Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Energy 101 + Solution

Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 9, 2011, 8:36 p.m. EST by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

  1. There are many different ways to derive energy.
  2. Each of these methods has different relationships with the environment
  3. Each of these methods has different costs and different benefits
  4. Each of the these methods has different pros and cons.

  5. A partial list of methods; oil, coal, shale, wood, gas, Biofuels (a. food crop, b. hemp crop c. algae) Solar, Thermal Solar, Wind, Tidal, Geothermal, Hydrogen, Hydrolic, Zero Point, Nuclear.

  6. Oils relationships with the environment are a. oil is ancient organic material that has undergone geological processes. b. oil is removed from the ground via oil wells. Ie oil is mined from the Earth. c. oil is burned in order to get heat and chemical reaction to create the energy. d. burning it creates smoke. the smoke is toxic. it is multiply toxic to the ecosystem in multiple ways. e. its causing global warming f. it causes cancer g. it causes acid rain h. thus it hurts humans personally and the whole ecosystem as whole in these different ways.

  7. oil costs a certain amount of money to obtain from the earth, depending on how deep it is and at what pressure it is under.
  8. oil costs a certain amount of money to refine and process, as well as to transport.
  9. The pros of oil are that ; a. it is accessible with very primitive levels of technology b. our current energy infrastructure is based on oil c. oil costs less than biofuels or, at least, it used to. d. oils over all cost benefit analysis remains do-able from the perspective of economics alone.
  10. The cons against oil are a. oil is actually very expensive as technology compared to other forms of energy in which initial costs render yields not limited by physical quantities. Solar power stations, Wind, and Geothermal all provide energy options which are simply cheaper over the long term. b. oil pollutes the ecology as mentioned in its environmental analysis above. c. that pollution will cause the extinction of life on earth as we know it should it continue. d. we have already reached a tipping point where we have raised the global temperature so high that the new larger contributor to greenhouse gasses is the ice that is being melted. e. thus we need solutions to reverse global warming, or, our civilization is doomed.
  11. Coal. The specifics change, but Coal, like oil, is an ancient organic substance exposed to geological processes, mut be burned, and thus contributes to pollution and global warming.
  12. oil Shale and coal Shale. Similar to oil and coal or extensions of them, shale is harder to mine and harder to extract oil from. thus it costs more to process.
  13. Biofuels. The difference between biofuels and oil or coal is that biofuels have not been exposed to geological processes, but rather, similarly effecting technological processes. a.Biofuels still have toxic smoke which pollutes and which contributes to global warming b. Biofuels trade energy shortage and economic stress for food shortage and economic stress, thus creating c +d c. Biofuels create food shortages, hunger, and contribute to global poverty d. Biofuels make food more expensive.
  14. Solar Power a. solar power is derived from the suns light and chemical processes. b. Solar panels are a permanent fixture which will continue to derive energy whenever the sun shines. c. Solar panels have real but comparatively very tiny environmental costs. d. Solar panel technology is up to date and evolved, no more research is actually required. e. assorted pundits and candidates and politicians and so forth like to tell us that they favor more research for solar power. Thats a secret unsecret way of saying that they don't support employing it as a real world solution, because solar power has worked and has been feasible and economically viable for over 20 years. f. Solar power is derived at a specific rate depending on the size of the panel, the efficiency of the absorption of the sunlight, and the amount of sunlight available. g. Solar power does better at high altitudes because theres less atmospheric interference. h. Solar Power has very low yields per physical system cost. In order to run a car on Solar energy, you have to panel the entire car, and in order to run your house on solar energy, you would have to panel your entire rooftop and buy energy saving appliances. i. Solar power is most attractive and useful in a whole energy strategy because it is uniquely mobile. Geothermal wells or Wind power or tidal power (for obvious reasons) won't run a car directly. j. Solar power could in theory be used to solve the energy crisis almost by itself, by paneling over a very large surface area. This surface area has been calculated variously, with low estimates ranging in 10 by 10 miles, and high estimates ranging upto 200 by 200 miles. h. The problem with this is that the cost/ benefit analysis shows us that this would be very expensive when compared to a holistic energy strategy. i. Solar power has very low yields when compared to geothermal power.

77 Comments

77 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by CHANTER (33) 13 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=cbUAwCE7JVY#t=48s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxmtreWQoVs&feature=player_profilepage

This is a rather anonymous SONG-CHANT-RANT offering, that will hopefully unify our message on the streets. Imparting some basic historical information that has lead to the continued debasing of free forms of Government. Where a select group of power seekers never seem to have enough of anything, including us.This is a very serious time for the FREE Global Community, our only weapon is Martin Luther King's legacy. They further try to discredit us with accusations of not having a coherent message when their only endgame is to further in-slave us! Abusing others until there is only two classes the Haves and Have-Not's. we’ just not gonna’ take it no more we’ just not gonna’ take it no more we’ just not gonna’ take it no more

nothing’s been the same since jfk eisenhower warned us it would get this way a vast military-industrial-complex a vast military-industrial-complex

were out here to show the one percentors we’ just not gonna’ take it no more we’ just not gonna’ take it no more

oly norquist pledged most congress (oly’ = satire oliver north)
to his power lil’ oly’ norquist pledged most congress (piglet)
to his power

we’ know who you are were’ tired of our voices not counting

we’ just not gonna’ take it no more we’ just not gonna’ take it no more we’ just not gonna’ take it no more

were out on the streets to get our “countries” back

until foreign trade benefits---the 99%

were out on the streets to get our “countries” back

until foreign trade benefits---the 99%

were’ just not gonna’ take it no more were’ just not gonna’ take it no more were’ just not gonna’ take it no more

so, your’ spreadin’ democracy all over --the world your’ spreadin’ democracy all over --the world

it’s gotten’ so corrupt even we---don’t understand it!

so, your’ spreadin’ democracy all over --the world spreadin’ your’ democracy all over --the world

it’s gotten’ so corrupt even we---don’t understand it!

bring back our soldiers’s your cor-poor-et wars are all over bring back our soldiers’s your cor-poor-et wars are all over

were out here to show the one percentors we’ just not gonna’ take it no more we’ just not gonna’ take it no more

it’s too bad we hav-at spell it out but liars never listen they just -run their mouths

a thousand point of light all over the world

a new world order the bil-dah-burgers can go to hell

were’ just not gonna’ take it no more were’ just not gonna’ take it no more were’ just not gonna’ take it no more------

were’ just not gonna’ take it no more!

krw4u5@yahoo.com

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago

reply permalink edit delete ↥ ↧ beardy 1 points 1 hour ago

I agree, we should just take their money and give it to farmers in iowa so they can grow corn for ethanol. reply permalink ↥ ↧ gawdoftruth (Santa Barbara, CA) 1 points 0 seconds ago

you missed the energy thread, didn't you? geothermal energy; no biofeuls. BZZZT fail. http://occupywallst.org/forum/energy-101-solution/

don't just blip vert some stupid thing out. bother to pay attention to the rest of us. thanks.

biofuels are merely and only another way of selling us consumerism instead of cheap free clean green energy. trading a fuel shortage for a food shortage is about the most rock stupid civilization move i have ever heard of.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago

100 billion gives you a steady state 4 terawats -6 terawats for geological time.

100 billion to waste on offshore oil.

100 billion the price tag of drilling in alaska...

100 billion, the mining cost any given 4 year period for oil and coal.

yes. for only 100 billion, you can have free energy till 100 generations from now.

nuclear, oil, coal are merely abstractions to distract us from no longer being consumerist slaves to a commodity...

understand. the energy from the earth becomes in essence free after installation. the heat magma for a geothermal power station stays there. more or less forever. mining coal or oil eventually depletes that resource locally and then you have to go do it all over again some place else.

Heres the real kicker. the false "lost jobs" argument.

Nope. We repurpose all of the same old drills and tech teams to dig new different kinds of wells.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by beardy (282) 13 years ago

fossil fuels are bad so that is a no go

maybe we give solyndra another try?

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago

maybe we should stop letting corporate oligarchy shaft green energy by always doing it wrong on purpose. http://occupywallst.org/forum/thetruth-socialismcapitalismcommunismmarxism/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/capitalism-versus-corporatism/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/no-war/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/help-me-understand/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/capitalism-a-love-story/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/sociology/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/energy-101-solution/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/ethics/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/break-your-left-right-conditioning/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/nader-kucinich-and-paul/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/5-facts-you-should-know-about-the-wealthiest-one-p/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/i-am-homeless-joe-jp-morgan-chase-accidentally-for/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/can-we-end-the-fed/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-end-the-federal-reserve-and-what-do-you-replac/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/where-are-we-and-how-do-we-move-forward/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/things-wall-st-did-were-not-illegal/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/teaching-the-occupation/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/this-forum-needs-structure/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-is-not-your-personal-billboard-for-your-politi/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/systems-theory-primer/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/organize-inform-take-action-effect-change/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/better-website-needed/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/stop-playing-the-devils-games/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/nonviolence-the-only-path/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-not-against-capitalism/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/this-is-not-about-political-stripe-it-is-about-bas/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/national-initiative-for-democracy/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/a-third-political-party-the-movement-of-the-middle/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/300-fema-camps/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-is-a-false-flag-operation/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-this-will-not-work/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/paradigm-shift-now/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/a-proposal-for-focus/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/stop-the-bullshit-posts-and-get-organized/

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by beardy (282) 13 years ago

I agree, we should just take their money and give it to farmers in iowa so they can grow corn for ethanol.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago

you missed the energy thread, didn't you? geothermal energy; no biofeuls. BZZZT fail.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/energy-101-solution/

don't just blip vert some stupid thing out. bother to pay attention to the rest of us. thanks.

biofuels are merely and only another way of selling us consumerism instead of cheap free clean green energy. trading a fuel shortage for a food shortage is about the most rock stupid civilization move i have ever heard of.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by beardy (282) 13 years ago

how about windmills i thought they were good

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago

yes, very good third leg of a total energy system, as stated in the details below. you may have missed them since the stupid system limits how much you can post and calls you a jerk. quite the opposite; such a system is clearly dysfunctional.

so you have to go scrawl down and find wind. So wind is kind of the third leg with solar and geothermal, its not as green as either, but it has a better yield than solar ..when its going.. which is only when the wind is... kind of like solar. if you notice tho solar and wind together give you energy sun or weather... see where that goes? its kind of a game of seeing what the strengths of the different viable systems are and applying them where appropriate. installation costs for wind are order of magnitude less than geothermal.. theres another thing there...scalability.. geothermal does very well as very large scales and poorly at smaller scales. wind and solar are ideal at those smaller scales.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by Bernie (117) 13 years ago

Our energy problem has already been solved by LENR, Rossi, E-cat. Big corporations and big oil are trying to stifle this new energy source, all you have to do is google "Rossi e-cat" for the latest successful results of his 10/6/11 test, overseen by 30 scientists and 2 journalists. Or here is an article by a Swedish science magazine on the 10/6/11 test: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago

i give real, solid, science and fact centered the answer, and you give me a nonsensical answer. i don't need a nonsensical answer i need people to grok that i have put the solution which is REAL on the table.

Cold fusion is a neat idea for space travel, and is not relevant otherwise for domestic energy use.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by Bernie (117) 13 years ago

You better do your home work, LENR is real, if not stopped by big oil, it will revolutionize our energy situation.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago

you better do your homework. cold fusion is not going to be coming to the domestic market any time soon.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by Bernie (117) 13 years ago

All I ask is please read this! This is a reputable science magazine:

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago

all i ask is ; join reality and quit promoting stupid non solutions. Geothermal is cheaper, greener, more accessible, and higher in yield. The greener and higher in yield part should be the part to focus on. But the cheaper is what everyone does focus on. We do not need any kind of crackpotted cold fusion in domestic energy. its merely a means to the end to keep energy expensive, it will pollute and destroy our environment, and the amount of energy that can be obtained is miniscule compared to the same money spent on a geothermal power station.

you are arguing for a stupid and nonsensical non solution, after i have given the actual and real (but maybe much less glam glam) factual science solution.

I have read your site. its not anything new or interesting to me.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by Bernie (117) 13 years ago

You have a closed mind, too bad. I will get in touch with you again when the 1mg watt plant is put into operation on Oct 28, 2011 If you read the article you know the e-cat does not pollute.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago

claims it does not pollute. entropy is funny like that. you can try to box it in but it has a way of getting away from you. read that physics textbook and start with the entropy entry. maybe you need help like that.

Entropy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy Entropy is a thermodynamic property that can be used to determine the energy available for useful work in a thermodynamic process, such as in energy ... Entropy (information ... en.wikipedia.org/.../Entropy_(infor... In information theory, entropy ...

Entropy (order and ... en.wikipedia.org/.../Entropy_(order... In thermodynamics, entropy is ... More results from wikipedia.org » Entropy - HyperPhysics hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/therm/entrop.html One of the ideas involved in the concept of entropy is that nature tends from order to disorder in isolated systems. This tells us that the right hand box of ... Entropy | Define Entropy at Dictionary.com dictionary.reference.com/browse/entropy (on a macroscopic scale) a function of thermodynamic variables, as temperature, pressure, or composition, that is a measure of the energy that is not available ... ENTROPY, THE FIRST AND SECOND LAWS OF ... www.entropylaw.com/ The law of entropy, or the second law of thermodynamics, along with the first law of thermodynamics comprise the most fundamental laws of physics. Entropy ... entropy - definition of entropy by the Free Online Dictionary ... www.thefreedictionary.com/entropy Symbol S For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work. 2. A measure of the disorder or ... Marc Liyanage - Home www.entropy.ch/ During the last year I was too busy to update my PHP distribution for compatibility with Mac OS X 10.6. Now my friends at local.ch and liip fixed this situation and ... Marc Liyanage - Software - Mac OS X Packages - PHP www.entropy.ch › Software › Mac OS X Packages If you ever want to get rid of the package, you only have to remove this ... Show more results from entropy.ch Entropy entropy-manga.com/ Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics 2ndlaw.oxy.edu/ Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. ... The second law of thermodynamics and evolution · Entropy and Gibbs free energy, ΔG = ΔH -TΔS ...

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 13 years ago

I solar car could not weigh a ton of steal

this would make taken the vehicle on the road at greater risk in an accident with cars that do

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago

only if ton of steel cars are on the road. lighter cars do better in accidents assuming they are having those accidents with non moving things or things as light as they are. Seriously this is not a meaningful argument.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 13 years ago

no just the current status quo

solar cars could have designated lanes on the free way

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago

great idea.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 13 years ago

a lane of lighter vehicles in general would be good

a move to lower speed limit would also help alternative vehicles compete

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by jjrousseau714 (59) 13 years ago

Krugman and Stiglitz know the way

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago

thats only vaguely useful if you link us. I don't agree. What i have put forth here is not something anybody else i know of has done. Its the obvious thing to do; a real cost/ benefit analysis of the different forms of energy.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by BringBackGlassSteagallAct (67) 13 years ago

well taken. thanks for that. I started my own mission in 2008 and I'm ust so excited that this has finally happened. Take care, Jim

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by BringBackGlassSteagallAct (67) 13 years ago

You all are great! I feel the only way we can get back on safe financial footing again is to close the Enron Loophole for oil speculators and bring back The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which prevented the current banking and insurance scams/loopholes. After all, it worked great until late 90's when Congress threw it out. Since then, like prior to 1933, we are experiencing what our country went though then, total Wall Street greed with no penalties, its all legal now...Thanks to the architects of our new system in 1999, President Clinton and Senator Gramm. Cheers to all that are involved! Jim

Why we need Glass-Steagall to be reinstated:

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/071603.asp#axzz1aPEc3wXj http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/09/19/shattering-the-glass-steagall-act/

Why are oil prices high?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbdtTGYQBMU&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNp0y0SjOkY&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-kExdTgNZA&feature=channel

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago

so now your spamming my thread? sigh. with 75 extra seconds to wait i scanned your videos. The only connection here is your talking about why oil prices are higher than the market system would make them otherwise. The other reason why oil prices are going to climb is we hit peak oil in 2004. This is none of it relevant to the question of what form of energy we should use. Leave the oil in the ground. WE don't need it; its a toxic substance thats killing out planet.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by BringBackGlassSteagallAct (67) 13 years ago

I agree. great point! I'm 100% solar: http://www.livescience.com/4824-solar-power-rule-20-years-futurists.html

But, we need this now, current oil is being sold 157 times before it gets to gas station owner, Glass-Steagall reform created the Enron loophole, so it's all connected....

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago

right, selling the oil should happen 3 or 5 times. not resold and resold so everyone gets their chance to mark it up.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by BringBackGlassSteagallAct (67) 13 years ago

right on! we will get it right!!!!

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by BringBackGlassSteagallAct (67) 13 years ago

I have an idea for us to help re-regulate Wall Street, how about arranging a million people march on the Hill to bring back the Glass-Steagall Act and to Close the Enron Loophole once and for all? The public needs to be educated; I feel once this gets out, they will respond accordingly. How about Michael Greenberger as our key note speaker...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbdtTGYQBMU&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNp0y0SjOkY&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-kExdTgNZA&feature=channel

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 2 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago

i don't know what makes you think any of that is relevant to this thread.

it seems like so many people brainstorm random shit up and then don't stop to think about how many other people are brainstorming random shit up or how useful randomly brainstorming shit up is, and then, i guess, to make matters worse, they don't consider whats relevant and start in randomly tossing that idea in where its not relevant.

Its a neat batch of ideas. wheres your own thread to post them in? or evn better, why can't all the random brainstorms have like just one thread they dump into?

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by teddyr (159) from Bronx, NY 13 years ago

How many 747's have you seen flying with solar panels on them? Im working on a solar powered submarine.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago

ha ha. I never said to use solar power on planes. Hydrogen is prolly the best option there. "lets all live in the dark" Thanks for your two little trolling bits. er. not really.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by teddyr (159) from Bronx, NY 13 years ago

How many 747's have you seen flying with solar panels on them? Im working on a solar powered submarine.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by teddyr (159) from Bronx, NY 13 years ago

Lets all live in the dark

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by teddyr (159) from Bronx, NY 13 years ago

Lets all live in the dark

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by ProvidenceRhodeIsland (40) 13 years ago

Conservation. You omitted Conservation. With Conservation we can cut back energy usage by about 20% in the G20. This means doing the "boring" non-sexy things like: insulation, dynamic braking in automobiles, triple-pane glass, smart theromstats and appliances. Unfortunately, it was said by Haliburton Cheney: "Conservation is a virtue, but not a strategy." Actually, conservation is the low hanging fruit.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago

thats true, but i am focusing on energy resources.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by HankRearden (476) 13 years ago

I propose this law:

Any plant producing solar panels and support systems must run 100% on solar.

Any plant producing windmills or support systems must run 100% on wind power.

Guess why they don't do this???

Hint .....

No, no hint. Go take physics 101. Or try it yourself.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago

i propose this law. rhetorical arguments. party foul. all solar means now you can't run when the suns not out and all wind now you can't do anything without wind. geothermal is the only base load form of energy out there really. Steady, constant, always on, never stops, never needs a new well, never needs more fuel, ..

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by HankRearden (476) 13 years ago

Hydropower is always on, too. And 'renewable' (ugh, hate that term, it's meaningless).

But anyway. Let them build energy storage, it can be done at least a dozen ways for always-on power. Let them build the storage capacity with solar or wind power alone, though. Whether batteries, or reservoirs with generators, or whatever. Let them refine the metals, move the earth, build the structures, do it all with solar or wind power.

There's a reason that's not being done. And it ain't no conspiracy by big oil stopping them, either.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago

hydro power destroys entire ecologies, is expensive compared to geothermal, and can never match geothermals yield unless you play with the ocean somehow. What are you saying is the reason? because it is in fact big oil and big coal and nuclear power that are keeping those technologies off the table.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by HankRearden (476) 13 years ago

Nobody stops you from producing whatever you want. Nobody is stopping me, anyway, and I work with energy, (consuming, not producing).

Geothermal has issues with corrosion, if you're talking about superheated brine in the areas around Old Faithful. Serious issues. It's way less than free.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago

sorry, your talking about open systems not closed systems. closed systems do not have any corrosion assuming its stainless steel. I'm certainly not talking about using heated brine near old faithful. I'm talking about geothermal power. I'm opposed to open systems or non loop systems.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by HankRearden (476) 13 years ago

Link? Where does the temperature differential come from?

Edit: Saw your description below. There are ... technical problems. Any pilot plants running?

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago

magma heat. last i checked they are doing geothermal pretty much all sloppy and wrong.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by beyondmoney22 (233) 13 years ago

This is the way to get worldwide free wireless enery. Tesla power. Ancient Egypt power. electrically charging the air particles in our atmsophere could trump all of these ideas. how do you think wireless connectivity work? this is what we have to do in order to impliment such drastic changes... http://www.radiokazoo.net/OPV/

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago

tesla power just sucks energy from the earths magnetic field. epic fail ...

if we follow that path we short out the earths magnetic field and everyone dies from radiation.

I just spent a lot of time and energy to give the real answers minus crackpotted nonsense. It makes more sense to pay attention, and no sense at all to imagine i haven't looked into all the alternatives.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by beyondmoney22 (233) 13 years ago

lol. i dont know where you heard that but it couldn be farther from the truth. the magnetic field is billions of times stronger then the force of gravity. the magnetic field is contantly being charged by the sun. it is unlimited and does not drain. we cant create technology strong enough to even come close to "sucking" any energy out of the magnetic field, it is working along side it. the only reason tesla powered never happend is because J.P. morgan his financier wanted to charge people for it but there was no way to do that, there was no meter, tesla designed it to be unlimied free energy for everyone and J.P. Morgan pulled his funding and shut him down and took all of his reasearch. there was no flaw.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago

heard that? I studied physics and energy science. The earths magnetic field is VERY weak esp when comparing that energy to the solar or geothermal energy pools. its a small, finite amount of energy.

It is not unlimited, most certainly it would short out if pulled 4 terawats off it per year. probably a lot less than that because the wyankoop threshold would collapse and the field would repressurize in a smaller space. The only reason why tesla energy never happened is because the American Government figured out- wisely- that its not "free" energy, its a finite amount of energy which is an inherent part of our ecology.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by beyondmoney22 (233) 13 years ago

sorry buddy your entire education is censored. i dont care if you are a doctor of science most of your education is a lie. you probably believe in the big bang theory and evolution too right?

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago

again, you are out of your depth. I am an autodidactic aspie. I studied to the esoteric level and can easily pick apart the propaganda which does exist in most textbooks. So MY education is not a lie, my education was done using formal logic and political science with care to pick apart the junk thats spliced into textbooks. I don't "believe" in anything. I KNOW. Or, i don't.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by beyondmoney22 (233) 13 years ago

really?. how did humans come to be on earth? how was our planet made? how did the universe come to be?

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago

interesting questions, digressions, and not something i am going to discuss here. I do have the answers to those questions and have posted them on my groups.

NICE ACCE; MAIN GROUP https://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_163532010364963

https://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_163532010364963&view=doc&id=169262663125231

Metaphysics Advanced;

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_134834953248102&ap=1

Psychonautics Advanced

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_129253417142114&ap=1

Ethics Advanced

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_148731335182163&ap=1

Psychology Advanced

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_178521015519904&ap=1

USA Civic History For NICE/TZM

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_199447836754719

Think Starship

https://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_162297577150816

NICE Politicos; for the political action and party...

https://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_211230325568382&ap=1

Collaborative Fiction https://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_143954769010766&ap=1

Quantum Mechanics https://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_163933236999668&ap=1

Formal conversational Logic https://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_197961226914352&ap=1

https://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_197961226914352&ap=1

Sociology https://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_181467401904270&ap=1

Physics https://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_217616588250474&ap=1

Chemical Biology https://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_213467875344964&ap=1

Chemistry + Nano Chemistry https://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_184405738274397&ap=1

Ergonomics https://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_216719968357067&ap=1

Human Anatomy https://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_128533243887558&ap=1

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by beyondmoney22 (233) 13 years ago

come on buddy stop throwin all your material at me. either give me your answers short and sweet or just say no comment or admit that you dont really know. no digressions. you claim to be a man of science and not faith so these are fair questions on topic based on your "expert" knowledge.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago

not the place i want my thread to go. start a new thread and ask those questions...?

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by BigDikdJew (61) from Stratford, CA 13 years ago

FRAT

Stop cutting and pasting your life away.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago

i know it hurts to have the truth put out there. suffer.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago
  1. Thermal Solar. Thermal Solar is a variation of Solar power with a much cheaper cost, a much lower per square foot yield, and operating at a much simpler technology level. a. about 100 miles by 100 miles (median estimate) of Thermal solar paneling could in theory meet our energy needs. b. Thermal Solar can be done in such a way that it has lower materials costs and lower materials environmental impact. c. Thermal solar involves using light to heat a liquid which creates energy by pushing a turbine when the fluid expands.
  2. Wind Energy. a. Wind energy is derived from creating large turbines called wind mills. b. Wind mills are generally very large affairs. c. The larger a windmill is, the more energy it creates relative to its overall material cost. d. This means that the cost/ benefit analysis shows that larger windmills are cheaper. e. Windmills create medium yields of energy when they are operating. f. One good large windmill can probably meet the energy needs for perhaps a dozen homes. g. The USA could in theory meet all of its energy needs via wind power, if we invested heavily also in enormous distribution network infrastructure. h. The USA is rich in wind energy compared to most places on the earth. i. the problem with windmills is downtime when theres no wind. j. This is significantly less a problem than with solar downtime due to no sun. k. Wind and Solar together as a team can capitalize on the two extremes of climate, and should thus be employed alternately depending on the location one wishes to provide energy for. l. for instance, Solar power is better in New Mexico, Arizona, California, Texas, And sunny places. J. And yet Wind power is better in places like New Jersey, Oregon,...places alongside the Canada Border. k. The other problem with wind power is that it can create quite an eye sore to look at. l. Wind power also can be very devastating to local bird populations. m. Wind and Solar might be good tandem partners for cities like Denver, where theres lots of wind and lots of sun, but not usually at the same time except for when it is. This allows such a system to generate power in the sunny months with solar and in the winter months with wind.
  3. Tidal Power a. Tidal power is derived much like wind power is, from the movement of water instead of air. b. Tidal power is slightly higher in potential yields because water is denser. c. Tidal power would have to be done more or less on remote beaches , probably in large fenced areas to protect the systems from animals and animals and humans from the systems. d. Tidal power is obviously only viable on the coastlines of oceans or very large bodies of water such as lakes. e. Tidal power could in theory meet all of our energy needs. f. the cost/ benefit analysis for tidal power is a bit murky because its a mostly unexplored technology. g. however, proof of concept units do exist and the technology is very simple. h. tidal power has problems due to the corrosive nature of salt water and erosion. i. Tidal power is unpopular because it ruins one beach per facility. j. Most accessible tidal power exists in the energy of waves. k. Cost/ benefit analysis shows that tidal power can be done out at sea, but it becomes increasingly more expensive the further out you go to get the power back to land. l. Tidal power is probably a good solution for arctic regions which don't get much sun, and whose wind conditions might on some occasions be too intense, pulling windmills down. m. Along with Solar power and Wind power, tidal power provides a third leg of medium level yield energy for low materials cost in situations where geothermal power would be too expensive.
↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago
  1. Geothermal Power a. Geothermal power is energy derived from the heat of the earth. b. that heat is on average several miles beneath the surface. c. However, there is a lot of variance in how deep that heat is, and every state has regions where that heat is within a few hundred meters of the surface. d. Geothermal power like wind power becomes cheaper per materials cost the larger the plant is. e. Geothermal power has very high potential yields, and is in fact competitive with nuclear power in terms of sheer yield. f. Geothermal power plants could in theory be built with higher energy yields than nuclear power plants. However, this is not advised or advisable, due to potential tectonic stresses such high energy plants could create. g. in the range around 100th or even 1 tenth the yield energy of a nuclear power station, geothermal power stations could be built which would have virtually no impact on tectonic stresses. h. Tectonic stress is an important variable. Frequently geothermal power is most accessible along fault lines. However, these should be ignored for caldera like situations where the system is not contributing or in danger due to tectonic stresses. i. There are many different ways of configuring a geothermal power station, and only one which this author supports. This is called double circuit closed system geothermal power. j. double circuit simply means that the water drops on one circuit and the steam comes up on the other. k. closed circuit means that no water is ever lost in the system, because even the heating element chamber is a well engineered container L. Geothermal power can in theory meet all of our energy needs M. of the resources available to us, it does this with the cheapest over all cost, the smallest possible ecological footprint, and the highest level of permanency. N. Geothermal power is not a good solution in situations where a small amount of power is needed for small communities or remote estates. It has a high material cost and start up cost to drill the well. O. Geothermal power is theoretically available almost everywhere on the surface of the earth. P. current oil wells now go as deep as 7, 8, 9 miles deep. Q. Enough Geothermal power is accessible within 200 meters depth to meet all of our energy needs. R. where larger power sources are wanted in places where that heat is deeper, it is still true that geothermal heat in most places is not deeper than 4 miles. S. In some rare situations where the crust is thick, geothermal power might be as deep as 20 miles. Don't drill there, import the energy from 150 miles away somewhere.
  2. Hydrogen power; a. Hydrogen power is an up and coming technology which we can expect to see having good strong applications 20 or 30 years from now. b. Hydrogen power is very promising, but currently, its still mostly a way to store energy, not create it. c. The two main exceptions to this are using corrosive rare earth metals to get reactions, and using phased electrical energy to short out the binding force. d. The problem with the former is that the rare earth metal is itself a form of fuel, and that creating it, and "burning" it with water both create toxic substances as side effects. e. the problem with the latter is containment of the field and what happens when organic matter is exposed to high energy bursts of electricity. f. To the knowledge of this author, water based solutions which continue to use a combustion engine are frauds. g. When Hydrogen becomes a used technology, it will probably be for very large equipment and uses, such as trains, planes, and large boats
  3. Hydrolic or Hydro Electric power. a. This energy is created by damming a river and using falling water to drive a turbine. b. this is incredibly damaging to the ecology. c. Yields are fairly high per materials cost, but, still, hydro electric materials costs are comparable to geothermal power, which doesn't destroy an entire ecosystem per power plant. d. Hydro electric power does not exist in anywhere near sufficient quantities to meet all of our energy needs. e. This author finds hydro-electric power to be a bad idea all the way around, not even as useful as nuclear power.
↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago
  1. Nuclear power a. Nuclear power (currently) is derived from using rare earth metals in reactions which turn some fraction of those fuels directly into energy. b. The radioactive fuels must be mined, and this results currently in the deaths (and serious health problems) of many Miners. c. Nuclear power currently creates hyper toxic and radio active wastes, which cost money to tend and babysit, and which in an accident of ignorance 10 thousand years from now could wipe out an entire continents worth of our descendants. d. Nuclear power is in many senses still a futuristic technology with much promise and much potential. e. Thus nuclear power should be studied and refined in the laboratory. f. The focus of such studies should be in finding ways to use non radioactive fuels, finding ways to create dissipating forms of radiation only, and finding ways to eliminate the problem of wastes. g. Nuclear power is very high yield, but it has exorbitant costs, especially over the long term. h. Compared to Geothermal power, nuclear power is extremely expensive, gets more expensive instead of less expensive over time, is extremely dangerous, and perhaps most importantly, sooner or later we will run out of nuclear fuels, and still be forced to move on to geothermal power. i. Nuclear power will be most useful for purposes of exploring our solar system and our galaxy. j. There is no good reason to use nuclear power for domestic use considering the other much better alternatives.
  2. Zero point energy a. Zero point energy is derived from quantum phase state fluctuations where energy is created in contradiction to the "laws" of conservation of mass and energy. b. Zero point energy is a futuristic technology which may become realistic within the next 100 years. c. Final stage proof of concept zero point energy research should be conducted at least as distant from the earth as the oort cloud, due to the unforseeable nature of potential dangers. d. In theory, zero point energy could create a self sustaining quantum phase reaction which could create nearly unlimited energy in spaces literally too small to be seen by the naked eye. e. Early stage research into zero point energy is the entire field of quantum mechanics, specifically Singularities, branes, and quantum holographics.
  1. Summary of findings. a. Geothermal, Solar, Wind, Tidal, and Hydrogen Technologies together provide a clear and easy path towards green and sustainable energy. b. Geothermal energy specifically is the solution which a realistic green energy infrastructure should be rooted in. c. It is reasonable to project a total holistic solution in which 80 percent of our energy comes from geothermal, 10 percent from Solar, 5 percent from Wind, and 5 percent from Tidal. d. It is also worth mentioning that electric cars are a current and viable technology. e. This is all of it simply a sumary of known and provable science fact. The only reason why most people don't know all of this is that oil companies and rich evil jerks have spent billions of dollars to flood the public with propaganda and misinformation. f. The other strategy of the evil empire jerks is to promote energy resources such as biofuels or nuclear power which create a situation of extreme expense so that they can continue to exploit our need for energy in order to make money. A Geothermally based energy infrastructure would provide extremely cheap energy (especially over the long term) and this would be the death of the energy industry.
↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by AndyfromNewZealand (27) 13 years ago

Good effort, are there any closed loop geothermal plants operating?

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago

yes, a tiny few. Most are open systems and many are using fracking which is stupid evil and insidious and strangely can only lead to small scale geothermal operations.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by AndyfromNewZealand (27) 13 years ago

I guess a decent one could have been built for a fraction of the price of bailing out wall st huh?

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago

100 billion gives you a steady state 4 terawats -6 terawats for geological time.

100 billion to waste on offshore oil.

100 billion the price tag of drilling in alaska...

100 billion, the mining cost any given 4 year period for oil and coal.

yes. for only 100 billion, you can have free energy till 100 generations from now.

nuclear, oil, coal are merely abstractions to distract us from no longer being consumerist slaves to a commodity...

understand. the energy from the earth becomes in essence free after installation. the heat magma for a geothermal power station stays there. more or less forever. mining coal or oil eventually depletes that resource locally and then you have to go do it all over again some place else.

Heres the real kicker. the false "lost jobs" argument.

Nope. We repurpose all of the same old drills and tech teams to dig new different kinds of wells.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply