RENEWABLE ENERGIES

[kemist]

Should T&T go solar while we can still afford to implement that technology?
Once the oil and gas are depleted we may not be able to afford that.

Another renewable energy, ethanol, is picking up pace in the research arena. Since ethanol can be sourced from sugar cane, the cane might just live again. Hopefully the government wont give away all of caroni's agricultural lands to build shopping malls (lol).

What about hydro electric power? I'm not an expert in that so if there are any engineers out there, whats the potential of setting that up in t'dad? Since this country has money to burn right now, why not build a dam in the gulf of paria? (lol). I know that our rivers cannot compare to the niagra falls, but since we are an island surrounded by water, with rivers flowing through, is it plausible to set up a plant somewhere?

[Solachica]

I've been asking why we haven't set up solar power panels everywhere yet.
The response is tht its expensive. But with so much $$$ in the country can't they see it as an investment.

Also why can't they use wind energy.

Am not to sure abt the rivers as an energy source. I've been told wht we called rivers are only glorified canals. lol

[kemist]

i was told that wind energy may not be practical with the current technology since it is not very efficient and may take an entire coastline of windmills to produce energy for less than half the country.

I am sure the government could afford to setup solar panels on all government buildings and schools.
All we have to do is follow what the Germans did with their solar power industry, and within 5-10 years, our local consumption of oil for electricity would be significantly reduced. The only one who stakes to lose from this would be Powergen.
One argument is that T'dad only uses a fraction of the oil it produces for local consumption. Fair enough, but i'd just like to prepare for the day when we got no oil at all.

[discipuli]

its economically unfeasible since burning oil is so much cheaper than anything else , when oil reaches 150 dollars a barrel... maybe.

In any event solar and wind can't replace fossil fuels... Both are expensive , consume stupid amounts of space and aren't reliable , no energy at night etc...



the only real candidate is nuclear power , or perhaps space based solar collectors .

[BW]

I've been asking why we haven't set up solar power panels everywhere yet.
The response is tht its expensive. But with so much $$$ in the country can't they see it as an investment.

Solar panels would be an absolutely horrible investment at this point in time. The technology isn't standing still, and in a couple of years we are going to see panels that have a hundred times the efficiency and cells with a hundred times the capacity as current models. There won't be a reason for anyone to use the primitive, highly inefficient stuff we have now.

It makes far more sense for us to hold off on solar until the technology becomes more mature, and some of the major breakthroughs have been incorporated into end-products. Thanks to our fine endowment of oil and gas, we actually have that option, unlike our neighbors in Barbados or Grenada.

---
Also, growing sugar for fuel (ethanol) makes very little sense for us. The main issue is that we have very limited land space, would be more wisely used for food production.

If we devote more land to sugar, then the production of other crops will suffer (since there are definite limits on our agricultural capacity). That means, we would expect to see an increase in the prices of fruits, vegetables, rice, and other staples. That in turn will raise the prices on meats, eggs, dairy, livestock etc.. (you get the idea).

Biofuel production is a major reason why food prices are going up across the world. If we started biofuel production locally, the effect would be even worse for us.

[Solachica]

Thanks for tht. Intresting :)

[strombo23]

Biofuel...land and rate of cellulose generation vs cumsumtpion is the limiting factor.
Solar...watts produced per unit area is stil small. however, household applications can be feasable.
Nuclear is the future.

[Sirius]

What we should be doing is putting money into an account so we can access it when comes time to set up alternative sources of energy. As has been pointed out, solar panels are not efficient enough yet, but that will change in later years. Hydroelectric is pretty much a no-go here in T&T...wind generation might be an option. However, not on a wide scale. It can work to power maybe farmland or a single town.

Space based solar collectors as discipuli mentioned is really the best bet. Unfortunately, it will be a long time before the technology is put to use and when it does, rest assured we will have to purchase beamed power from another nation since we will not have the resources to place our own collector in orbit. Unless as a regional effort, perhaps. Space based collection will give us access to incredible amounts of relatively inexhaustible energy.

[Riptide]

Alternative fuels are derived from resources other than petroleum. Some are produced domestically, reducing our dependence on imported oil, and some are derived from renewable sources. Often, they produce less pollution than gasoline or diesel.
To promote alternative fuels, the Federal government offers tax incentives to consumers purchasing qualifying alternative fuel vehicles.

Ethanol is produced domestically from corn and other crops and produces less greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels.

Biodiesel is derived from vegetable oils and animal fats. It usually produces less air pollutants than petroleum-based diesel.

Natural gas is a fossil fuel that generates less air pollutants and greenhouse gases.

Propane, also called liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), is a domestically abundant fossil fuel that generates less harmful air pollutants and greenhouse gases.

Hydrogen can be produced domestically from fossil fuels (such as coal), nuclear power, or renewable resources, such as hydropower. Fuel cell vehicles powered by pure hydrogen emit no harmful air pollutants.

MORE INFO: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/current.shtml

AND http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_fuel

[brag]

What about the use of ocean or salt water to produce elecrtricity? Huge platforms can be built in the ocean to produce fuel for homes. Is that different from hydrogpower?

[fluxxx]

Our rivers do not transfer sufficient energy in order to be considered as a potential power source. As for solar energy, you would need to cover 5-10 percent of your entire land area with panels in order to provide suffcient energy for domestic useage. However something that i've never heard ANYONE in Trinidad consider is using tidal power flowing through the Bocas. This could supply a renewable energy source in quntities that would significantly reduce our domestic generation needs.

[brag]

I believe that the late Dr Rudranath Capildeo spoke about it several yeras ago.

[Jenny]

I think that BPTT has a project on for Solar Water heating, not sure how many homes have it for testing though, but its a start.

As for wind power the technology is expensive, it has gone down in price but cheaper to use fossil fuels at the moment. Also, wind energy cant be stored so if wind not blowing = no power.

At the moment there is the option of buying a little wind turbine or solar panels in Scotland to be attached to your home, but I think it needs planning permission and the wind turbine is a bit noisy so I got a no go from my neighbours...

[TRVC]

Biofuel...land and rate of cellulose generation vs cumsumtpion is the limiting factor.
Solar...watts produced per unit area is stil small. however, household applications can be feasable.
Nuclear is the future.
Considering how good we are at maintaining things and making sure accidents can never happen nuclear power is just about the last option I would recommend for Trinidad.
Also, nobody on earth knows what to do with the nuclear waste that it generates. This remains poisonous and lethally dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years, i.e. for longer than the human species has been around on earth. (Or approximately 100 times the length of time that creationists believe we have already been in existence.) In summary, nuclear is a really bad idea/solution.

[Sirius]

Nuclear fusion reactors will be able to provide a lot of power without the risks involved in the fission reactors in use today. If a fusion reaction goes wrong, it just stops - much unlike fission where you can have incidents like Chernobyl. Waste products are for the most part helium (harmless) and tritium. Tritium is only a concern if in large quantities such as a global nuclear fusion economy, and even so it has a short half-life anyway (12 years) preventing endless buildup.

We may start seeing commercial fusion reactors around mid-century.I cannot however see us using a whole fusion reactor. If we go that route, it will be a regional power supply and not local.

As time goes by though I think the future in power generation lies in orbiting solar panels that send the power back to paying, Earth-bound stations. That's a long way off though...

[brag]

It seems like in the long run, solar energy may prove to be the cleanest and best source of most of the world's supply of energy. The article below speaks about the abundance of solar energy still untapped by most of the countries of the world.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/New_ ... 667294.cms (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/New_use_for_heat_from_asphalt/articleshow/2667294.cms)

New use for heat from asphalt
2 Jan 2008, 0050 hrs IST,AP

SCHARWOUDE (NETHERLANDS): If you've ever blistered your bare feet on a hot road you know that asphalt absorbs the Sun's energy. A Dutch company is now siphoning heat from roads and parking lots to heat homes and offices.

As climate change rises on the international agenda, the system built by the civil engineering firm, Ooms Avenhorn Holding BV, doesn't look as wacky as it might have 10 years ago when first conceived.

Solar energy collected from a 200-yard stretch of road and a small parking lot helps heat a 70-unit four-story apartment building in the northern village of Avenhorn. An industrial park of some 160,000 square feet in the nearby city of Hoorn is kept warm in winter with the help of heat stored during the summer from 36,000 square feet of pavement. The runways of a Dutch air force base in the south supply heat for its hangar.

And all that under normally cloudy Dutch skies, with only a few days a year of truly sweltering temperatures.

The Road Energy System is one of the more unusual ways scientists and engineers are trying to harness the power of the sun, the single most plentiful, reliable, accessible and inexhaustible source of renewable energy — radiating to earth more watts in one hour than the world can use in a whole year.

But today, solar power provides just 0.04% of global energy, held back by high production costs and low efficiency rates. Solar advocates say that will change within a few years.

Other renewable sources have drawbacks: Not every place is breezy enough for wind turbines; waves and tides are good only for coastal regions; hydroelectricity requires rivers and increasingly objectionable dams; biofuels take up land once used solely for food crops. "But solar falls everywhere," says Patrick Mazza, of Climate Solutions, a consultancy group in Seattle, Washington. Compared with other energy sources, "solar comes out as the one with the real heavy lift. It's the one we really need to get at," he said.

Ooms' thermal energy system is actually a spin-off from attempts to reduce road maintenance and costs. A latticework of flexible pipes, held in place by a grid, is covered over by asphalt, which magnifies the sun's thermal power. As water in the pipes is heated, it is pumped deep under the ground to natural aquifers where it maintains a fairly constant temperature of about 20° C. The heated water can be retrieved months later to keep the road surface ice-free in winter.

[kemist]

As time goes by though I think the future in power generation lies in orbiting solar panels that send the power back to paying, Earth-bound stations. That's a long way off though...


I read an article about that at

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology ... 017-1.html (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/solar_power_sats_011017-1.html)

It does indeed looks like its a loooong way off. By that time we may master cold fusion :D

[kemist]

It seems like in the long run, solar energy may prove to be the cleanest and best source of most of the world's supply of energy. The article below speaks about the abundance of solar energy still untapped by most of the countries of the world.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/New_ ... 667294.cms (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/New_use_for_heat_from_asphalt/articleshow/2667294.cms)

New use for heat from asphalt
2 Jan 2008, 0050 hrs IST,AP

SCHARWOUDE (NETHERLANDS): If you've ever blistered your bare feet on a hot road you know that asphalt absorbs the Sun's energy. A Dutch company is now siphoning heat from roads and parking lots to heat homes and offices.

As climate change rises on the international agenda, the system built by the civil engineering firm, Ooms Avenhorn Holding BV, doesn't look as wacky as it might have 10 years ago when first conceived.

Solar energy collected from a 200-yard stretch of road and a small parking lot helps heat a 70-unit four-story apartment building in the northern village of Avenhorn. An industrial park of some 160,000 square feet in the nearby city of Hoorn is kept warm in winter with the help of heat stored during the summer from 36,000 square feet of pavement. The runways of a Dutch air force base in the south supply heat for its hangar.

And all that under normally cloudy Dutch skies, with only a few days a year of truly sweltering temperatures.

The Road Energy System is one of the more unusual ways scientists and engineers are trying to harness the power of the sun, the single most plentiful, reliable, accessible and inexhaustible source of renewable energy — radiating to earth more watts in one hour than the world can use in a whole year.

But today, solar power provides just 0.04% of global energy, held back by high production costs and low efficiency rates. Solar advocates say that will change within a few years.

Other renewable sources have drawbacks: Not every place is breezy enough for wind turbines; waves and tides are good only for coastal regions; hydroelectricity requires rivers and increasingly objectionable dams; biofuels take up land once used solely for food crops. "But solar falls everywhere," says Patrick Mazza, of Climate Solutions, a consultancy group in Seattle, Washington. Compared with other energy sources, "solar comes out as the one with the real heavy lift. It's the one we really need to get at," he said.

Ooms' thermal energy system is actually a spin-off from attempts to reduce road maintenance and costs. A latticework of flexible pipes, held in place by a grid, is covered over by asphalt, which magnifies the sun's thermal power. As water in the pipes is heated, it is pumped deep under the ground to natural aquifers where it maintains a fairly constant temperature of about 20° C. The heated water can be retrieved months later to keep the road surface ice-free in winter.



Interesting article there. It now has me wondering about our own pitch lake. Like what are the temperatures just beneath the surface on a hot sunny day. Could it get hot enough to turn water into steam (to drive a turbine)?

[Roo]

Biofuel...land and rate of cellulose generation vs cumsumtpion is the limiting factor.

Also the possibility of bioterrorism...and the fact that once you turn a food item into a biofuel it drives up the costs. The biofuels come from cheap food sources that are staples to many poorer nations...this creates an untenable situation where poor countries who could afford food items previously are now starving or totally having to change their cooking in order to eliminate that now overpriced item.

Biofuels are the worst alternative.

[punjabtrini]

Renewable energies has to be grounded in simplicity while holding down the costs associated with unbridled use of 'hooked-up' technology like modern day electronic systems!

In T&T, that could mean taking advantage of the sun through skylights, insulation and room locations. I am not up on the present innovations but one could save 10-30% of energy costs with this.
Window design can also help with air circulation with room configuration and that is another 10-20%.

Check out the principles of Vaastu with building technology/architecture.

[brag]

The Indians have discovered that the seeds from one of their wild plants, something like our Trini physic nut, can be used to produce bio diesel, and they are planning to grow it on arid lands where it grows well and adds no disadvantage to human food supply.

[roger]

How will solar or wind energy help to move us forward in the transportation industry? Solar energy is inferior to hydrocarbon fuels insofar as the performance of a vehicle in terms of acceleration/ power is concerned.

The other question is: how feasible will it be to harness fossil fuels (ie oil and gas) for powering vehicles only while using solar energy for domestic and other uses, which is what you might want to propose next?

Roger

[roger]

I believe that there is a better alternative to solving the energy problem than nuclear, solar etc energies: a type of energy that is more versatile than all these in that it can be used in almost all the same applications as fossil fuels and can be produced anywhere in the world.

Roger

[maribunta]

Biodiesel from copra!!

[roger]

"Biodiesel from copra!!"

***I don't know if this is in relation to my last post but I certainly had something a bit more sophisticated than that in mind.

On the trivial side I think "vieux mal" or "taw day" would be a more suitable name for that, my favorite, singing bird.

Roger

[brag]

Is it water from the sea--salt water?

[roger]

[quote] "Is it water from the sea--salt water?"

*** No, it is more sophisticated than that. There is a simpler way of referring to this energy but for security purposes I refer to it harnessing the gravity field of a material object.

Roger

[Sirius]

Security purposes?

I somehow get the impression you're speaking about zero-point energy. We have a very, very long way to go before we can harness that kind of energy source.

[roger]

[quote] Security purposes?

*** Yes but not national security it is rather patent security in which certain disclosures cannot be made.


[quote] I somehow get the impression you're speaking about zero-point energy. We have a very, very long way to go before we can harness that kind of energy source.

*** If we were playing the long time game "nancy tweet, tweet, tweet!" I would say zero point energy is in the smoke.

Roger

[Sirius]

I thought I saw something about harnessing the gravity around an object; zero-point energy to my knowledge does make use of something along those lines.

There is also an inertia based device, but developing one that puts out more energy than it consumes is a big challenge - admittedly one barrier against fusion for a long time.

It would seem you are talking about some exotic means of power generation. I still say though that the future lies in orbiting solar collectors. Such technology would provide power for the electrical grid that can then lead to manufacturing of such devices as more efficient hydrogen fuel cells etc for vehicles and other engines.

[roger]

[quote] I thought I saw something about harnessing the gravity around an object; zero-point energy to my knowledge does make use of something along those lines.

*** That is exactly how the concept of zero point energy is presented: in a nebulous manner, and that is why I say scientists are not very close to developing the technology to harness it.

They can't tell whether it is "vacuum energy", "black hole energy", "zero point", "gravity" etc or whether they all are the same. This shows that a proper understanding of the phenomenon is not yet developed and I think it will be somewhat difficult to proceed if ideas are blotchy.

It couild also be that some scientists do have correct ideas but are deliberately giving out confusing signals to keep others from getting on to discoveries.
For general information however, the energy that might be present in a vacuum, or vacuum energy, is energy from the gravity field of the object or of matter surrounding the object.

The 'suction' produced by black holes is due to the gravity field of the dense mass of matter in the black hole.

When matter is in the form of plasma there are no structured atoms within it and hence no electron shells to define boundaries that could describe shape or size: matter then simply behaves as a field of forces pulling towards the center of the mass. Here again the field of forces is a gravity field.

Therefore to produce useful gravity energy from an object all that is needed is to transform the object to one that starts to become more like plasma (the substance of blackholes, stars, protons, nuclei etc.).

The electromagnetic field of an alternating current is due to the wire through which the current flows experiencing transient states of being "plasma like". And electromagnetism is currently used successfully to power high speed trains so the technology is not far away.

If Trinidad was really serious about developed country status, rather than play catch up on the rest of the world by simply importing monorail technology from somebody else, we would be seeking to be at the cutting edge of development by being the first to develop this kind of energy of which we are speaking here.


[quote] There is also an inertia based device, but developing one that puts out more energy than it consumes is a big challenge - admittedly one barrier against fusion for a long time.

*** I will not even give inertia based devices a second glance.


[quote] It would seem you are talking about some exotic means of power generation. I still say though that the future lies in orbiting solar collectors. Such technology would provide power for the electrical grid that can then lead to manufacturing of such devices as more efficient hydrogen fuel cells etc for vehicles and other engines.

*** If my sense of what the bookmakers are looking for is correct I don't think solar energy is the answer.

What is really on the minds of the scientific elite is space travel and exploring new frontiers even beyond our solar system. They are therefore looking for fuel and technology that will propel us over these astronomical distances through space.

They might be experimenting with solar (and other forms of) energy on earth under the guise of needing to solve a non existent world energy problem whereas in fact their eyes are on space travel and other areas of scientific advancement.

Solar energy turns out to be a somewhat bleak proposal in this regard since the services of the sun or other stars cannot be guranteed over the distance of these long journeys in any quest to reach distant planets.

In addition, the mass of material for the solar cells for the spacecraft might be so high that it will be necessary to be virtually at the surface of the sun before these cells can harness energy at a renewable rate in propelling both the weight of the spacecraft plus their own weight through space.

And last but not least, though it exists, the world of science seems to be unaware of technology other than propellant fuel that will propel an object through space or a vacuum so to them solar power is useless for space travel.

The type of energy I referred to at the beginning does not have the constraint of being limited in capacity as solar energy, rocket propellants or other forms of energy do.

This is the type of 2020 vision I will like Trinidad and Tobago to invest in once we can get pass our everyday needs of good governance and proper management of government business that is the development of this new energy technology.

Roger

[Sirius]

Re: Solar cells

The idea is that in a couple years solar cells would be sufficiently developed to utilize them for powering of the electrical grid here on Earth.

With regard to its use in space travel, it is well known that solar is not an effective means of power generation beyond the orbit of around Jupiter. That is one of the reasons long range probes have used gravitational assisted slingshots and ion drive engines for propulsion, and the decay of radioactive material to provide electrical power - the reason the Voyager probes can still phone home today, decades after their launch.

The future of space propulsion lies in nuclear energies - specifically fusion and the longer term such technologies as solar sails and antimatter. I would say such is also the case here on Earth - nuclear and antimatter that is. However, fusion technologies are several decades away from commercial use and antimatter over a century so the question is what do we use in the interim?

What is the real barrier preventing solar energy from being properly utilized here on Earth? To use your reference of space travel as an example; if vehicles on the surface of Mars, the International Space Station and the planned outpost on the Moon's south pole can be powered by solar energies, then why not our Earthly electrical grid? I understand there are limitations to solar in the areas of jet engines and the like, but there are other technologies that can be applied there.

[roger]

[quote] The future of space propulsion lies in nuclear energies

*** Recently I saw on the net a Call for Papers on energy sources that will produce energy at a rate of Jules/ cubic meter equivalent to more than 6 times of what I estimate gasoline will yield.

We already have nuclear energy yet the search is on for more efficient sources. And why is that so? Simply because nuclear energy is too expensive.

The amount of energy derived from one m3 of radioactive material, whether by fusion or fission, still means that a prohibitive volume of material will be required in order to reach the space frontiers scientists hope to reach.

The CERN lab/ particle accelerator is geared towards investigating matter to see whether something more could be learned about it that will enable scientists to glean more energy out of matter than they are presently able to do by nuclear reactions.

I believe I know enough about matter to know that mc2 is about the limit of energy one will ever be able to derive as nuclear energy. So my view is that nuclear energy is the present NOT the future of space propulsion.

Have you ever heard of the Gravitator? If so tell me what you think of it. In my view that could be the future of space travel.


[quote] ...so the question is what do we use in the interim?

*** In the interim we have oil and gas.


[quote] What is the real barrier preventing solar energy from being properly utilized here on Earth? ,

*** It is said that necessity is the mother of invention. Solar energy is not utilized because there is no need for it while oil and gas are still standing.

Roger

[Sirius]

I can concede that nuclear is today's means of space travel - though loosely speaking. To me, it seems as though we will be using nuclear until we develop antimatter.

However, with regards to the gravitator...I presume you are speaking about the proposed method of propulsion used by UFOs? Correct me if I am wrong. The characteristics are a drive system where electric currents are applied to create gravitational fields, and the resultant force propels the vehicle through space silently on electric power. BUT! Would that required electricity not need to be generated through some other means?

If such technology is developed to its fullest potential I can certainly see it being used for space flight. I foresee such a vehicle being able to accelerate at a steady rate of 1g which after taking relativity into consideration can mean travel to the nearest stars in a few short years (at least to the perception of those aboard) while experiencing earth-like conditions en route. Such exotic high speed systems would mean cheap and easy access to all bodies within our solar system and change some of the fundamental ideas of life as we know it.

All well and good, but I have a hard time seeing such a system in operation during our lifetimes. Without it being available within the next half-century or so, I consider it a bit beyond "tomorrow". Then again, who knows? Fifty years ago we would never have dreamed of the world we live in today.

Of course, not diverting from the thread...a gravitator if developed can certainly find its place in mass transit and air travel!

[roger]

[quote] To me, it seems as though we will be using nuclear until we develop antimatter.

*** Does this mean that you think we will be using nuclear forever, or is it that we will be calling matter by the new name of "antimatter"?

What is antimatter?

[quote] However, with regards to the gravitator...I presume you are speaking about the proposed method of propulsion used by UFOs? Correct me if I am wrong. The characteristics are a drive system where electric currents are applied to create gravitational fields, and the resultant force propels the vehicle through space silently on electric power. BUT!

*** I don't know about the UFOs part but otherwise you are quite right.

Once it is understood that it is humanly possible to propel a vehicle through space without the use of a propellant then I believe we are well on the way to futuristic space travel.

Concerning the UFO issue it seems clear to me that there is a conspiracy theory in operation here: this type of technology was discovered nearly 100 years ago, before the electric motor, but seeing that 100 years later the whole world is referring to it as alien technology used by extraterrestrials then clearly someone must be militarily preserving a secret.


[quote] Would that required electricity not need to be generated through some other means?

*** Of course there is need to generate that electricity but the same principle of creating gravitational fields by electrical means is the form of energy that in my view has the potential of being much more efficient in terms of Joules/ m3 than any kind of nuclear energy.


[quote] If such technology is developed to its fullest potential I can certainly see it being used for space flight. I foresee such a vehicle being able to accelerate at a steady rate of 1g which after taking relativity into consideration can mean travel to the nearest stars in a few short years (at least to the perception of those aboard) while experiencing earth-like conditions en route. Such exotic high speed systems would mean cheap and easy access to all bodies within our solar system and change some of the fundamental ideas of life as we know it.

*** You are thinking! I give you an "A" for these comments.

My only exception to this comment is that "relativity" is not an issue. In fact, in my view, that theory is one of the mistakes made by Professor Einstein.

The real problems at such high speeds will be:

1. Keeping the spacecraft in tact. Even though the very field that is propelling the spacecraft tends to deflect particles away from it, it seems near impossible to prevent it from disintegrating, as a particle in a nuclear reactor does, as a result of relatively fast moving particles in the atmosphere.

2. Navigation. Instruments might not be able to pick up signals (from electromagnetic waves) and avoiding collision with objects in space will be difficult.


[quote] All well and good, but I have a hard time seeing such a system in operation during our lifetimes.

***Why so? You have already visualized that system. Is it that you see that there is enough on our plate at present to keep us too busy than to be able to distract resources towards it?


[quote] Of course, not diverting from the thread...a gravitator if developed can certainly find its place in mass transit and air travel!

*** Certainly. I saw a Bruce Willis movie in which flying cars were featured. The movie makers are well ahead of the game.

Roger

[Sirius]

I refer to antimatter in terms of particles that are the reverse of matter. To my knowledge we have produced it in small quantities but not close to what would be needed to use as an energy source. Colliding a particle with an antiparticle releases significantly more energy than a nuclear reaction.

I referred to gravitators being used in UFOs in that it is speculated that UFOs run on such propulsion as when sighted they are very silent and lack any visible means of thrust based propulsion. It's not a conspiracy but rather what has been postulated based on people's reports of UFO sightings.


*** Of course there is need to generate that electricity but the same principle of creating gravitational fields by electrical means is the form of energy that in my view has the potential of being much more efficient in terms of Joules/ m3 than any kind of nuclear energy.
My question then is just how much energy is needed to power a gravitator device? Additionally from what I understand of the gravitator it is a wonderful invention but mostly for transport. What would the electrical power grid work on in the absence of fossil fuel?

In any case, the reason I have doubts of seeing such a system in place within the next fifty years is simple public interest and funding. I am not seeing sufficient research and development, far less backed by public interest to see it developed. Having the ability to do something and actually having it done are two different things. Just take a look at the opposition to the LHC to see how the public feels about advanced scientific research, and consider for a moment the trouble NASA gets for its own research and development.


Now as long as the thread is off course I'd like to dabble slightly into the other point you raised with regard to barriers to long range space travel. I do not see relativity as a problem. I not only see the theory as correct but also a boon to the prospect of interstellar travel. A trip to the nearest stars may take over a decade accelerating at a steady 1g, but thanks to relativity, the travel time to those on board would be much, much shorter.

Navigational hazards may need to be avoided through sheer planning and next-generation systems but shielding can be handled in many ways. An energy field can deflect objects yes but another option is an ice shield or similar. Arthur C. Clarke proposed such a mechanism for the starship Magellan in his novel "The Songs of Distant Earth". It needed replenishing every so often but it is an interesting concept that could have real-world applications.

[roger]

[/quote] My question then is just how much energy is needed to power a gravitator device? [\quote]

*** Gravitators obey the general laws of mechanics: the energy required to move them is therefore E = Fx where F is the force required to accelerate their mass and to overcome friction forces.


[/quote] Additionally from what I understand of the gravitator it is a wonderful invention but mostly for transport.

*** True, Gravitator technology deals more with propulsion techniques than energy technology.


[/quote] What would the electrical power grid work on in the absence of fossil fuel? [\quote]

*** Theoretically, once the Gravitator is given its initial charge with a finite amount of electrical energy it will propel itself (that is accelerate in space) indefinitely.

Of the earliest ones produced by its inventor, a device hung from a string as a pendulum and zapped with electricity was able to swing to one side and remain suspended there for 75 seconds.

Barring loss of charge to the environment and equalization of charge in the device by induction the device could remain in its suspended position forever.

This means that once the initial amount of electricity required to charge the device is produced (using natural gas or whatever other means), this device could be used to drive a wheel, say, to produce an indefinite amount of electricity or at least hundred of times the amount of electrical energy taken to charge it initially.


[/quote] Just take a look at the opposition to the LHC to see how the public feels about advanced scientific research, and consider for a moment the trouble NASA gets for its own research and development.[\quote]

*** I too have my reservations about those projects: CERN scientists themselves do not yet have a proper theory of matter (or a correct one) but they are going the expensive route of 'trial and error' to try to determine more about the nature of matter.

Similarly NASA, they have not exposed the flaws in the theory of Relativity or in other scientific theories but seem content to have a gullible population whose ignorance they can exploit in pursuit of their own hidden agenda.

So I will not like to use them as reasons why we should not be optimistic about real practical and useful to mankind inventions.


[/quote] An energy field can deflect objects yes but another option is an ice shield or similar. Arthur C. Clarke proposed such a mechanism for the starship Magellan in his novel "The Songs of Distant Earth". It needed replenishing every so often but it is an interesting concept that could have real-world applications.[\quote]

*** A few years ago (2003 I think) a space vehicle on its return to earth unfortunately caught afire [ my regards to the scientists who perished]. The intensity of heat created by friction when that rocket, traveling only at regular rocket speed, hit the earth's atmosphere was sufficient to ignite the spacecraft.

How would an ice shield be able to withstand the heat due to friction generated by a rocket traveling at couple times the speed of light in an atmosphere?


Roger

[Sirius]

Questions:

If a gravitator is admittedly mostly for propulsion then why are we having such a lengthy discussion about it here on a thread on renewable energies? The gravitator is a fabulous propulsion device but it still needs a power source. What renewable energy sources exist? We will need that before we can run your gravitator and it is that we are really asking on this thread.

You were going quite well until this bit:

*** A few years ago (2003 I think) a space vehicle on its return to earth unfortunately caught afire [ my regards to the scientists who perished]. The intensity of heat created by friction when that rocket, traveling only at regular rocket speed, hit the earth's atmosphere was sufficient to ignite the spacecraft.

How would an ice shield be able to withstand the heat due to friction generated by a rocket traveling at couple times the speed of light in an atmosphere?
For starters, the reason Columbia disintegrated on re-entry was damage to the heat shield sustained during take-off. Re-entry generates incredible heat so a heat shield is used. However, the heat shield failed not because it could not sustain the heat but because it had been damaged, permitting that heat to enter the shuttle itself which resulted in the disintegration.

That aside, I thought you made an error in your first post which is why I spoke about an ice shield. The ice shield was intended to protect a spacecraft from deep space particle collisions while moving at high sub-light speeds. An ice shield is of no use in an atmosphere, and for that matter it does not make any sense moving at that pace in the atmosphere, even if it were possible! You do realize that at the speed of light, the Earth itself would be bypassed in a second? How are you possibly going to fly any craft at speeds "a couple times the speed of light" within the atmosphere?

[roger]

[\quote] If a gravitator is admittedly mostly for propulsion then why are we having such a lengthy discussion about it here on a thread on renewable energies? The gravitator is a fabulous propulsion device but it still needs a power source. What renewable energy sources exist? We will need that before we can run your gravitator and it is that we are really asking on this thread.


*** This is what I said in my last post: "This means that once the initial amount of electricity required to charge the device is produced (using natural gas or whatever other means), this device could be used to drive a wheel, say, to produce an indefinite amount of electricity or at least hundred of times the amount of electrical energy taken to charge it initially."

It is the Gravitator that I was referring to there and the output of "at least hundred of times the amount of electrical energy taken to charge it initially"
is actually a claim that it can be developed into a phenomenal source of renewable energy.

The Gravitator is not my invention, I am merely beating a drum belonging to someone else. My proposed device is much more elegant than this as a source of energy but I find it more appropriate to discuss the technology in terms of the Gravitator.


[\quote] For starters, the reason Columbia disintegrated on re-entry was damage to the heat shield sustained during take-off. Re-entry generates incredible heat so a heat shield is used. However, the heat shield failed not because it could not sustain the heat but because it had been damaged, permitting that heat to enter the shuttle itself which resulted in the disintegration.

*** I was not disputing those details you are presenting here, I am quite aware of them. I was only making the point that, as you yourself acknowledge, "Re-entry generates incredible heat ..." even for normal rocket speeds and so for light speed rockets ice will be of no use as a shield.

In fact even the material used on the Colombia as a heat shield will undoubtedly disintegrate at light speeds.


[\quote] That aside, I thought you made an error in your first post which is why I spoke about an ice shield. The ice shield was intended to protect a spacecraft from deep space particle collisions while moving at high sub-light speeds. [/quote]

*** Ok, I see your point but even there it will be useless: ice is translucent so even normal visible light go straight through it.

At light speed visible light might be as potent as gamma rays and gamma rays that much more potent so if 2 inches of lead is normally required to shield against gamma rays a light speed rocket will require 8 inches thick lead, that is, 4 times as much due to the higher energy caused by (2C)**2.

Furthermore, cosmic rays containing alpha particles will pit out atoms of the material of the spacecraft when they collide with it.


[\quote] An ice shield is of no use in an atmosphere, and for that matter it does not make any sense moving at that pace in the atmosphere, even if it were possible! You do realize that at the speed of light, the Earth itself would be bypassed in a second? [/quote]

*** The earth will be bypassed in 1 second and that might be all the time it takes for a rocket to go from solid lead to photons.


[\quote] How are you possibly going to fly any craft at speeds "a couple times the speed of light" within the atmosphere?[/quote]

*** We are not talking of flying a rocket around the atmosphere of the earth we are talking of the atmospheres around objects out there in space some of which might be large enough to make the earth look like a speck of dust. Speaking of which some atmospheres (and I am using the term atmosphere loosely to mean the space around celestial bodies within which their gravity fields act, which for black holes is well beyond their event horizons) are filled with rocks and debris which are far more lethal than a gas atmosphere.

This is not to cast a damper on high speed space travel because we can think around all these problems: for example we can send an entourage of sacrificial pilot rockets ahead of the one carrying passengers and they can send back signals of space debris and so on.

Roger

[Harry Williamn]

Oh by the way after reading and following the many suggestions with respect to Renewable Energy....I am

kind of surprised that no one mentioned Nigeria where farmers are usuing Solar Powered generators to provide

electricity to run their irrigation pumps and since 1990 Homes in Cape Cod USA has been using solra power for

electricity and many traffic signals in the USA use solar power.

Solar Power is here to stay and can only get better. Yes Nigeria is leading the way!