Remember me
▼ Content

Potential Effects of Broadcast Induced REP on Climate Change



Page 8 of 8<<<678
13-12-2018 21:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7678)
Lewis Carlson wrote:
"This brief resume of the experiments carried out in 1946 shows clearly how a resonant effect did really exist in the interaction of the radiowaves and also that this resonance was much greater than that predicted by V.A.Bailey. In fact, the resonance has been generated by an electromagnetic power of only 400-500 watts and not the 1 or 2 kw as Bailey predicted."


https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GOVPUB-C13-e91acf36c60a5ac43b304a37a08506b9/pdf/GOVPUB-C13-e91acf36c60a5ac43b304a37a08506b9.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1oAV7eLWW8dFDfBInAmM3Arjt9Gac6gBbSGeW5Oq8z3X0SwSOBtmzhQOs


Cutting and pasting stuff again?

There is gyro. There is nothing to 'resonate'. This clown was simply noting the effects of interference waves inherent in combining any light, calling it 'resonance' and 'gyro effect'.

The GPO is not a proof. They just printed this tripe because that the time the government believed him (they believe a lot of things that just aren't true).


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 13-12-2018 21:14
13-12-2018 21:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7678)
James___ wrote:
The only real issue I have with anything is that heat (temperature)
Heat does not have a temperature, James.
James___ wrote:
in our atmosphere can be measured in wm^2. I know it's rather simplistic but when working with standards, that tends to be it.
Temperature is not measured in watts, James.
James___ wrote:
If we considered the wattage as a source of energy,
it can only matter if it can be focused on a specific region. Just basic science.
Watts is not a source of energy, James. It's a unit of measurement. It's like you are trying to make inches a source of length.
James___ wrote:
In our atmosphere heat is 3/2kT. That can be converted into j/s/m^2 which is the same as w/m^2. This is because j/s = w. This just goes with the territory.
Heat is not 3/2kT. Heat is not kinetic energy, James.
James___ wrote:
Mr. Carlson, I hope you understand that with these guys I try to get them to understand that work is more than W = MD. Entropy is work.
Entropy is not work. It is a measure of randomness, James.
James___ wrote:
And basically any function of e = hv is work.
e=hv is not work. Energy by itself is not work, James.
James___ wrote:
That's the basic expression of energy.

No, it isn't. This equation relates the energy of a photon to thermal energy, James.


The Parrot Killer
13-12-2018 21:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7678)
James___ wrote:
Mr. Carlson, when it comes to our atmosphere, basically N2O is the only NOx that's considered a GHG.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas, James. No gas or vapor can warm the Earth.
James___ wrote:
The rest are just air pollution.

Naturally occurring gasses in the atmosphere is not air pollution, James.
James___ wrote:
And what you haven't shown is what % of N2O emissions broadcast signals might be responsible for.
Because there is no relation.
James___ wrote:
I'll explain work. hv + N + N + O = N2O.
Not work, James.
James___ wrote:
hv would be a specific value.
Why would hv be a specific value?
James___ wrote:
u would be the value of the field that N2O is occurring in.
There is no 'u' in your equation, James.
James___ wrote:
w/m^2 would allow for rate of occurrence to be calculated (w/m^2) /hv.
Making up relations now? w/m^2 is equal to (w/m^2)/hv if hv is 1.
James___ wrote:
Then it needs to be shown that ep (electron precipitation) has sufficient KE = hv to cause the necessary reactions to occur.
EP does not involve hv, James. It is not a photon. It is an electron.
James___ wrote:
And since entropy is a part of any system then ep needs to have a lower value than the broadcast wattage causing it.

That is not entropy causing that. It is the 2nd law of thermodynamics causing that. The law of entropy is not entropy itself.


The Parrot Killer
13-12-2018 21:45
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7678)
James___ wrote:
What you might consider Mr. Carlson is if what you've been discussing impacts the hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica. N2O is a problem there.

No, it isn't. N2O does not cause the 'hole'. Lack of sunlight causes the 'hole'. See the Chapman cycle.
James___ wrote:
Some things you could consider:
area of Antarctica compared to mid latitudes (broadcast signal effect can be focused?)
ep above Antarctica
is it seasonal?

The 'hole' is only there during the winter of that pole. Both poles have 'holes'.
James___ wrote:
amount of N2O above Antarctica
how long can N2O remain in the atmosphere

N2O is very reactive in the presence of water, including the presence of water in the atmosphere.
James___ wrote:
damage to marine life caused by ozone depletion including phytoplankton and it's importance to the food chain.

UV rays don't penetrate seawater, even if there was no ozone layer at all. The ozone layer is not being depleted.


The Parrot Killer
17-12-2018 17:49
ansi2018
☆☆☆☆☆
(12)
Lewis Carlson wrote:
Our climate is changing as many of us are aware and many have dedicated their lives and time to doing our best to set right the challenges we face so that our children and generations ahead may have a healthy ecosystem to grow in and thrive upon. About ten years ago I dove deep into the climate change issue and learned about many facets of this astronomical challenge we face, most importantly the problem that rising CO2 levels pose from man made sources.

In my process of learning about various climate forcing mechanisms I became aware of another mechanism and have wondered for years of its potential significance in climate change. Through discourse with friends and others it seems little are aware of this other factor that could potentially play a role in the dynamics we're seeing and I'm hoping to connect with you in hopes that you or one of your colleagues may be able to shed light on these curiosities should there be more to this other climate forcing mechanism, or good reasons to dismiss it. If we truly wish to solve this incredibly difficult task it seems to me that we should leave no stone unturned. So here I am doing my part and due diligence as best I know how. I hope it is well received with an open mind and an open heart.

In 2007 I learned of a phenomenon known as Relativistic Electron Precipitation - REP and that some of the leading researchers of ionospheric physics, such as Michal Parrot of CNRS France head of DEMETER micro-satellite mission and VERSIM (VLF/ELF Remote Sensing of Ionospheres and Magnetospheres 96' - 05') who said in a research paper that using scientific transmitters it was becoming clear that it stimulates REP and could have a potential impact on "the global warming of the earth".

"At VLF frequencies between 10 and 20 kHz, the ground-based transmitters are used for radio-navigation and communications. Their ionospheric perturbations include: the triggering of new waves, ionospheric heating, wave-electron interactions, and particle precipitation. At HF frequencies, the broadcasting stations utilise powerful transmitters which can heat the ionosphere and change the temperature and the density. All these wave dissipations in the ionosphere could participate to the global warming of the Earth because the change in global temperature increases the number of natural lightning discharges in the atmosphere. Then the supplementary lightning discharges produce more magnetospheric whistlers which could produce heating and ionization in the lower ionosphere.

Furthermore, it is a feedback mechanism because two different processes could be involved. First, lightning is a source of NOx, and NOx affects the concentration of ozone in the atmosphere which contributes to the greenhouse effect. Second, precipitation of energetic electrons by man?made waves may trigger other lightning discharges. It explains the importance of the study of such man-made waves [7]. Ionospheric perturbations by natural geophysical activities have been made evident by two methods: the study of the electromagnetic waves, and the measurement of the electron density." http://wwwperso.lpc2e.cnrs.fr/www_experim/experim_espace_demeter_details_eng.php

Since learning of REP and its potential role in climate change we've seen more and more research coming out that could potentially support the possibility that REP, along with increasing CO2, play a significant role in the climate change we are seeing. For example REP is potentially linked to the most notable region of climate warming in the entire Southern Hemisphere. "In this report we attract attention to a fact that the global maximum of the outer belt energetic electron precipitation is localized in a narrow longitudinal belt centered in the Weddell Sea i.e. in the area of climate warming in the Southern hemisphere. It was shown by several explorers that energetic resources of this electron precipitation are sufficient to change temperature regime of the stratosphere and troposphere."

Peculiarities of Long-Term Trends of Surface Temperature in Antarctica and Their Possible Connections with Outer Belt Electron Precipitation https://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EMS2006/00027/EMS2006-A-00027.pdf?PHPSESSID=3

As you may well know the stratospheric ozone level is at an altitude above the carbon from man made sources and acts as a valve for UV rays coming into our atmosphere heating these greenhouse gasses. While most of the scientific community has been focused on rising CO2 levels, we've heard very little about how our potential use of broadcast energy on a global scale could be stimulating this REP ~ ozone depletion mechanism.

Though we hear more about the potential healing of the ozone holes in polar regions, we've heard little about how ozone levels over most populated areas are thinning increasing UV rays: "The potential for harm in lower latitudes may actually be worse than at the poles..The decreases in ozone are less than we saw at the poles before the Montreal Protocol was enacted, but UV radiation is more intense in these regions and more people live there." https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/science/2018/02/07/ozone-layer-continues-thin-over-earths-populated-areas/315405002/

A 2016 scientific report first coined the term Anthropogenic Space Weather and discussed the effect our output of electromagnetic energy specifically in the VLF range has been directly observed by NASA satellites to radically alter our magnetosphere creating an artificial bubble of energy around the planet capable of blocking high energy particles from space. This article frames the energetic bubble as being beneficial to blocking radiation from space, but could it also be playing a role in stimulating ozone depletion through Relativistic Electron Precipitation? https://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-space-probes-detect-a-human-made-barrier-shrouding-earth

First-time evidence shows electrons precipitating or 'raining' from Earth's magnetosphere are destroying ozone in the upper atmosphere: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center-- https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/12/001215082423.htm

In 2002 Bo Thide from the Swedish Institute of Space Physics wrote a paper titled, "Atmosphere-Ionosphere-Mission, an Elaborate Science Case" in which he put out a call for ideas regarding this REP climate forcing mechanism saying that the public should be concerned. Bo Thide is one of the world's leading ionospheric physicists. He wrote the book on Electromagnetic Field Theory and single handedly revolutionized our understanding of ionospheric research with multi channel ionospheric probing; awarding him the Edlund Prize of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in 1991. If he's saying "the public should be concerned".. why aren't we even aware of this?: https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/25321698/atmosphere-ionosphere-mission-swedish-institute-of-space-

So after looking at all this I'm left wondering how significant our use of broadcast energy could be in climate change given these new findings? Are NASA and other scientists looking into this possibility and do they deem it potentially significant in climate change? If not.. Why not? Perhaps there is indeed a good reason I'm not aware of.

According the the IPCC, REP was discounted as a potential player in climate change because it's variability was too closely linked to solar proton events which are unpredictable and REP is seen as "natural", but if we've been outputting EM energy into the ionosphere longer than we've been able to measure it, then how can we know what is or isn't "natural"? "Nevertheless, VLF transmissions of anthropogenic origin may constitute a key space weather influence on pathways that fundamentally alter the storm-time radiation belt. Under these assumptions, it is interesting for the reader to consider what the terrestrial radiation belt environment might have been in the pre-transmitter, and pre-observation, era."
Anthropogenic Space Weather 2016 - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309854824_Anthropogenic_Space_Weather

It has taken our scientific community a long time to realize the dire effects man made CO2 plays as a climate forcing mechanism. I don't doubt its significance and am left wondering if it will take another 50 years before we see there's potentially another part in the wholistic equation of our complex climate system.

If we're truly dedicating our time, careers and lives to solving this monumental problem for generations ahead.. are we looking at the potential significance of how our global broadcast may be stimulating an ozone depletion mechanism allowing more UV rays to heat increasing levels of greenhouse gasses most of all CO2 from man made sources? How do we determine what is or isn't worth our time when looking for answers?

I really appreciate all the energy and effort you and others are dedicating to solving the issues of climate change and appreciate your time and consideration around this letter.


Thank you sincerely, Professor Lewis Carlson PhD ~ RelativisticElectronPrecipitation@protonmail.com


In my opinion, climate uses energy profiles of all objects and classes that we can think of as data -- therefore all forms of energies are directly linked to climate (not climate change). The "change" factor, however, works in a different way.
17-12-2018 17:49
ansi2018
☆☆☆☆☆
(12)
Lewis Carlson wrote:
Our climate is changing as many of us are aware and many have dedicated their lives and time to doing our best to set right the challenges we face so that our children and generations ahead may have a healthy ecosystem to grow in and thrive upon. About ten years ago I dove deep into the climate change issue and learned about many facets of this astronomical challenge we face, most importantly the problem that rising CO2 levels pose from man made sources.

In my process of learning about various climate forcing mechanisms I became aware of another mechanism and have wondered for years of its potential significance in climate change. Through discourse with friends and others it seems little are aware of this other factor that could potentially play a role in the dynamics we're seeing and I'm hoping to connect with you in hopes that you or one of your colleagues may be able to shed light on these curiosities should there be more to this other climate forcing mechanism, or good reasons to dismiss it. If we truly wish to solve this incredibly difficult task it seems to me that we should leave no stone unturned. So here I am doing my part and due diligence as best I know how. I hope it is well received with an open mind and an open heart.

In 2007 I learned of a phenomenon known as Relativistic Electron Precipitation - REP and that some of the leading researchers of ionospheric physics, such as Michal Parrot of CNRS France head of DEMETER micro-satellite mission and VERSIM (VLF/ELF Remote Sensing of Ionospheres and Magnetospheres 96' - 05') who said in a research paper that using scientific transmitters it was becoming clear that it stimulates REP and could have a potential impact on "the global warming of the earth".

"At VLF frequencies between 10 and 20 kHz, the ground-based transmitters are used for radio-navigation and communications. Their ionospheric perturbations include: the triggering of new waves, ionospheric heating, wave-electron interactions, and particle precipitation. At HF frequencies, the broadcasting stations utilise powerful transmitters which can heat the ionosphere and change the temperature and the density. All these wave dissipations in the ionosphere could participate to the global warming of the Earth because the change in global temperature increases the number of natural lightning discharges in the atmosphere. Then the supplementary lightning discharges produce more magnetospheric whistlers which could produce heating and ionization in the lower ionosphere.

Furthermore, it is a feedback mechanism because two different processes could be involved. First, lightning is a source of NOx, and NOx affects the concentration of ozone in the atmosphere which contributes to the greenhouse effect. Second, precipitation of energetic electrons by man?made waves may trigger other lightning discharges. It explains the importance of the study of such man-made waves [7]. Ionospheric perturbations by natural geophysical activities have been made evident by two methods: the study of the electromagnetic waves, and the measurement of the electron density." http://wwwperso.lpc2e.cnrs.fr/www_experim/experim_espace_demeter_details_eng.php

Since learning of REP and its potential role in climate change we've seen more and more research coming out that could potentially support the possibility that REP, along with increasing CO2, play a significant role in the climate change we are seeing. For example REP is potentially linked to the most notable region of climate warming in the entire Southern Hemisphere. "In this report we attract attention to a fact that the global maximum of the outer belt energetic electron precipitation is localized in a narrow longitudinal belt centered in the Weddell Sea i.e. in the area of climate warming in the Southern hemisphere. It was shown by several explorers that energetic resources of this electron precipitation are sufficient to change temperature regime of the stratosphere and troposphere."

Peculiarities of Long-Term Trends of Surface Temperature in Antarctica and Their Possible Connections with Outer Belt Electron Precipitation https://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EMS2006/00027/EMS2006-A-00027.pdf?PHPSESSID=3

As you may well know the stratospheric ozone level is at an altitude above the carbon from man made sources and acts as a valve for UV rays coming into our atmosphere heating these greenhouse gasses. While most of the scientific community has been focused on rising CO2 levels, we've heard very little about how our potential use of broadcast energy on a global scale could be stimulating this REP ~ ozone depletion mechanism.

Though we hear more about the potential healing of the ozone holes in polar regions, we've heard little about how ozone levels over most populated areas are thinning increasing UV rays: "The potential for harm in lower latitudes may actually be worse than at the poles..The decreases in ozone are less than we saw at the poles before the Montreal Protocol was enacted, but UV radiation is more intense in these regions and more people live there." https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/science/2018/02/07/ozone-layer-continues-thin-over-earths-populated-areas/315405002/

A 2016 scientific report first coined the term Anthropogenic Space Weather and discussed the effect our output of electromagnetic energy specifically in the VLF range has been directly observed by NASA satellites to radically alter our magnetosphere creating an artificial bubble of energy around the planet capable of blocking high energy particles from space. This article frames the energetic bubble as being beneficial to blocking radiation from space, but could it also be playing a role in stimulating ozone depletion through Relativistic Electron Precipitation? https://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-space-probes-detect-a-human-made-barrier-shrouding-earth

First-time evidence shows electrons precipitating or 'raining' from Earth's magnetosphere are destroying ozone in the upper atmosphere: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center-- https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/12/001215082423.htm

In 2002 Bo Thide from the Swedish Institute of Space Physics wrote a paper titled, "Atmosphere-Ionosphere-Mission, an Elaborate Science Case" in which he put out a call for ideas regarding this REP climate forcing mechanism saying that the public should be concerned. Bo Thide is one of the world's leading ionospheric physicists. He wrote the book on Electromagnetic Field Theory and single handedly revolutionized our understanding of ionospheric research with multi channel ionospheric probing; awarding him the Edlund Prize of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in 1991. If he's saying "the public should be concerned".. why aren't we even aware of this?: https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/25321698/atmosphere-ionosphere-mission-swedish-institute-of-space-

So after looking at all this I'm left wondering how significant our use of broadcast energy could be in climate change given these new findings? Are NASA and other scientists looking into this possibility and do they deem it potentially significant in climate change? If not.. Why not? Perhaps there is indeed a good reason I'm not aware of.

According the the IPCC, REP was discounted as a potential player in climate change because it's variability was too closely linked to solar proton events which are unpredictable and REP is seen as "natural", but if we've been outputting EM energy into the ionosphere longer than we've been able to measure it, then how can we know what is or isn't "natural"? "Nevertheless, VLF transmissions of anthropogenic origin may constitute a key space weather influence on pathways that fundamentally alter the storm-time radiation belt. Under these assumptions, it is interesting for the reader to consider what the terrestrial radiation belt environment might have been in the pre-transmitter, and pre-observation, era."
Anthropogenic Space Weather 2016 - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309854824_Anthropogenic_Space_Weather

It has taken our scientific community a long time to realize the dire effects man made CO2 plays as a climate forcing mechanism. I don't doubt its significance and am left wondering if it will take another 50 years before we see there's potentially another part in the wholistic equation of our complex climate system.

If we're truly dedicating our time, careers and lives to solving this monumental problem for generations ahead.. are we looking at the potential significance of how our global broadcast may be stimulating an ozone depletion mechanism allowing more UV rays to heat increasing levels of greenhouse gasses most of all CO2 from man made sources? How do we determine what is or isn't worth our time when looking for answers?

I really appreciate all the energy and effort you and others are dedicating to solving the issues of climate change and appreciate your time and consideration around this letter.


Thank you sincerely, Professor Lewis Carlson PhD ~ RelativisticElectronPrecipitation@protonmail.com


In my opinion, climate uses energy profiles of all objects and classes that we can think of as data -- therefore all forms of energies are directly linked to climate (not climate change). The "change" factor, however, works in a different way.
17-12-2018 19:24
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(603)
Doesn't seem that 'Climate Change' looks at anything seriously, unless it involves CO2 in some way, more specifically, man-made CO2. Anything that reduces temperature or CO2, are also down-played, or dismissed. I think the warming trend is entirely natural, and unrelated to CO2. Also believe a warmer climate, and much higher CO2 levels will workout to be highly beneficial to life on this planet, since vegetation will thrive, our most basic food source. All life is based on carbon molecules, and they don't get it from eating coal, or drinking petroleum, neither do plants. The carbon is mostly pulled out of the air, plants convert it, everything else consume the plants, on way or another. Really seems odd to me, that few people see the problem of reduce, eventually eliminating our contribution to the food chain.
17-12-2018 21:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7678)
ansi2018 wrote:
In my opinion, climate uses energy profiles of all objects and classes that we can think of as data -- therefore all forms of energies are directly linked to climate (not climate change). The "change" factor, however, works in a different way.


Data isn't a profile of an object or a class. Data is the result of any observation. Observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. They are not a proof. They are evidence only.

There are many kinds of energy. How does nuclear, chemical, electrical, or mechanical energy affect or 'change' climate?


The Parrot Killer
24-01-2019 16:47
MaryVans
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
Lewis Carlson wrote:

It has taken our scientific community a long time to realize the dire effects man made CO2 plays as a climate forcing mechanism. I don't doubt its significance and am left wondering if it will take another 50 years before we see there's potentially another part in the wholistic equation of our complex climate system.


Thank you for this letter. It makes me happy knowing that even the young generation questions the facts and reaches out to speak to large fossil fuels companies and organisations. Like Greta Thunberg, 15, who spoke recently at United Nations Climate Change Conference. I believe we can really make a change if we speak up.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yDJfe_9naU&t=1s
24-01-2019 19:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7678)
MaryVans wrote:
Lewis Carlson wrote:

It has taken our scientific community a long time to realize the dire effects man made CO2 plays as a climate forcing mechanism. I don't doubt its significance and am left wondering if it will take another 50 years before we see there's potentially another part in the wholistic equation of our complex climate system.


Thank you for this letter. It makes me happy knowing that even the young generation questions the facts and reaches out to speak to large fossil fuels companies and organisations. Like Greta Thunberg, 15, who spoke recently at United Nations Climate Change Conference. I believe we can really make a change if we speak up.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yDJfe_9naU&t=1s


The old ecologist's dream.

No, you don't get to dictate what kind of fuel people are going to use. The free market decides that.


The Parrot Killer
24-01-2019 20:31
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(603)
What kind of fuel replaces petroleum?

Solar only works on sunny days, not real productive on cloudy days, never at night, and takes up quite a bit of space, if someone wants to be completely free of outside energy sources. Also quite expensive to set up, maintain, batteries and panels need replacing often.

Wind only works if there is a steady breeze, take up a lot of space, need to be shut down for strong storms.

Biodiesel not to bad, except it takes a lot of vegetation to produce. Do we grow food, or fuel, only so much farm land. Plants like a lot of CO2, maybe a better option, when we triple the current 400 ppm level... But, then again, it's prophesied that we will all die horribly if CO2 levels aren't cut in half.

Alternative fuels are a nice dream, but there really aren't any strong alternatives, the 'cure' is actually worse than the problem. Petroleum is highly efficient, and anytime, and place energy.

Nuclear still leaves those spent fuel rods lying around, stay 'hot' for quite some time. Really surprised that heating water, seems to be the only use of radiation, in power production. Seems like those atoms are just packed full of energy, just spilling out, and we never found a more direct way to make use of it. Maybe there is, but it's frowned upon, since we can't just have common people playing around with radioactive materials, we just don't have the intelligence to be responsible...

To replace petroleum, someone needs to find a more convenient energy source, that can be used anywhere, any time, and not crowd the landscape.
24-01-2019 21:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7678)
HarveyH55 wrote:
What kind of fuel replaces petroleum?

Not a whole lot.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Solar only works on sunny days, not real productive on cloudy days, never at night, and takes up quite a bit of space, if someone wants to be completely free of outside energy sources. Also quite expensive to set up, maintain, batteries and panels need replacing often.

Correct. Solar consumes a lot of real estate per watt and requires expensive equipment and continuous maintenance. The panels themselves will need to be replaced every few years as well as the batteries, which have even a shorter lifetime.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wind only works if there is a steady breeze, take up a lot of space, need to be shut down for strong storms.

It also consumes a lot of real estate per watt. The huge propellers on modern wind generators are freaking dangerous as well.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Biodiesel not to bad, except it takes a lot of vegetation to produce. Do we grow food, or fuel, only so much farm land. Plants like a lot of CO2, maybe a better option, when we triple the current 400 ppm level... But, then again, it's prophesied that we will all die horribly if CO2 levels aren't cut in half.

Another sound argument.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Alternative fuels are a nice dream, but there really aren't any strong alternatives, the 'cure' is actually worse than the problem.

There really is not problem. Oil is plentiful, easy to obtain, renewable, and cheap.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Petroleum is highly efficient, and anytime, and place energy.
It is also flexible for use with both fixed and mobile power supplies.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Nuclear still leaves those spent fuel rods lying around, stay 'hot' for quite some time.

Actually, spent rods can be put into a different kind of reactor and used a fuel. This reactor is less efficient, but who cares? It can still heat water. Spent fuel from this reactor is completely safe to handle. It is no longer dangerous at all.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Really surprised that heating water, seems to be the only use of radiation, in power production.

The same is true for oil, natural gas, and coal plants. They boil water to generate steam to turn a turbines that turn a generator shaft. Water is a good medium to work with here. It is a liquid, making it possible to easily convey the energy into the turbine/generator. It also has a high specific heat (the highest of common materials), making water an efficient conveyor of energy. This is also why we use liquid cooling on cars and other engines (and now lately computer processors).
HarveyH55 wrote:
Seems like those atoms are just packed full of energy, just spilling out, and we never found a more direct way to make use of it.
Actually, we do.
Radiation can be used to build bombs, nuke cancer cells, create images of the interior of objects (including us!), create certain medicines, and even to cause the polymerization of certain plastics.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Maybe there is, but it's frowned upon, since we can't just have common people playing around with radioactive materials,

Actually, you can buy uranium on the internet. It is not controlled. It is raw uranium. It puts out about the same as radon gas.
HarveyH55 wrote:
we just don't have the intelligence to be responsible...

People can be responsible. We have people that run these reactors safely. We have people that fly aircraft safely. We have people that can handle crude oil safely and refine it without blowing themselves up.

Of course, we also have people that can't seem to remember to remove the gas pump hose from their car before driving off too.

HarveyH55 wrote:
To replace petroleum, someone needs to find a more convenient energy source, that can be used anywhere, any time, and not crowd the landscape.


Petrol products are a great way to pack energy. They are efficient and cheap. They don't require acres of real estate to use. The CO2 and water produced by burning them is incapable of warming the Earth. Neither product is a pollutant, since both products naturally occur in the atmosphere anyway.

It's also light in weight for the energy produced, a critical factor that makes it ideal for aircraft. It's easily moved from tank to tank, making it ideal for any vehicle.


The Parrot Killer
25-01-2019 01:56
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(603)
The nuclear energy use I was looking for, was more like a portable device, like a battery pack. Just seems like there ought to be a more efficient conversion, than replacing carbon-based fuels to boil water, to produce electricity.
25-01-2019 04:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7678)
HarveyH55 wrote:
The nuclear energy use I was looking for, was more like a portable device, like a battery pack. Just seems like there ought to be a more efficient conversion, than replacing carbon-based fuels to boil water, to produce electricity.


Unfortunately, uranium is heavy. Plutonium is even worse and is more toxic. The shielding is also necessary, and must be lead, which also adds to the weight.

The idea of a portable reactor is really not very practical.

Nuclear fission produces thermal energy. The most practical application is to heat something with it. Trapping high speed neutrons also results in thermal energy.


The Parrot Killer
28-02-2019 01:00
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(131)
TIPER-NOx: Transmitter Induced Ozone Depletion

https://youtu.be/5txF6ffRy4w
06-03-2019 04:29
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(131)
Hey!! What's up!? Usually you guys tear into me with gusto!? But this time nothing!!? I know the video I provided gives an unparalleled example of which I've been trying to describe here for some time.. but your silence is straight up odd.. c'mon.. give me the works you guys.. are you sleeping, bored.. or dumbstruck with this vid???
06-03-2019 04:32
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(131)
Give me shit you guys!!! Tell me all about how full of shit I am!!
06-03-2019 04:35
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(131)
Where are all the comments that our EM waves don't make it that far.. [Wake] or that it has no effect on our ozone layer.. [ItN] you guys are sleeping at the troll farm here..
06-03-2019 04:42
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(131)
Seems Tai Hai Chen has you all by the balls!! What's up? Did somebody else drop the bomb that WACCM-X and CMIP6 climate models include significant Energetic Particle forcing and you're all starting to wake the f**ck up from the usual old CO2 forum[farm]arguments you've gotten used to?? I'm not convinced.. give me shit you guys!!!
Edited on 06-03-2019 04:45
06-03-2019 18:50
Lewis Carlson
★☆☆☆☆
(131)
They've now discovered an ozone hole over South Africa: https://www.herald.co.zw/zim-scientists-shine-discover-ozone-hole-over-south-africa/
Page 8 of 8<<<678





Join the debate Potential Effects of Broadcast Induced REP on Climate Change:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
What effects global temperature2825-03-2019 03:41
Report: Great Lakes feeling effects of rapid climate warming (Update)122-03-2019 17:37
Researchers explore the effects of climate change on hunger420-03-2019 23:07
Just a blog post about the effects of climate change1211-10-2018 01:04
This is one of the reasons why I am skeptical of human-induced global warming5608-10-2018 19:56
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact