The biggest problem we have on this planet is creating usable power in a clean way. Once we do so the world will change for the better. Although there are many clean power generating methods being tried or in theoretical testing none are available or appear to be coming available in the near future. So at the moment none available that are both practical and clean. Practical ones are basically nuclear, coal, gas and hydro. Clean ones are wind, tidal and solar where hydro is the nearest thing to clean and practical we can get but suffers from environmental and location issues. Solar is the next best but doesn’t generate the power we need. So of course our governments chose wind as its power generation method.
The problem with the clean ones is that they just don’t generate enough power due to sunlight requirements, are too variable or cause other environmental issues. The methods that are more popular seem to create too much CO2 or radioactive waste and unfortunatly neither is something we want. If it was fresh water that was created or artificial diamonds we wouldn’t have a problem but it is boring old CO2 or nuclear waste and we need to get rid of it.
Nuclear waste is a problem in its own right. It will last for tens of thousands of years. Can’t just leave it lying around on the planet. Nor can we take it into space and send it into the sun because the transporting it is so dangerous. Imagine the disaster if a rocket with radioactive waste blew up in the upper atmosphere. So currently it is a no no. Personally, I think we should bury it in Afghanistan or somewhere similar. It seems of little use other than growing poppies but that doesn’t seem to be an acceptable way to progress.
But CO2 is a different matter. It can be extracted and stored but there are issues with storage. There are various options but mainly revolve around sticking them in tanks or holes in the ground neither of which will be a long term solution. We really need a use for CO2. So, what is it used for?
Well as far as I can tell the only use for CO2 is to grow plants. Pretty important I would have thought. But as part of the cycle of life we end up with the CO2 stored into the plants which is then released on the plants demise. Ouch. It appears that we need only a certain amount of CO2 before we overbalance.
However, I seem to remember from my science days, when they actually taught it at schools, that CO2 was heavily involved in changing Earth into a planet we could life on. It helped create a greenhouse environment that allowed life to thrive. Now consider that the *cough* consensus is that the CO2 we are generating is changing, terraforming, Earth. If we could capture this and send it to Mars we could terraform Mars. Bear in mind that Mars is about half the diameter of earth which makes it significantly smaller in surface area. Thus the CO2 that would terraform Earth will have a much greater effect on Mars.
Now we can launch CO2 into space without significant risk. If it crashes or the gas is released we just capture it again. Whoo Hoo. We don’t even have to use rockets to launch the containers we can use a launch ramp like Fireball XL5, remember that? as there will be no humans on board G forces are less critical. We could put the CO2 into large bladders, like we do fuel and water, freeze them and launch into space where they will remain frozen. We can then use robot arms to throw them to Mars for release into the atmosphere. We could even automate the whole process and if some go missing there won’t be a big issue.
Now I think about it would a large bladder full of frozen CO2 be of any use as a radiation shield fora Mars trip? Water does so why not liquefied CO2?
The best bit is the energy used to freeze and orbit the CO2 can be created using coal or gas because no longer will have an issue with the surplus CO2.
I still think we would be better off with fusion and personally I think we should create giant solar panel farms in wasted space like deserts but just thinking about how we could continue with what we have considering that because our government has done nothing to resolve this issue we will start running out of power within a decade. Not enough time to build clean plants but enough to build quick and dirty ones like coal, gas or nuclear if we keep our existing dirty plants going.
Understood everything except the last sentence.
Basically that if we want to keep the power on in the UK we need to build somemore power stations now. And not ones with all the fancy CO2 scrubbers and new technology. So we want something to go quickly through the planning cycle and to relax planning regulations.
I like much of what you say on this site – but I can see a big problem – thought.
Much of the establishment are fixed in their ways of thinking – we’ve always done it this way – is very prevalent in most forms of science and engineering. All research projects get funding because someone can write a proposal that tickles the establishment. If they don’t do that then no funds.
I agree technology should keep us going but it will require some ‘blue sky’ thinking that will upset the established order. This is why I think your proposal to divert funds into an X-prize will stumble – most peoples idea of getting into space is by using exploding totem-poles – yes Virgen are thinking along the lines of ‘Prelude to Space’ but they are still constrained by old ways of thought.
When I say new ways of thought, who is looking at the Coanda Effect for a wing that will produce lift without forward motion or a ram jet that will create thrust likewise without forward motion.
As to power – what about fusion power? Yes I know conventional wisdom says hot fusion is a long way in the future – but is that the only way?
Ivan,
I agree. I even think this way myself. I’m a firm believer in the KISS principle so I avoid new technology where I can. So when I’m installing an extension to the WAN around the time Cisco have released a new router all the techies who want to try the new kit so I get flak from them because I want it to be the same as the other parts. Why add risk to any project when you can do the job without it?
However, when I want to do a job which requires a new bit of kit for functionality I have no option but to use new technology and factor in the risk for that specific project.
Its experience. Keep the risk down and stick to what you know works.
Now that doesn’t stop new technology coming out. Kit is replaced and you have no option but to use them. Try buying a basic mobile phone with no WAP or camera now. Also projects are going ahead with new ideas all the time, we test them and see what advantages they give. The whole world is different now through slow but steady progress. It needs some reward for its efforts and few firms that invest the money actually make the big money from them. Most go bankrupt and other build on their groundwork. X-prizes are a signpost. A way to point to a desired outcome with an encouragement. A bit like Nobel before it was politicized.
As for your question on the Coanda effect there has been progress here where it has been used to develop UAVs and material transport. It looks good and reminds me of UFOs. The truth is out there.
As far as the RAMJet is concerned. I can’t see how that would work in my mind but stranger things have been build and work fine.
Fusion is certainly not the only way. In fact I would not be surprised if a discovery was made sometime soon that bypasses fusion completely. We see things as the answer then when we get close we discover something better and change direction. It has happened before and will happen again.
Everything in time. We have to take steps, make money, make more steps, make more money. No money no steps.
Concerning your X-Prize idea NASA have come up with something similar, see
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/nasa_tech_prize_crowdsource/
Don’t get me wrong, I also work on the principle of ‘if it aint broke don’t fix it’ which is fine to keep things going but does little to advance anything.
I firmly believe we need to get away from conventional thought patterns if we are going to advance into space. Rockets are the most inefficient way of getting into space invented. They did the job then but should have been superseded by now with something much more efficient. After all NASA carries the shuttle around on a standard aircraft – why didn’t they take that to its ultimate conclusion and launch the damned thing in the upper atmosphere and so save on the costs of getting it off the ground?
I would recomend you try and get a copy of Analog for July 1984 – it has a very good article on the Coanda Effect written by G. Harry Stine. It started me thinking about what could be done with it – I even produced a copy of the RAMJet, it does work and is very impressive.
I agree with you on the ‘no money no steps’ but why is so much money wasted in re-inventing the wheel?
Ivan,
Trying new technology when you do not need to does not benefit anyone. It wastes money because you spend money on fixing problems you don’t need which reduces the budget for the areas which you really want to try out. For example many companies are not into high tech kit but produce items in other areas. Unlike government thinking there is a finite amount of money in companies for R&D, operations etc. So would a genetics company be better spending funds on snazzy new routers or working on gene splicing?
I agree we need to get away from conventional thought patterns but we are unlikely to for a long time, perhaps ever. The reason being companies are run by accountants with the sole object to make money. But slow progress is not always bad. It gives us a chance to consolidate and reconsider strategies due to new discoveries elsewhere.
I also think that the time for rockets is long gone and am surprised in the current climate with CO2 etc. that there is not a push for a viable alternative. Fingers crossed for the next few years and the opportunity for us all to go into space using an effective and easy new way.
I’ll keep my eye out for that article and I’ll be watching for similar articles tothe link i supplied. I do like the idea of UFOs.
You made a copy of a RAMjet such as you described? One with thrust without forward motion. I envisaged they needed too much air volume to be static. I would like to hear more.
I’m not convinced money is spent re-inventing the wheel. We have many wheels for different things. Could you imagine your journey on a pedal bike with stone wheels if nobody had ever revisited the concept? We try things again and again to clarify theories and improve on things. Some is wasted, sure, but some is not and we discover new and better things from this re-invention.