Comments by "" (@rstevewarmorycom) on "China's Ionic Smog-Sucking Vacuum: Upgrade" video.

Robert Zraick Retooling and reinfrastructure costs. If we were buying our energy supply now, we would buy solar and wind for local use close to home. The current cost of wind is actually cheaper than coal and solar cheaper than gas and nuclear. We would not have to pay for the grid, the millions of tons of wire, the steel towers and transformer cores, the trillions of dollars for nuclear reactors, mining, processing and clean up, the coal fired generators, the mines and mining equipment, the trucks, the trains to haul it, the wear on the highway system from heavy trucking, but now we have to replace all that with solar panels and thermosolar generators and wind turbines situated locally and without much grid to shuttle power around, we merely will have to move a small percentage of electricity around to meet shortages due to wind or sun decreases. And we also have to super insulate our homes and buildings, instead of having built them properly in the first place. Add earth source geothermal with surface earth insulation and that's housing. Then eliminate transport of things grown locally, only ship stuff that has to be grown or made elsewhere, and do it by slow wind powered trains with sails, and restructure cities to have work near the workers, and stop lighting all the unoccupied streets at night, and the earth will recover. THAT'S why we don;t have it, and how we will now have to.
11
Vladimir Komarov Problem partly solved, electric cars use a quarter or less the energy to go the same distance as the equivalent in fossil fuel. And if they are charged by wind, solar, or hydro or wave or tide, or geothermal, then they don't pollute at all. PV panels use toxic metals, but that doesn't mean their use is toxic or that their manufacture is. It COULD be if done irresponsibly, but great care has been employed to address those concerns. Nuclear can be safe, but it is far more costly when safe than other renewable sources, because of the costs of the safety, and they still wind up having to store the hot waste, they do NOT magically send it to the earth's core where it doesn't get into the water, that would take a shaft 35 miles deep. Project MoHo only sent one shaft down about 18 miles, and it melted. And knowing business, they will cut corners. The earth's core is molten partly because of radioactive decay, but mostly because it was hot to begin with and the radiative surface of the planet is bombarded by solar radiation. Sending the waste to the earth's mantle is a good idea, but it would be as expensive and potentially dangerous as shooting it into space. AND the handling to perform that is even more costly and dangerous. The numbers have proved over and over that renewables are cheaper.
3
Vladimir Komarov MOST fish consumed now are farm raised. The rivers are sewers, the fish not edible. If we controlled the water we have not only scarce water recovery, but more fish farms, and the while smaller than main hydro because of the shallow fall, it is still eminently useful, as river mills were in old Europe and are still used to generate modest power today. Much of Russia is not inhabited, so in what way does it matter? The "millions" of which you speak only see arctic weather in winter, and no frozen tundra. The earth 20 or 30 feet down is 50F all year round up to the 55th parallel. Super-insulation, and a little solar, and it is habitable. The Canadians have solar homes on that principle even in northern Alberta. Higgs or Moore are irrelevant to this discussion. You're blathering.
2
Dha Kar From "what you heard"? You better go listen to someone who knows. The only reason renewables aren't being used is because the energy costs a little more, but saves the world.
2
Since one of the main reasons the earth is warm is the sun, the primordial heat and radiologic heating are less than all of it, and it is as I said, radiologic and primordial and solar, a mix. The core retains the heat it has and produces as much because of solar heating. Your support for nuclear power is just more equivocational nonsense, every government accounting has shown over and over that the renewables are cheaper. A good use for nuclear waste would be radiothermal generators for remote applications, but that would not meet our needs, And producing much more waste is practically and politically problematic. Nobody wants it. Betting on fusion and ignoring renewables is a bad bet, because we have NO idea how soon fusion can be made practical. What you said about renewables any physicist can tell you are outright lies. I don't know whom you're lying for, but it almost seems like you're paid, since your "info" runs so counter to accepted numbers. Wind and solar are near perfect complements. An example is the Colorado Power wind projects, which they thought would be unreliable and which instead proved so complementary among their several sites that they have forgone two new coal-fired plants in favor of three more wind farms. They were shocked, and Europeans were also surprised to find how when the sun isn't shining the wind is blowing and that it supplanted not merely supplemental power, but is starting to be seen as fine for baseload as well. You ignore the fact that 1/4 of all energy use is for heating, and that near surface geothermal can be used to completely replace residential and structural heating merely by burying pipes 20 feet down and circulating water to bring living spaces to near comfortable ambience, and by superinsulatng the surrounding earth as a heat storage causing thermoclines in the earth;s surface to rise and warm buildings, and that this can be done everywhere but the arctic. Your grasp of hydro potential is ridiculous, we could be controlling where all our rain goes, but we let it run down the river to the ocean, untapped, and your understanding of the immense power available of waves and tides is pitiful, purely amateurish. Tell me how much energy is required to move a cubic meter of water up and down a meter and then do the math.. You're clearly not a physicist as I am, and the fact that you're guessing from YouTube level prejudices and pop notions of science and political hobby horses is obvious and to me disgusting. Every time anyone competent has done the math they have always been amazed at what the human species has thus far failed to utilize in favor of whatever they're burning at the moment. Burning is dramatic, humans have always liked it, but that affinity for flaming glowing things does not translate into science. So far most of what humanity has done is the obvious, and ignored the subtle gigantic power they could be using. We were much smarter before coal and oil, those things have made us stupid and we have to unlearn that. When we run out of oil and atmosphere to burn coal with, we will have to.
2
Dha Kar Only if you don't build it. If you do, the estimates are 35 years to be all solar, which is when fossil supply and carbon in the atmosphere get really bad. Everybody forgets that before we "run out of oil" comes the period when the demand for it has gone up so much that nobody can afford it except the rich. And then other power will go up because that will drive ALL market prices higher for energy. You don't think the rich are going to want to gouge and soak you? Think again. As for coal, you won't like it when you can't breath and they've strip-mined everything. You'll wish to gawd you could see windmills pleasantly turning all over and fields of solar panels in the sun. And when the weather goes haywire every ten seconds and the ocean covers the coastal cities good luck.
1
seigeengine The liability is fossil fuel and western self-indulgent profligate greed. The salvation is staying home, getting to know each other, being satisfied with what nature gives us, and enhancing our control and communication technology.
1
Vladimir Komarov Sure, it's do-able, but it is NOT the cheapest energy. Companies like it merely because they can centralize power generation and make lots of money charging by the kW, whereas solar on rooftops does an end run around them and takes their profit, but costs the consumer a lot less.
1
Vladimir Komarov Sure, but when the uranium runs out? There are better ways, storage, in batteries, AND in the production of butanol and canola oil from cellulosic crops and rape seed, You can even run jet aircraft with canola, the military has done that already experimentally, a 727. Butanol is a direct substitute for gasoline, but there won't be a lot of it, which is why the rest needs to be solar and wind to charge batteries. And solar thermal power stations use molten salt as heat storage to run all night, they already do that in Spain.
1
Vladimir Komarov Go learn chemistry. Electrolysed water makes hydrogen gas, and to carry enough to run a jet engine would take many hundreds of high pressure tanks. Butanol can be made in mass quantity by cellulosic fementation, they genetically modified yeast and bacteria to do it. You can make it out of wood or switch grass, Canola is already used to run about 30% of German farm tractors. China will be the most powerful country at exactly the moment they can no longer breathe, unless they go renewable.
1
Vladimir Komarov I can insult you as much as you want me to. That isn't my purpose, however. Butanol has the same toxicity profile as gasoline. I didn't speak of "fermenting wood", Why do you imagine that fermentation of sugars takes "months"?? It is about three days. You don't need a clean atmosphere to BECOME a world power, only to STAY one!! You can't electrolyse hydrogen aboard an aircraft. You would have to carry a very heavy weight of highly compressed tanks, leaving little room for cargo. They are having trouble breathing now, they have severe medical costs from it now inn Bejing.
1
Vladimir Komarov To have sufficient energy density for powering aircraft, the hydrogen would need to be a cryo liquid. The reason the Brits corrected the soot and black lung problem was that it was strongly interfering with industrial production.
1
Vladimir Komarov So you're saying that I shouldn't insult you and to let your politician do it??
1
Vaygar Boyar Sure, but we have lots of recyclable plastic, and oil enough to produce it, and the carbon in it is trapped and sequestered out of the atmosphere. Also, plastics can be synthesized easily from methane from organic decomposition.
1
Vaygar Boyar You're writing truth checks your uneducated mind can't cash. This is no "hippy theory" this is government figures from the National Renewable Energy Lab and from many PhD physicists in the field. Someone like the Koch bros.are probably paying you to lie moronically as you're doing. Nobody is saying we will be able to drive as much as now, but that is what you're going to soon have to live with or else just die. Nor does it require petroleum in that quantity to make a tire if the processing energy is renewable. You should rethink your life if your purpose in life is to lie so blatantly that you have no self-respect.
1
Vladimir Komarov More Koch bros lies. You didn't "disprove" anything. In fact you never presented any evidence at all except your posture. It is well proven that the sun doesn't NEED to shine all the time or in any given location to provide sufficient solar power. Wind, which is ALSO driven by the sun, complements it because wind tends to blow more when the sun is obscured. Combine that with a vast grid to redistribute power and both local and home storage of power and the math works out very well. And renewable solutions have a much LOWER environmental impact than strip-mining for Thorium or polluting streams reprocessing it, or endangering people and encouraging terrorism transporting it. Not to mention storing the waste. You intentionally ignore the fact that the math for 100% renewables proves it can be done and has been done, just because you would prefer nuclear, thinking it will enable you to burn all the energy you want without a care, as we do now, when that isn't true either. They are saying precisely the same lies about Thorium as they said about Uranium nuclear power, and that it will never run out and be too cheap to meter. And we KNOW what happened with that,. Why are you lying? Are you invested in the nuclear industry, or is someone paying you? And PS: Greenpeace isn't even reputable anymore. NREL and the solar physics community IS!!
1
Vladimir Komarov Alright, if you're ant-Koch and anti-GOP then I'll believe you. But just saying you've disproved something is NOT disproving it. The scientists who have done all the numbers on solar panels and their life embodied energy, their composition and recyclability, have concluded that they are the safest way to obtain energy, as well as being lowest cost all things considered. This has been cited over and over. Solar panels are made in China NOT because they have worse chemical pollution but because it's cheaper. We DO manufacture PV panels here in the US, quite a large percentage in fact, they just don't compete well because of cost. If you're really worried about pollution and the environment, then consider not strip mining literally everywhere to get Thorium, because that's where it is, it is found in similar percentages in all clay sands literally everywhere. And it would take a LOT of strip mining to get enough. And while coal tailings have Thorium, they aren't just sitting around but have been reburied, per US mining laws, and would need to be stripped again and many tons removed and returned on our highways to and from processing plants to extract enough Thorium, more mass even than coal!. And anyway, the MOST efficient production of solar power is thermal solar using mirrors, not even involving a minute amount of rare earths. And thermal can be used at home as well, passive solar design, earth berming, superinsulation,south facing windows and the like, as well as water heating and superinsulated refrigeraton. We could even use 12 foot aluminized dishes and Stirling heat engines driving an alternator, which have been shown to supply nearly 1kWatt, which grows in importance if you don't need it for heating. And I repeat, wind is ALSO solar, and it works best of all, cheaper than coal in the midwest in a high-wind strip down the central plains of the country. You have lots in Ireland and Scotland as well.
1
Vladimir Komarov I repeat: Those are costs for a new PLANT, not for solar energy, which takes no fuel and needs far less maintenance. The estimates on lifetime cost per Watt are tiny in comparison to fossil or nuclear. And the thermoelectric nuclear generators that can use radioactive waste are large, expensive, and VERY low yield, which is why they are only useful for small power applications in deep space.
1
Ghost Emblem Using solar gets rid of smog.
1
Ghost Emblem That doesn't relate to what I said, read for comprehension!! If you use solar you won't HAVE smog.
1
Ghost Emblem All they need to do is ban non-electric cars. Pollution goes elsewhere and you can charge with PVs.
1
Ghost Emblem Oh gee, and how do you know this?The smog is near the cars and the power plants are OUT OF TOWN where the air is cleaner. Which kind of a moron are you anyway? Also: We do the same thing with the cars that we do every ten years anyway, we recycle them. Steel is the most recycled material. We build lighter cars, and electric cars need MUCH less maintenance, much lower cost. Replace bearings, electric motors and batteries and it keeps working.
1
Robert Zraick Yes, it was a 727 if I'm not mistaken. Still doesn't mean we'd be able to fly like today.
1
Robert Zraick Efficiency is the reason for centralized burning of fossil fuels, if you are going to use fossil fuels the largest possible generation equipment is very much more efficient. But losses on the required grid very nearly eat up that advantage, so you're right about solar and wind anyway, and perhaps neighborhood fossil fuel supplementation. Also, centralized laundry and refrigeration is waaay more efficient, as is recapture of waste heat from manufacturing for heating purposes and cogeneration for chemical processes. There are ways to synthesize butanol and biodiesel that could be used for medical helicopters and some air travel, They have a plane or two that run solely on canola oil, the military wanted to know that. And yes, street lighting controls and store lighting controls are big ways to save power. The key to transport being lower energy is to make enclosed two and three wheeled battery-powered vehicles with light weather shells that run on small electric motors, typically under a kWatt. That and rail should do it.
1
Macho Nacho You need to go get an education in solar and wind. Wind in the midwest USA is now cheaper energy than coal!!. Yours are erroneous notions only found among uneducated people in the public who know nothing and have believed the Koch bros. Also, it appears to be the ONLY feasible way anybody will get to keep driving quite soon., so you'd better find out how.
1
Taurion Martell Baseload is a Koch Bros mythic BIG LIE. Ask why the Denver, Colorado power companies first thought they would have consistency problems with the wind turbines their new laws required them to buy. And now why do they want twice as many more? And FOR baseload. They have canceled construction of three new coal-fired plants to pay for them too. Turns out the bigger and more diverse a renewable system is, the more stable the baseload supply, just as the computer models all predicted. Same as they found in Europe. It's the variation in terrain, the wind has to go somewhere, the more places you are the more likely you are to find it. And wherever the turbines are stopped, they incur no hourly upkeep. And you don't have to buy coal or build huge railroads up mountains to bring it to you. And they found it was true of solar as well, wind falls off whenever the sun shines brightest. They complement each other.
1
p3achFUZZ69 No, those times were even MORE horrible. Instead let's go forward to a time we've never seen before. where war isn't the tool of the rich to steal but of the majority to protect us from that, when technology isn't the tool of the rich to get richer by making us squander the remainder of our planet so they can be wealthy and not have to work for a living, but a set of tools used by everyone to make sure everyone has enough and that we have equal opportunity and information, and know how to live within our energy means using renewables. UN studies on population reveal that if we keep poverty at bay, the world population will stabilize and start coming down by the end of this century. That is what the trends show. But the bubble of those already born produce an inertia that will make it peak at 11 billion before decreasing. If we can hold out for that, maybe someday we can use fossil fuels again, when our population is a quarter or less it's current size. But the earth needs the mastery of renewables to recover over the next several centuries.
1
***** Like you, you mean?
1
***** As I thought.
1
TG Lasers Lithium isn't that toxic, no more than lye. There's a fire hazard is all.
1
Nohalfsteps You're an idiot who thinks things because it pleases you to do so, rather than because they are true, and you are unable to do the math to grasp why solar will work easily. Your concept of China is typical western stupidity, you imagine wall to wall people and know nothing about the enormous size of the country. You're a clown. All you need i a funny red nose.
1
Nohalfsteps Gee, I like it.
1
sinephase Doesn't need to, China HAS to, Beijing can't breathe from the coal pollution. China is now the nation heading toward renewables the fastest, They have even halted several of their nuclear reactor projects to have the resources to build more wind and solar. Ask Amory Lovins. Also, the tax breaks have been cut back because they aren't needed now, solar and wind are close to parity with coal and gas power.
1
sinephase Cut back to provide the wherewithall to develop renewables, because they don't compromise breathing in Beijing. And yes, they killed several reactor projects, along with their plans for several coal-fired plants.
1
vignesh sivakumar Those are fuel cells that still use fossil fuels to produce energy, a bit more efficiently, but they are NOT renewables and NOT magic "free energy" horseshit.
1
Stupid People Look at your name.
1
seigeengine More erroneous lies.
1
seigeengine Yup. I'm a physicist, I know better.
1
Hunter Naab That's a bald-faced lie of the kind the fossil fuel companies propagate. Who pays you to lie?
1
Hunter Naab Go become educated, you're only spewing uninformed off-the-cuff impressions about solar from stupid man-on-the-street ignorance.
1
Hunter Naab So ya think we shouldn't change that??
1
Liam Nissan Your grasp of grammar is so bad that you don't even know that mind is perfect. The way solar and wind CAN become sufficient is if we build a lot more of it on a war time footing. Convert automobile companies to wind turbine and solar panel factories. We can achieve that in 20 years.
1
seigeengine No, it won't take any more than making new cars for the next 20 years. Just keep fixing the cars we have and we're fine. And while we're doing that, convert them to electric.
1
Vladimir Komarov Nobody cares about GreenPeace. They long ago became obtuse.
1