Energy Ideas

Post Reply New Topic

European countries have cut their emissions and they still have very high GDP per capita, don't understand why USA isn't going green...

and no, I'm not pro-nuclear

Oh the co-founder of Greenpeace is for nuclear energy.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Greenpeace_ ... ear_energy

i don't really see any viable options other than nuclear.

ah the ex-Greenpeace founder, cool to see someone leave that Greenpeace crap behind.

and well, that's his opinion, he has the freedom to have that point of view.




Wind?
Sun?

Growing algea on large scale in Arizona with brackish water from the colorado river( I think is its name) could be used to produce enough biodesiel to meet the entire nations transporation needs (assuming all IC engine are replaced with diesel engines). But its a theroretical on the paper thing.

http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

The economics and feasibility of nuclear power are not in questions its just in the US there is weak public support for it.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6SrXpZobJQ[/youtube]



[GVideo]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9017605454948856429&q=free+energy+magnet&hl=en[/GVideo]





[GVideo]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2703180506289064827&q=free+energy+magnet&hl=en[/GVideo]

Do we need electric grid, why don't all households just have gas and convert it to electric using a tiny power station.

because then petrochemical companies don't make a mint, schemes like that aren't advocated since goevernments lose too much money through them, and in the end - thats what the workd is about, MONEY!
But if people want to discuss the stranglehold of oil, I'll start a new thread in the politics section.

deleted

Last edited by Gilb on 07 Apr 2007, 8:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

The guy doesn't make sense. I don't understand the concept "HHO", as I don't know what that means. It doesnt seem to be talking about molecular gasses (which is what you get) or some sort of ion plasm form (when you would write it as 2H+ + O-, I believe. I'm not a chemist.)
In any case, this is all standard technology from way back. The problem is mainly how efficiently you can manage your electrolysis step so that you're not wasting far more energy than if you used the initial fuel directly. Electrolysis doesn't happen naturally.

I think I'll join in with the sceptics. "It's all done with magnets" is the regular variant on "It's all done with mirrors". I dread to think how many applications patent offices get, per annum, for perpetual motion machines.

What is this supposed to show? A doctored video loop? The power coming in from the wires? The motor and/or other magnets under the table? I can think of a huge number of ways to produce the effect shown, some quite subtle. It's just not even a very good magic trick, except, I guess, that by making it so obvious how it could be being done, that serves to obscure how it is being done. That's all part of the misdirection.

I'm afraid "magic with magnets", and its cousins, which were also part of the spiel, "magic with energy fields" and "magic with strange paths", do nothing for me. Also, the fancy footwork about "the company" and "we're not commercialising"... give me a break!

I prefer my science fiction to become science fact, not just science fantasy.

(I'm done now. I'll go back to my room. What a nice white coat you've given me. And the arms are so conveniently tied behind my back. Thank you.)

ok this is an explination i have heard

Another Free energy generator using permanent or electro magnets. Flux gating system provides 'anti Lenz Law effect’. This type of system ... all » is related to the Ecklin or Ecklin brown generator. The key is the flux gating effect. No movement of coils or magnets, which means Lenz Law does not apply.
if i am not mistaken lenz's law always applies when there is electromagnetic induction

i think it's an April fool so is the HHO thing

It comes from the Sun/Earth/Moon system. We have tidal decay of the system. The net result is the orbits decay and the slopping about of the oceans cause them (and the solid planet itself, which also moves tidally, by a few centimetres, twice a day) to warm up. From our point of view, harnessing a bit of the tidal movement and using it locally looks like getting something for nothing. In fact it's just sneaking off with extremely "small change" from the vast empires of energy being tossed about.

Tidal energy may be "small change" but if it can be made to work as an energy source, who cares?

Nuclear energy replaces short term environmental risk from fossil fuel power stations with -er- short term operational risks AND longer term environmental risks from radiation. Given the risks involved with nuclear power and the dwindling supplies of fossil fuels, I would like to see resources being allocated towards the construction of renewable energy equipment (wind turbines, hydro-electric plants, solar panels and so forth) being given priority, as from here on we are likely to face a downward spiral in energy availablilty. It will be deeply embarrassing if we find that we cannot harness these energy sources in the future because we no longer have the energy avaliable to facilitate the construction of the equipment to harness them - a veritable catch-22.

At the same time I still believe we would need to see a fundamental shift in the average human's attitude to the use of resources. Many people think it is their "right" to drive a car or to fly abroad on holiday, but why should people be permitted to follow a path that may cause misery to future generations?

There is much to be cynical about but the basic question of "Do we change?" is a no-brainer. If we go down the environmentally-friendly path and the predictions prove to be incorrect, we'll still have improved our surroundings and (indirectly) our quality of life. The worst outcome is that things will be better than before. If, on the other hand, we reject all this as nonsense and refuse to act, at best nothing will get any better (in terms of pollution-related conditions such as asthma and cancer, destruction of the natural world, and general inefficiency and wastefulness) and at worst a lot of people could suffer and die. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out the best way forward, does it?

Take a herd of elephants to a place where their food source is at the top of a mountain/cliff and their water is at the bottom and make sure there is a path/ramp back up to the top they can climb to their food.. Then build a platform they can stand on which would lower the elephants back down to the water and their weight would help turn generators to make electricity.

You misinterpret me. My statement is that we extract the merest fraction of the tidal energy available. I find it odd that tidal sources aren't more popular. They are available four times each day (there are two high tides, the tide flows in, then out twice a day. The tidal movement is when you should be able to obtain energy immediately.)

With regard to the rest of your ideas, while they all sound fine, they are all only short term (in my book, short term is less than a thousand years).

I don't want us to sit here and eke out the resources... until they are all gone. I want us to move - out, up, on.


Yes! That's EXACTLY what it takes.

One guy put it really well but sorry if this offends it is meant to be a wake up:

Don't get me wrong I think wind, tidal, solar are all important and we must continue with them as well as do more research into fusion and fuel cells. But if you think you we can plug the energy gap starting now without fission you are mistaken. It is not great but it is better than the alternative. Chernobyl is not a good reason not to do it anyway as that type of reactor is redundant; it is more a question of storage. But the problem with storage is not dissimilar with the problem with storing CO2 that has been trapped and there will be a hell of a lot more carbon to trap than nuclear waste. Ironically they might just have similar solutions.

I think we need to come at this from all angles. That include a long term plan to move to a another planet. It is ugly. You can present nature as good and us bad but everything is part of a system of nature. Like to make another planet inhabitable we might have to 'pollute' it first. I 100% do believe global warming is happening and is caused significantly by us. By it is not just a question of being nice to the world giving it a hug. it doesn't appreciate that, that is not the whole picture. the point is we need some radical solutions for the long and long long term. Nothing last for ever even if we completely reverse global warming there will be something else. Basically we had a window we've been lucky, really lucky.

Did anyone watch this prgram on BBC documentary Five Ways To Save The World watch the video it is 1 hour