So, as it stands now, in order to reduce warming, we have to stagnate production. Which means we also have to stagnate population and wealth.
"free" energy concept is related to the idea that space is not a vacuum and there exist much quantum energy within it...N. Tesla is supposed to have stumbled upon this 100 years ago...as far as i know magnetism and electricity is involved, i dont believe it would involve the whole power grid, only local distribution...dr steven greer has a just released movie call the lost century....just released...it is claimed the military industrial congregational complex has confiscated all patents and information to maintain control having researched the us power structure for decades its believeable
That's the current goal. Of course, analog world doesn't play well with ideal world. Our current energy sources have evolved to be as efficient as currently possible. The idea that providers are intentionally inhibiting the progress of efficiency is ridiculous. Increases in efficiency make them more profitable, not less. Despite this, idealistic leadership is intent on stagnating efficient uses of energy with the hope that this policy will produce more efficient energy production at some unknown point in the future. In the interim, much less efficient means of energy production will be used out of necessity.
Transmission out of a solar farm is AC and at tens of thousands of volts to reduce power losses. Electrical transmission over a distance of a thousand miles is already carried out globally
We use AC at high voltages because it is easy to transform, and lower current produces less heating. Since we're talking AC we're also talking the combined effects of resistance, capacitance and inductance (impedance) which also increases with length. So while we reduce the amount lost to increased resistance in the wire due to heating, we gain a length proportional phase shift between voltage and current which is also bad. So not only do they have to ramp voltage to make things work correctly they also have to ramp frequency. The proposed Morocco - UK connection is a $16 billion, 3,800 km undersea cable. You're going to lose lots of energy in that cable. 100km, conservatively, loses .5% @ 765 kV. The current Spain - Moroco connection is 2 - 400KV 3P and they lose like 10% of that. Not to mention the loss incurred by converting it to AC, transforming it, and then rectifying it back to DC for use. Energy is lost in the inverter. Energy is lost in the step up transformer. Energy is lost in the transmission. Energy is lost in the step down transformer. Oh, and the higher you go in voltage the more you lose to corona. It sure is, that doesn't mean it's efficient to do so. It's an accepted inefficiency due to the inability to produce power where you want it. And it's only there for supplementing base generation. You can't regulate the power over long distances. So that means the UK will still need a system of ramping generators to control the energy flowing in from Morocco. Those are all going to be fossil fuel, and they're all going to have to be large enough to make up for the missing base that occurs at night.
Every energy source transmission have associated losses. Electricity transmission is the most efficient energy transport system. Much more efficient than pipes or vehicle transportation. Why are you infering that it will be all or nothing straight away?
I don't intend to infer that it's all or nothing. I intend to infer that building a large solar installation in a distant country is less efficient than installing smaller energy production locally. Especially if we're talking about cooling the Earth.
Yes, the nearer the generation is to the final use, the more efficient it is but there is much more land available in places like the Sahara and the sunshine is more guaranteed
True. And, there is always a cost of moving energy - pipelines, ships, transmission lines, etc. Morocco exported 350M KWH of electricity in 2018.
From a climate perspective, I'm happy to see clean energy projects anywhere people need electricity. Saudi Arabia, 99% fossil fuel energy, is completing a large solar project that would power 45k homes. There's a huge market for solar technology. We shouldn't be ceding that market to China, like we are now.
Is free energy possible? Sure sunlight is free for example. But harnessing it, delivering it and using it is another matter.
The caveat being that collecting energy requires work, using energy requires work, and disposing of energy requires work. Work requires force and force requires energy. This is why we have a third law of thermodynamics. The term free energy in physics means energy available to do work. The term free energy in popular culture means energy with low cost.
Philosophically, it must be, or else how would anything exist? Whether that can ever practically be used by humans, I am not sure. But short of that, there's a tremendous amount of energy in all matter, so much so that it's hard to imagine needing "free energy" for billions, if not trillions of years. It's all down to technology. Hopefully fusion will be a practical next step in some of our lifetimes.
I don't think your English is failing you. Just pointing out it's right to say that free energy is possible if you mean energy available to do work. It's not possible if you mean energy with no cost.
Physics laws of energy and entropy invalidate part of what you are saying here. We sometimes miss this, as Earth lives in a nearly perfect bath of solar energy, tuned to our needs. But, that is not an unlimited source, not does most of our universe enjoy that kind of environment. I think the issue of today is the relative cost of collecting energy from various sources. Plus, we have to be honest about these costs. Significant portions of our cost accounting for energy simply ignores some of the serious costs.
Just to let you know, any documentary that mentions Tesla and free energy together is likely to be a bunch of not-real-science phooey.
Well, I agree with the "free energy" part of that. There is no free energy from the point of view of having that energy to do something with. The sun is free, but not after you do the work of harnessing it to do something. Tesla, on the other hand, IS an energy company. And, they have a bright future in that regard. And, I don't mean their EV success. Woops - I missed that the issue was the man, not the company.
What form of energy are you suggesting requires "quantum technology" to understand? What do you mean by "this stuff" that can't be tested today?
Your guess is as good as mine. I don't remember that far back. But it was probably something about harvesting energy directly from the universe. Someone famous once said that it's either possible or it's not and we know it's not impossible. That's not a quote it's the gist of it. If I remember more I'll try to find something.
Ok, so I was watching a bunch of videos on YouTube about EV technology and especially battery tech. I saw something about energy technology that requires further knowledge of physics. And if I remember more I'll try to find something.
Thanks. And, I believe someone we know (not known to me) could have said that. I do find the totally nonspecific and unfounded claims to be annoying. The fact that there are questions we don't have answered is a seriously weak excuse for declaring some future utopia. Of course, we do have serious scientists and engineers working on discovering and using what we discover.
Absolutely! The rate of battery improvement is hugely impressive! Of course, there are billions (maybe trillions) of dollars to be made when considering the full range of battery uses. But, still...
