Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think fossil fuels will eventually be replaced. However, that day is far from here and there are good reasons why fossil fuels are popular. For starters, the energy that is contained in a gallon of gasoline is simply enormous. Moving a metal object that is between 1000 and 2000 lbs 20 miles requires a huge amount of energy. There is a reason that diesel locomotives replaced steam locomotives on railroads. Its because of energy efficiency and maintenance issues that are present with steam engines and not nearly as a big a factor with internal combustion engines.
I think fossil fuels will eventually be replaced. However, that day is far from here and there are good reasons why fossil fuels are popular. For starters, the energy that is contained in a gallon of gasoline is simply enormous. Moving a metal object that is between 1000 and 2000 lbs 20 miles requires a huge amount of energy. There is a reason that diesel locomotives replaced steam locomotives on railroads. Its because of energy efficiency and maintenance issues that are present with steam engines and not nearly as a big a factor with internal combustion engines.
Right
We can't even still get past the debate of clean energy resources
How would you use solar power at night for instance? What about windmills killing birds? What about geothermal energy still using fossil fuels and so on.
I know from a physics-based standpoint, they wouldn't be possible practically, not yet anyways. I would love to see one be attempted sometine if possible still in the modern world.
I remember hearing Mercedes attempting to revive the technology during the 70s(or that's what at least my grandfather told me once, he is a huge petrolhead so I better believe him )
The energy density on those items would be quite low and even if it were doable they are no longer scrap but highly valuable items that could never meet the demand. If every person ate two apples per day and read one newspaper that is not going to get you very far.
Let me put this into another context, I once did a calculation on how much land would be required for sustained use of wood to meet US electric demands. Sustained would mean you would be able to harvest trees into infinity assuming your energy demands do not increase. What I came up with was a land area the size of Alaska, California, Texas and some other smaller state.
What about geothermal energy still using fossil fuels and so on.
Residential geothermal heating is not the same as geothermal power production. The deeper you go into the earth the warmer it gets. Temperatures vary because the earths crust is not uniform, there is an abundant amount of heat very near the surface at Yellowstone for example. A geothermal power plant uses that heat to make power, no fossils involved for electric production. Most of these places where the heat is abundant near the surface are also protected areas so utilizing it is off the table.
Residential geothermal heating is not the same as geothermal power production. The deeper you go into the earth the warmer it gets. Temperatures vary because the earths crust is not uniform, there is an abundant amount of heat very near the surface at Yellowstone for example. A geothermal power plant uses that heat to make power, no fossils involved for electric production. Most of these places where the heat is abundant near the surface are also protected areas so utilizing it is off the table.
There is no such thing as "residential geothermal heating" except maybe in Iceland. What might be referred to here, is the use of the relatively constant temperature of the earth a few feet below the surface as the heat sink and source for residential heat pumps. When it's 100F outside and you're trying to reject heat from the condenser to that, a dozen feet below the surface it's something like 55F, which is a much better temperature to reject heat to. Similarly, when it's 25F outside and you're trying to gain heat from that to boil refrigerant in the evaporator, a dozen feet below the surface it's something like 55F, and it's a lot easier to get heat from that.
But this has nothing to do with extracting heat from magma, which is what industrial scale geothermal heating is. They use the heat of the magma to boil water and drive steam turbines to generate electricity. Unfortunately for small-scale use, you have to locate the plant where the heat is. Fortunately for large-scale use, we have these things called "high tension power transmission lines" and "transformers" that allow us to move electricity around.
Yes, and how do you think they boiled the water to get steam? Huh? Any ideas? We're all waiting for you to let us know.
Oh, yeah, maybe they set something on FIRE, like GASOLINE or DIESEL FUEL or COAL or PROPANE.
Are you aware that when you set something on FIRE, the products of combustion are water, carbon dioxide, and some stuff left over? And that as long as what you are setting on FIRE contains carbon, that's the way it is.
(OK, OK, I know, you can burn sodium, or magnesium, but those are not realistic energy sources for a whole host of reasons.)
You can choose to burn hydrogen, and you won't have any CO2 waste product. But how exactly do you expect to obtain the H2? You can do it by electrolysis, which requires vast quantities of electricity, which is generated by BURNING STUFF usually (oil, coal, natural gas), or by nuclear reactions (and CO2 looks positively benign compared to the waste products of that!) or, to some extent, by hydroelectric or geothermal generation. Or, you can use those evil petroleum products, and strip the hydrogen out of them by chemical reactions, which I bet require all kinds of "interesting" catalysts and intermediate processes that you probably wouldn't like to see on your dinner table.
Well I am glad the thread went fine at least heheheheh
I had an interest in steam cars for quite some time and was interesting in seeing more how they could handle themselves in the modern world
The fact that it takes more work to operate a steam car is what for me makes them more interesting
Our transportation technology is changing so fast, it would be amazing to see an attempt at a comeback from them
Only things that would require working would probably be braking and perhaps preventing engine freeze?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
