Manipulation

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Mike Holmes
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm

Post by Mike Holmes »

I quote a study, and it's an "absurdity?" As the author points out, building that many windmills is certainly within the industrial capacity of the US. Would it be expensive? Certainly, we can assume each windmill will cost in the tens of thousands of dollars, putting the total cost at some billions.

About as much as ITER will cost. OK, multiply by ten to tens of billions if you like for overruns, and infrastructure costs to deliver the energy (which we're mostly in agreement need to be built anyhow). Still not an outrageous cost. And that's assuming that the government has to assume the full burden. Which it likely would not, as I'm sure that the private sector would be in on the project to at least some extent.

Which is more absurd? ITER, an experiment, or windmills which we know would work, as it's a proven simple technology? And I'm not saying that ITER should not go forward, either, simply that I think that both programs have a reasonable cost with reasonable potential rewards.

The cost involved would be similar to the cost of the hydro-electric dams that we've built in the US. I suppose that when the Hoover Dam was built, if you'd been around, you would have labeled it an "absurdity" too? Such a lack of imagination is staggering.

Do you have some, you know, actual evidence? That building windmills is a bad idea somehow?

In any case, your general argument is silly. Even if I am a complete crackpot, I'm not working on the Polywell program, and really don't understand the physics behind it well (something I've admitted on a regular basis). And that's assuming that I actually had some sort of stated "belief" that it was certain to work; the only thing I "believe" in with regard to Polywell is that it would be great if it does turn out to work. I'm interested in the outcome, even if it's negative.

I think that's the case for just about all of the very sensible people here.

Your ad hominem attacks are both baseless and illogical. Try again.

Mike

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Wind mills cost about $1 per peak watt currently.

Because of lack of transmission infrastructure, variability, and no cheap storage the cost of wind is on the high end of electrical energy costs.

When the wind is blowing and there are cheaper forms of electrical energy available the wind output goes to waste. No one will buy it.

We have a ways to go to fully integrate it into the grid. With grid connection points near by the windmills all is jake. If there is transmission congestion there are problems.

Wide scale wind without lower costs and a nationwide 2 MVDC backbone it is not going to pay to put a lot of $$ into wind. We should not rush.

So you have to add the costs of the backbone into the costs of wind. Now that means developing HV DC transmission infrastructure AND HVDC to AC converters.

Easy does it. There is no panic.

Solar Magnetic Field And Climate:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 081449.htm

The solar magnetic field is declining.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Mike Holmes
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm

Post by Mike Holmes »

Threads seem to be crossing into each other here. Or maybe I'm just confused.

My point about wind power there was comparing it to biofuels, which I think are even more inefficient than wind. To say that we ought to save biofuels for the last-ditch solution, instead of the current situation where we're actually persuing them.

On the previous page of this thread you can see that all I've actually advocated spending money on is researching global warming (including studies that may disprove it, or prove other interesting things bout the global climate). Or, in other words, pretty much the status quo.

Where have I said that the sky is falling, and that we need to build windmills tomorrow?

I did say that I'd like to build my own windmill. If I choose to make my own economic decision to put up a windmill for my own personal use (not that I can, as I've said), are you saying that I shouldn't do that? I think on that level that I could make it economical over the course of the life of the windmill. Depending, of course, on the shift in costs of other energy sources, which, as we've seen of late, is a complete crapshoot.

Mike
Last edited by Mike Holmes on Fri Dec 12, 2008 3:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Mike Holmes wrote:Threads seem to be crossing into each other here. Or maybe I'm just confused.

My point about wind power there was comparing it to biofuels, which I think are even more inefficient than wind. To say that we ought to save biofuels for the last-ditch solution, instead of the current situation where we're actually persuing them.

On the previous page of this thread you can see that all I've actually advocated spending money on is researching global warming (including studies that may disprove it, or prove other interesting things bout the global climate). Or, in other words, pretty much the status quo.

Where have I said that the sky is falling, and that we need to build windmills tomorrow? In any case, if I choose to make my own economic decision to put up a windmill for my own personal use (not that I can, as I've said), are you saying that I shouldn't do that? I think on that level that I could make it economical over the course of the life of the windmill. Depending, of course, on the shift in costs of other energy sources, which, as we've seen of late, is a complete crapshoot.

Mike
Mike,

You want to spend your own money - I'm all for it. You want to get together with other like minded people and do a project - I'm all for it.

What I worry about is a Carter like government crash program that winds up crashing. With very very little to show for it.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Mike Holmes
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm

Post by Mike Holmes »

Ah, the Pickens Plan.

http://www.pickensplan.com/index.php

Yeah, that's far, far more extensive a plan than anyone has mentioned in any of these threads. I'm interested in it, at least insamuch as I wonder how they intend to fund it. But, yeah, if the answer is simply taxpayer dollars, I think that's a little crazy. We're talking a trillion dollars here.

On the other hand, that's not much larger than TARP. By which I mean to say that it's feasible to get off the ground in terms of people being able to imagine spending that large. So yeah, you may have something to worry about there. But not from me.

Mike

Josh Cryer
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am

Post by Josh Cryer »


Josh Cryer
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am

Post by Josh Cryer »

Mike Holmes wrote:Ah, the Pickens Plan.
Just an addendum, I don't even think Pickens is a Global Warming guy, his whole argument is about energy self-sufficiency. Given Jacobson's rather important paper it seems those windmills could do a whole lot of good.

In fact, I think implementing such a plan *does not need to consider climate change at all*. It's politically strong to have your own power infrastructure.

Nanos
Posts: 363
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:57 pm
Location: Treasure Island

Post by Nanos »

> no cheap storage

I wonder how much flow batteries cost ? (I've heard of those being installed along with wind turbines.)


> It's looking increasingly unlikely that Polywell is going to succeed

I'd say its a bit too early say that, more from the recent advances in the last few years of that it was more likely to succeed than previously!


> so many "believers" of Polywell are also likewise believers
> in other known absurdities.

FX [ looks interested ]

What other absurdities ?


> I think I understand the problem now. My posts are way too long,
> and y'all don't have the patience to read through them.

I have noticed a tendancy for many people nowdays to only read the first and last part of posts, its maybe age related that the older you get, the more of a message you spend your time reading.

Personally, I read every word everyone says, otherwise it would be like getting a book and skipping the end..

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

Here's what I said earlier.
ravingdave wrote:Every time this subject gets brought up I make the same argument.

Every time I make the argument it seems NO ONE GET'S IT!

If you get my argument, you realize instantly that Global Warming is Crap. The fact that the topic is still discussed is what leads me to believe no one gets the argument.

Here's the argument.

The Spectral Absorbtion Characteristics of WATER VAPOR !


http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/absorbspec.gif



Water vapor does what C02 does, but X times better.


Here, read the whole thing.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/



One more thing, if you don't understand what positive and negative feedback means, you won't understand the argument.



David

Here's what one of the 650 scientists said.


“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.



Here's what the rest of them said.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... 9faf4dcdb7


Geez... what more needs to be said ?



David

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tomclarke »

RavingDave,

Quite a bit more can be said.

On the support for your idea - you will find scientists who say weird things, even within their own field. Not may of them, but always there are the outliers. There are more outliers when they are scientists whose main expertise is a different area (e.g. Duffy, Chemical & Material Engineering, talking about atmospheric physics). The US government went through a period of actively seeking these outliers, as you know.

As your spectral absorption graph points out LW absorption (relevant for GH effect) is H2O and CO2, of these H2O is more effective.

However H2O is in equilibrium. The concentration in air depends on temperature, but other factors can effect non-equilibrium
perturbations. So for long-term changes we need something that is different.

No-one denies that H2O is more significant than CO2 is a GH gas. The issue is what is the effect of forcing +50% on the concentration of CO2. Dave, you have quoted web sites trying to make a point and known for biassed treatment of other issues. How about comparing what they say with what "the other side" says? I posted a few links about H2O feedback effects (the much-derided WV multiplier effect).

The point is that the overall balance, if perturbed slightly e.g. by increased CO2, can lead to a new equilibrium at a higher temperature. this has nothing to do with hwether H2O or CO2 is bigger overall GH gas. And the relationships between CO2 and H2O are complex, and must be modelled carefully (they have been) but the dominant effect is more CO2=> higher temp=> more H2O=> boost to temp.

Clouds and precipitation complicate things, but not in a simple way.
Mark on Realclimate wrote: How much would these clouds cool the atmosphere? Remember that a clear night is colder by far than a cloudy one, and whether a cloud is cooling or warming depends on how high it is: high clouds radiate back out into space, low clouds are just “high ground” as far as warming the air is concerned.

Then if you can’t be bothered to do the sums and put them here for checking, take as read that no, they don’t make the difference.

Dave, I fail to see what is simple about all these complex interactions, and could not say myself which way they would go without a lot of math and checking of different types. It is not my field. Which is what the climate modelling people have been doing for many years now, gradually refining models, with a whole set of competitive models testing different ideas, finding independent check sfor different aspects of the physiscs, etc.

Best wishes, Tom

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Water vapor in equilibrium doesn't matter.

Suppose I have a 10K ohm resistor and a 100 ohm resistor in series and the 10K is very good and never changes and the 100 ohm resistor is increasing 1 ohm a year. So I go from 10.1K to 10.2K in 100 years. A change of 1%.

So what is a 1% change in 300deg K? 3deg K. But for absorption it is worse than that. Because it is logrithmic the change will be less than 3deg K. And that does not even take into account that radiation rises as the fourth power of the temperature. Nor that the water vapor in the atmosphere convects acting like a heat pipe. Nor that hot spots radiate more than cool spots. Nor that the "heat pipe" water can form clouds lowering the "current" in the resistor. Nor that the "current" source is variable.

As many of you know I have been a "promoter" of Polywell since Nov of 2006. If I thought the CO2 argument was a good one I would use it. So you have to take into account that I am arguing against interest.

I do buy the get off fossil fuels in as reasonably short a time as possible - although I'm not convinced the situation is as dire as some make it out to be. Deliberate speed should do the trick.

The argument I like best is geopolitical. And that is the argument that has the most backing no matter what people think of peak oil or AGW.

And even there I am a pragmatist. Maintaining a strong military during the transition of 40 to 80 years is going to be a requirement. Unfortunately. The world will not change as fast as we would like. I started on solar voltaic power in 1960. Nuclear power in 1964/65. We have come a long way in 40/50 years. We still have a ways to go.

At this point things are on rails and there is not a lot that will speed things up. There are a few things that can slow them down. The Carter years are a case in point. By rushing ahead in a panic we actually discredited a lot of what we should have been doing and set the time table back 10 to 15 years. I'd hate to see that happen again. Unfortunately it appears that with the new guy coming in the Carter mistakes will be repeated. It will not be as bad a hit as Carter. Probably only a 5 year delay. Still.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Josh Cryer
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am

Post by Josh Cryer »

A 5 year delay for what, exactly?

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Josh Cryer wrote:A 5 year delay for what, exactly?
The technology doesn't work due to a rush to market.

Investments go south due to lack of profitability.

Investors and consumers discouraged.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

... and we still don't build nukes.

Why is this so hard. Build nukes until we get fusion to work. Then go to fusion as it possible/economical. We should have done that in the 70s/80s. The plan still works today. If solar or wind provide niche economically viable markets, then do that too. If fusion bombs... well we still got nuclear and have provided a reasonable time scale for renuables to find their own markets. Build electric cars as the storage technology evolves. Use oil until that happens.

It doesn't seem to be enough that the most important nuclear part of the plan was destroyed by the overzealous and unreasonable. Now there needs to be a new crisis to maniputulate us forward into an ridiculously costly, unreasonable, and underpowered future.

We don't have the electrical capacity to support an electric car society. California has rolling blackouts just trying to run air conditioners. Imagine trying to refuel electric cars. And where is the new capacity supposed to come from? Windmills and solar panels. Bull crap! Sorry, it is BS. Total BS. We can't build coal plants! We can't build nuclear plants! But we are going to build electric cars. To run on WHAT? This is so silly it boggles my mind.

None of it makes any sense to me. But I guess I just think too simply. Probably my lack of a proper education.

Mike Holmes
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm

Post by Mike Holmes »

Actually, since most charging would be done at night, we already have the capacity to deal with some tens of millions of electric cars. Not enough to replace every car on the street now, no. But nobody is proposing that everyone will convert overnight. We would have time to build more capacity as it's needed. The issue has been studied, and it's really not a problem.

Seems simple to me. But, then again, I have no degree either.

In any case, everyone here who thinks that electric cars are a good idea is a fan of increased electrical production. You know, that whole Polywell thing. Or, if not, nuc plants, coal plants, etc. It's not just irrational greens who want electric cars, and they're wanted not just for the environment. I want one because the fuel costs less (which is why the cost of the car can't be too high, because otherwise I'm just paying the fuel costs up front).

What... we can't have windmills and nuc plants both? They competing for space or something?

Mike
Last edited by Mike Holmes on Tue Dec 16, 2008 3:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply