Economy Huge breakthrough in producing magnets that can handle 1,000 amps per square mm

[Lint]

Following your thought experiment:

If there really were a power-generation method that had zero environmental downside and zero restraint on supply, what would be the problem with all-AC-all-the-time? Or people driving school-bus sized SUV’s to the store to pick up a loaf of bread?

Not making an argument in asking the above, just spitballing, but do we harbor essentially moralistic ideas about people and energy, such that we would want to see conservation even if (preposterous though the idea be), there were no bad enviro consequences?

I know it killed me when I moved to LA and first experienced the freeway system (which is already pretty much like the big-SUV example I offered above). And now that I am in Florida, it kills me that we have installed 20 million people on a godforsaken, environmentally hyper-sensitive peninsula where you have to run the AC almost 24/7 just to function. But are my attitudes essentially religio-superstitious in nature?

That's part of my guess.. We condemn coal power plants because they emit CO2, a gas known to trap the heat onto Earth, this could be gone in a decade, but that won't make heat-producing machines stop emitting heat, and if electricity goes free I'm certain power consumption will soar. An electric version of a Ford Expedition would be considered a regular sized car.

There was a shopping mall at Dubai that had a ski park. A ski park right in the middle of UAE. Possibly this can be an ordinary amusement toy in a few years, feel bad for whoever on the wrong side of that air conditioning equipment. Europeans would ravishing using electric heating and blaming third world countries for climate change. (Well, they do that today already.)

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

For a minute I thought the title said Huge breakthrough in producing manlets

Oh great, we can replicate Conor now!

 

[Andy Capp]

That's part of my guess.. We condemn coal power plants because they emit CO2, a gas known to trap the heat onto Earth, this could be gone in a decade, but that won't make heat-producing machines stop emitting heat, and if electricity goes free I'm certain power consumption will soar. An electric version of a Ford Expedition would be considered a regular sized car.

There was a shopping mall at Dubai that had a ski park. A ski park right in the middle of UAE. Possibly this can be an ordinary amusement toy in a few years, feel bad for whoever on the wrong side of that air conditioning equipment. Europeans would ravishing using electric heating and blaming third world countries for climate change. (Well, they do that today already.)

Having more heat generated is not necessarily the issue. The main issue with CO2 is that it traps heat like a greenhouse does. If we get CO2 levels back to where they were in the, let's say, 1600's, we could presumably produce lots more heat without a corresponding increase in average global temps just due to much of it radiating into space. I don't have any numbers, so it if the extra heat tolerance would not be sufficient to counter your concern, I can see how that might lead to future issues. And certainly, pollution caused by energy production/consumption is not the only issue with mass consumption. So, I think it's clear that it would be very sensible to begin educating people from an early age that having cheap energy is not an excuse to be wasteful.

 

[Lint]

Having more heat generated is not necessarily the issue. The main issue with CO2 is that it traps heat like a greenhouse does. If we get CO2 levels back to where they were in the, let's say, 1600's, we could presumably produce lots more heat without a corresponding increase in average global temps just due to much of it radiating into space. I don't have any numbers, so it if the extra heat tolerance would not be sufficient to counter your concern, I can see how that might lead to future issues. And certainly, pollution caused by energy production/consumption is not the only issue with mass consumption. So, I think it's clear that it would be very sensible to begin educating people from an early age that having cheap energy is not an excuse to be wasteful.

That's my point, we are all sure that we will get rid of a lot of otherwise upcoming CO2 therefore minimizing the greenhouse effect into some (major? minor?) extent, and this is excellent news as cars are shifting from internal combustion engines towards electric ones (yet battery waste might be a problem), what concerns me is that we don't know how much of climate change is really due to greenhouse effect and how much is actually we doing stuff we do on living our lives.

Radiation is the least effective dissipation method, conduction and convection (what I assume is the most important) will likely be kept the same, all in all the only way out I can see so far is if we educate people to not waste too much energy, which is really something hard to achieve, I hope it's possible.

 

[ryan3434]

More energy created than used sounds good but doesnt make sense. Where is the energy coming from? Something is being used

The souls of gingers...

 

[JBSchroeds]

These can be transfer into tokamaks to create fusion power at energy levels the world has never seen contained before in order for fusion energy to be produced at a level where more energy is created then used to create it. These small magnets in the video are already up to 20 Tesla's of energy and thousands of amps of power. They plan on scaling this up to thousands of kilometers of length in giant coils used to help the Tokamak to operate had very high energy levels at extreme temps to 20 kelven.

I'm too lazy to read the thread so it's probably already been pointed out, but this is a clusterfuck of incorrect units. A tesla is not a unit of energy (that's a joule), it is a measure of magnetic flux density. An ampere is not a unit of power (that's a watt), it is a measure of electric current. 20 kelvin is not an extreme high temperature, it is close to absolute zero (water freezes at about 273 kelvin).

 

[surrealworlds]

The souls of gingers...

We take souls, we dont give them.

 

[Chinballs]

Repliers in this thread be like

 

[ShadowRun]

That's part of my guess.. We condemn coal power plants because they emit CO2, a gas known to trap the heat onto Earth, this could be gone in a decade, but that won't make heat-producing machines stop emitting heat, and if electricity goes free I'm certain power consumption will soar. An electric version of a Ford Expedition would be considered a regular sized car.

There was a shopping mall at Dubai that had a ski park. A ski park right in the middle of UAE. Possibly this can be an ordinary amusement toy in a few years, feel bad for whoever on the wrong side of that air conditioning equipment. Europeans would ravishing using electric heating and blaming third world countries for climate change. (Well, they do that today already.)

I been in the sky park, they have penguin areas too which are way colder in special areas.

 

[Lint]

I been in the sky park, they have penguin areas too which are way colder in special areas.

A friend of mine has been there as well, I'd definitely go were they everywhere, at least a couple of times.

Maybe in a decade or so it'll be something so common that you'd feel like saying you had been into had the local inline skating rink/derby. (Do any of these still exist?)

 

[Andy Capp]

That's my point, we are all sure that we will get rid of a lot of otherwise upcoming CO2 therefore minimizing the greenhouse effect into some (major? minor?) extent, and this is excellent news as cars are shifting from internal combustion engines towards electric ones (yet battery waste might be a problem), what concerns me is that we don't know how much of climate change is really due to greenhouse effect and how much is actually we doing stuff we do on living our lives.

Radiation is the least effective dissipation method, conduction and convection (what I assume is the most important) will likely be kept the same, all in all the only way out I can see so far is if we educate people to not waste too much energy, which is really something hard to achieve, I hope it's possible.

Yes, I think it's reasonable to assume that. And yes, I think we can know relatively precisely how much CO2 is in the atmosphere now and how much a given reduction in it would change the capacity of Earth to radiate heat. Further, it is known that the rate of heat loss is proportional to the difference in temperature. If we increase the amount of heat we produce but eliminate the insulating effect of excess atmospheric CO2, it still be far less of a problem than a more moderate amount of heat but with the CO2 trapping it on the planet.

@JBSchroeds or whomever feel free to correct any of the foregoing if it's inaccurate. I don't claim to be expert in this area, just trying to contribute.

 

[JBSchroeds]

@JBSchroeds or whomever feel free to correct any of the foregoing if it's inaccurate. I don't claim to be expert in this area, just trying to contribute.

Yes, I think it's reasonable to assume that. And yes, I think we can know relatively precisely how much CO2 is in the atmosphere now and how much a given reduction in it would change the capacity of Earth to radiate heat. Further, it is known that the rate of heat loss is proportional to the difference in temperature. If we increase the amount of heat we produce but eliminate the insulating effect of excess atmospheric CO2, it still be far less of a problem than a more moderate amount of heat but with the CO2 trapping it on the planet

Planetary science isn't my expertise, sorry.

 

[Lint]

@JBSchroeds or whomever feel free to correct any of the below if it's inaccurate.

Yes, I think it's reasonable to assume that. And yes, I think we can know relatively precisely how much CO2 is in the atmosphere now and how much a given reduction in it would change the capacity of Earth to radiate heat. Further, it is known that the rate of heat loss is proportional to the difference in temperature. If we increase the amount of heat we produce but eliminate the insulating effect of excess atmospheric CO2, it still be far less of a problem than a more moderate amount of heat but with the CO2 trapping it on the planet.

Ahm... You're right, but if I were you I wouldn't be much too excited with that:

The best we'll get is what we had probably in 20's, and that's less than a degree.

Say the difference in temperature earth/space was 300K and we raised it to 300,9K, that's 0.3%, or 0.003, if the dissipation is the square of delta-t that means 0.00009, or 0.009%. (0.3%²), by all means I can imagine this is very, very little.

 

[Andy Capp]

Planetary science isn't my expertise, sorry.

But what about thermodynamics? Assuming we have the data to perform the calculation, do you think it's possible to calculate the gross global decrease in greenhouse effect per unit decrease in atmospheric CO2, and compare it with the change in rate of heat radiated by a sphere with increase in temperature? Well, that and your assessment of the accuracy of the application of the general principles I referred to whether applied to a water balloon or a planet.

The reason I ask is that I'm not contending that for sure ubiquitous, virtually unlimited, virtually no cost, energy will be a net positive compared with the current paradigm, only that it ought to be possible to calculate an approximate net impact.

 

[Andy Capp]

Ahm... You're right, but if I were you I wouldn't be much too excited with that:

The best we'll get is what we had probably in 20's, and that's less than a degree.

Say the difference in temperature earth/space was 300K and we raised it to 300,9K, that's 0.3%, or 0.003, if the dissipation is the square of delta-t that means 0.00009, or 0.009%. (0.3%²), by all means I can imagine this is very, very little.

The thing is, such a solution would both put a (rather slow) halt to further warming, which is the biggest worry, and result in a reduction in a lower temperature (in the long run) than we currently experience. I.e. I think it would be enough so I'm still a but optimistic, but planetary science isn't my expertise either, heh heh.

Edit: consider again the 2 things we're talking about, which are the individual contributions of heat compared with a blanket around the entire surface of the Earth. Think about the difference between your head (when it's cold outside and you don't have a hat on) compared with your body (with a parka on).

 

[Lint]

The thing is, such a solution would both put a (rather slow) halt to further warming, which is the biggest worry, and result in a reduction in a lower temperature (in the long run) than we currently experience. I.e. I think it would be enough so I'm still a but optimistic, but planetary science isn't my expertise either, heh heh.

Edit: consider again the 2 things we're talking about, which are the individual contributions of heat compared with a blanket around the entire surface of the Earth. Think about the difference between your head (when it's cold outside and you don't have a hat on) compared with your body (with a parka on).

I know, but the more I think about it, and the more you challenge my perceptions (which is a good thing, I appreciate it), the more I get to the conclusion that the change is slim to none for the environment, while a big thing for human beings, specially those who won't care about environment.

You think it will magically be a problem solver, but you're basing yourself over optimism, this is really bad. Imagine that 100 years ago we had no blanket and earth was at, hypothetically, 300K avg, now, after all stuff humans did in the past century, it's 300.9k, so if we undo everything greenhouse-related we still would not past below 300K. Now add that 100 years ago we have cars (which produces a lot of heat and are ubiquitous), air conditioners, refrigerators, TVs, metallurgy, bitcoin mining, joule effect heaters and so on.

Also, science was never able to conclude in a utmost fashion that the greenhouse effect really exists, they believe so and media loves to simplify it, but there's a gap between empiric truth and really good hypothesis (string theory dèja vu?). What if out of that 0.9, say, half of it is naturally occuring like earth does on a steady pace? Maybe more, maybe less, we can't even figure that out. Our current energy footprint is past 1.5PWh (petawatt-hour, more than a million times what's needed for the flux capacitor to work)

Comparing the human being with planet earth is quite senseless, not gonna go there, sorry. Let's roll, btw.

 

[Andy Capp]

I need more time to read your post to address all of it, but you saying, "You think it will magically be a problem solver, but you're basing yourself over optimism," is absolutely not true and contradicted by my earlier statements in this very thread. Please read them again because, while I don't think you're misrepresenting me here is intentional, that's nevertheless what you're doing.

 

[PEB]

I'm too lazy to read the thread so it's probably already been pointed out, but this is a clusterfuck of incorrect units. A tesla is not a unit of energy (that's a joule), it is a measure of magnetic flux density. An ampere is not a unit of power (that's a watt), it is a measure of electric current. 20 kelvin is not an extreme high temperature, it is close to absolute zero (water freezes at about 273 kelvin).

Extremely cold temps and tesla is a form of energy even if it is a unit of flux density strong magnets are 100 times smaller then 1 tesla unit. Anyways this is a huge scientific breakthrough that has major repercussions in the energy sector.

"
90 Watts 7.5 Amps 12 Volts
100 Watts 8.333 Amps 12 Volts
110 Watts 9.167 Amps 12 Volts
120 Watts 10 Amps 12 Volts"

 

[JBSchroeds]

Extremely cold temps and tesla is a form of energy even if it is a unit of flux density strong magnets are 100 times smaller then 1 tesla unit. Anyways this is a huge scientific breakthrough that has major repercussions in the energy sector.

"
90 Watts 7.5 Amps 12 Volts
100 Watts 8.333 Amps 12 Volts
110 Watts 9.167 Amps 12 Volts
120 Watts 10 Amps 12 Volts"

Why are you quoting that table at me? That's just a basic electrical formula: P=V*I. Notice how you multiply the amps by the volts and get the watts on all four of them?

And magnetic flux is absolutely not "a form of energy".

 

[PEB]

They have a different system but talks about targeting.