Uncertainty Principle Carries Implications As To Who We Are
According to The Writers Almanac, “On this date in 1927, physicist Werner Heisenberg first described his Uncertainty Principle in a letter. In a nutshell, the Uncertainty Principle states that the more precisely we can determine a particle’s momentum, the less information we have about its position, and vice versa. The principle represents one of the most fundamental differences between quantum mechanics and classical physics.”
Excellent summary. I have nothing but fond respect for Garrison Keillor and his staff of researcher/writers.
When you look at the Uncertainty Principle and try to understand the reason behind it, you realize that the measurement of the position of an object requires observation, and observation means that at least one photon of light has bounced off the object, thus altering its momentum. But what it has always meant to me is that the observer and the observed are not two completely distinct entities; we are inextricably linked to the people and things around us.
So, if it’s true that we’re all connected in ways far more profound than we ever realized, what does that imply about who we are fundamentally and how we should behave here on our home planet? Rather than attempt an answer, let me suggest two marvelous documentaries:
What The Bleep Do We Know? and I AM.
Hope you enjoy, and write back with comments.
We can rarely have total certainty. However, before investing untold billions of dollars in changing to a new energy system, a very careful analysis should be done first; it has not been done.
France made a transition from zero electricity generated by nuclear power to 80% nuclear power in about 20 years and France has the cheapest electricity in Europe, although one may question the actual cost since the French government owns the generating and distribution facilities. On the other hand, Germany, which committed itself to photovoltaic power, has the second highest priced electricity in Europe and imports much of its power from France. Holland, which emphasized wind power, has the highest priced electricity in Europe. Because of the many variables involved, that in itself may not prove that renewable sources of power are impractical, but surely it indicates a need for extremely careful analysis before proceeding. And, so far as I have been able to determine, a careful feasibility has never been done.
Consider some of the usually ignored difficulties of constructing large solar systems. Many of them would have to be in very remote areas. Where would the workers building the systems live? The distances are often too far for commuting. Temporary housing would have to be provided for the contractors; food and water would have to be brought in. Roads would have to be built, and possibly air strips also. Because operators would be required after construction is complete, permanent housing would need to be provided for them. All that would add greatly to the cost. And, the most efficient and economical solar systems are solar thermal electric which require considerable cooling water. Even solar voltaic systems require significant water to clean the mirrors. In the areas most suitable for solar systems, water is very scarce.
Some wind farms would also have to be built in remote areas, the only difference being that they might be less likely to be built where water is scarce. For both, the grid would have to be expensively changed to permit collecting power from many more sources and even then, the power available would not be reliable.
Again, these difficulties are generally ignored. On the other hand, nuclear plants can be built where convenient since they do not depend on the wind and sun.
Frank,
Re: 2greenenergy- funding
1. Nuclear power is out because of our experience with Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fucukishima.
2. Large, central generating plants are out for the reasons you give, plus the environmental damage, the high capital cost, the cost and environmental damage caused by new high voltage transmission lines and the loss of energy over distance when electricity is transmitted via these cables.
3. Fossil fuel power plants are out because of the environmental damage which is not included in the cost of electric power. Since we can measure that damage, we ought to at least tax it and pass the tax on to the consumer.
4. Large concentrated solar power generators are out for the reasons given in #2, plus your apt observations.
5. Current electric generators generally run at full capacity and thus waste generating power because of the inability to store the live electrical power.
6. That leaves us with individual, small-scale solar systems. PV systems cost about $10,000 in capital costs per kW/hr. If we ignore the cost, then PV is a good solution; but cost is the biggest deterrent to new systems which cannot beat subsidized coal on cost.
7. That leaves us with individual solar thermal solutions. Thus far, the only commercial, small-scale, land-based system is Sopogy.com. It is a single axis system which is only about 37% efficient. It does have the hot oil tank system. The system which beats Sopogy is a dual axis system. The Solar Furnace CHP System thus trumps Sopogy in terms of energy efficiency. Sopogy got financial traction and is now commercial. The Solar Furnace CHP System is still in the design stage and is look for capital to move it to the prototype state. Ref: http://solarfurnacechp.wetpaint.com
The problems for green energy lie first in the technology, followed closely by the absence of funding. If we all stop analyzing the current technology and finding fault with the existing systems as our main entertainment, and focus on the funding issue, we can move green energy along to the point of practical application. What are your suggestions for funding small-scale solar thermal energy plants (heat and electricity) on a widely distributed (locavore) basis?
Regards,
Jim Miller
jimmiller5417@gmail.com