TheSamba.com :: View topic

Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:19 am

Ah see, I am spawned from physicists - who claim Physics is the ultimate root of every technological advancement in the 20th Century. But I agree - the space program is as much about pushing technology to its limits for the good of society as it is about going out into space.

Here's my last point:

All that conversion, transmission, re-conversion, and infrastructure MUST be considered a cost in the equation.

Oil's free - you just have to dig it, refine it, etc.

Hydro's free - you just have to build a dam and generator

Fusion is free - you just have to build a reactor and be careful as hell

Still though - Space-based solar probably is the way to go. I'm not that well learned on microwaves and energy transmission and the feasibility of transmitting THAT much power to the Earth from space - other than the logistical factor, are you absolutely sure these ultra-low microwaves won't hurt the environment?

O.K. I'm going to look into that a bit. It's morning and I still feel like shit luckily I'm between contracts right now!

Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:27 am

dansvans wrote: Quote: Nuclear power stations in space.
Quote: $10,000 a pound from surface to low-earth orbit

am i the only one here who sees the incompatability of these two statements? i am assuming the nuke station would weigh a zillion tons

Of course. That's why it hasn't happened yet. Just dreamin' for the future.

dansvans wrote:
not to mention the treaties that have been signed forbidding the use of space for nuke purposes, and the good sense behind that?

I'm not even that old, and I've seen plenty of treaties thrown to the wind. Once again, not a concern for a dreamer.
dansvans wrote:

i think the Prinz is right on. solar would be better. but i gotta wonder if that is even cost effective, as compared to having solar on land

Cost Effective! That's the buzzword! You just won the grand prize!

Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:40 am

Well this thread has jumped over the moon,why did I visit the bay forums again :roll:
Everytime I do, you guys make me regret it.

Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:20 am

Quote: why did I visit the bay forums again
Everytime I do, you guys make me regret it.

i guess there is a place for everyone, and viceversa- i know i regret it when i visit the rants. let that be a lesson to us all.

Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:30 am

Spezialist wrote: Well this thread has jumped over the moon,why did I visit the bay forums again :roll:
Everytime I do, you guys make me regret it.

The link here is Green Power

Hydrogen is not efficient, but it is green.
Thermal depolymerization is dirty but is great recycling, which IS green.
Orbital solar, probably the greenest.

ccpalmer wrote: Cost Effective! That's the buzzword! You just won the grand prize!

It costs a huge bundle to fly a pound of cargo from the U.S. to Australia. The airlines do it all the time. Space is a very fertile ground for technical innovation, so is war. (Darn it I will not step on that soapbox again!)

Where was I? Oh, yes, green power, hydrogen busses..

Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:41 am

Personally, I thought we covered a lot of bases here.

Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:31 am

dansvans wrote: Quote: why did I visit the bay forums again
Everytime I do, you guys make me regret it.

i guess there is a place for everyone, and viceversa- i know i regret it when i visit the rants. let that be a lesson to us all.

You said the magic word!

Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:46 pm

ok... bye.

Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:07 pm

Prinz_of_Darkness wrote: Spezialist wrote: Well this thread has jumped over the moon,why did I visit the bay forums again :roll:
Everytime I do, you guys make me regret it.

The link here is Green Power

Hydrogen is not efficient, but it is green.
Thermal depolymerization is dirty but is great recycling, which IS green.
Orbital solar, probably the greenest.

ccpalmer wrote: Cost Effective! That's the buzzword! You just won the grand prize!

It costs a huge bundle to fly a pound of cargo from the U.S. to Australia. The airlines do it all the time. Space is a very fertile ground for technical innovation, so is war. (Darn it I will not step on that soapbox again!)

Where was I? Oh, yes, green power, hydrogen busses..

Solar powered busses running on microwaves from the sky, gee that ought to be a logistical nightmare.
Princeof darkness indeed

Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:07 am

I am not interested in joining the debate however I just saw this article and wanted to share...

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2007/07/11/ford-hydrogen.html

Enjoy!

:)

Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:56 pm

Spezialist wrote:
Solar powered busses running on microwaves from the sky, gee that ought to be a logistical nightmare.
Princeof darkness indeed

So was a network of GPS satelites all with syncronized atomic clocks, or a national highway system. What about the countless miles of copper wire streached across the planet? How 'bout the Panama Canal?

As far as transmitting power goes, the crystal set radio has been around for decades.

http://www.electronics-tutorials.com/receivers/crystal-radio-set.htm

I could go on here, but I won't. We disagree, and that's all there is to it.

Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:54 pm

Prinz_of_Darkness wrote: Spezialist wrote:
Solar powered busses running on microwaves from the sky, gee that ought to be a logistical nightmare.
Princeof darkness indeed

So was a network of GPS satelites all with syncronized atomic clocks, or a national highway system. What about the countless miles of copper wire streached across the planet? How 'bout the Panama Canal?

As far as transmitting power goes, the crystal set radio has been around for decades.

http://www.electronics-tutorials.com/receivers/crystal-radio-set.htm

I could go on here, but I won't. We disagree, and that's all there is to it.

Do you prefer to work on your own car? And what kind of car would that be?

Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:11 pm

Spezialist wrote: Do you prefer to work on your own car? And what kind of car would that be?

:roll:

Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:17 pm

Quote: I am not interested in joining the debate however I just saw this article and wanted to share...

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2007/07/11/ford-hydrogen.html

Enjoy!

well then i will begin the debate about this link.

yes there are H cars in service. but lets understand that fuel cells right now require platinum. BIGGGG bucks. some of the leased H vehicles owned by the very few cost around ONE MILLION BUCKS. thats just about as much as that new Bugatti. :roll: lets get real. what people cannot afford to buy will not be green enough.

http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid=4024845 specifically this part of it:
"Joseph Romm, in his 2004 book, "The Hype About Hydrogen: Fact and Fiction in the Race to Save the Climate," painted fuel-cell cars as not only unrealistic in the near term, but dangerously distracting. Today, he says he is even more dubious than he was a few years ago. Romm ran the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy under President Clinton and knows a thing or two about how clean technologies stack up.

"The problem with hydrogen," he says, "is that you have to buy this expensive electrolyzer to convert the renewable electricity to hydrogen, then you need an infrastructure to deliver it, then you need a new fueling station to cram the hydrogen onboard your expensive fuel cell car, that just converts the hydrogen back to electricity."

Much more logical, says Romm, is to simply "string a power line" to your car and charge a big battery."

Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:30 pm

dansvans wrote:
well then i will begin the debate about this link.

yes there are H cars in service. but lets understand that fuel cells right now require platinum. BIGGGG bucks. some of the leased H vehicles owned by the very few cost around ONE MILLION BUCKS. thats just about as much as that new Bugatti. :roll: lets get real. what people cannot afford to buy will not be green enough.

http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid=4024845 specifically this part of it:
"Joseph Romm, in his 2004 book, "The Hype About Hydrogen: Fact and Fiction in the Race to Save the Climate," painted fuel-cell cars as not only unrealistic in the near term, but dangerously distracting. Today, he says he is even more dubious than he was a few years ago. Romm ran the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy under President Clinton and knows a thing or two about how clean technologies stack up.

"The problem with hydrogen," he says, "is that you have to buy this expensive electrolyzer to convert the renewable electricity to hydrogen, then you need an infrastructure to deliver it, then you need a new fueling station to cram the hydrogen onboard your expensive fuel cell car, that just converts the hydrogen back to electricity."

Much more logical, says Romm, is to simply "string a power line" to your car and charge a big battery."

There are many types of fuel cells, not all use a platinum catalyst.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/fuelcells/fc_types.html

The link above is a good article about some of the different types of fuel cells.

Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:40 pm

but interestingly enough all the actual running vehicles i am seeing use the platinum type. if thats unnecessary then why would manufacturers choose the most expensive type?

Wed Jul 11, 2007 5:13 pm

dansvans wrote: but interestingly enough all the actual running vehicles i am seeing use the platinum type. if thats unnecessary then why would manufacturers choose the most expensive type?

Crap...I got sucked in... OK, the article that I put out there refers to vehicles that run on hydrogen in an internal combustion engine and not a fuel cell...no platinum... different technology…

Wed Jul 11, 2007 5:43 pm

Prinz_of_Darkness wrote:

It costs a huge bundle to fly a pound of cargo from the U.S. to Australia. The airlines do it all the time. Space is a very fertile ground for technical innovation, so is war. (Darn it I will not step on that soapbox again!)

Where was I? Oh, yes, green power, hydrogen busses..

I think you bring up two good points -

1) Large-scale research, production and distribution GREATLY reduce prices. Many of these new technologies would probably be cheap enough for everyone if done on the large scale.

The problem with that I guess is that it takes a lot of capital to mass-produce things. Capital requires investment. Investment involves futures and risk. Investors aren't going to invest if they aren't absolutely sure about the technology. Scientists can't be sure about the technology until they research it heavily. They can't afford to research it heavily until it is invested in. The ol' catch-22. Then you throw in the uncertainty of future prices of things like platinum and the equation gets harder.

2) Are you saying (gasp) that war drives technology? That's so... crude! But sadly it's also very true. Most physics research is indirectly funded by the defense department.

Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:00 pm

Okay, I apologize up front for this but somebody sent me the link and I couldn't help but do my part to perpetuate this thing: You Tube

Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:19 pm

O.K. I'll be cynical here -

It was all sounding good until the guy called water an element and the most abundant one at that. Water is a molecule made up of elements. Silicon is the most abundant element on earth. About 62% of the Earth's crust.

Other than that, I'll leave it to others to look into it further and see if it works. But it was a flashy news story - from a cancer cure to an energy miracle!