Free energy VS Fossil Fuel
- Thread starter Tom Tucker 313
- Start date
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Dude. If there was such a thing as free energy, you can bet the government would be using it.
choomer
Well-Known Member
Beg to differ there as "free energy" would wipe out a huge tax base at the pump, in the utility bill, and completely kill the petrodollar.
If you don't need petroleum what good is a dollar based on it?
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Free energy would be worth more than all the oil in the world and would both accelerate profits and render the economy insensitive to oil price and availability shocks.
choomer
Well-Known Member
Exactly.
Why would you want that to happen if your entire monetary base and world currency status is only supported by oil?
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
I'm just not buying the (evidence free) notion that 'free' energy exists and is being deliberately suppressed.
There's too much money to be made making the switch.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
The cost and environmental footprint of solar and wind power has fallen dramatically in the last 20 years and ramping up their production and installation will continue to provide benefits for decades to come. Electrified transportation can reduce its fossil fuels consumption, even without batteries. One example of low hanging fruit in this area is the electrification of America's railnetwork. Converting the railways would save billions of gallons of diesel over the next 40 years, even while overall energy efficiency improves by an order of magnitude. Increasing the trackage to include a high speed rail network would cannibalize both automobile and air travel, improving the overall picture even more.
Better batteries with higher charge density and longer service life are in development, which have the potential to provide for commercial scale electric aircraft, not to mention electric cars and trucks. Where does the energy come from? I think the next frontier of green energy is geothermal power generation, using natural hotspots at first and then likely expanding to many more locations with improved drilling technology, if the model of progression of fossil fuels extraction is repeated.
It is already the case that renewable energy sources are chipping away at coal fired power production. This process will continue. Covering the roofs of the world with solar panels would not increase humanity's footprint on the ground and that surface area is plenty to make a serious dent in the power generation necessary to run the world's transportation. The extra shade would even help reduce energy consumption for climate control.
Humans CAN make the switch. It is only a matter of the will to do so. Whether it will make a difference in our ultimate survival depends on how quickly we switch and how renewable and recyclable all of our technologies are, not just that bit used for power generation.
Better batteries with higher charge density and longer service life are in development, which have the potential to provide for commercial scale electric aircraft, not to mention electric cars and trucks. Where does the energy come from? I think the next frontier of green energy is geothermal power generation, using natural hotspots at first and then likely expanding to many more locations with improved drilling technology, if the model of progression of fossil fuels extraction is repeated.
It is already the case that renewable energy sources are chipping away at coal fired power production. This process will continue. Covering the roofs of the world with solar panels would not increase humanity's footprint on the ground and that surface area is plenty to make a serious dent in the power generation necessary to run the world's transportation. The extra shade would even help reduce energy consumption for climate control.
Humans CAN make the switch. It is only a matter of the will to do so. Whether it will make a difference in our ultimate survival depends on how quickly we switch and how renewable and recyclable all of our technologies are, not just that bit used for power generation.
choomer
Well-Known Member
Let's take the science fiction "free energy" part out and just look at a known proven suppression of the nuclear reaction fuels Thorium vs. Uranium 235 for nuclear reactors.
From https://www.firstpost.com/world/the-story-of-thorium-a-50000000000000000-50-quadrillion-discovery-untapped-2817010.html :
Seaborg's work, however, had pointed to thorium's eminent suitability as a fuel for peaceful purposes. Along with his research assistant John Gofman, Seaborg bombarded the thorium atom with neutrons from a cyclotron. They observed that thorium-232 transmuted to thorium-233 and then to protactinium-233. This was carefully extracted from the sample to avoid further transmutation to protactinium-234; after waiting for a couple of months, Gofman observed that the protactinium-233 had transmuted further, into uranium-233 as was later discovered. With the help of fellow researcher Raymond Stoughton, Gofman separated enough of the uranium-233 to test it for fissionability. As per his meticulous notes, it was on 2 February, 1942, at 9:44 PM, that the uranium-233 first underwent fission via slow neutron absorption.
Seaborg had already noticed how abundant thorium was, far more than uranium, and when Gofman showed him the results of their labour, he is said to have exclaimed, "We have just made a $50,000,000,000,000,000 (fifty quadrillion) discovery!"
After the war, several of the scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project shifted their attention to peacetime applications of nuclear energy. Two of them, Alvin Weinberg and Forrest Murray, co-authored a paper on what would eventually evolve into the basic design for light water reactors. The authors were not remiss in noting the several drawbacks of their design, suggesting instead that a reactor operating on thorium would not face similar problems. In 1948, Weinberg became the director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and he kept the research on thorium reactors going. The Molten Salt Reactor Experiment was an experimental reactor that operated at ORNL from 1965 to 1969 and proved the viability of molten salt reactors.
Despite its success, the MSR programme was mothballed. The United States continued to work on the 50 quadrillion dollar discovery sporadically — such as with the experimental thorium-uranium-233 core inserted into a conventional pressurised water reactor at Shippingport in 1977 — but the results were not built upon. The reason for this, according to some such as Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia, is that Washington was not interested in energy but in the production of plutonium to expand its nuclear arsenal and thorium reactors are particularly useless at supporting a nuclear weapons programme. It is only in the last decade that interest in thorium reactors in the United States has again risen but this time more among private entrepreneurs than the government.
Seaborg had already noticed how abundant thorium was, far more than uranium, and when Gofman showed him the results of their labour, he is said to have exclaimed, "We have just made a $50,000,000,000,000,000 (fifty quadrillion) discovery!"
After the war, several of the scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project shifted their attention to peacetime applications of nuclear energy. Two of them, Alvin Weinberg and Forrest Murray, co-authored a paper on what would eventually evolve into the basic design for light water reactors. The authors were not remiss in noting the several drawbacks of their design, suggesting instead that a reactor operating on thorium would not face similar problems. In 1948, Weinberg became the director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and he kept the research on thorium reactors going. The Molten Salt Reactor Experiment was an experimental reactor that operated at ORNL from 1965 to 1969 and proved the viability of molten salt reactors.
Despite its success, the MSR programme was mothballed. The United States continued to work on the 50 quadrillion dollar discovery sporadically — such as with the experimental thorium-uranium-233 core inserted into a conventional pressurised water reactor at Shippingport in 1977 — but the results were not built upon. The reason for this, according to some such as Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia, is that Washington was not interested in energy but in the production of plutonium to expand its nuclear arsenal and thorium reactors are particularly useless at supporting a nuclear weapons programme. It is only in the last decade that interest in thorium reactors in the United States has again risen but this time more among private entrepreneurs than the government.
From https://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/02/16/the-thing-about-thorium-why-the-better-nuclear-fuel-may-not-get-a-chance/3/#341950ee49a3 :
"Thorium is three times more abundant in nature than uranium. All but a trace of the world's thorium exists as the useful isotope, which means it does not require enrichment. Thorium-based reactors are safer because the reaction can easily be stopped and because the operation does not have to take place under extreme pressures. Compared to uranium reactors, thorium reactors produce far less waste and the waste that is generated is much less radioactive and much shorter-lived.
..........
Had it not been for mankind's seemingly insatiable desire to fight, thorium would have been the world's nuclear fuel of choice. Unfortunately, the Cold War pushed nuclear research toward uranium, and the momentum gained in those years has kept uranium far ahead of its lighter, more controllable, more abundant brother to date. History is replete with examples of an inferior technology beating out a superior competitor for market share, whether because of marketing or geopolitics, and once that stage is set it is near impossible for the runner-up to make a comeback. Remember Beta VCRs, anyone? On the technical front they beat VHS hands down, but VHS's marketing machine won the race and Beta slid into oblivion. Thorium reactors aren't quite the Beta VCRs of the nuclear world, but the challenge they face is pretty similar: it's damn hard to unseat the reigning champ."
..........
Had it not been for mankind's seemingly insatiable desire to fight, thorium would have been the world's nuclear fuel of choice. Unfortunately, the Cold War pushed nuclear research toward uranium, and the momentum gained in those years has kept uranium far ahead of its lighter, more controllable, more abundant brother to date. History is replete with examples of an inferior technology beating out a superior competitor for market share, whether because of marketing or geopolitics, and once that stage is set it is near impossible for the runner-up to make a comeback. Remember Beta VCRs, anyone? On the technical front they beat VHS hands down, but VHS's marketing machine won the race and Beta slid into oblivion. Thorium reactors aren't quite the Beta VCRs of the nuclear world, but the challenge they face is pretty similar: it's damn hard to unseat the reigning champ."
Technology doesn't need to be the exotic "free energy" type to be suppressed.
In this case, it only needed to be safer and not be able to produce weapon grade fissionables.
Edward Snowden proved beyond a doubt that James Clapper had lied to the public about mass public surveillance showing that long maligned "conspiracy theorists" had been right.
You think that was the first time?
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
i find it a lot more likely that someones ego or reputation was involved. academics are as fierce about their egos as any drunk college boy.
someone made a bad choice, then defended it till it was confirmed. once things are built, it's practically impossible to get the government to admit they were wrong, and scrap the built installation for a new set up.
it's not a conspiracy, it's complacency, it's the status quo....
someone made a bad choice, then defended it till it was confirmed. once things are built, it's practically impossible to get the government to admit they were wrong, and scrap the built installation for a new set up.
it's not a conspiracy, it's complacency, it's the status quo....
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
let's say you're right. what do you propose to do about any of it? if you're ever are able to prove the government is doing anything they're not supposed to be doing, they'll either deny it, and cover it up so you can never prove anything, or they may just make you disappear.
or....they may just have you declared incompetent and stick you in a place where "you can get the help you need".....unless you can get incontrovertible proof and get it to the media where it can be released to the general public, anything you "prove" won't prove a damn thing.
choomer
Well-Known Member
Cute, but human stupidity has been proven throughout millennia and justifying it doesn't make it less stupid.
Use that insight above when you think about all the global warming hype (conveniently relabeled "climate change") during a solar grand minimum that we've known was coming since the 70's scientifically termed as a:.
"Maunder Minimum," which refers to the seven decades, from 1645 to 1715, when the sun's surface ceased its heat-releasing magnetic storms and coincided with the Little Ice Age, a period of chillier temperatures, from around 1550 to 1850 in Europe, North America and Asia, according to NASA.
You know, a little thing like the sun, which is responsible for the weather of the entire solar system.
Re-read the last 2 sentences and think about it instead of lapsing into the complacency of the status quo.
You do know that "conspiracy theory" was coined by the CIA to discredit questioning of the Kennedy assassination, don't you?
So you do understand that the gov't routinely lies to the public and what tools they use to discredit anyone that knows enough to point that out.
Incontrovertible proof was found on
by the same gov't funded effort used to create the atomic bomb.
Why are you defending the practice and saying "there's nothing anyone can do" when you know there has been a slow, but inexorable change in public sentiment about the schedule 1 criminalization of marijuana?
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
well, because i don't agree with you about most of the conclusions you draw from these things.
http://discovermagazine.com/2014/june/3-ask-discover...its not a huge secret, and it's never been covered up. the government doesn't want to pay to scrap all the existing reactors and build new ones. which is what i said earlier.
yes, i realize the government lies to us, and tells "selective" truth. i'm not defending it, i'm asking you, what do you plan to do about it?
come up with a plan that has a chance to accomplish something, with getting anyone involved killed or put in prison for life, and then get back to me.
everyone yells and points at problems, but no one seems to have an idea of what to do about it. i'm a good soldier, find me a credible leader, and i'll fall into cadence
http://discovermagazine.com/2014/june/3-ask-discover...its not a huge secret, and it's never been covered up. the government doesn't want to pay to scrap all the existing reactors and build new ones. which is what i said earlier.
yes, i realize the government lies to us, and tells "selective" truth. i'm not defending it, i'm asking you, what do you plan to do about it?
come up with a plan that has a chance to accomplish something, with getting anyone involved killed or put in prison for life, and then get back to me.
everyone yells and points at problems, but no one seems to have an idea of what to do about it. i'm a good soldier, find me a credible leader, and i'll fall into cadence
choomer
Well-Known Member
All it takes is _1_ person with the moral fortitude to "do the right thing" despite the threat (or actuality) of prison for the truth to come out.
Ask Chelsea Manning. Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, or most recently Tommy Robinson.
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
i haven't come to a conclusion about chelsea manning or edward snowden. and im not aware of timmy robinson. i consider julian assange to be a traitor, i don't think he ever gave a damn about the truth, i think he was paid to do what he did, and deserves to be shot for it.
farmerfischer
Well-Known Member
There is free energy tty.. I've seen several videos and even some that show you how to make your own.. it's quite simple really.. it has to do with the fact that to many rich fuckers are so financially involved in crude oil they don't want to loose on their investment . To the point some states are even banning and outlawing people who harvest wind for energy... A man in I believe Oregon was jailed over a small wind turbine on there home.. and if I'm not mistaken in most states it's illegal to be off the grid so to speak,,fuck it's illegal to collect rain water in many states.. last parts of topic but you get the idea...
choomer
Well-Known Member
Assange is a traitor because he used evidence created by the people he reported on and they can't even say it is fake, but instead was "hacked"?
Perfect logic topped off by the conviction that an foreign national can be a traitor to the US.
Have some more Koolaid.
Roger's argument that the reason they didn't/aren't going to change reactors types is money:
which is later belittled with the sarcasm
????
It doesn't reflect very well on our cognitive abilities not to be able to see the hypocrisy in that and reflects the hubris needed to discount the possibility there is a motive force they haven't discovered yet when the use of electricity as a motive power source is less than 200 years old (Faraday 1821) and nuclear is 75.
BTW.....why are you guys using the same avatar?
Last edited: