Free energy
-
John Cardinal wrote:
The real wtf is why isn't it at least cheaper than an operation that runs a nuclear power plant or shovels millions of tons of coal into a burner all day?
probably is, but that doesn't mean you'll see the savings. there are price caps, long-term contracts, gouging, profit-taking, profits from one plant offsetting losses from another, etc..
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
:rolleyes: Thinking is in short supply around here today. :) Seems that I pointed that out already. The point is no matter how cheaply you can source the energy it still costs money to get it to the end user. The real wtf is why isn't it at least cheaper than an operation that runs a nuclear power plant or shovels millions of tons of coal into a burner all day? Anyone who want's to argue that it costs the same to maintain a 40 year old dam as it does to run a nuclear power plant I'll gladly take on.
John Cardinal wrote:
Thinking is in short supply around here today.
I guess so as those costs are considerably large. Dams are expensive because the turbines and tubes are very expensive to maintain. The turbines are enormous and require many man hours and labor to maintain them and keep them running. They are perpetually being rebuilt and those costs just pile up. I don't know that any energy will ever be free or super efficient. People don't provide energy for it to be inexpensive. They want to make money after all. The biggest factor though is that the worlds demand for energy is increasing way faster than our ability to supply it. The biggest problem is that available water is becoming more and more precious and hydro-power will be a thing of the past if something doesn't change radically. I'm all for fission.
My name is Maximus Decimus Meridius, Commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions, loyal servant to the true emperor, Marcus Aurelius. Father to a murdered process, husband to a murdered thread. And I will have my affinity, in this life or the next. - Gladiator. (Okay, not quite Gladiator but close.) I work to live. I do not live to work. My clients do not seem capable of grasping this fact.
-
I was watching some strange documentary last night about the history of the perpetual motion machine and free energy devices. These free energy guys were going on about the benefits the world would see once these devices were invented and one of their claims was that we would all have all the energy we could use for no cost. The problem with that theory is that personally, where I live, we have all the free energy we want and it is billed at the same rate as any where else. All our local power comes from hydro electricity, there is a river and a dam further up the highway and a generator that has been there for so long it's surely paid off it's initial investment many years ago with only maintainence costs at this point. Yet I still get an electricity bill in the mail and I'm sure I'm paying roughly the same per kilowatt hour as electricity that comes from a nuclear power plant or a coal burning plant or whatever. We will never see free energy.
-
Free energy is definately feasible. Hydogen is ubiqutous and it is possible to use it as an energy source. The capitalists of the world will prevent it from being free though.
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
Hydogen is ubiqutous and it is possible to use it as an energy source.
No, water is ubiquitous on the Earth's surface. Free hydrogen escapes the Earth's atmosphere because we don't have enough gravity to retain it (unlike Jupiter, Saturn and the other gas giants). Hydrogen-powered vehicles and fuel cells give up energy by reacting hydrogen and oxygen, which is an exothermic reaction. The resulting compound is water. To get the free hydrogen to run the reaction, you need to electrolyze water. The net cycle if you could run it at absolutely perfect efficiency would be zero, but you can't. At best, hydrogen is an energy storage system, it's not an energy source. Fossil fuels are an energy 'source' because we find them in nature and can convert them to usable fuel sources by expending less energy than is contained in the fuel itself.
Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder
-
Free energy is definately feasible. Hydogen is ubiqutous and it is possible to use it as an energy source. The capitalists of the world will prevent it from being free though.
Hydrogen is an energy storage medium, not a source of free energy. You might have noticed it being every so slightly reactive. 'Capitalists' keep getting ripped off by scam artists promoting free energy schemes. Those same scam artists often claim the oil industry is keeping them down..
-
I was watching some strange documentary last night about the history of the perpetual motion machine and free energy devices. These free energy guys were going on about the benefits the world would see once these devices were invented and one of their claims was that we would all have all the energy we could use for no cost. The problem with that theory is that personally, where I live, we have all the free energy we want and it is billed at the same rate as any where else. All our local power comes from hydro electricity, there is a river and a dam further up the highway and a generator that has been there for so long it's surely paid off it's initial investment many years ago with only maintainence costs at this point. Yet I still get an electricity bill in the mail and I'm sure I'm paying roughly the same per kilowatt hour as electricity that comes from a nuclear power plant or a coal burning plant or whatever. We will never see free energy.
In your case, I'm sure you are paying to get electricity out of the national grid so your power doesn't just come from the dam. If it did, I'm sure things would be different. I think the closest we will see to "free" energy will be when we can finally get small scale hydrogen fusion running. BTW, what was the best free energy device from the show?
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
Which brings us back to the main point which was no matter the cost of the energy (i.e. free) we still end up paying for it so it's only free to the producer, not to the consumer.
if someone was to find a way to generate energy for free it would destroy the existing energy market - we'd only have to pay for delivery. and if the device that generated it could be owned and operated by an individual (or a small community), it would change the world.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
I was watching some strange documentary last night about the history of the perpetual motion machine and free energy devices. These free energy guys were going on about the benefits the world would see once these devices were invented and one of their claims was that we would all have all the energy we could use for no cost. The problem with that theory is that personally, where I live, we have all the free energy we want and it is billed at the same rate as any where else. All our local power comes from hydro electricity, there is a river and a dam further up the highway and a generator that has been there for so long it's surely paid off it's initial investment many years ago with only maintainence costs at this point. Yet I still get an electricity bill in the mail and I'm sure I'm paying roughly the same per kilowatt hour as electricity that comes from a nuclear power plant or a coal burning plant or whatever. We will never see free energy.
One thing to note is that the cost of the electricity is only one component of the price you pay. A few years ago when my power company decided it no longer wanted to be in the generation part of the equation our bill got divided into several charges. And of the around 5 charges listed in price for a kW/H the cost of the electricity was the 3rd highest price with transmission and distribution both being higher per kW/H than the electricity.
John
-
I was watching some strange documentary last night about the history of the perpetual motion machine and free energy devices. These free energy guys were going on about the benefits the world would see once these devices were invented and one of their claims was that we would all have all the energy we could use for no cost. The problem with that theory is that personally, where I live, we have all the free energy we want and it is billed at the same rate as any where else. All our local power comes from hydro electricity, there is a river and a dam further up the highway and a generator that has been there for so long it's surely paid off it's initial investment many years ago with only maintainence costs at this point. Yet I still get an electricity bill in the mail and I'm sure I'm paying roughly the same per kilowatt hour as electricity that comes from a nuclear power plant or a coal burning plant or whatever. We will never see free energy.
John Cardinal wrote:
We will never see free energy
We may see it, but we'd still have to pay for it, it's kind of the problem with malign capitalism I think. Assume someone invented a zero-point energy[^] extraction machine, the cost would be hideous, so such a device would only be available to very large corps, we'd still have to pay for the end product, handsomely I'd guess and well beyond the recoup of research and development costs. It's arguable that a device such as this, transcends the interests of a mere coroporation, but try telling that to the shareholders though :doh:
- "I'm not lying, I'm just writing fiction with my mouth"
-
Hydrogen is an energy storage medium, not a source of free energy. You might have noticed it being every so slightly reactive. 'Capitalists' keep getting ripped off by scam artists promoting free energy schemes. Those same scam artists often claim the oil industry is keeping them down..
Agreed. It actually takes more energy to produce hydrogen than it gives off but the idea to use hydrogen is because power plants are more efficient than cars and they also pollute less for the same amount of power.
John
-
In your case, I'm sure you are paying to get electricity out of the national grid so your power doesn't just come from the dam. If it did, I'm sure things would be different. I think the closest we will see to "free" energy will be when we can finally get small scale hydrogen fusion running. BTW, what was the best free energy device from the show?
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
Andy Brummer wrote:
In your case, I'm sure you are paying to get electricity out of the national grid so your power doesn't just come from the dam. If it did, I'm sure things would be different.
Agreed. As power is a commodity that the price is determined by market forces and by government regulation so even though it may cost 1 or 2 cents per kW/H less than coal or nuclear you may not see that savings.
Last modified: 26mins after originally posted --
John
-
In your case, I'm sure you are paying to get electricity out of the national grid so your power doesn't just come from the dam. If it did, I'm sure things would be different. I think the closest we will see to "free" energy will be when we can finally get small scale hydrogen fusion running. BTW, what was the best free energy device from the show?
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
Andy Brummer wrote:
In your case, I'm sure you are paying to get electricity out of the national grid
Nope, I'm on an island in the Pacific ocean and I live within a short drive of two different hydro electric generators that supply all our local power.
Andy Brummer wrote:
what was the best free energy device from the show?
There were none I would term best, but there was a pretty cool looking device by a sculptor (Finsrud), I found a video of it here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=553061720631716456[^] It's no more perpetual motion than anything else, but it does seem to run on it's own for a very long time and it's kind of soothing to watch.
-
John Cardinal wrote:
We will never see free energy
We may see it, but we'd still have to pay for it, it's kind of the problem with malign capitalism I think. Assume someone invented a zero-point energy[^] extraction machine, the cost would be hideous, so such a device would only be available to very large corps, we'd still have to pay for the end product, handsomely I'd guess and well beyond the recoup of research and development costs. It's arguable that a device such as this, transcends the interests of a mere coroporation, but try telling that to the shareholders though :doh:
- "I'm not lying, I'm just writing fiction with my mouth"
We already have geothermal, solar and wind energy generation that can be operated on a small scale for a single home which easily pay for their initial costs and maintenance in an increasingly shorter period of time, people are just willing to pay more for convenience and always will.
-
Andy Brummer wrote:
In your case, I'm sure you are paying to get electricity out of the national grid
Nope, I'm on an island in the Pacific ocean and I live within a short drive of two different hydro electric generators that supply all our local power.
Andy Brummer wrote:
what was the best free energy device from the show?
There were none I would term best, but there was a pretty cool looking device by a sculptor (Finsrud), I found a video of it here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=553061720631716456[^] It's no more perpetual motion than anything else, but it does seem to run on it's own for a very long time and it's kind of soothing to watch.
John Cardinal wrote:
Nope, I'm on an island in the Pacific ocean and I live within a short drive of two different hydro electric generators that supply all our local power.
If that's the case, you might be getting screwed. If anyone here has anything close to an answer then it would be Roger.
John Cardinal wrote:
It's no more perpetual motion than anything else, but it does seem to run on it's own for a very long time and it's kind of soothing to watch.
I'm guessing the ball contacting those metal tubes turns on an electromagnet pulling it along.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
We already have geothermal, solar and wind energy generation that can be operated on a small scale for a single home which easily pay for their initial costs and maintenance in an increasingly shorter period of time, people are just willing to pay more for convenience and always will.
I just read the high level results of a survey that there is way more then enough geothermal energy available in the US to power the entire country, and that building enough plants for 10% of the nations power supply would cost less then the cost of one new carbon sequestering coal plant. The cost of the plants seem really fishy to me, but it would definitely seem to be better then many other options. I wish home solar was a bit quicker at paying for itself. I've got a few neighbors that have solar, but it doesn't pay for itself until about 10 years, and it just seems a long time to trust that nothing will go wrong with it. Also, things like solar screens and insulation are much more cost effective right now and are a good preparation for when solar becomes more affordable.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
John Cardinal wrote:
Nope, I'm on an island in the Pacific ocean and I live within a short drive of two different hydro electric generators that supply all our local power.
If that's the case, you might be getting screwed. If anyone here has anything close to an answer then it would be Roger.
John Cardinal wrote:
It's no more perpetual motion than anything else, but it does seem to run on it's own for a very long time and it's kind of soothing to watch.
I'm guessing the ball contacting those metal tubes turns on an electromagnet pulling it along.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
Nope, no electricity at all, just the combination of the regular non electric magnets and the pendulums which very slightly tilt the wheel the ball rolls around so that it's rolling downhill all the time. There's all sorts of explanations of it around the net. Apparently guesses range from 90% efficiency to 99% efficiency but it's still losing out in the end to friction etc. What I like about it is just the artistic appeal I guess, it just looks cool, like a lot of handcrafted technology from Victorian times. http://www.museumofvictorianscience.co.uk/images/main_800.jpg[^]
-
Nope, no electricity at all, just the combination of the regular non electric magnets and the pendulums which very slightly tilt the wheel the ball rolls around so that it's rolling downhill all the time. There's all sorts of explanations of it around the net. Apparently guesses range from 90% efficiency to 99% efficiency but it's still losing out in the end to friction etc. What I like about it is just the artistic appeal I guess, it just looks cool, like a lot of handcrafted technology from Victorian times. http://www.museumofvictorianscience.co.uk/images/main_800.jpg[^]
Ah, so I'm guessing most of the energy is in the long pendulums and the ball is there to provide a distraction and keep them synchronized.
John Cardinal wrote:
What I like about it is just the artistic appeal I guess, it just looks cool, like a lot of handcrafted technology from Victorian times.
Definitely cool looking. When I was growing up a neighbor of mine had a back yard full of WWII and earlier era radio equipment. We used to sneak in there and just play with all the old electronics and vacuum tubes.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
How true. :)
-
:rolleyes: Thinking is in short supply around here today. :) Seems that I pointed that out already. The point is no matter how cheaply you can source the energy it still costs money to get it to the end user. The real wtf is why isn't it at least cheaper than an operation that runs a nuclear power plant or shovels millions of tons of coal into a burner all day? Anyone who want's to argue that it costs the same to maintain a 40 year old dam as it does to run a nuclear power plant I'll gladly take on.
John Cardinal wrote:
Anyone who want's to argue that it costs the same to maintain a 40 year old dam as it does to run a nuclear power plant I'll gladly take on.
Nuclear is very expensive, but I think you've really underestimated the cost of hydro-electric in your mind (compared to coal for example). Just because all of the cost is up-front doesn't make it cheap. Go price a dam, and I'm sure you'll say "Damn! that's expensive". BUT, hydro's hardly worth discussing anyway. The main problem with hydro-electric, is that everything worth damming had been dammed. Unless you live in China, where it's okay to submerge entire cities when building your damn, there isn't much economically feasible hydro capacity left in the world.
Want robust software? Use the new Vista Kernel Transaction Manager[^]
www.IconsReview.com[^] Huge list of stock icon collections (both free and commercial)
-
:rolleyes: Thinking is in short supply around here today. :) Seems that I pointed that out already. The point is no matter how cheaply you can source the energy it still costs money to get it to the end user. The real wtf is why isn't it at least cheaper than an operation that runs a nuclear power plant or shovels millions of tons of coal into a burner all day? Anyone who want's to argue that it costs the same to maintain a 40 year old dam as it does to run a nuclear power plant I'll gladly take on.
John Cardinal wrote:
why isn't it at least cheaper than an operation that runs a nuclear power plant or shovels millions of tons of coal into a burner all day?
In your case, I don't know. In ours, hydro @ $.015/kWH, coal @ $.07/kWH, gas @ $.10/kWH, solar @ $.16/kWH, nuclear @ $.11/kWH, plus wheeling, capacity, and spot-market premiums add up to about $.05/kWH purchased cost, if we get the mix right. Add in system maintenance & repair, equipment replacement, labor and the $.077/kWH we charge seems a bargain. Get the mix wrong, or fail to secure sufficient long-term supply contracts to cover base load, and a company can quickly end up insolvent. It's an extraordinarily risky business compared to the era of utilities being a stolid, steady investment vehicle. And although it's information I can't give out, I have the budgets for the Parker-Davis-Mead hydro system, and it costs far more than you might imagine to keep those aging plants alive. Forget about replacing them with new ones, too. The econazis will never allow it. They'd rather we all listen to NPR by candlelight, anyway.
"A Journey of a Thousand Rest Stops Begins with a Single Movement"
