Dave:
Went back to Wikipedia, got you this URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
I think the data is all there, just needs the calculation of the ratio.
I remember calculating the number of square yards of the earth that
faced the Sun, and I remember being 2x off the first time around, and
then finding that I didn't need to know that. This was on July 18th. I
plead fatigue. The article had a LOT of references, can't be off much.
(a rule, right? reliability of data proportional to number of references.)
But the WAG... I had a vague idea that the time required for the earth
to stabilize at a new T after a step change in heat input... hmm. And
the slope of change is, er, hmm. Well. Some sort of intuitive leap
occurred, and I grasped at 1%. Maybe because it's a nice simple number.
Have not looked further. Kinda' hoping some one else would. It's got to
be out there.
Regarding the pound of coal trapping more heat than it held originally,
think of a pound of gold, rolled to foil, spread to reflect sunlight.
Big amount of heat intercepted, yet the gold can't burn at all. Sort of
an apples and oranges thing.
Ol' Bab, who used to be an engineer. No, not that kind, electronic.
On 8/5/2012 5:19 PM, David Roberson wrote:
You have made an interesting WAG Bab. I intend to give it a lot of
consideration as I try to understand your derivation better. I had
hoped that the Sun was far ahead of mankind in this regard, but maybe
that was wishful thinking. Perhaps I can still find one of those
tickets to Mars before they all get sold out!
Could you recheck your source defining the 6000 to 1 ratio to see if
that is the accepted value? I hope that you made an error of a few
decimal places.
I suspect that the 60 to 1 ratio is a little on the high side when I
look at the problem from another perspective. Our test block of coal
at 1 kilogram turns into mainly carbon dioxide that enters the
atmosphere. Since this gas only remains there for between 30 and 90
years (half life) then it seems a little bit of a stretch to consider
that it allows for heat to be trapped equalling the original amount of
carbon in a single year. Off the cuff I would guess 10% or so. If my
WAG is better than your WAG, the X factor would be about 6. Who knows,
but I think we can obtain a modestly close number by further
investigation.
Anyone else out there have a guess or fact that might help us?
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: David L Babcock <ol...@rochester.rr.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sun, Aug 5, 2012 3:14 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat
On 8/5/2012 11:21 AM, David Roberson wrote:
It seems apparent that the final global consideration is that extra
heat is released into the atmosphere, land, and water of the earth as
a result of us burning fossil fuels.
In other terms, one kilogram of coal results in the net earth heating
of X times the initial heat outlay.
I found part of the picture in Wikipedia: The ratio of all the energy
incident from the Sun, to all the energy mankind used globally (in
2009?) was roughly 6,000 to 1. (I assume this was only the energy
that involved payment, ie, almost all fossil sourced energy).
Unknown to me is the added heat energy from "new" CO2 and methane. If
our present rate of warming is caused by (/really /wild guess) 1% more
retention of solar energy than "before", then that 1% is 60 times more
than our total energy consumption, for x = 60. If you diddle in the
all the renewable and nuclear parts it won't be much different.
Hey, a wild guess is better than none.
So if, if, if, all co2 sources get replaced by LENR, no problem. But
bloody unlikely. Also, there WILL BE a huge increase in total energy
usage, exponential, year after year after year. Might take us all of
200 years to get back in trouble.
Ol' Bab.
I would greatly appreciate it if some of our esteemed members join
into this discussion. Do you consider my thought experiment
completely off base or is there a way to get a handle upon the true X
factor I am suggesting?
Dave
