Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Zero Point Energy (merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: Zero Point energy

Unread postby Heineken » Sun 24 Sep 2006, 22:03:46

Omnitir wrote:You should rename this thread something like “Result of unlimited free energy?” – so that people bother to read it instead of dismiss it as most likely would. :)

Heineken wrote:Ultimately we'd destroy every planet in the universe, habitable or not.

The universe would become a giant pulsing humanoid mass.

People would become God.

This is an interesting perspective. Do you think that using our superpowers given to us by unlimited and free energy to transform barren and lifeless planets into thriving Earth-like biospheres is destroying that planet? And do you think an empty lifeless universe is better then one filled with life and intelligence? Why?



Earth is a model for what we'd wreak on other living worlds, Omnitir. For the past century we've had virtually unlimited and very cheap energy, closely similar to the hypothetical.

As for the barren worlds, I'd prefer that they follow their natural course, whatever that might be (including perhaps their own evolution of life). And that we not plant Bush's ancestors there.

I know you consider my position unreasonable if not laughable, but I don't consider the human species worthy of occupying other planets. We've proven that by the tragic example we've set here.

The greatest contribution we can make to the universe at this point is to die out. We're a hopeless and failed experiment of nature.

Anyway, I'm not worried about the human pestilence escaping into the universe. More than 35 years after the Apollo missions, we're still cleaning up crap on the Space Shuttle.

The money won't be there, even if the technology is.
"Actually, humans died out long ago."
---Abused, abandoned hunting dog

"Things have entered a stage where the only change that is possible is for things to get worse."
---I & my bro.
User avatar
Heineken
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7051
Joined: Tue 14 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Rural Virginia

Re: Zero Point energy

Unread postby MonteQuest » Mon 25 Sep 2006, 01:31:50

Omnitir wrote:
Firstly is the standard of living issue. As we should all know, some of the worst environmental destruction in the world occurs in underdeveloped nations. With unlimited free energy for the entire world, we raise the standard of living for all and with that, we greatly reduce the burden that underdeveloped nations put on the environment.


Oh my, you are so far from the truth.

As all that do know, it is not impoverished populations that are destroying the environment, it is the trends and use of casual polluting technology in the developed countries.

Overpopulation in poor countries is, for example, a serious problem that harms the local and global environment. Population growth in the context of existing technology in developing countries is considered responsible for 79% of deforestation, 72% of arable land expansion, and 69% of livestock growth.

From the overconsumption side, however, it is important to note that four-fifths of carbon dioxide emissions come from burning fossil fuels (cars and power stations) and a quarter of the world's population are responsible for three quarters of the emissions. One child in a developed country will consume three to four times more resources than nine children in the developing world. A Bangladeshi citizen consumes energy equivalent to three barrels of oil a year, a U.S. citizen, 55 barrels.

I read somewwhere tha the US is the equivalent of 20 billion Chinese, making it the most overpopulated country in the world in terms of impact on it's environment.

If we raise the standard of living for all, we will greatly increase the burden that underdeveloped nations put on the environment.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Zero Point energy

Unread postby MonteQuest » Mon 25 Sep 2006, 01:39:12

Omnitir wrote: The big picture is that with unlimited free energy, the nature of consumption will radically change.


Utter hogwash!

When oil was 6 cents a barrel and we flared all natural gas to the winds, the nature of consumption changed radically...from tenuous to wanton and gluttonous. Energy was for all intents and purposes free and unlimited then.

You envision a sudden move to a conservation ethic, now?

Doubt it...
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Zero Point energy

Unread postby MonteQuest » Mon 25 Sep 2006, 01:43:05

Omnitir wrote: This does seem to be the logical conclusion to come to regarding the implication of true free energy. However I disagree. This perspective assumes an important point which is false: that our current cultural mindset is unchanging.

Sure, if people were permanently stuck in the 1980’s mindset of ‘greed is good’, then I have no doubt that we would eventually destroy the world given free energy. But how realistic is it that we stay this way forever?


Oh, not forever, but until we hit the wall we will not change. And even then, only because we have no other choice.

We are dealing with cultural direction and asset inertia.

You can't turn the Titanic on a dime.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Zero Point energy

Unread postby max_power29 » Mon 25 Sep 2006, 02:04:17

If we harvested stuff like zero point energy, wouldn't we end up causing black holes and rips in space-time that would either shred, implode, or detonate all matter in the vicinity?
User avatar
max_power29
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 883
Joined: Wed 23 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Orygun

Re: Zero Point energy

Unread postby Dezakin » Mon 25 Sep 2006, 06:06:46

MonteQuest wrote:
Omnitir wrote: This does seem to be the logical conclusion to come to regarding the implication of true free energy. However I disagree. This perspective assumes an important point which is false: that our current cultural mindset is unchanging.

Sure, if people were permanently stuck in the 1980’s mindset of ‘greed is good’, then I have no doubt that we would eventually destroy the world given free energy. But how realistic is it that we stay this way forever?


Oh, not forever, but until we hit the wall we will not change. And even then, only because we have no other choice.

We are dealing with cultural direction and asset inertia.

You can't turn the Titanic on a dime.


Indeed some will never change their ideological disposition no matter what the evidence.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Zero Point energy

Unread postby Dezakin » Mon 25 Sep 2006, 06:08:55

max_power29 wrote:If we harvested stuff like zero point energy, wouldn't we end up causing black holes and rips in space-time that would either shred, implode, or detonate all matter in the vicinity?

As long as you're talking about technobabble magic that doesn't exist, you can decide that it can do any of those things or none at all.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Zero Point energy

Unread postby galacticsurfer » Mon 25 Sep 2006, 07:01:50

"Free" energy is relative. For cave man fire using wood was a novel innovation which was comparatively free compared to energy from body heat through eating. Europe and most of civilized world was deforested by end of middle ages. Transition was then to coal and next to fossil oils. Now we will go back to coal which will run out pretty quick and then denude all the remaining forests in a sort of backwards efficiency trend.

Any ZPE machine necesstitates some sort of resources to build, be it solar or even some magnetic steel gizmo and could only produce so much energy per machine per unit time, so it could not be all that good as some energy would be lost on building of said machine and on transfer of said energy to heat, electrical energy, etc. Moral qualms have never stopped us before in our exploitation of natural resources.

Animals follow path of least resistance to obtain energy over time(see how people get used to driving and eating sugary, prepackaged or fast food things instead of walking and eating home prepared healthy foods).
"The horror, the horror"
User avatar
galacticsurfer
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Wed 09 Nov 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Zero Point energy

Unread postby Heineken » Mon 25 Sep 2006, 08:34:12

MonteQuest wrote: . . . . it is not impoverished populations that are destroying the environment, it is the trends and use of casual polluting technology in the developed countries.



Impoverished populations are also extremely harmful to the environment in their own unique ways. For example, they poach endangered game. Participate in illegal logginig. Strip hillsides of firewood, causing severe erosion and mudslides. Overgraze marginal land, exacerbating desertification. Dump toxic chemicals and used motor oil directly on the ground. And so forth.
"Actually, humans died out long ago."
---Abused, abandoned hunting dog

"Things have entered a stage where the only change that is possible is for things to get worse."
---I & my bro.
User avatar
Heineken
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7051
Joined: Tue 14 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Rural Virginia

Re: Zero Point energy

Unread postby gg3 » Mon 25 Sep 2006, 09:21:29

A few years ago I was involved with a sustainable energy research group that looked into (among many other things) zero point energy, in great detail, including sending people to examine devices being promoted by various individuals.

I did not see one single example of a viable system. There were some near-misses, and some obvious frauds, and some wackos, and some earnest but mistaken inventors. The guy who was in charge of that department had to break the bad news to some of these that their devices were not performing as they thought they were, e.g. teach them where they were making measurement errors and so on.

Also coincidentally I installed a PBX & computer infrastructure at Bernie Haisch's office. He's a working astrophysicist, and with a guy named Rueda, was co-author of the original theoretical paper on ZPE that got all the garage inventors hyped about limitless energy.

Bernie Haisch is an honest guy, no question in my mind about that. He & Rueda were looking for a more elegant explanation for inertial mass, which is what led them to publishing their paper. They also speculated that there could be a concentrated energy source there. Somehow they got serious funding to do the theoretical work, and hired a bunch of working scientists from various disciplines. I was in their office often enough to get into conversations with a few of them, and all of them seemed on the level, i.e. nerdy science guys who were interested in theory and not making wild claims about applications.

Based on some recent reading, my best estimate as of now is, ZPE is real but the effect is very small, may be useful for nano-scale applications such as manipulating small masses or providing small energy inputs during manufacturing processes, but this will not solve our energy crisis. There seems to be no viable way, and no good theoretical basis for one, to tap the field and bring forth kilowatts much less megawatts.

And even if there were, we would be right back where we are right now: some other resource would go into shortage, probably water.

We already have a magical energy source from the cutting edges of physics, it's called nuclear fission. According to Lovelock, the early reactors in Great Britain took 2 - 3 years to build, i.e. minus all the NIMBY interference. Realistically today with the added safety systems and so on, 5 - 7 years w/o NIMBYs.

Team up nuclear with large wind farms and you have an ideal combined energy source.

But unless you team those up with massive deployment of contraceptives, we still end up going over the edge into dieoff.

There's no free lunch, much less free dinner with wine and a choice of deserts.
User avatar
gg3
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3271
Joined: Mon 24 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: California, USA

Re: Zero Point energy

Unread postby emailking » Mon 25 Sep 2006, 12:09:39

I actually think society would take off if that happened.

If this free energy can actually be extracted at a (virtually) limitless rate as well, then degradation of the planet seems to be a non-issue. We'll be able to manufacture whatever we want: clean water, clean ecosystems, machines that pull carbon and sulfur out of the sky, etc.

The technology isn't there now, but I'm assuming it exists in theory if you have the energy for it. And unlimited energy would give us the unlimited growth necessary to achieve that technology.

When the planet starts to run out of space, we use our unlimited energy to propel spacecrafts at 95% of lightspeed to other earth like planets we have found with our new high powered telescopes. The inhabitants are fozen during the trip and don't realize thousands of years have passed. When they arrive, they use all the free energy and manufacturing machines that were sent along to make a new society.

Or we could just make Mars habitable. Manufacture some oxygen, tune the CO2 content just right for its additional distance from the sun and smaller size..etc. Heck, no reason we couldn't do that for the moon, or Mercury and Venus too! (Dunno about the gas giants. I don't see how to make them solid and keep their size. And you don't exactly want to fall through the surface.)

Or, I could be completely wrong and free energy means we kill ourselves more quickly. Who knows.
User avatar
emailking
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 742
Joined: Sat 11 Mar 2006, 04:00:00

Re: Zero Point energy

Unread postby Heineken » Mon 25 Sep 2006, 12:18:12

Unlimited free energy would not make us any smarter. Or change any other human characteristics.

Most of us which make us particularly ill-suited to play either God or Nature.
"Actually, humans died out long ago."
---Abused, abandoned hunting dog

"Things have entered a stage where the only change that is possible is for things to get worse."
---I & my bro.
User avatar
Heineken
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7051
Joined: Tue 14 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Rural Virginia

Re: Zero Point energy

Unread postby Matrim » Mon 25 Sep 2006, 17:53:34

Omnitir,

710 views later I'm not that concerned.........

Honestly I didn't expect even close to the response I got, the question was a passing fancy. Plus I assumed it had probably already been asked.

Anyhow I really don't have anything new to add to the discussion (pathetic I know) so I'll leave it at that.

Peace
smoke 2 joints in the mornin'/smoke 2 joints at night
smoke 2 joints in the afternoon it makes me feel alright
I smoke 2 joints in time of peace and 2 in time of war
I smoke 2 joints before I smoke 2 joints and then I smoke 2 more - sublime
User avatar
Matrim
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 211
Joined: Thu 26 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Zero Point energy

Unread postby MonteQuest » Mon 25 Sep 2006, 21:28:57

Heineken wrote: Impoverished populations are also extremely harmful to the environment in their own unique ways. For example, they poach endangered game. Participate in illegal logginig. Strip hillsides of firewood, causing severe erosion and mudslides. Overgraze marginal land, exacerbating desertification. Dump toxic chemicals and used motor oil directly on the ground. And so forth.


I said as much. The point is that the impact they have, while devastating, is a pittance compared to what the industrialized countries with high technology do.

A pittance.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Zero Point energy

Unread postby Heineken » Mon 25 Sep 2006, 21:51:21

Well, it's a very large pittance, MQ.

Most developing countries are environmental basket cases, even without the massive industry or the advanced technology. Of course, much of the damage is due to rape and pillage of their resources by developed countries, as I know you would point out.

But it's amazing what large populations armed with little more than hand tools, rusty chainsaws, fire, and ancient Toyota pickups can do to an ecosystem.

Some of the worst damage comes from their actions as they systematically and relentlessly degrade the land and water in search of daily survival.
Last edited by Heineken on Mon 25 Sep 2006, 22:06:44, edited 1 time in total.
"Actually, humans died out long ago."
---Abused, abandoned hunting dog

"Things have entered a stage where the only change that is possible is for things to get worse."
---I & my bro.
User avatar
Heineken
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7051
Joined: Tue 14 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Rural Virginia

Re: Zero Point energy

Unread postby rwwff » Mon 25 Sep 2006, 21:57:57

Think of it as giving the lichens a whole new field of fun...
User avatar
rwwff
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2601
Joined: Fri 28 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: East Texas

Re: Zero Point energy

Unread postby dinopello » Mon 25 Sep 2006, 22:03:14

MonteQuest wrote:
Heineken wrote: Impoverished populations are also extremely harmful to the environment in their own unique ways. For example, they poach endangered game. Participate in illegal logginig. Strip hillsides of firewood, causing severe erosion and mudslides. Overgraze marginal land, exacerbating desertification. Dump toxic chemicals and used motor oil directly on the ground. And so forth.


I said as much. The point is that the impact they have, while devastating, is a pittance compared to what the industrialized countries with high technology do.

A pittance.


Do you think its a pittance on a per capita basis? Or is the devestation really brought about by the over population due to industrial/technology advances in food production, disease control, goods availability etc. Not that it seems possible (due to human nature) to avoid the overshoot in conditions of abundance. I do think we are different than yeast though.


I think there were a couple of Star Trek episodes that explored societies that had eliminated more typical types of population control (disease, war etc) . Not that that has anything to do with anything.
User avatar
dinopello
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6088
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The Urban Village

Re: Zero Point energy

Unread postby joewp » Mon 25 Sep 2006, 23:32:47

Heineken wrote:But it's amazing what large populations armed with little more than hand tools, rusty chainsaws, fire, and ancient Toyota pickups can do to an ecosystem.


I agree that the damage that men can do with limited tools is disasterous. Look what the Easter Islanders did, and they didn't even have Toyotas.

However, I have to agree with MQ. We all bemoan the destruction of the Amazon rain forest, all well and good, BUT, the area of the Eastern US from Maine to Georgia all the way past the Mississippi was once covered with trees. We've not only cut them down for fuel, farmlands and suburbs, we've also dug up the coal, the oil and NG here and spewed that carbon into the air. Just on a GHG basis, we're at least 10 times worse than the poor Brazilian ekeing out a living by chopping down an acre of rain forest.

I can understand that people just don't want to admit that this Indo-European resource draw-down civilisation is the problem. I'd even go as far as to say the rain forest destruction (or and other habitat being destroyed in the third world) is our (Indo-Europeans) fault too. After all, how many people would be alive in the third world without the ghost acreage of our drawdown of resources? After all, how much food would we have to send them if we didn't use fossil fuels to grow all that grain and transport it halfway around the world? After all, many of them wouldn't even have been born to cut down the tress, right?

I can understand the guilt. I got over it when I realised I was basically a detritovore living on the remains of ancient organisms. If you eat garbage, you can't afford guilt. :roll:

Oh, on topic... we probably would end up as a quivering mass of flesh taking up every folded space of the multiverse if we had ZPE.
Joe P. joeparente.com
"Only when the last tree is cut; only when the last river is polluted; only when the last fish is caught; only then will they realize that you cannot eat money." - Cree Indian Proverb
User avatar
joewp
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2054
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Keeping dry in South Florida

Re: Zero Point energy

Unread postby MonteQuest » Tue 26 Sep 2006, 00:11:09

dinopello wrote: Or is the devestation really brought about by the over population due to industrial/technology advances in food production, disease control, goods availability etc.


The technological trends in seven pollution-intensive industrial sectors (i.e. pulp and paper, organic chemical, inorganic chemical, iron and steel, petroleum refining, fertilizer, and textile industries) are devastating to the environment, and found primarily in industrial developed countries.

Much of what is most devastating to an ecosystem is not necessarily visible. Linkages between increased efficiency of technology and increased demands placed on the environment through extraction of resources, manufacturing processes, and end-production pollution, have been known for decades, if not millenia.

Why else are 300 million Americans the equivalent of 20 billion Chinese?
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Zero Point energy

Unread postby Omnitir » Tue 26 Sep 2006, 02:17:06

Heineken wrote:Unlimited free energy would not make us any smarter. Or change any other human characteristics.

Don’t be so sure about that. Unlimited free energy means continued technological progress. Give it enough time (say, another 20 to 40 years), and advances - especially in biological engineering, nano technology, and robotics - means that our very nature is changed on a fundamental level. People would certainly be smarter with such technology.

Visualise an ultra high-tech world, where people are enhanced intellectually, and where all material desires materialise effortlessly and for free. In such a world, do you honestly think that there is room for Wall-Mart and ‘he who dies with the most toys wins’ mantra?

Maybe it would be easier for you to imagine an existing sci-fi world: can you imagine the characters in Star Trek living the 20th century consumption ideal? Replicating money so they can go buy an SUV?

It's a fact that society and cultural mindsets change as technology changes. To borrow MonteQuests tactic: believing that societies don’t change as technology changes is utter hogwash!

MonteQuest wrote:You envision a sudden move to a conservation ethic, now?

No, we are talking about the implications of unlimited free energy, which would eventually lead to the end of material desire. I’m not suggesting that this is happening now.

MonteQuest wrote:When oil was 6 cents a barrel…

Irrelevant. I’m talking about the end result of progress (the future), while you’re focusing on the past.

MonteQuest wrote:You can't turn the Titanic on a dime.

No, you can’t. But the metaphor is flawed. This hypothetical free energy scenario we are discussing is the equivalent of the iceberg in front of the Titanic hypothetically disappearing. No need to turn on a dime, when she will safely turn in her own time. And she is certainly capable of turning.
"Mother Nature is a psychopathic bitch, and she is out to get you. You have to adapt, change or die." - Tihamer Toth-Fejel, nanotech researcher/engineer.
User avatar
Omnitir
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Sat 02 Apr 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Down Under

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests