Forum

Off Topic

Overhyped Tech

Forums overview Off Topic overview Log in to reply

Overhyped Tech

9 replies

Poll

Which tech is the most overhyped?

Only registered users are allowed to vote

Fusion		15.38% (2)
Fuel Cell Cars		7.69% (1)
Biofuel		0.00% (0)
You're full of bs, none of it is.		69.23% (9)
They're about the same.		7.69% (1)

13 votes cast

Overhyped Tech

ModJuicer
Super User Off

Offline

26.11.20 07:12:51 pm

poll info

A few years ago I made a thread called 'underrated technology'. Almost none of which were underrated, but mainly overrated. So now I want to do the opposite since that thread was just a stream of bs.

Overhyped:

-Fusion
I despise fusion and the people who promote it. I once believed it would be a cool new thing. Now I realize that even if it were made energy positive, even by a large margin, it would still be prohibitively expensive and also radioactive. It is the opposite of everything it is hyped up to be. For example, saying it is clean is like saying cyanide is healthy. Tritium can bond with oxygen and make tritiated water and escape into the environment (which honestly isn't really a big deal compared to the other problems it has). Its fuel, claimed to be as cheap as water by misleading sources (which are more plentiful than accurate sources when It comes to fusion) is actually a large part tritium, which costs around $30,000 per gram. Also it releases neutrons which impact the wall of the reactor and make it radioactive. The power plants are extremely expensive, the fuel is extremely expensive, and currently it takes more energy to run than it creates. It would be cheaper to design a fission power plant that cannot melt down. In fact, it has already been done.

-Fuel cell vehicles
Both this and fusion I included in my underrated tech thread. both were a mistake. Fuel cell vehicles will probably never reach anywhere close to the scale battery powered cars reach. The hydrogen is hard to store and the fuel cells are expensive (even if they are getting cheaper). Hydrogen fuel cell cars probably will never come close to battery cars because battery technology is constantly advancing (note tesla battery day). Instead there should be natural gas powered (methane) combustion engines (at high efficiency). Methane can be produced with electricity at only slightly less efficiency than hydrogen. It can be stored at a higher density. My idea: having methane powered cars that take compressed natural gas in tanks that can be swapped out like propane tanks (blue rhino and such). Methane (natural gas) can be taken from the ground or generated using electricity. Even if taken from the ground, it still emits less co2 than gasoline or diesel.

-Biofuel

biofuel is also one of those horrible things. A high amount of ethanol (the type of alcohol in booze) is required in gasoline in the U.S.. It releases even more co2 than fossil fuels and is expensive. The only reason it is even still required at such high amounts (it can be used in low amounts to improve the octane of gas) is because of the ethanol farmers lobbying to keep it alive (because they are getting rich off of ethanol). Needless to say, it is unneeded. $0.10 is needed to offset the co2 produced in one gallon of gas, and that's cheap enough. I think it would be cheaper overall to simply put that into place than requiring large amounts of ethanol being put into fuel. Plus it's making the roads unsafe because it's making all the cars drunk

I'll add more later but my fingers are getting sore from typing

If you know of any overhyped tech, comment about it. Or make sarcastic remarks because that's also fun

Re: Overhyped Tech

Assassin moder
User Off

Offline

26.11.20 07:22:50 pm

really?this thread again.. *cough*

biofuel doesn't mean only methanol.. check e-gasoline and e-diesel from Audi

From what I see you are trying to shine and have too much free time which you use to google stuff and post here for no other reason than to be a.. popular? cheers

Re: Overhyped Tech

ohaz
User Off

Offline

26.11.20 07:43:57 pm

Oh boy, in one thread he writes "the overhyped tech thread was a very bad idea" and then he starts another one just minutes after. Dude. The reason we invent things like that is because they are better than what we had before. Better in one way or another. Sometimes it's cheaper, sometimes it's more efficient, sometimes it's something completely different. There are literally hundreds or thousands of researchers researching the topics you just mentioned. Do you really think all of them are wrong? Do you really think they haven't thought the thoughts you're raising and haven't found a flaw in them? If it were as easy as you say, do you really think all those researchers wouldn't just jump over to your solution? They could make soooo much more money with an 'easy' solution! Just trust in science please.

In my opinion, forum threads like this, where people can spread the figments of their imagination which are mostly just pseudo-intellectual babble are overhyped tech.

Re: Overhyped Tech

ModJuicer
Super User Off

Offline

26.11.20 09:11:23 pm

Quote

ethanol. Methanol is highly toxic and people try to avoid getting it in biofuel.

also, this thread is the exact opposite of the other thread. I am opposing my previous ideas because I was ignorant back then. I wanted to share my ideas, not be popular. I dislike biofuel and fusion because they are unsustainable and waste way too much money.

A webpage here explains in detail why I don't like fusion: https://thebulletin.org/2017/04/fusion-reactors-not-what-theyre-cracked-up-to-be/

I actually was researching fusion bombs and came across the fact that fusion bombs do, indeed, create radioactive material. I then researched if the same thing happens in fusion. They do. I kind of stumbled across this, and then did further research.

user

ohaz : ok, first things first. I'll clear some things up:

a. I wrote : the UNDERRATED thread was a bad idea. This is the opposite. Also, two minutes? Try two years. Or more.

b. Of course scientists thought of the same things I have. It's just that the media hasn't completely caught on. I know this because when I look up 'nuclear fusion' on the news it doesn't show anything about the problems with it, except the fact that it is underdeveloped. It will stay more expensive than fission for our lifetimes unless something drastic happens.

all that being said, I do agree with the fact that people invent things because they are better than what we had before. Fusion is similar to vaporware in my opinion. It's always almost ready in five years. i don't think it will be ready in 50. It most certainly won't be economical.

Also, ethanol is the most common biofuel, so I focused on that

cheers!

p.s. I also had heated discussions with my cousins, all of whom are probably more critical than either of you, so let's just say I got my Idea 'past the gauntlet'. If it goes that far, I figure it's worth sharing.

p.p.s. My cousins were the people who convinced me out of my stupid perpetual motion machine bs and are the reason I think critically nowadays without believing everything I read online. I was good at coming up with Ideas way back, but I learned how to sort those ideas between good and bad. Fusion and biofuel are both bad ideas. Why waste 20 billion on fusion when we could use that to buy something like solar. That money would be able to buy 10 gigawatts of solar panels. With NEW, IMPROVED, solar technology. Yes, new and also improved. As in, there are a lot of scientists working on solar panels too, and take note that they have a much bigger impact. the world has about 400 gigawatts of solar production, so this would add an extra 2% (which is a lot btw) instead of taking money from the grid. Actually though, The U.S. Department of Energy has nearly tripled its cost estimate for ITER to 65 billion, or about 30 gigawatts (approx 6%) so in my opinion fusion is a waste of money.

even more solar panels could be made if scientists discovered ways to lower costs even more, which is what they are doing now.

edited 2×, last 26.11.20 09:33:13 pm

Re: Overhyped Tech

Elfing
User Off

Offline

26.11.20 10:15:35 pm

Hey remember when 3.2 million barrels of ethanol spilled into the ocean resulting in the biggest natural disaster caused by mankind in history? oh wait that was oil

You think the "big ethanol" lobby is anything compared to the big oil lobby, who is pushing us further into disaster and preventing us from getting ready for peak oil?

Re: Overhyped Tech

VADemon
User Off

Offline

27.11.20 01:45:23 am

ModJuicer has written

fusion [...] if it were made energy positive, even by a large margin, it would still be prohibitively expensive

Look, 70 years ago they'd have said that about solar panels, but today:

ModJuicer has written

Why waste 20 billion on fusion when we could use that to buy something like solar. That money would be able to buy 10 gigawatts of solar panels. With NEW, IMPROVED, solar technology.

You can consider fusion reactors to be the modern philosopher's stone. It destroyed many hopes and probably lives, is a sink for money. But I'd hope it will become reality at some point.

Elfing has written

3.2 million barrels of ethanol spilled into the ocean

I wonder how fishies would react to this

Re: Overhyped Tech

ModJuicer
Super User Off

Offline

29.11.20 03:08:40 am

VADemon: I agree that fusion energy will someday be a reality. I think it would be better if, instead of investing in it right now, people wait for a time when technology makes it cheaper to design and create.

Note:when solar panels first came out, they didn't require a massive contraption to work. Also, thermal solar energy was an option long, long ago.

Also note: the sun is full of fusion, and the only problem we have is harvesting the energy. Fusion on earth has that same problem, only worse. It also has many other problems in making the energy in the first place.
Overall I agree with you.

user

Elfing: There are problems with oil too, but the best (and most cost effective) way to counter oil is by investing in actual clean energy like solar panels. Arguably, biofuel may even support the oil industry by making it seem greener. Also, biofuel is burning carbon however you look at it. It also causes environmental problems because of runoff & other things that corn (the main biofuel) grows on a farm because it's corn. A better way to use that land is growing trees there and using them for building (carbon sequestering). Or using it to grow food crops and helping combat world hunger.

Overall, biofuel is a waste of government money. Imagine if they had put all that money into actual clean energy like solar panels. Which would lower co2 more?

Obviously not biofuel.

Re: Overhyped Tech

VADemon
User Off

Offline

30.11.20 03:26:26 am

ModJuicer has written

I agree that fusion energy will someday be a reality. I think it would be better if, instead of investing in it right now, people wait for a time when technology makes it cheaper to design and create.

But the technology can't improve if you don't invest in its research

We could wait for fundamental physics to improve by themselves, but by researching fusion reactors there's a good chance to make a discovery and in return contribute to fundamental physics.

Re: Overhyped Tech

cs2d_is_a_Gem
User Off

Offline

01.12.20 09:32:08 pm

I direct my attention to IBM and its advances with artificial intelligence.
Did you know that there are machines that almost think and reason for themselves?

Re: Overhyped Tech

ModJuicer
Super User Off

Offline

03.12.20 08:17:28 pm

Quote

I direct my attention to IBM and its advances with artificial intelligence.
Did you know that there are machines that almost think and reason for themselves?

It's complicated. What it comes down to is that so depends on the programmer.

Quote

ModJuicer has written:
I agree that fusion energy will someday be a reality. I think it would be better if, instead of investing in it right now, people wait for a time when technology makes it cheaper to design and create.

But the technology can't improve if you don't invest in its research
We could wait for fundamental physics to improve by themselves, but by researching fusion reactors there's a good chance to make a discovery and in return contribute to fundamental physics.

There is a famous saying 'you can't stop progress'

The discoveries will be made with or without 65 billion dollars injected into a unsustainable fusion project. With extra funding it just speeds it up a little. But not in a cost effective manner. More wasteful overall.

Edit: After debating with my cousins, we reached the conclusion that the ITER is probably mainly funded for nuclear weapons research (indirectly). It makes sense, especially for fusion bombs. Also because of the fact that nuclear weapon research funding isn't exactly how taxpayers want governments to spend their money. Better fusion reactor technology would just be a side effect.

Also, although I don't like the ethanol system, I have to admit it makes fast racecars. It just doesn't make sense to have high amounts of it in regular cars.

edited 2×, last 08.12.20 01:48:08 am