The Future of Energy

[Frozenguy]

i think you misread..

tidal energy is generated on the Z axis (using current methods)

addressing your concerns(weather systems and thermoregulation) the Z axis is a non effector(wasted is the wrong term but im trying to find the right one)

Oh, yes I did.. Well so is there a link saying z axis energy doesn't contribute to temp regulation? Because if you slow z, you effect the horizontal movement of the wave.

Where did the z axis energy come from?
Where would it have gone if not to the energy extractor?

 

[Guest 88950]

Those I mentions USED to be publicly owned companies. That wasn't a side step. It was an example of government abuse in the name of "hope & change".

and the still are and the fed govt owns a majority of the de-valued stock so as the stock price increases and the govt sell its share it makes a profit.

with that aside, i never associated any of my comments to politics or offering "Hope & Change" so not sure why it was brought up when responding to me.

But of the retailers that you mentioned that are installing solar on their rooftops, it is for the appearance of being green and government mandates, both local and state.

your assumptions based on your interaction with this industry.

not FACT

I know, as a provider of fruit to Wal-Mart, we have to submit our packaging every year so Wal-Mart can determine how our shipping containers jibe with their "green" program to satisfy the treehuggers. Who pays? The increased shipping costs is passed by Wal-Mart on to the buying public. Same with their energy program. If they pay 10 million dollars to cover their roof with solar panels, who do you think ends up paying that bill?

so your mad b/c one of the nations largest corporation puts profit before value?

go figure they look out for their stock holders.

im sorry you are dealing with wal-mart.

Where I disagree with you is in your assertion that solar is ready for prime time, which it is not. It will be, but if one removes all subsidies and grants from the solar equation, there would be very little interest in development. It is happening here and now in Riverside County where dozens of solar companies are vying for options on land in and around Blythe CA. Many are foreign owned and all are applying for US government grants and loan guarantees. Of this I have intimate knowledge, as I have known the County Planning Commissioner my entire life. It is borderline thievery. They cannot build their solar farm with investor's money because it's a bad investment to build an energy plant that produces energy at a higher cost/watt then other energy sources, so the government is stepping in and giving billion dollar grants and loan subsidies. Couple that with obama's all out assault on coal and oil, pushing their cost skyward in order to make solar more competitive.

Who losses? All Americans lose when they artificially pay more for energy, which has a trickle effect from homeowners to businesses. Home owners have less disposable income and American businesses become less competitive globally, as China has 2 coal fired plants coming into production each and every week.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6769743.stm
We shut down our coal plants and now we export that coal to China who then makes cheap power with our coal (and bullshit solar panels to re-sell back to us in the U.S.). But the treehuggers are happy when they see solar farms being built.

I can't paint a clearer picture for you. When solar is ready for prime time (maybe 10 to 15 years or so) THEN you will see a rush of private businesses and home owners installing them on their own, without the government subsidies that cost so much money and increase the cost of energy.

you havent looked at the Sun Edison link or you would know that the end customer pays NOTHING for any PV panels, installation or maintenance and in return are GUARANTEED a stable energy cost that is competitive today.

dont think that your limited interaction with the local planners are absolute and are representative of the industry.

i cant paint a clearer picture for you if you are unwilling to learn or admit others may be right.

 

[Guest 88950]

I have done a lot of research on these technologies. I'm not assuming anything really.

then either you are not using credible sources or you are not fully comprehending the info.

 

[Frozenguy]

then either you are not using credible sources or you are not fully comprehending the info.

Well what is wrong? Lets talk about it . I don't know which argument of mine you're referring to.

 

[Sgt.Stedenko]

Interesting article here:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011...ng-green-will-cost-76-trillion/#ixzz1RLVXSRUg

Looks like the cost of going green now includes battling world hunger and poverty. Thanks UN IPCC.

 

[joeuser]

and the still are and the fed govt owns a majority of the de-valued stock so as the stock price increases and the govt sell its share it makes a profit.

with that aside, i never associated any of my comments to politics or offering "Hope & Change" so not sure why it was brought up when responding to me.





your assumptions based on your interaction with this industry.

not FACT



so your mad b/c one of the nations largest corporation puts profit before value?

go figure they look out for their stock holders.

im sorry you are dealing with wal-mart.





you havent looked at the Sun Edison link or you would know that the end customer pays NOTHING for any PV panels, installation or maintenance and in return are GUARANTEED a stable energy cost that is competitive today.

dont think that your limited interaction with the local planners are absolute and are representative of the industry.

i cant paint a clearer picture for you if you are unwilling to learn or admit others may be right.

I owned GM stock...before all the shit happened. My stock went to $0.09 a share...it WAS a $60 a share company. Obama let the share price go to practically zero...THEN he took the assets of MY company and gave them to a NEW company...called GM. You see, they slyly renamed the OLD GM into GM disposal company or some shit. Then they have the balls to REISSUE a NEW stock IPO calling it GM while the REAL GM stock sells for .09. You tell me...WTF?

And all the rest of this "which alternative energy is better" talk...it's ALL fucking moot...it's never happen. We don't have the EXTRA energy NOW to built all this shit we need to replace oil. We already use every drop. Do you realize the dollar AND energy cost to replace 4.2 billion gallons per day?

As someone earlier said...mile after mile, horizon to horizon, that's what you'll NEED to replace fossil fuels! The size of Texas...COMPLETELY covered by solar panels...who is going to pay for that? What energy is going to be used? What resources? Have you EVER driven across Texas? It takes TWO whole days! That's...let's be reasonable here...TOO MANY! It'll never happen. Just as 100 miles of "tidal energy" machine won't happen...and that's what you'll need for just a SMALL city.

We use a LOT of energy...more than some people apparently imagine.

AND THE SUN DOESN'T PUT OUT ENOUGH TO RUN ANYTHING USEFUL DIRECTLY!!! You MUST "condense" it, "concentrate" it, store/save it. And BATTERIES...we haven't even touched the HUGE amount of battering you'd need. Unless we're going back to "go to bed with the sun...wake with the sun"? Can you imagine the batteries you'd need to run a solar powered CITY? Even a wind farm city...the winds usually die down at night. What about batteries for the time between the swift tide movements?

It AIN'T gonna work people...we need a NEW TECHNOLOGY...completely new. Mr. Fusion.

 

[Dudesome]

Frozen, why do you have to absolutize it all?

Check it:

I say: Solar
You say: Cover the whole planet
I say: wind
You say: catch every wind possible


Dude. Resources are too plentiful for us to rely on a single source.

So I see where your deliberation comes from and I wouldn't say that it is uneducated any how. You are a smart dude I can see.

But what I don't get is how you come up with facts such as yours(Nikola tesla atmospheric energy being not free yet still hidden for some reason) with such assurance.

Yes ofcourse oil is limited. That's almost a fact. It's probably one of those many resources that CAN be limited. BUT IT DOesNT HAVE TO BE. Why? Because there is no need for us to rely on it entirely. More and more folks are seeing it. Otherwise why is that you think BMW, MB and all the top car companies are making new cars that rely on electricity so much? Exactly because those Co's did a goood counting. Yet oil IS still going to be used. Just not as much.

But my point is not this. My point is that we don't need to limit ourselves with choices. Education brings prosperity. Technology has NO LIMITS. Human mind has no limits. As many things we have already invented, still xINFINITY more things are to be invented.

Such people as GP only limit themselves with negativism and think that they are the "realest", when in reality they put themselves in a mindbox and become older than they are with every day.

Has GP ever told us what CAN BE DONE ? Nope. He only told us what CAN'T be done. In reality he just doesnt have enough energy to think in a positive key. After all we only limit ourselves with our own thoughts.

 

[labtec]

All this talk of energy sources, what about energy conservation(don't know if it's been talked about yet in this thread). If you can reduce our current energy consumption while regulating how much energy new machines use, we can have a way bigger effect than just going to renewables. Don't get me wrong, we still have to get there, but lets let the technology catch up and start massively conserving now. It's not that hard.

 

[Dudesome]

Also here is a piece of reality that I mentioned before.
ATTENTION NOW THIS IS REAL

PV Panels do not have to be installed on the planet earth. They can be installed in space and we have the technology for this. We even have the technology to transfer the electricity via space vacuum and atmosphere just like bluetooth.

 

[Guest 88950]

I owned GM stock...before all the shit happened. My stock went to $0.09 a share...it WAS a $60 a share company. Obama let the share price go to practically zero...THEN he took the assets of MY company and gave them to a NEW company...called GM. You see, they slyly renamed the OLD GM into GM disposal company or some shit. Then they have the balls to REISSUE a NEW stock IPO calling it GM while the REAL GM stock sells for .09. You tell me...WTF?

sorry you lost money but the govt should have let GM restructure in bankruptcy.

how different would your stock be effected.

And all the rest of this "which alternative energy is better" talk...it's ALL fucking moot...it's never happen. We don't have the EXTRA energy NOW to built all this shit we need to replace oil. We already use every drop. Do you realize the dollar AND energy cost to replace 4.2 billion gallons per day?

so lets defer this problem to the later generations where oil is more scarce and the dollar will be weaker.

not such a smart thing to do imo.

As someone earlier said...mile after mile, horizon to horizon, that's what you'll NEED to replace fossil fuels! The size of Texas...COMPLETELY covered by solar panels...who is going to pay for that? What energy is going to be used? What resources? Have you EVER driven across Texas? It takes TWO whole days! That's...let's be reasonable here...TOO MANY! It'll never happen. Just as 100 miles of "tidal energy" machine won't happen...and that's what you'll need for just a SMALL city.

and as i replied, if you were more knowledgeable on the subject then you would know that is just not the case.

im from Texas so im familiar with its size. in fl now.

We use a LOT of energy...more than some people apparently imagine.

AND THE SUN DOESN'T PUT OUT ENOUGH TO RUN ANYTHING USEFUL DIRECTLY!!! You MUST "condense" it, "concentrate" it, store/save it. And BATTERIES...we haven't even touched the HUGE amount of battering you'd need. Unless we're going back to "go to bed with the sun...wake with the sun"? Can you imagine the batteries you'd need to run a solar powered CITY? Even a wind farm city...the winds usually die down at night. What about batteries for the time between the swift tide movements?

ive already posted a link to a company doing what you say cant be done but i guess its not enough proof.


here is an example of tidal turbines in the East River generating electricity. the engineers under estimated the forces involved and the blade didnt hold up so they re-engineered it.

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18567/

 

[Frozenguy]

Frozen, why do you have to absolutize it all?

Check it:

I say: Solar
You say: Cover the whole planet
I say: wind
You say: catch every wind possible

I use extreme limits to outline trend. If we know what happens at 0%, and we know what happens at 30% and at 100%, we can predict what will happen at 15% or say 50%.

Dude. Resources are too plentiful for us to rely on a single source.

So I see where your deliberation comes from and I wouldn't say that it is uneducated any how. You are a smart dude I can see.

But what I don't get is how you come up with facts such as yours(Nikola tesla atmospheric energy being not free yet still hidden for some reason) with such assurance.

I never said we need or should use just one source. I think there is a post of mine around here saying a balance between nuclear, fossil, and hydro/wind/solar would be best. A balance. Nuclear is an awesome application for ocean vessels as well as the electrical grid. Fossil has its applications and so does hydro/solar/wind.
I say Nikola Tesla didn't find a way to harness "free energy" because there is no such thing. If we are going to have a serious discussion, we have to absolute on that. It's a fundamental law that is the basis for what we are talking about.
What Nikola may have found was a way to harness energy from the atmosphere (extracting, not free or created), just like devising a way to harness energy from a river. There is not an unlimited supply. It comes at a 'cost'.

Yes ofcourse oil is limited. That's almost a fact. It's probably one of those many resources that CAN be limited. BUT IT DOesNT HAVE TO BE. Why? Because there is no need for us to rely on it entirely. More and more folks are seeing it. Otherwise why is that you think BMW, MB and all the top car companies are making new cars that rely on electricity so much? Exactly because those Co's did a goood counting. Yet oil IS still going to be used. Just not as much.

Well, right now electric cars are not feasible, mainly because of energy storage devices. And when winter hits, you can just put it in the garage. Sure they are around, but they dont come close to matching up to a fossil fueled car.

I would love to see a car powered like a train locomotive. A diesel engine at relatively constant RPM driving a generator to drive individual electrical motors. That would be awesome.

But my point is not this. My point is that we don't need to limit ourselves with choices. Education brings prosperity. Technology has NO LIMITS. Human mind has no limits. As many things we have already invented, still xINFINITY more things are to be invented.

I think I see what you're saying and pretty much agree.. I think the reason technology has no limits is because it brings us to space. I believe we do have limits here on earth even with our vast technology (considering our population size).

 

[Guest 88950]

Well what is wrong? Lets talk about it . I don't know which argument of mine you're referring to.

its not one single argument but the assumption that mass wind turbine farms can disrupt wind patterns.

a similar assumption regarding tidal turbines.

the scale in which you assume to be needed to supply solar, wind and wave power.

i cant argue with a fundamental lack of understanding you are showing.

is it intentional? seems it might be.

 

[Frozenguy]

Also here is a piece of reality that I mentioned before.
ATTENTION NOW THIS IS REAL

PV Panels do not have to be installed on the planet earth. They can be installed in space and we have the technology for this. We even have the technology to transfer the electricity via space vacuum and atmosphere just like bluetooth.

Yeah going to space is what we need! I've liked this idea since I heard of it. Even though this tech is still 'far off', once we can get the power transmission efficiency up to par this will pick up like hot cakes..

 

[Frozenguy]

its not one single argument but the assumption that mass wind turbine farms can disrupt wind patterns.

a similar assumption regarding tidal turbines.

the scale in which you assume to be needed to supply solar, wind and wave power.

i cant argue with a fundamental lack of understanding you are showing.

is it intentional? seems it might be.

Lol by saying that, you expose your lack of understanding.
This is all physics 1 material (conceptually).

The river, the wind, the sun do not give off unlimited amounts of energy.


If it takes 5 joules of energy to power a wind turbine, you lose that energy from the wind. The wind's energy does not = infinity. It is finite and can run out. If the wind has 200 joules of energy, and goes through 10 wind farms each taking 12 joules, you have 80 joules left. That wind is NOT the same as it used to be.

Do I predict we can build enough wind farms to completely stop the wind? No. But when you extract or give energy, you effect things..

Would you believe that by just observing an electromagnetic wave you effect it?

 

[Guest 88950]

how many gris mills stopped the flow of the river they were on.

i guess if you built it heavy and large enough then the energy contained in the river would not be sufficient to rotate the wheel and probably stop the flow to the point of it redirecting around the obstruction.

"its not one single argument but the assumption that mass wind turbine farms can disrupt wind patterns." to the point of effecting the climate.

got interrupted and forgot to add that.

 

[Frozenguy]

how many gris mills stopped the flow of the river they were on.

i guess if you built it heavy and large enough then the energy contained in the river would not be sufficient to rotate the wheel and probably stop the flow to the point of it redirecting around the obstruction.

"its not one single argument but the assumption that mass wind turbine farms can disrupt wind patterns." to the point of effecting the climate.

got interrupted and forgot to add that.

My river analogy terrible. I don't know where that came from and what I was thinking.. It doesn't really fit. I took it out. It doesn't even attempt to model what I was trying to say..

 

[Frozenguy]

"its not one single argument but the assumption that mass wind turbine farms can disrupt wind patterns." to the point of effecting the climate.

got interrupted and forgot to add that.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) disagrees with you:
It's a quick read, rather concise and realistic.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/climate-wind-0312.html

... But a new MIT analysis may serve to temper enthusiasm about wind power, at least at very large scales. Ron Prinn, TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Science, and principal research scientist Chien Wang of the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, used a climate model to analyze the effects of millions of wind turbines that would need to be installed across vast stretches of land and ocean to generate wind power on a global scale. Such a massive deployment could indeed impact the climate, they found, though not necessarily with the desired outcome. ...

 

[Guest 88950]

"Prinn cautioned against interpreting the study as an argument against wind power"

ill be back after i finish doing some digging on his study.

edit: here is the paragraph

"Prinn cautioned against interpreting the study as an argument against wind power, urging that it be used to guide future research that explores the downsides of large-scale wind power before significant resources are invested to build vast wind farms. “We’re not pessimistic about wind,” he said. “We haven’t absolutely proven this effect, and we’d rather see that people do further research.”

edit: another

"Although Prinn and Wang believe their results for the land-based wind farms are robust, Wang called their analysis a “proof-of-concept” study that requires additional theoretical and modeling work, as well as field experiments for complete verification.

Their next step is to address how to simulate ocean-based wind farms more accurately. They plan to collaborate with aeronautical engineers to develop parameters for the climate model that will allow them to simulate turbines in coastal waters."

 

[Frozenguy]

"Prinn cautioned against interpreting the study as an argument against wind power"

ill be back after i finish doing some digging on his study.

edit: here is the paragraph

"Prinn cautioned against interpreting the study as an argument against wind power, urging that it be used to guide future research that explores the downsides of large-scale wind power before significant resources are invested to build vast wind farms. “We’re not pessimistic about wind,” he said. “We haven’t absolutely proven this effect, and we’d rather see that people do further research.”

Ok.. Your point?

I said it was realistic. They are scientists. They don't go out stating conclusions until its been completely or "absolutely proven". They did however publish their results and MIT does not like to predict things they think wont pan out.


I'm not pessimistic about wind energy either. All I've been saying is that there are potential effects with increasing wind farms.

 

[Guest 88950]

Ok.. Your point?

I said it was realistic. They are scientists. They don't go out stating conclusions until its been completely or "absolutely proven". They did however publish their results and MIT does not like to predict things they think wont pan out.


I'm not pessimistic about wind energy either. All I've been saying is that there are potential effects with increasing wind farms.

effects with a major environmental impact of Increased land temps and Decreased sea temps.

wouldnt these temp differences cause convection currents? hot air rises and cool water sinks so wouldnt this contribute to creating wind and ocean currents?

this is a proof of concept study that didnt take into account the negative environmental impact of 5 terawats of energy NOT produced by fossil fuel.

edit:
so the conclusion of a Proof of Concept study is a Prediction by MIT?