Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: bustr on May 01, 2014, 12:18:46 AM
-
They are estimating in the 3$-6$ a gallon range to produce jet fuel from sea water.
http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2014/scale-model-wwii-craft-takes-flight-with-fuel-from-the-sea-concept
-
Great way to convert nuclear power to chemical fuel. Without a cheap and abundant energy source it's useless though.
-
Not useless for a nuclear navy that needs a lot of jet fuel to keep their carrier air wings operational. It's not really about economics...
-
"After many years of work and countless millions of dollars, we can now fly this model aircraft."
Just another military spending program.
:bolt:
-
Hopefully it works better than the Navy's failed attempt to replace some petroleum fuel with bio fuel from seaweed. They were paying $20+ a gallon for the seaweed fuel, after 10 years of research and development.
-
Again you're arguing economics rather than logistics. The value of a nuclear supercarrier that don't need refueling at sea to keep its aircraft flying is almost beyond measuring in Dollars...
In constant wartime operation a Nimitz-class needs refueling every 2-3 days, by highly vulnerable fleet oilers. It's a logistical nightmare.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/US_Navy_070215-N-7730F-002_Military_Sealift_Command_%28MSC%29_fleet_replenishment_oiler_USNS_Pecos_%28T-AO_197%29_transits_alongside_the_Nimitz-Class_aircraft_carrier_USS_Ronald_Reagan_%28CVN_76%29_during_a_scheduled_refueling-at-sea_%28RAS%29.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
-
Not useless for a nuclear navy that needs a lot of jet fuel to keep their carrier air wings operational. It's not really about economics...
Well duh a nuclear carrier obviously has an abundant energy source. This invention reaches far beyond military use though as it can demolish phossil fuel dependance as long as cheap power is available.
-
You're assuming the US Navy will share this technology...
-
Well duh a nuclear carrier obviously has an abundant energy source. This invention reaches far beyond military use though as it can demolish phossil fuel dependance as long as cheap power is available.
Also, being able to create jet fuel means less need for current fuel tank storage aboard a cv, which means extra room for other stuff like beer. :cheers:
As hybrid cars become more popular and gasoline consumption drops, prices for jet fuel will skyrocket.
Another bad thing about the Navy being dependent on land based fuel reserve tanks is they are an easy target for future Mach 7+ cruise missile systems.
-
You're assuming the US Navy will share this technology...
They'd be crazy not to. Of course they can continue paying OPEC billions instead.
-
I don't see the US military sharing this technology anytime soon.
-
I suspect if this works out for a nuclear carrier, it will have land based possibilities with scaled down thorium reactors to provide point of processing unlimited power. Say a plant about the size of San Diego's new $1.6B water desalinization plant due to be online next year. Then the eco weirdoes will be crying that the intake vents are sucking up shamu , flipper and that crab from the little mermaid. So the rest of the country has to live in mud huts as penance.
There are 3 different teams of graduate students around the world who are almost finished developing cheap readily available catalysts other than exotic platinum, rhodium, or palladium hybrids for turning tap water into hydrogen in real time. The NAVY having a bigger budget(American taxpayers) can afford the very expensive best while their nuclear power plants provide unlimited energy to power the reaction. That's why for now this will work out for the NAVY but, not us.
The catalyst gets used up in the process. But, the process works. Keeping tabs on the catalyst development will be the telling thing for the future of civilian development.
Think about Ironman and his problems with Palladium as his arc reactor catalyst. He had to keep feeding the reactor. Wonder where the writers got the inspiration for that............
-
I will go one further, if a carrier can convert "on the fly" sea water into fuel for combat aircraft, then why cannot the same system be implemented into the carrier herself?
Its a ship, that can now literally use the very ocean it floats on, as a bed of fuel.
-
I will go one further, if a carrier can convert "on the fly" sea water into fuel for combat aircraft, then why cannot the same system be implemented into the carrier herself?
Its a ship, that can now literally use the very ocean it floats on, as a bed of fuel.
Because if it already has a nuclear reactor it's much easyer to use it with steam turbines. Aircraft can't run on steam for very long.
-
Again you're arguing economics rather than logistics. The value of a nuclear supercarrier that don't need refueling at sea to keep its aircraft flying is almost beyond measuring in Dollars...
In constant wartime operation a Nimitz-class needs refueling every 2-3 days, by highly vulnerable fleet oilers. It's a logistical nightmare.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/US_Navy_070215-N-7730F-002_Military_Sealift_Command_%28MSC%29_fleet_replenishment_oiler_USNS_Pecos_%28T-AO_197%29_transits_alongside_the_Nimitz-Class_aircraft_carrier_USS_Ronald_Reagan_%28CVN_76%29_during_a_scheduled_refueling-at-sea_%28RAS%29.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
Why is it a logical nightmare?
Who and what is going to stop the refuellinng of said ships?
These sweeping statements based on what?
Has the US navy stated their oilers have been under threat?
The oil companies would also have something to say about loss of revenue :)
-
I don't see the US military sharing this technology anytime soon.
As long as phossil fuel is abundant and cheap this technology is not considered a strategic advantage. Having to ferry tankers to the cv:s is just costly and a risk factor they could do without. And chances are in a few years others will repeat the process. If they don't capitalize on it now, they lose the profits.
-
It's not so much what's best for the US economy that matters; it's what the US military wants to do that counts. They have the technology, and the military will not give away a technology that gives them a military advantage just because it also would benefit the civilian USA.
-
It's not so much what's best for the US economy that matters; it's what the US military wants to do that counts. They have the technology, and the military will not give away a technology that gives them a military advantage just because it also would benefit the civilian USA.
Being able to skip tankers on cv groups shouldn't be such a strategic advantage more than a cost and convenience factor. It's very likely that the process is going to be repeated in labs around the world in the near future anyway.
-
Depends on how much money needs to be invested to repeat the process.
-
When they can turn seawater into beer and redesign the jet engines to run on beer. Then cheap and reusable energy has been fulfilled.
-
When they can turn seawater into beer and redesign the jet engines to run on beer. Then cheap and reusable energy has been fulfilled.
Obviously the scientists have got it all backwards.
-
It's a massive tactical and strategic advantage to not be tied to fleet oilers in the near future. The 4 to 6 hours a CV/CVN has to plod along at 15 knts beside a tanker taking on fuel for its aircraft, sometimes as often as every day (In the first Gulf War the CV's were usually having to tank every day, the CVN every 2nd). This alone is the major advantage that would be gained from this technology. I think I posted this here a couple of months ago, I'll have to search it, as the articles in the links were excellent. It was in the Navy rail gun thread Marine started I believe about a month ago, and the article describing the advantages for not having to need dedicated fuel/oiler tanker ships was from Breaking Defense Weekly, but I can't find the link now.
Anyhow, not needing to plod along at a slow pace in a straight line for 1/4 of the day during wartime flight ops will make a CVN a much more difficult and elusive target, especially for submarines, and with the huge upswing in potential threat smaller subs out there right now, this is a major piece of news, should the technology eventually work. The savings in $ and access to constant fuel supplies for aircraft and ships that aren't nuclear powered is just incidental really. It's the greater flexibility and safety so far as the movement required for refueling that is the really positive thing for the Navy. Even just running constant regular air operations the CVN in today's world has to tank pretty often, and again, during wartime ops, this tempo increases drastically - this technology will increase the safety and survivability of Western world CV operations by a huge factor.
-
Didn't the US Government kill some bloke that made a car run on water?
-
Who this guy?
(http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121024231108/epicrapbattlesofhistory/images/3/34/Doc_Brown.png)
No. It was the Libyans, and they missed.
-
Didn't the US Government kill some bloke that made a car run on water?
Yes they did Dolby a bloke in the pub told me at kicking out time :old:
-
It was at I think a Denny's in Arizona. The bloke had developed a square wave frequency that weakened the bond polarity between O2 and H to the point they could be separated in real time with a fraction of the current normally needed to crack water. In effect you could fill your tank with H2O and run it past this converter for real time hydrogen fuel.
He refused offers to sell his technology. The day he died he was meeting at a Denny's with a potential financier. A few minutes after sitting down at the table, witnesses stated they watched him stand up and rush out to the parking lot loudly stating "they have poisoned me". Coroner's report was he had a stroke and heart failure. His work died with him because he never went farther than diagraming the macro elements of his device. The specifics of his square wave frequency and how it was applied died with him. Many people have recreated everything but that. Some have hinted they may have figured out the last part. Others believe he discovered a common cheap catalyst which he never documented.
So his work is moot in the face of the NAVY's work and the three teams around the globe closing in on a cheap readily available catalyst.
And yes the federal government found an excuse to confiscate the contents of his garage laboratory for some unknown reason. Fortunately a copy of his diagram got out on the internet along with a WEB site looked at as another kooky free hydrogen scam.
-
Stan Myers?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ2QciCN5Ks
-
Yeppers, that's him.
When you look at many of the other water crackers around that time and after. Many seem to be reliant on an exotic (EXPENSIVE)alloy catalyst to weaken the H2\O bond, or perform complete separation under the influence of a very small input current. One rabbit hole followed using an exotic element alloy molecular honeycomb and the Casimir effect relative to H2\O bond.
So you gotta wonder where the NAVY started from with their version of this rabbit hole. It was thought because the reactors on Carriers produced an excess of power, they would have cracked water from the very beginning using hydrogen as an exclusive fuel. If I'm not off on this, I think hydrogen is not a very powerful fuel alone. You need a hydrocarbon based fuel for the right bang. Enter the NAVY's device that cracks water using excess nuclear power into hydrogen and CO2, recombined into a pure hydrocarbon with no sulfur content. Oh and don't forget the very expensive exotic catalyst.
So running that in cars is friendlier to the environment with no sulfur content. The eco whackos should be holding sit ins by the millions in D.C. lobbying for the gooberment to save the planet. It's probably better than killing all the cows to save us from evil methane out gassing.
-
Stan Myers?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ2QciCN5Ks
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Z5pfPneEVUc/Uwnf4Q1yptI/AAAAAAAAAJU/x6E1KB6FuTg/s1600/tumblr_inline_msdbv2UGGF1roojpc.gif)
-
The sad thing about Mr. Myers is that he was motivated to prevent his country suffering a fuel embargo again. Poor naive sucker.
What he should've done is fully develop his idea in secret, document it and then just go viral.
Btw Dolby, I've had an email from the NSA asking for your address and eating preferences. :old:
-
Btw Dolby, I've had an email from the NSA asking for your address and eating preferences. :old:
I live in a basement in Austria and love Thai food.
-
It was at I think a Denny's in Arizona. The bloke had developed a square wave frequency that weakened the bond polarity between O2 and H to the point they could be separated in real time with a fraction of the current normally needed to crack water. In effect you could fill your tank with H2O and run it past this converter for real time hydrogen fuel.
He refused offers to sell his technology. The day he died he was meeting at a Denny's with a potential financier. A few minutes after sitting down at the table, witnesses stated they watched him stand up and rush out to the parking lot loudly stating "they have poisoned me". Coroner's report was he had a stroke and heart failure. His work died with him because he never went farther than diagraming the macro elements of his device. The specifics of his square wave frequency and how it was applied died with him. Many people have recreated everything but that. Some have hinted they may have figured out the last part. Others believe he discovered a common cheap catalyst which he never documented.
So his work is moot in the face of the NAVY's work and the three teams around the globe closing in on a cheap readily available catalyst.
And yes the federal government found an excuse to confiscate the contents of his garage laboratory for some unknown reason. Fortunately a copy of his diagram got out on the internet along with a WEB site looked at as another kooky free hydrogen scam.
sounds more like how jimmy hoffa disappeared.
semp
-
I live in a basement in Austria and love Thai food.
That's what I told them but they didn't believe me. So I gave them UncleTIP's details instead :banana:
-
When will mankind stop believing in perpetual motion machines?
-
When will mankind stop believing in perpetual motion machines?
my ex-wife's hand moving towards my wallet every time I see her is a good example of a "perpetual motion machine".
semp
-
When will mankind stop believing in perpetual motion machines?
Perpetual's a big word. Probably within half a lifetime burning fossil fuels for most applications is going to look positively stone age. :old:
-
Perpetual's a big word. Probably within half a lifetime burning fossil fuels for most applications is going to look positively stone age. :old:
they said that when I was 15, 1/2 a lifetime ago.
semp
-
they said that when I was 15, 1/2 a lifetime ago.
And they were right. Just a bit off about which ½ lifetime. It's not just technology which limits progress.
-
The fuel won't be much different... It just won't be fossil. 1/2 a lifetime is a very short time frame for any major change, but people often underestimate time and have problems wrapping their brains around the concept of large time frames. For example John Tyler, the 10th president of the United states lived a long time ago, for most people, and in a totally different world. Yet the man has two living grandchildren.
-
Sometimes a long passage of time isn't necessary for a paradigm shift. Look at mobile phones, that completely revolutionised Western society within 3-5 years. Same business with the internet. With fossil fuels I suggest it isn't necessarily the complete absence of alternatives which ensures they've persisted for so long.
-
Sometimes a long passage of time isn't necessary for a paradigm shift. Look at mobile phones, that completely revolutionised Western society within 3-5 years. Same business with the internet. With fossil fuels I suggest it isn't necessarily the complete absence of alternatives which ensures they've persisted for so long.
To many very rich people make to much money off them, and have for to long. Also a huge infrastructure has been created to exploit and use the stuff. Again controlled by many very rich people.
-
To many very rich people make to much money off them, and have for to long. Also a huge infrastructure has been created to exploit and use the stuff. Again controlled by many very rich people.
Yup, hence Mr. Myers getting a Ricin burger at Wendy's when he in fact ordered a cheeseburger.
Change is a constant though. Have faith! :banana:
-
As long as people give their money away voluntarily is is all good. That's freedom. You may be annoyed by the fact that other people make a lot of money on... what you consider... stupid things; be it sports, the entertainment industry, or IT and communications... That's freedom too. If you have any more communistic ideas I suggest you keep them to yourselves, at least on this BBS.
As for fossil fuels being dominant the last 100+ years... Just consider the fact that gasoline is cheaper than bottled water and the reason is crystal clear. Even here in Norway where there is a ~700% environmental tax on gasoline and diesel it is still cheaper than bottled water.
Hydrocarbons will be the fuel we run our cars, ships and aircraft on for the foreseeable future. It may not be fossil for a variety of reasons, but it will still be hydrocarbons. Why? It is an established technology with a huge industrial infrastructure, and liquid hydrocarbon fuel is very hard to beat for practicality.
-
Just consider the fact that gasoline is cheaper than bottled water and the reason is crystal clear. Even here in Norway where there is a ~700% environmental tax on gasoline and diesel it is still cheaper than bottled water.
Lemme check.. gasoline costs here about 1.54 per litre.
The bottled water I bought yesterday did cost me 0.13 per litre. More expensive brands (the kinds with a lot of advertisement) cost maybe up to 0.80 per litre. Only the most hyped 'luxury' waters will get close or above the price of gasoline here.
Is you fuel extremely cheap or your bottled water extremely overpriced?
(Well, last time I bough such stuff in Norway, almost all kinds of food were indeed very expensive, but that's about 30 years ago ;))
-
Norway is very expensive yes. For other countries perhaps milk or soda would make for a better example. In any case, gasoline and diesel is remarkably cheap, especially when you consider the whole process involved in getting the fuel from beneath the ocean floor to the pump at your local gas station.
Oh, and you say gasoline costs 1.54 per litre where you live, but that includes all the taxes. In Europe gasoline prices are artificially high. One litre of gasoline in the US costs around 80 cents per litre at the pump, including taxes. So the real price of gasoline, what the oil company gets, is about half a Euro per litre.
-
As long as people give their money away voluntarily is is all good. That's freedom. You may be annoyed by the fact that other people make a lot of money on... what you consider... stupid things; be it sports, the entertainment industry, or IT and communications... That's freedom too. If you have any more communistic ideas I suggest you keep them to yourselves, at least on this BBS.
Very community spiritied of you to be concerned about possible rule 14 violations, especially with your BBS history :lol
As for fossil fuels being dominant the last 100+ years... Just consider the fact that gasoline is cheaper than bottled water and the reason is crystal clear. Even here in Norway where there is a ~700% environmental tax on gasoline and diesel it is still cheaper than bottled water.
Unfortunately for your argument burning bottled water leads to a cup of tea or coffee not cataclismic environmental changes. Hydrocarbons will have to go, no matter how hard people who have a lot invested in it's perpetuation shout about it.
-
Hydrocarbons can be carbon-neutral. If you get the carbon from the environment rather than fossil. Like the US Navy is planning to do with the technology we're discussing in this very thread. Burning hydrocarbons produces two things: Water and CO2. If you harvest the CO2 from the environment to produce the hydrocarbons it is completely CO2 neutral and sustainable. Bio-ethanol, bio-diesel, this new US NAvy jet fuel... None of them add more carbon into the system.
-
Hydrocarbons can be carbon-neutral. If you get the carbon from the environment rather than fossil. Like the US Navy is planning to do with the technology we're discussing in this very thread. Burning hydrocarbons produces two things: Water and CO2. If you harvest the CO2 from the environment to produce the hydrocarbons it is completely CO2 neutral and sustainable. Bio-ethanol, bio-diesel, this new US NAvy jet fuel... None of them add more carbon into the system.
But not at 'bottled water prices'. Why look to the past, the future is full of far more exciting alternatives.
-
"Exciting" is not really relevant. Liquid fuel is very practical, storable and transportable. It's just storing energy in chemical bonds. The energy that is stored can come from nuclear, hydro-electric, wind, solar, whatever. The hydrocarbon molecule is just a tiny battery that is a lot more practical to use than the bigger batteries we make and use today. Until someone produces a more practical and cheaper way of storing usable energy for our transportation needs, hydrocarbons will still be dominant.
Bio-ethanol and bio-diesel is just stored solar energy. A plant uses solar energy through photosynthesis to break apart the CO2 molecules it harvests from the atmosphere. It releases the oxygen into the atmosphere and uses the carbon to grow itself. Combined with water molecules and even more solar energy the plant produces complex hydrocarbons and carbohydrates in the form of vegetable oil and sugars. We harvest this vegetable oil and refine it into bio-diesel, and ferment the sugars into bio-ethanol. When we burn these fuels we recombine the oxygen and carbon into CO2 and the oxygen and hydrogen into water releasing the stored solar energy the plant collected, thus completing the circle.
Done on an industrial scale this will be cheaper than any other non-fossil alternative. Brazil has been producing bio-ethanol for 37 years now, and by law the gasoline you buy at the pump there has 25% bio-ethanol in it. Brazil's bio-ethanol program was not started because of environmental concerns, but of economics.
-
"Exciting" is not really relevant. Liquid fuel is very practical, storable and transportable. It's just storing energy in chemical bonds. The energy that is stored can come from nuclear, hydro-electric, wind, solar, whatever. The hydrocarbon molecule is just a tiny battery that is a lot more practical to use than the bigger batteries we make and use today. Until someone produces a more practical and cheaper way of storing usable energy for our transportation needs, hydrocarbons will still be dominant.
It's highly likely viable alternatives are ready or almost ready but obscured by the current world economic imperative.
Bio-ethanol and bio-diesel is just stored solar energy. A plant uses solar energy through photosynthesis to break apart the CO2 molecules it harvests from the atmosphere. It releases the oxygen into the atmosphere and uses the carbon to grow itself...
Unfortunately growing liquid fuels isn't an option either, there simply isn't the agricultural space left to do this on a global scale. In something like 65 years the world population has risen exponentially from 2 milliard (billion US) to over 6 milliard and continues to rise. It's estimated that at 9 milliard conventional agriculture will be unable to supply demand. It's expected to reach this point around 2050 but my data is a little rusty.
-
Liquid hydrocarbons can be produced without growing plants. Like what the US Navy is developing. The Japanese are also working on fuel producing algae, and then it is no practical limit to how much can be produced.
People vote with their wallet. Always have, always will. The population growth is largely a problem in the underdeveloped world. We will have to grow some serious emotional calluses for what's coming if we want to keep our standard of living...
-
Liquid hydrocarbons can be produced without growing plants. Like what the US Navy is developing. The Japanese are also working on fuel producing algae, and then it is no practical limit to how much can be produced.
The limit of production is way way short of demand. You are forgetting another feature of fossil fuels, they were deposited over the course of millions of years and have been largely consumed in under two hundred and fifty.
People vote with their wallet. Always have, always will.
Hmmm, for as long as the human abstract economy exists.
The population growth is largely a problem in the underdeveloped world.
Respectfully, this is very inaccurate.
We will have to grow some serious emotional calluses for what's coming if we want to keep our standard of living...
You won't keep it. Things must inevitably get far far worse before they can get better. You only have to look to history to see how the human race deals with limited resources.
-
Hydrocarbons can be carbon-neutral. If you get the carbon from the environment rather than fossil. Like the US Navy is planning to do with the technology we're discussing in this very thread. Burning hydrocarbons produces two things: Water and CO2. If you harvest the CO2 from the environment to produce the hydrocarbons it is completely CO2 neutral and sustainable. Bio-ethanol, bio-diesel, this new US NAvy jet fuel... None of them add more carbon into the system.
To be strict the production of bio-ethanol produces more CO2 than it claims to save. All the farming is done using fertilizers and diesel equipment. Shipping etc. And a large part of bio ethanol is produced from sugar canes that are grown on plants cut away from rainforests.
-
The limit of production is way way short of demand. You are forgetting another feature of fossil fuels, they were deposited over the course of millions of years and have been largely consumed in under two hundred and fifty.
Nature does not work on an industrial scale. I'm confident that the oil industry will, over time, retool and build a powerful renewable energy industry. It has already started.
Hmmm, for as long as the human abstract economy exists.
It will exist as long as humanity itself. In one form or another. To be frank, you're starting to sound like a loon. Chemtrails affecting you?
Respectfully, this is very inaccurate.
Europe is not overpopulated, and a net exporter of food (EU is the world's largest exporter in fact). North America is not overpopulated, and a net exporter of food (USA is the second largest exporter). South America is not overpopulated, and a net exporter of food (Brazil is the third largest exporter). Europe and the Americas are also self sufficient in oil and energy.
You won't keep it. Things must inevitably get far far worse before they can get better. You only have to look to history to see how the human race deals with limited resources.
Sure we will. Europe has a long history of "dealing with limited resources" and the Americans are getting exceedingly good at it too. People will vote with their wallet just like they do every day when they buy a new smartphone made in some third-world sweatshop, or some other vanity product they don't really need, instead of giving money to food-aid charities. And every day more than twenty thousand people die of hunger. Every single day. Clearly we don't care.
-
Nature does not work on an industrial scale. I'm confident that the oil industry will, over time, retool and build a powerful renewable energy industry. It has already started.
The oil industry? :frown:
It will exist as long as humanity itself. In one form or another. To be frank, you're starting to sound like a loon. Chemtrails affecting you?
You always have to insult when someone has a different opinion or philosophy to yours. Have you noticed that?
Can't you imagine a global human society which has moved on from money then? I find it rather easy. Imagination, observation, inference, extrapolation, insight and vision are my gifts (or curses). You might take advantage of that, since your imagination seems a little underdeveloped (no offense intended).
Europe is not overpopulated, and a net exporter of food (EU is the world's largest exporter in fact). North America is not overpopulated, and a net exporter of food (USA is the second largest exporter). South America is not overpopulated, and a net exporter of food (Brazil is the third largest exporter). Europe and the Americas are also self sufficient in oil and energy.
The world is becoming overpopulated. The last time I checked only Germany and Japan's population was in slight decline of the first world nations but it doesn't help much because you now have typically three generations living simultaneously. Lifespans become extended and birthrates continue to climb elsewhere. There is a finite number of human beings this biosphere can sustain and the research suggest we are approaching. You can look for yourself if you want, the information is available.
Clearly we don't care.
Private citizens have limitations of course but I think the human race is beginning to care about these things and should if progress is to be made. 250 years of Industrial and information revolution is not enough time (apparently) for ethical, moral and social development to keep pace. Unregulated global communication has had a marked and positive effect on social awareness.
-
The oil industry? :frown:
Will henceforth be known as the Energy Industry. They've long since started diversifying.
Can't you imagine a global human society which has moved on from money then? I find it rather easy. Imagination, observation, inference, extrapolation, insight and vision are my gifts (or curses). You might take advantage of that, since your imagination seems a little underdeveloped (no offense intended).
I like Star Trek as much as the next nerd, but the "visionaries" never quite get to explaining how a moneyless society would actually work. It won't of course, unless we're reverting to a stone age barter system. Even the most socialist/communist societies on Earth couldn't get past the need for an economy. And why would anyone really? Money works.
The world is becoming overpopulated. The last time I checked only Germany and Japan's population was in slight decline of the first world nations but it doesn't help much because you now have typically three generations living simultaneously. Lifespans become extended and birthrates continue to climb elsewhere. There is a finite number of human beings this biosphere can sustain and the research suggest we are approaching. You can look for yourself if you want, the information is available.
The world as a whole is already overpopulated, but the world's population is not one homogenous entity. We have countries and borders. And on those borders we have men and women with guns. The western world will not get overpopulated unless we open our borders to too much immigration. Some immigration is good; Norway's population would be in a decline without it. In the western world women are free and not treated like baby-machines. The western world has the knowledge, intellect and cultural maturity to control overpopulation should it become a threat.
Private citizens have limitations of course but I think the human race is beginning to care about these things and should if progress is to be made. 250 years of Industrial and information revolution is not enough time (apparently) for ethical, moral and social development to keep pace. Unregulated global communication has had a marked and positive effect on social awareness.
The human race is not a rational entity. It is not a thinking entity. It doesn't exist as a consciousness. Like a great countrymen of yours once said: "There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women, and there are families." And as Alfred Henry Lewis pointed out: "There are only nine meals between mankind and anarchy." When popular shopping items get very expensive and scarce in our shops, do you really think the average westerner is going to care about what self inflicted horrors the third-world is suffering? If food shortages become a reality in the western world, do you really think we won't do anything in our power, even military power, to improve our situation? Also, there is nothing moral or ethical in giving away our future to try to stem the hopelessly overpopulated third-world. If they won't listen to our advice now they will have to learn the hard way later. We don't owe them anything.
-
Will henceforth be known as the Energy Industry. They've long since started diversifying.
We agree then, in a way. I just feel there are more sophisticated solutions on the horizon than primitive combustion.
I like Star Trek as much as the next nerd, but the "visionaries" never quite get to explaining how a moneyless society would actually work. It won't of course, unless we're reverting to a stone age barter system. Even the most socialist/communist societies on Earth couldn't get past the need for an economy. And why would anyone really? Money works.
Money is an obvious phase in development but not necessarily the ultimate solution. We are realistically seeing it's limitations, especially as the connection to the finite resources it is built on diminishes. In nature you never see something created from nothing as the human race does with 'wealth'. If you can 'zoom out' to a sufficient level, I would point out that everything we use, eat, make, wear and collect is supplied for free by this biosphere, which itself is powered by a large self-regulating and automatically maintaining fusion reactor, which we also don't have to pay for.
Actually they have and sometimes in great detail. You can read about the work of Jacques Fresco if you like, especially the Eden project. It isn't viable right now but progress is moving to a point where it will inevitable become so. Gene Roddenberry's fiction incorporates some of those ideas. Something like 50 years ago this work began. Communism and socialism are often just labels people attach to ideas they don't understand and then attack the labels, what the Eden project suggests, for example, is neither.
The western world has the knowledge, intellect and cultural maturity to control overpopulation should it become a threat.
I hope you are right. I hope eventually the human race can see its borders are also as arbitrary as its abstract economy and similarly unnecessary.
The human race is not a rational entity. It is not a thinking entity. It doesn't exist as a consciousness. Like a great countrymen of yours once said: "There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women, and there are families." And as Alfred Henry Lewis pointed out: "There are only nine meals between mankind and anarchy." When popular shopping items get very expensive and scarce in our shops, do you really think the average westerner is going to care about what self inflicted horrors the third-world is suffering? If food shortages become a reality in the western world, do you really think we won't do anything in our power, even military power, to improve our situation? Also, there is nothing moral or ethical in giving away our future to try to stem the hopelessly overpopulated third-world. If they won't listen to our advice now they will have to learn the hard way later. We don't owe them anything.
Yes I know. I think nine meals is overestimating it a bit. I get a bit tricky after missing three meals myself. Well hopefully it won't come to the point where World War Three is fought over water and food. That would surely be the most ugly and shameful phase the human race will go through. It could be that it's necessary though, to go further. This non-rational entity does tend to be short-sighted and lacking in vision.
I think the third world has been exploited to such an extent by the west to the point where we do have at least an ethical if not practical obligation to help with progress. I think I know what you're taking about with self-inflicted, always seems easier to sell AK-47s than something more progressive. Moving to the lowest common denominator is a bad thing, I hope we can agree?
I won't see the possible future I am discussing and neither will my son I expect, but I will make my contributions towards making it possible and continue to try and create solutions. I'm the first to admit I'm a dreamer GScholz, in fact it is my business to be so. But I'm not the only one ;)
-
We agree then, in a way. I just feel there are more sophisticated solutions on the horizon than primitive combustion.
Sophistication is a negative unless it actually adds more capability. We've used combustion engines for a long time, but that doesn't make them primitive. Modern internal combustion engines are marvels of technology and efficiency.
Money is an obvious phase in development but not necessarily the ultimate solution. We are realistically seeing it's limitations, especially as the connection to the finite resources it is built on diminishes. In nature you never see something created from nothing as the human race does with 'wealth'. If you can 'zoom out' to a sufficient level, I would point out that everything we use, eat, make, wear and collect is supplied for free by this biosphere, which itself is powered by a large self-regulating and automatically maintaining fusion reactor, which we also don't have to pay for.
Actually they have and sometimes in great detail. You can read about the work of Jacques Fresco if you like, especially the Eden project. It isn't viable right now but progress is moving to a point where it will inevitable become so. Gene Roddenberry's fiction incorporates some of those ideas. Something like 50 years ago this work began. Communism and socialism are often just labels people attach to ideas they don't understand and then attack the labels, what the Eden project suggests, for example, is neither.
Wealth is not "created from nothing". If you believe that then you have watched too many Zeitgeist videos. I'm guessing you meant the Venus Project for which Jacques Fresco is known. It strikes me an nothing more than another collectivist utopia. And like all other collectivist utopias it requires changing human nature itself through social engineering, and that will always fail. Though usually not before murdering a few million people.
I hope you are right. I hope eventually the human race can see its borders are also as arbitrary as its abstract economy and similarly unnecessary.
Unless all people become one huge monoculture borders will always exist. Humanity will never become a monoculture. Perhaps there will be no national borders sometime in the far future, but there will be state/regional/municipality etc. borders. Just look at your own country with all its different cultures... How long has the UK existed as a unified country? How many partially self-ruling governmental sub-entities exist in the UK? Ask a Cornish person if he/she identifies as Cornish or British first. Scotland is about to secede... After how many hundreds of years as one nation? Humanity is becoming culturally and politically more fractured, not more unified.
I think the third world has been exploited to such an extent by the west to the point where we do have at least an ethical if not practical obligation to help with progress. I think I know what you're taking about with self-inflicted, always seems easier to sell AK-47s than something more progressive. Moving to the lowest common denominator is a bad thing, I hope we can agree?
The third world hasn't been exploited by the west since the time of European colonialism, and the debate is still ongoing whether colonialism had a net positive effect (though nothing would make it right). You're expressing what is commonly known as guilt mongering or "white guilt". Your AK-47 argument is nonsensical; you can't sell irrigation systems and schoolbooks if the buyer only wants AKs. How many schools do we have to build on our own dime only to have them burned down by the next tribal feud or would-be dictator? Africa is the richest continent on Earth in natural resources; Africa is the most fertile continent on Earth for agriculture. That people are poor and hungry in Africa is not the fault of the western world.
I won't see the possible future I am discussing and neither will my son I expect, but I will make my contributions towards making it possible and continue to try and create solutions. I'm the first to admit I'm a dreamer GScholz, in fact it is my business to be so. But I'm not the only one ;)
Dreaming is good, as long as it doesn't blind you from reality, from what's practical and achievable.
Oh and btw. a European consortium is also developing similar technology to that of the US Navy. They plan on turning solar energy into jet fuel.
https://www.ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/media-information/media-releases/2014/04/solarjet.html
"With the first ever production of synthesized solar jet fuel, the EU-funded SOLAR-JET project has successfully demonstrated the entire production chain for renewable kerosene obtained directly from sunlight, water and carbon dioxide (CO2), therein potentially revolutionizing the future of aviation. This process has also the potential to produce any other type of fuel for transport applications, such as diesel, gasoline or pure hydrogen in a more sustainable way."
-
Sophistication is a negative unless it actually adds more capability. We've used combustion engines for a long time, but that doesn't make them primitive. Modern internal combustion engines are marvels of technology and efficiency.
It is most probable that such solutions have already been developed but supressed to support the continuing oil-based world economy. There is usually a dip when a new technology begins to become viable, establised ones have had longer refinement.
Respectfully I think you are confusing superficial refinement and fundamental crudeness. Let's look at your BMW for instance. To support that combustive energy it needs a complex, heavy and large engine with three carefully separated chambers, a coolant system with a pump, a cooled lubrication system with a pump, an exhaust system with a catalizer, an induction system, an ignition system, a complex transmission and so on. It even uses a completely separate system to retard the speed which completely wastes the kinetic energy as heat. Even then it is still harmful to the environment, has a short lifespan and cost considerable energy to manufacture.
Stated this way, pretty primitive I would say. Having to add those layers of complexity is a bad sign, if we are discussing sophistication / primitiveness. Basically it's a hundred year old solution which has only altered in refinement, greater tolerances, electronics, testing and knowledge and refinement etcetera. Your BMW even shares the format of the Model T Ford infact.
Liking / loving and having passion for it is another thing entirely (which I'm sure you do).
Wealth is not "created from nothing". If you believe that then you have watched too many Zeitgeist videos.
The FIAT system is detached from any finite resource and hence limitlesly expandable. The Federal Reserve does not issue large amounts of money periodically then? On what is that money / wealth based? Don't such organisations have to produce additional money to accomodate an expanding global population?
I'm guessing you meant the Venus Project for which Jacques Fresco is known. It strikes me an nothing more than another collectivist utopia. And like all other collectivist utopias it requires changing human nature itself through social engineering, and that will always fail. Though usually not before murdering a few million people.
Yes that's the one. Too many projects I get them mixed up. I think you need to go a bit deeper into the concept you're doing it an injustice to look for reasons to immediately dismiss it. It is rather more the absence of social engineering I should say, trying to create a society closer to the neutral human state.
Regarding social engineering, the present day is more a product of this than anything else and has a casualty rate you mention already. Wouldn't you agree it takes considerable social engineering to encourage a large percentage of the population to work full time in jobs they don't really enjoy or like? Look at commerce and the cultivation of consumerism over the last 100 years. For sure an associated period of progress but arguably as much negative consequence.
Unless all people become one huge monoculture borders will always exist. Humanity will never become a monoculture. Perhaps there will be no national borders sometime in the far future, but there will be state/regional/municipality etc. borders. Just look at your own country with all its different cultures... How long has the UK existed as a unified country? How many partially self-ruling governmental sub-entities exist in the UK? Ask a Cornish person if he/she identifies as Cornish or British first. Scotland is about to secede... After how many hundreds of years as one nation? Humanity is becoming culturally and politically more fractured, not more unified.
I don't see anything wrong with cultural borders. Actually they are more like a steady changes of colour than border lines. I more find the concept of confining / excluding people objectionable. Scotland is no different from many places in the world in that it was forced to be part of a larger union against its will and not strictly self-governing.
Also for the record I no longer live in Britain, not that it really matters.
The third world hasn't been exploited by the west since the time of European colonialism, and the debate is still ongoing whether colonialism had a net positive effect (though nothing would make it right). You're expressing what is commonly known as guilt mongering or "white guilt". Your AK-47 argument is nonsensical; you can't sell irrigation systems and schoolbooks if the buyer only wants AKs. How many schools do we have to build on our own dime only to have them burned down by the next tribal feud or would-be dictator? Africa is the richest continent on Earth in natural resources; Africa is the most fertile continent on Earth for agriculture. That people are poor and hungry in Africa is not the fault of the western world.
Well that would be all well and good if it wasn't in the interests of the Western world to keep it underdeveloped. Of course people will want to buy Ak-47s if they are allowed to / encouraged to fight and they are cheap and in ready supply. Especially with the backdrop of the developed West and its commercial imperative. Many nations give aid while at the same time forcing unethical trade agreements in exchange.
Which is the more intelligent long-term solution? To let them 'work it out for themselves' and just contain them or help them become more productive and 'civilized' (for want of a better word)?
Dreaming is good, as long as it doesn't blind you from reality, from what's practical and achievable.
Here you are way out of your province and firmly in my world. 'Dreaming' is precisely the art of creative thinking concerning what is not yet practical and achievable. This is kryptonite for this creative process. Many of the projects I am involved with / surrounded with are well in advance of present technology. For this the connection to anticipating and driving technology is very fuzzy and reflexive. I am not totally blind to present realities, but we are largely discussing future possibilities.
What a wall of text our discussion has become. I have enjoyed some of our conversations and have learned things from you. I may have to stop now. I am rather busy with deadlines this month.
:salute
-
This discussion is quickly moving into rule-breaking territory so it needs to end. However I'll be happy to continue via PM if you'd like?
I'll just end on a few notes: You're wrong about the value of money (even Fiat) being arbitrary; it represents the value of trade it is being used for. Think of it like just another commodity, but one that is easily storable and exchangeable. Why does gold have a value? Same thing really. Today's demand for money is determined by yesterday's purchasing power of money. Consequently for a given supply of money, today's purchasing power is established in turn. Yesterday's demand for money in turn was fixed by the prior day's purchasing power of money. We have a (rather complicated) barter system where money is just a good that makes trade easier and more practical. With regard to other goods and services, history is not required to ascertain present prices. A demand for these goods arises on account of the perceived benefits from consuming them. The benefit that money provides is that it can be exchanged for goods and services. Consequently, one needs to know the past purchasing power of money in order to establish today's demand for it.
You can print more money to meet demand, but that devalues all the money in circulation. Same as digging up more gold, or releasing more gold on the market from national reserves devalues all the gold already in circulation.
We can of course return to a gold standard, but then gold would just become our money again. Gold and silver was perhaps the original money, but paper and now electronic money is far more practical which is why they started using paper in the first place.
Apart from some use in electronics what value does gold, diamonds and other gems really have? None, except they are highly exchangeable for other goods and a good way to store (and show off) wealth. Hanging a big wad of Dollars from your earlobes doesn't look as good as diamonds, but you can still exchange those paper notes for a new car or food. That's their value.
What country do you now call home, if you don't mind me asking?
:salute
-
What country do you now call home, if you don't mind me asking?
I'm not telling you that, I know you own a Glock! :old:
This discussion is quickly moving into rule-breaking territory so it needs to end. However I'll be happy to continue via PM if you'd like?
Perhaps when I have more time in the summer. I must prepare for an exhibition now :salute
-
I'm not telling you that, I know you own a Glock! :old:
I used to have one as my service sidearm yes, but no more. And quite frankly it doesn't have the range to be much of a threat unless you're my new neighbour. ;)
Perhaps when I have more time in the summer. I must prepare for an exhibition now :salute
Good luck with that! Post pictures! :salute
-
one day green/silver money will be gone...every single person in the world will have to be connected to the internet....
money is a figment of smoke and mirrors.
look beyond the guy behind the curtain....there is someone pulling his strings.
-
He who walks behind the rows?
-
one day green/silver money will be gone...every single person in the world will have to be connected to the internet....
money is a figment of smoke and mirrors.
look beyond the guy behind the curtain....there is someone pulling his strings.
The red shield started to exchange paper notes for gold! The conveniently stored peoples gold,as goldsmiths they had safes,and in exchange for "holding" your gold or silver you got a note that said you had X amount of gold/silver in the....... bank.. sorry I meant safe..... :noid
The string pullers......
:salute
-
Also, being able to create jet fuel means less need for current fuel tank storage aboard a cv, which means extra room for other stuff like beer. :cheers:
As hybrid cars become more popular and gasoline consumption drops, prices for jet fuel will skyrocket.
Another bad thing about the Navy being dependent on land based fuel reserve tanks is they are an easy target for future Mach 7+ cruise missile systems.
Also, consider survivability. If the stuff can be generated as needed, the storage capacity can be diminished as you note, and replacing a high-energy liquid fuel with something a tad less volatile, even if just empty volume, makes the ship more robust under attack.