YOU: Fix the US Energy Crisis

[OmCheeto]

Thank you all for your thoughtful responses. Thank you also for the references to other posts and forums where there have been previous discussions on these topics about which I have been replying. I should have done my homework and read all previous forums before posting anything. I apologize if I have wasted your time.

I don't think many people would yell at you for not going through the whole thread. Much of which was posted, over 10 years ago, is no longer true. And some of the people you are arguing with, appear to be PF ghosts:

urbsurfer was last seen: Sep 22, 2006
CharlesP was last seen: Jul 15, 2010​

Yes, as the gold used in a energy collector, I agree that aluminum would work just as well. As far carbon based fuels extracted from the Earth --gas and oil and coal I still think we are going to have to find serious alternatives to replace them as an energy source and even with that, most of us will have to give up a lot of things we now consider as necessary to our way of life--that includes flying.(which I personally love to do)

Also, I do believe we must address population growth as part of this solution. This is an urgent problem. There is a discussion of such on the following: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/population-and-sustainability/ There is is also much info on the world population clock website.
Our planet and the burgeoning population is a very large piece of the energy crisis--as is the effect of climate change. I really don't think any of these things can be taken out of a solution--from big ideas to small--from changes in lifestyles to changes in personal thinking and global politics/policies. In my opinion as a lay person , both population growth as well as climate change will have to be part of any technologies developed by physicists in answer to the energy crisis.

I hear you all loud and clear and appreciate your thoughts and arguments.

...

In general, I agree about the population situation, and the environment.

But, as a child, I had some great leaders, to look up to, who heavily influenced my current day thinking:

I feel very definitely that the administration is absolutely correct in cracking down on companies and corporations and municipalities that continue to pollute the nation's air and water. While I am a great believer in the free competitive enterprise system and all that it entails, I am an even stronger believer in the right of our people to live in a clean and pollution-free environment. To this end, it is my belief that when pollution is found, it should be halted at the source, even if this requires stringent government action against important segments of our national economy.

Even before I was born, some people could see where we were going to be, today:

One final thought I should like to leave with you. High-energy consumption has always been a prerequisite of political power. The tendency is for political power to be concentrated in an ever-smaller number of countries. Ultimately, the nation which control - the largest energy resources will become dominant. If we give thought to the problem of energy resources, if we act wisely and in time to conserve what we have and prepare well for necessary future changes, we shall insure this dominant position for our own country.

Sounds a bit self centered now. But I wonder what people who are 100 years old think about it. As my 80 year old friends tell me; "Oh! You're just a baby."

 

[bluespanishlady]

I don't think many people would yell at you for not going through the whole thread. Much of which was posted, over 10 years ago, is no longer true. And some of the people you are arguing with, appear to be PF ghosts:

urbsurfer was last seen: Sep 22, 2006
CharlesP was last seen: Jul 15, 2010​

In general, I agree about the population situation, and the environment.

But, as a child, I had some great leaders, to look up to, who heavily influenced my current day thinking:Even before I was born, some people could see where we were going to be, today:
Sounds a bit self centered now. But I wonder what people who are 100 years old think about it. As my 80 year old friends tell me; "Oh! You're just a baby."

Hello.

You are so right to post these voices from the near past. It is generous of you and not one bit self centered.

I am myself a lady approaching seventy, and I consider the person from 1969 (when I was twenty three years old) just as right in his perception as the person from 1957 (when I was eleven). The rules for holding and hanging onto power never seem to change. Just one theme and a few variations. History is a great teacher. What sort of students are we? That is the question.

Sometimes I fear we will never do the things we need to do because politicians are too closely aligned to their party donors, big oil and gas, as well as other corporate interests. There's that, and then there's the public's general complacency and resistance to conceptualizing and demanding a long range plan in addition to immediate action from those we elect to serve.

Remember the Superfund? Whatever happened to that?

EPA and OSHA regulations? Where is the money for enforcement?

In the area where I live a dairy recently discharged sludge into the local water system and the sludge ended up in the water treatment plant which was not able to handle all the chemical mess. The town where it happened (and had even happened at least once before ) slapped a fine on the dairy. The dairy complained, people were afraid the dairy would move out and take along its jobs, so the city cut down the fine. The fact that the fine didn't begin to cover the cost of damages to the water treatment plant appeared to be less of a bother than the thought the dairy would move out.
On the other hand, If I don't rake and bundle my leaves in the fall and allow them to be washed into the local sewer drains I would face a big fine. This is just one example of rules and regs being ignored or enforced unequally (making them really ineffective) . Isn't this also all about who's got the most power? And don't these inconsistencies in application and enforcement of already existing laws and regulations taint the public's opinion, and confuse both the issues and the reception of any proposed solutions?

(As an atheist I would throw the negative effects of religion (s) into this mix of why we fail to address problems. )

Also--As far as how the old-timers are seeing things, my father died this past summer. He wasn't one hundred, but 94. He still had a sharp mind. He was an avid reader, kept up on the news, science, and current events as well as politics and public opinion.
That GI generation in whole seemed to be involved and, if I'm not mistaken are the one group that dependably shows up at the polls to vote. I think there were and still are pretty darned plugged in.

A lot of people noticed things needed attention. Years ago.
Rachel Carson was another.

Of course, one of my favorites quotes is the warning from General/ President Eisenhower regarding the inherent dangers posed by the military industrial complex. How can anyone forget that?

So. Thank you for the kind post and the reminder that a lot of people have noticed things needed attention. Years ago.

And yet, here we are today mulling over- -depending on who you talk to--whether there really even is a problem.
Maybe those of us who care about facing and solving these problems need to get a little more outspoken and involved ourselves?

 

[mfb]

okay first the dish outside the atmosphere of Earth is not to be a mirror but a collector of the suns full spectrum

What does it "collect" how and how is that supposed to be useful? Just saying "put a collector somewhere" is not an idea.

As far as using the bouyant force of the ocean I am referring directly to bouyancy itself as a force that could be harnessed.

How? Ignore the technical details, where do you see energy that could be extracted?

 

[bluespanishlady]

With due respect, the ideas I toss out are taken from my general observations and experiences in life working with a fixing problems encountered in basic home construction, hydraulics, vehicles mechanics, as well as problems encountered in working in the physical environments of the natural world..

Right now we are filling deserts which solar panels which are collecting energy from sunlight. With solar energy where solar panels are located affects how efficient and useful they are, so I can't help but wonder why we can't get closer to the actual source.
If we instead put a collector /transmitter of solar energy outside the Earth's atmosphere - the energy potential is much greater and more efficient because absent the atmosphere we can collect the energy in the full spectrum of light.
We have microwave dishes and satellites and are building a space station out there, so why is it not possible to have a solar energy collector /transmitter there as well.
I am just a layperson but it seems to me this should be possible. I know this will not impress you, but I can't tell you the number of times my husband and I have done something everyone else says is impossible. I do honestly believe the the solution to our energy problems lies beyond the confines of this globe and its natural resources. I do believe today's scientists can figure out a way to do this.

The ocean thing is less practical but still I believe possible. As far as the ocean is concerned what made me think of this is how a huge battleship filled with enormous weight sits atop the ocean and rises and falls with the oceans waves and general movement. Couldn't the force of this rising and falling be incorporated into a mechanical process used to generate energy? (not actually using the battleship of course) I think of how in the past, a steam locomotive turned the wheels of a train, or how pistons work.

Thank you for allowing me to participate in this forum.

 

[OmCheeto]

With due respect, the ideas I toss out are taken from my general observations and experiences in life working with a fixing problems encountered in basic home construction, hydraulics, vehicles mechanics, as well as problems encountered in working in the physical environments of the natural world..

Right now we are filling deserts which solar panels which are collecting energy from sunlight. With solar energy where solar panels are located affects how efficient and useful they are, so I can't help but wonder why we can't get closer to the actual source.
If we instead put a collector /transmitter of solar energy outside the Earth's atmosphere - the energy potential is much greater and more efficient because absent the atmosphere we can collect the energy in the full spectrum of light.
We have microwave dishes and satellites and are building a space station out there, so why is it not possible to have a solar energy collector /transmitter there as well.
I am just a layperson but it seems to me this should be possible. I know this will not impress you, but I can't tell you the number of times my husband and I have done something everyone else says is impossible. I do honestly believe the the solution to our energy problems lies beyond the confines of this globe and its natural resources. I do believe today's scientists can figure out a way to do this.

The ocean thing is less practical but still I believe possible. As far as the ocean is concerned what made me think of this is how a huge battleship filled with enormous weight sits atop the ocean and rises and falls with the oceans waves and general movement. Couldn't the force of this rising and falling be incorporated into a mechanical process used to generate energy? (not actually using the battleship of course) I think of how in the past, a steam locomotive turned the wheels of a train, or how pistons work.

Thank you for allowing me to participate in this forum.

I think what mfb was trying to convey, is that you've broken rule #2, from the original post.

Second, I want specific, coherent plans. Don't just say 'reduce CO2 emissions' or 'increase production' - tell me how.

Personally, I like your ideas. But they don't say "how" we are to implement them. Your space based energy collection system seems ok on the surface, but putting just 1 kg of material into geostationary orbit costs $50,000. And knowing what I do about the minimal effect of the shielding of the Earth's atmosphere, I can tell you that I'm not willing to do the maths on how much it would cost to put "x" number of rolls of aluminum foil into space...

Never mind what I just said, I am going to do the maths.

A 28 ounce roll of aluminum foil, disregarding the package it came in, has a mass of 0.29 kg
It has an area of 18.5 m²
From one website, I find that 496,804,500,000 square meters of the Earth are required to be covered with solar panels to power the world.
So we just divide that by the weight, and multiply by the cost/kg, and come up with:

     496,804,500,000         m^2 (area of solar panels to power the world)
                18.5         m^2 (area of a roll of aluminum foil)
      26,854,297,297         rolls of Al foil 
                0.29         kg/roll
       7,787,746,216         kg of Al foil 
              50,000         $/kg
$389,387,310,810,811         cost of getting Al into space 
$168,179,133,841,840         receiver  (from the Xindi thread)
$557,566,444,652,651         sub total

Now I know Russ said:

Third, money is important, but not critical (for this thread), so don't let it constrain your ambition.

But, I think $560 trillion dollars, would have people barking; "Thanks Obama!", at much higher volumes, when Earth based solutions, are probably a bit cheaper.

 

[mfb]

If we instead put a collector /transmitter of solar energy outside the Earth's atmosphere - the energy potential is much greater and more efficient because absent the atmosphere we can collect the energy in the full spectrum of light.

You gain something - how much depends on the wavelength response of the solar cells, let's be optimistic and say 30%. That's what you lose again from beaming it down to earth. You can gain more from higher orbits, but then launch costs are higher and the transmission becomes much more problematic. Aluminium foil is not a solar cell, you would need huge areas of solar cells in space, costing gigantic amounts of money.

I am just a layperson but it seems to me this should be possible. I know this will not impress you, but I can't tell you the number of times my husband and I have done something everyone else says is impossible.

It is not impossible, but all studies made so far come to the same conclusion: with current technology it is more expensive than solar cells on earth, often by orders of magnitude. And we are not running out of space in deserts.

The ocean thing is less practical but still I believe possible. As far as the ocean is concerned what made me think of this is how a huge battleship filled with enormous weight sits atop the ocean and rises and falls with the oceans waves and general movement. Couldn't the force of this rising and falling be incorporated into a mechanical process used to generate energy?

That would be wave energy, not buoyancy. There are some tests to use it, but not with ships because those are impractical.

 

[jlefevre76]

Please stop claiming things that are completely wrong - there might be forums where you can get away with that because no one cares, but not here.

Hmmmm, looks like I need to read up on a few things, I must have had the wrong impression from what I have read. Obviously with the absolute negative temperatures thing,
I don't expect applications where we're using some kind of magical working fluid that can make use of it, I figure it might find applications in photovoltaics (already has if you include the band selectivity of materials as an application) and applications in nuclear reactions (which it again, probably already has, since nuclear physics is largely based on things like energy states and configurations of particles). So, I have a general grasp of the principles behind them, about what you'd expect from a mechanical engineer anyway.

As for dark matter/dark energy, I was under the impression that it was energy or matter in another state of some kind, apparently a useless state, or an entropic state of some kind? This makes sense, since it doesn't really react with normal energy or matter. Do you have any reading material on the subject, specifically that addresses entropy of dark
energy and/or dark matter?

 

[OmCheeto]

I never thought I'd live to see this day.

Unsubscribe...

 

[bluespanishlady]

I never thought I'd live to see this day.

Unsubscribe...

I hope this wasn't because of my posts. I will just read the posts from now on and not comment about things about which I do not know enough. Please continue.

 

[OmCheeto]

I hope this wasn't because of my posts. ...

Nope.

 

[mfb]

I don't expect applications where we're using some kind of magical working fluid that can make use of it, I figure it might find applications in photovoltaics (already has if you include the band selectivity of materials as an application) and applications in nuclear reactions (which it again, probably already has, since nuclear physics is largely based on things like energy states and configurations of particles).

I don't see how this would be related to dark matter or dark energy in any way.
If you talk about quantum mechanics: our modern world would not work without knowledge of it.

As for dark matter/dark energy, I was under the impression that it was energy or matter in another state of some kind, apparently a useless state, or an entropic state of some kind? This makes sense, since it doesn't really react with normal energy or matter.

Dark matter does not react enough with normal matter, indeed. You need detectors with tons of active material to get a chance to see one interaction in several years. Completely impractical. And dark energy does not interact with the matter in any useful way at all. In addition, both are relevant on cosmological scales with their huge volume, but completely irrelevant close to earth. Every egg has much more energy than both combined in the total volume of earth.

 

[Aggedor]

It's hopeless. Don't even try. I have a friend that is 55 that gave his car away after Exxon Valdez. He walks or bikes everywhere (though in very poor physical health), uses no heating or AC, and gave up a six figure job to move someplace where that was possible. A supposedly very progressive place. In the 15 years I have known him I have never ONCE heard a "good progressive" EVER thank him, give him an attaboy...not one word of encouragement. The environmental organizations that he belongs to often meet in places that can only be accessed via a car and act put out if he complains about that. Meanwhile, to a person, they love to shout about how THEY have to change- big oil, government, everyone...except themselves. Change begins in the mirror. In the US we shout about other peoples' behavior. We are ignorant and self satisfied. We cannot compliment someone like my friend because it would damage our delicate egos, might imply we're hypocrites. He puts it best. "It's all become ego identity. If people that claim to love the environment loved it 1/2 as much as they love their ego identity as environmentalists, we'd be fine". That's it. Ego identity, never behavior. Wear a tee shirt for the cause, but don't ask me to go without air conditioning in the summer. Or move somewhere where I can. It's a terminal consumer mentality. "Go buy green". No, buying as solution is a big part of the problem. Coincidentally, he's also a big producer of almost all his food and drink. As long as the average idiot is more interested in the plastic in freakin' KK's arse than the plastic in the oceans...well, you might just as well cash out now. There is no hope.

 

[bluespanishlady]

I hope this wasn't because of my posts. I will just read the posts from now on and not comment about things about which I do not know enough. Please continue.

I think there is a really negative attitude displayed , not to mention some crazy Obama references which are pretty tiresome and have nothing to do with anything here.
Are you by chance closer to my age (born 1946) than say someone born in 1970 or later? There is a lot of attitude to deal with. young people can be so full of themselves.

I wish I would hear or read some substantive ideas from the others in addition to take the time to lighting my hair on fire by citing the cost of aluminum foil.
Where is the passion from those physicists and engineers that I would naturally expect? Nothing is so exciting as a problem that needs solving.
Well. I hope I have not again stepped in it.
Back to reading forums.

 

[bluespanishlady]

It's hopeless. Don't even try. I have a friend that is 55 that gave his car away after Exxon Valdez. He walks or bikes everywhere (though in very poor physical health), uses no heating or AC, and gave up a six figure job to move someplace where that was possible. A supposedly very progressive place. In the 15 years I have known him I have never ONCE heard a "good progressive" EVER thank him, give him an attaboy...not one word of encouragement. The environmental organizations that he belongs to often meet in places that can only be accessed via a car and act put out if he complains about that. Meanwhile, to a person, they love to shout about how THEY have to change- big oil, government, everyone...except themselves. Change begins in the mirror. In the US we shout about other peoples' behavior. We are ignorant and self satisfied. We cannot compliment someone like my friend because it would damage our delicate egos, might imply we're hypocrites. He puts it best. "It's all become ego identity. If people that claim to love the environment loved it 1/2 as much as they love their ego identity as environmentalists, we'd be fine". That's it. Ego identity, never behavior. Wear a tee shirt for the cause, but don't ask me to go without air conditioning in the summer. Or move somewhere where I can. It's a terminal consumer mentality. "Go buy green". No, buying as solution is a big part of the problem. Coincidentally, he's also a big producer of almost all his food and drink. As long as the average idiot is more interested in the plastic in freakin' KK's arse than the plastic in the oceans...well, you might just as well cash out now. There is no hope.

I agree with a lot of what you say. (except about the talk about progressives basically being hypocrites who don't applaud the little guy doing his part.
Sure, we have that going on, but not just with progressives. There's hypocrites on both sides of the aisle: politically progressive hypocrites and politically conservative hypocrites. Good people do good things not to be patted on the back, but because they believe in what they are doing. I'll bet your friend knows this and accepts it as part of human behavior. You can't let crappy people ruin your day or change what you do to make this world a better place.
I cannot give up hope that the human race will face these very serious problems and find solutions. Let's just hope and plan on making it us.

 

[mheslep]

There are other fora for this kind of discussion. Here, on the home page of this website are listed guidelines for discussions in this forum.
PF values quality
• Topics based on science published in real scientific journals or textbooks
PF values productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic

The topic of this particular thread is possible solutions for the energy crisis, such as it was when the thread began.

 

[OmCheeto]

...
Are you by chance closer to my age (born 1946) than say someone born in 1970 or later?...

You could always check my Facebook profile. You did accept my friend request. Thanks!

[edit] And to keep somewhat on topic, I'm currently working on improving solar panel efficiency.
Believe it, or not.
Can reflected light help generate electricity with a solar panel?
Question about solar energy: angle of incidence

 

[OmCheeto]

I think there is a really negative attitude displayed...

Pfft! Get used to it.

They were really negative towards me when I first got here:

Wild geese@pf.com
Dec 9, 2007

stewartcs; Yes it is a "waste" of time.
Mech_Engineer; This is a terrbile title for a thread​

Over the next couple of months, I would discover, that this forum had Chutzpah!
Something, very lacking, in other forums.

As the meme says;

I am just a layperson but it seems to me this should be possible. I know this will not impress you, but I can't tell you the number of times my husband and I have done something everyone else says is impossible.

I would personally, love to hear those stories!

 

[bluespanishlady]

Some energy recovery methods include: grey water heat exchangers (to recover heat from warm waste water).
Waste Water PreheaterActive solar air heating systems.
http://www.solarwall.com/sw/swHow.html

Well water heat exchangers and desuperheaters (to precool refrigerant and preheat water), energy recovery ventilators (to recover heat from exhaust air), Recovery of waste heat in cooling systems for preheating hot water benefit both of the systems (cooling and water heating) and can be incorporated in both home and commercial systems.
http://www.oxfordplasticsinc.com/geothermalheating.htm Magnetic refrigeration systems show potential in the future for low energy use systems for refrigeration of cold storage boxes and large commercial cooling units. These also work with just water as the refrigerant so environmental impact is reduced.
http:/Magentic Refrigerator

let me clarify: Iike the "what?"

 

[bluespanishlady]

You could always check my Facebook profile. You did accept my friend request. Thanks!

[edit] And to keep somewhat on topic, I'm currently working on improving solar panel efficiency.
Believe it, or not.
Can reflected light help generate electricity with a solar panel?
Question about solar energy: angle of incidence

 

[bluespanishlady]

So you are actually WORKING on this? Yes!

 

[OmCheeto]

let me clarify: Iike the "what?"

Brilliant! I always liked Artman. That post predated my arrival at PF by over 3 years! Which is probably why I didn't bother to read it. So much catching up to do.

So you are actually WORKING on this? Yes!

I've been working on this problem, on a personal level, since 1989.
On a global level, only since about 2006.
My latest invention should cut hydrocarbon consumption by a monetary value of several hundred billion dollars per year, in the US.
Globally, a bit more.

For several years, a friend of mine would call me on the phone, and ask me what I was up to. My response was always; "Saving the world".
Like a lot of people, he didn't think I was serious.
But my trillion dollar idea prompted me to retire 3 years early.

Here's an image I posted back in 2007, at another science forum:

Pure gibberish now, in hindsight. But I was just collecting ideas. And so much has changed since then. So much.

But the ideas Artman shared, even after 11 years, are still all worthy of consideration.

 

[OmCheeto]

... Aluminium foil is not a solar cell, you would need huge areas of solar cells in space, costing gigantic amounts of money.
It is not impossible, but all studies made so far come to the same conclusion: with current technology it is more expensive than solar cells on earth, often by orders of magnitude. And we are not running out of space in deserts.
...

Sorry about the necro-response, but I just ran across a funny article:

Success! Scientists have achieved wireless energy transfer across 55m
This could change everything.
FIONA MACDONALD 13 MAR 2015
Although there’s still a long way to go, the team’s ultimate goal is to set up solar satellites around 36,000 km off Earth’s surface, where they’re able to soak up the intense solar energy from the Sun and then beam it back to Earth via antennae, providing the planet with unlimited renewable power.

I don't think they've done the (financial) math. My guess is that they'll ask for crowd funding next, like the "solar road" people:

Solar Roadways passes $1.4 million in crowdfunding: Just short of the $56 trillion required, but not bad for a crazy idea

I think it's a bad idea:

Cost of solar roadway/m²: $747
Cost of a Solarworld 250 watt panel/m²: $131​

And then there's the fact that people aren't "DRIVING FREAKING TRUCKS OVER YOUR SOLAR PANELS!", if you install them on your roof.ps. My "sending rolls of aluminum foil" into space, wasn't a scientific solution, it was purely to show the current cost of getting even the most basic of materials into orbit. And like my "Xindi weapon/nuclear power plant receiver", these are "back of napkin" numbers.

 

[jlefevre76]

I don't see how this would be related to dark matter or dark energy in any way.
If you talk about quantum mechanics: our modern world would not work without knowledge of it.

Dark matter does not react enough with normal matter, indeed. You need detectors with tons of active material to get a chance to see one interaction in several years. Completely impractical. And dark energy does not interact with the matter in any useful way at all. In addition, both are relevant on cosmological scales with their huge volume, but completely irrelevant close to earth. Every egg has much more energy than both combined in the total volume of earth.

Having been reamed a few times for this, I guess I should clarify what I was going after. On the negative absolute temperatures thing and/or the dark matter/dark energy thing, I was simply trying to open up a discussion of what people thought the next paradigm shift in physics would yield in terms of implications to energy. So, in a way, this is asking, what would you fund in order to trigger a paradigm shift that would (hopefully) have implications on our understanding of energy.

Maybe it's unlikely that the next paradigm shift would relate to dark matter/dark energy or negative absolute temperatures. (Which as I understand, shows up in any system that favors an energy state other than the lowest, but maybe I don't understand it.) I don't know that people can say for sure that the next paradigm shift won't affect those fields, but perhaps is it highly unlikely.

This might sound kind of weird, but I have to remain hopeful though, that the next paradigm shift will have implications for our understanding of energy, as currently, our understanding of physics is really going to limit us to being a one planet species, which is disappointing and maybe even dangerous in terms of asteroids and such. Chemical energy can get us into orbit, but it can't feasibly get us to another star system. Nuclear energy could get us to another star system, but we don't have the ability to control it like we do chemical energy, so we need some kind of a paradigm shift to change that, or change our fundamental understanding of physics. I would assume a paradigm shift like that would have direct implications on the way we harvest energy as well, so, I included some topics in order to spark a conversation on the subject generally.

 

[mfb]

Having been reamed a few times for this, I guess I should clarify what I was going after. On the negative absolute temperatures thing and/or the dark matter/dark energy thing, I was simply trying to open up a discussion of what people thought the next paradigm shift in physics would yield in terms of implications to energy. So, in a way, this is asking, what would you fund in order to trigger a paradigm shift that would (hopefully) have implications on our understanding of energy.

Maybe it's unlikely that the next paradigm shift would relate to dark matter/dark energy or negative absolute temperatures. (Which as I understand, shows up in any system that favors an energy state other than the lowest, but maybe I don't understand it.) I don't know that people can say for sure that the next paradigm shift won't affect those fields, but perhaps is it highly unlikely.

That's like saying "the next paradigm shift in energy usage might come from a better understanding of sandboxes. Perhaps it is highly unlikely but you cannot rule it out". With better buzzwords, but with the same likelihood.

 

[jlefevre76]

That's like saying "the next paradigm shift in energy usage might come from a better understanding of sandboxes. Perhaps it is highly unlikely but you cannot rule it out". With better buzzwords, but with the same likelihood.

I reject that metaphor. Sandboxes don't have a darn thing to do with energy. Exceptions to the classical laws of thermodynamics and new forms of matter/energy that we cannot yet easily detect, already do relate to energy. So, that's a bad metaphor.

Also, it also doesn't work as a metaphor because I'm not saying that it has to work one direction. The next paradigm shift could come from some other field, and have implications on the fields listed. It may not be likely (and if it's not, you're failing to make an argument why, which would actually be productive and perhaps enlighten me as to why I'm wrong, rather than just telling me I'm wrong and forcing me to take someone's word rather than understand for myself). I'm not saying you need to totally change the direction of the thread, just explain briefly why those fields are unlikely to yield anything that will change our relationship to energy in the future. Or, correct me if I'm wrong on this:

• Dark energy/dark matter are difficult to detect, nearly impossible, and as such there is little or no expectation that they will ever relate to normal matter or energy in any kind of meaningful way.
• Negative absolute temperatures deal with systems that favor being in a higher energy state, and already have all the applications we could ever find, and are already used in things like semiconductors and lasers (where a wavelength is favored due to the state of the system).

So, that's my understanding of what people have said on these forums combined with my own, admittedly, rudimentary understanding of these concepts.

 

[mheslep]

Sandboxes don't have a darn thing to do with energy.

Sandbox Energy Corp.

 

[OmCheeto]

Sandbox Energy Corp.

"Solid investment in uncertain times…"

 

[mfb]

I reject that metaphor. Sandboxes don't have a darn thing to do with energy. Exceptions to the classical laws of thermodynamics and new forms of matter/energy that we cannot yet easily detect, already do relate to energy. So, that's a bad metaphor.

By every measure I can imagine, every sandbox has more energy and more available energy than every negative temperature system ever made. Negative temperature is not an exception to thermodynamics, it fits in very well. And again, you are arguing against the two most fundamental laws of physics, that never worked.
Do you have any reference that those systems are in some way considered as relevant for power plants?

you're failing to make an argument why, which would actually be productive and perhaps enlighten me as to why I'm wrong

See above, and also multiple previous posts.

Dark energy/dark matter are difficult to detect, nearly impossible, and as such there is little or no expectation that they will ever relate to normal matter or energy in any kind of meaningful way.

Yes.

Negative absolute temperatures deal with systems that favor being in a higher energy state

No they do not. Actually, in terms of entropy, they "favor" lower-energetic states (that's why they will give away heat to everything with positive temperatures).

and already have all the applications we could ever find

No one claimed that. But making up arbitrary combinations of "scientific concept/object" and "specific commercial application" is not going to give useful results.

 

[OmCheeto]

This kind of news is always good to hear:

Costa Rica powered with 100% renewable energy for 75 straight days
20 March 2015
...Costa Rica has been powered primarily by hydro power - both pumped storage and run-of-the-river plants - and a mixture of geothermal, wind, biomass and solar energy.
...

 

[OmCheeto]

I knew I'd seen something to the above effect, regarding Hawaii. Just found it:

Hawaii aims for 100% renewable energy by 2040
13 March 2015
...
“Even our utility is saying we can hit 65 percent by 2030, so 100 percent is definitely doable,” Sen. Mike Gabbard (D), sponsor of the Senate bill, SB 2181, and chair of Hawaii’s Energy and Environment Committee, told ThinkProgress. “This is huge for our state’s future. Each year, we spend $3 to $5 billion importing fossil fuels to power our economy. Our electricity bills are roughly three times the national average.”
...

Hawaii strikes me as the perfect environment: Sun, rain, mountains.

Hopefully, people seeing Costa Rica kicking Hawaii's butt, in such things, will get motivated.

 

[OmCheeto]

Someone let me know if this is getting annoying.
These announcements keep popping up on Facebook.

This Texas city [Georgetown] is going 100 percent renewable energy
March 20, 2015
On its website, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lists 12 municipalities that have made commitments to 100 percent renewable power. Some, like Burlington, Vt., have already achieved the goal. Others have a longer-term view. San Diego is not planning on reaching 100 percent until 2035.

Burlington, Vt?

Burlington is first U.S. city to hit 100 percent renewable energy
Feb 2, 2015
The city produces most of its energy through hydropower, which harnesses the water pressure from underground turbines to generate electricity. 30 percent comes from a biomass facility, which burns scrap wood and creates energy by converting the heat into steam. Wind turbines produce another 20 percent.

Vermont hopes to spread Burlington’s success to other cities, Ricketts said. “There’s nothing magic about Burlington,” he said.

"Nothing magic". hmmmm... I like that.

 

[mheslep]

"Climate change is the biggest problem we face", sayeth Professor Rickets from the ivory tower. Never mind the heroin epidemic in Vermont, that doesn't rank compared to talk about what Burlington can do to save the world. Apparently green energy claims require no examination, unlike claims about drug epidemics that can quickly be checked by visits to the morgue.

After an admission that "the city produces most of its energy through hydropower,", which has been the case for almost a century in much of New England, it is comical to then follow up with "Vermont hopes to spread Burlington’s success to other cities". The idea that biomass plants are an improvement for the environment is also dubious.

 

[OmCheeto]

"Climate change is the biggest problem we face", sayeth Professor Rickets from the ivory tower. Never mind the heroin epidemic in Vermont, that doesn't rank compared to talk about what Burlington can do to save the world. Apparently green energy claims require no examination, unlike claims about drug epidemics that can quickly be checked by visits to the morgue.

After an admission that "the city produces most of its energy through hydropower,", which has been the case for almost a century in much of New England, it is comical to then follow up with "Vermont hopes to spread Burlington’s success to other cities". The idea that biomass plants are an improvement for the environment is also dubious.

Wow.
And I thought I had ADD.
Talk about "look over there! HEROIN!"...
I could have swore this was the "general engineering" forum.
Lots of people have their own personal biggest problem.
I don't.
There are lots of problems.
I try to solve them all.
I actually have solved many of the major ones, IMHO.
But, as I've said, many times, "My solutions probably aren't very politically correct".

hmmm...

Perhaps we should start a new thread.
I mentioned several years ago, that PF needed a forum devoted to "Systems Science", but got frightened away by a wordsmith.

OmCheeto - what's your idea of systems science?
These days, I would see it centred around hierarchy theory, dissipative structure theory, Peircean semiotics, complex adaptive systems, second order cybernetics, generative neural networks, relational biology, scalefree networks, condensed matter physics and self-organising systems.

So quite a variety of currently active approaches. But most distinguished by a recognition of some kind of downward causation to complement the usual bottom-up causality of atomistic and mechanistic modelling - which is what makes a system more than the sum of its parts.

I would ask; "Where is the ferrous monkey nowadays?", but I'm sure he'd respond with; "Apes are not monkeys!"

 

[mheslep]

Not every mention of a "100% renewable energy, now and forever more, amen" prayer chant belongs in the general engineering forum.

 

[russ_watters]

Lots of people have their own personal biggest problem.
I don't.
There are lots of problems.
I try to solve them all.

It doesn't really work that way. Some problems overlap, so you can't solve both/all at the same time. Even worse, solving one problem sometimes creates another. So you must decide which is the bigger problem in those cases.

My issue is similar to mheslep's. I view problems based on time horizons/immediacy in addition to severity:
-A problem that exists now must be solved now.
-A problem that will exist in the future but actions now affect it must be solved now.
-A problem that will exist in the future and actions now don't affect it doesn't need to be solved now.

The difficulty with climage change, IMO, is that it isn't a "now" problem and it is difficult to gauge how much our actions now will impact the future. Worse, it is difficult to gauge how much our actions are going to change on their own in the future.

Social Security is a problem that is a "now" problem because our actions today are near certain to result in it going bankrupt in around 2035. We can predict with near certainty that it will happen, when it will happen (+- just a few years) and what happens when it does, based on our actions in the meantime. Climate change isn't like that. Not only do we not have a very good handle on the rate of change (the temperature change itself), we don't have a good handle what impact that will have. Even worse, we've proven to be very bad at forecasting our own actions, even over a period as short as 10-15 years.

This is why I'm going to need to reboot the thread whenever I get around to it. Now that it is more than 10 years, some of my predictions turned-out to be very wrong and so my opinions on what we should do next have changed.