Not a member? Register Now. * Required
Energy Resonance Open Source (EROS)
posted by Habatchii on 8/20/2009 - Be the first to recommend this
Our planet has many intuitive energy solutions, it has become apparent that energy is as personal as the individuals that use it. The solution to this mass formula? Energy Resonance Open Source. What is EROS? Energy Resonancing is a simplified term used to define a energy related development environment. Open Source generally refers to the generic term for free software which endorses its source code to be freely distributed as a user-friendly UI-API. EROS is a form of wiki or social software that hosts large energy collaboration user groups. Accordingly, the digital age is sweep passed us at a tremendous rate, so fast that energy needs are becoming virtual instead of impossible. Open Source software communities are spawning to filled the voids that energy fulfillment creates, by providing high-efficient collaborative energy developer sites to absorb the 'individual' energy needs, the solutions are at hand. In producing open source software for; Satellite Systems Transport Logistics Appliances Personal Digital Assistants Laptops, Desktops & Netbooks Electronics Services & Telecommunications energy resonance open source collaborations may improve the energy outlook dramatically within a 5 to 10 year framework. Generating Ozone-Friendly Solutions, these Developer Collaboration Sites (DC's) carry the capability to promote a 'Energy Quota/Energy Quotient' environment. Teaming and joining forces with the existing 'wiki' communities, the DC applications and extensions may eventually become a kernel for every major operating system within the consumer market; a great victory for open source, free software and energy-conscience taxpayers. Using existing online resources and private contributions, the Energy Resonance Open Source Foundation (EROS) may become a strong lobbying force within the government, creating new energy laws and conservation legislation which will help corporations and taxpayers balance their energy consumption. Each DC launched may have the capacity to sustain hundreds of thousands of energy consumers and business, all at the same time of promoting new plausible EROS open source software solutions. How Can I Help? Sites like this are spawning and entering a new age of interactivity. Speak with the webmaster of your favorite sites and direct them to this topic. Its as simple as that.
http://www.super.wikia.com
respond to this comment
Enabling
posted by rocks on 8/20/2009 - Be the first to recommend this
Is there a suppression during a time of need, this makes no sense for our future is at risk!!! There are free energy technologies and Permanent magnetic motors, if each house had a permanent magnetic motor to power the home and we drove electric cars. There would be hell of allot less greenhouse gases being emitted. If you can understand this next bit then well-done if you cant then think harder! DRAW this, 5 evenly spread lines coming out from a center point each tipped with south poled magnets then have 4 evenly spread SHAPELY curved double poled magnets(north-south) on the outer. Using the right stretched, half diamond cured inwards shape outer double poled magnets and materials this pattern in general could be redefined to make MANY different types of magnetic motors. Can you think of your own? I have dozens in my head it’s so easy! Simple ideas are usually the best ideas! Using the right combination of old and new technology with enough static energy to overcome part of the laws of diminishing returns THIS WILL power something usable, such as a house and much more If you have drawn it right you will have one inner south poled magnet in the center of one of the double-poled outer magnets while two of the inner south poled magnets are attracting the other two are being repelled this then forces the one that is in the center to repel at its thickest part of repelling.3D runs through the outer magnets just something I come up with years ago. C.S.I.R.O. Australia has one that can produce 3 500 rpm, is there no investigation into this if there is then where is it? Does anyone out there know anything about this besides a select few.
Diversification and Integration of Renewable Energy Systems at faster pace.......
posted by JPN on 8/11/2009 - This comment was recommended 1 time
Dear Sir(s), With consistently growing awareness on environmental and climatic issues in context of using fossil fuels at large, it has now become more imperative and priority area to deploy diversified new energy technologies especially wind mills, solar photovoltaic cells and hydro-powered power generation. The contribution of renewable energy in the primary energy supply at the moment is confined to 8% - 10% only that needs to enhanced to 25% by 2020, only then we shall be able to reverse the environmental and climatic impacts of carbon energy in near term. The priority is to diversify and integrate renewable energy systems at faster pace, to enable deployment of new diversified energy technologies, for reducing carbon footprints and reversing climate change phenomenon at the earliest. Website: http://www.aadityaenergyfoundation.org
CIVILIZATION REQUIRES ENERGY
posted by CocoonerGin on 6/12/2009 - This comment was recommended 2 times
What matters most? HOW civilizations get energy matters less than THAT civilizations have a reliable, uninterrupted, economically negligible (or almost negligible) supply of energy adequate to propel all creative human activity. Without it, civilizations collapse (or move to more economically congenial locations). Value is in the mind of the beholder. What good is a pristine planet reduced to subsistence agriculture, hunting and gathering, and pre-industrial technology? Unshackled by parasitic authoritarian regulation, free markets solve every authentic problem and will again. Ponder the paradox that Japan and North America pollute less than China and India. Let's consider pollution as a function of value-added output worldwide. Let a thousand technological flowers bloom, including hydrocarbons.
view all 2 replies respond to this comment
North America pollutes less than China and India, WRONG
posted by your_kids_too on 7/21/2009 - Be the first to recommend this
Firstly, CocoonerGin is incorrect in claiming that North America pollutes less. Per capita CO2 from the USA is much more (A) than any developing or industrialising nation, and particular figures for China (B) and India (C) are given below in the footnote. Secondly, CocoonerGin is incorrect to indicate that authority and central planning is parasitic whilst free markets solve every authentic problem. Penicillin, anyone? That was a top down order 'just do it'. Tuberculosis; a lucrative respite homes industry was shut down by a central order to vaccinate. Getting a man into orbit, we all know who won that race. And as for the man on the moon, that only got done at all because one bold Kennedy ignored the bids and free markets and said to you guys just do it. I'm saying that the best and brightest need to be ordered out of commercial muckspreading and into more useful work. In Chevron's energy planning discussion, I say that commercial optimisation for profit should play no part in a nations' decision of how to provide the best and most useful supply of energy to meet the reasonable needs of citizens. That is because for twenty years after the thermometer stats became obvious to stats people, those commercial misers have wilfully been wrecking the climate even more and risk getting America nuked or worse in retribution for that within a generation. The right optimisation, that of maximum expected benefit, the only optimum which can set you guys up for a long future, just does not happen with decisions made according to free markets. The old Harvard optimisation for maximum short term rate of return on investment might get flowers. I want trees. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita, for the year 2004, metric tons of CO2 only (not all of CO2e) according to US dept. Energy figures. A) USA, 20.4 tons B) China, 3.9 tons C) India, 1.2 tons
What Matters Most
posted by MarkLeavenworth on 8/5/2009 - Be the first to recommend this
I don't know if anything is firstly in order, but to propel all creative human activity is a lost cause, really. We don't create, we destroy. That's just a fact of being human. There is nothing marketable that is not the result of a destruction of the natural state.
Collaboration
posted by Michael_O on 7/20/2009 - This comment was recommended 1 time
Perhaps nowhere is the opportunity to enable new energy technologies greater than in the US-China context. While there remain a range of important challenges to address between these two nations in the lead up to Copenhagen, Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s announcement of US-China joint research centers on clean energy via efficiency and carbon capture is certainly an encouraging and welcome signal. Commercial benefits to both sides may ultimately be found given that China is, for example, the world’s largest producer of solar panels and both sides are looking to achieve greater energy efficiency, accelerate SmartGrid technology, and provide a boost to a range of alternative energy technologies. Economic and scientific collaboration between the two largest carbon emitting nations on these topics will help to reinforce needed breakthroughs on the policy front as well.
Demand Side Attitude Change
posted by aldibi on 7/9/2009 - Be the first to recommend this
With respect to any who suggest that the whole subject of energy conservation is being hyped, may I remind us that there are many reasons for addressing our energy use. It is clear to me that there will come a day when our fossil fuel is exhausted, and new energy sources will be essential. There are many estimates of when that will be, but it will come one day. Between now and then there are two sides to the subject, supply side and demand side. I admire the efforts and investments being made by government, public and private sectors, and although we may sometimes question the motives, the supply side will take money, commitment and time to be resolved. On the demand side there are things we can do today. There is at least 10% and in many cases up to 35% in simple savings to be made. At every level, by consumers, small and large business, and the government. The amazing thing is that the most effective way, the only FREE way, is to to just "turn it off" sooner. But it is the least promoted. I have my thoughts on why. They speak to the sad state of global ethics. We have become driven by threat and greed. And because it is not obvious how we will either get rich by turning a switch, or drop into oblivion if we do not, we do not care. We say we do, for we want to think we are good. But as someone said to me once, do not listen to what they say, watch how they behave" I call on us all to wake up and care in our actions. Not only will this save an immediate 10% of all demand, but it may remind us to be grateful for what we have.
Efficiency
posted by MarkLeavenworth on 7/10/2009 - Be the first to recommend this
One pie feeds two well-fed people or 20 survivors. Which system is more efficient? The only reason to promote corporate and government system 'efficiency' is to try to cut enough use per capita to save the fiat banking system, since fiat banking is the most efficient way to exploit labor. Unless you're a politician, then the 'efficiency' projects are important to get your share of the funds. This is not as much an anti-'mainstream' comment (since it is what it is), as a call to individuals to increase their knoweldge of small-scale production possibilities, and to guard against the push to eliminate them that is surely in the works and on the horizon.
re demand side attitude chnge
posted by your_kids_too on 7/20/2009 - Be the first to recommend this
Aldibi is quite right that 10% savings in the CO2e pollution rate is possible immediately from conscientious choice by everyone. The trouble is that any population is split into the meek and the greedy - not all will bother to do their bit. Therefore the achievable saving can only be implemented by enforcement applied to the greedy. 'Greedy' may be found from simplistic metrics such as above-median purchasing or fuel or electricity use without a beneficial output such as food produced or childcare and education achieved. It is technically feasible to allow a ration per week and disconnect the greedy ones if they reach their ration before the end of the week. Most excess pollution results, I say, from having more wealth than is necessary. It is technically feasible to zero the bank balance of the finance types and oil tycoons (done properly through a Recovery of damages caused Bill, anyone?. What was the incremental damage cost to New Orleans from that hurricane being just a tiny bit larger than it would have been without the USA contribution to global warming? How was that cost creatively accounted as an 'asset' and used to fluff up the finance markets, and what did it grow to when applied to leveraged investment rackets?). It could help the USA more than supporting old industries and old banks to nationalize the ATM's so that Jo Average can still use his hard earned and to move say a Trillion dollars damages recovered to investments which provide jobs for people as they move out of the old oil and old coal industries. The goal here is not retribution but of moving important engineering and labour skills and possibly heavy equipment into the most helpful clean tech.
Enabling New Energy Technologies
posted by Dr.Walia on 7/3/2009 - This comment was recommended 1 time
Since first oil embargo of 1973, many new and old technogies have been developed, promoted and several energy bills have been passed in the USA, so why none of these have been coomercially been implemented ? It is because true cost of 70% of oil production especially in Middle East, Russia, and South America is less than $5 per barrel. This was confirmed by the recent Saudi Oil Minister in his 60 minutes interview and again being reported for the Iraqi oil deals currently being put together. However since 1973 there have been almost 7 price spikes between 2-600 % of oil prices due to decisions by few. So many technologies became uneconomical as the prices declined as is happening today with ethanol. Technologies are needed which can not only compete with oil prices when they go down but today create solution for carbon and many other needs.
Alternative Energy Solution
posted by Dennis Huber on 6/14/2009 - This comment was recommended 1 time
While some forms of alternative energy may prove to be cost effective some day, we need to use the energy sources we have today to make the energy we need to grow our economy. We have been conserving energy since the 70s. We are not going to save energy to get of the the global situation we are in. We need more sources of power, in particular new nuclear power plants. We can reprocess the nuclear fuel and destroy the long lived isotopes in a burner reactor. The French are doing this safely - so can we. Clean coal is years away. Smart grid is a catchy name but will not save energy unless we completely rebuild our transmission and distribution networks. That will cost more moeny than we have. Nuclear power will produce electricity without any CO2 emmissions, and it can produce hydrogen to allow us to move to a clean source of power for our automobiles. As old fossil plants are decomissioned and as new demand for electric power is identified, we can meet both of these needs with clean nuclear power.
view all 4 replies respond to this comment
posted by robo on 6/15/2009 - Be the first to recommend this
Nukes will never be viable, they're too massive and take too long to deploy. It'd take 15 years or more to get permits, front money for construction, and putting the manpower in place and then the time to actually build them. Most of the demand is coming from the 'baby boom' generation and most of them will be dead in 15-20 years. The new nukes use lithium which competes with the global consumer demand for portable electric power using lithium ion and the newer lithium polymer batteries, and the electric automobile market using lithium ion batteries. According to reports almost half of the world's supply of the highest grade lithium has already been used. What would we do if we built all these nuke dinos and didn't have the lithium to fire them? The nuke industry has taken $50 billion + out of the public's pocket for each of the last 30 + years trying to develop 'cheap, non polluting' electric power and still can't deliver a fusion containment. If each of the world's governments would allocate just 10% of their budget they have for developing fusion and INSTEAD put the money into 'multi-wavelength' photovoltaic’s we'd have massive amounts of cheap, renewable, short time to market, and INDIVIDUAL electric power. Even though Einstein is known for developing nukes and E=MC*C, he saw the 'light' and got his Nobel Prize for inventing the photoelectric effect E=hv. He saw that solar is the obvious choice. The fact is that those that control the oil market won't be able to control the solar market because with solar there is NO NEED to deliver the power, it's generated right at your own home! These oil giants are purposely holding the public away from having the best alternative because they can't control it!
Nuclear Power
posted by treefarm on 6/22/2009 - Be the first to recommend this
I agree with Dennis that nuclear power is at present the most cost effective way to decrease the unhealthy emissions that our current electrical producers are adding to our environment. Clean coal if even possible is likely going to be very costly. Wind and solar in the right places will be cost effective but building huge windmill farms in the ocean seems unrealistic mainly from a maintenance issue. Using wave power on the other hand does appear to have good potential. I question all the concern about CO2 that is produced by humans and a great deal of the other climate warming theories. Another several years of high sun spot activity and we will be trying to figure out how to warm things up.
posted by shelly on 6/23/2009 - Be the first to recommend this
I think this have to be good but I am concern about radition (sp?)
posted by treefarm on 6/25/2009 - Be the first to recommend this
Yes I think everyone is concerned about the long term effects of storing radioactive waste, but the amount of waste is relatively small and much cheaper to bury then continuing to rely on oil and other fossil fuels. If your concern is a repeat of 3-mile Island, that is always a possibility but we have come along way technology wise since then.
Need for increased action
posted by Michael_O on 6/11/2009 - This comment was recommended 3 times
I believe that action on climate is urgent and technology offers substantial promise for addressing long term energy needs and meeting carbon reduction goals. I also think that we must be willing to share the cost of investing now in order to avoid costlier climate impacts later. At the same time, I question the feasibility of quickly achieving the scale that is needed to replace our existing energy infrastructure. Given this, I believe we can and must do much more now with “low hanging fruit” such as energy efficiency while we work out the strategies for broader energy transition.
view all 5 replies respond to this comment
Increased energy efficiency
posted by Sid on 6/12/2009 - Be the first to recommend this
I am not sure that increasing all matters of energy efficiency can be considered "low hanging fruit", but the neat thing about increasing energy efficiency is it can be done now. By doing this energy can be reduced. Reduced energy means it has a payback for the investment and reduced energy consumption also means reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Renewable energy will be great to look forward towards happening, but the cost of infastructure and the time to get it all into place will take more than a bit of time. Energy efficiency is mostly related towards electricity. A lot of these items are considered low hanging fruit items. I would like you to also consider increasing Natural Gas energy efficiency. This is not quite a low hanging fruit, but almost 50% of all natural gas consumed is wasted into the atmosphere as HOT energy. This is a lot of unnecessary waste. This hot energy can be recovered and utilized. Then all that would be vented into the atmosphere is cool exhaust. Again, increased energy efficiency will reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions vented into the atmosphere. Natural gas is even used to produce a lot of our electricity. Natural gas is used to provide to you almost everything you eat, drink, wear, travel in, and to keep warm and cool.
http://www.sidelsystems.com
"Low Hanging Fruit" AKA 2005 *Chevron* STudy of Wax Based Lubes
posted by WA3ZGT on 6/12/2009 - Be the first to recommend this
I agree that we must do all we can to stretch our existing fossil fuel supplies to buy us time to transition to sustainable, less polluting energy sources. As an example of how to do this, simply Google Chevron's *own* lubetek@chevron.com ! A 2005 study found that slippery wax based car engine lubricants would save drivers as much as 20 % in costs of gasoline. The study also used recycled plastic water bottles, literally killing two environmental problems at one time. I Called Lube Tek, and they confirmed the study's findings. Of couse, would Chevon ever cut their own profits by 20 % ?? Of course not !! The real question, then, is how to get the big oil companies to do what is right long term, and ignore the short term impact. I think it is Chevron's turn to respond to their own WEB Site and tell us how to do this !
Thank you from Chevron
posted by Olivia on 6/17/2009 - Be the first to recommend this
Thanks for your comment. We want to keep the discussion on willyoujoinus focused on the energy issues. For information about Chevron, please visit www.Chevron.com. You can also email COMMENT@Chevron.com. Thank you, Olivia The willyoujoinus Team
http://www.chevron.com
Residential Efficiency
posted by Chris from Virginia on 6/12/2009 - Be the first to recommend this
I wholeheartedly agree with Michael_O that conservation is the easiest and quickest way we can make a substantial difference in the use of fossil fuels and reduction of greenhouse gasses. Since the built environment is now acknowledged to be responsible for 48% of all emissions, and since existing housing is by far the leakiest culprit, it has been my experience that immediately providing all existing homeowners with $50 worth of caulk would create a significant change!
posted by max1mos111 on 6/12/2009 - Be the first to recommend this
"Given this, I believe we can and must do much more now with “low hanging fruit” such as energy efficiency while we work out the strategies for broader energy transition. " I saw this statement and am commenting in here. Several scientists have successfully used biomass as fuel sources allready. http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/renewable/biomass.html I have looked over personally the graph and power report for the US provided in the 2009 US budget to Obama. My thoughts are that the geothermal industry has been untapped to it's full potential. Coal and Nuclear energy are slowly being cycled out by US Gov auditors. I feel this could be another way past solar and wind to create higher return levels of energy. We have to make sure that who we put there in these plants are responsible. As i have grown to understand terrorism risks involved in the energy sectors, I do understand we need to have safety features in place if we mine to create artificial geothermal port holes or more dangerously submit plants at geothermal vents in tectonic plates. Another area of research could be on methane gas seeping naturally into the earths atmosphere raising the earths methane levels .00001 a year roughly. This contributing factor to global warming is a problem that needs to be vented underwater in bulle physics into a newer method of sea mining of natural gas as the eventual product beyond geothermal vents in seabeds. They kind of go hand in hand in certain spots.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy
New Forms of Renewable Energy
posted by A.V.M. on 6/15/2009 - Be the first to recommend this
There are new forms of renewable energy be developed in the private sector, but funding for R&D to develop prototypes and power outputs are hard to come by. What I see as a major deterent to the development of these new types of energy is a lack of trust and the fact that there have been so many people take advantage of people with outright lies and deception. When a truly innovative and new approach comes along people are afraid to help in fear of being ripped off by the con artists. On the developers' side, they are afraid to give out too much information on how their new product works in fear of having larger of more experianced companies steal their ideas and keep these new products from reaching the market or beat the developers to the market with their own ideas. What can be done to help the new developers get the needed funding they require to bring these new ideas to market? What can be done to protect the new developers from having their ideas stolen? How can we protect the consumer that wants to invest but does not want to get ripped off? How do we instill confidence in the public that new ideas are not only probable but real? Lots of questions, few reliable answers. I am one of these new developers that have a new twist on existing technology but without funding for the R&D to prove the theories will never get off the ground. I welcome response and constructive comments to these questions.