Who Else Is Voting For Ron Paul?

[Adam Howard]

Hmm.....
That sounds like the old days. The future, IMHO, belongs to the efficient. That is, states and countries (and people) who use the LEAST energy and us it in the most efficient fashion will win the game.

Cheap energy is like a performance enhancing drug. It may work once or twice, but sooner or later the organs are gonna burn out.

Cheap energy generally equals war (conflict). It also usually adds to pollution, which then adds to misery, health care costs and much more.

Just my opinion - based on being in the energy biz for almost 40 years.

Cheap, efficient, and clean energy isn't a thing of science fiction. It is indeed a reality and a continued possibility.

Use cars for example... We do actually have cars that can run on water and air, without gas. None. Just air and water, no gas.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Even going on sale soon = http://www.mdi.lu/english/index.php

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Goes on sale this year, early next year.

 

[Digital Doctor]

A Gas Powered Air Compressor would make this a win !

 

[Jake Bunce]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Goes on sale this year, early next year.

Something is missing here. There is no known method for splitting water without a net energy loss. There must be another fuel involved but the company won't release details about the onboard generator which supposedly burns only water.

Electrolysis is a good way to split water, but it requires an energy source and the reaction is endothermic.

 

[Reeve of Shinra]

History has shown that whenever we use a food crop as a fuel source - the price of that food crop goes up exponentially (ie: corn in the USA). I wouldn't want the same thing to happen with a necessary resource like water.

I also don't believe water is the end all be all of clean, unlimited, energy. Geographical issues aside where water may be scare in desert like areas, water is still a finite resource and even if it is 10,000 times larger than the oil supply -- we will be back right back at square one 10 years from now unless other plans are put into place.

 

[Adam Howard]

A Gas Powered Air Compressor would make this a win !

A water powered air compressor would make this a win

 

[jadmperry]

Dilithium crystals are the key. If we can find a reliable source, then Newt's goal of moon bases will be much more feasible.

 

[craigiri]

A Gas Powered Air Compressor would make this a win !

Yeah, a bit of a fly in the ointment that it takes energy to create compressed air!
At the same time, energy is less of a problem than storage in such applications. Batteries are the big problem when it comes to electric cars and this could be one of the solutions. I doubt it will do much here - where we like the big heavy cars, but for much of the world that just desires to go from A to B, it might take some strain off the liquid fossil fuels.

But the fact remains - there are a number of technologies which can help us transition from dirtier energy to cleaner sources - and, IMHO, the folks who spend the time and money adopting these technologies will be better positioned for the future. Cheap oil, gas and coal are just a stopgap...and, in fact, do more harm than good (just like too much ice cream for a toddler!)

 

[craigiri]

History has shown that whenever we use a food crop as a fuel source - the price of that food crop goes up exponentially (ie: corn in the USA). I wouldn't want the same thing to happen with a necessary resource like water.

I also don't believe water is the end all be all of clean, unlimited, energy. Geographical issues aside where water may be scare in desert like areas, water is still a finite resource and even if it is 10,000 times larger than the oil supply -- we will be back right back at square one 10 years from now unless other plans are put into place.

There is so much energy available - took a short flight the other day and the pilot mentioned a 170 knot tail wind. Imagine how much energy is in a 200 MPH breeze! One inventor already set up a blimp which rotates and creates electricity. Imagine the tides and/or waves harnessed - the amount of energy is mind-boggling. Solar PV is very close to being the same price as oil - in fact, if you figure in the wars, pollution and other artifacts of fossil fuels, the price is probably the same or lower.

All we need at this point is the will to do it. Lots of other countries are well on the way - Denmark, Germany, Israel and others. We are also doing some good work here, but still have the problem of excess use - that is, our average citizen uses twice as much (or more) than a European...for the same or lower quality of life and health.

 

[SchmitzIT]

Denmark is heavily invested in wind power. And yet, without heavy subsidies, wind power just is not a feasible source for power. Yet. (there's also a great number of technical difficulties with it, like the fact that a wind turbine is only able to produce 25% of its time, as it will be unable to do so when there's not enough (or too much) wind, and that the current power grids cannot support the spikes and dips caused by the volatility of the wind).

I'm all for finding alternatives to burning fossil fuel, but the claims politicians and lobbyists make that wind or solar energy is equally expensive to fossil fuel are just blatantly false. Remove the subsidies, and not a single person would willingly buy wind energy at its true cost. Granted, breakthroughs are made almost daily, but the true efficient and clean alternative has yet to be discovered.

I hope that whatever is being done now will pay off in the future, though. Until then, I would like for the apparent taboo on Nuclear energy to be reconsidered.

 

[craigiri]

Denmark is heavily invested in wind power. And yet, without heavy subsidies, wind power just is not a feasible source for power. Yet.
I hope that whatever is being done now will pay off in the future, though. Until then, I would like for the apparent taboo on Nuclear energy to be reconsidered.

You do understand that without VAST subsidies and exclusion from responsibility (no insurance needed, for instance) the nuke industry cannot generate electric at competitive rates?

Same goes with a lot of other fossil fuel technology. Oil, Coal, Gas....all heavily subsidized by tax policy...and/or allowed to operate without paying the full costs (environmental, etc.).

Heck, without so-called subsidies we would not have the railroad, the telegraph, GPS , Interstates and many other features of modern life.