I think this is the beginnings of an economy based on perpetual growth and fossil fuel energy running headlong into geological energy constraints. Basically I see an undulatory downward path for the rest of my life. From here out, I think any rallies in our economic condition are going to be met with spiking commodity prices that knock us right back down.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2051 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 3:40 am Post subject: Re: The Hydrogen economy - The physics
eclipse wrote:
1% of the Sahara deserts = all our electricity.
2% probably = all our energy.
Now imagine we use 1% of ALL the world's deserts.
No... let's increase it.
Now imagine we use 1% of ALL the world's dry land surface of the earth in solar thermal!
Dry land is about 1/4 the earth's surface, the rest is ocean.
That's 1/400th the surface of the earth for a truly enormous amount of renewable, clean electricity.
I say we can't get there fast enough!
You're using erroneous logic. It's similar to some global warming skeptics I've heard, about the tiny emissions of humans, compared to natural variations. It's not about size, it's about impacts. You don't know what they are so why do you assume that you do?
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 3:52 am Post subject: Re: The Hydrogen economy - The physics
Warning: elephant stampede approaching your neighbourhood! I'm selling elephant whistles you see. They work really well, you should buy one. Just blow once a week and no elephants will trouble your neighbourhood. (By the way, I don't have to prove that there's an elephant stampede approaching — because there could be and it would be bad for you so you should worry — you should do what I say and buy my elephant whistle! Don't ask ME to prove the elephants or prove my whistle works... I'm only the one selling the whistle! Think of the ELEPHANTS!!!!!)
This and other alarmist tactics can be quite entertaining, but really only serve to divert from one truth which is: you're the one asserting that there's a problem millions of environmentalists and climatologists have somehow missed, so you're the one with the burden of proof.
I heartily and enthusiastically endorse solar thermal technology, and cannot wait until we shut down our fossil fuels forever. Not only Co2, but soot changes albedo and absorbs more heat... and is the 2nd most serious global warming forcing. The sooner we can get clean and bounce more solar heat out of our deserts the better! _________________ www.eclipsenow.blogspot.com
Free peak oil posters to download, print out, and put up at your local shops and library.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2051 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 4:01 am Post subject: Re: The Hydrogen economy - The physics
eclipse wrote:
This and other alarmist tactics can be quite entertaining, but really only serve to divert from one truth which is: you're the one asserting that there's a problem millions of environmentalists and climatologists have somehow missed, so you're the one with the burden of proof.
No, the ones with the burden of proof are the proposers of any project that consumes, diverts or pollutes natural resources. Why should it be otherwise? If it were, then you would be proposing that we should be allowed to do whatever we want with the natural resources of the world, provided that someone else doesn't prove that it's bad. That is an experiment we've already done, and are in the middle of. It's not turning out too well.
eclipse wrote:
I heartily and enthusiastically endorse solar thermal technology, and cannot wait until we shut down our fossil fuels forever.
Same here, but I urge caution. Let's not rush into the future, as we did in the past.
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 4:51 am Post subject: Re: The Hydrogen economy - The physics
No — ALL the emphasis here is that we MUST rush! That's the only way to solve this problem... and I'm not even sure we have the time.
If solar thermal does anything, it's a tiny loss of albedo to less than 1/400th of the earth's surface. We have far more than offset that with all our Co2, Nitrous Oxides, land clearing, soot, polar ice melting etc.
If you're really worried about that tiny albedo change then consider the "Snowball earth" theory which saw the entire planet covered in glacial ice-sheets just after life had started on this rock. Then consider that the only thing that snapped it out of this state was the volcanoes poking up through the ice and gradually thickening the atmosphere with Co2. The albedo had definitely changed with all that white ice reflecting so much heat... but Co2 won in the end.
Right now it's just not an issue... we are about to kick-start the mother-of-all-bombs, the feedback mechanisms. (Siberian methane cocktail anyone?) That's why I'm alarmed that you appear to be saying "put on the brakes". We need action, exponentially increasing action... at least in the renewable energy market. (We could do with a stabilising and slowly reducing human population and city footprint though). _________________ www.eclipsenow.blogspot.com
Free peak oil posters to download, print out, and put up at your local shops and library.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2051 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 5:45 am Post subject: Re: The Hydrogen economy - The physics
eclipse wrote:
Right now it's just not an issue... we are about to kick-start the mother-of-all-bombs, the feedback mechanisms. (Siberian methane cocktail anyone?) That's why I'm alarmed that you appear to be saying "put on the brakes". We need action, exponentially increasing action... at least in the renewable energy market. (We could do with a stabilising and slowly reducing human population and city footprint though).
Most of them have a significant aesthetic impact and require large areas of land. Some also have a significant impact on the eco-system (birds, fishes, etc.).
Quote:
For decision-makers having to determine the future energy supply, a generally accepted quantification technique of the environmental impact is still lacking.
I agree that there is urgency but why should we let that urgency translate into "do anything, regardless of impacts?" If we need to reduce fossil fuel use, there are other means to do that, as we bring on alternatives in a considered way.
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 4:54 pm Post subject: Re: The Hydrogen economy - The physics
Nothing new here. I've already stated that each solar thermal plant should have its own EIS. (Environmental Impact Statement). If there is a biodiversity concern or local endangered species, of course we'll move the project.
1% of the Sahara desert. 1% of ALL our deserts for ALL our energy needs. Every rooftop with solar PV and solar hot water, as appropriate. Combined heat and power where appropriate. Biochar processing of agriwaste for fuel, fertilizer and ultimately fuel, as appropriate. Decentralised and diverse and local energy, meeting our needs and reducing our impact on the environment... in eco-cities that can get by on half to 1/10th (Richard Register) the energy we use today. That's what I'm campaigning for anyway. _________________ www.eclipsenow.blogspot.com
Free peak oil posters to download, print out, and put up at your local shops and library.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2051 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 5:08 pm Post subject: Re: The Hydrogen economy - The physics
I don't think stating percentages is useful. A statement of the local and global impact of that percentage is what's needed.
I agree about more localised use of solar but we should be trying to reduce the amount needed, rather than trying to generate what we need now (growing in the future). If we can make do with half of the power we use now, that would make the effort more realisable and probably reduce any environmental impact. So good luck with the campaign.
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 7:48 pm Post subject: Re: The Hydrogen economy - The physics
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
Does it matter if the crust absorbs that energy then radiates it out as heat, or if instead of the crust it's reflected off a mirror to heat a substance that spins a turbine in order to make electricity, w/ the energy again turning into heat? Not AFAIK.
But then, you don't know. The research has not been done. I've only seen one proposal that tried to seriously consider environmental impacts, though there wasn't enough detail to determine how much research had been done.
I don't know in the same way I don't know if I'll get crushed by an elephant today, but given the scale involved it would be quite unlikely to see externalities as significant as what we see now. For instance, assuming "we can make do with half of the power we use now, that would make the effort more realisable and probably reduce any environmental impact." We would only reduce externalities such as GHG emissions, by half. According to many scientists on the IPCC panel, that isn't enough. Otoh, a mostly renewable grid and electrified personal transportation, w/ ~20-30% fission, ~40-60% solar thermal, and the rest based on other renewables, would have far fewer if any GHG emissions.
For the US to replace all of the world's electricity production, including what's needed for efficient electric personal transportation, we would need ~30,000 square miles, and at these places the albedo would change from ~.3-.6 to ~.05-.1, which would change the ratio of energy absorbed and radiated to energy reflected. At most, that would mean that we would be increasing the Earth's albedo by ~.1%. And, while I don't know that it wouldn't produce significant negative externalities, the Earth itself has supposedly seen an average of ~.1% change in solar radiation received over the past few billion years, so as proof of concepts go I think it's pretty good, if not absolute.
Course, we could always increase the albedo of man made structures that are currently cover an order of magnitude more land w/ a similar drop in albedo to solar thermal. We've already paved over more than three times the amount of area needed for world electricity consumption/electrified personal transportation w/ asphalt in the US alone, that has an albedo of ~.04. For instance, changing the albedo of roofs in warmer climates would not only reduce the amount of energy they collect, but also reduce the amount of energy needed to cool the house. Not to say that reducing energy consumption at the same time wouldn't be great, just that reducing energy consumption alone isn't enough, we need greater change.
TonyPrep wrote:
You can harp on as much as you want
Please keep OT, If you wish to flame there's a forum for that. _________________
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2051 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:33 pm Post subject: Re: The Hydrogen economy - The physics
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
But then, you don't know. The research has not been done. I've only seen one proposal that tried to seriously consider environmental impacts, though there wasn't enough detail to determine how much research had been done.
I don't know in the same way I don't know if I'll get crushed by an elephant today
It's not the same way at all. What a bizarre thought. Unless you regularly walk under a tightrope walking elephant troupe, you can be fairly certain that an elephant won't fall on you. If it did, it would affect only you and maybe anyone in the immediate vicinity.
yesplease wrote:
but given the scale involved it would be quite unlikely to see externalities as significant as what we see now.
I agree, but that's not what I was arguing anyway. As for scale, well, you are basing your view on what you assume the impact of small scale diversion would be. If that suits you, that's fine, but it proves nothing.
yesplease wrote:
For instance, assuming "we can make do with half of the power we use now, that would make the effort more realisable and probably reduce any environmental impact." We would only reduce externalities such as GHG emissions, by half.
You've misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn't saying let's use fossil fuels but only at half the rate. I was saying lets cut down our energy use and aim for building renewable energy infrastructure only at the level we really need, not what we want.
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
You can harp on as much as you want
Please keep OT, If you wish to flame there's a forum for that.
It wasn't a flame. You missed out the rest of the quote and you are still harping on about the same thing. I said:
Quote:
You can harp on as much as you want about how such tiny variations can have no discernible impact but we really don't know, until corroborative research has been done.
When the science shows what you believe to be the case, then we can build to the limit shown by such research. Until then, we should go very carefully, hopefully learning from our bad assumptions in the past.
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:05 pm Post subject: Re: The Hydrogen economy - The physics
eclipse wrote:
No — ALL the emphasis here is that we MUST rush! That's the only way to solve this problem... and I'm not even sure we have the time.
If solar thermal does anything, it's a tiny loss of albedo to less than 1/400th of the earth's surface. We have far more than offset that with all our Co2, Nitrous Oxides, land clearing, soot, polar ice melting etc.
Worrying about the change in the albedo of earth strikes me as something quite silly. While I'm a proponent of nuclear power, its obvious to me that nuclear power poses a much greater risk in terms of change in the earths environment over the long term than solar thermal.
I realize that many on this forum expect humanity to die off in a century or less to some population of 2 billion with diminished industrial capacity and live like peasants in the middle ages, but I dont. I expect we'll build nuclear power plants across the planet at parity with coal plants in 30 years while continuing economic growth and energy production growth, and in 60 years all large plants will be nuclear. I certainly hope that solar (pv concentrators, solar thermal, whatever) is eventually economic, but I dont delude myself into expecting so.
Solar poses far less risk than nuclear over the long term (outside proliferation concerns) because solar makes use of the energy that the earths environment allready deals with, while nuclear adds new energy entirely to the environment which must be disapated. While this isn't a problem at all at the scale of our industrial civilization of 15 terawatts, it is a risk as our economy and energy use grows several hundred fold to a sizable fraction of the solar flux. I suspect humanity will simply have to deal with a much warmer world even if we sequestered all of the CO2 that we emitted over the industrial era because we will cross the petawatt threshhold into 1-10% of the solar flux. How we deal with this is uncertain.
I suspect much of heavy industry will simply have to move off world for reasons of heat dissapation. In the long term, the machines take over anyways and all biological life is extinguished to make room for the next order.
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:16 pm Post subject: Re: The Hydrogen economy - The physics
Dezakin wrote:
In the long term, the machines take over anyways and all biological life is extinguished to make room for the next order.
Are you Borg? _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 10:10 pm Post subject: Re: The Hydrogen economy - The physics
TonyPrep wrote:
Of course all of the solar budget is spoken for, how could it possibly be any other way?
Exactly. The laws of thermodynamics dictates it to be so. It is all spoken for in an evolutionary ecological system that allows life to even exist.
This is why CO2 has had such a profound impact on climate. It changes the amount of heat re-radiated into space that gives us thermodynamic equilbrium with space.
People said burning fossil fuels wouldn't have an impact.
Tapping solar systems to extract the same btu's as fossil fuels would not have any impact on the solar budget?
How ignorant can you get?
Simple math and thermodynamics are quite clear.
There is no extra solar to be had. It's all tied up in a complex interconnected web of life and thermal systems. Something that currently uses that energy would have to give it up.
Rob the wind of it's energy and what no longer gets that energy? How will this affect weather patterns, dispersal of seeds, etc?
Just like the animals, insects, and plants that must go to allow for human monocultures and totalitarian agriculture.
And we already appropriate 40% of terrestrial NPP from photosynthesis.
How many more of earth's creatures must go hungry to feed our machines?
Remember, many of us want to do this on a scale to replace fossil fuels.
Ever see this chart?
Small print says every year for 50 years. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
