A 600 kilowatt wind turbine is considered to be the workhorse of wind farms worldwide. Such a machine in Canada costs $1.2 million to install, has a 50 meter tower, and a 43 meter blade diameter. They cost $6,000 per year to maintain, but pay for themselves in about 8 years. Wind turbines are so far the least expensive form of renewable energy. However it doesn't really make sense to build them for the transportation industry since, after all, electric cars aren't practical yet. But how about this:

Canadians consume 64.75 gigawatts of non-renewable electrical power. This comes from nuclear, coal & oil-fired powerplants. Replacing this would require us to build just 15 new wind turbines per day - one in each Canadian city - and would cost just $209.92 per person, per year, over 20 years. Plus wind turbines tend to pay for themselves in 8 years, after which our electrical bills would decrease substantially!

That's all it would take to get rid of nuclear, coal *and* oil from the power generation industry.

What do you say we do just that ? :-)

Except for one fact that you left out. That 600 kwatt fan does put out a constant 600 kwatts. what do you do on the days when the wind doesn't blow that hard, and not to mention the fact that blow as hard in every geographical location.

Even in high wind areas there are still plenty of days when the big fans stand still. I drive pass a big wind farm twice a day and let me tell you most of the time 90% don't spin. The only thing I think of when see that is, "Look at the waste, I have to pay for that!". Yes some of my money goes to pay for it. PG&E pays 43 Million a year to get power the farm and even though a portion is paid through taxes they saddle thier customers with the full cost.

They also have to face a major hurdle. They are causing just as much enviromental damage as coal power plants. A study was regarding the local bird population. They are flying and sometimes getting sucked into the blades. The local birds are on the edge of become no more, and every lowers thier numbers just that much more. It's an estimate of 2-4 birds a day.

In fact a bit south of there they are paying the same amount but can't get the power from the farm, becuase stringing more power lines would cost to much money and they can't ge the approval for enviromental reasons, but they signed the contract and have to pay anyways.


It's not a perfect solution, but does help reduce polution when you can get power from them. Also polotics will all ways get in the way, even the green kind!

Except for one fact that you left out. That 600 kwatt fan does put out a constant 600 kwatts. what do you do on the days when the wind doesn't blow that hard, and not to mention the fact that blow as hard in every geographical location.

Well that's obvious, isn't it??
Wind patterns in a particular geographic region are almost certainly predictable (on average), and so it should not be difficult to choose locations that maximise profit. If your power company is incapable of this, then too bad. It doesn't invalidate the pursuit in general.

Yes some of my money goes to pay for it. PG&E pays 43 Million a year to get power the farm and even though a portion is paid through taxes they saddle thier customers with the full cost.

Huh? You are almost guaranteed a cost savings at some point.

They also have to face a major hurdle. They are causing just as much enviromental damage as coal power plants. A study was regarding the local bird population. They are flying and sometimes getting sucked into the blades. The local birds are on the edge of become no more, and every lowers thier numbers just that much more. It's an estimate of 2-4 birds a day.

I don't consider 2-4 birds to be "just as much" damage as the irreversible damage a coal-fired plant's pollution is causing the environment on a global scale. My cat very nearly consumes 2-4 birds a day. I don't think my cat is equivalent to a coal-fired plant that produces tons of mutagens, biotoxins, and carbon dioxide a day. Sure, she leaves fur everywhere, but... :)

That would be awesome, an enviroment threating cat! A single cat.

There are other alternatives, depending on location. Wave to electricity generators is a favorite of mine. And the waves are almost always there. Of course some days are better than others, just like the wind. But unlike the wind it doesn't completely stop.

If you're not near the seaside then it's out as an option. But that's renewable and nonpolluting. I think the Japanese even had one for currents like the Gulf Stream current.

To get a little of topic for a moment there was a show on TV the other night about the Bermuda Triangle. One of the things that came up was that they sent this robotic submersible down and they were finding all this stuff on the ocean floor. Somehow or other they wound up near England. There they showed that a boat, that had purportedly sunk in the Bermudas, on the bottom having been carried by the Gulf Stream current. To me it was just astounding that it would still be in one piece much less survive that distance of being dragged along the bottom. But it does give the visualization of the push of the current. (So maybe it wasn't to far off topic after all)

When there is no wind, no power is produced. However there are plenty of areas where the wind blows 80 percent of the time, and the Bruce Wind Turbine (Ontario, Canada) often exceeds its maximum rated power output. But the real benefit of wind power is long-term with cumulative power produced on an annual basis. This results in a huge reduction in dependance on nuclear, coal & oil. In fact the 600 kW wind turbine in Bruce township, Ontario, averaging 28 percent of its maximum power production, is still expected to pay for itself in just 8 years.

Installation cost comparisons
--------------------------------------
coal = $1.20 per watt
diesel = $1.60 per watt
hydro = $1.34 to $1.87 per watt
wind = $2 per watt
heliostat = $4 to $5 per watt
nuclear = $4 to $6 per watt
photovoltaics = $6 to $7 per watt

Wind power seems to be in the price range that would make it one of two renewable power sources that can compete with coal & diesel. Nuclear isn't even in the ballpark. Why do we bother with nuclear? Nuclear is reliable, whereas the wind doesn't always blow full strength. Nuclear is also compact and doesn't emit visible air pollution (out of sight, out of mind). I personally like the hydro & wind options since they are renewable energy resources that also turn a profit.

The one concern with wind power is bird fatalities, which seem to be excessive. However mid-air collisions with obstacles is the leading natural cause of death in all bird populations. A study in California concluded that the number of collisions of birds with wind turbines was the same as highrise buildings, and it did not seem to matter if the blades were rotating or not. But the issue continues because a larger proportion of the bird fatalities were Raptors (eagles, falcons, etc.) who unexpectedly used the turbine towers as ideal nesting & perching spots. My opinion as a design engineer is that it would be a trivial effort to prevent birds perching/nesting on the towers altogether, and also to locate the towers away from areas where a lot of birds nest, e.g. seaside cliffs.

porfiry,


Well that's obvious, isn't it??
Wind patterns in a particular geographic region are almost certainly predictable (on average), and so it should not be difficult to choose locations that maximise profit. If your power company is incapable of this, then too bad. It doesn't invalidate the pursuit in general.

I was refering to the stats that Success_Machine posted. The stats appear to rely upon the turbines to produce thier full power constantly. I was just pointing out that this never happens. I have seen a row of ten turbines with only 3 spining. The area these turbines are in would have to be one of the best areas for the region, but yet they still can't produce enough power!

Taken from a web page about the Altamont Wind Farm (the same one I drive by).

The 6,000 wind turbines in the Altmaont pass generate 1 to 1.2 TWh (1,000,000,000-1,200,000,000 kWh) per year.

The Altamont Pass is one hour east of San Francisco in a series of low hills separating the bay area from the hot interior of the San Joaquin Valley.

That would be 200,000 Kwh per year per turbine

Keep in mind that the Altamont pass wind farm is the world largest concentration of turbines.

In 1999 California consumed 276 TWH. Now i will give the benifit of the doubt and go with the higher number of 1.2 TWH That Altamont produces with 6000 turbines. It would take 1,380,000 turbines just to produce the power demand of 1999.

Now I wouldn't call this efective, and I sure wouldn't call it cost efective. at 1.2 million $ a peace this would cost $1,656,000,000,000. Maintaining them would cost $82,800,000,000 over a 10 year peroid at $6000 per year per unit. Not to mention that it takes 8 years to pay off one turbine. It would take 13,248,000,000,000 years just to pay for the turbines. I won't even go into physical space requirments.

If this is the closest we are to renewable energy we will have put a man on Mars before it is efective. I may some day eat those words, but for now that is ware we stand. In higher population areas it is a matter of demand vs. out put, and the turbines just are not up to the job.

I stand by my original argument that it is a good suplament to conventional power generators, and helps reduce polution, but it is not the solution.

Wind power will never be able to generate enough power to supply any large scale demans, too small. In areas such as Arizona, and Nevada, we should experiment with large scale solar farms if you will. These could collect massive amounts of free, unpoluting sunlight, as long as these pannels were spread out over many miles. This could power near by cities such as Tuscon, and Las Vegas. Clouds wouldn't be a problem in the desert. The few clouds that occur would block a tiny percentage of sunlight barrely effecting power production. AC/DC converters, and photovalic cells are being reduced in price. Very soon this will be the most economic form of producing power in dry, desert states. Other than that, new nuclear plants should be built far away from populated areas to provide power to the US seaboards, or places where solar power can't be utilitzed. Oil and coal fired plants must never be built again.

My concept of renewable energy would be to have the solar collectors/microwave transmisson to collectors on earth. No weather problems. The beginning of space industry. Pollution will eventually make industry to expensive to operate within the atmosphere. Every year sees more regulations, requirements, fees, taxes, licenses, material cost increases, labor costs increases, ect. Some costs are not avoidable but others are. These are some of the very costs that are driving industries to seek 3rd world countries for bases of manufacture. But with the new found wealth these industries bring is also the desire for better living conditions. That ties right back to the enviroment and just delays the process somewhat. Eventually space will seem to be the one place with welcoming arms. Abundant raw materials, energy for the collecting, refridgation for free, heat for free. Processes available because of weightlessness that are not options here in this gravity well. Who knows how long this will take? But surely it will comw.

Having orbiting solar collectors is better than land-based power but there is a significant problem with it: they are extremely susceptible to anti-satellite weapons. If another country destroyed these power collectors, the nation's power source would be rendered useless. With the solar collectors in our borders they would be much easier to protect than in space. If someone tried to hit them in the continental US than it would be an act of war. Satellite collectors may not be viewed as a sovereign piece of American soil. Other than that concern it works.

Well then we would just have to arm them. Or use other satilites that could do double duty to protect them.

Lets not forget one other problem. We would still need focus our efforts on conserving energy. If we go hog wild we risk block out a significant amount of sunlight.

If we could find a renewable (I don't like the term renewable energy *) engery source that wouldn't have any ill effect on any thing else we would not have to worry one bit. This is the ideal state.

Any time we have to hold back inorder to conserve energy we inpact industry. When we impact industry we impact the economy. When we impact the economy we impact quality of life.

* Renewable engery would mean that there is an energy source that can be used up completly. When infact all we do is take one state of energy and change into another which in turn gets gets changed in another, and so on. It's all "renewable" some forms just not fast enough.

About satellite solar power, it would be more wise if we put the solar collecting satellite closer to the sun, the light would be brighter and we wouldn't block any light hitting Earth. The sunlight could be switched to microwaves, and then reflected off a smaller satellite down to a power plant on the ground which would use the microwaves to heat water into steam, driving turbines, that would produce power.

Putting the satellites out of plane of earth's orbit would solve the problem of light blockage. There might be some degrading of the power with distance due to beam spread. (Not being able to collect all that was sent and power dropping with distance from transmitter to reciever) Somewhere along the line in distance is the break even point where you don't recieve enough power in the transmission to make it feasable. (Where that would be I don't know but I'm sure it has already been researched and someone on the internet has the answer) As with all new technologies it starts close and as the equipment is refined and tweaked it gets better.

As far as satellites being a target, I would imagine threating a nations' power supply would be considered as an act of war much the same as Iraq and the oil fields. Not much difference as it is a resource that a nation would depend on.

My signature is taking up more space than my reply!

I reckon Australia should just build a huge solar power plant in the big desert we have here. and sell the power overseas, which our state was going to do for California, but some legislation of California prevented them from buying it.

but anyway, our state produced 24kw of solar power yesterday. :cool: Enough to power 1 home! I betcha that was my house! And it saved .02tonnes of CO2 from being freed!

I think that we should become more efficient. I always turn off switches at night and get the tellie off stand-by before going to bed. However, it is better to leave fluorescent lights on if you are only going away for a little while, because I hear it consumes a bit of electricity just to get them goin'.

Anyways, don't people realise that coal costs money! Wind costs nothing. Unless you artificially generate the wind to power the turbines. (possibly the greatest invention I have ever come up with).

Actually, I have come up with an idea for a renewable energy car. You see, it has solar panel on the roof the bonnet and back. So that provides the energy to get the car started. However, you also have wind turbine, about 25cm (10 1/2") on top of the car. Like two or more. This is surrounded by a wired cage for safety, but still lets the wind through. So when the car goes, the wind turbines power it. When at traffic lights you have the solar power. What to do when there is no sun. Don't worry I though about that to. At night time, push your car underneath a street light, or shine a torch on it, everyone takes shifts.

Do you like my idea?

In the early nineties, I watched a kids program about wildlife and the environment. It said that in the late nineties everyone will be driving solar powered cars. Me and my young mind thought ,wow!, but now it thinks, "silly me!" :)

I like it better than plugging one in all night to recharge. Solar cells are at present used for the recharge of wet cell batteries in remote locations. Especially for RTU's (Remote Transmitting Units). There they use a bank of wet cell batteries to power burst transmissions to a reciever elsewhere. This is used to gather info of whatever kind that industry requires. One such example is monitoring flow through gas pipelines for verifying no leaks in the system. No need to send someone out to read the meter on a daily basis. A central point recieves the info and compares to what was sent out. The figures will not match exactly but near enough to tell if a leak in present.

I came late to this thread. All the ideas have been discussed. So I have a few small stuff, I would like to share.

1. Geothermal: We have a water well on the property with water temperature at a constant 67 F. I am thinking to drill two wells 100 meters apart. Then suck water from one well and run it through a heat exchanger and drain it to the other well. In summer time I can keep the house cool and in the winter time I may have to add a small heater to maintain the temperature. The AC is the biggest expense in a home in a hot area like ours.

2. Solar heat: A large number of Arizona residents have solar heat powered hot wanter heaters. That is another big energy user.

Cooking and clothes drying are also two major energy users. Unfortunately I have not figured that out, unless you drill two more holes in the ground for 2 miles deep to get the steam to cook.

The light portion of energy for the house is minimal, so one can use photovoltaics to power the lights only. I have not found a cheap product yet to justify the purchase.

3. Automobile: Corn to alcohol to fuel cell to electricity should be a renewable resource. Then have 4 - 50 HP wheel motors on the car should be cheaper to produce and not much degradation in efficiency over the life of a car.

Same fuel cell process could be used to power the home too.

PV technology as it exists today requires optimum power production of between 3 and 10 years or more to break even with the electricity required to fabricate the solar cells. Adding on power conditioning devices and storage, and the picture is downright ugly, residing in many way squarely next to nuclear power in overall cleanliness. In addition, the manufacturing processes produce significant quantities of difficult toxic waste. This is why PV is not the obvious answer it otherwise should be. It is a deal-breaker until these shortcomings are addressed.

I mentioned upon a topic of global warming what I use to do, one of the things we were actually working towards was and is "Power Regeneration".

All of the people in a modern civilization create alot of waste, this waste can be recycled but some is placed upon landfill tips to accumilate. The landfill tips are specifically structured, rather than just dumping rubbish in a hole in the ground, a network of pipes are laid for a mixture of drainage and for removing Methane (CH4) from the tip.

As I mentioned in the other topic most landfill's presently just use an open ended flare to burn the gas or vent it, but the gas accumilates and if it isn't removed from the site it can build up to explosive limits.

(This is also the reason why Landfill sites shouldn't be built on for many years afterwards) Also the venting and inefficient combustion of methane causes greenhouse gases and other toxins to be pumped into the air.

The point with power regeneration is Gas taken from working landfills (and for at least 15 years after they close) can be used to power turbines, of course they have to use specific techniques to remove liquid from the gas, but it's usable. It can even be bottled. Also old mines produce gas also, sewerage treatment plants can as well, basically almost anywhere where their is biodegrading produces methane that could be converted into power or fuel.

This means that Money/Fuel/Power can be made from waste. Depending on what your after.

Sorry for intruding so late in the topic.

1) A two megawatt windmill with 100-foot blades built with $30 million ($15.000 per installed Kw) of taxpayers´ money by Southern California Edison. It rarely worked and was auctioned for salvage in 1983 for $51,000. Net loss: $29,949,000. Taxpayers´ money...

2) In Alameda County, California, at Altamont Pass, in the hills between Oakland and Stockton, up to 7.000 windmills have been installed. The noise, when they operate, is so great that the operators have had to establish a fund to buy out nearby homeowners who sue. Said one: "You can hear that continuous whipping, whistling roar only for so long before you go raving mad". Many of the 7,000 windmills are not operating. Maintenance problems have prove to be severe. Wind never blows steadily or evenly. It pulses and that contributes to an unpleasant sound and the stresses on the vanes.

3) Experimental windmill "farms" in North Carolina and Vermont have been closed down because of noise complaints from neighbors.

If windmills prove to work as efficiently as their designers intend, and without expensive maintenance, how many would it take to make a major contribution to the US electricity supply? According to a study made at Lockheed, wind power could supply 19 percent of America´s power with 63,000 having towers over 300 feet high, blades 1000 feet across, and <b>a steady wind</B> No one has suggested where these machines might be installed.

Wood waste, biomass, geothermal, wind, photovoltaic, and solar thermal power supplied by 1993 less than ONE percent of the U.S. electricity needs. This may increase and it may even double or triple, but for the foreseeable future, it will not make much of a difference. We are left, then, with the sober fact that 99 percent of the electricity in the USA is produced from three sources, and one of these, hydropower (4% of the total) is not likely to expand. That leaves us with nuclear power at 20% and fossil fuels for the remaining 75%. So let´s compare the relative environmental impact and consequences of their use:

a) First, comparing the effluents frorn a 1,000 rnegawatt electric (MWe) coal plant with a nuclear plant of similar size reveals that the coal plant produces carbon dioxide at a rate of 500 pounds per second or seven million tons per year; <b>the nuclear plant produces none</B>.
b) The coal plant produces sulfur oxides at a rate of one ton every five minutes, 120,000 tons per year; <b>the nuclear plant produces none</B>.
c) The coal plant produces nitrogen oxides equivalent to 200,000 automobiles, 20,000 tons per year; <b>the nuclear plant produces none.</B>
d) The coal plant produces quantities of smoke whose large particles are generally filtered out, but the small, dangerous ones remain and are spread widely; <b>the nuclear plant produces none.</B>
d) The coal plant produces more than 40 different organic compounds that are released without control to the atmosphere; <b>the nuclear plant produces none.</B>
e) Finally, since all coal contains some uranium, radium, and thorium, coal plants release unmonitored amounts of radioactivity; <B>the only radioactive element released to the atmosphere by nuclear power plants is Krypton-85, a harmless, noble gas, which is released in minute quantities under strict control.</B>

Turning to solid waste, it is produced in a coal-burning plant at a rate of 1,000 pounds per minute, or 750,000 tons per year; the annual arnount of spent fuel from a nuclear plant is about 50 tons. The hazardous ingredients in coal ash include arsenic, mercury, cadmium, and lead, all of which maintain the same degree of toxicity forever. This material is discharged to the environment <b>without controls</B>.
The nuclear plants’ spent fuel continuously loses radioactivity, eventually decaying to background levels. Disposal of nuclear waste is strictly controlled. The annual amount of fuel required for a 1,000 megawatt coal-burning plant amounts to <b>38,000 rail cars of coal, three million tons per year</B>; for a nuclear plant of similar size, <b>six truckloads, or about 60 tons of fuel per year</B> (and that includes the heavy metal-carrying casks), are all that are used.

The lack of environmental effect in using nuclear power relates to the fact that the process does not involve chemical combustion and operates on the principle of containing wastes, not dispersing them. The heat that is produced and released – the thermal discharge – is about the same from a coal-burning unit as from a nuclear one, and it can readily be turned to useful purposes-.

Since many of the wastes from coal-burning plants are airborne, their ultimate disposal takes place on land, in water, and, of course, in people’s lungs. Cornparative risk studies put the health effects of coal burning at about 50,000 fatalities annually. <b>Frorn nuclear power there are none.</B>
If science and reason finally prevails, and the nefarious <b>linear no-threshold</B> (LNT) theory of radioactive effect on living beings is accepted as a hoax, then the costs of newer, fourth generation fast breeder reactors will plummet and make costs of producing electricity much, much lower.

Do I recommend using nuclear power? Guess what:

<center><font color=red size=6><b>YES, Absolutely!</B></font></center>

I am also late to the forum, but I wanted to add something on wind power. I just read an article, I think it was in Popular Science, about an idea a gentelman in Australia has for high-fling kites.

Basically, it goes like this. Take some very large, well designed kites and place small wind turbines on them, fly them up into the jet streams, anchor the kites in place, and then just send the power down the cable. The kites will stay in place because the jet stream is fairly constant and extremely fast.

It sounded like a good idea and the article states that the gentleman is going forward with his idea.

The only problem I can think of with the idea is that you need to make specific no-fly zones for these power generation sites.

For the US I do not think that wind from the jet stream is an option. The jet streams move to much. Sometimes they split into upper and lower streams, sometimes they join creating just one and then the stream has the tendency to move from the north to the south of the continent. Also is the fact the commercial airliners use the stream for west to east flights for increased speed and fuel savings. It is an aeronautical highway.

Here are some facts:

Oil demand in USA
1970: 14.5 million Barrels per day
2000: 20 million Barrels per day

Oil import in USA
1970: 3 million BBL/day
2000: 11 million BBL/day

Reliance on OPEC by USA
1970: 42%
2000: 50% (approx)

Russia is poor
2001 Russia production will be 7 million BBL/day
2001 Saudi production 8.4 BBL/day

I say, goto Russia.....

In a discussion on solar cells at the Australian SelfService Science board, I posted this, that could be interesting:

<b>QUOTING A POST: <font color=blue>"Now you probably remember the Darwin-to-Adelaide World Solar Challenge that was held in November 1993. These cars need super-efficient cells. It costs about $99,000 to cover your solar race car with solar cells that are 17% efficient (ie, they turn 17% of that 1 kW/sq meter into electricity). 18% cells cost $198,000, 19% cells will cost $593,000, while 20% cells will set you back $1,480,000 (of course, this includes the 5% discount for bulk orders). Most scientists in this field reckon that 27% is the upper limit for efficiency".</b></font>

The idea of paving roads with solar cells seemed at first worth investigating further. After some simple calculation the result was:

The roof of those solar cars mentioned had an average of <b>10 m²</B> (5 m x 2 m), and that means about $100,000 for the car, so the <B>square meter</B> costs <font color=red><b>$10,000 for a 17% efficiency solar panel.</B></font>

A minimal narrow road (two ways) are <b>7 meters wide</b>. So we have 7.000 m² in one kilometer. Then: 7,000 m² x $ 10,000 =<font color=red></B> $ 70.000.000 for each kilometer.</B></font>

<b>1 m² yields 170 watts (0,17 Kw)</B> and the cost for installed Kw is then = <font color=red><b>$588,235.25</font>. Not cheap.</B> A 1,000 km road would cost <font color=red><b>$70,000,000,000</B></font> ($ 70 American Billions). About 20 1356 megawatt ABWRs or MHTGR, Fourth Generation nuclear stations.

We must add to these costs the ones related of the much more higher price of this new kind of highly resistant pieces of solar panels, capable of withstand the heavy loads imposed by trucks, and a material that won´t scratch or break, or bend. Quite a task will the construction of these panels! The cost would probably double or triple.

If we make the same calculations for a 20% efficiency cell, we´ll get <font color=red><b>140 Kw</b></font> for each km at cost of<font color=red><b> $7,400,000 for installed kilowatt.</B></font> Unbelievable expensive!

<font color=blue><center><b>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</center> </B></font>

Compare these figures with nuclear costs: <font color=red><b>$ 4.00 - $6.50 per installed Kw.</B></font>

<font color=red><b>Environmental costs:</B></font> Solar cells are manufactured with highly toxic materials that must be disposed off at high prices. Unlike radioactive wastes, chemical wastes <font color=red><b>never lose their toxicity</B></font>, while radioactive residues can be treated by present technologies very efficiently, concentrating 94% of their radioactivity in only 4% of the original volume, easily disposable and stored.

Another nice dream gone down the toilet. Rats! :D



___________________________________________
<font color=green><b>Everyday reality has the nasty habit of crashing man´s most beautiful dreams. :( </B></font> ----Edufer.

Edufer:

Have you done any research into fuel cells and anything available that can run on kerosene?

No, kmguru, I have not made any research on kerosene. Besides being a nice fuel to use in heaters and lamps, my only remembrance of a different use is a friend of mine that have an American 6-cylinder car he makes it run on kerosene (it cost here half as gasoline: $0,45 against $1,05 <b>a liter!</B> without any modification but a minor one: he has a device with a manual switch that delivers a small amount of gasoline into the carburator (in order to start the engine) and then scwitches to the kerosene supply.

Of course, it delivers a lot less HP, but on the long run it is cheaper. We also use here natural gas systems (called GNC, Gas Natural Comprimido, or Compressed Natural Gas) on cars, pickups and vans. Can make a car run about 150 km with a load costing about $ 3.00. Most people use it (I had a Cherokee Laredo with such system, and was cheap to use, althoug the loss in HP is noticeable.)

Some years ago we had AlcoNafta (a mixture of sugar cane Alcohol and gasoline), but is no longer in use. But in Brazil they are still using it, a PURE alcohol fuel for cars, but the side effects is heavy rusting of the engine, as alcohol is water avid, and the water corrodes everything inside the engine (and the tank)..

The last use I recall for "keros&eacute;n" is in Patagonia, where some Chilean workers (when temperatures were way down below freezing point, run out of wine and started to drink galons of kerosene. Of course, they died.)

I am new to the science of energy and a sustainable society.

As I have understood the flow of energy from the sun that hits earth is 10.000 times greater than the total energy consumption of our society and the global photosynthesis.

A lot of people argue that making use of that energy from the sun is one solution for a future sustainable society without environmental issues.

But, the energy from the sun is dissipating from earth in form of heat which spreads to earth surroundings.

The question is therefore:
- If we learn to effectively use the solar energy to create a society without further energy needs, this will effect the heat dissipating from earth, is this a factor? Meaning will the loss of heat in earth closest surroundings have an impact on earth itself?

Originally posted by Holy
...

The question is therefore:
- If we learn to effectively use the solar energy to create a society without further energy needs, this will effect the heat dissipating from earth, is this a factor? Meaning will the loss of heat in earth closest surroundings have an impact on earth itself?

Assuming Global Warming is a reality, regardless of whether it is caused by man or not, wouldn't the loss of heat be a good thing?

Of course, this is a pretty limited way of viewing things, especially in light of chaos theory, but I think it would be the reaction of a lot of people.

I did not think about the possibility of global warming. But after thinking about it a while I have come to this conclusion.

If we learn to effectively use the solar energy at a reasonable cost, we will have a virtually inexhaustible source of energy (until the sun stops shining). That would make the use of fossil fuels and other greenhouse gas processes obsolete and thus we would not have to use these forms of exergy creation processes.

So the problem would then be reversed. If global warming exist today, then global cooling should possibly exist in a future solar society. I am not sure that we ever could extract enough energy from the solar radiation to possibly make a difference in the surroundings of earth, but if the society keeps growing in that scenario of the future, perhaps the earth would be one ore two degrees colder.

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

Another point of global warming.

If the average heat increases on earth, some scientists say that we will have an increasing sea level. But is that true?

If the heat increases we will have an increased evaporation of the water on earth, which means an increasing amount of rain and snow. This will occur as much over the north and south poles as over anywhere else in the world. The polar ice caps will grow due to the increase in snow. If the polar ices grow further into our oceans will the ice cool the waters down some degree?

If that is the case then the average temperature will drop again, at least in the south and north of the earth. For instance in Sweden the gulf-stream could cease to exist which would make Sweden a snowy ice country.

As usual I am not entirely sure of what I am saying or speaking about, but give me information about this and I will grow and learn.

Originally posted by Holy
As usual I am not entirely sure of what I am saying or speaking about, but give me information about this and I will grow and learn.

This is a quiet sensible and sound way of starting the road to knowledge. About your concern on if using the energy coming from the sun could disturb the environment or change conditions on Earth, the answer seems to be: very little, if any. Why?

You must take into account the First Law of Thermodynamics, or Conservation of Energy that, summing up, says "nothing is lost, everything is transformed", (or the variance: "Nothing is created...") This means that if we could --someday-- learn how to use effectively solar power (which unfortunately seems to have poor future due to the quite diffuse way -- or low concentration-- of solar energy), the solar energy received and stored will later be released again to the environment (when used by human activities) and ultimately sent back to outer space. So the use of solar energy would not add or subtract energy (or heat) from the planet.

Nor it would contribute to stop any warming, as warmings and coolings are natural processes that have been happening on Earth since it was created, billions of years away ago. If you are concerned about the influence mankind industrial activities could be having on an alleged warming (or "anthropogenic influence") please stop worrying --there is nothing of the kind. I would strongly suggest you to pay a visit to an excellent Australian website called <A HREF="http://www.john-daly.com"><font color=red><b>Still Waiting for the Greenhouse</B></font></A>, where you will find such amount of information on the subject that will make you feel sick. I mean, sick in disgust on how the issue of Global Warming has been used and abused with quite ignoble intentions. Hope you´ll have fun in that website.





____________________________________
<font color=red><b>Nothing worst than ignorance in action.</B></font> ---Friedrich Nietzsche

Originally posted by Holy
I did not think about the possibility of global warming. .... That would make the use of fossil fuels and other greenhouse gas processes obsolete and thus we would not have to use these forms of exergy creation processes.

So the problem would then be reversed. If global warming exist today, then global cooling should possibly exist in a future solar society. I am not sure that we ever could extract enough energy from the solar radiation to possibly make a difference in the surroundings of earth, but if the society keeps growing in that scenario of the future, perhaps the earth would be one ore two degrees colder.

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

Another point of global warming.

If the average heat increases on earth, some scientists say that we will have an increasing sea level. But is that true?

If the heat increases we will have an increased evaporation of the water on earth, which means an increasing amount of rain and snow. This will occur as much over the north and south poles as over anywhere else in the world. The polar ice caps will grow due to the increase in snow. If the polar ices grow further into our oceans will the ice cool the waters down some degree?

If that is the case then the average temperature will drop again, at least in the south and north of the earth. For instance in Sweden the gulf-stream could cease to exist which would make Sweden a snowy ice country.

As usual I am not entirely sure of what I am saying or speaking about, but give me information about this and I will grow and learn.

One thing to consider beyond global warming due to greenhouse gasses is the potential warming from what I call Side Product Heat. Side Product Heat is the heat that results from human endeavors. For instance, as the cities on the planet grow, so do the areas of concrete and asphalt. These obsorb solar radiation and then radiate that heat back into the atmosphere at night. Also, in societies that are more advanced, we tend to heat our homes in the winter. The vehicles we drive are radiating heat into the environment, that's what a radiator is for. Finally, what about the heat each and every one of us radiates into the environment? Granted these are all minute quantities of heat we are adding to the atmosphere, but they are there none the less. Has anyone ever done a study to see how much Side Product Heat we are generating and how it may increase as the population of the planet increases and third world nations become high-tech nations?

As to the effects of increased evaporation of water, I read an intersting article that hypothesized that the current trend in global warming was actually going to cause the next ice age. As the arguement goes, the major heat pump on the planet is the gulf stream in the atlantic ocean. It pumps heat from the equator to the far reaches of the Northern hemisphere and thereby keeps the temperatures in the north milder than they would be without it. The arguement states that the current trend in global warming is eventually going to melt the ice sheets around greenland and in north eastern canada. This melted fresh water will flow directly into the northern portion of the gulf stream and stop the pump. Without the effects of the gulf stream, the northern latitudes will cool drastically and suddenly and it will result in another ice age.

Pretty interesting that global warming could potentially cause an ice age.

Hi, Seeker!, The Gulf Stream life (and activity) has more to do with its saline content than the surface temperatures. According to the latests researches, ice in Greenland and the North Pole is not melting, but it is growing at a slight, well quantified rate. You could check this information in this web page: <font color="red"> <b><A HREF="http://www.free-market.net/rd/134987144.html">Polar ice cap studies refute global warming</A></B></font> (an article referring to the scientific paper).

The theory you mention doesn´t take into account what I said in my previous post: The <b>First Law of Thermodynamics</B>: the main source of energy on our planet is the sun. Its energy had been stored by plants since eons, and is being released back when they are burned. There is also a contribution of heat by volcanoes, but in the whole, forests and savannas fires and volcanoes make a minute contribution of heat to Earth´s atmosphere, that ends up escaping to outer space.

So the amount of paved and built surface on Earth would only be reflecting heat received, not making new heat. The heat released by human populatin is also dependant on the heat absorbed first, so in the long run, it´s only a "recycling" of existent heat (food is stored energy), and everything keeps inside the heat cycle: heat (or energy) received from the sun, processed and released again. You could have Earth covered by a thick mass of human beings releasing a heat that they had previously taken away from the environment. Not net gain, not net loss. An intersting subject.

You should pay a brief visit to the page I mentioned in my last post to Holy: <A HREF="http://www.john-daly.com/"><B>"Still waiting for the Greenhouse"</B></A>. It is worthwile and enlightening.

Originally posted by Edufer
....
The theory you mention doesn´t take into account what I said in my previous post: The <b>First Law of Thermodynamics</B>: the main source of energy on our planet is the sun. ....
So the amount of paved and built surface on Earth would only be reflecting heat received, not making new heat. T...

Thanks for the info Edufer.

One thing though,if you consider the first law of thermodynamics, it refers to closed systems. You can make arguements both for and against the idea that the earth is a closed system so I am not sure how much this law actually holds.

The amount of energy absorbed or reflected by the earth from the sun is dynamically changing based on the total reflectivity of the planet. That is why an asteroid hitting in a major ocean or thermonuclear war could create an ice age. All of the dust or water that would be placed in the air would change the aggregate reflectivity of the planet and the earth would reflect more light/heat than it does now, thereby causing a new ice age.

In regards to the effects of asphalt and concrete in cities, they do not typically reflect thermal energy, they obsorb it and then re-radiate at night. Now if there is a cloud cover at night, that thermal energy is not radiated back into space, it is in fact reflected back to earth by the cloud cover, thereby causing an increase in thermal energy of the planet, however small. The effects of cloud cover at night explain why the temperature is typically warmer on nights when there is a cloud cover as opposed to nights when there is not a cloud cover. When taking this into account, you could potentially have an increase in average thermal energy because the energy of the sun that would be stored during the day may not be radiated back into space during the night.

Cities are, for all practical purposes, heat sinks.

An equivalent area of vegitation absorbs the solar radiation and converts a good portion of it. A city just absorbs it and then re-radiates it, and adds to it (air conditioning, energy generation, cars, etc.).

Originally posted by SeekerOfTruth
In regards to the effects of asphalt and concrete in cities, they do not typically reflect thermal energy, they absorb it and then re-radiate at night.

In general terms you are right. We may argue for years about the issue of "closed systems", and never reach to an agreement (or maybe yes, we agree at last), but this is not too relevant now.

Now if there is a cloud cover at night, that thermal energy is not radiated back into space, it is in fact reflected back to earth by the cloud cover, thereby causing an increase in thermal energy of the planet, however small.

Yes. it is true, although it would be a temporary increase, and in the first clear night the heat would be reflected back to outer space. Someone could say that the heat will be trapped by CO2, but this is a very minor factor, as CO2, contrary to widespred belief, is not a such important greenhouse gas. According to accepted facts, the capacity of our atmosphere to hold heat is formed by the contributions of <b>water vapour</b> (wich contributes with 93-95% of the air capacity to retain heat), CO2 (about 3,5% capacity) and the rest is distributed among other gases of minor importance as methane, Argon, CFCs, etc.

As for CFCs. they account for 0,000003% (three millionths percent) of the gases present in the atmosphere, Argon comes third in importance with 1%, oxygen with 21%, nitrogen with 78%, and CO2 with its, 0,03%.

You can see the effect of these gases when you come to learn that temperatures at Hoggart (in the Sahara) range at an average of -5°C and 55°C (an amplitude of 60°C), while the Amazon basin, at the same latitude, range between 32°C and 23°C, when in the rainy season. The concentration of CO2 is the same for both locations (about 370 ppmv) but the humidity vary wildly: 5-10% in Hoggart and 85-95% in the Amazon). Clearly, is water vapour the agent that retain heat, and not CO2.

The effects of cloud cover at night explain why the temperature is typically warmer on nights when there is a cloud cover as opposed to nights when there is not a cloud cover. When taking this into account, you could potentially have an increase in average thermal energy because the energy of the sun that would be stored during the day may not be radiated back into space during the night.

Again, this would be a momentary retention of heat, that would dissipate when there is a clear sky, and low humidity. Your mention of a nuclear winter reminds me that environmentalists predicted such an event when Saddam Hussein set fire to Kuwait's oil wells. Although the smoke cover was huge, it turned out that the change in temperature (in the long range, or average) for the region was not altered. Volcanoes make a much greater impact on our climate when they blow up. Remember Pinatubo, Philippines, in 1991? Or the Chichonal, Mexico, in 1982? They cooled Earth (globally) by a full 1°C, taking the global temperatures back to the 1890s.

If you have time, you may want to visit our website (there is a page in English) whose address is: <A HREF="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/ENGLISH.html"><b>Argentine Foundation for Scientific Ecology</B></A> where you would find some interesting articles and links with <b>"the sound of a different bell"</B>.

Originally posted by Edufer
Hi, Seeker!, The Gulf Stream life (and activity) has more to do with its saline content than the surface temperatures. According to the latests researches, ice in Greenland and the North Pole is not melting, but it is growing at a slight, well quantified rate. You could check this information in this web page: <font color="red"> <b><A HREF="http://www.free-market.net/rd/134987144.html">Polar ice cap studies refute global warming</A></B></font> (an article referring to the scientific paper).
...

Edufer,

This article appears to contradict the statement you make here and the article you reference. I guess the question is still out on which way the ice sheets are going?
:confused:

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v414/n6859/abs/414060a0_fs.html

Seeker: I receive regularly Nature´s newsletters, and I have seen the one you pointed me. I have read the abstract and it did not convince me. For reading the full study with all the required figures I must be a full subscriber (must pay a money I can´t spare) so I leave the studies fight each other and hope for the best to win.

Anyhow, if you want to visit John Daly´s website, <A HREF="http://www.john-daly.com">Still Waiting for the Greenhouse"</A>, you will find a page where is everything you should know about Polar Ice melting and/or increases.

Cheer up! The sky isn´t falling and the Ice caps are not melting!

Seeker: I forgot to give you the link to an article appearing on our Foundation´s website: <A HREF="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Warm.html"> <B>"The Global Warming Folly"</B></A> (in english) written by world renown scientist Zbigniew Jaworoski, former chairman of the UNSCEAR <i>(United Nation Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiations)</I> that gives you an excellent and tremendously referenced view of this issue. (98 references!)

Energy must be expended to create correct? We can't burn fossil fuels forever, we need to change. The sun is burning, expending energy, tap into that the solar energy source, ocean currents sue them, rivers, use them, wind use it.

Create more effeciant machines. Low and behold ride a bicycle 2 miles to work, walk, whatever, we need to change.

The current issue of TECHNOLOGY REVIEW is a special focus on this subject- very good reading!

Some leading petrogeologists have pointed out that world oil production will peak in the next year or two- and from there it's all downhill..... so we're going to HAVE to ween ourselves from fossil fuels eventually. US oil consumption could be cut dramatically if we made an effort to develop, purchase and drive vehicles with greater efficiency- and stop this SUV madness. And- look at any main road in any town or city and you can see where MOST of our energy is going: advertising. Personally, I KNOW where Burger King is and I don't need a 25-foot ILLUMINATED hamburger to tell me. Multiply that by all the Burger Kings... and all the other businesses with illuminated signs.... look at big cities and places like Las Vegas! Astronomers call this 'light pollution'- I call it JUNK ENERGY.

There will not be a single answer to replace (or minimize) oil- We need to move from an oil economy to a hydrogen / solar / wind / wave / geothermal / safe nuclear / tide / hydroelectric / etc. , etc. economy. A national effort along the lines of the Manhattan Project or the Apollo Program should be launched to do this. Actually, it should have been done long ago.

Our first hint should have been the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973. At that time we could have put all of the Apollo scientists and engineers back to work on the problem- but Nixon did nothing. A second OPEC production cut in 1979 gave us lines at the gas pumps again- but Carter did nothing. Eventually, we had the Gulf War.... and most recently, 9/11. I'd like to hope we'll now get off our duffs and END our dependence on Middle East oil..... and progress toward renewable sources with a renewed interest in conservation.

GW has backed the idea to use fuel cells instead of gas/electric hybreeds. Fuel cells work by converting hydorgen to enrgy. The exhaust by one of these fuel cells is H2O.

Has for electric power sources. After an Hydro Damn is built the only operating cost is upkeep. There is no fuel charge. Zero emissions and reversible environmental impact.

France and Great Britan both now have a new power source called Tidal Gen. It uses the tidal force of the ocean to move a big, for lack of a better term, paddle that in turn moves a generator.

In general we humans are lazy. We take the easiest ways out. Thats why we have not moved to exploit any of these to their fullest yet. Has long as we can burn coal and oil and keep the plants we have running going thats what we are going to do.

Spacecat27,

quote
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US oil consumption could be cut dramatically if we made an effort to develop, purchase and drive vehicles with greater efficiency- and stop this SUV madness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You seem to be overlooking the fact that more miles will be driven as driving is cheaper per mile.

As Chagur mentioned, cities are large heat sinks. Ever notice that when you are driving into a city it becomes hotter as you approach it?

I agree with wayne_j that the fuel cell is to way we should go. One of the big problems with the hybred systems is range between fill ups. Another is speed and load carrying ability. There is a trade off here if you wish to haul weight. It needs more energy to move so you have even less range between fillups. Electric modes is out of the question for anything but city travel as many of us can not afford to wait a day for a recharge between uses.

When using solar energy it makes more sense to put then in orbit. No worry of things like storms and cloudy days to lower the available energy that can be converted. No worry of vandalism or special construction costs assoicated with the use of them on roads. No worry of recieving less energy, filtered by the earth's atmosphere. It was estimated that to convert to solar cells to power the US it would take an area the size of Arizona (if I remember correctly) paved with solar cells to supply the current needs for power. In the days to come I don't think we will be willing to give up that much surface space for energy manufacturing, much less the costs to do so.

One of the nice things is that we can grow our energy needs. Plants are in development that will supply much our energy needs. That is to say, not only corn. Another is the idea that it might not be that hyrocarbons are made as we were taught in school. There is increasing evidence that hydoocarbons might have had their origin in the comets. That as they migrate from the deeps of the earth that they condense into pools that slowly, where possible, work their way ever closer to the earth's surface. It has been found that one of the best places to find oil is where deep impacts of meteors have fractured the crust of the earth. While seepage will not supply the demands of an oil hungry society, it is possible that given time they may well renew. New methods are also showing oil where none was previouly thought to exist. Places where geologists would not look because there where no signs that any was ever found before. What I am saying is that oil too, may well be renewable. Not on human time scales though.

Plants are a great source, look at corn for example. It burns clean and has no harmful emission's. The two draw backs are, we can't grow enough to feed the world let alone our cars, and winter climates in the great percentage of the growing belt limit total year around production.

Hydorgen is the best and cheapest method the problem is no oil or power company in the world wants to see us devolope it. Think of what would happen if you could just take your bath water, apply a little electrical power to it, and have enough fuel to drive on for a week. Oil and power companies would go broke.

Disagree that most oil and power conglomerates would go broke. A bit of belt tightening maybe.



Most oil companies go through times of boom or bust. Rarely is it anything in between. Because of this they have diverged into other avenues of income to support them when things are bad for the oil business.

Power companies will do just as good as before. They will ensure that it is cheaper to buy power from them then it is to make your own. There are already fuel cells for purchase for those who would make their own power and it is not cheap. Businesses that need regular sources of uninterrupted power are buying them for computer networks, for hospital backups, and the like.

Oil is being found where none was thought to exist before and in places where it was it is being found that there are as yet untapped reserves. True, those reserves in developed fields are smaller than those earlier found. However, there are fields that were closed because it was not economical at the time to produce them. With new technologies come other possibilities, including the possibility of reopening them as the cost for the product rises. Something you can be sure will happen when the reserves dwindle and the commodity becomes scarce.

No matter what source of energy, you still need lubrication for bearings. Oil fills that need.

No matter what you propose to make to replace what is now in place for transportation, you will need energy to power the equipment to do so. Where will you get it? From the power companies, naturally.

Hydrocarbon molecular chains provide unheard of uses in the line of chemicals. They are complex and can be broken down in untold of ways for products from benzene to food additives. So the need will always be there, even if there is no use for vehicles powered by gasoline and diesel. And how will airplanes function without fuel? (Jets, at least)



While hydrogen is cheap, it presents problems in storage. It is a flammable gas to say the least. Providing storage for such is best done in liquid form but then you can only get so much storage from each container. In refineries, such gaseous products are stored in spherical tanks, each especially made for the task. They consume a large amount of ground space per vessel. Because they are flammable it is required that they be spaced apart for safety which consumes yet more space.

This is not the end of the problem. When you put this type of fuel into moving vehicles, you run again into the safety aspect. Because this product is a gas, or in it's liquid form will revert to gas, ruptures of the fuel tank is a thing to be dreaded. People now commonly sue the vehicle manufactures for the dangers of fuel tanks. What do you think the results of putting such a product into vehicles will result in?

A few thoughts to pass the time...

wayne_j,

quote
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydorgen is the best and cheapest method the problem is no oil or power company in the world wants to see us devolope it. Think of what would happen if you could just take your bath water, apply a little electrical power to it, and have enough fuel to drive on for a week. Oil and power companies would go broke.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where would you get the electrical power? What makes you think it would be "a little"? What makes you think your bath water would give you enough hydrogen to drive on for a week?

If hydrogen is the "cheapest method," how do you explain the fact that we're not already using it?

wet1,

quote
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Chagur mentioned, cities are large heat sinks. Ever notice that when you are driving into a city it becomes hotter as you approach it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You mean "source," not "sink." A heat sink is something that gets rid of heat by absorbing it or conducting it away. For example, when soldering, you can use some metal object as a heat sink, to avoid damaging a sensitive component.

quote
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While hydrogen is cheap, ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not understand in what sense hydrogen is supposed to be cheap. It is not even an energy source, rather it's an energy carrier; I don't know the figures, actually, but I'd be surprised if you could get more than half the energy from it that you'd use to free it.


quote
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not the end of the problem. When you put this type of fuel into moving vehicles, you run again into the safety aspect. Because this product is a gas, or in it's liquid form will revert to gas, ruptures of the fuel tank is a thing to be dreaded. People now commonly sue the vehicle manufactures for the dangers of fuel tanks. What do you think the results of putting such a product into vehicles will result in?
quote
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've read that this isn't the problem that many people think it is. Hydrogen dissipates very rapidly, so you'd only get an explosion in an enclosed space, such as your garage. (Recently it's been shown that the Hindenberg's problem wasn't hydrogen but some kind of shellac or material that was used.) It's supposed to be no more dangerous than gasoline. In case that's not quite true, the problem could be overcome by having the car gradually free it from metallic hydrides, but that would raise the car's weight.

Deadwood,

quote
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, I have come up with an idea for a renewable energy car. You see, it has solar panel on the roof the bonnet and back. So that provides the energy to get the car started. However, you also have wind turbine, about 25cm (10 1/2") on top of the car. Like two or more. This is surrounded by a wired cage for safety, but still lets the wind through. So when the car goes, the wind turbines power it. When at traffic lights you have the solar power. What to do when there is no sun. Don't worry I though about that to. At night time, push your car underneath a street light, or shine a torch on it, everyone takes shifts.

Do you like my idea?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's cute, but it wouldn't come anywhere near working. The energy used to move the car can't replenish itself, so the turbine would be no good at all unless the wind was blowing on its own, and even in that case the power output would be very small. All you need to do to appreciate that latter fact is to notice that you could stop it with your hand.

The solar panels would only supply a small amount of energy, nowhere near enough to run your car, __even__ if they were 100% efficient, which they're nowhere near. I think someone else here said that they were 17% efficient. With the sun directly overhead, you get about 900 watts/square meter. That's what goes __in__. At 17%, you'd get 153 watts out, so with 10 square meters of solar panel, you'd have 1530 watts, or about 2 horsepower. Even supposing the impossible miracle of 100% efficiency, you'd get less than 12 horsepower. The only solar cars that do anything like working are extremely lightweight with large surface area, and they're almost completely useless for any practical purpose.

By Chagur
Cities are, for all practical purposes, heat sinks.
An equivalent area of vegitation absorbs the solar radiation and converts a good portion of it. A city just absorbs it and then re-radiates it, and adds to it (air conditioning, energy generation, cars, etc.). By Bagman
You mean "source," not "sink." A heat sink is something that gets rid of heat by absorbing it or conducting it away.wet1 properly referred to my post.

In describing a 'heat sink' you should have stated: "... gets rid of heat by absorbing it and conducting it away."

That is why good ventilation and/or a fan is required when a heat sink is attached to a CPU.

Take care ;)

Originally posted by wet1
It has been found that one of the best places to find oil is where deep <b>impacts of meteors have fractured the crust of the earth</b>. ...New methods are also showing oil where none was previouly thought to exist ... What I am saying is that oil too, may well be renewable. Not on human time scales though.

You are right wet1, the Siljan Ring (Sweden) experiment of deep drilling (more than 8,000 meters) performed by astrophysicist Dr. Thomas Gold, from Cornell University. proves his theory that hydrocarbons (oil) are not "fossils", but it is being constantly formed in the upper mantle of the Earth, a by product of radioactive decay (helium + methane).

Please check this article and see:

Hydorcarbons are Not Fossils (http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/FossilFuels.html)

I haven't heard any discussion of the cons of renewable energy sources. My basic question is where is the energy coming from, more importantly, from where is it taken. Is it possilbe to build enough wind generators to affect weather patterns and climate; could we cover enough land area with solar panels to have an impact on the sun?

"But such claims have failed to take into account the stabilizing, effects of high pres-sure on temperature-related excitation. In any case, Gold has confirmed that between the interstitial spaces of the carbon crystals that comprise the diamonds, one finds hydrocarbons. "
from the above linked article.


ummmmmm...you can find long strings of carbon atoms inside a crystaline carbon structure??? where would you put it? it would break the crystaline structure of the dimond, which in itself shows that the heat/temp would not have been enought o denature the hydrocarbon structure. more time and pressure- the job isn't done yet.

I have be a supporter of the idea that "fossil" fuels may not be biological in origin, the above linked article is full of enough presumption and wholy inacurate information to render it useless at best. At worst, it makes the whole idea sould like a wacko's daydream.


1)Wind- loud, intrusive and inconsistant enough to make it a non-relyable method of generating energy.
2)Water- dammed water- possible huge effect on the aquatic ecosystem, from the flooding of large areas of land to the prevention of upstream migration make this a consistant method of power generation that should be avoided in it's current design. Not to metion that 2 of the four largest rivers in the US currently do not reach there terminus because of irrigation over-use as it is. more dams will not help that situation.
3)Solar- current cost make it prohiobative, but that is largley due to it's limited use. more production=better methods=lower costs/watt output. and 27% efficiency may seem low, but plants, who have had a few billion years to get it right, only get about 30% efficency.
4)fuel-cell. A great idea. implimentation is a problem, though. the fuel cell which outputs H20 requires liquid Hydrogen as it's source of fuel, which is a bit more dangerous to handle than gasoline. Fuel cells that require ethanol need to be re-fueled often, and output CO2-oops, greenhouse gas. H20-fueled fuel cells give off a very low wattage, and you end up with salinated waste water you have to pump every refill.
Not to mention the cost of making the various fuel-cell fuels available at any given gas station.
Fuel-cells are one of the best solutions we currently have in the works. but it still has alot of kinks that need to be thought about in order for fuel cells to be accepted by the general public.
5)nuclear- output of nuclear waste, possible chance of meltdown/leak. once radioactive material is used, it is still dangerous, but cannot be used for anything. hollow mountains full of barrels of toxic crud is in the future for this.
6)SNAP unit- a 6" steel ball with a table spoon of Uranium. Output suitable for powering 1 average city block for 20 years. Works via thermo nuclear couplings in a star-array around the steel ball. as the uranium radiates, the steel heats up. the couplings convert this to e- any leaks would be minor, as there is only a tablespoon of radioactive material involved. aboiut 45% efficiency for heat- to - electricity output. Invented in 1950's by NASA, rights owned by joint OPEC-like Oil alliance. Only lisenced for use by NASA and the US NAVY. How do you think they fit an entire nuclear facility into a submarine? (I know about this because I was the head of the student Nasa-club @ my college. the ex-NASA officer in change told us about it. He was tryiing to get us to join NASA-kept pushing that the US needed astronaughts for the Manned Mars flight in 2012. seems that mission has been pushed back to 2023.)
7)fossil fuels- limited supply currently. some scientists figuring out methods to creats hydrocarbons in the lab. pollutive output of CO, CO2, and others when burned. less than 3% of fossil fuels are used for energy output. plastic, oil lubricants, tar for roads, latex paint, clothing, all have a fossil fuel chemical base. A replacement for hydrocarbons needs to be found, not just fossil fuels for energy production.

hemp, corn, bambo, and papyrus plants are solar convewrters. they grow quickly, and can be converted readily to ethanol, which can be used as a fuel. if we can figure out how to use them to creat general use hydrocarbons, we can stop using oil. Then we will be dependant on soil. Soil run off and depletion from the extra demand for crop production would kill the useable land quickly and possibly create more desert around the world, like this one in Maine (caused by glatiation, it expaned 10 fold due to poor farming methods):
http://www.desertofmaine.com/desert.htm

building solar cells to avoid the soil depletion issue would require more mining to aquire the needed metals. once these metals become harder to find, we will be in the same boat that we are in now. Wind mills- same deal.

So far, the best truely reniewable source of energy I can see is geothermal. It will only run out as the planet is dieing. at that point, renewable energy is not going to be a concern. questions of weakening the strength of the crust of the planet by drilling tons of deep wells to harness this energy is a concern, but I do not see it as a huge one. The most immediate issue would come from the accidental "poping" of underground lava pillows (such as the one under Yellowstone, and the one under the Three sisters volcanos in Oregon), which could cause the eruption of a super volcano. They are triggered by sudden drops in pressure, so breaking the seal on one may trigger an explosion. Less of a threat than nuclear meltdown, I would say...

ummmmmm...you can find long strings of carbon atoms inside a crystaline carbon structure??? where would you put it? it would break the crystalline structure of the dimond, which in itself shows that the heat/temp would not have been enought o denature the hydrocarbon structure. more time and pressure- the job isn't done yet.
Read again your quote from the article: <I>“In any case, Gold has confirmed that <b>between the interstitial spaces of the carbon crystals</b> that comprise the diamonds, one finds hydrocarbons. "</I> That’s the place where the hydrocarbons are: <b>interstitial spaces.</b> You know (I guess) that diamonds have impurities inside their crystalline structure, that lessen their values. And those impurities do not break the diamond structure. Most of those impurities are hydrocarbons. Simple, isn’t it?

… is full of enough presumption and wholly inaccurate information to render it useless at best.
You should read the book by Dr. Gold before making such a claim. It sounds somewhat “presumptuous “. The article just scratched the surface of the issue, but what it said meant a lot to knowledgeable people –many well respected scientists have acclaimed the book and Dr. Gold’s theory.

5) nuclear- output of nuclear waste, possible chance of meltdown/leak. once radioactive material is used, it is still dangerous, but cannot be used for anything. hollow mountains full of barrels of toxic crud is in the future for this.
You seem to lack enough information on the subject of nuclear energy. What you say sounds much as Worldwatch Institute or Greenpeace leaflets. Output of nuclear waste is a scientific and technical problem that has been solved many, many years ago, as you would find if you visit the websites of National Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Sandia, etc. The solution for practical, safe and cheap storage (or even better, recycling of spent fuel) of radioactive waste is available, just waiting for the political decision for implementing it.

Meltdowns and leaks have been happening since the first days of the inception of nuclear energy, and have become scarcer as times goes by (Play it again, Sam…) making nuclear power stations safer than ever. Just one incident and one accident are remembered today and used as a battle horse by the greens: There Mile Island, where not more than 1 mrem got out of the plant, nobody got hurt nor contaminated. Go to <B>The Psycho Meltdown at Three Mile Island: </B> http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/PsychoMeltdown.html A short report about the truth on what really happened during the infamous nuclear incident of Three Mile Island reactor, and the way the press misinformed it. Twenty years later, the antinuclear groups still try to scare the population with a Big Lie.

And Chernobyl, of course, whose consequences have been exaggerated out of proportion by the green press. It Is not my opinion, but the conclusion of the <B>Fifteen Years Later: Living After Chernobyl</B> at http://www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/Press/Focus/Chernobyl-15/unscear.pdf">

I tried to find the report they had on "Summing up the Consequences of the Accident, Vienna, Austria 8-12 April 1996", but it seems the IAEA have taken it from its database. (It makes me feel suspicious about this). Too bad, because the scientists from all over the world said things that demonstrate that the effects were quite minimal (on the radiation fallout side) but very high on the psychological side of the population of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia. Both articles are informing and enlightening.

So far, the best truly renewable source of energy I can see is geothermal.Any kind of energy source is welcome, as long it is feasible, practical, reasonably safe, and has a good cost/benefit ratio. On the other hand, forbidding other kinds of energy source on basis of neurosis and paranoia (as the nuclear energy neurosis) or the use of “not so” fossil fuels because an unproven global warming or climate change, is not only antiscientific and ridiculous but simply stupid.

So far, you seem to see not very far. To broaden and sharpening your vision, you should keep researching more on the field of energy. Try <B>The False Promises of Renewable Energies:</B>: Pros and Cons of renewable energy sources, as windmills and photovoltaic cells, by Stanford University professor John McCarthy at: http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/RenewableEnergy.html

After a long search, I finally found the link to the International Conference "One Decade After Chernobyl: Summing up the Consequences of the Accident":

http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Documents/Infcircs/1996/inf510.shtml

For a much shorter version see the conference summary: http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Programmes/Safety/Chernobyl/concls17.html

I am well aware of the problems with so-called "reneiwable" energy sources, as I had hoped would be conveyed in my post.

As for Three miles island, I live not too far from there, and have grown up hearing both sides of the issue, and you are correct - the press greatly blew the event out of proportion.

I stand by my "presumptions and inacuracies" statement, though, because of quotes like this:
"The Diamond Evidence:

Another item supportive of the abiogenic theory is the data Gold gathered from diamonds, which are a pure form of carbon. The temperatures and pressures required to form diamonds begin at depths of 70 miles. This far down, where the pressures are nearly 600,000 pounds per square inch, is far below the reach and survival of fossils. Environmentalists and others claim that hydrocarbons cannot be created in the domains of such high temperatures; dia-monds would disassociate there, they say, and, therefore, could not have possibly been crea-ted there. But such claims have failed to take into account the stabilizing, effects of high pres-sure on temperature-related excitation. In any case, Gold has confirmed that between the interstitial spaces of the carbon crystals that comprise the diamonds, one finds hydrocarbons. The biogenic theory of "fossil fuels" has no explanation for this fact of nature."

While I completly agree with Gold theories, the above has so many holes in it as a logical proof, that no self-respecting scientist would listen to it as "evidence". We know this from the article-diamonds can be created so far down that fossils can't survive. and some diamonds have hydrocarbons. are we talking about the same diamonds in these two statements? Or could it be that the diamonds created at deeper regions be hydrocarbon free? Is it possible that the hydrocarbons mentioned are found only in diamonds created at shallower depths/lower tempuratures? If diamonds can only be created at 70 miles down and further (a point I would argue as possibly inacurate (http://www.minsocam.org/MSA/AmMin/TOC/Abstracts/2002_Abstracts/July02_Abstracts/Palyanov_p780_02.pdf), it's dependant on the temp/pressure, not specifically depth. volcanic acticity may be able to *create* diamonds at mich higher elevations), then how could one say that diamonds would be de-natured at the same depths? This paragraph makes no sense. What do environmentalists know about the chemical creation of diamonds at high pressures? why are you asking chemical know-nothings to provide your anti-point? Why not say "Chemical engineers say that diamonds would de-nature at these depths"? (hint: because I doubt a chemist would be so foolish) Does this reporter mean to say that Gold collected diamonds known to have been created at the mentioned depths, and he then found hydrocarbons inside *those particular diamonds*? Was the procedure done under controled conditions so that the subject material was unlikely to be contaminated?

and this quote:
"More compelling, in my mind, is the issue of carbon-13. In the last decade, it has been proven that plants do not inhale carbon dioxide containing the heavy isotope C-13. The process of diffusion used by plants during respiration allows only the carbon dioxide containing C-12. Now, C-13 occurs in nature at a rate of just 1 percent. This means that if the hydrocarbons that were layed down over millions of years are the result of decomposing plant life, then these "fossil fuels" should show an absence of C-13. However, the samples of hydrocarbons taken from deep wells show no such isotopic constituency."

what about the possibility of C13 being introduced from the surrounding substrate over time? what about the c-13 of the bacteria doing the decomposing? fungi? animals that were in the area? dirt that the plants were growing in? the current theory of fossil fuel creation does not assume that only plants were removed from their environment, cleaned, disinfected, and decompsed in controlled environments. Any study disproving classical fossil fuel creation theories that does not deal with the possibilities of contanimation is useless.

The thoery itself is sound, in my opinion. I see no reason that hydrocarbons can only be created by living tings. If that were the case, then how did life get hydrocarbons to begin with???. The linked report, however, is not sound; in any way, shape, or form.



as for the carbon structure/impurities of diamonds issue...after doing some reaserch, turns out I was incorrect about the structure of the diamond crystal. I can see how a small hydrocarbon molecule could be found in the spaces of the crystal structure.
http://cst-www.nrl.navy.mil/lattice/struk.picts/a4.s.png

sorry :)


[edit]
if the problems with nuclear waste have been solved, you should let these guys know:
http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/npf.htm

these guys too:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9707/McFarlane-9707.html
specifically note:
"Many types of fuel may eventually be directly disposed in a geological repository as proposed for commercial spent nuclear fuel, but some will require treatment prior to disposal"

we are not turning this stuff into fertilizer or shampoo. we are canning it up and hiding it in a big hollowed out mountain. This paricular mountain was picked because it doesn't allow much rain water to penetrate the core, which help reduce the chance of this stuff being introduced into the ground water of the area.


[edit1]
thanks for all the links BTW, very informative :)