Another Energy Thread

[mystic64]

Ok, what about this just for fun ? The flying saucer that was kept in Area 51 for a while used the plasma drive engine for lift and steering and to spin the high voltage generator that charged the engines' capacitors. The highvoltage generator also worked as a gyroscope to give the vehicle stability. NASA used the same engine design to power small engines that were used in space to move things around. These engines used compressed Nitrogen for fuel. The flying saucer used water.

The only drawback to the plasma drive engine is that the FAA would never be able to keep track of everything if most small vehicles were able to fly . But if they passed a law that said no flying, then the plasma drive engine would work pretty good for powering small cars. And they would be pollution free.

 

[Estro Felino]

Sicily, heliothermic central

 

[Avi1001]

Sicily, heliothermic central

Solucar is in Spain.

Abengoa Solar :: Our plants :: Operating facilities :: Spain

There is no connection to Sicily. Sicily is a country whose main energy resources are pizza and sheep farts.

 

[Avi1001]

Are you from Area 51 ? Ever been on a flying saucer ? What planet are you originally from ?

Ok, what about this just for fun ? The flying saucer that was kept in Area 51 for a while used the plasma drive engine for lift and steering and to spin the high voltage generator that charged the engines' capacitors. The highvoltage generator also worked as a gyroscope to give the vehicle stability. NASA used the same engine design to power small engines that were used in space to move things around. These engines used compressed Nitrogen for fuel. The flying saucer used water.
T
The only drawback to the plasma drive engine is that the FAA would never be able to keep track of everything if most small vehicles were able to fly . But if they passed a law that said no flying, then the plasma drive engine would work pretty good for powering small cars. And they would be pollution free.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ok, what about this just for fun ? The flying saucer that was kept in Area 51 for a while used the plasma drive engine for lift and steering and to spin the high voltage generator that charged the engines' capacitors. The highvoltage generator also worked as a gyroscope to give the vehicle stability. NASA used the same engine design to power small engines that were used in space to move things around. These engines used compressed Nitrogen for fuel. The flying saucer used water.

The only drawback to the plasma drive engine is that the FAA would never be able to keep track of everything if most small vehicles were able to fly . But if they passed a law that said no flying, then the plasma drive engine would work pretty good for powering small cars. And they would be pollution free.

More importantly, what did the alien's genitals smell like?

 

[Estro Felino]

Solucar is in Spain.

Abengoa Solar :: Our plants :: Operating facilities :: Spain

There is no connection to Sicily. Sicily is a country whose main energy resources are pizza and sheep farts.

You're right. I typed Sicily Archimedes Plant and there was that image too.
By the way...you have never been to Sicily, surely.

That is the solar plant in Sicily
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimede_solar_power_plant

 

[Avi1001]

You're right. I typed Sicily Archimedes Central and there was that image too.
By the way...you have never been to Sicily, surely

But I'd love to visit ! Great pizza, wine and lamb chops ! Btw I also enjoy tuna, swordfish and anchovy. And I love Cannoli.

And : "....Sicily continues to have a GDP per capita below the Italian average and more unemployment than the rest of Italy.[85] This difference is mostly caused by the negative influence of Mafia that is still active in some areas although it is much weaker than in the past.[86]...."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicily

 

[Avi1001]

You're right. I typed Sicily Archimedes Plant and there was that image too.
By the way...you have never been to Sicily, surely.

That is the solar plant in Sicily
Archimede solar power plant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

5MW is nothing. Here are some real solar plants:

List of solar thermal power stations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your better off sticking with pizza and anchovies.

 

[columbus]

Maybe in this thread I could propose my partial solution and get intelligent responses.


I think the US government should put a big tax on fossil fuels. Say, a phased in tax of $100 a barrel. The goal would be a tax sufficient to reduce US consumption to domestic production.

The upsides would be huge. Balance the federal budget, stop caring about ME political problems except for humanitarian issues, slash the flow of money propping up nasty governments like the Saudis, reduce greenhouse gases, lose the most environmentally dangerous extraction techniques.

There would be a great deal of economic dislocation, which tends to fall on the lowest economic rungs. But I doubt that it would be all that bad. The price of fossil fuels is very volatile. (Remember when the mere threat of Hurricane Isaac hitting Gulf Coast platforms sent gasoline prices up 20%? Well it works the other way too). I think that if the USA unilaterally took on a serious plan, the commodity prices would drop from the current $100 a barrel to less than $40. USA pump prices probably wouldn't go up to what the rest of the world pays now.

The downsides could be more easily managed than the downsides of the status quo.

Tom

 

[Avi1001]

You are correct, but the American public will never accept a $100 per barrel tax.

It looks like $4 per gallon gas is the best thing that happened to us. All of a sudden the oil and gas industry is back. Solar is increasing, shale oil is coming. Wind power is increasing. Biofuels and biomass conversion will start to become attractive. It appears that energy might bring us out of this recession.

Maybe in this thread I could propose my partial solution and get intelligent responses.

I think the US government should put a big tax on fossil fuels. Say, a phased in tax of $100 a barrel. The goal would be a tax sufficient to reduce US consumption to domestic production.

The upsides would be huge. Balance the federal budget, stop caring about ME political problems except for humanitarian issues, slash the flow of money propping up nasty governments like the Saudis, reduce greenhouse gases, lose the most environmentally dangerous extraction techniques.

There would be a great deal of economic dislocation, which tends to fall on the lowest economic rungs. But I doubt that it would be all that bad. The price of fossil fuels is very volatile. (Remember when the mere threat of Hurricane Isaac hitting Gulf Coast platforms sent gasoline prices up 20%? Well it works the other way too). I think that if the USA unilaterally took on a serious plan, the commodity prices would drop from the current $100 a barrel to less than $40. USA pump prices probably wouldn't go up to what the rest of the world pays now.

The downsides could be more easily managed than the downsides of the status quo.

Tom

 

[columbus]

You are correct, but the American public will never accept a $100 per barrel tax.

It looks like $4 per gallon gas is the best thing that happened to us. All of a sudden the oil and gas industry is back. Solar is increasing, shale oil is coming. Wind power is increasing. Biofuels and biomass conversion will start to become attractive. It appears that energy might bring us out of this recession.

The US public appears willing to accept anything if it's billed as an antiterrorism measure.

Fracking appears to be doing better than any sustainable development.

Tom

 

[Avi1001]

The US public appears willing to accept anything if it's billed as an antiterrorism measure.

Fracking appears to be doing better than any sustainable development.

Tom

Fracking and horizontal drilling have helped to push peak oil further out. We peaked in 1970 at 12 MBD.

Anwar is depleting. It has decreased from 1.5 MGD to 900 kGD. Russia is not developing. LNG will continue to grow. Natural gas and shale oil will peak out on the 20's.

Overall a very optimistic situation. Of course nuclear and coal will remain part of the picture.

 

[mystic64]

More importantly, what did the alien's genitals smell like?

It is interesting that you ask that question Revolt my good buddy . They were genetically enginered biologicals that were used by somebody for the exploration and study of other worlds. Biological robots so to speak and they did not have reproductive organs. So anyway Revolt , there ain't a hot babe amugnst 'em.

The metal foil with a memory (you crumple it up and then let go and it streightens back out again and becomes a flat piece of thin metal foil) that NSA uses with its satlellite technology stuff came from that crashed saucer also.

 

[mystic64]

Are you from Area 51 ? Ever been on a flying saucer ? What planet are you originally from ?

Sir you notice that Revolt didn't ask me that. I would have to say that what you ask is classified information . And yes I have contributed some things to stuff, but I am not in your weight class as a scientist and an engineer, so I look forward to reading the things that you post and I thank you for your friend request.

 

[mystic64]

And AVI1001, what is your experience with the plasma drive engine (where ever it may have come from ) and the possiblities of its future use as a pollution free power source?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Are we talking about the same thing? This thing?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Have you also heard about NASA's "Anomalous Propulsion" prototype ? Its hoped that it will run on *just microwaves*. Here's NASA's info : NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS) - Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum

Yup, weird weird weird. Lets hope it works.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Here's a similar concept that I randomly googled on the internet that has some little drawings with it. Kinda cool, propulsion using an antennae array. Probably wouldn't work as is, but its using a similar concept to NASA's anomalous propulsion idea. (Which technically was tried first long ago in Russia but didn't pass inspection and was left undeveloped.)

Phase-shifted Thruster | Nuclear Fusion Reactor

 

[mystic64]

Here's a similar concept that I randomly googled on the internet that has some little drawings with it. Kinda cool, propulsion using an antennae array. Probably wouldn't work as is, but its using a similar concept to NASA's anomalous propulsion idea. (Which technically was tried first long ago in Russia but didn't pass inspection and was left undeveloped.)

Phase-shifted Thruster | Nuclear Fusion Reactor

Brickjectivity you open up some interesting speculations for us arm chair physics types ! I suspect that the Phase-shifted Thruster concept is what is going to enable faster that light travel because it will also be able to create the electo magnetic shield frequency that will be required to maintain the vehicle's original space/time integrity.

Are we talking about the same thing? This thing?

Yep Brickjectivity, that is what we were talking about ! And that was a very good article that you posted the address to! The ones that they use on the inter solar system travel vehicles will be of a different design and way more effecient. And the ones that they are playing with now will not lift a car . But they could be used to turn the props of a hover prop style aircraft using a prop design that also generates high voltiage electricity to charge the capacitors and to work as a gyroscope for stabilization. I love technical research science, if you can think it up they can build it .

 

[columbus]

Fracking and horizontal drilling have helped to push peak oil further out. We peaked in 1970 at 12 MBD.

Anwar is depleting. It has decreased from 1.5 MGD to 900 kGD. Russia is not developing. LNG will continue to grow. Natural gas and shale oil will peak out on the 20's.

Overall a very optimistic situation. Of course nuclear and coal will remain part of the picture.

I don't see this as a source of optimism. The USA will continue to create and fund strife around the world, directly and indirectly. The environment in general and the atmosphere in particular will continue to degrade. Instead of choosing to manage the inevitable and get some benefit, we'll just careen along until disaster hits and all of the choices are hideously ugly.

That is what you appear to be advocating. Keep our heads in the sand until something or someone rips our butts off and we feel obligated and justified going to war again. This attitude doesn't give me optimism.

I'm rather surprised by the lack of interest in this thread.

Tom