Alternative Energies: Different kinds and a few thoughts

[uofom3]

Fuck I need to buy my Mobil 1 there! Even Costco charges more than that! I'm sick of paying like $7.49 at most auto parts stores. expensive oil changes FTL. Even Wal-Mart and Bi-Mart are like $6.50

no joke... it was sub 6 at the time. I bought ams-oil for the m3 the other day for less than 5.50 a quart!

[CorvallisBMW]

I go down to G.I. Joes (sports and outdoor store in the PNW) to buy 9 quarts of mobil 1 10/30 synthetic. They went for something like $6 a quart, might have been in the high $5 range. Regardless, I remember paying virtually that exact same amount for the product 7 years ago when I was daily driving the m3. I just thought it was funny that though gas prices have gone $2 since then, the price of the motor oil in my engine has remained virtually unchanged.

Fuck I need to buy my Mobil 1 there! Even Costco charges more than that! I'm sick of paying like $7.49 at most auto parts stores. expensive oil changes FTL. Even Wal-Mart and Bi-Mart are like $6.50

[uofom3]

I'm not trying to come off harsh if it seems that way because its obvious you just don't know, and to be honest its not your job to know. I do consider it my job to inform you otherwise. I hate to sound cliche, but it is a media stigmata that brings forth this large misunderstanding of nuclear power.

Everyone needs to see this:
A nuclear reactor cannot physically explode. PERIOD. The operating conditions are not correct to allow an explosion. Even if the control rods fall out of the reactor and the main and auxiliary cooling systems fail, the reactor will never explode. If everything that could possible go wrong does go wrong, the worst thing that could happen is Three Mile Island (do research -- it was actually a great success in showing that the design of these plants works beautifully). The containment leak that happened at Chernobyl is impossible with any plant in this country.

Another point while I'm on my soap-box. Spent fuel (as per what we are spitting out in this country at this time) only takes ~400 years to reach the radioactivity level that it started at when it was taken from the earth. Not quite what opponents try to portray. I'm not denying that spent fuel is nasty stuff, but it is not nasty forever.

awesome. start a thread about the realities of nuclear energy - this is good stuff and thanks for contributing

[2Big4a3Series]

I just thought it was funny that though gas prices have gone $2 since then, the price of the motor oil in my engine has remained virtually unchanged.

Yeah..that's because fuel products are paying for the elevated price of oil. The byproducts like the varnishes, laquers, paints, plastics, lubricants, etc are generally the same price.

How much could be saved by going to synthetic oil, having everyone change their air filter, and new plugs/rotor/cap? Maybe a fuel filter while you're at it. Also, I wonder how much clogged CATconverters are hurting the gas consumption?

That would ideal in a perfect world but I believe that people who don't maintain their cars can't afford it. And if they have a few bucks, they aren't willing to break their budget unless the car breaks down. They are having a hard enough keeping the needle off of "E" (or the "R") living one paycheck to the next. I seriously doubt that the average minimum wage earner wants to spend a week's salary for a few extra MPG at the pump let alone a month's salary for a new catalytic converter.

And don't get me wrong. It makes sense to make an investment in the health of your car in order for it to remain dependable even if fuel economy wasn't an issue. But not everyone has the luxury of doing a complete tuneup or buying a new cat.

[netcsk]

Nuclear is another solution that I am not opposed to. Aside from nuclear waste, it is remarkably clean. United States has taken a lesson right from Russia, (chernobyl), and decided to stay away from Nuclear. Costs are "too high" in terms of human life. A nuclear explosion, without any need to explain, can cause mass distruction, and ultimately the cost is human life. What is not realized is that expulsion of fossil fuels into the atmosphere also has societal costs. Humans, animals and plants are pay these costs as well.

I'm not trying to come off harsh if it seems that way because its obvious you just don't know, and to be honest its not your job to know. I do consider it my job to inform you otherwise. I hate to sound cliche, but it is a media stigmata that brings forth this large misunderstanding of nuclear power.

Everyone needs to see this:
A nuclear reactor cannot physically explode. PERIOD. The operating conditions are not correct to allow an explosion. Even if the control rods fall out of the reactor and the main and auxiliary cooling systems fail, the reactor will never explode. If everything that could possible go wrong does go wrong, the worst thing that could happen is Three Mile Island (do research -- it was actually a great success in showing that the design of these plants works beautifully). The containment leak that happened at Chernobyl is impossible with any plant in this country.

Another point while I'm on my soap-box. Spent fuel (as per what we are spitting out in this country at this time) only takes ~400 years to reach the radioactivity level that it started at when it was taken from the earth. Not quite what opponents try to portray. I'm not denying that spent fuel is nasty stuff, but it is not nasty forever.

[uofom3]

Awesome thread, uofom3. Thanks for posting.

I wonder if there would be any benefit if everybody started using synthethic oil in their engines instead of mineral oil. Does anybody have any information or statistics regarding that? I bet it would be very little, though, but it makes me think.

If I was building a new house I would factor in the costs of solar panels for sure. I mean, just being outside building a house you realize just how much the sun beats down on the roof of a house. Plus, you cited that only 10% is utilized from solar power... Well, that's quite a bit when you think about it. I often think about schools and other huge buildings like factories that must consume huge amounts of electricity where 10% is going to quickly add up. Considering the huge flat roofs some of these buildings have, you could easily cover them with solar panels and it's not like anybody is even going to notice or potentionally complain that they're eyesores.

Also, working with my dad in home construction, I learned just how important a proper heating and cooling design, as well as superb insulation can affect the amount of electricity is consumed. My dad is absolutely fanatic when it comes to insulation and making sure that a house can "breath." The owner of a house that we built a couple years ago was ecstatic that he had to rarely turn on the AC in his house because it did such a fantastic job of holding the cold air in and keeping the hot air out.

You raised an awesome point there. How much could be saved by going to synthetic oil, having everyone change their air filter, and new plugs/rotor/cap? Maybe a fuel filter while you're at it.

Also, I wonder how much clogged CATconverters are hurting the gas consumption? Most people wait to get a new one until the thing literally cannot expel exhaust gas any longer. That much back pressure can't be helping efficiency.

Finally, I noticed this the other day when I went to do an oil change on the x5 for the first time (previously had it done at the stealer). I go down to G.I. Joes (sports and outdoor store in the PNW) to buy 9 quarts of mobil 1 10/30 synthetic. They went for something like $6 a quart, might have been in the high $5 range. Regardless, I remember paying virtually that exact same amount for the product 7 years ago when I was daily driving the m3. I just thought it was funny that though gas prices have gone $2 since then, the price of the motor oil in my engine has remained virtually unchanged.

[E30 Wagen]

Awesome thread, uofom3. Thanks for posting.

I wonder if there would be any benefit if everybody started using synthethic oil in their engines instead of mineral oil. Does anybody have any information or statistics regarding that? I bet it would be very little, though, but it makes me think.

If I was building a new house I would factor in the costs of solar panels for sure. I mean, just being outside building a house you realize just how much the sun beats down on the roof of a house. Plus, you cited that only 10% is utilized from solar power... Well, that's quite a bit when you think about it. I often think about schools and other huge buildings like factories that must consume huge amounts of electricity where 10% is going to quickly add up. Considering the huge flat roofs some of these buildings have, you could easily cover them with solar panels and it's not like anybody is even going to notice or potentionally complain that they're eyesores.

Also, working with my dad in home construction, I learned just how important a proper heating and cooling design, as well as superb insulation can affect the amount of electricity is consumed. My dad is absolutely fanatic when it comes to insulation and making sure that a house can "breath." The owner of a house that we built a couple years ago was ecstatic that he had to rarely turn on the AC in his house because it did such a fantastic job of holding the cold air in and keeping the hot air out.

[Julien]

I think that if we stopped wasting energy in america, we'd be better off already :-)

[uofom3]

lol, have you?

there should be a larger gas guzzler tax placed on the heavier SUVs, sports cars. maybe 2-3x as much. include "untuned" vehicles i.e. old buick century's, dodge caravans that emit large emissions and use more than its share of fuel. the tax should be added at time of registration or tab renewal so people cant try and skate it.

as far as energy goes im all for nuclear power. im also for opening that bonneville dam another 3-4" so it can crank out a lil more power. i dont think it even operates close to its potential at all. if there are large supplies of crude in canada and alaska i dont understand why there isnt more of a push to get at it. wouldnt the cost of acquiring it make it a reasonable choice in the long run?

You have a point but I don't think that the tax on the big cars is needed, they are taking it in the shorts every time they pull up to the pump.

You can't really tax the untuned cars because they are generally operated by people who don't have the money to maintain them. So taxing those people will only have more impact on the economy that is negative; not create many net benefits.

[uofom3]

Solar and Nuclear are the two energy sources we overlook the most.

I agree about solar being seriously overlooked, but I think that nuclear gets tossed around a lot; people are just opposed to the idea apparently.

Energy cast onto the earth from the sun in one day is enough to sustain the worlds energy needs for an entire year. Somewhere along the line, market imperfections have driven us away from solar power. In the current state, prospects for solar power generation are improving. The EU, Japan, and United States are slowly realizing that after overcoming scale, solar is actually a viable solution, and a clean energy alternative. (Cheaper than fossil as well on a per kilowatt basis as well) The problem is that the economies of scale already achieved by coal and oil is extremely diffucult to overcome. Subsidies are beginning to create an economic incentive to switch to solar, but it will take much more.

I agree. Solar is the future (possibly 40-50 years?) but for a short-term solution, it really isn't going to amount to a lot. That doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue it, make the techonology better, and harness more of that energy.

In short, without subsidies, and other economic incentives, solar will fail. With subsidies, it could eventually become connected to our power grids.

Maybe. If people can start making solar panels that are seriously good (e.g. they capture a lot of energy and don't have to be football field sized) they will catch on. Markets are very good at reacting to information, and if someone created something that made it very viable and relistic then it would come to market. I think it needs to be private money though; maybe major companies like GE that have experience with different things close to this nature that will create something that will work.

Nuclear is another solution that I am not opposed to. Aside from nuclear waste, it is remarkably clean. United States has taken a lesson right from Russia, (chernobyl), and decided to stay away from Nuclear. Costs are "too high" in terms of human life. A nuclear explosion, without any need to explain, can cause mass distruction, and ultimately the cost is human life. What is not realized is that expulsion of fossil fuels into the atmosphere also has societal costs. Humans, animals and plants are pay these costs as well.

True. Clean coal is comming around and really is eliminating a lot of the bad things that were being done with coal burning for energy. Don't get me wrong through, nuke is the way to go. There is also the potential for finding better ways or even uses for the nuclear waste.

From a cost benefit standpoint, and in my opinion, Nuclear is a much more acceptable alternative to fossil fuels. If we develop our own energy, we will reduce our reliance on foreign energy sources. The economy as a whole would improve. While this is very oversimplified and dumbed down, it is what I feel is true.

Couldn't have said it better my self - simplified is just fine.

[Vedubin01]

Solar is not there yet. Wind power is growing like leaps and bounds and is one of the cleanest. Anyone who lives in west Tx though Montana has seen this first hand. California has had wind generation for decades!

Nuclear is where its at. France is 80 percent powered by Nuclear. WE just got to get off this tree hugger left winged BS blocking shit and open it up. There are risks in everything we do. Nuclear is more beneficial than the risks using it. I say we go completely Nuke and fossil fuels for transportation. But that will never happen

[Money$hit]

Solar and Nuclear are the two energy sources we overlook the most.

Energy cast onto the earth from the sun in one day is enough to sustain the worlds energy needs for an entire year. Somewhere along the line, market imperfections have driven us away from solar power. In the current state, prospects for solar power generation are improving. The EU, Japan, and United States are slowly realizing that after overcoming scale, solar is actually a viable solution, and a clean energy alternative. (Cheaper than fossil as well on a per kilowatt basis as well) The problem is that the economies of scale already achieved by coal and oil is extremely diffucult to overcome. Subsidies are beginning to create an economic incentive to switch to solar, but it will take much more.

In short, without subsidies, and other economic incentives, solar will fail. With subsidies, it could eventually become connected to our power grids.

Nuclear is another solution that I am not opposed to. Aside from nuclear waste, it is remarkably clean. United States has taken a lesson right from Russia, (chernobyl), and decided to stay away from Nuclear. Costs are "too high" in terms of human life. A nuclear explosion, without any need to explain, can cause mass distruction, and ultimately the cost is human life. What is not realized is that expulsion of fossil fuels into the atmosphere also has societal costs. Humans, animals and plants are pay these costs as well.

From a cost benefit standpoint, and in my opinion, Nuclear is a much more acceptable alternative to fossil fuels. If we develop our own energy, we will reduce our reliance on foreign energy sources. The economy as a whole would improve. While this is very oversimplified and dumbed down, it is what I feel is true.

[Pinepig]

lol, have you?

there should be a larger gas guzzler tax placed on the heavier SUVs, sports cars. maybe 2-3x as much.

There already is because of the shitty MPG they get.

[2Big4a3Series]

Cannabis is very good for a lot of things. But many people still associate it with marijuana and think that you can use it to get high.

Thanks for sharing that point. I didn't clarify that it is indeed a different substance. But I think that because industrial hemp and marijana are in the cannabis family I am sure that it can be easily confused.. or even worse.. cause people to play dumb if they decide to grow the "real" stuff. I can imagine an all-day pot smoker telling the cops "This is a marijuana plant? Oh, I thought that that this was industrial hemp. Well let me get rid of it for you.."

[smonkbmw]

Ever tried smoking a hemp shirt? yeah, it doesn't work that way.

lol, have you?

there should be a larger gas guzzler tax placed on the heavier SUVs, sports cars. maybe 2-3x as much. include "untuned" vehicles i.e. old buick century's, dodge caravans that emit large emissions and use more than its share of fuel. the tax should be added at time of registration or tab renewal so people cant try and skate it.

as far as energy goes im all for nuclear power. im also for opening that bonneville dam another 3-4" so it can crank out a lil more power. i dont think it even operates close to its potential at all. if there are large supplies of crude in canada and alaska i dont understand why there isnt more of a push to get at it. wouldnt the cost of acquiring it make it a reasonable choice in the long run?