"Theoretically Impossible" Is Only One Class of Bad Ideas in Clean Energy
A young man from India writes in response to my recent piece in which I talk about two classes of bad ideas in clean energy — those that are theoretically impossible and those that are possible but seem to hold no promise:
I am an Indian physics graduate and have developed an idea on producing electricity by combining atmospheric heat along with other sources of heat including fossil and other kinds of fuels and known alternative heat sources like solar and geothermal heat. This idea is actually a combination of processes all of which are well tested and now in use, therefore, the scientific and technical aspect of the technology cannot be questioned. Those who are ready to shout “theoretically impossible,” just wait! Another idea, based on the same principles, was chosen by an UK-based entrepreneur and we have jointly applied for a patent there. If necessary, I can produce the receipt from UK patent office and also can produce the link where interested people can see it with their own eyes.
There is nothing theoretically impossible in what you’re describing. But that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea, nor does the fact that a patent has been issued on it. You should expect the world to be dubious that you’re combining existing energy sources in some kind of new, efficient, cost-effective and eco-friendly way. Having said that, if you want to forward a drawing of the idea, I’d be happy to look at it. In fact, let me congratulate you on at least trying! The fact that you’re exerting yourself to come up with a clean energy solution is “all good,” as they say.
Though it’s just patent applied state. But I know at least two patents, that has been issued in the US that claims to extract atmospheric heat and converting it into electricity. US Patent 2008061559 and US Patent 6938422 are just two such examples. I am sure a lot of such patents can be found by searching net. So at least I am very much confident that I will get a patent i.e. the application wouldn’t be cancelled for “being against natural laws” kind of foolish parameter.
I will only produce the drawings and other details only against a signed NDA. Robby Roufail of Narconia.com has agreed on that point and get the details. I can forward his remarks if necessary.
I’ll happily sign the NDA. Please send it along.
I like that drawing of water flowing uphill on its own accord. If a way could be found to make it do that, we could create abundant free power.
Another source of free energy was used to power clocks. Power derived from natural variations in atmospheric pressure provided sufficient power to operate the clock; it actually worked. It would be interesting to determine how large such a system would have to be to power a house. Probably it would be possible, but practical?
Power could also be derived by putting hoses across roads. Cars driving over them would momentarily change the pressure of the fluid in the hoses and power could be derived from those pressure changes. I wonder whether anyone has proposed that.
By far the biggest category of “bad ideas” in renewable energy are the ideas that simply have no legitimate market chance of ever being competitive. This certainly includes microbial fuel cells, which cost tens of dollars/W… But it also includes everything from cellulosic ethanol to solar power in the Northeast (yes here’s looking at you New Jersey) to electric vehicles, to compressed air energy storage and beyond…
Until and unless there comes a time in which the externalities of burning fossil fuels is credited to fossil fuels, most of these ideas are dead on arrival.
The idea of using thermal gradients in the atmosphere is absolutely ludicrous from a capital-cost perspective. Temperature differences in the atmosphere are ~6 degrees C for every km of atmosphere. Consider this: If it was 12 C (~54 F) at ground level, and you had some form of apparatus that reached a full km into the sky Probably a long tube suspended from a blimp), the carnot limit for thermal efficiency would only be 2%! That’s the limit that could be achieved before mechanical losses on a 1 km contraption!!! So in any real world case you would certainly have negative efficiency – more power in compared to power out. But even if not… even if you did manage a ~0.5% efficiency on the system (not going to happen)… you would have to build a massive system that could handle sustained wind sheer of ~30-50 m/s which was a full km long… What are the capital costs of such a system? $1,000/W? Then you’d get 1.005 kW for every 1 kW you put into the system…
It’s nuts.
Atmospheric heat is something that will never be used for energy, it’s just flat-out insane.
“Until and unless there comes a time in which the externalities of burning fossil fuels is credited to fossil fuels, most of these ideas are dead on arrival.”
Surely it would be a good idea to charge users of power derived from fossil fuels for the externalities. To make it politically palatable, income taxes could be reduced. The change could be phased in to minimize disruptions.
China is building one coal-fired power plant per week. It would be interesting to compare that with the rate at which they are expanding renewables and nuclear.
Frank,
We don’t disagree here.
Of course there should either be a charge to the fossil fuels for their externalities OR an equivalent subsidy for efforts to reduce those externalities.
However, that isn’t likely to happen… and if a renewable technology requires that then it isn’t worth investing in until such policy changes are enacted.
The sad truth, however, is that if a genuinely responsible tax/subsidy were put into play to account for the externalities, many of the renewable options that are bandied about or championed by the DOE would still not be economically competitive on any level. There’s just not been enough emphasis placed on whether a technology could ever compete, and so we waste money on technologies that clearly do not compete, and make renewable energy seem to be an anti-economic proposition.
The competitiveness of the project should be defensible before the first dollar is spent, but not one renewable advocacy group – and certainly not the DOE – have ever even considered economic viability before determining funding.
Craig and I disagree on several technologies (most notably electric cars, which I see as a complete waste of money and cause more environmental damage than efficient ICE vehicles), but at least he GETS the idea that you have to sell the product in order for it to do any good… He’s looking for deals and finding a few, and in doing so he’s shown himself to be far ahead of the curve with respect to most of the voice of the renewable energy world.
Glenn,
The jury is still out on electric vehicles, but I would hate to see them written off at this time. It may be that with the implementation of economical and clean power generation systems, electric cars would be an important part of the solution to phasing out fossil fuels. The alternative would be the production of artificial liquid fuels in such a way that they are carbon neutral. Perhaps both technologies would coexist. Even if electric vehicles don’t work out in the long run, at least they are helping to drive the development of better battery technologies which could turn out to be very useful. Better battery technology could make hybrid cars more fuel efficient and less expensive. It may also help to smooth the demand for power thereby making power generation systems more efficient. Uninterruptible power systems use batteries and a better battery technology would improve them and reduce costs. In remote areas where connecting to the grid is impractical, better battery technologies could make solar power more practical. This isn’t to say that battery technology wouldn’t improve without electric vehicles, but electric vehicles surely increase the incentive to develop better batteries.
We made one serious mistake decades ago when we failed to develop the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR). Being too quick to give up on electric vehicles could be another mistake; I think it’s too soon to know for sure.
Both Frank and Glenn don’t have the slightest idea about my project and I am wondering why Craig puts this foolish picture related to my post.
None here don’t know that more than two and a half millennium ago, a toy had been invented in ancient china, that can convert atmospheric heat into motion. Even today, it can be seen in toy shops and often produced as an example of a machine that can move without external power. It’s known as the drinking bird toy and has been discussed in many books of both physics and popular science.
In short, atmospheric heat so far has been used just of playing purpose only. Now we have to use it for more serious reasons.