Climate Change(d)?

[Elixir]

Then again, it was on a stick with no idiot-proofing. As a result the repair was also about $2000 cheaper than it would have been otherwise.

My first thought is your synchros must have been shot already, or you’d never be able to do that …

 

[Jarhyn]

Then again, it was on a stick with no idiot-proofing. As a result the repair was also about $2000 cheaper than it would have been otherwise.

My first thought is your synchros must have been shot already, or you’d never be able to do that …

Yes, they were.

Previously, my husband had been dating someone who utterly destroyed the synchro on 2.

At any rate, it's not the first time I've seen it happen either.

 

[steve_bank]

I just exchanged email with a climate scientist at the University Of Washington. I was curious as to how much global energy production impacts global temperature rise. All energy eventually shows up as heat.

He said relative to greenhouse gases total energy production accounts for about 2%.

I wasn't sure of this and felt like trying to check it on the back of an envelope.

I don't think it's true that ALL energy becomes heat, at least in the near-term. What about energy used to create high-enthalpy substances? What percent of man-produced energy does end up as heat? Call it 60% for now.

Earlier in the thread I noted that the oceans warm by about 10 Zettajoules per year; a large majority of global warming's heat ends up in the oceans. Elsewhere I read that humans consume about 90 million barrels of petroleum per day; round that off to 0.2 Zettajoules per year. Petroleum supplies about one-third of man-used energy (most of the remaining two-thirds is also carbon-based); call it 0.6 Zettajoules total, or about 5% of global warming. If only 60% ends up as heat, that would be 3% — much closer to the professor's number than I'd hoped for, given my back-of-the-envelope and with only one-sig-fig numbers.

What percent of man-made energy DOES finish as heat in the near-term, ignoring plastics etc. that won't degrade for many centuries? Is it indeed close to 100%?

You can do work with a machine to move a rock. The work done equates to a change in gravitational potential energy. There are exceptions. In a cae like that there is still efficiency of the machine which shows up as heat.

I would not post the email without permission.

I was going to approximate it but the total temperature rise in the environment has multiple thermodynamic variables not easily approximated.

There is conduction and convection between air land, and sea. Plus solar absorption and radiation to space. So I sent an email to the chair of atmospheric science at Univ Washington who forwarded it to somebody else who answered.

He said for global temperature rise 2% is due to industrial heat geneated and the rest greenhouse gases.

What you can do is estimate the increase in energy per deg C for the ocean. Then compare it to global energy production.

q = m*c*dT

Mocean = 1.4e21 //kg
Matmos = 5e18
Cp_ocean = 3900 //joules per kilogram


Check the values.

You can look at the total global energy production and assign an eddicency, say 80%.

 

[steve_bank]

I'm too cowardly to try it. Will someone else volunteer to run the experiment?

Tried it (inadvertently) in my 2016 Ford Escape. It (automatic 6 speed) doesn’t try to engage reverse at any forward speed above 3-4 mph.

You must have one of those car repair insurance policies.

 

[steve_bank]

Hilarious;

California’s state legislature voted in the early hours of the morning on the last day of the legislative session to give the state the option to keep Diablo Canyon, its last remaining operating nuclear power plant, open for another five years. The state Senate voted overwhelmingly in favor of the bill, SB-846. The legislation makes it possible for the utility operating the nuclear plant, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, to apply for access to federal funding to keep the nuclear power plant running. The vote is a reversal of previous plans to shut the nuclear power plant down. The nuclear power plant was slated to shut down largely due to anti-nuclear sentiment in the state and a preference for building out renewable power sources, like wind and solar.

NBC

"renewables" just can't cut it but that won't stop nitwit Newsom.

Given that is true for the sake of argument, what do you think we should do?

Consume oil until it is exhausted?
Burn coal?

Ot maybe economics has to change? Practice self restraint on consumption?

Also, has deregulation limited new electricinfrastructure?

 

[TSwizzle]

Hilarious;

California’s state legislature voted in the early hours of the morning on the last day of the legislative session to give the state the option to keep Diablo Canyon, its last remaining operating nuclear power plant, open for another five years. The state Senate voted overwhelmingly in favor of the bill, SB-846. The legislation makes it possible for the utility operating the nuclear plant, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, to apply for access to federal funding to keep the nuclear power plant running. The vote is a reversal of previous plans to shut the nuclear power plant down. The nuclear power plant was slated to shut down largely due to anti-nuclear sentiment in the state and a preference for building out renewable power sources, like wind and solar.

NBC

"renewables" just can't cut it but that won't stop nitwit Newsom.

Given that is true for the sake of argument, what do you think we should do?

For the sake of argument?! ffs sake, there is no argument to be had. "Renewables" just don't cut it as a reliable source of energy. Why would you switch from cheap, reliable energy to flakey "renewables" that can't deliver?!

 

[Jarhyn]

Hilarious;

California’s state legislature voted in the early hours of the morning on the last day of the legislative session to give the state the option to keep Diablo Canyon, its last remaining operating nuclear power plant, open for another five years. The state Senate voted overwhelmingly in favor of the bill, SB-846. The legislation makes it possible for the utility operating the nuclear plant, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, to apply for access to federal funding to keep the nuclear power plant running. The vote is a reversal of previous plans to shut the nuclear power plant down. The nuclear power plant was slated to shut down largely due to anti-nuclear sentiment in the state and a preference for building out renewable power sources, like wind and solar.

NBC

"renewables" just can't cut it but that won't stop nitwit Newsom.

Given that is true for the sake of argument, what do you think we should do?

For the sake of argument?! ffs sake, there is no argument to be had. "Renewables" just don't cut it as a reliable source of energy. Why would you switch from cheap, reliable energy to flakey "renewables" that can't deliver?!

Your bald statement that this is true does not make it actually true.

It's like physical therapy when a motion you make with your hands is damaging your hands: yes learning the new motion is hard and it might not be as quick or efficient, but it sure beats having your hand cease function entirely for a few extra years of "convenience."

 

[steve_bank]

Hilarious;

California’s state legislature voted in the early hours of the morning on the last day of the legislative session to give the state the option to keep Diablo Canyon, its last remaining operating nuclear power plant, open for another five years. The state Senate voted overwhelmingly in favor of the bill, SB-846. The legislation makes it possible for the utility operating the nuclear plant, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, to apply for access to federal funding to keep the nuclear power plant running. The vote is a reversal of previous plans to shut the nuclear power plant down. The nuclear power plant was slated to shut down largely due to anti-nuclear sentiment in the state and a preference for building out renewable power sources, like wind and solar.

NBC

"renewables" just can't cut it but that won't stop nitwit Newsom.

Given that is true for the sake of argument, what do you think we should do?

For the sake of argument?! ffs sake, there is no argument to be had. "Renewables" just don't cut it as a reliable source of energy. Why would you switch from cheap, reliable energy to flakey "renewables" that can't deliver?!

Again


More hand waving to avoid actually taking a position. It is not enough to criticize.

In your opinion what should we do right now. You are governor of Ca, what do you do? Your are president, what do you do?

I never dealt with anything on such a large scale, but I know from experience it is a lot harder to organize people and get something done than it is to sit on the sideleines and criticize.

Yes alternative energy is not likely to support the global economy going forward. Do we continue burning large amounts of fossil fuels?

That is a yes or no.

 

[TSwizzle]

Yes alternative energy is not likely to support the global economy going forward. Do we continue burning large amounts of fossil fuels?

That is a yes or no.

Until there is a viable alternative, yes.

 

[Politesse]

Yes alternative energy is not likely to support the global economy going forward. Do we continue burning large amounts of fossil fuels?

That is a yes or no.

Until there is a viable alternative, yes.

"Viable alternatives" don't just magically come into being. You learn how to make better wind farms by building wind farms, not by signing off on new coal plants.

 

[TSwizzle]

Yes alternative energy is not likely to support the global economy going forward. Do we continue burning large amounts of fossil fuels?

That is a yes or no.

Until there is a viable alternative, yes.

"Viable alternatives" don't just magically come into being.

Where did I say they do?

You learn how to make better wind farms by building wind farms, not by signing off on new coal plants.

Where did I say anything about new coal plants?

 

[Politesse]

Yes alternative energy is not likely to support the global economy going forward. Do we continue burning large amounts of fossil fuels?

That is a yes or no.

Until there is a viable alternative, yes.

"Viable alternatives" don't just magically come into being.

Where did I say they do?

You learn how to make better wind farms by building wind farms, not by signing off on new coal plants.

Where did I say anything about new coal plants?

I personally absolve you of feeling that you have been accused of having said those particular things. Go in peace, my child.

 

[steve_bank]

Yes alternative energy is not likely to support the global economy going forward. Do we continue burning large amounts of fossil fuels?

That is a yes or no.

Until there is a viable alternative, yes.

Nuclear plus renewable. Minimum fossil fuels.

 

[bilby]

I just exchanged email with a climate scientist at the University Of Washington. I was curious as to how much global energy production impacts global temperature rise. All energy eventually shows up as heat.

He said relative to greenhouse gases total energy production accounts for about 2%.

Yeah, waste heat is utterly trivial. The big issue is the equilibrium between insolation, and radiation of that energy back into space; and the main driver of that equilibrium is CO₂ and CH₄ in the atmosphere.

Can't we just lower our CO₂ and CH₄ emissions to deal with this problem. *shifty eyes*

Sure we can.

We just won't.

 

[bilby]

Yes alternative energy is not likely to support the global economy going forward. Do we continue burning large amounts of fossil fuels?

That is a yes or no.

Until there is a viable alternative, yes.

There's been a viable alternative since the 1950s.

 

[bilby]

Yes alternative energy is not likely to support the global economy going forward. Do we continue burning large amounts of fossil fuels?

That is a yes or no.

Until there is a viable alternative, yes.

"Viable alternatives" don't just magically come into being. You learn how to make better wind farms by building wind farms, not by signing off on new coal plants.

How do you get the wind to blow on a calm day?

How many wind farms do we need to build to find out the answer?

 

[bleubird]

So, the best ICE uses 25% of the energy of it's fuel and 75% is lost heat to and friction. Why not burn nat gas to generate electricity? Would it not be better ?

 

[steve_bank]

Entropy and efficiency always apply. If you try and recover waste energy then heat is again generated. Efficiencies multiply. In a thermal system the efficiency is proportional to the temperature difference. The difference between the waste heat temp and ambient sets a limit to efficiency.

The same applies to an electrical system. In the 90s chips appeared to extract energy from anbient RF signals. They are used to power remote sensors.

You can quickly end up with an economically impractical recovery system. If you want to burn waste gas for electricty the amount of energy in the gas has to exceed the efficiency losse or entropy in the system.

There are practical recovery systems. Regenere braking that uses a generator load to slow the car charging a battery. A car at highway speed has a very high kinetic energy which makes regenerative braking practical.

Do all electric vehicles use regenerative braking?


Yes, currently all electric and hybrid vehicles in the US use regenerative braking systems. Electric vehicles run off the stored charge built up once they are plugged into an outlet or charging station. Regenerative braking systems are used to top off the battery, and are very useful for electric and hybrid cars.Apr 8, 2022

Regenerative braking - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[bilby]

So, the best ICE uses 25% of the energy of it's fuel and 75% is lost heat to and friction. Why not burn nat gas to generate electricity? Would it not be better ?

We do. It's better, but that's not the same as good.

The IPCC 2014 data gives the following CO₂ equivalent emissions by energy source for electricity generation (gCO₂eq/kWh):

820 Coal
650 Oil
490 Gas
230 Biomass
235 Solar + Storage*
188 Wind + Storage*
------------------------------
45 Solar when available*
38 Geothermal
24 Hydro
12 Nuclear
11 Wind when available*

Obviously the lower down this list your choice of electricity source appears, the better. Equally obviously, third place is better than first or second, but hardly qualifies as "good". Coal is 68x as bad as Nuclear power, Oil is 54x as bad, while Gas is "only" 41x as bad.

Using Gas to generate electricity, charging a battery, and then using an electric motor to drive a vehicle entails losses at each step; It's typically better just to burn gasoline in an ICE for vehicle power, unless your electricity comes from a low carbon source (<~100gCO₂eq/kWh).

If all current human energy consumption was to fall below that approximately 100gCO₂eq/kWh level, the atmospheric greenhouse gas level would start to decline, rather than increase, due to natural processes that remove carbon dioxide from the air (mostly the activity of photosynthetic organisms). Obviously if global energy consumption doubles, we would need to target <50g, or if it quadruples, <25g, etc.







*Intermittent technologies require storage, unless only used when they happen to be available. According to electricitymap.org, storage in 2021 averaged 253gCO₂eq/kWh of additional emissions. With a capacity factor of 0.3 for wind, and 0.25 for solar, that implies Solar+storage emissions of 235gCO₂eq/kWh; And Wind+Storage emissions of 188gCO₂eq/kWh.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't think it's true that ALL energy becomes heat, at least in the near-term. What about energy used to create high-enthalpy substances? What percent of man-produced energy does end up as heat? Call it 60% for now.

Disagree. 60% seems like a reasonable value for the immediate heat losses that produce nothing. However, of the energy that does produce something useful I think it's only a very tiny percent of that remains locked in the materials. I would be shocked at less than 99% showing up as heat in the near term. Heat is required to make a lot of chemical reactions go but few reactions lock up much of that energy.