The explanation for those weird Siberian craters isn't comforting

[CZroe]

Don't you think that alternative energy sources other than nuclear and coal could be brought online rapidly if there weren't special fossil and nuclear interests trying to sabotage any move in that direct?

Dr. Nocera, at MIT, has an answer that would solve our energy problems if the funding and a war of oil imports could be implemented.

The hydrogen fuel cell supplied by solar produced hydrogen and oxygen can be used to power anything. It can be used as a tiny power source or a massive one to power any energy need and the only resource that's required is water and sun.

And space. And materials (they don't last forever). And the NIMBY/environmentalists people will still object to all the windfarms ("they kill birds!"). And all the energy siphoned from the air and water is directly siphoned from the air and water (a 100% efficient giant wind-capturing kite, like Discover Magazine once laughably considered, would mean a dead stop to all wind passing through that area with obvious environmental impacts; a water turbine's resistance to water flow is directly proportional to it's efficiency so the ocean currents would be affected; stealing tidal energy will eventually destabilize the orbit of the moon, etc).

You didn't think about all THAT, did you?

 

[Jaskalas]

My take on how energy changes are likely to go down.

Natural gas revolution, presently happening.
Thorium / fission revolution... 20-30 years. - if it was green lighted today.
Solar revolution...30-50 years.
Fusion revolution...dreaming of 100-200 years.

A campaign needs to be formed to get these energy industries rolling. To look in-depth at their feasibility, the time it'd take to deploy them, and what roadblocks need to be overcome first.

Maybe if we have a knowledgeable organization hell bent on seeing this happen, we could map out a future for our energy needs and clear the way to make it happen, maybe even faster than my simple guesses.

Natural gas is taken care of, even if I fear shutting down coal is being rushed. Thorium is the next big thing ready to go. Any of you squeamish on that? Alternative energy is something we can work together on. If CO2 really concerns you, then I hope you won't hesitate to see that this is where we can start.

 

[dank69]

... stealing tidal energy will eventually destabilize the orbit of the moon, etc).

...

What?

 

[CZroe]

What?

It will affect the rotation of the moon and Earth. Look up "tidal friction."

You didn't think that energy was free, did you? LOL! Everyone should know that since they talked about Newton in 3rd grade.

 

[Moonbeam]

And space. And materials (they don't last forever). And the NIMBY/environmentalists people will still object to all the windfarms ("they kill birds!"). And all the energy siphoned from the air and water is directly siphoned from the air and water (a 100% efficient giant wind-capturing kite, like Discover Magazine once laughably considered, would mean a dead stop to all wind passing through that area with obvious environmental impacts; a water turbine's resistance to water flow is directly proportional to it's efficiency so the ocean currents would be affected; stealing tidal energy will eventually destabilize the orbit of the moon, etc).

You didn't think about all THAT, did you?

What do you mean by didn't think of that. I wasn't even talking about the stuff you mentioned. Dr. Nocera's work involves the discovery of cheap catalysts converting water into hydrogen and oxygen in the presence of sunlight and their use in fuel cells. Via this means a homeowner can use his roof to run his or her house and car. Of course, using solar energy will doubtless cause the sun to burn our prematurely, right. Wrong. Ready, fire, aim.

http://video.mit.edu/watch/daniel-nocera-describes-new-process-for-storing-solar-energy-2959/

 

[dank69]

It will affect the rotation of the moon and Earth. Look up "tidal friction."

You didn't think that energy was free, did you? LOL! Everyone should know that since they talked about Newton in 3rd grade.

I was under the impression that the moon's gravity affects the tides, not that the tides affect the moon's orbit.

 

[CZroe]

I was under the impression that the moon's gravity affects the tides, not that the tides affect the moon's orbit.

Conservation of energy states that energy can never be created or destroyed. It's a two-way street. Our tides affect the moon as much as the moon affects them, you just don't see it without the moon having seas of its own.

Another example of the "two-way street:"
The moon does not orbit the Earth, they both orbit around the combined center of their mass and THAT collectively orbits the combined center of their mass with the Sun. Obviously, this matters a great deal when the moon is 1/4 the size of the Earth but I doubt it could even be measured in our orbital relationship with the Sun.

 

[dank69]

Conservation of energy states that energy can never be created or destroyed. It's a two-way street. Our tides affect the moon as much as the moon affects them, you just don't see it without the moon having seas of its own.

Another example of the "two-way street:"
The moon does not orbit the Earth, they both orbit around the combined center of their mass and THAT collectively orbits the combined center of their mass with the Sun. Obviously, this matters a great deal when the moon is 1/4 the size of the Earth but I doubt it could even be measured in our orbital relationship with the Sun.

Yeah I know all that but I didn't think all the water on the earth would have a significant affect on the moon's orbit.

 

[CZroe]

What do you mean by didn't think of that. I wasn't even talking about the stuff you mentioned. Dr. Nocera's work involves the discovery of cheap catalysts converting water into hydrogen and oxygen in the presence of sunlight and their use in fuel cells. Via this means a homeowner can use his roof to run his or her house and car. Of course, using solar energy will doubtless cause the sun to burn our prematurely, right. Wrong. Ready, fire, aim.

http://video.mit.edu/watch/daniel-nocera-describes-new-process-for-storing-solar-energy-2959/

Yes you were because hydrogen fuel cells require renewable electrical energy to generate. Even limiting it to solar cells, a 100% efficient solar cell robs 100% of the heat and other energy the sunlight would have imparted into the environment the same as a 100% efficient wind turbine would rob 100% of the passing wind's energy, which would now never pass (impossible, of course). An extreme example is that shadows are very cold on the moon. If we start covering the Earth in these and efficiency improves, we have less wind, rain, etc in addition to completely ruining the environment for anything that naturally lives beneath (your house already does this).

Without cold fusion, there is no free lunch.

Also, all Hydrogen fuel cells do is make electrical energy densely portable at the expense of efficiency. IMO, it would almost be a waste of the solar energy if we could even generate that much, which is why Elon Musk laughed at the idea of using them instead of Li-Ion. I don't know if fuel cell or lithium ion converts and stores energy more efficiently, but they are both inefficient with their converting/charging losses so I'd prefer super/ultracapacitors replacing both technologies.

 

[CZroe]

Yeah I know all that but I didn't think all the water on the earth would have a significant affect on the moon's orbit.

Think about all the energy we use to get to the moon and illuminate our planet and then think about how much less conservative we'd be with it if energy were "free" (regardless of efficiency). Let's go to Mars! Venus! Alpha Centauri!

 

[K1052]

Yeah I know all that but I didn't think all the water on the earth would have a significant affect on the moon's orbit.

Yes, in several million years there might be some effects if we harvested all of humanity's energy needs from tidal.

 

[dank69]

Yes, in several million years there might be some effects if we harvested all of humanity's energy needs from tidal.

That's what I was thinking, heh. So I'm not crazy.

 

[Moonbeam]

CZroe: Yes you were because hydrogen fuel cells require renewable electrical energy to generate. Even limiting it to solar cells, a 100% efficient solar cell robs 100% of the heat and other energy the sunlight would have imparted into the environment the same as a 100% efficient wind turbine would rob 100% of the passing wind's energy, which would now never pass (impossible, of course). An extreme example is that shadows are very cold on the moon. If we start covering the Earth in these and efficiency improves, we have less wind, rain, etc in addition to completely ruining the environment for anything that naturally lives beneath (your house already does this).

M: All of this is incorrect except the part about no trees growing under my house and I'm going to ask you to figure out why you are wrong. You already gave the reason above in one of your posts.

C: Without cold fusion, there is no free lunch.

M: There is no free lunch there either. A cheap lunch that is nutritious is nice though.

C: Also, all Hydrogen fuel cells do is make electrical energy densely portable at the expense of efficiency. IMO, it would almost be a waste of the solar energy if we could generate that much, which is why Elon Musk laughed at the idea of using them instead of Li-Ion. I don't know if fuel cell or lithiun ion converts and stores energy more efficiently, but they are both inefficient with their converting/charging losses so I'd prefer supercapacitors replacing both technologies.[/QUOTE]

M: You are addressing the wrong issues here. It is always more efficient to use solar power directly as a power source than charging batteries or burning hydrogen created with solar energy. That is not the issue. The issue is that the sun doesn't always shine or in sufficient quantities/area for the energy needs. The reason that the oxidation of water via electrocatalysts is important is because energy the energy required to break the water molecule is returned when hydrogen and oxygen recombine. Think about that carefully. And this can be done at night or the hydrogen burned in an engine or fuel cell. Toyota is producing a fuel cell car for production, I believe.

 

[Moonbeam]

That's what I was thinking, heh. So I'm not crazy.

Tidal drag on the moon has already slowed its rotation to once an orbit. You don't need an ocean to experience it. The surface of the continents also rises and falls with the rotation of the sun and the moon but not to the same degree because of their greater density.

 

[CZroe]

CZroe: Yes you were because hydrogen fuel cells require renewable electrical energy to generate. Even limiting it to solar cells, a 100% efficient solar cell robs 100% of the heat and other energy the sunlight would have imparted into the environment the same as a 100% efficient wind turbine would rob 100% of the passing wind's energy, which would now never pass (impossible, of course). An extreme example is that shadows are very cold on the moon. If we start covering the Earth in these and efficiency improves, we have less wind, rain, etc in addition to completely ruining the environment for anything that naturally lives beneath (your house already does this).

M: All of this is incorrect except the part about no trees growing under my house and I'm going to ask you to figure out why you are wrong. You already gave the reason above in one of your posts.

C: Without cold fusion, there is no free lunch.

M: There is no free lunch there either. A cheap lunch that is nutritious is nice though.

C: Also, all Hydrogen fuel cells do is make electrical energy densely portable at the expense of efficiency. IMO, it would almost be a waste of the solar energy if we could generate that much, which is why Elon Musk laughed at the idea of using them instead of Li-Ion. I don't know if fuel cell or lithiun ion converts and stores energy more efficiently, but they are both inefficient with their converting/charging losses so I'd prefer supercapacitors replacing both technologies.

M: You are addressing the wrong issues here. It is always more efficient to use solar power directly as a power source than charging batteries or burning hydrogen created with solar energy. That is not the issue. The issue is that the sun doesn't always shine or in sufficient quantities/area for the energy needs. The reason that the oxidation of water via electrocatalysts is important is because energy the energy required to break the water molecule is returned when hydrogen and oxygen recombine. Think about that carefully. And this can be done at night or the hydrogen burned in an engine or fuel cell. Toyota is producing a fuel cell car for production, I believe.

Toyota is, and that is what Elon Musk was commenting on. Honda just pulled theirs from the market (FCX Clarity).

Anyway, my point was that if the promise of super/ultracapacitor tech is ever realized (more likely than most alternative energies) then it would be FAR superior to generating hydrogen fuel cells. It can balance power availability without the losses of generating fuel cell hydrogen. [It is much more efficient with no conversion losses.]

Oh, and if the Sun's energy is "free" due to fusion, then converting some matter in cold fusion should be considered similarly "free." I was borrowing the semantic.

 

[Darwin333]

1: Those things are called Pingo
2: If you want to stop CO2 emissions, are you prepared to tell the developing world to stay poor and impoverished? Do you think they'll listen?


If one really believed an ELE was imminent due to CO2 emissions, the only answer that would be effective is nuclear winter to wipe humanity off the face of the earth. Because if you listen to the alarmists that'd be nicer to the planet than what we are supposedly doing.

Of course they want to have their cake and eat it too. Their primary solution is to control us and slowly, insidiously but consistently attack our industry. What they fail to appreciate is that the poorer mankind is, the less likely we are to make it to a scientific revolution that would free us from the human = CO2 emission equation.

Naw, no need to go to the extreme of nuclear winter. We just need to kill a very large portion of the poor assholes in the world, maybe something biological that we have a vaccine for? We can bribe the major nuclear powers with access to the vaccine but the smaller ones, especially all those poor fuckers in India, got to go.

The best part is we should get double bonus points when the uninhabited cities return to nature and become overgrown (more plants sucking up CO2).

 

[Moonbeam]

CZroeAnyway, my point was that if the promise of supercapacitor tech is ever realized (more likely than most alternative energies) then it would be FAR superior to generating hydrogen fuel cells.

M: I am going to assume you mean 'than power generated using fuel cells' because you would have to manufacture rather than generate the cells themselves. I have no problem with the concept of Super Capacitors but that is a down stream solution to energy storage rather than the main issue, energy generation. I focused on fuel cells because they use hydrogen as a fuel and it is water cracking that can provide hydrogen. If a cheap method can be commercialized, and there is evidence, I think, that it can, then a government funding on a major scale in that direction would do much to solve our energy problems.

With capacitors, the energy has to come from somewhere. It could come from solar energy from photovoltaics or fuel cells generators, nuclear or any other source. The issue remains as to where the power to charge them comes from. If hydrogen can produced cheaply and plentifully from sunlight like in a leaf, then our energy problems will be over. It doesn't matter if hydrogen is more or less energy dense. It's the availability that matters. I think it would be great to have solar cells on my house that generate both electricity directly and store surplus as hydrogen fuel to charge any form of engine in my car, fuel cell or battery or capacitor for that matter. The point is whether there is a commercial device that can be made at a cost efficient price. This would be true if you could use sunlight to create billions or rats running wheel generators in cages by feeding them directly with sunlight

It can balance power availability without the losses of generating fuel cell hydrogen.

Oh, and if the Sun's energy is "free" due to fusion, then converting some matter in cold fusion should be considered similarly "free." I was borrowing the semantic.

 

[Paratus]

I was under the impression that the moon's gravity affects the tides, not that the tides affect the moon's orbit.

While Czroe is technically right, (his favorite kind), what he fails to mention is that it would take approximately 83 million years to reduce the moons kinetic energy to 0 if we drained it to supply the entire worlds energy. (Thank you Wolfram Alpha)

So he's basically trolling. Tidal energy will never realistically damage the moons orbit.

Edit: I see I was beaten to the answer.:thumbsup:

 

[theeedude]

While Czroe is technically right, (his favorite kind), what he fails to mention is that it would take approximately 83 million years to reduce the moons kinetic energy to 0 if we drained it to supply the entire worlds energy. (Thank you Wolfram Alpha)

So he's basically trolling. Tidal energy will never realistically damage the moons orbit.

Edit: I see I was beaten to the answer.:thumbsup:

Moon would crash into earth before it's kinetic energy is 0 tho

 

[Paratus]

Czroe seems to be on a tear of running to extremes.

To address his comment about sucking down all the energy out of the environment, even if we could with 100% efficiency convert sunlight to electricity we would use 0.008211 percent of the yearly incident solar radiation.

Since we've already dumped almost a dinosaur killers worth of energy into the ocean thanks to global warming, this would help the environment more than hurt it.

 

[Paratus]

Moon would crash into earth before it's kinetic energy is 0 tho

Didn't feel like figuring that part out.

Still we're talking 10's of millions of years. So I call:

 

[iGas]

China is already on board.

China & India Are Building 4 New Coal Power Plants – Every Week

Global demand for coal is expected to grow to 8.9 billion tons by 2016 from 7.9 billion tons this year. China is expected to add about 160 new coal-fired plants to the 620 operating now, within four years. During that period, India will add more than 46 plants.

http://www.thegwpf.org/china-india-building-4-coal-power-plants-week/

 

[Moonbeam]

Czroe seems to be on a tear of running to extremes.

To address his comment about sucking down all the energy out of the environment, even if we could with 100% efficiency convert sunlight to electricity we would use 0.008211 percent of the yearly incident solar radiation.

Since we've already dumped almost a dinosaur killers worth of energy into the ocean thanks to global warming, this would help the environment more than hurt it.

Can you explain this? I don't understand how you can only use a tiny portion of something if you convert 100% of it. The thing I didn't think was right about his 'sucking the energy out' argument was what he also pointed out, that energy can't be created or destroyed. It's like saying that trees are sucking up all the sunlight, but it's trees etc. as coal and oil that are causing global warming. Energy can be converted from one form to another which will ultimately result in heat death. But a windmill is basically using kinetic energy in wind created by solar heat back to electricity and heat again. The heat is stored and released, and reflected back into space, not so well as before as CO2 collects in the atmosphere. What that is doing is creating more wind rather than causing the wind to stop. But for every calorie of heat from the sun turned into wind, that calorie will be returned to the earth by friction. It doesn't matter if it's the energy requited to blow over the ground bend the branches of a tree or a turban blade. The wind will eventually stop.

 

[Paratus]

Can you explain this? I don't understand how you can only use a tiny portion of something if you convert 100% of it. The thing I didn't think was right about his 'sucking the energy out' argument was what he also pointed out, that energy can't be created or destroyed. It's like saying that trees are sucking up all the sunlight, but it's trees etc. as coal and oil that are causing global warming. Energy can be converted from one form to another which will ultimately result in heat death. But a windmill is basically using kinetic energy in wind created by solar heat back to electricity and heat again. The heat is stored and released, and reflected back into space, not so well as before as CO2 collects in the atmosphere. What that is doing is creating more wind rather than causing the wind to stop. But for every calorie of heat from the sun turned into wind, that calorie will be returned to the earth by friction. It doesn't matter if it's the energy requited to blow over the ground bend the branches of a tree or a turban blade. The wind will eventually stop.

All I did was take the worlds yearly consumption of energy from wiki (~140000terrawatt hours in 2008) and divided by the total yearly incident solar irradiance of the Earth, (1350W/m^2 x the half the surface area of the Earth in a year)

I assumed that the solar energy was completely turned into electrical energy so no heating loss occurs, which is wrong but simplified things and gave him the benefit of the doubt. It also ignores that most of the 140000TWH will be turned into heat anyway when used to turn on lights, run computers, etc.

We need to keep working on cheap PV arrays, wind, and while I know you and I don't see eye to eye on it, nuclear. Specifically I'd like to see new reactors that can be used to extract power from our current waste stock piles making it safer.

I'd like to see cheap solar on top of most residential roofs and available to 3rd world countries. This fixes the need for huge upgrades to the grid.

I'd like to see baseline coal plants replaced with natural gas at the minimum in the short term.

The sooner we start making small necessary changes the sooner we get the issue under control.

 

[OverVolt]

I'm not surprised our resident denialists are ignoring this post.

I hate to say it, but it would probably be better to cap and flare the methane then let it escape into the atmosphere.

Although judging from the size of the Arctic and the potential amount of methane, there's probably too much to do anything directly about it.

We probably can't terraform the planet. Evolution will always be throwing a wrench into the climate chemistry of the planet. Yet alone the planet itself burping up whatever minerals and gases.

Take this for example: http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...tion-breaks-down-lignin-slows-coal-formation/

It was only 300 million years ago that the ability to breakdown lignin had evolved. For the other 4.3 billion years... tons of sequestered carbon was just building up as coal. We could easily be wiped out by some new simple bacterium that screwed up the chemistry of the atmosphere. Its just life. There were periods of time where there was way too much oxygen, or way too much CO2, or way too much methane, or way too much ice, or not enough ice, etc. etc. The bacterium and plants always seem to adapt.

We're no better than some random bacterium that pumps out a ton of CO2 as far as the planets chemistry cares.