Welcome to the php ebenezer's messageboard
see bottom for more info


back to main board collapse thread
Energy and water (22/06/18 08:06:45) Reply
    Nobody needs to argue for the importance of food production. Nobody needs to argue about the importance of energy supplies. Bioenergy seems like a problem when ethanol and biodiesel compete with food production and conservation of nature. Usually the debate is a polarised and impossible one - with fundamentalists on both sides taking the most active part. It is either the freedom of capitalism, or the uncompromising aversion against all sorts of tampering with the existing natural environment.

    The old agriculture had to be self-sufficient in all respects. Horses were essential for ploughing and transport. One estimate was that feeding the horses took some 15 percent of the production on a farm. So agriculture-for-energy isn't new.

    As always, the question is how.


    And then the water. I think we see - with the climate change (manmade or not - doesn't matter in this context) - more extremes. We saw it here this spring: More snow during winter, flooding of the rivers owing to sudden melting when the temperatures suddenly became summerly, and then a long drought severe enough to impair growth.

    There is buffering of water in the regulation of rivers. But should there be more? Localised water depots? Can we learn from Dune?

    Digging wells in arid areas solves an immediate problem, but may worsen the long-term prospects. Some know that already. So perhaps more decentral water storage should be one of the areas to explore in depth - with the aim of constructing cheap and sustainable systems applicable on short notice in a number of different environments?

    Anyway, it's better than investing in weapons. But how can we bend the powers that be?

Re: Energy and water (24/06/18 18:38:34) Reply
    The point is: Maybe also wet countries like mine will need to buffer water more effectively - locally.

Sustainable energy (25/06/18 10:45:18) Reply
    Whatever one may think about the cause of the climate change/global warming/ thawing of Arctic and Antarctic ice and European and Asian glaciers - future energy should not depend on tapping fossil fuels - I include uranium and thorium in the term. Too polluting or potentially polluting. (There is a very large thorium field in .no. Mining it is a horror story

    There is no reason to believe that this effort of establishing sustainable energy systems for the world is one for the masses: too much knowledge and creativity are needed, and there must be time and space and economy for probing theoretical possibilities by building prototypes. Politicians must be kept out because they need short term successes to justify the expenses - and short-term successes are unlikely.
    Some sort of skunkworks might function: the point is that political posturing and micromanagement will be destructive. So it will need funding, and it will need cover from ambitious and greedy people.

    So - batteries may serve for a while. Solar and wind together with hydroelectric energies look promising. You cannot run a large aircraft on batteries: the energy density is too low. And you cannot do aluminium smelting or steelmaking by with wind or solar power: Those systems require continuous supply of energy.

    Already today hydroelectric power can supply acceptable energy to smelters. There is still a long process ahead of us before jet engines can be powered sustainably.

Re: Sustainable energy (05/07/18 19:13:31) Reply
    it is all there for our use:

    gravity energy from the sun = 0 mining cost, nearly infinite duration ( if we can't drive the earth away from the red giant when the time comes, we will do something else. )

    hydrogen + carbon + solar energy = hydrocarbons; renewable and sustainable

    hydrogen + oxygen = water

    water + solar energy = hydrogen and oxygen which can be catalysed into ... water + usable energy work output

    you're a chemist, which as Feynman says is sort of a junior grade physicist, so you can see this is quite simple.

    it's the removal of the charlatans, oligarchs, and thieves that block the energy which is so abundantly surrounding us.

    is us.

    don't take my word for it:

    " The average peak pressure near the centre is about 10^35 pascals, which exceeds the pressure estimated for the most densely packed known objects in the Universe, neutron stars."


    and yet they don't state the obvious which that even withing the neutron stars are the googol number of protons which are packed in there.

    it's far more simple than tptb let on, to maintain their hold, the powers of suggestion and programming and hypnotic command

    yet the power is everywhere and free to everyone.

Re: Re: Sustainable energy (09/07/18 20:40:32) Reply
    Gravity energy may be harvested, but it is difficult and expensive:

    Here I feel the tyranny of size. Huge installations, much landscape architecture.

    Solar energy - photovoltaics - to me represent the freedom of the bottom because quantum phenomena are involved. Let the sun excite one atom, and you may harvest one electron.

    In countries with expensive electricity and much sun, solar power stations (photovoltaic) are already profitable, they tell me.

Re: Re: Re: Sustainable energy (10/07/18 23:09:44) Reply
    gravity powers the sun, hence solar fusion is gravity power

    yes, to be technical it is the interactions gravity with the strong and weak nuclear forces that release the energy of fusion in overcoming the strong and weak nuclear forces, but for all intents and purposes we can simplify to: gravity power

    of course potential energy in mass is also gravity power, like you say.

    And, importantly, gravity powered fusion 8 millions miles away is, for the next few hundred million years, free to use, absorb, capture, transmute etc.

    so naturally it's "profitable" because one must pass a break even cost point when the fuel is free, no matter how much the cost to transmute energy to work. this also negates any false arguments against implementation due to "low efficiency" - when the fuel is free efficiency is not a true factor in total cost. yes it may take more panels and batteries than in an "ideal" solution, but 1% or 30% or 99% efficient makes no difference in cost of power if the fuel is free.

    coal and oil other carbohydrates are also stored gravity energy, but there is a cost to extract it from it's naturally occurring locations to a place where it can do useful work. that does not exist with sunlight. the sunlight comes to most every local and is available most of the time.

    a hybrid of solar, hydro and hydrocarbon processing and production should work well. for example, one can process seawater to produce avation fuel which combusts to carbon oxides and water which plants process back into water and oxygen and make hydrocarbons.

    strategic solar farm placement can power all human activity in a very small foot print:



    that could be realized relatively quickly, say 20 years if everyone cooperated. And already calculated to be mostly out of areas of habitation so size impact is largely negated.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Sustainable energy (12/07/18 16:13:57) Reply
    Finding suitably lightweight and cost effective and clean processes is a hardish and slowish process. But with today's available brain power it is really only a question of determination. We don't even need political will. Just give us another nerdy billionaire. Battery-powered cars are now mainstream in .no. We have a private charging station in our garage and solar panels on the roof: unthinkable 10 years ago.

come again

messageboard's PHP script is a courtesy of Laurent

 This board has been visited 111130 timesCurrent time is 19/07/18 04:15:24