YOU: Fix the US Energy Crisis

[bluespanishlady]

I guess you folks haven't read the July, I think it is, Physics Today. My take on the two articles is two sentences: There is no possible solution to the energy crisis. The only way to avoid large scale loss of life is to immediately implement a strong population reversal program world wide (especially in the USA). (That means possibly the Chinese, one child per family, method.)

All major sources of energy were considered and all ruled out. I can go over the details with you and explain the failures from nuclear to photovoltaic.

I agree to the statement about population control. We are running out of time and we need to deal with our Earth's overpopulation now.

 

[OmCheeto]

okay first the dish outside the atmosphere of Earth is not to be a mirror but a collector of the suns full spectrum ; I used gold as an example because of its incorruptiblity; I do realize this is a far out idea, but maybe we should look at answers outside our backyard and the Earth itself. I mean no disrespect to anyone, I am just throwing out thoughts here. Sometimes a little off the wall thinking can prove useful.

Off the wall ideas are wonderful. But as I've said before, if it's going to cost me more than $20 in parts, I do the math first.
It's probably saved me about a million dollars so far.

We discussed this idea in another thread: Harvesting the sun's energy...
I don't think it went over well, for various reasons.

Also, I don't think gold would be required. I think aluminum would be a much more suitable material.
In space, with nearly zero oxygen, you don't have to worry about metals corroding.

As far as using the bouyant force of the ocean I am referring directly to bouyancy itself as a force that could be harnessed.

You have to be careful with buoyancy, as it's not really an energy source. The waves/tides are the actual source of energy.
But anyways, we've discussed it before.

I started responding to your post this morning, but even your first statement took me until now resolve.

First, I do agree we need to eliminate the use of all carbon based fuels.

Eek! I'm going to go out on a limb here, and assume that you are referring to "extracted" carbon based fuels, aka, crude oil, natural gas, and coal.
Carbon based fuels are kind of like the ultimate batteries.
They store a lot of energy, in very compact form.

There is a bit of maths involved in why eliminating all carbon based fuels is a bad idea.
I chose an http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/passengeraircraft/a350xwbfamily/a350-800/specifications/ as an example.
Not to bore you with all of the maths, which is available upon request, here are the results of my findings:

Replacing the jet fuel in an Airbus A350-800, with lithium ion batteries, would exceed the maximum landing weight by 45 times.
The batteries would also consume twice the available space of the airplane itself.

My guess is, that it would never leave the ground.

So eliminating carbon based fuels, would kind of not allow us to fly around, as much as we do.

And if by chance, you've heard that a Chinese company has just announced that they are going to mass produce an electric airplane.

China's First Manned Electric Plane to be Mass Produced
2/7/2015
The first manned electric aircraft "Designed in China" will start mass production.
...
It can fly for 45 to 60 minutes after its batteries have been charged for just one hour and a half.

You might want to think about making the round trip to your brothers house, 1000 miles away, in such a vehicle:

per wiki:

Unit cost $163,000
Cruise speed: 159 km/h; 99 mph (86 kn)
Endurance: 40 minutes
​

I think I could bicycle to my sisters house, faster than in that plane.
She lives almost exactly 1000 miles away, as the car drives.

 

[jim hardy]

Mother Nature is not yet overwhelmed
she still has strength to push CO2 down smartly every growing season.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Freeman Dyson had a good idea, lend Mother Nature a helping hand: bio-engineer super-trees that are prodigious at making O2.

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/freeman_dyson_takes_on_the_climate_establishment/2151/

Dyson contends that since carbon dioxide is good for plants, a warmer planet could be a very good thing. And if CO2 does get to be a problem, Dyson believes we can just do some genetic engineering to create a new species of super-tree that can suck up the excess.

They'd doubtless grow fast , maybe feedstock for methanol based fuel ...

As anybody who's lived in South Florida and fought that horrible "Florida Holly" knows , Dyson's super-tree already exists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schinus_terebinthifolius][/PLAIN]
History
"Florida Holly" was introduced to Florida by at latest 1891, probably earlier (Gogue et al. 1974), where it has spread rapidly since about 1940 (Ewel 1986), replacing native plants, like mangroves, with thousands of acres occupied. It is especially adept at colonizing disturbed sites and can grow in both wet and dry conditions. Its growth habit allows it to climb over understory trees and invade mature canopies, forming thickets that choke out most other plants.

 

[bluespanishlady]

There are a few fundamentals to energy usage and how to effectively supply more energy demand while the source of energy is reducing as in oil and becoming increasingly toxic and costly such as nuclear production and waste.

So breaking down the utiliation of energy into transportation, manufacturing, and lifestyle; what are the alternatives?

The alternatives for electrical requirements are soon coming to market. See production ready devices such as www.blacklightpower.com, perendev magnetic motor/generator, and Beardens MEG motionless electromagnetic generator. Look at all of J Naudins work and tests and working devices from people all over the globe. http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/meg.htm. Join the free energy yahoo group.

The alternatives for transportation are near as well. The disclosure project, the searle effect generator and offshoot technologies, impulse drive technology, propellentless propulsion devices, flash hydrogen generators.

The lifestyle of using energy in our daily lives is something that will only grow over time. So we must enact these pioneering technologies now to perfect them and reduce the costs for the masses to adopt.
Imagine the possibility that within the next ten years you will be able to use a magnet only motor to propel a vehicle 300mph at altitude and have the same magnetic motor provide the electricity needed onboard without having to stop running for 25 years.
The state of CA spends billions and billions on fixing and adding asphalt to our state. If they routed just 20% of those funds to technologies mentioned above, we could be in an energy surplus in 10 years.
Take a look at the flash hydrogen generator from www.emergingtec.com. Runs your car on water or seawater and the only byproduct is purified water. I have mine on order when they start production.
I am crafting a inertial drive mechanism for propellantless propulsion which runs on electricity. Combine that with a free energy magnetic motor = unlimited range, unlimited direction, unlimited exterior conditions (undersea, air, space). Any body want one?

It seems the internet is permeated by the same right wing cult which has overtaken American society. This cult is exemplified by Rush Limbaugh. Most of what he believes and says is lies. Since his nonsense on such subjects as environmentalism, global warming and the energy (actually population) crisis is widely believed, we now have a populace which is in poor condition to think rationally based on historical and physical fact. I was hoping that I would not find such ilk on this message board but apparently they are dominant. I think discussion should be confined to folk who are educated in physics and share the same recognition of facts as the mainline physics community. The articles in Physics today indicate what is accepted truth in the physics community. If you are so dishonest that you choose to ignore facts and push an ideology no matter what the cost then you should identify yourself as such a person. If you want to see reliable scientific reports on these and more issues read Scientific American and visit the Union of Concerned Scientists website ucsusa.org.
I am interested in talking engineering numbers about specific technologies. There have been hundreds of reports about breakthroughs in recent years that have not panned out. Therefore a healthy skepticism is warrented.

I

Off the wall ideas are wonderful. But as I've said before, if it's going to cost me more than $20 in parts, I do the math first.
It's probably saved me about a million dollars so far.

We discussed this idea in another thread: Harvesting the sun's energy...
I don't think it went over well, for various reasons.

Also, I don't think gold would be required. I think aluminum would be a much more suitable material.
In space, with nearly zero oxygen, you don't have to worry about metals corroding.
You have to be careful with buoyancy, as it's not really an energy source. The waves/tides are the actual source of energy.
But anyways, we've discussed it before.

I started responding to your post this morning, but even your first statement took me until now resolve.There is a bit of maths involved in why eliminating all carbon based fuels is a bad idea.
I chose an http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/passengeraircraft/a350xwbfamily/a350-800/specifications/ as an example.
Not to bore you with all of the maths, which is available upon request, here are the results of my findings:

Replacing the jet fuel in an Airbus A350-800, with lithium ion batteries, would exceed the maximum landing weight by 45 times.
The batteries would also consume twice the available space of the airplane itself.

My guess is, that it would never leave the ground.

So eliminating carbon based fuels, would kind of not allow us to fly around, as much as we do.

And if by chance, you've heard that a Chinese company has just announced that they are going to mass produce an electric airplane.You might want to think about making the round trip to your brothers house, 1000 miles away, in such a vehicle:

per wiki:

Unit cost $163,000
Cruise speed: 159 km/h; 99 mph (86 kn)
Endurance: 40 minutes
​

I think I could bicycle to my sisters house, faster than in that plane.
She lives almost exactly 1000 miles away, as the car drives.

 

[bluespanishlady]

Thank you all for your thoughtful responses. Thank you also for the references to other posts and forums where there have been previous discussions on these topics about which I have been replying. I should have done my homework and read all previous forums before posting anything. I apologize if I have wasted your time.

Yes, as the gold used in a energy collector, I agree that aluminum would work just as well. As far carbon based fuels extracted from the Earth --gas and oil and coal I still think we are going to have to find serious alternatives to replace them as an energy source and even with that, most of us will have to give up a lot of things we now consider as necessary to our way of life--that includes flying.(which I personally love to do)

Also, I do believe we must address population growth as part of this solution. This is an urgent problem. There is a discussion of such on the following: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/population-and-sustainability/ There is is also much info on the world population clock website.
Our planet and the burgeoning population is a very large piece of the energy crisis--as is the effect of climate change. I really don't think any of these things can be taken out of a solution--from big ideas to small--from changes in lifestyles to changes in personal thinking and global politics/policies. In my opinion as a lay person , both population growth as well as climate change will have to be part of any technologies developed by physicists in answer to the energy crisis.

I hear you all loud and clear and appreciate your thoughts and arguments.

However, To Charles P: Don't get your knickers/shorts in such a twist. I really don't get where you're coming from in your replies to me with regard to being in anyway influenced by that buffoon Rush Limbaugh and the Tea Party nuts and right wing anti science religious freaks. I know I threw out a couple of far out ideas --and maybe I should have just keep my mouth shut --but I honestly think breaking free even from traditional thinking/rules can sometimes prove useful.

I am in no way pushing any ideology let alone one I completely disagree with --that of the Rush Limbaugh anti science crowd. If you read what I have proposed I have included many different smaller ideas ranging from conservation by limiting waste , recycling. I have also made some remarks about current things we are doing and some of the environmental costs associated with each of them in the case we are considering these things as long range answers. We still want to be able to breathe the air and have clean water when we're through, don't we? . Right now where I live you can't even eat the fish you catch. the oceans are heating up with the consequent loss of ocean life , ground water is contaminated, fresh water even looks to be in short supply in many areas and I am not happy about any of these things.

I do not wish to insult you and realize you are a very educated person with qualifications all over the place, most likely. Still, please do not lump me with the anti science crowd because I am not one of you, and accept my apology for any personal insult you may have suffered as a result of reading my posts. Also, consider this: I love science and read a lot. Scientific American is one of my favorite magazines. I know, big deal, you might say. But-- I am much more open minded and receptive when it comes to new developments and the need to fund science and research --than say a lot of the other non scientists I know.

 

[OmCheeto]

Thank you all for your thoughtful responses. Thank you also for the references to other posts and forums where there have been previous discussions on these topics about which I have been replying. I should have done my homework and read all previous forums before posting anything. I apologize if I have wasted your time.

I don't think many people would yell at you for not going through the whole thread. Much of which was posted, over 10 years ago, is no longer true. And some of the people you are arguing with, appear to be PF ghosts:

urbsurfer was last seen: Sep 22, 2006
CharlesP was last seen: Jul 15, 2010​

Yes, as the gold used in a energy collector, I agree that aluminum would work just as well. As far carbon based fuels extracted from the Earth --gas and oil and coal I still think we are going to have to find serious alternatives to replace them as an energy source and even with that, most of us will have to give up a lot of things we now consider as necessary to our way of life--that includes flying.(which I personally love to do)

Also, I do believe we must address population growth as part of this solution. This is an urgent problem. There is a discussion of such on the following: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/population-and-sustainability/ There is is also much info on the world population clock website.
Our planet and the burgeoning population is a very large piece of the energy crisis--as is the effect of climate change. I really don't think any of these things can be taken out of a solution--from big ideas to small--from changes in lifestyles to changes in personal thinking and global politics/policies. In my opinion as a lay person , both population growth as well as climate change will have to be part of any technologies developed by physicists in answer to the energy crisis.

I hear you all loud and clear and appreciate your thoughts and arguments.

...

In general, I agree about the population situation, and the environment.

But, as a child, I had some great leaders, to look up to, who heavily influenced my current day thinking:

I feel very definitely that the administration is absolutely correct in cracking down on companies and corporations and municipalities that continue to pollute the nation's air and water. While I am a great believer in the free competitive enterprise system and all that it entails, I am an even stronger believer in the right of our people to live in a clean and pollution-free environment. To this end, it is my belief that when pollution is found, it should be halted at the source, even if this requires stringent government action against important segments of our national economy.

Even before I was born, some people could see where we were going to be, today:

One final thought I should like to leave with you. High-energy consumption has always been a prerequisite of political power. The tendency is for political power to be concentrated in an ever-smaller number of countries. Ultimately, the nation which control - the largest energy resources will become dominant. If we give thought to the problem of energy resources, if we act wisely and in time to conserve what we have and prepare well for necessary future changes, we shall insure this dominant position for our own country.

Sounds a bit self centered now. But I wonder what people who are 100 years old think about it. As my 80 year old friends tell me; "Oh! You're just a baby."

 

[bluespanishlady]

I don't think many people would yell at you for not going through the whole thread. Much of which was posted, over 10 years ago, is no longer true. And some of the people you are arguing with, appear to be PF ghosts:

urbsurfer was last seen: Sep 22, 2006
CharlesP was last seen: Jul 15, 2010​

In general, I agree about the population situation, and the environment.

But, as a child, I had some great leaders, to look up to, who heavily influenced my current day thinking:Even before I was born, some people could see where we were going to be, today:
Sounds a bit self centered now. But I wonder what people who are 100 years old think about it. As my 80 year old friends tell me; "Oh! You're just a baby."

Hello.

You are so right to post these voices from the near past. It is generous of you and not one bit self centered.

I am myself a lady approaching seventy, and I consider the person from 1969 (when I was twenty three years old) just as right in his perception as the person from 1957 (when I was eleven). The rules for holding and hanging onto power never seem to change. Just one theme and a few variations. History is a great teacher. What sort of students are we? That is the question.

Sometimes I fear we will never do the things we need to do because politicians are too closely aligned to their party donors, big oil and gas, as well as other corporate interests. There's that, and then there's the public's general complacency and resistance to conceptualizing and demanding a long range plan in addition to immediate action from those we elect to serve.

Remember the Superfund? Whatever happened to that?

EPA and OSHA regulations? Where is the money for enforcement?

In the area where I live a dairy recently discharged sludge into the local water system and the sludge ended up in the water treatment plant which was not able to handle all the chemical mess. The town where it happened (and had even happened at least once before ) slapped a fine on the dairy. The dairy complained, people were afraid the dairy would move out and take along its jobs, so the city cut down the fine. The fact that the fine didn't begin to cover the cost of damages to the water treatment plant appeared to be less of a bother than the thought the dairy would move out.
On the other hand, If I don't rake and bundle my leaves in the fall and allow them to be washed into the local sewer drains I would face a big fine. This is just one example of rules and regs being ignored or enforced unequally (making them really ineffective) . Isn't this also all about who's got the most power? And don't these inconsistencies in application and enforcement of already existing laws and regulations taint the public's opinion, and confuse both the issues and the reception of any proposed solutions?

(As an atheist I would throw the negative effects of religion (s) into this mix of why we fail to address problems. )

Also--As far as how the old-timers are seeing things, my father died this past summer. He wasn't one hundred, but 94. He still had a sharp mind. He was an avid reader, kept up on the news, science, and current events as well as politics and public opinion.
That GI generation in whole seemed to be involved and, if I'm not mistaken are the one group that dependably shows up at the polls to vote. I think there were and still are pretty darned plugged in.

A lot of people noticed things needed attention. Years ago.
Rachel Carson was another.

Of course, one of my favorites quotes is the warning from General/ President Eisenhower regarding the inherent dangers posed by the military industrial complex. How can anyone forget that?

So. Thank you for the kind post and the reminder that a lot of people have noticed things needed attention. Years ago.

And yet, here we are today mulling over- -depending on who you talk to--whether there really even is a problem.
Maybe those of us who care about facing and solving these problems need to get a little more outspoken and involved ourselves?

 

[mfb]

okay first the dish outside the atmosphere of Earth is not to be a mirror but a collector of the suns full spectrum

What does it "collect" how and how is that supposed to be useful? Just saying "put a collector somewhere" is not an idea.

As far as using the bouyant force of the ocean I am referring directly to bouyancy itself as a force that could be harnessed.

How? Ignore the technical details, where do you see energy that could be extracted?

 

[bluespanishlady]

With due respect, the ideas I toss out are taken from my general observations and experiences in life working with a fixing problems encountered in basic home construction, hydraulics, vehicles mechanics, as well as problems encountered in working in the physical environments of the natural world..

Right now we are filling deserts which solar panels which are collecting energy from sunlight. With solar energy where solar panels are located affects how efficient and useful they are, so I can't help but wonder why we can't get closer to the actual source.
If we instead put a collector /transmitter of solar energy outside the Earth's atmosphere - the energy potential is much greater and more efficient because absent the atmosphere we can collect the energy in the full spectrum of light.
We have microwave dishes and satellites and are building a space station out there, so why is it not possible to have a solar energy collector /transmitter there as well.
I am just a layperson but it seems to me this should be possible. I know this will not impress you, but I can't tell you the number of times my husband and I have done something everyone else says is impossible. I do honestly believe the the solution to our energy problems lies beyond the confines of this globe and its natural resources. I do believe today's scientists can figure out a way to do this.

The ocean thing is less practical but still I believe possible. As far as the ocean is concerned what made me think of this is how a huge battleship filled with enormous weight sits atop the ocean and rises and falls with the oceans waves and general movement. Couldn't the force of this rising and falling be incorporated into a mechanical process used to generate energy? (not actually using the battleship of course) I think of how in the past, a steam locomotive turned the wheels of a train, or how pistons work.

Thank you for allowing me to participate in this forum.

 

[OmCheeto]

With due respect, the ideas I toss out are taken from my general observations and experiences in life working with a fixing problems encountered in basic home construction, hydraulics, vehicles mechanics, as well as problems encountered in working in the physical environments of the natural world..

Right now we are filling deserts which solar panels which are collecting energy from sunlight. With solar energy where solar panels are located affects how efficient and useful they are, so I can't help but wonder why we can't get closer to the actual source.
If we instead put a collector /transmitter of solar energy outside the Earth's atmosphere - the energy potential is much greater and more efficient because absent the atmosphere we can collect the energy in the full spectrum of light.
We have microwave dishes and satellites and are building a space station out there, so why is it not possible to have a solar energy collector /transmitter there as well.
I am just a layperson but it seems to me this should be possible. I know this will not impress you, but I can't tell you the number of times my husband and I have done something everyone else says is impossible. I do honestly believe the the solution to our energy problems lies beyond the confines of this globe and its natural resources. I do believe today's scientists can figure out a way to do this.

The ocean thing is less practical but still I believe possible. As far as the ocean is concerned what made me think of this is how a huge battleship filled with enormous weight sits atop the ocean and rises and falls with the oceans waves and general movement. Couldn't the force of this rising and falling be incorporated into a mechanical process used to generate energy? (not actually using the battleship of course) I think of how in the past, a steam locomotive turned the wheels of a train, or how pistons work.

Thank you for allowing me to participate in this forum.

I think what mfb was trying to convey, is that you've broken rule #2, from the original post.

Second, I want specific, coherent plans. Don't just say 'reduce CO2 emissions' or 'increase production' - tell me how.

Personally, I like your ideas. But they don't say "how" we are to implement them. Your space based energy collection system seems ok on the surface, but putting just 1 kg of material into geostationary orbit costs $50,000. And knowing what I do about the minimal effect of the shielding of the Earth's atmosphere, I can tell you that I'm not willing to do the maths on how much it would cost to put "x" number of rolls of aluminum foil into space...

Never mind what I just said, I am going to do the maths.

A 28 ounce roll of aluminum foil, disregarding the package it came in, has a mass of 0.29 kg
It has an area of 18.5 m²
From one website, I find that 496,804,500,000 square meters of the Earth are required to be covered with solar panels to power the world.
So we just divide that by the weight, and multiply by the cost/kg, and come up with:

     496,804,500,000         m^2 (area of solar panels to power the world)
                18.5         m^2 (area of a roll of aluminum foil)
      26,854,297,297         rolls of Al foil 
                0.29         kg/roll
       7,787,746,216         kg of Al foil 
              50,000         $/kg
$389,387,310,810,811         cost of getting Al into space 
$168,179,133,841,840         receiver  (from the Xindi thread)
$557,566,444,652,651         sub total

Now I know Russ said:

Third, money is important, but not critical (for this thread), so don't let it constrain your ambition.

But, I think $560 trillion dollars, would have people barking; "Thanks Obama!", at much higher volumes, when Earth based solutions, are probably a bit cheaper.

 

[mfb]

If we instead put a collector /transmitter of solar energy outside the Earth's atmosphere - the energy potential is much greater and more efficient because absent the atmosphere we can collect the energy in the full spectrum of light.

You gain something - how much depends on the wavelength response of the solar cells, let's be optimistic and say 30%. That's what you lose again from beaming it down to earth. You can gain more from higher orbits, but then launch costs are higher and the transmission becomes much more problematic. Aluminium foil is not a solar cell, you would need huge areas of solar cells in space, costing gigantic amounts of money.

I am just a layperson but it seems to me this should be possible. I know this will not impress you, but I can't tell you the number of times my husband and I have done something everyone else says is impossible.

It is not impossible, but all studies made so far come to the same conclusion: with current technology it is more expensive than solar cells on earth, often by orders of magnitude. And we are not running out of space in deserts.

The ocean thing is less practical but still I believe possible. As far as the ocean is concerned what made me think of this is how a huge battleship filled with enormous weight sits atop the ocean and rises and falls with the oceans waves and general movement. Couldn't the force of this rising and falling be incorporated into a mechanical process used to generate energy?

That would be wave energy, not buoyancy. There are some tests to use it, but not with ships because those are impractical.

 

[jlefevre76]

Please stop claiming things that are completely wrong - there might be forums where you can get away with that because no one cares, but not here.

Hmmmm, looks like I need to read up on a few things, I must have had the wrong impression from what I have read. Obviously with the absolute negative temperatures thing,
I don't expect applications where we're using some kind of magical working fluid that can make use of it, I figure it might find applications in photovoltaics (already has if you include the band selectivity of materials as an application) and applications in nuclear reactions (which it again, probably already has, since nuclear physics is largely based on things like energy states and configurations of particles). So, I have a general grasp of the principles behind them, about what you'd expect from a mechanical engineer anyway.

As for dark matter/dark energy, I was under the impression that it was energy or matter in another state of some kind, apparently a useless state, or an entropic state of some kind? This makes sense, since it doesn't really react with normal energy or matter. Do you have any reading material on the subject, specifically that addresses entropy of dark
energy and/or dark matter?

 

[OmCheeto]

I never thought I'd live to see this day.

Unsubscribe...

 

[bluespanishlady]

I never thought I'd live to see this day.

Unsubscribe...

I hope this wasn't because of my posts. I will just read the posts from now on and not comment about things about which I do not know enough. Please continue.

 

[OmCheeto]

I hope this wasn't because of my posts. ...

Nope.

 

[mfb]

I don't expect applications where we're using some kind of magical working fluid that can make use of it, I figure it might find applications in photovoltaics (already has if you include the band selectivity of materials as an application) and applications in nuclear reactions (which it again, probably already has, since nuclear physics is largely based on things like energy states and configurations of particles).

I don't see how this would be related to dark matter or dark energy in any way.
If you talk about quantum mechanics: our modern world would not work without knowledge of it.

As for dark matter/dark energy, I was under the impression that it was energy or matter in another state of some kind, apparently a useless state, or an entropic state of some kind? This makes sense, since it doesn't really react with normal energy or matter.

Dark matter does not react enough with normal matter, indeed. You need detectors with tons of active material to get a chance to see one interaction in several years. Completely impractical. And dark energy does not interact with the matter in any useful way at all. In addition, both are relevant on cosmological scales with their huge volume, but completely irrelevant close to earth. Every egg has much more energy than both combined in the total volume of earth.

 

[Aggedor]

It's hopeless. Don't even try. I have a friend that is 55 that gave his car away after Exxon Valdez. He walks or bikes everywhere (though in very poor physical health), uses no heating or AC, and gave up a six figure job to move someplace where that was possible. A supposedly very progressive place. In the 15 years I have known him I have never ONCE heard a "good progressive" EVER thank him, give him an attaboy...not one word of encouragement. The environmental organizations that he belongs to often meet in places that can only be accessed via a car and act put out if he complains about that. Meanwhile, to a person, they love to shout about how THEY have to change- big oil, government, everyone...except themselves. Change begins in the mirror. In the US we shout about other peoples' behavior. We are ignorant and self satisfied. We cannot compliment someone like my friend because it would damage our delicate egos, might imply we're hypocrites. He puts it best. "It's all become ego identity. If people that claim to love the environment loved it 1/2 as much as they love their ego identity as environmentalists, we'd be fine". That's it. Ego identity, never behavior. Wear a tee shirt for the cause, but don't ask me to go without air conditioning in the summer. Or move somewhere where I can. It's a terminal consumer mentality. "Go buy green". No, buying as solution is a big part of the problem. Coincidentally, he's also a big producer of almost all his food and drink. As long as the average idiot is more interested in the plastic in freakin' KK's arse than the plastic in the oceans...well, you might just as well cash out now. There is no hope.

 

[bluespanishlady]

I hope this wasn't because of my posts. I will just read the posts from now on and not comment about things about which I do not know enough. Please continue.

I think there is a really negative attitude displayed , not to mention some crazy Obama references which are pretty tiresome and have nothing to do with anything here.
Are you by chance closer to my age (born 1946) than say someone born in 1970 or later? There is a lot of attitude to deal with. young people can be so full of themselves.

I wish I would hear or read some substantive ideas from the others in addition to take the time to lighting my hair on fire by citing the cost of aluminum foil.
Where is the passion from those physicists and engineers that I would naturally expect? Nothing is so exciting as a problem that needs solving.
Well. I hope I have not again stepped in it.
Back to reading forums.

 

[bluespanishlady]

It's hopeless. Don't even try. I have a friend that is 55 that gave his car away after Exxon Valdez. He walks or bikes everywhere (though in very poor physical health), uses no heating or AC, and gave up a six figure job to move someplace where that was possible. A supposedly very progressive place. In the 15 years I have known him I have never ONCE heard a "good progressive" EVER thank him, give him an attaboy...not one word of encouragement. The environmental organizations that he belongs to often meet in places that can only be accessed via a car and act put out if he complains about that. Meanwhile, to a person, they love to shout about how THEY have to change- big oil, government, everyone...except themselves. Change begins in the mirror. In the US we shout about other peoples' behavior. We are ignorant and self satisfied. We cannot compliment someone like my friend because it would damage our delicate egos, might imply we're hypocrites. He puts it best. "It's all become ego identity. If people that claim to love the environment loved it 1/2 as much as they love their ego identity as environmentalists, we'd be fine". That's it. Ego identity, never behavior. Wear a tee shirt for the cause, but don't ask me to go without air conditioning in the summer. Or move somewhere where I can. It's a terminal consumer mentality. "Go buy green". No, buying as solution is a big part of the problem. Coincidentally, he's also a big producer of almost all his food and drink. As long as the average idiot is more interested in the plastic in freakin' KK's arse than the plastic in the oceans...well, you might just as well cash out now. There is no hope.

I agree with a lot of what you say. (except about the talk about progressives basically being hypocrites who don't applaud the little guy doing his part.
Sure, we have that going on, but not just with progressives. There's hypocrites on both sides of the aisle: politically progressive hypocrites and politically conservative hypocrites. Good people do good things not to be patted on the back, but because they believe in what they are doing. I'll bet your friend knows this and accepts it as part of human behavior. You can't let crappy people ruin your day or change what you do to make this world a better place.
I cannot give up hope that the human race will face these very serious problems and find solutions. Let's just hope and plan on making it us.

 

[mheslep]

There are other fora for this kind of discussion. Here, on the home page of this website are listed guidelines for discussions in this forum.
PF values quality
• Topics based on science published in real scientific journals or textbooks
PF values productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic

The topic of this particular thread is possible solutions for the energy crisis, such as it was when the thread began.

 

[OmCheeto]

...
Are you by chance closer to my age (born 1946) than say someone born in 1970 or later?...

You could always check my Facebook profile. You did accept my friend request. Thanks!

[edit] And to keep somewhat on topic, I'm currently working on improving solar panel efficiency.
Believe it, or not.
Can reflected light help generate electricity with a solar panel?
Question about solar energy: angle of incidence

 

[OmCheeto]

I think there is a really negative attitude displayed...

Pfft! Get used to it.

They were really negative towards me when I first got here:

Wild geese@pf.com
Dec 9, 2007

stewartcs; Yes it is a "waste" of time.
Mech_Engineer; This is a terrbile title for a thread​

Over the next couple of months, I would discover, that this forum had Chutzpah!
Something, very lacking, in other forums.

As the meme says;

I am just a layperson but it seems to me this should be possible. I know this will not impress you, but I can't tell you the number of times my husband and I have done something everyone else says is impossible.

I would personally, love to hear those stories!

 

[bluespanishlady]

Some energy recovery methods include: grey water heat exchangers (to recover heat from warm waste water).
Waste Water PreheaterActive solar air heating systems.
http://www.solarwall.com/sw/swHow.html

Well water heat exchangers and desuperheaters (to precool refrigerant and preheat water), energy recovery ventilators (to recover heat from exhaust air), Recovery of waste heat in cooling systems for preheating hot water benefit both of the systems (cooling and water heating) and can be incorporated in both home and commercial systems.
http://www.oxfordplasticsinc.com/geothermalheating.htm Magnetic refrigeration systems show potential in the future for low energy use systems for refrigeration of cold storage boxes and large commercial cooling units. These also work with just water as the refrigerant so environmental impact is reduced.
http:/Magentic Refrigerator

let me clarify: Iike the "what?"

 

[bluespanishlady]

You could always check my Facebook profile. You did accept my friend request. Thanks!

[edit] And to keep somewhat on topic, I'm currently working on improving solar panel efficiency.
Believe it, or not.
Can reflected light help generate electricity with a solar panel?
Question about solar energy: angle of incidence

 

[bluespanishlady]

So you are actually WORKING on this? Yes!

 

[OmCheeto]

let me clarify: Iike the "what?"

Brilliant! I always liked Artman. That post predated my arrival at PF by over 3 years! Which is probably why I didn't bother to read it. So much catching up to do.

So you are actually WORKING on this? Yes!

I've been working on this problem, on a personal level, since 1989.
On a global level, only since about 2006.
My latest invention should cut hydrocarbon consumption by a monetary value of several hundred billion dollars per year, in the US.
Globally, a bit more.

For several years, a friend of mine would call me on the phone, and ask me what I was up to. My response was always; "Saving the world".
Like a lot of people, he didn't think I was serious.
But my trillion dollar idea prompted me to retire 3 years early.

Here's an image I posted back in 2007, at another science forum:

Pure gibberish now, in hindsight. But I was just collecting ideas. And so much has changed since then. So much.

But the ideas Artman shared, even after 11 years, are still all worthy of consideration.

 

[OmCheeto]

... Aluminium foil is not a solar cell, you would need huge areas of solar cells in space, costing gigantic amounts of money.
It is not impossible, but all studies made so far come to the same conclusion: with current technology it is more expensive than solar cells on earth, often by orders of magnitude. And we are not running out of space in deserts.
...

Sorry about the necro-response, but I just ran across a funny article:

Success! Scientists have achieved wireless energy transfer across 55m
This could change everything.
FIONA MACDONALD 13 MAR 2015
Although there’s still a long way to go, the team’s ultimate goal is to set up solar satellites around 36,000 km off Earth’s surface, where they’re able to soak up the intense solar energy from the Sun and then beam it back to Earth via antennae, providing the planet with unlimited renewable power.

I don't think they've done the (financial) math. My guess is that they'll ask for crowd funding next, like the "solar road" people:

Solar Roadways passes $1.4 million in crowdfunding: Just short of the $56 trillion required, but not bad for a crazy idea

I think it's a bad idea:

Cost of solar roadway/m²: $747
Cost of a Solarworld 250 watt panel/m²: $131​

And then there's the fact that people aren't "DRIVING FREAKING TRUCKS OVER YOUR SOLAR PANELS!", if you install them on your roof.ps. My "sending rolls of aluminum foil" into space, wasn't a scientific solution, it was purely to show the current cost of getting even the most basic of materials into orbit. And like my "Xindi weapon/nuclear power plant receiver", these are "back of napkin" numbers.

 

[jlefevre76]

I don't see how this would be related to dark matter or dark energy in any way.
If you talk about quantum mechanics: our modern world would not work without knowledge of it.

Dark matter does not react enough with normal matter, indeed. You need detectors with tons of active material to get a chance to see one interaction in several years. Completely impractical. And dark energy does not interact with the matter in any useful way at all. In addition, both are relevant on cosmological scales with their huge volume, but completely irrelevant close to earth. Every egg has much more energy than both combined in the total volume of earth.

Having been reamed a few times for this, I guess I should clarify what I was going after. On the negative absolute temperatures thing and/or the dark matter/dark energy thing, I was simply trying to open up a discussion of what people thought the next paradigm shift in physics would yield in terms of implications to energy. So, in a way, this is asking, what would you fund in order to trigger a paradigm shift that would (hopefully) have implications on our understanding of energy.

Maybe it's unlikely that the next paradigm shift would relate to dark matter/dark energy or negative absolute temperatures. (Which as I understand, shows up in any system that favors an energy state other than the lowest, but maybe I don't understand it.) I don't know that people can say for sure that the next paradigm shift won't affect those fields, but perhaps is it highly unlikely.

This might sound kind of weird, but I have to remain hopeful though, that the next paradigm shift will have implications for our understanding of energy, as currently, our understanding of physics is really going to limit us to being a one planet species, which is disappointing and maybe even dangerous in terms of asteroids and such. Chemical energy can get us into orbit, but it can't feasibly get us to another star system. Nuclear energy could get us to another star system, but we don't have the ability to control it like we do chemical energy, so we need some kind of a paradigm shift to change that, or change our fundamental understanding of physics. I would assume a paradigm shift like that would have direct implications on the way we harvest energy as well, so, I included some topics in order to spark a conversation on the subject generally.

 

[mfb]

Having been reamed a few times for this, I guess I should clarify what I was going after. On the negative absolute temperatures thing and/or the dark matter/dark energy thing, I was simply trying to open up a discussion of what people thought the next paradigm shift in physics would yield in terms of implications to energy. So, in a way, this is asking, what would you fund in order to trigger a paradigm shift that would (hopefully) have implications on our understanding of energy.

Maybe it's unlikely that the next paradigm shift would relate to dark matter/dark energy or negative absolute temperatures. (Which as I understand, shows up in any system that favors an energy state other than the lowest, but maybe I don't understand it.) I don't know that people can say for sure that the next paradigm shift won't affect those fields, but perhaps is it highly unlikely.

That's like saying "the next paradigm shift in energy usage might come from a better understanding of sandboxes. Perhaps it is highly unlikely but you cannot rule it out". With better buzzwords, but with the same likelihood.

 

[jlefevre76]

That's like saying "the next paradigm shift in energy usage might come from a better understanding of sandboxes. Perhaps it is highly unlikely but you cannot rule it out". With better buzzwords, but with the same likelihood.

I reject that metaphor. Sandboxes don't have a darn thing to do with energy. Exceptions to the classical laws of thermodynamics and new forms of matter/energy that we cannot yet easily detect, already do relate to energy. So, that's a bad metaphor.

Also, it also doesn't work as a metaphor because I'm not saying that it has to work one direction. The next paradigm shift could come from some other field, and have implications on the fields listed. It may not be likely (and if it's not, you're failing to make an argument why, which would actually be productive and perhaps enlighten me as to why I'm wrong, rather than just telling me I'm wrong and forcing me to take someone's word rather than understand for myself). I'm not saying you need to totally change the direction of the thread, just explain briefly why those fields are unlikely to yield anything that will change our relationship to energy in the future. Or, correct me if I'm wrong on this:

• Dark energy/dark matter are difficult to detect, nearly impossible, and as such there is little or no expectation that they will ever relate to normal matter or energy in any kind of meaningful way.
• Negative absolute temperatures deal with systems that favor being in a higher energy state, and already have all the applications we could ever find, and are already used in things like semiconductors and lasers (where a wavelength is favored due to the state of the system).

So, that's my understanding of what people have said on these forums combined with my own, admittedly, rudimentary understanding of these concepts.