Letter to President for Wireless Electricity

[CyberManifest]

Here is a letter I'm writing to the President about Wireless Electricity.

President Barack Hussein Obama II

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President

A dream and an idea has manifested within me that I now humbly request your consideration to employ. I wish to express this dream and idea to you, as well as, hopefully convey their potential usefulness.

The dream originates with Nikola Tesla, who demonstrated wireless energy transfer to power electronic devices in 1891 and aspired to achieve intercontinental wireless transmission of industrial power in his unfinished Wardenclyffe Tower project. Today, wireless electricity has been proven possible by the likes of many individuals, organizations, and companies. I feel we can utilize this technology to power America and countless industries; reducing dependency on foreign oil, creating jobs while cutting costs (there by growing the economy and tackling the national debt), and reducing damage to the environment.

The idea is that we invest in research and development of wireless electricity, and then reform and reinvent our energy infrastructure. The existing technology would need to be researched and improved upon in order to develop it on a larger scale. Power plants should solely use renewable energies such as solar and/or wind. The power grids would have power lines replaced with wireless signals from transmitters and repeaters attached to every telephone pole. Each home, business, commercial building, streetlamp, traffic light, or other would have receivers fixed to them.

The usefulness of this concept is immeasurable. With the current system tremendous amounts of energy are wasted in friction and logistics. Implementing a wireless system nearly eliminates this waste, thus increasing efficiency. More efficiency means less demand on the initial power source (making renewable energy practical.) Power would be more readily available in remote areas or difficult terrain (spreading coverage). A lower cost in materials would be evident due to the elimination of expensive cables in the existing system. This could potentially be safer too. Jobs would be created to employ such a system (from researchers, to construction workers). Renewable energies would replace burning fuels decreasing an impact on the atmosphere and environment. Imagine electric cars taping into the wireless grid (eliminating the need for charging stations), or mobile phones being powered everywhere you go. This technology would nearly eliminate the need for batteries altogether.

I am confident you can assign the appropriate people to investigate the implementation of this dream and idea. Putting in place what is needed to lay the foundation. Thank you for your time. I am most grateful for your consideration. It has been an honor to share this notion with you.

Most Respectfully,

Ryan

Anyone have any suggestions on improvements or points left out? (Keep in mind I'm trying to keep it 1 page long and I've already reduced the font size once.)

[cut]

A dream

Someone is ripping off.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_a_Dream

[CyberManifest]

I have a feeling this is going to get gobbled up into the abyss.

Someone is ripping off.....

http://en.wikipedia..../I_Have_a_Dream

Different kind of dream. ;-)

[CyberManifest]

Here is a link to it on PasteBin

http://pastebin.com/SrnEWrs7

[Shannon]

Sorry to squash your dream, but renewable energy is nowhere near feasible for base load power generation. I just graduated from an electrical engineering degree and one of my final project was to look at the feasiblity of powering the university campus with renewable sources. We struggled to meet just 20% of the campus energy demand using commercially available renewable products without spending millions of dollars (and that's just for one installation, can you imagine the capital costs to power the entire nation!)

The largest problem with renewables is that they are too intermittent (solar only works during the day, wind only works when it's considerably windy, tidal requires your station be located near the coast, etc). This requires extremely complex control systems to regulate all the different distributed generation points, as well as highly efficient storage mediums (which don't really exist). Another problem with renewables is with the protection schemes used in the distribution networks. Short answer, the transmission and distribution network would need to be completely overhauled.

Also, the current wired transmission network is over 90% efficient. The efficiency gains you'd get from moving to a wireless, all-renewable system isn't worth the capital costs to implement said system. It'd take decades before you ever came remotely close to paying it off.

The only feasible solution to meet our increasing energy demand is nuclear power. Check out the National Ignition Facility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facility

[cut]

The only feasible solution to meet our increasing energy demand is nuclear power. Check out the National Ignition Facility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facility

I agree. It has been noted that nuclear power is the future. Costs and "the general public being scared" are at least two reasons why it hasnt been implanted yet.

[Shane Nokes]

Sorry to squash your dream, but renewable energy is nowhere near feasible for base load power generation. I just graduated from an electrical engineering degree and one of my final project was to look at the feasiblity of powering the university campus with renewable sources. We struggled to meet just 20% of the campus energy demand using commercially available renewable products without spending millions of dollars (and that's just for one installation, can you imagine the capital costs to power the entire nation!)

The largest problem with renewables is that they are too intermittent (solar only works during the day, wind only works when it's considerably windy, tidal requires your station be located near the coast, etc). This requires extremely complex control systems to regulate all the different distributed generation points, as well as highly efficient storage mediums (which don't really exist). Another problem with renewables is with the protection schemes used in the distribution networks. Short answer, the transmission and distribution network would need to be completely overhauled.

Also, the current wired transmission network is over 90% efficient. The efficiency gains you'd get from moving to a wireless, all-renewable system isn't worth the capital costs to implement said system. It'd take decades before you ever came remotely close to paying it off.

The only feasible solution to meet our increasing energy demand is nuclear power. Check out the National Ignition Facility.

http://en.wikipedia....nition_Facility

Indeed, but considering that generation yields are typically 40% or so, then dip in the 4-8% T&D loss and you have a highly inefficient system. So while yes there would be cost in the initial outlay of the technology the increased generation efficiency would pay it off over time.

[CyberManifest]

Sorry to squash your dream, but renewable energy is nowhere near feasible for base load power generation. I just graduated from an electrical engineering degree and one of my final project was to look at the feasiblity of powering the university campus with renewable sources. We struggled to meet just 20% of the campus energy demand using commercially available renewable products without spending millions of dollars (and that's just for one installation, can you imagine the capital costs to power the entire nation!)

The largest problem with renewables is that they are too intermittent (solar only works during the day, wind only works when it's considerably windy, tidal requires your station be located near the coast, etc). This requires extremely complex control systems to regulate all the different distributed generation points, as well as highly efficient storage mediums (which don't really exist). Another problem with renewables is with the protection schemes used in the distribution networks. Short answer, the transmission and distribution network would need to be completely overhauled.

Also, the current wired transmission network is over 90% efficient. The efficiency gains you'd get from moving to a wireless, all-renewable system isn't worth the capital costs to implement said system. It'd take decades before you ever came remotely close to paying it off.

The only feasible solution to meet our increasing energy demand is nuclear power. Check out the National Ignition Facility.

http://en.wikipedia....nition_Facility

I've heard some power plants are already using renewable energies, so I guess it is possible and you must have made a miscalculation.

[Shannon]

Indeed, but considering that generation yields are typically 40% or so, then dip in the 4-8% T&D loss and you have a highly inefficient system. So while yes there would be cost in the initial outlay of the technology the increased generation efficiency would pay it off over time.

The best commercially available solar panels only reach about 20% efficiency. Wind turbines have a theoretical maximum efficiency of about 50-60%, but in reality even the best turbines only achieve efficiencies of about 30%. The same efficiency ceiling applies for tidal, as they are basically wind turbines that use ocean currents instead of air currents. Generation yields of 40% in fossil fuel and nuclear station are due to the laws of thermodynamics (the heating of water into steam to drive the turbines). Geothermal also works by heating water into steam, so the same limit still applies to that as it does to fossil and nuclear stations.

Considering wind and solar are the two most viable renewables at the moment, the efficiency gains aren't that great. Now consider it'd take say, 50 years, to pay off the infrastructure upgrade required for a renewable system. By then nuclear fusion will have been developed to the point that it is a much more reliable source of power.

I've heard some power plants are already using renewable energies, so I guess it is possible and you must have made a miscalculation.

Of course there are renewable plants. Iceland use a lot of geothermal power plants for example, there are plenty of hydro plants around the world, etc. Again, none of them are reliable for meeting base load generation. Base load is the minimum amount of power the area uses. For example, your suburb might use a minimum of 10MVA, therefore you have to supply at least 10MVA to that suburb. Thermo power plants such as fossil fuel and nuclear plants are extremely good at supplying base load power because they can be operated around the clock with a steady, reliable supply of fuel. Renewables for the most part can't be operated around the clock because they depend on the weather. Sure you can supplement your base load generation with renewables to handle peaks in energy demand, but you can't build your national power supply around them, it just won't work.

[CyberManifest]

Watch these videos...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Losses

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Limitations

http://www.copperinfo.co.uk/energy-efficiency/downloads/pub-116-electrical-energy-efficiency.pdf

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/smart-takes/ge-unveils-power-plant-optimized-for-renewable-energy/16535

http://www.wirelesspowerplanet.com

http://www.powerbeaminc.com

http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric/environment

[TPreston]

Watch these videos...

http://en.wikipedia....smission#Losses

http://en.wikipedia....ion#Limitations

http://www.copperinf...-efficiency.pdf

http://www.smartplan...le-energy/16535

http://www.wirelesspowerplanet.com

http://www.powerbeaminc.com

http://www.teslamoto...ric/environment

And how is this any different than HHO or Magnet Motors etc etc etc. Sorry when you have an invention that could make trillions of dollars id think you would have no need to ask the president

[CyberManifest]

http://www.zyra.info/i2r.htm

http://www.mind-course.com/wireless.html

http://arcanumdeepsecrets.wordpress.com/2010/06/12/free-energy-from-tesla?s-wireless-electricity-an-instant-solution-to-the-planetary-energy-?crisis?/

http://www.zyra.info/i2r.htm addresses the efficiency of power lines

The best commercially available solar panels only reach about 20% efficiency. Wind turbines have a theoretical maximum efficiency of about 50-60%, but in reality even the best turbines only achieve efficiencies of about 30%. The same efficiency ceiling applies for tidal, as they are basically wind turbines that use ocean currents instead of air currents. Generation yields of 40% in fossil fuel and nuclear station are due to the laws of thermodynamics (the heating of water into steam to drive the turbines). Geothermal also works by heating water into steam, so the same limit still applies to that as it does to fossil and nuclear stations.

Considering wind and solar are the two most viable renewables at the moment, the efficiency gains aren't that great. Now consider it'd take say, 50 years, to pay off the infrastructure upgrade required for a renewable system. By then nuclear fusion will have been developed to the point that it is a much more reliable source of power.

Of course there are renewable plants. Iceland use a lot of geothermal power plants for example, there are plenty of hydro plants around the world, etc. Again, none of them are reliable for meeting base load generation. Base load is the minimum amount of power the area uses. For example, your suburb might use a minimum of 10MVA, therefore you have to supply at least 10MVA to that suburb. Thermo power plants such as fossil fuel and nuclear plants are extremely good at supplying base load power because they can be operated around the clock with a steady, reliable supply of fuel. Renewables for the most part can't be operated around the clock because they depend on the weather. Sure you can supplement your base load generation with renewables to handle peaks in energy demand, but you can't build your national power supply around them, it just won't work.

http://www.zyra.info/i2r.htm

[Shane Nokes]

The best commercially available solar panels only reach about 20% efficiency. Wind turbines have a theoretical maximum efficiency of about 50-60%, but in reality even the best turbines only achieve efficiencies of about 30%. The same efficiency ceiling applies for tidal, as they are basically wind turbines that use ocean currents instead of air currents. Generation yields of 40% in fossil fuel and nuclear station are due to the laws of thermodynamics (the heating of water into steam to drive the turbines). Geothermal also works by heating water into steam, so the same limit still applies to that as it does to fossil and nuclear stations.

Considering wind and solar are the two most viable renewables at the moment, the efficiency gains aren't that great. Now consider it'd take say, 50 years, to pay off the infrastructure upgrade required for a renewable system. By then nuclear fusion will have been developed to the point that it is a much more reliable source of power.

The problem with nuclear power is that we have seen over and over and over again that it always ends badly. It's not safe, and is too risky at this point to try to put into mass production. We need to try very small scale and build up from there.

Making use of wind, solar, and tidal power is far safer and friendlier to the planet. If we spent more money investigating green tech then we could improve the efficiency. The problem is corporations and governments are fairly afraid of changing the status quo as regards energy. They've gotten used to the method now and built entire industries around it. No one wants to **** off the big companies that handle energy.

[TPreston]

http://www.zyra.info/i2r.htm

http://www.mind-cour...m/wireless.html

http://arcanumdeepse...nergy-?crisis?/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ-cTouvPj0

how is this any different than HHO or Magnet Motors etc etc etc. Sorry when you have an invention that could make trillions of dollars id think you would have no need to ask the president

"Free" energy is one of the longest running tech scams in history

Just how gullible are you ? why is there a sheet behind the bulb ? Whats he hiding ?

Thinking! You should do it!

[threetonesun]

The problem with nuclear power is that we have seen over and over and over again that it always ends badly. It's not safe, and is too risky at this point to try to put into mass production. We need to try very small scale and build up from there.

Always ends badly? :rofl:

Check out how many nuclear reactors there are in the world (especially places like France), and all of the other places they've been used, reliably (like outer space and on submarines). The failure rate is incredibly small, and the death toll from "nuclear disasters" per year is probably less than the number of coal miners killed in mining accidents.

Bad engineering will give you bad results. Not maintaining facilities will end up a disaster as well, but the vast majority of nuclear power plants have operated without issue.

[+Xinok Subscriber²]

The problem with nuclear power is that we have seen over and over and over again that it always ends badly. It's not safe, and is too risky at this point to try to put into mass production. We need to try very small scale and build up from there.

There are other forms of nuclear power which are much safer, such as Thorium-based, or more significant would be nuclear fusion. There's huge potential but the technology isn't there yet.

[Anibal P]

The problem with nuclear power is that we have seen over and over and over again that it always ends badly. It's not safe, and is too risky at this point to try to put into mass production. We need to try very small scale and build up from there.

Wow you anti-nuke types will just make things up now. We went from only 3 major incidents, to always ending badly, considering the amount of nuclear reactors in use around the world you are WAY off base, it anything it proves that nuclear is safer than all others COMBINED

[Hum]

Even if the President wanted 'free' limitless Energy, the Power companies are going to stand in the way.

Many sustainable methods of Energy generation are being suppressed now. ;)

[Astra.Xtreme]

Wow you anti-nuke types will just make things up now. We went from only 3 major incidents, to always ending badly, considering the amount of nuclear reactors in use around the world you are WAY off base, it anything it proves that nuclear is safer than all others COMBINED

Absolutely. Nuclear has been proven time and time again to be safer and cleaner than almost any other source of energy out there. And Thorium will push it even further if/when that tech comes available.

On topic:

The huge problem with this letter is that natural power sources such as solar and wind are extremely weak. Not to mention they are weather dependent. Either of those don't come anywhere close to the output of nuclear and coal power.

Also, the problem with wireless electricity is that there are huge risks of interfering with medical devices. The FCC has very strict guidelines, which is the reason why wireless charging and wireless powering devices have very very slim offerings. If there is any chance it could interfere with a pacemaker, it will never come to market.

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-devices-and-health-concerns

[TPreston]

Even if the President wanted 'free' limitless Energy, the fundamental laws which govern the universe are going to stand in the way.

Fixed

[Shane Nokes]

Safer than everything else combined? I don't recall wind turbines failing leading to a mass evacuation of an area. I don't remember a time when solar panels flooded an area with massive doses if radiation because of a crack in the casing.

Our current methods of nuclear power generation are crude and dangerous given how careless a creature we are.

I'm not anti-nuclear, I'm pro-safety. I don't think we're ready to be building large scale reactors like we have been. Heck even a recent government report has stated that our power generation facilities are vulnerable to cyber attacks. If someone wanted to really hurt us they could.

I don't like knowing that we're so careless that we've left so many attack vectors open for something that can so easily go wrong.

[Growled Member]

Always ends badly? :rofl:

Check out how many nuclear reactors there are in the world (especially places like France), and all of the other places they've been used, reliably (like outer space and on submarines). The failure rate is incredibly small, and the death toll from "nuclear disasters" per year is probably less than the number of coal miners killed in mining accidents.

Bad engineering will give you bad results. Not maintaining facilities will end up a disaster as well, but the vast majority of nuclear power plants have operated without issue.

We have a nuclear reactor not too many miles from us. Been running fine for years. However, it sits near the New Madrid fault line and one day things will probably go south in a hurry when the usually inactive fault decides to go active.The thing is that unlike other power alternatives, all it takes is one mistake with nuclear.

[Ryoken]

We have a nuclear reactor not too many miles from us. Been running fine for years. However, it sits near the New Madrid fault line and one day things will probably go south in a hurry when the usually inactive fault decides to go active.The thing is that unlike other power alternatives, all it takes is one mistake with nuclear.

Actually, with nuclear, it takes a LOT of mistakes.. One problem has never taken down a reactor.. it's when 15 things go wrong, and people make wrong decisions..

If anyone here read up on what happened in Japan, it was a good dozen of things that if at the time, or before, had of been done differently it would have been fine. Half of the "before" things have, and were already done in the US and elsewhere.

They just didn't bother/feel the need/take the threat seriously.. Add to that they were not properly trained for worst case scenarios..

As for safe.. Solar, at least many of them use a lot of toxic chemicals in production and in the final panel.. add to that that the materials and manufacturing needed is expensive.. sure it would be nice, but it's not gonna happen.

Wind gets the whole "not in my backyard" attitude from locals. Potentially has an effect on wildlife if not placed out off the coast, and also has a lot of people saying it makes them ill [ I don't believe the last part.. but I'm not a doctor/scientist, so I don't know. ]

Hydro-electric has a devastating impact on the rivers ecosystem, even moreso if they make massive dams that flood large areas.

Coal, Natural Gas, Oil, I don't think they need to be discussed..

Nuclear is as safe or safer than anything else, IF it's done right. Strong oversight. Proper training. etc. You start cutting corners then yes, it's a time bomb..

[threetonesun]

We have a nuclear reactor not too many miles from us. Been running fine for years. However, it sits near the New Madrid fault line and one day things will probably go south in a hurry when the usually inactive fault decides to go active.The thing is that unlike other power alternatives, all it takes is one mistake with nuclear.

Have you ever seen what happens to gas lines in an earthquake? Or oil stores? There's really no good plan for surviving an earthquake, but made properly, I'd bet on a nuclear reactor, being a giant shell of concrete which should self smother if damaged, to end up in a better state than most other power generators / distribution networks.

As noted, all (modern) nuclear disasters take many, many levels of failure before they become a disaster. The real issue is if they get that way, you have irradiated a large section of land. That said, many countries use them all over without concern.

[Hum]

We have a nuclear reactor not too many miles from us. Been running fine for years. However, it sits near the New Madrid fault line and one day things will probably go south in a hurry when the usually inactive fault decides to go active.The thing is that unlike other power alternatives, all it takes is one mistake with nuclear.

Guess we''ll bid you a fond good-bye then.

Absolutely. Nuclear has been proven time and time again to be safer and cleaner than almost any other source of energy out there.

Tell us about that safe nuclear waste, that nobody wants stored in their back yard. ;)