What climate change is not

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by billvon, Jan 28, 2020.

  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    The ideal would be to design and manufacture an appropriate Priezoelectric crystal that could simply sit at a depth of 1000 meters or what ever and produce electricity due to the ambient pressure only ( no movement needed)

    Thus a pressure panel instead of a solar panel...
     
    Write4U likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    well stated.
    It can be used to compress all manner of gases with little energy required to do so.
    Boiling point of Liquid oxygen is only 100 kPa
    Liquid air: 520 kPa

    Average Pressure available : 35000 kPa
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Here's an even better idea - hydroelectric dams all over the country! Fill them up with water, generate power, then just pump the water back to the top and use it again. Sure, there are details to work out, but it HAS to work.
    Steam engines work because the phase change from water to steam vastly increases the volume. So you can use a small feedwater pump to pump liquid water in under pressure, then get a lot of steam at the same pressure to do work. The phase change is critical.
    So why not just drop a pipe into the bottom of the ocean, and then use the infinite abundance of high pressure water to drive a turbine at the surface?
    Exactly. And at the end you have a pile of weights at the bottom of the sea. How do you get them back?
    And then to get back up, they use compressed air (compressed with great use of energy at the surface) to fill their BC with air so they are more buoyant.
    You are claiming here that the volume of water displaced by the container has nothing to do with buoyancy?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Why not just do this at the surface and put a big rock on the piezo crystal?
     
  8. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    The pressure being applied would not be omni-directional. Efficiency would be greatly reduced.
    Once the boffins worked out how to make a pressure panel your complaint wouldn't matter any how...and their research would probably benefit solar panel design as well..
    wiki
    Photovoltaics
    The efficiency of a hybrid photovoltaic cell that contains piezoelectric materials can be increased simply by placing it near a source of ambient noise or vibration. The effect was demonstrated with organic cells using zinc oxide nanotubes. The electricity generated by the piezoelectric effect itself is a negligible percentage of the overall output. Sound levels as low as 75 decibels improved efficiency by up to 50%. Efficiency peaked at 10 kHz, the resonant frequency of the nanotubes. The electrical field set up by the vibrating nanotubes interacts with electrons migrating from the organic polymer layer. This process decreases the likelihood of recombination, in which electrons are energized but settle back into a hole instead of migrating to the electron-accepting ZnO layer
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2020
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    That was a joke. Piezo crystals do not continuously generate energy when under strain.
    I have several. They don't do what you think they do.

    Look, it's great that you have ideas. But they have to work. You have to at least be able to do the math to show that they might. There are thousands of designs for perpetual motion machines out there; each one "seems like it might work." None of them do.
     
  10. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,266
    There are a lot of "gadgety" and very small scale applications for piezoelectrics, but are there any implementations that harvest significant energy--say, a good deal more than simply powering streetlights from strips on a road, for instance?
     
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Nope. There are, as you mention, a lot of small scale harvesting applications that (for example) run sensors from motor vibrations, but nothing over a few watts. There's just not that much energy in most sources of vibration.
     
  12. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    From what I have found the entire solar panel industry makes use of piezo electrics to produce solar panels to some extent.
     
  13. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    fair enough...
    the point though was that while you are buried in obsolete and dangerous nuclear and coal technology there is less research and development in alternatives.
    The money involved in building one nuclear power station could be better spent in R+D for alternatives such as pressure harvesting.
    As Write4U has clearly stated:
    "The oceans are a natural compressor" ...and I would add, a never ending global resource that is yet to be made use of.
    An average of 35000kPa is a huge resource just waiting to be exploited.

    For example: cheap liquid oxygen and other liquefied gases obtained in the process could be the fuel of the future...
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2020
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    There is actually more.

    https://science.sciencemag.org/content/367/6482/1135
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerraPower
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000
    https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/1/eaay2757
    https://www.technologyreview.com/f/...-fired-up-for-the-first-time-in-four-decades/

    Let me try it in all caps this time:

    THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PRESSURE HARVESTING.
    No, they do not.
     
  15. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    Nothing. Survival is not even a problem. Except maybe if a nuclear world war is started. But not to start such a war requires no change.

    Because of a possible climate change in the direction of warming there is no danger for survival of humanity at all. One can reasonably expect that there will be some costs related with building appropriate infrastructure. But climate change is slow enough so that the costs will be part of what has to be spend anyway.

    See https://ilja-schmelzer.de/climate for some arguments.
     
    sculptor likes this.
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    It's far faster than what any agriculturally supported human civilization has ever adjusted to in the past. It's also different in kind.
    The costs involved in the ameliorating infrastructure - such as setting up systems of heavy taxation on the rich without launching war in their interest - would also be unprecedented in kind (in amount they would of course be a net gain, rather than a cost).
    But there is a direct and increasingly significant threat to modern industrial civilization, and a lesser but still notably significant threat to agriculture-based population levels.
    They're about equivalent to a creationist website's "arguments" addressing evolution.

    From the weird stupidity of an "optimal temperature" to the notion of employing global nuclear winters to combat regional temperature spikes, probably the most important information available there is the depths of intellectual degradation - the sheer and spectacular folly - that opponents of representative government will accept in defense of private corporate power.

    In the global efforts to deal with AGW, no one with that political agenda can be relied upon for even minimal sanity, let alone aid and information.
     
  17. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Just to recap:
    If I sink an empty container to 10000 kPa of sea water and seal that container with a pressure gauge reading at 10000 kP then bring it to the surface are you saying that the water in the container will somehow be only at surface pressure?

    How would the pressure escape?
    And if it did escape wouldn't the 10000 kPa water simply boil?
    We all know that if you heat water up, it will boil. What you may not know is that the temperature at which water (or any liquid) will boil depends on the atmospheric pressure.
    Water actually boils at a lower temperature if the pressure around it is lowered. This is why if you go to a high altitude location (like many parts of New Mexico), where the atmospheric pressure is lower, water will boil at slightly less than 100 degrees C.
    https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1514&t=water-in-a-vacuum
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2020
  18. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    You've really missed the boat on this one...

    Where about are you living in Europe?
    Did you hear about the latest stats for Europe's and Russia's last Winter temps?
    What do you think is going to happen during your coming summer regarding max temps?
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2020
  19. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    Even if it would be correct, it would not matter. Comparison with climate changes in the past is not the appropriate one, what matters for the costs is comparison with the time scale of infrastructure investments.
    At least the US has enough money without any need of taxation of the rich, their military budget is much higher than they would need for a serious improvement of their infrastructure.
    No. The threats to modern industrial civilization are purely political. (Ok, climate hysteria becoming extreme can seriously harm some industrial civilizations, but not industrial civilization in itself.)
    Namecalling is not an argument. An optimal temperature for a given technological level is a simple and well-defined concept. We can use such data like those in https://ilja-schmelzer.de/climate/greening.php as some approximation, with the rough approximation that a larger leaf area is good. Then the last decades have improved the conditions, which shows that we are yet below the optimal temperature. Then, learn to read. I do not propose to use what is named "nuclear winter", because the nuclear winter is based on different effects (large fires). And I do not propose to use some global effects to combat something local. So, this proves only your own intellectual degradation.
    Don't worry, nobody relies upon you.
    I'm not living in Europe. The max temps there will be anyway much lower than where I'm living now, so there is no reason to worry.

    Russia does not have a big problem with warming, similar to Canada it will be among the winners. Some costs for infrastructure if the permafrost soil thaws, but hardly decisive in comparison with the gains in forests and agricultural land. Europe will be neutral.
     
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    That makes a lot of sense .... ( sarc)
    So uhm what about the maximum temps where you are?
     
  21. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    software glitch
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2020
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Correct.

    In a perfect world, with ideal materials, here's what would happen:

    You'd lower a container, open a valve, close it, then bring it to the surface. The ideal container would not swell at all. You'd measure the pressure and it would be high. Then you'd open the valve, the water would move out a few centimeters, and the water would then be at surface pressure.

    Here's what will happen in the real world:

    You'd lower a container, open a valve, close it, then bring it to the surface. The container would swell a few millimeters. You'd measure the pressure and it would be low, close to surface pressure. You'd open the valve and it would move even less and would then be at precisely surface pressure.

    It would not be 1000kPa the instant you opened the valve. It would be cold surface pressure water and would not boil.
     
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    I believe hydrogen is a very promising energy source.

    Why Hydrogen is not BS
    http://oceangeothermal.org/archive-...MIotqR3-6I6AIVD9vACh2c7A8LEAAYAiAAEgLp7fD_BwE

    The one problem is its high energetic behavior, which requires multiple stage pressure fueling.
     

Share This Page