On 31 Oct 2007 15:16:07 -0700, Terry K wrote:


http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media...pa20071880.pdf
suggests the sun has no effect on climate.

Or, that we we cannot presently correlate sun and climate. Or there is
some interfering data swamping a comparatively small effect.

The sun's effect is easily measured and has been for decades.
It's done by a method called the "pan evaporation rate". The
inconsistency is the pan evaporation rate has been going down for at
least the last three decades or more. That would indicate the amount
of energy from the sun reaching the earth has been steadily dropping
for over 30 years. A Google search should give the process in detail.


If not the sun, how about our dirt? It lives, excretes, and is deep,
to boot. Who understands zero gee fission? we are ice on a fireball.
We are the snowball surrounding hell, walking around on a little
insulating frozen rock floating on a lake of magma.

Cheap renewable power? Geothermal, solar steam, wind, tidal.

Real expense? Transmission, overpopulation?

Private planes to eliminate highway congestion? The highway, be it
asphalt or air, is no more than an extension of the parking lot. Are
we gonna have sky garages 20 floors tall and elevator parking for
excess idle Mohler sky machinery, or are we gonna take air taxis? How
many pedestrians squashed by crashing cabs before we try dirigible
busses, or living with parachutes in our office?

None of the sky routes are economical.
A quick check will show some high rises in NY do have parachutes for
emergencies although I'd not think they'd be practical.


I see city buildings before commuter conveniences. Land is limited. I
see deep wells for Icelandic power, even air conditioning. I see tube
trains surrounding volcanic artifacts linking ring of fire hot spots.
I count the calories produced by cities in their warm spots with their
reflective sky scrapers and steam pipes warmed by moving lightweight
reflectors.

I see wind power to produce compressed air, liquid nitrogen and

Liquid nitrogen is very inefficient as it takes a lot of energy to
produce and the only energy you get out is the expansion from
evaporation and expansion.

ultimately, hydrogen to be burned on site to put power into the grid
when needed.

Hydrogen too is expensive to produce on a large scale and remain a
viable economic alternative to gas, expensive to store and expensive
to transport although not nearly as dangerous as most think. It also
takes more energy to produce the gas than you can get back out of it.
Liquefying it takes even more. However Hydrogen contains far more
energy than liquid Nitrogen as you can use Hydrogen in combustion and
produce a fair amount of clean energy.


Can liquid nitrogen be used to operate a Stirling cycle engine or
turbine warmed by ambient air? What is it's energy density next to
gasoline or hydrogen? What about it's seasonal efficiency?

Compared to combustible fuels it's very poor although I don't have the
numbers right at my fingertips. Gasoline is considerably higher than
Hydrogen due to all the carbon.


Our oil problems are really political marketing.

Only partially. Unstable sources, unfriendly sources, poorly
accessible sources, long and expensive transportation routes, all lead
to price sensitivity. It along with coal is also a big source of
pollution.

Roger (K8RI)

Terry K