Technology to reverse climate change

jayley wrote:

James___ wrote:

jayley wrote:
Ok, so maybe this won't work as outlined, but perhaps it would serve to build interest in something like it.
Let's say we install X number of square miles of solar panels in orbit and use that energy to break apart CO2 in the upper atmosphere (it takes the same energy to do that that was given up when the elements combined in combustion). The energy from the orbiting solar panels would be fed down through cables to the CO2 conversion apparatus, which flies as an airplane flies.

They've actually considered something like that out in space where the satellites roam. There's also reflecting mirrors, etc. With satellites we're kind of getting into the Tesla coil and wireless transmission of electricity.
Now that there are companies like Space X, etc., the cost of launching such arrays might allow for it to be financially feasible. The one serious issue might be with focusing the energy into a beam and that would require laser technology and then we're into the Star Wars military program. You know, everyone would have a Death Ray pointing down at the Earth. Will probably happen one day and if so, they might just shoot each other out of the sky. Kind of like a nuclear arms race. No one is willing to use one but then they are a deterrent if only 1 country had one.
What might be more to everyone's liking is increasing the ozone layer so it would refract more solar radiation. It's possible that as the density of the ozone layer increases that it would be able to reflect outside of the UV spectrum.
Since we're discussing oxygen ions, maybe O4 or O5 if possible or a molecule that would have similar characteristics. If so then CO2 might be a source for the raw material to synthesize new molecules.

Thanks for the interest.

Energy into a beam a wonderful concept and it might could be made to work at least to an extent which would be a help.

If we have survived nuclear Armageddon we might could Death Rays also. I'm thinking that the more deadly ways we have of wiping out the human race the more restrained we become.

To your point re the ozone layer, the problem with CO2 is that in trapping reflected sunlight from getting back out into space the planet warms. It's not sunlight that is the problem (the earth needs it; we don't want to reduce it). The bad guy here is CO2.

Synthesizing new molecules using CO2 is a brilliant idea (assuming the new molecules would be beneficial). So now we have two ways forward: break apart CO2 or create a harmless of even beneficial molecule using CO2 as the starting point.
Any chemists in the forum?

jayley wrote:
Sorry, the "humor" I was referring to was: "duncan61 wrote:
Perhaps we could trap the extra heat and use it to make hot air balloons so cooling the planet and scooping up nasty carbon all at the same time." But on second thought maybe there is more there than can be seen: what can be made of that?

HarveyH55 wrote:

jayley wrote:

James___ wrote:

jayley wrote:
Ok, so maybe this won't work as outlined, but perhaps it would serve to build interest in something like it.
Let's say we install X number of square miles of solar panels in orbit and use that energy to break apart CO2 in the upper atmosphere (it takes the same energy to do that that was given up when the elements combined in combustion). The energy from the orbiting solar panels would be fed down through cables to the CO2 conversion apparatus, which flies as an airplane flies.

They've actually considered something like that out in space where the satellites roam. There's also reflecting mirrors, etc. With satellites we're kind of getting into the Tesla coil and wireless transmission of electricity.
Now that there are companies like Space X, etc., the cost of launching such arrays might allow for it to be financially feasible. The one serious issue might be with focusing the energy into a beam and that would require laser technology and then we're into the Star Wars military program. You know, everyone would have a Death Ray pointing down at the Earth. Will probably happen one day and if so, they might just shoot each other out of the sky. Kind of like a nuclear arms race. No one is willing to use one but then they are a deterrent if only 1 country had one.
What might be more to everyone's liking is increasing the ozone layer so it would refract more solar radiation. It's possible that as the density of the ozone layer increases that it would be able to reflect outside of the UV spectrum.
Since we're discussing oxygen ions, maybe O4 or O5 if possible or a molecule that would have similar characteristics. If so then CO2 might be a source for the raw material to synthesize new molecules.

Thanks for the interest.

Energy into a beam a wonderful concept and it might could be made to work at least to an extent which would be a help.

If we have survived nuclear Armageddon we might could Death Rays also. I'm thinking that the more deadly ways we have of wiping out the human race the more restrained we become.

To your point re the ozone layer, the problem with CO2 is that in trapping reflected sunlight from getting back out into space the planet warms. It's not sunlight that is the problem (the earth needs it; we don't want to reduce it). The bad guy here is CO2.

Synthesizing new molecules using CO2 is a brilliant idea (assuming the new molecules would be beneficial). So now we have two ways forward: break apart CO2 or create a harmless of even beneficial molecule using CO2 as the starting point.
Any chemists in the forum?

But, CO2 is beneficial, and extremely crucial for all carbon-based lifeforms on the planet (every living thing). Plants are the only thing that consume carbon directly from the environment, in the form of CO2. Everything else eats plants, or something else that eat plants. Messing with CO2 is kind of an odd concept, since it's an essential molecule. Currently around 400 ppm, but plants do incredibly well at around 800 ppm. More doesn't seem to hurt them, just doesn't provide an benefit. There are a lot of of commercial indoor growing business. Shouldn't be hard to find on local. Or look some up online. They all augment CO2. It's cheap, but the results are amazing.

Even the IPCC states clearly, that CO2 is neither the most plentiful, or potent of the 'greenhouse' gasses. Even though it's the most essential, it's also the only one the they could use, to take control over our lives. Much of our energy and transportation needs, are satisfied by burning fossil fuels. The IPCC recommends solar panels and windmills as alternatives. Two of the least reliable, and inefficient options. Only half the planet is exposed to sunlight at any moment in the day. Wind doesn't always blow constantly. Converting all things that run on internal combustion engines, to battery power, increases the demand on electricity. Solar panels and windmills won't keep up. Charging batteries isn't free either, there is some significant losses.

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

jayley wrote:

James___ wrote:

jayley wrote:
Ok, so maybe this won't work as outlined, but perhaps it would serve to build interest in something like it.
Let's say we install X number of square miles of solar panels in orbit and use that energy to break apart CO2 in the upper atmosphere (it takes the same energy to do that that was given up when the elements combined in combustion). The energy from the orbiting solar panels would be fed down through cables to the CO2 conversion apparatus, which flies as an airplane flies.

They've actually considered something like that out in space where the satellites roam. There's also reflecting mirrors, etc. With satellites we're kind of getting into the Tesla coil and wireless transmission of electricity.
Now that there are companies like Space X, etc., the cost of launching such arrays might allow for it to be financially feasible. The one serious issue might be with focusing the energy into a beam and that would require laser technology and then we're into the Star Wars military program. You know, everyone would have a Death Ray pointing down at the Earth. Will probably happen one day and if so, they might just shoot each other out of the sky. Kind of like a nuclear arms race. No one is willing to use one but then they are a deterrent if only 1 country had one.
What might be more to everyone's liking is increasing the ozone layer so it would refract more solar radiation. It's possible that as the density of the ozone layer increases that it would be able to reflect outside of the UV spectrum.
Since we're discussing oxygen ions, maybe O4 or O5 if possible or a molecule that would have similar characteristics. If so then CO2 might be a source for the raw material to synthesize new molecules.

Thanks for the interest.

Energy into a beam a wonderful concept and it might could be made to work at least to an extent which would be a help.

If we have survived nuclear Armageddon we might could Death Rays also. I'm thinking that the more deadly ways we have of wiping out the human race the more restrained we become.

To your point re the ozone layer, the problem with CO2 is that in trapping reflected sunlight from getting back out into space the planet warms. It's not sunlight that is the problem (the earth needs it; we don't want to reduce it). The bad guy here is CO2.

Synthesizing new molecules using CO2 is a brilliant idea (assuming the new molecules would be beneficial). So now we have two ways forward: break apart CO2 or create a harmless of even beneficial molecule using CO2 as the starting point.
Any chemists in the forum?

But, CO2 is beneficial, and extremely crucial for all carbon-based lifeforms on the planet (every living thing). Plants are the only thing that consume carbon directly from the environment, in the form of CO2. Everything else eats plants, or something else that eat plants. Messing with CO2 is kind of an odd concept, since it's an essential molecule. Currently around 400 ppm, but plants do incredibly well at around 800 ppm. More doesn't seem to hurt them, just doesn't provide an benefit. There are a lot of of commercial indoor growing business. Shouldn't be hard to find on local. Or look some up online. They all augment CO2. It's cheap, but the results are amazing.

Even the IPCC states clearly, that CO2 is neither the most plentiful, or potent of the 'greenhouse' gasses. Even though it's the most essential, it's also the only one the they could use, to take control over our lives. Much of our energy and transportation needs, are satisfied by burning fossil fuels. The IPCC recommends solar panels and windmills as alternatives. Two of the least reliable, and inefficient options. Only half the planet is exposed to sunlight at any moment in the day. Wind doesn't always blow constantly. Converting all things that run on internal combustion engines, to battery power, increases the demand on electricity. Solar panels and windmills won't keep up. Charging batteries isn't free either, there is some significant losses.

I'll start a thread on the power grid, okay? It seems that no one in here really understands the demands placed on a modern power supply system.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jayley wrote:
One other thing. The lower reaches of the cable could be supported with balloons.

Too much drag. That will actually but additional strain on a cable that is not possible to build.

You ever see those balloons attached to power lines? Those are just markers for pilots so they don't crash into them.

jayley wrote:
I like your humor (that was humor wasn't it?). As far as shading the planet it should not happen to any appreciable extent because the solar cells do not need to be closely adjoined so as to create an umbrella effect and also because their area is so insignificant re the sphere of their position in space. I wouldn't worry about that. The real problems here as I see it are the weight and structural stability of the cable and whether the atmosphere at the thickest layer of CO2 can support a flying platform. As to the first their may be some hope for PoF (power over fiber) tech, which is being developed as we speak. But even if it becomes available would it, or any cable, be feasible? As to the promise of an airplane platform at the height where it could do most good that needs to be researched.
Thanks for the interest. Can we get serious about this?

jayley wrote:

James___ wrote:

jayley wrote:
Ok, so maybe this won't work as outlined, but perhaps it would serve to build interest in something like it.
Let's say we install X number of square miles of solar panels in orbit and use that energy to break apart CO2 in the upper atmosphere (it takes the same energy to do that that was given up when the elements combined in combustion). The energy from the orbiting solar panels would be fed down through cables to the CO2 conversion apparatus, which flies as an airplane flies.

They've actually considered something like that out in space where the satellites roam. There's also reflecting mirrors, etc. With satellites we're kind of getting into the Tesla coil and wireless transmission of electricity.
Now that there are companies like Space X, etc., the cost of launching such arrays might allow for it to be financially feasible. The one serious issue might be with focusing the energy into a beam and that would require laser technology and then we're into the Star Wars military program. You know, everyone would have a Death Ray pointing down at the Earth. Will probably happen one day and if so, they might just shoot each other out of the sky. Kind of like a nuclear arms race. No one is willing to use one but then they are a deterrent if only 1 country had one.
What might be more to everyone's liking is increasing the ozone layer so it would refract more solar radiation. It's possible that as the density of the ozone layer increases that it would be able to reflect outside of the UV spectrum.
Since we're discussing oxygen ions, maybe O4 or O5 if possible or a molecule that would have similar characteristics. If so then CO2 might be a source for the raw material to synthesize new molecules.

Thanks for the interest.

Energy into a beam a wonderful concept and it might could be made to work at least to an extent which would be a help.

jayley wrote:
If we have survived nuclear Armageddon we might could Death Rays also. I'm thinking that the more deadly ways we have of wiping out the human race the more restrained we become.

jayley wrote:
To your point re the ozone layer, the problem with CO2 is that in trapping reflected sunlight from getting back out into space the planet warms.

jayley wrote:
It's not sunlight that is the problem (the earth needs it; we don't want to reduce it). The bad guy here is CO2.

jayley wrote:
Synthesizing new molecules using CO2 is a brilliant idea (assuming the new molecules would be beneficial). So now we have two ways forward: break apart CO2 or create a harmless of even beneficial molecule using CO2 as the starting point.
Any chemists in the forum?

Into the Night wrote:


CO2 is not only harmless already, it is an essential gas for life on Earth to exist.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:


CO2 is not only harmless already, it is an essential gas for life on Earth to exist.

This is why we can't get along. How stupid are you?

James___ wrote:
Everybody knows this.

James___ wrote:
I am really sick and tired of you repeating the obvious.

James___ wrote:
Can you tell us who won the Kentucky Derby last year? It was Medina Spirit.
Was that so difficult? How about the Preakness? It was Rombauer. Could you please come up with something new? Please try. I am really tired of hearing who won what horse race in what year. We already know this.

James___ wrote:
ie., for everyone else, ISN'T is probably right. ie., there's "IS" and there's "ISN'T".
He "ISN'T' "IS".

James___ wrote:
Still, CO2 is a beneficial atmospheric gas. It's not the problem. Hydrocarbons are a different story but we're talking about "Isn't" as in never was.

James___ wrote:
Such it up ITN.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jayley wrote:
One other thing. The lower reaches of the cable could be supported with balloons.

Too much drag. That will actually but additional strain on a cable that is not possible to build.

You ever see those balloons attached to power lines? Those are just markers for pilots so they don't crash into them.

Those power lines are attached to ground mounted towers. They aren't moving. Those spheres aren't balloons either.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jayley wrote:
One other thing. The lower reaches of the cable could be supported with balloons.

Too much drag. That will actually but additional strain on a cable that is not possible to build.

You ever see those balloons attached to power lines? Those are just markers for pilots so they don't crash into them.

Those power lines are attached to ground mounted towers. They aren't moving. Those spheres aren't balloons either.

Yes that seems to be the detail that's missing from this conversation. The towers or poles to attach the cables to.

We got cables, solar panels, planes, and an apparatus to break apart CO2.

But how are we supposed to hoist all that up? The planes can't carry it all can they?

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]jayley wrote:

Those power lines are attached to ground mounted towers. They aren't moving. Those spheres aren't balloons either.

Yes that seems to be the detail that's missing from this conversation. The towers or poles to attach the cables to.

We got cables, solar panels, planes, and an apparatus to break apart CO2.

But how are we supposed to hoist all that up? The planes can't carry it all can they?

Why do you want to hoist it up??
Why do you want to destroy CO2?
Airplanes can't float. They have to be moving to fly.

jayley wrote:
I want to thank everyone for joining in and for making contributions to the idea of using the sun's energy to reduce CO2 as outlined in the beginning of this thread. Next up is to bring the concept to the attention of those working to reduce global warming. Would you likewise spread the idea? Yes, it's a Rube Goldberg concept but its challenges may just attract the right person who spins a different version that works. Thanks for all your help.

Spongy Iris wrote:I'm visualizing drones tethered to cables that could fly over a limited area which the cable could stretch to...

Spongy Iris wrote:I... because too much CO2 rising above a certain altitude is a deadly risk.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:I'm visualizing drones tethered to cables that could fly over a limited area which the cable could stretch to...

Would that area happen to have a radius greater than 100 meters?

Spongy Iris wrote:I... because too much CO2 rising above a certain altitude is a deadly risk.

Too funny.

Spongy Iris ... no ... just no.

1. CO2 is heavier than the other air in the atmosphere. Ergo, it sinks. It doesn't rise.

2. There is no "certain a!titude" above which CO2 somehow transforms into a "deadly risk."


.

HarveyH55 wrote:Isn't there computer models that allow use to visualize the magic-molecule.

HarveyH55 wrote:... as it should behave in the wild.

HarveyH55 wrote:If we all get scared, and panicky, we won't mind spending a lot of money, or giving up our rights and liberties

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]jayley wrote:

Those power lines are attached to ground mounted towers. They aren't moving. Those spheres aren't balloons either.

Yes that seems to be the detail that's missing from this conversation. The towers or poles to attach the cables to.

We got cables, solar panels, planes, and an apparatus to break apart CO2.

But how are we supposed to hoist all that up? The planes can't carry it all can they?

Why do you want to hoist it up??
Why do you want to destroy CO2?
Airplanes can't float. They have to be moving to fly.

I'm visualizing drones tethered to cables that could fly over a limited area which the cable could stretch to...

It's not really if I want to hoist it up. It's if it needs to be hoisted up, because too much CO2 rising above a certain altitude is a deadly risk.

jayley wrote:
I want to thank everyone for joining in and for making contributions to the idea of using the sun's energy to reduce CO2 as outlined in the beginning of this thread. Next up is to bring the concept to the attention of those working to reduce global warming. Would you likewise spread the idea? Yes, it's a Rube Goldberg concept but its challenges may just attract the right person who spins a different version that works. Thanks for all your help.

Into the Night wrote: Remember, it's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

Into the Night wrote:

jayley wrote:
I want to thank everyone for joining in and for making contributions to the idea of using the sun's energy to reduce CO2 as outlined in the beginning of this thread. Next up is to bring the concept to the attention of those working to reduce global warming. Would you likewise spread the idea? Yes, it's a Rube Goldberg concept but its challenges may just attract the right person who spins a different version that works. Thanks for all your help.

Define 'global warming'. Remember, it's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

James___ wrote:We don't need to measure the temperature of the Earth. Calculus allows us to understand the rate of change.

James___ wrote:It's a basic concept.
If y = f(x) + g(x), then dy/dx = f'(x) + g'(x)

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jayley wrote:
I want to thank everyone for joining in and for making contributions to the idea of using the sun's energy to reduce CO2 as outlined in the beginning of this thread. Next up is to bring the concept to the attention of those working to reduce global warming. Would you likewise spread the idea? Yes, it's a Rube Goldberg concept but its challenges may just attract the right person who spins a different version that works. Thanks for all your help.

Define 'global warming'. Remember, it's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

We don't need to measure the temperature of the Earth. Calculus allows us to understand the rate of change. It's a basic concept.
If y = f(x) + g(x), then dy/dx = f'(x) + g'(x)

See how simple that is? I'm just not sure why you have to complicate things ITN. Can't we just stick to something both simple and basic?

p.s., for arguments sake, x is time while y is temperature.

p.s.s., +x goes to the right, +y goes up. A change in dy/dx is basically rise over run for warming. And we're back to 93% of warming is in the oceans. A rise in global warming of 2º C. or 3.6º F. = 0.14º C. or 0.252º F. warming in the atmosphere.
This would suggest hydrocarbons and ozone depletion and not CO2. Of course hydrocarbons are generated when burning most fossil fuels just as CO2 is generated. And we're back to f(x,y) = f'(x) = dy/dx. It's in the math.

S@ve0ur3arth wrote:
It would be great if as our technology got more green over the years if it really did make an impact on climate and somehow we were able to reverse it on that alone. Realistically, it will take a lot more effort than that!

S@ve0ur3arth wrote:
It would be great if as our technology got more green over the years if it really did make an impact on climate and somehow we were able to reverse it on that alone. Realistically, it will take a lot more effort than that!

HarveyH55 wrote:

S@ve0ur3arth wrote:
It would be great if as our technology got more green over the years if it really did make an impact on climate and somehow we were able to reverse it on that alone. Realistically, it will take a lot more effort than that!

Technology has more to do with efficiency and the use of materials available. The cheapest, most efficient fuel material, is fossil fuels. Which will continue to be the case for a long time. There won't be any switching over to 'green', and a large scale, because that essentially is abandoning all of our previous work, for less efficient and plentiful. Those that do switch, for the sake of politics, create a surplus of perfectly good equipment, that can be had, and fueled cheap.

Solar panels and windmills aren't an efficient use of materials, or technology. It's more of a political motive. Not sure how these are actually 'green' solutions. Since both require clearing acres on land, of all vegetation. Vegetation that actually removes CO2, to produce food, fiber, and building materials.

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

S@ve0ur3arth wrote:
It would be great if as our technology got more green over the years if it really did make an impact on climate and somehow we were able to reverse it on that alone. Realistically, it will take a lot more effort than that!

Technology has more to do with efficiency and the use of materials available. The cheapest, most efficient fuel material, is fossil fuels. Which will continue to be the case for a long time. There won't be any switching over to 'green', and a large scale, because that essentially is abandoning all of our previous work, for less efficient and plentiful. Those that do switch, for the sake of politics, create a surplus of perfectly good equipment, that can be had, and fueled cheap.

Solar panels and windmills aren't an efficient use of materials, or technology. It's more of a political motive. Not sure how these are actually 'green' solutions. Since both require clearing acres on land, of all vegetation. Vegetation that actually removes CO2, to produce food, fiber, and building materials.

Fossils don't burn. We don't use fossils for fuel.

The best source of energy to use is what YOU want to use. It really is very simple. The energy market is just that...a market.

If you find oil is cheap enough to use for what you want to use it for, buy it!
If you find coal is cheap enough to use for what you want to use it for, buy it!

Wind power is very expensive per watt produced. If you want to spend that much, buy it!
Solar power is even more expensive per watt produced. If you want to spend that much, buy it!

As always, mandates from government that manipulate markets is bad. It's called fascism.

HarveyH55 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

S@ve0ur3arth wrote:
It would be great if as our technology got more green over the years if it really did make an impact on climate and somehow we were able to reverse it on that alone. Realistically, it will take a lot more effort than that!

Technology has more to do with efficiency and the use of materials available. The cheapest, most efficient fuel material, is fossil fuels. Which will continue to be the case for a long time. There won't be any switching over to 'green', and a large scale, because that essentially is abandoning all of our previous work, for less efficient and plentiful. Those that do switch, for the sake of politics, create a surplus of perfectly good equipment, that can be had, and fueled cheap.

Solar panels and windmills aren't an efficient use of materials, or technology. It's more of a political motive. Not sure how these are actually 'green' solutions. Since both require clearing acres on land, of all vegetation. Vegetation that actually removes CO2, to produce food, fiber, and building materials.

Fossils don't burn. We don't use fossils for fuel.

The best source of energy to use is what YOU want to use. It really is very simple. The energy market is just that...a market.

If you find oil is cheap enough to use for what you want to use it for, buy it!
If you find coal is cheap enough to use for what you want to use it for, buy it!

Wind power is very expensive per watt produced. If you want to spend that much, buy it!
Solar power is even more expensive per watt produced. If you want to spend that much, buy it!

As always, mandates from government that manipulate markets is bad. It's called fascism.

I've never once stated that fossil burn. The term used is"fossil fuels', expand your vocabulary, improve your reading comprehension, or quit playing semantics, when it's ridiculous...

HarveyH55 wrote:
We've used fossil fuels for centuries, cheap to obtain, and plentiful.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Most of our technology is based on cheap and plentiful fuels.

HarveyH55 wrote:
There is no chance of replacing it all in a few decades, even if there was a better alternative.

HarveyH55 wrote:
There isn't anything yet. If James would take a break from internet porn, and get his gravity wheel project to market, we'd have all the free energy we could ever want...

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

S@ve0ur3arth wrote:
It would be great if as our technology got more green over the years if it really did make an impact on climate and somehow we were able to reverse it on that alone. Realistically, it will take a lot more effort than that!

Technology has more to do with efficiency and the use of materials available. The cheapest, most efficient fuel material, is fossil fuels. Which will continue to be the case for a long time. There won't be any switching over to 'green', and a large scale, because that essentially is abandoning all of our previous work, for less efficient and plentiful. Those that do switch, for the sake of politics, create a surplus of perfectly good equipment, that can be had, and fueled cheap.

Solar panels and windmills aren't an efficient use of materials, or technology. It's more of a political motive. Not sure how these are actually 'green' solutions. Since both require clearing acres on land, of all vegetation. Vegetation that actually removes CO2, to produce food, fiber, and building materials.

Fossils don't burn. We don't use fossils for fuel.

The best source of energy to use is what YOU want to use. It really is very simple. The energy market is just that...a market.

If you find oil is cheap enough to use for what you want to use it for, buy it!
If you find coal is cheap enough to use for what you want to use it for, buy it!

Wind power is very expensive per watt produced. If you want to spend that much, buy it!
Solar power is even more expensive per watt produced. If you want to spend that much, buy it!

As always, mandates from government that manipulate markets is bad. It's called fascism.

I've never once stated that fossil burn. The term used is"fossil fuels', expand your vocabulary, improve your reading comprehension, or quit playing semantics, when it's ridiculous...

It is YOU playing semantics here. Fossils are not used as fuel.

HarveyH55 wrote:
We've used fossil fuels for centuries, cheap to obtain, and plentiful.

Fossils are not used as fuel.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Most of our technology is based on cheap and plentiful fuels.

True.

HarveyH55 wrote:
There is no chance of replacing it all in a few decades, even if there was a better alternative.

Why replace any fuel? Again, it comes down to what people want to buy.

HarveyH55 wrote:
There isn't anything yet. If James would take a break from internet porn, and get his gravity wheel project to market, we'd have all the free energy we could ever want...

While a nice dig at James, ANY new energy source that comes along (fusion, whatever) is NOT going to be free. It will simply be another form of energy for sale on the market.

Each form of energy has its advantages and disadvantages for one reason or another.

Wood is a convenient as a nearby tree. It takes a lot of work to chop it down, buck it into logs, split and season those logs, and finally have something useful to burn in a fire or stove.

Coal is plentiful and cheap. It does take work to mine if, of course, but it's easily transported in bulk by train to industries that use it, both to fire their own boilers, maybe generate electricity, or as a component material for making steel. It is, however, messy to handle, being mostly pure carbon.

Oil is plentiful and cheap, and it's a renewable fuel. It can be distilled into many products, including gasoline, kerosene, various grades of fuel oils, asphaltum, acetone, benzine, butane, etc. These materials are more than just fuel. They are starting components for many plastics, dyes, explosives, lubricants, etc. Gasoline, kerosene, bunker oil, and diesel oil are both liquid fuels, making them ideal for mobile use such as cars, trucks, tractors, ships, locomotives, aircraft, etc. It is easily pumped around for internal combustion engines. Many portable gasoline powered devices such as lawn mowers, leaf blowers, chainsaws, etc can run all day by just refueling them and maintaining them. Oil is also used for some fixed power plants, but not much. It's disadvantage is that you generally have to drill for it and process it (distill it) before it's usable.

Natural gas is plentiful and cheap, and it is a renewable fuel. It's easily obtainable, but very hard to ship anywhere. Pipeline leaks are very easy to happen, and a buildup of this stuff can have explosive properties! It has no odor, is colorless, and clean burning. The lack of odor and color can make it quite hazardous to detect leaks, but it is easy to add an odorant to it. It is ideal for fixed use, such as homes and businesses. It provides instant heat on stovetops as opposed to electric stoves that must warm up before use. Since the entire plumbing system for distribution tends to be buried, it is safe from storm damage, but susceptible to damage from earth movement.

Propane is plentiful and cheap, and it is also a renewable fuel. It is produced as a byproduct of natural gas production. It is ideal for portable of fixed tanks. It has many of the advantages of natural gas, and can also be shipped in liquid form for use. It's disadvantage is that it's more expensive per watt than natural gas. It is ideal, however for portable BBQs, home heating where natural gas lines are not available, and is clean burning (little soot).

Hydroelectric plants require a waterfall to be efficient enough. You can make a waterfall using a dam, but these projects are large and can only be constructed in limited places. They carry the risk of the associated dam collapsing. A few have been constructed at natural waterfalls such as Niagara Falls, or Snoqualmie Falls (a local waterfall in Washington on the Snoqualmie river). These are solar powered devices. They are great for fixed power plants. They do not work obviously for portable power. Another advantage can be the dam itself, which can also provide water for irrigation, homes, or recreation, and can also be used to control river flow for rivers known to be dangerous (such as the Colorado river).

Nuclear power (fission) require only small amounts of fuel to work and produce no exhaust during operation. Spent fuel can be used in reactors of a different design and still used to produce power (though more expensively). The risk is handling the fuel. It is not easy to ship or load into the machine. The spent product is still hazardous. Plant accidents are rare, but can produce hazards over large areas, and can be difficult to repair. Due to the technical risks and heavy shielding involved, it is suitable only for fixed power plant use.

Nuclear power (fusion) is not available yet. It's waste product is also hazardous, but this hazard dissipates relatively quickly (about 12 years) compared to fission waste products. It will be suitable only for fixed power plant use, again due to the weight and complexity of such a reactor. No fusion reactor has ever produced a sustained energy source. Modern nuclear bombs are fusion bombs, so we know fusion is possible. The trick is to get it to operate as a sustainable and usable form of energy. There are several companies working on this. The required fuel is deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen). This can be obtained from water through the use of centrifuges and electrolysis. Both of these require power, which detracts from the fusion power you get. Mashing these nuclei together despite the forces preventing it also require a lot of power.

Wind power is as old as sailboats on the Nile. It is not reliable as an energy source though. It changes direction, it blows too hard or too soft (or even not at all!), but it doesn't require burning anything. Wind generators, from wind mills in the Netherlands (used to mill grain and/or pump water), or modern wind generators (used to pump water or generate small amounts of electricity) all depend on some sort of propeller. These devices are subject to problems of frost imbalance, damage from the weather, etc. They can only operate within limited ranges of wind. Their advantage is that they are great for remote locations where you have sustained usable winds, and you need to pump water or generate small amounts of electricity. They are expensive, watt for watt, to other forms of energy. This form of power is usable at sea, but it requires constant maintenance for the sails, can be quite fickle, and for larger ships requires a large crew just to handle the sails.

Solar power has already been discussed in the form of hydroelectric power. Direct conversion is also used (using solar cells or salt furnaces). This method of generating electricity is VERY expensive for the power produced. It can be useful in remote locations for generating small amounts of power though. You will find such panels on RV's, remote sensing equipment, and along highways generating power for electronic signage. Another disadvantage is nighttime, when there is no Sun visible to power these things. You can store up power during the day (ballasting), but that power is not available for other uses during the day. Methods of storage tend to be expensive.

Tidal stations generating power are a bit like the liquid form of wind power. Options to build these are rare, however, due to geology required to anchor the plant and obtain usable flow through it. Seawater is also corrosive on equipment, making it difficult to maintain. Tides also ebb and flood, so this form of power is not consistent. It is a very expensive method of producing electric power.

Similar problems occur with geothermal plants. The corrosion problem is not as bad, but suitable locations for building such plants are rare.

Fossils are not used anywhere. They simply don't burn.

IBdaMann wrote:
This is another good post. You took the time to cover the field. I have appended (most of) the latter half to Debunked: Hydrocarbons are Fossil Fuels thread in the Debunking Signature.

https://politiplex.freeforums.net/post/350

.

Anders wrote:Intothenight - You seem to know nothing about energy,

Anders wrote:... but most of oil used today is NOT renewable.

Anders wrote: A windmill on land cost is around 8mio dkr. for good danish quality per mwh. It produce average 0.3x1mwh per hour or 64800mwh in a 25years life span which is around 20dollar per MWH produced or 2cents per kwh. In Texas price per kwh is 7 cents.

Anders wrote:About fusion, first you claim none make sustainable energy, but next claim is that it has waste that takes 12 years to get rid of, did you just pull that claim up from a tall hat? Most fusion i hear about use H and Ni, maybe Boron or H2O, no waste issues i hear about.

Anders wrote:Solar today is made of thinfilm and cost around 20c per watt in china, pay back time is extremely fast.

Johnmo89 wrote:I don't think technology alone will be enough.
The global economy should prioritize "risk minimization for all" over "profit maximization for a select few." A sustainable economy must be established - and this is such a viable economy that maintains the natural balance. Only then will there be a chance to change something.

Johnmo89 wrote:
I don't think technology alone will be enough.

Johnmo89 wrote:
The global economy should prioritize "risk minimization for all"

Johnmo89 wrote:
over "profit maximization for a select few."

Johnmo89 wrote:
A sustainable economy must be established - and this is such a viable economy that maintains the natural balance. Only then will there be a chance to change something.

Johnmo89 wrote:
I don't think technology alone will be enough.
The global economy should prioritize "risk minimization for all" over "profit maximization for a select few." A sustainable economy must be established - and this is such a viable economy that maintains the natural balance. Only then will there be a chance to change something.

Anders wrote:
Intothenight - You seem to know nothing about energy,

Anders wrote:
is it your own opinion you do so?

Anders wrote:
That long text of you is so full of false statements.

Anders wrote:
Oil can be made so we wont run out, but most of oil used today is NOT renewable.

Anders wrote:
A windmill on land cost is around 8mio dkr. for good danish quality per mwh. It produce average 0.3x1mwh per hour or 64800mwh in a 25years life span which is around 20dollar per MWH produced or 2cents per kwh. In Texas price per kwh is 7 cents.

Anders wrote:
About fusion, first you claim none make sustainable energy,

Anders wrote:
but next claim is that it has waste that takes 12 years to get rid of,

Anders wrote:
did you just pull that claim up from a tall hat?

Anders wrote:
Most fusion i hear about use H and Ni, maybe Boron or H2O, no waste issues i hear about.

Anders wrote:
Solar today is made of thinfilm and cost around 20c per watt in china, pay back time is extremely fast.

Anders wrote:
And they recently started selling solar that work 24/7 (not very useful yet)

Anders wrote:
It is funny you are sooo convinced that everything you think is truth....

Anders wrote:
Did you ever consider that solar cells that work 24/7 work a bit differrent than those solar cells you know all about...so if they work 24/7 they might convert ultra violet or ultra red light into power.

Anders wrote:
Btw isnt this invention what you spend all this chat about telling us is not possible and do not exist?
https://ionpowergroup.com/#/?playlistId=0&videoId=0