More Bad News For JPP's Coal & Oil Shills

This is a fun read. Now the example is specifically related to aviation but the theory and math are applicable on a larger scale

http://www.theenergycollective.com/...without-fossil-fuels-need-high-energy-density

Science will not save you.

The point you are all missing is the fundamental fact that despite wind and solar being relatively abundant, they are diffuse forms of energy. Fossil fuels are dense forms of energy.

No amount of scientific research will change these underlying facts.

If you don't understand the difference between high density sources of energy and diffuse sources of energy then you will be duped into believing that solar and wind are going to save the day.

Use GA06 as an analogy. The democrat party threw $30 million into a losing cause. That is the myth of large scale wind and solar.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
It just dawned on me that I am dealing with scientific morons so I am going to try to dumb this down as much as possible in the hopes that the scientifically illiterate will understand.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.

What does this mean in English? It means that energy ALWAYS flows from a more concentrated state to a less concentrated state.

Read this again. Then read it again. Then read it again.

Because if you fail to understand this salient point then it is pointless to move on.

Now that you understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics you need to understand that "fossil fuels" are highly concentrated forms of energy. Things like wind and solar are diffuse (not highly concentrated) forms of energy. There is potentially lots of it, but they are not highly concentrated.

This means that oil, natural gas and coal will ALWAYS be more efficient than wind and solar because on a per molecule basis they just have more stored energy. The answer lies in their chemical bonds and nothing else.

Now those who claim that technology will solve the problem are speaking out of ignorance because there will never be a way to take the low concentrated rays of the sun and turn them into highly concentrated forms of energy without using more energy. To do so would violate the second law of thermodynamics. You can't go from a low concentration to a high concentration. It is impossible. Period. End of story.

Now I am not sure if I can explain the second law of thermodynamics any clearer than I have right here. The lesson is free. What you do with it is up to you.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Thing1 said:
Good thing that wind & solar don't have to either. All science has to do is improve their harnessing ability & efficiencies.

There will be more articles like the OP in the coming years, that you'll look increasingly desperate trying to discredit. And desperate for what, exactly? So strange.
Click to expand...

It is clear you don't understand the laws if thermodynamics
 
aloysious said:
OK, when I can power my lawn mower with wind and solar in 2030 cheaper than petrol I'll do it. Until then I'll use petrol. Why's that bad news?
Click to expand...

You can do that now.
Electric lawn mowers have been available for your entire life span, idiot.
 
Alice in Liberaland said:
That isn't the argument I am making and you know it

You haven't even begun to conceptualize the amount if energy it would take to create your dream world. The number of natural resources. The environmental impact.

There is proof of liberal pipe dreams in the form of ethanol. Remember that promise?

It was supposed to get us off of foreign oil. It did no such thing. But it added untold unnecessary costs to society. Including more pollution.
Click to expand...

Another bald faced lie.
No such claims were made for ethanol.
Ethanol is a right wing boondangle and has much more to do with the poluting affects of previous oxidizing agents.
Fucking lying retard.
 
Alice in Liberaland said:
What a phenomenal read. Expect Clingy Thingy to accuse you of hating personal computers now.
Click to expand...

It is a phenomenally stupid read.
Of course oil is a natural product of the earth; where the fuck else could it have come from?
The funny part is that you miss the "tens of millions of years" part but then you are a stupid lying hack.
 
Alice in Liberaland said:
Not according to me. According to the laws of physics. Specifically thermodynamics. It isn't my fault you and Clingy Thingy don't understand it
Click to expand...

Hey you lying sperm socket,
The laws of thermodynamics prove that electric cars are far more efficient than internal combustion cars.
Even the Carnot cycle is limited to less than fifty % efficiency theoretically but in reality gas engines are just 20% efficient and diesels 30% while electric motors are over 90% efficient so shut the fuck up.
 
50 years ago mainstream conservatives thought the idea of any alternative energy innovation such as solar and wind was science fiction. 40 years ago mainstream conservatives believed that actual innovation on this front was an economic impossibility foisted on us by hippies.
20 years ago it was a drain on scarce government resources. 10 years ago workable but still more expensive and carries environmental downsides. Today there is a grudging concession that it is cheap and cleaner but on as part of an array or menu to be offered with dirty coal, nuclear and fracked oil.
You can apply this formula to everything, from the ecology to civil rights, to woman's reproductive health, to the role of government in society, to the erosion of religion and magical thinking vis a vis education, to tax policy and economic justice and opportunity.

Republicans are quite simply the luddite party, always dragged kicking and screaming by the ear after an epochal temper tantrum into a better future that liberals vanguard. We are like patient parents waiting to send their lazy asses to college so we can have some fucking peace and quite.
 
Alice in Liberaland said:
It just dawned on me that I am dealing with scientific morons so I am going to try to dumb this down as much as possible in the hopes that the scientifically illiterate will understand.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.

What does this mean in English? It means that energy ALWAYS flows from a more concentrated state to a less concentrated state.

Read this again. Then read it again. Then read it again.

Because if you fail to understand this salient point then it is pointless to move on.

Now that you understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics you need to understand that "fossil fuels" are highly concentrated forms of energy. Things like wind and solar are diffuse (not highly concentrated) forms of energy. There is potentially lots of it, but they are not highly concentrated.

This means that oil, natural gas and coal will ALWAYS be more efficient than wind and solar because on a per molecule basis they just have more stored energy. The answer lies in their chemical bonds and nothing else.

Now those who claim that technology will solve the problem are speaking out of ignorance because there will never be a way to take the low concentrated rays of the sun and turn them into highly concentrated forms of energy without using more energy. To do so would violate the second law of thermodynamics. You can't go from a low concentration to a high concentration. It is impossible. Period. End of story.

Now I am not sure if I can explain the second law of thermodynamics any clearer than I have right here. The lesson is free. What you do with it is up to you.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The only problem with your explanation is that it is incorrect.
All energy comes from the sun, whose surface temperature is hundreds of millions of degrees.
Due to entropy it strikes the earths suface at a greatly reduced yet still more than respectable 1000 watts per square meter.
For those as stupid as ILA that is enough to power 50 fluorescent lightbulbs from an area smaller than a bathtub.

The fact that molten salt solar thermal plants with 6 hours of storage exist at all completely belies your "proof".
 
Rune said:
Your article stated that it takes 10s of millions of years to create new oil you blithering idiot.
Click to expand...

Republicans like the very notion that in a century we can deplete 100 million years of energy conserved by nature from the remains of T Rex and company. It's a "piss on your grave" thing. It makes them happy.
 
Micawber said:
50 years ago mainstream conservatives thought the idea of any alternative energy innovation such as solar and wind was science fiction. 40 years ago mainstream conservatives believed that actual innovation on this front was an economic impossibility foisted on us by hippies.
20 years ago it was a drain on scarce government resources. 10 years ago workable but still more expensive and carries environmental downsides. Today there is a grudging concession that it is cheap and cleaner but on as part of an array or menu to be offered with dirty coal, nuclear and fracked oil.
You can apply this formula to everything, from the ecology to civil rights, to woman's reproductive health, to the role of government in society, to the erosion of religion and magical thinking vis a vis education, to tax policy and economic justice and opportunity.

Republicans are quite simply the luddite party, always dragged kicking and screaming by the ear after an epochal temper tantrum into a better future that liberals vanguard. We are like patient parents waiting to send their lazy asses to college so we can have some fucking peace and quite.
Click to expand...

This posts proves that you are off your rocker and politically closed-minded.
 
Micawber said:
Republicans like the very notion that in a century we can deplete 100 million years of energy conserved by nature from the remains of T Rex and company. It's a "piss on your grave" thing. It makes them happy.
Click to expand...

Yet another. You're on a roll lol
 
Micawber said:
50 years ago mainstream conservatives thought the idea of any alternative energy innovation such as solar and wind was science fiction. 40 years ago mainstream conservatives believed that actual innovation on this front was an economic impossibility foisted on us by hippies.
20 years ago it was a drain on scarce government resources. 10 years ago workable but still more expensive and carries environmental downsides. Today there is a grudging concession that it is cheap and cleaner but on as part of an array or menu to be offered with dirty coal, nuclear and fracked oil.
You can apply this formula to everything, from the ecology to civil rights, to woman's reproductive health, to the role of government in society, to the erosion of religion and magical thinking vis a vis education, to tax policy and economic justice and opportunity.

Republicans are quite simply the luddite party, always dragged kicking and screaming by the ear after an epochal temper tantrum into a better future that liberals vanguard. We are like patient parents waiting to send their lazy asses to college so we can have some fucking peace and quite.
Click to expand...

they are lied to by a right wing media that seeks to harness their stupid to fuel their agenda and to rape democracy
 
Alice in Liberaland said:
I posted you two links that explained it very nicely. If you didn't read it or understand it, that is your problem

Now why haven't you switched your home over to alternative forms of energy? The technology is there. You could do it tomorrow. What is stopping you?
Click to expand...

Those two links say absolutely nothing about the laws of physics nor thermodynamics being broken by alternative energies. Not one fucking thing. It is quite clear other than throwing around those two terms to add "legitimacy" to your "argument" you have not the slightest idea of what either of those are. I would suggest until you have a clue about what you are talking about you pipe down.

As far as your challenge, I do not live in a house. The vessels I am on do utilize various forms of alternative energies to reduce fuel consumption of the generators within their capabilities. They work wonderfully.
 
Alice in Liberaland said:
It just dawned on me that I am dealing with scientific morons so I am going to try to dumb this down as much as possible in the hopes that the scientifically illiterate will understand.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.

What does this mean in English? It means that energy ALWAYS flows from a more concentrated state to a less concentrated state.

Read this again. Then read it again. Then read it again.

Because if you fail to understand this salient point then it is pointless to move on.

Now that you understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics you need to understand that "fossil fuels" are highly concentrated forms of energy. Things like wind and solar are diffuse (not highly concentrated) forms of energy. There is potentially lots of it, but they are not highly concentrated.

This means that oil, natural gas and coal will ALWAYS be more efficient than wind and solar because on a per molecule basis they just have more stored energy. The answer lies in their chemical bonds and nothing else.

Now those who claim that technology will solve the problem are speaking out of ignorance because there will never be a way to take the low concentrated rays of the sun and turn them into highly concentrated forms of energy without using more energy. To do so would violate the second law of thermodynamics. You can't go from a low concentration to a high concentration. It is impossible. Period. End of story.

Now I am not sure if I can explain the second law of thermodynamics any clearer than I have right here. The lesson is free. What you do with it is up to you.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That right there just shows me you do not know fuck all about energy. How to describe it, the terminology, or what that means. Then, to make it worse, when you read the rest of your "schooling" one really realizes you just need to shut up. That is without a doubt the most elementary school level logic of trying to explain this, and completely wrong to boot.
 
Alice in Liberaland said:
Not according to me. According to the laws of physics. Specifically thermodynamics. It isn't my fault you and Clingy Thingy don't understand it
Click to expand...

More uninformed IHA blather.

If wind and solar power will never become more efficient, nor improve their output beyond their current levels, then how did the USA just set A RECORD for the percentage of energy provided by alternative fuels?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top