Susan asks…
what percentage of the worlds energy supply comes from renewable resources? 1-19-52 or 85?
biology
The Expert answers:
Biology?!?!
Your in the Earth Science & Geology section
Sharon asks…
Renewable Energy and Global Warming? Are Solar and wind helping?
Where I am coming from:: GW / Climate change is undeniable and Man Made.
I’m looking for thoughts from people who are knowledgeable in areas like Physics, Meteorology and Earth Sciences or generally know how the Earth and Nature work.
Solar and Wind energy seem to be the only two renewable sources that take energy directly out of the air. What makes me wonder is that I think they may be benefiting the environment more than we realize.
In addition to being clean energy sources they may be removing a lot more energy out of the environment then we realize, as they have been put in by the world on a massive scale. I tend to think wind turbines and solar panels probably dissipate nearly 100% of the energy that hits them. If the CO2 and pollution that we pump in the air is somewhat the same amount of energy as what we take out, we might have already found a way to compensate?
What do you think?
By the way renewable energy output has gotten to be almost even with nuclear energy output at 9%, much to the chagrin of the energy monopolies.
Ok Qaiser lets try to make this simpler, and Greg but the thing is if we can still convert it to energy then the energy existed. Energy is energy and if we’re saying there’s extra energy in the atmosphere I think getting rid of it or using it is a little less energy in the environment, nomatter if its at ground level or not.
We say our problem is that the CO2 mixed with the pollution we pump into the atmosphere heats up the atmosphere.
Ok that energy is already in the atmosphere. Now since solar and wind take whatever forms of energy they are and convert them into energy we use.
Now energy is energy. The physics law of conservation of energy has to apply here. In other words you dissipate some at the ground level and you’ve dissipated the total energy in the atmosphere, at the time, by that amount.
You can actually see it with wind turbines in water where fog develops because you actually cooled the surrounding air. You’ve also created a down draft that could be bringing some CO2 d
I meant to say the downdrafts created by turbines might bring CO2 down to ground level where it can be absorbed by plants trees or oceans.
P.S. You jokesters are real funny.
There’re solutions for bird and bat problems. Change the color of turbines, for instance.
No renewable energies can be developed by any company and any country thats what you’re all afraid of losing your monopolies, but forget it there future is written. Good luck getting nuclear plants running again, they take to much collaboration, effort and money to bring. Plus we haven’t built any of them in 30 years. Where do ya think we’ll get the nuclear experts?
Mtrstude, thanks but one thing you’re saying it ultimately gets released back but thats true for everything, ultimately it will go back but what if the next time it does its CO2 free which is our ultimate goal. Maybe we can continue with our reduction in energy usage so it won’t go back so quickly.
Pindar, well they must be helping somewhere cause we’re putting them up everywhere and we’ve stabilized our CO2 output in the last 3 years and Global CO2 output was down 1.3% in 2008 could be that it was due to the global recession. But still there’s more amunition to fight the folks that say GW is not due to humans.
But I can’t believe CO2 is all at ground level. Even if it is heavy the wind can still fling it around like it was nothing. That goes agains everything including NASA which has the atmospheric CO2 at 331 PPM. http://climate.nasa.gov/
You know whats really strange is that the people that are right are getting the thumbs downs and the people that haven’t a clue are getting the thumbs ups? Whats up with that? Well then to all the people getting the thumbs down, I commend you! You struck a cord with the denialists, great job!
Pindar I’m not talking about the UK if thats what you’re talking about. Where did you get that figure?
Here’s the EIA’s figure. Winds contribution in the U.S. may be small but its not 0, more like around 0.8% in the U.S.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/rea_prereport.html
The only brainwashing being done is by the money flows. Pindar I don’t join anybody for the purposes of joining them. If I happen to be on the same stance as them its because they and I both see the obvious.
Show me the evidence, but thats the problem isn’t it! The GW / Climate change denialists have no evidence to show and no way to disprove the facts and true observations.
Lalu are you talking about the 9% figure Lalu? Why don’t you check the graph on the EIA link I posted. That has renewables at 8% vs 9% for nuclear and that was for 2009.
“Worldwide wind energy production at the end of 2009 was 340 TWh, which is about 2% of worldwide electricity usage.”
http://energy-statistics.blogspot.com/2010/09/global-wind-energy-statistics.html
The Expert answers:
The short answer is ‘no’, they aren’t taking energy out of the air in the long run because whilst wind absorbs energy that was already in the atmosphere it is then used up as electricity, which is ultimately given out as heat and returned to the atmosphere. The net effect is zero.
Renewable energies emit less CO2, even once you include building and maintaining them. This slows global warming.
In terms of absorbing heat, it’s a bit more complicated than that. Power stations burn fuel and cause a bit of global warming that way: usually 2-3 units of heat for each unit of electricity (including the electricity which eventually heats the atmosphere).
The effect of solar panels depends on where you put them and their efficiency. If they are 10% efficient and you put them on shiny 90% reflective ice, then they actually mean you absorb 9 units of heat for every unit of electricity you make and they increase global warming – the ratio is 3 times worse than a fossil fuel or nuclear power station. But on the plus side, the carbon savings are a much, much bigger effect.
If you put a solar panel on a dark asphalt surface and you don’t change the reflectivity of the surface, then you’re getting power for ‘free’ in heat terms – you’re not absorbing any more and your ratio is 1 unit of electricity for 0 units of extra heating…
(I did a physics masters in solar cells and I’m now doing a PhD in climate science – I did the maths already for a solar power system’s effect on global warming, e-mail me if you want it)
George Orwell is spreading his ignorance once again. Atmospheric temperatures here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Did-global-warming-stop-in-1998-1995-2002-2007-2010.html
Of course, the atmosphere isn’t the only part of the globe. Trillions of tons of ice have melted since 2000 and sea levels have continued to rise as more heat goes into the oceans. In George Orwell’s world, more energy in the climate system isn’t global warming though.
Mary asks…
Is Denmark disproving the myth that a carbon cap and renewable energy investment is bad for the economy?
According to Forbes magazine, the “best country for business in the world” — for two years running — is uber-green Denmark
http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/18/best-countries-for-business-bizcountries09-business-washington-best-countries.html
Denmark has one of the strongest cap-and-trade commitments in the world — 20% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. And it has a requirement that 20 percent of its overall energy mix be renewable by the end of 2011. And its efficiency measures are such that Energy Minister Connie Hedegaard said last year, “In 2025, (Denmark’s) total energy consumption will not have risen in 50 years.”
http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/16/forbes-global-warming-denmark/
And apparently it’s the best country for business in the world. Does this shatter the myth that a carbon cap and renewable energy investment is bad for the economy?
The Expert answers:
It would appear to at least be an example of a country where carbon cap/renewable energy is not a barrier, however the foundations for this were laid by Denmark society many years ago. Denmark has a culture where cooperative social responsibilty is very highly valued, this has helped them make and take tough decisions which are then generally accepted by all classes and all political parties.
One reason that illustrates how this came to be is the example, of the growth in membership of the Nature Preservation Organization (DN). In 1975, the organisation had some 50,000 members. From 1978, the organisation intensified the recruitment of new members via telephone calls to all Danish households. At the same time, it shifted attention from nature preservation to environmental problems in general. This strategy proved extremely successful. By 1980, membership had doubled, and by 1983, the threshold of 200,000 members was passed. By 1988, the organization had 280,000 members. This not only made DN the largest nature preservation organisation in Europe; it also meant that it had more members than all Danish political parties put together.
This is an incredible lobbying force and one that put influence on decisions that were way ahead of any other country at this time and shaped the way Denmark did business, run its institutions and educated its population.
The results are that infrastructure and the general business, social frameworks are pro environmental investment of all types it is now part of their DNA and Connie Hedegaards statement is not political hot air, it is a confident and highly realistic prediction.
Daniel asks…
How about a crash govt program to develop fusion energy ala the Manhattan project? Elim dep on fossil fuels?
Fusion energy is an almost endlessly renewable energy source that is non polluting and produces no radioactive byproducts like nuclear. The oceans of the world have a virtually endles supply of fuel (duterium). Progress has been slow but with unlimited govt backing maybe a breakthrough could be made.
The Expert answers:
Funding is not the major problem for developing fusion reactors. There is simply a lack of knowledge, especially when it comes to understanding the mechanisms of the plasmas in such a way that they can be controlled in a fusion reactor. Theres also plenty of rather contradictory engineering problems one must get by such as containing a reactor as hot as the core of a sun within a room inside a metal caseing that would be vaporized upon contact with the core. We have a good idea on how to do that but then you gotta look at how exactly do you turn this amazingly hot plasma into steam? Well you have to think up solutions for that. We have some solutions but they sure aren’t great. Other fuel sources are wonderfully simple in their creation of energy…. Compared to fusion.
I suppose you could accelerate it by maybe forcing people into physics, ha! Unfortunately, our culture glorifies people who can get their faces on TV and complain about problems instead of the people in the labs working to fix the problem. It’s a personal pet peeve of mine to see so many shy away from actually contributing to the solution in meaningful ways.
James asks…
Renewable energy, All UK Pub toilets, distilled pee, to recover all Uk alchohol for recycling or petrol?
And all world alchohol too. Alchohol is not absorbed by the body, all of it comes out in the pee, thats why you get dehydration and hangovers, apparently. So why not connect all the towns pub pee toilets up and distill it to recoup the alchohol, put it back into the drinks, to save all that energy brewing/distilling it in the first place! or just process it to run as alchohol petrol replacement in vehicle engines. Or football grounds and hotels, and events provide their own heating. etc. If anyone patents this idea, we’ll go 1/3rds, ie you, yahoo, and me.
The Expert answers:
Definitely badly informed.
Alcohol is very much converted in the body – it contains a lot of calories and hence you get the famous beer belly if you overdo consumption. The energy you propose to waste in collecting and “recovering” what little alcohol does pass through would be better spent elsewhere.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers