Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Alternative energy sources... which are best to support?

page: 7
3
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by LazarusTheLong
 


ALL of them UNLESS subsidized by the govt. But do you really think the oil companies will do the right thing and R&D, develop and release cheaper energy sources? History tells us no.




posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Actually, history tells us "yes". If you've worked in the PV industry -- or are familiar with its history -- you'll recall that, in the 1980's most of the PV companies were owned either in whole or in part by oil companies. Think ARCO Solar, Mobil Solar, and my then-employer, Solavolt International, a joint venture between Motorola (my employer of record) and Shell Oil.

The oil companies saw (and rightly, IMNHO) that PV might be something for them to get into, and they invested millions and millions of dollars. They, like the rest of us, were seduced by the belief that oil prices would continue to rise and rise and rise, and the cost of PV would drop dramatically. Sooner rather than later, the two lines would cross and the oil companies would be in a good place to exploit the new, cheap (and profitable) PV.

Unfortunately, it didn't work out that way; all the PURPA subisidies went away and it simply wasn't getting to the point where the costs were going down quick enough for PV to make that magic jump to economies of scale.

Finally, in the late eighties, the oil companies pulled out and wrote off their investment. It wasn't until fifteen or so years later (~2000) that the costs started to come down; by then, Siemens, Kyocera, and a bunch of nimble startups had managed to get most of the consumer market.

The point is that the oil companies are not going to get involved in this Huge Secret And Sinister Plot to kill off all the PV engineers (look at me -- I'm still alive!!) any more than they would've implemented another Huge Secret And Sinister Plot to hide the Magic 100-MPG Carburetor that never existed. The oil companies are going to try to get a piece of the pie as long as they believe it will pay off; if it won't (in their view), then they're going to get out of the market.

Not everything is a conspiracy, you know.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
I haven't seen this in awhile:
tech.groups.yahoo.com...

That is the iron pipe activated in a electron K shell pushed into the nucleus proton
by DC voltage about 7KDC if I recall.

The Nitrogen flame appears at the top.
This was all about free energy from iron.

This does not appear to be the Tesla experiment that said energy is released.
There may not be burning as Nitrogen may react like excited inert gases.
ED: powered coke machine
tech.groups.yahoo.com...
only Smith knew Japan pull a fast one and lost out.
edit on 10/7/2012 by TeslaandLyne because: (no reason given)


XL5

posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 01:18 AM
link   
TeslaandLyne, do you have a schematic of that device, I'd like to try to build it. If it emits radiation, there is always lead.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by XL5
TeslaandLyne, do you have a schematic of that device, I'd like to try to build it. If it emits radiation, there is always lead.


If you sign on to the group you get as much info as there is around.
See the files and photo sections.
Even the FES document and others and perhaps ask others if that have better instructors.
The photo and perhaps other photos show the operation.
A neon sign 7kDC was applied to the pips and there seems to be meters connected.
If I recall right.
There were recent messages about the Smith fellow who powered a Coke machine.
A group from Japan saw the Lyne book lying around the Smith lab for the demo for
a contract and thought they could do with out Smith who put a coil around the pipe
as a power tap. I don't think they got too far with out Smith.
ED: There is a lot of physics in the iron pipe experiment K capture.
Iron transforms to manganese due to proton becoming a neutron.
Then the iron goes back to iron and all the while there is free energy from what
is said.
edit on 10/9/2012 by TeslaandLyne because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
I like Annee's idea for synth fuels based on transforming our garbage from landfills. I think that's a step in the right direction.

Otherwise I'm for solar, wind and fuel cells in the form of rechargeable and recyclable batteries. I'm for using these to power your house, business and everything in them - with no power lines feeding the greed and corruption of the power companies.

Only wind and solar are sustainable enough where we don't have to use up resources to get energy from them - accept for the wind turbines and solar cells materials themselves. These we use to charge the batteries.

There are now wind turbine designs that are very good, solar cells are getting better more powerful and batteries well - they could be very cheap and powerful one day soon. Lithium Phosphate Iron ( LiFePo4) Battery technology is the best rechargeable battery on the planet. Problem is, it's not cheap and only China makes these with China's vast supply of Lithium. There are companies now starting to make plants that can extract/convert ( however they do it) Lithium from sea water. It's a much cheaper way to produce the Lithium needed for the batteries.

With this combination of solar, wind and batteries we can build whole self sustaining communities off the grid and not have to use up resources.

I'd also get some groovy Tesla technology developed.
edit on 9-10-2012 by JohnPhoenix because: sp


XL5

posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
TeslaandLyne, I don't want to sign up for a group just to get the info. If that group has a problem with info getting out, then too bad for them I guess.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by XL5
TeslaandLyne, I don't want to sign up for a group just to get the info. If that group has a problem with info getting out, then too bad for them I guess.


It is definitely a way to track people down.
If the wonder device suddenly appear on the market all the parties involved might
be looked at to see if the plans were down loaded from the group files section.
The mechanism of course would be easy to spot and no need for spy work
but if one happened along make sure there is no copy of the document lying
around for the spy to take a photo record and seal the deal.
Its not patented but any kit that is patented is perhaps not a permission to build.
I don't recall what the outcome of that discussion was.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Slowly, but surely, the United States is slipping from the top-most ranks of the first world countries and it is due to greed and the uncontrolled capitalism that has left rotten the foundation of our society.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpaceCowboy21
Slowly, but surely, the United States is slipping from the top-most ranks of the first world countries and it is due to greed and the uncontrolled capitalism that has left rotten the foundation of our society.


How sweetly true Cowboy. If one seeks to preserve their life they shall lose it. The only salvation is the preservation of your fellow man. Not an all consuming serving of self and greed.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 11:18 PM
link   
They are complaining about the methane pig foam ,and how its hard to get rid of ,when it can probably be used as a fuel source.
They want to genetically modify cows and pigs ,to not produce methane ,when there's an OBVIOUS solution to the at least the pig problem .
Prince Charles modified his cars to run of fuel made from the stuff left over from wine making...
OK ,wine making .
No one thinks to ask the man what it is ,and start an entire New fuel supply and industry .

They ignore other fuel sources on purpose if you ask me .



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 04:07 AM
link   
Reading the responses I wish ATS would have a thread that required that one solve a middle school algebra problem before you are allowed to post.

In response to the post and using math and science:

1) Solar energy- it would take over 120 acres of solar panels to produce the same energy as one 10 bbl/day oil well.
2) Wind- the pay out for a 1 megawatt windmill will take 17 years without the tax dollars subsidy and assuming no maintenance.
3) Geothermal is limited to a few geo-thermally active areas. Where not near surface geothermal active areas the problem is physics; as rock is not a very good thermal conductor.
4) Hydro-electric is fine, but today is unfeasible with all the glue heads that have gone organic trying to save the snail darter.More hydro-electric is being taken down than being built.
5) Hydrogen is a joke other than as a storage conduit to transport energy as it takes more energy to produce hydrogen than it generates and there are no naturally occurring sources of hydrogen on the planet.
6) Fuel cells-require an energy source-methane,hydrogen,methanol, gasoline to work. Just a small scale electrical generator.
6) Methane=Natural gas so I really don't understand the inclusion with renewable question.
7) Biofuels are great as soon as we make the decision that we need transportation instead of eating.
8) Coal- see 6-don't understand why it is included in alternative energy sources, when it currently generates over 50% of electrical power in the US.

Question-since coal and natural gas were included-what happened to nuclear?


Reality is that there is not another form of power like oil products that concentrates as much energy in such a small volume that is as easily transportable. Please be aware that the people that can't solve a middle school algebra problem have been propagandized with electric cars.With over 50% of electrical power generation from coal, please understand that we will have to burn the equivalent of 5 times as much coal to provide the same energy to move a car the same distance as gasoline.

Reality is physics and cost. For the Marxist rants about "capitalism is the problem" prohibiting the development of renewable energy, I'll put it in Marxists terms. The relative cost of labor to reach a finished product is the competition. The excessive labor required to have renewables to deliver the same final product prohibits their usage.



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by sminkeypinkey
 


Theres no need for that to be the end of it. People need to be educated out of their irrational stupidity.

The future energy requirements of a society are too important to be left in the hands of ignorance.

Its ironic that the 'green movements' PR assault on nuclear power held it back and poisoned the public against it so that we continued with wide scale fossil use 50 years past the point we really needed to. In that way they inflicted unnecessary environmental damage to a huge extent.

The French are the only people in Europe doing energy policy properly.

Going forward we need:

-Fission Nuclear for Base Load
- Wind / Solar (Supplemental supply, technology type appropriate to region)
- Gas (Backup for when supply from renewables fails to meet demand)

With investment of cryogenic storage plants to store excess renewable supply at low demand for when its needed at times of peak demand we could reduce the requirement for gas plants further.

www.engineering.com...

While investing properly in diverse Fusion research. (Not just ITER).



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 05:28 AM
link   
Well, I would stick to Solar and Wind, yes its an eyesore, but it bets bad lungs from pollution. Plus couldn't we combine the two? a sort of Sola/Wind tower? and intelligent placed solar panels would be best, like major citys and buildings. Hydro-electric and Geothermal would be best.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 12:54 AM
link   
The real change in this world has to begin by abolishing personal transportation. The car has to be killed.

The solution to energy problem is very simple, and has been always there with us. Our planners just chose to ignore it.

The solution is electricity.

All major cities should be connected by frequent high speed trains. Minor cities and towns should be connected by frequent trolley buses. Rail infrastructure is no more expensive than the road infrastructure, and actually requires lower maintenance.

Farms and far off settlements can produce own electricity (from agricultural waste, streams, sunlight, etc.) and use electric vehicles using good battery or air technology.

A compressed air driven vehicle can go 100 miles which is sufficient for bringing farm goods to market in a town, and take back supplies.

All industries should run off electricity, even mines.

The electricity can be produced from varied means, at the source of the resource. It can be produced from coal, water, sunlight, waste, sea-tides, wind etc. It is very easy to transport electricity from one place to the other, much simpler than transporting coal or petroleum.

The current system of producing consumer goods far away from consumption centers is idiotic. There is no need of a US citizen buying a product made in China. Consumer goods should be produced close to population centers as has been always the case. The huge infrastructure created in ships and ports is wasteful.

The ships can be propelled by wind as the ships of yore; using backup from electricity produced from sunlight.

The taxis can be run on batteries or compressed air, whatever suits best.

There is no need of producing and using hydrogen. Simple solution is to go all electric.

The last is the airplanes. Do we need mass transportation by airplanes??
If we have fast trains and inter-connections, people on continents of Asia, Europe and Africa can travel freely on trains. The same is people of North America and South America.

The transportation between islands and the continent of Australia remains. It is possible to lay a tunnel on the seabed that can be used for trains. It is just like oil pipelines that are laid today, just on a bigger scale. Alternative is bridges that can span up to hundreds of kilometers over shallow seas.

Even North America can be connected to Asia via Eastern Russia and Western Alaska through under-sea tunnel.

By inter-connecting all continents by high-speed rail, we can ensure transportation of people and goods without the use of oil and its associated problems.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by GargIndia
The real change in this world has to begin by abolishing personal transportation. The car has to be killed.

The solution to energy problem is very simple, and has been always there with us. Our planners just chose to ignore it.

The solution is electricity.



I agree with you in one way and not another.

I agree electric is the answer (produced by diverse generating sources). I don't agree that the car has to be killed. Its better to introduce a proper charging infrastructure for electric cars than to try an move to a society where people have no personal transportation (with all the lack of choice and freedom that entails).



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 05:56 AM
link   
Trash, organics, and sewage. to oil using the Fischer–Tropsch process

Little new CO2 because organics, sewage and some trash mostly are plant based waste that has recycled its CO2 from the air
en.wikipedia.org...:_GTL

The gain, We get rid of toxic landfills and sewage in a clean renewable way and it does not take up land or pollute rivers or lakes.
www.energyjustice.net...
www.pacificrenewables.com...

You could make enough fuel to run the complete public transit in LA Calif plus all city Vehicles from the trash generated in LA calif plus have a lot of fuel to sell to the public



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by justwokeup
 


The personal car is very wasteful in terms of energy. It is not only fuel. It requires infrastructure, factories, repair facilities and what not. It is an engine of pollution.

My calculation says that a car costs as much in fuel & maintenance in 5 years as its purchase cost. (Actually it is worse in my country where my annual fuel and maintenance bill is 40% of my car purchase price).

Autonomous train cars can be introduced if a group of people want to go on a sight-seeing trip, using the existing rail infrastructure. Computers have become smart enough today that rail traffic can be managed efficiently. An electric train car can be run by a computer, interact with the traffic systems, and take passenger to the destination automatically. No driver is required.

Rail transportation is most energy efficient of all types of transportation. And laying rails costs no more than building roads. Rails are also far more environmentally friendly than roads. Rails require a smaller footprint and recyclable materials.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by GargIndia
reply to post by justwokeup
 


The personal car is very wasteful in terms of energy. It is not only fuel. It requires infrastructure, factories, repair facilities and what not. It is an engine of pollution.

My calculation says that a car costs as much in fuel & maintenance in 5 years as its purchase cost. (Actually it is worse in my country where my annual fuel and maintenance bill is 40% of my car purchase price).

Autonomous train cars can be introduced if a group of people want to go on a sight-seeing trip, using the existing rail infrastructure. Computers have become smart enough today that rail traffic can be managed efficiently. An electric train car can be run by a computer, interact with the traffic systems, and take passenger to the destination automatically. No driver is required.

Rail transportation is most energy efficient of all types of transportation. And laying rails costs no more than building roads. Rails are also far more environmentally friendly than roads. Rails require a smaller footprint and recyclable materials.



Speaking from a UK perspective the road infrastructure already exists. The rail infrastructure does not (or to be more accurate no longer does, it used to exist more than it does now). You would have to build new rail through green belt areas all over the place or convert the roads. Politically impossible either way.

For a major new build conurbation I can see it possibly working. If it was massively subsidised to make people put up with it. On a national level we wont see this anywhere in my lifetime.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by justwokeup
 


The area consumed by roads is much more than area consumed by rail for moving the same number of passengers and goods.

The rail takes a smaller footprint.

Trains run on steel wheels which last several times longer than rubber wheels, do not puncture, and so trains are far more safer than automobiles.

You can compare road accidents to rail accidents, and you will see rail fatalities are far far lower than road.

The tires and roads both use carbon compounds with high sulfur content; which degrade into harmful gases.

Personal automobiles are neither efficient nor durable.

A rail car can perhaps last 10-20 million kilometers compared to 100K-200K for a car. My experience with cars is really bad where my "new" cars (bought three of them in last 12 years) never lasted well beyond 5 years and 60K kilometers.

A personal car is a ripoff. It is made only to make people poorer.

However personal transportation is a major user of liquid fuels and a major polluter. Removing it will clean the air and water, and will reduce need of energy.





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join