Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The point is: the energy harvested from renewable resources is NOT returned to the atmosphere after use as heat 100%..
Agreed but in the real world most of things we do with electric creates a lot of heat; lighting, heating, electric motors etc. If we take your boulder example where is that going to apply in the real world? Construction would be one but it isn't going to be stored for millions of years either.
Per capita is a term adapted from the Latin phrase pro capite meaning "per (each) head" with pro meaning "per" or "for each", and capite (caput ablative) meaning "head." Both words together equate to the phrase "for each head", i.e. per individual or per person
I guess to clarify I should have said the annual BTU to reach the earths surface. There is slight difference between each total however that would be explained by me using a difference resource with my original calculations. The original post I was quoting is probably a few years old.
If you like BTU units more, the total energy from the Sun reaching the Earth's surface in one year is about 3 x 10^21 BTUs. Compare your estimates (13.6 x 10^21 BTUs) with 3 x 10^21 BTU scientists agreed upon. 4 fold difference.
If you like BTU units more, the total energy from the Sun reaching the Earth's surface in one year is about 3 x 10^21 BTUs. Compare your estimates (13.6 x 10^21 BTUs) with 3 x 10^21 BTU scientists agreed upon. 4 fold difference.
I stand corrected, the number I was using was average for high in the sky sun hence the reason the numbers for the input/ouput of solar panels was accurate.
Regardless your 1% would still mean a 26X increase in BTU's if we were to replace coal and oil with solar panels worldwide and that is assuming the entire world is using 20X what the US uses, it still isn't anywhere near reality.
Agreed but in the real world most of things we do with electric creates a lot of heat; lighting, heating, electric motors etc. If we take your boulder example where is that going to apply in the real world? Construction would be one but it isn't going to be stored for millions of years either.
Everywhere, manufacturing, construction, mining, etc., etc. Whether or not energy exists as something contiguous (as I said, it's a philosophical question) scientists and engineers defined dozens of energies that make sci&engineering trade much easier. For example: surface energy, elastic energy, plastic deformation energy, fracture energy, gravitational energy, potential, electromagnetic, and literally dozens of "energies" only experts know about. HS schools teaches main forms of energy. But every field of sci&eng have its own set of energies to make calculations easier. Energy is not necessarily heat. Renewable energy of sun can be trapped as dozens (if not hundred +) kinds of energies. The point to keep in mind, Earth energy balance is in quasi equilibrium. Trapping (short and/or long term) sizable chunk of Sun energy will affect that equilibrium. Thus, Sun's energy we can use is not as limitless as some want to believe.
I stand corrected, the number I was using was average for high in the sky sun hence the reason the numbers for the input/ouput of solar panels was accurate.
Regardless your 1% would still mean a 26X increase in BTU's if we were to replace coal and oil with solar panels worldwide and that is assuming the entire world is using 20X what the US uses, it still isn't anywhere near reality.
Heat released by burning fossils is a contributing to warming things up, but it's rather small contribution. the main trouble - green house gasses trapping both Sun energy and heat of burning fossils.
As for solar panels, they have the same "little" pesky problem that other "renewables" have - less than satisfactory Energy Input/ Energy Output ratio. As for now, most of renawable are nothing BUT energy transformer/accumulators. Solar panels/wind generators are slowly releasing fossil energy spent to manufacture and install them . You can't built anything "sustainable" around the scheme. And if you try, you got to include abysmal EI/EO ratio in your estimates. So far abundance of fossils disguise the problem. But let's imagine 100% "solar economy" built around EI/EO ratio of 0.95% (very optimistic estimate, right now solar panels are nothing but net energy losers). That means that energy of 95% of solar panels will be used to build, install, maintain solar panels. And if we to include less than stellar efficiency of solar panels (let's go wildly optimistic again and assume it will hit 50% in foreseeable future). 20x2=40. That means if we to go 100% solar today we need to capture 5x10^20 J*40=2x10^22 J of solar energy. That's already close to 1% of Solar energy hitting the Earth every year.
Just so we're on the same page I'm not an advocate of solar, very much the opposite. I'll stick with environmentally friendly coal. It's enviromentally friendly for the oposite reason you're suggesting solar ins't. The coal I use is mined locally and requires very little processing. Add in a 85% efficiency boiler and it's super efficient when you consider total energy consumed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee
But let's imagine 100% "solar economy" built around EI/EO ratio of 0.95% (very optimistic estimate, right now solar panels are nothing but net energy losers).
Source? I would be quite interested. I don't see how it could possibly be that low.
I agree with you because even though we know that Fast Food is pure poison for the human being, fast food is still being consumed everyday. I believe that when we say that we must follow a healthy lifestyle we have to be active, and condemn what is harmful, instead of passively accepting it.
Children are the worst victims of fast food restaurants. This is why so many strange diseases are attacking today’s teens. This is craziness.
What are we talking about? How can we talk about a ‘healthy lifestyle’ if we are feeding our own children with poison? Or letting other children eat poison? Fast food is the worst food for anyone, even for adults. It should be completely forbidden. However, those who hold the global economy in their hands are our leaders. They decide what happens in our world. They don’t want to stop making money by selling poison in a ‘funny style’ to all teens. Teens are excellent customers.
Our planet is being destroyed my numerous pollutions. Our scientists have alerted us Many Times. Wild animals are disappearing… However, we passively observe this destruction, while pretending that we truly believe that we must ‘go green’.
I recycle nothing. I burn my plastic. We own a Ford F-350 6.7 diesel, a GMC Yukon XL with a monstor V-8 and a Jeep Grand Cherokee with the V-8. And I am always passing broken down barely motorized spam cans the left is in love with. We own a Turbocharged T-310 and fly ourselves everywhere burning leaded fuel.
Are you sure that rotting of your corpse would release all the "renewable" energy of food you consumed? How long it would take? If all the energy of ancient laborers is returned to the atmosphere (by now) and Egypt pyramids stay, what could it mean?
Is that you, Normander?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. You can't built anything "sustainable" around the scheme. And if you try, you got to include abysmal EI/EO ratio in your estimates. So far abundance of fossils disguise the problem. But let's imagine 100% "solar economy" built around EI/EO ratio of 0.95% (very optimistic estimate, right now solar panels are nothing but net energy losers). That means that energy of 95% of solar panels will be used to build, install, maintain solar panels. And if we to include less than stellar efficiency of solar panels (let's go wildly optimistic again and assume it will hit 50% in foreseeable future). 20x2=40. That means if we to go 100% solar today we need to capture 5x10^20 J*40=2x10^22 J of solar energy. That's already close to 1% of Solar energy hitting the Earth every year.
