DQ: Why aren't many new useful technologies being implemented into society?

[Tranquil Claw 80]

DQ stands for "Daily Question". It is a theme I started recently.

 

    These days, you see inventions being made day and night on news covers and magazines, but where do these wonderful inventions go? Did they just, never happen? I think the problem is that our infrastructure in the current state that it is just can't keep up with all these numerous advances in science. We know about this problem, but how can it be fixed?  

 

   Specifically I want to focus on power generation and all the alternative sources.

Edited October 3, 2015 by Tranquil Claw

[Lunar Echo 10,335]

Well depending on what technology you're talking about it will determine how available it may be. It might be just a case of it never got much public attention so couldn't really take-off anywhere. Another factor may be is that we're not ready for the technology yet, we may need to further test and improve it for commercial sale.

[Gestum 2,493]

what kind of "new useful technologies" are you talking about?

[Fun Fact 24]

Everything is a business. Science isn't cheap and R&D is usually where many projects fail. That's why all the "latest inventions" are Kickstarter Crap and forgettable little gadgets to make our lives "easier". Because they're fast out of development and (most importantly) cheap to make.

[NOX33 184]

                   It could be that some of this "new useful technologies" are not that useful to some people to actually fund or continue it therefore the invention maybe dumped or scraped off, or maybe it was just underrated. But you need to be more precise like what kind of inventions you're talking about there.

[RDBestPony 271]

Some new useful technologies might cost lots of money. Some people might not see it as something useful and might not fund it. If enough people think it's not a good idea, the idea might just be scratched. Maybe the person making it doesn't have enough money to continue adn therefore has to stop. You have to be a bit more specific about the type of invetions or technologies you're talking about.

[Guncakes 80]

Too much money to make them, I assume. They can't come cheap.

[Fun Fact 24]

Some new useful technologies might cost lots of money. Some people might not see it as something useful and might not fund it. If enough people think it's not a good idea, the idea might just be scratched. Maybe the person making it doesn't have enough money to continue adn therefore has to stop. You have to be a bit more specific about the type of invetions or technologies you're talking about.

That's the problem, if it doesn't make people's lives easier like some silly smart watch or selfie stick, it doesn't get the attention it deserves.

[SugarfootWillie 383]

When it comes specifically to power and alternate sources of energy, the issue is two-fold:

 

1.) Nothing is more efficient than combustion that is also viable for the masses.

2.) Humanity has been using fossil fuels for over 100 years now, and we have made fuel consumption efficient beyond belief.

 

1.) When it comes to efficiency: fossil fuel has an output of 40%. that is, once you introduce oil (your input) into an engine, 60% of the potential energy from that oil is "wasted" in the form of light and heat from the combustion reaction. Thus, only 40% of the potential 100% was used to exert work.

 

Prominent runner-ups fall short because they are not viable. for example: hydrogen fuel cells, they're awesome but containing anything that is 0.1 nanometers wide is a task that I'm not sure as to whether or not is resolved.

A second option: harness the power of the ocean current. This is a problem that is in-progress to being solved. The big issue is not creating power, but transporting it back to the land.

Last example: cars that power themselves with osmosis. You need platinum screens in order for these to work the best, and platinum as of today is $910 per ounce.

There are projects under development which have a lot of potential, I'll see if I can find it later, but there is a semi-perpetual motion gravity well that uses weights and counter weights to spin a coil in a magnetic tube, creating electricity.

 

2.) If there were to be a conversion into a new source of energy, then there would be an industrial ripple effect.

A small chain of events plays out as so: No more fossil fuel? The byproducts of fossil fuels are crucial in making steel. no more steel? No more slag, and slag is sold to agricultural industries as fertilizer. No more fertilizer? Lower Crop yield, lower crop yield slows down the meat industry and supermarket. Less food means more expensive food, which means less efficient work force.

 

Alternate fuel is the biggest problem in engineering today because by around 2050, if we haven't made a change and consume fossil fuels at the rate we do today, there won't be any left to use.

Edited October 4, 2015 by SugarfootWillie

[aoEAF2FBvC0MIo2Q 3,673]

Um, it's not like the economy just rolls the red carpet from the laboratory to the marketplace.

 

As an example, let's look at the Lithium-Ion batteries that seem so ubiquitous in our electronics today. The Lithium-Ion battery technology took decades to optimize to where it is today. 

 

The thing is, getting from an invention to manufacturing is complicated and quite risky. It takes both an inventor and an entrepreneur to bring new technologies to market for people in industry, in the household or even both. You're going to have to be able to manufacture your invention. But before you can even start doing that, it is often necessary to have your own start-up company and many small businesses are prone to failing with few of them managing to survive.

 

See, you can't just look at something technologically but you must also consider the economics of it.

 

@@SugarfootWillie, Pff. Fossil fuels are actually in trouble and it's not because of Hydrogen. I don't want to get into detail but suffice it to say that fossil fuels must maintain a high price to be profitable but falling prices in renewable energy prevents the price from going up, therefor narrowing the profit margin more and more. Sooner or later, fossil fuels are just going to be unprofitable and therefor unreasonable unless a corporate nanny state comes in to coddle them.

[SugarfootWillie 383]

So the issue was not around little technical details, but more around the market aspect? 

[Tranquil Claw 80]

     I have also found a factor of suppression among many of the numerous and incredibly efficient magnetic generators of current day. There are homemade products capable of going above 100% efficiency, so basically they use perpetual motion and turn it into power. There are even vague claims that there are generators outputting 50 times their input. Here is a proof of concept, the YouTuber who shared this video has a load of contact with many other interesting ideas (most of which are functional and tested). I encourage you to do some research and see more for yourself.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDVbkVY-G0k

Edited October 4, 2015 by Tranquil Claw

[aoEAF2FBvC0MIo2Q 3,673]

So the issue was not around little technical details, but more around the market aspect? 

Both actually. The thing is, the technical aspects of renewable energy is a lot more complicated than it looks and I could write a great wall of text to explain how it could work out from a technical point of view and why. However, it'll be the economics that speak the loudest. Utilities are still businesses and speaking to their pocketbooks is more effective than speaking to their engineering.

 

The average price of Power Purchase Agreements of solar energy (mostly photo-voltaic) is down at 5 cents per kilowatt-hour in the US (Source). That means that there are independent solar power producers that are viable selling solar energy at that price. Meanwhile, the cost of producing energy from incumbent sources range from 3 to 6 cents per kilowatt-hour which puts solar energy at a competitive level (when available, at least).

 

Something similar is happening to wind energy as well though I don't have any numbers right now.

 

Renewable energy is in business and doesn't seem to be going out of business any time soon.

[Twilight Dirac 721]

This topic title is kind of misleading.  As soon as I saw I thought to myself: What do things like smartphones and 3d printers not count or something?  What the title should really be asking is:  Why are we still using predominantly fossil fuels?  So lets run done the most promising candidates for power generation.

 

Fossil Fuels:  Fossil fuels are cheap, reliable, flexible and are supported by a fully matured global industrial and commercial infrastructure. Fossil fuels are always going to be an option that will be both reliable and within the budget, making them to go to source of energy for most businesses and other organizations.  They emit pollution, but that pollution can be filtered by another set of matured technology to minimize the impact on the enviroment.

 

Solar Power:  Everybody loves solar power, but nobody will put their money where their mouth is. Photovoltaics in particular can readily be purchased on the open market for both consumer and industrial use, and people can readily obtain a solar power system for the home if they are willing to cough up the dough.  Few are.  The fact of the matter is solar power is incredibly diffuse, with a peak irradiance at the Earth's surface of 1 kW/m^2 or 1 kW per 3 x 3 ft square for the metrically challenged.  This means that to run a 4 kW AC unit on a clear day with a 100% conversion efficiency 4 square meters or 36 square feet are required.  Now add in the fact the solar panels are going to be at most 20% efficient for mass produced units thus required 5 times the area, and the fact you aren't always going to have clear skies, and the fact you need a system to handle interruptions in sunlight and you see the problem.  Solar power still has its uses because you can power remote low power consumption facilities that are not connected to the power grid, but it is unlikely this will replace fossil fuels.

 

Wind Power:  Take the problems with solar, now at an assortment of mechanical and maintenance problems thanks to moving parts and make it more difficult to acquire and use at the consumer level and you have wind power.

 

Tidal Power:  Take wind power, restrict it to coastlines which tend to be prime real estate, and make it impossible to use at the consumer end, and you have tidal power.  Yea, not looking good.

 

Hydroelectric Power:  Provides abundant clean energy.  But you better have a river to dam or you are out of luck.

 

Geothermal Power:  Provides abundant dirty energy.  But you better have a geothermally active region to build the thing on or you are out of luck.  Almost like crappier hydroelectric energy in a sense.

 

Hydrogen Fuel Cells:  Needs hydrogen.  This can be obtained from fossil fuels or electrolysis, but the later process requires more energy than the fuel cell will yield, making the fuel cell into a battery rather than a power source.

 

Nuclear Energy:  Provides massive amounts of power from very little fuel by accessing a regime of physics that gives orders of magnitude more power than can be obtained from chemical reactions or mechanical energy, and gives off a small amount of high level waste.  Special precautions need to be taken to handle waste and radiation hazards, but otherwise there is no reason this technology cannot utterly surpass fossil fuels given proper time, technological development and investment.  Sadly, it is held back by fear.

 

Perpetual Motion Engines:  Provides unlimited energy at no cost, but their operation violates the laws of nature as modern science currently understands them.  Useful if you happen to be transported to an alternate reality where the Law of Conservation of  Energy no longer applies, otherwise you sell them to the elderly as a scam to get rich before you are prosecuted for fraud.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Twilight Dirac

[SugarfootWillie 383]

This topic title is kind of misleading.  As soon as I saw I thought to myself: What do things like smartphones and 3d printers not count or something?  What the title should really be asking is:  Why are we still using predominantly fossil fuels?  So lets run done the most promising candidates for power generation.

 

Fossil Fuels:  Fossil fuels are cheap, reliable, flexible and are supported by a fully matured global industrial and commercial infrastructure. Fossil fuels are always going to be an option that will be both reliable and within the budget, making them to go to source of energy for most businesses and other organizations.  They emit pollution, but that pollution can be filtered by another set of matured technology to minimize the impact on the enviroment.

 

Solar Power:  Everybody loves solar power, but nobody will put their money where their mouth is. Photovoltaics in particular can readily be purchased on the open market for both consumer and industrial use, and people can readily obtain a solar power system for the home if they are willing to cough up the dough.  Few are.  The fact of the matter is solar power is incredibly diffuse, with a peak irradiance at the Earth's surface of 1 kW/m^2 or 1 kW per 3 x 3 ft square for the metrically challenged.  This means that to run a 4 kW AC unit on a clear day with a 100% conversion efficiency 4 square meters or 36 square feet are required.  Now add in the fact the solar panels are going to be at most 20% efficient for mass produced units thus required 5 times the area, and the fact you aren't always going to have clear skies, and the fact you need a system to handle interruptions in sunlight and you see the problem.  Solar power still has its uses because you can power remote low power consumption facilities that are not connected to the power grid, but it is unlikely this will replace fossil fuels.

 

Wind Power:  Take the problems with solar, now at an assortment of mechanical and maintenance problems thanks to moving parts and make it more difficult to acquire and use at the consumer level and you have wind power.

 

Tidal Power:  Take wind power, restrict it to coastlines which tend to be prime real estate, and make it impossible to use at the consumer end, and you have tidal power.  Yea, not looking good.

 

Hydroelectric Power:  Provides abundant clean energy.  But you better have a river to dam or you are out of luck.

 

Geothermal Power:  Provides abundant dirty energy.  But you better have a geothermally active region to build the thing on or you are out of luck.  Almost like crappier hydroelectric energy in a sense.

 

Hydrogen Fuel Cells:  Needs hydrogen.  This can be obtained from fossil fuels or electrolysis, but the later process requires more energy than the fuel cell will yield, making the fuel cell into a battery rather than a power source.

 

Nuclear Energy:  Provides massive amounts of power from very little fuel by accessing a regime of physics that gives orders of magnitude more power than can be obtained from chemical reactions or mechanical energy, and gives off a small amount of high level waste.  Special precautions need to be taken to handle waste and radiation hazards, but otherwise there is no reason this technology cannot utterly surpass fossil fuels given proper time, technological development and investment.  Sadly, it is held back by fear.

 

Perpetual Motion Engines:  Provides unlimited energy at no cost, but their operation violates the laws of nature as modern science currently understands them.  Useful if you happen to be transported to an alternate reality where the Law of Conservation of  Energy no longer applies, otherwise you sell them to the elderly as a scam to get rich before you are prosecuted for fraud.

You also can't always dam a river even if you have one to dam. I'll cite it later but I know that areas of South America have wrecked their ecosystem from unregulated hydroelectric power plant building.

 

Also any news on how the fusion reactor in France is moving along?

[aoEAF2FBvC0MIo2Q 3,673]

 

 

Everybody loves solar power, but nobody will put their money where their mouth is. Photovoltaics in particular can readily be purchased on the open market for both consumer and industrial use, and people can readily obtain a solar power system for the home if they are willing to cough up the dough.

Then you might find this chart from Mercom Capital Group to be quite interesting.

 

 

Are you really about to write off a 17-fold increase over 7 years as insignificant? Global installations was a meager 2.6 Gigawatts back in 2006. This growth could be exponential so there will be increasingly more and more people be they in the household or in industry willing to cough up that dough. Solar is just getting started.

 

 

 

Fossil fuels are always going to be an option that will be both reliable and within the budget, making them to go to source of energy for most businesses and other organizations.

Well, coal doesn't appear to be one of them. According to the Washington Post:

 

 

... digging up those coal reserves and delivering them to customers has been getting more expensive.

 

That’s because of rising costs of transportation, explosives, wages — and geology. In most areas, companies first dig coal from areas that are easiest to access and that have the thickest, richest seams. Over time, however, it becomes more expensive to mine — and more difficult to do so profitably.

Out of all the fossil fuels, coal seems to be the most vulnerable to this reality with the least vulnerable being natural gas due to being the cheapest. Gas plants are also well-liked for having relatively high ramp rates. What's important is that fossil fuels be mined at low cost and be sold at a higher price in order to be profitable. If renewable energy at their low levelized cost of energy continue to compete to force fossil fuels to lower prices, sooner or later mining for them may end up becoming more trouble than it's worth. That is unless that fossil fuels could justify a high enough price somehow.

 

It will take some time before solar, wind and energy storage (more likely from some improved battery technology rather than fuel cells) get cheap enough together to provide all the power needs all on their own. Should solar energy become cheap enough to start building with redundancy for affordable curtailment, well, they're going to displace quite a bit of fossil fuel use, especially during the day time. Should the same also happen for energy storage where it becomes affordable to bulk up a little more, it's pretty much game set and match.

[Tranquil Claw 80]

Laws of nature... didn't we make those up? Why not learn how these laws are affected by things we don't understand yet. There's always more than meets the eye. These perpetual motion generators are actually open equations. They draw energy from some place which we are in the dark of. All we do understand is that there is energy being drawn from somewhere else, just not where that else is. This happens a lot in science. Wasn't electricity back then considered as uncontrollable as the weather? It all started with a certain machine that worked without any any reason for it to work. Probably it took a small bit before understanding could catch up.  

Edited October 5, 2015 by Tranquil Claw

[Twilight Dirac 721]

Are you really about to write off a 17-fold increase over 7 years as insignificant? Global installations was a meager 2.6 Gigawatts back in 2006. This growth could be exponential so there will be increasingly more and more people be they in the household or in industry willing to cough up that dough. Solar is just getting started.

 

Be careful with large percentage increases over small numbers.  Even with these exponential increases, we still haven't broken 1% of total power generation in the U.S.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_the_United_States

 

 

 

Well, coal doesn't appear to be one of them. According to the Washington Post:

 

The commodity prices of coal have actually been plummeting:  https://www.quandl.com/collections/markets/coal.  When it comes to coal, price is usually not the problem, but the fact that it is both dirty and inflexible.

 

 

 

It will take some time before solar, wind and energy storage (more likely from some improved battery technology rather than fuel cells) get cheap enough together to provide all the power needs all on their own. Should solar energy become cheap enough to start building with redundancy for affordable curtailment, well, they're going to displace quite a bit of fossil fuel use, especially during the day time. Should the same also happen for energy storage where it becomes affordable to bulk up a little more, it's pretty much game set and match.

 

The problem is these sources of energy are rather diffuse.  You need to blanket enormous areas with solar cells, so you are looking at either massive desert facilities or a cheap and efficient organic photovoltaic  you can just start papering buildings with.  Otherwise it is going to remain a supplemental technology.

 

 

 

Laws of nature... didn't we make those up? Why not learn how these laws are affected by things we don't understand yet. There's always more than meets the eye. These perpetual motion generators are actually open equations. They draw energy from some place which we are in the dark of. All we do understand is that there is energy being drawn from somewhere else, just not where that else is. This happens a lot in science. Wasn't electricity back then considered as uncontrollable as the weather? It all started with a certain machine that worked without any any reason for it to work. Probably it took a small bit before understanding could catch up.  

 

I highly doubt that youtuber you linked to was able to pull energy out of some kind of otherwise unknown energy hyperspace using a couple of magnets.  What was actually demonstrated was just a brushless motor.  These sorts of machines were thoroughly investigated well over a century ago (minus the brushless part, that needs electronic controls to work).  If someone actually made a working perpetual motion engine, you would know instantly because it is up there with building a function warp drive (which is actually more permissible under the laws of physics than perpetual energy) in terms of revolutionary technology.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Twilight Dirac

[SugarfootWillie 383]

@@Tranquil Claw,

Humans didn't create the laws of nature, we described them. Where have you seen that perpetual motion generators are open equations? The only way I could think of creating a mathematically sound perpetual motion generator would involve the same process as getting negative degrees kelvin*.

 

 

*not at all mathematically sound by the by, but there is one way, which while more sound, still is not sound.

Edited October 6, 2015 by SugarfootWillie

[Tranquil Claw 80]

@@Tranquil Claw,

Humans didn't create the laws of nature, we described them. Where have you seen that perpetual motion generators are open equations? The only way I could think of creating a mathematically sound perpetual motion generator would involve the same process as getting negative degrees kelvin*.

 

 

*not at all mathematically sound by the by, but there is one way, which while more sound, still is not sound.

 

 

"I highly doubt that youtuber you linked to was able to pull energy out of some kind of otherwise unknown energy hyperspace using a couple of magnets.  What was actually demonstrated was just a brushless motor.  These sorts of machines were thoroughly investigated well over a century ago (minus the brushless part, that needs electronic controls to work).  If someone actually made a working perpetual motion engine, you would know instantly because it is up there with building a function warp drive (which is actually more permissible under the laws of physics than perpetual energy) in terms of revolutionary technology."

 

 I'm sorry, didn't show you the right example to what I was talking about. This right one here is an example of an open equation drawing energy from the earth's magnetic field.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wohUdu6o44c

[aoEAF2FBvC0MIo2Q 3,673]

 

 

The commodity prices of coal have actually been plummeting:  https://www.quandl.c...ns/markets/coal.  When it comes to coal, price is usually not the problem, but the fact that it is both dirty and inflexible.

Seems like I should have clarified. Commodity prices may be down which is in turn good for anyone looking to burn coal but that can be painful for those looking to mine the stuff to sell. Please be reminded that commodity prices strictly reflect supply and demand. The actual cost of manufacturing coal is something else entirely. The difference between the commodity price and the levelized cost make up the margin of profitability of coal. As linked in the article previously, coal is becoming more costly to mine and now shown by you, the coal prices outside of Australia are at an all-time low. That's squeezing the profit margin for the coal mining industry from both sides! Having digged into that... Is it just me, or is Coal Mining really showing a negative profit in the table? (Source). Another article from the New York Times:

 

 

Mines are closing almost every month. Sawmills that provide wooden support beams for the tunnels are laying off workers, and diners are putting up signs asking their customers to pray for the miners.

...

Since January, six domestic coal producers have filed for bankruptcy, including Patriot Coal, which applied for Chapter 11 for the second time.

 

The coal mining industry is suffering.

 

Gah, I think we've gone off a tangent enough.

 

---

 

This is a technology I'd like to see more of in the future, Peltier Coolers. The video will explain enough. I don't see it replacing compressors any time soon but it certainly is neat.

 

 

That you can buy them shows that there's some progress being made into getting these to market but it still has a long road ahead before commercialization.

[Twilight Dirac 721]

 I'm sorry, didn't show you the right example to what I was talking about. This right one here is an example of an open equation drawing energy from the earth's magnetic field.

 

Is that a power cord on the left?  I think it is.  This sort of device needs independent reproduction before it can be taken seriously.  And you cannot draw energy from the Earth's magnetic field because it is not time varying and will therefore not drive an inductive device.   As I mentioned before, these sorts of experiments have already been done to death.  If you are going to try and break the laws of physics as we know them, you are going to have to tread new ground which probably involves leaving the dining room.

 

 

 

Seems like I should have clarified. Commodity prices may be down which is in turn good for anyone looking to burn coal but that can be painful for those looking to mine the stuff to sell. Please be reminded that commodity prices strictly reflect supply and demand. The actual cost of manufacturing coal is something else entirely. The difference between the commodity price and the levelized cost make up the margin of profitability of coal. As linked in the article previously, coal is becoming more costly to mine and now shown by you, the coal prices outside of Australia are at an all-time low. That's squeezing the profit margin for the coal mining industry from both sides! Having digged into that... Is it just me, or is Coal Mining really showing a negative profit in the table? (Source). Another article from the New York Times:

 

That doesn't make coal any harder to use, it simply means nobody wants to bother with coal.  Probably a combinations of pollution and regulations.  Its dirt cheap though if cheap is the route you want to go.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Twilight Dirac

[Tranquil Claw 80]

I didn't see any power cord. By the way that device has multiple variations, all of which work. 

Edited October 7, 2015 by Tranquil Claw

[Once In A Blue Moon 895]

I didn't see any power cord. By the way that device has multiple variations, all of which work. 

 

Given the vast number of hoaxes, assumed fake until proven genuine is the order of the day. A design that can be replicated, complete with supporting theory and subjected to peer review, is the evidence that you should be looking for. If they refuse for 'patent reasons' then they have not been able to patent the device, which means that they have been unable to prove that the device works to the relevant authorities.

[Tranquil Claw 80]

Given the vast number of hoaxes, assumed fake until proven genuine is the order of the day. A design that can be replicated, complete with supporting theory and subjected to peer review, is the evidence that you should be looking for. If they refuse for 'patent reasons' then they have not been able to patent the device, which means that they have been unable to prove that the device works to the relevant authorities.

Engineers who have the qualification already looked at this design and deemed it legitimate. You can also put into question the relative reliability of any authority's opinion. That too, can be scrutinized, changed for shady reasons, etc..

Edited October 7, 2015 by Tranquil Claw