Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion, heat from primary energy consumption, and global warming
At 05:52 PM 11/14/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Probably this one: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NRELenergyover.pdf See the last page, from Lawrence Livermore. I have seen more recent ones, and some with more data, but I like this representation. I am big fan of statistical graphics. That's the one! The last graph in particular. US only, and doesn't support my 70% (except as energy LOSS). ps I have a big gripe against Tufte's graph axes ... but I think I've grumbled about that before.
Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion, heat from primary energy consumption, and global warming
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: That's the one! The last graph in particular. US only, and doesn't support my 70% (except as energy LOSS). Here is similar data from the EIEA: Primary Energy Consumption by Source and Sector http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pecss_diagram.cfm I do not like this presentation as much. There are some interesting aspect of it. It shows significant changes over a short time. The 2007 version of this showed: Coal 22.8 quads Renewable Energy 6.8 quads This 2010 version shows: Coal 20.8 quads Renewable Energy: 8.0 quads Whoa. Figure F1 here is better: Primary Energy Consumption and Delivered Total Energy http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec17.pdf I do not find it separately broken out, but anyway this is better because it shows electricity as an intermediate. Here are conversion losses for electricity. A lot of room for improvement: http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/diagram5.cfm There are loads of great tables, graphs and spreadsheets here. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion, heat from primary energy consumption, and global warming
Okay, so if 3.5 million quads are added by solar energy, I should adjust this: World primary energy consumption is roughly 400 quads per year. The US consumes 100 quads. Solar energy striking the Earth's surface produces roughly 8.2 million quads per year, 20,500 times more than this. Solar energy striking the Earth's surface produces roughly 3.5 million quads per year, 8,750 times more than this. It is frighting to think that present day methods produce this much energy. That's rivers of oil and mountains of coal! - Jed
[Vo]:Cold fusion, heat from primary energy consumption, and global warming
From time to time, someone asks me about these issues. For example, someone sent me this comment from a discussion group, and asked how it might be addressed: . . . global warming is about HEAT - atmospheric gasses like co2 ch4 tend to cause the atmosphere to retain more of it - however, even if these gasses are no longer produced in such quantities, there would still be MASSIVE amounts of HEAT being injected into the environment from the energy used from free lunch processes being inevitably converted into HEAT Regarding the issue of raw heat and global warming: Global warming is not caused by the heat released from human consumption. This can cause what are called heat islands around urban areas, and these do affect the weather. But global warming is caused by CO2 in the atmosphere. We can tell that heat released by human energy consumption does not have a significant effect for two reasons: First, any heat release escapes from the atmosphere in about 40 min. You can tell this is the case because in the desert where there is nothing on the ground and no cloud cover, soon after the sun sets the air turns cold. Second, the total amount of heat released by the human race is small compared to natural forces such as sunlight, forest fires, geothermal heat, and volcanoes. World primary energy consumption is roughly 400 quads per year. The US consumes 100 quads. Solar energy striking the Earth's surface produces roughly 8.2 million quads per year, 20,500 times more than this. See: http://www.ecoworld.com/energy-fuels/how-much-solar-energy-hits-earth.html Regarding cold fusion and global warming, cold fusion can solve the problem completely, as I explained in my book in chapter 9. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf As I explain in this chapter, cold fusion will eliminate CO2 emissions caused by energy production. There may be some emissions from other human activity, especially cutting down forests. cold fusion irrigation can be used to reforest large areas especially areas that are now desert. If necessary, cold fusion can be used to actually remove CO2 from the atmosphere, restoring it to the premodern condition. Cold fusion is likely to reduce the total amount of primary energy consumption because it will be more efficient than present-day systems. If we implement cold fusion soon, world primary energy consumption is likely to fall considerably from 400 quads, for a while, at least. Later on perhaps we may implement things like gigantic megaprojects to irrigate deserts, to grow forests and food crops. These projects will consume more primary energy, but overall they will reduce global warming by absorbing atmospheric CO2. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion, heat from primary energy consumption, and global warming
That reminds me ... about a month ago you put up a DOE (?) report with lots of charts about energy usage. But I can't find it in my vortex files or on lenr-cad. (I don't know if there's a name for that kind of chart .. a bit like the famous Napoleon chart, showing the energy flow divided up into various uses. But it's NOT the recent 2010-ish document, which shows sources in detail, but not destinations.) Would you mind reposting the link? ps Elsewhere on the web I made the claim (from my forgettery) that 70% of world-wide energy use is thermal. What's the correct number, particularly for low-grade (ie cost-effective Sterling, say 500C) thermal? I though the answer might be in those charts.
Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion, heat from primary energy consumption, and global warming
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: (I don't know if there's a name for that kind of chart .. a bit like the famous Napoleon chart, showing the energy flow divided up into various uses. For those unfamiliar with this, the Napoleon chart is a *masterpiece* of statistical graphics. See: http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/posters But it's NOT the recent 2010-ish document, which shows sources in detail, but not destinations.) Would you mind reposting the link? Probably this one: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NRELenergyover.pdf See the last page, from Lawrence Livermore. I have seen more recent ones, and some with more data, but I like this representation. I am big fan of statistical graphics. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion, heat from primary energy consumption, and global warming
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:36:13 -0500: Hi, [snip] Solar energy striking the Earth's surface produces roughly 8.2 million quads per year, 20,500 times more than this. This figure is too high. The amount intercepted by the Earth is 5 million quads per annum above the atmosphere, and then some of this is directly reflected back into space by cloud cover. Nevertheless, you are certainly correct that our current consumption pales by comparison. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion, heat from primary energy consumption, and global warming
mix...@bigpond.com wrote: This figure is too high. The amount intercepted by the Earth is 5 million quads per annum above the atmosphere, and then some of this is directly reflected back into space by cloud cover. Where did you get that info? I looked all around for that. I found that one site that expresses the number in quads, and it seemed to compare to the others that show the value in different units. http://www.ecoworld.com/energy-fuels/how-much-solar-energy-hits-earth.html Is there a more authoritative and detailed site than this? Most of them discuss solar insolation in units such as square meters for various locations. That is needed for solar energy planning. They do not include a planet-wide analysis. You cannot extrapolate from local insolation given the extremes at the poles. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion, heat from primary energy consumption, and global warming
120,000 TWs reaches the surface of the planet according to: http://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/reports/files/SEU_rpt.pdf The solar availability at the top of the atmosphere is 170,000 TW, of which 120,000 TW strikes the Earth (the remainder being scattered by the atmosphere and clouds). AG On 11/15/2011 2:02 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: mix...@bigpond.com mailto:mix...@bigpond.com wrote: This figure is too high. The amount intercepted by the Earth is 5 million quads per annum above the atmosphere, and then some of this is directly reflected back into space by cloud cover. Where did you get that info? I looked all around for that. I found that one site that expresses the number in quads, and it seemed to compare to the others that show the value in different units. http://www.ecoworld.com/energy-fuels/how-much-solar-energy-hits-earth.html Is there a more authoritative and detailed site than this? Most of them discuss solar insolation in units such as square meters for various locations. That is needed for solar energy planning. They do not include a planet-wide analysis. You cannot extrapolate from local insolation given the extremes at the poles. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion, heat from primary energy consumption, and global warming
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: mix...@bigpond.com wrote: This figure is too high. The amount intercepted by the Earth is 5 million quads per annum above the atmosphere, and then some of this is directly reflected back into space by cloud cover. Where did you get that info? The first sentence in the 2nd section in the wikipedia article on solar energy: The Earth receives 174 petawatts (PW) of incoming solar radiation (insolation) at the upper atmosphere. Approximately 30% is reflected back to space while the rest is absorbed by clouds, oceans and land masses. 174 PW for one year is close to 5 million quads. You cannot extrapolate from local insolation given the extremes at the poles. It's simpler than that. Multiply the solar insolation at one astronomical unit (1366 W/m^2) (i.e. above the atmosphere), and multiply by the *cross-sectional area* of the earth (pi*r^2), to give the total incident power (174 PW).
Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion, heat from primary energy consumption, and global warming
Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: We can tell that heat released by human energy consumption does not have a significant effect for two reasons: First, any heat release escapes from the atmosphere in about 40 min. This is untrue, because most of the heat caused by (cold fusion) power plants is not released into athmosphere but it is dumped into sea. And sea can store heat for a long long time. In a very extent that it has significant effect on global scale. However, this is not the severe issue and all extra heat can be mitigated by reforestation. So I would think that there is potential to increase power consumption at least by one order of magnitude, perhaps several, if large scale reforestation is accompanied. However, I do not think that even severe warming by urban heat lake effect (I modified the expression to be more accurate) is not dangerous, because there are geological times when tropical forests were extended far north and even arctic circles without obvious positive feedback loops. That is, world was back then more moist and nicer place to live. (according to IPCC climate models, equatorial zone would have been burning in blazing 80°C heat, but this was not correct, but also equatorial zones were covered with forests, because forests moderate their own climate by circulating water and releasing aerosols that create artificial clouds and rains. I would say that most of the observed global warming is not due to CO2 but because of deforestation. Global warming does not correlate with atmospheric carbon dioxide but it is correlating with deforestation. Though, deforestation has been major contributor for increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As I explain in this chapter, cold fusion will eliminate CO2 emissions caused by energy production. There may be some emissions from other human activity, especially cutting down forests. With cheap cold fusion, we can transfer into vertical agriculture, because it is cheaper than horizontal agriculture. That is because land use is up to 200 times more efficient and there is no need to worry about, insufficient irrigation and nutrients, because all nutrients can be recycled. Recycling however takes energy, so expensive electricity has so far been the bottle neck. But due to evolving LED technology and ever cheaper electricity, I would say that vertical agriculture could be reality soon even without cold fusion. Therefore as horizontal agriculture is expensive and obsolete, we can return 2 gigahectares of deforested fertile land into natural reforestation. This much forest can absorb up to one teraton of carbon stored in living and dead biomass from atmosphere. Currently atmosphere however contains only 700 gigatons of carbon, so there must must be released plenty of carbon that is stored in the oceans to account forest regrowth. So there is absolutely no need to remove carbon-dioxide from atmosphere, because living biomass that is destroyed by humans can absorb and store far more carbon than what are global fossil fuel reserves. I am utterly amazed, why people have ignored how much forests can store carbon. If I would ask from any climate change scientist how much forests can store carbon, I would receive a null result, because they have no idea. IPCC did not even mention this in the report, and it's crude guesses were of at best factor of two and at worst one order of magnitude under evaluated. —Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion, heat from primary energy consumption, and global warming
I can forsee a time when thermal energy production on the planet might be limited by law to prevent global warming. By then the Earth will a preserve and most people will live off-world. Harry On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 10:15 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:36:13 -0500: Hi, [snip] Solar energy striking the Earth's surface produces roughly 8.2 million quads per year, 20,500 times more than this. This figure is too high. The amount intercepted by the Earth is 5 million quads per annum above the atmosphere, and then some of this is directly reflected back into space by cloud cover. Nevertheless, you are certainly correct that our current consumption pales by comparison. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion, heat from primary energy consumption, and global warming
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 14 Nov 2011 22:32:11 -0500: Hi, [snip] mix...@bigpond.com wrote: This figure is too high. The amount intercepted by the Earth is 5 million quads per annum above the atmosphere, and then some of this is directly reflected back into space by cloud cover. Where did you get that info? The intensity of Solar radiation above the atmosphere is about 1300 W / m^2. Multiply by the cross sectional area of the planet (not the surface area as is incorrectly done on the web page below) and you get the total power, which may be expressed as quads / annum. I looked all around for that. I found that one site that expresses the number in quads, and it seemed to compare to the others that show the value in different units. http://www.ecoworld.com/energy-fuels/how-much-solar-energy-hits-earth.html Is there a more authoritative and detailed site than this? Most of them discuss solar insolation in units such as square meters for various locations. That is needed for solar energy planning. They do not include a planet-wide analysis. You cannot extrapolate from local insolation given the extremes at the poles. That's why you use the maximum figure the area of a cross section (i.e. Pi * r^2), which BTW is the area of the shadow that the planet would cast on a flat surface. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion, heat from primary energy consumption, and global warming
I forsee other times when thermal energy is produced to prevent global cooling. There will be global controls to regulate a stable climate, and the most powerful nations will clambor to have the global climate skewed in their regional favor. Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: I can forsee a time when thermal energy production on the planet might be limited by law to prevent global warming. By then the Earth will a preserve and most people will live off-world. Harry On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 10:15 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:36:13 -0500: Hi, [snip] Solar energy striking the Earth's surface produces roughly 8.2 million quads per year, 20,500 times more than this. This figure is too high. The amount intercepted by the Earth is 5 million quads per annum above the atmosphere, and then some of this is directly reflected back into space by cloud cover. Nevertheless, you are certainly correct that our current consumption pales by comparison. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
