This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.

Post

The energy lessons of viruses; mutation, isolation and purification

image credit: Jim Baird

Jim Baird's picture
Owner Thermodynamic Geoengineering

inventor,Method and apparatus for load balancing trapped solar energy Ocean thermal energy conversion counter-current heat transfer system Global warming mitigation method Nuclear Assisted...

  • Member since 2018
  • 336 items added with 337,569 views

A novel coronavirus is a new strain that hasn’t been previously identified in humans.

It is insidious. Typified by spikes on its surface, it fuses and attaches to the cell of human lungs where it recognizes the cell surface receptor gaining access to the lungs. 

Within the lung, it attacks the cells in three phases, the viral replication phase, the immune hyper-reactivity phase, and pulmonary destruction.

Not all patients experience all three phases. According to the early data, 82 percent of COVID-19 cases experienced less severe symptoms while the rest were grave to critical.

Jeffrey Shaman, PhD, professor of environmental health sciences at Columbia University said, "The explosion of COVID-19 cases in China was largely driven by individuals with mild, limited, or no symptoms who went undetected."

Lung cells come in two classes: mucus generators and cilia.

Mucus helps protect lung tissue from pathogens and moistens the lungs and the cilia clear debris from the lungs.

Coronaviruses infect and kill the cilia that slough off, filling the lungs with debris and fluids.

Aroused by the virus in the immune hyper-reactivity phase, the body floods the lungs with immune cells attempting to clear away the damage and repair the tissue.

Under normal circumstances the immune cells concentrate in infected areas, but with severe cases of coronavirus, the immune system goes wild and kills anything in its path.  At which point the lung damage builds to the point of respiratory failure leading to death or at a minimum permanent lung damage.

The carbon virus too is insidious. Its viral replication phase has lasted five decades, abetted by well-funded climate deniers associated with the fossil fuel industry.

Its immune hyper-reactivity phase has been characterized by the flooding of the body politic with cash and the virus has replicated and mutated into plastics.

Pulmonary destruction has ensued, and oxygen has been sucked out of climate science and energy innovation.

Mutation is part of every virus’s life cycle and part of its survival strategy.

COVID-19 is an RNA virus. It is a collection of genetic material packed inside a protein shell that is more prone to mutation than DNA viruses like herpes, smallpox, and human papillomavirus.

Mutation, however, isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Some mutations can lead to weakening of a virus but usually changes are slight and make little difference in the disease's transmission and fatality rate.

Coronaviruses spread through respiratory droplets generated when infected individuals sneeze or by close, prolonged personal contact, such as touching or shaking hands and then touching one’s mouth, nose or eyes before washing your hands.

It is halted by isolation, social distancing, quarantine and disinfection.

Global warming too can be solved by isolation, mutation and disinfection.

For fifty years warming has proliferated like a virus, but we can isolate it within the tropical ocean depths where its nastiest manifestations can’t occur. 

It can also, in part, be mutated into water, food, surface cooling, sea level mitigation, ocean acidity neutralization, carbon sequestration, poverty reduction, terrorism and war mitigation, disease eradication, learning, democracy and depopulation. And the rest can be quarantined for at least 226 years, after which it can be again metamorphosed the instant it resurfaces, and can be recycled 13 times, until it has been completely mutated into productive energy.   

Paul Romer, an American economist, co-recipient of the 2018 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, in a 2004 venture capital meeting in California, coined the term, “A crisis is a terrible thing to waste,” in reference to rapidly increasing education levels and competition from countries outside of the United States.

The novel energy crisis confronting us requires a novel response.

The energy sector needs to be disinfected and made to produce value-added energy rather than the unnecessary problems it is now creating.   

In a post-pandemic world, we won't be able to afford unnecessary tribulation so the more versatile our energy source the better off we will be, and the most versatile source of energy is thermodynamic geoengineering.

Jim Baird's picture
Thank Jim for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member

Discussions

Spell checking: Press the CTRL or COMMAND key then click on the underlined misspelled word.
David Svarrer's picture
David Svarrer on Apr 15, 2020

Dear Jim, 

A most humorous and witty entry into the debate of comparative crisis - here COVID19 and the pandemic energy crisis. 

I have, though, not found your solution to how we isolate, curb, insulate, etc. etc. - the global warming crisis? You propose in the title to shove it back into the deep ocean. Well and good. But how would you like that to happen?

I must say that the world need thinkers like yourself, who - by use of allegories, comparative science etc., enables leapfrogging into new solutions.

I work in the solar concentrator energy domain.

Sincerely

Rational Intuitive Ltd. (Denmark, Kenya, Mauritius)

David Svarrer

CEO

Jim Baird's picture
Jim Baird on Apr 15, 2020

David, global warming is heat energy that can be converted {mutated) to work in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. That work can be then mutated to the other benefits referenced in the article. This conversion is about 7.6 percent efficient and the balance of the heat is in your words "shoved" into the deep ocean with a heat pipe, where from a depth of 1000 meters it takes about 226 years to the diffuse back to the surface where it can be recycled. 

The annual heating of warming is in the vicinity of 390 terawatts of heat a year. The conversion of this heat at 7.6 %  produces twice as much energy as is currently derived from fossil fuels.

Energy produced at sea requires an energy carrier to bring it to shore. Negative-CO2-emissions ocean thermal energy conversion cools the surface, increases the efficiencyt of conventional OTEC, produces hydrogen, consumes CO2 and neutralizes ocean acidity.

For each gigawatt of power generated annually, roughly 13 GW of surface ocean heat would be directly removed to deep water, while producing 130,000  tonnes of H2/yr (avoiding 1,100,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions/yr), and consuming and storing (as dissolved mineral bicarbonate) approximately 5,000,000 tonnes CO2/yr.

At a total capacity of 29 terawatts, the total tonnage of CO2 that has been added to the oceans and atmosphere since 1780 could be eliminated in as little as 7 years.

Rational and intuitive is in short supply.

Thanks for your consideration.

 

 

David Svarrer's picture
David Svarrer on Apr 16, 2020

Dear Jim Baird, 

I think it is a very creative method to deal with these matters, however, which practical, existing, methods would be applied on that note? I very well saw the abstract of the "Negative-CO2-emissions-ocean-thermal-energy-conversion" link - but I did not find any reference to anything already tested-and-tried in regards to the mentioned "electro-chemical-H2-production" - and as such production+storage of H2 has been one of the both most researched and desired thing to do - so far, no practical solutions have so far seen daylight. The storages are still, in 2020, struggling with H2 fizzling out between the atoms of the tanks meant to store the H2. Only solution is cryogenic cooling which - again - is very expensive and not-so-portable. 

I appreciate your expertise in this, however, for a hands-on energy-producer like myself, I would be happy if you could be a bit more concrete, particular if you want, and elaborate on the very practical stages - step by step - in the process you have described, which I find intriguing, mind-boggling and exciting at the same time!

Sincerely
Rational Intuitive Ltd.
David Svarrer
CEO

Jim Baird's picture
Jim Baird on Apr 16, 2020

David,

Electrolysis done at a depth of 1,000 meters produces hydrogen arriving at the surface 100 bar, 70% of the way towards to the 700 bar required for transportation sector. 

The pressurization is logarithmic. 

I don't believe cryogenic cooling is the only  answer.

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »