Fossil Fuels

Damien Esdras

Deku Sprout
Sep 25, 2005
4
0
5
Chicago
Solar panels would be optimal for housing expenses and non automotive energy units. Some places in California have established entire communities using solar output that allows you to put into a standing generator and allows you to pull as needed. The program is nearly self-sustaining with energy bills nearing under 100 dollars, I don't live in California but thats the equivalent of 50 dollars elsewhere. These panels are designed to attach to the house and don't add any blight to house. However, these panels cost on average 20,000 dollars for the product, the expected benefit would occur in approximately 12 years from the point to be cost effective. The goal of the program was to prompt better solar panels, cheaper produced and increase yield to over 20% sustainable energy in the panels up 4.5%.

The bigger problem is that houses don't run on oil. They run on electric and natural gas. Too attach panels to a car would not be cost effective, subject the panels to wear and tear from a moving object, plus any other incidental damages and is not a long term problem unless you consider it for recharging a hybrid electric car at your house. However, by converting the electrical output on the distribution unit of the hybrid car and actually pluggin it in, would increase the output of the electical system in comparison of the oil used. Current offshoots from custom built hybrids allow for up to a record 276 miles a gallon of gas and would increase torque and overall speed of the car. This is misleading because the car was stripped and weight distrubution was less than that of a geo (if anyone remembers those). But the overall efficacy of the unit could be upgraded to allow us to plug into our houses. Current solar panels could be beter effectuated as California does by providing a tax break for development and usage. Consistent with Section 104 of IRA tax code that provides benefit deductions, non-gross income, from health care benefits, the tax code could benefit self sustaining power sources as a source of tax deductions or drop the premium on taxes on the technology. (We already do it with a luxury tax benefit to buy premium houses).

More efficient would be development of solar power as a completely renewable source of energy and has no long term economic detriments other than maintenance. However, current automobile systems and developments can't make the change and accept a higher electric yield to power a car. In short term, ethanol or corn, or even vegetable oil can be harvested to run cars. They are effecient fuels that have a higher pollution value and at current gas rates are cheaper per gallon by over national average of approximately a dollar as of todays national rate. 9-28-05. With increased focus on ethanol or vegetable oil standards, there would be less governmental subsidy's for farmers to not grow food and could divert the program to increase overall production of solar related energies.

Hydrogen - not in our life time probably or at the tail end.

Nuclear energy - problem if something goes wrong.... But the more important consideration is that nuclear energy produces waste, nuclear waste which toxics components are already pack all existing nuclear waste facilities and no one knows the detox half life of materials. Meaning we will run out of room and ruin more land.

Wind energy is small scale solution, no matter what those in the Netherlands tell you. They are expanding their output field, which requires lengthening their wind panels and expanding the room, but they would just be supplemental for alternate source powers like solar, preferably with a non-existent waste yield.

Hydro-electric - non-efficient and not enough sources, requires extreme amount of other resource materials and construction to make effective. In addition, not practical in most ranges.

Geothermal - don't even think about it...

Existing oil reserves allows for current usage and expansion consistent with inflation and redeveloping countries for nearly 100 years, assuming that all Mid-East oil fields are tapped and Pacific rim continues to be tapped. We should switch, at least termporally to different sources. And when Republicans leave office, the infusion of alternate fuels will subplant because Republicans are controlled by the current energy controllers who are 'war profitting' of the current system. Oil companies are at the highest profit and gross revenue ever. The Democrats are owned by different people, that at least are not opposed to energy source providers, instead we will have completly different evils facing us.


And in response to an earlier post, the gas companies are ripping off the consumers, they are making more money than ever. This falls under anti-trust, collusionary tactics perpetuated by the heads of these organizations, BP and Shell are already under investigation for 'gross violations of monopolistic practices.' They are ripping us off, they are reporting greatest profits than ever. They are colluding to keep costs higher stopping 'free market exchange' in direct opposition of intended market practices.
 

Bronson

I'll need a badge.
Nov 10, 2003
3,021
1
265
34
Greenville
Nice first post. Too bad most of the people here are too stupid to be able to read that much in one sitting. And the people that actually can, won't.

Sorry.
 

l4d

Deku Scrub
Jun 6, 2009
8
0
5
Texas
www.elgms.com
Sooner or later the world is going to have to move away from fossil fuels. Its just a matter of time. As we face global warming, the use of fossil fuels is going to be put into the spot light.
 

Tarvis

Yeah, that's right.
Administrator
Nov 10, 2003
8,537
16
735
36
www.zeldaxtreme.com
ITS CLIMATE CHANGE IN [CURRENT YEAR]. Gas is more expensive than ever after some great years of low cost fuel and complete energy independence. Thanks Joe.