Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:
Typical of imperial government mandates.
Yes, it has been a rousing success. Taking money from the public at large for the indirect benefit of the corn farmers, and directly for enhancing the political careers of those farmers’ elected representatives.
One can know that, when environmentalists begin talking about the problem of over-population of the Earth, they finally understand the fundamental problem. In the eco-history of the Earth, the COVID 19 pandemic will be recorded as a failure to restore the massive population imbalance. Do not interpret that statement as a comment on anyone who has suffered with or died from the virus.
BJC
PMD
Well-Known Member
Highplains
Well-Known Member
The next ice age was the concern in the 70’s, during the last one which lasted about ten time longer than the brief warming period we currently enjoy, left the world’s population at a meager million or so. These cycles happen like clockwork meaning it has more to do with external influences than what happens on this tiny rock. My bet is on cosmic radiation which tends to provide the energy to evaporate ocean water slightly faster than desirable. Cosmic radiation is modulated by our sun which runs it own cycles of activity.
The world uses barely a cubic mile of oil each year, and over the past 140 years or so of the oil boom, less than 50 cubic miles of crude. Truly an insignificant amount when you consider the surface area of the planet. At our present rate, it takes over 12 years to accumulate the thickness of a single sheet of copier paper over the entire surface if spread out equally.
Ever see or read “The flight of the Phoenix”. Stuck in the desert, broken plane, no water, but plenty of fuel? Well if they had simply burn the fuel and condensed the vapor, they would have had water from the hydrocarbon fuel.
Speaking of the Sun, in one second, it puts out as much energy as the world uses in 2000 years, or in the time it take light to travel 6 inches it’s output equals all the energy we will consume in all forms for the year. Putting solar panels in space to beam energy down is no solution to warming.
The world uses barely a cubic mile of oil each year, and over the past 140 years or so of the oil boom, less than 50 cubic miles of crude. Truly an insignificant amount when you consider the surface area of the planet. At our present rate, it takes over 12 years to accumulate the thickness of a single sheet of copier paper over the entire surface if spread out equally.
Ever see or read “The flight of the Phoenix”. Stuck in the desert, broken plane, no water, but plenty of fuel? Well if they had simply burn the fuel and condensed the vapor, they would have had water from the hydrocarbon fuel.
Speaking of the Sun, in one second, it puts out as much energy as the world uses in 2000 years, or in the time it take light to travel 6 inches it’s output equals all the energy we will consume in all forms for the year. Putting solar panels in space to beam energy down is no solution to warming.
tspear
Well-Known Member
I suggest taking the climate change discussion offline; with a single caveat. Do research before you speak; and look for people who studied the climate and became experts in it; and not on pundits who are looking to spin things their way, or lobbyists.
Similar in concept to us trusting others on this forum to understand torsional vibration or combustion chambers.
Tim
Similar in concept to us trusting others on this forum to understand torsional vibration or combustion chambers.
Tim
Indeed, those wishing to stop the scourge of energy consumption have learned much from one spot on the petri dish that has proven resistant.
If we would just let them have their carbon free nuclear energy...............
PMD
Well-Known Member
Not to worry: one day soon the Chinese will have a production line for small, sub-critical mass gas cooled reactors. You should be able to buy one at WalMart.They seem to believe strongly in distributed generation.If we would just let them have their carbon free nuclear energy...............
trimtab
Well-Known Member
Remember that H2 combustion in ICE's at normal combustion temps have a truly massive NOx problem that most people get quiet and don't mention when they want to call it a clean source of energy.
It's neither particularly clean nor a source of energy.
However, LH2 has a lot going for it as a storage medium for use in aviation and aerospace. It's hard to ignore. Cryostorage and leakage issues are not particularly severe. Other safety issues are pretty daunting, but so are many of the issues around ammonia.
Nothing is easy. Flying requires amounts of high density energy storage compared to other modes of travel.
Nothing comes without compromises. But few options exist when 7 billion people headed for 8 billion soon are living entirely with the benefit of massive carbon energy expenditures. With present tech, without sequestered hydrocarbons, it is implausible that a population of more than perhaps 2 billion would be alive at present.
Oil is the agarose in our Petri dish, and it's pretty hard to pretend we can't see the glass walls all around us.
It's neither particularly clean nor a source of energy.
However, LH2 has a lot going for it as a storage medium for use in aviation and aerospace. It's hard to ignore. Cryostorage and leakage issues are not particularly severe. Other safety issues are pretty daunting, but so are many of the issues around ammonia.
Nothing is easy. Flying requires amounts of high density energy storage compared to other modes of travel.
Nothing comes without compromises. But few options exist when 7 billion people headed for 8 billion soon are living entirely with the benefit of massive carbon energy expenditures. With present tech, without sequestered hydrocarbons, it is implausible that a population of more than perhaps 2 billion would be alive at present.
Oil is the agarose in our Petri dish, and it's pretty hard to pretend we can't see the glass walls all around us.
jedi
Well-Known Member
If global warming is raising sea level and flooding coastlines what will burning all that hydrogen do to the sea level?
I think we need better coordination of the crises of each decade. The "Peak oil!" alarms are not consistent with the "Global warming due to ever increasing CO2!” alarms. And, of course, none of those sync well with the "Coming Ice Age" campaign that preceded them.
It would be easier on everyone if we could make our public alarms logically consistent. So far, they snake back and forth every decade, trampling the logic of the previous one. They spawn easily (just assume that a given trend continues forever, and that humans don't adapt to changing environments). Generally, the consistent themes the crisis scenarios/prescriptions share is that individuals are bad, more collective control from as high up as possible is good.
It would be easier on everyone if we could make our public alarms logically consistent. So far, they snake back and forth every decade, trampling the logic of the previous one. They spawn easily (just assume that a given trend continues forever, and that humans don't adapt to changing environments). Generally, the consistent themes the crisis scenarios/prescriptions share is that individuals are bad, more collective control from as high up as possible is good.
Last edited:
It's called myopia filtered through rose tinted readers.
But why worry? Musk will inoculate a new dish for us on Mars..........we will just need much longer wings for the typical EAB.
* I blame my astigmatism, inherited from my mother, for seeing the world in a distorted way.
Hydrogen is not really an energy source. Ideally, extracted from water, theoretically the same amount of energy can be recovered by burning or used in fuel cells, but as the efficiency of those processes are low you spend much more energy than recovered. At best - the hydrogen is an energy storage solution, but a bad one since the hydrogen cannot be stored and transported easily. My opinion is to use CH4 instead, it can be transported, stored and liquefied more easily. It is good fuel to burn and is usable in fuel cells.
Aesquire
Well-Known Member
Fyi. Cosmic radiation is interstellar, not solar. It's Earth's magnetic field that regulates how much reaches the atmosphere. And Cosmic rays have zip all to do with evaporation of the seas. However, they do create high altitude clouds by providing nuclei for water vapor to condense around, blocking incoming Solar heat. Cooling the planet.
Thus, fluctuations ( weakening ) of magnet field causes Global Cooling. ( by creating heat reflective high altitude clouds )
Solar wind strength OTOH, Does affect the density of planetary magnetic sheilding. Less solar energy, less cosmic rays protection, more clouds, double effect cooling.
The Sun indeed has a typical 13 year Sun Spot cycle that shows the cycles of solar radiance and thus the heat received at the planets.
Ice Ages are cyclic based on orbital and axial tilt. When the Earth is closest to the Sun & the Northern hemisphere is at Summer angles it gets warmer, and when it's summer in the Southern hemisphere & we are closest, it gets colder. ( % of land mass in each hemisphere )
The theory for tipping point shifts to an Ice Age ( which has happened and isn't imaginary and Will Happen Again ) includes the Arctic Ocean being ice free in winter, massive snow fall from the moisture off the open ocean, the change in albedo cooling the land and the snow not melting all year, rinse repeat, positive feedback, Ice Age! With the mass extinction of species and end & scouring of civilization. ( name 1 pre Ice Age civilization. )
The current CO2 Panic postulates a runaway greenhouse effect, which won't happen because it's never happened on this planet, because once CO2 reflects 100% of the frequency of IR radiating into space it literally can't do more. ( 100% is all you get )
Other facts of interest.
The rise in CO2 released from warming oceans during this current warming cycle ( still warming from the Mini ice age but not yet as warm as the Medieval Climactic Optimum or Roman good times from 2000 years ago ) shows clearly the cause and effect. Warm water holds less CO2 ( open a hot soda vs. A cold one and see which has more bubbles left ) & the Warming happened BEFORE the CO2 rise.
Then there's the political. The head of the U.N. IPCC openly has stated the science is not important, it's the excuse for changing the economic and political system. Authoritarian rule. Period. End of argument.
Last edited:
Aesquire
Well-Known Member
I don't care about imagined warming, I care about energy for humans to live on. The planet only intercepts a tiny fraction of that massive solar output. Only a tiny fraction of the Earth's surface is suitable for putting solar panels. ( that won't cause ecological great harm )
If we cover North Dakota through Texas with panels that would temporarily provide intermittent power and if we cover Illinois in batteries... The light could be on at night, too. But the residents of those 6 states might object, don't you think?
Putting solar panels in orbit increases the area you can capture energy. Orbital solar isn't using the diminished light after passing through the atmosphere. Full power for our Solar Orbital radius. And if you built a ridiculous amount, would cool the planet. But rational amounts wouldn't in any meaningful sense.
Also they can be in solar orbits up to full Dyson Sphere coverage ( 100% solar capture ) but that's going to take centuries and converting a LOT of spare mass from the Belt & other planets into solar sail habitats. You don't have an emotional attachment to Uranus, do you?
The 2 downsides of orbital solar and the double edge sword aspects are a concern. You need a robust orbital launch & space habitat program. ( since you need one for planetary kinetic defense and space industry anyway... ) That's going to cost nearly as much as Climate Conference Caviar! There are unanswered questions about beamed power. Nicola Tesla did it, too bad he's no longer with us.
And there's the question of who controls the power switch. Hypothetical, the ruling power in your area, ( say, Disney & Florida ) annoys the Orbital Power Authority, ( by cancelling season 6 of Loki! ) and they refuse to send power to the rectenna grid! In summer! ( sarcastic but understandable I liked season 1! )
You might notice that people who aren't trying to con you actually point out the downside to their ideas, while would be thieves don't.
It costs about $11,000 per kilo to put things in geostationary orbit today. It costs less to go lower, if we want to use some sort of beam bouncing or just make the solar power something that lots of spots around the world get. And it would be a big, fat, soft strategic target, a vulnerability which would make many dealings with competitors/adversaries more difficult.
I don't know how long the hardware would last, but cosmic rays are tough on electronics.
To make this practical, we need some combination of:
1)Very expensive electricity
2) A cheaper way to put things in orbit
3) Very light hardware (mass per watt)
4) Some very good reason not to put the collection hardware on the surface of the earth where it can be done at 1/1000 of the cost, can be easily maintained and replaced, etc.
I don't know how long the hardware would last, but cosmic rays are tough on electronics.
To make this practical, we need some combination of:
1)Very expensive electricity
2) A cheaper way to put things in orbit
3) Very light hardware (mass per watt)
4) Some very good reason not to put the collection hardware on the surface of the earth where it can be done at 1/1000 of the cost, can be easily maintained and replaced, etc.
Last edited:
Aesquire
Well-Known Member
While mega projects offer attractive targets for bad people, you can't destroy a space platform with a Toyota Hilux technical with a RPG. Ground based solar a chain & truck will do. Rocks and attitude in a pinch.
But it's a good point. If the Duchy of Grand Fenwick decided to go to war with us again, and we depended on orbital solar, they could indeed disrupt our lives. Even the hypothetical Portland Anarchist Zone could buy an anti satellite missile from a country like Iran or China and threaten to turn off the lights. It's a problem that has to be considered.
As to #4, I assume you don't want to cover nature with artificial ceiling panels and the ecological problems that presents. And the infrastructure to build massive orbital structures is worth having for multiple reasons. Like space hotels and asteroid mining.
Veering off topic, but disruption only requires connectivity these days. See Colonial Pipeline hack......
PMD
Well-Known Member
Controlling NOx formation can be a simple matter by using some pre-oxidized hydrogen to change the chemistry and thermal properties within the combustion chamber.
Well, if we can harvest the hydrogen from the sun, we would deplete our O2 somewhat and raise our H2O. If we take the the H2 from the H20 in the ocean, it remains same level
Aesquire
Well-Known Member
I assume you are going to install the pipeline to the Sun at night so you don't get burned.
At least that would solve the Helium shortage.
You're right that breaking water down to get hydrogen that we then burn in an ICE or turbine or fuel cell will eventually fall back as rain to the sea, so no net loss.
NOx control is done with gasoline cars with a catalytic converter. I assume that's also possible with Hydrogen. No lead to poison the catalyst, no unburnt hydrocarbons to deal with. Water injection might be useful for anti-knock too.
