WTF ... IS WTF!?
We are a collective of people who believe in freedom of speech, the rights of individuals, and free pancakes! We share our lives, struggles, frustrations, successes, joys, and prescribe to our own special brand of humor and insanity. If you are looking for a great place to hang out, make new friends, find new nemeses, and just be yourself, WTF.com is your new home.

Headlines Gas Prices Going up; any alternatives?

Descent

Hella Constipated
7,686
109
157
#1
What if we were to create cheap, synthetic, fuel that would be backwards compatible with automobiles that take gasoline?

It's a longshot, but if pulled off, could yield great results if kept in the right hands.
 
3,559
2
0
#2
I haven't read the other version but I think Methanol (sp?) would be a good thing to use, the farmers in Canada use it and it's made from corn. Gasoline takes millions, if not billions, of years to form and corn grows much faster. I say we use Methanol because it's not bad for the enviroment and it can be regrown easily.
 

Descent

Hella Constipated
7,686
109
157
#3
I Hate The FCC said:
I haven't read the other version but I think Methanol (sp?) would be a good thing to use, the farmers in Canada use it and it's made from corn. Gasoline takes millions, if not billions, of years to form and corn grows much faster. I say we use Methanol because it's not bad for the enviroment and it can be regrown easily.
Good idea - considering that surplus crops of corn and/or crappy cobs of corn that should never have made it to market (You've all eaten 'em!), could be used instead and make farmers MUCH more money, it would in essence be a good idea.
 
3,559
2
0
#4
Descent said:
Good idea - considering that surplus crops of corn and/or crappy cobs of corn that should never have made it to market (You've all eaten 'em!), could be used instead and make farmers MUCH more money, it would in essence be a good idea.
I hate corn so at least it would be doing me some good, it would do everyone some good. The Daily Show did a special on it with Rob Corddry (sp?) and it was hilarious as well as informative. :thumbsup:
 

Darklight

Oppressing your posts...
5,438
87
142
#5
the price of taco's would skyrocket... ethenol is in use already... most newer cars are compatable but the stuff still costs like 1.99/gal. but prolly only cause its rarely used...
 

jamesp

In Memory...
1,714
1
0
#6
seems to me that one time, there was a thread similar to this one.
 
1,723
90
112
#7
jamesp said:
seems to me that one time, there was a thread similar to this one.
Yeah but kilo_juliet fucked it up.

Ethanol/Methanol is a good idea, clean, renewable energy is always a good thing. Plus, farmers would be provided with some much-needed relief in the financial department.
 

Jung

???
Premium
13,979
1,397
487
#8
jamesp said:
seems to me that one time, there was a thread similar to this one.
junglizm said:
Ok, this thread has deteriorated into garbage, so I'm closing it. Feel free to open a new one, guys, and Kilo, I'd suggest you not post this kind of crap in it.
OMG 6 characters! Look at me go!
 

tzedek

Original Member
2,515
3
38
#9
you mean something like ethanol??
 
685
0
0
#10
tzedek said:
you mean something like ethanol??
No, he means something like ethanol....
Darklight said:
... ethenol is in use already...

Actually, since the gov't didn't provide oil companies protection from MTBE lawsuits in their big assed energy bill, most of the large oil companies are going to stop producing MTBE and ramp up ethanol production in their refineries.
 

kilo_juliet

i have a nuke fetish
65
0
0
#11
Descent said:
Good idea - considering that surplus crops of corn and/or crappy cobs of corn that should never have made it to market (You've all eaten 'em!), could be used instead and make farmers MUCH more money, it would in essence be a good idea.
One problem. Actually many problems. Corn suffers from the same basic problem of solar power. Can you think why?

The sun is the energy source for both solar and corn. Lets think back to highschool biology. Where do plants get energy from? They store it from the sun.

Which goes back to the best solution for a replacement for fosil fuel. N-U-K-E-S. Save the petrol for petrol products such as fertilizer, plastic, medicine, avaition fuel, marine disiels, and long range hauling/comercial transport. Then use nukes for things that needed 'go juice' on the ground for people. Doesn't that make sense? Oh I can see the replys now. 'You moron. You idiot. FU off. '

Why am I doing this? You already know I'm right. If this was 1492 and I said the world was round, you people are the ones ready to burn at the steak.
 
685
0
0
#12
Oh Jesus Fucking H. Christ...here we go again.

:thumbsdn:

If we accept that nuclear power isn't a hoax will you STFU about it?
 

Jung

???
Premium
13,979
1,397
487
#13
kilo_juliet said:
Why am I doing this? You already know I'm right.
No, you're just extremely close minded, and lacking the ability to grasp the concepts of opinions and discussion. This is NOT a thread for Kilo to posture about being right in; this is a mature discussion forum. I'm sure you're well aware that the last thread was closed because of you. I won't close this one, no matter what you do, but you might find yourself lacking the ability to post. Now stop the bullshit and join in the discussion, or go find another forum to troll.
 

UberSkippy

a.k.a. FuckTheBullShit
7,529
28
142
#15
kilo_juliet said:
One problem. Actually many problems. Corn suffers from the same basic problem of solar power. Can you think why?

The sun is the energy source for both solar and corn. Lets think back to highschool biology. Where do plants get energy from? They store it from the sun.

Which goes back to the best solution for a replacement for fosil fuel. N-U-K-E-S. Save the petrol for petrol products such as fertilizer, plastic, medicine, avaition fuel, marine disiels, and long range hauling/comercial transport. Then use nukes for things that needed 'go juice' on the ground for people. Doesn't that make sense? Oh I can see the replys now. 'You moron. You idiot. FU off. '
Ok, I'm going to try and not flame you. If I sound harsh, oops, I didn't mean too.

Nuclear power has its drawbacks like I said in the other thread. It's not a perfect solution. Again, you have the problem of core meltdowns, waste etc... Yes, nobody in the US has died from a meltdown. YET. However there have been problems with these reactors. 3 Mile Island and Hanford to name two in the US that have had problems.

Storage and containment of the waste is a huge issue. Reactors produce a LOT of very dangerous waste materials. These have to be stored some place. You mentioned the site in Nevada. Ok, the waste has to be transported by truck or rail to the site. During transport any number of things can happen and it exposes a lot of people to a pretty serious risk.

The site in Nevada isn't a perfect solution either. To begin with as large as it may be it still consists of a finite amount of space for storage. It's also near a relatively active fault line and is very close to a major aquifer for the western US. A good Earth quake and the next thing you know, people in Souther Cali are growing gills and third tits.

Currently, much of the country's waste is stored at the I.N.E.E.L. in Southern Idaho. Every few years something goes wrong and there's some sort of spill. The US Taxpayer then has to foot a bill of MILLIONS to clean it up and MILLIONS more for future monitoring of the spill site.

Nuclear power is an efficient alternative to many fossil fuels but it doesn't work as an automotive fuel at all. Electrical cars have been done and mainly flopped. They had a limited range and unlike a conventional car, when they run out of fuel, you can't just add more, you have to wait for it to recharge. Electric only cars just aren't sustainable in anything but very short commutes. And once you remove electric cars from the equation, Nuclear power is no longer a viable source of fuel with regards to this particular discussion.

Ok, I think I behaved and treated you with respect and addressed the main points of the issue as you presented it.
 

Boycott

Soul Doubt
1,387
1
0
#16
kilo_juliet said:
Something taht doesn't take radiation into account. http://www.uic.com.au/nip17.htm ... http://www.atomicarchive.com

Cock Farm and lets keep going with intelligent discussion, please?

Lets list the cons of the fuel sources we have already...

Gasoline: Cost, Takes long to get back, Limited Supply

Hydrogen : Weather effects. It would put more water vapor back into the air, and then thunder storms would follow... These would basically be something an evil villain from a comic would want to make

Solar: Not powerful enough; can not drive at night(Unless a rechargable battery was used, and half of the energy went to the battery, and half went to powering the car) ... No sufficient technology

Bio: Smells like French Fries (Or whatever oil you're using) ... But Febreze removes 99.9% of all odour causing bacteria ;)

Also : If you don't know how an engine works, http://auto.howstuffworks.com/engine1.htm is a great guide on how it does work... I just learnt a little bit more from that than I learnt in Auto class ;) Basically anything with an explosive power works... i.e. Alcohol ;)
 

jamesp

In Memory...
1,714
1
0
#17
Well, the way I see it all you would need to make an electric car work is a very good control system and an innovative recharging system that makes it impossible to run out of 'energy'. In the previous thread I mentioned something called a Stirling Engine. Basically this little sucker runs on fluctuations in the temperature. If you set it in your palm, the difference in the temperature of your palm and the engine will cause it to rotate. This engine relies on the Sterling Cycle.

The above engine sits atop the encased helium. The pistons are attatched to a shaft... If you built a container that ran the entire length of the vehicle, and in this container you put the helium. There will be hundreds of pistons that connect to cornrow like shafts that turn a small magnet in a spool of copper (possibly gold) wire. The methodical little turning would create a very small amount of energy, but lets say that group of pistons (10 pistons to a group.) produces 1.5 volts, and you have four hundred individual motors. Thats 60 volts that can be run through capacitors to store and increase/decrease voltage as needed. That running all the time (there are always going to be temperature fluctuations) should be more than good enough to recharge and maintain charge on a set of batteries.

And as for the control system, well any good Electric/Computer Engineer (my uncle has a B.S. in Electrical/Computer Engineering) can make a decent control system to make driving this vehicle easier. Stuff like traction control, high speed stability, inside tire acceleration (increases/decreases the speed of the inside tires in a turn to help handling), or even 360 degree turning (four wheel tire turning, so basically you can turn on a dime.). I'll post some Photoshop plans later.


 

Boycott

Soul Doubt
1,387
1
0
#18
jamesp said:
Stirling Cycle

[/left]
[/center]

It becomes evident that so long as a temperature differential exists on the cylinder the Stirling engine must run!
If they found a way to get rid of this "MUST RUN" part, then it would be an awesome engine... I don't think I've heard of it before, but do you really think oil companies would approve of an engine that runs on no fuel?
 
685
0
0
#19
UberSkippy said:
blah blah...good point, good point, Told Kilo to STFU in a very diplomatic way...blah blah blah...
Congrats on being able to maintain your calm long enough to finally point out the obvious so that he can understand it. :thumbsup:
 

morelos

lexicon incognito
1,952
0
0
#20
ok dude, you posted a pic of a stirling engine.

remember how hard it is for a stirling engine to get started and remember also that without that temperature difference between upper and lower surfaces it won't turn. it's not reliable if you don't have a method of keeping the temperatures different on either side and the scale you'd need to use to drive a moving vehicle would be bigger than the moving vehicle.

what about low-temperature fusion? i mean, if it could be perfected we could wind up with a machine that takes hydrogen and renders it into iron, all the while creating energy as it goes... that's great for an electrical generator, but i don't think we'll be driving around in "ford fustivas" any time soon.