What's wrong with Pervasive use of these Energy Sources

What's wrong with the Pervasive use of carbon trading, biofuels, alternative hydrocarbons such as the tar sands and oil shale, carbon sequestration at coal mines, the hydrogen economy, nuclear power, hybrid cars, air cars, solar and wind, and (arguably) Cold Fusion, Zero Point Energy, water Fuel Cell, and other Perpetual Motion Machines?

[edit on 10-2-2010 by masonicon]

most of what you said isn't really a problem. Some of the rest is nothing more than speculation and perpetual motion is a blatant violation of the 2nd law and not Asimovs. Perpetual motion breaks the rules of entropy.

Cold fusion is dead in the water. The navy is still working on it, but from the info available to the public it seems that chemicly assisted nuclear reactions are a distant dream.

The rest are just expensive. Eventually we'll have to bite the bullet and pay up. Which is why it's my opinion that the "older stock" leading most of the worlds governments are holding out. They want us to pay the bills while they posthumously laugh it up and sip earthworm cocktails in the ninth circle.

Carbon trading:
In theory it's a decent enough idea in an attempt to limit pollution by providing incentives for those that work to lower their emissions, while "fining" (in the form of buying carbon credits) excessive emissions. How it will actually end up working is yet to be seen. I'm not confident enough in my understanding of the details and context to make a serious criticism or applaud the idea of Cap & Trade. However, as a social theory, the basic concept works fairly well, and something like it should still be pursued if Carbon Trading doesn't pan out.

Biofuels:
As a supplement, nothing. As an industry, Biofuels have created a demand which has shifted the focus to the production of resources to create the fuels like Ethanol rather than converting excesses waste like lawn clippings, leaves, corn stalks, etc... because those sources of stock resource aren't reliable. Grass clipping waste plummets in the winter. In the end, Biofuels have probably caused more environmental damage than they have prevented since it has encouraged more deforestation for increased farm acreage, their emissions are only marginally cleaner, and Corn Ethanol production has adversely affected the price of food by allowing energy corporations to vie for the same resource (Corn) and land which farmers use as a staple feed stock.

Alternative hydrocarbons such as the tar sands and oil shale:
There's nothing wrong with them. They are viable and profitable sources of energy. They're just quite a bit harder to access, refine, and produce reliably sufficient quantities. The price per barrel is much higher. So why bother when cheap and easy to access oil is readily available? Why hope the technology is there to reduce production costs later when maximal profit margins are right here, right now? The oil is limited and running out fast, and if you don't stay competitive today - you run a greater risk of bankruptcy tomorrow.

Carbon sequestration at coal mines.
Awesome idea... who knew you could just bury your problems and forget them? We can just store this crap underground, and it's like it never existed! It's worked great for the Nuclear Waste industry right? Sarcasm aside, I simply don't think the risks of leakage are worth the risk. Of all the methods, Ocean Basalt Storage sounds the most promising, but I'd still prefer a more useful, if not more reliable, method of dealing with CO2 scrubbed from the atmosphere. Craig Venter has a unique solution to the problem. He's discovered a bacterium which consumes CO2 as a feedstock, while excreting viably high octane fuels as a waste byproduct. Essentially, they eat CO2 and crap gasoline. However they're not quite efficient enough at the conversion for industrial use. Synthetic Genomics is working on engineering a strain of this bacteria which greatly improved photosynthesis efficiency.

Algal cells are grown, harvested, and then bioprocessed to recover the lipids from within the cells. In contrast, in one of our solutions, SGI has engineered algal cells to secrete oil in a continuous manner through their cell walls, thus facilitating the production of algal fuels and chemicals in large-scale industrial operations. Our first product in this area is a biocrude to be used as a feedstock in refineries. ~ Synthetic Genomics

The Hydrogen Economy:
I think it's largely a pipe dream. Hydrogen will no doubt be a vital source of energy in the future, but Solar Power is going to replace coal as the major source of electricity generation. If we can manage to capture just 1/10th of 1% of the energy which falls on the Earth, we can meet all of our projected energy requirements through 2030. And we're only a few machine generations away from that projected goal. Furthermore, we already have the basic working infrastructure for electricity that can be upgraded and expanded as needed. The infrastructure necessary for a hydrogen economy doesn't exist. The problem, however, is that Solar Power is fundamentally an end-user energy production source which will eventually decentralize energy production into a bottom-up network of users rather than corporate production facilities processing resources that consumers cannot do individually. Thus, that energy must be purchased from a producer who can meter it and profit from it. Solar Panels are getting cheaper, but they're still fairly costly to manufacture. Initially I can see condensed "Solar Farms" only a corporation can finance, which will eventually give way to end-user leasing of Solar Panels for home use. When solar power becomes affordable enough for direct sale to the consumer, I'm not sure what energy corporations will do... aside from diversify.

Nuclear Power:
Two major problems. Radioactive Waste as a byproduct. There's no real way to dispose of it short of burying it underground... but we're going to have to deal with it sooner or later. Secondly, zoning issues. Despite the safety of Nuclear Power - the images of "Chernobyl" are seared into public perception much the way the Hindenburg put the fear of hydrogen storage in us. Nobody wants a Nuclear Power Plant in their community. On the bright side, some real gains are being made with Fusion power generation, though we're still quite a ways off from application.

Hybrid Cars:
Nothing. They just don't sell worth a damn here. Ultimately though, they're nothing more than a stop-gap solution that's only marginally greener than standard gasoline vehicles. Once electric cars start providing the performance, range, and convenience of gasoline engines for a reasonable price - hybrids will be rendered more a historic curiosity. The Betamax of Automobiles.

Air Cars:
Not sure what you're asking. Flying cars you mean? Flying cars are viable now, but they're only desirable if you're one of the very few who owns them. Widespread adoption would only create traffic jams in the sky, and add a hell of a lot more regulation and demand more resources than are worth the effort to manage the flow of traffic. The risk of fatality and property damage resulting from collisions would skyrocket as well.

Solar and Wind (wave, hydroelectric, etc):
They're coming along, but their efficiency isn't high enough yet to make them viable replacements. Solar Power currently is not only stymied by it's own roadblocks, but it's maturation is throttled by storage capacity of batteries necessary for low sun penetration & night time electricity. Wind power hits some hurdles with land use. It's really most effective when large scale wind farms are set up in breezy areas. However, many people consider them an eyesore to natural beauty and they can lower property values on communities they're nearby. They also generate areas of low pressure which has been shown to cause bats lungs to explode. Also, wind farms create "wakes" of air movement which reduces efficiency of other windmills behind them by up to 40%.

Cold Fusion:
I heard there's been some resurgence of interest by serious researchers, but so far, IIRC nothing substantial has been put forward which has been able to pass peer review or can be demonstrated and reproduced.

Zero Point Energy & Perpetual Motion Machines:
I'll lump these two together under the same explanation. It has yet to be modeled, demonstrated, or reproduced in control environments. The Law of Conservation of Energy has yet to be repealed or shown to have been violated. It's merely pseudoscience until one of the two above criteria are fulfilled. Either we have to observe and describe known violations of the CoE, or the researchers trying to promote such contraptions need follow the scientific method and get some papers past peer review.

If you're interested, here's a lecture on the state and projected future of alternative energy sources going into the future, getting off fossil fuels, and their effects on the economy. Guest speaker is Dan Arvizu from the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory.


[edit on 11-2-2010 by Lasheic]

carbon sequestration at coal mines

I assume you mean carbon capture and sequestration at coal and natural gas power plants. It does not exist on a large scale this point and has a very long way to go (>decade) before it does become viable and economical. Normal natural gas power plants are at the moment very attractive because they're cheap and easy to build, and also the fuel itself is cheap at the moment. It's also far cleaner than coal.

nuclear power,

Relative to coal and gas, it has a high capital cost, that is usually many times higher than natural gas or coal. This is recouped somewhat because it has significantly lower operating costs. If we assume the price of natural gas rises, and we add a carbon tax on coal, then Nuclear will become very competitive with fossil fuels. I don't beleive in carbon tax, but let's not forget that the cat is out of the bag. It's happening. We also can take steps to lower the capital cost of Nuclear. China is building state of the art western reactors at less than half the projected costs of reactors in the United States. Some of these reactors in China are coming in approximately 10% under-budget, a few months ahead of schedule. Similar things have happened in Japan and South Korea. Why can't we emulate this?

Nuclear is also relatively risky for investors because investors don't have much experience with nuclear technology, furthermore, government and environmental groups love to intervene, delaying projects. Obama just increased the loan guarantees to the nuclear industry to 54 billion dollars, meaning that the risk to investors will go down. Also please look up what a loan guarantee is because it is not a subsidy or bailout.

Lastly, Nuclear is seeing a resurgence world-wide. In 2007 there was 28 reactors under construction. Now there is 53. In 2007 there was 67 reactors planned. Now there is 142. In 2007 there was 158 reactors proposed. Now? 327. And for good reason. If a country wants energy independence, carbon free energy, then Nuclear is the best way to achieve it. Even Obama now is encouraging nuclear development. Cost depends on a number of factors, mostly politics. Many issues are mainly political, not technical. We could bury the waste in the ground & we could also burn it up in fast reactors, but of course, these projects often get canceled purely for political reasons, not technical, environmental, or economic reasons.

solar and wind,

Neither can provide base-load energy, nor energy on demand. They both need huge amounts of space, wind is more capital intensive than even Nuclear (of course, wind is lower risk), solar is massively more expensive than Nuclear, and they both get a huge amount of subsidies. They also need fossil fuel backup. Energy storage technically would help, but it is expensive and does not allow them to generate more electricity. Technology to fix these problems does not yet exist and will not for some time. Supplying significant amounts of the worlds electricity from either is merely an absolute pipe-dream except in the very long-term.

and (arguably) Cold Fusion, Zero Point Energy, water Fuel Cell, and other Perpetual Motion Machines?

Mostly made up in the minds of Ayn Rand acolytes who blame their own failures on other people whenever possible. It's not their fault, of course, that they failed, it's the technologies that actually works fault.

[edit on 11/2/2010 by C0bzz]

reply to post by Lasheic


Zero Point Energy & Perpetual Motion Machines:
I'll lump these two together under the same explanation. It has yet to be modeled, demonstrated, or reproduced in control environments. The Law of Conservation of Energy has yet to be repealed or shown to have been violated. It's merely pseudoscience until one of the two above criteria are fulfilled. Either we have to observe and describe known violations of the CoE, or the researchers trying to promote such contraptions need follow the scientific method and get some papers past peer review.

Hi,
I have done this already and now enhancing the prototype, having also closed the loop once.
You can see the synopsis at www.scribd.com...
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has been successfully broken.

Cheers

Originally posted by savvys84
reply to post by Lasheic

 

Hi,
I have done this already and now enhancing the prototype, having also closed the loop once.
You can see the synopsis at www.scribd.com...
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has been successfully broken.

Cheers

So you say. Unfortunately, a mention in a local newspaper does not pass for publication in a peer review journal. If you claim to have reliably violated the first law of thermodynamics, then surely you can describe the principals behind how you accomplished this marvel. If it can be described, it can be reliably tested and identical results to yours can be independently reproduced under controlled conditions.

I call shenanigans. At best, you have made an oversight or error leading to a false positive. At worst, you're promoting a fraudulent claim. I tend to lean towards the former, but regardless of that, the fact remains that until you subject your work to the scientific method - you're merely claiming magic under the guise of pseudoscience.


Question: One of the articles posted in your link referred to you seeking a patent for your device. I find such action curious, since you cannot patent a physics equation. That equation, if your claim were true, would be the single most vital component of your contraption. Even were you to patent your device, there is nothing to prevent someone else from using that supposed loophole in physics to create their own competing product and (if backed by greater resources) drive you from the market. Why then, would you not try to protect your greatest asset by publishing your paper, winning the frick'in Nobel Prize for Physics, and use your new-found notoriety to secure financial backing, a high-pay R&D position, product endorsement deals, strategic partnerships, etc?

Sounds to me like you're following a cliche conspiracy theory script, relating your trials and tribulations in a manner appealing and eagerly accepted by many conspiracy theorists. If you actually did have anything beyond a story to tell, I think the magnitude of possibilities it represented to you and the world would be too overwhelming to ignore. You wouldn't be messing around with ATS or local newspaper spaces. You'd be focused on finding a reputable physics professor to help co-author the paper that would make you famous and ensure your discovery would benefit mankind.

Free Energy devices won't Violate laws of Thermodynamics, but Violate laws of conservation of energy and this law is created to hampers development of Free Energy device so this forces people to depend on Petroleum until it's completely depleted and this also forces people waiting for 50-100 years for solving energy Crisis

[edit on 11-2-2010 by masonicon]

reply to post by masonicon


The "laws of conservation of energy" is part of the laws of thermodynamics.

[edit on 11/2/2010 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by C0bzz
reply to post by masonicon

 

The "laws of conservation of energy" is part of the laws of thermodynamics.

[edit on 11/2/2010 by C0bzz]

why they create Theories that States Free Energy is Impossible?

Originally posted by masonicon
Free Energy devices won't Violate laws of Thermodynamics, but Violate laws of conservation of energy and this law is created to hampers development of Free Energy device so this forces people to depend on Petroleum until it's completely depleted and this also forces people waiting for 50-100 years for solving energy Crisis

[edit on 11-2-2010 by masonicon]

thermodynamics is an invention of the man to keep us in the dark about alternative energy. . . . . .

dont tell the scientific community they're really committed to the lie

Originally posted by masonicon

Originally posted by C0bzz
reply to post by masonicon

 

The "laws of conservation of energy" is part of the laws of thermodynamics.

[edit on 11/2/2010 by C0bzz]

why they create Theories that States Free Energy is Impossible?

they didn't create anything. They discovered it. It is rock solid. The most reliable "theory" we have. Thats why it's a LAW.

Yes it's rock solid. What you forgot to point out is that this discovery applies to closed steam engines. If you are so in love with that law then all you say is we live in that steam engine instead outside of it, problem solved. The universe is open not closed, energy is everywhere beyond numbers we can imagine.

Perhaps you should start 120 years ago with Tesla and work your way up. Your mainstream physics books won't teach you to open your mind and explore. It will make you a smart ass that comes on ATS trying to show off his physics 101 knowledge.

The world is one one hell of a mountain of horse dong. We either hold hands and work towards a solution no matter how crazy it might sound to others, or we go separate ways and leave the more open minded succeed.

reply to post by Lasheic

Hey! Keep your shirt on.
I have a Bachelors degree in engineering, and consequently dont need any frigging physics proffeser to team up with, to generate a technical paper. Why would an engineer make errors in measurement as you imply. I will upload, the preliminary results on the same link, when I have some time.
Obviously, you know nothing about patenting. Pl read page 31 of the patent journal, to see the principle and the abstract and not to mention, the title of invention.
Whats more, you are welcome to visit here and see the prototype for yourself and take measurements to satisfy your doubts.

cheers

how about UFO related technologies?

Originally posted by Lasheic


Biofuels: Ethanol



Air Cars:
Not sure what you're asking. Flying cars you mean? Flying cars are viable now, but they're only desirable if you're one of the very few who owns them. Widespread adoption would only create traffic jams in the sky, and add a hell of a lot more regulation and demand more resources than are worth the effort to manage the flow of traffic. The risk of fatality and property damage resulting from collisions would skyrocket as well.

biofuels ethanol is a looser.

biobutanol can be used directly in a gasoline engine and hence is considered a direct replacement for gasoline. The butanol can be burned straight in the existing gasoline engines without any alteration to the engine or car. It is also claimed that this butanol produces more energy. Also, butanol has a less corrosive effect and is less soluble in water than ethanol.
en.wikipedia.org...

It can be made using the Fischer–Tropsch process.
The feed stock would be the millions of tons of trash, organic waste, sewage. farm waste.
not new the Fischer–Tropsch process has been around since the 1920s.
en.wikipedia.org...
These are all unwanted waste and we have been burying and burning them.
why not make fuel from them and get rid of landfills and quit dumping treated sewage into our rivers with the trace drug contents that treated sewage has.

Air Cars are not flying cars but cars that run on compressed air.
compressed air tanks are a lot lighter then batteries and non toxic.

When you push your power supply you need the lightest power supply you can get.
Air is that so you get longer ranges.
www.ecogeek.org...

Not new. Compressed air vehicles have been around since 1886
www.aircaraccess.com...
I have run Air Locomotives underground in mines and they work.

Hybrid air diesel cars or trucks would beat any hybrid battery cars or trucks
just because they would weight less. and have lower construction cost.






[edit on 11-2-2010 by ANNED]

reply to post by ANNED

Hybrid cars is all but greenwash while biofuel is just little more than greenwash

free Energy Suppression is Hampering us to go past type 0 civilization status and it's unfair if we need to wait peak oil just for go Type 1 Civilization

Free Energy also allows us to go past type 0 status with existing technologies

reply to post by masonicon


Free energy? Where? I want just one single example of the law being violated. A verified example. A working machine that has been independantly tested or a concept that has been proven. With experiments. Repeatable experiments. That have been repeated by independent groups.

--------------------------------------------


Compressed air is a much more efficient way of storing energy than batteries. The newer air cars have small gas powered engines built in that power compressors. The idea is that in a pinch you can just fire it up and wait on the side of the road while your car recharges its air tanks. This eliminates the need for a network of "air stations". The other thing is making them safe. They try to make them as light as possible, which sometimes comes at the expense of safety. How much would one that would protect you an in accident with the average American car weigh? I don't think anyone has tried to build a safe air car. Just a lightweight, cheap one.

[edit on 12-3-2010 by garritynet]

Originally posted by garritynet
reply to post by masonicon

 

Free energy? Where? I want just one single example of the law being violated. A verified example. A working machine that has been independantly tested or a concept that has been proven. With experiments. Repeatable experiments. That have been repeated by independent groups.

Thanks to the Scientific McDonaldization, everything that Scientifically Proven by Independent Groups instead Mainstream Scientists are ended up labeled as Pseudoscience

[edit on 13-3-2010 by masonicon]