1. Welcome to the new SAOCA website. Already a member? Simply click Log In/Sign Up up and to the right and use your same username and password from the old site. If you've forgotten your password, please send an email to membership@sunbeamalpine.org for assistance.

    If you're new here, click Log In/Sign Up and enter your information. We'll approve your account as quickly as possible, typically in about 24 hours. If it takes longer, you were probably caught in our spam/scam filter.


    Dismiss Notice

The Future of Gas Powered Cars for Hobbyists

Discussion in 'General Chit-Chat' started by bkasl, Feb 21, 2021.

  1. Warren

    Warren Bronze Level Sponsor

    Put me down for one when there's ..

  2. John W

    John W Diamond Level Sponsor

    It's all a cute fad, else we're all just chumps. And we're not. The air is clean as a whistle. Newer cars are getting 40 mpg. Cats are burning off all the "unburned" fuel. We're not "off track." And we never have been.
  3. spmdr

    spmdr Donation Time

    As some of you may have noticed, The world of conventional engine oil is all but over!

    I'm not sure what that means for non -catalyzed cars (old ones),

    but the future for cars of a certain age WITH a catalytic converter is looking dim.

    There are tens of MILLIONS of cars that were not designed to run with synthetic oil!

    Sure, the engine it's self can handle the newer oil, but the Cat can not, WHEN it starts to use oil.

    So what are you going to do when your daily driver develops an appetite for Cats?

    Our old cars are a very small fraction of gas powered cars these days. The vast population of newer

    cars WILL control the gas usage.
  4. jdoclogan

    jdoclogan Platinum Level Sponsor

    I mentioned earlier in this thread that Fusion would be the energy source in the future. I also stated, "most changes take 50 years to occur." I found an article this morning https://gizmodo.com/will-nuclear-fusion-ever-power-the-world-1848149991 and thought any geeks would be interested in the full read. Bottom line from Fusion scientists is: "The running joke in fusion is that every year for the last 50 years, it’s been 50 years away. But this time, I think we’re really getting close." The prediction is we are 20 to 30 years out to establishing Fusion power plants.

    Daniel Kolitz
    Only an unusually naive child, or a fossil fuel executive, could sincerely argue that our current energy situation is sustainable. For over 50 years now, well before the scope of the climate crisis was clear, scientists have been working toward an alternative: fusion power (i.e., using the heat from nuclear fusion reactions to generate electricity). Since its inception as a field of study, viable fusion power has always been just around the corner—but this time, that might actually be true. For this week’s Giz Asks, we talked to a number of experts to see if and when fusion power might actually power the world.

    Fusion has the potential to provide clean, green energy to the world with zero carbon emissions. The fuel for fusion is extremely energy dense—using the deuterium found in one bathtub’s worth of water combined with the lithium from two laptop batteries (used to breed tritium), this provides enough energy for your entire lifetime with no pollution. This tiny amount of fuel for fusion energy is equivalent to 230 tons of coal that would release 380 tons of pollution. As the world transitions to renewable energy, fusion can step in to complement a diverse energy portfolio (fusion is independent of geography, environmental conditions, and has a compact footprint). The fuel for fusion is hydrogen isotopes, making it widely available and an essentially inexhaustible source of energy.
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2021
  5. John W

    John W Diamond Level Sponsor

    Well, let's see. I think in 50 years we'll be using solar almost exclusively. And if Daniel Kolitz is worth his salt, add fusion to the mix. I'd say our current energy "situation" is, indeed, sustainable. While our current energy sources might not be sustainable, they'll certainly last another 50 years. I think most of those pitching gloom and doom have another agenda, and it's usually not hard to spot. And if you can't spot it, then it's just gloom and doom. The future looks bright. Great post, if I might say so.
    jdoclogan likes this.
  6. jdoclogan

    jdoclogan Platinum Level Sponsor

    I enjoyed your comments John. The sun produces solar energy via hydrogen fusion. Either way or both, Solar Fusion or contained reaction Fusion will be the source for our energy in the future. We took advantage of the easiest pathway for energy through crude oil processing during a time when scientist had no understanding of fusion. I'm glad we did for I may not have had the many passionate relationships with various combustion engine vehicles. Now that we are close to bottling fusion it will become the predominant energy source to produce electricity. Yes , since my days as a young man in physic classes I believed Solar energy is readily available if we could only harness and store such energy. Now I believe it's not that simple to store or convert Solar to large scale electrical energy production. Whereas, my former Fission reactor experience taught me how we can manage the distribution (keeping fission controlled by using Boron rods) of nuclear energy to generate electricity. Some believe nuclear power plants are dangerous. I suggest one look at Admiral Rickover's 70 year record with no radioactive incidents related to any nuclear propulsion systems employed throughout the USA Naval fleet. Fusion provides an even less impacting nuclear process than Fission with no radioactive bye product just an inert Helium gas. Maybe the whole fusion concept will float away like a Helium weather balloon. Then we will definitely mine fusion energy from the sun via Solar.
  7. mikephillips

    mikephillips Donation Time

    Fission's problem may be the concept of building as cheap as possible, and delaying or not doing maintenance and replacement of the bits and pieces as often as needed. And perhaps having staff with the required knowledge of how those systems age. Just a thought since reactors stress and age components differently than say an oil refinery or pipeline.
  8. jdoclogan

    jdoclogan Platinum Level Sponsor

    All true Mike. The pursuit of profits outweighs dutiful construction, operation, and maintenance. Result a disaster waiting to happen. That never occurred on Admiral Rickover's watch.
  9. husky drvr

    husky drvr Platinum Level Sponsor

  10. fonz

    fonz Silver Level Sponsor

    ???? if something is less "In Demand" it "Should be" costing LESS if not as many people even WANT or Need it .
  11. alpine_64

    alpine_64 Donation Time

    Ah.... So to clarify you think there is economy bof scale and that all the oil fields/rigs refining infrastructure and distribution would be profitable if demand for product went down and the sale price went down?
  12. Bill Blue

    Bill Blue Platinum Level Sponsor

    Your both right. fonz is correct in that short term markets would be seeing a contraction and decreasing costs. After market "corrections", alpine 64's scenario would be correct. We saw this effect some years ago in the kerosene. After being a cheap household commodity across the USA, being used in lamps, heaters and kitchen stoves, demand for it dropped to close to zero, used only in Amish communities. There was one small refinery in Pennsylvania producing it and the cost was a dab more than sky high. Its popularity returned and the cost came down considerably as more refineries returned to the market.


Share This Page