low cost wave energy farming?

Originally posted by humy

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, why not just say so? -and 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 d ...[text shortened]... newable would be clearly more dangerous to climate and wildlife and us than going all renewable!

Yes... I think impeding the winds & ocean currents with your green turbines, absorbing the energy in our waves, and absorbing radiation from the sun when scaled to future power demand will be just as dangerous as CO2 is for our future today.

Escape our planet and continue with clean slate and a few chips on our shoulder or a massive human curtailment. The smart money is on the latter, as it will happen regardless.

Originally posted by humy

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 bu ...[text shortened]... newable would be clearly more dangerous to climate and wildlife and us than going all renewable!

1, why not just say so?

It should be painfully clear that is what I am talking about at this point in the argument

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

Here's the thing...your wrong again. A large potion of that Work from electrical energy is "useful". That means it doesn't all just get transformed into heat, it goes into shaping our world and building our habitats and creating our machines that harvest more and more energy.

The atmosphere isn't going to get X joules of heat back. What you just described above was a perpetual motion machine that could provide work indefinitely at no cost to the system...please think carefully when you reply.

Please see: The Clausius & Kelvin Plank Statements of the Second Law for further information on how your statement violated it.

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?

It's the rates that are important. By changing the rates you change the climate.

Originally posted by joe shmo

1, why not just say so?

It should be painfully clear that is what I am talking about at this point in the argument

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 ...[text shortened]... ere?

It's the rates that are important. By changing the rates you change the climate.

A large potion of that Work from electrical energy is "useful". That means it doesn't all just get transformed into heat, it goes into shaping our world and building our habitats and creating our machines that harvest more and more energy.

What percentage do you think is not eventually converted into heat? Perhaps, say, 0.001% ? what difference do you think that would have to global climate? Enough to kill thousands like CO2 warming does? -surely not.

The atmosphere isn't going to get X joules of heat back.

“heat back”? That isn't what I implied. I implied ENERGY back.

What you just described above was a perpetual motion machine that could provide work indefinitely at no cost to the system.

nope; -see my previous comment.

It's the rates that are important. By changing the rates you change the climate.

Do you honestly believe that the trivial difference renewables would have to that rate would have any measurable effect on global climate? So far I for one have heard of no such observed effect on global climate from renewables.

Originally posted by humy
“heat back”? That isn't what I implied. I implied ENERGY back.

Erm...

Ok, repeat after me. The first law of thermodynamics: heat is work and work is heat.

Originally posted by joe shmo
Yes... I think impeding the winds & ocean currents with your green turbines, absorbing the energy in our waves, and absorbing radiation from the sun when scaled to future power demand will be just as dangerous as CO2 is for our future today.

I personally disagree. There is nothing in wind or wave farms or other green energy producers that could significantly increase the temperature of the planet. In some cases there may be an impact on the local environment due to changes in wave energy and wind patterns etc, but I see not reason to think those changes wont be positive.
I haven't read the whole thread, but if you you are claiming that converting wind and wave energy into heat will warm the planet in any significant way, then you are seriously mistaken.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Erm...

Ok, repeat after me. The first law of thermodynamics: heat is work and work is heat.

Then why does this link say this?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_%28thermodynamics%29
"...
Heat is measured by change of temperature of a known quantity of calorimetric material substance; it is of the essence of heat transfer that it is not mediated by the external generalized mechanical variables that define work.
This distinction between work and heat is essential to thermodynamics.
..."

+ I didn't say "work"; I said "ENERGY", which, although closely related, is not exactly the same thing in physics
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_%28physics%29 )

Originally posted by humy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_%28thermodynamics%29
"...
Heat is measured by change of temperature of a known quantity of calorimetric material substance; it is of the essence of heat transfer that it is [b]not mediated by the external generalized mechanical variables that define work.
This distinction between work and heat is essential to thermodynamics.
..."[/b]

hold the phone, I forgot that I am arguing with a guy with a PhD from Wikipedia.org

Firstly,... can you argue for yourself from now on please... I don't like reading the articles you post, and wasting time deciphering how you misinterpreted them.

Heat is measured by change of temperature of a known quantity of calorimetric material substance; it is of the essence of heat transfer that it is not mediated by the external generalized mechanical variables that define work.
This distinction between work and heat is essential to thermodynamics.

That simply means that thermodynamic state as it pertains to Heat is not dependent on the mode of heat transfer

and Work is not a state, because it is dependent on its mode of transfer.

How does that corrected interpretation of that statement help your case?

What you specifically described violated the second law: (And I don't expect you to understand this, but I'll give it one more shot) You delivered a Net Work (by means of a thermodynamic cycle) to the control volumes surroundings while communicating with a single thermal reservoir(the atmosphere). A direct and most simple violation of the Kelvin-Plank statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I personally disagree. There is nothing in wind or wave farms or other green energy producers that could significantly increase the temperature of the planet. In some cases there may be an impact on the local environment due to changes in wave energy and wind patterns etc, but I see not reason to think those changes wont be positive.
I haven't read the w ...[text shortened]... e energy into heat will warm the planet in any significant way, then you are seriously mistaken.

Please give it a read, I really don't want to argue these subtle points all over again.

Originally posted by joe shmo
hold the phone, I forgot that I am arguing with a guy with a PhD from Wikipedia.org

Firstly,... can you argue for yourself from now on please... I don't like reading the articles you post, and wasting time deciphering how you misinterpreted them.

[quote]Heat is measured by change of temperature of a known quantity of calorimetric material substance; i ...[text shortened]... ect and most simple violation of the Kelvin-Plank statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Correction: Heat and Work are both dependent on "the path" taken between thermodynamic states. That is to say that the Work and Heat at particular thermodynamic state have no meaning. I was wrong in saying Heat wasn't path dependent, sorry for the bad information.

Note: The only thing this changes is that I am not sure what is meant by this wiki statement

regardless, your statement still violates the second law.

Originally posted by joe shmo
Correction: Heat and Work are both dependent on "the path" taken between thermodynamic states. That is to say that the Work and Heat at particular thermodynamic state have no meaning. I was wrong in saying Heat wasn't path dependent, sorry for the bad information.

Note: The only thing this changes is that I am not sure what is meant by this wiki statement

regardless, your statement still breaks the second law.

OK (I think; not actually sure but doesn't matter ).
But all that is irrelevant anyway. That's because the renewables, for the foreseeable future, would have such a tiny impact on global climate that it couldn't credibly contribute to thousands of human deaths like CO2 increase from fossil fuel can. Pointing out the fact that physics says it would have an 'effect' on climate (words of that effect; not your actual words ) doesn't equate with that 'effect' being of sufficient magnitude to contribute (indirectly ) to thousands of deaths. In fact, there is at least one reason to think it could overall save more lives than kill! -because, providing they are implemented on a truly massive scale, wave farms could reduce the risk of coastal floating in storms and wind farms could reduce wind damage from gales and even hurricanes (note that they are no where near the stage where they are implemented on that sort of scale yet!)

Plus, assuming we don't go all nuclear because going all nuclear would be a rather expensive option (although I believe the dangers can be made perfectly manageable ) , if we keep burning fossil fuels, we KNOW there will be thousands (if not millions ) of human deaths caused by this. In contrast, we do NOT know that renewables would contribute to thousands of deaths and have no reason to think they probably would in particular.
Plus oil is going to run out anyway.
So, GIVEN all that above, what alternative do you propose to going all renewable and how would you justify it?
Please tell me.

Originally posted by humy
OK (I think; not actually sure but doesn't matter ).
But all that is irrelevant anyway. That's because the renewables, for the foreseeable future, would have such a tiny impact on global climate that it couldn't credibly contribute to thousands of human deaths like CO2 increase from fossil fuel can. Pointing out the fact that physics says it would have an 'eff ...[text shortened]... native do you propose to going all renewable and how would you justify it?
Please tell me.[/b]

Using renewables to curb the effects of introduced CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels (a fuel source external to the atmosphere) might not be a bad idea for a small time, but it will not work as a long term energy solution. You cannot extract energy from the atmosphere, while simultaneously expecting its functions, and mechanisms that create the climate to remain unchanged. The whole premise of globalized green energy from the atmosphere/oceans on which we are fully reliant is a thermodynamic DEAD END!

As for solutions: Who knows? What is more realistically going to happen ( either by our own hands or natural processes) is a mass extinction...a solution with very ugly prospects for the short term future of the human race, but it will probably solve the long term problem ( and with the added benefit of changing none of our habits,... we can just keep doing exactly what we are doing!)

Originally posted by joe shmo
Please give it a read, I really don't want to argue these subtle points all over again.

You don't have to. twhitehead is correct, renewables will not alter the climate or raise
temperatures by any significant amount... Certainly not when compared to the heat gain
due to increased insulation from CO2 and other greenhouse gasses.

First the amount of energy compared to the whole system is just too small.

Second, if you just pump out heat into the atmosphere, then the rate of outward
radiation will increase and you will rapidly hit equilibrium. You won't get ongoing
temperature rise without increasing energy output, and again the amounts are too small
to make a difference.

You can get local effects, where increased energy usage increases the local temperatures
by noticeable amounts. City heat island effects are partly due to this.

But you don't get any catastrophic changes to the overall system like you do with
CO2 emissions.

Originally posted by joe shmo
Using renewables to curb the effects of introduced CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels (a fuel source external to the atmosphere) might not be a bad idea for a small time, but it will not work as a long term energy solution. You cannot extract energy from the atmosphere, while simultaneously expecting its functions, and mechanisms that create the climate ...[text shortened]... ed benefit of changing none of our habits,... we can just keep doing exactly what we are doing!)

The atmosphere is powered by the sun.

The sun is not about to run out of power.
Wind turbines do indeed take energy from the wind... As do trees and tall buildings...

Somehow however trees have not caused a worldwide climate disaster by slowing
the wind down.

Originally posted by googlefudge
The atmosphere is powered by the sun.

The sun is not about to run out of power.
Wind turbines do indeed take energy from the wind... As do trees and tall buildings...

Somehow however trees have not caused a worldwide climate disaster by slowing
the wind down.

Yes, and that is in spite of there being vastly more trees than wind turbines and perhaps always will be no matter how much wind farms will be scaled up in the future. So the idea that wind turbines will cause a worldwide climate disaster by slowing the wind down is pretty absurd.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You don't have to. twhitehead is correct, renewables will not alter the climate or raise
temperatures by any significant amount... Certainly not when compared to the heat gain
due to increased insulation from CO2 and other greenhouse gasses.

First the amount of energy compared to the whole system is just too small.

Second, if you just pump out ...[text shortened]... t you don't get any catastrophic changes to the overall system like you do with
CO2 emissions.

Yes that's right...listen to your leader, don't read through it for yourself...as humy can attest to, nothing that was discussed had any value.

First the amount of energy compared to the whole system is just too small

What exactly are those quantities? What amount of Energy absorption from the atmosphere would you consider to have noticeable effects on the climate?

Second, if you just pump out heat into the atmosphere, then the rate of outward
radiation will increase and you will rapidly hit equilibrium. You won't get ongoing temperature rise without increasing energy output, and again the amounts are too small

Is energy consumption by the species going to decrease in the future? That explains my confusion, I thought it was going to continually increase.

But you don't get any catastrophic changes to the overall system like you do with
CO2 emissions.

Are you 100% sure of this...Is this a fact? Did your personal climate model tell you this?