Elevators in skyscrapers could be used to generate electricity

wiyosaya

Posts: 7,819   +6,787
Environmentalists will shut it down just as fast as they did nuclear power. Remember that, however close we are to economically viable fusion power, we need the much-more-difficult to master aneutronic fusion in order to eliminate any and all radiation. And even when we do that, it'll be attacked for some other reason.
Maybe its been considered before by people actually doing fusion research, and maybe they decided that given the fact that fuel for aneutronic fusion is exceptionally rare on Earth to be a good case against aneutronic fusion. After all, the nearest likely source of the fuel is on the Moon and that presents perhaps even more difficult-to-solve logistical problems - not to mention the expense of transporting it back to Earth. No such Earth transportation currently exists (not, of course, that it could not be developed).

And, BTW, I get that deuterium for fusion fuel is not as plentiful as some think.

This is another case where I just don't get your reasoning. We should abandon decades of research by people well-versed in the field and on their way to a potential solution to chase another far-off idea?

While some research avenues are approaching the holy grail of break-even in fusion research, I highly doubt that they have abandoned research into harnessing the resulting energy, such as it is, from these avenues of research.

Commercial fusion reactors are likely still far off, however, I don't think that we should just abandon potential avenues just because they are difficult.

Perhaps you should take your proposal for aneutronic fusion to NASA, the DOE, or DARPA. Maybe they will throw a few scraps of research money your way, and you would have some decent competition from the entities already engaged in fusion research. Heck, NASA would probably love to have an aneutronic fusion engine in their toolbox.
As famed environmentalist Paul Ehrlich said: "giving society cheap, abundant energy is be the moral equivalent of giving an ***** child a machine gun." Many other environmentalists have expressed similar points of view.
Ah, snarky comments about environmentalists, too. After all, who on Earth needs a healthy environment? Hmmm. I forgot. I'm talking to someone who thinks that raising CO2 content in the Earth's atmosphere is a great idea even though CO2 is a scientifically proven greenhouse gas and there are already signs of substantial global warming. After all, no one worth anything lives in those coastal cities that will be flooded when enough glaciers melt, right?
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 2,411   +2,936
TechSpot Elite
Maybe its been considered before by people actually doing fusion research, and maybe they decided that given the fact that fuel for aneutronic fusion is exceptionally rare on Earth to be a good case against aneutronic fusion. After all, the nearest likely source of the fuel is on the Moon and that presents perhaps even more difficult-to-solve logistical problems - not to mention the expense of transporting it back to Earth. No such Earth transportation currently exists (not, of course, that it could not be developed).

And, BTW, I get that deuterium for fusion fuel is not as plentiful as some think.

This is another case where I just don't get your reasoning. We should abandon decades of research by people well-versed in the field and on their way to a potential solution to chase another far-off idea?

While some research avenues are approaching the holy grail of break-even in fusion research, I highly doubt that they have abandoned research into harnessing the resulting energy, such as it is, from these avenues of research.

Commercial fusion reactors are likely still far off, however, I don't think that we should just abandon potential avenues just because they are difficult.

Perhaps you should take your proposal for aneutronic fusion to NASA, the DOE, or DARPA. Maybe they will throw a few scraps of research money your way, and you would have some decent competition from the entities already engaged in fusion research. Heck, NASA would probably love to have an aneutronic fusion engine in their toolbox.

Ah, snarky comments about environmentalists, too. After all, who on Earth needs a healthy environment? Hmmm. I forgot. I'm talking to someone who thinks that raising CO2 content in the Earth's atmosphere is a great idea even though CO2 is a scientifically proven greenhouse gas and there are already signs of substantial global warming. After all, no one worth anything lives in those coastal cities that will be flooded when enough glaciers melt, right?
He's full of it anyway because fusion reactors have to be heavily-shielded so that radiation doesn't escape just for them to function. If something goes wrong with fusion, it doesn't start a runaway chain-reaction like when something goes wrong with fission. When something goes wrong with fusion, the fusion simply stops. Regardless of what right-wing fear-mongers try to tell you, fusion power would be safer than every other power source we have.
 

Endymio

Posts: 1,623   +1,621
Maybe its been considered before by people actually doing fusion research, and maybe they decided that given the fact that fuel for aneutronic fusion is exceptionally rare on Earth to be a good case against aneutronic fusion... the nearest likely source of the fuel is on the Moon"
Absolutely incorrect. There is not "one" fuel for aneutronic fusion, and the most commonly studied fuels -- boron, and good old heavy water -- are much more common than the tritium used in conventional D-T fusion. The true reason aneutronic fusion isn't widely pursued is that ALL possible fuels, 3He included, have a far high energy threshold than the D-T reaction.

This is another case where I just don't get your reasoning. We should abandon decades of research by people well-versed in the field...
Misrepresenting an individual's remarks in order to refute something that wasn't said is a classic example of the strawman fallacy. I've noticed you regularly engage in this tactic. Nowhere did I state anything remotely resembling an appeal to abandon fusion research.

Ah, snarky comments about environmentalists, too. After all, who on Earth needs a healthy environment?
Except that so-called "environmentalists" regularly promote ideas and policies that are horrendously destructive to the environment. Shutting down the US nuclear power industry -- thereby keeping open hundreds of dirty coal-fired power plants -- is just one of countless examples.
 

wizardB

Posts: 243   +115
And this wouldn't shorten the life span of cables, pulleys, controllers etc.....Really oh and let's not forget OHMs law which is also why electric cars use 31% more energy than a comparable gas vehicle.
 

bviktor

Posts: 889   +1,311
So bring up the heavy load, to then bring it down, to generate electricity? But bringing it up would use electricity? Since any kind of electricity generation is <100% in efficacy, this is guaranteed to be a net negative. Unless I'm missing something.

In any case, regenerative braking for existing elevators, when coming down with many people, seems like a nobrainer. Use that load already.