Re: RE: (OT) climate change vs. energy supply

[Guest guest]

>The Olduvai theory may well come into play in time with the global climate

>change scenario. It is defined by the ratio of world energy production and

>population. Basically, it states that industrial civilization has a life

>expectancy up to 100 years. Read the theory here:

><http://greatchange.org/ov-duncan,road_to_olduvai_gorge.html>http://greatchange\

..org/ov-duncan,road_to_olduvai_gorge.html

>

>Accordingly, availability of power (or lack thereof) may supercede any

>concerns about global warming, especially our alleged role in creating it.

>Without energy, no more emissions to foul up the atmosphere. It just won't

>be an issue IF we slide down the slope into darkness. Technology will cease

>to be an option for most anything, at least our present day idea of

>technology, if you hold the theory.

It is interesting, but he really ONLY concentrates on oil. In California they

have

built a " zero sum " house that creates it's own electricity ... and I know people

who live in such houses here in the rainy Northwest. I even know people who

grow most of their own food.

I tend to agree that the current paradigm is unsustainable ... and we really

do need to cut the population. Ursula LeGuin hypothosizes some interesting

post-industrial more-humane societies that are really interesting ... I can see

society becoming more " local " without collapsing. That is kind of happening

in our family ... we get our vegies more and more locally, and one beef a year.

If we solar-roof our house we'd be pretty much independent of the electric

grid. We rarely heat the house: it heats from the sun and it is well insulated

....

we have to open doors and windows to cool it, even in the winter.

Some big companies have solar collectors on the roofs of their buildings

to create hydrogen, which they use to power the company fleet of cars.

The " anything into oil " technology can convert garbage into oil and

recycle toxic waste almost perfectly (and it creates it's own energy

for the process).

The thing is ... the earth has as much energy as it's ever had, and it

is bombarded daily by lots and lots of energy. The fact we've been

relying on oil and coal has a lot to do with the fact that the people

who are selling oil and coal want to take the money and run ... they

have investments and they don't want ot change until they've made

their profit. Since those people have a big influence on our current

government, we don't invest any anything else. But Europe is ...

they are building big " wind farms " at sea that can produce something

like half their electricity. Shoot, if you live in a windy place you can

put a couple of windmills on your roof and generate a fair amount

yourself. Or drill two wells and use the thermal gradient to heat

your house.

Americans over-consume to SUCH a huge degree that if

we cut consumption by half, most of us would hardly

notice. We need a different paradigm.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>In California they have

>built a " zero sum " house that creates it's own electricity

This is all well and good (and I do mean that) but it's just a tiny part of

the problem. Transportation is powered by oil, and of all the uses for oil

out there, that'll be one of the hardest to replace. Also, industry

requires vast amounts of power, and perhaps even more importantly, material

goods require inputs of raw materials, including significant quantities of

fossil fuels. IIRC more than half of the oil we use gets turned into stuff

rather than just burned for power. I'm willing to bet that building that

zero sum house required a ton of fossil fuels.

>Some big companies have solar collectors on the roofs of their buildings

One thing I'd like to know is the oil cost of making solar panels.

>The thing is ... the earth has as much energy as it's ever had,

Uh, no, we've burned a lot of its stored energy.

>Americans over-consume to SUCH a huge degree that if

>we cut consumption by half, most of us would hardly

>notice. We need a different paradigm.

I'm hugely in favor of conservation, but that's just silly. What we

probably could do over time is attain the same level of consumption of

goods and services while cutting the fossil fuel inputs to create those

goods and services in half, but it can't happen overnight.

-

[Guest guest]

>Heidi-

>

>>In California they have

>>built a " zero sum " house that creates it's own electricity

>

>This is all well and good (and I do mean that) but it's just a tiny part of

>the problem. Transportation is powered by oil, and of all the uses for oil

>out there, that'll be one of the hardest to replace.

Currently, this is true. But ... hydrogen powered vehicles do WORK, and oil can

be produced.

Further, we transport MUCH more than is necessary.

I mean, LOOK at your average supermarket. As they say, you only NEED the outer

perimeter. The

rest is fluff (mostly combinations of wheat,corn, sugar, and nifty logos).

> Also, industry

>requires vast amounts of power, and perhaps even more importantly, material

>goods require inputs of raw materials, including significant quantities of

>fossil fuels. IIRC more than half of the oil we use gets turned into stuff

>rather than just burned for power. I'm willing to bet that building that

>zero sum house required a ton of fossil fuels.

Not really. I live in one, mostly. Most of it was human labor and smart

decisions. It is not that

difficult to make a zero-sum house, which is what shocked me. Kind of like how

easy it

is to MAKE probiotics shocked me. It is a paradigm shift, to be sure!

>>Some big companies have solar collectors on the roofs of their buildings

>

>One thing I'd like to know is the oil cost of making solar panels.

It's a good question ... but those panels can last a LONG time. And again, we

can make oil.

>>The thing is ... the earth has as much energy as it's ever had,

>

>Uh, no, we've burned a lot of its stored energy.

We convert the stored carbon into free carbon, which isn't a good thing. Makes

more C02. But there is plenty of energy, for a regular human life. We use only

a fraction of what we can, on our little plot of land, and it is enough. Now, it

depends

on the population, obviously, but currently, there is enough.

>>Americans over-consume to SUCH a huge degree that if

>>we cut consumption by half, most of us would hardly

>>notice. We need a different paradigm.

>

>I'm hugely in favor of conservation, but that's just silly. What we

>probably could do over time is attain the same level of consumption of

>goods and services while cutting the fossil fuel inputs to create those

>goods and services in half, but it can't happen overnight.

Like I said, people are currently overconsuming. Look at the average grocery

store. 3/4 of it

is FLUFF. Not needed. Most of the folks shopping are hugely overweight.

I don't say this lightly. We've cut our household input by about half, with no

real change in lifestyle, except we are more efficient. The WD is a big part of

this ...

I only do salads for lunch, and I use up the leftovers at dinner. We have many

kilocalories of wood waiting to burn, if we need it, from the last ice storm.

But really, what does it take to have a " nice " life? Not as much as i

thought.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Heidi - That is kind of happening in our family ... we get our vegies

more and more locally, and one beef a year.

If we solar-roof our house we'd be pretty much independent of the electric

grid.

Deanna- Our family grows veggies twice a year as our region allows for it.

Also, we have a few fruit trees and blackberries stretching some 75'. I

still have some frozen from last year. Being a former vegan, I have

searched out a local rancher where I will be buying chickens, eggs, a lamb

and some beef - all organic pastured animals. You know, we should solarize

our house, and consider wind generators too.

Heidi- The thing is ... the earth has as much energy as it's ever had, and

it is bombarded daily by lots and lots of energy.

Deanna - Well, technically, the entropy of the universe is always

increasing. Entropy being energy unavailable to do work in an irreversible

cycle. But basically it is true, at least from our little timeline of

existence as humans. Also, the weight of the earth is pretty constant as

well, even with all these people on it! Oh yes, we should harness the solar

wind for energy, as it bombards us constantly.

Heidi- But Europe is ...

they are building big " wind farms " at sea that can produce something

like half their electricity. Shoot, if you live in a windy place you can

put a couple of windmills on your roof and generate a fair amount

yourself. Or drill two wells and use the thermal gradient to heat

your house.

Americans over-consume to SUCH a huge degree that if

we cut consumption by half, most of us would hardly

notice. We need a different paradigm.

Deanna- Europe has prices and taxes that encourage conservation of energy.

When I lived in the UK it was just so different - smaller cars,

refrigerators, people. Consumption is a big problem here in the US, on many

fronts. If prices were higher, we might conserve. Adieu

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>Currently, this is true. But ... hydrogen powered vehicles do WORK, and

>oil can be produced.

We've had our argument over everything-into-oil technology, but while

hydrogen-powered vehicles work, there are some significant technological

and practical problems you're not considering. First there's storage of

hydrogen. It tends to destroy its containers because hydrogen atoms are so

small they infiltrate virtually any material. Freezing it is only a

partial solution and creates its own problems, because you wind up having

clogged valves which can lead to huge explosions. And even if these

problems could be solved overnight, you still have to deal with network

effects. Because there are no hydrogen vehicles, there are no hydrogen

filling stations, and because there are no filling stations, people are

going to resist buying hydrogen vehicles. IF we were to switch to hydrogen

for vehicles, it would take a lot of time, time we don't necessarily

have. I've been keeping up on fossil fuel discoveries and production, and

we're going to run off a cliff soon.

>Further, we transport MUCH more than is necessary.

>

>I mean, LOOK at your average supermarket. As they say, you only NEED the

>outer perimeter. The

>rest is fluff (mostly combinations of wheat,corn, sugar, and nifty logos).

On one hand I agree with you, but not, I think, for the reasons you're

referring to. We transport more than is necessary because agriculture

should be much more local than it is, but if everyone switched to healthy

local eating, groceries wouldn't magically disappear, they'd just be

replaced by good stuff (and probably a good deal of them wouldn't wind up

in the grocery store in the first place). But again, how likely is

this? Especially in the near term of a decade?

>Not really. I live in one, mostly.

Is your house like their house?

And even if it is, what's it actually made of? I watch lots of people make

houses from all kinds of hideous things, like used tires. Now, on one

hand, I admire their desire to recycle, but on the other hand, ARE THEY

FRICKIN CRAZY OR WHAT?

>We convert the stored carbon into free carbon, which isn't a good thing. Makes

>more C02. But there is plenty of energy, for a regular human life. We use only

>a fraction of what we can, on our little plot of land, and it is enough.

>Now, it depends

>on the population, obviously, but currently, there is enough.

You're looking at all of this in a weird way, but aside from the fact that

your first point is incorrect (we've burned the fossil fuels -- that energy

is gone) I'm not sure what your point is. We can all go back to living in

primitive tribal societies? Yeah, I suppose, if we survive the period

during which we'll have to learn how to do everything all over again, and

if the wholesale destruction of soil fertility and ecosystems doesn't

preclude returning to that sort of life, but that's hardly a desirable goal.

>Like I said, people are currently overconsuming. Look at the average

>grocery store. 3/4 of it

>is FLUFF. Not needed. Most of the folks shopping are hugely overweight.

And most of that excess weight isn't from excess consumption but from

consumption of bad things which interfere with their hormones and metabolisms.

-

[Guest guest]

>Deanna- Europe has prices and taxes that encourage conservation of energy.

>When I lived in the UK it was just so different - smaller cars,

>refrigerators, people. Consumption is a big problem here in the US, on many

>fronts. If prices were higher, we might conserve. Adieu

It is true, their paradigm is different. I lived there for awhile,

and didn't have a car, and didn't NEED a car. I loved it! Their

cities are basically zoned for foot traffic. Also their social

fabric is such that generally, people come first, corporations

second, and here it is the reverse.

Here, we are pushed to consume. The local lite rail we had was

CLOSED in the '30s after pressuring from the car companies

(this is documented). Our stores are huger, have more stuff

to buy, and we are constantly bombarded by advertising. Most

people don't cook meals, we are a " fast food " society. Anyway,

our American lifestyle is unsustainable, but I don't think that

is a bad thing! I'll be happy to see it scaled back to something

more human.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>Heidi-

>

>>Currently, this is true. But ... hydrogen powered vehicles do WORK, and

>>oil can be produced.

>

>We've had our argument over everything-into-oil technology, but while

>hydrogen-powered vehicles work, there are some significant technological

>and practical problems you're not considering. First there's storage of

>hydrogen. It tends to destroy its containers because hydrogen atoms are so

>small they infiltrate virtually any material.

Well, I don't know all the science, but it is being done. And fuel cells.

And they've even come up with a " safe " nuclear reactor technology

that can't have meltdowns, as a last resort.

> IF we were to switch to hydrogen

>for vehicles, it would take a lot of time, time we don't necessarily

>have. I've been keeping up on fossil fuel discoveries and production, and

>we're going to run off a cliff soon.

It might take some time ... but look at the vehicles on the road. Few of them

are

over 5 years old. SOMEHOW people manage to " retool " their cars rather

quickly. Gas stations too ... seems like every gas station in our town has

been rebuilt since I moved here. Europe was bombed to rubble after WW2,

and rebuilt 10 years later.

Now, should we start retooling NOW instead of running off a cliff? Yeah!

Why does the gov't bury it's head in the sand? I dunno. I suspect because

the oil guys want to sell every last drop at the highest possible price.

But think about it ... somehow people lived before we got reliant on oil.

We had technology even. The oil thing is very recent, and cars are REALLY

recent, only the last 50 years or so have they really taken over.

I guess I'm old enough to have lived thru a few paradigm shifts ...

they happen REALLY FAST. Every time one happens, people say

" life as we know it is coming to an end! " So far, it hasn't, but

things did change real fast and sometimes it wasn't very comfortable.

The problem with the " crash and burn " scenario is that, most

of the time, it doesn't happen ... people tend to self-organize,

even in countries that have been torn by civil war or bombed

back to the stone ages. I'm not saying it CAN'T happen, but if

you look at Japan or Germany after WW2, or Viet Nam, or

any of the other countries ripped apart, they rebuild, they don't

degenerate back to the stone ages. This country, 200 years ago,

was mostly UNPOPULATED ... everything you see was built

not long ago at all, and much of it pre-oil.

>>Further, we transport MUCH more than is necessary.

>>

>>I mean, LOOK at your average supermarket. As they say, you only NEED the

>>outer perimeter. The

>>rest is fluff (mostly combinations of wheat,corn, sugar, and nifty logos).

>

>On one hand I agree with you, but not, I think, for the reasons you're

>referring to. We transport more than is necessary because agriculture

>should be much more local than it is, but if everyone switched to healthy

>local eating, groceries wouldn't magically disappear, they'd just be

>replaced by good stuff (and probably a good deal of them wouldn't wind up

>in the grocery store in the first place). But again, how likely is

>this? Especially in the near term of a decade?

Again, look at WW2. Massive shortages. People planted " victory gardens " . Most of

the men were GONE and the women took over. In Mendicino county,

in the 70's, a lot of hippie-artist types moved in and they retooled the town

....

started grazing goats in the front yards, growing vegies etc. And I lived thru

the 70's when there were massive gas and sugar shortages (though I really

can't see how they were real shortages ... anyway, gas was hard to get). Society

changed pretty quickly ... suddenly there were more buses, more carpools,

you could work from home more.

But besides the transportation, look at the FOOD in the market. Most of it

has been processed to the max, which takes huge machines. I mean, you

can buy 100 lbs of almost any grain, or beans, for a few bucks, and that will

feed a family for months. You can buy dried fish or dried vegies pretty cheap

too. Lettuce and vegies people used to grow more than they bought it.

But people don't buy grain that way (though they used to) ... they buy corn

pops, pop tarts, etc. So each 100 calories of food value has a HUGE amount

of processing going into it.

I kind of doubt we are going to run out of oil in the next decade though, esp.

if they get their heads out of the sand and start retooling. If we have

a massive breakdown, it will probably be the climate. Good time to build

a greenhouse and get a chicken flock going. But yeah, things could collapse

if too much happened too fast, esp. if we don't have wise leaders. Our

current leaders think the world is going to end soon anyway, which isn't

heartening.

>>Not really. I live in one, mostly.

>

>Is your house like their house?

>

>And even if it is, what's it actually made of? I watch lots of people make

>houses from all kinds of hideous things, like used tires. Now, on one

>hand, I admire their desire to recycle, but on the other hand, ARE THEY

>FRICKIN CRAZY OR WHAT?

My house is made of normal stuff, lots of spun glass in the walls. The best

houses for

insulation are made of hay bales ... RF50 or so, virtually fireproof. A lot of

straw is currently

burned, in some parts of the world, so it's an easy resource. Some straw bale

houses are

100 years old and going strong. Ours isn't that energy efficient, but sheesh,

it's 74 degrees

all year long, and it isn't that technologically advanced. Our house before this

one

we had to crank up the heat all year. Really, it's not that hard to do.

>>We convert the stored carbon into free carbon, which isn't a good thing. Makes

>>more C02. But there is plenty of energy, for a regular human life. We use only

>>a fraction of what we can, on our little plot of land, and it is enough.

>>Now, it depends

>>on the population, obviously, but currently, there is enough.

>

>You're looking at all of this in a weird way, but aside from the fact that

>your first point is incorrect (we've burned the fossil fuels -- that energy

>is gone) I'm not sure what your point is. We can all go back to living in

>primitive tribal societies? Yeah, I suppose, if we survive the period

>during which we'll have to learn how to do everything all over again, and

>if the wholesale destruction of soil fertility and ecosystems doesn't

>preclude returning to that sort of life, but that's hardly a desirable goal.

I think you must live in the city! Right now we are producing way too much food,

and shipping it to other countries and ruining their farmers. And producing most

of it

on super farms in a few areas of the country, while the rest of the country goes

fallow. It's stupid, and it is a recent development. Where I live are hundreds

of acres

of good land, all lying vacant because they can't compete with the corporate

farms

in the East. But me buying food from my local farmers is hardly going back to a

tribal

life, it's just going back 50 years or so to the pre-corporate-food days. My

neighbors

WERE more or less self-sufficient on food until fairly recently ... a person

would

buy flour and sugar, salt and spices, and grow most of the rest.

As for looking at it in a weird way, that IS how the scientists look at global

warming. The

issue is, how much carbon is in the biosphere. It was a fairly fixed amount

until

we started pumping it out from underground. It gets recycled between CO2 and

plant structures.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@@@@@

--- In , Heidi Schuppenhauer

Now, should we start retooling NOW instead of running off a cliff?

Yeah!

Why does the gov't bury it's head in the sand? I dunno. I suspect

because

the oil guys want to sell every last drop at the highest possible

price.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

I never really thought about that phrase (head/sand) before, but

other than the pleasure of permitting myself a literal visual image,

I must say it's a strikingly fine choice!

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

[Guest guest]

Heidi,

Complaints tend toward over population in third world countries. Granted

there aren't enough resources and/ or money to support populations of these

areas. In comparison to one middle class American's consumption in a

lifetime money and energywise, likely 100 or more people can live in a third

world country and not make the same impact on the planet.

> I tend to agree that the current paradigm is unsustainable ... and we

really

> do need to cut the population.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

> Now, should we start retooling NOW instead of running off a cliff?

> Yeah!

> Why does the gov't bury it's head in the sand? I dunno. I suspect

> because

> the oil guys want to sell every last drop at the highest possible

> price.

Heidi,

This thread and others got me thinking about the Ishmael series of books by

Quinn. Read first 3 about 10 years ago. This parable illustrates what

you've said here.

http://www.ishmael.com/Education/Parables/SinkingShip.shtml

Sinking Ship

The ship was sinking---and sinking fast. The captain told the passengers

and crew, " We've got to get the lifeboats in the water right away. "

But the crew said, " First we have to end capitalist oppression of the

working class. Then we'll take care of the lifeboats. "

Then the women said, " First we want equal pay for equal work. The

lifeboats can wait. "

The racial minorities said, " First we need to end racial discrimination.

Then seating in the lifeboats will be allotted fairly. "

The captain said, " These are all important issues, but they won't matter a

damn if we don't survive. We've got to lower the lifeboats right away! "

But the religionists said, " First we need to bring prayer back into the

classroom. This is more important than lifeboats. "

Then the pro-life contingent said, " First we must outlaw abortion. Fetuses

have just as much right to be in those lifeboats as anyone else. "

The right-to-choose contingent said, " First acknowledge our right to

abortion, then we'll help with the lifeboats. "

The socialists said, " First we must redistribute the wealth. Once that's

done everyone will work equally hard at lowering the lifeboats. "

The animal-rights activists said, " First we must end the use of animals in

medical experiments. We can't let this be subordinated to lowering the

lifeboats. "

Finally the ship sank, and because none of the lifeboats had been lowered,

everyone drowned.

The last thought of more than one of them was, " I never dreamed that

solving humanity's problems would take so long---or that the ship would sink

so SUDDENLY. "

Wanita

[Guest guest]

>Heidi,

>

>Complaints tend toward over population in third world countries. Granted

>there aren't enough resources and/ or money to support populations of these

>areas. In comparison to one middle class American's consumption in a

>lifetime money and energywise, likely 100 or more people can live in a third

>world country and not make the same impact on the planet.

>

>Wanita

This is true, they live a lot cheaper there. But if the climate

varies a lot (and it will) they are also more likely to starve.

So it may not have a huge impact on the planet, but from a humane

point of view, it's better not to be living so much " on the edge " .

And some of those countries are poised to start increasing their lifestyles,

and when their populations get dense they tend to move into other

countries (much of the increase in the US population is from immigration).

Like, India has a poor, dense population, and now it is getting industrialized.

Ditto with China. THAT will have a big impact if they start living like us!

Thailand has done a good job of curbing population growth without

being draconian or coercive about it, which is a good model, I think.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>The last thought of more than one of them was, " I never dreamed that

>solving humanity's problems would take so long---or that the ship would sink

>so SUDDENLY. "

>

> Wanita

That is a good parable. Sounds like a good set of books ...

(Actually that is kindof what DID happen on the

Titanic ...).

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " Heidi Schuppenhauer " <heidis@...>

> >The last thought of more than one of them was, " I never dreamed that

> >solving humanity's problems would take so long---or that the ship

would sink

> >so SUDDENLY. "

> >

> > Wanita

>

> That is a good parable. Sounds like a good set of books ...

>

> (Actually that is kindof what DID happen on the

> Titanic ...).

Are you talking about those scenes in Cameron's " Titanic " with the

captain shooting the passengers and the third-class passengers being

locked up? Never happened.

http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,2832,00.html

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/25/04 7:07:40 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> You're looking at all of this in a weird way, but aside from the fact that

> your first point is incorrect (we've burned the fossil fuels -- that energy

> is gone)

,

You'd need a calculation of massive scale that I certainly don't know how to

undertake in order to determine whether we've had a net influx or eflux of

free energy.

While the free energy of the universe is in constant decline, due to the

transformation of potential and kinetic energies to heat energy, the system of

earth is constantly increasing its free energy through the activity of its

biological systems.

It may be that the energy in fossil fuels has been lost to heat but is

insignificant compared to the influx of light energy and its subsequent

conversion

to chemical energy by biological systems, and it may even be that the influx of

this energy surpasses the loss of energy through fossil fuel burning,

resulting in a net increase of free energy, rather than decrease, of the earth

system.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/25/04 7:36:40 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> As for looking at it in a weird way, that IS how the scientists look at

> global warming. The

> issue is, how much carbon is in the biosphere. It was a fairly fixed amount

> until

> we started pumping it out from underground. It gets recycled between CO2 and

>

> plant structures.

Heidi,

I think you're missing a component of the calculation. When fossil fuels are

burned, some of that energy is lost as heat energy, which can theoretically

be harnessed, but much of it is evolved out of the system without using it and

is not recycled.

However, you hint at an interesting point-- that increased CO2 from the

atmosphere will lead to increased harnessing of light energy by biological

systems,

so increased fossil fuel use could *theoretically* cause an increase in free

energy, rather than a decrease.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/26/04 4:46:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> That doesn't have anything to do with global warming or weather

> destabilization

> though. The earth radiates heat and it stores heat, but the daily amount of

> heat

> that comes from burning anything (as compared to the amount hitting us

> from the sun) isn't a big part of the equation.

I didn't say it was big, I said it was part of it.

> The gases in the air though ... methane and CO2 ... affect how quickly the

> earth radiates heat. Again, the amount of energy hitting us daily is huge,

> and the amount that gets radiated is huge. The amount we use to fuel

> our cars and lights and bodies is just a little fraction of that. The whole

> problem with global warming is that the earth ISN'T radiating as much

> heat as it was, apparently, it is being retained.

My understanding is it actually affects how *much* heat is radiated. In any

case, if a huge amount comes in, and a huge amount leaves, then to the extent

the amounts are equal, the net change is zero. So your perspective is a

little off-kilter here. The sun is a factor to the extent that either it or the

infrared radiation of the earth exceed the other. To the extent they are close,

no matter how large the two values are, the sun is a small factor.

So fossil fuel burning or biological storage of free energy is either large

or small relative to the *difference* between the magnitude of influx and eflux

of radiative energy, not the total.

> Again, free energy isn't really the issue.

It's the ONLY issue, because it's the one we're talking about. You said the

amount of energy on earth remains roughly equal, and claimed it declines.

That's the only issue there is-- free energy.

Though, when a plant grows it

> is creating *stored* energy (in the form of carbohydrates and fats) which

> can be used as energy (burned, made into ethanol, made into oil, fermented

> to make burnable methane).

Umm, yeah, that's free energy.

> Possibly in the past, when CO2 levels went up, the forests grew quicker and

>

> then CO2 levels went down again. But we are also cutting down the forests,

> so our " CO2 sink " isn't working.

This is a tangent, but we have no idea how well our " CO2 sink " is working,

because there's been no examination of the impact of aquatic biota.

> However, it may be that the Atlantic current will reverse (it seems to be

> slowing down, maybe because of the glaciers melting and changing the currents)

> in which case we are in for an ice age and it will be hard to grow plants

> ...

Maybe, in which case the extra CO2 would help out, but I'm not trying to

discuss global warming. I was just making a comment on the issue of whether

fossil fuel burning significantly lowers the free energy of the earth system.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>> As for looking at it in a weird way, that IS how the scientists look at

>> global warming. The

>> issue is, how much carbon is in the biosphere. It was a fairly fixed amount

>> until

>> we started pumping it out from underground. It gets recycled between CO2 and

>>

>> plant structures.

>

>Heidi,

>

>I think you're missing a component of the calculation. When fossil fuels are

>burned, some of that energy is lost as heat energy, which can theoretically

>be harnessed, but much of it is evolved out of the system without using it and

>is not recycled.

Chris:

That doesn't have anything to do with global warming or weather destabilization

though. The earth radiates heat and it stores heat, but the daily amount of heat

that comes from burning anything (as compared to the amount hitting us

from the sun) isn't a big part of the equation.

The gases in the air though ... methane and CO2 ... affect how quickly the

earth radiates heat. Again, the amount of energy hitting us daily is huge,

and the amount that gets radiated is huge. The amount we use to fuel

our cars and lights and bodies is just a little fraction of that. The whole

problem with global warming is that the earth ISN'T radiating as much

heat as it was, apparently, it is being retained.

>However, you hint at an interesting point-- that increased CO2 from the

>atmosphere will lead to increased harnessing of light energy by biological

systems,

>so increased fossil fuel use could *theoretically* cause an increase in free

>energy, rather than a decrease.

Again, free energy isn't really the issue. Though, when a plant grows it

is creating *stored* energy (in the form of carbohydrates and fats) which

can be used as energy (burned, made into ethanol, made into oil, fermented

to make burnable methane). When CO2 levels go up, it is easier to grow

plants. And if you aren't growing plants for, say, optimal nutrition

but all you want is some plant matter to turn into oil or ethanol, you can grow

plants

quickly in just about any kind of soil. Plants make great solar

collectors!

Possibly in the past, when CO2 levels went up, the forests grew quicker and

then CO2 levels went down again. But we are also cutting down the forests,

so our " CO2 sink " isn't working.

However, it may be that the Atlantic current will reverse (it seems to be

slowing down,

maybe because of the glaciers melting and changing the currents)

in which case we are in for an ice age and it will be hard to grow plants ...

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>My understanding is it actually affects how *much* heat is radiated. In any

>case, if a huge amount comes in, and a huge amount leaves, then to the extent

>the amounts are equal, the net change is zero. So your perspective is a

>little off-kilter here. The sun is a factor to the extent that either it or

the

>infrared radiation of the earth exceed the other. To the extent they are

close,

>no matter how large the two values are, the sun is a small factor.

Well, exactly, the net change SHOULD be zero, but it isn't, because of

the greenhouse effect (or some other as yet unknown cause). The

main cause of the difference seems to be reflectivity of the earth's

surface, because of gases and because of the amount of white

surface (glaciers) and other factors.

The " infrared radiation of the earth " is basically the sun being

reflected back, so I can't see how the " sun is a small factor " .

The earth has some stored heat from way back when, but

that's been radiating at a fixed rate for a long time.

>So fossil fuel burning or biological storage of free energy is either large

>or small relative to the *difference* between the magnitude of influx and eflux

>of radiative energy, not the total.

Except that the scientists disagree with you here. The release of human-made

heat isn't the major issue here, it is the release of CO2 and methane, and

the loss of glaciers and forests.

>> Again, free energy isn't really the issue.

>

>It's the ONLY issue, because it's the one we're talking about. You said the

>amount of energy on earth remains roughly equal, and claimed it declines.

>That's the only issue there is-- free energy.

was talking about:

1. " energy " in the form of oil ... which isn't

free energy, it is stored energy.

2. The total amount of energy doesn't

change in the universe ... the amount on earth varies a little because

of radiation.

3. The amount of energy as it pertains to global warming

is energy in the form of heat, which is primarily affected by the

amount of above-ground CO2.

Those are 3 different things

and they are getting convoluted here.

>Though, when a plant grows it

>> is creating *stored* energy (in the form of carbohydrates and fats) which

>> can be used as energy (burned, made into ethanol, made into oil, fermented

>> to make burnable methane).

>

>Umm, yeah, that's free energy.

So you call energy stored as carbs " free energy " ? Maybe we need another

term ... heat and light are radiant energy, movement is kinetic energy,

carbs/oil are stored

energy. In any event, the sum total of all of them doesn't change significantly.

It's one of those laws of thermodynamics. Certainly oil is a more CONVENIENT

form of energy.

>Maybe, in which case the extra CO2 would help out, but I'm not trying to

>discuss global warming. I was just making a comment on the issue of whether

>fossil fuel burning significantly lowers the free energy of the earth system.

OK, so how do you define " free energy " ? I think we are defining it differently.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Heidi,

> Well, exactly, the net change SHOULD be zero, but it isn't, because of

> the greenhouse effect (or some other as yet unknown cause). The

> main cause of the difference seems to be reflectivity of the earth's

> surface, because of gases and because of the amount of white

> surface (glaciers) and other factors.

And oceans and other stuff, but that's irrelevnat from the point I'm making,

which is that if the influx and eflux of energy from the sun is even of

remotely similar magnitude, it is the difference that must be compared to fossil

fuel use, not the addition of the two.

>

> The " infrared radiation of the earth " is basically the sun being

> reflected back, so I can't see how the " sun is a small factor " .

> The earth has some stored heat from way back when, but

> that's been radiating at a fixed rate for a long time.

And I, in turn, do not see how you cannot see this.

Lets ascribe some non-unit arbitrary values to these things:

Fossil fuel use -- 5 per day

Photosynthetic increase in free energy -- 5 per day

Influx of energy from the sun -- 1000 per day

Eflux of radiative energy from the earth -- 990 per day.

Even though the combined total magnitude of the influx and eflux figures is

nearly 200 times the combined total magnitude of fossil fuel use and

photosynthesis, this is irrelevant, because we care about direction as well as

magnitude.

When you take into consideration that the eflux is negative while the influx

is positive, and that the fossil fuel use is negative while photosynthesis is

positive,

You have 1000 + 5 -- (990 + 5) = 10. So, a 20% increase in the rate of

photosynthesis would yield a 10% increase in the total free energy of the earth

system.

This is very significant, whereas if you look at it your way, that a 20%

increase in photosyntheis represents 0.0005% of the energy being dealt with, it

seems deceptively small.

You could think of it analagous to a profit margin. If a company has a tiny

profit margin of 2% (say, a restaurant), and they expend $1,000,000 per year,

and receive $1,020,000 in revenue per year, the total money coming in and out

is $2,020,000. It would thus seem, in comparison, that a savings of $1,000 in

expenditures would be relatively insignificant, representing only 0.05% of

the total cash flow. But when you consider that the profit is only $20,000, a

savings of $1,000 represents a 5.0% increase in profit.

>

> >So fossil fuel burning or biological storage of free energy is either large

>

> >or small relative to the *difference* between the magnitude of influx and

> eflux

> >of radiative energy, not the total.

>

> Except that the scientists disagree with you here. The release of human-made

> heat isn't the major issue here, it is the release of CO2 and methane, and

> the loss of glaciers and forests.

Sure, if you want to completely change the subject and act like we've been

talking about it all along. I don't care about global warming and I'm not

commenting on it at all, period. I made one comment about the net energy loss

or

gain or homeostasis and its relationship to the use of fossil fuels, and the

comment I responded to was a sub-discussion between you and that was

entirely independent from global warming.

> was talking about:

>

> 1. " energy " in the form of oil ... which isn't

> free energy, it is stored energy.

Wrong.

> 2. The total amount of energy doesn't

> change in the universe ... the amount on earth varies a little because

> of radiation.

Irrelevant.

> 3. The amount of energy as it pertains to global warming

> is energy in the form of heat, which is primarily affected by the

> amount of above-ground CO2.

It wouldn't matter to our discussion whether the heat stayed in the earth's

atmosphere or left, because the heat energy is evolved from the system (if we

define the system as what's available for use) either way, and therefore

represents lost free energy.

> So you call energy stored as carbs " free energy " ?

Yes, but it's not my definition, it's the definition of thermodynamics.

Maybe we need another

> term ... heat and light are radiant energy, movement is kinetic energy,

> carbs/oil are stored

> energy.

No, " free energy " works just fine. It means the energy available to be

applied-- and carbs and oil are both free energy because they can be burned to

release the stored energy.

> In any event, the sum total of all of them doesn't change significantly.

Who knows? That's my point-- neither you nor I have the resources to make

that calculation.

> It's one of those laws of thermodynamics.

No, it isn't. The first law of thermodynamics states that energy of the

universe remains constant, but that says nothing about the energy of a

particular

system or the energy of it's surroundings. Energy can be evolved from a

system to its surroundings, and, from the perspective of the system, that

represents a net loss of energy. From the perspective of the surroundings,

which

constitute some other system, it's a net gain of energy.

> OK, so how do you define " free energy " ? I think we are defining it

> differently.

Free energy is the product of the temperature in Kelvin and the entropy of a

system subtracted from the enthalpy of the system. It could also be defined

as the opposite of the entropy of the universe (that is, having equal magnitude

but opposite sign).

Thus, for any reaction, the change in free energy is the change in enthalpy

minus the change in (temperature multiplied by the change in entropy), which

also represents the opposite of the change in entropy of the universe.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/27/04 11:38:31 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Heidi >OK, so that is the issue ... I didn't realize you were commenting

> on a sort of tangent (I wasn't trying to change the subject, I just didn't

> realize

> the subject had been changed. So, if you are commenting only on the net

> energy of the earth ... then I don't know, I'm not commenting

> on that (and wasn't at the time, other than to say that I think

> there IS enough energy if we use it well, because the amount coming

> IN is huge).

To tell you the truth, I wasn't paying a whole lot of attention to the

original discussion. I admit I jumped in on a tangent. But I replied

specifically

to the portion of your post that dealt with that tangent.

>

> As for " free energy " -- you are coming from a physics background, ok,

> that's a good definition. I think back in the Dark Ages when I was in

> school the energy stored in a molecule was more " potential " or " stored "

> energy until it got released.

No no, you're right-- it's just that there's no conflict. This is more of a

chemistry/biology thing than physics, but anyway-- you're thinking of the

difference between potential and kinetic energy. That's got nothing to do with

" free " and " unfree " energy.

>

> So if oil is in the ground, there is no chemical reaction taking place, so

> to my mind it is " stored " or " potential " .

No, you misunderstood the definition you posted, because you missed the

" delta " signs. The " delta G " means the *change* in free energy, not the free

energy.

" Potential energy " can be contrasted with " kinetic energy " " heat energy "

" sound " etc, (which are all sorts of kinetic energy) but this distinction has

nothing to do with the " freeness " of free energy.

Essentially what the " free " means is that it hasn't yet crossed its entropic

gradient. Free energy of a system is the opposite of entropy of the universe,

and sinse the entropy of the universe tends to increase, Something with low

entropy can be used to harness energy from its tendency to cross down its

entropic gradient. So it is " free " , in a crude sense, in the sense that it is

low

in entropy, and will therefore tend to increase its entropy. Once it does,

that energy isn't available for work anymore, but exists as entropy. That's

crude and a little simplistic maybe but it's the crux.

>

> Other people use the term to mean " energy you can get easily " as in:

>

> http://www.gyogyitokezek.hu/fe/definition.htm

> The term “free energy†suggests that it should be some kind of energy that

> is free, i.e. it does not cost anything.

>

> Now the question is, for whom it is free and in what sense. For example the

> source of energy is free for a hydroelectric PowerStation, since the river

> supplies the energy for no charge. But it is not free for the consumer. From

> the other point of view we can say that the wind energy is free for anyone in

> the sense that the energy source (as kinetic energy) is free (unlike the

> gasoline). But in order to utilize it for useful purposes, we need an energy

> converter, which would cost some money. So finally not even the seemingly free

> energy is really free.

They are either using it in an entirely different context for an entirely

different purpose or have a massive misunderstanding of the term.

>

> The only really free energy in strict sense is the energy directly received

> from the nature, and utilized without any artificial aid or anybody’s paid

> cooperation. We utilize such energy while taking a sunbathe, when there is no

> need to convert the energy of the sunlight to an other form (or to buy it from

> someone).

They're using " free " in an economic sense, but that has nothing to do with

Gibbs free energy.

> Which probably isn't relevant to what you are talking about, but it is

> relevant

> to the original discussion.

Sort of... but yeah, nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> Sure, if you want to completely change the subject and act like we've

been

talking about it all along. I don't care about global warming and I'm not

commenting on it at all, period. I made one comment about the net energy loss

or

gain or homeostasis and its relationship to the use of fossil fuels, and the

comment I responded to was a sub-discussion between you and that was

entirely independent from global warming.

Heidi > OK, so that is the issue ... I didn't realize you were commenting

on a sort of tangent (I wasn't trying to change the subject, I just didn't

realize

the subject had been changed. So, if you are commenting only on the net

energy of the earth ... then I don't know, I'm not commenting

on that (and wasn't at the time, other than to say that I think

there IS enough energy if we use it well, because the amount coming

IN is huge).

As for " free energy " -- you are coming from a physics background, ok,

that's a good definition. I think back in the Dark Ages when I was in

school the energy stored in a molecule was more " potential " or " stored "

energy until it got released.

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/Gibbs+free+energy

The total amount of energy which is either used up or released during a

<http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary//dictionary/chemical+reaction>chemica\

l reaction. Gibbs free energy (delta G) = (delta H) - t (delta S): where (delta

H) is the change in

<http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary//dictionary/enthalpy>enthalpy,

calculated by adding up the amount of energy released or used up to break or

form

<http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary//dictionary/chemical+bonds>chemical

bonds during the reaction; t is the temperature at which the reaction took

place; and (delta S) is the change in

<http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary//dictionary/entropy>entropy, or

amount of disorder, that occurs in the molecules involved during the reaction.

So if oil is in the ground, there is no chemical reaction taking place, so to my

mind it is " stored " or " potential " .

Other people use the term to mean " energy you can get easily " as in:

http://www.gyogyitokezek.hu/fe/definition.htm

The term “free energy” suggests that it should be some kind of energy that is

free, i.e. it does not cost anything.

Now the question is, for whom it is free and in what sense. For example the

source of energy is free for a hydroelectric PowerStation, since the river

supplies the energy for no charge. But it is not free for the consumer. From the

other point of view we can say that the wind energy is free for anyone in the

sense that the energy source (as kinetic energy) is free (unlike the gasoline).

But in order to utilize it for useful purposes, we need an energy converter,

which would cost some money. So finally not even the seemingly free energy is

really free.

The only really free energy in strict sense is the energy directly received from

the nature, and utilized without any artificial aid or anybody’s paid

cooperation. We utilize such energy while taking a sunbathe, when there is no

need to convert the energy of the sunlight to an other form (or to buy it from

someone).

But since it is an understood thing that for the utilization of the energy we

mostly need a converter (which is not free); by saying free energy people mean

that the primary energy source is free for the consumer, and he can get it

directly from the nature. This could be the energy utilized by a windmill, a

photocell, or even by a car running on water.

Finally free energy in its technical sense mostly means an energy source

supplied directly by nature in unlimited quantity (which can not be depleted),

preferably without polluting the environment, that is accessible at any place,

any time with a free energy converter, and preferably the cost of the converter

should be much less than the value of the energy produced during its lifetime.

------------------------

Which probably isn't relevant to what you are talking about, but it is relevant

to the original discussion.

-- Heidi Jean

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/28/04 9:32:05 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> As Heidi noted, you're changing the subject. And I doubt there'd be much

> calculating involved in measuring the availability of free energy, at least

> if you're just talking solar -- you'd just have to measure how much energy

> we're getting from the sun.

That's one part of the equation...

> Now, as to STORED energy, it's quite clear we have less than we had a

> hundred some odd years ago. It took many, many millions of years to

> produce what we've consumed in a very short time. So just by definition we

> have less than we started with.

Probably, but not necessarily, because we are continually regenerating

" stored " energy through biological processes-- photosynthesis, for example,

converts

light energy into chemical energy. This chemical energy gets accumulated in

other biological systems, and gets returned to the earth.

I really doubt the rate of return to the earth in any *usable* form is

anything but miniscule compared to the rate of use of fossil fuels, but that

doesn't

represent the total potential energy input (which is, with the definition I'm

using, " free energy " ). Every living biological system represents an enormous

amount of potential energy.

So, your calculation of potential energy use would have to account both for

the use of fossil fuels and the accumulation of potential energy through

biological systems-- I think that would be a difficult calculation.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/28/04 11:31:48 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> No it wouldn't, because fossil fuels ARE the accumulation of stored

> potential energy through biological systems -- over hundreds of millions or

> even billions of years -- unless you're suggesting something like a

> one-time burn of everything on the planet's surface.

They're what's mainly our most usable form, but they aren't the only

potential energy stored in the earth.

What you say is true, but I already made an allowance for this point in my

last email. I said that we are probably using fossil fuels faster than they are

being made from biological systems, which is essentially the practical point,

providing we assume that our methods of extracting potential energy remain

constant.

I was simply referring to the total accumulation of potential energy. Is

that a useful value? Probably not practically. I'm just making a moderately

interesting theoretical point.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>You'd need a calculation of massive scale that I certainly don't know how to

>undertake in order to determine whether we've had a net influx or eflux of

>free energy.

As Heidi noted, you're changing the subject. And I doubt there'd be much

calculating involved in measuring the availability of free energy, at least

if you're just talking solar -- you'd just have to measure how much energy

we're getting from the sun.

Now, as to STORED energy, it's quite clear we have less than we had a

hundred some odd years ago. It took many, many millions of years to

produce what we've consumed in a very short time. So just by definition we

have less than we started with.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>So, your calculation of potential energy use would have to account both for

>the use of fossil fuels and the accumulation of potential energy through

>biological systems-- I think that would be a difficult calculation.

No it wouldn't, because fossil fuels ARE the accumulation of stored

potential energy through biological systems -- over hundreds of millions or

even billions of years -- unless you're suggesting something like a

one-time burn of everything on the planet's surface.

-