The solution to global warming...

[Yevgeny]

I'm pro environment and frustrated with most of the greens I know because they are Luddites (http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/luddite.html). They are impossible to please because they seem to just want fewer people on the planet and everyone to eat only vegetables.

The solution to global warming isn't found as much from conservation as it is from finding new and non/less polluting energy sources. Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of conservation because to a certain extent, conservation goes hand in hand with efficiency (which is good).

However we can't have environmental friendliness without growth and vice versa (frequently people forget that these two things are dependent on each other). So in the interest of educating our esteemed readership, I hereby provide some links to various energy generation schemes that are eco friendly (or are eco freindlier than burning oil).

ocean power (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6968256/)

organic solar cells (http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/energy_engineering/report-37778.html)

carbon sequestration (http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/sequestration/)

ITER (http://www.iter.org/index.htm)

pebble bed nuclear reactor (http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=84054)

Feel free to post others. I left out traditional solar and wind because they are already well known (even though traditional solar is waaaay too expensive to go mainstream).

[Anders]

Pebble bed reactors actually got me very interested when I read up on it about a year ago and combined with renewable energy sources could be the way ahead.

I think we need to invest a lot of money in "devil advocate" research and try to find every little hole in the argument for PBR.

[Anders]

Originally posted by Yevgeny

However we can't have environmental friendliness without growth

This is bollocks. Its like saying I can´t go to India this year instead of Berlin like last year. Its a matter of priorities.

[Res]

The alternate energy source that has always looked most promising to me is Space Based Solar Power (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/solar_power_sats_011017-1.html).

Solar power satellites could supply 100% of the worlds energy needs, and continue to do so for the foreseeable future (the sun should remain a reliable energy source for several billion years).

I think that the best plans for solar power satellites construction are the ones that use materials from the moon rather than lift everything from the earth. There is an initial high outlay of funds, but once you have the lunar factories set up, you more than make up the difference on the lower transportation costs.

An added benefit is that factories could be used for other projects once the power satellite system is in place.

[Anders]

I think all beer bottles should have small laser cutters build in so when you wanted to open it you just pressed a button and the top of the bottleneck cut itself off. I think its the best solution.

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by Anders
This is bollocks. Its like saying I can´t go to India this year instead of Berlin like last year. Its a matter of priorities.

Well, you can't have friendliness if it means measurably reducing everyone's standard of living. The reason why is because people in democracies are touchy about reducing their standard of living.

Oh I know that all the progressive Europeans are willing to forgoe growth to have green economies, but they haven't had to make the really difficult choices yet.

Also, try telling the Chinese to stop growth so as to have a green economy. They'll politely ignore you.

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by Res
The alternate energy source that has always looked most promising to me is Space Based Solar Power (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/solar_power_sats_011017-1.html).

Solar power satellites could supply 100% of the worlds energy needs, and continue to do so for the foreseeable future (the sun should remain a reliable energy source for several billion years).

I think that the best plans for solar power satellites construction are the ones that use materials from the moon rather than lift everything from the earth. There is an initial high outlay of funds, but once you have the lunar factories set up, you more than make up the difference on the lower transportation costs.

An added benefit is that factories could be used for other projects once the power satellite system is in place.

I'm a big space nut, but I left that one off because the cost to lift solar cells into space makes space based power extremely expensive.

Perhaps one day carbon nanotubes will be available in quantity and a space elevator could be made, but until the, this is just a pipe dream.

[e1618978]

http://www.wentworth.nsw.gov.au/solartower/

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by Anders
Pebble bed reactors actually got me very interested when I read up on it about a year ago and combined with renewable energy sources could be the way ahead.

I think we need to invest a lot of money in "devil advocate" research and try to find every little hole in the argument for PBR.

Also you can use PBRs to directly make hydrogen gas through high temperature electrolysis for the hydrogen economy. Potential future fission reactors (http://www.uic.com.au/nip77.htm). Unfortunately, green movements unanimously hate nuclear power and it will never happen. I'm glad Bush dared to mention nuclear power in the state of the union address. That took real guts.

PBRs seem to be quite safe and reliable. Nucelar power gets a bad rap but in all honesty, we know where its pollution is at whereas fossil fuels just go into the athmosphere.

Note to all:
No, I am not minimizing Chernobyl or Three mile island. Just saying that nuclear power is much safer than pumping megatons of C02 into the anthosphere. Feel free to flame me :D

[pierr_alex]

Sign and apply Kyoto (http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html) first. To be taken seriously (http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines01/0724-01.htm).

;-)

[MarcUK]

I think we need to spend the $ on research into more efficient solar panels, and instead of blowing hundreds of billions on wars, we could equip every house with enough power to run itself. The backup power would be nuclear, and we would use nuclear to create hydrogen to power portable appliances.

[hardeeharhar]

Pebble bed reactors haven't been tested in the field to any sufficient degree to say whether they will be better or worse than current nuclear reactors.

The hydrogen economy is a dumb idea. If you want to move reducing equivalents (think electrons) around in a useful high density form, methanol is a much better option.

There are many companies which profit from global warming, and a significant fraction of these companies are the same ones that produce a large fraction of the suspected greenhouse gases...

[sammi jo]

Forget hydrogen: the cheapest source of H2 is from fossil fuels...(that's probably why the Bush admin. a few years ago, announced a $2billion hydrogen initiative (another nice little windfall for the oil industry).

Industrial hemp has many possibilities, but there are some (stupid beyond all recognition) politicians who still seem to think that industrial hemp production will lead to a new generation of stoned teenagers, and a general "awareness" that agricultural hemp farming is being "soft on drugs". (D'oh)

http://www.hemp.com

[pierr_alex]

Actually the absolute solution is 'Controlled nuclear fusion' through ITER...

[Res]

Originally posted by Yevgeny
I'm a big space nut, but I left that one off because the cost to lift solar cells into space makes space based power extremely expensive.

Perhaps one day carbon nanotubes will be available in quantity and a space elevator could be made, but until the, this is just a pipe dream.

That's why I like the lunar methods, it costs very little to lift things off the moon. If we pushed for it, within 20 years we could have a solar power satellite system in place (built mostly from lunar materials) that would cover all our energy needs. And while not cheap, it would cost a less then the Iraq war, and it is the only alternative energy program that comes anywhere close to meeting 100% of our energy needs with no pollution and little environmental impact.

[atomic_angel]

Originally posted by Yevgeny
Well, you can't have friendliness if it means measurably reducing everyone's standard of living. The reason why is because people in democracies are touchy about reducing their standard of living.

Oh I know that all the progressive Europeans are willing to forgoe growth to have green economies, but they haven't had to make the really difficult choices yet.

Also, try telling the Chinese to stop growth so as to have a green economy. They'll politely ignore you.

There is actually an argument to be made that environmental concerns and economic growth are not only not mutually exclusive but, in fact, necessarily complimentary. The reason for this is that long-term, aggregate wealth creation is based on two fundamental things:

1. Natural resources that are capable of either being re-used or re-producing themselves (e.g., air, water, land, vegetation and animals).

2. Human physical and mental ability.

Wealth can be created/grown by virtue of applying #2 to #1 properly to provide the means and materials to sustain and enjoy life. Conversely, wealth can be reduced or even destroyed by irrevocably reducing or destroying #1 or #2.

Now, this isn't a call for what I would consider "radical environmentalism"...but it also should caution us against the typical capitalist "use and discard" approach to the environment. As is typical with many things, either extreme is dangerous and short-sighted.

[Carson O'Genic]

It is going to take a combination of things. The immediate soultion is to apply existing technology (I love space stuff, but the solar arrays in space has been talked about since the 70's). Also, keep working on the new stuff.

The main problem in the US is that everytime alternative sources (meaning in large part all those sources that produce less or no CO2) look attractive oil prices start to decline. Oil is too cheap in the US-OPEC and everyone else keeps it that way-they're not dumb. So, government has to step in and make oil/gas more expensive (politcal suicide, but necessary-you get the rub).

I suggest phasing in a gas, oil coal tax (carbon tax) with all the revenue earmarked for alternative energy research and energy conservation measures (like tax breaks for solar arrays or hybrid cars). This would cause consumers to opt for more efficient cars (sorry Hummer lovers), appliances etc. It would also produce a massive research and development effort.

Sadly, we have an Idiot in Chief who's idea of an energy policy is to cut funding for solar power because it is a mature technology (better left to the privet sector) while funding all kinds energy programs that benefit the petroleum industry.

[Res]

Originally posted by pierr_alex
Actually the absolute solution is 'Controlled nuclear fusion' through ITER...

Researchers have been saying that fusion power is about 10 out for three decades now, and while I think we should keep funding research, and hope that we will finally get it working, I would not count on having useable fusion plants before we run out of peek oil or suffer catastrophic environmental damages.

We will get a handle on fusion power eventually, but until we do I think we should plan on using a technology that we know will work. We have a 1.98 × 10*32 kg fusion reactor, that is going to keep running for several billion years, sitting in the middle of our solar system. Space based solar receptors are the best way to tap into it. Japan is planning to have working solar power satellites by 2040 - If we wanted to, the US could have them working by 2015 - 2020.

[Anders]

Or you could just put up a lot of windmills. Why do people always come up with hyper-hightech solutions when much simpler solutions will do the same trick?

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by atomic_angel
There is actually an argument to be made that environmental concerns and economic growth are not only not mutually exclusive but, in fact, necessarily complimentary. The reason for this is that long-term, aggregate wealth creation is based on two fundamental things:

1. Natural resources that are capable of either being re-used or re-producing themselves (e.g., air, water, land, vegetation and animals).

2. Human physical and mental ability.

Wealth can be created/grown by virtue of applying #2 to #1 properly to provide the means and materials to sustain and enjoy life. Conversely, wealth can be reduced or even destroyed by irrevocably reducing or destroying #1 or #2.

Now, this isn't a call for what I would consider "radical environmentalism"...but it also should caution us against the typical capitalist "use and discard" approach to the environment. As is typical with many things, either extreme is dangerous and short-sighted.

I completely agree.

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by Anders
Or you could just put up a lot of windmills. Why do people always come up with hyper-hightech solutions when much simpler solutions will do the same trick?

Wind power is a good solution except for when there is no wind. Wind is doing fairly well in relation to the cost of oil (I belive that it is currently cheaper) except for the fact that if the winds die down, you loose all power. Power providers are contractually obligated to provide electricity and will breach their contract if the wind dies down and they can't deliver (meaning they wind up paying fines). This is why wind is viewed as being a bit sketchy within the power industry.

That is why ocean power is a better bet because the tide is pretty well known and isn't going to change (barring the moon taking leave).

Also, wind power needs *alot* of windmills to produce what a single nuclear reactor can produce. I hear that the plains of the Dakotas would be a good place to start building a wind farm.

The current oil prices are a great thing because they encourage energy companies to start investing in sources of energy that are not oil. Hopefully China and India's newfound demand for oil will keep oil at about $40-$50 a barrel so that we will have more wind, solar, etc being developed.

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by Res
That's why I like the lunar methods, it costs very little to lift things off the moon. If we pushed for it, within 20 years we could have a solar power satellite system in place (built mostly from lunar materials) that would cover all our energy needs. And while not cheap, it would cost a less then the Iraq war, and it is the only alternative energy program that comes anywhere close to meeting 100% of our energy needs with no pollution and little environmental impact.

This would probably be a viable solution if we had a space elevator. Don't get me wrong, when I was in my debate class I argued this point regarding the space program, but the costs are considerable and there isn't much potential return in teh short term.

Plus you'd have to get the environmentalists to not worry about "killer" microwave beams from space.

[iPoster]

Originally posted by Anders
Or you could just put up a lot of windmills. Why do people always come up with hyper-hightech solutions when much simpler solutions will do the same trick?

Windmill power plants and bird flocks don't cooperate very well either...:wow:

[e1618978]

Originally posted by iPoster
Windmill power plants and bird flocks don't cooperate very well either...:wow:

The solar tower that I posted above is a better solution than windmills. There was a recent study that shows that once you get above a certain percentage of the worlds power supplied by windmills, it starts to dramatically affect the climate by slowing down the wind (one side effect would be dramatic warming of the poles).

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
It is going to take a combination of things. The immediate soultion is to apply existing technology (I love space stuff, but the solar arrays in space has been talked about since the 70's). Also, keep working on the new stuff.

Agreed.

Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
The main problem in the US is that everytime alternative sources (meaning in large part all those sources that produce less or no CO2) look attractive oil prices start to decline. Oil is too cheap in the US-OPEC and everyone else keeps it that way-they're not dumb. So, government has to step in and make oil/gas more expensive (politcal suicide, but necessary-you get the rub).

Actually, most of our energy comes from Coal and natural gas. Coal is mined on the East coast, we don't import it.

If we could sequester the CO2 from coal plants (debatable), then we would be in a great position.

Also, I am not convinced that the gov needs to step in and regulate the cost of gas. Currently the marketplace is making oil cost more due to increased demand from China and India. Also, Opec is pumping at near capacity except for Saudi Arabia and they just said that they can live with $40 a barrel oil. So there is no need for any crazy taxes to make life worse.

Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
I suggest phasing in a gas, oil coal tax (carbon tax) with all the revenue earmarked for alternative energy research and energy conservation measures (like tax breaks for solar arrays or hybrid cars). This would cause consumers to opt for more efficient cars (sorry Hummer lovers), appliances etc. It would also produce a massive research and development effort.

I wouldn't mind this, but in the end, conusmers would still get abused. For example CA wants to tax gas by the mile driven because of the increased use of hybrids. Gas taxes aren't about the environment, but about revenue.

Also, quite a bit or R&D money goes to energy research, both public and private.

Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
Sadly, we have an Idiot in Chief who's idea of an energy policy is to cut funding for solar power because it is a mature technology (better left to the privet sector) while funding all kinds energy programs that benefit the petroleum industry.

Well Duh, solare IS mature and isn't going anywhere. It is damn expensive and won't get much cheaper. For example, highe efficeiency/mass produced solar has about 20% efficiency, but is very expensive to produce. Meanwhile organic solar cells have an efficiency of 3% and are cheap to produce.

So in the end, old school solar and new fangled organic solar cost the same per megawatt because old school solar has efficiency but doesn't have cheapness and new organic solar is the opposite- it has cheapnes but not efficiency. The good news is that organic solar cells are getting government research dollars and their efficiency will improve.

Finally, you really need to do more reading and get out of the simplistic "oil companies are evil polluters who don't care about solar power". For example the largest provider of solar cells in the US is... Shell Solar (http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=shellsolar). Power companies are in the business of giveing people power cheaply and making a profit. They don't care how they get the power and so they sell both oil and solar power.

[e1618978]

My idea, which requires a space elevator.

Build intellgent machines, which will land on Mercury and set up solar pannel manufacturing plants via available local materials. The solar pannels would cover the daylight side of the planet, and the night time side would hold a plant that turns the electricity into antimatter.

[Yevgeny]

Another way to get green(er) fuel:

Make oil from garbage and lawn clippings (http://www.perc.org/publications/percreports/june2003/garbage.php)

Basically this uses a closed carbon cycle:

CO2->plants->lawn mower->lawn clippings trashcan->processing plant->pressure+heat->Oil->burn in your SUV->CO2->repeat

So this greatly reduces the need to extract more oil from the ground.

This doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics because the sun picks up the energy tab by giving the grass on your lawn energy to absorb C02 and grow. Yes, this actually produces more energy than we (humans) put into it.

This closes the carbon cycle, takes advantage of the existing garbageman infrastructure and encen means that you don't have to pick up the tab of setting up the hydrogen economy.

Currently, this is used (as stated in the article) to reduce turkey parts to oil, reducing industrial waste.

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by pierr_alex
Sign and apply Kyoto (http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html) first. To be taken seriously (http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines01/0724-01.htm).

;-)

Why sign such bad legislation? Hello? Energy intensive production will just be moved to China, India, Indonesia, etc. who are not signatories to the accord (China uses much more polluting energy). We would move production from efficiently polluting nations to inefficiently polluting nations. Kyoto won't work to reduce global emmissions.

Kyoto is poorly thought out legislation. I'm glad we didn't sign up to it. And while it is easy to blame Bush, the US Senate overwhelmingly voted in 1997 to reject any Kyoto style treaty if developing countries were excluded. Kyoto would never have passed the Senate.

Kyoto is bad because the two fastest growing and dirtiest economies (China and India) were excluded. It was stupid legislation and the end result is nothing but a serious competetive disadvantage to the signatories.

If developing countries had been involved, then it would have been good legislation. In the meantime, thank you for handing US industries a competetive advantage.

[Aquatic]

Well you're wrong. You're smart, but it's not your major.

Here is the list of problems that are destroying the environment, in order of importance:

1. Population growth

2. Wasteful resource consumption

3. Pollution

Notice pollution is on bottom. This is from my environmental law text, Plater Abrams, Goldfarb, and Graham.


Don't get me wrong, I think it's incredibly important we supplant oil and coal with cleaner energy, and it will have a huge impact. It is both in our economic interest because companies will find ways to profit off of clean energy, just like they do now on oil, and our nation's and the Earth's long term economic interest, because cleaning up the environment is more expensive than just dealing with the externalities now. However idiot Republicans don't care about anyone else, even their children. So they think short term.

I think the US should enact a law where if you have less than 2 children, you get a tax break, 2, stays the same, and more than 2, you have to pay more taxes, on a scale. Or something like this, like what China has.

Over-population is the root of almost every single problem in the world.

[Aquatic]

n the meantime, thank you for handing US industries a competetive advantage.

Typical misnomer. You see, in the long term, those countries with cleaner environments, will profit from this. However, this assumes the rest of the world doesn't affect them. It does. But I still have a feeling it is economically advantageous to have a cleaner environment. Just looking at road salt for example...it costs the US 3 billion dollars in environmental damages! Environmental externalities add up to huuge number. Someone has to take the lead. Too bad we have a President that is a tool.

[Anders]

Wind mills together with good storage solutions (cell) is the key. The wind will eventually blow. But windmills together with other renewable solutions and a few nuclear plants will make the day.

A large portion of the energy marked here in scandinavia center around this formula. Water power from the swedish elves and danish wind power together with nuclear energy from Sweden forms a very robust and stable back bone.

I think about 15-20% of the energy production comes from wind already. And 1) we use more energy per capita than USA and 2) we have a much higher population density. So its possible to use windmills to cover a great deal of your energy production.

[Anders]

Originally posted by e1618978
The solar tower that I posted above is a better solution than windmills. There was a recent study that shows that once you get above a certain percentage of the worlds power supplied by windmills, it starts to dramatically affect the climate by slowing down the wind (one side effect would be dramatic warming of the poles).

Bull

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by Aquatic
Typical misnomer. You see, in the long term, those countries with cleaner environments, will profit from this. However, this assumes the rest of the world doesn't affect them. It does. But someone has to take the lead. Too bad we have a President that is a tool.

As I pointed out, he seems to be a tool to the senate. If you want global legislation, then include the whole stinking globe, don't selectively exclude the nations where quite a bit of industrial prduction goes on.

Why not include China and India? What is the compelling environmental reason for excluding them? I'm not aware of one.

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by Anders
Wind mills together with good storage solutions (cell) is the key. The wind will eventually blow. But windmills together with other renewable solutions and a few nuclear plants will make the day.

A large portion of the energy marked here in scandinavia center around this formula. Water power from the swedish elves and danish wind power together with nuclear energy from Sweden forms a very robust and stable back bone.

I think about 15-20% of the energy production comes from wind already. And 1) we use more energy per capita than USA and 2) we have a much higher population density. So its possible to use windmills to cover a great deal of your energy production.

I'd agree to this, with a few caveats. First of all, no wind is obviously a disaster, but low wind also kills usability.

Yes, you could produce hydrogen as a byproduct and it would work well.

I think that tidal power is a better solution because water has an energy density 1000 times greater than wind and that is why it is more reliable.

Finally, I would prefer to not trust my power generation to swedish elves. Elves are kind of... unreliable ;)

[Anders]

DOH. Rivers;)

[Outsider]

Land based solar panels.

Conservation of energy in general (requires education).

Fuel cell cars (we are talking about reducing global warming right?)

Wind power.

Hydro electric in all its forms.

How about using the principals behind the space elevator applied torward space based solar power?

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Anders
Bull

http://www.energybulletin.net/3125.html

BTW - Mr. Anders, you could have easily found this yourself via google, but obviously you don't want it to be true (hence the "Bull" without looking it up)

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by Anders
DOH. Rivers;)

No worries. It was the best laugh i've had in some time.

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by Outsider
Land based solar panels.

Conservation of energy in general (requires education).

Fuel cell cars (we are talking about reducing global warming right?)

Wind power.

Hydro electric in all its forms.

How about using the principals behind the space elevator applied torward space based solar power?

Good ideas.

Land based solar panels cost a bit, but that may go down.

Fuel cell cars are currently a hot area of research both in the public and private (e.g. General Motors).

Wind is ongoing and continues to become less expensive (thanks to General Electric who keeps investing in more efficient and larger wind turbine development).

Hydro Electric is dead. The problem is that Hydro power causes environmental issues because it changes the landscape. You can't just go and build damns as you please.

Space elevators are a ways off, but getting closer. I'd expect the first one to be made within 20 years which is a bit too far for a meaningful impact on climate change.

[Anders]

Originally posted by e1618978
http://www.energybulletin.net/3125.html

BTW - Mr. Anders, you could have easily found this yourself via google, but obviously you don't want it to be true (hence the "Bull" without looking it up)

I have seen simulations based on windmills as hey are placed in farms here and it had virtually no effect. So I need to see the documentation and the assumptions its based on to sway from my stand on this.

Of course if you harvest energy from the wind it will leave less for the wind itself. But only on a local scale will this have an effect (like heating because hot air won´t flow away as easily). But I have seen no simulations that shows a non-local effect.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Anders
I have seen simulations based on windmills as hey are placed in farms here and it had virtually no effect. So I need to see the documentation and the assumptions its based on to sway from my stand on this.

Of course if you harvest energy from the wind it will leave less for the wind itself. But only on a local scale will this have an effect (like heating because hot air won´t flow away as easily). But I have seen no simulations that shows a non-local effect.


From the article:

"Dr. Pacala's then-graduate student Somnath Roy and others reported that simulations of a wind farm in Oklahoma with 10,000 windmills could increase temperatures by upward of 2C for several hours in the early morning. These findings mirror an actual but previously ignored temperature rise that U.S. government meteorologist Neil Kelley observed at an actual wind farm in California in 1990."

So it is not only a simulation, but a simulation that explained a previously unexplainable field observation.

[hardeeharhar]

Actually, Eric, Anders is right -- it is only a local effect as observed.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Actually, Eric, Anders is right -- it is only a local effect as observed.

There was a simulation that predicted both global and local effects - only the local effects have been observed because we have not built enough windmills to effect the global weather patterns.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by e1618978
There was a simulation that predicted both global and local effects - only the local effects have been observed because we have not built enough windmills to effect the global weather patterns.

These simulations are far more accurate on the local level than they are on the global scale. Yes, it makes sense that there will be less cooling of the earth's surface from the reduced wind; however, these effects can likely be minimized by smart placement of the wind farms...

[e1618978]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
These simulations are far more accurate on the local level than they are on the global scale. Yes, it makes sense that there will be less cooling of the earth's surface from the reduced wind; however, these effects can likely be minimized by smart placement of the wind farms...

Nope.

From the article: "One unexpected finding to the study is that the hotter temperate zone/cooler Arctic effect exists in the simulations if the wind farms are concentrated in a few spots or scattered across the world."

Also, you have it reversed. Simulations like this are usually far more accurate on a global level than at a local level. Local results can very wildly from the expected, but it averages out over a larger area.

[sammi jo]

The harnessing of Zero Point Energy could solve all our energy problems and shortages, with no environmental comebacks. One *huge* problem is that with some 60% of the entire Wall Street portfolio connected with energy (directly or closely), the discovery of unlimited (cheap to free) power would spell the biggest industrial and powerbase upset in human history.

http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html

It will not happen, even if the physics, the theory and practicality is sound...unless there is a huge shift of attitude in positions of power.

:(

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by e1618978
Nope.

From the article: "One unexpected finding to the study is that the hotter temperate zone/cooler Arctic effect exists in the simulations if the wind farms are concentrated in a few spots or scattered across the world."

Also, you have it reversed. Simulations like this are usually far more accurate on a global level than at a local level. Local results can very wildly from the expected, but it averages out over a larger area.

Nope.

The level of detail that they are looking at is undoubtedly a lot lower than you believe they are. These sorts of simulations are far more accurate on the global scale in that they give averages for the local responses, but this doesn't mean the simulation predicts the global response as accurately as it predicts the local responses. That is, there are far more unknowns on a global scale, the average the simulation gives for the local will probably be the average, whereas the average given for the global scale will likely be off.
Its really a matter of symantic use of global. I am using it to refer to the world.

[Kishan]

The ultimate solutions will not come from the Federal Government. (http://www.voanews.com/english/AmericanLife/2005-02-16-voa77.cfm) Rather, it is likely that innovations at the state level will lead to a real grassroots push for cleaner enegy sources. This will be good for both the economy and the environment. The generation of power will become a local economy. For example, in Minnesota there is increasing momentum to add more ethanol to gasoline. The gas burns cleaner and the production of ethanol is good for MN corn farmers. Similarly, first turkey manure plant in the country (http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2003/09/29_postt_pooppower/) is good for the environment and for local turkey farmers.

The downside is that these solutions still involve the release of CO2. Still, I think it is a step in the right direction.

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by sammi jo
The harnessing of Zero Point Energy could solve all our energy problems and shortages, with no environmental comebacks. One *huge* problem is that with some 60% of the entire Wall Street portfolio connected with energy (directly or closely), the discovery of unlimited (cheap to free) power would spell the biggest industrial and powerbase upset in human history.

http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html

It will not happen, even if the physics, the theory and practicality is sound...unless there is a huge shift of attitude in positions of power.

:(

I prefer to get my power from Anders swedish elves.

Zero point energy physics are sound? You're bonkers.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by sammi jo
The harnessing of Zero Point Energy could solve all our energy problems and shortages, with no environmental comebacks. One *huge* problem is that with some 60% of the entire Wall Street portfolio connected with energy (directly or closely), the discovery of unlimited (cheap to free) power would spell the biggest industrial and powerbase upset in human history.

http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html

It will not happen, even if the physics, the theory and practicality is sound...unless there is a huge shift of attitude in positions of power.

:(

You can't use zero point energy. Imagine a hydrogen atom at its zero point energy. It can't have any energy lower than its zero point energy and so effectively this energy is unusable.