And so what if these greedy companies "pack-up and move their refineries abroad" GOOD RIDDANCE to bad rubbish, I say. If that were to happen it would be a blessing. Governments could nationalized the oil/gas industry (as it once was here in the UK) and charge sane/reasonable prices for energy instead of artificially inflating its price to fill the pockets of shareholders. Oil is a national resource, it and its profits should be used for the benefit of the nation as it belongs to the people of that nation - not individual company owners.

I think companies have proven they cannot be trusted with such a VITAL social commodity so they should no longer be able to control it.

Last edited by hatty on 10-May-2008 at 10:07 PM.

@Darrin

Quote:

I do know what it costs to locate, extract and produce oil reserves and don't. You'd probably sell your shares if you saw what we have spent on this project in 2 years (and we're still making a daily loss)

Like any product in the world oil has a diverse set of costs. Middle-East extraction of oil costs are around $2 per barrel. Exxon is the largest and most profitable oil company in the history of the world. They average around $7.15 per barrel.

Also, oil companies have a history of controlling demand. For example Firestone, GM & Chevron got together buying and dismantling California public trolley/transist lines in the late 30s early 40s. This isn't the only place in the USA where these companies destroyed public transportation, increasing the need for the auto and subsequently increasing demand for oil.

Last edited by BrianK on 10-May-2008 at 10:27 PM.

@Darrin

Quote:

Well, again with respect, I work for an oil company and I disagree. One of us is wrong and I'm looking at you. I have electricity lines and telephone lines in my back garden and I know squat about the costs of providing telecommunications and electricity to the world. I have stocks it lots of comapnies, but I don't know their operating overheads. My father was a manager at a papermill, but I haven't got a clue how to make and market paper.

OK, you've mentioned a number of seperate industries and compleletly missed my point.

All my examples were from one industry. The area I live in exists soley because of the North Sea oil fields which pioneered deep sea oil extraction (Which was considerably more expensive than it is today) and around 90 - 95% of the population of this area work directly or indirectly with the oil industry.

What that means in actual terms is where a random village newspaper would carry stories about Mrs Mabels prize winning melons or a crime outbreak where Mr Harris had some of his apples plundered, here we carry stories about oil companies fortunes and exploits. When your entire existance is owed to a handfull of companies, you tend to pay them special attention.

So your comments about "us" (you and the oil industry) and "you" (me and the governments), you are wrong. I have as strong a connection to the oil industry as you do. Like you, my livelyhood depends on it.

And the reason I know about operating overheads is because in each annual report I get (which I have dating back to 1952 in regard to Royal Dutch Shell) when I attend the shareholders meetings contains extensive coverage of expenses like that, broken down into a project by project basis*. They also forcast the predicted long term profit expected from projects like yours that are currently hemmoraging money. To put it mildly, it will pay for itself in the long term.

Also, mentioniong deep sea oil platforms when it comes to operating expenses is a red herring. The majority of existing oil stock comes from dry land wells, and while some of them are in remote areas, the technology to extract the oil is considerably cheaper than offshore (oil sands excluded).

Sufficient that in 2006 Shell alone made a profit of 1.5 Million Pounds (3 million dollars) an hour.

It says something about the overall financial state of a company that it is perfectly fine with a project like yours that is currently loss making yet it allows its continuation doesn't it? I mean, if money was tight (like it is for most international business right now with recesion looming), you'd be closed faster than the sphincter muscle of a prisoner realising too late he shouldn't have picked up the bar of soap from the shower room floor

So with the greatest of respect back at you, you may have a great understanding of the site you are currently working on, but I have a greater understanding of the company you work for as a whole it would seem.

*Probably better for your career prospects if we didn't identify your local on a public forum since you've already announced its a loss maker.

Quote:

I do know what it costs to locate, extract and produce oil reserves and don't.

For your benefit, information like that can be found quite readily on the web since not every person who is interested in this subject is a shareholder or employee. Everything the oil companies do is followed in minute detail by the pressure groups (of which there are many) who gain access the the same info as shareholders and employees. Since I don't want to delve any deeper into your local, I'll not link to specific reports, but I'm sure you'll get a shock about just how much you thought was confidential info, isn't.

Quote:

Also, while you can dream about alternative energy sources, you're just dreaming because until the price of fuel goes up tenfold then no bugger is going to do anything serious about it.

Isn't that what I said?

/me reads thread again

Yep, thats what I've said already.

Quote:

Down here in Brazil they are self sufficient when it comes to oil production because most cars can use natural gas, ethanol or gasoline (or a combination of them with natural gas and gasoline in the same vehicle being the most common).

In Scotland LPG is common. I've recently invested in a garage that specalises in converting fleet transports for the private sector. All my own cars have long been running on it with the exception of one which is a hybrid anyway.

This brings up another subject which has beem brought up in this thread which is press reporting and the cost of fuel. In the UK, all the negative press coverage is given to the government, not oil companies - for their excessive taxation. The press is generaly favourable towards the oil companies as so much British cash is tied up in the industry and in return, the oil companies make sure to invest in the press.

You have to remember that Britain is run by boys from the same school (Eton), so we have a great deal of hands patting each others backs in backrooms in this country. The US is an uncouth barbaric state in comparision since you do your corruption in public (via the lobbyists).

Quote:

Oil burning power stations are the biggest wasters in my opinion. When I worked in Egypt there was a massive wind farm between our shorebase and Cairo. Lots of windmills lined up on a piece of land where you could see nothing but sand. We need to find areas like than and cover them in windmills.

Scotland is getting like that. The lonely Scottish mountains are not so lonely when you have giant white whistling windmills everywhere you look. I mean, white? Could they come up with a more obvious colour scheme? Do they want to fail?

The real cringemaking failure to tap energy comes from water though. Each and every house in the UK has pluming, fitting tiny watermills in waterpipes helps to recapture some of the energy used in pumping it in yet nobody has exploited this. The current trend isn't about reclaiming energy, its about generating it afresh.

Tidal generators. Depite the medieval peoples of this nation being able to make them work, current bofins have constantly failed to do so because instead of making them simple things (like windmills attached to the sea/river bed), they over engineer them into giant floating snakes that cost fortunes and produce little. I swear, I could do better with what I have in my shed than some of the projects that are taking place.

I have a tiny ornamental waterwheel in my garden that provides enough power to power the garden lights through a long winters night. Its made of plastic, it has a plastic woman that makes a plowing action when the wheel spins and I bought it from a novelty shop from a man that wore a monicle.

Have we really got to the stage where a monicle wearing maker of plastic novelty waterwheels is our leading engineer in the alternative power industry?

Last edited by SpaceDruid on 11-May-2008 at 07:40 AM.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

SpaceDruid wrote: @Darrin [quote] The real cringemaking failure to tap energy comes from water though. Each and every house in the UK has pluming, fitting tiny watermills in waterpipes helps to recapture some of the energy used in pumping it in yet nobody has exploited this. The current trend isn't about reclaiming energy, its about generating it afresh. Tidal generators. Depite the medieval peoples of this nation being able to make them work, current bofins have constantly failed to do so because instead of making them simple things (like windmills attached to the sea/river bed), they over engineer them into giant floating snakes that cost fortunes and produce little. I swear, I could do better with what I have in my shed than some of the projects that are taking place. I have a tiny ornamental waterwheel in my garden that provides enough power to power the garden lights through a long winters night. Its made of plastic, it has a plastic woman that makes a plowing action when the wheel spins and I bought it from a novelty shop from a man that wore a monicle.

Your post allmost made sense, until you right here admited not having understood the basic principles of physics ....

Putting waterwheels in pipes would result in the waterworks having to install bigger pumps in order to overcome that extra portion of friction.

Sure you waterwheel does generate power, but how much compared to what the the pump that drives the water ?

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada

Quote:

Chuckt wrote: @logicalheart We saw this oil problem in the 70's and didn't face the crisis then. We need more nuclear power plants to heat homes with electric or power alternative sources like electric cars. With the oil prices getting out of hand, we need countries to do something because poor people are going to freeze, food is going to become more expensive and high prices are going to rob a lot of people of their savings which a lot of people don't have.

nuclear power is very very expensive.... the nuclear industry gets massive subsidies otherwise it would not be profitable for them....one day, possibly in the near future, fusion power will be the answer to our power woes but nuclear fission is not a cheap or clean source of power...not that im an expert, but i have been reading that we are getting closer to getting more out of fusion that what we put in...

there are lots of other promising methods these days of generating cleaner & cheaper power, you need to take a look at them...if nuclear fission kick backs were directed at real R&D instead of corporate fat cats pockets we mightn't be having this conversation now....I am aware that a handful of uranium can power a large city, but the cost of generating this power is far too high, its refined now too, its not 1965....and im only talking about money, without even taking toxic waste into consideration...its just a big expensive shonky way of boiling water in the end...quite neanderthal....I know the human race could do better if it really tried...no ones going to make me believe we are really trying though...

In australia every government that has tried to get the US nuclear industry down here has been swiftly voted out...the second they say our power bills will go right up no one will have a bar of it...no matter what spin they use....

_________________
In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

http://ozconspiracyhouse.myfastforum.org

In Canada it is legal, maybe only in Ontario, to make 1 gallon of alcohol for you radiator per year. You can do that with a regular still.
Little known fact,
John Paul

I have the plans for the water design. No time yet to build it. An electrical friend has done the control panel. I just have to gather parts and install. Does anyone have knowledge of whether I am chasing wild goose grease? I will post if it works, but if this is bogus I would rather spend time on my Finish stove.
Nonetheless good luck to all,
John Paul

I have something else to suggest. There are several billion humans today. I bet they produce enough gas from their mouth and "behind" to fuel such devices!!

_________________
And may the AmigaGuide you!

AmigaOne G3-SE, OS4 Final (July 2007 update), Debian Sarge, 512 MB RAM, 20 + 80 GB hard disks, NEC 3540 DVD writer, LG DVD reader, Radeon 9250, SB Live, Intracom Netfaster router, PCI USB card (NEC - OHCI/EHCI)

@Kronos

Quote:

Your post allmost made sense, until you right here admited not having understood the basic principles of physics .... Putting waterwheels in pipes would result in the waterworks having to install bigger pumps in order to overcome that extra portion of friction.

I understand physics well enough thanks! I just didn't make it clear that they are fitted to the waste water, not the clean water supply.

In most cases, gravity is the only force acting on the water that goes down your plughole.

Quote:

Sure you waterwheel does generate power, but how much compared to what the the pump that drives the water ?

Ask God, its a fresh water stream.

Last edited by SpaceDruid on 11-May-2008 at 06:17 PM.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

Amazing, a 50% increase in energy prices expected for this year. http://www.odac-info.org/node/2181 (dated 12th May). Thanks OPEC!

This article relates to the UK, but of course it'll apply to most other nations. It's going to be interesting to see how much longer our economies can take this...

Last edited by hatty on 12-May-2008 at 06:19 PM.

@SpaceDruid

Waste water ? So instead of having to install bigger pumps, you'll have to worry about clogging which will happen if you slow down the flow of water (even if it just come from the shower).

Putting waterwheels into natural streams can only be done to a certain extent (which is mostly allready reached in industralized areas) without doing severe damge to nature. You'd also create more standing waters (or atleast flowing slower), which might bring you a nice moskito-plaque....

There is no such thing as free energy, everything has it's downside, even solar-panels.

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada

@Interesting

Quote:

Interesting wrote: A new company hopes drivers will kick the oil habit by brewing ethanol at home that won't spike food prices.

Well, I prefer to brew hydrogene & oxygene using sunlight (that's for free). That won't spike food prices - for sure...


Quote:

Interesting wrote: E-Fuel Corp unveiled on Thursday the "MicroFueler" touting it as the world's first machine that allows homeowners to make their own ethanol and pump the brew directly into their cars. ...

Hmmmmmmmmmmm - that's funny - I remember this photo.
I've seen it about one year ago somewhere on the web.

Found the link either here or at amiga.org - not sure.

Too sad that I currently can't remember the name of the company that came up with it...

But I'm really surprised that Reuters published it just last thursday...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@logicalheart

Quote:

logicalheart wrote: @Interesting ... Environmental regulations are mostly used to take away individual liberties, so even if something like this could become useful for individuals, socialist power would move to limit or prevent it.

That must be a typo - it would certainly be "capitalist power" that would move to limit or prevent it, as individuals brewing their own ethanol would reduce their profit.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Chuckt

Quote:

Chuckt wrote: @logicalheart ... We need more nuclear power plants to heat homes with electric or power alternative sources like electric cars. ...

What I really don't understand is that many are demanding more nuclear power plants.

They want cheap energy, but are forgetting that nuclear power up to today comes along with nuclear waste. Nuclear waste can radiate up to several million years - depending on it's composition and usage.

Currently I have no knowledge of a really safe waste site for nuclear waste - worldwide.

Before I would demand more nuclear power stations, I would demand really safe waste sites for nuclear waste first!

As long as the issue with the nuclear waste persists, I would refrain from nuclear energy, as I see absolutely no use in driving out satan with devil's help...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Darrin

Quote:

Darrin wrote: @Interesting If the production cost is correct, you'll only need to fill up your car 286 times to break even. Assuming you fill up every 2 weeks then you'll recover your costs in 11 years!

Fine - but automotive manufacturers already do consider a car as "old" when it reaches its 8th year and would like you to buy a new car every 7 years - so no chance to ever break even, if you don't want to drive around in an "old" car...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

SpaceDruid wrote: @Chuckt Quote: We need more nuclear power plants to heat homes with electric or power alternative sources like electric cars. Oh no no no no! You ALREADY have a major long term (Hundreds of thousands of years) problem with the waste material you have already generated. Nuclear power is a dead end. In more ways than one. Even the most advanced power plants have spills and thrills. Ask Bill Eaves what living next to one is like. There are radioactive particles found miles away on a constant basis there as well as around all the other "safe" stations. And thats not even mentioning events like Chernobyl which will become more likely the older the existing stations get and the more stations that are built to replace them. Since Chernobyl we've had; March 24, 1992 At the Sosnovy Bor station near St. Petersburg, Russia, radioactive iodine escaped into the atmosphere. A loss of pressure in a reactor channel was the source of the accident. November 1995 Japan's Monju prototype fast-breeder nuclear reactor leaked two to three tons of sodium from the reactor's secondary cooling system. March 1997 The state-run Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation reprocessing plant at Tokaimura, Japan, contaminated at least 35 workers with minor radiation after a fire and explosion occurred. September 30, 1999 Another accident at the uranium processing plant at Tokaimura, Japan, plant exposed fifty-five workers to radiation. More than 300,000 people living near the plant were ordered to stay indoors. Workers had been mixing uranium with nitric acid to make nuclear fuel, but had used too much uranium and set off the accidental uncontrolled reaction. July 17, 2007 Kashiwazaki, Japan: radiation leaks, burst pipes, and fires at a major nuclear power plant followed a 6.8 magnitude earthquake near Niigata. Japanese officials, frustrated at the plant operators' delay in reporting the damage, closed the plant a week later until its safety could be confirmed. Further investigation revealed that the plant had unknowingly been built directly on top of an active seismic fault

The hazardous incident 1979 in the Three Mile Island nuclear power station springs to my mind - but that was before Tschernobyl.

Nevertheless - back then a "joke" came up here on that:

"Leute, esst Harrisburger - da strahlt die ganze Familie!"

The German word "strahlt" can have the meaning of "radiates" as well as "beams with joy"

"People, eat Harrisburger - the entire family will radiate/beam with joy!"


Quote:

SpaceDruid wrote: The answer to one crisis is not to create another!

Exactly my thinking!

Quote:

SpaceDruid wrote: Funny thing is, humans are idiots. Real brainless morons. For hundreds (And in some cases thousands) of years, humans have used the wind and water to power their needs (The Industrial revolution was started with the water wheel). Thing is though, companies, don't make the outragously excessive profits from anything other than fossil fuel and so fossil fuel it remains until governments reverse this process. They won't. They are in the pay of the oil giants and so your pathetic world is doomed for the sake of your greatest god - money. Oh what am I getting angry for? You humans will all be dead soon anyway. Killed by disease and famine like you were always intended.

Couldn't agree more!

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Kronos

Quote:

Waste water ? So instead of having to install bigger pumps, you'll have to worry about clogging which will happen if you slow down the flow of water (even if it just come from the shower).

No, the design of the waterpipes and mills are specificaly designed to both improve the water flow (meaning the pipes are narrower and more resistant to cracking) and prevent clogging compaired to normal waterpipes in everyday use today (in the UK). Conditions tested involved heavy limescale encrusting and waste organic matter commonly flushed down the kitchen sink.

I'd like to show you drawings or describe in detail the design of the mills which you would see instantly that much work has gone into this project, but alas they are confidential for obvious business reasons. I will say though that they don't resemble the common shape watermills have, so no fins to clog. It really is quite clever.

Quote:

Putting waterwheels into natural streams can only be done to a certain extent (which is mostly allready reached in industralized areas) without doing severe damge to nature. You'd also create more standing waters (or atleast flowing slower), which might bring you a nice moskito-plaque....

Thats mostly true of the traditional fins on a radial wheel design that western waterwheels have used for centuries, but technology has moved on much from that and designs around the world have improved steadily over the last century where fossil fuels have not been so readily available (See The International Molinological Society website for details).
In the same way that modern windmills don't have sailcloth on a fixed wooden frame, waterwheels have also improved. Standing water is a fault of poor design of the wheel which had been corrected with more modern designs (Which also dramaticaly cut back on damage to the marine enviroment.

Sadly your comments about industrial areas already being exploited is far from the case.

Quote:

There is no such thing as free energy, everything has it's downside, even solar-panels.

I never ever said free energy. I said that most attention is aimed at generating power anew and not enough on reclaiming some back.
Think of it like loft insulation. Sure it costs a lot to fit and doesn't provide any additional energy to the network, but it lowers the amount of energy you need to draw in the first place and so is cost effective in the long run.

Reclaimation doesn't have to be restricted to the household garbage.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@Deniil715

Quote:

Deniil715 wrote: @Chuckt ... What do you suggest we use instead of nuclear power?

My idea is to place at least one huge photovoltaic panel in an orbit (no clouds - 24h sunshine per day for free!) - namely that way that it casts a shadow on a desert area (should just be a matter of calculating an suitable orbit) and so to generate an low-pressure area there that brings rain to the desert - enabling the farmers to grow food and trees there (food situation and air quality improve - forests affect climate positively).

The electricity generated with the photovoltaic panel(s) gets wirelessly transmitted to the ground station(s) (there recently have been reports in the news media telling that scientists have developed a technique to safely transfer electricity wirelessly over a distance of 33 km currently - with appropriate efforts it should be achievable to increase the distance tenfold and more in the near future), where one of its usages is the mass production of Hydrogen and Oxygen from (dirty) water (dirt is left over when electrolysing the water and can be displaced safely - no dirt in H or O) to power internal combustion engines, turbines or fuel cells (in cars, trucks, trains and aeroplanes) with it instead of burning fossile combustibles - and the rest can be used to replace the coal power stations or the nuclear power stations.

(Maybe I have an invention at hand to speed up water electrolysis and to do it more energy efficient...)

Quote:

Deniil715 wrote: Oil and coal??

Certainly not!

Quote:

Deniil715 wrote: Wind and water is not enough since we are too many.

O.K. - so lets see:

demand for electricity worldwide according to wikipedia:

18.000.000 GWh/year
= 18.000.000.000 MWh/year
= 18.000.000.000.000 KWh/year

according to wikipedia:

"...
The amount of sun energy that hits earth in the form of light and heat amounts to 1,5 · 10E18 kWh annually; this roughly complies with 15.000 times as high as the entire demand for energy of mankind in 2006 (1,0 · 10E14 kWh/Year).
...
From that an actual energy yield of about 70-125 kWh per squaremeter and year results (complies with a medium power output from 8 to 14.3 W).
..."


18.000.000.000.000 [kWh/year] : 70 [kWh/year/m²]
= 257142857142,85714285714285714286 [m²]
= 257142,85714285714285714285714286 [km²]

18.000.000.000.000 [kWh/year] : 125 [kWh/year/m²]
= 144000000000 [m²]
= 144000 [km²]


according to wikipedia:
"Sahara = 9.000.000 [km²]"

So just about 144000 [km²] (roughly 1/62,5 of the area of the Sahara) to 257142,857 [km²] (roughly 1/36 of the area of the Sahara) would be needed to meet the electricity demand of mankind in 2006 with "state of the art" solar cells...

Quote:

Deniil715 wrote: The eco-system in the medeterrainian sea is about to be destroyed because a gigant dam was built in the Nile river for example.

On a first thought it is not clear to me how/why a damm in the Nile (sweetwater) should destroy the eco-system of the medeterrainian sea (saltwater)?

Once the storage lake is filled, the same amount of water as without it should reach the medeterrainian sea ()provided the water is just used for electricity production).

Quote:

Deniil715 wrote: The core problem is that we are too many. If the planet only had 500 million or something, we wouldn't have this problem. The greatest problem is that we have overcrowded the planet and are quickly exhausting its resources. This is something NOONE wants to hear AT ALL. I'm actually very surprized China implemented their one-child restriction. The by far best environmentally sane decission every made by humans.

Hmmmm - each time there are reports about dearths somewhere on this planet, followed by massive appeals for funds to help those poor peple I'm left with conflicting feelings:

On the one hand side of course I feel the need to help immediately - but on the other hand I'm wondering if we're doing any good at all by helping those people to survive this year; because if the situation continues, we have to feed them next year as well - plus those, who could afford food this year, but can't in the next year, and so on and so on...

So it became obvious to me that we urgently need other solutions...

Quote:

Deniil715 wrote: We will have burnt up all oil and coal in like 100 years. That means that we have exhausted an energy source the earth has built up in 100ds of millions of years in what is equivalent to about one *nano* second in earth history!! That is nothing short of extreme in all possible ways!! We need to become fewer if we are to survive!

Well - at least Germany's population is shrinking - we have a regressive birthrate here.

But that means problems for our pension scheme, as less and less working people are paying in the retirement pension for the retirees (inter-generation contract) and so the monthly contributions are rising since decades...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@SpaceDruid

I have a stream that flows next to my house. There is not enough volume or drop to make generation feasible. I afraid your system would face the same problem. You only have so much potential energy stored in the water/waste. You will need a minimum amount of drop (head pressure) and volume to make generation possible. It has to the exceed this amount enough to offset the cost of equipment and maintenance also. If there was more efficent use of the energy in the first place there would be no use for "reclaimation". I think looking into this end would be more cost effective.

The answer (far in the future I am afraid) is using the Earth's magnetic field to generate power. A copper cable orbiting the earth would produce a vast quantity of free electrons. Problem is how to "beam" the stream down to the surface of our planet. Also there is a company working on "solar paint". You paint the roof of your house and it becomes a solar collector. Very expensive at the moment. Changes are coming so I think the doom sayers are wrong.

@SpaceDruid
Interesting concepts for the waterwheel. Though you are making it sound a bit like a frictionless system. The water has to touch something in order to get that to turn. As such the flow of the water will be reduced as momentum is lost to the object.

@stew
Quote:

The answer (far in the future I am afraid) is using the Earth's magnetic field to generate power. A copper cable orbiting the earth would produce a vast quantity of free electrons. Problem is how to "beam" the stream down to the surface of our planet.

Beaming to earth is possible with microwaves.