Disney buses to go green

Master Yoda

Pro Star Wars geek.
Premium Member
Diesels can run on just about any refined oil. In fact, when Diesel invented and patented the engine named after him, it was done so running on peanut oil.

Hydrogen probably is the answer, but its the containment system that is the issue. In theory, each "gas station" could literally be its own refinery since the only thing you need to produce hydrogen is water. Just keep passing water through a system and keep collecting the hydrogen to pump into cars.

Containing it securely and efficiently in a car is a bigger problem, believe it or not. Hydrogen isn't something you just readily compress without keeping it cool. When it heats up, it wants to expand quickly. In order to keep it cool enough that it stays nice and compressed and efficiently stored in a containter, you need a lot of insulation and technology. Otherwise, you get a car that has to refuel every 50 miles simply becuase you can't store enough of it onboard. Also, if you car catches on fire, do you want another Hindenburg right there?

Just like batteries, unless they can figure out to make the storage into something plastic or other lightweight based material, you quickly get a skewed savings over using gasoline.

Until a new battery technology can be done safely and efficiently, the current hybrids are probably about as good as its going to get. The next thing to do is put CVTs (continuous variable transmissions) and/or diesels into everything. The CVTs are just starting to come into their own and you will start seeing them in a lot of cars and trucks real soon. The evolution into 6 and 7 speed automatics just is way too many moving parts and although more fuel efficient, not very cost efficent.

I feel like I'm on Ellen's Adventure into Energy discussing all of this. Where's Bill Nye when you need him? :shrug:
Here he is.

Bill%20Nye.jpg


You are quite correct about hydrogen being the answer or at least the closest thing we have to a silver bullet for the energy crisis. Not only will it work to run internal combustion engines but it will power fuel cells that wll not only run electric cars but our homes as well. It is also vastly safer than gasoline. Hydrogen is easily produced and when solar power advances just a bit more it can be produced cheaply with little to no environmental impact. Once the storage problem is solved (carbon nanotubes are looking very promising as a solution) there will simply be no reason not to use it.
 

papercut

New Member
Hopefully when hydrogen cars get close, whoever will be selling them will sponsor WDW's transportation to showcase hydrogen powered vehicles. Disney can get yet another corporate sponsor for WDW and the planet gets clean fuel.
 

kingdaniel97

New Member
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.
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?
 

Master Yoda

Pro Star Wars geek.
Premium Member
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?
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.

And the OP was referring to nuclear power plants producing power for electric cars not nuclear cars.

http://www.physorg.com/news8956.html
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
 

Rayray

New Member
Hydrogen probably is the answer, but its the containment system that is the issue. In theory, each "gas station" could literally be its own refinery since the only thing you need to produce hydrogen is water. Just keep passing water through a system and keep collecting the hydrogen to pump into cars.

Containing it securely and efficiently in a car is a bigger problem, believe it or not. Hydrogen isn't something you just readily compress without keeping it cool. When it heats up, it wants to expand quickly. In order to keep it cool enough that it stays nice and compressed and efficiently stored in a containter, you need a lot of insulation and technology. Otherwise, you get a car that has to refuel every 50 miles simply becuase you can't store enough of it onboard. Also, if you car catches on fire, do you want another Hindenburg right there?

Just like batteries, unless they can figure out to make the storage into something plastic or other lightweight based material, you quickly get a skewed savings over using gasoline.

Until a new battery technology can be done safely and efficiently, the current hybrids are probably about as good as its going to get. The next thing to do is put CVTs (continuous variable transmissions) and/or diesels into everything. The CVTs are just starting to come into their own and you will start seeing them in a lot of cars and trucks real soon. The evolution into 6 and 7 speed automatics just is way too many moving parts and although more fuel efficient, not very cost efficent.

I feel like I'm on Ellen's Adventure into Energy discussing all of this. Where's Bill Nye when you need him? :shrug:


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).
 

Kamikaze

Well-Known Member
The problem with all electricity is how it's produced. Is not driving my gas car better for the environment if my electric car gets it's electricity from a coal burning power plant. What happens to electricity prices when everyone starts plugging in their cars... we might be reminiscing of the good ol' days of 35 mpg cars and $4 gasoline.

Here's an interesting article about everyone's favorite "green" car.

http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/editorial_item.asp?NewsID=188

An editorial from CCSU? HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
 

firemandisney

New Member
Folks, 50 years from now we are still going to using good old fashioned OIL to run our vehicles.
Yes, MPG's will improve and hybrid technology will also improve.
But if anyone thinks that oil (life blood of our economy and the worlds) is going away is very very mistaken.
There is NO peak oil and it is plentyful. We just have to drill for it.
Things are looking a bit better for that to happen.
Whats the future?
1. Electricity? COAL and nuclear,and natural gas powered facilities. Actually, Coal is making a comeback (its EVERYWHERE)
2. Fuel? OIL! Oil isnt going anywhere anytime soon. West Texas crude is also making a comeback.
All this "alternative energy" is fine but you are still gonna see oil being the primary fuel to power our future.
simple as that.
 

BrerVeritas

New Member
Folks, 50 years from now we are still going to using good old fashioned OIL to run our vehicles.
Yes, MPG's will improve and hybrid technology will also improve.
But if anyone thinks that oil (life blood of our economy and the worlds) is going away is very very mistaken.
There is NO peak oil and it is plentyful. We just have to drill for it.
Things are looking a bit better for that to happen.
Whats the future?
1. Electricity? COAL and nuclear,and natural gas powered facilities. Actually, Coal is making a comeback (its EVERYWHERE)
2. Fuel? OIL! Oil isnt going anywhere anytime soon. West Texas crude is also making a comeback.
All this "alternative energy" is fine but you are still gonna see oil being the primary fuel to power our future.
simple as that.

This very well may be, but that doesn't mean that it should be. We no longer heat our houses by burning wood. We no longer go to work on horse back. We no longer treat the sick with leeches, and we no longer get rid of our waste by throwing it in the street.

We could, but we don't because we have developed better, cleaner, and safer ways of doing these things. Burning oil for energy is a dirty and destructive way to get energy, If we can find a better way why would you not want to do it?

I don't see why anyone would be against oil being replaced by something better.
 

firemandisney

New Member
This very well may be, but that doesn't mean that it should be. We no longer heat our houses by burning wood. We no longer go to work on horse back. We no longer treat the sick with leeches, and we no longer get rid of our waste by throwing it in the street.

We could, but we don't because we have developed better, cleaner, and safer ways of doing these things. Burning oil for energy is a dirty and destructive way to get energy, If we can find a better way why would you not want to do it?

I don't see why anyone would be against oil being replaced by something better.
Oh, i agree with you.
My point is that imho, it isnt gonna be replaced anytime soon.
If it is replaced, by whatever, that product will have to be as efficient and ..at least no more than oil would be or whats the point?
But i would love to not have to rely on oil, I just dont see any other real alternative for the next 50 years or so.
Fossil fuels are tough to beat.
P.S. ALOT of folks heat their houses burning wood. And, I think that whether using fossil fuels to produce enery is bad on the enviorment is a debated subject.
All of the advances you mentioned were due to enery being produced by gas,coal or oil.
 

BrerVeritas

New Member
Oh, i agree with you.
My point is that imho, it isnt gonna be replaced anytime soon.
If it is replaced, by whatever, that product will have to be as efficient and ..at least no more than oil would be or whats the point?
But i would love to not have to rely on oil, I just dont see any other real alternative for the next 50 years or so.
Fossil fuels are tough to beat.
P.S. ALOT of folks heat their houses burning wood. And, I think that whether using fossil fuels to produce enery is bad on the enviorment is a debated subject.
All of the advances you mentioned were due to energy being produced by gas,coal or oil.

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).
 

DTM93

Member
They could use battery powered buses but we have one of those where I live and they are quite small and not very fast.
We will just have to see what happens.
 

eddy21

Active Member
An interesting thing about the use of biofuels and food prices is that corn is used a lot in the production of high fructose corn syrup. Products that contain HFCS are terrible for you anyway. Why are we concerned about their prices? you probably should be consuming less of them anyway. The uses of corn and soy is for animal feed. As a vegetarian, I wouldn't mind at all if the price of meat went up and more people chose to be vegetarians because of it. Meat production is a very ineffecient use for energy anyway.

Back on the subject of Disney's busses. It would be ideal for them to figure out a way to use a lot of the waste produced by the parks as an energy source.
Except when there is more profit in corn thats what they will grow. no free lunch.
 

Montyboy

New Member
Oh, i agree with you.
My point is that imho, it isnt gonna be replaced anytime soon.
If it is replaced, by whatever, that product will have to be as efficient and ..at least no more than oil would be or whats the point?
But i would love to not have to rely on oil, I just dont see any other real alternative for the next 50 years or so.
Fossil fuels are tough to beat.
P.S. ALOT of folks heat their houses burning wood. And, I think that whether using fossil fuels to produce enery is bad on the enviorment is a debated subject.
All of the advances you mentioned were due to enery being produced by gas,coal or oil.

***
 

DisneyCane

Well-Known Member
An interesting thing about the use of biofuels and food prices is that corn is used a lot in the production of high fructose corn syrup. Products that contain HFCS are terrible for you anyway. Why are we concerned about their prices? you probably should be consuming less of them anyway. The uses of corn and soy is for animal feed. As a vegetarian, I wouldn't mind at all if the price of meat went up and more people chose to be vegetarians because of it. Meat production is a very ineffecient use for energy anyway.

Back on the subject of Disney's busses. It would be ideal for them to figure out a way to use a lot of the waste produced by the parks as an energy source.

Thank you for telling me what I should eat. I eat BAD products all the time in moderation but I excercise so I stay at ideal weight. Supporting life is a big waste of energy so I guess we should all just commit suicide en mass. Just because you choose to be a vegitarian doesn't mean that I should be forced to be one.

I guess tortillas in mexico have stopped being made with corn? Even being a vegitarian, I you probably consume things made with soy (or cooked in soybean oil products) such as tofu.
 

Dragonrider1227

Well-Known Member
All this talk about high fuel prices and issues with alternatives makes me wonder; Where's that "Great big beautiful tomorrow" Uncle Walt promised us? :lol:
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom