"Likely Feasible Solution to World Energy & Carbon Crises" by Warren D Smith

IBdaMann wrote:

duncan61 wrote:Can I suggest you do not focus on ITN and IBDM and possibly explain why you wish to generate power by wind then convert it to hydrogen at sea.

He has been ignoring me. Why do you suspect that he would consider focusing on me?

Is this another case of you just not following along?

.

Warren D Smith wrote:
Duncan Gray:why generate power by wind then convert it to hydrogen at sea?

WDS: well, paper discusses. Includes calculation showing cannot generate enough wind power on land (and offshore near-land) in USA ever, no matter how many wind turbines we build, to meet even half what the human energy consumption rate in USA was during year 2012.
Same presumably true many places, not just USA. Certainly true on world total land surface --
all wind power extractible on all land is just not enough to provide human energy consumption,
no matter how many wind turbines we build. I have simple new analyses of limitations behind those.

Warren D Smith wrote:
Paper includes data showing much more wind power available at sea than on land.

Warren D Smith wrote:
The most concentrated and consistent wind power anywhere on earth in is the 45-55S latitude band; virtually 100% ocean there.

Warren D Smith wrote:
Despite extra costs associated with wind turbines out at sea, still worth it. Paper shows wind power available there is comparable to entire world current raw power consumption.

Warren D Smith wrote:
Includes calculations showing wind power there is more concentrated renewable-energy "ore" than any other form anywhere. To obtain solar from area A we need to build collectors occupying area A, actually more like 4A for 24 hour average. For wind to get power from cross-sectional area A we build a rotor blade squareroot(A) long. See that difference? Squareroot versus no squareroot? That is a big and fundamental cost effectiveness advantage.

Warren D Smith wrote:
Also solar involves expensive materials with small production rates which would need to increase by factors like 100 for solar power to match human consumption rates. For wind, only pretty common materials needed, and only at production rates similar to what we already have.

Warren D Smith wrote:
Human civilization is in deep trouble.

Warren D Smith wrote:
There has never been any previous occurrence of the entire world running out of any essential raw material. But this will occur.

Warren D Smith wrote:
Human civilization as we know it will end when that happens.

Warren D Smith wrote:
There will be a large population crash.

Warren D Smith wrote:
Also, if humans keep extracting fossil fuels

Warren D Smith wrote:
including low grade coals, oil shales, tar sands, burn them all -- which they might -- then it looks like that will be enough
to destroy the climate within around 300 years to the point most of the earth land surface will exceed 35C wet bulb temperatures, i.e. fatal for humans.

Warren D Smith wrote:
Paper explains+cites.
We need to act to save the situation.

Warren D Smith wrote:
Because fossil fuels will run out an human civilization dependent on high power consumption, need to do something.

Warren D Smith wrote:
OK, now: why hydrogen? Because paper examined several energy transmission methods and hydrogen pipeline worked, while the others I analysed were (paper showed) not good enough
at least not with current technology.

Warren D Smith wrote:
Finally, I claim the wind plan I have will have noticeable effects on climate.

Warren D Smith wrote:
I want to understand that better.

Warren D Smith wrote:
So I want assistance from climate modelers.

Warren D Smith wrote:
So far I have been unable to get any such assistance at all.

James___ wrote:
You're losing it ITN. By your standards this sucks. I mean I think I can do better with wind energy. Today's market is simply overpriced and has no real value. At the same time some people promote tidal energy which is doubtful. When considering the kinetic energy potential of a given mass we both know that wind energy is the better alternative.
I'm here for you, okay? Just keep your head in the game, alright? 1/2mv^2 = ke. We got this, right!!!

duncan61 wrote:
Moving a wind farm to the ocean does not make it work better.After Chicago the West coast of Australia is one windy ass place.

duncan61 wrote:
The trees just South of Geraldton have actualy grown bent over.England built huge amounts of wind farms in the North sea but had a month where it was becalmed and unusualy cold for that time of year.England does not have the space to build the wind farms we can in the outback.

duncan61 wrote:
The coal fired plant at Muja took a lot of staff to maintain.Wind farms and solar you just need 1 bloke to go out every 24 hours do a report and the maintenance crew fix stuff.Try doing that in the ocean

duncan61 wrote:
Totaly agree.Solar DC has a long way to go.Solar may become 25% more efficient but it needs to be 100 times better.I like gas turbines.Its instant,no pollution and powerful.I have seen the turbines running at Wagerup Refinery and if we need more power in Perth the operater just turns the big orange dial clockwise and there is 100MW.Give him a call at 9.00pm when the load is shrinking and he will dial it back down.It makes next to no noise you can talk easy when its running.You need natural gas to run it of course but we have heaps of that in the N/W.It is compressed and sold to other countries.I have seen that as well.I like to believe in things I have seen myself not believe NASA.I was going to start a new thread but here seems appropriate.This week I learned that if you apply for a research grant on any climate matter there is a disclaimer you have to sign to agree to warming or the grant will be given to someone else whom will show warming.Very scientific and accepted practice?

Warren D Smith wrote:
WDS: "Into The Night" says Hywind Scotland's floating wind turbine collection is
"not only dragging its anchors, the chain it's using is undergoing severe corrosion."
Can anybody provide any evidence for or against either of those claims?

"Night": The chains themselves. They've had to be replaced. Go talk to the Hywind project.
Already been replaced once. Not cheap.

--reply, ok, good, maybe you will be able to produce evidence soon of something.
Do your own research. Obviously, you're a lazy bum that doesn't do any research before writing a paper.
[quote]Warren D Smith wrote:
I'm not going to put in my paper "an internet troll calling himself 'parrot' told me
Hywind had to replace chains due to corrosion, providing no dates, no sources,
and no details -- perhaps he (he?) got his information by a direct mindlink to God,
but in any case he did not say how he knew -- so it must be true."

However I might put in the paper: "here is a press report CITExxx about the chain replacement."

Or "here is the name of an actual human being who works at Hywind who told me
this in the following email message XXX."
Or "here are some photographs of the corrosion that necessitated the replacement XXX."
(If true, such photographs must exist.)
Re "not cheap" it would similarly be evidence if you produce the actual price, actual supplier etc.

See what I mean by requesting "evidence"?

Now in my paper's plans, the cost is dominated by the cost of all the floating turbines.
The H2 pipelines are a much smaller cost. The mooring and electrical cables are a much much smaller cost. For this reason, even if you had to replace the latter every year, that would make almost no price difference.

Warren D Smith wrote:
Next, to reply to Duncan: Yes I daresay there are some windy places in Australia, also very hot/arid/sunny places presumably highly suited to solar. However, my paper is considering what it would take to supply ALL human power consumption via wholy renewable sources, and how to try to do that in the most cost-effective possible manner. All the wind in Australia combined
would still be very inadequate for that purpose.

Warren D Smith wrote:
All the wind on ll the lands in all the world also would. The calculations and data demonstrating that are in the paper. That is why my plan goes to sea. Again, such things require actual calculation, not merely gut-level guessing.

Warren D Smith wrote:
None of them are very hard calculations, but I'm just pointing that out because so far, none of my critics on this forum have ever made any calculation of anything,

Warren D Smith wrote:
and have relied entirely on gut-level guessing.

Warren D Smith wrote:
I am not opposed to such guessing, it can be a good start; but it should not be considered science and I think that state of affairs is embarrassing.

Warren D Smith wrote:

Into the Night wrote: The chains themselves. They've had to be replaced. Go talk to the Hywind project. Already been replaced once. Not cheap.

ok, good, maybe you will be able to produce evidence soon of something.

Warren D Smith wrote:I'm not going to put in my paper "an internet troll calling himself 'parrot' told me Hywind had to replace chains due to corrosion, providing no dates, no sources, and no details -- perhaps he (he?) got his information by a direct mindlink to God,

Warren D Smith wrote: ... but in any case he did not say how he knew

Warren D Smith wrote:However I might put in the paper: "here is a press report CITExxx about the chain replacement." Or "here is the name of an actual human being who works at Hywind who told me this in the following email message XXX." Or "here are some photographs of the corrosion that necessitated the replacement XXX." (If true, such photographs must exist.)

Warren D Smith wrote:Re "not cheap" it would similarly be evidence if you produce the actual price, actual supplier etc.

Warren D Smith wrote:See what I mean by requesting "evidence"?

Warren D Smith wrote:Now in my paper's plans,

Warren D Smith wrote: the cost is dominated by the cost of all the floating turbines.

Warren D Smith wrote:The H2 pipelines are a much smaller cost. The mooring and electrical cables are a much much smaller cost.

Warren D Smith wrote: For this reason, even if you had to replace the latter every year, that would make almost no price difference.

Warren D Smith wrote: However, my paper is considering what it would take to supply ALL human power consumption via wholy renewable sources,

Warren D Smith wrote: ... and how to try to do that in the most cost-effective possible manner.

Warren D Smith wrote: The calculations and data demonstrating that are in the paper.

Warren D Smith wrote: That is why my plan goes to sea.

Warren D Smith wrote: Again, such things require actual calculation, not merely gut-level guessing.

Warren D Smith wrote: None of them are very hard calculations,

Warren D Smith wrote: ... but I'm just pointing that out because so far, none of my critics on this forum have ever made any calculation of anything,

Warren D Smith wrote: ... and have relied entirely on gut-level guessing.

Warren D Smith wrote: I am not opposed to such guessing,

Warren D Smith wrote: ... it can be a good start;

Warren D Smith wrote: ... but it should not be considered science

duncan61 wrote:
Another question.Who is paying for this infrastructure.Carbon taxing?Andrew Forrest has 30 Hydrogen cars operating in Perth and when they get low the executive drops it off at BOC Kewdale and it gets filled again.The man that explained this to me had one in his driveway.What is your obsession with sticking stuff in the ocean to rust

IBdaMann wrote:

[Harvey-Friendly Tag Line]

4. Presume that insurance is not required. Presume that failed/damaged turbines will simply be replaced from the "replacement bank" of turbines that are in storage and presumably do not require any maintenance themselves.

IBdaMann wrote:

Warren D Smith wrote: The calculations and data demonstrating that are in the paper.

I didn't see anything of the sort in the paper. Could you post those calculations here in this thread? Just copy-paste it here. It should take you a whole three seconds.

IBdaMann wrote:

Warren D Smith wrote: That is why my plan goes to sea.

Why don't you place huge solar panels on geo-stationary satellites and have the electricity cabled down to terrestrial power stations? You could similarly disregard any maintenance costs and/or power loss.

HarveyH55 wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
Another question.Who is paying for this infrastructure.Carbon taxing?Andrew Forrest has 30 Hydrogen cars operating in Perth and when they get low the executive drops it off at BOC Kewdale and it gets filled again.The man that explained this to me had one in his driveway.What is your obsession with sticking stuff in the ocean to rust

It's okay if the crap rusts, falls apart... These are just Proof of Concept models. They just need to work for a while, to show that it could be done, not that it's cost effective to do. It's all being done with 'free money', so no big deal.

Our 'president',Biden, intends to pay for everything, by taxing the wealthy individuals and corporations. Basically, the people that employ most Americans. So everybody gets to contribute, one way or another... Higher taxes, just mean fewer jobs, higher prices, fewer products to buy, even if you are fortunate to still have an income.

Warren D Smith wrote:
WDS: "Into The Night" says Hywind Scotland's floating wind turbine collection is
"not only dragging its anchors, the chain it's using is undergoing severe corrosion."
Can anybody provide any evidence for or against either of those claims?

"Night": The chains themselves. They've had to be replaced. Go talk to the Hywind project.
Already been replaced once. Not cheap.

--reply, ok, good, maybe you will be able to produce evidence soon of something.
I'm not going to put in my paper "an internet troll calling himself 'parrot' told me
Hywind had to replace chains due to corrosion, providing no dates, no sources,
and no details -- perhaps he (he?) got his information by a direct mindlink to God,
but in any case he did not say how he knew -- so it must be true."
However I might put in the paper: "here is a press report CITExxx about the chain replacement."
Or "here is the name of an actual human being who works at Hywind who told me
this in the following email message XXX."
Or "here are some photographs of the corrosion that necessitated the replacement XXX."
(If true, such photographs must exist.)
Re "not cheap" it would similarly be evidence if you produce the actual price, actual supplier etc.

See what I mean by requesting "evidence"?

Now in my paper's plans, the cost is dominated by the cost of all the floating turbines.
The H2 pipelines are a much smaller cost. The mooring and electrical cables are a much much smaller cost. For this reason, even if you had to replace the latter every year, that would make almost no price difference.


Next, to reply to Duncan: Yes I daresay there are some windy places in Australia, also very hot/arid/sunny places presumably highly suited to solar. However, my paper is considering what it would take to supply ALL human power consumption via wholy renewable sources, and how to try to do that in the most cost-effective possible manner. All the wind in Australia combined
would still be very inadequate for that purpose. All the wind on ll the lands in all the world also would. The calculations and data demonstrating that are in the paper. That is why my plan goes to sea. Again, such things require actual calculation, not merely gut-level guessing.
None of them are very hard calculations, but I'm just pointing that out because so far, none of my critics on this forum have ever made any calculation of anything, and have relied entirely on gut-level guessing. I am not opposed to such guessing, it can be a good start; but it should not be considered science and I think that state of affairs is embarrassing.

By factoring 1350*(1 - 0.0309)^144 the answer is 14.7 psi. The exponent of 144 is how much greater the Earth's orbit is around the Sun when compared to Venus, it is 1.44 times greater or 144% greater.
With Mars, it is 1350*(1 - 0.0309)^232 = 0.0928 psi because Mars orbit is 232% greater than Venus'.

James___ wrote:
Warren,
Some of what has been discussed in this thread is meaningless. What Norwegians are considering https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/07/norway-could-build-the-worlds-first-floating-tunnel
That's structural engineering. Anchoring something in position in the sea is not how it generates energy unless it's a tidal generator https://en.reset.org/blog/worlds-most-powerful-tidal-generator-close-becoming-reality-12102018
What you have asked about is what could become the primary source of energy. And there is one possible solution. And if you'd like to have people endorse a paper that you submit for publication, can we discuss math?
A 2,000 megawatt power plant can supply power to 1.3 million people. The US has 328 million people, Spain has 47 million people, England has 68 million people.
Then areas suitable for such a power plant. Populated areas would have to be avoided. For fun there's this; https://www.tec-science.com/thermodynamics/temperature/plancks-law-of-blackbody-radiation/
This is where I am "weak" in math. I can read it and work it. And for me to do math like this, I'd have to plagiarize someone else's work. In this context plagiarism is okay because the original work would be referenced.
And this would be how when you submit a paper, when using mainstream science and math to suggest a concept, they'd probably take notice and if they like the math then you would get the necessary endorsements.
And if you know how to use a calculator, try my math for the atmospheric pressures of Venus, Earth and Mars. With my basic work in that, no real notice because people don't believe that's possible. Why I mentioned going mainstream with everything and just showing how the application has been changed.

p.s., coauthor works for me. You have me at a disadvantage my friend. I'm waiting to see a hand specialist. I need surgery on my thumb/hand and will be idled rest of the year. I can't do my wood working.

Just an FYI, even a well published paper might take years to become known or accepted. With my wood working, it is what I can do today. Besides, these guys might need a taste of reality. We can be Eco-friendly. I tend to be an environmentalist and these guys hate me more than someone who says AGW.

HarveyH55 wrote:


You wouldn't need hand surgery, if you got yourself a girlfriend. Too late now, I guess....

Into the Night wrote:You actually bothered to read his paper.

Warning: In §12.6 of the handbook by Hodgkinson & Stacey 2017 they claim the atmosphere has kinetic energy 5.3×1020 joules, i.e. RMS speed 14.3 meter/sec, with residence time 14 days. Meanwhile Russell D. Thompson's text Atmospheric Processes and Systems (Routledge Introductions to Environment: Environmental Science 1st Edition 1998) on page 98 claims the atmosphere's kinetic energy is 140 Whr/meter2=504 kJ/meter2 which would yield a world total of 2.57×1020 joules and RMS air speed 10.0 meter/sec. Thompson then added insult to injury by claiming the average rate of dissipation of this energy by friction is "2 Whr/meter2" which is not even correct units to be a "rate." Apparently by "Whr" Thompson here meant "watt" since he then claims the residence time is "70 hours." Neither gave any evidence or citation whatever to back up their wrong numbers. They were accurate to within a factor of 3. The lesson is do not trust meteorology textbooks and handbooks no matter how widely circulated. Demand evidence.

"What is the world-total kinetic energy of all air-motions in the Earth's entire atmosphere?"

I thought "Well, certainly nobody knows this value. I hope this paper isn't going to go down the tmiddles "omniscience" rabbit hole." Sure enough, the very next sentence reads:

"Peixoto & Oort in the 1980s were the first to produce a good estimate of this: 6.27×1020 Joules."

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:


You wouldn't need hand surgery, if you got yourself a girlfriend. Too late now, I guess....

I actually injured it wood working. I didn't cut all of the way through a board with my miter saw. When I went to finish the cut, the blade was rotating too slowly and kicked the board out. When it did that, my thumb/hand wasn't a clamp. It simply gave way.
This will give Warren an idea of what pursuing a paper means. Some people might question his reasoning. An example is why on a miter saw there are there no hole locations for a clamp? For myself, a design patent in the waiting. Cutting small parts can be hazardous.

James___ wrote:
And we're back to some "basic" math. How much energy is generated by fossil fuels?

James___ wrote:
We are talking severely limiting an industry. Jobs will be lost and kids will go hungry. What will we tell them?

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:You actually bothered to read his paper.

I did. I always give everyone a fair shake. If it is not an immediately dismissed source like Wikipedia I will read at least as far as the first fatal error but often I will read through to acquire a complete understanding of the position.

I also read as a service to others such as yourself so that you do not have to. I will gladly share with you some of the more interesting parts. I don't need to keep the humor to myself.

IBdaMann wrote:
For example, I know that the paper is not his original work but rather is a regurgitation of what he is expected to write. You are familiar with the technique of pretending to speak for dead people or for others who are not present to be questioned/cross-examined. One line in particular caught my eye:

"What is the world-total kinetic energy of all air-motions in the Earth's entire atmosphere?"

IBdaMann wrote:
I thought "Well, certainly nobody knows this value. I hope this paper isn't going to go down the tmiddles "omniscience" rabbit hole." Sure enough, the very next sentence reads:

"Peixoto & Oort in the 1980s were the first to produce a good estimate of this: 6.27×1020 Joules."

IBdaMann wrote:
So I am expected to just believe without question that this value is a "good estimate." The entire paper rests on this assumption ... which was fabricated by two people of whom I have never heard. Regrettably, I must discard this paper solely on this basis. Of course the paper requires me to discard it for many other causes as well, but this one happens to be something we see reoccur here on Climate-Debate quite frequently.

IBdaMann wrote:
Nonetheless, I decided to look up this reference. It truly inspires confidence, carrying the word "Physics" in the name.

IBdaMann wrote:
You really should check out THIS COURSE that utilizes/references this "textbook." ...minor reformatting correction...

IBdaMann wrote:
The bottom line is that this paper is not intended for scientifically literate audiences and that is why Warren D Smith regrets posting his propaganda on Climate-Debate.

IBdaMann wrote:
The paper is solely intended to beat down lay audiences with confusing gibber-babble and render them too intimidated to call boolsch't on any of it. The paper doesn't explain anything. The expectation is that one will believe that the reason he doesn't understand anything in the paper is because the material must be way over his head ... and so he will therefore just accept the conclusions without putting up a fight.

IBdaMann wrote:
You did the right thing by not wasting any of your life reading the paper. You wouldn't get any of it back.

IBdaMann wrote:
This paper has no plan that will ever be implemented.

IBdaMann wrote:
It is not a solution to anything. It simply pushes a dogma by way of "intimidation-by-gibber-babble."

IBdaMann wrote:
As long as we're on the subject, let me give you one more. The paper issues a warning to the reader: "The lesson is do not trust meteorology textbooks and handbooks no matter how widely circulated. Demand evidence." Apparently there were a couple of meteorologists who dared to render a differing opinion from the climatological global atmospheric kinetic energy estimate mentioned above. So now you know that if you have to choose between meteorological information and proven Climate wisdom, you obviously don't question the Climatology and you scrutinize the schyt out of the meteorology ... before you dismiss it entirely. Here's that entire section of text:

Warning: In §12.6 of the handbook by Hodgkinson & Stacey 2017 they claim the atmosphere has kinetic energy 5.3×1020 joules, i.e. RMS speed 14.3 meter/sec, with residence time 14 days. Meanwhile Russell D. Thompson's text Atmospheric Processes and Systems (Routledge Introductions to Environment: Environmental Science 1st Edition 1998) on page 98 claims the atmosphere's kinetic energy is 140 Whr/meter2=504 kJ/meter2 which would yield a world total of 2.57×1020 joules and RMS air speed 10.0 meter/sec. Thompson then added insult to injury by claiming the average rate of dissipation of this energy by friction is "2 Whr/meter2" which is not even correct units to be a "rate." Apparently by "Whr" Thompson here meant "watt" since he then claims the residence time is "70 hours." Neither gave any evidence or citation whatever to back up their wrong numbers. They were accurate to within a factor of 3. The lesson is do not trust meteorology textbooks and handbooks no matter how widely circulated. Demand evidence.

duncan61 wrote:
The tidal generator seems to have potential

James___ wrote:

"What is the world-total kinetic energy of all air-motions in the Earth's entire atmosphere?"

I thought "Well, certainly nobody knows this value. I hope this paper isn't going to go down the tmiddles "omniscience" rabbit hole." Sure enough, the very next sentence reads:

"Peixoto & Oort in the 1980s were the first to produce a good estimate of this: 6.27×1020 Joules."

FYI: As the Earth has a period of about 23.93 hours, it has an angular velocity of 7.29×10−5 rad/s. The Earth has a moment of inertia, I = 8.04×1037 kg·m2. Therefore, it has a rotational kinetic energy of 2.138×1029 J.

Then when this is multiplied by the linear velocity of the Earth, you will realize its total kinetic energy. How on EARTH did you miss this? Are you a friggin' alien from the Delta quadrant? Such basic mistakes are for the Ferengi because they only care about profit.
And if you're not a Ferengi dear friend then we have 5.972 × 10^24 kg * 30 km/s * 8.04 * 1037 kg*m^2 of kinetic energy. Are you in kindergarten? How do you not understand this? Maybe you're not a Ferengi but are a Cardassian? Still, you might be Romulan. This is bad. This is very bad.

p.s., we all know that E = MC^2, right?
Mass * linear velocity * angular velocity = energy.
The kinetic energy of the Earth would also be
mass * linear velocity * angular velocity = kinetic energy.
Basically 7.29×10−5 rad/s * 30 km/s * 5.972 × 10^24 kg = kinetic energy of the Earth. See how easy that is? Just have to wonder about you guys. Am tending to go with Cardassians myself. Just a disruptive influence in this sector.
p.s., and if you're not Cardassians, tutors are available. Would just think that you'd know basic math by now.

Into the Night wrote:

Random phrases. No apparent coherency.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Random phrases. No apparent coherency.

Isn't, With writing a paper to suggest an energy solution, I think it would help to quantify the energy generating potential. An example would be the UK imports about 170,000 gigawatt hours of liquefied natural gas.
England also uses about 8.2 million metric tons of coal per year. A new type of power plant using current technology could reduce the demand for the need of so much fossil fuels. With coal, each ton produces about 1,927 kilowatts of electricity.
15,804 gigawatts of power from coal.
Hoover Dam produces about 4,500 gigawatts of power per year using 17 turbines.
So each turbine ran by a new type power generation would generate about 265 gigawatts of power per year. This is using 1 generating turbine from Hoover Dam as a reference because it is a famous dam.
Using England as an example, it would take about 700 "new" generators. Then when that many couldn't be built for safety reasons like an accident could create a catastrophic explosion, each generator built would reduce the need of coal and natural gas by about 0.143% for each one built.
If 40 were built then it would reduce the amount of coal and natural gas that England uses by about 5.7%. This is where destructive testing could be fun. If such units were placed into the ground and catastrophic failure occurred, it might shoot a flame several miles up into the sky. This would mean that aircraft could not fly over a generator for safety reasons.
This is to show you ISN'T that math can help us to understand what the world is up against when it comes to clean, renewable energy. And if you consider that nuclear testing is done underground, the ground could handle a significant blast.
I am only using England as an example because many countries have a similar population and energy needs.
From here, we could consider the amount of energy necessary to start the process and how much energy is lost using such a process. Then we could consider how many reactions would be needed per second to sustain the process when converting to a liquid. Possibly all of the information can easily be found on the internet because this just considers processes that are currently in use today.
It's just changing the application of the technology to serve a different function.

@Warren, with the water intakes for Hoover Dam being 395 feet or 120 meters tall, it might actually be feasible. For geothermal heat, those pipes can go as low as 250 to 300 feet deep. Anyway, this is something for you to consider.

James___ wrote:Since this https://www.yahoo.com/news/coal-india-temporarily-halts-supply-112040211.html is becoming an issue as there now seems to be an energy shortage, I might just write a paper myself. And it might only need to be 1 or 2 pages long.

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:Since this https://www.yahoo.com/news/coal-india-temporarily-halts-supply-112040211.html is becoming an issue as there now seems to be an energy shortage, I might just write a paper myself. And it might only need to be 1 or 2 pages long.

Make sure to title it a "Likely Feasible Solution" as well, to give yourself plausible deniability.

.

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:Since this https://www.yahoo.com/news/coal-india-temporarily-halts-supply-112040211.html is becoming an issue as there now seems to be an energy shortage, I might just write a paper myself. And it might only need to be 1 or 2 pages long.

Make sure to title it a "Likely Feasible Solution" as well, to give yourself plausible deniability.

.

At the moment the efficiency of generating hydrogen and then converting it into water is about 42.5%. Once the efficiency is about 60% then such a system could start generating power.
Research seems to be primarily focused on cars. With what I would be suggesting, generating pressure wouldn't be necessary. That would change the focus of the research.
Even creating a magnetic field to polarize the water molecules might improve the efficiency of generating hydrogen and oxygen. This could cause water molecules to collide with each other which might make them more excited.
Scientists use a magnetic field with fusion reactors. With something like this, adding 2 electrons from a flow that generates the magnetic field might not be that difficult to do. And water is polar so the ground for the magnetic field could also power the electrolysis as well. Basically the cathode used for hydrogen generation would be the ground for the system
Now we're getting into the area of a new invention. At the same time, converting hydrogen and oxygen into water is about 60% efficient. And you never know, maybe considering some of what Tesla used as far as principles in science goes, they might be valid in other applications as well.
I'm going to have to think about this for a while. And if overall efficiency could go as high as 80 or 90%, that would be the goal but a 70% conversion rate would be sufficient for it to be a source of clean, renewable energy. And for research purposes, ie., encourage it in this area, it would probably need a technical paper as well as a demonstration of the principle. And 18 grams of water = 1 mol. Basically a small system would need to be built and operational so that actual numbers could be in a paper.
And I'm not equipped to do that. Maybe in the future I'll have the opportunity because of other work that I've been pursuing.

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:Since this https://www.yahoo.com/news/coal-india-temporarily-halts-supply-112040211.html is becoming an issue as there now seems to be an energy shortage, I might just write a paper myself. And it might only need to be 1 or 2 pages long.

Make sure to title it a "Likely Feasible Solution" as well, to give yourself plausible deniability.

.

At the moment the efficiency of generating hydrogen and then converting it into water is about 42.5%. Once the efficiency is about 60% then such a system could start generating power.
Research seems to be primarily focused on cars. With what I would be suggesting, generating pressure wouldn't be necessary. That would change the focus of the research.
Even creating a magnetic field to polarize the water molecules might improve the efficiency of generating hydrogen and oxygen. This could cause water molecules to collide with each other which might make them more excited.
Scientists use a magnetic field with fusion reactors. With something like this, adding 2 electrons from a flow that generates the magnetic field might not be that difficult to do. And water is polar so the ground for the magnetic field could also power the electrolysis as well. Basically the cathode used for hydrogen generation would be the ground for the system
Now we're getting into the area of a new invention. At the same time, converting hydrogen and oxygen into water is about 60% efficient. And you never know, maybe considering some of what Tesla used as far as principles in science goes, they might be valid in other applications as well.
I'm going to have to think about this for a while. And if overall efficiency could go as high as 80 or 90%, that would be the goal but a 70% conversion rate would be sufficient for it to be a source of clean, renewable energy. And for research purposes, ie., encourage it in this area, it would probably need a technical paper as well as a demonstration of the principle. And 18 grams of water = 1 mol. Basically a small system would need to be built and operational so that actual numbers could be in a paper.
And I'm not equipped to do that. Maybe in the future I'll have the opportunity because of other work that I've been pursuing.

Random phrases. No apparent coherency.

duncan61 wrote:I thought the plan was to generate electricity with ocean based wind farms then use the electricity to make hydrogen to run a power plant on land.

duncan61 wrote:Can you explain how making water from hydrogen creates electricity.

duncan61 wrote:
At the moment the efficiency of generating hydrogen and then converting it into water is about 42.5%. Once the efficiency is about 60% then such a system could start generating power.

I thought the plan was to generate electricity with ocean based wind farms then use the electricity to make hydrogen to run a power plant on land.Can you explain how making water from hydrogen creates electricity.