low cost wave energy farming?

Originally posted by joe shmo
Your adding more variables to confuse the issue!!!

A surface with waves in a field has a certain surface potential energy. If that potential were to remain fixed (conserved) and the waves amplitude were varied, the frequency would necessarily change (all other variables remaining constant). With said wave machine, energy is not conserved,(you are changing it). Therefore the frequency does not have to respond to a change in amplitude.

I said:

"How do you know that the effects of wind on the wave-shadow..."

not:

"How do you know that the effects of reduced wave amplitude on the wave-shadow..."

-at least I think that might be your misunderstanding; not sure.

Originally posted by joe shmo
[quote] ...and they have the same effect as burning fossil fuels...

how do you know this would result if renewables were so scaled-up?

Originally posted by humy
how do you know this would result if renewables were so scaled-up?

Because ENERGY IS ENERGY. If we need X amount of it, we can either transform it and add heat to the system or absorb it and draw heat from the system. Both have consequences.

Originally posted by humy
I said:

"How do you know that the effects of [b]wind on the wave-shadow..."

not:

"How do you know that the effects of reduced wave amplitude on the wave-shadow..."

-at least I think that might be your misunderstanding; not sure.[/b]

I was still working on explaining the original wave problem to you. You were moving ahead, full steam... as usual, to con volute the truth and avoid addressing your mistakes. That way you could continue to believe that you new the truth all along, and couldn't be bogged down by the actual physics of the matter.

Originally posted by joe shmo
Because ENERGY IS ENERGY. If we need X amount of it, we can either transform it and add heat to the system or absorb it and draw heat from the system. Both have consequences.

On a global scale, the energy transport associated with our electricity usage is negligible. On a local scale, there may be some noticeable effects.

Originally posted by joe shmo
Because ENERGY IS ENERGY. If we need X amount of it, we can either transform it and add heat to the system or absorb it and draw heat from the system. Both have consequences.

That makes no sense in this context:

If we need X amount of it, we can either transform it and add heat to the system

that is the result of the second law of thermodynamic as no matter how efficiently we use the energy generated, it eventually ends up as waste heat
Are you saying that, if we would generate all our energy from renewables rather than fossil fuels, the waste heat generated from the usage of that energy would be so massive that it would be as bad as the heating effect from the fossil fuel released CO2 greenhouse effect? If so, how can this be? And why would the amount of waste heat (not related to the greenhouse effect ) from X amount of energy usage from fossil fuels be any less than from X amount of energy usage from renewables? How much waste heat released into the biosphere from us using one joule of energy in the biosphere is going to be one joule regardless of whether that one joule came from a coal power station or a wind turbine.

or absorb it and draw heat from the system.

Given the 'system' in this case is the biosphere where we use all the energy we generated, that would break the second law of thermodynamics. We cannot reduce the temperature of the biosphere merely by our energy usage!

Both have consequences.

but there is reason to think that the consequences of it coming from renewables would be substantially less significant or harmful and will not result in significant sea level rise or stronger hurricanes etc.
In fact, I have yet to here of a single credible report of some serious unavoidable consequence of using renewables in general that compares with that of using fossil fuels.

Originally posted by humy
That makes no sense in this context:

If we need X amount of it, we can either transform it and add heat to the system

that is the result of the second law of thermodynamic as no matter how efficiently we use the energy generated, it eventually ends up as waste heat
Are you saying that, if we would generate all our energy from renewa ...[text shortened]... of thermodynamics. We cannot reduce the temperature of the biosphere merely by our energy usage!

Burning fossil fuels increases the total energy of the atmosphere, using "green" energies decreases total energy of the atmosphere. Both methods effect the entire dynamic system of energy transfers. No thermodynamic laws broken. Because of entropy generation, both forms of transfer produce waste heat, so no matter how you cut it the temperature of the atmosphere is going rise because of our transfer mechanisms.

Originally posted by joe shmo
Because of entropy generation, both forms of transfer produce waste heat, so no matter how you cut it the temperature of the atmosphere is going rise because of our transfer mechanisms.

Since the warming effect from that waste heat is so tiny compared to the warming effect from CO2 coming from the burning fossil fuels, it isn't this waste heat that is causing measurable global warming and thus it is irrelevant. The waste heat would have no measurable effect on climate warming from either source. But the CO2 induced warming from fossil fuels does.

using "green" energies decreases total energy of the atmosphere.

How? That would break the laws of thermodynamics. You cannot "decreases total energy of the atmosphere" merely by "using" energy, regardless of whether it is “green” or not! What would cause that energy to magically disappear? or where would it go and why?

Originally posted by humy
That makes no sense in this context:

If we need X amount of it, we can either transform it and add heat to the system

that is the result of the second law of thermodynamic as no matter how efficiently we use the energy generated, it eventually ends up as waste heat
Are you saying that, if we would generate all our energy from renewa ...[text shortened]... idable consequence of using renewables in general that compares with that of using fossil fuels.

but there is reason to think that the consequences of it coming from renewables would be substantially less significant or harmful and will not result in significant sea level rise or stronger hurricanes etc.
In fact, I have yet to here of a single credible report of some serious unavoidable consequence of using renewables in general that compares with that of using fossil fuels.

If the green energies are more efficient than burning fossil fuels they will slow down the rate of heat transfer to the atmosphere by way of transfer losses, but they will be simultaneously be harvesting that very energy for which they claim to preserve from the atmospheres/oceans/geologic... variuos forms of mechanical energy, thermal, chemical...from the first law. With an overall net result of warming the atmosphere, due to the second law.

Originally posted by humy
Since the warming effect from that waste heat is so tiny compared to the warming effect from CO2 coming from the burning fossil fuels, it isn't this waste heat that is causing measurable global warming and thus it is irrelevant. The waste heat would have no measurable effect on climate warming from either source. But the CO2 induced warming from fossil f ...[text shortened]... reen” or not! What would cause that energy to magically disappear? or where would it go and why?

You are misunderstanding the Laws!! The control volume is the atmosphere! YOU MOST CERTAINLY CAN CHANGE THE CONTROL VOLUMES TOTAL ENERGY!!!!

Originally posted by joe shmo
[quote]but there is reason to think that the consequences of it coming from renewables would be substantially less significant or harmful and will not result in significant sea level rise or stronger hurricanes etc.
In fact, I have yet to here of a single credible report of some serious unavoidable consequence of using renewables in general that compares w ...[text shortened]... rom the first law. With an overall net result of warming the atmosphere, due to the second law.

With an overall net result of warming the atmosphere,

but you just said the exact opposite! “using "green" energies decreases total energy of the atmosphere. “
Make up your mind!

+ there is no measurable global warming effect from this waste heat because it is just a too minute amount compared with that from natural sources (mainly absorption of sunlight by the Earth's surface) thus it is irrelevant.

Originally posted by joe shmo
You are misunderstanding the Laws!! The control volume is the atmosphere! YOU MOST CERTAINLY CAN CHANGE THE CONTROL VOLUMES TOTAL ENERGY!!!!

Can't you read? I didn't say this. I said:

"You cannot "decreases total energy of the atmosphere" merely by "using" energy" (contrary to what you implied by “using "green" energies decreases total energy of the atmosphere. “ )

I did NOT say just:

"You cannot "decreases total energy of the atmosphere" " (full stop here )

and would not claim such a thing. You need to read the whole sentence and not take it out of context.
I understand the laws perfectly and have physics qualifications.

Originally posted by humy

With an overall net result of warming the atmosphere,

but you just said the exact opposite! “using "green" energies [b]decreases total energy of the atmosphere. “
Make up your mind!

+ there is no measurable global warming effect from this waste heat because it is just a too minute amount compared with that from natural sources (mainly absorption of sunlight by the Earth's surface) thus it is irrelevant.[/b]

The total energy of a thermodynamic control volume is more than just its thermal energy, what don't you understand about this? The total energy of the atmosphere will decrease while at the same time its thermal energy will increase using "green" energy sources which harvest there energy from within the control volume itself.

Burning fossil fuels the energy come from outside the control volume and is introduced via heat transfer.

Originally posted by humy
Can't you read? I didn't say this. I said:

"You cannot "decreases total energy of the atmosphere" [b]merely by "using" energy" (contrary to what you implied by “using "green" energies decreases total energy of the atmosphere. “ )

I did NOT say just:

"You cannot "decreases total energy of the atmosphere" " (full stop here )

and would not c ...[text shortened]... nd not take it out of context.
I understand the laws perfectly and have physics qualifications.[/b]

You most certainly do not understand the laws.

Originally posted by joe shmo
The total energy of a thermodynamic control volume is more than just its thermal energy, what don't you understand about this? The total energy of the atmosphere will decrease while at the same time its thermal energy will increase using "green" energy sources which harvest there energy from within the control volume itself.

Burning fossil fuels the energy come from outside the control volume and is introduced via heat transfer.

The total energy of the atmosphere will decrease while at the same time its thermal energy will increase

are you talking about the energy in the wind and waves? If so

1, why not just say so?

2, converting the energy in the wind and waves will not result in the energy disappearing because energy cannot be created nor destroyed but can only be converted to one form to another. If X joule of kinetic energy from the wind is converted to y joules of electrical energy (via wind energy farm ) + some waste heat and that y joules of electrical energy is fed into electrical devices and all converted to waste heat, the total amount of waste heat generated would be X joules. That waste heat generally goes into the atmosphere. So the net effect would be to take X joules of kinetic energy from the atmosphere, and put close enough X joules of heat energy back into the atmosphere -so not much net change in the total energy in the atmosphere then. Plus note that that current energy in the wind and waves would eventually all be converted into heat energy anyway, even if we had no renewables, due to natural physical turbulence and friction. So since it is going to be converted to waste heat that is released into the atmosphere anyway, why would making some of that process happen via renewables rather than all by natural means make a significant difference to the total energy in the atmosphere?

3, we are nowhere near getting to the stage where wind and wave energy farms are significantly effecting the global climate. And, if and when we do eventually get to that stage, is there any reason to believe that such reduction in wind and wave energy would be just as likely to do more good (by reducing damage done by wind and waves esp during storms ) than harm than vice versa? And, assuming most of energy will not come from nuclear and given the only other alternative is to keep burning fossil fuels that we KNOW DEFINITELY WILL do a huge amount of significant harm (not to mention that the oil will eventually run out anyway! ) , and certainly far more harm than what would likely result from going all renewable, what alternative to going renewable would you suggest? NOT going renewable would be clearly more dangerous to climate and wildlife and us than going all renewable!