Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums

[Anuradha Chepur]

Going by Einstein�s equation, mass has an exchange rate equal to the velocity of light, when it is converted into energy (E = MC). I read that one kilogram of sugar or any other substance converts into energy sufficient to drive a car continuously for about 100,000 years. I guess CERN (Switzerland), is doing some research on how to convert mass into energy.

I read about some inventions in the newspapers, but I don�t know why they don�t see the light of day. For instance, I read four years back, that a lady in some Indian university invented a method to convert plastic waste into petrol (one kilogram of plastic waste into one liter of petrol).

I also read about another man in India who invented a method to convert the energy from ocean waves into electricity and he had even applied for patents.


Looking to the moon for energy (Helium-3) is another farfetched option. There are millions of tons of Helium-3, sufficient to power the world for thousands of years.

It's high time the world focussed on this.

[Edoardo]

There are so many energetic sources which most people do not know about... It is just that, until there is oil, there is no will to increase research in this field... the "energetic status-quo" is convenient for so many people...

[flying_pig319]

[KHF]

We already know how to convert mass into energy with relative ease to some extent. Unfortunately, one of its applications is called the atomic bomb.

Of course, there are plenty of alternative energy sources that are much greener than oil. You would think that with the constant instability in the middle east people would start adopting a backup plan. Well, in the world of politics, usually money does the talking alone. And to maintain the cash flow (and thus power), you make sure there is no one taking away the business. Wait another 30 years or so for the oil to run dry, then I guess we can finally see some changes.

[Anuradha Chepur]

KHF:
"We already know how to convert mass into energy with relative ease to some extent."

Yeah, we have a couple of nuclear power plants in India. In India, we are into alternative energy sources, to "some" extent. For instance, in the country side, people use bio-gas for cooking. Some people use solar power for geysers, cookers, etc. There is a thermal power plant in Hyderabad, which converts garbage.

I wonder what's going on in other countries in this regard.

Petrol costs Rs.17 in Pakistan, Rs.18 in Malaysia, and Rs.48 in India. It�s like paying about $7 for a liter in the USA, i.e., about $27 for a gallon (according to comparative purchasing capacity of Indian rupee and US dollar). Isn�t that awful? And this is not because of the world market crude oil prices, but it�s all profit for the private owners, and taxes.
People are fooled into thinking that in terms of exchange rate, it�s pretty much the same in India as it is in the USA. What has to be compared is the purchasing capacity* and not the exchange rate**.
_____________________________________________________________
*purchasing capacity: US $1 = INR 7, **exchange rate: US$1 = INR 48.

[ad-miral]

here in Germany, they are going to use canola as a comon alternative energy. It's made from animal waste and it seems more realistic than the moon energy.
_________________
If I say "I love you" to someone, then I also have to say "I also love everyone else inside you, I love the whole world because of you, I also love myself inside you." -- Erich Fromm, the Art of Love

[asterix]

I think there are already electricity generating plants that use the power of the oceans waves (perhaps in Denmark).
Canola is produced from a plant and used to be called "rapeseed". However, it was thought that such a name might give ladies the vapours and they changed it.

[Anuradha Chepur]

Rapeseed rings a bell, but I think read about it in a context other than energy?? I can't recall.

[asterix]

Canola is used for cooking oil, too.

[Anuradha Chepur]

O yeah, some low fat oil . . .

[bigOz]

The main reason why many ideas do not take off is because of the current capitalist economies' dependance on oil. Replacing it overnight would be impossible and extremely costly - something that does not rhyme with profits.

The second most important issue (probably the main) is the fact that US dollar's strength is directly linked to oil trade. Oil is quoted and purchased in US dollars! You cannot purchase barrels of oil using sterling, euros or marks! New energy sources will definitely not have the USD monopoly that has been enjoyed for so long and will definitely affect the USD + US economy...

That is why USA has not and will not sign the Kyoto Agreement that involves diversifying into other eco-friendly energy sources (combatting global warming).

_________________
Pilots fly you higher - Live and Let Live

[Bob S.]

[redset]

Another problem is that alternative energy sources are limited in what they can actually provide. The modern world has a huge dependence on energy, and currently uses mainly fossil fuels - fuels which have been produced over millions of years, slowly collecting and condensing energy into a concentrated form. The same goes for nuclear power, the energy is already collected and just needs to be released. Alternative sources generally involve trying to capture energy from the environment, which is inefficient and needs to be done on a very large scale. They're absolutely worth pursuing, but I think increasing dependence on nuclear power is the next step - it has a bad reputation (mostly unfounded and based on misinformation and hysteria) but it's the most viable energy source we have right now. Fusion reactors are obviously a future goal - I didn't know there was helium available on the Moon, but wikipedia says that it's unlikely to be collectible anyway (in the forseeable future at least).

[flying_pig319]

[redset]