No More Electricity!

This is more of a discussion then a question. Lately I have been wondering about the small amount of space that we have on Earth. In those thoughts, I began pondering about Thermodynamics (particularly, of course, the first law). Since energy can't be created nor destroyed - it only changes form - that most certainly means there is a limited amount. There's a capacity. Much like a battery, it can only hold so much energy. The Earth is essentially, then, one huge battery holding millions upon billions upon trillions upon trillions of energy units (it cannot be specified to electricity since it can change form).

If that is correct, then my theory makes sense. If there is only so much energy, and electricity is energy, then one day we will reach that capacity, right? Let's create a hypothetical situation - we massively overbuild the world with the biggest skyscrapers that, with the newest technology, go thousands of feet in the air. Standard homes no longer exist, and the smallest of homes are at least four stories. These conditions cover every corner of the world. Power-plants are at a massive draw.

Now everybody knows that you can't really "use" electricity for good, for it always returns to another form of energy - it can't be destroyed. So what if, with this extremely advanced society, electricity was used quicker then it was replaced? And this massive usage was continued until all of the energy that is "stored" in planet Earth is being used at one time.

That brings me to the real question of debate - doesn't that therefore mean that all power-plants will one day, when this "Complete use of energy" comes, will no longer generate electricity? Is it impossible to believe that they will have no energy left to "grab" (electrical power plants don't create electricity, just generate and convert it"?

Now, I may be entirely wrong. This theory could be 153(nice even number) percent wrong, but it's what I brainstormed. Any feedback or debate is appreciated ;)

sort by: active | newest | oldest
1-10 of 39Next »
Kiteman6 years ago
Transmutation of elements is not creation of energy. The energy released as 116 decays to 115 is less than that required to create 116 in the first place.  116 is not produced by firing protons at 115.  It is formed by firing streams of calcium ions at a caesium target (most of which miss), a process which has the energy demands of a small town, and so far has only produced around 30 atoms, the decay of which produced enough energy to be detected by incredibly sensitive instruments, but no more.

Unstable elements do not create energy, they release energy originally stored as matter.

Despite what Bob Lazar claims, element 115 is completely unstable (half life of around one fifth of a second),116's half-life is a quarter of that. 

Elements 115 & 116 provide no feasible prospect of interstellar travel.  You're better off with good old fashioned uranium or plutonium (or even solar panels) powering ion rockets.

And, please, don't even suggest that aliens would use 115 /116 to travel faster than light...
freethetech (author)  Kiteman6 years ago
Ah, Kiteman, I love reading your replies ;) Always learn something new.

Question, though, what are your beliefs on traveling faster then the speed of light? Do you believe it can ever be possible? I recall reading that (I forget the scientist who said it - really credible of me, eh?) if you were to travel faster then speed of light, it'd create a black hole. Hehe.
Science is not a matter of "belief".

The facts are that superluminal travel is impossible, and the various shortcuts proposed are purely speculative.

In the farthest foreseeable future, the only way to get living humans to another star is in a generation ship.
anything of any size (mass) probably will never travel faster then the speed of light, however, some neutrinos may be able to do this....
More precisely, one experiment (OPERA) on one beamline (CNGS) claims to have subtracted all of their known readout delays from their event timestamps, then subtracted the flight time of neutrinos on that beamline, and gotten a negative time delay as a result (which could be due to a flight time shorter than expected, or to readout delays shorter than assumed).

A second experiment (ICARUS) on the same beamline has not observed the massive deviation in energy distribution of those neutrons which you would expect if they were superluminal.
What if one used a wormhole?

Yeah, I am kind of withholding my opinion until it is repeated a few times more and all probably outside influences and personal determinations are eliminated for either side.
Permit me to play devil's advocate for a moment:

We _think_ the facts are that superluminal travel is impossible, etc. We also thought the buck stopped at Newtonian physics and you could endlessly add and subtract velocities.

To be clear, I am certainly not saying I think it's possible to go faster than C, nor arguing that we don't actually know anything about anything because science continually advances, but I question the reasonableness of being so dogmatic about a point of a theory which contradicts the last theory. I'm not expressing doubt about quantum mechanics, but it just seems strange to proclaim that there's no possible way anything could ever contradict this point of QM when QM itself contradicts points of classical physics.
1-10 of 39Next »