The Long Emergency...

LancelotSA said:
Where do you get that from? The pessimistic view I found only said peak would be reached in four years time yet you say 12 years ago already.


Which is definitely wrong as production has increased in that time...
Click to expand...

No more oil fields have been discovered in the past 20 years.
Google it.
We passed max production a few years ago.
 
boramk said:
I reckon 30 years....
But by then we would be using hydrogen fuel
Click to expand...

How sure are you that we'll be using hydrogen fuel?

The common mis-conception is that we'll have a 'alternate fuel source' by the time oil runs out but in reality... we've got SQUAT backing us up.
 
gdiza said:
How sure are you that we'll be using hydrogen fuel?

The common mis-conception is that we'll have a 'alternate fuel source' by the time oil runs out but in reality... we've got SQUAT backing us up.
Click to expand...

I have a working hydrogen generator.
I can run my car on hydrogen.
I built the bloody thing.
 
Unless we can improve on May 2005's production of conventional crude, then that month will remain the date of Peak Oil. In short, we're screwed.
 
gdiza said:
I've already said that ;) find yourself another way of saying it! haha.
Click to expand...

Forgive me.

I find PO to involve an ironic paradox. Do these people that say that we've got 300 years' worth of oil left not realise that, if PO does not kill us, then the resultant GW certainly will. Either way, we're screwed. Oops!
 
StrongTurd said:
Unless we can improve on May 2005's production of conventional crude, then that month will remain the date of Peak Oil.
Click to expand...
Again why would producers want to increase their output when they can drag out their supplies at high prices?
 
noxibox said:
Again why would producers want to increase their output when they can drag out their supplies at high prices?
Click to expand...

Because they're really nice people once you get to know them?

Peak oilers have been revising their doomsday dates as often as the russian cultists.

Running out of oil is a certainty, but I don't think it will be soon. And even if it does its not going to be the end of the world as we know, although hyperbole is fun.
 
Hey been using candlelight all night so its not a stretch to picture myself on a bicycle soon :D
 
phenom said:
pffft, oil will NEVER run out in our life-time
USA and many others too, has more shale oil than all of saudi, this could also be turned into normal petrol.
Click to expand...

Saudi's out in 6-8 years.
Thats why Saudi's are investing in toursim na =d advanced infrastructure
 
TooFastTim said:
Now Piep, tell us where you get the hydrogen?
Click to expand...

I built a 101 cell hydrogen generator.
It produces 65 litres of uncompressd hydrogen per minute, using 12 volt power from the car's alternator.

I have a small problem with the electrical supply wires overheating and melting,due to too high current draw.
I am working on sorting it out.

I also have the plans for running a car on a gassifier.
Similar to the ones used during the second world war.

It involves using wood chips or mealie cobs that you burn in a gassifier.
You then use that gas to power your car.
The second system is to big to use inside a car(in the boot)
You need a small trailer behind the car.

It would work fine on a pick up.
The only disadvantage is that you have to start the fire 2 min before you want to drive off.
It works well to heat the house or a gas stove inside the house.
 
Last edited:
So you use energy to produce/separate hydrogen from the cars alternator then you run the car on the hydrogen?

Do you get where I'm going with this? Anyway the point I'm making is that you require energy to separate hydrogen from whatever (usually water). Then when the hydrogen recombines with oxygen it produces energy making the car run. The enrgy to separate the hydrogen must come from an external source (otherwise it would be perpetual motion and that's a no no) usually that energy comes from electricity which is generated by fossil fuels.

The point is that hydrogen is an energy storage device. It does not "create" energy. That energy comes from somewhere else.
 
TooFastTim said:
So you use energy to produce/separate hydrogen from the cars alternator then you run the car on the hydrogen?

Do you get where I'm going with this? Anyway the point I'm making is that you require energy to separate hydrogen from whatever (usually water). Then when the hydrogen recombines with oxygen it produces energy making the car run. The enrgy to separate the hydrogen must come from an external source (otherwise it would be perpetual motion and that's a no no) usually that energy comes from electricity which is generated by fossil fuels.

The point is that hydrogen is an energy storage device. It does not "create" energy. That energy comes from somewhere else.
Click to expand...

True. Also, if you park a hydrogen-powered car for a couple of weeks you'll end up with an empty fuel tank because the boiled-off hydrogen needs to be vented. The bottom line is that no readily available substance comes even close to the energy density and convenience of gasoline. There simply is no substitute for light sweet crude on a global scale.
 
TooFastTim said:
So you use energy to produce/separate hydrogen from the cars alternator then you run the car on the hydrogen?

Do you get where I'm going with this? Anyway the point I'm making is that you require energy to separate hydrogen from whatever (usually water). Then when the hydrogen recombines with oxygen it produces energy making the car run. The enrgy to separate the hydrogen must come from an external source (otherwise it would be perpetual motion and that's a no no) usually that energy comes from electricity which is generated by fossil fuels.

The point is that hydrogen is an energy storage device. It does not "create" energy. That energy comes from somewhere else.
Click to expand...

The Farraday principle.

It is a fallacy that you need more energy to split hydrogen than what you can get from burning the hydrogen.

I can produce 65 litres of Hydrogen per minute using 12 volt 2 amps.

Unfortunately, when installed into the engine,it does not work.
My alternator produces 95 amps.
This melts the plastic from the wires.
( a extremely dangerous situation, you will agree)

I need a circuit board to reduce the Amps drawn to 2 amps.

You also need a LM555 circuit board to send electric pulses to the electrolite.

I have the complete plans for this.
As i am electronically disadvantaged, somebody else builds the circuit boards.

Outsidse the car, this works fine, as i can control the amps drawn.
Inside the car it is a different story.
 
Piepalook said:
The Farraday principle.

It is a fallacy that you need more energy to split hydrogen than what you can get from burning the hydrogen.

I can produce 65 litres of Hydrogen per minute using 12 volt 2 amps.

Unfortunately, when installed into the engine,it does not work.
My alternator produces 95 amps.
This melts the plastic from the wires.
( a extremely dangerous situation, you will agree)

I need a circuit board to reduce the Amps drawn to 2 amps.

You also need a LM555 circuit board to send electric pulses to the electrolite.

I have the complete plans for this.
As i am electronically disadvantaged, somebody else builds the circuit boards.

Outsidse the car, this works fine, as i can control the amps drawn.
Inside the car it is a different story.
Click to expand...

I'd like to have more info about this. Have you got your experiments online somewhere?
 
Piepalook said:
The Farraday principle.

It is a fallacy that you need more energy to split hydrogen than what you can get from burning the hydrogen.
Click to expand...

*Sigh* No you're still not getting it. That isn't the point and yes I'm aware of the thermodynamics of the reactions (rusty though) But how do you explain away losses in the engine, transmission exhaust etc?

BTW, you don't need a circuit to reduce the current, you need a shunt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X