A remarkable quote on solar energy.

[BenBurch]

Consider a moment. The problem of which Watt solved a part is not the problem of inventing a machine, but the problem of using and storing the forces of nature which now go to waste. Now to us who live on the earth there is only one source of power-the sun. Darken the sun and every engine on the earth's surface would soon stop, every wheel cease to turn, and all movement cease. How prodigal this supply of power is we seldom stop to consider. Deducting the atmospheric absorption, it is still true that the sun delivers on each square yard of the earth's surface, when he is shining, the equivalent of one horse-power working continuously. Enough mechanical power goes to waste on the college campus to warm and light and supply all the manufactories, street railroads and other consumers of mechanical power in the city. How to harness this power and store it-that is the problem of the inventor and the engineer of the twentieth century, a problem which in good time sure to be solved.

- Andrew Carnegie "James Watt" 1905

[portlandatheist]

And here I thought that the meme that "solar power technology will satisfy our energy needs and is just around the corner" has only been around since the 1970's.

[BenBurch]

In the prior pp he talks about exhausting the world's coal.

[Ziggurat]

He's wrong, though: nuclear and geothermal energy doesn't come from the sun (or at least, not our sun). But it's an interesting quote nonetheless.

[BenBurch]

He's wrong, though: nuclear and geothermal energy doesn't come from the sun (or at least, not our sun). But it's an interesting quote nonetheless.

He wrote this in 1905.

BTW, this is not just some guy named Andrew Carnegie, it is the famous person of that name.

[Earthborn]

It is a remarkable quote, but perhaps not as remarkable as you seem to think. In 1905 solar energy had been used successfully already. From my copy of "Luchtkastelen der Techniek" (Flying Castles of Technology), a 1948 book about technological marvels too ridiculous to come true, such bicycles to ride on telegraph wires, sewing machines powered by the human voice, actual flying castles hanging from balloons or the ever hilarious concept of a tunnel under the English Channel, in the chapter on Perpetual Motion machines, it says:Though the pure perpetua mobilia fly in the face of all natural laws, this is not true of so called solar-energy-machines. The inventor of the solar-energy-machine is the Frenchman Augustin Mouchot from Tours, who started his experiments in 1864, in which he used large concave mirrors to concentrate the rays of the sun on small boilers. Indeed he succeeded in getting the water in the boilers to boil, and power a small steam engine with the resulting steam.

Mouchot was not the first who attempted to utilise the power of the sun. Also a Frenchman, de Caus managed 3 centuries before Mouchot, to power a fountain by a solar-energy-machine in three different varations. The most interesting perhaps is the one that used lenses. In mounted in a rack were rows of powerful lenses that focused beams onto two copper drums. The heating during the day and the cooling during night caused the air inside them to expand and contract. This caused a valve to be opened and another closed. Water moved through a connecting tube to the fountain that was placed in another room, and flowed from there back into the bassin. It was a very nice, but also expensive toy.The Andrew Carnegie quote also mentions the storage of the solar energy, which is a problem that is still not solved satisfactorily.

[soylent]

"Sun power is now a fact and no longer in the 'beautiful possibility' stage... It will have a history like aerial navigation. Up to twelve years ago it was a mere possibility and no one took it seriously." -- Frank Schuman, 1912-1913

http://hem.bredband.net/soylent/Schuman.Egypt.preWWI.jpg

His parabolic through design as revived by the DoE in the 1970's.

[GreNME]

And here I thought that the meme that "solar power technology will satisfy our energy needs and is just around the corner" has only been around since the 1970's.

Since solar power technology hasn't had even close to the research and development combustion power technology but has still made huge advances regardless, it's fair to say that the only thing wrong with the "just around the corner" part of those comments is the matter of time perception.

-----

He's wrong, though: nuclear and geothermal energy doesn't come from the sun (or at least, not our sun). But it's an interesting quote nonetheless.

Uh, actually, the power of the Sun and any resident power existent on the planet we live on are derived from the same source. Also, at our current rate of consumption we'll exhaust the stored energy that can be found on Earth long before the Sun starts petering out. In the real and long-term sense, Carnegie was right.

[Cynic]

Uh, actually, the power of the Sun and any resident power existent on the planet we live on are derived from the same source.

In what way are nuclear and geothermal energy derived from the sun?

[Ziggurat]

Uh, actually, the power of the Sun and any resident power existent on the planet we live on are derived from the same source.

In the sense that it comes originally from fusion, sure. But like I said, it didn't come from our sun. And it didn't come from light either, which is the only power source Carnegie would have been talking about in regards to the sun.

[geni]

In what way are nuclear and geothermal energy derived from the sun?

The comment is consistent with them being derived from the solar nebular.

[Cynic]

The comment is consistent with them being derived from the solar nebular.

How is that important? I suppose that satisfies the definition of derived, but it hardly satisfies the point of the first post saying there were other forms of power besides those supported by the sun. Going forward, if the sun disappeared entirely there geothermal and nuclear power available to anyone prepared for such an unlikely and otherwise devastating event.

Anyway, the importance of solar is obvious and real. What we're doing now with coal and the like is like painstakingly assembling water with lots of Hs and Os to drink when you live next a lake. Solar is still largely impractical, but that's a storage issue, which more effort ought to be put into solving. Or a delivery issue, I suppose, if you look long-range enough to orbital aggregating and distribution satelites.

[GreNME]

In what way are nuclear and geothermal energy derived from the sun?

Re-read what I stated and then re-think whether you're actually addressing my words.

-----

In the sense that it comes originally from fusion, sure. But like I said, it didn't come from our sun. And it didn't come from light either, which is the only power source Carnegie would have been talking about in regards to the sun.

Given Carnegie's limited understanding of the subject matter from a scientific perspective, it's correct enough to be right the present. You're focusing instead on a power source on a specific level. At this point and time, the Sun is our only resource of that type. We're not going to find the fusion from when the Earth was forming, after all. :)

[Cynic]

Re-read what I stated and then re-think whether you're actually addressing my words.

Of course I am. I may not be addressing your intentions, but I'm certainly addressing your words. If you feel there has been some sort of misinterpretation, please elaborate.

[CapelDodger]

He's wrong, though: nuclear and geothermal energy doesn't come from the sun (or at least, not our sun). But it's an interesting quote nonetheless.

It does show a clear vision. There are people today who can't appreciate that a finite planet implies finite resources. And Carnegie cuts to the chase : one day we'll cut out the middle-men (wind, rain, fossil fuels) and go direct to the source. A business-like mind.

In 1905 he didn't even know of the approaching Oil Age, but that does seem to be a sub-division of the Coal Age :). And as it happens fission and geothermal (and probably fusion if it ever happens) have nothing like the potential of that fusion reactor in the sky.

[CapelDodger]

Given Carnegie's limited understanding of the subject matter from a scientific perspective, it's correct enough to be right the present.

It was right at the time. It doesn't take a scientific perspective to appreciate what a finite resource is, or to understand the supply-chain. In broad terms Carnegie almost had to be right. And sure enough he was.

A business-like mind.

[GreNME]

Re-read what I stated and then re-think whether you're actually addressing my words.

Of course I am. I may not be addressing your intentions, but I'm certainly addressing your words. If you feel there has been some sort of misinterpretation, please elaborate.

My words:Uh, actually, the power of the Sun and any resident power existent on the planet we live on are derived from the same source.

What elaboration is needed? They both derive from the same source, which is not the same as what you accused me of by asking:
In what way are nuclear and geothermal energy derived from the sun?

Since I didn't say that nuclear and geothermal energy come from the Sun, you're not addressing what I said.

[Cynic]

Since I didn't say that nuclear and geothermal energy come from the Sun, you're not addressing what I said.

So, how does what you said imply what you said it implied?

[Ziggurat]

Given Carnegie's limited understanding of the subject matter from a scientific perspective, it's correct enough to be right the present.

I'm not intending to denigrate Carnegie for saying what he said, it's quite informed for its time. I'm just pointing out that it's still wrong, and that we have access to power sources which do not derive from our sun.

You're focusing instead on a power source on a specific level. At this point and time, the Sun is our only resource of that type. We're not going to find the fusion from when the Earth was forming, after all. :)

We've still got energy stored from the fusion that predates the formation of both the earth and the sun. We extract that energy in the form of fission, and we can indeed find it now.

Oh, and if we ever get fusion working, then that won't be power derived from any sun. It will be the same source as the sun, but it's still not power from any sun.

[Roboramma]

Uh, actually, the power of the Sun and any resident power existent on the planet we live on are derived from the same source. Also, at our current rate of consumption we'll exhaust the stored energy that can be found on Earth long before the Sun starts petering out. In the real and long-term sense, Carnegie was right.

The power of the tides doesn't come from fusion.

[GreNME]

So, how does what you said imply what you said it implied?

It seems others got it just fine. The short-circuit seems to be in your understanding.

-----

I'm not intending to denigrate Carnegie for saying what he said, it's quite informed for its time. I'm just pointing out that it's still wrong, and that we have access to power sources which do not derive from our sun.

Wrong in detail, right on principle, I would say. I'm not accusing you of denigrating Carnegie, but I think the gravity of his statement holds more accuracy than you're giving credit.

We've still got energy stored from the fusion that predates the formation of both the earth and the sun. We extract that energy in the form of fission, and we can indeed find it now.

Oh, and if we ever get fusion working, then that won't be power derived from any sun. It will be the same source as the sun, but it's still not power from any sun.

We can get fusion "working," we just can't seem to get anything constructive from it (yet). :)

-----

The power of the tides doesn't come from fusion.

Er, the sun isn't the primary source of the tides, but it is a source. As for fusion being a part of that-- does mass play no part in the fusion going on in the Sun?

[Cynic]

It seems others got it just fine. The short-circuit seems to be in your understanding.

My understanding of what, exactly? I'm asking -- directly -- for you to please rephrase and elaborate. Is that too much to ask?

[GreNME]

My understanding of what, exactly? I'm asking -- directly -- for you to please rephrase and elaborate. Is that too much to ask?

You're diverging based on a misunderstanding of my words that, so far, no one else has made. I never said that nuclear and geothermal energy are derived of the sun. I stated that the power within the Sun and the power available from the Earth both have the same source. That you keep insisting that I somehow said otherwise is getting beyond ridiculous. Read my entire post again, read a few of the other posters' remarks to it. If you can't understand what they obviously did after doing that, I'm really not inclined to give you a lesson on the origin of the solar system because you're (intentionally or unintentionally) being obtuse.

[Cynic]

I stated that the power within the Sun and the power available from the Earth both have the same source.

Yes, this statement was made in response to Ziggarat's suggestion that nuclear and geothermal energy wasn't derived from the sun. Allow me to amend my response to "so the **** what???" That was actually my first reponse, but I figured I'd be polite. My mistake. I generally expect a statement that begins with "Um, ..." to have some sort of point, else why the attitude, right? Just kind of sounded like, you know, a refutation or something. Gave you the benefit of the doubt to have a point. Again, my mistake. Sorry. Sorry again.

[Roboramma]

Er, the sun isn't the primary source of the tides, but it is a source. As for fusion being a part of that-- does mass play no part in the fusion going on in the Sun?

The tidal forces applied by the moon represent a source of power that is not only independant of the sun, but also of a completely different sort: ie. the sun is powered by fusion. Is gravitation in some way a part of what goes on in the sun? Of course, without it the hydrogen (and other elements) in the core would not be squeezed together hard enough to start and maintain fusion.

But that is a completely different process than the tides. To equate the two would be like saying that a wood burning stove and an electric powered stove (whose power came originally from solar power, say) have the same source, because both are dependent on electrical fields.

[GreNME]

The tidal forces applied by the moon represent a source of power that is not only independant of the sun, but also of a completely different sort: ie. the sun is powered by fusion. Is gravitation in some way a part of what goes on in the sun? Of course, without it the hydrogen (and other elements) in the core would not be squeezed together hard enough to start and maintain fusion.

But that is a completely different process than the tides. To equate the two would be like saying that a wood burning stove and an electric powered stove (whose power came originally from solar power, say) have the same source, because both are dependent on electrical fields.

Hey, it's a good thing I didn't equate the two, isn't it?

[Roboramma]

Hey, it's a good thing I didn't equate the two, isn't it?

Fair enough, but then what point were you making with this statement:

Er, the sun isn't the primary source of the tides, but it is a source. As for fusion being a part of that-- does mass play no part in the fusion going on in the Sun?

[GreNME]

Fair enough, but then what point were you making with this statement:

That your statement was too absolute (and I was being playfully pedantic). It still is-- there is a relationship, and arguably a causal one, to the tides and the processes going on in the Sun now. However, that's not the same zip code as what I was talking about in the first place.