When oil runs out then gasoline cars will be obsolete. It is estimated
that natural gas will peak 10 years after oil peaks(1). We cannot use
LPG because LPG is made from either natural gas or crude oil. Hydrogen
doesn't seem viable either because production of hydrogen requires
fossil fuels to drive electrolysis. Electrolysis of hydrogen using
renewable energy sources is not practical. To power the world's energy
needs you will require wind turbines that cover the world many times
over. The closest solution we have is battery powered hybrid vehicles,
but even that solution is limited by battery technology.
I have a solution. Trams and trains run on electricity directly, which
means there are no worries about energy storage, i.e. no batteries are
needed. Hence just radically expand the public transport network to
make it more comfortable and convenient and let everyone catch public
transport. An alternative is to replace all roads with tram lines.
Tram lines will be everywhere, even on your driveway at home. You will
have your own personal private tram, which you will use to drive on
the tram lines. People who want to go "offroad" will have to use
electric vehicles. Private trams can be driven automatically. Once the
tram gets into an intersection then its directions are controlled by
by a computer for that intersection, which manages traffic flow.
Because no one has to drive then there will be no road fatalities.
Plus people can do something while they transport themselves, which
increases productivity and thereby improves the economy.
Where will the electricity to power the trains and trams come from?
The only solution is nuclear power.
1: www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
> I have a solution.
Sure you do.
Half the world's PhD's have been looking at this problem for 30 years, but
you've figured it out in ten minutes.
> Trams and trains run on electricity directly, which
> means there are no worries about energy storage, i.e. no batteries are
> needed. Hence just radically expand the public transport network to
> make it more comfortable and convenient and let everyone catch public
> transport.
No probs.
I need to nip down to Hardly Normal this week-end and get a new TV. D'ya
reckon the tram stop will be ready outside my front door by then?
--
Regards,
Noddy.
David Z - 27 Apr 2007 17:52 GMT
Norak is a clever troll - for ages I actually thought he was just another
"ordinary" poster, but this latest post pretty much clears that up.
Besides, your idea of personal trams won't catch on with black people
because they don't have wheels to put 26" chrome spinners on.
>> I have a solution.
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> Regards,
> Noddy.
Noddy - 27 Apr 2007 20:29 GMT
> Norak is a clever troll - for ages I actually thought he was just another
> "ordinary" poster, but this latest post pretty much clears that up.
Took you a while to figure it out, huh? :)
--
Regards,
Noddy.
RainbowWarrior - 27 Apr 2007 23:07 GMT
> Norak is a clever troll - for ages I actually thought he was just another
> "ordinary" poster, but this latest post pretty much clears that up.
LOL only David Z would think this is an example of a "clever" troll
> Besides, your idea of personal trams won't catch on with black people
> because they don't have wheels to put 26" chrome spinners on.
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>> Regards,
>> Noddy.
Just JT - 28 Apr 2007 00:21 GMT
> Norak is a clever troll -
~~~~~~~~~~~~
If your definition of a troll is someone who initiates discussion, then we
need MORE TROLLS in this group.
--
And.by.that.definition.I'm.a.troll.also
> When oil runs out then gasoline cars will be obsolete.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oil will NEVER RUN out. Hydrogen as fuel is just in the horizon....
> I have a solution. Trams and trains run on electricity directly, which
> means there are no worries about energy storage, i.e. no batteries are
> needed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Trams and trains only work in the city. People who live in the sprawling
'burbs or in the bush need personal motor vehicles.
--
Hydrogen.fuel.is.the.solution.to.oil.crisis
veritas - 28 Apr 2007 04:06 GMT
>> When oil runs out then gasoline cars will be obsolete.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Trams and trains only work in the city. People who live in the sprawling
> 'burbs or in the bush need personal motor vehicles.
How can you be sure that a set of tram tracks would (in the long term)
not be more practical than maintaining roadways?
Just JT - 29 Apr 2007 13:00 GMT
> How can you be sure that a set of tram tracks would (in the long term) not
> be more practical than maintaining roadways?
~~~~~~~~~~~~
There's a reason why tramlines have disappeared in most cities all over the
world. It's cheaper to make roads.
--
And.people.prefer.to.drive.
> When oil runs out then gasoline cars will be obsolete. It is estimated
> that natural gas will peak 10 years after oil peaks(1). We cannot use
> LPG because LPG is made from either natural gas or crude oil. Hydrogen
> doesn't seem viable either because production of hydrogen requires
> fossil fuels to drive electrolysis.
**BZZZZTTTT! Wrong. H2 can be manufactured from *any* power source, which
generates electricity. Which is to say: ANY anergy source. Additionally, H2
can be obtained from other sources as well.
Electrolysis of hydrogen using
> renewable energy sources is not practical.
**Yeah, it is.
To power the world's energy
> needs you will require wind turbines that cover the world many times
> over.
**Here's a little hint for you:
Wind power is just ONE, of many renewable energy sources. Here's a few more:
* Solar power
* Solar power from PV cells.
* Solar power from thermal generation.
* Biological energy sources.
* Biomass to alcohol
* Various oils from various plant sources.
* Geothermal energy (Australia has adequate geothermal resources (easily
available) to power the entire planet (at 2007 consumption figures) for the
next 100,000 years or so.
* Nuclear energy (a poor choice, IMO, owing to the fact that we only have
less than 100 years of easily available Uranium.
The closest solution we have is battery powered hybrid vehicles,
> but even that solution is limited by battery technology.
**Do you think battery technology is improving just a bit? Here's a few
examples:
* Ten years ago, a NiCad AA cell cost around AUS$2.50 and delivered 0.5
Amp/hr. Today, a $2.50 AA NiCad delivers 1.1 Amp/hr. Then there's the newer
NiMH cells. $2.50 buys you 2.5 Amp/hr capacity. FIVE TIMES the capacity in
the same size package and costing less money (in real Dollar terms). Then we
have LiIon technology. Whilst reasonaby new, the batteries using LiIon
technology offer spectacular mass drops and equally spectacular power
outputs. There's a good reason why almost every mobile 'phone, digital
camera/cam-corder, etc uses them.
> I have a solution. Trams and trains run on electricity directly, which
> means there are no worries about energy storage, i.e. no batteries are
> needed. Hence just radically expand the public transport network to
> make it more comfortable and convenient and let everyone catch public
> transport.
**That is a highly likely probability, since public transport is a cheaper
way to move people. Personal transport, however, is likely to remain very
popular for a very long time.
An alternative is to replace all roads with tram lines.
> Tram lines will be everywhere, even on your driveway at home. You will
> have your own personal private tram, which you will use to drive on
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Where will the electricity to power the trains and trams come from?
> The only solution is nuclear power.
**No. Nuclear power is a short term solution, thought of by short term
thinking people (like John Howard). At the present rate of consumption
(which is likely to rise dramatically over the next 20 years) we have, at
best, around 100 years of easily obtainable Uranium. BTW: You are aware that
nuclear power costs around double that of coal generated power, don't you?
At those prices, alternative forms of power generation suddenly look far
more interesting.

Signature
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
John McKenzie - 28 Apr 2007 08:15 GMT
> **Do you think battery technology is improving just a bit? Here's a few
> examples:
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> outputs. There's a good reason why almost every mobile 'phone, digital
> camera/cam-corder, etc uses them.
yes, isn't that because an oil company subsidiary bought the patents to
that and engages in development of others of similar ilk tyo then buy
patents, and then only allow their manufacture in units of suitable size
for appliances but explicitly not for cars?
> **That is a highly likely probability, since public transport is a cheaper
> way to move people. Personal transport, however, is likely to remain very
> popular for a very long time.
we can only hope.

Signature
John McKenzie
tosspam@aol.com abuse@yahoo.com abuse@hotmail.com abuse@earthlink.com
abuse@aol.com vice.president@whitehouse.gov president@whitehouse.gov
sweep.day@accc.gov.au uce@ftc.gov admin@loopback abuse@iprimus.com.au
If you didn't know it was wrong,why did you cover it up? abuse@msn.com
$USER@$HOST $LOGNAME@localhost -h1024@localhost root@mailloop.com
abuse@federalpolice.gov.au fraudinfo@psinet.com abuse@cia.gov
$USER@localhost abuse@sprint.com abuse@fbi.gov abuse@asio.gov.au
$LOGIN@localhost
the_dawggie - 28 Apr 2007 09:18 GMT
On Apr 28, 10:11 am, "Trevor Wilson"
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> * Ten years ago, a NiCad AA cell cost around AUS$2.50 and delivered 0.5
> Amp/hr. Today, a $2.50 AA NiCad delivers 1.1 Amp/hr. Then there's the newer
> NiMH cells. $2.50 buys you 2.5 Amp/hr capacity. FIVE TIMES the capacity in
> the same size package and costing less money (in real Dollar terms). Then we
> have LiIon technology. Whilst reasonaby new, the batteries using LiIon
I need two of 2.5 AH NiMH AA size, and even with that, gotta
be fairly quick with the cam shots as it draws 2.5 amps (no,
carbon or alkaline won't even work in it, unless you have a
spare 2.5 seconds to "camera shutting down" message). Takes
good photos, however a total POS (in a numer of ways).
Athol - 28 Apr 2007 10:29 GMT
> I need two of 2.5 AH NiMH AA size, and even with that, gotta
> be fairly quick with the cam shots as it draws 2.5 amps (no,
> carbon or alkaline won't even work in it, unless you have a
> spare 2.5 seconds to "camera shutting down" message). Takes
> good photos, however a total POS (in a numer of ways).
Invest in some "eneloop" 2000mAh (Sanyo) AA batteries. I had a
pile of 2500mAh Energizer brand AAs that died after about 12
charge cycles in the digital camera. Spent a bit more for the
good quality batteries and they've lasted weeks at a time from
each charge (at least 4 times as long as the energizers did new)
and are still working perfectly. The set in the GPS are still
on their original charge (supplied charged ready-to-use) after
being in the unit for several weeks. The energizers would go
flat just being in the GPS while turned off in the cupboard for
a week...

Signature
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.
Trevor Wilson - 28 Apr 2007 10:45 GMT
> On Apr 28, 10:11 am, "Trevor Wilson"
> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> spare 2.5 seconds to "camera shutting down" message). Takes
> good photos, however a total POS (in a numer of ways).
**LiIon batteries are the ONLY way to operate cameras. My ancient (1999
model) Sony uses a small, lightweight LiIon battery and, according to the
book, can take 1100 shots between charges. In reality, it can *only* take
around 400 shots between charges. My new one (2003 model, 8 Megapixel) takes
at least 1,000 shots between charges. I dunno what the book says and I don't
much care. Even my ancient film camera uses LiIon batteries and they last
for yonks (auto focus and everything else).

Signature
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
> Where will the electricity to power the trains and trams come from?
Use horses on a treadmill!