"End the Ethanol Insanity"

[hounddog]

Energy, at a fundamental level, is very well known, even fusion.

We have an understanding that is about equal to an 8th grade understanding of calculus.

We are just beginning to understand energy, and what it can do for us.

What would accurately described our relationship is that we have a rudimentary understanding.

[sportyaccordy]

Why not? If technology ________ is efficient, cleaner, and renewable, then it'd be a no brainer, right?

Sure. But developments in medicine are wholly unrelated to developments in energy. It was just such a goofy statement. "Look at the advances they've made in LCD technology. Why can't they make milk that lasts more than 2 weeks?"

[hounddog]

They can, but then people would complain about all the additives being put in the milk.

[sportyaccordy]

We have an understanding that is about equal to an 8th grade understanding of calculus.

We are just beginning to understand energy, and what it can do for us.

What would accurately described our relationship is that we have a rudimentary understanding.

To speak with such confidence about our level of understanding of energy, you must know something the world's top energy experts don't. Which means as a collective we know more than we thought, which makes your statement a self contradicting paradox. Or, more realistically, you don't know how complete our understanding of energy is.

[hounddog]

What the hell are you talking about?

We are just beginning to understand certain things about energy, and other things we still do not understand.  For instance, we are still trying to understand how our own suns energy affects Earth for crying out loud.

Are you referring to the everyday energy we use, or energy in general?  

[Byteme]

To speak with such confidence about our level of understanding of energy, you must know something the world's top energy experts don't. Which means as a collective we know more than we thought, which makes your statement a self contradicting paradox. Or, more realistically, you don't know how complete our understanding of energy is.

One major problem you can't get around in any field of study is that you don't know what you don't know.  Just about the time one thinks they know about all there is to know on a topic another discovery comes along that reduces the known sum of knowledge.

Kind of like standing in a room and thinking it's the entire house and then you open that door and find a hallway leading to 10 more rooms to explore.   

[GoCougs]

By current standards. I think energy is something we have a better grasp on than most things, but there is always more to discover and learn.

Like what exactly? How it works? Where it can come from? We already know all this. It's a pretty simple concept, which is what most people don't understand. More than a few as a result have the irrational 'pot of gold' mindset the likes of which drive government to embark on these ridiculous charades such as ethanol.

[sportyaccordy]

Obviously we don't know everything about energy. But the specificity with which hounddog spoke implied that we know what we don't know (i.e. once we figure out x, y, z we will know everything about energy), which we don't.

Plus in any case fossil fuels aren't that bad. I am personally seeing efficiencies of ~90% energy extraction from ICEs in combined heat and power applications. For power generation, a combine gas + steam turbine combo in which the residual heat from the gas turbine is used to add heat to the steam condensate + makeup can achieve efficiencies well above double the average ICE engine. I think a lot of the energy solutions we will see will come from combining mechanisms we know to achieve significantly higher efficiencies

[r0tor]

Combined cycle power plants are closer to 50% efficiency then 90%.... you just can't get past the fact an enormous amount of energy is lost to compression in every heat cycle known to man

[Laconian]

Is there some way we can convert hydrocarbon bonds directly into electricity w/o having to harvest the energy indirectly in the form of heat?

[AutobahnSHO]

Is there some way we can convert hydrocarbon bonds directly into electricity w/o having to harvest the energy indirectly in the form of heat?

Not that we've invented yet.

[hounddog]

Obviously we don't know everything about energy. But the specificity with which hounddog spoke implied that we know what we don't know (i.e. once we figure out x, y, z we will know everything about energy), which we don't.

That is the silliest thing I think I have read in some time.

I am specifically arguing that we have a knowledge of energy which is about the same as having an understanding of 8th grade calculus;  base level, beginner.  

There is so much we cannot even understand at this point.

Plus in any case fossil fuels aren't that bad. I am personally seeing efficiencies of ~90% energy extraction from ICEs in combined heat and power applications. For power generation, a combine gas + steam turbine combo in which the residual heat from the gas turbine is used to add heat to the steam condensate + makeup can achieve efficiencies well above double the average ICE engine. I think a lot of the energy solutions we will see will come from combining mechanisms we know to achieve significantly higher efficiencies

No one is saying fossil fuels are "bad" but they are a major source of pollution, and we do need, or at least should, find a cleaner source of energy for the future of our planet.

[r0tor]

Is there some way we can convert hydrocarbon bonds directly into electricity w/o having to harvest the energy indirectly in the form of heat?

It needs to be oxidized to get the magic out of it

[Rupert]

No one is saying fossil fuels are "bad" but they are a major source of pollution, and we do need, or at least should, find a cleaner source of energy for the future of our planet.

Hippie.

[hounddog]

It is simple math;  fossil fuels pollute.  Anyone who argues this point is simply kidding themselves.

We have reached a point in our history where we must begin the migration away from their use, and any person with a modicum of reason should be able to see this.

We are not, however, entirely ready technology-wise to make that transition.

[WookieOnRitalin]

It is simple math;  fossil fuels pollute.  Anyone who argues this point is simply kidding themselves.

We have reached a point in our history where we must begin the migration away from their use, and any person with a modicum of reason should be able to see this.

We are not, however, entirely ready technology-wise to make that transition.

+1

This is why Nuclear power can help supplement the transitional problem. Eventually the technology will come. Dependence on fossil fuels is not good for us or the future of our existence. If we can make other forms of energy cheaper and just as reliable as FFs then we should focus on making the transition towards them. The problem is we are not there yet.

And yes our understanding our energy is not completely known or understood. We learn new things every day. I refuse to accept the notion that we have discovered every form of energy known. That's BS. It's logical to assume there is a lot about everything that we have yet to understand. I am sure there are mysteries in the universe that have yet to be unlocked.

[AutobahnSHO]

This is why Nuclear power can help supplement the transitional problem.

+1

But Europe is getting ready to close some of their plants, we're doing nothing.

[r0tor]

It is simple math;  fossil fuels pollute.  Anyone who argues this point is simply kidding themselves.

We have reached a point in our history where we must begin the migration away from their use, and any person with a modicum of reason should be able to see this.

We are not, however, entirely ready technology-wise to make that transition.

If burning fossil fuels polluted, then so do you since the primary emissions from burning a hydrocarbon and a human breathing is water and co2

[hounddog]

True.

However, I do not produce;
Benzine
uncombusted hydrocarbons
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Sulfer monoxides
Sulfer dioxide
And some other pretty nasty stuff that fossil fuels create when combusted.

[AutobahnSHO]

True.

However, I do not produce;
Benzine
uncombusted hydrocarbons
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Sulfer monoxides
Sulfer dioxide
And some other pretty nasty stuff that fossil fuels create when combusted.

Carbon monoxide.

People breathe OUT the air (CO2) that plants and trees need.

Basic functions humans do (eat, pee, poop, breathe) is part of nature's cycle.

It's when we start using our fingers and brains for other purposes that the planet gets screwed up.

[MX793]

True.

However, I do not produce;
...
uncombusted hydrocarbons
...

Flatus contains "unburned" hydrocarbons (methane, namely).

Acetaldehyde

If you consume alcohol, your body also produces Acetaldehyde, although it is quickly broken down into acetic acid.

[GoCougs]

We already know everything about how energy works; from springs to radio waves to oxidation (burning) to splitting atoms. There is nothing more to know about how these work and there are no other undiscovered processes:  shrug:

Nuclear (fission) isn't the answer because the waste is far too long-lived making properly dealing with it is FAR too expensive. Yucca Mountain before it was canceled was topping $100B.  

Both fusion and matter/anti-matter are not without their radioactive pollutants and unlike the relatively simple process of fission power both are extremely difficult and expensive.

[AutobahnSHO]

There is nothing more to know about how these work and there are no other undiscovered processes:  shrug:

That's what a lot of smart guys have said over the years. 



Obviously they were wrong.

[GoCougs]

That's what a lot of smart guys have said over the years. 



Obviously they were wrong.

So then help me with your line of reasoning. We already know how the building blocks of matter and the universe work, which is theory that underpins pretty much EVERYTHING, let alone energy. So if we already know this, what else is there?

The market has already come to grips that there is nothing more to know about energy; from where it can come and how it works, as despite socio-political facepalmers as GWism, hybrids, ethanol, wind farms, and other insanity, oil is still it.

Sure there are alternatives to fossil fuels but there are no replacements. Anything else will be more polluting, more expensive, and more moral hazardous in its requirements to put evermore power into the hands of the state.

[AutobahnSHO]

So then help me with your line of reasoning. We already know how the building blocks of matter and the universe work, which is theory that underpins pretty much EVERYTHING, let alone energy. So if we already know this, what else is there?

Although atoms were "understood" by the Greeks, we didn't figure out how to divide them or how they fuse for how many years?
Plus the Greeks said the atom was the smallest particle in the universe.  Now we know that even the protons, neutrons, and electrons are made of smaller particles of matter. How long will it take us to learn how to manipulate those?  Like someone else said, we still don't know why light behaves as a wave and matter.

Although people were using electricity and understood magnetism a hundred years ago, why was it just in the last 2-3 years we see wireless rechargeable battery stations?

[MX793]

Although atoms were "understood" by the Greeks, we didn't figure out how to divide them or how they fuse for how many years?
Plus the Greeks said the atom was the smallest particle in the universe.  Now we know that even the protons, neutrons, and electrons are made of smaller particles of matter. How long will it take us to learn how to manipulate those?  Like someone else said, we still don't know why light behaves as a wave and matter.

Although people were using electricity and understood magnetism a hundred years ago, why was it just in the last 2-3 years we see wireless rechargeable battery stations?

At one point we knew only atoms as the smallest particles of matter, then we identified neutrons, protons and electrons as the smallest parts of matter, then quarks, and so on.  We don't really know if we fully understand how far it goes because, well, you can't know what you don't know.  There are some aspects of matter that are still purely hypothesis (such as the Higgs Boson, unless that was finally positively proven by the LHC recently).

[Rupert]

Cougs is an engineer; he doesn't do "science."

[Byteme]

So then help me with your line of reasoning. We already know how the building blocks of matter and the universe work, which is theory that underpins pretty much EVERYTHING, let alone energy. So if we already know this, what else is there?

The market has already come to grips that there is nothing more to know about energy; from where it can come and how it works, as despite socio-political facepalmers as GWism, hybrids, ethanol, wind farms, and other insanity, oil is still it.

The state of scientific research in energy would be at a virtual standstill if everyone believed that.  I shouldn't go into particulars but I do know for a fact that the major energy companies are spending huge sums of money with various universities around the world to do primary research in the energy field.  Given the scopes of work covered by those agreements I can pretty well state with 100% assurance that there is a lot that we don't know about energy.   

[hounddog]

So then help me with your line of reasoning. We already know how the building blocks of matter and the universe work, which is theory that underpins pretty much EVERYTHING, let alone energy. So if we already know this, what else is there?

Wrong.  100% wrong.  We have some understanding, and a bunch of theories.  We cannot even explain where the anti-matter in the universe went after the big bang.

Otherwise, we would not need to have been building colliders such as the LHC, which the first things they hope to find are; an explenation to the question of where the anti-matter has gone.  Anti-matter, in case you are unaware, is one of the two fundamental building blocks in and of the universe, and we have no idea why we are unable to find any and why it only interacts through gravity;  things we have no understanding of yet, only theory.  Theory is NOT knowledge.  Why is knowledge and understanding of anti-matter important?  Collision of anti-matter and matter creates, in theory, an enourmous amount of energy.  Understanding is what we lack.

Or we would not need the $600 million Rare-Isotope Beam that Michigan State is building to discover, you guessed it, answers regarding energy.  [insert shocked face here]  Funded by the DOE-Office of Science, it will be used to find answers to basic questions about energy by creating neuclei not normally found on Earth.  

We only have theories regarding the Higgs boson, which, if we are incorrect regarding its existance could nullify much of what we think we know about the universe.  If we are right (we, in both cases, being physicists smarter than any of us on this board) then we can move forward with physics based on proven theory, aka knowledge.  This knowledge would potentially allow us to gain a elementary understanding of the building blocks of the universe.

If we knew everything we needed to know about energy, why are we spending billions trying to find basic answers?

The market has already come to grips that there is nothing more to know about energy; from where it can come and how it works, as despite socio-political facepalmers as GWism, hybrids, ethanol, wind farms, and other insanity, oil is still it.

Sure there are alternatives to fossil fuels but there are no replacements. Anything else will be more polluting, more expensive, and more moral hazardous in its requirements to put evermore power into the hands of the state.

The market understands there is nothing more we currently understand about energy.  That, my misinformed friend, is all about to change in the next couple decades.

To say we understand everything there is to know about energy because we have the knowledge to transfer simple matter into energy by measurably crude means, is to say cavemen knew everything about fire because they were able to cause it to exist.

[ChrisV]

We already know everything about how energy works; from springs to radio waves to oxidation (burning) to splitting atoms. There is nothing more to know about how these work and there are no other undiscovered processes:  shrug:

To paraphrase John, you know what you know, you cannot know what you dont' know. i.e, you don't know that you don't know something, because you don't even know that what you dont' know exists.

And considering your posts on other subjects (especially cars), it comes as no surprise to see you blatantly post that what you already know is everything there IS to know. Even *I'm* not that arrogant.