Look the thing is , from Tim Ball's perspective in his book , is that Maurice Strong , who started the IPCC , was to bring down " industrialized nations " ( would someone just take the time to read the book , someone , google etc. Just does NOT give the complete picture , all 288 pgs. See my point ..) anyway And have populace breeding control , limit populations increase Which for me at some point is inevitable , whether now or a hundred years from now Plus I just finished Jim Marrs book , OUR OCCULT HISTORY , which talks about who REALLY runs the place , Earth Between Tim's book and Jim's book one can draw a connection
Look the thing is , from Tim Ball's perspective in his book , is that Maurice Strong , who started the IPCC , was to bring down " industrialized nations " ( would someone just take the time to read the book , someone , google etc. Just does NOT give the complete picture , all 288 pgs. See my point ..) anyway And have populace breeding control , limit populations increase Which for me at some point is inevitable , whether now or a hundred years from now Plus I just finished Jim Marrs book , OUR OCCULT HISTORY , which talks about who REALLY runs the place , Earth Between Tim's book and Jim's book one can draw a connection Between big business and governments
Look the thing is , from Tim Ball's perspective in his book , is that Maurice Strong , who started the IPCC , was to bring down " industrialized nations " ( would someone just take the time to read the book , someone , google etc. Just does NOT give the complete picture , all 288 pgs. See my point ..) anyway And have populace breeding control , limit populations increase Which for me at some point is inevitable , whether now or a hundred years from now Plus I just finished Jim Marrs book , OUR OCCULT HISTORY , which talks about who REALLY runs the place , Earth Between Tim's book and Jim's book one can draw a connection
Trippy made me aware that the Hadly cells, which I am concerned may pump up and distribute major rain forest fire soot to high clouds are only operating in the troposphere. - thanks for correction. (I don't find his post here, so must be in the clmate & stability thread, but post here as promised to tell of someone else's better idea in this thread.) To further reduce my ignorance I searched a little on clouds and how much more sun light there is on average as you go up in altitude. Turns out the soot does not need to get up to stratosphere. I found this PDF article: "Harnessing High-Altitude Solar Power" IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION, VOL. 24, NO. 2, JUNE 2009 but can't copy figures or text from it. I hope some one can and will post Figures 5 & 8. Fig 5 shows that at 12Km altitude most of the sunlight is still available and even at 8AM and 4PM it has at slant angle to the normal passed thur so absorbing little air that more than 1200W/m^2 is still available in summer. Contrast that with ground level's noon peak of only 300W/m^2 which falls to less than 200W/m^2 before 8 & 16 hours due to long slat path thru absorbing atmosphere. Fig 8 shows their suggestion as to how each solar cell can collect about 5 times more energy if at 6Km than if at ground level (In UK) assuming no clouds even in either case (I think on first skim). I.e. they suggest a spherical balloon (so not hard to keep side with PV cells pointed at sun, despite winds) They do some cost modeling and it beats (in UK) the cost of ground base solar PV power by more than factor of five. By some orders of magnitude the idea of orbiting PV system with microwave power sent to earth. They only cover fraction of the balloon side that tracks the sun so sunlight is not far from normal on the PV cells. Also interesting is fact the balloon's He cost goes as the volume but energy collected only as the square of the balloon radius - I.e. there is an economic optimum size. They don't mention, that their idea is great for reducing global warming* - a "double whammee" in fact. I.e. China could burn less coal and usefully absorb sunlight that would other wise heat the surface. This could be enhanced, I think, with black paint on top side of the balloon to radiate IR to space and help with warm air rising around the balloon giving some drag lift to it during the day. I'll try to find the figures else where and better direct link to article and return by edit. * My idea was too but only if there is money to be made is any global warming reduction likely to be significant in the "big picture" I fear. (The current low price for carbon offsets killed the profit potential of my idea.) here is same basic article at: http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/8564.pdf But I can't copy and post it either. There it is fig 2 & 5 I want to post.
Hard to believe. Not based on how expensive this would but based on how cheap ground based PV has become. Panels are now hovering around $1/watt, which means that the balance of the system has to be less than $4/watt to compete even if it receives five times the power. But in any case, if you have aerostat technology, you have access to very steady (and much stronger) winds than you do at the surface. I would think that would be the initial approach since it could produce power close to 24/7 - and uses wind to its advantage, whereas with the pure PV concept, wind is a liability. (Or a combination of both might work well.) Interesting. At my installation I have gotten in excess of 1000 w/sq m, with an average of around 800 w/sq m at ideal sun angles.
We're getting 750 ish here at the moment... http://www.physics.otago.ac.nz/eman/weather_station/current2.php Billy, 300 isn't peak unless you're like... North of 50... it's the average over a 24hr cycle.
I think their 300W/M^2 is the peak of the noon best monthly average, not of the best day and in the UK, not US SW as I think you are. Also the article is from 2008, and prices have come down for PV cells considerably but the cost of their BOS has not much. I agree that the wind approach is better, if you want to generate max annual energy (works day AND night) and that high can be much better than tower mounted machine. Here is the MARS (Magenn corp) approach: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Comes with 1 yr warranty, but it isn't cheap. They admit to a 0.5% loss of He and need to pull down and add more every 6 months - That is high cost in material and labor. My invention version could operate at slightly less than ambient pressure to reduce the He (or H2) loss rate, as used a rigid external frame of cheap (and easy to glue assemble) PVC pipes. {also important, as will be clear soon, PVC withstands harsh UV very well.} This, my gas bag cage, had a central 20 foot long octagon cylinder with 30 degree pipe elbows adding 10 feet of PVC pipe to the ends,(half of std 20ft sections - nothing wasted in my design) then another set of 30 degee elbow making 10 foot sections at 60 degrees to the main axis and finally 4 of 8 converged 5 feet to the axis and joined in a 4-way pipe union. The other 4 continued on at 60 degree angle from the axis to the wall of a short 12 inch PVC tube. The other end of that tube was held fast to the 4-way unions. Inside that tube were two (possible 3 if needed, but I think not) rotation speed step up cascaded planetary gear sets. The rapidly spinning, on axis, small sun gear of the last drove the shaft of a standard PMA (Permanent Magnet Alternator) used in cars and sold by more than 30 million annually. Every thing used, but the He was cheap and produced in very high volume. The system used a Y shaped top to the tether, like shown for MARS units and that kept the PMA's case from rotating. Lot of finer details, including weigh /lift analysis, AC to optimum frequence AC converter,* cross bracing (also PVC octagons, but with their plains perpendicular to the axis) between 45 degree separated in angle main sections , and cost study omitted here. * Lamps are even more efficient with mid range audio frequency AC, instead of 60Hz, as internal ionization stays high as AC voltage goes thru V = zero, very quickly. Also I did not have heavy conductor wires to the ground or their copper cost as I used the power generated in situ to run cheap U shaped UVc discharges lamps to produce OH radical which the CH4 is destroying faster than nature replaces it. - I.e. the economic of my idea has failed with the collapse of carbon off set prices. With a 20 foot long central cylinder the Magnus lift effect can be huge - hard to model, but perhaps if never stops spinning small pump could replace lost He with air. A ship with 4 vertical spinning cylinders, instead of sails, used Magnus effect to "sail" across the Atlantic years ago, but ship's roll made huge problems with that much angular moment being twisted. Most have never heard of the Magnus effect - it can be very strong lift force. It is why a baseball pitcher can indeed throw a very curved pitch but with cylinder instead of sphere he could hit the third base man! These UVc lamps are sold by hundred of thousands for sterilization systems - basically are like fluorescent tubes of fused quartz but without the phosphors converting mercury's strong UV lines into visible light so the 50W one can put out 25W as UVc that splits H2O to make the OH radical. I tell my invention as never planed to make a dime on it, but did want to recover the patent cost in a few years with tiny license fee. It is not a profit maker now with the low cost of carbon credits. - Perhaps if CH4 is killing voters, the government may pick up my idea as to how to kill atmospheric CH4. Just so you know I had the invention write up done a few months ago, below is some analysis from it for the total volume: The area of an octagon is (2 + 2 root2) e^2 where e is the length of one of the eight edges. For the largest octagon e = 1.428L or 14.28 feet. The length of the central section of the cage, 2L = 20 feet. Thus the volume of that central section is (2+2 root2)(14.28)(14.28)20 = 19,692.10 cubic feet. The volume of a right circular cone is (1/3)A H, where A is the area of the base and H is the height of the apex above base. This is also a very good approximation for the volume of a polygon cone with an octagon base with A still the area of the octagon's base and H still the base to apex height. The second largest volumes of the cage, are the two bottom parts of an 8-sided “cone” with L = 10 long edges inclined 30 degree to the axis. The corners of the largest octagons were 18.66 feet from the axis, so H for the full cone is found from H tan(30) = 18.66 or H = 18.66 / 0.57735 = 32.3201 feet but only the part h from the bottom is real volume in the cage, where h = L cos(30) = 10x0.866 = 8.66 feet. I. e. the real volume truncates in the middle sized octagon, which has area (2+2 root2)(10.4548)(10.4548) = 527.761 square feet. Thus, the volume of a “cone” with this area base and height of 32.32.01 – 8.66 = 23.66 feet must be subtracted from the full volume of the imaginary “cone” base area of 984.61 square feet and height of 32.3201 feet. By the approximation V = (1/3) A H the full volume, largely imaginary, is (1/3)984.61x32.3201 = 10,607.56 cubic feet and the volume not real is (1/3)527.761x23.66 = 4,162.28, so the real volume is: 6,445.28 cubic feet, but there are two such volumes, one on each side of the central 2L long prism. Thus the volume of the three largest central sections is 19,692.10 +2x6,445.28 = 32,582.67 cubic feet. Text goes on the same way to get the volume of next two sections (and doubles it) to conclude the total is: 35220.63, but call it 34,000 cubic feet of lift gas as the way the balloon is attached to this external cage, to be described later, will make the balloon slightly smaller than the internal volume of the cage.
They are where almost all of the power made by the PMAs is used. They stick out perpendicular from the axis slightly further from the balloon than the end of the tether Y that holds the case of the PMA static - sort of like the stabilizing end disks shown in the MARS system but the lamps do not rotate. Object of my invention is to destroy CH4 via production of the OH radical since mother nature is now badly in need of help. CH4 release rate many times greater than she can destroy so the CH4 concentration in air is increasing and each molecule's half life is too - by the scary rate of 0.3 years, per year now! I. e. the balloon, its PVC cage the 12 inch PVC short pipes on axis (one at each end) with the speed step up gears and most of the PMA inside all rotate with the RPM of the balloon. I did not tell how the wind catchers attach to the PVC cage to drive it (there are many choices and only testing will tell which is best). I also did not tell how the air sucked in by the internal fan of the PMA for cooling is prevented from recirculation - why the PMA does not go entirely inside the 12 inch PVC Tube. The UVc lamps, the PMA (case and stator), the AC to AC convertor, some FHA required LED lights do not rotate.
No, it isn't. It's increasing almost everywhere, and will continue to do so for a full generation yet barring catastrophe. Not only that, but the kinds of economic changes so far associated with sufficiently falling birthrates boost CO2 emissions. But the reason I said "too late" was that the population is already too big for any non-catastrophic mode of decline to have much effect on the CO2 boost. There's too many people that would have to disappear, rather than grow into adulthood and old age, to make more than a small deceleration in the boost.
I told why (but you may have posted too soon to read): Object of my invention is to destroy CH4 via production of the OH radical since mother nature is now badly in need of help. CH4 release rate many times greater than she can destroy so the CH4 concentration in air is increasing and each molecule's half life is too - by the scary rate of 0.3 years, per year now! And I add now it is good idea to do it in low, very low troposphere where we live not up in the stratosphere but high enough to not cause health problems to any creatures except pehaps some very high flying birds. My system would also make some (or a lot if that is desired) of ozone. Those high flying birds would surely avoid rich ozone areas. - it is very irritating at least to me.
Birthrate is below replacement in the US, Germany, Holland, Belgium, Spain, Italy and Sweden. Several of those countries are still increasing in population due to immigration, but that indicates they are functioning as a "sink" for other countries. So far, yes. But I see pretty encouraging signs there. Solar microgrids are springing up in Africa and are part of the way that standards of living is improving there. If we can drive more improvements in that vein we might be able to avoid the "prosperity means CO2" problem.
They are all increasing in population, and will continue to do so for decades to come unless catastrophe destroys the current patterns. So will the countries supplying them with immigrants. That might slow down the rate of CO2 boost otherwise expected from economic progress in Africa, but it will still be a boost - even without the population boom we would expect if Africa follows the common pattern of economic development, so that its premature death rate falls.
Ah, sorry, missed your reply. Wouldn't your UV contribution be negligible compared to the ~300 w/sq m UV provided by the Sun?
Only very harsh UV (UVc) can split H2O to make OH radical. I don't have data, but sun surely does not have 300W/m^2 of the very short wave length UVc required, not even before it starts to die in the stratosphere making the "ozone layer," etc. Furthermore, as it can split O2 & N2 also the atmosphere is optically thick for UVc in relatively short depth. I.e. UVa & UVb penetrate much more deeply. Even if your 300W/m^2 is correct, which without checking I doubt, that 300/Wm^2 is counting the UVa & UVb, that do not have enough energy per photon to split H2O. Thus the UVc down where we need it is rare as it must diffuse down and there are many things other than water vapor it reacts with that also destroy it. This is why the CH4, now released at highest ever rate, from the surface is able to destroy the OH radical faster than it gets into the lower troposphere. (one photon per molecule of CH4.) Why the half-life of a CH4 molecule near Earth's surface is now increasing about 0.3 year per year now.
* India has a point - See graph below. India did not make the Global Warming problem - US mainly did. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! India is planning to double electric power from wind & solar cells in a decade - from article; and Billy T adds: India, which is very rich in Thorium and very poor in Uranium is building the world's first commercial scale Thorium reactor - US made small ones, at Oak Ridge as I recall, but Government wanted atomic bombs, so told them to stop spending on it as can't easily use a thorium reactor to make bombs. World has much more energy in Thorium than in Uranium and like the Candu (heavy water moderated) reactor no enrichment plants are required - So no one needs to be centrifuging natural U to get 15 or so fold increase in U235. World would be much safer place if "Atomic Power" mean Thorium Reactor.
In post http://www.sciforums.com/threads/climate-gate.97892/page-55#post-3219924 I explained how rapid (less than two weeks) step up in Global Warming might happen - large part of rain forest burning making huge CO2 "burp" but worse - black soot aerosols dramatically reducing solar reflection from high tropospheric clouds over approximately half the Earth where the Hadley cells carry the soot. Easily a 250% increase in solar heating of those clouds (Reflectivity, r falling from ~0.67% to only 0.17%) That heating also converts water droplets into water vapor which is transparent for most of sunlight energy. - I.e. increase the heating below the clouds and increases the blocking of IR the warmer earth might try to radiate to space thru the now H2O vapor rich cloud. Recently in this thread, I disclosed the invention I had been working on for nearly a year. It is designed to help mother nature destroy CH4. Her efforts are increasingly not able to do that sufficiently as she has for more than 800,000 years, so the half life of CH4 is increasing at about 0.3 year / year now. Already the CH4 concentration is several times greater than it has ever been (well at least in the last 800,000 years the ice core records cover - thru 6 or 8 ice ages.) I ceased work on the promotional model of my invention as the low price of carbon credits has stolen its profit making potential. (Just getting its CO2 equivalent destruction certified for carbon credit sales cost more than $300,000 typically.) More than 1000 units would need to be deployed to make a significant difference, but when things get very bad in the Northern Hemisphere, where almost all of the CH4 comes from, Governments of the Southern Hemisphere, may deploy my invention as a CH4 invasion barrier and to reduce what has already moved south of the equator. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Note that my invention installed on or just north of the equator would be of some help up to about latitude 30N. Also note every drawing of these cell I have ever seen gives wrong impression as neglects the Corollas effect. I.e. the red lines of warm air do NOT loop back as the blue lines show. This drawing is the best as at least it has curved red arrows that tell the truth. The circulation is NOT along a line of constant longitude as drawings, even this one, imply. I. e. The circulation is in twisted paths (like a spring with no ends) for the circulating air to go all the way around the earth before returning to travel the same " circular spring like" path again. Thus even if my invention is only installed on South American land, it processes all the air that moves southward from the equator.
The 300 w/m^2 was for all UV at the top of the atmsosphere. For your frequencies of interest (240-250nm) there's about 10 watts flux at the top of the atmosphere. How much of that makes it into the troposphere? (where 80% of the atmosphere, and 99% of the water is) You could get 99.9999% attenuation and still end up with something like a billion watts total flux. What total flux would your concept add per windmill?
I'm replying to Billvon's post 1579 - why it never seems to appear even though I clicked on that post's "reply" I don't know but it is adjacent to this post. He asked: "What total flux would your concept add per windmill?" I never tried to guess that, as I can just keep adding 50W U-shaped UVc lamps to use up all it makes. This is a reasonable estimate: The windmill has a cross section in just the central section of 20feet times 18.24(1 + 2/sq rt 2) = 880.7 sq feet. (Central section is 20 feet long and octagon with edge length = 18.24 feet.) With the two ends its cross section is more than 1,000 and that does not include the "wind catchers" that increase the rotating diameter. I have several designs described in in the patent write up, but don't know which is best or how big they should be.* Perhaps they are rigid somewhat like the cups of an aerometer. Or perhaps they are canvas that opens up to "catch wind" on the side moving with the wind and collaps against the opposite side so unlike the aerometer, there is little torque resisting rotation on the side currently moving towards the wind. One can't design them - must just try two different designs operating near by in the same wind flow to see which is best (and has at least 15 year life, like the lamps can have.) Conventional wind machines can capture slightly more than 50% of the KE in their "swept area." (~2/3 is the theoretical limit.) I doubt my design can do as well, but 40% seems a reasonable guess. How many Joules that is on an annual bases will depend on how high the FAA will allow it (now reduced to only 500 feet) and where it is. That can't be where ice forms on it. As already stated, to make much difference to GW, need to deploy thousands of my machines - why them being profit making was so critical. Note first post forgot to divide by sq root 2 when adding cross section of the two sides joining the flat 20 by 18.24 side facing directly into the wind. * Too big they make huge torque but stagnate the wind and make less power than if smaller and rotating faster. - really tough to get correct size by theory - must "cut and try."
