RE: Schumer"s and Cortez's Clean Energy Economy

[tieman55]

Net gain in availablity = the surplus energy after discovery and production


I take a shovel to black mesa Utah, to a place I know of.

I drive my truck to the place, it takes me about 4 gallons of gas.

I eat a cheese burger on the way. I load up a ton of coal in the bed of my truck.

One ton of coal has the energy content of 20 million BTU's

I drive back home it takes me another 4 gallons of gas.

The energy I used to obtain the coal is very roughly 8 x 120,000 BTU's rounded up to 1 million BTU's of available potential energy. I obtained 20 million BTU's the net gain in available energy is 19 million that is available on demand.

The method I used to obtain the coal was the least productive imaginable so a business can do it with much much less energy.


There is a much simpler way to look at it, that will never ever be used! If it makes a profit it is profitable.
If it makes a profit, there is a net increase, that is what profit is, an excess of production.

 

[ok doser]

As far as the sun being sustainable, it is burning out.

not in the foreseeable future, maybe 5 billion years from now

In addition, the sun is not and has likely never has been the largest source of energy for the earth.

for the outer part that we live on, that all life depends on?

yes, it is

on the inside it's primarily latent heat and radioactive decay of isotopes

So the sun is irrelevant in the sustainability issue, as it is not the source of most of the fuel on earth

what do you have in mind when you refer to "most of the fuel on earth"?

oil, natural gas, coal?

 

[ok doser]

Net gain in availablity = the surplus energy after discovery and production


I take a shovel to black mesa Utah, to a place I know of.

I drive my truck to the place, it takes me about 4 gallons of gas.

I eat a cheese burger on the way. I load up a ton of coal in the bed of my truck.

One ton of coal has the energy content of 20 million BTU's

I drive back it takes me another 4 gallons of gas.

The energy I used to obtain the coal is very roughly 8 x 120,000 BTU's rounded up to 1 million BTU's of available potential energy. I obtained 20 million BTU's the net gain in available energy is 19 million that is available on demand.

The method I used to obtain the coal was the least productive imaginable so a business can do it with much much less energy.


There is a much simpler way to look at it, that will never ever be used! If it makes a profit is is profitable.
If it makes a profit, there is a net increase, that is what profit it, an excess of production.

i step out my door and look up at the sun

it is hot

i soak up the heat and my body is warmed

total energy expended: virtually nothing

total energy gained: significant



i fill black plastic barrels with water

they absorb the heat of the sun during the day

at night, they release heat into my bedroom to warm it



and the coal you just harvested isn't energy - it has the potential to become energy, once it is burned in a furnace to heat water in a boiler to make steam to spin turbines coupled to generators to make electricity

you're ignoring the cost of all that infrastructure

 

[tieman55]

i step out my door and look up at the sun

it is hot

i soak up the heat and my body is warmed

total energy expended: virtually nothing

total energy gained: significant



i fill black plastic barrels with water

they absorb the heat of the sun during the day

at night, they release heat into my bedroom to warm it



and the coal you just harvested isn't energy - it has the potential to become energy, once it is burned in a furnace to heat water in a boiler to make steam to spin turbines coupled to generators to make electricity

you're ignoring the cost of all that infrastructure

The energy your got from your plastic barrel, could never ever ever ever produce the barrel you used to catch it.

The only way that works is that the barrel is probably trash that you got for free and or the barrel was produced with potential energy and cheap because of fuel used to produce it. If you tried to produce the barrel with the energy you got from the sun, the barrel would never exist, never ever ever.

And you are in error again there are two and only two types of energy, kinetic and potential, so coal is a potential energy and people who own coal sell it for a "net gain" to their bank account.

 

[ok doser]

The energy your got from your plastic barrel, could never ever ever ever produce the barrel you used to catch it.

The only way that works is that the barrel is probably trash that you got for free and or the barrel was produced with potential energy and cheap because of fuel used to produce it. If you tried to produce the barrel with the energy you got from the sun, the barrel would never exist, never ever ever.

And you are in error again there are two and only two types of energy, kinetic and potential, so coal is a potential energy and people who own coal sell it for a "net gain" to their bank account.

all matter is potential energy

 

[ok doser]

The energy your got from your plastic barrel, could never ever ever ever produce the barrel you used to catch it.

then you're ignoring the cost of your truck in your earlier example, and the factory that produced it, and the costs associated with your cheeseburger, including the farm (tractor, fertilizer), transportation (trucks, roads, factories, etc), store where you bought it....

 

[tieman55]

The truck in my example is the least productive way to transport the coal to my home,

But, own the truck for many other reasons, and would have the truck reguradless of using it for the coal.

But, the getting the coal did reduce the life span of the truck,

So 8 gallons of gas is about 160 miles at .20 per mile of depreciation or 32 dollars, which is about the price of 1/2 ton of coal, so I still mad e small increase in my wealth.

I would never do what I used as an example because I can buy cheaper usable fuel much locally. I only used it to show the increase.

If I wanted to show the increase in a gallon of diesel the equation is much more intricate but extremely easily verified. The fact that I can buy diesel fuel cheaply at the corner gas station is self evidence of a substantial increase in available energy. If there wasn't the diesel fuel would not be for sale and or available.

Take away the subsides that wind and solar have and puff they disappear .........But is not a miracle , it is not a mystery, its not magic, it is the market.

You and most everyone thinks that technology can do miracles, technology can't all technology is linted by the laws of physics. And you can't renew energy.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Kit the Coyote: I recently saw a discussion on how a person wanted to turn his $200 a month electric bill into $7 a month.

The above is not real, everything that is done to get the lower power bill is subsidized by government laws and the use of cheap "available" potential energy. It is a facade, it is not really happening, it is constructed just for you to believe that is happening but I can assure you it is not. Now, if I am that guy, I might very well do the exact same thing, because to him it is real, he is paying less, but he is not renewing energy and the reason he is paying less, is because someone somewhere is paying more. A good standard of leaving can "only" be achieve by cheap available potential energy.

Since he documented the whole installation on YouTube and showed the energy use figures as measured from his meter, I'm inclined to accept his word on it. As I said before your use of "renewing" here is not correct so is irrelevant.

Progress, yes I object to the term "renewable energy" and you can easily see that you can not renew energy, great, just coin another term that is not misleading and I will applaud you and adopt your new term.


Kit the Coyote: more sustainable than the sun.

2nd law of thermodynamics, Entropy, or Energy only goes one way, less available.

So "nothing" is sustainable.
If you believe in E=MC2 then it is impossible to use all the energy we now have available to us on this earth.
The challenge is to grow a set to use the energy that is available to us. The major point of my post is that this won't happen because anything that works will be opposed by the ruling class, it just will be. They will double, triple, quadruple down on things that don't work, like solar before they will ever agree to solving a problem, like using the energy that is now available.

Yes, nothing lasts forever but some things last longer than others.

This incidentally is not an accurate statement of the second law of thermodynamics.
The more common form is "Total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time." As noted the Earth is not an isolated system as it is constantly receiving energy from the Sun. The quality of energy in a system degrades over time as each energy transfer or use generates waste heat. But that is offset by an external energy source feeding the system.

 

[ok doser]

... As I said before your use of "renewing" here is not correct so is irrelevant.

kit - do you understand what he's trying to get at with this?

... you can't renew energy.

 

[ok doser]

... you can't renew energy.

hydroelectric is renewed every time it rains

guess what drives that?

right - solar energy

 

[Kit the Coyote]

kit - do you understand what he's trying to get at with this?

Yes and he is even right to a degree but I think he is too narrowly focused.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

hydroelectric is renewed every time it rains

guess what drives that?

right - solar energy

All our fossil fuels are when you get down to it is chemically stored solar energy. Pretty much all our energy is solar with the exception of nuclear which comes from the heart of a supernova if I understand it correctly.

 

[tieman55]

All our fossil fuels are when you get down to it is chemically stored solar energy. Pretty much all our energy is solar with the exception of nuclear which comes from the heart of a supernova if I understand it correctly.

This is so painful . . . you could not be more wrong.

Hydroelectricity is created 100 percent by man. They are called Dam's on rivers. No dam no hydro

There are three reasons to build a dam.

Flood control.

Water reservoir for water supply and recreation.

Hydro electricity.

Dam's just like any other non-subsidized structure have to have benefit's that exceed their cost. Giving the builder a net benefit.

The vast majority of dams are not constructed to generate electricity because of the capital cost and maintenance. The vast majority of dams are built for water reservoirs and the electricity is a by product.

While reservoirs are potential energy, as they are available on demand, they are extremely finite. Water releases are not done for the need for electricity, water releases are done by the demand for water downstream. In today political environment, water releases are done for political reasons and or dictated by law. Hardly a good predicable source of electricity. So, while technically reservoirs are potential energy and "available on demand" the truth is they are not available on demand as they are not detected by demand. So the power has very little value.

 

[ok doser]

...(hydroelectric) power has very little value.

your ignorance is matched only by your determination to remain ignorant

educate yourself:


Niagara falls:
2.7 GW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Moses_Niagara_Power_Plant

St Lawrence river:
1 GW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses-Saunders_Power_Dam

Manicouagan - the eye of Quebec:
1.5 GW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel-Johnson_Dam

to produce the same power that these three stations produce all day, every day, you'd have to burn 62,000 tons of coal - 520 railcars full of coal

every day

and there are multiple stations on the st lawrence and the outardes-manicouagan complex

 

[ok doser]

Hydroelectricity is created 100 percent by man.

where's all that water come from?

man?

 

[ok doser]

Quebec alone:

Hydro-Québec

Type Crown Corporation
Industry Electric utilities
Founded April 14, 1944
Headquarters Hydro-Québec Building, Montreal, Quebec
, Canada
Area served
Quebec
Key people
Éric Martel (President & CEO), Jacynthe Côté (Chair of the Board)[1],[2]
Products Electric power generation, electric power transmission, electricity distribution
Revenue 13.754 billion[3] CAD
Operating income
5.596 billion[3] CAD
Net income
3.147 billion[3] CAD
Total assets 75.199 billion[3] CAD
Owner Government of Quebec
Number of employees
19,794[3]
Website www.hydroquebec.com

Hydro-Québec is a public utility that manages the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity in Quebec.

It was formed by the Government of Quebec in 1944 from the expropriation of private firms. This was followed by massive investment in hydro-electric projects like Churchill Falls and the James Bay Project. Today, with 63 hydroelectric power stations, the combined output capacity is 36,912 megawatts. Extra power is exported from the province and Hydro-Québec supplies 10 per cent of New England's power requirements.[4]

Hydro-Québec is a state-owned enterprise based in Montreal. In 2015, it paid CAD$2.36 billion in dividends to its sole shareholder, the Government of Québec. Its residential power rates are among the lowest in North America.[5]

More than 40 percent of Canada’s water resources are in Québec and Hydro-Québec is the fourth largest hydropower producer in the world.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydro-Québec

that's right - nearly 37 GW

and revenue of $13.7 billion

 

[tieman55]

You gave examples of Dam's built by men. Without the dam you have no hydro.

Again, Dams are not primarily built for electricity. They were built for reasons I gave you.

The water released is not done by the demand for electricity as the water in the reservoirs are finite.

The Niagara falls example if false according the link attached.

copied and pasted below


Installed capacity 2,675 MW (3,587,000 hp)

That is at full load which rare. And again, the electricity created is not according to demand. It is generated to regulate the flow of water and the electricity is a "by product" The release of the water is dictated by law and or river level downstream and not by the demand of electricity


I like dams, they are a great part of infrastructure. Good public investment but they have zero to do with solar energy.

The only example of solar energy that truly works is photosynthesis, plant a thousand seeds where they are naturally watered and in the life span of a solar panel or a wind mill you will be a millionaire. And it is good for the environment, while your solar panels are filling up the land fills.

 

[ok doser]

You gave examples of Dam's built by men.

every power plant that burns coal is built by man

Without the dam you have no hydro.

without the power plant to burn coal, you have no power generation

Again, Dams are not primarily built for electricity.

every single one of the dams i listed was

The water released is not done by the demand for electricity as the water in the reservoirs are finite.

no, it is infinite, because it is infinitely renewable

because of the sun, which causes evaporation, which falls as rain to refill the reservoirs

The Niagara falls example... (electricity) is generated to regulate the flow of water and the electricity is a "by product" The release of the water is dictated by law and or river level downstream and not by the demand of electricity

i'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about :nono:

the reservoir that feeds the robert moses project is lake erie

the "river" downstream is lake ontario

the dam wasn't built to regulate the level of water in either body, it was built deliberately to generate electricity

just like all the others i listed

 

[ok doser]

...The only example of solar energy that truly works....

i have one of these on my fishing boat - it works just fine


truly

 

[tieman55]

no, it is infinite, because it is infinitely renewable

because of the sun, which causes evaporation, which falls as rain to refill the reservoirs


Again, I love dams, they are good idea. But they are not solar power. They are concrete and steel structures made largely with diesel fuel in large equipment.

Dam's regulate water flow and are in no way infinite. If they were infinite you would need no other source of generation. Water is let out according to law and water levels down stream and levels in the reservoir. Dams are not used to regulate frequency and or peakers, they are used for water control and the electricity in most cases is a by-product. Dam's also always have overflows in the case that too much water is coming into the dam. And dams are often completely closed due to low water levels.

I will conceded that they are probably some dams that may be built in the world as the world is a large place, that may have been built with the primary goal of generation electricity. I never said that generation wasn't a consideration. I am saying that generally when building a dam it is for water control, not electricity.