Re: Evolutionists are not playing fair...

On Mar 8, 2:09 pm, Ye Old One <use...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 17:08:29 -0800 (PST), Lee Jay <ljfin...@xxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:



On Mar 6, 4:51 pm, Ye Old One <use...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 17:49:42 -0800 (PST), Lee Jay <ljfin...@xxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

On Mar 5, 5:13 pm, Ye Old One <use...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snipping because we can't seem to get past this one error]

Oh for firk sake. It doesn't matter HOW the energy is produced it is
the OUTput were are looking at.

That's *correct*.  It's the *output* (utilization) that matters, not
the *input* (consumption)!

You have to output the energy before it can be used/consumed.

Yeah...obviously.  That's why I said "produced".

If I heat my house currently with 300MWH (LHV) of Coal per year in a
10% efficient coal stove, and I want to replace that heat with a solar
thermal system, how much energy does that solar system have to
*produce* in order to replace that heat?  Answer:  30MWH per year (the
original *utilization* of heat).  Now, if I choose to replace that
300MWH of coal with a rich-source heat pump with a COP of 5 running on
wind energy, how much electricity does that wind source have to
provide to the heat pump to replace that heat?  Answer:  6MWH per
year.  See why that 300MWH of *consumption* was basically irrelevant
to the replacement energy required?  No one cares what I used to
*consume*, the only thing that matters is what was (and is) actually
necessary to heat the house!

I don't know why this very basic concept is so hard to understand, but
I see this mistake made by lots of people in lots of organizations.

Lee Jay

I'm still waiting for you to come up with some ideas of how we are
going to produce 30TW come 2035. Do you actually have any idea?

Geeze, Bob.  Are you just being stubborn?  You're plenty bright enough
to understand the above simple example, so why are you still asking
for that which is not needed.

Because the experts say that, by 2035, in order to give everyone a
reasonable standard of living, we need to be producing at least 30TW
of energy.

Don't tell me it isn't needed, tell me how you are going to produce
it?

It isn't needed.

Stop evading the question. Face up to it and either answer it or admit
you can't.

I can (easily - remember 100,000 TW is available), but you need to
face up to the fact that you haven't acknowledged the difference
between the consumption of fossil fuels and the production of
renewable energy.

When a nuke plant replaces a coal plant do you think they replace the
energy in the coal no longer being burned or the kWh that were
produced previously by the replaced plant?

We currently consume a little over 3TW of primary fuels in the US.
We'll need a little less than 2TW of renewables (mean production) to
replace that. This is for two main reasons. First, the ~20%
efficient transportation sector will get more efficient by about a
factor of two. Second, replacing ~35% efficient coal generation and
~42% efficient gas generation with renewable generation measured as
*production* (since consumption of the wind or of solar insolation are
not commonly used) means a much smaller number comes out. There are
additional, smaller reasons.

1MWh of gas production consumes ~2.4MWh worth of gas (usually measured
in MMBTU - millions of BTUs), and that number is counted in our
consumption numbers (usually measured in Quads or Exojoules), but it
can be replaced by 1MWh of wind or solar *production*. If you don't
get this simple distinction, I would guess you are a hopeless case,
since it's so simple to understand.

Lee Jay

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolutionists are not playing fair...
    ... The experts wished to see an equality of energy consumption by 2035. ... that we will need 30TW of power by 2035. ... tonnage of our *current* production of automobiles. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolutionists are not playing fair...
    ... and I want to replace that heat with a solar ... wind energy, how much electricity does that wind source have to ...  See why that 300MWH of *consumption* was basically irrelevant ... We'll need a little less than 2TW of renewables (mean production) to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolutionists are not playing fair...
    ... original *utilization* of heat). ... wind energy, how much electricity does that wind source have to ...  See why that 300MWH of *consumption* was basically irrelevant ... You need to come up with ideas to meet the 30TW production ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolutionists are not playing fair...
    ... and I want to replace that heat with a solar ... wind energy, how much electricity does that wind source have to ...  See why that 300MWH of *consumption* was basically irrelevant ... We'll need a little less than 2TW of renewables (mean production) to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Understanding MinEP and MaxEP
    ... >> maximum work and maximum entropy production. ... >> potential energy available to the primary producers is going to be ... >> converted to heat. ... Now heat is not the same as entropy - you have to divide heat ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)