Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #87995 > unrolled thread

accelerate

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++

Contents

  accelerate Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-12-17 20:47 +0000
    Re: accelerate Albert Arkwright <Albert.Arkwright@gmail.com> - 2022-12-18 01:25 +0000
      Re: accelerate Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-12-18 06:46 +0000
    Re: accelerate "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-17 22:56 -0800
      Re: accelerate scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-18 17:28 +0000
    Re: accelerate scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-18 17:17 +0000
      Re: accelerate Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-12-18 13:19 -0600
      Re: accelerate Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-12-18 17:38 -0600
        Re: accelerate scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-19 15:25 +0000
          Re: accelerate Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-19 07:38 -0800
            Re: accelerate scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-19 16:46 +0000
              Re: accelerate Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-19 21:17 +0200
                Re: accelerate scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-19 20:53 +0000
                  Re: accelerate Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-19 23:19 +0200
    Re: accelerate Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-18 16:55 -0800
      Re: accelerate Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-19 07:36 -0800

#87995 — accelerate

We need to accelerate investment in new nuclear build and green hydrogen 
technologies to counter climate change.  Greenpeace are wrong to dismiss 
nuclear on the account of radioactive waste: radioactive waste already 
exists and creating more of it doesn't make the problem significantly 
worse or have any bearing on solving that problem.  Just my two cents. 
#climatecrisis #ClimateEmergency

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#88004

On 17/12/2022 20:47, Mr Flibble wrote:
> We need to accelerate investment in new nuclear build and green hydrogen
> technologies to counter climate change.

There is a better alternative and the waste product degrades pretty 
quickly. It's called Nuclear Fusion:

<https://youtu.be/d0OSLz9i5p8>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#88005

On Sun, 18 Dec 2022 01:25:00 +0000, Albert Arkwright wrote:

> On 17/12/2022 20:47, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> We need to accelerate investment in new nuclear build and green
>> hydrogen technologies to counter climate change.
> 
> There is a better alternative and the waste product degrades pretty
> quickly. It's called Nuclear Fusion:
> 
> <https://youtu.be/d0OSLz9i5p8>

Nuclear fusion outside of the lab is still decades away, if we ignore the 
Sun and thermonuclear weapons of course. :)

/Flibble

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#88006

On 12/17/2022 12:47 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> We need to accelerate investment in new nuclear build and green hydrogen
> technologies to counter climate change.  Greenpeace are wrong to dismiss
> nuclear on the account of radioactive waste: radioactive waste already
> exists and creating more of it doesn't make the problem significantly
> worse or have any bearing on solving that problem.  Just my two cents.
> #climatecrisis #ClimateEmergency

Bob Lazar's hydrogen Corvette from years ago:

https://youtu.be/Ytg23mDd1a4

We need the metal hydride to store the hydrogen.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#88010

"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>On 12/17/2022 12:47 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> We need to accelerate investment in new nuclear build and green hydrogen
>> technologies to counter climate change.  Greenpeace are wrong to dismiss
>> nuclear on the account of radioactive waste: radioactive waste already
>> exists and creating more of it doesn't make the problem significantly
>> worse or have any bearing on solving that problem.  Just my two cents.
>> #climatecrisis #ClimateEmergency
>
>Bob Lazar's hydrogen Corvette from years ago:
>
>https://youtu.be/Ytg23mDd1a4
>
>We need the metal hydride to store the hydrogen.

From one of the comments on one of the lazar videos:

     Pretty cool stuff. Using a lithium hydride for storage
     is a huge improvement over pressurized/liquified hydrogen
     for storage and transport.

     The drawback is efficiency; it takes a lot more energy to
     separate the hydrogen from oxygen in water than you get back
     by burning the hydrogen. If you take the electricity used to
     separate the hydrogen, and store it in a lithium ion battery
     (for example) you can use an electric motor to run the car
     directly with 80-90% efficiency, and you don't need a particle
     accelerator to generate the hydride (particle accelerators use
     a lot of electricity). The hydrogen powered vehicle only captures
     about 30% of the electrical energy used to capture the hydrogen
     and manufacture the hydride as fuel energy for the vehicle. The
     same electricity used to generate 400 miles of hydrogen range
     would give you 900 miles of battery range if you used it to simply
     charge up a Tesla. The hydrogen-powered car does give you more
     energy-dense fuel storage: the hydride tanks for 400 miles of fuel
     weigh much less than a 400-mile range lithium-ion battery (a Model
     S with a 100 kWH battery pack has a 403 mile range, for example). The
     hydride vehicle is cool, and green, but all-electric battery-operated
     vehicles are more than twice as efficient, which means they cost half
     as much to run in kiloWatts per mile. Who killed the hydrogen car?
     Economics, in the form of cheap lithium ion batteries and efficient
     electric motors."
         -Steven Gulie


Boeing and Airbus, realizing that their business models are at risk, given
worldwide goals on reduction of CO2 emissions (a bit more than 2% of CO2
emissions are for air passenger and freight traffic) have been investigating
several possible alternatives, including SAF (Sustainable Aviation Fuel, such
as that made from recycled fats or from agricultural waste feedstocks),
Hydrogen (Liquified or Pressurized H2 Gas either combustion or fuel cell),
Electric (Battery in the 1000 to 2000km range basket) or a recent suggestion
from WPI, a Magnesium Hydride slurry added to JET-A, the Mg binds to CO2
in the atmosphere and precipitates out as MgCO3 or MG(CO3)2; harmless
(and actually edible) capture of the Carbon from the atmosphere making
the flight carbon-negative.  It does still rely on a non-renewable
resource, and the energy costs of creating the MH2 slurry may be prohibitive.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#88009

Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> writes:
>We need to accelerate investment in new nuclear build and green hydrogen 
>technologies to counter climate change.  Greenpeace are wrong to dismiss 
>nuclear on the account of radioactive waste: radioactive waste already 
>exists and creating more of it doesn't make the problem significantly 
>worse or have any bearing on solving that problem.  Just my two cents. 
>#climatecrisis #ClimateEmergency

Even if we were able to build enough fusion power plants (if they ever
become viable) to replace the current fossil based energy supplies,
(before fossil fuels  run out, or there won't be enough energy to
build the replacement facilities[*]) there is a hard limit on the amount
that energy consumption can grow (at the current rate of growth
the waste heat alone from power production and use will heat the
planet surface to the boiling point of water within four centuries;
with habitability eliminated in two centuries - and that's ignoring
carbon dioxide emissions based warming completely).

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/

[*] https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/

Here's an open-source textbook that goes into the physics of energy
production and consumption.   Pretty bleak.

https://escholarship.org/uc/energy_ambitions

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#88012

On 12/18/2022 11:17 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> writes:
>> We need to accelerate investment in new nuclear build and green hydrogen
>> technologies to counter climate change.  Greenpeace are wrong to dismiss
>> nuclear on the account of radioactive waste: radioactive waste already
>> exists and creating more of it doesn't make the problem significantly
>> worse or have any bearing on solving that problem.  Just my two cents.
>> #climatecrisis #ClimateEmergency
> 
> Even if we were able to build enough fusion power plants (if they ever
> become viable) to replace the current fossil based energy supplies,
> (before fossil fuels  run out, or there won't be enough energy to
> build the replacement facilities[*]) there is a hard limit on the amount
> that energy consumption can grow (at the current rate of growth
> the waste heat alone from power production and use will heat the
> planet surface to the boiling point of water within four centuries;
> with habitability eliminated in two centuries - and that's ignoring
> carbon dioxide emissions based warming completely).
> 
> https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
> 
> [*] https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/
> 
> Here's an open-source textbook that goes into the physics of energy
> production and consumption.   Pretty bleak.
> 
> https://escholarship.org/uc/energy_ambitions

Hot tubs for everyone !

Lynn

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#88020

On 12/18/2022 11:17 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> writes:
>> We need to accelerate investment in new nuclear build and green hydrogen
>> technologies to counter climate change.  Greenpeace are wrong to dismiss
>> nuclear on the account of radioactive waste: radioactive waste already
>> exists and creating more of it doesn't make the problem significantly
>> worse or have any bearing on solving that problem.  Just my two cents.
>> #climatecrisis #ClimateEmergency
> 
> Even if we were able to build enough fusion power plants (if they ever
> become viable) to replace the current fossil based energy supplies,
> (before fossil fuels  run out, or there won't be enough energy to
> build the replacement facilities[*]) there is a hard limit on the amount
> that energy consumption can grow (at the current rate of growth
> the waste heat alone from power production and use will heat the
> planet surface to the boiling point of water within four centuries;
> with habitability eliminated in two centuries - and that's ignoring
> carbon dioxide emissions based warming completely).
> 
> https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
> 
> [*] https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/
> 
> Here's an open-source textbook that goes into the physics of energy
> production and consumption.   Pretty bleak.
> 
> https://escholarship.org/uc/energy_ambitions

You know, at some point we are going to build a partial Dyson sphere 
around the Sun to capture its energy.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere

I still have thoughts about igniting Jupiter but I doubt that we can do it.

Lynn

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#88051

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>On 12/18/2022 11:17 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> writes:
>>> We need to accelerate investment in new nuclear build and green hydrogen
>>> technologies to counter climate change.  Greenpeace are wrong to dismiss
>>> nuclear on the account of radioactive waste: radioactive waste already
>>> exists and creating more of it doesn't make the problem significantly
>>> worse or have any bearing on solving that problem.  Just my two cents.
>>> #climatecrisis #ClimateEmergency
>> 
>> Even if we were able to build enough fusion power plants (if they ever
>> become viable) to replace the current fossil based energy supplies,
>> (before fossil fuels  run out, or there won't be enough energy to
>> build the replacement facilities[*]) there is a hard limit on the amount
>> that energy consumption can grow (at the current rate of growth
>> the waste heat alone from power production and use will heat the
>> planet surface to the boiling point of water within four centuries;
>> with habitability eliminated in two centuries - and that's ignoring
>> carbon dioxide emissions based warming completely).
>> 
>> https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
>> 
>> [*] https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/
>> 
>> Here's an open-source textbook that goes into the physics of energy
>> production and consumption.   Pretty bleak.
>> 
>> https://escholarship.org/uc/energy_ambitions
>
>You know, at some point we are going to build a partial Dyson sphere 
>around the Sun to capture its energy.

Have you bothered to calculate the amount of energy required
to build a dyson sphere (or even a dyson ring)?  If you have that
much energy, you don't need to build the sphere in the first place.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#88055

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 5:25:53 PM UTC+2, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> writes: 
> > 
> >You know, at some point we are going to build a partial Dyson sphere 
> >around the Sun to capture its energy.
> Have you bothered to calculate the amount of energy required 
> to build a dyson sphere (or even a dyson ring)? If you have that 
> much energy, you don't need to build the sphere in the first place.

Incrementally rather than at once

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#88060

Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
>On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 5:25:53 PM UTC+2, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> writes: 
>> > 
>> >You know, at some point we are going to build a partial Dyson sphere 
>> >around the Sun to capture its energy.
>> Have you bothered to calculate the amount of energy required 
>> to build a dyson sphere (or even a dyson ring)? If you have that 
>> much energy, you don't need to build the sphere in the first place.
>
>Incrementally rather than at once

Run the math.  What is the diameter of the orbit?  What are the material
requirements?  Even a ringworld would take more energy than it would
produce just to build and put in orbit.  How far out does it need to be
to ensure that the energy density at any point is habitable?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#88073

19.12.2022 18:46 Scott Lurndal kirjutas:
> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
>> On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 5:25:53 PM UTC+2, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> You know, at some point we are going to build a partial Dyson sphere
>>>> around the Sun to capture its energy.
>>> Have you bothered to calculate the amount of energy required
>>> to build a dyson sphere (or even a dyson ring)? If you have that
>>> much energy, you don't need to build the sphere in the first place.
>>
>> Incrementally rather than at once
> 
> Run the math.  What is the diameter of the orbit?  What are the material
> requirements?  Even a ringworld would take more energy than it would
> produce just to build and put in orbit.  How far out does it need to be
> to ensure that the energy density at any point is habitable?

You cannot argue such things by relying on the current level of 
techonology. Hundred years ago it was pretty expensive to store one bit 
of information electrically (an electromechanical relay was a complex 
device), today it's something like 0.00000002 cents per bit. Moreover, 
if someone told them about terabytes of memory, they would have laughed 
and said there is not enough copper to make so many relays, and anyway 
the mechanical failure rate would have been such that the system would 
break down immediately after starting operation, so mission impossible. 
And this is just 100 years.

For building something you don't need energy, you just need to place the 
atoms in the correct position. When 3D printing has advanced enough, you 
can build whatever, including a clone of yourself, by placing atoms in 
correct location in space.

At next step, you would place protons and neutrons in correct place in 
space, creating any needed atoms. For saving cost, maybe putting 
neutrons first, then decaying half of them into proton+electron pairs? 
The price of gold could become something like 0.00000002 cents per ton. 
I say, you are just lacking imagination ;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#88077

Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> writes:
>19.12.2022 18:46 Scott Lurndal kirjutas:
>> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
>>> On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 5:25:53 PM UTC+2, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> You know, at some point we are going to build a partial Dyson sphere
>>>>> around the Sun to capture its energy.
>>>> Have you bothered to calculate the amount of energy required
>>>> to build a dyson sphere (or even a dyson ring)? If you have that
>>>> much energy, you don't need to build the sphere in the first place.
>>>
>>> Incrementally rather than at once
>> 
>> Run the math.  What is the diameter of the orbit?  What are the material
>> requirements?  Even a ringworld would take more energy than it would
>> produce just to build and put in orbit.  How far out does it need to be
>> to ensure that the energy density at any point is habitable?
>
>You cannot argue such things by relying on the current level of 
>techonology.

I'm not relying on any current technology.  There is no current
technology capable of producing the energy or materials necessary
to create a dyson sphere or a ring.

However, it is an interesting exercise to attempt to compute
exactly how much material and energy would be required to build
such a construct.

For example, a MIT study recently looked at the idea of a sunshade
to help ameliorate planetary warming.   The upshot was
that the shade needed to span millions of square kilometers and
would cost multiple tens of trillions of dollars to build and
emplace in (relatively) stable earth-sun L1 orbit.

> Hundred years ago it was pretty expensive to store one bit 
>of information electrically (an electromechanical relay was a complex 
>device), today it's something like 0.00000002 cents per bit. Moreover, 
>if someone told them about terabytes of memory, they would have laughed 
>and said there is not enough copper to make so many relays, and anyway 
>the mechanical failure rate would have been such that the system would 
>break down immediately after starting operation, so mission impossible. 
>And this is just 100 years.

The growth in energy consumption for the past 150 years has averaged
2.8% per annum.   That's an exponential growth curve[*] which is not viable
over the long term (even if we had an infinite supply of clean energy),
simply because energy == heat.   Waste heat.    At the 2.8% rate, in
less than four centuries, the surface temperature of the earth would
be at the boiling point of water just from waste heat alone.

This is simple physics, albeit
argumentum ad absurdum, since we'll run out of economically extractable
stored solar energy (gas, oil, coal) within the next generation, if not
sooner.

[*] Soi disant "hockey stick".

To build a fleet of nuclear reactors to replace the stored solar
energy (said store built up over hundreds of million years) would require
some 30,000 reactors to be built (assuming that energy growth stops)
given the current 20TW world-wide electricity consumption plus 50%
to account for electricity to replace transportation fuels and
fuels used to make steel, concrete, aluminum and fertilizer and
assuming that growth in energy consumption levels out.

Most of the world economies are predicated on growth.  The more the
better.   For the economy to grow, energy consumption by the economy
will grow.  To a certain extent, improved efficiencies will offset
the growth in consumption, to a degree, but even that has an upper
limit imposed by thermodynamics.  This too can't last forever.

>
>For building something you don't need energy, you just need to place the 
>atoms in the correct position. 

How do you move those atoms around without energy?


>When 3D printing has advanced enough, you 
>can build whatever, including a clone of yourself, by placing atoms in 
>correct location in space.

Where do you get those atoms, and how do you place them without using
energy to move them?

>
>At next step, you would place protons and neutrons in correct place in 
>space, creating any needed atoms. For saving cost, maybe putting 
>neutrons first, then decaying half of them into proton+electron pairs? 
>The price of gold could become something like 0.00000002 cents per ton. 
>I say, you are just lacking imagination ;-)

No, just grounded in reality, sadly.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#88080

19.12.2022 22:53 Scott Lurndal kirjutas:
> Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> writes:

>> For building something you don't need energy, you just need to place the
>> atoms in the correct position.
> 
> How do you move those atoms around without energy?

We know since Newton that moving does not require energy. It's 
acceleration what does.

If a particle is at time=t1 stationary in some frame in some spot 1, and 
in a later time=t2 stationary relative the same frame in some other spot 
2, it will have the same potential and kinetic energy and there is no 
fundamental reason to claim that some energy has to be spent when moving 
it from spot 1 to spot 2. In our everyday experience some energy is 
almost always lost on thermal interactions, but if we manage to move the 
atom in a state of quantum coherence (like in superconductivity or 
super-viscosity), no energy would be lost.

That would be the ideal. In reality most probably some energy would be 
needed, but we have no idea how much, and second, one cannot exactly say 
that the place where one might construct the Dyson sphere is lacking in 
energy - rather the opposite. That's why one would want to construct it 
there in the first place.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#88022

Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> writes:
> We need to accelerate investment in new nuclear build and green hydrogen 
[SNIP]

This is comp.lang.c++.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for XCOM Labs
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#88053

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 2:55:25 AM UTC+2, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Mr Flibble <fli...@reddwarf.jmc.corp> writes: 
> > We need to accelerate investment in new nuclear build and green hydrogen
> [SNIP] 
> 
> This is comp.lang.c++. 
> 

C++ => increase consumption of carbon

> -- 
> Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.T...@gmail.com 
> Working, but not speaking, for XCOM Labs 
> void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++

csiph-web