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

[Guest guest]

>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.

>

>-

Fossil fuels are one form, but all dead and decaying matter is another

form of stored energy (albeit not currently used). Peat, for example,

forms constantly in peat bogs. The junk on the forest floor. The

junk at the bottom of the ocean. And, last but not least, all that

junk in landfills. When oil is turned into plastic, as a lot of it is, it

isn't really " lost " as an energy source, in any chemical sense. Plastic

is a really dense form of stored energy.

So all those piles of used tires are stored energy, as becomes more

obvious when they catch on fire. I'm not sure on the numbers, but

the quantity of oil that is turned into STUFF (which is then tossed out)

has got to rival the amount of oil we burn. Plus there is addition STUFF

that is basically stored sun energy, also sitting in landfills or being

burned as garbage.

Anyway, the garbage-form of energy CAN be turned back into oil,

people are doing it, and it doesn't take millions of years. So, if

we WANT to, we can use trash heaps, sewage, used computers,

etc. as an oil source and reclaim the oil that is currently in stored-plastic

form and the sun energy that is in stored-trash-heap and sewage form.

And all the grease from McD's fryers is good usable stored energy, probably

going down the drain.

And of course some of the energy is stored as heat, which can be

used to create electricity by taking advantage of temperature

differentials (tides, wind turbines) or heat (heat pumps). A lot of these

technologies are already at the stage where they are competitive

with conventional technologies cost-wise ... but if oil and coal go

away, those prices will go up and the new technologies will be REALLY

competitive.

As for how much energy we get IN from the sun:

http://www.web.net/~sunwind/solar/solar_energy_education.html

Near the equator, at the outer atmosphere, our planet receives from the Sun

about 1360 joules of energy per second over every square metre. That's 1.36

kilowatts of power per square metre. At sea level we receive about 1 kilowatt

per square metre (1kW/m2), or just over one horsepower per square yard.

http://www.science.org.au/nova/005/005print.htm

Capturing sunlight is not as easy as it sounds. It is a dilute energy source,

spread out over time and space. Earth receives 5.6 x 1018

(5,600,000,000,000,000,000) megajoules of solar radiation each year

Granted we never will USE more than a fraction of it. But when we use it, most

of it still ends up radiating back as heat, so using solar (as plant stored

energy or power) doesn't really effect the biosphere much (except that having

more plants growing is generally a good thing).

It does heat my house quite nicely, and it will heat a greenhouse if I want, and

if they start making those cheaper solar roofing panels it could run most of my

house just fine. And it can grow plenty of plants to feed a goat or cow which

can store the power as meat and fat and milk, and other plants can be used to

make oil or plastics. Which, getting back to the Olduvai idea, is where I think

society will be headed ... a massive paradigm shift to be sure, but I just see

no reason to think we are so darn dependent on oil that society will collapse

when it's hard to get.

BTW for a good chart of oil/gas/coal usage and reserves, see:

http://www.xist.org/

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

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

From: <ChrisMasterjohn@...>

> 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.

Isn't that a completely unrealistic assumption?

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/28/04 4:25:54 PM Eastern Standard Time,

bberg@... writes:

> >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.

>

> Isn't that a completely unrealistic assumption?

Yes, probably. So my statement actually wasn't without practical

significance.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/28/04 6:30:33 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Yeah, that is a very different way of viewing energy than I'm used to

> (I think I had it in physics class). From a pragmatic viewpoint, the

> kinetic/potential/chemical viewpoint just makes more sense to me ...

> How many kcals are in the tablespoon of oil? Or this pile of wood?

> Or how many joules land on my roof on a sunny day?

They are both invaluable from a pragmatic viewpoint. The reason every

chemistry and biology book mention Gibbs free energy is because it is impossible

to

even begin to talk about any biological process with out it, and it is

likewise impossible to talk about the liklihood of a chemical reaction occuring

without it, or catalysis, or enzymes.

Whether the change in the Gibbs free energy of a system is positive or

negative for a reaction determines whether it will happen or not. That's pretty

significant.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>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.

Yeah, that is a very different way of viewing energy than I'm used to

(I think I had it in physics class). From a pragmatic viewpoint, the

kinetic/potential/chemical viewpoint just makes more sense to me ...

How many kcals are in the tablespoon of oil? Or this pile of wood?

Or how many joules land on my roof on a sunny day?

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

But in physics, irreversible processes are the main concern (except maybe

nuclear physics which I haven't taken). We can talk about ideal situations

in physics (no friction, perfect insulator/conductor, etc.), but in the real

world there are many factors to consider in determining how much available

energy remains and how much is lost. Processes like orbiting are pretty

stable, being in a vacuum and all that. -Deanna

> Yeah, that is a very different way of viewing energy than I'm used to

> (I think I had it in physics class). From a pragmatic viewpoint, the

> kinetic/potential/chemical viewpoint just makes more sense to me ...

> How many kcals are in the tablespoon of oil? Or this pile of wood?

> Or how many joules land on my roof on a sunny day? Heidi

They are both invaluable from a pragmatic viewpoint. The reason every

chemistry and biology book mention Gibbs free energy is because it is

impossible to

even begin to talk about any biological process with out it, and it is

likewise impossible to talk about the liklihood of a chemical reaction

occuring

without it, or catalysis, or enzymes.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/5/04 12:50:26 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> Are you seriously suggesting that the assumption that we're using fossil

> fuels faster than they're being made is unrealistic?

I think it was clear he was referring to the assumption that our methods of

utilizing energy will remain constant.

Chris

>

> >>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.

> >

> >Isn't that a completely unrealistic assumption?

[Guest guest]

-

Are you seriously suggesting that the assumption that we're using fossil

fuels faster than they're being made is unrealistic?

> > 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.

>

>Isn't that a completely unrealistic assumption?

-