Solar energy & climate progress?

[alaska teardrop]

Wonder if anyone here has knowledge, insight or opinions on this mans', Ronald Ace, scientific theories?

Inventor Ronald Ace said that his flat-panel “Solar Traps,” which can be mounted on rooftops or used in electric power plants, will shatter decades-old scientific and technological barriers that have stymied efforts to make solar energy a cheap, clean and reliable alternative.

“This is a fundamental scientific and environmental discovery,” Ace said. “This invention can meet about 92 percent of the world’s energy needs.”

http://www.adn.com/2013/05/08/2895061/p ... nergy.html

Spray gigatons of seawater into the air, mainly in the Northern Hemisphere, and let Mother Nature do the rest, he says.

The evaporating water, Ace said, would cool the Earth in multiple ways: First, the sprayed droplets would transform to water vapor, a change that absorbs thermal energy near ground level; then the rising vapor would condense into sunlight-reflecting clouds and cooling rain, releasing much of the stored energy into space in the form of infrared radiation.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/12/21/5 ... YwD377D_X5

Fred

p.s. please leave out the politics.

[GuitarPhotog]

Too bad he hasn't shown a working prototype yet. It's a long way from calculations to practicality.

In theory, theory and practice are much the same. In practice, they're vastly different.

<Chas>

[eamarquardt]

The evaporating water, Ace said, would cool the Earth in multiple ways: First, the sprayed droplets would transform to water vapor, a change that absorbs thermal energy near ground level This is true, howevever..........; then the rising vapor would condense when it condenses it will release every bit of energy that it took to vaporize it so there won't be any net change in the energy/heat in the atmosphere into sunlight-reflecting clouds and cooling rain nope the rain won't cool a darned thing as the energy is still in the atmosphere, releasing much of the stored energy into space in the form of infrared radiation.[/quote][/list]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/12/21/5 ... YwD377D_X5

Fred

[list][size=85]p.s. please leave out the politics.

In Addition, water vapor is the most significant of the greenhouse gasses. More water vapor means more "climate change"

I think I read about his device in the 1956 issue of Popular Science. I think that that was the same issue that predicted that we'd all be driving flying cars by now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

Cheers,

Gus

[jstrubberg]

Um, water vapor is the single most prevalent, most powerful greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. Increasing atmospheric humidity is NOT going to cool our planet.

Spray gigatons of seawater into the air, mainly in the Northern Hemisphere, and let Mother Nature do the rest, he says.

The evaporating water, Ace said, would cool the Earth in multiple ways: First, the sprayed droplets would transform to water vapor, a change that absorbs thermal energy near ground level; then the rising vapor would condense into sunlight-reflecting clouds and cooling rain, releasing much of the stored energy into space in the form of infrared radiation.

Wow, the more I read, the more this guy scares me. Clouds release IR? Yikes!

Gigatons? Do you realize how much of a heat sink our oceans are? Reducing them by "gigatons" is a very, very bad idea. Then lets talk about the food chain (which starts at the plankton level) that would be disrupted by this idiocy.

[GerryS]

Too much politics on this issue. "Facts" became obscured with agendas. I am fully in support to responsible use of resources....but

I remember in the 70s being told of coming ice age...then Global warming.....now it's the coldest spring in history, so we introduce "climate change" as a title...so an agenda can be promoted without giving it any characteristics (facts) to get in the way.

Then take "inconvenient truth" and it's documented "inconsistencies" and I'm convinced thesis much about nothing. Had the facts not been manipulated, the whole argument would be worth the time. I am not convinced. And with the intellectual honest lacking from the conversation I doubt I ever will be.

I do believe there is cyclic changes, just nothing man made about it.

The link is a collection of inconvenient facts... http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monck ... rrors.html

[jstrubberg]

Agree 100%, Gerry. CO2 panic is the biggest red herring of our time, used to induce guilt and fear into our culture and pry out money.

The shame of it all is that the screaming and yelling over CO2 have completely killed any intelligent discussion on things that really do improve our environment, such as clean water and renewable land use initiatives. If you can't link it to the evil CO2, you can't get air time these days.

[alaska teardrop]

Guess I should not have included the second article. It's 5 years old & was the only other information that came up about the man in a quick search. I don't mean to bring up another global warming/climate change discussion.

What intrigued me, is the possibility of making fuller use of solar energy to the benefit of mankind & the environment as reported in the first article.

Fred

[TJinPgh]

Glad somebody else chimed in about water vapor as a greenhouse gas. Which, as an aside, I always found interesting when people start talking about hydrogen fuel cells. They tout that water vapor is the only emission, ignoring that it is a greenhouse gas.

[Corwin C]

Glad somebody else chimed in about water vapor as a greenhouse gas. Which, as an aside, I always found interesting when people start talking about hydrogen fuel cells. They tout that water vapor is the only emission, ignoring that it is a greenhouse gas.

This is true ... it is also true that water vapor can easily be condensed into pure water at the exhaust pipe which is something that the world needs. Essentially it's a greenhouse gas that can be easily made inert. My personal belief is that hydrogen will be the fuel of the future, but we have to learn not to visualize "Hindenburg" when people say hydrogen. It can be safely handled and offers the "immediate" refuel that we've grown to be accustomed to. It is clean, stores relatively well and is one of the most abundant elements in the universe.

I find it somewhat humorous that so many get so bent out of shape on the energy/environment issue. Science has only been able to study the atmosphere on a global scale for about 40 years. Some of the known cycles have periods in excess of 20 years. It's like trying to save a ship from sinking by turning a valve, yet we don't know if the valve lets water into or out of the boat, and turning that valve doesn't make an obvious difference. More study is indicated before any conclusion either way can be justified.

I suggest being frugal in your use of energy (to save $$$ if nothing else) and remember ... one of the reasons that we hear more about the natural disasters that happen in the world is because for the first time in history, we have been able to let everyone know immediately about those disasters. Finding out within minutes or the same day is very different from finding out what happened weeks, months, even years ago, if we ever found out at all. Communication technology is what has altered our perception of these events.