|
Post by irimi on Jun 23, 2023 6:08:41 GMT -8
Did someone say pissing in the ocean?
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jun 23, 2023 12:04:22 GMT -8
Did someone say pissing in the ocean? F#*king British and their Japanese financiers! F#*king it up for everyone!
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Jun 23, 2023 12:56:56 GMT -8
The station I go to in C-town will not observe self-serve and will still have their attendants pump the gas. Apparently, it's the retailer's choice and just because it's legal doesn't mean they have to allow it.
|
|
beaver94
Sophomore
Posts: 1,632
Member is Online
|
Post by beaver94 on Jun 23, 2023 13:45:16 GMT -8
My wife and daughter I'm sure will continue to use full-serve. I might also, but would prefer to at least have the option to jump out and pump my own when there's multiple vehicles waiting on 1 attendant.
|
|
|
Post by NativeBeav on Jun 23, 2023 14:07:51 GMT -8
My wife and daughter I'm sure will continue to use full-serve. I might also, but would prefer to at least have the option to jump out and pump my own when there's multiple vehicles waiting on 1 attendant. You mean - gulp - kinda like going to most grocery stores now? Choice? The horror!
|
|
|
Post by billthebeav on Jun 23, 2023 14:35:16 GMT -8
Problems with H tech as I understand it It takes more energy to obtain the H than one gets out of the H. Hindenburg As for your first point, I know little about the science behind it, but I suspect it isn't much worse than the energy required to drill up oil and refine it to be used in cars. I suspect that, like most things, when the determination and mindset are ready, then the advancements are made. As for your second opinion, Car and Driver wrote: The main issue with hydrogen as I see it, is the lack of infrastructure. Charging stations are becoming more and more common, but hydrogen locations are limited to CA and Hawaii. The main problem with hydrogen is low energy density. You need to compress hydrogen to 10,000 psi to get a reasonable driving range. Cracking hydrogen and compressing it is very energy intensive. The main source of hydrogen is fossil fuels, natural gas is the most common. Better to just use natural gas.
|
|
|
Post by NativeBeav on Jun 23, 2023 15:05:47 GMT -8
As for your first point, I know little about the science behind it, but I suspect it isn't much worse than the energy required to drill up oil and refine it to be used in cars. I suspect that, like most things, when the determination and mindset are ready, then the advancements are made. As for your second opinion, Car and Driver wrote: The main issue with hydrogen as I see it, is the lack of infrastructure. Charging stations are becoming more and more common, but hydrogen locations are limited to CA and Hawaii. The main problem with hydrogen is low energy density. You need to compress hydrogen to 10,000 psi to get a reasonable driving range. Cracking hydrogen and compressing it is very energy intensive. The main source of hydrogen is fossil fuels, natural gas is the most common. Better to just use natural gas. But - gulp - that means continuing to drill and pump oil. The haters will never allow that - no matter how clean natural gas and propane are. Until recent years, natural gas, which burns insanely clean, was just gassed off during pumping of oil and burned. It is plentiful, and normally cheap. Mining Lithium and burning up people from spontaneous combustion of batteries is so much better!
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Jun 23, 2023 18:45:41 GMT -8
As for your first point, I know little about the science behind it, but I suspect it isn't much worse than the energy required to drill up oil and refine it to be used in cars. I suspect that, like most things, when the determination and mindset are ready, then the advancements are made. As for your second opinion, Car and Driver wrote: The main issue with hydrogen as I see it, is the lack of infrastructure. Charging stations are becoming more and more common, but hydrogen locations are limited to CA and Hawaii. The main problem with hydrogen is low energy density. You need to compress hydrogen to 10,000 psi to get a reasonable driving range. Cracking hydrogen and compressing it is very energy intensive. The main source of hydrogen is fossil fuels, natural gas is the most common. Better to just use natural gas. Hydrogen can be produced in many different ways, including from electrifying water. While natural gas is the most common way to produce it, there are many other ways, which means the future is wide open. Natural gas is a fair alternative. But it is more sideways thinking than forward thinking. Personally, I believe in the ingenuity of science once it is backed by consumer demand. If we don’t ask, nothing changes.
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Jun 23, 2023 18:50:10 GMT -8
Did someone say pissing in the ocean? F#*king British and their Japanese financiers! F#*king it up for everyone! Shhh, don’t mention fracking or the fact that the US would rather go to war than seriously wean their oil addiction.
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Jun 23, 2023 20:38:51 GMT -8
F#*king British and their Japanese financiers! F#*king it up for everyone! Shhh, don’t mention fracking or the fact that the US would rather go to war than seriously wean their oil addiction. Or, the US could just utilize its natural resources. Face it. We’re going to need more and more energy in the future. That’s how this country (and the rest of the major producing countries) got to be great economic engines. We will need all sources. Oil, gas, solar, wind, geothermal, and yes, nuclear, to keep the economy strong and growing.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jun 23, 2023 21:42:52 GMT -8
F#*king British and their Japanese financiers! F#*king it up for everyone! Shhh, don’t mention fracking or the fact that the US would rather go to war than seriously wean their oil addiction. You keep moving the goalpost. The United States of America now has the ability to produce more energy than it needs. Why would we need to "go to war" for it? With whom would we go to war? The United States of America has so much energy that we can afford to sell oil 40 miles off the coast of Louisiana to England and Japan. Plus, oil is missing the point. Only 36% of CO2 emissions in the United States comes from petroleum combustion, and 14.02% of the world's CO2 production comes from the United States. So all-told, we discussing what? About 5% of the issue? And yet that is where 95% of the effort is focused. I am guessing as a subterfuge to trick people into voting against their own interests. But what do I know?
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Jun 24, 2023 6:53:24 GMT -8
Shhh, don’t mention fracking or the fact that the US would rather go to war than seriously wean their oil addiction. Or, the US could just utilize its natural resources. Face it. We’re going to need more and more energy in the future. That’s how this country (and the rest of the major producing countries) got to be great economic engines. We will need all sources. Oil, gas, solar, wind, geothermal, and yes, nuclear, to keep the economy strong and growing. I agree. But I think a dependence on oil keeps us from developing these other technologies. I trust that as batteries develop, they will overcome the limitations and deficiencies expressed in this thread. Nuclear power has come a long way from what we all think--Corvallis people know that. I love that OSU is doing research on wave energy. But geothermal, I think, would be amazing to harvest since we are in the ring of fire.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jun 24, 2023 12:53:13 GMT -8
Or, the US could just utilize its natural resources. Face it. We’re going to need more and more energy in the future. That’s how this country (and the rest of the major producing countries) got to be great economic engines. We will need all sources. Oil, gas, solar, wind, geothermal, and yes, nuclear, to keep the economy strong and growing. I agree. But I think a dependence on oil keeps us from developing these other technologies. I trust that as batteries develop, they will overcome the limitations and deficiencies expressed in this thread. Nuclear power has come a long way from what we all think--Corvallis people know that. I love that OSU is doing research on wave energy. But geothermal, I think, would be amazing to harvest since we are in the ring of fire. Geothermal, nuclear, and wave power have always concerned me. Geothermal and nuclear seem to be messing with Earth's internal dynamo. And wave power seem to be messing with the intricate balance between the Earth and the Moon. If large-scale harvesting of geothermal energy or atomic elements occur, you could theoretically upset Earth's internal dynamo and destroy the magnetosphere or cause a reversal. Or you could upset the Earth cooling effects of vulcanism that offset the Sun's generally increasing heat. If you take too much energy out of the oceans, you could theoretically perturb the Moon's orbit. (The Moon pulls on the oceans and the oceans pull back to keep the Moon in its orbit.) A largescale shift to solar and wind are the future. They present the least problems with largescale use. But everyone needs to get on board, especially China. We can't hamstring ourselves, reducing CO2 emissions by almost 15% in the previous 20 years, while China has more than tripled its CO2 output in the past 20 years.
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Jun 24, 2023 14:37:30 GMT -8
The main problem with hydrogen is low energy density. You need to compress hydrogen to 10,000 psi to get a reasonable driving range. Cracking hydrogen and compressing it is very energy intensive. The main source of hydrogen is fossil fuels, natural gas is the most common. Better to just use natural gas. But - gulp - that means continuing to drill and pump oil. The haters will never allow that - no matter how clean natural gas and propane are. Until recent years, natural gas, which burns insanely clean, was just gassed off during pumping of oil and burned. It is plentiful, and normally cheap. Mining Lithium and burning up people from spontaneous combustion of batteries is so much better! The United States is producing more oil now that at any time in our history. Guess the "haters" aren't doing their job. www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS2&f=M
|
|
|
Post by NativeBeav on Jun 24, 2023 15:30:21 GMT -8
But - gulp - that means continuing to drill and pump oil. The haters will never allow that - no matter how clean natural gas and propane are. Until recent years, natural gas, which burns insanely clean, was just gassed off during pumping of oil and burned. It is plentiful, and normally cheap. Mining Lithium and burning up people from spontaneous combustion of batteries is so much better! The United States is producing more oil now that at any time in our history. Guess the "haters" aren't doing their job. www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS2&f=MI guess not - if you look at the chart at the bottom of the page, you can see production really dropped off in April of 2020, and has been steadily building since then. It is a good thing the apocalyptic date for the destruction of mankind due to climate change has been pushed out again - I was really worried
|
|