Re: Evolutionists are not playing fair...

On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 06:39:18 -0700 (PDT), Lee Jay <ljfinger@xxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

On Mar 9, 5:35 am, Ye Old One <use...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 17:11:52 -0700 (PDT), Lee Jay <ljfin...@xxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:



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),

Rubbish.

This is a creationist level of response.

Nevertheless, it is the only response such an incredibly stupid number
deserves.


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.

That is irrelevant.

No, it is not. I need 1/3 of the energy you are claiming I need.
That is NOT irrelevant.

No, you need to find 30TW. That is the estimated consumption that we
will need to meet in 2035.

You need to come up with ideas to meet the 30TW production
requirement.

To match the 30TW of *consumption* expected? That's irrational!

No, and I really cannot understand why you are trying to avoid facing
the problem.

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?

The power output is replaced.

Right. So why do you keep demanding I replace the power *input*?

Who is? I'm certainly not.

We need, according to the experts, to
find 30TW for 2035. How are we going to produce that?

That's *input*.

No, that is output.

And many of those so-called "experts" don't
understand the difference either.

30TW. Where do we get it. Answer please, stop evading.

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.

Look. It really is VERY simple.

The experts estimate that world energy production needs to rise to
meet a 30TW consumption figure by 2035.

Production ... consumption.

Are EXACTLY the same thing. You cannot consume what is not produced,
and with the exception of a small amount of storage you cannot produce
what is not consumed.

We need the production that 30TW of
consumption would produce. In a 100% renewables scenario that's
around 10 TW.

No it is NOT!

Why all this attempted evasion. What part of the problem has you so
worried that you need to play games to avoid facing reality?

That 30TW allows for the
average US citizen's current use of 11.4KW to be reduced, by energy
saving methods, to 5KW by 2035.

Now you mixed up use and consume again.

They are the same bloody thing. Production/consumption/use, with a
small allowance for loss in distribution they are the same thing. Stop
trying to avoid the question.

It also allows for the rest of the
worlds 6 billion people to raise their consumption to the same level
giving some degree of energy parity.

Considering that at the moment the world uses about 13TW...

Consumes about 13TW (15, actually). We *use* about 5TW.

Consumption and use are EXACTLY the same thing. Production may be
slightly higher to allow for transmission loss.


there is
obviously a need to produce a lot more power. Were is it going to come
from? The two main renewables, wind and solar, can't do it in time.

You have not remotely established that as a fact.

Yes we have.

Fossil fuels are running out, nuclear fusion is still too far away.

The first is a fact, the second is an unknown.

Both are FACTS. Fusion cannot possibly contribute on the time scale
involved.

Conventional nuclear reactors may offer a hope, but with build times
being high we will be hard pressed to do it.

And we don't have enough fissible material anyway.

Fast Breeder Reactors.

Now stop evading and start explaining how we are going to produce the
power.

We can produce about 1-1.5TW of mean electric power in the US alone on-
land just with wind, using full exclusions. We can produce about 2TW
of thermal or 0.5TW of electrical from roof-top solar alone in the
US. Enough unused land is available, even with 90% exclusions, to
produce an additional 10 times that much with solar. So that's around
10-15TW of easily accessible energy, using existing technology, with
full exclusions, just in the US where we have the highest energy
intensity of anyone, and it's 3-5 times our existing *consumption* and
10 times are actual needs *without* energy efficiency improvements
that are not associated with the sources themselves.

Like I said, getting the energy is the easy part. Putting it in the
right forms and getting it to the right places at the right times is
the hard part.

Lee Jay

As I've previously said, getting even a sixth of the total world needs
by wind is just about impossible. Same applies to solar.

We need answers and you don't seem to want to even have a go at
providing them.

--
Bob.

.

Relevant Pages

  • EERE Network News
    ... international energy efficiency and renewable energy news and events, ... California Approves Legislation for Million Solar Roofs Plan ... First Geothermal Plant in Alaska Starts Power Production ...
    (misc.invest.stocks)
  • Re: READ IT AND WEEP YOU POOR BASTARDS
    ... hints at global warming, renewable production of hydrogen, a clean ... the world's energy and greenhouse-gas woes. ... the first to use solar power to convert CH4 to H2, says Brant Peppley, ... hydrogenating vegetable oils, Fehr says. ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • 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)
  • READ IT AND WEEP YOU POOR BASTARDS
    ... hints at global warming, renewable production of hydrogen, a clean ... Solar Hydrogen Energy Corp. has operated a pilot-scale reactor ... hydrogenating vegetable oils, Fehr says. ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: READ IT AND WEEP YOU POOR BASTARDS
    ... hints at global warming, renewable production of hydrogen, a clean ... Solar Hydrogen Energy Corp. has operated a pilot-scale reactor ... hydrogenating vegetable oils, Fehr says. ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)