Methinks Paul is still missing the point. Robin correctly points out that
the sun's daily input of energy to the earth is 10,000 times what man's use
is. Our direct use of energy is trivial. It is the blocking of radiant heat
escaping the earth by the ***accumulated*** greenhouse gases that is our
contribution to global warming. You burn a tankful of gasoline and its
direct contribution to warming is un-measurable, but the effect of the CO2
produced will continue for perhaps thousands of years, each day contributing
to the blockage of cooling of the earth by radiation.
Non-polluting sources such as wind, solar, nuclear, hydroelectric,
blacklight power, cold fusion and others do not contribute to trapping the
sun's energy and can be safely used even if the total output by future
mankind is manyfold what we now do. Paul's idea of a 'heat pump' required
that heat be dumped someplace off earth, which is handily done each clear
night as the earth radiates heat into deep space. "Free recyclable energy"
is not well defined. Wind, Solar, and Hydro extract energy from that which
the sun has already given earth, but will not satisfy all human needs. It is
not 'free' in the sense that human effort is necessary to produce the
collection, storage and distribution systems, and these people need to be
adequately compensated for their effort [a large part of your utility bill
pays off the bondholders who lent the money for the construction of the
power plant and distribution infrastructure].
A point Paul is overlooking is that CF and BLP devices, when commercialized,
will liberate mankind from the political and economic system which exerts
control by controlling the sources of energy. There is no viable ZPE device
on the horizon. There are many tasks important to the survival and comfort
of a wold population of 10 billion, which we are approaching, which can
safely be tackled only by new energy soruces -- desalinaiton of sea water on
a massive scale, reconcentration [recycling] of mineral resources dispersed
by manufacture and use, etc.
Mike Carrell
-----------------------------------
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
> In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Wed, 10 Jan
2007 15:56:07 -0500:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>>> costly at present. Can you imagine if energy were
free
>>> whereby billions of people,
>>> millions of vehicles, homes, businesses, etc.
etc. are
>>> ***adding*** energy?!?! It will
>>> kill this planet!
>> Some of the "free" energy could be used to operate
some sort
>> of global heat pump system to ensure the biosphere
does not get
>> too warm.
>>
>> Consequently the price of free energy is the cost
of keeping
>> the planet cool.
>
> Most of human contribution to global warming is as
a consequence of greenhouse
> gasses. This is considerably larger than our actual
contribution in terms of
> thermal energy. By converting to CF globally, we
would eliminate the greenhouse
> gas contribution. In the near term, our
contribution to thermal energy would be
> minimal. The Sun supplies 10000 times more power
than we currently use, so our
> actual contribution is insignificant.
You're correct in that pollution is obviously by far
the worst. Although you're thinking
in terms of averaging and spreading the energy
humanity contributes over the entire
planet. It's a little more complex than that, as
humanity tends to gather in groups
forming large cities. We can detect temperature
changes during traffic hours near cities.
This creates temperature gradients. My point was
that present rise in temperatures will
be a drop in the bucket with global "free energy"
unless we develop FRE (Free Recyclable
Energy) machines. IMHO the idea of personal and
portable ZPE, cold fusion, etc. devices
is suicidal.
Regards,
Paul
____________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited
________________________________________________________________________
This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T.
Department.
