It is not anywhere close to the efficiency as petroleum.
The energy density of petroleum is greater, but the surface area of the Earth (or the sun) is huge. There are many ways to make solar more efficient than petroleum through infrastructure.
I get it. Solar is not the godsend it is suggested to be by the Climatologists.
I get it. Petroleum is not the devil it is suggested to be by the Climatologists.
That doesn't mean that solar isn't a really great resource to tap, nor does it mean that solar isn't a better resource for actual sustainable (no pollution, basically infinite) energy production. I assert that solar can be both of those things (no pollution, basically infinite).
Its a function of designing systems to take advantage of things. Petroleum is chemical. Release of chemical energy has byproducts (pollution). That is the reality that needs to be dealt with in building infrastructure.
Petroleum is limited. How limited? I don't know, but its more limited than solar for sure.
Solar is basically free. Its there whether we use it or not, and there is a massive amount of it.
Solar is basically infinite. At least for the next few billion years. If we need more, we can put more solar gathering tools (currently called "solar panels") in space and send the energy down to earth.
Solar is basically pollutant free if it is designed to be so (there are no byproducts from the source, not counting the helium produced in the sun which stays there).
Using the sources we have available, solar is superior in all ways except energy density, but battery technology can meet petroleum and potentially pass it, and collecting the energy can be done over a large surface (home roof e.g.) and done indefinitely, producing more than enough than is needed. Its all a matter of infrastructure and a truly free market (which we have never experienced).
It is possible that solar can, at some point, get to the lofty ideals that many of us would love to see.
But that is not today, and that needs to be kept in mind, too.
Solar survives today due to massive subsidies. It is not economically viable on its own, except at very small scale.
Maybe that will change. That would be nice. Until then, we also must defend the efficient resource we have, which is petroleum.
I also used to think that "free energy" was nonsense. But as I learn a little more about Tesla (the man), I wonder if maybe he came up with some brilliant ideas that could be utilized.
What we really need is a free market in energy (free from government interference and conspiracy to push some ideas at the expense of others). We could possibly revolutionize the world within 10-20 years.
But that is not today, and that needs to be kept in mind, too.
I didn't mean we should stop using coal/oil/gas... That was never a concept. Of course we can't transition that easily, and all of the policies designed to transition without the infrastructure are designed to kill us,
It is not economically viable on its own, except at very small scale.
It wouldn't take much to get us there, but I agree at the moment, we do not have the infrastructure built. We are very close to having the technology though, and that's just the stuff I know about.
Until then, we also must defend the efficient resource we have, which is petroleum.
Zero argument from me. I never meant to suggest otherwise.
I also used to think that "free energy" was nonsense
The idea of "free energy" (a violation of conservation of energy) has no merit as far as I have seen. Having said that, observational data of the expansion of the universe seems to suggest the universe can do it without a care in the world. So who knows? (Though that would really just suggest an external source of energy that can be tapped, still not necessarily a violation of conservation of energy).
But there is a difference between violating conservation of energy, and getting energy from otherwise untapped (and effectively infinite) resources. For example, there is a mountain of evidence that suggests Cold Fusion is real (after nearly a year of studying it intensely, I am convinced it is, incontrovertibly). The amount of energy available there (and energy density) is nearly impossible to comprehend. It has been suppressed technology for at least 30 years.
I first learned about that long before I became "awake" (back around 2010). The amount and quality of the evidence was so great I thought it was hubris and dogma that kept it from being realized by the larger physics community. Now I realize it was the use of the weaponized term "conspiracy theory" and intentional suppression by the PTB. Its tough to have a "Great Reset" when everyone has basically infinite energy.
We could possibly revolutionize the world within 10-20 years
A truly free market... I don't think it would take that long. There is so much out there already that has been suppressed (especially in biotech). Just the stuff I know about is huge. There are cures for cancer, cures for most disease, CURES (not treatments) in general. There is the Cold Fusion (that I am sure of). There is possibly gravity manipulation (the "UFO" declas stuff may be that). Who knows what else.
What comes next will be the most amazing time to be alive. I am blessed to be here, now, at this time.
The idea of "free energy" (a violation of conservation of energy) has no merit as far as I have seen.
It's not a violation of conservation of energy in a closed system because we are not in a closed system. We exist in an infinite universe with the distinct possibility of other dimensions and the certainty of an "ether", which most "scientists" choose to dismiss out of hand.
It's not a violation of conservation of energy in a closed system because we are not in a closed system.
Isn't that what I said?
and the certainty of an "ether", which most "scientists" choose to dismiss out of hand.
Most scientists do not dismiss it out of hand. In fact both of the "big theories" of the 20th century use Ether as foundational. They just call it different things. GR calls it "the fabric of spacetime", and QM calls it spacetime foam. Both are fancy words for "ether". Pretty much every single theory, mainstream (e.g. string theory variants, quantum gravity) and fringe (e.g. bohmian mechanics) uses ether. They just call it something else.
The only thing M&M showed was that there was no discernment in the speed of light as the earth moved in its orbit around the sun or on its axis. It had nothing to do with showing there is no "ether", but that there was no static grid structure to the universe (really they just showed it for the earth in its orbit around the sun).
The point is, most scientist adhere to the concept of ether. Its just the word thats verbotten. I used to think that the purposeful shunning on that word was hubris and dogma (like the cold fusion thing), now I think it may have been intentional, to keep us from thinking of that as a unifying substructure. To prevent us from achieving a SUT. I don't know if that's true. I suppose its more suspicion than anything, but it might be.
Solar is a pipe dream, and it's not an "infrastructurally-solvable" set of problems it faces.
Let's put it this way: a cow is solar powered. Each cow needs about 1-1.5 acres of land to convert that solar energy to sustain itself.
Want a real world experiment? Buy one of those cheap android cell phones running a 5inch screen and then replace the battery with a solar panel inverter and then keep it running the entire time the sun is out on a portable solar array of your choice.
The sun puts out a metric boatload of power, but very little of it hits earth. For what does hit earth, we have yet to build anything that can be mass produced to take advantage of more than about 35 percent of that in ideal conditions outside the laboratory (some lab experiments have yields conversions upwards of 80%, but they are not yet commercially practical).
The energy density of petroleum is greater, but the surface area of the Earth (or the sun) is huge. There are many ways to make solar more efficient than petroleum through infrastructure.
I get it. Solar is not the godsend it is suggested to be by the Climatologists.
I get it. Petroleum is not the devil it is suggested to be by the Climatologists.
That doesn't mean that solar isn't a really great resource to tap, nor does it mean that solar isn't a better resource for actual sustainable (no pollution, basically infinite) energy production. I assert that solar can be both of those things (no pollution, basically infinite).
Its a function of designing systems to take advantage of things. Petroleum is chemical. Release of chemical energy has byproducts (pollution). That is the reality that needs to be dealt with in building infrastructure.
Petroleum is limited. How limited? I don't know, but its more limited than solar for sure.
Solar is basically free. Its there whether we use it or not, and there is a massive amount of it.
Solar is basically infinite. At least for the next few billion years. If we need more, we can put more solar gathering tools (currently called "solar panels") in space and send the energy down to earth.
Solar is basically pollutant free if it is designed to be so (there are no byproducts from the source, not counting the helium produced in the sun which stays there).
Using the sources we have available, solar is superior in all ways except energy density, but battery technology can meet petroleum and potentially pass it, and collecting the energy can be done over a large surface (home roof e.g.) and done indefinitely, producing more than enough than is needed. Its all a matter of infrastructure and a truly free market (which we have never experienced).
It is possible that solar can, at some point, get to the lofty ideals that many of us would love to see.
But that is not today, and that needs to be kept in mind, too.
Solar survives today due to massive subsidies. It is not economically viable on its own, except at very small scale.
Maybe that will change. That would be nice. Until then, we also must defend the efficient resource we have, which is petroleum.
I also used to think that "free energy" was nonsense. But as I learn a little more about Tesla (the man), I wonder if maybe he came up with some brilliant ideas that could be utilized.
What we really need is a free market in energy (free from government interference and conspiracy to push some ideas at the expense of others). We could possibly revolutionize the world within 10-20 years.
I didn't mean we should stop using coal/oil/gas... That was never a concept. Of course we can't transition that easily, and all of the policies designed to transition without the infrastructure are designed to kill us,
It wouldn't take much to get us there, but I agree at the moment, we do not have the infrastructure built. We are very close to having the technology though, and that's just the stuff I know about.
Zero argument from me. I never meant to suggest otherwise.
The idea of "free energy" (a violation of conservation of energy) has no merit as far as I have seen. Having said that, observational data of the expansion of the universe seems to suggest the universe can do it without a care in the world. So who knows? (Though that would really just suggest an external source of energy that can be tapped, still not necessarily a violation of conservation of energy).
But there is a difference between violating conservation of energy, and getting energy from otherwise untapped (and effectively infinite) resources. For example, there is a mountain of evidence that suggests Cold Fusion is real (after nearly a year of studying it intensely, I am convinced it is, incontrovertibly). The amount of energy available there (and energy density) is nearly impossible to comprehend. It has been suppressed technology for at least 30 years.
I first learned about that long before I became "awake" (back around 2010). The amount and quality of the evidence was so great I thought it was hubris and dogma that kept it from being realized by the larger physics community. Now I realize it was the use of the weaponized term "conspiracy theory" and intentional suppression by the PTB. Its tough to have a "Great Reset" when everyone has basically infinite energy.
A truly free market... I don't think it would take that long. There is so much out there already that has been suppressed (especially in biotech). Just the stuff I know about is huge. There are cures for cancer, cures for most disease, CURES (not treatments) in general. There is the Cold Fusion (that I am sure of). There is possibly gravity manipulation (the "UFO" declas stuff may be that). Who knows what else.
What comes next will be the most amazing time to be alive. I am blessed to be here, now, at this time.
I hope I survive to see it.
It's not a violation of conservation of energy in a closed system because we are not in a closed system. We exist in an infinite universe with the distinct possibility of other dimensions and the certainty of an "ether", which most "scientists" choose to dismiss out of hand.
Isn't that what I said?
Most scientists do not dismiss it out of hand. In fact both of the "big theories" of the 20th century use Ether as foundational. They just call it different things. GR calls it "the fabric of spacetime", and QM calls it spacetime foam. Both are fancy words for "ether". Pretty much every single theory, mainstream (e.g. string theory variants, quantum gravity) and fringe (e.g. bohmian mechanics) uses ether. They just call it something else.
The only thing M&M showed was that there was no discernment in the speed of light as the earth moved in its orbit around the sun or on its axis. It had nothing to do with showing there is no "ether", but that there was no static grid structure to the universe (really they just showed it for the earth in its orbit around the sun).
The point is, most scientist adhere to the concept of ether. Its just the word thats verbotten. I used to think that the purposeful shunning on that word was hubris and dogma (like the cold fusion thing), now I think it may have been intentional, to keep us from thinking of that as a unifying substructure. To prevent us from achieving a SUT. I don't know if that's true. I suppose its more suspicion than anything, but it might be.
Solar is a pipe dream, and it's not an "infrastructurally-solvable" set of problems it faces.
Let's put it this way: a cow is solar powered. Each cow needs about 1-1.5 acres of land to convert that solar energy to sustain itself.
Want a real world experiment? Buy one of those cheap android cell phones running a 5inch screen and then replace the battery with a solar panel inverter and then keep it running the entire time the sun is out on a portable solar array of your choice.
The sun puts out a metric boatload of power, but very little of it hits earth. For what does hit earth, we have yet to build anything that can be mass produced to take advantage of more than about 35 percent of that in ideal conditions outside the laboratory (some lab experiments have yields conversions upwards of 80%, but they are not yet commercially practical).