 Global warming and flying cars., On some George Jetson type of sh*t. |
  |
 Aug 14 2005, 07:41 AM
Post
#51
|
|||||
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 530 Joined: 11-June 05 Member No.: 7,441  |
Capacitors won't advance enough in our lifetime for this to work, and likely not in the SR timeframe either. You can get some serious voltage, but they just can't provide enough current to drive a car. A purely field-driven approach just won't work. The solution is going to have to involve a chemical reaction of some kind -- batteries, fuel cells, combustion, etc.
From an electrocution point of view, it's no more unsafe than existing power lines. In the SR universe, GridLink uses AC power and coils underground to induce a voltage on a matching set of coils in the vehicle above ground. From an overall health point of view... well, electric fields are suspected of causing cancer, and the effect of large magnetic fields on biological forms isn't exactly known. Passengers could be shielded from this, but pedestrians... I dunno. |
||||
 |
 
|
||||
|
Aug 14 2005, 03:47 PM
Post
#52
|
|
|
Horror Group: Members Posts: 5,322 Joined: 15-June 05 From: BumFuck, New Jersey Member No.: 7,445 |
That sounds exactly like the kind of thing the Megacorps would keep under wraps. What corp handles the City of Seattle Grid, anyway? Sounds like a Run brewing.... Get the evidence!
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 14 2005, 07:57 PM
Post
#53
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 485 Joined: 25-October 04 Member No.: 6,789 |
Global warning happens in stages. A few degrees jump over the span of decades. yes it is a problem. One we could solve easily but don't. Why? becuase the people with the answer are ussually to busy moralizing that their way of living is better and the rest of us are evill materialistic cads. When confronted by such statements (which are largely false) the common person clams up and refuses to listen. Of course this just drive some of the environmental people nuts and the cycle perpetuates itself.
Personally I don't think of cattle as wasted land, if we went the way of the beefulo. We could still have that lovely, juicy, delicious steak for about half the use of land and water. Pigs are high efficency meat producers as are chickens. And the by products from these animals are industries in their own right (leather, milk, methane, and eggs.) Industrial hemp is a wonderful fiber as is cotton, both of which should be grown as they are both versatile. Hell, you could switch them back and forth year after year and get the maximum use of your land. And I am sorry but meat only once a month? Feel free to do it your self, but if you try to force me to do the same I will feed you to the pigs |
|
|
|
|
Aug 14 2005, 08:19 PM
Post
#54
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 276 Joined: 4-September 04 Member No.: 6,628 |
Zero. Point. Energy. :spin:
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2005, 02:22 AM
Post
#55
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 485 Joined: 25-October 04 Member No.: 6,789 |
Actually I remember form chemistry class that you can split water into hydrogen and oxygen with a miniscule application of electricity. On the upside hydrogen-oxygen explosions are incredibly powerful. It is possible we could make an engine with no output at all only needs to be recharged occasionally. Engines that would far outperform eletrics, diesels and even most gasoline engines.
Why don't we do this? Our economy is addicted to oil. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2005, 02:26 AM
Post
#56
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 276 Joined: 4-September 04 Member No.: 6,628 |
Well you could use the oxygen fed hydrogen explosions that result from electrolysis to power a generator to charge the batteries that power the electrolysis. Then use the additional electricity to power an electric car. The only input would be water. Am I not the savior of the world or what? :D
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2005, 02:37 AM
Post
#57
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Because it wastes a lot of energy. It's a viable means of creating portable power, but requires infrastructure in place to generate the additional power (say, nuclear power plants or suchlike). ~J |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 15 2005, 03:45 AM
Post
#58
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,028 Joined: 9-November 02 From: The Republic of Vermont Member No.: 3,581 |
It's like this... you start out with water, and add energy via electrolysis, and get hydrogen and oxygen: 2*H2O + (energy in) => 2*H2 + O2 Then you put the hydrogen into your gas tank, and burn it (combine it with oxygen), to release energy: 2*H2 + O2 => 2*H2O + (energy out) Notice that these processes are the exact reverse of each other. If you look at this like an algebra equation (water + energy in = water + energy out), it'll become obvious that "energy in" and "energy out" are equal. You get no more energy out of burning the hydrogen than you put in via electrolysis. But it's worse than that. These steps don't - can't - happen with 100% efficiency... there's a "waste heat" factor stealing energy from you at every step. So you end up with less energy stored in the hydrogen than you put in by electrolysis, and still less coming out in usable form when you burn it. It's a losing game. Of course, everything is a losing game. You don't lose too badly at this one, and the products at each step are pretty safe, even desirable, so, as Vaevictis points out, it makes a decent battery. But it doesn't solve the question of where you're going to get that "energy in" to make the whole process work... and you have to keep adding more, 'cause you're losing some to waste heat on each pass through the cycle, and however much of your "energy out" you're spending doing actual work with your hydrogen engine on top of that. So you still need some other method to actually generate your power... nuclear fission or fusion (either artificial or leeching off that huge nuke in the sky), hydroelectric, burning oil or coal or wood, or whatever. Of course, in Shadowrun, the answers are easy. You get a mage to whip up a sustained version of Lightning Bolt and Quicken it onto your power mains (or use Magic Fingers to turn a generator, or whatever... there are plenty of ways), and just suck your power out of the Astral or whereverthehell spells are powered from. Sure, maybe it'll trash the place, but no one lives there besides spirits! |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 15 2005, 04:24 AM
Post
#59
|
|
|
Horror Group: Members Posts: 5,322 Joined: 15-June 05 From: BumFuck, New Jersey Member No.: 7,445 |
Those formulae are the exact opposites of one another. Algebraically equal. Granted, there's always waste heat inefficiencies...
But I can't help but wonder if you could engineer a system small enough to conduct the whole operation under the hood? That way your only fuel need be the water itself. You could fill your tank up at the tap. :) (well, not, considering what they put in tap water, but you get what I'm saying...) |
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2005, 04:26 AM
Post
#60
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 556 Joined: 28-May 04 From: Moorhead, MN, USA Member No.: 6,367 |
How come nobody else noticed this? My next game will have orbital cattle ranches. And if a player's character gets out of line? You got it! OCB. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 15 2005, 04:30 AM
Post
#61
|
|||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
The notion that global warming is caused by human activities is popular because it plays to human arrogance and vanity. The accuracy of that belief is questionable however, since we lack the temperature records for most of the world's history it is impossible to know what the natural temperature cycle of the Earth is. What is known, however, is that the Earth experiences rather extreme temperature fluctuation over time. It is probable that so called global warming is just a natural part of the Earth's temperature cycle and that mankind's influence upon it is minor. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 15 2005, 04:39 AM
Post
#62
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
We do not lack temperature records for the vast majority of the earth's inhabitable history. The uninhabitable parts are irrelevant because we're not worried about the earth, we're worried about the living things on it (primarily us).
What you call "probable" is instead shaky at best. We're seeing a rise dramatically greater than others in the temperature record, one that correlates very strongly with the increase of human industrial activity. ~J |
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2005, 05:00 AM
Post
#63
|
|||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Humans being have only existed for a tiny fraction of Earth's "inhabitable" history. Considering that the thermometer was invented in 1714, we don't even have accurate temperature records for the majority of human history, much less the majority of the Earth's "inhabitable" history. Also, logical fallacy Post Hoc and Complex Cause |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 15 2005, 05:13 AM
Post
#64
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,598 Joined: 15-March 03 From: Hong Kong Member No.: 4,253 |
Well, actually global warming is cause by the general lack of pirates on the Earth. Watch how the temperature of the earth rises as the number of pirates went down. The temperature 'back in the day' was fair and constant because there were a relatively constant number of pirates.
So maties, our only chance to save the earth lies ahead, hoist the jolly roger! |
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2005, 05:38 AM
Post
#65
|
|||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,028 Joined: 9-November 02 From: The Republic of Vermont Member No.: 3,581 |
Yes.
No. The water isn't the fuel. The water is the fuel tank. That "energy in" factor is the fuel. The water is just a convenient way to hold that energy until you want to use it. You can actually keep recycling the same water through the system forever, break it up and put it back together again and again. It's just that every time you break it up, you have to pull energy in from somewhere else - probably as electrical power from the power mains - to do it. You don't fill it up at the tap. You plug it into the wall. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 15 2005, 05:43 AM
Post
#66
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,598 Joined: 15-March 03 From: Hong Kong Member No.: 4,253 |
Yes, the advantage of the system would be in the economies of scale of the energy production. In that millions of car engines (relatively inefficiently) burning gas to move the car around produce more pollution than a few power plants (relatively efficiently) burning the same gasoline to make electricity, which is then used to crack water, which is then used to drive the cars. The fuel cell powered cars still contribute to pollution (the electricity that drives them has to come from somewhere but hopefully, the production of electricity can be made cleaner than the burning of gas by several small engines.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2005, 05:52 AM
Post
#67
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 485 Joined: 25-October 04 Member No.: 6,789 |
Also note that the energy can be completely clean ala Windmills, Solar power, Hydroelectric Dam, and Tidal power. However i would like to point out the machine I saw bust up the water did it via a lamp battery to five gallons of water. that is an awful lot of fuel for not much power.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2005, 05:59 AM
Post
#68
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,028 Joined: 9-November 02 From: The Republic of Vermont Member No.: 3,581 |
It's slightly less fuel than you'd get just hooking the lamp battery directly up to a motor.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2005, 06:06 AM
Post
#69
|
|
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
A self-contained hydrogen plant is foolish becaus eyou would still have to plug your car in for 20 hours per night, and you would only be able to travel a few kilometers before the car would require another 20 hour recharge. It is the same problem as an electric car but with twice the space requirements and less efficiency.
Now, replacing gas stations with hydrogen stations (I suppose calling them gas stations would be accurate) would actually work. It would be clean and it would potentially be renewable. It would be more likely to explode, all things being equal, and more difficult to store and transport. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2005, 06:14 AM
Post
#70
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,598 Joined: 15-March 03 From: Hong Kong Member No.: 4,253 |
And you get this data from your years of work in the field?
There is no denying that gasoline is a 'very dense' way of transporting stored energy, under the right circumstances, it can even be an efficient one. However, expecting millions of car owners to keep their engines tuned just so (and so on) is not going to happen. Well designed (totally) gasoline powered cars will get comparable mileage to the current incarnations of gas-electric hybrid cars. The real question is, which technologies for driving cars have the most 'efficiency headroom'. Fuel cells are popular field of research because of the ridiculous energy efficiencies you can get out of them. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2005, 06:26 AM
Post
#71
|
|||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Well, plugging it in for 20 hours was ment to be a comical exaggeration of the problem facing purely electrical cars. Still, it isn't much of an exageration. Electric cars require many batteries that drain far too quickly. Hybrids are a different animal altogether. Were't discussing hybrids. We were discussing cars that use onboard battery power to split water into into hydrogen and oxygen and that then burn the hydrogen in an internal compustion engine. I'm sure we can all agree that that is insane. The fact that hydrgen is a highly flamable lighter-than-air gas is fairly well known. This makes storage of hydrogen more complicated and more dangerous than storage of gasoline. It is on par with storage of propane, so it isn't that bad. In fact, outdoor hydrogen leaks are less dangerous than outdoor propane leaks because propane pools on the ground waiting for a spark while hydrogen quickly rises toward outer space. Indoor hydrogen leeks are another matter. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 15 2005, 06:55 AM
Post
#72
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,028 Joined: 9-November 02 From: The Republic of Vermont Member No.: 3,581 |
Well, yeah. That's why you don't do it that way. Using offboard mains power to charge a battery, and then using the battery power to split the water adds a totally unnecessary extra step to the process, and internal combustion engines make a fairly inefficient way to extract the energy from the hydrogen. The idea is to use offboard mains power to split water into hydrogen and oxygen in a fuel cell, and then have the fuel cell turn the hydrogen and oxygen back into water and electrical power on demand and use it to spin an electric motor. Thinking of it as a higher energy-density battery for an electric car is closer than thinking of it as an alternative fuel for an internal combustion-powered car. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 15 2005, 12:08 PM
Post
#73
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,428 Joined: 9-June 02 Member No.: 2,860 |
Actually, I thought we were discussing a car that used outside electricity to crack the water, not internal batteries. I'd just bypass the battery step. At a power connection with sufficient power input (several hundred kilowatts), you could reprocess all the waste water from the power plant back into hydrogen and oxygen in a few minutes. (And, personally, I'd dump the oxygen. You can get more from the air and don't have to bottle it in the car.) This seems to be what Shadowrun's fuel cell cars do: use a self-contained hydrogen (or water) supply that is recycled when outside power supplies fresh PFs. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 15 2005, 01:43 PM
Post
#74
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Congratulations on introducing irrelevant information and drawing a totally spurious hypothesis from it. No thermometers necessary. (I overestimated how far back we have, but it's still a meaningful time period for analysis.) ~J |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 15 2005, 01:51 PM
Post
#75
|
|||||
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,548 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
The problem with 'clean' sources is, when they're effective, they're generally very space or price inefficient. Where I am now I could get solar panels installed for about $15,000 (if I had a house to put them on, and I don't), which, if I'm lucky, would cut down my electricity bill to just about nothing. But seriously, I'd have to run them, without having to pay for repairs, for about 150 years before I start making a return on my investment. To run New York on solar power, they'd have to take up about 60% of the island in regards to space constraints. For wind power I believe it was closer to 40% (National Geographic did an article on this just last month). Of course, we'd want to put that on shore to save the valuable space, but that means loss of power as it travels through the power lines, and it's not like the surrounding NY/NJ area has giant tracts of land just begging to be harvested either. Hydroelectric dams have serious environmental impacts. Tidal power sucks horrible and isn't even in the running. Wind power is limited in where it can be implemented, and is still far more expensive than coal or gas unless you're out in the boonies. Nuclear is the closest competitor in regards to the 'clean' energy sources, and even that is more expensive than a good coal power station. Once we get fusion, things may change, however.
I suspect this is not the case. I drive a little Nissan I keep in excellent condition and I get 35 miles to the gallon, which is very good. My friend just got a new toyato hybrid and he gets closer to 60. I can tweak all I want, there's no way I can double my fuel efficiency, even though I'm using one of the smaller engines on the market. I can, however, say that my repair costs are likely to be a good deal lower, and certainly when you compare the cost of the cars themselves (I was limited because my bank limits my maximum withdrawal amount per day from ATMs. He was limited because he had to take out a 5 or 10 year loan.) I saved a LOT more money. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 27th June 2026 - 05:34 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.