Lanthanide, yes I was referring to submarines. Not to show that we could currently just whip up a batch of nuclear powered cars, but that the idea of using nuclear power for propulsion in a car isn't just ridiculous and stupid. The idea of a flying car was once ridiculous and stupid, but hey, we have them now.

I agree its unlikely they'd be used to replace everything else with current battery technology. However, people are working on improvements for solar, wind, and battery efficiency, and with these new technologies it might be completely feasible. Imagine having a car that you plug into your house at night, which charges from the solar panels on your roof, and if you don't use more than the energy from your solar panels you won't have an electric bill, and then you don't have to pay for gas for your car, we wouldn't have to worry about fossil fuel emissions or nuclear waste, it really is the best solution. Of course as you noted right now its not really practical enough, because installation has a very large up front cost, there aren't government subsidies to make it worthwhile (at least in the U.S.), and they take about a decade to pay for themselves. Wind turbines can also be very loud. If we could half the cost or double the output, I think solar and wind would really start to catch on in a big way.

I'm confident from a mathematical standpoint, and from watching almost all common technology improve exponentially over time. I'm questioning the abandonment of it and whether it really was the best move, while Toyota (as you like to reference) has just accepted the fact that the rotary engine being inferior is truth. After Aristotle made the claim that objects fall at different rates depending on their weight, it was accepted to be true until nearly 1800 years later when Copernicus actually questioned it. Toyota, in this case, is Aristotle, and Mazda is potentially Copernicus. The problem lies in Toyota's mindset; with this mindset, technologies can be unnecessarily delayed.

I didn't really expect you to read all of them (I only skimmed through them myself). You sounded like you were quite fond of the patent system, claiming it was made to "encourage corporations and individuals to bring their inventions to the market," but our current system is actually doing the opposite in some cases. Some developers are actually withdrawing their products from the market in fear of getting sued from existing patents (of course, this example is more of a software/intellectual property issue; I picked it because it's the most recent example I've seen).

You're right, that snippet was misleading. However, I think comparing by mass isn't the best method, considering nuclear power produces significantly less waste than coal.

If I'm reading that correctly, nuclear waste from a 1000MWe plant will produce around 150 tonnes of waste from a year's worth of power (assuming no reprocessing), versus a coal plant that produces 400,000 tonnes of waste to generate the same amount of power. This seemed like an unreasonable discrepancy, so I checked for another source.

I do find it hilarious that it uses metric tonnes and switches to pounds when talking about nuclear energy. This source only mentioned high-level waste for nuclear waste, which obscures the actual amount that is produced. This source seems to state that 10% of coal put into a power plant comes out as waste, but due to the obvious nuclear bias and hiding of facts, I was skeptical of this data as well. On to source three and four:

So it seems like people are just throwing numbers around. However, it appears that for a coal power plant to produce as much energy as a nuclear power plant, it creates at least one hundred times the amount of waste.

How would this affect electric companies? Would they start renting out solar panels in order to keep the monthly charge they currently get? If we can survive off of our own personal solar energy, these companies would be doomed.

I would also like to see more hydroelectric alternatives, too. I consider it the Yang to solar power's Yin, in that we can use our moon to generate power.

You also all forgot about wave energy. I have some friends back in Newport (where I used to live on the coast) working on wave harnessing bouys. One washed up on the shore not too long ago from OSU, and I touched it and got pictures of it.

http://eecs.oregonstate.edu/wesrf/images/Overview%20of%20Wave%20Energy%20Activities%20at%20OSU.pdf

Wave energy is more reliable than the sun or the wind, as it is non-stop constant year-round.

Just a thought but I mean, isn't that what technological advances that take less burden off of us do? Sure it'll get rid of jobs but it'll help the environment if it worked and got marketed. Plus solar panel production would have a huge boom.

As are most hydro alternatives.

I'm not saying the transition is bad, but think of the politics involved into implementing such a transition, and the corporate battle it entails. It's really the same situation as our dependance on oil, but the key difference is that with oil, our resources are running out.

The point I'm trying to make is that this transition can't just be a flip of a switch, and electric companies will want to stretch their survival for as long as possible if we were aiming for this kind of solution. Maybe we won't lose jobs, as more people will be needed for solar manufacturing and maintenance, but those electric companies can't just say, "Okay guys, we're just going to be tinkering with solar panels now." Those businesses would close as new ones open. So the easiest way for the company to survive would be to prevent this transition, maybe by favoring hydroelectric or wind power.

The first one was the industry speaking with its actions; if nuclear energy was 'very cheap', then it would already be the dominant supply. The second is the industry speaking, in order to convince the government and others to sign more plant-building contracts.

You don't know anything about engineering, and you don't know anything about Toyota. You're in no position to say that the rotary engine is superior because you read Wikipedia, or because Mazda is using it; I'm certain that Toyota, Audi, and every other company that produces/utilizes motors takes into account all possibilities. That's why they're multibillion dollar corporations, with thousands of engineers who specialize in every facet of motor, car and whatnot design, and you're a teenager.

The patent system has upsides and downsides. Read about it on wikipedia if you want. I'm not going to discuss this with you.

You aren't exactly qualified to make any judgements either in that case, Mr.-finished-freshman-year-and-still-a-teenager. Besides, he's perfectly qualified to create an idea and explain it, same as you. Just because he hasn't written a book on the rotary engine doesn't mean he can't read some material and formulate some ideas based on it, just like you've done. Have you done any work in engineering to lead you to believe it's critically important to discussing this issue? Probably not. If you had, you'd know it isn't always the engineer who makes the design call anyway.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 16 2011, 11:26 pm by CecilSunkure. Reason: I loled at the bm. Not a good sign.

I'm not saying that I know anything better than Toyota. I'm saying that they know everything to do with their business better than me or Roy. I'd have thought that you, of all people, would catch that distinction, Vrael.

I agree with most of what you say Cent, but you really do have to respect the fact that people can make their own ideas. Don't attack the person's lack of knowledge about something. You just have to respect their opinion as much as your own, even if it's ridiculous (which I don't think it is at all in this case. He doesn't need to research everything for years, this is a forum on the internet.)

And I'm saying thats completely irrelevant to whether or not a rotary engine is better and more efficient than a traditional piston engine, and that the only reason you brought up Roy's lack of engineering experience is the fact that you didn't want to deal with the thought in a manner befitting actual consideration and thought on the matter. It usually doesn't take a genius to figure out which things are better than others, and oftentimes a wikipedia page is sufficient to make the call. Now, just because a technology is better doesn't always translate into better bucks for the company, so toyota may have reasons for not developing it and mazda may have reason to develop it, but that doesn't affect whether or not we're capable of determining better technology, or questioning the motives of a company for developing or not developing a technology. Your calling on his lack of expertise in engineering is completely irrelevant, it appears to me to be little more than a personal affront to distract us from the conversation, even if that wasn't your original intention.

Bio, If he wants me to respect what he says, then he better know what he's talking about. And not being a mechanical engineer, he doesn't know anything about the viability of that engine. If he wants to keep blasting his uninformed bullshit, then he should ignore everything I post.

Vrael. I do not have the engineering education to deal with the material at hand in a way such that my opinions are worth more than the paper it's written on. Neither do you or Roy. Saying that "The rotary engine is underutilized in today's manufacturing of motors because, despite it's inherent multifaceted superiority, it has not been researched nearly as much as the traditional oscillating motor", as Roy has done, is not expressing an opinion. It is attempting to state a fact. Roy is using this argument as an example where the industry at large retards progress in favor of profit. You don't have an intellectual argument by backing your arguments with opinions, but with facts. However, not being a mechanical engineer at a motor manufacturing company, nor having had researched the matter extensively, he is in no position to defend his statement, and as such it's worth nothing - less than nothing, as instead of leaving a question mark, it leaves a wrong answer.

This has nothing to do with engineering or avoiding the question. If I wanted to avoid it, I wouldn't have entered the topic, as I've ignored countless others. This is, for me, about the difference between knowing what you're talking about, and not. I don't know about Indian politics, so I wouldn't state a bullshit fact about Indian politics. I do not know whether the space shuttle being canceled is a good thing or a bad thing, because I know nothing beyond than the four-word summary, and as such I don't argue about it (which is distinct from expressing an opinion: As in, I feel there is nothing wrong with stating that I believe that it's a step backward to scrap the only reusable space vehicle, but I'd never say that scrapping the space shuttle is bad for NASA's ventures, because I don't know).

If a moderator believes that my request for facts to be made of more than pure bullshit is unbefitting SEN, I'll stop. You're not it, Vrael.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jul 17 2011, 12:58 am by Centreri.

If he wants to take that position he certainly can do so without being a mechanical engineer, just as you or I or anyone else can. Sure, being a mechanical engineer helps on this particular issue, but it doesn't take one to tell whether or not a rotary engine is superior to a piston engine if you have a source adequately describing the two systems and you have enough background knowledge to work out the power production. Now, like I said, when it comes to the profitability of either system -- I doubt that any of us have the skill right now to determine whether a rotary engine in a car would make it sell better, at least not without some extensive research. This isn't about the difference between knowing what you're talking about either, this is about him formulating an idea he believed to be reasonable based on some knowledge about the two engine types, and you shooting it down without exploring its validity because he's not an expert on the issue, avoiding it whether you realized it or not. If you had to be an expert to discuss something, no one would be allowed in these forums, so cut it out. This is the same reason we don't have nuclear power and stuff right now. The public goes nuts over technology they don't take the time to understand, and gets in the way. If they took the time to read a few articles and broaden their understanding of the issue, it might not qualify them to build nuclear reactors themselves, sure, but it would give them a good grounding to say "hey, this is a good idea" or "this is/isn't going to work because of X" or "this method seems superior to this method, *vote for senator who endorses their method*" ect. ect.

On a related note, we both know I'm more than capable of determining when your posts are unbefitting SEN, even though I'm not a moderator But I jest, I jest.

You know what would easily have gotten me off his back? An unbiased source. Theoretically, yes, he could've read it in an article, and stated it - but, you see, no article.

I'm not under the impression that Roy did any decent research into the matter. And, no, most likely, a cursory examination of how nuclear reactors work won't give anyone the grounding for "this is a good idea" or "this isn't going to work". It DOES justify voting for the senator - after all, if everyone educated themselves about every aspect of everything before voting, we'd have no voters - but the limitations of a cursory examination of the issues at hand is, I believe, one of the imperfections of the democratic process. Additionally, in the democratic process, you have the senator himself, who can explain an issue to voters however he sees fit, yet in a discussion, you have no such explanations and must educate yourself. This is, I think, a major difference between comparing a debate and casting a vote.

Also, some would say watching the news is enough to attain background knowledge.

Perhaps what I'm asking is a bit too rigorous for most, but I believe that being able to accurately determine where your background knowledge is insufficient to defend a point - see Roy arguing against the entire car industry - is infinitely useful for not looking like an idiot in the future. In any case, I believe I've made my point. I don't want to do the whole "last word" thing... but I guess that's what I'm doing, haha. I believe our argument stems from differences in what to expect from others, which is subjective.

http://www.unc.edu/~perza/rotaryenginephysproject4.html

I thought we were debating whether or not the rotary engine was an example of the industry choosing profit over progress. It's a whole other discussion on whether or not they actually are, and we clearly stand on separate sides of that argument.

Actually, between the discussion Cent and I were ending up having (if we were debating on the same thing), this is completely relevant.

I agree with this; talking from ignorance is no way to carry a discussion. My original argument was that companies will make decisions that benefit them, even if that means disregarding the decision that will most benefit everyone else. Yes, sometimes these decisions are one and the same, but other times, they are not. Since my suggestion of the rotary system being an example has caused so much grief, I figure we may as well move on.

But.. but... I turned 20 three days ago.

@Cent please do not estimate someones age based solely on conversation...

Getting back on topic i think the reason that the rising resource prices is mainly becuase it is all finite. But it is such a lucrative business with oil barrel prices topping over 100 dollars. That and the devalued us dollar causes the already high gas prices to sky rocket.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 18 2011, 6:02 am by Tempz.

Found a very nice website about the impending energy crunch (and associated destruction of Middle Class America) that is written by a scientist:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/

These two posts are worth reading:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/08/personal-energy-cubes/
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/can-economic-growth-last/

Associated Destruction of Middle Class America. I lol'd.

Joke's on you

Either we innovate through it, or our economy regresses for a while and we greatly scale back certain comforts until we innovate through it, or we're all going to burn. Either way, I'm guessing New Zealand's going to be hit much harder than the US.

Incidentally, the two last options here are why I support a global socialist government. Such a government will be most able to manage an energy shortage by forcing rationing of energy resources and keeping people alive while pouring all the required resources into innovating out of it.

Where did I say New Zealand would be spared? You act like I'm in some pissing contest about NZ vs US. I'm not. I'm just pointing out that the US actually isn't very exceptional at all, since most American citizens are under the delusion that it is.

Also we get 80% of our power from hydroelectric and have got massive geothermal, wave and wind potential.