One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main
The REAL energy of the future! (not wind or solar!)
Page <<first <prev 5 of 6 next>
Jan 5, 2014 21:26:59   #
jonhatfield Loc: Green Bay, WI
 
BigMike wrote:
I think it's a good possibility. In fact, I broached this subject in a thread Tasine began, pleading for honest conversation between the right and the left. We have become used to not working with each other, and if this trend is to be changed, I believe the best way to do so would be to focus on things we have little disagreement over. I thought that the need for energy independence, national security, a clean environment, economic prosperity and the philanthropic benefit of the world as a whole was best summed by this single topic.

Kennedy once vowed to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. In that same spirit, I believe folks on the right and the left could come together to accomplish a goal that will change the future for the whole planet.

The Establishment forces of both parties who's goal is the status quo and who keep us endlessly quibbling with their manipulations will do their best to squash any idea that may benefit someone other than themselves. Big business and big banking are part of that manipulation. The purpose of this post is not only to make people aware of a profoundly positive change almost within our grasp, but also to awaken them to the idea that there are things we can work together on and we need to start SOMEWHERE.

For the sake of those who already feel like the government has taken on waaay more than it was ever intended to I would say this: The Constitution say "promote the general welfare". If this isn't a case of promoting the general welfare, I don't know what is...HOWEVER! No one is suggesting this is something that should left solely to the government. Hey guys! You're already in bed with big business! While the two of you lie there why don't you get them in on this? AND to all you visionary individuals and philanthropic organizations, can you think of a better way to benefit mankind? The ramifications of hydrogen and fusion go light years past simple energy production. Can you imagine a fusion generating station that not only produces abundant, clean power but also desalinates seawater and pumps it to thirsty parts of the country for the growing of crops and feeding of the population?
I think it's a good possibility. In fact, I broach... (show quote)


Leave out paragraph 3 and I agree heartily with the rest. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Reply
Jan 5, 2014 21:31:24   #
jonhatfield Loc: Green Bay, WI
 
Really large idea worthy of Big Mike. Excellent presentation and handling of side partisan issues! One of biggest things I've encountered on OPP.

Reply
Jan 5, 2014 22:40:13   #
emarine
 
jonhatfield wrote:
Really large idea worthy of Big Mike. Excellent presentation and handling of side partisan issues! One of biggest things I've encountered on OPP.


One issue not addressed here is the effect on the petro dollar and the world bank if a new energy system were to be used, especially if we didn't figure it out first... I am no economist so I will just bring the topic into the discussion ...

Reply
 
 
Jan 5, 2014 23:05:04   #
ElAku
 
BigMike wrote:
The Establishment forces of both parties who's goal is the status quo and who keep us endlessly quibbling with their manipulations will do their best to squash any idea that may benefit someone other than themselves. Big business and big banking are part of that manipulation. The purpose of this post is not only to make people aware of a profoundly positive change almost within our grasp, but also to awaken them to the idea that there are things we can work together on and we need to start SOMEWHERE.
b The Establishment forces of both parties who's ... (show quote)


I specifically agree with your Paragraph Three above .... especially the edited-in bold ...

Reply
Jan 5, 2014 23:24:05   #
cesspool jones Loc: atlanta
 
emarine wrote:
Big Mike... What is really ironic is for the last 25 years my income has come from fossil fuels, I think the powers that be will drain this planet to the last drop as long as it is profitable .... the fact they have suppressed Green energy is the biggest crime of the century


:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

Reply
Jan 6, 2014 02:44:21   #
TiredOne
 
This is a great thread and the sort of thing I hoped to find on this site. I've done a good bit of research on the subject and would like to correct a couple of points stated previously, while also adding a few points.

First, it was previously stated how explosive hydrogen is which makes it inherently dangerous. This is simply not true. Hydrogen is certainly flammable, but it is far safer than many flammable products. The conditions to create an explosion are not that easily created. It is extremely difficult to contain in the first place, and requires a proper gas to oxygen ratio in a sufficient containment vessel, and a subsequent ignition source to create an explosion. While this can certainly be achieved by anyone who wants to do so, it is not likely to happen by accident. Most "fears" and beliefs concerning hydrogen are holdovers from the Hindenburg disaster.

Because of it's extremely low density and light weight, it will typically dissipate quickly in the event of a leak or rupture. It is not toxic, and only poses a threat to living organisms if it is in such a high density as to suffocate it, due to lack of oxygen. Since it will pass through most walls and ceilings, there is little chance of that actually happening. It also requires a higher ignition temperature than most hydrocarbon fuels such as natural gas or gasoline, both of which are heavier than air and will remain at ground level, posing a far greater threat to living organisms. Escaped hydrogen will in fact actually leave the atmosphere, achieving escape velocity. This is why there is virtually no free hydrogen in the atmosphere. I've never heard of it causing any damage to the ozone layer, but I suppose that might be possible.

Secondly, a common joke in the industry is that hydrogen and even fusion are clearly the energy of the future...

...and always will be...LOL...

There are many efforts under way to produce hydrogen more economically, and many are very promising indeed. Several involve solar energy to achieve large scale hydrogen production, but the range of ideas is quite large.

Thirdly, production of hydrogen by electrolysis is fairly efficient, and provides a means to store excess alternative energy sources for utilization when the alternative energy source is not producing energy for immediate consumption. The biggest hurdle in this regard is containment of this generated hydrogen. For large energy stores, it would most likely require storage as a liquid. Some have suggested underground storage in salt domes, but this would seem to be problematic to me.

Fourthly, many have mentioned we really require an all in approach. Alternative energy for residential use can go a long way to resolve a significant amount of energy production. Moving to a distributed model for residential use holds many benefits. While the one gentleman stated a 25 year ROI for his system, he was talking about a complete off grid system with storage and backup generation capability.

Depending on where you live, and what you want to achieve, the ROI can be far shorter. I for instance live in a State that offers no direct subsidy for alternative energy systems, but the federal government subsidy is currently 30% everywhere, and many States and communities offer additional subsidies. Many utilities also offer subsidies and "net" metering, where you only pay the difference between what you use on a monthly basis vs. what you generate. By staying connected to the grid, backup isn't really required, but is a nice feature, if you can afford it. Note that ironically, without backup, should the utility fail, solar energy systems are required to shut down during a utility failure to protect workers trying to restore service!

It would seem to me, that the installation of an automatic transfer switch that disconnected your system from the grid would alleviate the problem and that in fact is how a system with backup generation gets around this issue.

In my case with only federal subsidies, a ground mounted system had a payback of 10 years. But also increased my property value by more than the system cost immediately, so it's a pretty safe investment regardless. In States/cities/communities that offer additional subsidies, the ROI can be very short! In States that offer more robust net metering policies, you can even earn income from excess generation!

So, overall we need to invest in research to solve the issues with fusion production, get past the silly objections to offshore wind production (the wind blows offshore primarily during the daytime offshore vs. nighttime for land based systems), and invest in a distribution system for hydrogen to overcome storage issues.

As for whether or not this involves private investment, the sad reality is that few private investors have the patience to make long term investments of the size required to do the basic research to solve things like fusion. While it was the phone system that actually brought the transistor to market, that was during the time they were essentially a monopoly, and that boat has sailed, so to speak...

The energy companies are indeed investing heavily on alternative energy, because they want to be the ones who continue to profit on energy production regardless of the source.

The final comment I'll make for now concerns the perception of the low cost of current hydrocarbons. Their costs are far higher than most understand. The real costs are complex, and involves many, many factors, including an enormous amount of money spent on a military presence around the world. The increased level of destruction of property from violent weather, and the unknown cost of human life and health from the production, distribution and use of them.

The end result is that we already heavily subsidize hydrocarbons today through taxes and higher costs of food, insurance and health care. Almost no one considers this when they talk about alternative energy driving our economy in the ground. Alternative energy will be a huge economic benefit to the country who masters it!!!

Reply
Jan 6, 2014 07:36:57   #
Coos Bay Tom Loc: coos bay oregon
 
sounds pretty smart to me
TiredOne wrote:
This is a great thread and the sort of thing I hoped to find on this site. I've done a good bit of research on the subject and would like to correct a couple of points stated previously, while also adding a few points.

First, it was previously stated how explosive hydrogen is which makes it inherently dangerous. This is simply not true. Hydrogen is certainly flammable, but it is far safer than many flammable products. The conditions to create an explosion are not that easily created. It is extremely difficult to contain in the first place, and requires a proper gas to oxygen ratio in a sufficient containment vessel, and a subsequent ignition source to create an explosion. While this can certainly be achieved by anyone who wants to do so, it is not likely to happen by accident. Most "fears" and beliefs concerning hydrogen are holdovers from the Hindenburg disaster.

Because of it's extremely low density and light weight, it will typically dissipate quickly in the event of a leak or rupture. It is not toxic, and only poses a threat to living organisms if it is in such a high density as to suffocate it, due to lack of oxygen. Since it will pass through most walls and ceilings, there is little chance of that actually happening. It also requires a higher ignition temperature than most hydrocarbon fuels such as natural gas or gasoline, both of which are heavier than air and will remain at ground level, posing a far greater threat to living organisms. Escaped hydrogen will in fact actually leave the atmosphere, achieving escape velocity. This is why there is virtually no free hydrogen in the atmosphere. I've never heard of it causing any damage to the ozone layer, but I suppose that might be possible.

Secondly, a common joke in the industry is that hydrogen and even fusion are clearly the energy of the future...

...and always will be...LOL...

There are many efforts under way to produce hydrogen more economically, and many are very promising indeed. Several involve solar energy to achieve large scale hydrogen production, but the range of ideas is quite large.

Thirdly, production of hydrogen by electrolysis is fairly efficient, and provides a means to store excess alternative energy sources for utilization when the alternative energy source is not producing energy for immediate consumption. The biggest hurdle in this regard is containment of this generated hydrogen. For large energy stores, it would most likely require storage as a liquid. Some have suggested underground storage in salt domes, but this would seem to be problematic to me.

Fourthly, many have mentioned we really require an all in approach. Alternative energy for residential use can go a long way to resolve a significant amount of energy production. Moving to a distributed model for residential use holds many benefits. While the one gentleman stated a 25 year ROI for his system, he was talking about a complete off grid system with storage and backup generation capability.

Depending on where you live, and what you want to achieve, the ROI can be far shorter. I for instance live in a State that offers no direct subsidy for alternative energy systems, but the federal government subsidy is currently 30% everywhere, and many States and communities offer additional subsidies. Many utilities also offer subsidies and "net" metering, where you only pay the difference between what you use on a monthly basis vs. what you generate. By staying connected to the grid, backup isn't really required, but is a nice feature, if you can afford it. Note that ironically, without backup, should the utility fail, solar energy systems are required to shut down during a utility failure to protect workers trying to restore service!

It would seem to me, that the installation of an automatic transfer switch that disconnected your system from the grid would alleviate the problem and that in fact is how a system with backup generation gets around this issue.

In my case with only federal subsidies, a ground mounted system had a payback of 10 years. But also increased my property value by more than the system cost immediately, so it's a pretty safe investment regardless. In States/cities/communities that offer additional subsidies, the ROI can be very short! In States that offer more robust net metering policies, you can even earn income from excess generation!

So, overall we need to invest in research to solve the issues with fusion production, get past the silly objections to offshore wind production (the wind blows offshore primarily during the daytime offshore vs. nighttime for land based systems), and invest in a distribution system for hydrogen to overcome storage issues.

As for whether or not this involves private investment, the sad reality is that few private investors have the patience to make long term investments of the size required to do the basic research to solve things like fusion. While it was the phone system that actually brought the transistor to market, that was during the time they were essentially a monopoly, and that boat has sailed, so to speak...

The energy companies are indeed investing heavily on alternative energy, because they want to be the ones who continue to profit on energy production regardless of the source.

The final comment I'll make for now concerns the perception of the low cost of current hydrocarbons. Their costs are far higher than most understand. The real costs are complex, and involves many, many factors, including an enormous amount of money spent on a military presence around the world. The increased level of destruction of property from violent weather, and the unknown cost of human life and health from the production, distribution and use of them.

The end result is that we already heavily subsidize hydrocarbons today through taxes and higher costs of food, insurance and health care. Almost no one considers this when they talk about alternative energy driving our economy in the ground. Alternative energy will be a huge economic benefit to the country who masters it!!!
This is a great thread and the sort of thing I hop... (show quote)

Reply
 
 
Jan 6, 2014 15:30:56   #
RetNavyCWO Loc: VA suburb of DC
 
BigMike wrote:
The energy density of solar power is the problem. It is great to augment existing homes and businesses because the space required and the wiring already exists, but to power the world's 30 year expected INCREASE in demand (30 trillion watts or so if my memory is correct - might be kilowatts) it would take a swath of solar panels 5 miles wide from coast to coast. Note, INCREASE. That does not account for the demand already present. Even if photelectric cells efficiency are significantly improved it would still require vast amounts of land and tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of miles of transmission lines.

As I mentioned, putting a man on the moon was "iffy" when Kennedy made his vow, but we did it! Whether or not the airplane would fly was iffy when the Wright brother pioneered it. Now scramjets can fly at mach 10.

This is something we can do! And it's not far off. Are we going to let the Europeans and the Chinese beat us to the punch?
The energy density of solar power is the problem. ... (show quote)


Exactly! America has lost its unique place in the world as the primary manufacturer of needed goods. Our nation's prosperity started with growing and manufacturing cotton and tobacco for the rest of the world, and our manufacturing base over the following centuries became the greatest the world had ever seen. Now ... we have shipped that manufacturing base overseas, mostly to China. Before we lose what economic dominance we still have over the rest of the world, we need to begin manufacturing ... something! Alternative energy forms are ripe for the picking! The U.S. is well-positioned to take advantage of it. If we don't, I don't think anyone will ever again think of us as the "shining city on the hill."

Reply
Jan 6, 2014 15:47:05   #
BigMike Loc: yerington nv
 
jonhatfield wrote:
Really large idea worthy of Big Mike. Excellent presentation and handling of side partisan issues! One of biggest things I've encountered on OPP.


I appreciate your comments. Overcoming our differences is going to be a big (BIG!) job.

Reply
Jan 6, 2014 16:03:20   #
BigMike Loc: yerington nv
 
TiredOne wrote:
This is a great thread and the sort of thing I hoped to find on this site. I've done a good bit of research on the subject and would like to correct a couple of points stated previously, while also adding a few points.

First, it was previously stated how explosive hydrogen is which makes it inherently dangerous. This is simply not true. Hydrogen is certainly flammable, but it is far safer than many flammable products. The conditions to create an explosion are not that easily created. It is extremely difficult to contain in the first place, and requires a proper gas to oxygen ratio in a sufficient containment vessel, and a subsequent ignition source to create an explosion. While this can certainly be achieved by anyone who wants to do so, it is not likely to happen by accident. Most "fears" and beliefs concerning hydrogen are holdovers from the Hindenburg disaster.

Because of it's extremely low density and light weight, it will typically dissipate quickly in the event of a leak or rupture. It is not toxic, and only poses a threat to living organisms if it is in such a high density as to suffocate it, due to lack of oxygen. Since it will pass through most walls and ceilings, there is little chance of that actually happening. It also requires a higher ignition temperature than most hydrocarbon fuels such as natural gas or gasoline, both of which are heavier than air and will remain at ground level, posing a far greater threat to living organisms. Escaped hydrogen will in fact actually leave the atmosphere, achieving escape velocity. This is why there is virtually no free hydrogen in the atmosphere. I've never heard of it causing any damage to the ozone layer, but I suppose that might be possible.

Secondly, a common joke in the industry is that hydrogen and even fusion are clearly the energy of the future...

...and always will be...LOL...

There are many efforts under way to produce hydrogen more economically, and many are very promising indeed. Several involve solar energy to achieve large scale hydrogen production, but the range of ideas is quite large.

Thirdly, production of hydrogen by electrolysis is fairly efficient, and provides a means to store excess alternative energy sources for utilization when the alternative energy source is not producing energy for immediate consumption. The biggest hurdle in this regard is containment of this generated hydrogen. For large energy stores, it would most likely require storage as a liquid. Some have suggested underground storage in salt domes, but this would seem to be problematic to me.

Fourthly, many have mentioned we really require an all in approach. Alternative energy for residential use can go a long way to resolve a significant amount of energy production. Moving to a distributed model for residential use holds many benefits. While the one gentleman stated a 25 year ROI for his system, he was talking about a complete off grid system with storage and backup generation capability.

Depending on where you live, and what you want to achieve, the ROI can be far shorter. I for instance live in a State that offers no direct subsidy for alternative energy systems, but the federal government subsidy is currently 30% everywhere, and many States and communities offer additional subsidies. Many utilities also offer subsidies and "net" metering, where you only pay the difference between what you use on a monthly basis vs. what you generate. By staying connected to the grid, backup isn't really required, but is a nice feature, if you can afford it. Note that ironically, without backup, should the utility fail, solar energy systems are required to shut down during a utility failure to protect workers trying to restore service!

It would seem to me, that the installation of an automatic transfer switch that disconnected your system from the grid would alleviate the problem and that in fact is how a system with backup generation gets around this issue.

In my case with only federal subsidies, a ground mounted system had a payback of 10 years. But also increased my property value by more than the system cost immediately, so it's a pretty safe investment regardless. In States/cities/communities that offer additional subsidies, the ROI can be very short! In States that offer more robust net metering policies, you can even earn income from excess generation!

So, overall we need to invest in research to solve the issues with fusion production, get past the silly objections to offshore wind production (the wind blows offshore primarily during the daytime offshore vs. nighttime for land based systems), and invest in a distribution system for hydrogen to overcome storage issues.

As for whether or not this involves private investment, the sad reality is that few private investors have the patience to make long term investments of the size required to do the basic research to solve things like fusion. While it was the phone system that actually brought the transistor to market, that was during the time they were essentially a monopoly, and that boat has sailed, so to speak...

The energy companies are indeed investing heavily on alternative energy, because they want to be the ones who continue to profit on energy production regardless of the source.

The final comment I'll make for now concerns the perception of the low cost of current hydrocarbons. Their costs are far higher than most understand. The real costs are complex, and involves many, many factors, including an enormous amount of money spent on a military presence around the world. The increased level of destruction of property from violent weather, and the unknown cost of human life and health from the production, distribution and use of them.

The end result is that we already heavily subsidize hydrocarbons today through taxes and higher costs of food, insurance and health care. Almost no one considers this when they talk about alternative energy driving our economy in the ground. Alternative energy will be a huge economic benefit to the country who masters it!!!
This is a great thread and the sort of thing I hop... (show quote)



Good post! Waking the citizenry up to the opportunities that exist is going to be tough. Energy companies are the logical ones to pioneer hydrogen and fusion, but the idea of retooling is anathema to all businesses.

Reply
Jan 6, 2014 16:06:06   #
BigMike Loc: yerington nv
 
RetNavyCWO wrote:
Exactly! America has lost its unique place in the world as the primary manufacturer of needed goods. Our nation's prosperity started with growing and manufacturing cotton and tobacco for the rest of the world, and our manufacturing base over the following centuries became the greatest the world had ever seen. Now ... we have shipped that manufacturing base overseas, mostly to China. Before we lose what economic dominance we still have over the rest of the world, we need to begin manufacturing ... something! Alternative energy forms are ripe for the picking! The U.S. is well-positioned to take advantage of it. If we don't, I don't think anyone will ever again think of us as the "shining city on the hill."
Exactly! America has lost its unique place in the... (show quote)



Another wonderful point! These energy sources are a HUGE opportunity for American businesses to get ahead of the ball and hit a real home run

Reply
 
 
Jan 6, 2014 16:23:51   #
BigMike Loc: yerington nv
 
emarine wrote:
One issue not addressed here is the effect on the petro dollar and the world bank if a new energy system were to be used, especially if we didn't figure it out first... I am no economist so I will just bring the topic into the discussion ...


As far off as making fusion and hydrogen feasible is, I'd think that petro companies would have plenty of time to adjust. Hell! From planning to opening day it takes 20 years to build an oil refinery, and that tech is a century old. God only know how long it would take to build a fusion reactor! The biggest difference would probably be to gasoline and diesel refining, but those things would still continue. I can't see hydrogen powered weedeaters, lawnmowers, portable generators and ATVs for a looong time. Lubricants will still be needed and the jillions of other products made from petroleum. I can see petro companies coming up with whole new markets for plastics - houses maybe!

Reply
Jan 6, 2014 18:53:28   #
cesspool jones Loc: atlanta
 
RetNavyCWO wrote:
Exactly! America has lost its unique place in the world as the primary manufacturer of needed goods. Our nation's prosperity started with growing and manufacturing cotton and tobacco for the rest of the world, and our manufacturing base over the following centuries became the greatest the world had ever seen. Now ... we have shipped that manufacturing base overseas, mostly to China. Before we lose what economic dominance we still have over the rest of the world, we need to begin manufacturing ... something! Alternative energy forms are ripe for the picking! The U.S. is well-positioned to take advantage of it. If we don't, I don't think anyone will ever again think of us as the "shining city on the hill."
Exactly! America has lost its unique place in the... (show quote)

if america increased manufactoring by 10 to 15 %...we'd be back like it was in the 80's...want ads in the papers an inch thick!

Reply
Jan 6, 2014 20:36:07   #
BigMike Loc: yerington nv
 
cesspool jones wrote:
if america increased manufactoring by 10 to 15 %...we'd be back like it was in the 80's...want ads in the papers an inch thick!


There is no reason blue collar manufacturing can't make a comeback. America has pioneered so much! We can't just surrender to India and China.

Reply
Jan 6, 2014 20:56:55   #
Coos Bay Tom Loc: coos bay oregon
 
If Americans made it a point to look at the place of origen of the clothes shoes small appliances that we buy and then only buy American made goods manufacturing will make a comeback. Why should we make greedy foriegn tycoons fabulously wealthy on sweatshop labor.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 5 of 6 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.