Renewable energy breakthrough

[Sour Masher]

This is a topic that interests me, and I get excited when big breakthrough seem to happen, although I've learned over the years it takes a painfully long time for such discoveries to develop given how innovation sis driven by profit. Naive as it may be, I often wish we lived in world where we as a species did what we knew was most logical and best for us at all times. Doesn't work that way though. But I do hope this tech finds a path to being a money maker soon. It would be a huge leap.

https://www.newsweek.com/semi-artifi...energy-1102356

[onejayhawk]

That is, unfortunately, pie-in-the-sky stuff at this point. In fifty years we might be close. In fifty years we might have fusion. In fifty years we might have efficient and affordable fuel cells. In fifty years we might have orbiting solar farms beaming power to the ground. In fifty years we will have a supply of methane to use.

J

[TranaGreg]

That is, unfortunately, pie-in-the-sky stuff at this point. In fifty years we might be close. In fifty years we might have fusion. In fifty years we might have efficient and affordable fuel cells. In fifty years we might have orbiting solar farms beaming power to the ground. In fifty years we will have a supply of methane to use.

J

Actually it is, thankfully, a realistic and practical solution to our energy problems. We're not sure how long it will take to make it production-ready, but it's certainly worth pursuing.

So there.

[nullnor]

artificial photosynthesis is the holy grail of renewable energy. i've posted about it before. the science is there, but the cost effectiveness and willingness hasn't caught up yet. a google search on it would perhaps have info.

in a way, we face the same situation as the great dust bowl. in 1891 a man named John Wesley Powell published a map that divided the US from West to East in an attempt to understand how climate change affected the country. it was a revolutionary idea at the time, and it was to become the first shot fired in the climate change debate. it was a line that ran from Mexico to Canada. the lands in the east received 20% more rainfall compared to west. farming at the time depended on at least 20 inches of rain unless irrigated, as a result the map contained valuable info.



what he was saying was, at the time, a large part of the lands west were not farmable. this did not jive with the 1862 Homestead Act that said any american that could prove an ability to live and improve the land could be granted up to 160 acres. lands in Wisconsin and Illinois could work but large arid lands west wouldn't work. and pioneers that tried would only find heartbreak and misery.

of course the offer of free land in an expanding country with the promise of living an american dream was resistant to his warning. you can imagine how his map, at the time, would challenge entrenched beliefs and interests from the Homestead act to railroads being built to politicians from the West, to the common people that suffered to travel across the country with the promises of unlimited wealth. eventually the backlash caused him to have to leave his job as director of the US Geological Survey.

but in the end, his idea's proved to be correct. today the West's population density is lower and it's farms fewer but larger. corn isn't as abundant as wheat which grows better under arid conditions.

i wonder what he would think about the present day climate change debate. studies from the 1980's show that his line has moved 140 miles east. despite naysayers, eventually climate change will bring major changes to the Midwest and to it's agriculture and economy.

lets us be fearful yet hopeful it will not take something as catastrophic as the Great Dust Bowl to persuade us to act beforehand.

[Sour Masher]

artificial photosynthesis is the holy grail of renewable energy. i've posted about it before. the science is there, but the cost effectiveness and willingness hasn't caught up yet. a google search on it would perhaps have info.

If you read up on this latest breakthrough, it looks like they now have a way to make far more practical and cost effective. Still probably a long ways off, but a good thing, nonetheless.

[onejayhawk]

Actually it is, thankfully, a realistic and practical solution to our energy problems. We're not sure how long it will take to make it production-ready, but it's certainly worth pursuing. So there.

Of course it's worth pursuing. Research is rarely wasted. This is not close.

If you read up on this latest breakthrough, it looks like they now have a way to make far more practical and cost effective. Still probably a long ways off, but a good thing, nonetheless.

Far more practical and cost effective is not the same as practical or cost effective.

Look at fuel cells. The basic science predates WW II. Building one is something I could have done for Science Fair. There are specific uses where they are ideal, eg the Apollo missions. However, the engineering of fuel handling is tricky and prone to catstrophic failure (read bomb-like). The device requires use of platinum at over $1600 per ounce. In engineering terms, the problems are varied and intractable. Iron them all out and every car on the road will be either electric of vintage.

J

[Sour Masher]

Far more practical and cost effective is not the same as practical or cost effective.

J

Well put. But I am curious if you have read anything on this new break through, though. The algae approach seems to have real merit to eventually becoming practical and cost effective to the point of usability. In the mean time, I know we will disagree on the merits of pursing this or any related technology, because we fundamentally disagree on the need for them in the short and medium term. Because we have formed on opinions about global climate change either on completely different sources, or completely different interpretations of the same sources.

Edit: I didn't quote you on the platinum prices, but they have crashed. Not $1600 an ounce anymore. Under $800, actually. Not really a refutation of your point though--just a heads up if you are in the market for undervalued precious metals .

[onejayhawk]

Wow. I don't deal with metals much but down 60% is surprising. The chart resembles crude oil.

Platinum used to be roughly double gold. Now it's 30% less. The chart resembles crude oil. I suspect, the gold silver ratio of over 80 may be getting high. I'll look into it.

J

[Sour Masher]

Wow. I don't deal with metals much but down 60% is surprising. The chart resembles crude oil.

Platinum used to be roughly double gold. Now it's 30% less. The chart resembles crude oil. I suspect, the gold silver ratio of over 80 may be getting high. I'll look into it.

J

I thought the same thing, and bought a 1 oz platinum eagle in a dip. It did rise, and I was able to sell in just a couple of months later, but after ebay and paypal fees, and shipping, I made all of 20 bucks, so that ended my interest in buying low and selling high on platinum. Lots of PM articles will hype the ratio being off from historical norms, but it has been that way for a good while now, and it might be the new normal. Gold still have that aura about it, while the metals with industrial uses, like platinum and silver, seem to be losing collector traction, and their primarily value is driven more by their industrial uses, not as a store of value.

Still, those American eagle coins sure are purty--bring out the kid coin collector in me.