[Ax]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

forgetting the usage of raw material which has potential energy.

no... with some fuels you can get more than you put into it based on the material you used. Instead of ethanol, which can be efficiently used, but has less energy than gasoline, why not Born-Haber gasoline? the US has the coal. Or why not use hydrogen, the technology is old to do it. Fuel can be achieved easily through electrolysis, or more efficiently by another process.

take for example a windmill, or a hydroelectric plant, these produce energy well. they produce more than production of them consumes. I would guess that pumping and refining petroleum uses less energy than it produces as well. But this is off topic.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

To get more energy out of hydrogen then you used to make it with electrolysis, you would need to use it for a fusion reactor. We don't know how to do that yet.

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

well my point was getting the hydrogen to primitively burn. I know there is a more efficient way, which I have heard described in a chemistry lecture. The whole point of the lecture was dealing with that. I just can't recall the process. A fusion reactor would be something I would like as I am all for safe nuclear power, but the whole lack of technology thing is a real deal killer. In fact, I think a lot of our energy problems are the result of squeamishness about nuclear power.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I've little doubt that there's a more efficient way to seperate hydrogen and oxygen in water. But burning hydrogen recombines them. It's impossible (without violating Thermodynamics) to get more energy out than you put in there; and even that much would require an (impossible) 100% efficiency.

It may be a viable method for transporting energy (use a nuclear plant to make the energy to make hydrogen that powers cars or the like), but it's not a viable base-source of energy without fusion.

There's a similar problem with the cited article on H3 on the moon. It's useful if you can build a fusion reactor there. But you can't even burn it on the moon as you lack the oxygen.

OTOH, without an aptmosphere to worry about, solar should be simple and predictable on the moon.

Originally Posted by AXguitar

we could always get it through chemical reactions. This is however off topic, so I'm gonna create another thread for this in Science.

I split this from moon base.

[tlj009]

I don't believe that hydrogen would have to be overly efficient to be useful. It just needs problems like storage to be solved. If it could be stored and transported easily and cheaply then it could be used not only for vehicles but also in power generation for houses. Power generation for houses would also require the use of renewable energy to be cheaper, but I think that is on its way too. I don't remember the details, but I do remember reading about some experiment where they concentrated sunlight with a dish to produce temperatures of around 450 degrees and used that to split water (I think it was significant because of the low temperature used and the solar power). If a process like that could be affordable, then I can see where it could be widely used throughout the world in individual homes. So even if it weren't that efficient, if renewable energies are used then it would still be great.

[Peatrical]

Power generation for houses would also require the use of renewable energy to be cheaper, but I think that is on its way too.

All we need to do for power generation is fill up vast areas of barren desserts with solar panels, and put more windmills up in the great planes. In one of my engg lectures it was discussed that you could power all of north America with the solar energy available in an small portion of the Arizona dessert, but transporting it grid to grid would be a problem.

[Ax]

Originally Posted by Peatrical

All we need to do for power generation is fill up vast areas of barren desserts with solar panels, and put more windmills up in the great planes. In one of my engg lectures it was discussed that you could power all of north America with the solar energy available in an small portion of the Arizona dessert, but transporting it grid to grid would be a problem.

Right, we've long known this. We need to find ways to store the electricity in something more efficient than a battery, and have something more reliable than electrical lines. Also with the current way that co-ops and electricity companies are set up, there'd be huge wars over how to distribute the energy.

[Peatrical]

Well I'm a fan of nationalization of resources, and I think a government run solar patch would work. Electrical Engineers do work on more efficient boosters and transformers for wired settings, and we ado have super conductive materials now. In theory we could run such wires underground with more efficient boosters and such to transport energy across the grid. If we cut the corporations out it could be sold to people at cost, be green, and there'd be little problems. The problem is we only have generation capacity right now, and not transportation capacity.

[Ax]

Originally Posted by Peatrical

Well I'm a fan of nationalization of resources,

It'll never float. That ship has been sinking ever since the constitution was signed. The Cold war is another reason that the US wont do it. Even now that looks communist and Americans are still afraid of communism.

[JerryLove]

All we need to do for power generation is fill up vast areas of barren desserts with solar panels, and put more windmills up in the great planes.

Right, we've long known this. We need to find ways to store the electricity in something more efficient than a battery

Batteries are a big issue when we start talking about things like solar power. The problem with solar and wind power is that it is inconsistant. We cannot control supply.

Well, there are a few other problems. Costs of materials. It takes a lot of energy to put up a windmill. Then there's the ecological damage (windmills chop up birds nicely).

If we could find a safe way to broadcast power, I like "solar cells on the moon", but I don't think there's a good way to get it from there to here. Alternately, if we ever get a space-elevator working, we could run power-lines along with it.

Well I'm a fan of nationalization of resources, and I think a government run solar patch would work. Electrical Engineers do work on more efficient boosters and transformers for wired settings, and we ado have super conductive materials now. In theory we could run such wires underground with more efficient boosters and such to transport energy across the grid.

You cannot because you could not keep them cool enough. We have no superconductors that work at room temperature.

That said, supercapicters, room-temperature superconductors, and table-top fusion are all great areas to put money into.

[Peatrical]

You cannot because you could not keep them cool enough. We have no superconductors that work at room temperature.

hehe that's why I said in theory. We should spend less money on oil sands extraction processes and more into easier ways to transfer energy long rangeswith less loss. Combustion processes are very low efficiencies (I'd imagine somewhere from 10 - 30% efficient) so we should really look into making ideas like massive solar plants for continents a reality

Even now that looks communist and Americans are still afraid of communism.

Communism isn't bad, neither is social democracy like many European countries adopt as their main political system.

[Ax]

Originally Posted by Peatrical

Communism isn't bad, neither is social democracy like many European countries adopt as their main political system.

So communism, which forbids religion and puts powerful dictators into power who can exploit whomever they like, isn't bad?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by AXguitar

So communism, which forbids religion and puts powerful dictators into power who can exploit whomever they like, isn't bad?

It's just as bad as democracy or monarchy which forbid religion and put powerful dictators into power.

[Ax]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

It's just as bad as democracy or monarchy which forbid religion and put powerful dictators into power.

How do they forbid religion. Communism by nature forbids religion.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by AXguitar

How do they forbid religion. Communism by nature forbids religion.

No it does not. How does communism, by nature, forbid religion?

[Ax]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

No it does not. How does communism, by nature, forbid religion?

Because it is the belief of communists that Religion is a tool of the government to brainwash the people, which is kinda funny if you look at the history of the Soviet Union. Go read some Marx.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by AXguitar

Because it is the belief of communists that Religion is a tool of the government to brainwash the people, which is kinda funny if you look at the history of the Soviet Union. Go read some Marx.

So marx believed it. How does that make it a neccessairy part of communism?

[Ax]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So marx believed it. How does that make it a neccessairy part of communism?

Because religion would take the focus off the government, which would be the opposite of the communist agenda.