Diving right in. The solution to the energy crisis.

[fullpower]

no need to reinvent the wheel

Nuclear energy is a joke. It is too dangerous, dirty and costly. And when things go bad, there isn't enough money in the world to clean the mess up. So don't give me any crap about how cheap you might think it is. There is already an alternative to any form of energy production that is so effective that you could almost call it perpetual motion. Photovoltaic solar panels.

They produce far more power than it took to create them. That is, from mining the materials they are made out of onwards. They can also produce far more power than the U.S. could ever possibly need. (More than the world could possibly ever need) But it has one major drawback. It is FREE! How do you make money from that. But unfortunately, our country is run by the corrupt lackeys of evil corporations. Such as oil, gas and car companies. And they sure as hell can make money as things now stand.

There is only one problem with solar panels. One that our government isn't the least bit interested in tackling. Infrastructure. Because there is no profit in doing so. When you have solar panels, you also need batteries or capacitors to store energy. Then you need a specialized device to convert the energy to AC and distribute the energy in your house as needed. Then you would probably need a specialized electric meter to feed excess energy back into the grid if necessary.

But the day is fast coming where they will wish they had spent the money. Because once human caused global warming becomes bad enough, no amount of money will fix the problem.

Solar takes 450 times as much land to create the same energy as nuclear. Solar is more carbon intensive than nuclear. nuclear is the only solution that does not destroy habitat.

Who cares about how much land it takes. There are enough rooftops in the U.S. to equal the size of a fairly large state. And there is so much useless dessert in the U.S., solar panels wouldn't be hurting anything. In fact, it may help. As for destroying the habitat, maybe I could interest you in some land around Fukushima or Chernobyl. Chernobyl would especially nice for you. Its core is only expected to stay dangerous for about the next 4.5 billion years.

Also, radiation is bad. Ok? Where is the nuclear waste going to be stored. Where it will remain dangerous for longer than humans have existed. Also, many countries just dump their nuclear waste into the ocean. Talk about destruction of habitat!

 

[daveman]

You've invented a device that converts condensing steam into mechanical work?

Congratulations. .

Is making shit up the best you can do. The process has nothing to do with condensing steam. It has everything to do with the combustion of water or steam.

It kinda sounds like you're trying to get more energy out of a system than you've put it, and you haven't explained at all how you're going to put energy into the system to split the water.

That reminds me of something...


Maybe if you read something more than just the last post, you would learn differently. Try post #23.

I did. You still haven't explained where the initial heat comes from.

I did. If you had been following along, you would know that. Are you just wasting my time? But then again, I don't suppose you would tell me if you were. I said the heating of the furnace at first would come from the combustion of hydrogen and oxygen. Just like what the space shuttle engines used. After that, the combustion of the water itself would produce its own heat. Because that's just what combustion does.

Okay, where does the initial energy to separate the water come from? And bear in mind it takes a LOT.

 

[fullpower]

no need to reinvent the wheel

Nuclear energy is a joke. It is too dangerous, dirty and costly. And when things go bad, there isn't enough money in the world to clean the mess up. So don't give me any crap about how cheap you might think it is. There is already an alternative to any form of energy production that is so effective that you could almost call it perpetual motion. Photovoltaic solar panels.

They produce far more power than it took to create them. That is, from mining the materials they are made out of onwards. They can also produce far more power than the U.S. could ever possibly need. (More than the world could possibly ever need) But it has one major drawback. It is FREE! How do you make money from that. But unfortunately, our country is run by the corrupt lackeys of evil corporations. Such as oil, gas and car companies. And they sure as hell can make money as things now stand.

There is only one problem with solar panels. One that our government isn't the least bit interested in tackling. Infrastructure. Because there is no profit in doing so. When you have solar panels, you also need batteries or capacitors to store energy. Then you need a specialized device to convert the energy to AC and distribute the energy in your house as needed. Then you would probably need a specialized electric meter to feed excess energy back into the grid if necessary.

But the day is fast coming where they will wish they had spent the money. Because once human caused global warming becomes bad enough, no amount of money will fix the problem.

I actually agree with you on this. I'm a big fan of solar.

I'm also a big fan of being energy independent as INDIVIDUALS. Solar can make that possible, though three will always be some need for a "collective" grid, the goal should be to gree ourselves from being dependent on a large business for electricity.

You are never going to be free of large business for energy. Ever.

Unless you murder, kill and slaughter. But I'm not allowed to talk about the philosophical justice in doing so around here.

 

[fullpower]

This is an idea I came up with over 25 years ago. It is an idea that I came up with about the same time that I came up with a faster than light space drive. I won't get right into the fine detail of this solution to the energy crisis. (But I can direct you to it if you're interested) The material needed to create power isn't coal, oil, nuclear or anything else. It is plain old water! You see, at a certain temperature water or steam will combust. Just as if it was gasoline.When it does so, the gasses from it will be pretty hot. Power could be derived from these hot gasses through magnetohydrodynamics. Apart from that, the preassure from the combustion could be used to turn a turbine. Eventually the gasses will recombine into H2O. Creating a vaccum that would bring the pressure down to what it was in the pre-combustion stage. But before that happens, something could be set up like the engines in a German buzz bomb. Where any drop in pressure would take in air from someplace else besides where the combustion happened. The engineering to create a suitable combustion chamber has been around for at least 50 years.

So giving you the solution, what will you do for me. That is, at this forum. I'm not seeking money or sex.

How bout a kick in the ass? LOL

Well, if you really feel you need one. I guess I could supply it.

 

[fullpower]

First of all, I called a car stereo place once and asked them how loud could you make a car stereo without having to alter your car's engine. Such as the alternator. The stereo person told me that it was basically unlimited. That 40,000 watts was achievable. Which means you could produce a LOT of sound from very little power.

The stereo person was wrong.

Let's say we've got a 2019 Ford F-150 half-ton pickup. We want to put a BANGIN' sound system in it. The factory alternator produces 215 amps. With an output voltage of 13.5 volts, that's only 2,902.5 watts.

It's impossible to get 40,000 watts out of an electrical system capable of producing less than a tenth of that.

I will take your word on that. But even at almost 3000 watts, you could produce a pretty devastating resonant frequency. Especially if you used a horn. As long as the horn didn't screw with the purity of the resonant frequency.

 

[fullpower]

Is making shit up the best you can do. The process has nothing to do with condensing steam. It has everything to do with the combustion of water or steam.

It kinda sounds like you're trying to get more energy out of a system than you've put it, and you haven't explained at all how you're going to put energy into the system to split the water.

That reminds me of something...


Maybe if you read something more than just the last post, you would learn differently. Try post #23.

I did. You still haven't explained where the initial heat comes from.

I did. If you had been following along, you would know that. Are you just wasting my time? But then again, I don't suppose you would tell me if you were. I said the heating of the furnace at first would come from the combustion of hydrogen and oxygen. Just like what the space shuttle engines used. After that, the combustion of the water itself would produce its own heat. Because that's just what combustion does.

Okay, where does the initial energy to separate the water come from? And bear in mind it takes a LOT.

Don't you get it. Putting the water into a furnace that is hot enough will cause the molecular bond of H2O to break. As in combust. Unless you are talking about the energy to produce the hydrogen and oxygen into separate liquids to begin with. Such as the space shuttle used. If so, why would that matter. Did it matter for the space shuttle? If you need it, you just go to some company and get it. The point is in this case is that once you got the combustion process started, it would require no more external supply of heat.

 

[Dekster]

no need to reinvent the wheel

Nuclear energy is a joke. It is too dangerous, dirty and costly. And when things go bad, there isn't enough money in the world to clean the mess up. So don't give me any crap about how cheap you might think it is. There is already an alternative to any form of energy production that is so effective that you could almost call it perpetual motion. Photovoltaic solar panels.

They produce far more power than it took to create them. That is, from mining the materials they are made out of onwards. They can also produce far more power than the U.S. could ever possibly need. (More than the world could possibly ever need) But it has one major drawback. It is FREE! How do you make money from that. But unfortunately, our country is run by the corrupt lackeys of evil corporations. Such as oil, gas and car companies. And they sure as hell can make money as things now stand.

There is only one problem with solar panels. One that our government isn't the least bit interested in tackling. Infrastructure. Because there is no profit in doing so. When you have solar panels, you also need batteries or capacitors to store energy. Then you need a specialized device to convert the energy to AC and distribute the energy in your house as needed. Then you would probably need a specialized electric meter to feed excess energy back into the grid if necessary.

But the day is fast coming where they will wish they had spent the money. Because once human caused global warming becomes bad enough, no amount of money will fix the problem.

Solar takes 450 times as much land to create the same energy as nuclear. Solar is more carbon intensive than nuclear. nuclear is the only solution that does not destroy habitat.

Who cares about how much land it takes. There are enough rooftops in the U.S. to equal the size of a fairly large state. And there is so much useless dessert in the U.S., solar panels wouldn't be hurting anything. In fact, it may help. As for destroying the habitat, maybe I could interest you in some land around Fukushima or Chernobyl. Chernobyl would especially nice for you. Its core is only expected to stay dangerous for about the next 4.5 billion years.

Also, radiation is bad. Ok? Where is the nuclear waste going to be stored. Where it will remain dangerous for longer than humans have existed. Also, many countries just dump their nuclear waste into the ocean. Talk about destruction of habitat!

Molten salt reactors that run on nuclear waste are not new and are maybe 10 years from commercial deployment. They are also light years safer.

Democrats created coal as the alternative to energy and fracking as the alternative to oil. If two points in history are all you need to say no, then why the hell would you trust the think tank that brought is global warming and massive underground damage?

 

[daveman]

First of all, I called a car stereo place once and asked them how loud could you make a car stereo without having to alter your car's engine. Such as the alternator. The stereo person told me that it was basically unlimited. That 40,000 watts was achievable. Which means you could produce a LOT of sound from very little power.

The stereo person was wrong.

Let's say we've got a 2019 Ford F-150 half-ton pickup. We want to put a BANGIN' sound system in it. The factory alternator produces 215 amps. With an output voltage of 13.5 volts, that's only 2,902.5 watts.

It's impossible to get 40,000 watts out of an electrical system capable of producing less than a tenth of that.

I will take your word on that. But even at almost 3000 watts, you could produce a pretty devastating resonant frequency. Especially if you used a horn. As long as the horn didn't screw with the purity of the resonant frequency.

I really don't understand the car-audio connection to splitting water molecules, but the resonant-frequency thing has never been proven, according to this.

There seems to be a lot of crackpot "science" on this, with people making promises they can't deliver, based on a great deal of paranoia about Big Energy.

 

[Dekster]

no need to reinvent the wheel

Nuclear energy is a joke. It is too dangerous, dirty and costly. And when things go bad, there isn't enough money in the world to clean the mess up. So don't give me any crap about how cheap you might think it is. There is already an alternative to any form of energy production that is so effective that you could almost call it perpetual motion. Photovoltaic solar panels.

They produce far more power than it took to create them. That is, from mining the materials they are made out of onwards. They can also produce far more power than the U.S. could ever possibly need. (More than the world could possibly ever need) But it has one major drawback. It is FREE! How do you make money from that. But unfortunately, our country is run by the corrupt lackeys of evil corporations. Such as oil, gas and car companies. And they sure as hell can make money as things now stand.

There is only one problem with solar panels. One that our government isn't the least bit interested in tackling. Infrastructure. Because there is no profit in doing so. When you have solar panels, you also need batteries or capacitors to store energy. Then you need a specialized device to convert the energy to AC and distribute the energy in your house as needed. Then you would probably need a specialized electric meter to feed excess energy back into the grid if necessary.

But the day is fast coming where they will wish they had spent the money. Because once human caused global warming becomes bad enough, no amount of money will fix the problem.

I actually agree with you on this. I'm a big fan of solar.

I'm also a big fan of being energy independent as INDIVIDUALS. Solar can make that possible, though three will always be some need for a "collective" grid, the goal should be to gree ourselves from being dependent on a large business for electricity.

You are never going to be free of large business for energy. Ever.

Lots of people are. It all depends on your personal priorities

With an initial installation cost for solar capable of providing 100% of our current household consumption of $43K-$47K, it is not just a matter of "personal priorities"

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

no need to reinvent the wheel

Nuclear energy is a joke. It is too dangerous, dirty and costly. And when things go bad, there isn't enough money in the world to clean the mess up. So don't give me any crap about how cheap you might think it is. There is already an alternative to any form of energy production that is so effective that you could almost call it perpetual motion. Photovoltaic solar panels.

They produce far more power than it took to create them. That is, from mining the materials they are made out of onwards. They can also produce far more power than the U.S. could ever possibly need. (More than the world could possibly ever need) But it has one major drawback. It is FREE! How do you make money from that. But unfortunately, our country is run by the corrupt lackeys of evil corporations. Such as oil, gas and car companies. And they sure as hell can make money as things now stand.

There is only one problem with solar panels. One that our government isn't the least bit interested in tackling. Infrastructure. Because there is no profit in doing so. When you have solar panels, you also need batteries or capacitors to store energy. Then you need a specialized device to convert the energy to AC and distribute the energy in your house as needed. Then you would probably need a specialized electric meter to feed excess energy back into the grid if necessary.

But the day is fast coming where they will wish they had spent the money. Because once human caused global warming becomes bad enough, no amount of money will fix the problem.

I actually agree with you on this. I'm a big fan of solar.

I'm also a big fan of being energy independent as INDIVIDUALS. Solar can make that possible, though three will always be some need for a "collective" grid, the goal should be to gree ourselves from being dependent on a large business for electricity.

You are never going to be free of large business for energy. Ever.

Lots of people are. It all depends on your personal priorities

With an initial installation cost for solar capable of providing 100% of our current household consumption of $43K-$47K, it is not just a matter of "personal priorities"

I could go solar for 10k if I decided to. I really dont use a lot of electricity though

 

[fncceo]

Also, radiation is bad.

Except, of course, when it's saving your life.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Don't you get it. Putting the water into a furnace that is hot enough will cause the molecular bond of H2O to break. As in combust

It's YOU, not getting it.

First, using intense heat to break apart a water molecule is immensely inefficient.

Second, splitting a water molecule is NOT combustion. It is the OPPOSITE.

Combustion produces energy. SPLITTING water REQUIRES energy.

Far more efficient to use the energy to split water to drive a turbine and generator instead.

Again, you're too smart by half. You are getting rediculous and seem unable to listen to reason.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Also, radiation is bad.

Except, of course, when it's saving your life.

Yep. Radiation is a tool. We can save lives with it, or someday create a Star Trek death ray.

 

[Dekster]

Nuclear energy is a joke. It is too dangerous, dirty and costly. And when things go bad, there isn't enough money in the world to clean the mess up. So don't give me any crap about how cheap you might think it is. There is already an alternative to any form of energy production that is so effective that you could almost call it perpetual motion. Photovoltaic solar panels.

They produce far more power than it took to create them. That is, from mining the materials they are made out of onwards. They can also produce far more power than the U.S. could ever possibly need. (More than the world could possibly ever need) But it has one major drawback. It is FREE! How do you make money from that. But unfortunately, our country is run by the corrupt lackeys of evil corporations. Such as oil, gas and car companies. And they sure as hell can make money as things now stand.

There is only one problem with solar panels. One that our government isn't the least bit interested in tackling. Infrastructure. Because there is no profit in doing so. When you have solar panels, you also need batteries or capacitors to store energy. Then you need a specialized device to convert the energy to AC and distribute the energy in your house as needed. Then you would probably need a specialized electric meter to feed excess energy back into the grid if necessary.

But the day is fast coming where they will wish they had spent the money. Because once human caused global warming becomes bad enough, no amount of money will fix the problem.

I actually agree with you on this. I'm a big fan of solar.

I'm also a big fan of being energy independent as INDIVIDUALS. Solar can make that possible, though three will always be some need for a "collective" grid, the goal should be to gree ourselves from being dependent on a large business for electricity.

You are never going to be free of large business for energy. Ever.

Lots of people are. It all depends on your personal priorities

With an initial installation cost for solar capable of providing 100% of our current household consumption of $43K-$47K, it is not just a matter of "personal priorities"

I could go solar for 10k if I decided to. I really dont use a lot of electricity though

We use about 900KW per month. That $40K + price tag supposedly would return about $30K in revenue over 20 years without about 11 years to recapture the investment but I am rather skeptical 1) it would 2) there would be no additional costs over the 20 years and 3) I will be living here in 20 years

 

[flacaltenn]

This is an idea I came up with over 25 years ago. It is an idea that I came up with about the same time that I came up with a faster than light space drive. I won't get right into the fine detail of this solution to the energy crisis. (But I can direct you to it if you're interested) The material needed to create power isn't coal, oil, nuclear or anything else. It is plain old water! You see, at a certain temperature water or steam will combust. Just as if it was gasoline.When it does so, the gasses from it will be pretty hot. Power could be derived from these hot gasses through magnetohydrodynamics. Apart from that, the preassure from the combustion could be used to turn a turbine. Eventually the gasses will recombine into H2O. Creating a vaccum that would bring the pressure down to what it was in the pre-combustion stage. But before that happens, something could be set up like the engines in a German buzz bomb. Where any drop in pressure would take in air from someplace else besides where the combustion happened. The engineering to create a suitable combustion chamber has been around for at least 50 years.

So giving you the solution, what will you do for me. That is, at this forum. I'm not seeking money or sex.

First you need to have an energy source to heat the water.

Next, water or steam will NOT combust. Steam is just water vapor.

Next, creating a vacuum will require an energy source.


So far, in your "solution" you need an outside energy source in 2 places, and you have produced steam.

You'd be better of running the water between 2 charged plates. One positive and one negative. This will split the water molecules into O2 and H2 components. It has been done on nuclear submarines since at least the 1950s.

Technically, if you heat it to plasma like temperatures you WILL unbond it and combust the hydrogen.. But just combusting the hydrogen is not gonna result in a gain in energy..

Got a better plan.. Take sketchy wind and solar OFF the grid.. Use it separate hydrogen from water and store it.. It's that "free energy" the greenies can't get out of wind/solar on the grid... Because they are NOT alternatives to RELIABLE generators.. THey are merely substitutes.

Using OFF grid wind/solar to produce hydrogen and ethanol and OTHER fuels is a no brainer.. There'd be lots of investments and interest... And the COST of those alternate fuels would go WAY down...

If you combust anything, you will gain power from it. As in the form of pressure. Pressure can be utilized. Also, when you combust anything, there is something else you will get from it. Heat. And when you are also talking about utilizing MHD, energy can also be produced from that.

Another thing is that I said earlier that 2% of water will combust at 3600 F. What if the steam you were injecting into the furnace was already at something like 3000F. Then getting it up to the proper combustion temperature wouldn't take all that much added heat.

You also bring up photovoltaic solar panels. Your anti alternative energy cult is one I can easily smash. Are you still paying attention? Good. I brought up earlier that even though they use the sun, solar panels are the closest thing we have to perpetual motion. in so much that that they create far more energy than was needed to create them. A lack of sunlight isn't a problem either. Because there is always (during the day) sunlight somewhere. And we transmit energy today, don't we. Another thing is that you use enough solar panels to create three times the energy you need. That way, with the use of batteries, you can always produce enough energy.

If you are thinking of banning me, I will tell you something else about using water to create energy. So that if you do ban me, hopefully this will make you feel bad for doing so. First of all, I called a car stereo place once and asked them how loud could you make a car stereo without having to alter your car's engine. Such as the alternator. The stereo person told me that it was basically unlimited. That 40,000 watts was achievable. Which means you could produce a LOT of sound from very little power.

Now all matter has a sonic resonant frequency that will disrupt it. That would have to include the H2O molecule. What if you shot such a frequency down a long tube filled with water or steam. You would then separate the molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. (At the very least it could make the amount of energy needed for electrolysis much less) This mixture might directly be used to cause ignition. I don't remember what the hydrogen and oxygen mixture used in the space shuttle was. But for proper ignition, the ratio of hydrogen and oxygen would need to be the same.

Getting back to electrolysis to separate the hydrogen and oxygen atoms. As that the atoms would already be freed from each other from sonic disruption, it wouldn't take all that much electrolysis to get the gasses to move in the direction you wanted them to go for collection. Not only that, you would likely be using DC. Which means a polarity. Strong neodymium magnets could be used to supplement this polarity. Maybe it would make any electrolysis unnecessary.

If the ONLY thing you get out is pressure -- after putting all that energy in -- CONGRATS MAN -- you've invented the steam engine... Of course even THAT is NOT an energy source.. Think I'll just skip your opinions on solar and wind after reading this thread...

If you are thinking of banning me, I will tell you something else about using water to create energy. So that if you do ban me, hopefully this will make you feel bad for doing so. First of all, I called a car stereo place once and asked them how loud could you make a car stereo without having to alter your car's engine. Such as the alternator. The stereo person told me that it was basically unlimited. That 40,000 watts was achievable. Which means you could produce a LOT of sound from very little power.

You are seriously challenged technically.. When you go to a concert and see those monstrous racks of amplifiers --- I bet you believe all that sound didn't require "much energy"... That's because you're way ignorant about amplifiers.. They consume energy to move a LOT of air.. You can move a LOT OF AIR with either 5Volts or 220Volts.. But what gets USED IS CURRENT.. And alternators have limits on currents.. That's why there is 20 fuse fuse box in your car...

That stereo guy quoting the 40,000 Watts wants to redesign you ENTIRE CAR electrical system.. Typical alternator is 50 Amps.. Full load to EVERTHING without battery banks is 1200Watts at FULL speed.. Not even that idling or slugging along.. So I figure with a 1000 AMP alternator (if you can find one to fit) AND a 100 pound battery bank to get you thru stoplights ---- YOU MIGHT SOMETIMES have about 10,000 Watts to your stereo before the headlights dim out... Only ought to cost you a year's wages to make those mods...

 

[Unkotare]

no need to reinvent the wheel

Nuclear energy is a joke. It is too dangerous, dirty and costly. And when things go bad, there isn't enough money in the world to clean the mess up. So don't give me any crap about how cheap you might think it is. There is already an alternative to any form of energy production that is so effective that you could almost call it perpetual motion. Photovoltaic solar panels.

They produce far more power than it took to create them. That is, from mining the materials they are made out of onwards. They can also produce far more power than the U.S. could ever possibly need. (More than the world could possibly ever need) But it has one major drawback. It is FREE! How do you make money from that. But unfortunately, our country is run by the corrupt lackeys of evil corporations. Such as oil, gas and car companies. And they sure as hell can make money as things now stand.

There is only one problem with solar panels. One that our government isn't the least bit interested in tackling. Infrastructure. Because there is no profit in doing so. When you have solar panels, you also need batteries or capacitors to store energy. Then you need a specialized device to convert the energy to AC and distribute the energy in your house as needed. Then you would probably need a specialized electric meter to feed excess energy back into the grid if necessary.

But the day is fast coming where they will wish they had spent the money. Because once human caused global warming becomes bad enough, no amount of money will fix the problem.

I actually agree with you on this. I'm a big fan of solar.

I'm also a big fan of being energy independent as INDIVIDUALS. Solar can make that possible, though three will always be some need for a "collective" grid, the goal should be to gree ourselves from being dependent on a large business for electricity.

You are never going to be free of large business for energy. Ever.

Unless you murder, kill and slaughter. But I'm not allowed to talk about the philosophical justice in doing so around here.

How many times are you going to bitch about what you imagine (or want people to believe) you "are not allowed to talk about" here?

 

[fullpower]

no need to reinvent the wheel

Nuclear energy is a joke. It is too dangerous, dirty and costly. And when things go bad, there isn't enough money in the world to clean the mess up. So don't give me any crap about how cheap you might think it is. There is already an alternative to any form of energy production that is so effective that you could almost call it perpetual motion. Photovoltaic solar panels.

They produce far more power than it took to create them. That is, from mining the materials they are made out of onwards. They can also produce far more power than the U.S. could ever possibly need. (More than the world could possibly ever need) But it has one major drawback. It is FREE! How do you make money from that. But unfortunately, our country is run by the corrupt lackeys of evil corporations. Such as oil, gas and car companies. And they sure as hell can make money as things now stand.

There is only one problem with solar panels. One that our government isn't the least bit interested in tackling. Infrastructure. Because there is no profit in doing so. When you have solar panels, you also need batteries or capacitors to store energy. Then you need a specialized device to convert the energy to AC and distribute the energy in your house as needed. Then you would probably need a specialized electric meter to feed excess energy back into the grid if necessary.

But the day is fast coming where they will wish they had spent the money. Because once human caused global warming becomes bad enough, no amount of money will fix the problem.

Solar takes 450 times as much land to create the same energy as nuclear. Solar is more carbon intensive than nuclear. nuclear is the only solution that does not destroy habitat.

Who cares about how much land it takes. There are enough rooftops in the U.S. to equal the size of a fairly large state. And there is so much useless dessert in the U.S., solar panels wouldn't be hurting anything. In fact, it may help. As for destroying the habitat, maybe I could interest you in some land around Fukushima or Chernobyl. Chernobyl would especially nice for you. Its core is only expected to stay dangerous for about the next 4.5 billion years.

Also, radiation is bad. Ok? Where is the nuclear waste going to be stored. Where it will remain dangerous for longer than humans have existed. Also, many countries just dump their nuclear waste into the ocean. Talk about destruction of habitat!

Molten salt reactors that run on nuclear waste are not new and are maybe 10 years from commercial deployment. They are also light years safer.

Democrats created coal as the alternative to energy and fracking as the alternative to oil. If two points in history are all you need to say no, then why the hell would you trust the think tank that brought is global warming and massive underground damage?

There is no such thing as safe nuclear energy. Apart from maybe an H3 fusion reactor. From what I hear. But that is just pie in the sky.

 

[fullpower]

First of all, I called a car stereo place once and asked them how loud could you make a car stereo without having to alter your car's engine. Such as the alternator. The stereo person told me that it was basically unlimited. That 40,000 watts was achievable. Which means you could produce a LOT of sound from very little power.

The stereo person was wrong.

Let's say we've got a 2019 Ford F-150 half-ton pickup. We want to put a BANGIN' sound system in it. The factory alternator produces 215 amps. With an output voltage of 13.5 volts, that's only 2,902.5 watts.

It's impossible to get 40,000 watts out of an electrical system capable of producing less than a tenth of that.

I will take your word on that. But even at almost 3000 watts, you could produce a pretty devastating resonant frequency. Especially if you used a horn. As long as the horn didn't screw with the purity of the resonant frequency.

I really don't understand the car-audio connection to splitting water molecules, but the resonant-frequency thing has never been proven, according to this.

There seems to be a lot of crackpot "science" on this, with people making promises they can't deliver, based on a great deal of paranoia about Big Energy.

First of all, I am not a scientist. So I couldn't tell you for sure that the right kind of resonant frequency would actually break the molecular bond of H2O. I know that the right kind of resonant frequency can break apart solid matter. But an actual H2O molecule probably has some plasticity to it. Even then, there may be a resonant frequency that will disrupt it. Or maybe it will just make it a bit unstable. Allowing electrolysis to work at a much lower energy input.

You know, I started out with the combustion of water. All of this talk of using the proper resonant frequency to break the molecular bond of H2O is just spitballing ideas. Maybe some scientist out there will hear of this and it will give him some ideas. Because one thing is for sure. If you could find an efficient and low power way of separating H2O into their component gasses and collecting them, a lot of energy can be derived from their combustion. With no pollution. Other than some heat.

 

[fullpower]

no need to reinvent the wheel

Nuclear energy is a joke. It is too dangerous, dirty and costly. And when things go bad, there isn't enough money in the world to clean the mess up. So don't give me any crap about how cheap you might think it is. There is already an alternative to any form of energy production that is so effective that you could almost call it perpetual motion. Photovoltaic solar panels.

They produce far more power than it took to create them. That is, from mining the materials they are made out of onwards. They can also produce far more power than the U.S. could ever possibly need. (More than the world could possibly ever need) But it has one major drawback. It is FREE! How do you make money from that. But unfortunately, our country is run by the corrupt lackeys of evil corporations. Such as oil, gas and car companies. And they sure as hell can make money as things now stand.

There is only one problem with solar panels. One that our government isn't the least bit interested in tackling. Infrastructure. Because there is no profit in doing so. When you have solar panels, you also need batteries or capacitors to store energy. Then you need a specialized device to convert the energy to AC and distribute the energy in your house as needed. Then you would probably need a specialized electric meter to feed excess energy back into the grid if necessary.

But the day is fast coming where they will wish they had spent the money. Because once human caused global warming becomes bad enough, no amount of money will fix the problem.

I actually agree with you on this. I'm a big fan of solar.

I'm also a big fan of being energy independent as INDIVIDUALS. Solar can make that possible, though three will always be some need for a "collective" grid, the goal should be to gree ourselves from being dependent on a large business for electricity.

You are never going to be free of large business for energy. Ever.

Lots of people are. It all depends on your personal priorities

With an initial installation cost for solar capable of providing 100% of our current household consumption of $43K-$47K, it is not just a matter of "personal priorities"

You know, it doesn't matter if the initial installation cost is $500,000. The point is that it would still be worth the price. Because the time is quickly coming where NO amount of money will fix the problem. And this is a price the Government should pick up. And don't tell me thy can't afford it. Each year the U.S. flushes around 420 billion just on the interest of our national debt without even blinking. Also, from what I hear, Germany had invested into solar power in a big way. And even they don't receive as much sunlight as the U.S., they are making it work. But then again, a lot of that probably comes from being descendants of Nazis. When it comes to superior intelligence on this point, the apple doesn't fall fer from the tree.

 

[Dekster]

Nuclear energy is a joke. It is too dangerous, dirty and costly. And when things go bad, there isn't enough money in the world to clean the mess up. So don't give me any crap about how cheap you might think it is. There is already an alternative to any form of energy production that is so effective that you could almost call it perpetual motion. Photovoltaic solar panels.

They produce far more power than it took to create them. That is, from mining the materials they are made out of onwards. They can also produce far more power than the U.S. could ever possibly need. (More than the world could possibly ever need) But it has one major drawback. It is FREE! How do you make money from that. But unfortunately, our country is run by the corrupt lackeys of evil corporations. Such as oil, gas and car companies. And they sure as hell can make money as things now stand.

There is only one problem with solar panels. One that our government isn't the least bit interested in tackling. Infrastructure. Because there is no profit in doing so. When you have solar panels, you also need batteries or capacitors to store energy. Then you need a specialized device to convert the energy to AC and distribute the energy in your house as needed. Then you would probably need a specialized electric meter to feed excess energy back into the grid if necessary.

But the day is fast coming where they will wish they had spent the money. Because once human caused global warming becomes bad enough, no amount of money will fix the problem.

I actually agree with you on this. I'm a big fan of solar.

I'm also a big fan of being energy independent as INDIVIDUALS. Solar can make that possible, though three will always be some need for a "collective" grid, the goal should be to gree ourselves from being dependent on a large business for electricity.

You are never going to be free of large business for energy. Ever.

Lots of people are. It all depends on your personal priorities

With an initial installation cost for solar capable of providing 100% of our current household consumption of $43K-$47K, it is not just a matter of "personal priorities"

You know, it doesn't matter if the initial installation cost is $500,000. The point is that it would still be worth the price. Because the time is quickly coming where NO amount of money will fix the problem. And this is a price the Government should pick up. And don't tell me thy can't afford it. Each year the U.S. flushes around 420 billion just on the interest of our national debt without even blinking. Also, from what I hear, Germany had invested into solar power in a big way. And even they don't receive as much sunlight as the U.S., they are making it work. But then again, a lot of that probably comes from being descendants of Nazis. When it comes to superior intelligence on this point, the apple doesn't fall fer from the tree.

Most of that flushing interest is money the government pays directly or indirectly to itself through intergovernmental holdings of returns from the federal reserve. If you want to spend $500K putting solar on your roof go right ahead. In the meantime nuclear is the only viable option.