Nine Critical Questions to Ask About Alternative Energy

[Wednesday]

1. How Much Energy is Returned for the Energy Invested (EROEI)?

2. Have the claims been verified by an independent third party?

3. Can I see the alternative energy being used?

4. Can you trace it back to the original energy source?

5. Does the invention defy the Laws of Thermodynamics?

6. Does the inventor make extravagant claims?

7. Does the inventor claim zero pollution?

8. Can I see blueprints, schematics or a chemical analysis of how it works?

9. Infrastructure Requirements -- Does the energy source require a corporation to produce it? How will it be transported and used? Will it require new engines, pipelines, and filling stations? What will these cost? Who will pay for them and with what? How long will it take to build them?

Link (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/052703_9_questions.html)

[Perfectionist]

10. Does the developed world need to live such extravagent and wasteful lives that so much energy is actually required in the first place ?? :D

[Solve et Coagula]

Sweden and Brazil solved the Alternative Energy Challenge already:

http://www.baff.info/english/

[Wednesday]

I guess thats good as long as you have limitless rainforest to chop down. It won't take long before that land will be depleted too, and they are using petroleum based fertilizers, so I don't see the sustainability in that at all.

See, the problem is that people don't understand energy. They think we can just "make more". If people need more iPods, we just make more iPods. If people need more beer, we just make more beer. They are so used to instant gratification that they assume we can just "make" energy. Energy is not like that, it is not a "commodity". All we can do is to transform one form of energy into another, losing energy in the process.

People also don't understand what a dense, portable form of energy that oil is. It cannot be reproduced. You can NOT make hydrocarbons from carbohydrates.

[Solve et Coagula]

The BRI process provides sound and promising answers to some of the most challenging issues facing energy policy in the United States today. This section sets the record straight on some of the myths affecting the renewable energy debate.

Myth #1
Ethanol takes more energy to produce than it contributes.

Fact #1

There has been an on-going dispute about whether a gallon of ethanol delivers more BTU’s than are consumed in producing it. The BRI Process makes this issue obsolete. No longer must corn kernels or grains, grown specifically for ethanol production, be the sole feedstocks. The BRI Process produces electricity and ethanol from carbon-based wastes. Approximately 60% of the energy produced by the BRI Process will be over and above what is required to run the plant. Therefore, the number of new BTUs required to produce a gallon of ethanol using the BRI Process is zero.

Myth #2
The nation could never grow enough corn or wheat to achieve energy independence.

Fact #2

Major energy companies have been slow to embrace ethanol, because it has previously not been profitable and has required state and federal subsidies. Further, there is not enough corn in the United States to achieve even 10% ethanol blending with gasoline without upsetting the market for corn in all of its other uses.

Now, however, the BRI Renewable Energy Process makes possible the clean, efficient and profitable manufacture of electricity and ethanol from any carbon-based feedstock. Municipal biomass represents one of the nation's most promising and virtually untapped energy sources, and enables BRI plants to produce ethanol across the country from locally available resources. Each new plant will generate new jobs and economic stimulus.

Myth #3
Ethanol contributes to global warming.

Fact #3

According to the Argonne National Laboratory, the use of ethanol-blended fuels reduces CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 4.3 million tons in the United States annually. This reduction is equivalent to removing more than 636,000 cars from the roads.

The Laboratory projects that a gallon of cellulosic ethanol—in either E-10 or E-85—will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 85% as compared to reformulated gasoline—and reports that ethanol will displace components of gasoline that produce toxic emissions.

http://www.brienergy.com/pages/policy01.html

[Solve et Coagula]

Dear Wednesday

No problem at all!!!

Very effective natural fertilizer can be produced through a sustainable recycling process, somehow as a by-product while producing Natural Gas, Ethanol, Methanol, etc. in a highly sophisticated waste into energy process...

When we compare UREA, the current industrial fertilizer made of crude oil which is highly toxic, with these new highly effective natural fertilizers gained out of the above mentioned process, then we have even more positive points to mention on the side of the natural fertilizer:

- The natural fertilizer does not dehydrate soil (UREA dehydrates soil after 3-5 years)
- The natural fertilizer is cheaper and compared to UREA more efficient on the long run
- The natural fertilizer is a by-product to gain other ressources like Ethanol, Natural Gas, Methanol, etc.
- The natural fertilizer supports micro-organism in the soil it even refreshes UREA-damaged soil

As you can see... no probs at all... even its more an improvement... cause the industrial usage of UREA causes irreparable damage on soil after 3-5 years, that means you have to change the whole soil, if you want to produce your vegetables, plants, etc... cause its dead soil after... thats a really big problem of UREA, btw...

Watch here for some infos:
http://www.kompogas.ch/en/What_is_Kompogas_/what_is_kompogas_.html

Best wishes from Switzerland

lwwb
Roger

[Wednesday]

Well, just for the sake of argument, let's assume we can make enough biofuel to use during the transition.

There is no infrastructure in place for distribution.

If we started today, we would not have enough time to prevent the coming economic crash. We might have had a chance to make an impact if we had started 30 years ago.

Yes, we will see some biofuel. It won't take long before it proves to be unsustainable.

Peak Oil is a vague concept to many because there is no dramatic "one point in time" that it occurs. There's not going to be a date to mourn or celebrate, we are in for a looooooong transition. (That's the optimistic view, anyway.)

The doomer view is that we are a species in "overshoot". It's a term used by scientists to describe any species population that has outgrown it's environment's ability to sustain it's population. 100% of the time, the outcome is the same, the population decreases by one means or another.

Most of us will experience economic hardship, the very poor will die.

Hey, maybe we will get lucky! A good war in the Middle East and a coinciding pandemic would help cut back all that excess population.

[Wednesday]

10. Does the developed world need to live such extravagent and wasteful lives that so much energy is actually required in the first place ?? :D

That's a damn good question.

There are a lot of other questions I would add to that list, too.

[Skynet12]

10. Does the developed world need to live such extravagent and wasteful lives that so much energy is actually required in the first place ?? :D
Tking basic neccesities for granted-that's all it is. People just want more all the time! After all, with grave money comes great responsibilty-for wrecking the Earh!

[sekse]

Kinda funny, in the diagram on the link Solve gve us, a huge Hydrogen tank above ground. Are we inviting terrorists with that or what? lol. I think I have a much better idea to solve the energy crisis. We need to focus on PMM. Permanent Magnet Motors. Yes, they have all failed in the past, but there is a way. I designed the Perendev motor before William Perendev did, he just got a patent before I could. Luckily, his endless investments into it only showed a huge flaw. Massive RPM, but no torque. Luckily I have redesigned my original idea to allow enough torque (in theory) to power an automobile. The only question I am pondering over is wether to build it, patent it, and sell it to get rich, or to just make the plans widely available on the internet. If I sell it, it won't hit the market for another 20 years, if I just distribute the plans, everybody gets to see how it works, until some schmuck patents it and they get rich from it. What would you guys do if you were in my shoes?

[Perfectionist]

Well dude ......

The first thing you should do is stop taking drugs and living in a fantasy land :D

LOLOLOLO !!!!

The second thing is take your design to the Nobel Prize Committee who would immediately make you the most famous man in the world ...... then every major Company on the planet would beg you to let them develop and bring it to market ..... probably making you the richest man in the world ..... and with free limitless perpetual energy it would become heaven on earth with no more people fighting wars, starving or poor ......

Dude ...... YOU are the schmuck !! :D

PS - Dang, you are such a schmuck !!

[sekse]

Well dude ......

The first thing you should do is stop taking drugs and living in a fantasy land :D

LOLOLOLO !!!!

The second thing is take your design to the Nobel Prize Committee who would immediately make you the most famous man in the world ...... then every major Company on the planet would beg you to let them develop and bring it to market ..... probably making you the richest man in the world ..... and with free limitless perpetual energy it would become heaven on earth with no more people fighting wars, starving or poor ......

Dude ...... YOU are the schmuck !! :D

PS - Dang, you are such a schmuck !!

Dude, blow me. Trust me, it's harder than just walking up to the nobel prize committee and saying, "Hey, dude, check this out." You try coming up with an idea like this and see what the hell you do with it. I personally don't care if some stupid yupee believes me or not, all I am asking is if you had invented what I described, would you give it away for free to save the energy crisis or just sell it to some company for a bunch of cash, but it would not make it to the market in time to really save anything.

[sekse]

Also, it would not stop all the fighting. We fight over many things other than energy. Why were there wars since before the energy crisis was even a concept? It also would increase poverty and starvation, as I will explain. There are also drawbacks to releasing a free energy system. (which btw, it is not techincally free energy or perpetual motion, that is impossible. Magnets are like batteries, they store magnetic energy thus they need recharged periodically. Take the howard johnson motor. Awesome horsepower. It could easily power a car. Unfortunately it drains the magnets in a matter of hours, leaving a car needing an engine rebuild after driving it to work) The question is what would stop us if we didn't have to conserve energy? Our universe is built on consequence. We want to invade a country, our consequence is the cost of fuel to do so, otherwise we could just send half the country to Iran right now and get it over and done with. Massive raids and attacks could be launched free of charge at any time! Wars cost money, one of the main reasons we avoid them. What if they were virtually free? A free energy source could actually make less wars, yes, but it would make the few wars we still have exponentially more violent. As for poverty and hunger, it would cause a world wide stock market crash and a global depression, because everybody would be cashing out their stocks in oil companies seeing the fall of petroleum finally at hand, making them go bankrupt. If you had tons of stock in a company and they were now officially going out of business, would you hold onto your stock? Our economy would go so broke it would be the worst tragedy in history.

In short, Free Energy=mass destruction and a cataclysmic global economic meltdown. You say it would stop wars, starvation, and poverty? It would actually do the exact opposite, and simply make them worse.

Reasons like these are why I have kept this design my dirty little secret, however with the energy crisis and global warming about to destroy mankind as we know it, it seems I should reconcider withholding such a device.

And also, I am not intending on getting rich, nor do I really want to, I just don't like the thought of somebody else getting rich and having their name put in history books for my work.

[Solve et Coagula]

Well thats really amazing!!! You really got that thing? patent it, make sure that your devices really get build and distribute 'em professionally... finally make a lot of money to buy weapon manufacturer and close 'em down ... smile... you re-employ the workers to construct your PMM device...

Best wishes from Switzerland

lwwb
Roger

[Perfectionist]

Dude you really are a schmuck - have you never heard of sarcasm (probably not, assuming you are a yank!)

I guess you must be a relative of Jake99 :D .....

The finest minds in all the world haven't been able to come up with a design for viable PMM ...... but somehow ...... like a miracle ...... a schmuck like you does !! Yeah sure !!

Stop making excuses about how your PMM machine (if it works!) would make things worse when we all know it would make the world a far better place ......

Just post your hypothetical design all over the internet (with a short bio of your qualifications and credentials) ..... and to all the scientific journals ...... and to every University ......

Then sit back and let them show you how many problems and flaws your design has !!

And then watch them laugh their asses off at you for being such a schmuck !!!

Dude, stop being a schmuck and start living in th real world !!

Next week you will be telling everyone how you have invented a time-travel machine ...... :D