If we are pragmatic and say we have a century of fossil fuels left, and another century of fissile materials, the only solution to our problems in the long term is going to be fusion, though I am not sure how much deuterium we have in the sea. Fundamentally I don't get why people think 6 billion morons are worth all the hassle. Less people means more space for trees, less CO2, etc. etc. Oil would last for a thousand years and climate change could be stopped if said morons just died :)
The future energy source for the US should be what we invented decades ago. Molten Salt Reactors. Meltdown proof nuclear reactors using already molten fuels that self regulate temperature and reaction just through thermal expansion of the fuel itself. The fuels used in such reactors are readily available all around the earth and wastes have no means of weaponization. Typical solid fuel reactors currently in use leave 99% of the fuel input as waste. MSRs result in only 1% of fuel as waste.
@scythelord In addition to only resulting in 1% of fuel being waste, MSRs use smaller amounts of fuel. Sadly we did not take up the MSR into use directly as a result of not being able to weaponize the waste. The arms race needed weapons grade plutonium, thus Uranium reactors were the only ones built. At the moment, China is attempting to patent MSR design to gain a monopoly on the technology and are currently building them. The worthless heeldragging by the US is costing us dearly.
this is corporate B$!!S!!& ..."pact tv ",a pact with whom? obvious much?energy is not only electricity it's difference in potential be it thermal mechanic etc, storage is the key point with renewables , also efficiency and i could go on but this took to much of my precious time go hug a "fat boy" at Alamos
@scythelord did you notice the quotations? you one neuron intelligence ?! ever heard of sarcasm ? you know nothing about energy so shut your pie hole special Ed
All of your points are valid but we cannot only recognize one energy source as that will eventually be depleted. Allow all of these energy ideas to be built, the more money that goes into them the more advanced they will become far beyond your wildest dreams, they will become smaller & more powerful. When the light bulb went on display the mere thought of running the required large cables was a ludicrous idea, but that advanced & look at us now.
Already magnetic bearings in a wind generator allows it to spin with lower wind. They have made turbine wind mills, smarter, better technology. This will improve like from the Model T to the Ferrari, it will evolve & will become more practical. Solar is becoming more sensitive to light, now they work on cloudy days or after dusk, they will eventually work on moon & starlight. All technology continues to advance.
Great observations but you are viewing wind & solar technology in their infancy. It's like looking at the Wright Brother's first plane and explaining why it is a useless piece of crap. It can barely get off the ground, you can't haul cargo in it, you can't carry a bomb on it therefore it's useless for fighting wars... but you know the history, you know what can be done with imagination and invention...
what people don't understand... in long run, there is no truly renewable energy. That's what current physics tells us, (maybe except zero-point energy of vacuum, but that is pure speculation by now). otherwise, any energy comes from depletion of two ultimate sources - nuclear (strong force, waste is nickel) and gravity (waste - black holes). Mankind (and womenkind) must develop technologies towards directly tapping into those sources
what are planning to do with all the nuclear waste? bomb other countries like irak or afghanistan with it in form of uranium-bombs? Hide it in deep caves so nobody will recognize it if it drains into our drinking water? Or just do it like the old days and dump it in the sea???
i have a question ! I 've just watched a movie " Secrets of Nikola Tesla" at the end Tesla proposed to Morgan some sort of wireless tower, one source of energy, what is your opinion ?
Its funny how she was saying how much resources are used to build a wind turbine but failed to mention how much resources are involved to build up a reactor. Not to mention the mines and the ore processing plants needed to extract out the uranium. Although the wind energy may not be consistent. It has been a major source of power for our society for eons. After all most of the seas were sailed on using wind.
I don't think very many people are aware of the suppresed Breeder Reactor invented in 1951.
It uses 100% of the uranium used to get it started. Once started a fission chain reaction begins that actually creates more fuel. The Tosiba breeder reactor once started never needs to be refuled, there is zero nuclear waste & the plant is incredibly safe. I present this in my video:
@FreeGlobalEnergy Remember the laws of thermodynamics: you can't get something for nothing. A breeder produces one or more fissile nuclei for each fission of uranium, but the thorium and plutonium that are created don't themselves breed. Thus the fission rate decreases once enough U235 has fissioned, and the reaction will slow. Thus even a breeder reactor needs to be refueled, though it does extract more energy per kg of fuel than a standard reactor.
Yes, I have since studied this and found some dictionary descriptions mis-leading as they describe the Breeder reactor as producing more energy than put in. This description defies laws but I understand now. It's better described as a highly efficient manner of using uranium. Standard methods only utilize 1% of the potential energy from uranium as to where a breeder reactor is approx 98% efficient. Not Free Energy nor OverUnity
The Breeder Reactor is something that all people should look into. Science is ever advancing to make this safer. Science is ever advancing solar which is not available to the general public. The typical large single array on a roof now fits in the palm of your hand yet produces the same output. After the purchase this is a Monetarily Free Energy Device (Take note on the term MONETARILY free energy)...
Few people realize there are at least 3 different terminologies referring to the meaning of Free Energy,before anyone jumps into an argument find out what the other thinks Free Energy means.The very 1st meaning referred to Free Energy as radiant heat which we all know does not violate any laws, much later it took on the meaning as the creation of energy which does defy laws.The unofficial street term means energy input that I don't have to pay for, like solar energy is free to use
It would create hundreds of thousands of well paying jobs; and actually *create* wealth instead of redistributing it like the current administration is doing with the so-called "stimulus"...
I have never heard the reference to solar or wind as "free energy" and anyone educated of the issues knows it is not free and that there are efficiency issues. However, using her analogy, we probaby should have never begun using coal or oil since their initial technologies were very inefficient at their beginnings. We have made enormous leaps in our ability to harness the sun and wind (and tides). Nuclear is part of the mix, no doubt, but who wants a nuke plant in San Francisco?
they mean free as in taking wind, and solar power and using it to maintain a society, and population of such a magnatude that we have today. Its a waste of money, resources, and time completely, they're right.
My friend Amir who is from Egypt would disagree. You obviously don't understand solar power at all. And as someone who has taken physics in college, I can tell. You see all we are doing is taking the source of energy as it is from the sun, when it has the most potential. This energy from the sun loses its potential, which transpires as heat everytime it is consumed from plant to animal to animal and so on. Oil and Coal comes from animals, which possess less energy than the sunlight, the source.
Of course I meant animals and plants, but I ran out of characters to use.
It is not that solar power is impractical or anything, except where you build such a power source. Like building a hydro plant out in the middle of the desert, there is only certain regions of the word that get enough ample sunlight to be beneficial power sources such as the Southwest and much of North Africa and West Asia. In fact, in Egypt Solar Power is more beneficial than oil. Though never as much as Nuclear power.
But it is important to know that Nuclear energy comes with a cost. Even if you make so profoundly secure and maintained, you still have to deal with Nuclear Waste. And certainly unless you want to eat it like the French, I would consider doing something else.
What I don't understand is this useless retort against imperialism and at the same time advocating it. It is like you want France to rule the world instead of Britain. Well whatever dude. We are all still fucked up no matter who rules.
concentrating solar power is a better bet than PV solar because it is much more simple. Glass, steel, a working fluid and a place to store extra energy (like molten salts). In terms of the development, far less destructive to the environment than PV.
FACT: The volume of nuclear waste is very small. All the nuclear waste we have ever produced on fifty years of commercial nuclear power would fit comfortably inside of a high school football stadium and not be visible from the street in most cases. The power requirements for an average family of four will generate a volume of waste the size of a pencil eraser or smaller. (Compare that to the tonnes of noxious gases dumped into the air by coal )
Myth 2. We can't possibly hope to safely contain all of the waste until it is safe.
FACT: Nuclear waste is inert. People have an image of nuclear waste as some kind of glowing green goo that will eat its way out of any container. That is simply false. Actually, it is in the form of a metal oxide, surrounded by zirconium alloy tubing, arranged in bundles. Placed in a dry area (like the desert) and left alone, it will decay to normal background levels long before any of it could ever "leak" out.
Myth 3: Nuclear waste remains "dangerously radioactive" for hundreds of thousands of years.
FACT: Most of the highly radioactive materials decay away in a few centuries at most. What the layman fails to understand is that there is an inverse relationship between half-life and specific radioactivity.
In other words, the longer the half-life, the more stable an element is. The really long-lived radioactive elements are long-lived due to the simple fact that they are not that radioactive.
Fact: All of the radioactive waste ever produced from commercial nuclear power is contained and accounted for. Few if any other base-load power sources can make that claim regarding its waste. No member of the public has ever been harmed by spent fuel, nor has any area been poisoned by waste from commercial nuclear power plants. STP stores all of its spent fuel on site and the area around it is a thriving wetland area and wildlife preserve.
If we are pragmatic and say we have a century of fossil fuels left, and another century of fissile materials, the only solution to our problems in the long term is going to be fusion, though I am not sure how much deuterium we have in the sea. Fundamentally I don't get why people think 6 billion morons are worth all the hassle. Less people means more space for trees, less CO2, etc. etc. Oil would last for a thousand years and climate change could be stopped if said morons just died :)
GeneralHPBastardo 1 month ago
The future energy source for the US should be what we invented decades ago. Molten Salt Reactors. Meltdown proof nuclear reactors using already molten fuels that self regulate temperature and reaction just through thermal expansion of the fuel itself. The fuels used in such reactors are readily available all around the earth and wastes have no means of weaponization. Typical solid fuel reactors currently in use leave 99% of the fuel input as waste. MSRs result in only 1% of fuel as waste.
scythelord 6 months ago in playlist The Fraud of Free Energy
@scythelord In addition to only resulting in 1% of fuel being waste, MSRs use smaller amounts of fuel. Sadly we did not take up the MSR into use directly as a result of not being able to weaponize the waste. The arms race needed weapons grade plutonium, thus Uranium reactors were the only ones built. At the moment, China is attempting to patent MSR design to gain a monopoly on the technology and are currently building them. The worthless heeldragging by the US is costing us dearly.
scythelord 6 months ago in playlist The Fraud of Free Energy
this is corporate B$!!S!!& ..."pact tv ",a pact with whom? obvious much?energy is not only electricity it's difference in potential be it thermal mechanic etc, storage is the key point with renewables , also efficiency and i could go on but this took to much of my precious time go hug a "fat boy" at Alamos
skaraoschi 8 months ago
@skaraoschi Are you a moron? No wait, that was already proven with your comment. The name is not PACT TV. It's LPAC TV.
scythelord 6 months ago in playlist The Fraud of Free Energy
@scythelord did you notice the quotations? you one neuron intelligence ?! ever heard of sarcasm ? you know nothing about energy so shut your pie hole special Ed
skaraoschi 6 months ago
Renewable energy DOES have its place and should be used where it can be, but we need clean, safe, efficiant, Nuclear Fusion.
AwakenFromTheSlumber 1 year ago
3
All of your points are valid but we cannot only recognize one energy source as that will eventually be depleted. Allow all of these energy ideas to be built, the more money that goes into them the more advanced they will become far beyond your wildest dreams, they will become smaller & more powerful. When the light bulb went on display the mere thought of running the required large cables was a ludicrous idea, but that advanced & look at us now.
FreeGlobalEnergy 1 year ago
2
Already magnetic bearings in a wind generator allows it to spin with lower wind. They have made turbine wind mills, smarter, better technology. This will improve like from the Model T to the Ferrari, it will evolve & will become more practical. Solar is becoming more sensitive to light, now they work on cloudy days or after dusk, they will eventually work on moon & starlight. All technology continues to advance.
FreeGlobalEnergy 1 year ago
1
Great observations but you are viewing wind & solar technology in their infancy. It's like looking at the Wright Brother's first plane and explaining why it is a useless piece of crap. It can barely get off the ground, you can't haul cargo in it, you can't carry a bomb on it therefore it's useless for fighting wars... but you know the history, you know what can be done with imagination and invention...
FreeGlobalEnergy 1 year ago
why is she speaking so sloooooooooooooooow.. is she lecturing kindergarteners... *yawn*
msquestionmark 1 year ago
can I listen to someone who mispronounced the word 'substantiate' so horribly?
phospholipasec 1 year ago
free energy proof right here right now
watch?v=xShQP0UMwKk
debunk this you uneducated liars!
ncbookz 1 year ago
junkscience com
ouluvme2 1 year ago
what people don't understand... in long run, there is no truly renewable energy. That's what current physics tells us, (maybe except zero-point energy of vacuum, but that is pure speculation by now). otherwise, any energy comes from depletion of two ultimate sources - nuclear (strong force, waste is nickel) and gravity (waste - black holes). Mankind (and womenkind) must develop technologies towards directly tapping into those sources
coturnix19 1 year ago
She is smart
Makaveli97961 1 year ago
what are planning to do with all the nuclear waste? bomb other countries like irak or afghanistan with it in form of uranium-bombs? Hide it in deep caves so nobody will recognize it if it drains into our drinking water? Or just do it like the old days and dump it in the sea???
Are you crazy lady?
KalleWorldwide 2 years ago
i have a question ! I 've just watched a movie " Secrets of Nikola Tesla" at the end Tesla proposed to Morgan some sort of wireless tower, one source of energy, what is your opinion ?
dan020350 2 years ago
your so sexy :)
dan020350 2 years ago
i want to fuck her brains out
sephiroth671 2 years ago
@sephiroth671 Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwww
msquestionmark 1 year ago
@msquestionmark
what did i write, i cant remember
sephiroth671 1 year ago
Its funny how she was saying how much resources are used to build a wind turbine but failed to mention how much resources are involved to build up a reactor. Not to mention the mines and the ore processing plants needed to extract out the uranium. Although the wind energy may not be consistent. It has been a major source of power for our society for eons. After all most of the seas were sailed on using wind.
Blondets1 2 years ago
The only ones making anything on the boondoggle Ethical Gas, are the farmers and the stinking politicians that get them the subsidies.
Al Gore should get an aware. "The Best Punk Job" Award.
wsoxman 2 years ago 2
This women should be the Energy Czar, not the IN THE POCKET of GE, Van Jones and Obama.
Just who will sweep off the snow on a solar panel? Most areas have less then 60% full sun. So where does the back up power come from?
Liberals don't have that answer.
wsoxman 2 years ago 2
I don't think very many people are aware of the suppresed Breeder Reactor invented in 1951.
It uses 100% of the uranium used to get it started. Once started a fission chain reaction begins that actually creates more fuel. The Tosiba breeder reactor once started never needs to be refuled, there is zero nuclear waste & the plant is incredibly safe. I present this in my video:
Free Energy Cover Up Part 1
FreeGlobalEnergy 2 years ago 2
@FreeGlobalEnergy Remember the laws of thermodynamics: you can't get something for nothing. A breeder produces one or more fissile nuclei for each fission of uranium, but the thorium and plutonium that are created don't themselves breed. Thus the fission rate decreases once enough U235 has fissioned, and the reaction will slow. Thus even a breeder reactor needs to be refueled, though it does extract more energy per kg of fuel than a standard reactor.
keydetpiper 1 year ago
@keydetpiper
Yes, I have since studied this and found some dictionary descriptions mis-leading as they describe the Breeder reactor as producing more energy than put in. This description defies laws but I understand now. It's better described as a highly efficient manner of using uranium. Standard methods only utilize 1% of the potential energy from uranium as to where a breeder reactor is approx 98% efficient. Not Free Energy nor OverUnity
FreeGlobalEnergy 1 year ago
@keydetpiper
The Breeder Reactor is something that all people should look into. Science is ever advancing to make this safer. Science is ever advancing solar which is not available to the general public. The typical large single array on a roof now fits in the palm of your hand yet produces the same output. After the purchase this is a Monetarily Free Energy Device (Take note on the term MONETARILY free energy)...
FreeGlobalEnergy 1 year ago
@keydetpiper
Few people realize there are at least 3 different terminologies referring to the meaning of Free Energy,before anyone jumps into an argument find out what the other thinks Free Energy means.The very 1st meaning referred to Free Energy as radiant heat which we all know does not violate any laws, much later it took on the meaning as the creation of energy which does defy laws.The unofficial street term means energy input that I don't have to pay for, like solar energy is free to use
FreeGlobalEnergy 1 year ago
Magnetic, Hydro, geothermal
NeoAltPower 2 years ago
Magnetic forces do no work.
tuttt99 2 years ago
Well,
obviously you don't keep up
enough with future science
and solar will be the way to go,
you are right about wind power
and agree nuclear power has a bad name,
but we will be able to capture solar energy
from multiple space sattilites,
and will supply the world
with power as soon as 40 to 60 years
buster27 2 years ago
Did you get that from your Star Trek Mag?
wsoxman 2 years ago 2
Windmill, the symbol of Farce!
NeoAltPower 2 years ago
4th Generation High Temp. Pebble Bed nuclear fission power plants.
100 of them for the USA, 2 per state.
It will cost less then the TARP bailout cost us and provide cheep available energy for everyone.
Trapster99 2 years ago
It would create hundreds of thousands of well paying jobs; and actually *create* wealth instead of redistributing it like the current administration is doing with the so-called "stimulus"...
tuttt99 2 years ago 2
I have never heard the reference to solar or wind as "free energy" and anyone educated of the issues knows it is not free and that there are efficiency issues. However, using her analogy, we probaby should have never begun using coal or oil since their initial technologies were very inefficient at their beginnings. We have made enormous leaps in our ability to harness the sun and wind (and tides). Nuclear is part of the mix, no doubt, but who wants a nuke plant in San Francisco?
trippomatic 2 years ago 2
they mean free as in taking wind, and solar power and using it to maintain a society, and population of such a magnatude that we have today. Its a waste of money, resources, and time completely, they're right.
weirdjoei 3 years ago
My friend Amir who is from Egypt would disagree. You obviously don't understand solar power at all. And as someone who has taken physics in college, I can tell. You see all we are doing is taking the source of energy as it is from the sun, when it has the most potential. This energy from the sun loses its potential, which transpires as heat everytime it is consumed from plant to animal to animal and so on. Oil and Coal comes from animals, which possess less energy than the sunlight, the source.
Minotast 3 years ago
Of course I meant animals and plants, but I ran out of characters to use.
It is not that solar power is impractical or anything, except where you build such a power source. Like building a hydro plant out in the middle of the desert, there is only certain regions of the word that get enough ample sunlight to be beneficial power sources such as the Southwest and much of North Africa and West Asia. In fact, in Egypt Solar Power is more beneficial than oil. Though never as much as Nuclear power.
Minotast 3 years ago
But it is important to know that Nuclear energy comes with a cost. Even if you make so profoundly secure and maintained, you still have to deal with Nuclear Waste. And certainly unless you want to eat it like the French, I would consider doing something else.
What I don't understand is this useless retort against imperialism and at the same time advocating it. It is like you want France to rule the world instead of Britain. Well whatever dude. We are all still fucked up no matter who rules.
Minotast 3 years ago
concentrating solar power is a better bet than PV solar because it is much more simple. Glass, steel, a working fluid and a place to store extra energy (like molten salts). In terms of the development, far less destructive to the environment than PV.
quidproquo2004 2 years ago
Myth 1. Nuclear Power produces lots of waste
FACT: The volume of nuclear waste is very small. All the nuclear waste we have ever produced on fifty years of commercial nuclear power would fit comfortably inside of a high school football stadium and not be visible from the street in most cases. The power requirements for an average family of four will generate a volume of waste the size of a pencil eraser or smaller. (Compare that to the tonnes of noxious gases dumped into the air by coal )
tuttt99 2 years ago 2
Myth 2. We can't possibly hope to safely contain all of the waste until it is safe.
FACT: Nuclear waste is inert. People have an image of nuclear waste as some kind of glowing green goo that will eat its way out of any container. That is simply false. Actually, it is in the form of a metal oxide, surrounded by zirconium alloy tubing, arranged in bundles. Placed in a dry area (like the desert) and left alone, it will decay to normal background levels long before any of it could ever "leak" out.
tuttt99 2 years ago 2
Myth 3: Nuclear waste remains "dangerously radioactive" for hundreds of thousands of years.
FACT: Most of the highly radioactive materials decay away in a few centuries at most. What the layman fails to understand is that there is an inverse relationship between half-life and specific radioactivity.
In other words, the longer the half-life, the more stable an element is. The really long-lived radioactive elements are long-lived due to the simple fact that they are not that radioactive.
tuttt99 2 years ago 2
Myth 4: Nuclear Waste is poisoning the planet
Fact: All of the radioactive waste ever produced from commercial nuclear power is contained and accounted for. Few if any other base-load power sources can make that claim regarding its waste. No member of the public has ever been harmed by spent fuel, nor has any area been poisoned by waste from commercial nuclear power plants. STP stores all of its spent fuel on site and the area around it is a thriving wetland area and wildlife preserve.
tuttt99 2 years ago 2
This cult retard's voice is obnoxious, and the video is childish and insulting.
Nobody claims wind power and solar power is free: only freaks like the Larouche cult.
Go back to prison, nutcase.
Desertphile 3 years ago
I'm not a big fan of LaRouche, but this report is spot on!
tuttt99 3 years ago 2