Remember me
▼ Content

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



Page 2 of 3<123>
12-10-2021 08:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
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?

.


He has been focusing somewhat on me, to try to justify his fallacies as legitimate arguments and of course to call me names. It's coming down to the usual arguments over the definition of science and trying to justify his math errors now, along with the usual string of insults.

PhD my ass.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
12-10-2021 08:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
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.

Argument from randU fallacies. Making shit up is not a valid argument.
Warren D Smith wrote:
Paper includes data showing much more wind power available at sea than on land.

What data? Who collected it? How was it collected? When was it collected? What is your declared variance? What is the margin of error? Please show all work.
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.

Guess you flunk at geography too. Did you forget South America, Africa, and Australia?
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.

The entire world power consumption is unknown. Argument from randU fallacy. Making up numbers isn't going to cut it, dude.
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.

Guess you don't know how to design propellers either. Not the correct equation. Now you are ignoring Bernoulli's law.
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.

Argument from randU fallacy. You are making up numbers again.
Warren D Smith wrote:
Human civilization is in deep trouble.

From what? Fascists like you that want to dictate energy markets? Guess what? Fascism is government manipulation of markets.
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.

Ah...the usual Doom and Gloom predictions from the Church of Global Warming and the Church of Green.
Warren D Smith wrote:
Human civilization as we know it will end when that happens.

When what happens?
Warren D Smith wrote:
There will be a large population crash.

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

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

Coal is not a fossil.
Oil is not a fossil.
Methane is not a fossil.
Both oil and methane are renewable fuels. Coal is unknown.

CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.
The temperature of Earth is unknown. There are not enough thermometers to measure it.
Warren D Smith wrote:
Paper explains+cites.
We need to act to save the situation.

Save what? What situation? Buzzword fallacy.
Warren D Smith wrote:
Because fossil fuels will run out an human civilization dependent on high power consumption, need to do something.

We don't use fossils for fuel. Fossils don't burn. Oil and methane are renewable fuels.
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.

Hydrogen has a very low energy density compared to oil products or even methane. Your method of obtaining it is also very expensive, even if you could get it to work. You will have to put more energy into obtaining the hydrogen than you get by burning it or using it in a fuel cell. You don't get something for nothing, you see. You can't create energy out of nothing.
Warren D Smith wrote:
Finally, I claim the wind plan I have will have noticeable effects on climate.

At least you said YOU claim it. Of course, climate has no value associated with it. So what's changing?
Warren D Smith wrote:
I want to understand that better.

You have to define it first!
Warren D Smith wrote:
So I want assistance from climate modelers.

Climate models are not defined.
Warren D Smith wrote:
So far I have been unable to get any such assistance at all.

Try your local liberal university. There are lot of morons like this around. They deny science and mathematics just as you do.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
12-10-2021 08:38
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1373)
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.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.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
12-10-2021 08:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
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!!!


Random equations don't mean anything, dude.
You want to try to join the fun and build a more efficient wind powered generator? Go for it. It's at least more productive than your perpetual motion machine you are trying to build.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
12-10-2021 08:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
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.

Heh. This again. Chicago actually isn't that windy. It's called the 'windy city' because of the blowhard politicians, not the weather.

The windiest place in the States of America is Cheyenne, WY. This town sits on the east end of a relatively narrow passage through the Rockies, and all that wind moving east gets funneled through the mountains here. Cheyenne is right where the funnel ends.

You can get some hellacious weather through here, including some pretty violent thunderstorms and large hail with very high winds.


Sign at the Cheyenne weather station office
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.

Sure the wind farm won't bother the 'roos?

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

That coal plant generates a hell of a lot more power than any huge wind farm too.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
Edited on 12-10-2021 08:55
12-10-2021 09:23
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1373)
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?
12-10-2021 18:37
Warren D Smith
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
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.
12-10-2021 18:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
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?

It is certainly accepted practice, but it has nothing to do with science. Science is not a grant.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
12-10-2021 19:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
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.

I really don't care what you put in your paper or what numbers you make up. Reading the abstract was enough for me to flunk it. Denying the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law makes any paper on such subjects useless to science.
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.

Argument from randU fallacy. You are making shit up again.
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.

Argument from randU fallacy. You have done no calculations worth anything, liar.
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,

I already have on several points for your proposed project. I have shown you why it won't work because of it. I have shown you why your religion denied mathematics.
Warren D Smith wrote:
and have relied entirely on gut-level guessing.

Inversion fallacy. This is what YOU are doing. You can't lay your problems on somebody else.
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.

You deny science, specifically the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and Bernoulli's law so far. You deny mathematics too. It is YOU that is guessing.
Inversion fallacy.

Redefinition fallacy (religion<->science, calculation<->guessing, paper<->you).
Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
13-10-2021 04:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10007)
[Harvey-Friendly Tag Line]


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.

Into the Night extended to you the courtesy of telling you where you can get your definitive answer. He told you where you can gather the evidence you need.

Now you are complaining that he didn't do your work for you. Next you'll be complaining that he didn't write your paper for you. It looks like you are setting him up to take the blame for your paper being summarily thrown into the trash by all who read it.

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,

This is why you contact Equinor and verify the information. Into the Night just made your job a whole lot easier. Now you know where to go and what to ask.

The appropriate response on your part is to say "thank you."

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

... because the "how he knows" matters not if he is simply telling you where to go to independently verify the information. Are you performing research for a paper or not?

Hywind Company: Equinor ASA,
Telephone: +47 51 99 00 00
Address: Forusbeen 50, 4035 Stavanger, Norway

There you go. You're welcome.

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.)

I'm sure Equinor ASA's public relations department can get you all that.







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

I'm sure Equinor ASA's public relations department can get you all that.

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

Yes. You mean "Do all my work for me and write my paper while you're at it."

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

Thus far there are no plans. There is only pipe dream.

Would you mind explaining who you mean when you write "we." You use that pronoun various times, always without antecedent and always pertaining to different groups of people. Are you intentionally obscurring who you mean? Why so?

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

You just finished convincing us that you have no understanding of any costs involved in such a project. How are you suddenly so utterly cognizant of this detail? Where is your "evidence"? Oh that's right, Into the Night didn't provide it for you and he hasn't written your paper yet. Sorry. I forgot.

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

How do you know this? Did Into the Night confirm this for you?

Do you see what I mean about providing "evidence"?

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

I can believe that such cables, although expensive, nonetheless cost less than the turbine ... but I'm not buying the idea that the act of replacing the cables, i.e. deploying many teams of technical specialists out across the wide ocean to physically replace the cables, somehow costs less than the turbines. The cost of the ships, the salaries of the certified professionals, the fuel costs, all the specialized duty pay for all involved, all the specialized equipment for effecting the maintenance, all the administrative overhead, the cost of financing ... and to do this periodically ... I understand why you tried to pretend that none of these costs exist. Your paper will obviously be woefully inadequate in the area of estimated costs and it will be obvious. Without realistic pricing, you have no plan.

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

... and you can't possibly achieve that without adjusting the human power consumption downward substantially. I presume that will be the point of your paper, i.e. that humans need their governments to mandate lower energy consumption. I bet your proposal will be to install an immediate and heavily graduated carbon tax to drive energy consumption into the ground and make your "renewables" goal seem more plausible. All you need at this point is to pretend that your ocean-wide fleet of floating turbines and chains and cables will never require maintenance so that you can take the next giant leap towards making the overall costs seem plausible.

I'm right, aren't I?

Some recommendations in addition to presuming that turbine maintenance is free:

1. Take the record sustained winds anywhere on the ocean, add 25 kph to that wind velocity and pretend that all of the ocean is always that windy. Use that value to generate all your energy generation estimates.

2. Presume that your crowdsourcing will always raise 50% of all required funding.

3. Presume that the world population's energy requirements will adjust to meet whatever quantity of energy you generate. If you presume a totalitarian world order that forces the world population onto energy grids supplied by renewable sources then the world population will therefore have to make do with whatever energy is generated by such means. Once the energy runs out then demand will naturally fall to zero.

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.

That should get you started. You're most welcome.

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

... which, as we all know, involves cooking the books.

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.

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.

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

Actually, brazen omissions don't require actual calculations. They are the antithesis of actual calculations.

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

None of them are even visible.

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,

We're following your lead.

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

You mean "brazen omissions."

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

We know.

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

In your case, they are the basis for your paper.

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

I assure you, we don't consider your paper to be science. Do not worry.

[Harvey-Friendly Tag Line]


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-10-2021 09:56
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1373)
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
13-10-2021 20:53
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3643)
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.
13-10-2021 23:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
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.

Replacements banks are impractical since these devices are so large. They are also exposed to weather. Each blade is manufactured one at a time. There is only room in the building for one or two blades at a time. The mast has similar problems.

So they have to be stored outside, exposed to the weather, and are already suffering degradation over time as a result.

Then, of course, there is the cost of moving another platform in place. That's fuel used and ships and specialized crew involved, due to wind and current drag on the towed device. Yes...ships. It takes more than one. Over longer distances, you will need even more ships.

God help you if a storm comes up at sea while under such a tow.

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.

You actually bothered to read his paper. I stopped at the abstraction he posted. That told me enough. I would flunk it based on the abstraction alone.
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.


Of course, geo-stationary satellites drift. They are never perfectly geo-stationary. Can you imagine what would happen to such cables as they are pulled this way and that? Can you imagine the catastrophic failure of such cables?? We're talking differences of up to 1000 mph here!

Out my way we have a sand beach that people are allowed to drive and park their cars on (Ocean Shores). Inevitably, someone parks at low tide and when the tide comes in their car is in the saltwater. Not good!

They do have a towing service that comes out for this specialized recovery. This rig has special feet it can plant in the sand and get enough of a grip to tow the poor bastard out of the sea. A long stranded wire cable is strung between a winch and the stuck car. People are still incredibly stupid enough to step across this cable while under tension. If that thing let go, it would cut them right in half.

Kinda like what a satellite tether cable would do if it snapped, but the effect of course is much more devastating.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
13-10-2021 23:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
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.


Of course, that government is already broke. It can't afford it's present services. It must print money to cover the costs, which only increase it's own costs.

This feedback loop is what is in place now, until a catastrophic end to it, where the dollar is discarded as a usable currency. People will simply choose something else for a currency, and no government in the world can stop it.

It would also mean effectively an end to the long running party at the federal government, since they can't pay for anything except by using what is now near worthless currency.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
14-10-2021 02:58
James___
★★★★★
(5099)
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.



If this https://www.cnbc.com/video/2021/08/19/a-giant-step-toward-the-holy-grail-of-energy-research-scientist-on-fusion-breakthrough.html is based on annihilating hydrogen which actually allows for a controlled fission burn, ie., the protons become quarks which become electrons in a cascading fashion, then this might be the solution. And while they call it fusion
Otherwise improved wind turbines, solar panels and deep sea turbine generators would be what's left. After that you'd be asking for a revolutionary new invention.
How would you guarantee credit is given for the concept? After all, if the basic idea is possible doesn't necessarily qualify it for a patent. This is simply because the laws of physics cannot be patented. It's their specific application which can be patented.
And in what manner would this paper be published? An example would be the European Union of GeoSciences. One of their editors knows that I am pursuing new work in atmospheric chemistry.
And you can pm me. I'd like to know who you are before I say anything. And with what I would have to mention to you, I think you might think its "too simple" of an idea.
And I'll give you a reason to think about this. Venus, Earth and Mars all have atmospheric pressures relative to one another. I had someone with degrees in both physics and mathematics call it "my law". This has been previously posted online.
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'.

Interestingly enough, no one has ever realized this before. Actually, scientists say that Mars atmospheric pressure is 0.095 psi. But then 14.7 psi for Earth might not be right. It goes to the 1/10 while Mars goes to the 1/1,000. So you should allow for a little room for error. Going with "rough" numbers it's off by 0.0022 psi.
And as I mentioned, I get into atmospheric chemistry. It's a process like anything else. So if you're serious about your paper, pm is the way to go then we can proceed from there or not at all.

p.s., I'm quoting myself. Gotta love it! And math shows what it does.

p.s.s., I followed your original links and still don't know who you are. Endorsements are necessary for publication. It might be better for you to allude as to what I posted. And then there is what I did not post. That would be what they would be interested in. It uses accepted main stream science and technology currently being pursued.
I am "weak" when it comes to math and some numbers would need to be ran. Like what I did with atmospheric pressures only more complicated, maybe. This gets quite a bit into physics and reactions but those can be calculated.
It's when that is shown is when researchers and scientists might take notice. They simply love math because it is the language they speak.


p.s.s., it would take some work, but for what I'm not saying, the math is doable and would be necessary. Without it a lot of scientists won't consider it. And for an original paper, it would only need to show potential based on known methodology currently in use. It's the application of the science that would be new and a lot of science is based on math. Specifics are necessary.
And as I mentioned, with this, it is not about obtaining patents but is about generating interest in specific research. It really doesn't go beyond that unless a working prototype has been developed. That's how things work.
I'd say we could post it in here but you see how these guys are. At the same time it would be documentation that we collaborated on it.
It'd be kind of like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMJiZxw6Ef4
Edited on 14-10-2021 03:46
14-10-2021 04:38
James___
★★★★★
(5099)
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.
Edited on 14-10-2021 04:51
14-10-2021 05:45
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3643)
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.


You wouldn't need hand surgery, if you got yourself a girlfriend. Too late now, I guess....
14-10-2021 06:11
James___
★★★★★
(5099)
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.

@Warren, for what you want, expect this and this isn't personal. It's just a part of the game. That's all it is.

p.s., I like music, for you Harvey, it's a repartee if you will; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRxxh3CzJXk&list=RDGMEMJQXQAmqrnmK1SEjY_rKBGA&start_radio=1&rv=Nco_kh8xJDs
Edited on 14-10-2021 06:24
14-10-2021 06:41
James___
★★★★★
(5099)
And we're back to some "basic" math. How much energy is generated by fossil fuels? We are talking severely limiting an industry. Jobs will be lost and kids will go hungry. What will we tell them?
It will hurt families and kids who want to go to college won't. How to change while avoiding these problems? Progress shouldn't hurt families. That also needs to be considered. Parents need to be allowed to provide something for their children. Kind of what allows for society.
Change happens. But people should not suffer because of it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6JppjQSTh8
Edited on 14-10-2021 07:03
14-10-2021 07:19
James___
★★★★★
(5099)
This is for you Harvey; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTuD8k3JvxQ
and for me? There is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_PMKB5T4n4, that's for when you get past the science. Simply loved the movie. Still, a paper might need to be written first but watch the movie, okay?
14-10-2021 07:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10007)
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.

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?"

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."

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.

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



You really should check out THIS COURSEcourse that utilizes/references this "textbook."

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. 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.

You did the right thing by not wasting any of your life reading the paper. You wouldn't get any of it back. This paper has no plan that will ever be implemented. It is not a solution to anything. It simply pushes a dogma by way of "intimidation-by-gibber-babble."

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.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-10-2021 07:39
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1373)
The tidal generator seems to have potential
14-10-2021 07:48
James___
★★★★★
(5099)
"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.
Edited on 14-10-2021 08:16
14-10-2021 08:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
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.


Don't need hole locations for a clamp. Clamping is already quite possible, if you use the right clamp.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
14-10-2021 08:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
James___ wrote:
And we're back to some "basic" math. How much energy is generated by fossil fuels?

Zero. Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel.
James___ wrote:
We are talking severely limiting an industry. Jobs will be lost and kids will go hungry. What will we tell them?

No fossil fuel industry. We don't burn fossils for fuel.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
14-10-2021 09:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
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.

That funny, eh?
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?"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Really?!?
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."

Who the hell are they?!? How the hell did they come up with this 'estimate'??
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.

That we do! This is a very common tactic used in the Church of Global Warming, the Church of Green, and the Church of Covid. It was even used in the Church of the Ozone Hole.
IBdaMann wrote:
Nonetheless, I decided to look up this reference. It truly inspires confidence, carrying the word "Physics" in the name.


A book with a buzzword in the title...I bet it's contents is just filled with 'em.
IBdaMann wrote:
You really should check out THIS COURSE that utilizes/references this "textbook." ...minor reformatting correction...

Looking over this course, every 'textbook' in it is scripture.
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.

Do you think he really regrets it? Remember he's a True Believer in the Church of Global Warming and the Church of Green.
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.

A typical tactic in these religions. It's yet another form of obscuring by complexity. The 'complexity' is really just a gunk of buzzwords.
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.

Much appreciated, dude. Of course, I got a good laugh out of it nevertheless!
IBdaMann wrote:
This paper has no plan that will ever be implemented.

I assume because of lack of funds and practicality.
IBdaMann wrote:
It is not a solution to anything. It simply pushes a dogma by way of "intimidation-by-gibber-babble."

I kind of thought that when he started spewing the same gibber-babble as 'science'.
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.



What residence time??? In what??? Watt-hours to describe friction and kinetic energy??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

What a wacky bunch of made up numbers and shit.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
14-10-2021 09:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
duncan61 wrote:
The tidal generator seems to have potential


Since that's what any generator does...create potential...I suppose you are right!


Tidal generators are rather few and far between for a reason. They require very specific geology to even be able to construct one. Since they operate in salt water and sea air, corrosion is a the biggest problem with these. Maintenance costs on these is pretty high.

There are a lot simpler and cheaper ways to produce electricity.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
14-10-2021 09:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
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.

Random phrases. No apparent coherency.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
14-10-2021 17:00
James___
★★★★★
(5099)
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.
Edited on 14-10-2021 17:21
14-10-2021 19:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
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.

Random phrases. No apparent coherency.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
14-10-2021 20:27
James___
★★★★★
(5099)
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.
14-10-2021 21:24
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10007)
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.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-10-2021 22:20
James___
★★★★★
(5099)
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.
14-10-2021 22:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
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.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
15-10-2021 00:41
James___
★★★★★
(5099)
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.



That's what I've been talking about. I'm glad to see that someone finally gets it.
15-10-2021 01:57
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1373)
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.
15-10-2021 01:57
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1373)
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.
15-10-2021 02:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10007)


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.

You understand correctly. The big problem that remains unaddressed is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Every time energy changes form, the quantity of usable energy decreases. In Warren D. Smith's process, the amount of usable energy is practically erased entirely each time energy changes form.

Instead of gathering up batteries that have been charged at sea by the turbines and then using that quantity of electricity by consumers on land, WDS' process begins by incurring great loss in transferring electrical energy all the way down to the ocean floor. There, the electrical energy is used to perform the work of hydrolysis. The amount of usable energy available in the hydrogen so acquired is far less than the amount of electricity expended to acquire it. Then, additional energy is to be expended pumping the hydrogen over miles of ocean floor to land. I cannot guarantee you that the amount of energy needed to pump the hydrogen is less than the amount of potential energy stored in the hydrogen.

On its face, the 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us that this is a losing proposition. Of course, if you actually read the paper, your own mind will tell you that, on its face, this is a losing proposition ... although the word "hair-brained" is more likely to come to mind.

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

The idea is to use the hydrogen as fuel for land-based electrical generators. The "exhaust" from hydrogen fuel is water.

Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-10-2021 04:14
James___
★★★★★
(5099)
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.



With what Warren suggested, generating AC current and then having transmission lines on the sea floor might be more efficient. This is one reason why with what I wrote I mentioned the efficiency of generating and converting hydrogen into clean energy.
To generate hydrogen, that efficiency is rated at about 75% while converting hydrogen into electricity is rated at about 60%. This is why I suggested onsite conversion might be preferable. A lot of loss in generating, transporting and converting would be removed from consideration.
And this would put the focus on improving the efficiency of generating hydrogen and then converting hydrogen into electricity. Then the water that is the waste generated would provide for hydroelectric power while providing material that can be converted back into hydrogen.
And this also means that it won't matter if the skies are overcast or if there is no wind today. A constant source of energy could be realized. This is why I asked him about making me a coauthor on his paper. If you consider the gigawatts of power that industrialized countries need, then basically the technology that can allow for such power plants IMO should be pursued.
15-10-2021 19:31
James___
★★★★★
(5099)
This is why I tend to like science. For something like a better hydrogen generator, that can be done with a minimal investment. Some of it might go all the way back to basic principles in electrical fields. After all, Tesla realized the A.C. generator back in 1887.
And with converting hydrogen and oxygen back into water, I think this is something that I might see about building in the coming years. I'll need to pursue my atmospheric chemistry experiment first. It's with the PEM type cell they use, after all, Harvey as his electronic devices and this would be me with mine. This might actually be fun to play around with.
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate "Likely Feasible Solution to World Energy & Carbon Crises" by Warren D Smith:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
CREATING METHANE FROM CAPTURED CARBON DIOXIDE AND THE FUTURE OF CARBON CAPTURE210-10-2021 07:04
problem solution essays108-10-2021 16:21
The Most Powerful Individual Evolution Opportunity & Special Online Secret Society Opening122-09-2021 05:27
If You Want To Fully Understand The Secret Of Life & Increase Your Longevity, You Must Evolve207-09-2021 03:10
Humanity Must Evolve Because The Connection Mechanism Between Human Body & COVID Is Similar To Comput105-09-2021 06:14
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact