Posted by harry k on May 2, 2012, 2:06 pm
> On 5/1/2012 8:00 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:
> > On 5/1/12 4:44 PM, mike wrote:
> >> What if it works and we have infinite cheap energy??
> >> Well...we'll use it.
> >> And much of what we need involves exothermic reactions.
> >> So, who's working on that endothermic process that
> >> will save us from the exothermic process that we
> >> invented to save us from fossil fuels?
> > I think this is a really important question. The new exothermic
> > technologies should be considered as no more than temporary zero-carbon
> > bridges from combustion to unfueled, energy-neutral production methods.
> > As you (and Don Lancaster before you) point out, any technology that
> > releases more heat into the atmosphere than can be radiated away from
> > the planet will lead to catastrophic overheating.
> > We already have some experience in such energy-neutral technologies as
> > wind, solar, and hydro. We'll need to continue and intensify efforts to
> > innovate, discover, and implement new technologies.
> > In the meantime, at least some of the zero-carbon "bridges" may allow us
> > to significantly diminish the human contribution to greenhouse gas
> > production.
> > We may even need to, as Orson Scott Card suggested in one of his novels,
> > use our new-found genetic engineering sciences to develop a hardy plant
> > that produces large white blossoms or large black blossoms, whenever
> > climatic conditions are seriously out of balance...
> There's always the quick fix backup plan...nuclear winter. Also makes
> a big dent in the overpopulation problem. Two birds... ;-(
> >> Or do we just let Mother Nature take care of it by
> >> killing us off.
> I've been reconsidering my position on the severity, but don't know the
> numbers.
> If I burn a BTU worth of coal, I put a BTU worth of heat
> into the environment.
> The greenhouse gasses change the dynamic of the interaction between
> the sun and the earth to cause additional energy
> to enter the biosphere.
> So, I expect a short term increase in the RATE of absorption from the
> sun. And there should be a decrease in this additional component over
> time with some half-life.
> If I integrate all that, how many extra sun BTU's did that BTU of coal
> cost us?
> And there's a related issue about the heat capacity of the system.
> If I could magically bring the earth back into thermal equilibrium,
> then change all energy consumption to clean exothermic energy with
> no greenhouse gasses...
> At the current rate of energy consumption, how long would it take to
> raise the temperature of the atmosphere by one degree??
And the bottom line is that there is no "energy neutral" thing. Any
conversion of energy from one form to another is lossy. Even allowing
for an impossible energy source that is "energy neutral" to produce,
it will still be lossy (read heat producing) when used.
Of course there are 'less lossy" and "more lossy" energy sources
but tere are no "zero lossy" sources and never will be..
Harry K
Posted by Morris Dovey on May 2, 2012, 3:10 pm
On 5/2/12 9:06 AM, harry k wrote:
> And the bottom line is that there is no "energy neutral" thing. Any
> conversion of energy from one form to another is lossy. Even allowing
> for an impossible energy source that is "energy neutral" to produce,
> it will still be lossy (read heat producing) when used.
> Of course there are 'less lossy" and "more lossy" energy sources
> but tere are no "zero lossy" sources and never will be..
Hmm. It /appears/ that you're making the claim that all solar thermal
systems, for example, are "over-unity" devices...
...or did I, or did you, misunderstand?
--
Morris Dovey
http://www.iedu.com/Solar/
http://www.facebook.com/MorrisDovey
Posted by harry k on May 3, 2012, 3:51 am
> On 5/2/12 9:06 AM, harry k wrote:
> > And the bottom line is that there is no "energy neutral" thing. Any
> > conversion of energy from one form to another is lossy. Even allowing
> > for an impossible energy source that is "energy neutral" to produce,
> > it will still be lossy (read heat producing) when used.
> > Of course there are 'less lossy" and "more lossy" energy sources
> > but tere are no "zero lossy" sources and never will be..
> Hmm. It /appears/ that you're making the claim that all solar thermal
> systems, for example, are "over-unity" devices...
> ...or did I, or did you, misunderstand?
> --
> Morris Doveyhttp://www.iedu.com/Solar/http://www.facebook.com/MorrisDovey
You totally misunderstood and for the life of myh I don't see how you
could have.There are no over-unity devices and there are also
no "zero unity" devices as those are also ruled out by the first law
of thermo.
Harry K
Posted by Morris Dovey on May 3, 2012, 5:56 am
On 5/2/12 10:51 PM, harry k wrote:
>> On 5/2/12 9:06 AM, harry k wrote:
>>
>>> And the bottom line is that there is no "energy neutral" thing. Any
>>> conversion of energy from one form to another is lossy. Even allowing
>>> for an impossible energy source that is "energy neutral" to produce,
>>> it will still be lossy (read heat producing) when used.
>>
>>> Of course there are 'less lossy" and "more lossy" energy sources
>>> but tere are no "zero lossy" sources and never will be..
>>
>> Hmm. It /appears/ that you're making the claim that all solar thermal
>> systems, for example, are "over-unity" devices...
>>
>> ...or did I, or did you, misunderstand?
>>
>> --
>> Morris Doveyhttp://www.iedu.com/Solar/http://www.facebook.com/MorrisDovey
> You totally misunderstood and for the life of myh I don't see how you
> could have.There are no over-unity devices and there are also
> no "zero unity" devices as those are also ruled out by the first law
> of thermo.
I did misunderstand completely - I thought you were responding to
something /I/ had said - none of which proposed either over-unity or
"zero unity" (whatever that may be).
Sorry for interrupting - I'll step aside so you can continue your
discussion.
--
Morris Dovey
http://www.iedu.com/Solar/LENR
http://www.facebook.com/MorrisDovey
XML site map
> > On 5/1/12 4:44 PM, mike wrote:
> >> What if it works and we have infinite cheap energy??
> >> Well...we'll use it.
> >> And much of what we need involves exothermic reactions.
> >> So, who's working on that endothermic process that
> >> will save us from the exothermic process that we
> >> invented to save us from fossil fuels?
> > I think this is a really important question. The new exothermic
> > technologies should be considered as no more than temporary zero-carbon
> > bridges from combustion to unfueled, energy-neutral production methods.
> > As you (and Don Lancaster before you) point out, any technology that
> > releases more heat into the atmosphere than can be radiated away from
> > the planet will lead to catastrophic overheating.
> > We already have some experience in such energy-neutral technologies as
> > wind, solar, and hydro. We'll need to continue and intensify efforts to
> > innovate, discover, and implement new technologies.
> > In the meantime, at least some of the zero-carbon "bridges" may allow us
> > to significantly diminish the human contribution to greenhouse gas
> > production.
> > We may even need to, as Orson Scott Card suggested in one of his novels,
> > use our new-found genetic engineering sciences to develop a hardy plant
> > that produces large white blossoms or large black blossoms, whenever
> > climatic conditions are seriously out of balance...
> There's always the quick fix backup plan...nuclear winter. Also makes
> a big dent in the overpopulation problem. Two birds... ;-(
> >> Or do we just let Mother Nature take care of it by
> >> killing us off.
> I've been reconsidering my position on the severity, but don't know the
> numbers.
> If I burn a BTU worth of coal, I put a BTU worth of heat
> into the environment.
> The greenhouse gasses change the dynamic of the interaction between
> the sun and the earth to cause additional energy
> to enter the biosphere.
> So, I expect a short term increase in the RATE of absorption from the
> sun. And there should be a decrease in this additional component over
> time with some half-life.
> If I integrate all that, how many extra sun BTU's did that BTU of coal
> cost us?
> And there's a related issue about the heat capacity of the system.
> If I could magically bring the earth back into thermal equilibrium,
> then change all energy consumption to clean exothermic energy with
> no greenhouse gasses...
> At the current rate of energy consumption, how long would it take to
> raise the temperature of the atmosphere by one degree??