Disney buses to go green

[kippandnora]

Bio Diesel

First of all if you put ethanol into a diesel engine you can start walking ,it wont run and you've damaged the engine, I think as a whole we must find different ways to power our cars , trucks and busses. But I guess if you cant think out side the box the answer is to drill drill drill:brick:, yes ethanol may produce less power , but bio diesel produces more power than petro diesel, and who would you rather pay , ur farmers or a country that hates all we believe in ? :hammer:

 

[bugsbunny]

Hydrogen is not the answer in the current state of things. 2 Major Problems for Hydrogen Economy:

1. Containment: You kind of touched on this, skirted arounded it anyway... Not only is H2 unsafe in compressed conditions, but what's a larger problem is the size of the molecule. The Hydrodgen atom is the smallest, and H2 is definitely the small molecule... Why is this a problem. Well, imagine that you have marbles (representing H2) and a basket with holes in it to hold the marbles. I've already said that the marbles (again, H2) are the smallest thing we are dealing with, so as you may guess, the basket has leaks. Shrink this analogy down to size, and that's what happens on a molecular level - the hydrogen gas cannot be fully contained. Sure, not all of the gas escapes, but hey! we are paying for that H2, which brings me to my next point.

2. Manufacturing: This is the main reason for this post. You didn't cover this one so well in the above statements. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, but unfortunately it rarely exists without being bonded with other elements. What does this mean? We have to produce it either from Methane or Water. Okay, you say. Get some water, hook up the batteries, make some H2. Well, hydrolosis is expensive as is the methane procedure. Neither of the two is a clean method unless a green energy source is used to make electricity (fat chance!). (All of this taken into consideration, the electricity used to make the H2 could just be used to power a car, taking out Hydrogen as a middle man.) So, the moral of this crazy process is that Hydrogen IS NOT and energy SOURCE. It is, however, an energy STORAGE device. Since we can't mine H2, we can't use it as a traditional fuel. The production of H2 is more akin to making batteries that store energy, or even compressing a spring. We don't mine batteries or springs, but we prepare them with other energy sources so that they hold energy we can use later.

All this said, the fuel-cell concept is very efficient and would be excellent if it used an abundant source... unfortunately, this latter requirement has not been fufilled as of yet. I hope this clears things up.

And the variable transmissions are very cool! If anyone wants further info, I suggest search How It Works. Currently, the Nissan Murano has a CVT (or atleast it did a couple years ago).

Good catch on the leaking storage thingy. I had it in my mind and forgot to put it in my post. I read that BMW(?) was working on a storage system that "almost" works the way it should and that currently, the hydrogen storage system being used now leak as much as 50% of their fuel in less than a week.

And yes, hydrogen is probably the most abundant resource in the universe, look no further than our Sun. The problem, as you pointed out, is that it isn't readily available in pure form and must be broken off some other compound in order to get at it. Sort of like how the oceans are just full of water, but you can't drink it unless you can break it away from the salt in it. And in order to do that, you need energy from somewhere. Just like how you could use a solar still to make some usable drinking water, that is the theory on how to get hydogen out of water so we can bottle it. But becuase solar power is not very efficient unless you can do it on a huge scale, that part needs to be worked out just like the storage problem.

It would seem that the big problem with all of these alternative energy sources is that in order to us to be able to adapt them to our current engines and power plants, we seem to have to use more energy to convert the fuel and if we just continued using a fossil fuel to begine with!!

 

[DisneyCane]

But I guess if you cant think out side the box the answer is to drill drill drill:brick:, yes ethanol may produce less power , but bio diesel produces more power than petro diesel, and who would you rather pay , ur farmers or a country that hates all we believe in ? :hammer:

It's not a matter of thinking outside the box. The problem is that currently there are no "viable" alternative fuels. The amount of energy in the end product of bio diesel is irrelevant. What matters is how much energy it takes to produce it. It takes energy to grow and harvest the crops and then transform the crop into oil. It's not a matter of paying our farmers vs. people who hate us. If the farmers are using the equivalent amount of petroleum to produce the biofuel then all we are doing is paying farmers IN ADDITION TO the people who hate us.

I'm all for biofuels if somebody comes up with a truly viable biofuel. Viable means that it doesn't require large amounts of petroleum or fossil fuel based energy to produce. It also means that you can produce enough to replace a large percentage of petroleum based fuel but do it without needing farmland that is currently used to grow food. It also has to have a very high yield of fuel per acre so that there is enough land to practically grow it.

Cellulostic ethanol has promise but the technology doesn't exist currently to produce it. Until a viable alternative fuel is developed (which could be 10-20 years out) we have no choice but to drill, drill, drill so that we can be as energy independent as possible. Simultaneously we must move to more fuel efficient vehicles which is why hybrids (which are available right now) are an important cog in the machine. We just bought a Ford Escape Hybrid. Not because the additional cost of a hybrid gets offset by gas saved (it takes years to break even) but because we wanted to do a small part in reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

 

[papercut]

It would seem that the big problem with all of these alternative energy sources is that in order to us to be able to adapt them to our current engines and power plants, we seem to have to use more energy to convert the fuel and if we just continued using a fossil fuel to begine with!!

That's the beauty of biodiesel. Current diesel engines can use it with no modification. It's something that a lot of people can do right now with almost no extra effort.

I also wonder what Walt would think of this problem.

 

[DisneyCane]

That's the beauty of biodiesel. Current diesel engines can use it with no modification. It's something that a lot of people can do right now with almost no extra effort.

But the ugly of biodiesel is that even if you dedicated ALL current us soybean crops to making it, you'd still only be able to produce enough to cover about 6% of total diesel usage. Aditionally, since it takes slightly more than half of the energy in the end product to make it, you're really only covering under 3% of demand (since you could have used the energy used to make the biodiesel directly for fuel).

In order for biodiesel to be viable (at least it has better energy gain than corn based ethanol), a crop must be developed that yields much higher oil per acre and it must take much less fertilizer and less energy to grow and harvest.

 

[PhotoDave219]

i heard a rumor from a disney bus driver that the buses will soon be running on ethanol if there not already anyone know if they are green or are planning on going green with the bus fuel.

Wouldn't Biodiesel make more sense? Considering that a diesel engine just isn't made to be run on ethanol. Disney uses so much oil for cooking, they can just recycle that oil into the busses and voila....

... There's also a Biodiesel plant in Groveland, NW of WDW.

 

[Fantasia freak]

Please dont flame me for this, but last Sept. I was at the world and I asked a bus driver this same question( about "green" buses) and he told me that Disney already bought a few hybred buses to try out. He also told me that they were like 2 feet taller than the ones they have now and couldn't go under the water overpass by the Contemporary resort. But you know he could have been pulling my leg.

we never bought them, but we did have two busses. each was a different type of Hybrid bus. one of which was 2 feet taller than the regular gilligs. and it could fit onder the waterbridge at the COntemporary, but it couldn't fit under the monorail beam at MK. so it could not service loadzones 1-5 at MK.

 

[papercut]

But the ugly of biodiesel is that even if you dedicated ALL current us soybean crops to making it, you'd still only be able to produce enough to cover about 6% of total diesel usage. Aditionally, since it takes slightly more than half of the energy in the end product to make it, you're really only covering under 3% of demand (since you could have used the energy used to make the biodiesel directly for fuel).

In order for biodiesel to be viable (at least it has better energy gain than corn based ethanol), a crop must be developed that yields much higher oil per acre and it must take much less fertilizer and less energy to grow and harvest.

They can make biodiesel from a lot of crops though including algae. It doesn't need to be made from soy. It's even made from waste vegetable oil. If we're able to develop a fuel that we can grow ourselves, isn't that much better than importing foreign oil. If there's one thing this country has always done well, it's farm.

 

[devoy1701]

The [ozone] hole is still there.

from what I understand, the ozone hole over antarctica has either closed or is so small compared to what is was before regulations on CFCs that it's not much of a problem anymore... but I think what they meant about the Ozone fad was what Gore mentioned in the early 90s about another ozone hole opening up over the US within 10 years...that never happened...it was a precursor to the Global Warming fad that died...much like this one will.

I agree that ethanol and biodiesel in their current states aren't the answer, but neither are hybrids.

Agreed. Hybrids are a LONG way off from being a solution. It's definitely a step in the right direction... The person who comes up with the easily affordable technology that will convert my 2002 Nissan Maxima with it's 260hp 3.5L engine to run off of something other than gasoline gets by vote...and he'll be rich. But there needs to be a technology that is convertable...not one that requires everyone in the world to have to buy new vehicles.

Hybrids are the answer RIGHT NOW. Yes, they don't end oil consumption but they reduce it significantly for a vehicle doing the same job. If your TDI was a diesel hybrid then it would get even better milage than it does now. The downside of hybrids is the weight and volume of the batteries. As battery technology improves it will allow for plug-in hybrids that will be able to use electric only power at higher speeds and for longer distances. Of course, the electricity must be produced somehow but there are at least viable alternatives like nuclear (and to an extent, wind, thermal-solar in the deserts, ocean current, etc.) to produce it.

As for solar at WDW, florida gets too much cloud cover for it to be worth it economically. It would reduce the electric consumption but not by enough to pay for itself in a reasonable amount of time. Plus, even with all the flat top buildings, the panels need to be angled towards the sun and would be visible from guest areas ruining the theme. When the technology develops for much more efficient (or much cheaper at current efficiency) solar panels, then it might make economic sense.

Hybrids are not the answer IMO..again, we need a convertable technology...not one that requires us to all go out and buy new vehicles that will increase our fuel efficiency a measly 50%. And about your comment for nuclear energy...imagine how much fuel costs would go down if the US converted 50-60% of our power needs to Nuclear energy? It would have a tremendous effect on our need for foreign energy. There would be rate hikes in the beginning though. But John McCains plan for 40 new nuclear power plants by 2030 is the way to go!

and yes..Florida is way too cloudy for wdw to try to convert to Solar Power. We were wrongly names the sunshine state.

A gasoline engine is less efficient than a diesel by at least half. Ethanol is about 80% efficient of gasoline simply because measure to measure, it doesn't contain nearly as many BTUs. Therefore, you need to burn even more of it to produce the same amount of energy as gasoline.

I wish more people knew this!

I'm surprised no one called him up on this... nuclear winter anyone? Making us even more vulnerable to nukes as the entire east cost would go if someone decided to hit any major transit center west of the Missisipi?... We should never go to nuclear power becuase 10,000 cars all letting out radiation would kill us all, or considering the fact that DisneyCane apparently lives in the 1950's since he didn't notice nuclear winter, we'd all mutate into freaks... Two-headed cows anyone?

You're the one living in the 1950s. Nuclear power today is much more advanced than that in the 1950s. Reactors can be completely shut down and secured if a threat of that type ever came about. Though unless it was a dirty bomb, I doubt any ICBMs would successfully reach their targets with the defense web the US has. Nuclear power is probably the cleanest and most efficient form of energy there is today. (Wind and Solar are cleaner but not more efficient) The Three Mile Island scare was the WORST thing that could have possibly happened to us in terms of energy...It completely debunked our road to Nuclear power and scared many people into thinking Nuclear power is a bad idea.

Actually there have been quite a few advancements in nuclear power and many would argue that it is cleaner and safer then our current power generating methods.

What he said.

While I do believe that some people will question the validity of global warming (I personally don't and believe it to be real, and very dangerous, but understand that some don't) that does not mean that the environmental affects of fossil fuels aren't real. oil, coal, wood, have a direct and proven effect on air quality and the health of those who breath that air. Take a look at China, and their issues with their air. Or look at the exponentially higher incidence of asthma in inner cities and other places with poor air quality. That is proven.

And while all the advances I mentioned were due to oil, gas or coal, that doesn't mean it stops there. London isn't in the same state it was in 1890 when people would drop dead because of the pollution caused by the burning of coal. They've moved on to oil. We can certainly move on again. Once we become complacent with what we have, discovery slows, and we end up using the same technologies for hundreds of years when. (ex. internal combustion engine and oil).

It's not that discovery has slown down. It's that all technology that has proven successful does not have the efficency of the Combustion Engine. I would be very hesitant to say that the world is complacent with our dependency on oil. Though it's hard to "buy in" to global warming when the average global temperature has decreased almost a full degree over the past 5 years completely cancelling out any rise in temperature. AND even though there has been some decrease in the amount of ice at the northern ice cap, ice growth has increased in the south pole. And for the fact that human production of CO2 would basically have to cease COMPLETELY for it to have any reverse effect on global carbon emissions.

ok. back to work for me.

 

[Rayray]

Good catch on the leaking storage thingy. I had it in my mind and forgot to put it in my post. I read that BMW(?) was working on a storage system that "almost" works the way it should and that currently, the hydrogen storage system being used now leak as much as 50% of their fuel in less than a week.

And yes, hydrogen is probably the most abundant resource in the universe, look no further than our Sun. The problem, as you pointed out, is that it isn't readily available in pure form and must be broken off some other compound in order to get at it. Sort of like how the oceans are just full of water, but you can't drink it unless you can break it away from the salt in it. And in order to do that, you need energy from somewhere. Just like how you could use a solar still to make some usable drinking water, that is the theory on how to get hydogen out of water so we can bottle it. But becuase solar power is not very efficient unless you can do it on a huge scale, that part needs to be worked out just like the storage problem.

It would seem that the big problem with all of these alternative energy sources is that in order to us to be able to adapt them to our current engines and power plants, we seem to have to use more energy to convert the fuel and if we just continued using a fossil fuel to begine with!!

As far as Hydrogen goes, we can't really work out the manufacturing of H2. The Second Law of Thermo says that we can't get as much energy out of hydrogen as we did to make it (assuming electrolosis is used). Simply put, a fuel cell reverses electrolosis to make electricity. This second law conundrum is the main reason H2 isn't a source for energy.

Again, if one were to figure out a way to make the H2 production/fuel cell process a better storage device than traditional batteries, then Hydrogen fuel-cells might be more useful. However, I don't think this is the current case.

 

[fosse76]

from what I understand, the ozone hole over antarctica has either closed or is so small compared to what is was before regulations on CFCs that it's not much of a problem anymore... but I think what they meant about the Ozone fad was what Gore mentioned in the early 90s about another ozone hole opening up over the US within 10 years...that never happened...it was a precursor to the Global Warming fad that died...much like this one will.

It hasn't closed, nor is it anywhere nearing closure...it will take hundreds of years for the ozone to replenish. However, you are correct that the regulations in CFCs have caused it to be a non-issue, since the rate of deteriation is so slow NOW that replenishment is a possibility. But you act like it was a non-issue. the ozone layer protects us from the sun's radiation. Our atmosphere is what allows us to sustain life. As it depletes we become more endangered. Al Gore's warnings were heeded, and the problem, while not fixed, is somewhat under control. How was that bad?

Hybrids are not the answer IMO..again, we need a convertable technology...not one that requires us to all go out and buy new vehicles that will increase our fuel efficiency a measly 50%. And about your comment for nuclear energy...imagine how much fuel costs would go down if the US converted 50-60% of our power needs to Nuclear energy? It would have a tremendous effect on our need for foreign energy. There would be rate hikes in the beginning though. But John McCains plan for 40 new nuclear power plants by 2030 is the way to go!

An increase of efficiency by 50% is not measley by any standards, particularly when we are dealing with transportation. As for nuclear power, I believe the reason we don't use it more is the perceived danger these plants pose. Nuclear waste, nuclear explosions, etc. can affect a huge area and cannot be contained easily when they occur. The problem is when we build our communities we spread them out, so there is no real buffer zone for these plants from towns and cities. Though I agree that, accidents notwithstanding, nuclear power is the best and safest bet for energy.

and yes..Florida is way too cloudy for wdw to try to convert to Solar Power. We were wrongly names the sunshine state.

They probably didn't have the pollution they do now when they nicknamed the state.

The problem is technology evolved too quickly in the last century years to adequately resolve any environmental and safety issues with the technology (for those keeping score, there has been more inventions and technological/scientific advancements in the 20th century than in all human history combined prior to that).

 

[MousDad]

I doubt any ICBMs would successfully reach their targets with the defense web the US has.

We have a weapon that can shoot down ICBMs? Cool.

 

[Harry456]

They are going to use Flux Capacitors.

:animwink:

That is only efficient if the driver goes 88 mph! Then it seems time flies on the bus. :ROFLOL:

 

[devoy1701]

They probably didn't have the pollution they do now when they nicknamed the state.

The problem is technology evolved too quickly in the last century years to adequately resolve any environmental and safety issues with the technology (for those keeping score, there has been more inventions and technological/scientific advancements in the 20th century than in all human history combined prior to that).

I was watching last night's episode of Glenn Beck during my lunch today and it seems that Scientists found a way to increase storage efficiency of Solar power by 50%. (my measly 50% comes back to haunt me). So Solar Power is well on it's way to being a viable energy source...but more like an additional power source...not the only power source. FL is too cloudy for a mass dependence on Solar Energy. I still think Nuclear is the answer.

And Fosse, i must say that was a very postive critique of my last post. Usually people are like "uh...no" or "you so completely have no idea what you're talking about" when they respond to one particular post. Most Impressive... :sohappy:

oh...and sorry for the downplay of the importance of our Ozone Layer...I do realize that I would not react too well to solar flares... :dazzle:

 

[yankspy]

I was watching last night's episode of Glenn Beck during my lunch today and it seems that Scientists found a way to increase storage efficiency of Solar power by 50%. (my measly 50% comes back to haunt me). So Solar Power is well on it's way to being a viable energy source...but more like an additional power source...not the only power source. FL is too cloudy for a mass dependence on Solar Energy. I still think Nuclear is the answer.

And Fosse, i must say that was a very postive critique of my last post. Usually people are like "uh...no" or "you so completely have no idea what you're talking about" when they respond to one particular post. Most Impressive... :sohappy:

oh...and sorry for the downplay of the importance of our Ozone Layer...I do realize that I would not react too well to solar flares... :dazzle:

Solar is making some great strides. They are even experimenting with solar paint. You just roll it on and voila. They need to figure out how to make panels that utilize every aspect of the spectrum. However, as you stated, there are problems. I wonder if they could be made so efficient that they could utilize the smallest amount of sunlight that gets through even on the cloudiest of days. As far as nuclear, it seems really reliable but I wonder if you eventually approach problems with storage of waste? You may know more about it than I do since I am somewhat of a novice with nuclear. (and energy in general)

P.S. I originally contested the ozone thing only because the person who dismissed it so quickly seemed to do it without anything to back it up. As with all of these issues, they are complex and they have many differing points of view, many of which are valid.

 

[devoy1701]

Solar is making some great strides. They are even experimenting with solar paint. You just roll it on and voila. They need to figure out how to make panels that utilize every aspect of the spectrum. However, as you stated, there are problems. I wonder if they could be made so efficient that they could utilize the smallest amount of sunlight that gets through even on the cloudiest of days. As far as nuclear, it seems really reliable but I wonder if you eventually approach problems with storage of waste? You may know more about it than I do since I am somewhat of a novice with nuclear. (and energy in general)

P.S. I originally contested the ozone thing only because the person who dismissed it so quickly seemed to do it without anything to back it up. As with all of these issues, they are complex and they have many differing points of view, many of which are valid.

Oh trust me, I am in no way an expert on energy. And I doubt anyone on these boards are able to claim that title. From what I understand about storing nuclear waste, the amount of waste created since the 70s can be contained in a room roughly the size of a high school gymnasium. I've also heard that scientists are coming up with ways to reuse nuclear waste to create even more energy!!! and that's progress!!!

(sorry, Bill Nye moment there! With a little Carousel of Progress thrown in) <---looking forward to riding UoE and CoP this weekend!

that last sentence in your PS is exactly right! I don't think there's one right way or answer to the energy issues... it's going to take awhile to get us to where we need to be.

alright I changed my mind already...to get back on topic...the RIGHT answer to this solution for WDW is to get rid of all buses and expand the monorail.

 

[yankspy]

Oh trust me, I am in no way an expert on energy. And I doubt anyone on these boards are able to claim that title. From what I understand about storing nuclear waste, the amount of waste created since the 70s can be contained in a room roughly the size of a high school gymnasium. I've also heard that scientists are coming up with ways to reuse nuclear waste to create even more energy!!! and that's progress!!!

(sorry, Bill Nye moment there! With a little Carousel of Progress thrown in) <---looking forward to riding UoE and CoP this weekend!

that last sentence in your PS is exactly right! I don't think there's one right way or answer to the energy issues... it's going to take awhile to get us to where we need to be.

alright I changed my mind already...to get back on topic...the RIGHT answer to this solution for WDW is to get rid of all buses and expand the monorail.

That would be nice.:animwink: I just had a silly thought. If they used bio-diesel and used all of that cooking oil that they go through, they could get rid of those smilitzer things that entice people to buy food.:lol: From what I understand, some of the emmisions from bio-diesel, smell like French Fries, etc. Talk about subliminal suggestions. Think of the lines at Pecos Bill's and Casey's.:lol:

 

[devoy1701]

That would be nice.:animwink: I just had a silly thought. If they used bio-diesel and used all of that cooking oil that they go through, they could get rid of those smilitzer things that entice people to buy food.:lol: From what I understand, some of the emmisions from bio-diesel, smell like French Fries, etc. Talk about subliminal suggestions. Think of the lines at Pecos Bill's and Casey's.:lol:

i love Casey's already planned for dinner on Friday and late snack on Sunday! yum!

 

[Fade_to_Blah]

Oh trust me, I am in no way an expert on energy. And I doubt anyone on these boards are able to claim that title. From what I understand about storing nuclear waste, the amount of waste created since the 70s can be contained in a room roughly the size of a high school gymnasium. I've also heard that scientists are coming up with ways to reuse nuclear waste to create even more energy!!! and that's progress!!!

I think this has already been before? The name of the type of reactor escapes me, but one of the reasons its not used more often is its extremely expensive and its alot more complicated (read dangerous). Ill try to dig up the name

 

[Rayray]

Hybrids are not the answer IMO..again, we need a convertable technology...not one that requires us to all go out and buy new vehicles that will increase our fuel efficiency a measly 50%.

Unfortunately, you just can't do much with the plain reciprocating internal combustion engines. Conversion is expensive and doesn't necessarily increase efficiency as much as a new car, with a lighter chasis, a better transmission, and a proper engine.

Hybrid is (part of) the answer. This is a technology that has more room for research improvement, trust me. As time goes on and new ideas arise, hybrid will become very attractive. Why? Because hybrid systems are a way to use rejected energy. (If you are really interested, search not only hybrid/electric engines, but also regenerative breaking, heatingcooling&power projects/waste heat engines, the six-stroke engine, or even el/Quasiturbine engines).