(Part 2) Best energy production books according to redditors
We found 434 Reddit comments discussing the best energy production books. We ranked the 136 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.
All of the books I can see from top to bottom on Amazon:
Books & Speakers | Price (New)
---|---
Elements of Chemical Reaction Engineering (4th Edition) | $122.84
Molecular Thermodynamics | $80.17
Physical Chemistry: A Molecular Approach | $89.59
Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei, and Particles | $128.32
Introduction to Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics (The Mcgraw-Hill Chemical Engineering Series) | $226.58
Organic Chemistry 8th Edition | $186.00
Elementary Differential Equations | $217.67
Numerical Methods for Engineers, Sixth Edition | $200.67
Applied Partial Differential Equations | $20.46
Transport Phenomena, 2nd Edition | $85.00
Basic Engineering Data Collection and Analysis | $239.49
Calculus (9th Edition) | $146.36
Elementary Principles of Chemical Processes, 3rd Edition | $206.11
Inorganic Chemistry (4th Edition) | $100.00
Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer | $197.11
Biochemistry: A Short Course, 2nd Edition | $161.45
Separation Process Principles: Chemical and Biochemical Operations | $156.71
University Physics with Modern Physics (13th Edition) | $217.58
Speakers | $50.00
Most you can get is $1476.86 (selling all of the books (used and hard cover) in person), and if you sell it on Amazon, they take around 15% in fees, so you'll still get $1255.33. But wait...if you sell it to your university's book store, best they can do is $.01.
Total cost: $2832.11 (including speakers)
Net loss: -$1355.25 (books only). If sold on Amazon, net loss: -$1576.78 (books only). Speakers look nice; I wouldn't sell them.
Edit: Added the two books and the table. /u/The_King_of_Pants gave the price of speakers. ¡Muchas gracias para el oro! Reminder: Never buy your books at the bookstore.
Edit 2: Here are most of the books on Library Genesis
Thanks to /u/WhereToGoTomorrow
All resources and economic activity tie directly into energy.
Food, fiber, goods, tech, it all has energy inputs and cost is determined largely by the cost of the energy needed to produce and move these things.
I'm working through a really good book on this subject called Environment, Power and Society for the 21st Century on this subject which lays it all out very well.
It's pretty technical about how to model energy flows through systems such as ecosystems, human civilizations, economies, etc.
Something really interesting was that the author claims that around 1973 we saw the US economy move from an era of superacceleration into an era of slow growth (and even stagnation), and that this had largely to do with energetic underpinnings of slower and more difficult extraction of oil, as is seen clearly on this graph (you can see the clear transition from exponential growth to slower linear growth).
That really caught my eye as I had long been interested in why there was a sort of sudden shift economically around the early '70s where wages stopped growing and inequality began growing very quickly. Kind of interesting to see that correlation.
The author is a big proponent of investing energy resources now into the energy resources of the future, and basically shows that it gets more expensive as time goes on, so those who are investing strongly in energy transition now are at an advantage.
There are smart things to do during each phase of what is going in the global energy scenario. During the acceleration and growth phase the US capitalized very well on the situation. But now we're in a stagnation phase and there will come a time soon where we must go through a bit of energy descent, until hopping on a more stable income of renewables.
What the US is trying to do is to grasp at policies that worked in the superacceleration phase, but which are not wise in the current phase we're in.
For example, under Trump we're talking about literally subsidizing the old methods that aren't worth it anymore so they can work again. This is also something that is mentioned in the book as a sort of dysfunctional loop of investing more and more energy into extracting forms of energy that are dying out, which ultimately just wastes energy and thus wastes wealth.
Really a fascinating perspective once you begin getting it more and more.
There’s a book about sportfishing around rigs in the gulf. It was on my reading list long ago and I never got around to it but it claimed they caught large things which have never been seen before. I vaguely remember some of them diving near rigs to get a closer look and said it was one of the most dangerous thing they ever did.
Edit: I remembered it differently but the book is called the helldiver’s rodeo about oil rig spearfishing in the Gulf of Mexico:
The Helldivers' Rodeo: A Deadly, Extreme, Scuba-Diving, Spear Fishing Adventure Amid the Offshore Oil-Platforms in the Murky Waters of the Gulf of Mexico https://www.amazon.com/dp/1590770056/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_8HoDAbNP2HMKY
safety protocols in fukushima were not dangerously lax.
read this, it is fantastic and not given to hype or hysteria:
http://www.amazon.com/Atomic-Accidents-Meltdowns-Disasters-Mountains/dp/1605984922
basically most nuclear disasters have happened when people decide to override the automated safety systems.
Some of the disasters they talked about are just mind-bendingly stupid. like the SM-1 plant incident. Some are complex and painful lessons learned such as the placement of sensors in early plants giving false information. Most modern plants that have had problems, however, had them because people thought they were smarter than the automated safety systems and over rode them.
ok.. I am still interested in this fracking nightmare you speak of. I can see of course you might be anti-capitalism or anti-government. I can understand that.
I dont by any means mean this as an insult, but do you know how fracking works? do you know how oilwells are drilled? Have you studied how any of this works? I know there is alot of fearmongering and misinformation out there, so it is easy to be scared about it.
I am with you on preventing both human and environmental disasters. I believe firm regulation can address that.
EDIT:
if you want to get more information try this book (im sure if you looked you can find a free PDF Of it available)
http://www.amazon.com/Primer-Oilwell-Drilling-Basic-Text/dp/0886981948
No problem at all. A lot of people disagree with this and fight it, because the implication is that the only real solution to our problem is to force everyone to move towards the equator so they consume less energy for heating/cooling, have less kids, quit driving, basically accept a sort of 2nd-world lifestyle. Obviously this will never happen, I suspect humans will basically keep going down this path until their demise.
Here are a few things I'd recommend on the subject:
http://energy-reality.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/09_Energy-Return-on-Investment_R1_012913.pdf
https://www.amazon.com/Environment-Power-Society-Twenty-First-Century/dp/0231128878/ref=pd_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=XQGQEPWX5X3VJY0B5S63
This professor writes a lot of good stuff on the subject:
http://www.esf.edu/EFB/hall/#publications
I guess the key concept in what you are asking about, is energy return on energy invested (EROEI). This is imo one of the most important concepts all people need to understand about energy generation. Something is only a resource, if you get more energy out of it, than what you have to put in to extract it. So for example, if it takes a gallon of oil in energy to pump one gallon of oil out of the ground, then that oil in the ground is no longer a resource.
There is a lot of debate about the true EROEI of these different types of energy production. For example this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Spains-Photovoltaic-Revolution-Investment-SpringerBriefs/dp/144199436X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1358872742&sr=1-2
In which the authors do a complex analysis on the true EROEI of solar and come up with a much lower return on energy invested than others often claim. They find that in amazingly sunny areas like Spain, the EROEI is only around 2, where in less sunny countries like Germany, it is between 1-1.5, which is absolutely abysmal.
You can see this is already becoming a problem with nuclear, in particular. There have been a few nuclear plants recently that were abandoned halfway through the project, because they blew so far over the budget, and the energy/money they were putting in to build the plant to modern standards, with all of the safety regulations, etc, made it a net loss to finish the plant. So it would never generate anywhere near the energy that it would take society to build it to spec. This will likely be a trend we see as technology gets more and more complex - things just require too much of societies resources to build, to the point that it is a net loss.
Another book on this subject is from Joseph Tainter:
https://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Complex-Societies-Studies-Archaeology/dp/052138673X
...who argues that the reason all societies eventually collapse, is because increasing complexity provides diminishing returns. Eventually things get so complex, that society doesn't have the energy and resources to maintain everything and to keep solving the harder and harder problems that complexity inevitably creates.
It's not true of conventional reactors, but is true of fast reactors. Russia has several in production right now and is building more. The U.S. spent 30 years developing an advanced design called the Integral Fast Reactor, which was canceled by the Clinton administration just prior to completion. GE-Hitachi has a production-ready design based on the IFR, which they're attempting to sell to the U.K. and China.
About 99% of our nuclear waste, and essentially all the long-lived waste, is unfissioned uranium, plutonium, and other transuranics. Fast reactors burn all that up. All they leave is the fission products, which go back to the radioactivity of the original ore in a couple hundred years.
Sources are abundant, it's well-known nuclear physics. Here's a sampling:
Energy For Future Presidents (a book by a Berkeley physics professor)
BraveNewClimate
Wikipedia here and here
World Nuclear
Plentiful Energy (a book by lead engineers on the IFR project)
The IFR also does a good job with safety and proliferation issues. Liquid thorium reactors would have similar advantages but aren't as far along.
I like that you included that visualization of alternative energy budgets. With an Apollo type program, we could make enormous progress in fusion energy[1].
Imagine solving this problem, with the energy source of the stars themselves.
Just a note, if you go into physics for nuclear fusion, you will probably be studying plasma physics so I've listed some useful books. Another route for supporting nuclear fusion research is material science because the plasma-wall interactions are important for fusion energy. Another approach is condensed matter research.. specifically into superconductors in my uncreative mind (but I'm sure there are other ways to support fusion work) because you need to confine that shit. There are probably a lot more ways to support fusion research so don't this as the final word.
-----
Just a general popular science kind of book:
An Indispensable Truth: How Fusion Power Can Save the Planet by F F Chen
Good introductions to plasma physics that don't completely skimp out on maths:
Introduction to Plasma Physics by R J Goldston and P H Rutherford
Statistical Plasma Physics by S Ichimaru
The equivalent to Jackson for all those mf'ing plasma waves:
Waves in Plasmas by T H Stix
This might be not the best place, but are you sure about this? Professional gamers are rare, those that are nearly 40 even more so, especially in FPS games. It's not much of a career.
I mainly wanted to write the above, but have the builds as well. German prices, but should serve you at least as starting points:
pc-kombo shared list
Type|Item|Price
:----|:----|:----
CPU | Intel Core i7-7700K | 321.90€ @ caseking
Motherboard | MSI Z270 SLI PLUS | 142.31€ @ Amazon.de
Memory | Corsair Vengeance LPX Series white, DDR4-3200, CL 16 - 16 GB Dual-Kit (16 GB) | 174.89€ @ Amazon.de
SSD | Samsung 960 EVO NVMe Solid State Drives (250 GB) | 123.90€ @ Amazon.de
Video Card | EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti SC2 Gaming iCX | 759.90€ @ caseking
Case | Fractal Design Meshify C Midi-Tower - black | 89.90€ @ caseking
Power Supply | Corsair RMX Series RMX650 (650 W) | 102.90€ @ caseking
CPU Cooler | Scythe Fuma | 44.95€ @ reichelt
Operating System | WIN10 64 HOME DE - Windows 10 Home, 64 Bit, deutsch (COEM) | 86.95€ @ reichelt
| Total | 1857.19€
| Generated by pc-kombo 18.09.2017 |
You did not really specify what you want for the second PC, and only implicitly that you want two at all. I assume it will be a cpu focused rendering machine:
pc-kombo shared list
Type|Item|Price
:----|:----|:----
CPU | AMD Ryzen 7 1700 | 292.99€ @ Amazon.de
Motherboard | MSI B350 PC Mate | 79.90€ @ caseking
Memory | G.Skill RipJaws V Series, DDR4-3000, CL15, black - 16 GB Kit (16 GB) | 142.90€ @ reichelt
Storage | Toshiba DT01ACA300 3TB 64MB 7.200rpm SATA600 (3 TB) | 79.89€ @ Amazon.de
SSD | SanDisk Plus 120GB TLC (120 GB) | 54.99€ @ Amazon.de
Video Card | KFA2 GeForce GTX 1050 Ti OC | 143.00€ @ mindfactory
Case | Corsair Carbide SPEC-02 Midi-Tower - black/red | 58.99€ @ Amazon.de
Power Supply | Corsair VS Series VS450 (450 W) | 40.89€ @ Amazon.de
Operating System | WIN10 64 HOME DE - Windows 10 Home, 64 Bit, deutsch (COEM) | 86.95€ @ reichelt
| Total | 997.59€
| Generated by pc-kombo 18.09.2017 |
I have no experience with capture cards, but from what I understand you should add something like https://www.amazon.de/Elgato-Game-Capture-Latency-Technologie-Hardware-Encoding/dp/B015E3OT54. Maybe someone else will chime in here.
For the displays:
> My pricing roughly has come out around £6k but that only includes 1 27" 240+mhz monitor
Get that one for the first build, like https://www.productchart.com/monitors/16909. For the second one a regular 1080p display should be fine.
Ok, here's a list of books that might interest you.
Or we could fund fusion...
https://smile.amazon.com/Future-Fusion-Energy-Jason-Parisi/dp/1786345420
You won't find any argument from me concerning the fact that ITER is an expensive, time-consuming, bureaucratic and poorly managed project. There are improved concepts out there, including better ones in the tokamak regime. I personally am involved with a startup that seeks to commercialize a spheromak configuration into something called a dynomak (www.ctfusion.net), which could reduce the cost of fusion by a factor of 10 below tokamaks. All that being said, tokamaks perform the best out of any other device today. Part of the reason why is surely that the majority of funding has been spent on it, but realize that the physics going into ITER is based on decades of learning from many failures. As someone working in the field, I'd encourage you to read this book (http://www.amazon.com/Piece-Sun-Quest-Fusion-Energy/dp/1468308890) as it describes the history of fusion in quite some detail. It really put ITER more in context. I still think there are many different ideas that we should be pursuing in parallel, but do realize we're not just sitting on our asses doing nothing because we want job security. Fusion really is very hard, so much so that we had to invent a whole new branch of physics to understand what's going on, called plasma physics. We have built hundreds of small reactors, and we have determined that with the technology of the time, ITER was one of the best shots at making a net gain reactor based on our data. Using improved technology, of course, would improve the design point, but the issue with ITER is just how long it is taking... technology tends to become obsolete over time. Do not think of ITER as being the consensus of the mainline fusion community of what we should be doing today. It isn't unanimously accepted as the right path, not even close, but at this point governments around the world have spent so much money that there's nearly unstoppable inertia behind it at this point. Governments choose what they fund, scientists can only give their opinions about those choices. You would be amazed at how little power we actually have over the decision process of what gets funded. But, we'll see what happens if it is further delayed and even more expensive. If we completely scrapped ITER and used new technology to redesign a net-gain tokamak, it would look different and likely be less expensive.
That being said, myself, and many others, are thinking of ways to bring about fusion quicker, and for a much lower price than a conventional tokamak. And, though ITER represents the best chance at making fusion work at this point, I do not believe it will scale into an economical power plant. We have to start thinking differently, which is part of the reason why I'm focused on an alternative fusion idea that could solve the economic problems facing fusion without throwing out all the ideas that we know work. Some of the biggest errors you can make while doing something new is that you listen to much to past failures that you don't try anything new, or that you don't listen enough and end up repeating past mistakes thinking its a new discovery. There's a optimal point in between where I think we'll have the best chance of making something work that is also economically attractive.
Try these:
Electricity Grid Infrastructure,
Oil and Natural Gas Infrastructure.
Maybe this site can help with some basic information. Valclav Smil is an excellent source for many areas you're investigating: Energy Transitions, Energy Myths and Realities, Rise and Retreat of American Manufacturing, Oil, Prime Movers of Globalization, and Energy at the Crossroads
I realized I was arguing with a disingenuous individual when he responded to my reference to a solution of the electron. CSurveyGuy replied that there is no such thing as a solution to an electron. If he was sincere, he was beyond idiocy. He is no idiot. I like to reward genuine curiosity as much as I am able. He has a dire agenda. He strives to trip up the curious, constantly referencing his own authority.
You are welcome here. Your skepticism is yours to express. I'm not a moderator, but I think I understand their perspective. Mills has earned much respect. If you believe you have a coherent argument undermining his credibility, feel free to make it. I did not surrender my skepticism about Mills until it made no sense to hold it. It really helped to read Holverstott and GUTCP (as far as you can get).
Well do you prefer traditional books or ebooks? I used this textbook during my undergrad and it's ok but I think there are better options on Amazon. What is your baseline? If you're going into a specific subset such as automotive or stationary plant you can get an intro on YouTube before spending the money on a good book. LearnChemE and LearnEngineering are two good YouTube channels for introductory learning.
Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer by Incropera is pretty much the standard text on the subject by my understanding.
I used Hibbeler for Mechanics of Materials, but Beer is also a popular choice.
Hibbeler for dynamics as well.
Larson has a pretty good calculus book, will take you from derivatives up through multivariable.
A good resource if you feel like digging deeper is the physics forums - science and math textbook forum.
For non-fiction I'd recommend:
Ok, in addition to the paper/booklet posted earlier from acedemia.edu about the lorica segmentata here are some other resources discussing armor and some on metal work techniques. Much of what is available is medieval period but many of the skills and techniques are similar.
On Divers Arts by Theophilus is a treatise on painting, glass making, and metalwork from roughly 1122ad. ISBN:978-0486237848
De Re Metalica by Georgius Agricola is a scientific book on mining and metallurgy from around 1556ad. ISBN: 978-0486600062
The Pirotechnia of Vannoccio Biringuccio is a treatise on metallurgy and alchemy/chemistry from 1540ad. ISBN:978-0486261348
Techniques of Medieval Armor Reproduction: The Fourteenth Century is an awesome book covering various metalwork techniques as applied to making 14th century armor. ISBN: 978-1581605365 He talks about tools you will need and some modifications to make to them for ease of use. He even gives you some ideas on finding good sources for drawing inspiration from for your armor patterns. If you are starting with making armor and don't have anyone nearby to help you learn this is a good guide to buy.
Best of the Hammer is a black and white series of booklets that have great info on medieval metalwork from chainmail to bladesmithing. ISBN:978-0943228044
Roman Body Armor, by Hilary & John Travis is a good re-examining of the data on Roman armor up until this point. ISBN: 978-1445608037
Have you read Helldivers' Rodeo? If not I highly recommend it!
Some good starting points
https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Nature-Economics-Survival-Mattered/dp/0865716730/
https://www.amazon.com/Nature-Economic-History-Geerat-Vermeij/dp/069112793X/
https://www.amazon.com/Energy-Civilization-History-MIT-Press/dp/0262035774/
https://www.amazon.com/Overshoot-Ecological-Basis-Revolutionary-Change/dp/0252009886/
https://www.amazon.com/Environment-Power-Society-Twenty-First-Century/dp/0231128878/
https://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Complex-Societies-Studies-Archaeology/dp/052138673X/
http://bpeconomics.org/
https://biophyseco.org/
If you're interested in Nuclear accidents, I have been listening to the audiobook of this: http://www.amazon.com/Atomic-Accidents-Meltdowns-Disasters-Mountains/dp/1605984922 It is VERY a-political, unlike Pandora's Promise, IMHO. Although I agree with Pandora's Promise mostly, It feels like the producers are trying to convince me of something. The book "Atomic Accidents" doesn't feel that way at all, very factual, historical, informative, and as a lay-person, I didn't feel it was out of my depth at all. As for the Audiobook, it is pretty well read, and has good reviews on Audible: http://www.audible.com/pd/History/Atomic-Accidents-Audiobook/B00I2U1NLA
http://www.infomine.com/
Powerflow: Steveson/Grainger
System Dynamics: Kundar
Protection: Blackburn
These are the ones (1 2 3) we used when I was in school.
If you're just looking for good references or general information I've found this book to be pretty helpful in the past. You can read the Amazon reviews and look for similar things but the concepts are there for design and selection.
If you get some of your research done and want to know more specific information please feel free to reply here or post another thread when the time comes and we will be happy to help you out. Good luck in your studies.
Fun/informative books:
[A Piece of the Sun: The Quest for Fusion Energy: By Daniel Clery] (https://www.amazon.com/Piece-Sun-Quest-Fusion-Energy/dp/1468308890)
[Sun in a Bottle: The Strange History of Fusion and the Science of Wishful Thinking by Charles Seife] (https://www.amazon.com/Sun-Bottle-Strange-History-Thinking/dp/0670020338)
[An Indispensable Truth - How Fusion Power Can Save the Planet, by F.F. Chen] (http://www.springer.com/us/book/9781441978196)
[A Green Sun by Charles Gray] (https://www.amazon.com/Green-Sun-The-Fusion-Book-ebook/dp/B005GBPEAE)
-------------
Technical books:
[Physics of Fully Ionized Gases by Lyman Spitzer Jr.] (https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Fully-Ionized-Gases-Revised/dp/0486449823)
[The Physics of Inertial Fusion: Beam Plasma Interaction, Stefano Atzeni] (https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Inertial-Fusion-Hydrodynamics-International/dp/0199568014)
[Tokamaks by Wesson] (https://books.google.com/books/about/Tokamaks.html?id=BH9vx-iDI74C)
[The Release of Thermonuclear Energy by Inertial Confinement: Ways Towards Ignition by Friedwardt Winterberg] (https://www.amazon.com/Release-Thermonuclear-Energy-Inertial-Confinement/dp/9814295906/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1473696256&sr=1-1&keywords=winterberg+inertial+confinement)
Note: This last book by F. Winterberg contains some of the most difficult mathematics (perhaps something that a Junior in Math might not mind) but contains an extraordinary wealth of new fusion ideas - something that old guard fusioneers would like to see in the hands of the young.
---------
Mathematics is the portal to advanced skills in fusion physics and nuclear engineering. It is not really possible to find a professional first position in the fusion field without a high level of mathematics competency.
For those that have already had two years of college calculus I would recommend the following book if you are interested in a career in fusion.
[Higher Math for Beginners by Y.B. Zeldovich] (https://www.amazon.com/Higher-Mathematics-Beginners-application-physics/dp/B000IW9YSO/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1473696949&sr=1-2&keywords=Higher+for+Beginners+Zeldovich)
----------
Student Internship at the Nation’s National Labs
You get paid while you learn lots of terrific fusion related stuff and there is an avenue leading to a first job in the field of your choice (something everyone needs).
http://see.orau.org/ProgramDescription.aspx?Program=10055
https://internships.llnl.gov/
http://www.lanl.gov/education/undergrad/internships.shtml
http://science.energy.gov/wdts/suli/
-------
NIF Laser Fusion in Fulldome -true out of this world new technology
(note: this high-rez image is interactive - click on picture and drag with your mouse to see additional views of the NIF target chamber)
http://www.xrez.com/case-studies/nif-laser-fusion-in-fulldome/
------
Fusion is a lot closer than most of the main stream analysts currently believe.
Fusion from the engineering side perhaps does not get as much publicity, but many fusion jobs in funded projects have a lot of engineering content. It may actually be easier to get your first position if you have a math or engineering focus (only so many physics professionals get hired, even in really large fusion programs).
Not sure how modern you are looking for, but "The making of a hardrock miner" by Stephen Voynick (published in 1978) is a good read if nothing else. A little dated in many ways, but an excellent look at mining metals in the western US nevertheless.
https://www.amazon.com/making-hardrock-miner-experiences-molybdenum/dp/0831071168
When photons (moving at the speed of light) are converted to matter, space-time has to contracts a little to accommodate the associated relativistic correction. The opposite happens (i.e. universe's expansion) when matter is converted back into energy. This contraction is the origin of gravity.
I think you'd really enjoy Holverstott's book on how Mills developed his theory but targeted to the non-expert. While it is fairly comprehensive, unfortunately it stops short of describing how Mills' theory deals with gravity.
I'm no expert, just started reading about it a month ago. As you said, it is fascinating!
Here's where I started -
https://omegataupodcast.net/304-the-past-present-and-future-of-fusion/
OmegaTau also has many other science episodes.
The book linked in the podcast is a good read too - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Future-Fusion-Energy-Popular-Science/dp/1786345420
he has a thick accent, and very hard to understand and hard of hearing. The course is a tough course BUT he makes it probably the easiest I can think of. He gives you a sheet called SP problems, they are basically what the exams are based off of. The book that I used was this one, http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Heat-Transfer-Frank-Incropera/dp/0471457272 . Go to class, as tempting as it is to not go because you don't really learn much by his "lectures", the more he sees you the more he's inclined to help you.
Not without challenges, but gasoline is pretty volatile as well. Jet fuel doesn't like you smoking near it either. But, there is the energy density required to move tubes of people through the air over long distances using hydrogen with minimal environmental impact. Some will argue filling the atmosphere with water vapor (clouds/exhaust) will reflect sunlight and cause a detrimental cooling effect, but could it be worse than what we're dealing with now? David Sanborn Scott wrote a pretty convincing book called Smelling Land some years ago in defense of hydrogen as a combustible energy source. Every energy source we take advantage of is beyond basic high school chemistry. I wouldn't want grade 12 kids running nuclear plants either.
https://www.amazon.com/Power-System-Analysis-Grainger/dp/0070585156/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1483646607
That's the go to book everyone likes for power system analysis.
... It doesn't need to be tested on MB.. it's thermodynamics. http://www.amazon.com/Thermodynamics-Engineering-Approach-version-1-2/dp/0072549041
There is a good book that explores this issue, with each chapter dealing with the consequences of +1ºC increase. This short TEDx presentation explains it more briefly although it's 2 years old.
In my opinion the most imminent problem is our food supply. As an example, in 2010 Russia suffered a heat wave that reduced it's wheat crops by around 30%. Russia is one of the top 5 wheat producers in the world. You can imagine that when this happens on a more global scale on different types of crops it will pump the food price index up, which will have disastrous consequences.
> There are a myriad of technologies that could change the course of human history and we just need to achieve one of then to massively increase our chances of long-term survival; fusion power, self-replicating nanomachines, mind uploading, human-like AGI, the realisation of an Alcubierre drive or discovery of wormholes...
It sounds great, but as of today it's science fiction. The reality is that globally most of our energy comes from fossil fuels. Oil production has become more and more expensive due to the fact that we have to dig deeper to find it, which is why most of the world is turning to coal and fracking (natural gas).
Vlacav Smil points out in one of his books that even in the case of oil, the cheapest and more abundant energy humanity has ever found so far, it took many decades to switch from coal as the primary energy source during the 20th century. At that time, the EREOI of oil was about 100:1. So even if today we had a thorium or cold fusion reactor already working, the investment to switch from fossil fuels would be huge in time and money. Of course the effort would only be possible if every government on earth understood the gravity of the situation. But the world is still arguing if climate change is even real...
http://brilliantlightpower.wikia.com/wiki/BrilliantLightPower_Wiki
https://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/blacklightpower/images/5/58/BLP-e-4-25-2016.pdf/revision/latest?cb=20160427021229
https://www.amazon.com/Randell-Mills-Search-Hydrino-Energy/dp/0692760059/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1494308053&sr=8-4&keywords=brilliant+light+power
http://www.brettholverstott.com/annoucements/2016/12/9/video-of-november-12th-talk
> There is no alternative to fuel for aircrafts at the moment however.
You did say "at the moment"...
Setting that aside for a moment, thoughts about using H2 for aircraft as outlined in this book?
Backing up to your statement about studying or researching transportation policies....did you happen to see this discussion on this sub a few days ago? Specifically the claim that Saudi oil isn't 'fully costed' because the super tanker operating costs are ignored. Is that at all credible? I'm sure that I have read elsewhere (as it relates to the 100 mile diet) that the carbon cost to move food from Chile to Vancouver is much smaller than the carbon cost to truck that food to Calgary which is also smaller than the carbon cost for me to drive to the store to buy those bananas or whatever.
I did a quick interweb search to try to find the CO2 emissions to move 1 ton of oil 1000 miles by pipeline or by truck or by rail or by ship...no go...do you have a good source?
Most of my hydrogen/nuclear thinking is nicely encapsulated in this book - heard of it and/or read it?
As for storage of energy, I like the method highlighted here, second image.
https://www.amazon.com/Primer-Oilwell-Drilling-Basic-Text/dp/0886981948
Purifying silicon is the most energy-intensive industrial process ever invented by human beings. Do you have any idea how much heat is required? So energy is by far the most expensive item in the production of a solar cell. And that's CHEAP energy, generated either by coal, hydro or nukes.
Solar cells already cost 20x - that's a two (2) followed by a zero (0) - as much as conventional sources of electricity. And that's if solar cells are made using cheap energy. If the solar energy cycle were to be closed, it boggles the mind what they would cost. 100x as much as nuclear probably. Which is exactly how much more costs solar thermal technology than the cheapest alternative once you strip out the government subsidies.
Furthermore, what I said about nuclear not having that green cachet was sarcasm meant to indicate how much I look down on you. Because you see, the rest of the world overwhelmingly doesn't care that Americans are retards incapable of figuring out the difference between environmental facts and environmental fictions. In the rest of the world, nuclear is king. Nuclear is The Light. Not the light of an oncoming train at the end of the tunnel which solar power represents but Industrial Light & Electric Co. here and now, and for the next million years.
(Not that Lew Rockwell is in any way, ever, reliable. But here the author contents himself with quoting an authoritative book on the subject.)
Before you say even one word on the subject, to anyone ever, go to http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2006/3/5/19821/21750 and look at the figure labeled Quantified Marginal External Costs Of Electricity In Germany. The big thing that's wrong with that chart is that in every other country, hydro has much, MUCH higher ecosystem costs than nuclear. And both wind and solar have additional costs on the electricity grid. Especially see the part where photovoltaics have external costs almost as high as burning gas.
why do you think the Clinton administration cancelled the fast breeder research at Argonne National Labs. I read this book and it didn't say: http://www.amazon.com/Plentiful-Energy-technology-scientific-non-specialists/dp/1466384603/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1348456204&sr=8-1&keywords=plentiful+energy
And, do you think politically we can get fast breeders to happen in the US?
Alright, so with all the suggestions, which were basically split between upgrading the build to fit the 1080 or downgrading to fit the Ryzen 5, I've made two different versions:
Intel, 1300 Euro:
pc-kombo shared list
Type|Item|Price
:----|:----|:----
CPU | Intel Core i5-8600K | 273.90€ @ reichelt
Motherboard | MSI Z370-A Pro | 109.90€ @ caseking
Memory | Corsair Vengeance LPX blue DDR4-3000 CL15 (16 GB) | 170.79€ @ Amazon.de
SSD | Crucial MX300 (525 GB) | 131.00€ @ Amazon.de
Video Card | KFA2 GeForce GTX 1080 EXOC | 506.00€ @ Amazon.de
Case | Kolink Luminosity Midi-Tower - black Window | 46.90€ @ caseking
Power Supply | Corsair TX550M Series Modular (550 W) | 76.89€ @ Amazon.de
CPU Cooler | Arctic Freezer I11 - 92mm | 18.85€ @ Amazon.de
| Total | 1343.82€
| Generated by pc-kombo 22.11.2017 |
(I'd probably go with a different cooler, Cryorig H7, but it wasn't listed on pc-kombo)
AMD, 1050 Euro:
pc-kombo shared list
Type|Item|Price
:----|:----|:----
CPU | AMD Ryzen 5 1600 | 198.99€ @ Amazon.de
Motherboard | MSI B350 PC Mate | 79.90€ @ caseking
Memory | G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3000 8GB (8 GB) | 98.17€ @ Amazon.de
SSD | Crucial MX300 (525 GB) | 131.00€ @ Amazon.de
Video Card | MSI GeForce GTX 1070 Armor 8G OC | 405.91€ @ Amazon.de
Case | Kolink Luminosity Midi-Tower - black Window | 46.90€ @ caseking
Power Supply | Corsair TX550M Series Modular (550 W) | 76.89€ @ Amazon.de
| Total | 1041.75€
| Generated by pc-kombo 22.11.2017 |
Not sure which one I'll go with yet, I'll probably wait until the weekend and see if there are any sales. If there are any problems with either of these builds please tell me, otherwise thanks everyone!
Alright - going off your advice, this is what I've come up with:
pc-kombo shared list
Type|Item|Price
:----|:----|:----
CPU | AMD Ryzen 5 1600 | 199.99€ @ Amazon.de
Motherboard | MSI B350M Mortar | 87.42€ @ Amazon.de
Memory | Crucial Ballistix Elite Series DDR4-2666, CL16 - 8 GB (8 GB) | 76.90€ @ alternate
SSD | SanDisk Plus 240GB TLC (240 GB) | 84.99€ @ Amazon.de
Video Card | ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1060 Mini | 279.00€ @ Amazon.de
Case | Thermaltake Versa H22 Midi-Tower - black | 33.99€ @ Amazon.de
Power Supply | Xilence Performance A+ (530 W) | 45.99€ @ Amazon.de
| Total | 814.27€
| Generated by pc-kombo 21.09.2017 |
Would this be more viable? Also - any idea on whether the case I listed above would be suitable? Cheers.
The most condescending Iranian looking liberal cocksucker I have ever seen in my life.
Solar energy is not "dense" enough to compete with fossil fuels.
http://www.amazon.com/Solar-Fraud-Energy-World-Second/dp/0971484546
First, i never read your reply before editing my original comment, so I'm not sure what you are referring too.
Second, I covered completely why it isn't as safe in my first post, people aren't as familiar with how the process is supposed to work, and process robustness is a huge part of food safety. Your claim about water vs air doesn't claim all of the information you think it does to come to the conclusion that you do. Here are the fundamentals:
So no, you aren't getting more heat transfer in the water bath than you are in an oven. You said yourself, water isn't touching the meat, the plastic is.
If you need more information on why you are making bad generalizations, i would recommend this text:
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Heat-Transfer-Frank-Incropera/dp/0471457272
Which has everything you need.