Site Search:
 
Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums Forum Index Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

ENERGY ??
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current News
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Anuradha Chepur



Joined: 20 May 2006
Posts: 932

PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 3:04 am    Post subject: ENERGY ?? Reply with quote

Going by Einsteinís 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 donít know why they donít 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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Edoardo



Joined: 19 Sep 2006
Posts: 111
Location: Venice, Italy

PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 5:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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... Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
flying_pig319



Joined: 01 Jul 2006
Posts: 369

PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 5:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Edoardo wrote:
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... Rolling Eyes


Yes, and the truth is inconvenient.
An inconvenient truth!

Seriously, though, you're completely right. So many people think we don't use alternative sources of energy because we don't have the science for them yet, but I think this is just putting the blame on someone/something else- we have the science, we just choose not to use it because we're stubborn old humans.
_________________
peace-monger


Last edited by flying_pig319 on Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:15 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
KHF



Joined: 15 Dec 2005
Posts: 100
Location: ON, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 6:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anuradha Chepur



Joined: 20 May 2006
Posts: 932

PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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. Itís 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). Isnít that awful? And this is not because of the world market crude oil prices, but itís all profit for the private owners, and taxes.
People are fooled into thinking that in terms of exchange rate, itís 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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ad-miral



Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Posts: 1488

PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 12:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
asterix



Joined: 26 Jan 2003
Posts: 1654

PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 8:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anuradha Chepur



Joined: 20 May 2006
Posts: 932

PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rapeseed rings a bell, but I think read about it in a context other than energy?? I can't recall.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
asterix



Joined: 26 Jan 2003
Posts: 1654

PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Canola is used for cooking oil, too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anuradha Chepur



Joined: 20 May 2006
Posts: 932

PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

O yeah, some low fat oil . . .
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bigOz



Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Posts: 12
Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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).
Cool
_________________
Pilots fly you higher - Live and Let Live
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bob S.



Joined: 29 Apr 2004
Posts: 1767
Location: So. Cal

PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

asterix wrote:
Canola is used for cooking oil, too.
And used cooking oil has been found to be usable in diesel engines. Though there're probably not enough fast food places to totally replace the demand for diesel fuel.

bigOz wrote:
The main reason why many ideas do not take off is because of the current capitalist economies' dependance on oil.
Eh, what? And socialist and communist economies are not? If you shut off the oil supply to France or China, their economies wouldn't collapse overnight? Unless you are Amish or a Borneo headhunter tribe, you are living in an economy that is dependent on oil.
The main reason alternative energy sources do not take off is because oil is still so much cheaper in comparison to the alternatives that are still prohibitively costly for the average household consumer (for now). But like the development of the automobile and VCR, a few rich people buying the product will fund R&D that will in time bring down the price for all consumers.
_________________
"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redset



Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 582
Location: England

PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
flying_pig319



Joined: 01 Jul 2006
Posts: 369

PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 3:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

redset wrote:
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).


I think nuclear energy has a very well-deserved bad reputation!
But yeah, as you said, it's not going to happen anyway.
_________________
peace-monger
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
redset



Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 582
Location: England

PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 10:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

flying_pig319 wrote:
I think nuclear energy has a very well-deserved bad reputation!
But yeah, as you said, it's not going to happen anyway.


Ha well, I was talking about nuclear fusion using fuel gathered from the lunar surface. Nuclear fission (using uranium and plutonium) is very viable and already provides a significant amount of the energy we use. Why do you think it deserves its bad reputation exactly? It actually produces less radioactive waste than coal plants, and advanced reactor designs are safer, more efficient and have better waste processing cycles than older reactors that are currently in use.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current News All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Dave's ESL Cafe is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Banner Advertising | Bookstore / Alta Books | FAQs | Articles | Interview with Dave
Copyright © 1995-2011 Dave's ESL Cafe | All Rights Reserved | Contact Dave's ESL Cafe | Site Map

Teachers College, Columbia University: Train to Teach English Here or Abroad
SIT
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group