The Future of Free Energy?

I like how he says NOTHING about how much this technology costs.

Also, the speaker makes no mention of the fact that not all places get the same amount of sunlight. For comparison, check out this sunlight map from a solar company with a functioning commercial product. If you live somewhere that is not very sunny, solar power is not going to help you so much.

Furthermore, what is the environmental impact of production of this technology? Are any toxic chemicals or greenhouse gasses produces as a byproduct of manufacture?

The problem with solar power is that although the light from the sun is free, production of the equipment which converts the light to electricity is certainly not.

There is always going to be some cost associated with production of the solar energy collection device, solar energy conversion, and solar energy storage (batteries). In some setups excess energy produced is fed back onto the grid, but that kind of defeats part of the purpose of going solar. Either way, based on the amount of energy that the solar energy collection technology generates and the amount that the consumer uses, it is going to take some number of years for the technology it pay itself off. For residential applications that is currently around 20 years.

If you're going to be living in your house for the next 20 years and you have the capitol to purchase the system then it may be worth it, but keep in mind these systems eventually need to be replaced or repaired, which means more costs.

Honestly I don't see any solar technologies making any impact at the residential level until the upfront costs and thus time to payoff is decreased. There are a number of government programs targeted at subsidizing solar, but IMO these are nothing other than bullshit redistribution of wealth programs. That is, instead of the consumer benefiting from the solar energy paying for it the cost is spread out among tax payers.:mad:

Don't get me wrong, I'm all about moving to clean and cheap energy, but I don't think blowing rainbows up everyone's ass is going to be the way to get there. It's great that they're researching technology with potential, but they need to also be realistic.
 
sleepeeg3 said:
Wind costs ~4x as much as conventional technologies (nuclear, coal).
Solar costs ~5x as much as conventional technologies.

Nothing is "free." If these technologies were even remotely cost effective, we would have already switched to them.

When the efficiency improves to equal conventional tech, then we will switch. Until then, the TED should take its hippie pipe dreams and keep them in the pipe.
Click to expand...

Can I get a source for this? Everything I've seen suggests wind is far more competitive with coal and natgas than what you suggest here, as well as the idea that nuclear is far MORE expensive than typically advertised.
 
sleepeeg3 said:
When the efficiency improves to equal conventional tech, then we will switch. Until then, the TED should take its hippie pipe dreams and keep them in the pipe.
Click to expand...
That would be fine in a system with no inertia. But it takes a lot of time to get these technologies up to spec. That's why the legwork is being done now, before the free market sees the need. When global fossil fuel production begins its terminal decline, we'll be thankful. If it's a slow drawn out decline, then we could probably have gotten away with waiting. But if it's a fast decline like we've already seen in some countries with crude, then we'll have averted a catastrophe.

It never hurts to be forward thinking.
 
Has anyone attempted to magnify the suns rays and then attempt to collect it with solar panels. Somethign like a magnify glass in front of a special solar panel? I'm not an engineer or even remotely up on the latest alternative energy tech, but from a naive child like perspective, that would seem like a potentially good idea. Or several high powered magnifying glasses pointed at a pool of water that cause it to boil and turn some sort of windmill, with an extractor that sucks up the vapor and returns it back to the pool in order to minimize the evaporation. There has to be a simple solution we have overlooked, or maybe it's time to put down my Guinness and just call it a night lol
 
Kuraudo said:
So he's basically just talking about fancy solar panels.

Everyone agrees that's where we're headed, but the technology isn't there yet to make it viable.

Maybe this is a long-winded way of saying he has viable solar panel technology on the horizon?
Click to expand...

Well, solar-panels and insulation built into every window/house exterior to reduce cooling/heating costs and maybe in the process re-direct/return some of the warmth from the sun to help slow the rate at which global warming occurs. Basically all of Earth's heat/energy comes from the sun. If we could return 30% of that, it might help negate the effect of greenhouse gases say keeping 30% extra-in versus what would ordinary be vented to outer-space. Plus, slow down greenhouse gases from less coal burning power-plants in operation due to lower energy use on heating?
 
There's nothing that's free in this world. Somehow we will end up paying for it
 
Term-X said:
Somehow I doubt the governments or the corporations behind them will allow stuff like this to go fullscale.
Click to expand...

You're kidding me right?

If GM really had an car that could run on hope, do you really think they would just sit there and take it up the ass on CAFE, emissions regulations, and whatnot?

No, because if they had a car that could run on hope, it would give them an instant price advantage over their competitors (think of how much all that regulation gets built into the price of cars for a minute). That translates into more cars sold, which means way more profit than they have now.

But not only that, there is this fantastic backend on the deal, because you need to buy hope to run the car with...who better to sell it to you than your friendly GM dealer.....voila, a recession proof business!

It's a no brainer....there isn't enough money on planet earth to stop a car company from making that decision.
 
Chemistry isn't as easy as this video makes it seem.

Carbon nanotubes are a huge PITA to produce. When you're working at that scale you need to manipulate the carbons atom by atom, but carbons have a propensity to bind to damn near anything. If you want proof go look in the mirror.

The concept isn't new. The earth is being bombarded with energy of all wavelengths all the time so the notion of "free energy" is completely feasible, but only so far as the method of capturing, transferring and using that energy is efficient.

Inb4 a physicist explains that free energy isn't free. as far as we're concerned, the sun's energy is completely free =P
 
Ticker305 said:
Has anyone attempted to magnify the suns rays and then attempt to collect it with solar panels. Somethign like a magnify glass in front of a special solar panel? I'm not an engineer or even remotely up on the latest alternative energy tech, but from a naive child like perspective, that would seem like a potentially good idea.
Click to expand...
That was precisely what my graduate thesis was about.

Conclusions
Yes you could get more energy
Solar cells actually get more efficient when there's more energy shining on them
Solar cells get less efficient the hotter they get, so cooling is necessary
Space limitations do not go away
You need tracking technology, since the focal point of the magnification device will constantly move throughout the day, and throughout the year.

Overall though, I made a proof-of-concept device that got 5 times the power output of the solar panel with an increase of price of something like 10%. This was really low tech, its all coming out of my own pocket because no one wanted to give me grant money, setup. Literally made a reflector from aluminum foil :D

pelo said:
Inb4 a physicist explains that free energy isn't free. as far as we're concerned, the sun's energy is completely free =P
Click to expand...

Doesn't take a physicists to explain it takes energy to make the devices which gives you energy. Now it absolutely can be a net gain in energy sure, but from a stand point of everyone getting it, it does take some initial investment, and by most peoples definition that doesn't mean free.
 
pelo said:
Carbon nanotubes are a huge PITA to produce. When you're working at that scale you need to manipulate the carbons atom by atom, but carbons have a propensity to bind to damn near anything. If you want proof go look in the mirror.
Click to expand...

Have a fireplace? Scrape the soot off the back of it, there are billions of nanotubes that come off every time you scrape.
 
There is enough fresh water in that ice berg to quench the thirst of that little girl plus the entire continent of Africa for that matter.
Ice is the killer of life!
The current Global Warming alarmists don't wish to consider that if the polar ice caps melted, large areas of the earth which are currently unhibatible due to drought would be converted to lush, fruitful land.
Yes, if they melt the sea level will rise, but the popular models today do not factor in evaporation. Greater surface area equals greater evaporation, equals greater moisture content in the atmosphere, equals increased rainfall.
I'll say it again, ice is the killer of life.
Great regions that were once green and bountiful are now baren and dry. What happened? The ice age stole their water. The earth will eventually give it back. It is arrogant of us to think we have anything to do with it.
Of course, we still need alternative energy, just not for the reasons most people think.
 
I hope this is true, but listening to him I can't help but be reminded of a snake oil salesman
 
Then we all look at the cost of nano-carbon based goods and go back to burning coal.
 
Ah! topic appears at the right time,

1. With this talk of energy
2. And the recent mobs of processors enthusiasts explaining why you should buy X due to performance per watt, at cheaper price,
3. And again mobs of users explaining why brand X is the ultimate because it is FAST, Efficient, Reasonably price!
4. The industry is moving to mobile focus , even servers to low-power focus, efficiency...
5. Now most of the forums cannot simply turn around their opinion ...

6. agree with most of the reasonable thoughts/suggestions.

7. Just feel the IT industry has improved tremendously from burning furnace to modern virtual beauty with many possibilities...

8. If only Processor companies can send this design and manufacturing expertise in Energy Efficiency to car-industry, or rather logistic-efficiency...you can choose to use MORE energy-efficiency products, ala... Performance/Watt... Miles/Gallon, whatever...

Indirectly, you do not need to drill too much, good for environment, energy efficiency, performance per watt ...
 
trick_m0nkey said:
Call me cynical, but I'm having a hard time seeing how this is going to come to pass with huge ass oil and electric companies in the way...
Click to expand...

I think the oil companies would be tickled pink to see a need for resilient polymers that would coat every building. We dont just burn oil....
 
I also think this guy is on to something, but his opening premise is shown in his own bias. He talks about an iceberg falling, saying it isnt normal, because we are human and look at normal differently.

I guess if we lived the span of millions of years, as the earth has, the changes we see would be somewhat trivial.
 
Haven't they been talking about carbon nanotubes forever? Still have yet to see any real applications. Not to say it's not interesting and exciting, but still.
 
What the hell does DNA have to do with this? Why all the misdirection? This guy is a massive idiot or liar. Free energey = limitless pwoer, literally. I would take over with that kind of power, so would you = limitless war and lots of dehydrated little boys and girls.
 
argh i quoted the wrong fella, this was me trying to quote Renegade Azzy, and ohh well, can't edit it :p
 
Ticker305 said:
Or several high powered magnifying glasses pointed at a pool of water that cause it to boil and turn some sort of windmill, with an extractor that sucks up the vapor and returns it back to the pool in order to minimize the evaporation.
Click to expand...
Yep. As with most of these emerging technologies, it's a work in progress. The biggest problem with the technology is that most towers do use water which is converted to steam to turn the generator. But the best areas of solar resource are mostly desert, where of course water is at a premium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power
 
Seventyfive said:
This is a neat idea but the guy is just selling hopes and dreams and blowing smoke up people's asses. FREE? he said it's going to be FREE? So carbon nanotubes cost nothing to produce? The machines that make them don't cost anything? The labor in installing all this shit is free? What about that super high tech battery? That's also free?

Give me a frickin break. This guy is CEO of a nanotube company... So how is his company going to run on FREE. I can't think of a company that has an income statement that says "Revenue = 0, Cost = 0, Net Income = 0. We don't need money, we run on hopes and dreams and our employees are unicorns so they don't need paychecks or health insurance!"
Click to expand...

LOL! Carbon nanotubes are more expensive than gold. So how much would the whole set up cost? A million per house, ten million...

So buy a million dollar solar panel and you to can have free energy.
 
Runningflame570 said:
Can I get a source for this? Everything I've seen suggests wind is far more competitive with coal and natgas than what you suggest here, as well as the idea that nuclear is far MORE expensive than typically advertised.
Click to expand...
What sources are you using? www.treehugger.com? They lie.

Google the costs of the latest commercial nuclear, coal, wind, solar power plants. Factor in their accepted efficiencies (90%, 74%, 30%, 20%). Factor in their projected lifetimes (60y, 100y, 20y, 25y).

Alternative energy advocates always leave out the terrible efficiencies of wind/solar and the costs of replacing them 3-5x as much.

Bottom line, if they were even remotely cost effective, we would have already switched.

Instead, taxpayer money is used to subsidize these industries, increasing the costs of everything in the country, damaging our economy and leaving less money that could have been used for research to improve these technologies. Madness.
 
sleepeeg3 said:
Alternative energy advocates always leave out the terrible efficiencies of wind/solar and the costs of replacing them 3-5x as much.

Bottom line, if they were even remotely cost effective, we would have already switched.

Instead, taxpayer money is used to subsidize these industries, increasing the costs of everything in the country, damaging our economy and leaving less money that could have been used for research to improve these technologies. Madness.
Click to expand...

Talk about terrible efficiencies, our water cooled nuke plants burn less than 2% of their fuel. Water is a terrible coolant in this application, and so the plants can't run hot enough to burn the fuel efficiently. So we have nuclear waste stockpiles on every nuke plant site. Can't factor the cost of nuke plants without talking about treating the waste.

You also have to factor in the cost of accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima.

IF any company has been subsidized over the years it's GE, so you can't say the nuclear energy industry is not heavily subsidized.
 
How many people realize that nuclear power plants are just boiling water to turn steam turbines? A 100 year old technology. I'm amazed at how many people don't know that. There has to be a better way.
 
I'm very surprised that no one has suggested the bloom block. It's a really innovate thing!
 
Pretty cool, but the video isn't just a few min. long but almost 13 min. long.
 
Sotiri said:
How many people realize that nuclear power plants are just boiling water to turn steam turbines? A 100 year old technology. I'm amazed at how many people don't know that. There has to be a better way.
Click to expand...

Well we did figure out how to liberate electrons on the atomic scale in order to create electricity.... but everyone bitches about how its not economical enough :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top