out and feed themselves and protect themselves from those who'd try to take their supplies.
Pointless here, you aren't allowed guns.
The Basket
13-02-10, 03:31 AM
There's plenty of oil out there as new fields become economical viable in places like Russia, Canadian arctic and Antarctica.
But the husbandry of resources makes more sense than a magic bullet theory of a new fuel technology which will save us all.
Hydrogen is gained from hydrocarbons which still needs oil and getting it from water is energy negative...more energy is put in than you get out.
beabert
13-02-10, 05:55 AM
in the news
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8511319.stm
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.