Big Bang theorists cheat

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />There is more than enough energy for everyone to have it at low cost. The sun provides about 10,000 times the energy needed by all mankind for all time. The reason energy now is too costly for all but the rich is poor engineering not a lack of energy. If and when there is an effort to better engineer energy systems energy will be abundant and low in cost both to the environment and pocket book. This is a matter for decision makers and has nothing to do with science.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I agree, but, while some uses of the solar energy are not very expansive (solar heating of the houses, mainly), other uses are expansive (making electricity from photocells or other systems), or limited (agriculture: food or energy ?). We cannot hope that people accept to limit their need of energy enough to avoid inexpansive sources, so that we must choose between coal and nuclear energy. Coal is much more dangerous presently (how many Tchernobyls in Chinise coal mines) and for the future. The wastes of coal (CO2, mercury) cannot be securely stocked over centuries, while the nuclear wastes are small, a great care in their stocking is not very expansive, and they finally decay.
All human works are dangerous. We must choose !

There is no limit to the amount of solar energy that can be had with the right engineering. The total energy use of humans is about 300 quads per year and the sun delivers about 3,000,000 quads to Earth per year. So you see clearly there is 10,000 times more energy available from solar than mankind uses. The way to better use solar is with better engineering. The stuff you are suggesting is not true and most of it is false while parts are borderline. Its clearly a matter of engineering and not high cost that is currently limiting the availablity of low cost energy. This problem is not at all new or unique to our age-ignorance has been around before civilation.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />There is no limit to the amount of solar energy that can be had with the right engineering. The total energy use of humans is about 300 quads per year and the sun delivers about 3,000,000 quads to Earth per year. So you see clearly there is 10,000 times more energy available from solar than mankind uses. The way to better use solar is with better engineering. The stuff you are suggesting is not true and most of it is false while parts are borderline. Its clearly a matter of engineering and not high cost that is currently limiting the availablity of low cost energy. This problem is not at all new or unique to our age-ignorance has been around before civilation.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
First problem: night, so that you need expansive batteries
Second problem: if you use solar cell (expansive) or mirrors, it is necessary to wash them, replace the broken ones...
I agree that in deserts, it is possible to build "tornado" systems, relatively inexpansive and able to work at night, but the deserts are far from inhabited places.
I agree that it is necessary to try all ways to avoid coal and nuclear plants, but look at newspapers: there is a lot of papers against nuclear plants because it is easier to frighten people against the nuclear than against coal although coal is much more dangerous.
The immediate choice is between coal and nuclear and the supporters of the most dangerous solution, coal will probably win.

Since silicon and carbon are both materials in abundance in the United States, manufacturing solar systems (which must include these 4A elements) is possible. Likely, more thoughtful processes besides charging batteries with photovoltaic cells is needed. The most obvious model for the use of solar energy is the plants. All energy sources on earth are solar or star derived (in the case of using radioactive nuclear elements that must be created in supernovas). Oil, coal, and natural gases were laid down in the earth from decayed plant life which in turn derived the energy originally from the sun. Energy systems designed around retrieving energy from sugars conversion processes like photosynthesis, some type of algae/photovoltaic system would have the benefit of producing free O2 while consuming CO2 from the atmosphere, all at the same time yielding energy. This enterprise could be undertaken on the sea or in deserts. Let me know what ya'll think.



Mark Vitrone

I agree, but the cost is high because the solar energy is naturally not concentrated. expansive solar cells allow to get 10 percent, agriculture maybe 5 percent... It is OK if people is ready to pay, that is decrease a bit the way of life. This decrease is necessary if we want that our children live.

All you are saying is poor engineering is the problem. We know the energy from the sun is 10,000 times the needs of all mankind for all time. We also know the systems now in use are basically solar systems that are poorly designed. Batteries, windmills, water power as well as oil, coal and gas are all solar energy systems and none of them is well designed. The best thing to do is grow plants in sal****er and make oil out of the biomass that is growing. This way solar energy can be directly used and stored just as nature has done for a billion years or so. You don't generate any polution doing this and all the energy needed for all time can be made this way at a very low cost.