I was thinking...

[Duke]

...I know you're all prolly going "oh no" but I am curious.

Why is it that with all that the human race has acheived, why can we not create fossil fuels? Why is it that we can't replicate and reproduce something that took millions of years to produce? We can blast our food with radiation to make what used to take 30 minutes to cook in under 5 minutes, we can order a complete meal at a drive through window, and we can fly through the air at the speed of a bullet, yet we can't create oil.

We also manufacture equipment that's byproduct or waste is in the form of ozone yet we can't do anything to repair the growing hole in our ozone layer.

We live in a world that's getting overrun with our waste products and still haven't found a way to fully unproduce what we produced in the first place. How is that possible? If we created it, shouldn't we be able to uncreate it and quickly? Why don't we just take the money used to run the dumps of the world, create a rocket loaded with waste, blast it off and aim it for the sun? Would this not eliminate all waste, I think it would since nothing can survive the heat of the sun.

Just some random thoughts that have been in my head the past few days. There all prolly pretty dumb but I am curious as to why these things can't happen.

[Vautrin]

Originally Posted by Duke

...I know you're all prolly going "oh no" but I am curious.

Why is it that with all that the human race has acheived, why can we not create fossil fuels? Why is it that we can't replicate and reproduce something that took millions of years to produce? We can blast our food with radiation to make what used to take 30 minutes to cook in under 5 minutes, we can order a complete meal at a drive through window, and we can fly through the air at the speed of a bullet, yet we can't create oil.

Theoretically you can produce oil. Oil is used for all kinds of fuels, so it would make more sense to create the respective fuels. That is where the problems creep in. It would cost enormous amounts of energy to make them from other raw sources. Don't forget that the burning of fuel gives energy, so we have to add that energy to the things we make fuel of. All in all it would be pretty inefficient to do so.

We also manufacture equipment that's byproduct or waste is in the form of ozone yet we can't do anything to repair the growing hole in our ozone layer.

Again, everything is much more complicated than just ozone. There are thousands of gasses (CO2, NOx, CH4 (which is a fuel!)) that come into the equation. If things were only as simple as we imagine them to be ...

We live in a world that's getting overrun with our waste products and still haven't found a way to fully unproduce what we produced in the first place. How is that possible? If we created it, shouldn't we be able to uncreate it and quickly? Why don't we just take the money used to run the dumps of the world, create a rocket loaded with waste, blast it off and aim it for the sun? Would this not eliminate all waste, I think it would since nothing can survive the heat of the sun.

Again to create plastic it takes a lot of energy. To uncreate it, we would have to reverse the process of creating plastic, which is impossible to my knowledge. It would cost enormous amounts of energy, and where would we get the energy from?

The amount of waste is so enormous, that a rocket simply would not suffice. I don't know the exact volume, but it looks like something much bigger would be needed. And the Sun is only 6000 centigrades on its surface. There are substances that would not dissociate in that heat.

A bullet may cost as little as 20 cents at a supermarket in the US, but that does by no means imply that the bullet can do 20 cents of damage max.

Hope this clears things a bit up.

[Merika]

The airline industry along uses 1600 gallons PER SECOND.....that's a lot of 'anything' to produce in mass.

Truth is, there are two types of fossil fuels...sweet and sour. The sour is in great abundance and afforedable. However, to manufuacture it into a fuel which is acceptable to meet the USA (OSHA/EPA) standards and whatever the european equivalent is, would take additional refinery processes. I don't know about any other country, but in the US....we haven't built a refinery since 1975 (in Louisianna). No one wants them in their back yard....based mainly on fear from the same chemical (H2S) which I almost died from regarding jet fuel. Once that gas sits in a tank....it'll suck the oxygen out of your lungs in 3 minutes.

Therefore, the fuel is available....but not the sweet crude we are prepared to process. People want their cake and eat it too. They want plenty of afforedable fuel....but they don't want it processed or piped. There is no way ANY government can win for losing in this situation. Too people yell on either end....and you can't please them all.

[Duke]

I wonder why we can't process these types of fuel in the non-inhabited places in Canada?

As for using energy to create energy, I do understand that is the way it goes, but whats to say we can't harness the winds energy, or water, or sun for that matter to create these fuels?

I actually didn't mean one rocket either. I'm willing to bet that the land wasted used to create dumps and the tremendous cost to keep tend them could be used toward the manufacture of vehicles to transport them into space.

I understand some things may not dissintegrate completely on the surface of the sun, but I'm curious as to whether or not anything transported to the sun would stay on its surface (I don't think it would). I don't believe there's anything (man made nor in nature) that can withstand 15,000,000° C.

Anyway, I was just curious.

[darkangelism]

We can do more then before, we can turn coal and natural gas into oil, and we are working on turning plant matter into oil, just the energy requirtements are high. Alternative fuels dont work either both ethenol and hydrogen based fuels use more energy then they produce. The only cost effective alternative energy source is solar and it is still very expensive.

[dogula]

Originally Posted by darkangelism

We can do more then before, we can turn coal and natural gas into oil, and we are working on turning plant matter into oil, just the energy requirtements are high. Alternative fuels dont work either both ethenol and hydrogen based fuels use more energy then they produce. The only cost effective alternative energy source is solar and it is still very expensive.

Solar isn't all that feasible on the face of the planet. It is a nice feel good sort of thing, but we could never run our society on it. Conceivably if it became economically and technologically viable to build solar satellites and beam the power to earth via microwave we could.

And Hydrogen isn't about creating or tapping existing energy, it is about not using fossil fuels and centralizing the sources of our pollution. IF the hydrogen is produced in a few plants for every region of the country and piped out from there then it is easier to regulate the emissions. And as far as getting energy I think we should be pumping way more money into research about economically viable Fusion power (not cold fusion :roll and we should be building new Nuclear plants.

[Duke]

Ya but who wants a nuclear plant in their back yard?

[dogula]

I'd prefer a nuclear plant to a coal or oil plant; no one wants a power plant next door.

[darkangelism]

The problems with hydrogen are one, it uses fuel to make it, and the fact that it doesnt power cars efficently, it takes longer to accelerate not to mention you cant store liquid hydrogen in a tank in your car, you get in an accident and your car will blow up, it is way more explosive then gasoline.

[Vautrin]

DA, in America there have already been cars produced which run on hydrogen, and are certified to go on the road. They are quite expensive though.

Furthermore, unless the temperature is close to -270 centigrades, hydrogen is a gas, and not a liquid. Unless you bring it under extremely high pressure, that will always be the case for normal temperatures (i.e. -50 centigrades and above)

As for the production problems of hydrogen, you are right about that. The easiest way to produce hydrogen is by electrolysis of water.

But cars are only a small problem; heavy industry is a much bigger problems than commuters.

[dogula]

Originally Posted by darkangelism

The problems with hydrogen are one, it uses fuel to make it

No ****. You have to electrolyze water to produce the hydrogen. Then the hydrogen is used as energy storage (relatively high potential energy).

Originally Posted by darkangelism

and the fact that it doesnt power cars efficently

Fuel cells and hydrogen are pretty efficient at storing energy and converting it to electricity.

Originally Posted by darkangelism

it takes longer to accelerate

So? A cavalier takes longer to accelerate than a corvette, people buy cavaliers. If it is either fashionable to have one or if gas gets more expensive people will get them. And electric motors are pretty quick to put out their torque, so if you have the transmission geared right they can feel pretty quick off the line.

Originally Posted by darkangelism

you cant store liquid hydrogen in a tank in your car, you get in an accident and your car will blow up, it is way more explosive then gasoline.

A fuel tank would only explode if the concentration of oxygen to hydrogen reaches something close to the stoichiometric combustion point. Same thing can happen with gasoline. How many cars explode when they crash? Also, if there is a hydrogen leak, the hydrogen leaves the area a whole lot faster than gasoline vapors do since hydrogen is way lighter than gasoline.

[Star]

this is like being in science class. :?

[darkangelism]

Originally Posted by dogula

No ****. You have to electrolyze water to produce the hydrogen. Then the hydrogen is used as energy storage (relatively high potential energy).

Right, and how do you electolize water? with fossil fuels.

Originally Posted by dogula

Fuel cells and hydrogen are pretty efficient at storing energy and converting it to electricity.

Not as efficent as gasoline, i mean you would have to refuel every 100-200 miles

Originally Posted by darkangelism

it takes longer to accelerate

I mean a lot longer, 10 secs 0-60 mph being generous.


As for the blowing up thing, because it is a gas that means all you need is a leak and a spark and boom, unlike gas which doesnt turn to a gas at normal temperatures.


Another problem is cost, realistically it will cost thousands more to build cars that use it, billions to produce the infastructure, its not a cost effective method of transportation.

Yes star this is like science class, my house is like science class, both my father and grandfather are PHD chemists, so i hear all sorts of stuff that isnt widely known.