Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 352 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted By: Rallem
I remember from somewhere where it was said that mankind will not run out of natural resources because as we begin to grow short on one resource for our energy then we simply change to another. It was that way when we burned trees and hunted whales and then switched to crude oil. Of the three trillion gallons of crude oil in this planet we have used up 1 trillion of it so we have two trillion left, but with that said we are already looking for alternative fuels like hydrogen, wind, solar, and geothermal. It may seem like we are taking our time in switching over, but you have to remember that this world is not run by politician or even by military leaders, but rather by business men who if they cannot turn a profit on something will axe the project no matter how much mankind can benefit from it.

I think it was either in the late 19th century or maybe in the early 20th but supposedly Nicola Tesla had found a way to turn the entire world into a battery and everybody on the planet would be able to get all the power they needed for free, but since the business men could not figure out a way to make a profit form it the invention was panned and Nicola Tesla died a pauper.


the problem with tesla's theories were, and are, that there is no way to measure how much of an effect power travelling wirelessly would have on us and our environs...

we're worried about microwaves as it is...

.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 97
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 97
Originally Posted By: Anonymous
Originally Posted By: Rallem
I remember from somewhere where it was said that mankind will not run out of natural resources because as we begin to grow short on one resource for our energy then we simply change to another. It was that way when we burned trees and hunted whales and then switched to crude oil. Of the three trillion gallons of crude oil in this planet we have used up 1 trillion of it so we have two trillion left, but with that said we are already looking for alternative fuels like hydrogen, wind, solar, and geothermal. It may seem like we are taking our time in switching over, but you have to remember that this world is not run by politician or even by military leaders, but rather by business men who if they cannot turn a profit on something will axe the project no matter how much mankind can benefit from it.

I think it was either in the late 19th century or maybe in the early 20th but supposedly Nicola Tesla had found a way to turn the entire world into a battery and everybody on the planet would be able to get all the power they needed for free, but since the business men could not figure out a way to make a profit form it the invention was panned and Nicola Tesla died a pauper.


the problem with tesla's theories were, and are, that there is no way to measure how much of an effect power travelling wirelessly would have on us and our environs...

we're worried about microwaves as it is...


yea, water is a polar molecule... the human body is ~78% water... time for some 'rat vs electric field' experiments lol


seize the day
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
samwik Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
I imagine frogs are mostly water, but I've heard grasshoppers have been levitated also.

http://www.hfml.ru.nl/froglev.html

So, ...would Tesla's ideas fit into a Type I civilization?

smile


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
samwik Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Learning from the Past to Achieve the Future
...an important part of a Type I future, IMHO.

http://magazine-directory.com/Archaeology.htm

ARCHAEOLOGY A publication of the Archaeological Institute of America
Volume 61 Number 4, July/August 2008
Amazonian Harvest: Can prehistoric farming methods lead us to a sustainable future?
by Mara Hvistendahl

"If we were to apply [pre-Columbian] techniques, it would be much better for the world...."
"This is like finding potsherds," he says. The leaf belongs to the cacao tree, which grows throughout this part of the country, the Beni, in circular patches called forest islands--telltale signs, he believes, of early settlement.
Erickson has worked in Bolivia and Peru for three decades, and he hopes his research will bring the lessons of the past to bear on the present, perhaps guiding sustainable agriculture here and across the globe. He is part of a growing group of archaeologists who are engaging and helping shape the communities in which they work, but a few decades ago, other scholars would have thought him crazy.
"He sees forest islands supplemented with raised fields of corn, tobacco, beans, and pumpkin--an agricultural cornucopia that will enrich the earth for future generations."
===
Oh, what a nut!

This article also mentions Biochar and Amazonian Dark Earths, Terra Pretta. smile
>see also: http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=26941#Post26941

The book, 1491, explains what was going on here in the Western Hemisphere, for which these folks are now finding evidence.

~ smile


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Do we really EVER learn from past mistakes though? As a species we seem to fear the innovative solution and we are comforted by the familiar. For example at the moment we are searching frantically for oil instead of concentrating on finding other ways to provide energy on a large scale.

Good luck to Erikson. It sounds lovely, but I think we'll see lots more broad-acre fields of waving palm oil (!) before we see those forest islands.

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
no they would not because they would wonder if they came down and tried to help us think of it a class zero has never seen an alien before we would probably shoot it and take it for study.

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
I have given much thought to energy for twenty years +, in between ponders of end of man senerios and models exam of retro virus mutations ... over twenty years having a thingy that could solve the energy problems ... ethics have demanded the withhold as the resulting chao's to an oil based world economy demanded it. Now the world is maybe ready for it in the diversity and slow changes that will take place so do not give up the ship yet all, a model is being made, there is indeed much need for it despite the feathers that will be ruffled.

Continual containment that can be used in fusion needs is just a side effect of the event too as magnetic spin of fields create a helix suitable without pulse... that will get someone shot.

I just would like to see a childs ward in some destitute little village medical clinic somewhere ... have ...a night light. The little things in life of need.

Enjoy he thought all, kind regards, Sage

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
At the same time let's work to ensure that the adjective 'destitute' does not apply to the either the hospital or the village , and contine to help both achieve a standard to be proud of.

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Kardashev - Imagine Star Civilizations 1, 2 and 3.

Imagine SuperStar Civilization Earth.

Imagine www.grb.net

John Pozzi

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Given that we havent figured fusion out after a half century and no other alternative we have has the potential to produce more than a fraction of the energy we're now getting from fossil fuels, I don't see humanity every going beyond a Type 0 civilization.

Given that fossil fuels have exploded the amount of food we can produce, and thus the human population, far beyond what is capable of being supported without said finite petrochemicals and fuels, I think we're orders of magnitude much more likley to contract as a species over time.

We've consumed about half of the world's effective recoverable supplies of oil already. As it became cheaper and easier to produce on the upside, the inverse is true on the downslope. The more of the resource we demand from the earth, the more geologic forces retrict access to the resource and the more energy that is required to recover and process it. At some point, more energy will be spent trying to acquire a unit of the resource than the resource itself produces when used, thus the energy source becomes an energy sink. We used the first half of the recoverable resource base over the last century. If it weren't for geologic restraints restricting production of the resource and the net energy principle, we would use up the next half within the next 3 decades.

As much as I would like to see mankind transcend Earth and colonize space in a sustainable manner, we've pretty much blown any prospect of that happening already. We can't even sustainably manage ourself in the most ideal environment that we know of - our home planet. If we can't do it properly here, then doing so in space, which lacks all the critical resources we need, which are in relative abundance on Earth, is out of the question.

So with that having been said, I wholly agree with Michio Kaku in his observation.

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 17
L
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
L
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 17
I used to work in the library that had Tesla's collected later papers. I don't know of anyone who read them and found any usable ideas in them. Of course, they probably wouldn't have told me and I probably wouldn't have understood them if they had.

At least, I'd like to get this thoughtful and difficult thread back in the light (a concept Tesla might deal with).

Not knowing exactly what I'm talking about,

--lylwik

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
I do not begin to understand most of Tesla's ideas, but I have some insight into why they have been ignored. Tesla was undoubtedly a genius, an original thinker and innovative inventer. But he was a very poor communicator, antisocial and prone to making impulsive and unusual decisions without considering the possible outcomes. Had he been born earlier this may not have been so important, but he was there for the start of our modern media-saturated age (indeed he was one of the innovators). He never understood that 'the medium is the message' or learned how to play the game, so others who were more cooperative with the people who matter were able to overtake him and denigrate him.

Perhaps now it is time to return to his ideas, even some of the odd ones, with an open mind and see if they could have some application today. I really think we need all the help we can get!

J
j.macrae94
Unregistered
j.macrae94
Unregistered
J
I think we can easily make Type-I status in a couple centuries. While it may seem like it's impossible, we are discovering and inventing new things everyday, and renewable resources are becoming more common. I also think that human rights will be solved soon. Countries are enforcing new laws all the time in favor of rights for everyone. But, I believe that there will only be one race at some point. "Cross-breeding" if you will is a very common thing now, so I think we will eventually only be one race of humans.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: j.macrae94
But, I believe that there will only be one race at some point

You're probably right, '94, although it may take millennia. Even so, I think the world has already become so small that race is a minor factor in the generation of hostility. As I see it, religion is a greater threat to peace and global scale social homogeneity. But by far the greatest threat to civilization remains, in my mind, overpopulation. The much discussed negative consequences are known only too well, but armed conflict over diminishing resources, especially fresh water, can hardly be least among them. While focusing on goodwill is essential, it will not be enough. We are in a position of heavy reliance upon science and technology to help us through the period enormous challenge posed by world population growth. Hopefully, humane ways will be found to halt the growth. If found, then Type I civilisation, awaiting us just over the horizon, will bring a brilliant new day to humankind.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
samwik Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Originally Posted By: Anonymous
Given that we havent figured fusion out after a half century and no other alternative we have has the potential to produce more than a fraction of the energy we're now getting from fossil fuels, I don't see humanity every going beyond a Type 0 civilization.

Given that fossil fuels have exploded the amount of food we can produce, and thus the human population, far beyond what is capable of being supported without said finite petrochemicals and fuels, I think we're orders of magnitude much more likley to contract as a species over time.

....
So with that having been said, I wholly agree with Michio Kaku in his observation.


Every person on Earth should be employed to help effectively manage the Carbon Cycle. Without gaining mastery over the various facets of the carbon cycle, we won't be able to progress on to become a Type I civilization. It wouldn't be a very nice place to live anyway, if we never learn how to get carbon-based energy, carbon-based fuel, and biosequester carbon at the same time....

Biochar (sometimes called Terra Preta soil) is the missing part of the carbon cycle--an unbalanced cycle which we developed by using fossil fuels to unsustainably "support" agriculture. Biochar is a way to return the carbon from fossil fuels, which we've already used, back to the earth. This restores and enriches the land, and increases agricultural fertility and productivity.
Biochar could restore and rebalance our carbon-based energy economy, and it would then allow us to progress sustainably forward to become a Type I civilization.


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
I don't think biochar can provide energy, which is the more fundamental problem.

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
samwik Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Originally Posted By: kallog
I don't think biochar can provide energy, which is the more fundamental problem.
Yes, it is a problem that you think this. wink

Perhaps this is just a semantic problem, but why do you think biochar production can't also provide energy? The Nature link about biochar, in the "Terra Preta to Save the Biosphere" thread, refers to "bioenergy," but it's still producing electricity.

The article also mentions "process heat," which can be captured to produce work, so it should count as energy too.

In practice there is a trade-off, between maximizing char production, fuel production, or energy production, but with industrial-scale processing both fuel production and energy capture could be utilized while maximizing the carbon-sequestering biochar production.
===

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v1/n5/full/ncomms1053.html

"Various pyrolysis technologies are commercially available that yield different proportions of biochar and bioenergy products, such as bio-oil and syngas. The gaseous bioenergy products are typically used to generate electricity; the bio-oil may be used directly for low-grade heating applications and, potentially, as a diesel substitute after suitable treatment."

With Biochar...
"CO2 is removed from the atmosphere by photosynthesis. Sustainably procured crop residues, manures, biomass crops, timber and forestry residues, and green waste are pyrolysed by modern technology to yield bio-oil, syngas, process heat and biochar. As a result of pyrolysis, immediate decay of these biomass inputs is avoided. The outputs of the pyrolysis process serve to provide energy, avoid emissions of GHGs such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), and amend agricultural soils and pastures. The bioenergy is used to offset fossil-fuel emissions, while returning about half of the C fixed by photosynthesis to the atmosphere. In addition to the GHG emissions avoided by preventing decay of biomass inputs, soil emissions of GHGs are also decreased by biochar amendment to soils."

"The biochar stores carbon in a recalcitrant form that can increase soil water- and nutrient-holding capacities, which typically result in increased plant growth. This enhanced productivity is a positive feedback that further enhances the amount of CO2 removed from the atmosphere."

"In addition, biochar yields several potential co-benefits. It is a source of renewable bioenergy; it can improve agricultural productivity, particularly in low-fertility and degraded soils where it can be especially useful to the world's poorest farmers; it reduces the losses of nutrients and agricultural chemicals in run-off; it can improve the water-holding capacity of soils; and it is producible from biomass waste. Of the possible strategies to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, biochar is notable, if not unique, in this regard."

"Biochar can be produced at scales ranging from large industrial facilities down to the individual farm, and even at the domestic level, making it applicable to a variety of socioeconomic situations."
~Nature

IMHO,
Production and use of biochar can help achieve many of the 8 UN Millennium Development Goals... around poverty, hunger, environmental sustainability/biodiversity, global partnerships, and maternal & child health.

Biochar can help populations in undeveloped and underdeveloped countries as well as generate new careers and jobs here in the developed world. The health benefits of biochar production, for example, in the Third World (over traditional charcoal production & cooking methods) could save more live than eradicating malaria, because of reduced respiratory disease-associated smoke production.

"Biochar may not be beautiful, but it does beautiful things."
~with apologies to Fritz Frimmel
smile


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
I don't think biochar can provide energy, which is the more fundamental problem.

It can provide energy, depending on how you use/make it.

If you're goal is CO2 sequestration, you're not going to get much energy out of biochar; for this purpose you basically degrade the organic matter at lower temps and bury it.

If you treat it at higher temps you can get useable fuels out of it - i.e. various bio-oils similar to diesel fuel. The downside is that anything you take out of it as fuel goes back into the atmosphere - thus reducing to total amount of sequestration you get.

At high enough temps you gassify it, giving you maximal energy-generating capacity, but minimizing the sequestration side of the equation. Hypothetically this could approach a zero-carbon fuel source - you essentially release as much CO2 burning the fuel as was absorbed by the plant you converted into fuel.

But, to bring it back to the OP, biochar is not a route to a type I civilization. A type 1 requires that we use 100% of the energy available to a planet. Since ~99% of this is solar energy, and plants are only ~ 3-6% efficient, you won't even get close to a type I, even if you harvest every plant, algae and photosynthetic bacterium on earth.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
samwik Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
A type 1 requires that we use 100% of the energy available to a planet. Since ~99% of this is solar energy, and plants are only ~ 3-6% efficient, you won't even get close to a type I, even if you harvest every plant, algae and photosynthetic bacterium on earth.

Bryan

Yep, it's just that before we can progress on to a Type I civilization, it seems as if we should master the carbon cycle... to successfully complete our "Type 0" stage ...to be able to use the carbon cycle sustainably, and keep it undiminished or even enhanced.


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: samwik
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
A type 1 requires that we use 100% of the energy available to a planet. Since ~99% of this is solar energy, and plants are only ~ 3-6% efficient, you won't even get close to a type I, even if you harvest every plant, algae and photosynthetic bacterium on earth.

Bryan

Yep, it's just that before we can progress on to a Type I civilization, it seems as if we should master the carbon cycle... to successfully complete our "Type 0" stage ...to be able to use the carbon cycle sustainably, and keep it undiminished or even enhanced.


I'm pretty sure that would violate entropy...

Better to transend it - let the carbon cycle do its thing, with minimal mess from us.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokW
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5