No Free Energy Lunch?

Seems obvious to me. After all, look at extreme examples of this - mountains. Weather patterns are dramatically changed by mountains.

Even low lying terrain has an effect and tends to divert the brunt of a storm, creating unique storm patterns.

How dramatic these man-made changes would be is open for debate.

To me, it is one of the egg headed studies that are done when the scientific community has little or no idea on a topic.

It may be true - I certainly have no idea but the face of the earth (say forests and cities) has changed greatly over time - big changes due to that?

I have wondered a similar thing about solar: if you soak up a bunch of solar energy, especially if sending it afar, what happens to the local mini-climate?

I had proffered the same warning to some people. But I was just kidding. While in the purest sense it is true, what is in question is the matter of degree. Intuitively it would seem unlikely that we could extract an amount of energy that would be substantive, but then again when dealing with chaos there may be more to consider in regard to the butterfly effect than can be known without actually trying the experiment.

Right. Where else would it go, Detroit?

If it is hot air it tends to go to D.C.

The capitols of the world seem to be hot air magnets!

It was 92 in the shade today and 104 standing in the sun...I was looking like mad for a solar panel to stand under!

That sounds like typical climate change/global warming para science double talk to me.

At some point it was calculated that one average sized tropical hurricane dissipates more energy in its life cycle than all of humankind has produced in the last 50 - 100+ years combined. http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/D7.html

And how many hurricanes/tropical storms/large scale weather events happen every year?

Nature is power hungry in ways we cant even relate to!

I flea that thinks the dog belongs to it just because he feeds him.

I flea that thinks the dog belongs to him is a fool.

Is the holy grail of environmentalists and alternative energy proponents, a source of energy that does not pollute, create greenhouse gasses, or use up the earth's resources, and is low enough in cost for everyone in the world to be able to use as much as they need?

Whether by harnessing the waves, tapping into the geothermal core, or applying fusion, let us assume that in 50 years that goal is achieved. The current argument about about man or nature being responsible for global warming has gone away. All we are left with is limitless free power.

Every time we use this power, we convert it ultimately to heat. Sometimes directly to keep warm. Sometimes as friction losses as we use it to move about. Sometimes as efficiency losses in the infrastructure we use to talk on the phone or comment on a blog entry.

If the planet generates more heat than it can dissipate into space, it WILL warm up. That is a physical law that cannot be ignored. At that point his thesis is irrefutable. We must put limits on energy use.

The current puny efforts directed to wind wave and solar are minute compared to the scenario I describe. For the foreseeable future renewable can replace fossil fuels without risking Armageddon. Come back in 45 years professor, and I will take your argument very seriously.

Anyhow we can't compare the usage of energy within all of it's storage forms:

Typically fossil fuel has to go through a Carnot cycle to be of any means for us. This reduces the usage by at least a third for a serious amount of the fossil fuel used by mankind if you would be able to go to a "clean" electric powered solution.

When you look towards the actual evolution the way to solve the energy problem is not a single source.

everyone understands that you can't solve only one side, it has to come from both: production and consumption.

But this will not require a lot of regulation: people will change to low power devices automatically when the cost of energy goes up.

Just keep on pushing the fuel price up and electric automobiles becomes realistic for everyone, regardless the limited range.

the only issue remains air transportation: I can't imagine a commercial plane without liquid fuel as the storage of any other fuel is way to heavy.

All of the technology already exists to convert most of man's need to low energy sources or renewable sources.

However, large corporations that make a LOT of money off people wasting energy are not going to give in to giving up their profit shares for ANY reason. Society would need to band together to deny them. Global warming dialogue may be the one call anyone can understand.

A huge portion of sunlight bounces off the earth's surface so we are not going to affect anything by collecting some of using solar panels. Nor are wind turbines going to affect climate by slowing down the wind. All they really do is cause a little turbulance. Eventually, power will be generated by power plants sitting in orbit just above the atmosphere over the poles and beaming it down.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=Jet%2Bruns%2Bon%2Bbio%2Bfuel.&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geek.com%2Farticles%2Fgadgets%2Fthis-fighter-jet-runs-on-biofuel-20110326%2F&ei=xn-ETvaVLtC_tge6jqk-&usg=AFQjCNGb1uoousKfzaYRBOXhSynE1k2xOQ

http://www.google.com/aclk?sa=l&ai=CeyoJQYCETtIYxty3B6rs9LMJ-c3r-wGZj8PTF4OtrRkIABABKANQ8a2pmgVgybarh9yj8BGgAbG44_4DyAEBqgQcT9Du9aQXT0AIiOuLDo4SO9RwIhuxYs942mInAw&sig=AOD64_3mn6zKXBIaoQwnrFc2KzmJH7wihg&ved=0CAkQ0Qw&adurl=http://www.solatube.com

http://www.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-tech/sustainable/led-light-bulb.htm

http://www.ecycle.com/compdrives.html

http://www.cngnow.com/vehicles/convert-to-cng/Pages/information.aspx

We all convert energy..

It will either come from a current form of energy.. Sun, wind, wave, thermal, wood... whatever..

Or we will convert energy from a stored fuel source... crude, natural gas, coal...

The only logical way to reduce the 'damage' is to consume less energy and create less product. food, water, housing, travel...

Our current society isn't even close to being able to deal with what future generations will have to adapt to..

With little doubt.. Our period of time will be remembered for it's excess in every aspect of our lives. People who knew the saying, but still went looking for the free lunch.

Living and working close to home as will be important.. as will proper diet, local power generation, smaller footprint and lower cost homes that are less of an empty box and more of a thought out system that provides functionality as well as tranquility for persons of all means.

Taking care of things closer to home and less worry about accumulation of worthless possessions and eating real food instead of manufactured food will result in a need for less transportation, government, medical, etc.. That's about as clean as it get's..

In the end.. we will use up the available crude etc.

Anyone that thinks energy is free is a nincompoop.

Quite good accumulation of how we will evolve.

And it will not through legislation but though natural changes in our consumption pattern

Ad fuel prices will go up, smart financial wiz-kids will create nice power-points stating that closing the mega-factory in china and producing in small factories spread over the world is cheaper.

As low cost producers of goods such as China rightfully increase the rights of their work force the balance of profitability will change in favor of bringing jobs home.

The big problem there is that we've so thoroughly patted ourselves on the back with burgeoning 20th century equality that we've all but ruined our ability to compete for the manufacture of the very goods we wish to buy..

You hit the nail: our own financial wizkidz driving our economy decided that we didn't need the knowhow to produce our own consumption goods.

This situation makes us dependant on regions where the big picture remains important; Regions with a realistic eye on the future.

Our mental effort goes into predicting new recessions for the next year where their brains are used to reach goals 10 to 100 years in the future.

Now we wonder how it is possible that China and India remained strong each time a western bubble bursts.

Energy is free. Its the conversion process and end use that determines the price.

The sun heats my home in the day even when I don't want it to. By my reasoning hats free energy being actively collected. I spent nothing to get it or store it but at times it costs me to get rid of it.

Scientists are being used these days to wage propaganda wars.

There is so much vested interest in the status quo operating basis, and there is no way the Max Planck Institute is free from that.

These days such prognostications have to be taken with a grain of salt.

Where was the Max Planck Institute when this planet embarked upon the "great adventure" of nuclear energy?

There is politics hidden behind these popular pronouncements. I'm sure of it.

Your question: Where was the Max Planck Institute when this planet embarked upon the "great adventure" of nuclear energy?

When it was originally formed the Max Planck Institute (or it's forerunner, it didn't get it's present title until a little later), was informally known as the uranium club. The name was no co-incidence, in 1939 it's approximately 30 members probably knew more about nuclear fusion than the whole of the scientific community in the rest of the world. (including Einstein and the German Jewish scientists who fled or were spirited away)

My answer: Out ahead by a very long way!

If the Nazi authorities had understood how far they were ahead, and funded their research, we might be writing this blog in German

And Einstein understood the danger of the whole technology and decided to step out after they prooved the theory.

Paradoxically enough, that technology saved 100s of thousands of lives in WWII and kept the world from plunging into subsequent world wars.

Nothing wrong with the technology - sometimes engineers and businessmen don't take care of the details as should be done.

Also true

I'm thinking he's getting his Bunsen burner bill taken care of by The Big Gas & Oil Co.