I've only read few posts here, but no one seems to talk about alternative fuel for airplanes. Hydrogen fuel cells and or in combination with electric power are being looked at. If serious research money goes into alternative fuel and powerplant for aircraft, the solution could be just around the corner. The problem is not enough money is being spent in this department.

 

I'm afraid money and intellect don't necessarily solve pressing problems.

Any idea how much has been spent on the "War on Cancer"? Or AIDS? M.S.? And so forth.

Have there been advances and improvements? Certainly. Cures? No. Blind faith that advances in technology will de facto replace oil when the time comes is just that . . . "faith". It's the "Star Trek" solution . . . someone smart just invents something better.

Hopefully, this happens, but prudence would dictate that a national energy strategy would hope for the best, but plan for the worst. Alternatives being discussed today aren't replacements, but second-rate stop gap measures at best.

 

First off why are oil companies doing this, if you had a product that people had to use would you sell it at bear minimum profit or would you charge what people are will to pay. The problem is as we have discussed in length is that there arent many options go to. Prices wont go down much, why would they, were paying for it at 109 a barrel and 3.50 p/g. Is our economy starting to slide because of it, sure but not only because of oil; no one person knows why a whole economy shifts the way it does. Is oil hurting and affecting the cycle of the airline industry absolutely, lack of foresight (what a surprise).

All of this argument of SUVs and hybrids running the oil industry is insane. While transportation is a draw on oil it is no where near the main draw. Energy production guzzles enormous amount of oil. And what of other products that are oil products, did we forget about plastics.

So what can be done by the government (who shouldn't be trusted to do anything yet here we are) to help this problem. If only we had an efficient form of power production from a non fossil fuel; oh wait we discovered that back in the 40s - nuclear power. Seeing that they are the only ones allowed to build nuclear power plants we unfortunately rely on them. Why is it taking so long, maybe the oil companies know some people in politics that have slowed that idea down. Then with all the money saved on energy we can develope ways to dispose of nuclear waste. And yes enough money solves all problems

So what of alternative fuels for transportation. Ethanol was a fun idea that has us at least looking in a new direction, however its inefficiencies and overall waist of resources (thousands of humans go hungry and someone thought to use food to fuel our cars). Now hydrogen while obviously not ready to make a stand against oil it has a wonderful upside. We could theoretically solve two problems at once: alternative fuel and replenish fresh water supplies. Hydrogen jet engines are ahead in development than care engines. The problem with any alternative fuel is building an infrastructure to supply and store it. Oh and all the while the oil companies will fight it the whole way, and as I said alot of money can solve any problem. So the way I see it the answer to the puzzle is having the oil companies corner the market on and alternative fuel. Not exactly a happy ending but at-least all of our money going into $109 barrel of oil will accomplish something.

Either way I dont know about you guys but I feel like we are standing on the edge of an abyss of change.

 

Either way I dont know about you guys but I feel like we are standing on the edge of an abyss of change.

Barack?..... is that you?

Oil companies, like any other company, only wish they could set there own prices. They try but the marketplace ultimately decides what will be charged. Furthermore, the oil companies operate (last I looked) at a margin of about 7%. Much less than most products. Stop watching CNN and go read a good book by a non-emotional economist. I recommend Thomas Sowell.

 

Lightening Speed:

Read my post 3-12-2008 regarding alternatives. Those without scientific backgrounds like to say "New technology!" Problem is, there is no "new technology" that over-rides some of the immutable laws of the universe, namely, the three laws of thermodynamics.

1. You can't make energy from nothing. Otherwise, you could make a perpetual-motion machine.

2. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed...it can only change form. IE, kinetic can become heat, heat can become potential, electrical can become light, light can become electrical, etc.

3. Every time you change the form of the energy, you lose some of it due to inefficiencies of mechanical devices. The entropy of the universe must always increase (another law).

The only true sources of energy on this planet are:

1. Stored chemical such as petroleum or coal.

2. Stored plant-chemical, such as wood, peat, or yes, grains, or even weeds.

3. Stored nuclear in radioactive materials such as uranium and plutonium.

4. Radiant heat/electromagnetic energy from stored nuclear energy in the sun (hey, it's an H-bomb).

5. Wind energy, which is really a by-product of the sun's heat energy.

6. Stored potential energy of water in hydroelectric reservoirs, which is another form of sun energy (heat of the sun evaporated the water, lifting it, so it gained potential energy of height).

7. Wave energy, which is a by-product of the stored rotational inertia energy of the Earth as it spins relative to the moon.

8. Geothermal, which is stored heat energy, most likely from stored radioactive materials in the earth's core (scientists still don't know exactly why the Earth's core is hot).

9. Lightning, (Not "Lightening", which is to reduce weight), which is trapped energy from the release of stored energy of the sun (solar radiation bombarding the upper atmosphere).

The key-word above is "stored." If the energy does not exist in nature, then it is not a "source."

Saying Hydrogen is a source is like saying we can solve our problems by buying batteries. You have to make both of them, and it takes more energy to make than you get out (law #3, above).

So where did all this stored energy come from at the begining of time? Good question. I don't try to understand how the universe goes on forever, either---I just know it does.

 

Lightening Speed:

Read my post 3-12-2008 regarding alternatives. Those without scientific backgrounds like to say "New technology!" Problem is, there is no "new technology" that over-rides some of the immutable laws of the universe, namely, the three laws of thermodynamics.

1. You can't make energy from nothing. Otherwise, you could make a perpetual-motion machine.

2. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed...it can only change form. IE, kinetic can become heat, heat can become potential, electrical can become light, light can become electrical, etc.

3. Every time you change the form of the energy, you lose some of it due to inefficiencies of mechanical devices. The entropy of the universe must always increase (another law).

The only true sources of energy on this planet are:

1. Stored chemical such as petroleum or coal.

2. Stored plant-chemical, such as wood, peat, or yes, grains, or even weeds.

3. Stored nuclear in radioactive materials such as uranium and plutonium.

4. Radiant heat from stored nuclear energy in the sun (hey, it's an H-bomb).

5. Wind energy, which is really a by-product of the sun's heat energy.

6. Stored potential energy of water in hydroelectric reservoirs, which is another form of sun energy (heat of the sun evaporated the water, lifting it, so it gained potential energy of height).

7. Wave energy, which is a by-product of the stored rotational inertia energy of the Earth as it spins relative to the moon.

8. Geothermal, which is stored heat energy, most likely from stored radioactive materials in the earth's core (scientists still don't know exactly why the Earth's core is hot).

9. Lightning, (Not "Lightening", which is to reduce weight), which is trapped energy from the release of stored energy of the sun (solar radiation bombarding the upper atmosphere).

The key-word above is "stored." If the energy does not exist in nature, then it is not a "source."

Saying Hydrogen is a source is like saying we can solve our problems by buying batteries. You have to make both of them, and it takes more energy to make than you get out (law #3, above).

So where did all this stored energy come from at the begining of time? Good question. I don't try to understnad how the universe goes on forever, either---I just know it does.

 

Thanks for posting your rather long dissertation TWICE on this thread.

If you read my post, I did not use the term "new Technology," not that I have any objection to the term. You are not the only one on this thread with a science major. I don't want to get into a long technical discussion
on energy sources for obvious reasons, it would bore the crap out of most readers.

Well aware of the limitations of hydrogen fuel cells or electricity as an alternative fuel source. I was pointing out the fact that no one on this forum is addressing the urgent need for alternative source of fuel and powerplant for aircraft. Since I don't have a PHD in physics I can't offer more concrete examples, but unless alternate source of fuel is found soon, we will all be up the creek without a paddle.