logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!

> Welcome to the America's Debate Archive!

Topics that have had no new replies in the last 180 days are moved to the archive.

New replies are not accepted once a topic is moved to the archive, and new topics cannot be started in the archive.

> Energy Independence, Can this plan work in America?
After reviewing the ei2025 plan, would you support it's implementation?
You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Total Votes: 26
Guests cannot vote 
overlandsailor
post Aug 27 2005, 01:27 PM
Post #1


********
The Voice of Raisin

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,274
Member No.: 2,151
Joined: January-7-04

From: Overland, MO (St. Louis area)
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: None



IPB Image


Thanks to a link provided by christopher in the ad.gif resources thumbsup.gif I learned about an interesting Grass Roots group in America called Americans for Energy Independence.

(I quick plug here. rolleyes.gif With all the information, debate, resource links, fun, etc, that ad.gif provides, have you considered: Donating to, Advertising on, or Subscribing to Americas Debate? thumbsup.gif )

Their goal is to achieve energy independence for America by 2025, focusing first on eliminating the need for Middle-Eastern Oil. The have an interesting and ambitious 20 year "Roadmap" geared towards achieving this.

Please review the plan (link). Within it you will find references to some alternative energy ideas some of you may have never heard of before like Thermal Depolymerization, Clean Coal, and ocean tidal technology development.

The big political problem it likely faces is the use of gasoline tax increases to fund various programs. Considering the high price of gas currently in America, I am no sure the we could get the majority behind these taxes.

However, the first five years of the plan does not include a tax increase at the pump. Perhaps, if American's see the benefits from the first five years, we could "sell" the tax increases of the next phases to them. Maybe we would need to fund the the plan federally for awhile, to get the ball in motion to reduce energy costs and then take advantage of the savings though tax increases of fossil fuels. That might be an easier "sell" (the big question there of course is where would the money come from?). hmmm.gif


For those who read through the plan, a few questions for debate:

Can this plan work? Will the financial gains expected from various parts of the plan every produce more for America then the costs of the plan? Why or Why not?

What would you change in this plan?

Are there technological options that the plan missed? If so, any idea why?

For those that support the plan: What approach would you suggest to help "sell" this plan to America?

For those who oppose the plan: What approach (if any) would you suggest America take instead of this plan?

This post has been edited by Jaime: Aug 4 2006, 11:35 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 37)
Just Leave me Al...
post Sep 13 2005, 11:04 PM
Post #21


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 508
Member No.: 4,594
Joined: March-1-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Independent



smile.gif Thank you CyndiLoo for the link on Solar Towers and welcome to AD. Here are a few more that I found.
Link 1
Link 2.
These were easier for me to understand. While the current cost of the electricity is about 3 times what we currently pay, it appears that advancements could get the cost down to today's levels.

To truly go after energy independence, I agree that a multidiverse plan is certainly needed. Increase supply, decrease demand. We seem to have one side that only wants to do one and one side that only wants to do the other.

In addition to tax dollars and consumer consumption costs, I also think that more things should be considered. The long term benefits to the economy, the environment, and public safety need to be considered. Can you think of any other areas?

This post has been edited by Just Leave me Alone!: Sep 13 2005, 11:05 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CyndiLoo
post Sep 14 2005, 08:57 PM
Post #22


*
New Member

Group: New Members
Posts: 3
Member No.: 5,459
Joined: September-13-05

Gender: Female
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Hi Just Leave Me Alone! Thank you, for your welcome, and for your thoughts!

The links are great! Thank you. I will add them to my list.

In regards to price comparison of the Solar Power Towers and current technologies in the links you provided, the first link does in fact state the Solar Power Tower is quite cost effective as compared to current technology. The second link was written earlier than the first link and at that time the Solar Power Towers were not price competitive. My thought is since both of these articles were written/released, oil has increased making this technology even that much more cost effective.

It was also stated in one of the links you provided that 9% of the State of Nevada could provide electricity for the whole United States. I find this remarkably adequate. I do know electricity can be transferred nationwide if for no other reason the State of Texas experiences "brown outs" in order for the State of California to have additional electricity.

Power Towers are a viable cost effective and environment friendly answer to America's current energy woes.

It it my observation we are all working toward the same goal, which is to bring America into better solutions for our energy needs. It is especially difficult to read the August 2005 economic indicators reflecting a whopping 12% reduction in vehicle sales, gasoline up 4.4%, and consumers tightening their budgets in order to survive the current energy crisis. Now more than ever this project is needed. Please do not be discouraged by all of the different thoughts pertaining to this subject. If we do not explore all possibilities, how can we successfully accomplish this task? Certainly the people involved in placing these thoughts into actions are to be commended, respected, and supported.

Could there be some merit to the thought in the end, capitalism will provide at least in part some of the answer? Consider for a moment, obviously Americans are not purchasing fossil fueled vehicles. Would that not encourage auto manufacturers in some part to speed up production of the clean-fueled vehicles in order to maintain profit?

As to your request to continue to consider options, most certainly I will!

Note: A recent survey by Yale University stated 93% of Americans would purchase clean-fueled automobiles if they were available to purchase. This did not reflect a concern for environmental issues, but more so the idea of being free of dependency on foreign oil. We are American and we take our freedom seriously!

Have an amazing day!
Cyndi

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CyndiLoo
post Sep 15 2005, 02:45 AM
Post #23


*
New Member

Group: New Members
Posts: 3
Member No.: 5,459
Joined: September-13-05

Gender: Female
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Oil companies are publishing reports stating the world oil supplies will be completely depleted in less than 100 years, more likely not even 100 years as the BRIC nations become more prominent in the world economy. We should note India is building nuclear reactors, which could affect these projections. Of course, the first time a terrorist blows one of these reactors up, or it leaks, or blows up due to some unforeseen occurrence, chances are nuclear technology may become less popular in India. At some point we will have to deal with the decommissioning of oil refineries and the gasoline stations. Doesn’t it make sense to do this before we run completely out of oil while we can still maintain some type of control of the situation as a nation?

People often comment, “What about the jobs the oil industry supports?” Oil industries are also reporting they are finding it more and more difficult to recruit college graduates and the younger generation into the oil sector as it is considered to be an area without a future. Even if America did make a sudden dramatic change into clean energy, oil companies would still have markets in other countries, and there would still be some vehicles running off of gasoline in the U.S. for a limited time giving oil related jobs time to make the transition without affecting the economy or the workers in an overly dramatic way. The new technologies would also need to employ people.

While I do not begrudge OPEC or any of the other nations the United States purchases oil from, my thought on it is, it seems like the fact we are purchasing oil from them is creating the terrorist situations in that the money seems to stay in one place and does not seem to benefit the overall population. If these monies were being designated to educating and modernizing the people so the people and their countries were able to function in harmony with the rest of the world, it would go a long way in alleviating terrorism in the Middle East. Perhaps if we were not supporting this tragedy by purchasing oil from these countries, they would have to address some of these issues in order to compete in world markets.

We need economical, clean technologies and we need them now. Our country is LARGE. We are dependent on transportation to maintain our economic stability. We do need to be independent from foreign oil. We also need to be intelligent and seek out and implement the technologies that will continue to keep our nation strong by not limiting us by depleting earth resources, will not pollute, and will be cost effective.

JMHO, Cyndi
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Sep 17 2005, 07:15 PM
Post #24


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



The most important part of the energy independence plan is that it commits us to energy independence and it places it on a reasonable time table much like Kennedy did when he committed us to landing on the moon before the end of the 60s. One must first have the big important idea, then the time table and then bring the expertise from every relevant discipline to work out the details. In this a whole nation has to be mobilized. Perhaps we need to create a cabinet post of energy independence to demonstrate federal government seriousness.

Two issues that need to be part of the solution are energy efficient building construction and proximity to the work place. I also think walking and biking ought to be more considered in urban design. I think a petrol tax should be phased in reflecting by greater degrees the REAL, unsubsidized cost of gasoline. This actually can be argued in laissez-faire terms, to wit you should pay the real costs rather than the subsidized cost of what you purchase. I like the idea of bio-diesel. Imagine everything from old tires to food scraps being converted into useful energy. That cleans up the environment, provides us with energy and is close to zero sum when it comes to adding additional carbon to the atmosphere (It mostly recycles). It also lends itself to more localized solutions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
erich
post Sep 21 2005, 05:15 AM
Post #25


**
Member

Group: Members
Posts: 12
Member No.: 5,479
Joined: September-18-05

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



A New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy

Over the past year many luminaries have made clarion calls for a concerted effort to solve the energy crisis. It is a crisis, with 300 million middle class Chinese determined to attain the unsustainable lifestyle we have sold them. Their thirst for oil is growing at 30% a year, and can do nothing but heat the earth and spark political conflict.

We have been heating the earth since the agricultural revolution with the positive result of providing 10,000 years of warm stability. But since the Industrial revolution we have been pushing the biosphere over the brink. Life forces have done this before -- during the snowball earth period ( Cryogenian Period ) in the Neoproterozoic toward the end of the Precambrian - but that life force was not sentient!

Thomas Freedman of the New York Times has called for a Manhattan Project for clean energy The New York Times> Search> Abstract. Richard Smalley, one of the fathers of nanotechnology, has made a similar plea http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html3month/2004...ley.energy.html.
We are at the cusp in several technologies to fulfilling this clean energy dream. All that we need is the political leadership to shift our fiscal priorities.

I feel our resources should be focused in three promising technologies:

1. Nanotechnology: The exploitation of quantum effects is finally being seen in these new materials. Photovoltaics (PV) are at last going beyond silicon, with many companies promising near-term breakthroughs in efficiencies and lower cost. Even silicon is gaining new efficienies from nano-tech: Researchers develop technique to use dirty silicon, could pave way for cheaper solar energy http://www.physorg.com/news5831.html
New work on diodes also has great implications for PV, LEDs and micro-electronics Nanotubes make perfect diodes (August 2005) - News - PhysicsWeb http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/8/11
And direct solar to hydrogen, I was told they have hit 10% efficiency and solved mass production problems: Hydrogen Solar home http://www.hydrogensolar.com/index.html
And just coming out of the lab, this looks very strong, it brings full spectrum efficiencies to PVs: UB News Services-solar nano-dots
http://www.buffalo.edu/news/fast-execute.c...rticle=75000009

1a. Thermionics: The direct conversion of heat to electricity has been at best only 5% efficient. Now with quantum tunneling chips http://www.borealis.com/index.shtml we are talking 80% of carnot efficiency. A good example is the proposed thermionic car design of Borealis. ( http://www.borealis.gi/press/NEW-GOLDEN-AG...Speech.6=04.pdf ) . The estimated well-to-wheel efficiency is over 50%. This compares to 13% for internal combustion and 27% for hydrogen fuel cells. This means a car that has a range of 1500 miles on one fill up. Rodney T. Cox, president of Borealis, has told me that he plans to have this car developed within two years. Boeing has already used his Chorus motor drives http://www.chorusmotors.gi/.
on the nose gear of it's 767. (Boeing Demonstrates New Technology for Moving Airplanes on the Ground http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2005/q3/nr_050801a.html )
The Borealis thermocouple power chips http://www.powerchips.gi/index.shtml (and cool chips) applied to all the waste heat in our economy would make our unsustainable lifestyle more than sustainable.
You may find an extensive discussion on thermo electric patents at: Nanalyze Forums - Direct conversion of heat to electricity http://www.nanalyze.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1006੾

2. Biotechnology: Since his revolutionary work on the human genome project, Craig Venter has been finding thousands of previously unknown life forms in the sea and air. His goal is to use these creatures to develop the ultimate energy bug to produce hydrogen and or use of their photoreceptor genes for solar energy. http://www.venterscience.org/ Imagine a bioreactor in your home taking all your waste, adding some solar energy, and your electric and transportation needs are fulfilled.

3. Fusion: Here I am not talking about the big science ITER project taking thirty years, but the several small alternative plasma fusion efforts and maybe bubble fusion - Is bubble fusion back? (July 2005) - News - PhysicsWeb
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/7/8 )

On the big science side I do have hopes for the LDX : http://psfcwww2.psfc.mit.edu/ldx/.

.
There are three companies pursuing hydrogen-boron plasma toroid fusion, Paul Koloc, Prometheus II, Eric Lerner, Focus Fusion and Clint Seward of Electron Power Systems http://www.electronpowersystems.com/ . A resent DOD review of EPS technology reads as fallows:

"MIT considers these plasmas a revolutionary breakthrough, with Delphi's
chief scientist and senior manager for advanced technology both agreeing
that EST/SPT physics are repeatable and theoretically explainable. MIT and
EPS have jointly authored numerous professional papers describing their
work. (Delphi is a $33B company, the spun off Delco Division of General
Motors)."

and

"Cost: no cost data available. The complexity of reliable mini-toroid
formation and acceleration with compact, relatively low-cost equipment
remains to be determined. Yet the fact that the EPS/MIT STTR work this
technology has attracted interest from Delphi is very significant, as the
automotive electronics industry is considered to be extremely demanding of
functionality per dollar and pound (e.g., mil-spec performance at
Wal-Mart-class 'commodity' prices)."

EPS, Electron Power Systems seems the strongest and most advanced, and I love the scalability, They propose applications as varied as home power generation@ .ooo5 cents/KWhr, cars, distributed power, airplanes, space propulsion , power storage and kinetic weapons.

It also provides a theoretic base for ball lighting : Ball Lightning Explained as a Stable Plasma Toroid http://www.electronpowersystems.com/Images...20Explained.pdf
The theoretics are all there in peer reviewed papers. It does sound to good to be true however with names like MIT, Delphi, STTR grants, NIST grants , etc., popping up all over, I have to keep investigating.

Recent support has also come from one of the top lightning researcher in the world, Joe Dwyer at FIT, when he got his Y-ray and X-ray research published in the May issue of Scientific American,
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa...F9683414B7FFE9F
Dwyer's paper:
http://www.lightning.ece.ufl.edu/PDF/Gammarays.pdf

and according to Clint Seward it supports his lightning models and fusion work at Electron Power Systems

Clint sent Joe and I his new paper on a lightning charge transport model of cloud to ground lightning (he did not want me to post it to the web yet). Joe was supportive and suggested some other papers to consider and Clint is now in re-write.

It may also explain Elves, blue jets, sprites and red sprites, plasmas that appear above thunder storms. After a little searching, this seemed to have the best hard numbers on the observations of sprites.

Dr. Mark A. Stanley's Dissertation
http://nis-www.lanl.gov/~stanleym/dissertation/main.html

And may also explain the spiral twist of some fulgurites, hollow fused sand tubes found in sandy ground at lightning strikes.


The learning curve is so steep now, and with the resources of the online community, I'm sure we can rally greater support to solve this paramount problem of our time. I hold no truck with those who argue that big business or government are suppressing these technologies. It is only our complacency and comfort that blind us from pushing our leaders toward clean energy.


Erich J. Knight
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
erich
post Sep 25 2005, 04:58 AM
Post #26


**
Member

Group: Members
Posts: 12
Member No.: 5,479
Joined: September-18-05

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Dear Folks:

To really gain some perspective on the energy problem , and understand what a tough nut it is, read this reply by Uncle AL, from another Sci-forum:

"Do you have any idea how much energy the US uses/year? It has held reasonably steady at 60 bbl oil equiv/capita. 1 boe = 1700 kWhr-thermal. There are 290 million US folk or

1.74x10^10 boe/year, or
2.96x10^13 kWhr-thermal/year, or
1.065x10^20 joules/year, or...

...or the equivalent of 1.2 metric tonnes of matter 100% converted into energy each year, E=mc^2. Are ya gonna alternatively burn algae, git, or catch wind

The US consumes the equivalent of 1.2 metric tonnes of matter 100% converted into energy each year, E=mc^2.

You are all clueless. Sparrow farts run through a gas turbine won't get you 10^20 joules/year. Not now, not ever. Pulling 10^20 joules/year out of wind or waves would monstrously perturb the weather. Where do the energy and raw materials necessary to fabricate and install your New Age hind gut fermentations originate? Who pays for the environmental impact reports and litigations therefrom?

What are the unknown hazards? Can you guarantee absolute safety for 10,000 years? Let's have a uniform set of standards, eginineering and New Age *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** both. Area necessary to generate 1 GW electrical, theoretical minimum

mi^2
Area, Modality
====================
1000 biomass
300 wind
60 solar
0.3 nuclear

3x10^7 GWhr-thermal/year would need 9 billion mi^2 of wind collection area. The total surface area of the Earth is 197 million mi^2. 24 hrs/day. Looks like yer gonna come up a little short if 100% of the Earth were wind generators powering only the US.

Are ya gonna alternatively burn algae to generate 10^20 joules/year? Now you are a factor of 3 even worse - before processing and not counting inputs. THEY LIED TO YOU. They lied to you so poorly it can be dismissed with arithmetic. Where are your minds?

--------------------
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf "




Now ya know how big the problem is!!


I found this technology page on the Suncone, Sustainable Resources, Inc. - The Suncone Solar Power Generator http://www.sriglobal.org/suncone_intro.htmland
The Claim of a 50 MW array producing at $.046/KWhr is the best I've seen for solar at this level of development, and the PV solar roofing technology they are acquiring looks solid too.

And This new work By Dr.Kuzhevsky on neutrons in lightning: Russian Science News http://www.informnauka.ru/eng/2005/2005-09-13-5_65_e.htm is also supportive of Electron Power Systems fusion efforts http://www.electronpowersystems.com/ . I sent it to Clint Seward and here's his reply:

"There is another method to producing neutrons that fits my lightning model that I have described to you.
It is well known that electron beams have been used extensively to produce neutrons, above electron energies of 10 MeV, well within the voltages reported in the lightning event. (An Internet search produced several articles that reported this). I do not pretend to have researched this extensively, and do not know the actual target molecules or the process, but it appears plausible from what the papers report, and is consistent with my lightning model.
The proposed method you sent to me is a lot more complex, and I would have to say I can not agree with the article as written without experimental results."


A New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy

Cheers,
Erich J. Knight

This post has been edited by erich: Sep 25 2005, 05:05 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
erich
post Oct 3 2005, 10:00 PM
Post #27


**
Member

Group: Members
Posts: 12
Member No.: 5,479
Joined: September-18-05

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Dear folks:
Here's an email that is very good news for Paul Koloc's and Eric Learner's work on P-B11 fusion.

He's referring to a power point presentation at the 05 AIAA conference on alternative forms of fusion which high lights the need to fully fund three different approaches to P-B11 fusion . 1.) Prometheus II , 2.) Field Revered Configuration, and 3.) Focus Fusion http://www.focusfusion.org/about.html

It's by Vincent Page a technology officer at GE.
Email me and I'll send it to anyone interested.

Erich



from : Paul M. Koloc; Prometheus II, Ltd.; 9903 Cottrell Terrace,
| Silver Spring, MD 20903-1927; FAX (301) 434-6737: Tel (301) 445-1075
| Grid Power -Raising $$Support$$ -;* http://www.neoteric-research.org/
| http://www.prometheus2.net/%A0%A0%A0------ mailtomk@plasmak.com


"Erich,

Thanks for your update,

A friend of mine, Bruce Pittman, who is a member of the AIAA, recently sent me a copy of the attached paper by Vincent Page of GE. Please keep in mind that I have never communicated with Vincent, but he found our concept to have the highest probability of success for achieving a commercial fusion power plant of any that he examined.

A program manager at DARPA submitted a POM for sizeable funding of extended research on our concept, both here and at Los Alamos National Laboratory. However, it didn't stay above this year's cut line for the budget funding priorities.

BTW, I agree with Cox that the analysis done by Chen does not fit the criteria of the EST plasmoid that Clint produces. The poloidal component of current in his toroid dominates his topology, which means that the corresponding toroidal field, which is only produced within the torus, also dominates. Consequently, the outward pressure on the EST current shell must be balanced by some external inward force. The toroidal component of current is weak and cannot produce the external poloidal magnetic pressure that would bring the toroid into stable equilibrium. If the plasmoid lasts for .6 seconds without change of shape or brightness level, then it must be continuously formed with his electron beam source. Otherwise, the plasma would decompose within microseconds.

By comparison, our PLASMAK magnetoplasmoids (PMKs) have negligible change in shape, size or luminosity over a period of one or two hundred milliseconds after the initial tens of microseconds impulse that forms them has ceased. That may not sound like much of a lifetime, but compare that to the decomposition of Lawrence Livermore's spheromak plasma within 60 microseconds. The other interesting thing is that we have recently produced PMKs of 40 cm diameter (under work sponsored by DOD), and with the installation of our new, additional fast rise capacitors, we expect to obtain lifetimes of seconds.

Cheers,
Paul "




Cheers
Erich
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vermillion
post Oct 4 2005, 01:48 AM
Post #28


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,547
Member No.: 2,065
Joined: December-23-03

From: Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



I am staggered by just how wrong this whole diatribe is. Whatever the other sci-forum is, you should post the following factual corrections back to it:

1) According to the US Department of Energy, American oil/energy consumption is just below 25 barrels per day per person. It has remained steady at about 25 for several years, the highest it has ever been was 31 barrels per person, in 1978. Nowhere close to the 66 barrels of oil per day listed earlier.

2) Apart from that, the 'quote' starts with facts and figures, and suddenly stops providing them, asserting that 'sparrow farts' cannot generate any electricity. Really?

The ENTIRE energy producing apparatus of the US, from ALL sources (renuable, nuclear fossil fuels) is just under 750 gigawatts. The 'quote' asserts that there is no way that 'sparrow farts' can ever make that much. However, Canada, that nation to the north with just 15% of the population of the US, produces over 66% of its power through hydroelectricity alone, thats 67 Gigawatts. That is not wind farms or biomass or anything else, that is JUST Hydroelectricity. If canada can produce 67 gigawatts of power from that one renewable source, is is really so hard to imagine that the US could produce a lot more from a combination of all renewable sources?

Britain is in the process of constructing a large offshore windfarm, stretching several miles across, using new, high efficiency wind turbines. The single wind farm is expected to produce about 10 gigawatts. As an aside, these windfarms are all 8 km from the coast, making them nearly imposible to see and not affecting the view, or inconveniencing anyone.

The Yang-Tse dam project in China, a single dam system, is expected to produce as much as 80 Gigawatts of power.


Sustainable energy cannot be dismissed out of hand, at least without completely invented numbers and fictional arguments...


QUOTE(erich @ Sep 25 2005, 04:58 AM)
Dear Folks:

To really gain some perspective on the energy problem , and understand what a tough nut it is, read this reply by Uncle AL, from another Sci-forum:

"Do you have any idea how much energy the US uses/year? It has held reasonably steady at 60 bbl oil equiv/capita. 1 boe = 1700 kWhr-thermal. There are 290 million US folk or

1.74x10^10 boe/year, or
2.96x10^13 kWhr-thermal/year, or
1.065x10^20 joules/year, or...

...or the equivalent of 1.2 metric tonnes of matter 100% converted into energy each year, E=mc^2. Are ya gonna alternatively burn algae, git, or catch wind

The US consumes the equivalent of 1.2 metric tonnes of matter 100% converted into energy each year, E=mc^2.

You are all clueless. Sparrow farts run through a gas turbine won't get you 10^20 joules/year. Not now, not ever. Pulling 10^20 joules/year out of wind or waves would monstrously perturb the weather. Where do the energy and raw materials necessary to fabricate and install your New Age hind gut fermentations originate? Who pays for the environmental impact reports and litigations therefrom?


This post has been edited by Vermillion: Oct 4 2005, 01:49 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
erich
post Oct 5 2005, 09:13 PM
Post #29


**
Member

Group: Members
Posts: 12
Member No.: 5,479
Joined: September-18-05

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



"60 bbl oil equiv/capita" That Uncle Al states is total equivalent energy use for all sources. not just oil.

My reply to UncleAl:

"Dear Uncle Al,
Your logic and math are impeccable, However you seem to ignore the macro energy equation.
All fossil and nuke fuels ultimately add to the heat load of the biosphere while most of the solar / wind / thermal conversion technologies (except geothermal) recycle solar energy instead of releasing sequestered solar energy. This is the goal and definition of sustainability, not over loading the dynamic equilibrium of the biosphere.

At least you seem not to take account of this, and I feel you dismiss the rising curve of increasing efficiency for PV, direct solar to hydrogen, wind and thermal conversion to electricity, not to mention P-B11 fusion.
From what I understand of the direct solar to hydrogen fabrication technology it is a much greener process, and cheaper that silicon based PVs. ( Hydrogen Solar home http://www.hydrogensolar.com/index.html )

And the nano-dot approach to PVs also promises full spectrum conversion efficiencies along with clean production processes. ( UB News Services-solar nano-dots http://www.buffalo.edu/news/fast-ex...rticle=75000009 )"

and: Here's a reply to UncleAl by Ophiolite
http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=13502#13502

"Erich,
re your earlier post quoting Uncle Al. Uncle Al is of course living proof that intelligence plus an education do not always equal correct conclusions. Your response to him was a pertinent one.
You might have added this.
The surface area of the sphere at the Earth's orbital radius is 1.81 E16.
The surface area of this sphere intersected by the Earth is 2.01 E08
The portion of the sun's output interesected by the Earth is 1.11 E-08
The sun converts 4 billion tons of mass to energy per second
In one year it converts 1.46 E12 tons
The Earth intercepts the energy of 1.46 E12 x 1.11 E-08 converted tons: 1.62 E04
The amount of this incident energy required to meet US energy needs is 0.007%.
Even if I am out somewhere by a factor of 100, then the needs would be met by less than 0.1% of the energy falling on the Earth.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
erich
post Oct 6 2005, 08:23 PM
Post #30


**
Member

Group: Members
Posts: 12
Member No.: 5,479
Joined: September-18-05

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Correction:

"Dear folks:
Here's an email that is very good news for Paul Koloc's and Eric Lerner's work on P-B11 fusion.

He's referring to a power point presentation at the 05 AIAA conference on alternative forms of fusion which"



Vincent Page's presentation was given at the 05 6th symposium on current trends in international fusion research

Sorry,
Erich
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Oct 6 2005, 09:09 PM
Post #31


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican





Let's not debate what people on other sites are saying.

Quoting other forums borders on SPAM.

QUESTIONS FOR DEBATE:

Can this plan work? Will the financial gains expected from various parts of the plan every produce more for America then the costs of the plan? Why or Why not?

What would you change in this plan?

Are there technological options that the plan missed? If so, any idea why?

For those that support the plan: What approach would you suggest to help "sell" this plan to America?

For those who oppose the plan: What approach (if any) would you suggest America take instead of this plan?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
erich
post Jan 14 2006, 02:09 AM
Post #32


**
Member

Group: Members
Posts: 12
Member No.: 5,479
Joined: September-18-05

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Dear Folks:

Clint Seward just sent this update of their progress at http://www.electronpowersystems.com/ , a very nice time frame, if Clint can find the funding:

QUOTE
"Hi All,


          The following is the annual update to the EPS progress toward a clean energy solution to replace fossil fuels.  Below is a brief summary of where we are.  Attached is an updated copy of the manuscript describing our project.


It remains clear that we have made and patented a new discovery in physics: a plasma toroid the remains stable without external magnetic fields.  This is so far beyond the experience and understanding of plasma scientists today that, to say the least, we are having trouble convincing reviewers.  We have completed the design of an improved neutron tube.  This is what we have to build to demonstrate a clean energy source, and I plan to do the first steps in 2006, with a first demo in 2007 if all goes well. 

<snip>

We plan to do this by making a new, high energy neutron tube.  There are several thousand neutron tubes in use in the US today that safely collide hydrogen ions to produce neutrons, which in turn are used for explosives detection, industrial process control, and medical testing.  Figure 1 shows the neutron tube schematically.  An ion source produces hydrogen ions (deuterium), which are accelerated to 110 kV, then directed to hit the target (also deuterium), a process which produces neutrons (see reference below). 



Figure 1: A One Meter Long Neutron Tube Schematic

Neutron tubes today are limited by the low density of the hydrogen ions.  We plan to overcome this limitation by adapting the EST Spheromak to increase the ion density to produce a high output neutron tube.  The EST Spheromak is patented jointly by EPS Inc. and MIT scientists who also have published papers confirming the physics and data.  Since each part of the development has been done by others or by EPS, we anticipate that this will be an engineering project to produce a proof of concept lab demo in two years, with modest funding.
<snip>

            The development is a scale up of work completed to date.  We make EST Spheromaks in the lab and accelerate them.  Each step has been shown to work individually, and we plan to adapt them to produce a lab demo in two years.  Milestones:

            1. Defining Patent: (Note:  co-inventors are MIT scientists).                          2000

            2. Spheromak acceleration:                                                                            2001

            3. Spheromak capture in a magnetic trap:                                                        2006

            4. Spheromak collision for a lab proof of concept demonstration:                  2007

            5. First neutron tube commercial prototype:                                                    2008

            6. First commercial product:                                                                          2009

<snip>


Edited to remove entire reposting of potentially copyrighted material. When citing others' works, please refer to the Rules for citation allowances.

__________________
Erich J. Knight
"Religion Is Bunk " T. A. Edison

This post has been edited by Jaime: Jan 14 2006, 03:00 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RedCedar
post Jan 15 2006, 06:29 AM
Post #33


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 438
Member No.: 5,739
Joined: December-20-05

From: Deeeeetroit
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Independent



Great topic!

I think the plan can work. You can say it's impossible because Americans are energy pigs, but the room we have to cut our energy consumption is HUGE.

When you have people driving Hummers when gas is over $3/gallon, that alone is evidence we consume way, way, way more than we should.

How about florescent light bulbs? How about high insulation buildings? Mass transit? Urban sprawl? Increasing MPG?

Again, the gap between efficiency and plain, flat out, hogs at the trough is GIGANTIC. You make energy outrageously expensive and watch people follow this plan....they'll have to.



I don't like the comparison to Man on the Moon or Manhattan project, because it's way more than new technology. We HAVE the technology now. We need to change the hogwild attitude of Americans. I'd compare it more to Eisenhower building the freeway system.

We need to invest infrastructure cost and push education. We absolutely don't need a vice president that says Americans should drive Hummers if they want.


I have another take on this. Instead of energy independence from the middle east, how about energy independence for each individual?? Solar power? Electric vehicles? Human powered energy?

I am in the process of rigging up a heater that is totally energy-supplied from an exercise bike. Just think if we could exercise during the day and store all that energy so we can watch TV at night?

With prices going through the roof, people will look to alternatives just so they won't have to pay a lot to stay warm or stay cool. And how else can you be independent if you don't provide the energy yourself?



One more thing. Is that buoy thing to harness wave power seem like the wrong approach to anyone else? I always picture some type of paddles, like on a steam boat that would get turned by the tides. Or maybe even props, like water-based windmills that turn with incoming/outgoing tides.

No doubt, there is a lot of energy to be harnessed that it seems only desperation with move us toward.

The plan seems solid, the politics to get it in action don't. You have to remove the oil men from DC as a first step. crying.gif

This post has been edited by RedCedar: Jan 15 2006, 06:31 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RedCedar
post Jan 15 2006, 06:40 AM
Post #34


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 438
Member No.: 5,739
Joined: December-20-05

From: Deeeeetroit
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(erich @ Jan 13 2006, 10:09 PM)

            6. First commercial product:                                                                           2009


Is it just me or does anyone else feel that sometime in the near/distant future that a reliable, safe, renewable energy source will be created that makes all our worries today seem trivial?

I can just picture people in the future going "why did they worry about energy so much?". Sort of the way we may ask why travel was such a big deal back 100 years ago.

Whether it be fusion or something else, I have confidence that we will break through technically with a solution to consumption of energy. The universe is just filled to much with free energy for there not to be an easy solution.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vermillion
post Mar 8 2006, 09:28 PM
Post #35


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,547
Member No.: 2,065
Joined: December-23-03

From: Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(RedCedar @ Jan 15 2006, 06:40 AM)
Is it just me or does anyone else feel that sometime in the near/distant future that a reliable, safe, renewable energy source will be created that makes all our worries today seem trivial?


Its possible to be sure, but it is no certainly, and there is no concept of the time frame even if it does happen.

Either way, it in no way abrogates the people of the present from responsibility for their actions.

Its a bit like a smoker looking at the history of medicine:
"There has been SO MUCH advancement in medicine the last 40 years, I'm just going to keep smoking because I'm sure they will discover a cure for cancer..."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
erich
post Mar 21 2006, 01:47 AM
Post #36


**
Member

Group: Members
Posts: 12
Member No.: 5,479
Joined: September-18-05

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Looks like Eric Lerner is moving down the road with his Aneutronic approach!!

U.S., Chilean Labs to Collaborate on Testing Scientific Feasibility of Focus Fusion http://pesn.com/2006/03/18/9600250_LPP_Chi...ear_Commission/

GE has also chimed in:

Vincent Page (a technology officer at GE!!) gave a presentation at the 05 6th symposium on current trends in international fusion research , which high lights the need to fully fund three different approaches to P-B11 fusion (Below Is an excerpt).
He quotes costs and time to development of P-B11 Fusion as tens of million $, and years verses the many decades and ten Billion plus $ projected for ITER and other "Big" science efforts:


"for larger plant sizes
Time to small-scale Cost to achieve net if the small-scale
Concept Description net energy production energy concept works:
Koloc Spherical Plasma: 10 years(time frame), $25 million (cost), 80%(chance of success)
Field Reversed Configuration: 8 years $75 million 60%
Plasma Focus: 6 years $18 million 80%


Anyone who wants to view the pdf, just post me for a copy

Cheers,

Erich j. Knight
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
teamusajohn11
post Apr 27 2006, 04:15 AM
Post #37


*
New Member

Group: New Members
Posts: 4
Member No.: 6,045
Joined: April-27-06

From: Subic Bay Philippines
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: None







I voted yes but with a change. Not that I know everything it would take to make these changes I do know of one thing I have not heard from either side. Maglev Trains, possibly in Vacuum tubes. We have the interstate highway system and the medians are a waste of space. although some do not have medians through urban and mountainous areas, most do have the medians. If we put in the energy efficient Maglev Trains and used it for Transport of goods alone it will reduce the price of goods, reduce the demand for Oil, and that will boost the economy much like Reagan, Kennedy and the current president have done through tax cuts. Thus allowing the IRS to take in more money through taxes. The plan will pay for itself. This is not the only solution, nor may it be the best. But it is something that should be considered. Truckers will still be needed for local and regional deliveries.

We would also need to replace the internal combustion engine, not that I have a great idea on how to do that, but there are smarter people than I who have great ideas on what to replace the century old technology with.

This post has been edited by teamusajohn11: Apr 27 2006, 04:19 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post May 22 2006, 03:27 PM
Post #38


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
Vermillion
Britain is in the process of constructing a large offshore windfarm, stretching several miles across, using new, high efficiency wind turbines. The single wind farm is expected to produce about 10 gigawatts. As an aside, these windfarms are all 8 km from the coast, making them nearly imposible to see and not affecting the view, or inconveniencing anyone.


The Yang-Tse dam project in China, a single dam system, is expected to produce as much as 80 Gigawatts of power.


All good ideas. Our problem in the US is we cannot agree how to get anything done. “Wind Farms” – hey we have been trying to get one approved off the coast of Mass for a over 5 years. Idiot Teddy K opposes it because he can see it from his compound. Others say it ‘may” kill some birds.

The environmentalists have this country tied up in knots. Can’t explore for oil, or drill, or build anything without decades of “impact” studies. Best bet is huge solar arrays that could provide giga watts of power if we can give them say the area of the states of north and south Dakota. Same for wind. Good luck getting funding and approvals.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: December 2nd, 2021 - 09:44 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.