Re: Evolutionists are not playing fair...

On Mar 4, 3:29 am, Ye Old One <use...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 17:24:34 -0800 (PST), Lee Jay <ljfin...@xxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:



On Mar 3, 11:39 am, Ye Old One <use...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 20:36:30 -0800 (PST), Lee Jay <ljfin...@xxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

[snip.]

Ok, clear the floor. Start from scratch.

We know that the fossil fuels are running out. We also know that if
this world is not to descend into chaos then we need to be far more
equitable in the sharing out of energy.

At the moment the average US citizen uses 11.4KW while the global
average is only 2.2KW. Even so, that still means that the world's use
is 13TW. This is total energy use, not just electricity of course.

No, you're making one of those common mistakes.  Quoting myself from
above, "failure to acknowledge the difference between consumption and
utilization (this one is unbelievably common among existing producers
and lobbyists)".  You're talking about consumption, not utilization,

Well, in effect, I'm talking about production. That has to be there
before it can be consumed.

but using the term "energy use" which is not accurate.  See how easy
it is to fall into that one?

Energy gets used, in one way or another. Energy Use is, frankly, the
only term that counts.

Correct, but you were using the consumption numbers, not the
utilization ("use") numbers.

If we assume that we can even things out at 5KW per person. That means
that with out current population (no allowance for growth) we will
need 30TW of power.

Only if we consume the same fuels as now with the same efficiency as
now.

No, that makes no assumption as to the fuels used. It has also allowed
for quite a lot more energy efficiency as it more than halves the
amount currently used in the USA.

We are still very, very inefficient in our usage. Around 1/3
efficient (perhaps a hair more) for all sectors combined.

Ok, now set ourselves a target of getting that energy in 25 years time
- say 2035 as a round number.

How do you see us getting that energy? Ok, I know that in that time
scale there will still be oil and gas, so how about just finding say
an extra 20TW over the next 25 years?

We *utilize* about 5TW now.

We consume about 13TW.

That is the base you have to start from.

No, it is not, because I don't need to replace those 13TW (it's
actually a little over 15), I only need to replace the energy we use.
If I replace it with energy that goes from production to consumption
just as inefficiently as we do know, then I do. But that's not what's
being proposed, plus I do the computations in the use column and work
back up to the needed production. Using renewables makes this far
more efficient than traditional sources.

Let's say that doubles to 10TW,

We are looking at a target of 30TW in 2035, so I'm looking for 20TW
from you to be built over the next 25 years.

Asked and answered above.

and we
get the new energy in efficient, renewable ways.  We can do that with
various solar technologies (mostly thermal and thermal-electric, very
little PV), two separate types of heat pumps, and wind - if we want
to.  We won't do it that way, but we *could* - all the necessary
resources are available to do that in a way that doesn't break the
bank (though, they seem to be doing a good job of breaking themselves
at the moment), and doesn't break existing systems.

This is sounding very airy-fairy.

The ultra-short executive summary of this internally is a 30 page
presentation. Posting the details to usenet would be a massive
undertaking. It's mostly solar thermal, solar thermal electric, wind
and heat pumps. The particular technology used depends on the use
sector and the geographic location. Almost everywhere you go you end
up using more than one source, but the proportions vary quite a lot.
Solar is nice in Florida, wind is terrible. Wind is nice in the North
West, solar not so much. You get the idea.

Tell you what, I'll give you a starter.

To produce 5TW with wind generation in 2035 you would need to be
installing a new 3MW wind turbine every 3 minutes for that 25 year
period.

You wouldn't do this all with wind, so that's a strawman. Like most
approaches that actually work, this energy would come from many
sources.

That takes up one hell of a lot of land (about 2% of the
worlds land was the estimate given in the Horizon programme). And also
supposes that the ones built early in the program will have a working
life expectancy long enough to get them through to contribute to the
total needed in 2035.

Wind turbine design lifetimes are 20-30 years.

Now, I don't know about you, but that sounds like a VERY difficult
target to reach and I dread to think what effect all those wind farms
are going to have on the landscape.

Strawman, like I said. Nevertheless, we could easily install that
many worldwide if we wanted to, which we don't. The target in the US
is 300GW by 2030. That's less than the rate we accomplished during
the fourth quarter of last year (which was a record quarter). Recent
growth rates have been in the 30-50% range.

Lee Jay

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: At Last - Low Cost Pollution Free Hydrogen a Reality
    ... Residential consumption of energy and hydrocarbon products ... constitutes only 8% of the total consumption by ALL CONSUMERS. ... barrels per day using my solar hydrogen. ... There is no one else in the world that is building panels on the scale ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: Evolutionists are not playing fair...
    ... This is total energy use, ...  You're talking about consumption, not utilization, ... I gave you one example, wind power, and showed how impossible that is. ... various solar technologies (mostly thermal and thermal-electric, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolutionists are not playing fair...
    ... This is total energy use, ...  You're talking about consumption, not utilization, ... Do you think conversion efficiency is always 100%? ... I gave you one example, wind power, and showed how impossible that is. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Pickens to build 4GW wind farm
    ... we know that the wind coming out the back of the windmill ... has lost kinetic energy equal to the electrical energy generated plus ... I will always prefer rooftop solar cells, ... those things will destroy the ecology at the plant site. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Greed and terrorism
    ... > Why is it wind and solar, ... > nuclear plants needed to supply the same annual energy. ... once intermittancy and storage consideration are ...
    (sci.energy)
Loading