Axil, t hanks for the link. It took me to another link which is about a very important economic theory called the Khazzoom–Brookes postulate which is the modern formulation of Jevon's paradox first noticed in 1865. This theory should inform energy policy but it is not widely known.
wiki quote: <<In short, the postulate states that "energy efficiency improvements that, on the broadest considerations, are economically justified at the microlevel, lead to higher levels of energy consumption at the macrolevel." [2] This idea is a more modern analysis of a phenomenon known as the Jevons Paradox. In 1865, William Stanley Jevons observed that England's consumption of coal increased considerably after James Watt introduced his improvements to the steam engine. Jevons argued that increased efficiency in the use of coal would tend to increase the demand for coal, and would not reduce the rate at which England's deposits of coal were running out. Like Jevons Paradox, the Khazzoom-Brookes Postulate is a deduction that is largely counter-intuitive as an efficiency paradox. When individuals change behavior and begin to use methods and devices that are more energy efficient, there are cases where, on a macro-economic level, energy usage actually increases." The effect of higher energy prices, either through taxes or producer-induced shortages, initially reduces demand but in the longer term encourages greater energy efficiency. This efficiency response amounts to a partial accommodation of the price rise and thus the reduction in demand is blunted. The end result is a new balance between supply and demand at a higher level of supply and consumption than if there had been no efficiency response.">> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazzoom%E2%80%93Brookes_postulate Harry On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 1:27 AM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested > > In physics <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics>, energy economics > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_economics> and ecological energetics > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energetics>, *energy returned on energy > invested* (*EROEI* or *ERoEI*); or *energy return on investment* (*EROI*), > is the ratio <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratio> of the amount of usable > energy <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy> acquired from a particular > energy resource to the amount of energy expended to obtain that energy > resource.[1] > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested#cite_note-mh2010-1> > [2] > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested#cite_note-eo-2> > > When the EROEI of a resource is less than or equal to one, that energy > source becomes an "energy sink", and can no longer be used as a primary > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_energy> source of energy. > > On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 12:46 AM, H Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> I am not sure what Piantelli meant, but even if the magnitude of the heat >> anomaly is real, can we say with confidence that "cold fusion" will be a >> cost effective means of generating energy, i.e. will the energy required to >> a manufacture a "cold fusion" reactor be significantly less than the energy >> it can produce? >> >> eg. Oil is a cost effective means of generating energy, because the >> energy required to extract one barrel of oil from the ground is >> significantly less the energy produced by burning one barrel of oil. >> >> >> Harry >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I guess Piantelli said this . . . or there is a misunderstanding. >>> >>> Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> [Piantelli?] also spent a lot of time on the all important matter of >>>> credibility in claims. Principally about the HUGE amount of energy that can >>>> be stored in various forms of Hydrogen and that must absolutely be excluded >>>> before any meaningful conclusion could be had about anomalous heat. >>>> >>> What is that supposed to mean? It isn't all that huge. It is the heat of >>> formation of water, 285,800 joules per mole. That is the most energy-dense >>> chemical reaction there is. Palladium holds more hydrogen than any other >>> hydride. In my book, I computed how much hydrogen 0.2 g of palladium can >>> hold when loaded 100% (which no actual hydride can achieve) will produce >>> 286 J: >>> >>> ". . . 0.2 grams = 0.002 moles of Pd. Fully loaded at a 1:1 ratio with >>> hydrogen, 0.002 moles of Pd hold 0.002 moles of H (0.002 grams) which >>> converts to 0.001 moles H2O. The heat of formation of water is 285,800 >>> joules per mole. It is very difficult to load as high as 1:1, except at >>> very low temperature. The palladium cigarette lighters would have achieved >>> no more than a 1:0.5 ratio in a mixture of alpha and beta loaded Pd-H. In >>> other words, a 1 ounce (28 gram) palladium lighter would hold roughly as >>> much energy as 20 wooden matches." >>> >>> That's 1,430 J/g. A few 1 g samples of palladium have produced 50 MJ and >>> more. 50,000,000 is a lot more than 1,430. It is easy to see this is not a >>> chemical reaction. >>> >>> He talked about ionisation, absorption, re-combination, para and ortho >>>> and various charge states etc. >>>> >>> These changes cannot produce more net energy than the formation of >>> water. That is the absolute upper limit to what a hydride can produce. 1430 >>> J/g. No chemical system can produce more than ~4 eV/atom which is close to >>> what the heat of formation of water is. >>> >>> >>>> Just ionisation energy of 1.008 g (1 mole of Hydrogen) is 1,312 >>>> kilojoules, the re-combination is 423 kilojoules and so on. >>>> >>> That would make great rocket fuel if you could store it! NASA would pay >>> you a billion dollars and you would get a nobel prize. But no one can. As I >>> said, the upper limit is 285 kJ and that's for 2 moles of H (and one of O). >>> That's why NASA used H2 and O2 to power the space shuttle. There is no >>> better fuel measured in energy per gram. >>> >>> You can subject a mole of hydrogen to a laser and make it real hot for a >>> nanosecond too, but that doesn't count. That is not energy storage, and you >>> cannot release that in any system. >>> >>> If Piantelli said this, he has a screw loose. >>> >>> >>>> Without a full account of the amount of potential hydrogen in a >>>> reaction, results are a fantasy and will not be taken seriously. >>>> >>> The full account is what I said: 285 kJ per 2 moles. End of story. NASA >>> and every automobile maker on earth will pay you billions if you release >>> more energy than that. >>> >>> - Jed >>> >>> >> >
