/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6290675]

Energy generation ideas thread

For starters; will this design work?

[Anonymous No.6290682]

>>6290675
No.

[Anonymous No.6290691]

>>6290682
Why?

[Anonymous No.6290732]

>>6290675
>Step 1. Build space elevator
>Step 2. Put significant quantities of water in space
>Step 3. Don't store it or use it for keeping things suitable for life
>Step 4. Throw it back at the planet, hope to harvest the energy that the atmosphere doesn't bleed off

[Anonymous No.6290753]

Sort of. It's thermodynamically possible, as the input energy ultimately comes from the star, which provides heat to transport water from the strong gravity end to the weak gravity end. However, you need to transmit your electricity halfway around the planet, which will incur significant losses. Also, there are issues like friction in the penstock, a limit to flow velocity due to atmospheric pressure at the low end (though you could use a reaction turbine and just exploit the pressure differential), and friction/vibrational energy losses at the turbine (which will be highly significant due to the head pressure). You need a specific design to determine feasibility.

[Anonymous No.6290766]

>>6290691
miles of miles of tower structure. Nigger please

[Anonymous No.6290765]

>>6290691
Energy transport losses from the generator to the pump. The poles are a long way from the equator.

Also, what you're technically doing there is tapping the Earth's rotational energy. Do that too much and you'll have consequences.

[Anonymous No.6290776]

Going from lower GPE to higher GPE requires energy input. There's no way around that. You're trying to make a river flow uphill and then extract energy from it.

[Anonymous No.6290784]

>>6290765
>>6290766
But I mean in theory, and not necessarily on Earth. Maybe on a different planet if we possessed one with a bigger contrast.

>>6290765
Interesting, how much of this structure will have an impact and what will the consequences be?

[Anonymous No.6290791]

>>6290776
Well then the energy must come from the Earth itself if g increases?

[Anonymous No.6290803]

It's easier to harness the power from the tides

[Anonymous No.6290807]

>>6290791
>Well then the energy must come from the Earth itself

No. The energy doesn't come from anywhere. It won't work.

[Anonymous No.6290808]

>>6290675
Just one question: how do you move the water from the high-gravity zone to the low-gravity zone?
Even without taking into account all the problems in building it and the losses of energy due friction and such, you will use all the energy generated to move the water. Remember that the low-gravity zone is in a higher position than the high-gravity zone.

[Anonymous No.6290811]

>>6290765
not necessarily

gravitational field changes slightly but enough to be detected around the Earth because the Earth is not uniformly dense.

[Anonymous No.6290812]

>pump water in a closed loop, with no energy input
>expect to extract energy

No, it won't work. Details are irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.6290813]

>>6290807
Why not?

Assuming you could perfectly convert the energy of the falling water to useful power, of course, that transmission losses from the high-gravity to low-gravity zone are zero, and that the pump is also perfectly efficient.

[Anonymous No.6290815]

>>6290813

It has nothing to do with transmission losses. There is no input of energy in the first place. IT WON'T FLOW from lower PE to higher PE.

[Anonymous No.6290818]

>>6290813
If you assume everything is perfect, then sure it would work. In reality the transmission losses, friction losses, pump inefficiency, turbine inefficiency, etc. would easily outweigh the energy gain due to higher gravity. Water is heavy and it would take insane pumps to get it high enough to make a difference

[Anonymous No.6290820]

>>6290818
>If you assume everything is perfect, then sure it would work.

No it wouldn't.

[Anonymous No.6290822]

>>6290813
> transmission losses from the high-gravity to low-gravity zone are zero
they aren't though
the water prefers to be in the low gravity zone.
to push it to the high gravity zone you need a pump.

[Anonymous No.6290823]

>>6290815
On Earth, The poles have a higher gravitational field than the equator. Are you suggesting that if we empty out all the water in the ocean near the Equator, then the Arctic Ocean would refuse to flow in to fill the gap?

[Anonymous No.6290833]

>>6290823

Why would you think he was suggesting that?

[Anonymous No.6290837]

>>6290765
>Also, what you're technically doing there is tapping the Earth's rotational energy. Do that too much and you'll have consequences.

We don't have to worry about tapping the earth's rotational energy. It is colossal, beyond any use we could make of it: ~2*10^29 J. That's 5*10^16 GWh. Earth's current electricity consumption is 2*10^7 GWh/yr. So the earth's rotational energy is equivalent to around 2.7 billion years of electricity consumption. That'll last us halfway to when the sun engulfs the earth's current position.

[Anonymous No.6290841]

>>6290823

Energy at sea level at the north pole is the same as energy at sea level at the equator. That's why it's sea level - it's an equipotential.

[Anonymous No.6290845]

>>6290675
I hope this make it clear why it wouldn't work.

[Anonymous No.6290857]

>>6290675

You know, the water would flow from the weak are to the stronger area by itself, without needing a big-ass tower to get it there. You could just dam the flow, like you would any other river.

[Anonymous No.6290859]

>>6290837
>implying we have to stop the earth from spinning altogether before we start having problems.

[Anonymous No.6290863]

>>6290857
Tidal Power?

[Anonymous No.6290869]

>>6290808
let the sun heat it, then let is rain down in a lower gravity area. At which point is a gloried hydro electric damn, which is just glorified solar energy.

Why do so many energy systems trace back to the sun in one form or another?

[Anonymous No.6290870]

>>6290857
>You know, the water would flow from the weak are to the stronger area by itself

So why doesn't it now?

[Anonymous No.6290874]

>>6290869
every single energy system traces back to the sun. even geothermal power, because the sun formed the earth

[Anonymous No.6290873]

>>6290869
>Why do so many energy systems trace back to the sun in one form or another?

solar, wind, fossil fuels, hydroelectric, pedaling a bicycle

not from the sun:

nuclear, geothermal, tidal

[Anonymous No.6290878]

>>6290874
>because the sun formed the earth

No it didn't.

[Anonymous No.6290879]

Your question reduces to the following:
Can you move a mass laterally so that it gains GPE? Of course you can.
But then your problem also reduces to this:
Can you generate energy by rolling a ball from the top of a hill to the bottom? Of course. It falls into a lower energy state. Your diagram is just letting water fall into a lower energy state. It's equivalent to rolling rocks down a mountain to generate electricity.

[Anonymous No.6290882]

>>6290879
>Can you move a mass laterally so that it gains GPE? Of course you can.

Not without inputting energy you can't.

[Anonymous No.6290884]

>>6290808
River flowing back

[Anonymous No.6290885]

>>6290870
Because the differences are so small, and once the water's settled into a lower energy state it's not going to keep flowing.

[Anonymous No.6290890]

>>6290882
Imagine a point mass. The mass you move is diagonal to it. You move it laterally so that it is now directly above it. It has gained GPE.

[Anonymous No.6290891]

>>6290879
Indeed, but we require less energy to build up the GPE to raise the water/rock on top of the hill, than the GPE it will have when it moves into the area where g is higher.

[Anonymous No.6290893]

>>6290870
It does, unless there is a stronger area in the way. Try this experiment: stand up and empty a glass of water on top of your head, it will go down to your feet where the gravitational field is stronger.
Pic related, that's how gravity works.

[Anonymous No.6290898]

>>6290884
Oh, a river flowing uphill, how could I not think about it?

[Anonymous No.6290899]

>>6290845
>what is a river

[Anonymous No.6290903]

>>6290893
forgot the pic

[Anonymous No.6290906]

>>6290898
Why uphill?

It can come from the direction of the pump, not from the direction of the slide, if there is a natural river course in the lower-g area.

[Anonymous No.6290908]

>>6290899
This:
>>6290898

[Anonymous No.6290909]

>>6290890

huh?

[Anonymous No.6290915]

>>6290903

Ok, so the water flows downhill. Now, to get it back up to the top, you need to input energy.

[Anonymous No.6290925]

>>6290915
I know, then what? I'm not trying to create perpetual motion.

[Anonymous No.6290926]

>>6290915
Or we just let it continue in it's natural course, and let water come back to us via rain.

[Anonymous No.6290929]

>>6290906
That would move the water from the low-gravity zone (pump) to the high-gravity zone (slide), exactly the opposite of my question.

[Anonymous No.6290949]

>>6290929
We don't need it to move back up. The source of the river provides water. The source gets it from rain as everywhere else.

[Anonymous No.6290954]

>>6290925
>I'm not trying to create perpetual motion.

How is it not perpetual motion? Where is the energy input?

[Anonymous No.6290956]

>>6290873
we have solar tides as well as lunar tides nigga

[Anonymous No.6290958]

>>6290926
>>6290949
>rain

Water is not magically created in the sky in infinite supply. It is evaporated ocean water. The energy input is from the sun.

[Anonymous No.6290966]

>>6290954
The problem is: I'm not OP and I'm in no way trying to defend him. I can't understand how this could be assumed by my posts:
>>6290893
>>6290903

>>6290949
Then it's a simple hydroelectric generator with a useless tower in the way.

[Anonymous No.6290969]

>>6290958
Indeed. But this energy is from the sun. Not from us. That is the point and we are doing essentially what a river and a dam in that kind of planet would be doing, only with a greater gradient and more power generation.

[Anonymous No.6290975]

>>6290956
>we have solar tides as well as lunar tides nigga

Ok, pedant.

[Anonymous No.6290973]

>>6290966
Simple hydroelectric generator with a bigger gradient, and the use of difference in gravitational fields.

[Anonymous No.6290978]

I'm starting to think that most of the people in this thread know that the OP's design has no sense but everybody assumes that the others are idiots and so we argue.

[Anonymous No.6290987]

>>6290969
>>6290973

No, it's not like a river. It won't flow at all. Think about it. Think about what "sea level" actually is.

[Anonymous No.6290988]

>>6290869
>>6290873
Every energy produced is traced back to nuclear or chemical (i.e. burning coal) reactions.

The sun is a giant ass nuclear reactor that has built up a storage of chemical energy in oil and coal on Earth over millions of years.

It moves winds and cycles water.

All our energy comes from it. All.

[Anonymous No.6290991]

>>6290978

Some people ITT definitely are idiots though.

[Anonymous No.6291000]

>>6290987
I understand that water vapour from seas will be concentrated over the high-g area. But eventually large enough diffusion and pressure will cause it to spread out to the rest of the planet, where it will form rain clouds.

[Anonymous No.6291002]

>>6290878
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth#Solar_System_formation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_%28astrophysics%29

[Anonymous No.6291013]

>>6290988
You are missing the astronomically small amount of electrostatic energy we get from black holes as Hawking radiation, which is made by gravity, more specifically gravimetric shearing. That starts as neither nuclear or chemical.

[Anonymous No.6291017]

>>6290988
What about nuclear reactions? None of our uranium came from the Sun. (it came from A sun, certainly, but not The Sun.)

[Anonymous No.6291019]

>>6291000

I don't understand what you're saying. Do you think that the ocean is just a giant river?

[Anonymous No.6291030]

>>6291019
No, the ocean doesn't flow. Water vapour from it will form clouds that will move to the rest of the planet, rain, and create rivers that go to the ocean. It will do this on this sort of planet despite the gravitational differences.

[Anonymous No.6291036]

>>6291002

What is your point?

[Anonymous No.6291039]

>>6291030

If the ocean doesn't flow, then why will it suddenly flow just because it's in a pipe?

[Anonymous No.6291048]

>>6291039
No, water in it obviously moves, but not in the way a river does.

[Anonymous No.6291052]

>>6291048

So how is it different?

[Anonymous No.6291054]

>>6291048

You just said the ocean doesn't flow. Does it or doesn't it?

[Anonymous No.6291079]

>>6291054
What the hell do you mean by "flow"?

What are you trying to get out of this question?

[Anonymous No.6291083]

ITT anons try to trick other anons for the sake of arguing

[Anonymous No.6291088]

>>6291083
I'm not tricking anyone, I just want to know if this design is possible.

[Anonymous No.6291091]

Ok OP:

Here is a simplified drawing. You have the water flowing around the red loop, yes? You propose inputting energy from A to B (say 10 units), then extracting MORE energy from B to C (20 units). Now C has 10 units less energy than A. In order to get back, you need an input of 10 units. Where does it come from?

The answer is the whole thing is impossible in the first place, because A and C necessarily have the same energy, because they are both at sea level. (If A had more than C, then water would flow from A to C until they were even again.)

Anything you take out from B to C, you have to put in from A to B, so you gain nothing.

[Anonymous No.6291101]

>>6291088
I don't know who are you so I don't know if I was talking about you.
Anyway, the design is possible and in theory it would work, but is isn't any different from normal hydroelectric generators. In practice, it would probably be unconvenient because of the difficulties in the building and the losses in the transfer of the energy.

[Anonymous No.6291110]

>>6291091
Sorry, I was thinking this

Essentially, this design allows a bigger gradient and energy extraction due to gravitational difference, better than hydroelectric dams.

[Anonymous No.6291108]

>>6291091
This right here. What anon is saying is that your difference in gravity means sea level WONT be the same. C will be lower because the water at A will be allowed to 'float' on top of it as you move sideways.

Also, the energy would be extracted at C. You will incur significant losses transfering the energy to A where you need to actually do the work. So friction, as always, will fuck you over as well.

[Anonymous No.6291111]

putting turbines in jet-streams and underwater currents would be far more cost effective than a hemishpere-long artificial river, even with the R&D and maintenance costs

[Anonymous No.6291115]

>>6291110

It doesn't change the fact that A and C have the same energy, and you get nothing out of the device.

[Anonymous No.6291118]

>>6291115
oh, A isn't at sea level. It is in the middle of a river course. I.e. all on a gradient.

[Anonymous No.6291126]

>>6291110

OK, so I added more letters:

How much energy does the water have at each letter? (Use arbitrary units.) If it increases or decreases, where does it come from or go to?

Keep in mind that A = C must be true.

[Anonymous No.6291132]

>>6291118

OH OK. That wasn't clear. In that case, you will get energy out, but you won't get any more than if you just ran a pipe directly down to sea level from A. Sending it halfway across the world gets you nothing extra, since sea level everywhere has the same energy.

[Anonymous No.6291137]

>>6291132
What about the fact that it is at a greater gradient, and that there is an increase in GPE?

It was this latter bit that baffled me since energy for that water that had its GPE increased comes from nowhere.

[Anonymous No.6291139]

>>6291036
that the sun's gravitational force and the momentum of the solar disc is what formed the earth, therefore you can trace the origin of geothermal energy to the sun

[Anonymous No.6291166]

>>6291139

No. The sun and the Earth were formed by the same process. And you certainly can't trace the Earth's heat to solar fusion, which is obviously what everyone is talking about.

[Anonymous No.6291172]

>>6291137
>What about the fact that it is at a greater gradient, and that there is an increase in GPE?

There is no increase in energy. As I said, if the energy at sea level was different at two different points, then the ocean would just flow from higher to lower until it was even again.

[Anonymous No.6291203]

>>6291172
Sea level will be physically (but not energetically) higher at A than at C, as water at A would essentially float on C. But otherwise you are right, there is no energy gain.

Basically this set up is like taking water from the mouth of a river, pumping it up to top of a mountain, then using 9/10's of the river to capture energy, and allowing it to flow afterwards the remaining 1/10th back down to the mouth, to be pumped up again.

Its pointless, you might as well drop it at A and pump it there as well. You would get more energy. You would also remove the problem of capturing energy at C and transfering it back to A, which incurs significant losses due to electrical resistance. Friction will ALWAYS get you.

[Anonymous No.6291207]

>>6291166
but for the material that became the sun, there would be no earth. if the material that became the earth had not existed, there would still be a sun. therefore, any energy extracted from the earth can be traced back to the existence of the sun and the gravitational influence that the atoms that formed the sun exerted on the atoms that became the earth.

[Anonymous No.6291208]

>80+ posts
>ctrl+f "conservative field"
>0 results

Really, /sci/?

Any gravitational field is conservative, which means that if you travel a closed loop, as OP's diagram suggests, net work done by the field is ZERO. Add in friction losses, and you are at a loss. You have to add energy (which, in rivers, is added by the Sun).

[Anonymous No.6291211]

>>6291203
>Sea level will be physically (but not energetically) higher at A than at C, as water at A would essentially float on C. But otherwise you are right, there is no energy gain.

Right, energy is what I said.

[Anonymous No.6291213]

>>6291208
>not actually reading the thread
>smug response
>look like a douche instead

The nature of the conservative field was mentioned multiple times. Nobody used the specific name for it however, as OP clearly does not know the term.

[Anonymous No.6291217]

>>6291172
>As I said, if the energy at sea level was different at two different points, then the ocean would just flow from higher to lower until it was even again.

[Anonymous No.6291219]

>>6291211
yeah, i was just pointing out (to OP more than anybody) that sea level would not be 'flat' in this scenario.

its basically that distinction which is the crux of his problem.

[Anonymous No.6291221]

>>6291217
Dude. You are forgetting that gravity pushes harder on C than on A.

Draw some pistons on top of those containers. A big one on C, a little one on A.

[notOpie No.6291227]

>>6291013
>You are missing the astronomically small amount of electrostatic energy we get from black holes as Hawking radiation, which is made by gravity, more specifically gravimetric shearing. That starts as neither nuclear or chemical.

how about the not inconsequential amount of electrostatic energy from the solar wind that manifests itself in lightning. 30,000 amps at 200,000,000 volts hitting the globe 50-100 times per second.

If we could harness that....

[Anonymous No.6291238]

>>6291217

It looks more like this.

[Anonymous No.6291249]

>>6291238
>Gravity attracts you at an angle
>Force is smaller

Thus walking at an angle is easier than walking on a flat surface.

[Anonymous No.6291272]

Build a giant 1000 foot tall hollow tube and put windmills inside it. the heat differential between the upper atmosphere and the air below means that wind will always blow upwards within the tower, powering the windmills.

[Anonymous No.6291284]

>>6291272
Yes. And the constant energy provided by the sun would keep it going forever.

Termites use this to cool their mounds. Coincidentally, so do Mormons in Utah. And by mounds, I mean churches and other large, public buildings. And by Mormons, I mean mindless slaves, of which a significant portion are not allowed to reproduce.

[Anonymous No.6291303]

>>6291272
My phys professor told me this is extremely efficient. Paint the ground black under the tube for increased heat difference.

[Anonymous No.6291337]

>>6291272
>>6291284
>>6291303
See
solar chimney
solar updraft tower (SUT)

They are really neat, they can even incorporate buildings, green houses, water treatment and other things into their structure. Make a good base for an arcology. But I would like more data on their environmental impact as they are basically creating a new local weather system.

Although a making a mini hurricane surrounding a massive power generator sounds like a awesome evil lair.

[Anonymous No.6291404]

Fluids are boring. Let's talk about space.

[Anonymous No.6291653]

>>6291404
Space is much more boring. There is nothing there, in fact the lack of stuff is kind of what defines space. At least with fluids you can splash about making waves and blast heavy metal music*.

*With the notable exception of the battle ship in Black Heaven, heavy metal space amps for the win.

[Anonymous No.6291662]

No external forces.

How many times?

[Anonymous No.6291705]

>>6290675
Geothermal is essentially OP's idea but the energy source is the earth instead of the atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.6291708]

>>6290675
Just make a hydroelectric generator to generate energy when it rains and use solar panels for the rest of the time.
I don't get you people.

[Anonymous No.6291714]

>>6290675
Clouds form at
16,500 to 40,000 ft
in temperate climates

The highest man made structure is
2,722 ft
tall

[Anonymous No.6291753]

>>6290675 (OP)

>Assuming you could perfectly convert the energy of the falling water to useful power, of course, that transmission losses from the high-gravity to low-gravity zone are zero, and that the pump is also perfectly efficient.


This is shameful OP. Stop trying to justify a shitty design by proposing "perfect" components and processes. I'm all about the whole free inquiry thing, but what you have brought to the is half baked and insulting to /sci/

[Anonymous No.6292352]

can something like a Stirling Engine be used to restore some energy or generate some little electricity from all the heat that the engine produces?

[Anonymous No.6292613]

>>6292352
don't know what you mean by "restore some energy" but Stirling engines are good at generating some electricity from all the heat that an engine produces. (although in that case they are called Stirling generators. nit picky I know) Thermoelectric generators (also called Seebeck generators) are another good one to look into depending on your needs.

I have an affection for the Minto wheel, but that is largely laughed at by the few who know what it is. I think the reason for such dismal performance is do to poor optimization. If correctly modified I am confident it could be competitive in certain applications, although it still is unlikely to be the power house it was originally claimed to be. The real gain is very cheap and simple construction combined with the ability to harvest very low levels of energy that otherwise would not be used with simple direct mechanical output at high torque & low RPM.