BlameThePixel - The Oil age is over

Quoted :: Meiapaul
Heh, another day, another chemistry lesson

It was Hydrogen power today, which can actually cope with demand, unlike fermented sugar

It is more dangerous than petrol, fact. However, in a crash, provided it isn't ignited by a spark

...But if there is a spark then POP!

Quoted :: Meiapaul
As far as vehicles/ engines are concerned, ethanol is the perfect fuel. As you probably know, it is made from fermentating ethene, which is a natural produce in sugar cane.

There a far more efficient ways of making ethanol than fermenting sugar.

Quoted :: Meiapaul
P.S. Global warming hasn't been proven to exist, its just a theory. There could actually be global dulling, so things preventing global warming aren't actually necessary .

Nope, it's a fact. The earth is gradually heating up. About 1C per 50 years.

Quoted :: keeper
CO2 Doesn't hurt the ozone layer.. it makes it thicker. This is what causes global warming. The thinker the ozone layer gets, more heat is traped in side.

How can it increase the ozone layer if CO2 isn't ozone?

Quoted :: keeper
Sulphuric gasses produced by factorys will eat a hole through the ozone layer however, even if CO2 doesn't.

Are you sure? AFAIK it just causes acidic rain when it reacts with water in rain to form sulphuric acid.

Quoted :: keeper
Solor power as an alternative energy source IS NOT efficiaant.. but it IS an alternative.. I probobly should have said that when I mentioned it above, though I dont think the energy loss is as bad as your statistic.. iit is however somewhat of a hindrence..

Solar power is used by plants, it is efficient, it's just that the techonolgy hasn't been created to store the enery AFAIK. Plants contain chlorophyll in the chloroplasts which traps the sunlight. Chlorophyll is a molecule, so it's very small. Without using chlorophyll for solar cells i think it would be unlikely that solar power would become efficient. That's just what I think though - I don't actually know.

Quoted :: keeper
The only other option available would be nuclear power. very dangerous, and costly to operate.

It's not dangerous so long as it is kept under control.

Cholorfluorocarbons damage the ozone. Cl2 molecules are split up by ultraviolet light, this produces to chlorine free radicals which then react with practically the first molecule they bump into:

Cl2 --> Cl free radical + Cl free radical
Cl free radical + O3 --> ClO free radical + O2.

Because this produces another free radical, this can react with more O3 molecules:

ClO free radical + O3 --> Cl free radical + 2O2

Anyway that's it for the chemistry lesson

[quote=Meiapaul]Heh, another day, another chemistry lesson :P It was Hydrogen power today, which can actually cope with demand, unlike fermented sugar ;) It is more dangerous than petrol, fact. However, in a crash, provided it isn't ignited by a spark[/quote]...But if there is a spark then POP!:P

[quote=Meiapaul] As far as vehicles/ engines are concerned, ethanol is the perfect fuel. As you probably know, it is made from fermentating ethene, which is a natural produce in sugar cane.[/quote]There a far more efficient ways of making ethanol than fermenting sugar.

[quote=Meiapaul]P.S. Global warming hasn't been proven to exist, its just a theory. There could actually be global dulling, so things preventing global warming aren't actually necessary .[/quote]Nope, it's a fact.  The earth is gradually heating up.  About 1C per 50 years.
[quote=keeper]CO2 Doesn't hurt the ozone layer.. it makes it thicker. This is what causes global warming.  The thinker the ozone layer gets,  more heat is traped in side.[/quote]How can it increase the ozone layer if CO2 isn't ozone?:P
[quote=keeper]Sulphuric gasses  produced by factorys will eat a hole through the ozone layer however, even if CO2  doesn't.[/quote]Are you sure? AFAIK it just causes acidic rain when it reacts with water in rain to form sulphuric acid.

[quote=keeper]Solor power as an alternative energy source IS NOT efficiaant.. but it IS an alternative.. I probobly should have said that when I mentioned it above, though I dont think the energy loss is as bad as your statistic.. iit is however somewhat of a hindrence..[/quote]Solar power is used by plants, it is efficient, it's just that the techonolgy hasn't been created to store the enery AFAIK.  Plants contain chlorophyll in the chloroplasts which traps the sunlight.  Chlorophyll is a molecule, so it's very small.  Without using chlorophyll for solar cells i think it would be unlikely that solar power would become efficient.  That's just what I think though - I don't actually know.

[quote=keeper]The only other option available would be nuclear power. very dangerous, and  costly to operate. [/quote]It's not dangerous so long as it is kept under control.

Cholorfluorocarbons damage the ozone.  Cl2 molecules are split up by ultraviolet light, this produces to chlorine free radicals which then react with practically the first molecule they bump into:

Cl2 --> Cl free radical + Cl free radical
Cl free radical + O3 --> ClO free radical + O2.

Because this produces another free radical, this can react with more O3 molecules:

ClO free radical + O3 --> Cl free radical + 2O2

Anyway that's it for the chemistry lesson;)

________________