You tell me -- because as a single / private / unaffiliated / Tesla power supply researcher -- I sure don't make policy -- but if I did have something to add -- it's not what the US is doing.
Thank you for responding so quickly, and I apologize for your confusion to my comment.
What I was referring to in my comment - was that an electric power supply; US invented (1982) ; US developed and professional laboratory verified (1984); US Patented (1992) - based on Nikola Tesla's radio "tuning circuitry" (1900) and other inventions he patented between 1890 and 1894: -- can accomplish what we presently use to produce electricity cannot accomplish: -- produce clean electricity:
--- "at" any location;
--- continuously produce the required electricity "for" that site;
--- for as long as that electricity is required "by" that site.
--- without breaking any Laws of Physics / violate the Conservation of Energy Theory / doesn't challenge the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics / is not Perpetual Motion or Sustained Action.
The problem is: -- the World has had the information - discovered / invented, with some unclaimed US Patented / by Nikola Tesla between the years 1890 and 1894, and all included in his 1900 radio Patent application:
--- to "electronically produce" all of the clean electricity the world would have ever needed.
But we didn't look for it - because the Science of Classic Physics, when much earlier proclaiming that "...no power supply 'could produce more output power than input power'..." incorrectly stated the condition.
Had it stated that "...no power supply can develop more power than it is physically or electrically capable of producing..." they would have been correct.
The "standing" proclamation was proven incorrect - on Sept. 10th. 1984 by a series of tests on a Tesla based power system that continuously produced:
--- a "pure", i.e., no harmonics or electric noise - perfect sinusoidal AC waveform / 120 VAC / 60 Hz / 0.06 A (60 mA) output power while powering an "off-the-shelf" 120 VAC / 60 Hz AC motor.
The 120 VAC / 60 Hz / input power had to be "electrically reduced to 75 VAC / 60 Hz / 0.03 A (30 mA) so that the generator could produce it's maximum output as stated just above.
The "developed output power" to "connected input power" ratio:
--- was 293% "over-unity" - and had the system been hooked up right - the output would have been well over:
--- 400% "over-unity".
The system is now capable of continuously / selectively / "electronically producing up to it's maximum output level of either:
--- 480 VDC or VAC / 480 Amps which equals
--- 230,400 Watts; 230.4 kW; or .2304 MW per unit.
The output can be "selected" to match the consumer required output - made available by any and all major AC power system in the world.
The problem in the US is that - over the entire history of the project -- every US Government / US University / US commercial entity contacted - refused to even consider making either financial or technical aid available -- that's why - at the official request of EC President URsula von der leyen -- the power supply is going to Europe - and is also being offered to the new Labour Government in the UK.
All of the "financial incentives" and removal of "regulatory obstacles" put in place in the US -- isn't going to fix the fact -- that the entire US AC power system is designed and built around "AC power grids".
And those old horses are old and lack the capacity to handle anything near the projected 3 fold increase in demand for electricity by 2050.
In fact today: - the Seattle front-page article - reported that the Northwest Power Grid is going to be filled to capacity within 5 years - and those guys have no additional capacity envisioned -- with more and more power hungry "data-centers" being constantly built and connected.
I'm not refuting anything that you answered - it's true - if you want to "nibble around the edges off the problem.
But the problem --is the US AC power system itself - and the continued race down the US Government funded IRA rabbit-hole now in place.
I can't get "into the weeds" on this question on a level that you two gentlemen have - but I have a question.
Mr. Hutcheson -- what would be your position if you found out that the pollution being spewed into the atmosphere from our producing electricity from "heat sourced" (including Atomic) and Hydro-powered (Methane Gas) electric power plants, plus from internal combustion engine power vehicles of all sizes and shapes -- can be replaced retrofitted - repowered with clean electric power - at all polluting sites?
I DO favor incentivizing emitting less CO2 into the atmosphere and agree that the main way that can happen is by generating electricity in ways that do not emit CO2 -- wind, nuclear, solar, geothermal. All of these technologies are undergoing rapid change and it's not clear whihc ones will produce electricity the cheapest is particular times and places, so we need to incentive them all and remove regulatory obstacles that prevent their evolution.
Your final question forms seem very anthropocentric for this anthropogenic climate change. And also very Homo economicus versus the larger Homo sapiens population.
People like to have an impact on the world through a chosen domain. But this requires that the other domains stay relatively static (else instead of funneling their impulses into having an impact on the world, the person is required to constantly adjust to deal with interruptions). And oh yes, some of us care about non-human beings for their own sake.
"Actual events and the chain of antecedent causes either happen or they don’t."
If you're going to argue this than you can't really argue the following paragraph. Models are just complex thought experiments. They can't 'actually' tell you what happened causally. Running a model multiple times is apparently convenient with R or Python or what have you (I haven't done it yet), but it all goes back to the basic statistics of an equation with slightly varying inputs.
As a person who hasn't run these models, but has at least once derived an equation for what we wanted to model, how is iterating a model better than running two sets of inputs into an equation and getting a couple of figures with +/- deviations out the other end, and then calculating the percent area of overlap or disjunction between these figures and their +/- deviations?
My approach does not explicitly factor in harm to the rest of the biota. But stabilizing and probably reversing some of the CO2 accumulation that we have caused also reduces the adjustments that the rest of the biota has to cope with. In principle we could chose a CO2 accumulation target/trajectory that explicitly values other biota is some way.
Interesting take.
Acts 26:28 :)
Matthew 22:14
:)
Like clockwork, here’s “technology” website ArsTechnica:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/10/helenes-carolina-rainfall-made-70-percent-more-likely-by-climate-change/
Actually yes.
But consider this -- Elon is interested in making more money building and selling batteries than he is in cleaning up his own act.
Again - actions speak louder than words
You tell me -- because as a single / private / unaffiliated / Tesla power supply researcher -- I sure don't make policy -- but if I did have something to add -- it's not what the US is doing.
I suppose you have tried interesting the owner of Tesla. :)
Mr. Hutcheson
Thank you for responding so quickly, and I apologize for your confusion to my comment.
What I was referring to in my comment - was that an electric power supply; US invented (1982) ; US developed and professional laboratory verified (1984); US Patented (1992) - based on Nikola Tesla's radio "tuning circuitry" (1900) and other inventions he patented between 1890 and 1894: -- can accomplish what we presently use to produce electricity cannot accomplish: -- produce clean electricity:
--- "at" any location;
--- continuously produce the required electricity "for" that site;
--- for as long as that electricity is required "by" that site.
--- without breaking any Laws of Physics / violate the Conservation of Energy Theory / doesn't challenge the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics / is not Perpetual Motion or Sustained Action.
The problem is: -- the World has had the information - discovered / invented, with some unclaimed US Patented / by Nikola Tesla between the years 1890 and 1894, and all included in his 1900 radio Patent application:
--- to "electronically produce" all of the clean electricity the world would have ever needed.
But we didn't look for it - because the Science of Classic Physics, when much earlier proclaiming that "...no power supply 'could produce more output power than input power'..." incorrectly stated the condition.
Had it stated that "...no power supply can develop more power than it is physically or electrically capable of producing..." they would have been correct.
The "standing" proclamation was proven incorrect - on Sept. 10th. 1984 by a series of tests on a Tesla based power system that continuously produced:
--- a "pure", i.e., no harmonics or electric noise - perfect sinusoidal AC waveform / 120 VAC / 60 Hz / 0.06 A (60 mA) output power while powering an "off-the-shelf" 120 VAC / 60 Hz AC motor.
The 120 VAC / 60 Hz / input power had to be "electrically reduced to 75 VAC / 60 Hz / 0.03 A (30 mA) so that the generator could produce it's maximum output as stated just above.
The "developed output power" to "connected input power" ratio:
--- was 293% "over-unity" - and had the system been hooked up right - the output would have been well over:
--- 400% "over-unity".
The system is now capable of continuously / selectively / "electronically producing up to it's maximum output level of either:
--- 480 VDC or VAC / 480 Amps which equals
--- 230,400 Watts; 230.4 kW; or .2304 MW per unit.
The output can be "selected" to match the consumer required output - made available by any and all major AC power system in the world.
The problem in the US is that - over the entire history of the project -- every US Government / US University / US commercial entity contacted - refused to even consider making either financial or technical aid available -- that's why - at the official request of EC President URsula von der leyen -- the power supply is going to Europe - and is also being offered to the new Labour Government in the UK.
All of the "financial incentives" and removal of "regulatory obstacles" put in place in the US -- isn't going to fix the fact -- that the entire US AC power system is designed and built around "AC power grids".
And those old horses are old and lack the capacity to handle anything near the projected 3 fold increase in demand for electricity by 2050.
In fact today: - the Seattle front-page article - reported that the Northwest Power Grid is going to be filled to capacity within 5 years - and those guys have no additional capacity envisioned -- with more and more power hungry "data-centers" being constantly built and connected.
I'm not refuting anything that you answered - it's true - if you want to "nibble around the edges off the problem.
But the problem --is the US AC power system itself - and the continued race down the US Government funded IRA rabbit-hole now in place.
So what is the policy conclusion?
I can't get "into the weeds" on this question on a level that you two gentlemen have - but I have a question.
Mr. Hutcheson -- what would be your position if you found out that the pollution being spewed into the atmosphere from our producing electricity from "heat sourced" (including Atomic) and Hydro-powered (Methane Gas) electric power plants, plus from internal combustion engine power vehicles of all sizes and shapes -- can be replaced retrofitted - repowered with clean electric power - at all polluting sites?
Because it is available - now.
I really do not understand your question.
I DO favor incentivizing emitting less CO2 into the atmosphere and agree that the main way that can happen is by generating electricity in ways that do not emit CO2 -- wind, nuclear, solar, geothermal. All of these technologies are undergoing rapid change and it's not clear whihc ones will produce electricity the cheapest is particular times and places, so we need to incentive them all and remove regulatory obstacles that prevent their evolution.
Your final question forms seem very anthropocentric for this anthropogenic climate change. And also very Homo economicus versus the larger Homo sapiens population.
People like to have an impact on the world through a chosen domain. But this requires that the other domains stay relatively static (else instead of funneling their impulses into having an impact on the world, the person is required to constantly adjust to deal with interruptions). And oh yes, some of us care about non-human beings for their own sake.
"Actual events and the chain of antecedent causes either happen or they don’t."
If you're going to argue this than you can't really argue the following paragraph. Models are just complex thought experiments. They can't 'actually' tell you what happened causally. Running a model multiple times is apparently convenient with R or Python or what have you (I haven't done it yet), but it all goes back to the basic statistics of an equation with slightly varying inputs.
As a person who hasn't run these models, but has at least once derived an equation for what we wanted to model, how is iterating a model better than running two sets of inputs into an equation and getting a couple of figures with +/- deviations out the other end, and then calculating the percent area of overlap or disjunction between these figures and their +/- deviations?
My approach does not explicitly factor in harm to the rest of the biota. But stabilizing and probably reversing some of the CO2 accumulation that we have caused also reduces the adjustments that the rest of the biota has to cope with. In principle we could chose a CO2 accumulation target/trajectory that explicitly values other biota is some way.