Energy - Science topic

It used to be that this variation in energy prices from country to country largely depended on, among other things, the content in the earth's crust of the various types of fossil energy resources. Today, in the era of the Fourth Technological Revolution, in developed and developing economies, the key factors determining the level of energy prices include, among others, the current and/or strategic energy policies under which specific types of energy are developed. In some countries it is still mainly supported systemically, i.e. financially by the state mainly the development of dirty combustion energy and in other countries the development of emission-free energy, green energy based on renewable and emission-free energy sources. Systemic state support consists of supporting specific types of energy sources through financial support from the state's public finance system. Due to the system of CO2 emission fees introduced in the European Union, in countries that continue to develop mainly dirty combustion energy, energy prices will rise rapidly in the coming years. In contrast, in countries where renewable energy sources, including wind and solar power, are being rapidly developed, it is when the sun shines and the wind blows that carbon-free energy has produced surplus energy and there have been negative prices. An example of a country where in recent years the government has continued to support the development of dirty combustion energy and block the development of renewable energy sources is the country where I operate. Currently, before the next parliamentary elections, the government has frozen the increase in energy prices through the created instrument of subsidies from the state finance system. However, in view of the fact that still more than 3/4 of electricity and even more thermal energy is produced from burning coal and lignite, it is likely that in the next few years the already one of the highest energy prices (in relation to the income level of citizens, compared to Europe) will continue to rise in Poland. As a result, energy market analysts forecast that Poland may see a large increase in energy prices in 2024. In Poland, per 1 kWh of electricity produced, there are 700-750 gr of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. By contrast, in Europe the average of this CO2 emission is 3 times lower. High energy prices in Poland are due not to the war in Ukraine as the government lies in the media controlled by it, but to the fact that the current PIS government for 8 years has been blocking and slowing down the development of renewable and emission-free energy sources through which eclectic energy can be produced more cheaply and emission-free. Carbon-free energy production does not involve incurring additional punitive fees established in the European Union as incentive instruments for the smooth implementation of the green transition in the energy sector.

In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:

And what is your opinion on this topic?

What is your opinion on this issue?

Please answer,

I invite everyone to join the discussion,

Thank you very much,

Best wishes,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

The expression "Je t'aime moi non plus: I love you, neither do I", popularized by the song by Serge Gainsbourg and Jane Birkin in 1969, refers to tumultuous and contradictory relationships that can be strong, intense, see passionate, but, at the same time, imbued with uncertainties, doubts, and ambiguities that underlie real difficulties likely to make the relations complex unstable or even unhealthy. So "Je t'aime moi non plus" can somehow be applied to describe the Europe-Africa relations steeped in a common history that is not always brilliant and, in another register, to Europe-USA-ASIA relations where the Ego, the Culture, and the Will to Power sometimes lead to conflicting competitive situations.

It is therefore a very open subject on which I would like us to rub our points of view, ideas, and visions in order to promote serene and useful exchanges.

I have defined matter and energy as follows (elsewhere), but is it possible to define them independent of each other?

Meanings of ‘Matter’ and ‘Energy’ Contrasted: By ‘matter’ I mean whatever exists as the venue of finite activities of existents and itself finitely active in all parts. Matter is whatever is interconvertible with existent energy.

Existent ‘energy’ is conceived as those propagative wavicles which, in a given world of existents, function as the fastest existent media of communication of someeffects between any two or more chunks of matter or of energy (i.e., of motions / changes).

Existent matter and existent energy are inter-convertible, and hence both should finally be amenable to a common definition: whatever exists with, in all parts, finite activity and stability.

GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE PARADOX (GCP):

INTRODUCTION TO GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE COSMOLOGY (GCC)

Anything can exist only non-vacuously and absolutely in Extension (having parts) and simultaneously and inseparably also in Change (existents and their parts impacting some other extended existents). Anything without these two mutually integral characteristics cannot exist. Physical entities are in finite change in themselves and in every part. In that state of finite change, they are also finitely stable in themselves. This alone is their identity as Extension-Change-wise processes. The entities within cosmos are such.

Hence, back to the cosmos. Even the allegedly “non-causal” quantum-mechanical constituent processes are mathematically and statistically circumscribed measuremental concepts from the results of empirical activity of experiments and thought on Extended-Changing existents and ipso facto the realities behind these statistical measurements are in Extension-Change if these processes are physically existent. Without such existence, statistics has no foundation at all.

If not in Change, how can something physical exist in Extension alone? And if not in Extension, how can something exist in Change alone? Hence, Extension-Change are the two fundamental and exhaustively complete implications of To Be, and hence may be termed the ontological Categories of all existence.

Finally, Extension-Change-wise existence is what we understand as Causality. That is, if anything exists, it is in Causation. This is the principle of Universal Causality...!

Space is the measured shape of Extension; time is that of Change. Therefore, space and time are epistemic categories. How then can statistical causality be causality at all?

In short, everything existent is causal: hence Universal Causality as the highest pre-scientific Law, second only to Existence / To Be.

Absolute vacuum is not an existent. The 3500+ years old gods are either vacua, or parts of this cosmos. And if the Absolute Divine should exist, the only remaining rational possibility is that it must have ubiquitously infinite Extension and infinite Change. Infinite Extension is not stability without Change. Infinite Extension must be just the infinitely intense state of affairs – infinite activity and the infinite stability proper to infinite activity.

If the Divine exists, it must be in infinite stability in its state of infinite Change. But is it possible to have rational arguments in favour of its existence? The whole history of humanity has not yet produced one with enough truth probability. Can cosmology now accomplish this task? We do not yet know.

Even if there is no common big bang within a fully finite-content universe, there will be expansions and contractions locally. Moreover, the universe will have outer limits. At the outer limits some gravitational and non-gravitational energies must be lost, because there is no force at the outskirts to block these from escaping. Additionally, if the universe has a finite but fixed speed limit of energy propagation, then what is lost at the outskirts can never be brought back by propagations that issue later. If there is a general expansion, then there will be contraction too. Naturally, there are consecutive expansions and contractions, however limited they are. These cannot go on infinitely, since the finite-content universe loses energy (convertible in terms of mass) at the outskirts.

A fully cyclic and geometrically fully spherical oscillating universe existing as the sole finite universe can never be defended. Within a finite (of course, very long) time, it will exteriorize its matter-energy and be entirely rarefied over a finite number of oscillations. This raises the question of the causal horizon of the first big bang of a finitely cyclic universe and/or the very beginning of this universe. If other such separate universes exist, the final residues of the first will form part of one or many of them, because the distance between them is always finite, and all of them have some gravitation.

Now there are the following two possible lines of solution for the first big bang of a finite-content universe: (1) the matter of our universe has come from other universes or (2) it was created in some way from a Source that is not a form of matter-energy with finite activity and finite stability (which finite activity and stability is the case only of the cosmos).

If the matter-energy of a finite oscillating universe is from other universes, there remains only the case of existence of an infinite number of them. All of them eventually will exteriorize their matter-energy into becoming parts of other universes in finite durations. Such universes exist at finite distances. Gravitation from one such universe will affect similar neighbour universes in finite time. So, they should coalesce gravitationally with each other and with others over the course of time. Gravitation has a finite propagation velocity, not infinite. If gravitation can vary in velocity, each such local gravitational coalescence will have a highest limit, whatever, of gravitational velocity at each phase of expansion from a common central black hole.

Moreover, at any time with respect to one finite-content universe, there are only a finite number of universes in mutual gravitational attraction, since an infinitely spatiotemporal universe can never form a fully gravitationally related infinite-content conglomeration. If it could, there would again appear the contradiction of infinite mass, density etc. and infinite velocity, which is the same as the absolutely miraculous action-at-an-infinite-distance. We do not need it.

The mass-and-volume differences among coalescences do not matter. Due to the tendency of matter as groups of island universes to form ever wider gravitational conglomerations or coalescences, the formation of an eventual common center for each such wider coalescence is a must. There is no time when a coalescence of such universes existed or exists without gradually forming a common gravitational center. This conclusion is absolutely inevitable if all existing universes and parts thereof are gravitational.

No such coalescence, however wide, can bring back the gravitons it has radiated to the peripheries from the common gravitational center at a time before or during or after its big bang or big crunch – and even if there is no big bang and big crunch. This process can only continue forwards forming ever wider coalescences; and never backwards in a de-coalescence or de-coherence of gravitational coalescences, because gravitational propagation is an outward, not inward, process of some sort of energy propagations.

If the cosmological scalar Λ-addition is a dark energy qualified solely by its alleged ability to repel, no amount of dark energy should possess the capacity to attach itself to any other dark energy quantum. Ipso facto, it never exists in any real universe. If it includes also gravitational radiation, it is impossible to understand why there should be these ad hoc quanta of repulsion if, naturally, the limits of density that each conglomeration of matter-energy possesses by reason of its mass, volume etc. can produce repulsion between parts of the conglomeration after the conglomeration has attained critical density.

As is evident, it is irrational to posit the existence of repulsons – as quanta / wavicles of repulsion to keep dark energy on par with gravitation. Hence, I discuss gravitational coalescences to theoretically circumvent any irresolvable problem that the concept of dark energy can offer.

It is common knowledge that gravitational propagation is an outward, not inward, process of energy propagation from any gravitating material body. This should take place also from within a universe to other universes. Hence, there should be coalescences of universes at some time or other due to gravitational attraction.

At no time relative to the coalescing universes of universes can an infinite coalescence be actualized via gravitational influence from a central black hole common to all the infinite number of universes, although infinite such gravitationally coalesced universes, groups of universes, etc. exist in an infinite-content multiverse.

Hence, no gravitational coalescence, however big, is a gravitational member of an infinite number of gravitational coalescences. This fact and the fact of loss of energy at the fringes of universes flow logically from the foregoing discussions. I shall now define in the following paragraph the paradox of matter-energy creation implied above.

The Gravitational Coalescence Paradox (GCP): At any time in an infinite multiverse, there will be an infinite number of gravitationally ever broadening coalescences, none of which can be traced back to other such coalescences for their origin. Each maximal gravitational coalescence at any timerelative to the local set of coalescences is irreducibly finite and hence has a finite past in the absence of any past contact with any other outer universes.

Each of the infinite number of coalescences is thus cosmogenetically isolated from other such coalescences, because, at any time, there exist an infinite number of coalescences which are cosmogenetically isolated and cannot be traced for any causal inheritance from an infinite number of them. All the universes from which a certain universe has had causal inheritance is already included within its broadest possible gravitational coalescence.

The above Paradox facilitates the question to be posed of the origin of each such gravitational coalescence in the finite past of each such, since at any given time none of the designated infinite coalescences has had past gravitational or any other causal contacts with any other cosmic entity. I term the foregoing discussion the backbone of Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology (GCC).

Bibliography

(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.

(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.

(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.

(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.

(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.

Gerard Reid (2020) stated about Energy: "The choices and approaches... are governed by the following paradoxes...: 1. The Utility Paradox; 2. The Market Efficiency Paradox; 3. Jevons Paradox; 4. The NIMBY Paradox 5. The Renewable Energy Paradox 6. The Philosophy Paradox. On the other hand, Adam Szymański (2020) showed that the Levelized Cost Of Energy (LCOE) definition is incorrect as it leads to an Economic Paradox. This discussion is intended to launch a scientific debate on these essential energy issues and related technical, socioeconomic, and environmental implications.

Gerard Reid (2020) The Six Energy Paradoxes that slow the sector’s progress. Available on: https://energypost.eu/the-six-energy-paradoxes-that-slow-the-sectors-progress/

Szymański, A. (2020). Levelized cost of energy definition–An economic paradox. The Electricity Journal, 33(7). To be requested on:

hello, I'm new to VASP and I'm trying to do surface calculations but I can not extract bulk energy from my outputs. if anyone knows I'd much appreciate your help

thanks

I want to calculate Rayleigh number and Nusselt number of a PCM-heatsink to analyze the intensity of the natural convection of PCM. There are some fins inside my heatsink to enhance the heat transfer. Now I am having trouble calculating the characteristic length to use in Rayleigh and Nusselt dimensionless numbers.

I would be grateful if you could help me.

Combining the pictures to see the logical flaws and deviations from the experiment of the second law of thermodynamics.

1，Please take a look at the picture: Compared to the first law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics is a pseudoscience: Perpetual motion machine is a result and engineering concept, which cannot be used as the starting point of theory (the second law)

2，In the second picture, the second law of thermodynamics was misused by scientists, indicating that this theory does not match the experiment.

3，The above two explanations indicate that the second type of perpetual motion machine exists. If you're not satisfied, you can read my other discussions or articles.

4，With the second type of perpetual motion machine, the energy and environmental crisis has been lifted. By using the electricity generated by perpetual motion machines to desalinate seawater, the Sahara desert will become fertile land, and there will be no food crisis. War and Poverty Will Move Away from Humanity

UAV Topic is extended to end of August 2023.

see:

Manuscript submission deadline:

31 August 2023

I'm open to cooperation in UAV field.

According to Yangton and Yington Theory, it is proposed that Yangton and Yington Bubbles are the building blocks of Space and Wu’s Pairs are the building blocks of Matter. It is also believed that not only Corresponding Spaces can be generated with Yangton and Yington Bubbles and Wu’s Pairs, but also Corresponding Energy can be generated by the interaction between Force of Creation and the Corresponding Spaces created by Yangton and Yington Bubbles and Wu’s Pairs. In addition, Time reflects the changes of distribution of energy and motion of matter. As a result, four elements of the universe: Space, Time, Energy and Matter can all be naturally created at the same time with Yangton and Yington particles and Force of Creation based on the Space and Energy Correlated Five Principles of The Universe of Yangton and Yington Theory. Furthermore, based on Aging Affected Wu’s Spacetime Shrinkage Theory and Cosmological Redshift, it is proposed that there might be two Singularities and Big Bang Explosions occurred in the history of our universe, which can interpret why some galaxies observed by JMST have redshift corresponding to 26.7 billion years age rather than 13.8 billion years old.

These operations are catching up with the Korean superconductivity incident. The problem is very serious, and scientists are completely unaware.

See picture for details

The second law of thermodynamics, no matter how powerful, must follow the laws of logic.

Hello everyone,

How to create a neural network with numerical values as input and an image as output?

Can anyone give a hint/code for this scenario?

Thank you in advance,

Aleksandar Milicevic

Does energy have an origin or root?

When Plato talks about beauty in the "Hippias Major", he asks: "A beautiful young girl is beautiful", "A sturdy mare is beautiful", "A fine harp is beautiful", "A smooth clay pot is beautiful" ....... , So what exactly is beauty? [1]

We can likewise ask, Mechanical energy is energy, Heat energy is energy, Electrical and magnetic energy is energy, Chemical and internal energy is energy, Radiant energy is energy, so what exactly is "energy"?[2]

Richard Feynman, said in his Lectures in the sixties, "It is important to realize that in physics today we have no knowledge of what energy is". Thus, Feynman introduced energy as an abstract quantity from the beginning of his university teaching [3].

However, the universal concept of energy in physics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can only be transformed. If energy cannot be destroyed, then it must be a real thing that exists, because it makes no sense to say that we cannot destroy something that does not exist. If energy can be transformed, then, in reality, it must appear in a different form. Therefore, based on this concept of energy, one can easily be led to the idea that energy is a real thing, a substance. This concept of energy is often used, for example, that energy can flow and that it can be carried, lost, stored, or added to a system [4][5].

Indeed, in different areas of physics, there is no definition of what energy are, and what is consistent is only their Metrics and measures. So, whether energy is a concrete Substance**, or is just heat, or is the capacity of doing work, or is just an abstract cause of change, was much discussed by early physicists. However, we must be clear that there is only one kind of energy, and it is called energy. It is stored in different systems and in different ways in those systems, and it is transferred by some mechanism or other from one system to another[9].

Based on a comprehensive analysis of physical interactions and chemical reaction processes, energy is considered to be the only thing that communicates various phenomena. Thus, "Energism" was born*[8]. Ostwald had argued that matter and energy had a “parallel” existence, he developed a more radical position: matter is subordinate to energy. “Energy is always stored or contained in some physical system. Therefore, we will always have to think of energy as a property of some identifiable physical system”. “Ostwald regarded his Energism as the ultimate monism, a unitary "science of science" which would bridge not only physics and chemistry, but the physical and biological sciences as well”[6]. This view has expressed the idea of considering "pure energy" as a "unity" and has assumed the process of energy interaction. However, because of the impossibility to determine what energy is, it has been rejected by both scientific and philosophical circles as "metaphysics" and "materialism"[10].

The consistency and transitivity of energy and momentum in different physical domains have actually shown that they must be linked and bound by something fundamental. Therefore, it is necessary to re-examine the "Energism" and try to promote it.

The relationship between energy and momentum, which are independent in classical mechanics, and their conservation are also independent. the momentum of the particle does not involve its energy. but In relativity, the conservations of momentum and energy cannot be dissociated. The conservation of momentum in all inertial frames requires the conservation of energy and vice versa. space and time are frame-dependent projections of spacetime[7].

Our questions are:

1) What is energy, is it a fundamental thing of entity nature**, or is it just a measure, like the property "label" of "beauty", which can be used by anyone: heat, light, electricity, machinery, atomic nuclei. Do the various forms of energy express the same meaning? Can they be expressed mathematically in a uniform way? Is there a mathematical definition of "energy"? ***

2) Is the conservation of energy a universal principle? How does physics ensure this conservation?

3) Why is there a definite relationship between energy and momentum in all situations? Where are they rooted?

4) If the various forms of energy and momentum are unified, given the existence of relativity, is there any definite relationship between them and time and space?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

* At the end of the nineteenth century, two theories were born that tried to unify the physical world, "electromagnetic worldview" and "Energism". We believe that this is the most intuitive and simple view of the world. And, probably the most beautiful and correct view of the world.

** If it is an entity, then it must still exist at absolute zero. Like the energy and momentum of the photon itself, it does not change because of the temperature, as long as it does not interact with each other.

*** We believe that this is an extremely important issue, first mentioned by Sergey Shevchenko（ https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sergey-Shevchenko ）in his reply to a question on Researchgate, see https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO1_Three-dimensional_space_issue; SS's reply.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Referencs

[1] Plato.

[2] Ostwald identified five “Arten der Energie”: I. Mechanical energy, II. Heat, III. Electrical and magnetic energy, IV. Chemical and internal energy, and V. Radiant energy. Each form of energy (heat, chemical, electrical, volume, etc.) is assigned an intensity. And formulated two fundamental laws of energetics. The first expresses the conservation of energy in the process of transfer and conversion; the second explains in terms of intensity equilibrium what can start and stop the transfer and conversion of energy.

[3] Duit, R. (1981). "Understanding Energy as a Conserved Quantity‐‐Remarks on the Article by RU Sexl." European journal of science education 3(3): 291-301.

[4] Swackhamer, G. (2005). Cognitive resources for understanding energy.

[5] Coelho, R. L. (2014). "On the Concept of Energy: Eclecticism and Rationality." Science & Education 23(6): 1361-1380.

[6] Holt, N. R. (1970). "A note on Wilhelm Ostwald's energism." Isis 61(3): 386-389.

[7] Ashtekar, A. and V. Petkov (2014). Springer Handbook of Spacetime. Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[8] Leegwater, A. (1986). "The development of Wilhelm Ostwald's chemical energetics." Centaurus 29(4): 314-337.

[9] Swackhamer, G. (2005). Cognitive resources for understanding energy.

[10] The two major scientific critics of Energism are Max Planck and Ernst Mach. The leading critic of the political-philosophical community was Vladimir Lenin (the founder of the organization known as Comintern). But he criticized not only Ostwald, but also Ernst Mach.

According to special relativity [1], the mass of a moving object is generally considered to be a relative value that increases with velocity [2]. m=γm0, γ is the relativistic factor and m0 is defined as the rest mass. The mass-energy equation E=mc^2 is a derivative of Einstein's special relativity. Einstein assumed two inertial systems moving at relatively constant velocity, where one object in the stationary inertial frame radiates photons in two opposite directions, and if the total energy of the photons is E, then in the other inertial frame it is seen that the mass of the object will decrease by E/c^2, i.e., E=mc^2. He thus concluded that The mass of an object is a measure of the energy it contains [3].

Our question is, if there is no absolute spacetime and the mass of any object in an inertial system can be considered as a rest mass, if it arbitrarily changes its speed of motion and is able to measure itself, will there exist a minimum rest mass, i.e. a minimum energy?

[1] Einstein 1905r：On the electrodynamics of moving objects.

[2] Feynman, R. P. (2005). The Feynman Lectures on Physics(I).

[3] Einstein 1905s：Einstein, A. (1905). "Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy-content." Annalen der Physik 18(13): 639-641.

Researchers and materials practitioners often come across the stress-strain diagram, which is a popular tool used to select materials based on their mechanical properties.

While the diagram is a useful resource for many applications, it is an issue that it is 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭 to use the stress – strain diagram for fracture analysis - a fatal beginner's mistake. The reason behind can be understood in our today’s illustration below!

Let me know the comments below.

[[ lfh note: This question has been hijacked by mistakenly celebrating a very non-responsive lecture on turbulence with Popular Answers. The lecture is even placed before discussion of the question. In my opinion it was without malice by R_^G or the person who posted it. Please read that "answer" on Page 4 below after reading actual discussion and clarification of the question, because the lecture is good history. ]]

[Original question comment] I think that the process of flow curvature formation at any scale in a fluid requires a pressure gradient across the curvature. The result outside the curve is increased internal thermal energy there. During subsequent decay of the curved flow, the curving kinetic energy fills the low pressure inside the curvature.

Is there any relation between classical kinetic energy (E) = (mv^2)/2 and mass-energy equivalence (E) = mc^2?

If you inherited the "sins of the world", but decided humanity wasn't worth it, then what course will you take if civilization cannot architect an Earned-Path to Sustainability? Certainly, this is a worthy discussion, no?

In Einstein's general and special theory of relativity, the rest mass energy is not equal to the potential energy.

Environmental Science and Earth Science (ESES-2023) is an international platform for scholars, researchers, and practitioners to discuss interdisciplinary research and practices in the fields of Environmental Science and Earth Science.

This year ESES-2023 will take place from December 7-8, 2023 in Dubai. Prospective authors are invited to submit research abstracts or full papers.

In association with the journal Energy Nexus by Elesiver, selected papers will be published in their special issue.

Topics can include but are not limited to: • Sustainable Cities • Wastewater Management • Greenhouse Effects and Global Warming • Biodiversity Conservation • Renewable Energy

Both conference attendees and external authors from outside the conference are welcome to submit full papers to the special issue.

Sergio Barile, | University of Rome La Sapienza, Rome, Italy

Clara Bassano, | University of Salerno, Fisciano, Italy

Praveen Pothala, | STEM International Organization, Singapore

Special Issue Submissions (SIS)

Manuscript submission information: Submission deadline: 01-Nov-2023.

The journal’s submission platform Editorial Manager: https://www.editorialmanager.com/nexus/default.aspx is available for receiving submissions to this Special Issue. Please refer to the Guide for Authors to prepare your manuscript, and select the article type of ” VSI: ESES-2023” when submitting your manuscript online. Both the Guide for Authors and the submission portal could be found on the Journal Homepage here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/energy-nexus.

Learn more about the benefits of publishing in a special issue: https://www.elsevier.com/authors/submit-your-paper/special-issues

Interested in becoming a guest editor? Discover the benefits of guest editing a special issue and the valuable contribution that you can make to your field: https://www.elsevier.com/editors/role-of-an-editor/guest-editors

I need to evaluate the cooling demand of a building, and so I need some informations (as wall temperature Inside/outside, sensitice heat transmission coefficient, etc...).

I know i can export the values corresponding to a single element of the facade, but is it possible to have every elements of a building in the same Excel file ? Or the average values for a facade ?

Actually, I'm wondering if there is an other way to calculate the cooling demand of the building ??

Recently I asked a question related to QCD and in response reliability of QCD itself was challenged by many researchers.

It left me with the question, what exactly is fundamental in physics. Can we rely entirely on the two equations given by Einstien? If not then what can we say as fundamental in physics?

Can someone provide or give me an example how the VASP WAVEDER file looks like?

If an electron A at a specific spacetime loses a certain number of quanta of energy (say, 100 quanta), naturally its total energy has come down. Or, will anyone claim that it has thus increased or that it is in a constant state? Now imagine that it is accelerated later by other forces.

Consider another electron B at another spacetime. It has not lost so many quanta of energy (say, only 50 quanta). Like A, now B is also being accelerated with the same amount of energy.

Of course, whether our measurement of the acceleration energy in the two cases is absolutely exact is yet another ambiguous matter, but we suppose that they are equal.

Will the latter be at a better position in the total energy content than the former? Or, will it be claimed that their energy, mass, etc. After receiving equal acceleration from outside, are equal, merely because they are both electrons already taken to possess a certain mass?

Moreover, we know that in the path that both the electrons take there will be other physical influences which we do not determine and cannot. These influences must be at least slightly different from each other.

In short, the mass, energy, etc. of the two electrons will never be equal at any physical state, not have they been absolutely equal at any time. And we know that nothing in the world is in a static state. So, there is no reason to suppose that electrons will have a static mass, energy, etc.

Of course, we can calculate and fix them as supposedly static mass, energy, etc. These will be useful for practical purposes, but not as absolutes.

That is, our generalized determination of an exact mass for an electron need not be the exact energy, mass, etc. of an electron in various physically processual circumstances. At normal circumstances within a specific chemical element, and when freed from it, the electron will have different values.

This shows that no electron (in itself) will be identical in all its properties with any other. Our description of these properties may be considered as identical. But this description in physics is meant merely for pragmatic purposes! One cannot now universalize it and say that the mass, energy, etc. of electrons are the same everywhere.

What about the said values (mass, energy, etc.) of other particles like photon, neutrino, etc.? I believe none can prove their case to be otherwise in the case of these particles / wavicles too.

That is, there is nothing in the world, including electrons, quarks, photons, neutrinos, etc., with an exact duplicate anywhere else. This is the foundation for the principle of physical identity.

Bibliography

(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.

(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.

(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.

(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.

(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.

Dear professors, colleagues, and friends:

Let us start a discussion around the concept of reactive power. I can define reactive power as the maximum instantaneous power that a reactive (capacitance or inductance) part of an element consumed. I teach it in a power system analysis course. I think we need to discuss more on this concept from a different viewpoint to learn/understand it better:

Hello everyone,

I am a master's student and study energy engineering. Currently, I am working on a Heat recovery system in a simple house, and performing my simulation in Open Modelica. I want some help to resolve some errors.

If anyone wants to help me, please text me.

Hoping for a response.

Thanks & Regards

Ashish Kumar

#Modelica #Simuation

Specifically interested in purine derivative as a cation of ionic liquid.

Any relevant reading suggestions are highly appreciated. Thanks.

In connection with the still high level of greenhouse gas emissions and the rapidly progressing process of global warming, in order to save a significant part of the planet's biosphere from annihilation and to ensure the possibility of life on the planet for future generations of people, it is necessary to effectively and efficiently carry out a green transformation of the economy, including carrying out a green transformation primarily of such sectors of the economy as the energy sector, agriculture, transport, construction and industrial and mining sectors. Besides, the key factors of green transformation of the economy also include increasing the scale of waste sorting and recycling, increasing the scale of implementation of sustainable development goals in individual spheres of civilisation development, increasing green areas in cities, and systemic reform of forestry consisting in changing deforestation processes into aforestation, increasing the scale of sustainability, restoration and protection of biodiversity in forest management. In order to effectively and efficiently carry out the green transformation of the energy sector, it is necessary to scale up the development of renewable and emission-free energy sources. In some countries, such as Poland, there is still an outdated energy system in which more than three quarters of heat and electricity is produced by dirty fossil fuel combustion energy. Such a high level of underdevelopment in the energy sector is the result of unused technological and financial opportunities, as well as mainly blocking and limiting the development of clean, emission-free renewable energy in the last 3 decades and especially in the last 8 years. Key factors for the limited sources of financing for the development of renewable and zero-carbon energy sources include, for example, the earmarking of funds obtained from the sale of CO2 emission rights for other purposes instead of supporting the green energy transition. As a result, the energy system, dominated by government-controlled SOEs, large mining, refining and energy companies, is characterised by low levels of investment in new green technologies and energy eco-innovations. Over the past 8 years, despite emerging technological and financial opportunities, energy companies have failed to make investments that would increase the level of flexibility in adapting energy transmission networks to changes in the level of energy production from different energy sources, including renewable and carbon-free energy sources. As a result of the lack of this type of investment, it is becoming increasingly common that when the level of sunshine is high and/or the level of wind power is high and/or the level of energy consumption by citizens is significantly reduced, there is a large unused surplus of energy. Technologically outdated power grids are unable to accommodate such large energy surpluses. The lack of a constructed storage system for the surplus energy produced results in large losses of generated electricity from renewable and emission-free energy sources. In addition, the government encouraged the development of prosumer energy by having citizens co-finance the creation of backyard mini-generation plants, i.e. mainly the installation of photovoltaic panels on the roof of residential houses. On the other hand, when prosumers, i.e. citizens, produce a significant surplus of electricity, the government-controlled electricity transmission grid companies do not accept this surplus electricity and therefore do not refinance the citizens' bills for the surplus electricity produced. In addition, in a situation of high levels of sunshine and wind power, i.e. where there is a large surplus of electricity generated, it is mainly renewable and emission-free energy sources that are excluded from the energy production system, and not dirty combustion energy sources emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. These are therefore very serious systemic errors in energy management by the government in Poland over recent years.

In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:

What do you think about this topic?

What is your opinion on this subject?

Please respond,

I invite you all to discuss,

Thank you very much,

Best regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

In many countries, before the entire energy sector is based on renewable energy sources, hydrogen and/or natural gas-based energy, which is several times less carbon-intensive than coal, lignite and, in some countries, fuel oil, i.e. derivatives of oil refining, are being developed as an interim step in addition to fully clean, emission-free, climate-neutral renewable energy sources. Because of the nuclear power plant accidents that occurred at Chernobyl, Fukushima, etc., some countries decided to decommission their nuclear power plants. Opinions are divided on this issue, as current nuclear energy technologies are much safer than those used in the plants that previously failed. In addition, the energy produced by nuclear power plants is emission-free compared to emissions from, for example, gas combustion. Over the next few decades, these nuclear and gas-based intermediate steps will be replaced by emission-free, fully climate-neutral and more energy-efficient energy based on green hydrogen and nuclear fusion. The production of so-called green hydrogen will be realised using electricity generated from renewable energy sources. However, the greatest challenges in terms of carrying out a green transformation of the energy sector are to be met in countries such as Poland, which still has a technologically backward, archaic system of energy generation based 3/4 on burning hard coal and lignite. This kind of situation of energy development backwardness is the result of deliberately slowing down the development of renewable and emission-free energy in the last 3 decades, and especially in the last 8 years, i.e. the period in which the PIS government in coalition with other political options supporting this government mainly supported the development of dirty combustion energy, increased the import of fossil fuels, slowed down the development of wind energy in 2016, slowed down the development of biofuel-based energy, and from April 2022 limited the development of solar energy. This is very strange in view of the European Union's strategic environmental and climate policy, indicating the need to carry out a green energy transition as quickly as possible, of which Poland is, after all, a part and benefits from financial subsidies from the European Union for the development of renewable energy sources. At present, in the context of the prospect of a global climate catastrophe, accelerating global warming and a still high level of greenhouse gas emissions, energy generation based mainly on the combustion of fossil fuels is being described as archaic, technologically and mentally outdated, incompatible with achieving the objectives of sustainable development, incompatible with pro-environmental and climate policy, generates poor air quality, is socially unethical and so on. The paradox is that in recent years, the development of renewable and zero-emission energy has been accelerated in many countries, while in Poland this development has been deliberately slowed down by the government. In many countries, in the context of the overall energy mix, renewable energy is already the dominant source of energy vis-à-vis combustion energy sources. In some countries, such as Scandinavia, over 90% of energy is already generated from renewable sources. Furthermore, not only in Europe, but also on other continents, including Africa, there are already countries where the majority of energy is produced from renewable sources. Some countries, such as Canada for example, have planned to fully phase out coal-based power generation by 2030 at the latest, whereas in Poland, despite the existing climatic, technological and financial possibilities, etc., the PIS government has planned to continue coal-based power generation until the middle of the 21st century, ignoring the results of scientific research concerning forecasts of a continuation of the increasingly rapid process of global warming and an increase in the scale of climatic disasters that will occur in the coming decades. Since it is not, therefore, a genuinely pro-environmental and pro-climate energy and economic policy, neither is it a pro-social policy of the PIS government in Poland. On the other hand, technological progress in the field of green technologies and energy eco-innovations is continually being made. New generation photovoltaic technologies and other renewable and emission-free energy solutions are becoming cheaper every year. Mini-power plants, backyard mini-generators producing energy from the sun, wind and, under favourable geographical and geological conditions, also from water and geothermal energy, are becoming increasingly available. However, in a situation where the return to government-controlled large state-owned energy companies, and the pursuit of an economic policy reminiscent of centralised, post-communist models of economic management, ignores the prosumer potential for the development of zero-emission mini power plants by citizens who could develop clean energy much more effectively and efficiently, the whole process of green transformation of the energy sector is proceeding much more slowly than it could. Returning to the issue of the successful development of renewable and zero-emission energy sources in many countries, the question arises as to what path towards climate neutrality in the energy sector has been successfully pursued in countries where the majority of energy is already produced from clean, zero-emission energy, and what path towards climate neutrality in the energy sector should be pursued in countries where a significant proportion of electricity and/or heat is still produced from dirty combustion energy? Arguably, many different factors, regional geographic, geological, climatic, environmental, civilisational, economic, social, etc. considerations need to be taken into account in order to define the right path towards climate neutrality of the energy sector in each country.

To the above, it should be added that on 18 April 2023, in order to accelerate the process of pro-environmental, pro-climate, green transformation of the economy, including the acceleration of the process of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, slowing down the processes of global warming, the European Parliament voted on the key legal acts of the Fit For 55 package. The European Parliament adopted the reform of the EU system of trading in greenhouse gas emission allowances, the introduction of the CBAM mechanism and the creation of the Social Climate Fund. The PIS government in Poland is constantly criticising the climate and environmental policy of the European Union, contrary to the expectations of the citizens and with some vague political aims in mind in the controlled meanstream media in Poland. Thanks to the technological advances that have already been made in green energy technologies and eco-innovation, electricity generation from renewable and emission-free energy sources is already the cheapest, much cheaper than energy generation from the dirty energy of burning fossil fuels.

In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:

What do you think about this topic?

What is your opinion on this subject?

Please respond,

I invite you all to discuss,

Thank you very much,

Warm regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

How can reverse-bias stability be improved in perovskite solar cells?

The energy operator ih∂/∂t and the momentum operator ihΔ or ih∂/∂x play a crucial role in the derivation of the Schrödinger equation, the Klein-Gordon equation, the Dirac equation, and other physics arguments.

The energy and momentum operators are not differential operators in the general sense; they do play a role in the derivation of the equations for the definition of energy and momentum.

However, we do not find any reasonable arguments or justifications for the use of such operators, and even their meaning can only be speculated from their names. It is used without explanation in textbooks.

The clues we found are:

1) In the literature [ Brown, L. M., A. Pais and B. Poppard (1995). Twentieth Centure Physics (I), Science Press.], "In March 1926, Schrödinger noticed that replacing the classical Hamiltonian function with a quantum mechanical operator, i.e., replacing the momentum p by a partial differentiation of h/2πi with position coordinates q and acting on the wave function, one also obtains the wave equation."

2) Gordon considered that the energy and momentum operators are the same in relativity and in non-relativism and therefore used in his relativistic wave equation (Gordon 1926).

(3) Dirac also used the energy and momentum operators in the relativistic equations with electron spins (Dirac 1928). Dirac called it the "Schrödinger representation", a self-adjoint differential operator or Hermitian operator (Dick 2012). (D).

Our questions are:

Why can this be used? Why is it possible to represent energy by time differential for wave functions and momentum by spatial differential for wave functions? Has this been historically argued or not?

Keywords: quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, quantum mechanical operators, energy operators, momentum operators, Schrödinger equation, Dirac equation.

How can we combine photocatalysis with other technologies, such as electrocatalysis, to achieve more efficient and versatile energy conversion and storage?

Question background. There is an equipartition theorem, and it is without doubt correct. But it has its conditions of applicability, which are not always satisfied. There are well-known examples of a chain of connected oscillators, the spectral density of a black body, the new example of an ideal gas in a round vessel I have studied. How may or may not the energy be partitioned in such cases, when the equipartition theorem is not applicable? Can anyone provide more systems with known uneven laws of energy partitioning?

I am trying to understand the difference between these potential energy and free energy landscapes like how these surfaces can be created and what kind of information can be drawn from these two landscapes.

Many houses in Poland require thermomodernisation. There are more than 6 million single-family homes in Poland, 60 per cent of which are not low-energy, do not have an insulated façade. "Energy vampires" account for 16 per cent. This results in high losses of heat and electricity, higher CO2 emissions into the atmosphere and higher costs of paying for heating the home. In this way, energy losses will be reduced and less energy will be produced, less fossil fuels will be burned, smog will be reduced, air quality will be improved and premature deaths of citizens caused by poor air quality will be reduced. This is particularly important in an archaic energy system such as the one we have in Poland, where, because of the energy policy pursued in recent years of deliberately slowing down, restricting and blocking the development of renewable and emission-free sources of energy, three quarters of electricity and three quarters of even more heat is still generated on the basis of burning coal and lignite. Thanks to the environmental policy of the European Union, of which Poland is a member, something is finally beginning to change in a positive direction. Poland is also beginning to join the process of the green transformation of the energy sector, the construction industry, etc., but this is still progressing too slowly because of the leadership of the so-called 'united right' government, i.e. the PIS team and Solidarna Polska, which are deliberately slowing down the process of the green transformation of the economy as much as they can. In doing so, they are pursuing an anti-climate, anti-environmental and consequently anti-social policy as well. The energy certificate provides information about the energy performance of a building. It is required when constructing a new building and when selling it. The introduction of the requirement for an energy certificate in Poland is due to new EU directives, as in Europe one third of greenhouse gas emissions are generated by high-energy buildings. By taking measures to speed up the process of thermo-modernisation of buildings and replacing high-emission energy sources, i.e. replacing coal-fired cookers, the so-called 'kopciuchy', with renewable and emission-free energy sources, there will be a significant reduction in the carbon footprint of buildings, a reduction in energy consumption, an increase in the level of energy security, an improvement in air quality, a reduction in the scale of air pollution and also an increase in the scale of implementation of the strategic objectives of climate and environmental policy. The importance of the issue of enhancing energy security has increased in the context of the 2022 energy crisis. This crisis was particularly profound in a country such as Poland, where, due to the government's blocking and slowing down of the green transformation of the energy sector for many years, including blocking (e.g. wind power since 2016) limiting the development of renewable and emission-free energy sources (e.g. solar energy from April 2022, biofuel-based energy, geothermal energy), failure to undertake the construction of alternative, low-carbon, high-security energy sources (e.g. nuclear and hydrogen energy) electricity and even more thermal energy is still produced on the basis of archaic, dirty fossil fuel combustion energy, mainly coal and lignite combustion. With the thermal modernisation of buildings and also the replacement of coal-fired cookers with renewable and emission-free energy sources, energy-efficient, sustainable low-carbon construction is being developed. This process is counted among the key elements of the green economy transformation process. Carrying out the green economy transformation process aims to build a sustainable, green, zero-emission closed loop economy, which is the most important impact factor for protecting the climate, biosphere and biodiversity of the planet's natural ecosystems. Well, the faster and more efficiently this green transformation of the economy is carried out, the more the progressive process of global warming will be slowed down and the less global climate catastrophe will occur in the future.

In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:

What is your opinion on the subject?

What do you think about this topic?

Please respond,

I invite you all to discuss,

Thank you very much,

Warm regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

The construction and housing sectors are cyclical sectors, i.e. the economic situation in these sectors, including the level of investment, is usually strongly correlated with the economic situation in the economy as a whole. When central banks raise interest rates, loans on offer from commercial banks become more expensive, including investment loans taken out with banks by developers building housing estates and mortgages with which citizens buy property. In view of the fact that in many countries bank loans have been increasing in price for several months or more, so the scale of new investments in the construction sector has declined strongly. On the other hand, when the economy is in crisis, many sectors are in decline then unemployment rises, incomes, consumption and investment fall. In view of the above, the activation of the construction of houses and flats within the framework of housing policy, which is an important segment of socio-economic policy, can also be an important factor in the anti-crisis measures of the government during the economic downturn. In such a situation, the activation of investment processes for the construction of houses and housing estates can be an important factor in limiting the scale of the development of an economic downturn and economic crisis. Efficient stimulation of the housing construction market within the framework of housing policy, which is an important segment of counter-cyclical, anti-crisis, Keynsian, developmental, investment-oriented socio-economic policy, can be one of the key determinants of a significant increase in the economy's resilience to economic crises. Periods of economic decline occur every few years as part of business cycles and large, trans-national financial and economic crises occur every dozen or more years. In addition to such crises, the scale of a kind of new crisis is growing, which will also influence the development of economic processes in the future. The development of technology, civilisation, consumption of raw materials in manufacturing processes, the level of environmental pollution, deforestation, the extinction of many species of flora and fauna, the decline in the biodiversity of natural ecosystems, greenhouse gas emissions, etc., have all significantly accelerated since the mid-20th century. The result of the increase in civilisational greenhouse gas emissions since the mid-20th century is an accelerating process of global warming, the increasing scale of the negative effects of this process year after year, and the growing risk and scale of a global climate-ecological catastrophe, which may already occur at the end of this 21st century. Therefore, economic policy should be transformed into a green transformation policy for the economy and, within the framework of a Keynsian, development-oriented, investment-oriented, green socio-economic policy, one of the key segments of which would be the activation of green transformation investments in the construction sector and the development of sustainable low-energy, zero-energy and low-carbon construction. The green transformation process in the building sector on the one hand on carrying out thermal modernisation of existing buildings and replacing heat and electricity sources with renewable and zero-carbon energy sources. On the other hand, the development of sustainable low-energy, zero-energy and low-carbon buildings is based on the construction of new houses, housing estates, industrial buildings, public institutions, office buildings and others, taking into account the application of new green building technologies, energy efficiency standards, supply of energy exclusively from renewable and emission-free energy sources and adherence to the principles of closed-loop economics.

In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:

And what is your opinion on this?

What do you think about this subject?

Please respond,

I invite you all to discuss,

Thank you very much,

Best regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Monopolistically operating large energy companies, including mainly government-controlled state-owned companies, apply pricing policies that are not conducive to the development of renewable energy sources in the form of small household power plants set up by citizens, who would thus become prosumers of electricity. This point is also confirmed by the pricing policy applied by these large energy companies, which are government-controlled SOEs in the context of the 2022 energy crisis. In addition, it has happened over the past few years that in areas where such power plants have been set up as part of solar or wind power, they have produced so much electricity in situations of high sunshine or strong winds that the technologically outdated and underinvested transmission power grids have not been able to absorb this electricity produced by prosumer citizens. This is a kind of paradoxical and almost surreal situation in a country facing a serious energy crisis in 2022 due to the still existing archaic energy model based 3/4 on the production of electricity and even more on thermal energy from burning coal and lignite. It is therefore necessary to develop independent, local cooperatives running small renewable energy power plants, i.e. independent of large energy companies, including government-controlled state-owned companies with monopolistic pricing policies, limiting the development of renewable energy sources by citizens and increasingly portraying themselves in the media in advertising and umbrella campaigns as green, generating energy mainly from renewable energy sources which is at variance with the facts, so is an example of greenwashing. In view of the above, the development of local cooperatives operating small renewable energy power plants can significantly reduce the scale of monopolistic participation of large energy companies in the entire energy sector and thus can significantly increase the energy security of citizens and the security of the national energy sector.

In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:

And what is your opinion on this?

What is your opinion on this subject?

Please respond,

I invite you all to discuss,

Thank you very much,

Warm regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

For the purposes of my thesis, the threshold value or rated power factor for safe operation is set at pf = 0.90. In Bangladesh, even though the standard power factor should be above 0.9, DPDC provides an 8.5 to 8.8 (maybe it's 0.85 to 0.88) power factor in most of the areas they operate in. Due to poor power factor, they are continuously penalized for Power Factor Charge (PFC) every month. Although the energy meter (Inhe Meter) indicates that the power factor is occasionally less than 0.85, the power distribution company does not charge the users.

In the country where I have been working for half a century, every few years a plan to build a nuclear power plant appears periodically. The last such plan appeared in 2022. Consideration of building the first nuclear power plant came about when the Prime Minister of the Council of Ministers announced that he was considering such a plan. For the time being, this plan is not taken seriously by analysts of the development of the energy sector, as there have been many investment plans announced by the Prime Minister over the past seven years and only plans ended. On the other hand, the current energy crisis, the dominance of dirty combustion energy in Poland, the rising prices of fossil fuels, the low and falling level of the country's energy independence and security, the low level of air quality polluted by the widespread burning of coal in fossil fuel cookers, the blocking and stalling of the development of renewable energy (biogas plants) and zero-emission energy (wind energy 2016, solar energy 2022), which has been going on for 7 years, has led to a high risk of a shortage of heat and electricity in Poland and a deep risk of a national energy crisis in the cyclical annual heating seasons. Since the political opposition, which includes environmentalists and non-governmental organisations, has been postulating for years the increase of the level of energy security and the necessity to develop renewable and emission-free energy, the necessity to carry out a pro-environmental transformation of the energy sector, so every now and then a new plan appears in the media, the latest being the plan to build the first nuclear power plant. The need to urgently and swiftly carry out a pro-environmental transformation of the energy sector is linked on the one hand to the long-term climate crisis and the currently developing energy crisis. If the Polish government continues to ignore the issue of a pro-environmental and pro-climate transformation of the energy sector, it is possible that in the coming years, too, citizens will have to contend with a national energy crisis and poor air quality in agglomerations year after year. The construction of the first nuclear power plant in Poland is not expected to be completed until the early 2030s of the current 21st century. It is clear that this is far too late given the issue of the developing climate crisis and the possibility of further national energy crises emerging in subsequent annual heating seasons. Besides, simply building a nuclear power plant will not cure an energy industry that is underinvested and based on outdated energy transmission technologies and power plants that generate energy mainly by burning fossil fuels. On the other hand, better late than never. Nuclear power, along with other types of renewable energy, can form an important part of the energy mix and increase the level of independence and energy security. However, in order to ensure a high level of operational safety of the nuclear power plant, a low level of failure rate, a high level of safety against various categories of risks, catastrophes and external factors, it is essential to apply modern technologies with which the nuclear power plant will be built.

In view of the above, I would like to address the following question to the esteemed community of researchers and scientists:

What is your opinion on this subject?

Please respond,

I invite you all to discuss,

Thank you very much,

Warm regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Hello everyone !

In Bangladesh, the energy meter (Inhe Meter) shows that the frequency goes up and down from above 50.5 to below 49.5, but it does not trip the overall system.

How is it possible?

I have received as a comment expressing recent research that: Of course this is 100% correct because energy is the universal electric field and every quantum of energy generates a corresponding vector within the magnetic field (and visa versa). Moreover, vectors act instantaneous because vectors are 1 dimensional (vectors are not bound to the speed of light).

One may have a long re-bar (roughened metal bar used to reinforce concrete) and would find that a hammer tap on the end results in a propagating wave that eventually reaches the other end. A strong blow with a sledge hammer would produce that result plus a longitudinal motion of the entire bar that would affect anything in contact with the far end much sooner, almost instantaneously because the bar would move as a whole.

Are electric field vectors stiff in the latter sense of the re-bar's motion as is implied by "instantaneous" in the above comment?

Cited research as well as opinion might get an old guy up to speed on this since he'll never get it all read. Note, this is not about an EM wave propagating in accord with theories treating that phenomenon. The speed of light must not be allowed to confuse this new awareness of recent research. lfh 3-13-23

In some countries in Europe, taxes have already been introduced in autumn 2022 on the excess and historically highest windfall profits of companies in the mining, energy and fuel sector obtained in 2022 in connection with the exploitation of the situation that has arisen in the context of the energy crisis derivative of the war in Ukraine in 2022. Unfortunately, some of the countries that called for the introduction of economic sanctions that increased the scale of this crisis and, at the same time, countries with an energy sector built on an archaic model based mainly on the combustion of fossils, nevertheless did not introduce this tax. This is still the case, for example, until February 2023 in the country where I operate. In connection with the publication of historically record profits of mining, energy and fuel sector companies operating in Poland and controlled by the government, obtained in 2022, as well as increasing criticism of opposition political options, it was reported in the media that once again the government is back to considering the possible introduction of the said taxes on excess profits. In my opinion, the money raised from taxes on excess profits made by companies in the mining, energy and fuel sectors in 2022 should finance new projects for developing renewable and zero-emission energy sources in order to speed up the green transition of the energy sector. In this way, the process of achieving a zero-carbon economy, a sustainable closed-cycle economy, an economy characterised by a high level of autonomy and energy security, meeting sustainable development goals will be accelerated and the scale of care for the state of the environment, the biodiversity of natural ecosystems, protection of the biosphere and the climate will be significantly increased. In addition, air quality will be significantly improved, the level of environmental pollution will decrease, etc.

In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:

What is your opinion on this topic?

What is your opinion on this subject?

Please respond,

I invite you all to discuss,

Thank you very much,

Best wishes,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

This is a process that is nowadays present in most of the energy production methods, what are the most promising solutions to work with something else?

In the country in which I operate, electricity and heat is still generated 3/4 on the basis of burning fossil fuels. However, if the current government had taken the pro-environmental transformation of the economy seriously, including the pro-climate transformation of the energy sector, and had been developing renewable and emission-free energy sources instead of blocking them for the past 7 years, then the current energy crisis would probably not be such a serious problem as it already is. Unfortunately, this has not been done. As a result, the energy sector in Poland is mainly dirty, combustion-intensive, high-emission, non-diversified. There is bad air in many cities. Coal-fired power plants use outdated technologies, coal is in short supply and imported. Similarly, other fossil fuels. Power grids not adapted to the current needs of the economy, etc. The development of renewable energy has been slow to materialise, as it has mainly been driven by grassroots initiatives of citizens who have, for example, installed photovoltaic panels on the roofs of their houses, solar water heating systems and heat pumps in their homes. Unfortunately, the scale of development of renewable and emission-free energy sources is still low due to barriers imposed by the government and the low level of subsidies supporting the green energy transition. The result is a low level of energy security and a high risk of a major energy crisis in the heating season, autumn/winter 2022.

In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of researchers and scientists:

What is your opinion on this?

What is your opinion on this subject?

Please reply,

I invite you all to discuss,

Thank you very much,

Warm regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Increase in the price of fossil fuels (in the 1970s mainly oil). Rising inflation, rising interest rates, economic crisis, economic recession, rising unemployment. Creation of new technological solutions, energy innovations, which can significantly reduce the level of consumption of energy raw materials in power generation, the level of fuel combustion in motor vehicle engines, etc. So looking at the energy crisis of the 1970s and the current energy crisis, you can see many parallels. And what were the key differences apart from the fact that in the 1970s the accelerating process of global warming was not yet noticed, the onset of the climate crisis was overlooked or deliberately ignored.

In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of researchers and scientists:

What is your opinion on this subject?

Please reply,

I invite you all to discuss,

Thank you very much,

Regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

The key risk factors that determined the development of the current climate crisis were already operating in previous years, but they occurred with less intensity and were ignored. Among the main determinants of the scale of the development of the climate crisis in the national scope are the issue of national energy security and energy independence shaped by many national factors. Changes in energy commodity prices on international commodity markets are one of the key external factors. However, many more factors operating domestically shape the level of domestic energy security and independence. Key domestic influential factors shaping the issue of national energy security and independence include the scale of diversification of energy sources, including primarily domestic energy sources. In terms of diversification of energy sources, a particularly important issue is the level of development of renewable and emission-free energy sources. The issue of emission-free energy sources is also particularly important in the context of the developing climate crisis, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to slow down the progressive process of global warming. The unfolding climate crisis in the future may generate further energy crises due to the projected increase in demand for electricity. The increase in electricity demand in the future will also be related to a warming climate, as the scale of the use of refrigeration equipment, air conditioners, cold pumps, pumps installed in new deep-water intakes in a situation of increasingly severe and permanent periods of drought, etc., will increase. In addition, national energy policy is also determined by the issue of political-business ties in companies in the energy and fossil fuel extraction sectors, in a situation where these business entities are government-controlled state-owned companies. Consequently, pricing policy is also shaped in such a way that companies in the fossil fuel extraction sector and the energy sector burning these fossil fuels operating as SOEs generate exceptionally high above-average profits benefiting from the current energy crisis. The pricing policy is conducted in such a way that most of these above-average high profits in the form of dividends go to the state budget burdened with high social spending. Besides, state-owned companies, including those operating in the energy sector, subsidize various pro-government projects carried out by other public institutions, foundations and media with pro-government information policies. As part of this pro-government information policy, citizens are informed with a propaganda message according to which the country's energy security is determined by the development of dirty combustion energy and renewable energy sources are not worth developing because they are unstable, e.g., the sun does not always shine and the wind does not always blow. Of course, only a part of the citizens believe in this kind of propaganda information run by the pro-government meanstream media. In addition to these media, there are also media that are independent and provide information objectively, where citizens are given facts, including the reality of the issue of energy security in the country. Therefore, in countries where the scale of development of renewable and emission-free energy sources is low and the production of heat and electricity is based mainly on dirty combustion energy, the current energy crisis is particularly acute for citizens and is a derivative of years of omission, slowing down and blocking the development of clean renewable energy based on various sources and technologies, and ignoring the issue of the ongoing process of global warming, the negative effects of climate change, ignoring the issue of protecting the climate, biosphere and biodiversity of natural ecosystems, ignoring the issue of living conditions for citizens of future generations. In a situation where, as in Poland, for example, neglected in previous years and still 3/4 of heat and electricity is generated on the basis of dirty combustion energy in the context of the current energy crisis, additional costs have emerged from this neglect, which are being passed on to consumers under the current energy policy. Subsidies and handouts, interventionist reductions in sales taxes on fossil fuels, electricity and certain ranges of food products are being introduced to reduce high and rising inflation and, in fact, to postpone the potential increase in inflation by another few percentage points for the future, when the so-called Anti-Inflation Shields are no longer in place, i.e., when foreign investors stop buying Treasury bonds, the public debt begins to grow rapidly, etc. There is also the electoral calendar, as Poland will hold another parliamentary election in the fall of 2023, which probably also has a significant impact on the current energy policy as an important element of economic policy. In view of the above, we distinguish various key determinants of building and developing an energy sector that will provide the national economy with a high level of energy security, a high level of long-term energy independence. A modern energy sector should be characterized by a high level of energy security, should be resilient to energy crises, and should take into account reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, should also include priorities for future generations of citizens, i.e. also protection of the climate, biosphere and biodiversity of the planet?

In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of researchers and scientists:

What is your opinion on this issue?

Please answer,

I invite everyone to join the discussion,

Thank you very much,

Thank you,

Best wishes,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Nuclear power can be an important element in increasing the diversification of energy sources when other types of energy sources have been developed in the country. Among these other sources of energy types, many countries have traditional, dirty, emission-intensive fossil fuel-based energy sources and various types of environmentally and climatically clean renewable and emission-free energy sources developed mainly in recent years. Emission-free energy sources based on cold fusion and hydrogen power will be developed in the future. This is particularly important in view of the developing climate crisis generated by increasing civilisational greenhouse gas emissions and the accelerating process of global warming. In order to slow down the progressive process of global warming, it is necessary to carry out a full pro-climate transformation of the energy sector through the development of renewable and emission-free energy sources within the next few to a maximum of a dozen years. An alternative transition technology to achieve a fully carbon-free economy, including a carbon-free power sector, could be nuclear power. Nuclear power plants under construction today are much safer than those built a few decades ago. The use of modern technologies makes it possible to ensure a very high level of safety in the operation of nuclear power plants regardless of the action of various external factors, including, for example, the fall of a large aircraft on the power plant or ballistic missiles. In addition, it has been estimated that, given current fossil fuel prices, nuclear power could be several times cheaper than coal power. Research institutes analysing nuclear safety issues have estimated that the probability of an accident in a modern nuclear power plant is 1:40 million. By comparison, the probability of a person being struck by lightning is estimated at 1:300,000. Consequently, the scale of public acceptance for the construction of a nuclear power plant is increasing. This change is influenced by the above-mentioned issues of improving the safety of nuclear power operations and the current energy crisis.

What is your opinion on this topic?

What do you think about this subject?

Please respond,

I invite you all to discuss,

Thank you very much,

Regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Many new eco-innovations and green technologies have still not left the research laboratories, they are still in the research and testing, prototype phase. The current energy crisis should motivate both government agencies of ministries managing the energy sector and commercially operating companies and enterprises in the energy sector to subsidise the ongoing research work, conducted in research and development institutions on the creation and industrial-scale implementation of new eco-innovations and green energy technologies. The current energy crisis is characterised by rapidly rising fuel and energy prices and the increasing scale of energy shortages. In some countries, the government is offering subsidies for the purchase of more expensive fuels and energy. However, this creates another pro-inflationary factor. Another and perhaps more sensible solution to support citizens and businesses to survive the energy crisis would be to increase subsidies to R&D and scientific institutions in whose laboratories new eco-innovations and energy technologies are developed. This raises the question of what kind of new eco-innovations and green energy and other technologies being created now, what kind of R&D should be subsidised now?

What is your opinion on this subject?

Please respond,

I invite you all to discuss,

Thank you very much,

Best regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

In the context of the current energy crisis, there is a growing demand for the creation and industrial-scale implementation of new eco-innovations and green energy technologies that would help citizens and businesses survive the currently unfolding energy crisis. The current energy crisis is characterized by rapidly rising fuel and energy prices and the growing scale of energy shortages. Rising energy and fossil fuel prices are one of the key factors in the acceleration of inflation, which has already begun to rise almost as early as early 2021. In some countries, the government is offering subsidies for the purchase of more expensive fuels and energy. However, this creates another pro-inflationary factor. In view of the above, the creation and implementation of what kind of new eco-innovations and green energy technologies should be covered by interventionist government subsidy programs (purchase of certain types of power, energy sources, e.g. to install photovoltaic panels on the roof of the building, etc.) and subsidies (preparation of homes, buildings, businesses, e.g. insulation of building facades, etc.)?

In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of researchers and scientists:

Please answer,

I invite everyone to join the discussion,

Thank you very much,

Best wishes,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Quoting CNN report: https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/12/politics/nuclear-fusion-energy-us-scientists-climate/index.html

"For the first time ever, US scientists at the National Ignition Facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California successfully produced a nuclear fusion reaction resulting in a net energy gain, a source familiar with the project confirmed to CNN.

The US Department of Energy is expected to officially announce the breakthrough Tuesday."

We all know what All Mankind have been through for the last decades, of which the climate change, energy crisis, etc. have always been pains in the neck. They directly or indirectly caused the shortage, inflation, supply-chain disruptions, regional/global economic crisis, or even escalated conflicts. Now, here comes a promising solution! (I personally suppose such an incredible scientific breakthrough deserves multiple Nobel Prizes!)

Assuming this major scientific breakthrough is solid and safe. Here come more interesting questions that are perhaps worth our attention and discussion:

1. How long would it take for this scientific breakthrough to be transferred to engineering deployment and energy usage in our daily life? < 10 years, 10-30 years, 30 - 50 years, or > 50 years?

2. What could you think of the pros/cons of this breakthrough (e.g., would it help mitigate the climate change, poverty issues, and regional/global conflicts over energy and resources? ), and what should be first done before the deployment? Legislation, international treaties, environmental protection, and/or etc.?

3. How do you think this breakthrough will accelerate all mankind to the Type-I Civilization (according to Kardashev Scale) and become a Spaceborne Civilization/Species?

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale)

4. What would be your thoughts/ideas/advice/suggestions/opinions on this breakthrough and how it can better serve all mankind?

Any ideas on how to choose which particular wavelet (or family) to extract energy from a given time? (ie. which wavelet for a smooth curve, which for a curve with many spikes?)   

As it is evident, due to climate change and global warming, as well as energy shortage, there is a crucial need for energy consumption reduction and carbon contamination reduction in households as a major part of these events. One of the novel solutions for managing these problems is digital twins for better management in the construction and also maintenance processes of homes. I want to know:

Firstly, how much could this method be effective in this situation?

Secondly, what are the mechanisms and methods for this system?

Best regards,

Hossein Pouresmaeil.

I would like to ask, why the discount rate is also being taken into account for the energy production(Denominator) and not only for the costs(numerator), during the LCOE calculation?

There have been many different crises since the beginning of the 21st century, and there is little indication that this would change in the years to come. The dotcom crisis at the turn of the 20th/XXI century, the global financial crisis of 2007-2009, the global recession of the 2020 economy triggered by interventionist measures carried out during the 1st wave of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic, the overly lenient monetary policy carried out during the pandemic, the strong rise in inflation and the risk of stagflation in 2020, the currently developing energy crisis, the currently developing food crisis in some poorer countries, the already ongoing climate crisis that will intensify in the coming decades. As the levels of various risks increase, the scales and frequency of various crises increase, more and more public institutions, government agencies, NGOs but also local government units are taking various anti-crisis measures. Currently, the currently developing crises in many countries are: the economic downturn caused by high inflation; the energy crisis caused by high fuel and energy prices and low levels of energy self-sufficiency and underdevelopment of renewable energy sources; the climate crisis (and in some countries also the food crisis), the consequences of which include severe heat and droughts causing a decline in the production of agricultural crops, increased energy consumption and other negative effects. The climate crisis is likely to develop for many more years. In some countries, due to the low level of energy self-sufficiency, the low level of development of renewable and carbon-free energy sources, the scale of the currently developing energy crisis is greater and in the future, the negative effects of the climate crisis may also be more severe for nature and humans. Accordingly, local government units are also inspiring citizens to use water sparingly, save energy, segregate waste and other pro-environmental daily practices and actions. However, there are big differences in this regard when comparing environmental and pro-environmental policies and realistically carried out pro-environmental activities and green projects by individual local government units.

In view of the above, I address the following research question to the esteemed community of researchers and scientists:

Please answer,

I invite everyone to join the discussion,

Thank you very much,

Best regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

World is facing energy shortages, due to insufficient production, and Russian aggression towards Europe over Eukrain.

The electricity is the most suitable source is agreed by all most everyone.

Gas, is the other of sources, needs specialists to verify through international politics to an agreement for its best suitability and viability.

The BECHTEL A1B reactors are already in functioning, and has vast capacity and proven highly efficiency.

Why UK, Europe and other countries in an agreement don't create like Bechtel A1B reactors for electricity ?

Regards

Fatema Miah.