The Most Extra New Super Global Warming Thread

[xTYBALTx]

I also found this tidbit, from the Wiki on solar power:

Originally Posted by Wiki

The early development of solar technologies starting in the 1860s was driven by an expectation that coal would soon become scarce...

[GlobalWarmin]

Oh Tybalt....

[sordavie]

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

I also found this tidbit, from the Wiki on solar power:

And, what do you think this implies?

[sordavie]

I'm not sure what information about photosynthesis or what fossil fuels are helps clarify your statement that "Fossil fuels provide us with the condensed energy from millions of years worth of solar activity."

[xTYBALTx]

Not all of the energy given out by the sun, just millions of years' worth of a good amount of the solar energy which actually makes contact with the earth.

[El_Gringo_Grande]

Tybalt, except for geothermal and nuclear almost all energy we use is solar.

Wind is, technically, solar power. Almost all hydro power I know of is solar power.

I guess some of the tidal isn't solar. It is lunar.

And from what we understand oil is mostly solar power. I say mostly because some life does not depend on solar. It can use geothermal, for example.

I just don't get your point.

[sordavie]

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

Not all of the energy given out by the sun, just millions of years' worth of a good amount of the solar energy which actually makes contact with the earth.

Why do you think this? Can you show your work?

[ScratchMonkey]

Originally Posted by sordavie

I'm not sure what information about photosynthesis or what fossil fuels are helps clarify your statement that "Fossil fuels provide us with the condensed energy from millions of years worth of solar activity."

Am I misinterpreting his statement? It seemed pretty clear to me. Solar energy is stored by vegetation and then gets packed down by geological processes to turn it into fossil fuel. What's the point of contention?

[sordavie]

Originally Posted by ScratchMonkey

Am I misinterpreting his statement? It seemed pretty clear to me. Solar energy is stored by vegetation and then gets packed down by geological processes to turn it into fossil fuel. What's the point of contention?

Maybe I misinterpreted what he meant. I thought he was saying that fossil fuels provide us with millions of years worth of solar activity in energy. I'm pretty sure that's false.

But if what he's saying is that since solar energy is stored in vegetation and vegetation turns into fossil fuels, therefore fossil fuels contain millions of years worth of solar activity in energy, then I'm pretty sure that's false too. Solar energy is not stored by vegetation and turned into fossil fuel. Solar energy is used by vegetation following photosynthesis. Decaying organic matter is turned into fossil fuel by heat and pressure. It's not true that millions of years worth of solar activity gets stored in fossil fuel.

This is to confuse a cause with an effect. While it's very hard to come up with a criteria for the boundaries of causes and effects (philosophers have been trying and failing for thousands of years), it's pretty clear that we distinguish between different sources of energy. We classify solar energy and fossil fuel, in ordinary contexts, as different sources for a good reason. It would be silly to say that they are actually the same, given the above ideas, even if those ideas are correct. Just as it would be just as silly for us to say that all energy sources are the same, since they are all caused by the big bang--there difference between solar, wind, fossil fuels, nuclear, etc, etc, because they are just stored energy from the big bang. That would be to confuse cause with effect.

[ScratchMonkey]

Are you contesting that fossil fuels store solar energy (ie. a scientific assertion), or that it's appropriate to claim that fossil fuels are solar energy?

As I see it, plants use solar energy to convert CO2 and water into hydrocarbons (eg. sugars) and oxygen. They then get concentrated by fossilization into oil and coal. So they are in fact storing solar energy.

I interpreted Tybalt's initial remark to mean that how well solar performs depends on the storage and transmission technology you use. If you store it in plants and then mash it with tectonic plates, it's going to be a pretty expensive source, in the long run. (OTOH, it has very good burst release characteristics, which has made it a great performer in vehicles.) What we want is something that lets us convert and store it faster and more cheaply, and release the stored energy rapidly enough to compete with oil. The technology should also minimize toxicity and not deplete some other rare resource (such as rare metals).

[sordavie]

I don't know what's meant by "fossil fuels store solar energy" in this context. In one sense, it's true. In another sense, it's false. Why do we have labels such as "fossil fuel" or "solar energy"? What do we use these labels for? In one context, the context that appear relevant in the discussion in this thread over the last ~10 posts, they refer to a distinction between a "renewable" energy source and a "nonrenewable" energy source. This is a distinction where we ignore the underlying idea that one source really comes from the other because that fact is irrelevant to the practical considerations within the context. That's where I got my reading from.

In another context, perhaps a scientific one, they may refer to a distinction that you make--between a source and a way the energy from that source can be stored. But, I took it that we weren't using the words in this context. If we were, why bother discussing "solar activity?" What caused the sun to have so much stored energy? Solar activity is just release of stored energy from a different source. So, really, plants are storing Big Bang (or whatever) energy, if we're going to start tracing the chain of causation back. Thus, really, any kind of energy we can make use of is essentially from the same source. Well, of course then it depends on how we store and transmit energy. The more efficiently, the better. But, now it's no longer a discussion of solar energy as a "green," "renewable" source of energy.

But, that did not appear to me to be what Tybalt was saying. Consider his prior remark:

Originally Posted by tybalt

Whenever people talk in awe of the supposed greatness of renewables, I can't help but be reminded of the myriad perpetual motion machines that have been "invented" over the years.

And his "tidbit" from wikipedia:

Originally Posted by tybalt

I also found this tidbit, from the Wiki on solar power:

It's pretty clear that tybalt is presenting pieces of some argument against the development of devices to capture solar energy by mocking those who develop or push for it. Importantly, when I say "solar energy" here, what's meant is "solar energy" in the former context rather than the latter context I mentioned. Neither of his criticisms makes sense if taken in the latter context.

[GlobalWarmin]

'Major Discovery' Primed To Unleash Solar Revolution: Scientists Mimic Essence Of Plants' Energy Storage System
ScienceDaily (Aug. 1, 2008)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0731143345.htm

[Kerostasis]

Bumping this thread since I still dive back into some of the links in here sometimes. Especially the global temperature data BKelly posted back on page 34, which is updated each month as more data comes out.

[Gambit7]

Originally Posted by sordavie

I don't know what's meant by "fossil fuels store solar energy" in this context. In one sense, it's true. In another sense, it's false. Why do we have labels such as "fossil fuel" or "solar energy"? What do we use these labels for? In one context, the context that appear relevant in the discussion in this thread over the last ~10 posts, they refer to a distinction between a "renewable" energy source and a "nonrenewable" energy source. This is a distinction where we ignore the underlying idea that one source really comes from the other because that fact is irrelevant to the practical considerations within the context. That's where I got my reading from.

In another context, perhaps a scientific one, they may refer to a distinction that you make--between a source and a way the energy from that source can be stored. But, I took it that we weren't using the words in this context. If we were, why bother discussing "solar activity?" What caused the sun to have so much stored energy? Solar activity is just release of stored energy from a different source. So, really, plants are storing Big Bang (or whatever) energy, if we're going to start tracing the chain of causation back. Thus, really, any kind of energy we can make use of is essentially from the same source. Well, of course then it depends on how we store and transmit energy. The more efficiently, the better. But, now it's no longer a discussion of solar energy as a "green," "renewable" source of energy.

But, that did not appear to me to be what Tybalt was saying. Consider his prior remark:



And his "tidbit" from wikipedia:



It's pretty clear that tybalt is presenting pieces of some argument against the development of devices to capture solar energy by mocking those who develop or push for it. Importantly, when I say "solar energy" here, what's meant is "solar energy" in the former context rather than the latter context I mentioned. Neither of his criticisms makes sense if taken in the latter context.

Since there's only a finite amount of energy available in the Universe and entropy is a fact there's really no such thing as "renewable energy" or energy lost. Energy is simply borrowed and given back; it cannot be gained or lost. How efficiently we borrow this energy is where the caveat is.

Chemical storage is currently the most "efficient" way in a short-term sense. But it takes fossil fuels millions of years of heat and pressure to achieve this. Hence, in a larger sense fossil fuels are GROSSLY inefficient.

If you factor in Time with efficiency you get much different results unless you artificially speed up the chemical process... and then most of the time you're expending too much energy to do-so and the gains are lost. In this way a solar panel is way more efficient than waiting for the Earth to make 1 kW worth of fossil fuel.

How and why people think solar energy is inefficient really boggles my mind sometimes. Are we really that near-sighted?

[sordavie]

Originally Posted by Gambit7

Since there's only a finite amount of energy available in the Universe and entropy is a fact there's really no such thing as "renewable energy" or energy lost. Energy is simply borrowed and given back; it cannot be gained or lost. How efficiently we borrow this energy is where the caveat is.

Chemical storage is currently the most "efficient" way in a short-term sense. But it takes fossil fuels millions of years of heat and pressure to achieve this. Hence, in a larger sense fossil fuels are GROSSLY inefficient.

If you factor in Time with efficiency you get much different results unless you artificially speed up the chemical process... and then most of the time you're expending too much energy to do-so and the gains are lost. In this way a solar panel is way more efficient than waiting for the Earth to make 1 kW worth of fossil fuel.

How and why people think solar energy is inefficient really boggles my mind sometimes. Are we really that near-sighted?

Um, yeah, but you missed the point. That's clearly not what anyone means when they talk about "renewable" vs "nonrenewable" energy sources in this context. Those are just two labels we use to distinguish certain sources of energy from other sources of energy that we humans can currently, or in the near future, utilize.