An Incredible New Crystal Can Transform Light Into Mechanical Work

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Sounds like a boondoggle. What powers the laser?

Cold fusion.

I thought it was pixie dust.

Very strong motion is required to activate the pixie dust which is why 10 Englishmen pedaling unicycles is necessary to activate the pixie dust. Then, the pixie dust spins fidget spinners. Following that the fidget spinners start the cold fusion reactor which powers the laser which finally activates the crystal which produces physical force. Someday, scientists will probably understand a way to cut out one of the middle men or at least the Englishmen.

 

[Copernicus]

I don't know about using them practically as a source of power, but these incredible photonic crystals are causing quite a stir, because they even have the property to bend light.

'Pseudogravity': Scientists Use a Crystal to Bend Light, Like a Tiny Black Hole​

Also, although we are able to manufacture them, they have been genetically evolved into organisms that use them for camouflage. In fact, they have been discovered to have grown in ancient Roman glass that has aged over two millennia:

2000-YEAR-OLD SUBSTANCE UNEARTHED AT ANCIENT ROMAN SITES POSSESSES “EXTRAORDINARY” PROPERTIES​

The scientists who discovered the crystals in the old glass hope that they can find ways to "grow" the crystals rather than manufacture them by speeding up the evolutionary process artificially. Theoretically, that would make them easy to produce cheaply and in abundance.

 

[bilby]

Cities, and most infrastructure CAN be powered by solar.

Which cites don't need electricity for sixteen hours out of every twenty four, or on cloudy days?

 

[Copernicus]

Cities, and most infrastructure CAN be powered by solar.

Which cites don't need electricity for sixteen hours out of every twenty four, or on cloudy days?

Those with a good supply of batteries to store surplus power during downtimes, I presume.

 

[bilby]

Cities, and most infrastructure CAN be powered by solar.

Which cites don't need electricity for sixteen hours out of every twenty four, or on cloudy days?

Those with a good supply of batteries to store surplus power during downtimes, I presume.

The world's largest batteries can supply ~300MW for maybe 4 hours. New York City uses about 5,500MW; To power NYC for sixteen hours, you therefore require around twenty of these batteries, assuming that you get no cloud cover over the 16,500MW (roughly 100,000 sq m) of solar panels needed to both power the city and recharge the batteries.

Such batteries are hugely expensive; Use vast amounts of materials to construct, (leading to massive environmental damage); Are very dangerous (they frequently catch fire, and release significant amounts of toxic smoke when they do); And are each less than 5% of the most generous estimates of the size required to do the job for a single large city.

What you call a "good supply" of batteries for every city in the world would require environmental destruction on a scale that makes carbon dioxide emissions look like a trivial concern.

Imaginary batteries are only a solution to pretend problems. In the real world, we cannot possibly solve the storage problem inherent to intermittent electricity generation, because storage solutions are physically limited by the same energy density constraints that apply to all chemical reactions. In short, to replace billions of tonnes of coal burning, we will inevitably need billions of tonnes of energy storage facilities.

Or we could stop pissing around with the electromagnetic force, and go to the far higher energy densities inherent in the use if the strong nuclear force.

Batteries (plus the solar or wind power to charge them) might be worth pursuing, if we didn't have anything better. But nuclear fission is FAR better by pretty much every possible measure, from safety, through environmental impact, to cost. Literally the only measure by which it's not vastly superior is public opinion.

"There is nothing so useless as doing, with great efficiency, that which should not be done at all" - Peter Drucker.

 

[Copernicus]

Or we could stop pissing around with the electromagnetic force, and go to the far higher energy densities inherent in the use if the strong nuclear force.

Batteries (plus the solar or wind power to charge them) might be worth pursuing, if we didn't have anything better. But nuclear fission is FAR better by pretty much every possible measure, from safety, through environmental impact, to cost. Literally the only measure by which it's not vastly superior is public opinion.

Bilby, I am well aware of your feelings about nuclear power, and we don't need to revisit that here. You make valid points about the engineering difficulties inherent in the storage of power. Rather than treat nuclear as a competitor to solar and battery storage, why not consider nuclear as part of the solution to weaning us off more polluting fossil fuels in the short term? It's not as if nuclear fission is a pollution-free source of energy. We are seeing that now with pollution caused by nuclear waste dumps. Nevertheless, my response to your points about battery storage is that there will be improvements to the technology that increase storage capacity while minimizing the dangers and risks that you mention. There are no obvious solutions to our energy crisis, so we need to pursue all our options.

From my home state:

Hanford cleanup​

 

[bilby]

Rather than treat nuclear as a competitor to solar and battery storage, why not consider nuclear as part of the solution to weaning us off more polluting fossil fuels in the short term?

I do. But the opponents of nuclear power don't.

It's not as if nuclear fission is a pollution-free source of energy.

Actually, it really is exactly as if nuclear fission is a pollution-free source of energy; certainly by comparison with literally all the other ways of making electricity. Nuclear power has completely contained and stored all of its waste products; None has polluted the environment. No other electricity source (or storage system) can come close to achieving this.

We are seeing that now with pollution caused by nuclear waste dumps.

No, we really aren't. Can you show me any nuclear power "waste dumps" that are in any way polluting anything?

Nevertheless, my response to your points about battery storage is that there will be improvements to the technology that increase storage capacity while minimizing the dangers and risks that you mention.

And my point is that fundamental physics limits those improvements, and implies that the technology will always and inherently be many orders of magnitude worse for the environment than nuclear fission is.

There are no obvious solutions to our energy crisis, so we need to pursue all our options.

Wrong.

There is a VERY obvious solution, but it's incredibly unpopular, after seventy years of propaganda against its use, mostly caused by conflating the generation of electricity with the development of nuclear weapons.

Hanford isn't anything to do with nuclear power; It's a weapons facility. Military technology has always been environmentally awful, as well as being awful on many other levels.

If you raised the horrors of flame-throwers, as part of a serious effort to discuss the merits of internal combustion engines, on the basis that both use combustion of petroleum as their energy source, you would be thought a crazy loon.

 

[Copernicus]

Rather than treat nuclear as a competitor to solar and battery storage, why not consider nuclear as part of the solution to weaning us off more polluting fossil fuels in the short term?

I do. But the opponents of nuclear power don't.

I don't care what some opponents of nuclear say. I am not taking that position.

It's not as if nuclear fission is a pollution-free source of energy.

Actually, it really is exactly as if nuclear fission is a pollution-free source of energy; certainly by comparison with literally all the other ways of making electricity. Nuclear power has completely contained and stored all of its waste products; None has polluted the environment. No other electricity source (or storage system) can come close to achieving this.

We are seeing that now with pollution caused by nuclear waste dumps.

No, we really aren't. Can you show me any nuclear power "waste dumps" that are in any way polluting anything?

I'll just repeat the one I gave you in the post you are responding to: Hanford cleanup. As you point out, the worst pollution at that site comes from weapons grade plutonium waste, but Hanford is also a major waste dump for power plants and has been since it opened. It accepts all kinds of waste even today, although they have more recently restricted the volume to waste from a limited number of states. The US has something like 70 nuclear waste dumps for storing spent fuel right now, and the uranium mill tailings will remain dangerous for thousands of years. Nuclear advocates like yourself are not too worried, but the government is worried about the long term storage of spent fuel.

I don't want to get pulled off topic to start arguing with you over one of your favorite hobby horses, so I don't intend to pursue the nuclear alternative topic further. We don't see eye to eye on that, but I am not opposed to building more nuclear power plants now, as long as they are no longer being built near earthquake fault lines. If you want to argue the topic, then I'm sure you can find plenty of folks elsewhere to pursue it.

 

[bilby]

We are seeing that now with pollution caused by nuclear waste dumps.

No, we really aren't. Can you show me any nuclear power "waste dumps" that are in any way polluting anything?

I'll just repeat the one I gave you in the post you are responding to: Hanford cleanup. As you point out, the worst pollution at that site comes from weapons grade plutonium waste, ...

So, in summary; No, you can't show me any nuclear power "waste dumps" that are in any way polluting anything, but you believe they exist, and you won't discuss it further.

I respect your beliefs, just as much I would if you believed in the power of prayer (for which its proponents, coincidentally, have exactly the same level of evidence).

 

[Copernicus]

We are seeing that now with pollution caused by nuclear waste dumps.

No, we really aren't. Can you show me any nuclear power "waste dumps" that are in any way polluting anything?

I'll just repeat the one I gave you in the post you are responding to: Hanford cleanup. As you point out, the worst pollution at that site comes from weapons grade plutonium waste, ...

So, in summary; No, you can't show me any nuclear power "waste dumps" that are in any way polluting anything, but you believe they exist, and you won't discuss it further.

I respect your beliefs, just as much I would if you believed in the power of prayer (for which its proponents, coincidentally, have exactly the same level of evidence).

Well, the pollution from Hanford will probably just involve the plutonium waste and chemicals used in nuclear weapons if and when it contaminates the Columbia river. However, there is a danger of an explosion that could possibly involve a spread of some of the waste from nuclear power plant. Sometime over the next few centuries, that waste will become more dangerous, but it's likely that the generation that left that bag of flaming dog poop on their doorstep will no longer be around to worry about it. The US government is still concerned enough about the uranium mill tailings to store them in secure facilities for future generations to deal with. Be that as it may, I have no appetite for pursuing this derail on your nuclear power hobbyhorse.

 

[bilby]

We are seeing that now with pollution caused by nuclear waste dumps.

No, we really aren't. Can you show me any nuclear power "waste dumps" that are in any way polluting anything?

I'll just repeat the one I gave you in the post you are responding to: Hanford cleanup. As you point out, the worst pollution at that site comes from weapons grade plutonium waste, ...

So, in summary; No, you can't show me any nuclear power "waste dumps" that are in any way polluting anything, but you believe they exist, and you won't discuss it further.

I respect your beliefs, just as much I would if you believed in the power of prayer (for which its proponents, coincidentally, have exactly the same level of evidence).

Well, the pollution from Hanford will probably just involve the plutonium waste and chemicals used in nuclear weapons if and when it contaminates the Columbia river.

Yes.

However, there is a danger of an explosion that could possibly involve a spread of some of the waste from nuclear power plant.

No, there really isn't. Nuclear power plant waste cannot explode, and is stored in containers that wouldn't be breached by any plausible explosion

Sometime over the next few centuries, that waste will become more dangerous,

That's a bizarre thing to suggest. By what mechanism could it do anything other than become less dangerous?

but it's likely that the generation that left that bag of flaming dog poop on their doorstep will no longer be around to worry about it.

...as though that matters one iota.

The US government is still concerned enough about the uranium mill tailings to store them in secure facilities for future generations to deal with.

The US Government is driven by popularity, not scientific assessments of risk. Uranium mill tailings aren't particularly hazardous, unless you plan to eat them.

Be that as it may, I have no appetite for pursuing this derail on your nuclear power hobbyhorse.

You said that before, but somehow couldn't bring yourself to let me have the last word

 

[ZiprHead]

Well, this thread has taken a turn.

 

[Copernicus]

Well, this thread has taken a turn.

And that is partly my fault for poking bilby on anything even remotely related to nuclear power, so let us all agree to build more nuclear power plants and move on. These light-bending photonic crystals show promise for applications other than powering cities. Animals have evolved uses for them as camouflage.

Brilliant camouflage: photonic crystals in the diamond weevil, Entimus imperialis​

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Cell phones need too much power to be effectively powered off solar. I have some small solar chargers to keep my phone running longer when I know I'll be out (like on a hike) and will be using my phone for photos, tracking my distance, etc. And when I want to be sure it has power in case of emergency.

My biggest portable charger folds up to the size of a cell phone, and has 3 panels. Each panel only generates 1.25 W of power though, in ideal conditions.

It's not worth it. Under optimum conditions panels are only lighter than a spare battery if you are spending more than three days away from power--and rarely will you have optimum conditions if you are moving.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Cell phones need too much power to be effectively powered off solar.

Yup. Cities, too. But you can't persuade the neo-luddites of that, so they insist on wasting vast resources (thereby fucking up the environment) on the futile attempt to do so. Because they have an irrational fear of the only actually effective solution.

Disagree--because cities can get power from areas outside the city.

The problem with solar is not the density, but the intermittent nature of it. Solar is non-viable without a major breakthrough in storage, current-day panels are adequate.

 

[bilby]

Cell phones need too much power to be effectively powered off solar.

Yup. Cities, too. But you can't persuade the neo-luddites of that, so they insist on wasting vast resources (thereby fucking up the environment) on the futile attempt to do so. Because they have an irrational fear of the only actually effective solution.

Disagree Agree, but didn't bother to think through the implications before responding--because cities can get power from areas outside the city.

The problem with solar is not the density, but the intermittent nature of it. Solar is non-viable without a major breakthrough in storage, current-day panels are adequate.

FTFY.

That's what I'm talking about.

The same problem applies to smartphones - you can run them off a solar panel, but then they're only going to work if you can deploy that panel for a sufficient fraction of the time to keep their battery charged, which destroys their portability, which is the entire reason why they exist.

If you don't want portability, you could use a much bigger and more powerful device.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Cell phones need too much power to be effectively powered off solar.

Yup. Cities, too. But you can't persuade the neo-luddites of that, so they insist on wasting vast resources (thereby fucking up the environment) on the futile attempt to do so. Because they have an irrational fear of the only actually effective solution.

Disagree Agree, but didn't bother to think through the implications before responding--because cities can get power from areas outside the city.

The problem with solar is not the density, but the intermittent nature of it. Solar is non-viable without a major breakthrough in storage, current-day panels are adequate.

FTFY.

That's what I'm talking about.

The same problem applies to smartphones - you can run them off a solar panel, but then they're only going to work if you can deploy that panel for a sufficient fraction of the time to keep their battery charged, which destroys their portability, which is the entire reason why they exist.

If you don't want portability, you could use a much bigger and more powerful device.

You didn't fix it.

My objection is legitimate--it's a comparison between something which must be portable and thus the energy density of it's power source must meet a certain threshold vs something which is inherently not portable and thus can spread it's power source over any required area and is thus not density-limited.

 

[steve_bank]

I think the first practical gas laser was demonstrated in the 60s. At the time nobody knew what to do with it.

If there is practical use for this new invention the profit incentive will take over. People will be looking for ways to sell it.

 

[Copernicus]

I think the first practical gas laser was demonstrated in the 60s. At the time nobody knew what to do with it.

If there is practical use for this new invention the profit incentive will take over. People will be looking for ways to sell it.

Back then, it was just considered gaslighting.