Self Sustaining renewable energy source, is it even possible?

[Matthiasa]

No it doesn't. Thermodynamics is goverened by statistical laws. All the molecules air can rush into the corner all at once. That you don't observe it is because the lifespan of the universe isn't long enough for it to likely happen. There are pockets of order everywhere. Don't you think that if entropy was broken you would have learned that in school just as you would have Newtons laws of motion? What you can't do is make things magically move on their own. In theory you could grab all the molecules and move them but you would expend energy to do so and that would result in an increase in total entropy. You can't get more energy out of a system than exists. You can't change the direction of the flow of heart any more than you can walk negatively, and I don't mean in an opposite direction but making movement not have happened after you've gone from point a to b.

It was...

At any rate I already covered such statistical properties in this thread already...
You also missed it violating the first law.

 

[Red Squirrel]

I don't think it's possible but the closest thing is solar energy. It's a very abundant source of energy that is continuously bombarding the earth, and it comes from outside the Earth system so it's virtually unlimited. Oil is from the Earth, and will eventually run out. Not to mention it's just dirty, nasty, and is one of the major causes of all wars and other political crap that goes on these days, and is the leading cause of global warming. We need oil for stuff like plastic, but we can stop using it for energy.

Need to build more wind farms, solar panel farms, solar thermal farms, geothermal... the list goes on. There also needs to be more research put into better battery/storage tech, so that electric vehicles can go as far as people want them to. Why stop at cars, we need electric planes and trains too. Everything electric, with all electricity coming from the sun in one shape or the other.

There are reasons why this is not being done, but the biggest reasons are all political, or at least, it falls down to that if you look at the big picture. If we (the human race) want to stop to destroy this planet we need get together and fix all of this before it's too late. It's not only a question of destroying the planet, but a question of sustainability. Gas prices are only going to keep going up. At what point is it going to be completely unaffordable to drive anywhere, heat our homes or use electricity (for places that use fossil fuel).

But the attitude is always "well it wont affect me, and it probably wont affect my kids" so we just keep living on the way we are.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It was...

At any rate I already covered such statistical properties in this thread already...
You also missed it violating the first law.

I didn't miss anything. J. Willard Gibbs isn't rolling around in his grave, the "violations" aren't and you didn't learn that thermodynamics is wrong.

If you want to argue that the total energy of a closed system isn't conserved be my guest. If you want to argue that entropy of a system is everywhere uniform or there is a violation, again be my guest, however you aren't going to get physicists to agree with you.

 

[Ruptga]

If it always has existed it violates the second law.
If it hasn't, it violates the first.

Here, have some copypasta

a) "Something can not come out of nothing" - the first law of thermodynamics

The simple statement "something can not come out of nothing" is, in itself, not very convincing. From quantum field theory, we know that something does indeed come from nothing: to wit, "vacuum fluctuations". In the simplest case, an electron, a positron and a photon can appear effectively out of nowhere, exist for a brief time and then annihilate, leaving no net creation of mass or energy. Experimental support for this sort of effect has been found from a number of different experiments. See, for instance, the Wikipedia page for the Casimir effect.
The common point for all of these effects is that they do not violate any known conservation laws of physics (e.g., the conservation of energy, momentum, and charge). Something can indeed come out of nothing as long as these conservation laws permit this. But people often argue that the Big Bang theory violates the conservation of energy (which is essentially the first law of thermodynamics).
There are several valid counterarguments against this: first, as already pointed out, the BBT is not about the origin of the universe, but rather its development with time. Hence, any statement that the appearance of the universe "out of nothing" is impossible has nothing to do with what the BBT actually addresses. Likewise, while the laws of thermodynamics apply to the universe today, it is not clear that they necessarily apply to the origin of the universe; we simply do not know. Finally, it is not clear that one can sensibly talk about time "before the Big Bang". "Time" is an integral part of our universe (hence the GR term "spacetime") - so it is not clear how exactly one would characterize the energy before and after the Big Bang in a precise enough way to conclude it was not conserved.
Assuming we have some way to handle notions of time outside of our spacetime, the universe appearing out of nothing would only violate the first law of thermodynamics if the energy beforehand were different from the energy afterwards. Probably all people will agree that "nothingness" should have an energy of zero; so the law is only violated if the energy of the universe is non-zero. But there are indeed good arguments that the energy of the universe should be exactly zero!
This conclusion is somewhat counter-intuitive at first sight, since obviously all the mass and radiation we see in the universe has a huge amount of associated energy. However, this tally ignores the gravitational potential energy within the universe. In the Newtonian limit, we can get a feel for this contribution by considering the standard example of a rocket leaving the Earth, with a velocity great enough to "escape" from its gravitational field. Travelling farther and farther away from the earth, the velocity of the rocket becomes smaller and smaller, going to zero "at infinity". Hence the rocket has no energy left "at infinity" (neglecting its "rest energy" here, which is irrelevant for the argument). Applying conservation of energy, it follows that the energy of the rocket was also zero when it left Earth. But it had a high velocity then, i.e., large kinetic energy. It follows that the gravitational potential energy it had on the Earth was negative. For another explanation, see e.g. this post about Negative gravitational energy.
In a Nature article in 1973, E. Tryon sketched an argument that the negative gravitational potential energy of the universe has the same magnitude as the positive energy contained in its contents (matter and radiation), and hence the total energy of the universe is indeed zero (or at least close to zero).
Part of the difficulty here is that the concept of "gravitational energy" is essentially a Newtonian one. In GR, the principle of equivalence makes defining a gravitational energy that will be coherently viewed from all frames of reference problematic. Likewise, the idea of the "total energy of the universe" is difficult to define properly. Misner, Thorne and Wheeler (one of the standard texts on GR) discuss this at length in chapter 20 of their book.
Another approach is Wald's "Hamiltonian" or "Hamilton function" for GR as derived in his GR text. In classical physics, this function can (almost always) be interpreted as representing the total energy of a given system. Using this formalism, Wald shows that, for a closed universe, the Hamiltonian is zero. Similar arguments can be applied to the same effect for a flat universe, although for an open universe the formulation for the Hamiltonian ends up ill-defined.
Other efforts to deal with conservation of energy in GR have used so-called "pseudo-tensors". This approach was tried by Einstein, among many others. However, the current view is that proper physical models should be formulated using only tensors (see again Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, chapter 20), so this approach has fallen out of favor.
However, this leaves us with something of a quandary: in the absence of a proper definition of gravitational potential energy, the law of conservation of energy from classical mechanics clearly does not hold in GR. Thus, for any theory based on GR, like BBT, conservation of energy is clearly not something that can be held against it. Hence, the first law of thermodynamics argument becomes moot. For a more detailed discussion along these lines, see this FAQ page on energy conservation in GR.

Now dessert, I insist

b) The highly ordered universe today could not have come from an explosion - the second law of thermodynamics

This argument is a variation of the standard creationist canard regarding evolution creating order from disorder, in apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics. The standard counter-argument, of course, is that that formulation only applies to isolated systems, unlike the Earth.
If we are talking about the universe, on the other hand, it is not clear that this rejoinder applies. After all, the universe, so far as we know, is the ultimate isolated system, with energy neither entering or exiting the system. However, applying this simple form of the second law to the universe has some complications.
The standard misconception of the Big Bang is that of an explosion of matter into already existing space. This is not the case. Rather, BBT holds that spacetime itself expanded. Obviously, any statements accompanied by the claim that the Big Bang exploded to create order need to be taken with a grain of salt.
Further, our everyday conceptions of "order" and "disorder" do not really apply to the physical quantity called "entropy". Indeed, as shown by Kolb & Turner, the entropy of the early universe was extremely low. This makes sense if one remembers that, in the very early stages of the universe, the distribution of matter and energy was very, very ordered, as demonstrated by the uniformity of the CMBR. As such, one could characterize the entire distribution of matter and energy in the universe with a single number (the temperature) to a very good approximation. Compare that to the universe we see now, filled with complicated, disorderly distributions of galaxies, stars and gas. The amount of entropy in these objects is enormous (recall our earlier discussion about the lack of coherent orbits for stars in elliptical galaxies and galaxies in galaxy clusters). Hence, the idea that the entropy of the universe has somehow decreased in violation of the second law of thermodynamics is largely nonsensical.
Ironically, however, this facile objection does lead to a much more serious question: Given that the entropy of the universe has only increased, how did it get such a low entropy when it came into being? At the current time, this is still an open question in cosmology. Obviously, many of the problems we outlined in the previous section regarding time before the Big Bang and the applicability of physical laws at the origin of the universe come into play here, but there is, as of yet, no simple answer.

 

[Matthiasa]

Trying to point out something I already know?

The rocket analogy is also wrong. It would only hold true iff the rocket had kinetic energy that was exactly equal to the energy to bring it to zero at infinity. (read it has exactly the escape velocity)
Part A is actually ignoring the increasing acceleration of the universe.
If the universe was decelerating it might have had a point but sadly no.
It also states that they might not have applied to the early universe, but minor details.

Part B isn't even addressing what it thinks it is either. Although given that creationist was used in the first sentence I shouldn't be surprised.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

I would suggest better sources if you are trying to prove a point. (read not an anti-creationist site filled with pseudo science trying to masquerade as real science)

 

[Zodiark1593]

The law of conservation comes to mind here. Neither energy nor matter can be created or destroyed. However, one can be converted to another as is observed during nuclear fission and fusion.

 

[Cattlegod]

It has been done since at least 1978

 

[Ruptga]

Trying to point out something I already know?

The rocket analogy is also wrong. It would only hold true iff the rocket had kinetic energy that was exactly equal to the energy to bring it to zero at infinity. (read it has exactly the escape velocity)
Part A is actually ignoring the increasing acceleration of the universe.
If the universe was decelerating it might have had a point but sadly no.
It also states that they might not have applied to the early universe, but minor details.

Part B isn't even addressing what it thinks it is either. Although given that creationist was used in the first sentence I shouldn't be surprised.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

I would suggest better sources if you are trying to prove a point. (read not an anti-creationist site filled with pseudo science trying to masquerade as real science)

Jesus... one more and I'm done with you.

Nothing is wrong with the rocket example, sorry you don't get it.

The expansion of space (not "in" space, OF space) has nothing to do with entropy.

From the (literal) beginning of time, our universe was extremely homogenous, i.e. its entropy was extremely low. Since then things have differentiated... screw it, more copy pasta, since I don't think you read it very carefully last time.

Further, our everyday conceptions of "order" and "disorder" do not really apply to the physical quantity called "entropy". Indeed, as shown by Kolb & Turner, the entropy of the early universe was extremely low. This makes sense if one remembers that, in the very early stages of the universe, the distribution of matter and energy was very, very ordered, as demonstrated by the uniformity of the CMBR. As such, one could characterize the entire distribution of matter and energy in the universe with a single number (the temperature) to a very good approximation. Compare that to the universe we see now, filled with complicated, disorderly distributions of galaxies, stars and gas. The amount of entropy in these objects is enormous (recall our earlier discussion about the lack of coherent orbits for stars in elliptical galaxies and galaxies in galaxy clusters). Hence, the idea that the entropy of the universe has somehow decreased in violation of the second law of thermodynamics is largely nonsensical.

Now I think this is where you come back with a few unrelated claims and obviously false refutations, so this is where I leave. The facts are clear, including the fact that you're incredibly deluded about the nature of reality, and not, as I first thought, just a kid who had an idiot teacher. So spare us your talk of "science," everyone that's paying attention and not a noob can already tell you don't care about discovery. You've already got all the answers from your particular religious interpretation, learning is just a way for you to prove yourself right.

But, about your better source... Since you're almost certainly a biblical literalist, tell me (actually, don't), is the Genesis 1 story the literal truth, is the Genesis 2 story the literal truth, or did God just Ctrl+Z after Genesis 1 and do things a little differently the second time? Jesus seems to imply Genesis 1 is the truthiest truth, but then how did that less truthy truth get into your previously infallible book?

I'm done here. Don't derail this thread any further. I'm sure that if you want to talk pseudoscience the rest of ATOT will be very happy to oblige you if you will only make your own thread.

 

[PowerEngineer]

OP should contact adlep for an update.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2202067

:sneaky:

 

[Matthiasa]

Jesus... one more and I'm done with you.

Nothing is wrong with the rocket example, sorry you don't get it.

The expansion of space (not "in" space, OF space) has nothing to do with entropy.

From the (literal) beginning of time, our universe was extremely homogenous, i.e. its entropy was extremely low. Since then things have differentiated... screw it, more copy pasta, since I don't think you read it very carefully last time.

Now I think this is where you come back with a few unrelated claims and obviously false refutations, so this is where I leave. The facts are clear, including the fact that you're incredibly deluded about the nature of reality, and not, as I first thought, just a kid who had an idiot teacher. So spare us your talk of "science," everyone that's paying attention and not a noob can already tell you don't care about discovery. You've already got all the answers from your particular religious interpretation, learning is just a way for you to prove yourself right.

But, about your better source... Since you're almost certainly a biblical literalist, tell me (actually, don't), is the Genesis 1 story the literal truth, is the Genesis 2 story the literal truth, or did God just Ctrl+Z after Genesis 1 and do things a little differently the second time? Jesus seems to imply Genesis 1 is the truthiest truth, but then how did that less truthy truth get into your previously infallible book? [/B]

I'm done here. Don't derail this thread any further. I'm sure that if you want to talk pseudoscience the rest of ATOT will be very happy to oblige you if you will only make your own thread.

You are completely missing the argument with that...
You are proving nothing, you are nothing but a rabid "atheist" pulling at strings, uneducated in things you are trying to prove.
I am not religious in the least bit, and have a high level knowledge of many areas in physics, both from personal interest and as a requirement from a degree in engineering. Said "teachers" were actually professors. What I don't know I can very easily find... using real sources not some religious site such as you are using as source.
That religion is the first place you went does explain quite a bit about your misconceptions. Projecting much?
I can almost guaranty I have far greater knowledge of science then you which is why the use of that site is almost laughable.
It had nothing to do with science being wrong, no observation has ever went against the laws of thermodynamics. They are among the only actual laws in science, where nearly everything else is simply theory.
It is that the understanding of entropy of the author of it is just plain wrong.

Try again though, you might actually get it right one of these times.

 

[Ruptga]

Hi OP, there aren't many self-professed old timers around here. Do you remember how many elements were on the periodic table when you were last in school? When you started this thread I figured you were either some scam artist's dupe or a kid that talks through class but never listens, hence my first reply.

If you want to read about this stuff, there is no shortage of material. Perpetual motion is a topic that just won't die, it comes up a lot in science fiction and pseudoscience. Those ideas always turn out to be bad ad-hoc hypotheses, but they always have a finger in reality and the prospect of free energy is too tempting to completely ignore. In particular, cold fusion and zero-point energy are always popular. Here's a notable example from this board.

Aww, I took forever to write this response out and PowerEngineer beat me to adlep's thread.

 

[sandorski]

Solar, Wind, and Geothermal are the closest we have.

 

[AViking]

Maybe I was a bit too hard, and I apologize, but I remember as a kid wondering the same thing. The whole idea of a perpetual motion machine has surely occurred to everyone at some point. They had that magnetic ball thing when I was a kid and it was a natural question to ask why it didn't keep going. It doesn't keep going since there's no such thing as a free lunch.

Now I don't remember exactly when we talked about Newton's Laws, Kepler, etc but the laws of thermodynamics were something I had to memorize around the age of 12 in science class. Thus my rude response.

It's probably worth nothing that lots of hoaxes have been around over the years. Cold fusion for example. They said they had discovered a room temperature nuclear reaction that could generate all the energy we needed. It was complete bullshit.

The best we can hope for in the near future would be fusion energy. However even in this case the energy required to fuse atoms is enormous. Thus it's very difficult.

If you want renewable sources of energy we have come a very long way with solar power. My family makes a profit off of their solar panels and it only took a few years to get to that point. Pretty large strides since those shitty panels I had as a kid that couldn't even heat my pool and broke all the time. You might also want to look into geothermal power. In Sweden we use small temperature differences in the Earth to heat our homes. They put cables in the ground and voila you have cheap heat.

 

[AViking]

Also, you should check out the movie Primer.