Note the second chart does not subtract out inefficiencies in delivering energy to the user.
Posted on 11/12/2007 8:46:16 PM PST by T Ruth
Ramping up the use of renewable energy would lead to the "rape of nature", meaning nuclear power should be developed instead. So argues noted conservation biologist and climate change researcher Jesse Ausubel in an opinion piece based on his and others' research.
Ausubel (who New Scientist interviewed in 2006) says the key renewable energy sources, including sun, wind, and biomass, would all require vast amounts of land if developed up to large scale production – unlike nuclear power. That land would be far better left alone, he says.
Renewables are "boutique fuels" says Ausubel, of Rockefeller University in New York, US. "They look attractive when they are quite small. But if we start producing renewable energy on a large scale, the fallout is going to be horrible."
Instead, Ausubel argues for renewed development of nuclear. "If we want to minimise the rape of nature, the best energy solution is increased efficiency, natural gas with carbon capture, and nuclear power."
'Massive infrastructure'
Ausubel draws his conclusions by analysing the amount of energy renewables, natural gas, and nuclear can produce in terms of power per square metre of land used. Moreover, he claims that as renewable energy use increases, this measure of efficiency will decrease as the best land for wind, biomass, and solar power gets used up.
* * *
'Heretical demagogue'
However, other experts who have seen Ausubel’s study are highly critical, both of its conclusions and its inflammatory rhetoric.
* * *
(Excerpt) Read more at environment.newscientist.com ...
Note the second chart does not subtract out inefficiencies in delivering energy to the user.
If its the guy I'm thinking of, he also debunked the rainforest scam. He said that the rainforest production of oxygen was a zero-sum gain because the amount of oxygen produced by the jungles was being consumed by the naturally decaying forest floor and the rapidly growing vegetation........
The decay might consume it. However, rapidly growing vegetation produces oxygen; it does not consume it. It consumes CO2.
Use correct forest management methods, and you'll never be able to tell the difference (and your forests won't burn up every year in wildfires).
I am not for sure about the cost. He did it himself (Sweat Equity) so he just purchased the materials and rented a spray guy(or whatever it is called) and went at it. So I wouldn’t be surprised if it cost him under $500 to do it. It makes a big difference even in our mild winters. Both of us are the open windows type so once the weather cools off enough the windows stay open all day to cool the house. When it really gets cold(30 to 50 degrees) we just bundle up with comforters or light a fire during the day. The insulation keeps the house at least in the 60s during the winter without the heater being turned on. I think this past winter the Heater only came on for about a week when it stayed down in the 30s with some icing.
Solar panels on roofs are fine, when economical without subsidies. The writer is against vast "solar farms"
The answer lies in sustainable biological attrition modalities.
But the oxygen it “produces” comes from the water drawn in by the roots and not from the CO2.
Chlorophyll’s most important use, however, is in nature, in photosynthesis. It is capable of channelling the energy of sunlight into chemical energy through the process of photosynthesis. In this process the energy absorbed by chlorophyll transforms carbon dioxide and water into carbohydrates and oxygen:
CO2 + H2O —> (CH2O) + O2
Structure and Reactions of Chlorophyll
http://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/local/projects/steer/chloro.htm
Not 100% certain it will “rape” nature, but am 100% certain it will “rape” Americans.
On your 2nd chart, res/comm’l/industrial accounts for about 70% of consumption. Has anyone ever looked at how much energy(as heat)escapes through building surfaces in all 3 sectors? What if all buildings REQUIRED a minimum of R100 and upwards of R200 for all exposed HUMAN-BUILT exterior surfaces?
Yes, yes, I know it would be unrealistic now, given the cost for insulation; but what if you hammered down that cost w/subsides? Instead of only looking at the left/source side of the graph(how to increase energy supplies), look at the right side/sink(how to limit energy loss).
Many on FR say : Yes, I added insulation and saw my utility bill drop by such and such. Hey, insulation works. Yes, there is a drop-off curve as you increase the R value but it’s still your best “energy-buy” even w/the retail costs of installation now. It would be even more attractive with cheaper(subsidized)insulation.
So that 5% figure may be way too low. If homeowners, business owners, just sat down and looked at their own heat(money)loss through skimpy-insulated walls, windows, etc; they would SEE why they’re paying far more than they should in their utility bill. No, it’s far MORE than 5% loss, to merely heat the environment; leave that to the SUN.
About the only “rocket science” to insulation(besides thermos bottles)is warm air rises/cool air falls in all the cells between surfaces : random thermal energy is FORCED into going thru that Spin Angular Momentum process in trying to traverse the wall. As my physics buddy put it : you can’t stop a rich man from doing what he wants to do, but you sure as hell can greatly INCONVENIENCE him...thus you can’t STOP heat from going thru the insulated wall, but you sure can greatly INCONVENIENCE it from doing so.
Even the dullest liberal running off at the mouth about GW can understand that INSULATION is usually your best energy buy. It doesn’t involve nuclear waste, CxHx CO2 emissions, RAPING nature w/renewables; just as many little “air-gears”/cells as possible between hot/cold environments.
So thackney, could you have an energy tagline : how well is YOUR house insulated? No, I don’t need to hear your energy-wisdom, I’ll know how energy-SMART you are by how much INSULATION your own house has...
Bingo, Doll!
Coal burning has put astronomical amounts of radiation into the immediate environment instead of remaining safely stored underground. This is why I muse that the anti nukes have screwed themselves, they eat and breathe their feared radiation every day, thinking they don't.
I had to check and see where you were from on that one.
In these parts, 60s are shirtsleeve weather, and 30 to 50 above is a nice spring day.
Fusion is coming if agore doesn't manage to outlaw the wheel, as is completely clean coal. In spite of alarmist frauds like agore, we will be on this planet for a long time and the technology will come. Solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, methane, will all improve and have places where they fit well, but will still only supply a small part of the energy needs we will have.
The only serious problem we have is the real world stupidity and treason of the left.
That is their share of the consumption, but look at the first chart. For every 3 BTUs consumed in electrical generation, less than 1 BTU is delivered for the customer to use.
-----
It just dawned on me as I was typing this, I was looking at it backwards. I was think that user can make little difference because of the consumption upstream. That is actually backwards. If the user reduces their electrical energy consumption by 1 BTU, then more than 3 BTU's do not need to be consumed for generation.
That means the insulation savings in greater than I was imaging.
Thanks. Your information on thorium and your positive attitude give me reason for hope.
Yup, you got it. That 3 BTU generated for 1 BTU delivered is mostly the thermodynamic inefficiencies of a coal-fired plant, yes? So, more insulation = less coal-fired plants built/operated. Only investors in said plants would be unhappy w/that, yes?
What I’m thinking of then is some kind of federal/state matching funds program, say 80% fed/20% your co-pay for LEGAL insulation projects. To wit, licensed/bonded insulation contractors only, keep the gypos away. Your local utility probably already has a thermal monitoring program(IR photos of your house on a cold night), yes?
Think of medicare prescriptions for seniors, practically free, yes? So, a program that offers a lot of JOBS in an already existing component of the construction field, experts at your own utility company designing the best system for your house, and a federal program that picks up 80%+/- of the tab. Of course architects/engineers would be involved as well, that’s political bonus points right there. Call it the “quilt” program...
So, pols yammer away about “freedom from foreign oil”, you’d kick the arabs in the gonads by simply insulating the living bejesus out of all our homes and business structures. Insulation...it’s such a simple answer to all the yammering about “green buildings”, global warming, on and on....
For me personally, moving to a climate requiring cooling versus heating, I all looking at adding radiant barriers to the roof to cut down on the heat load on the house.
Hawaii is nice, if you can afford it(been there, done that). AZ is ok, have lived there too; swamp coolers have cost advantages over electric A/C units, IF you have the WATER for them. Reflective roofs do get rid of the intense solar energy alright, but why do they have thick adobe walls in those southern climates? In mexico those thick adobe walls sucked up the rays all day, then radiated it inside until about midnight; natural solar energy. With thick enough insulation that could be extended until dawn of the next day.
Just read that the Iraq/Afghanistan war has run up a tab of $1.9 trillion so far. The sport of kings gets expensive, right? Was wondering though, if we had super insulation on all our homes, would we have gone into Iraq if we didn’t need their oil? Yes, oil usually goes into cars as gas, but the thread is about raping nature with renewables. And that’s just what I’m doing right now : splitting wood for the fireplace. Out west in the forests, that’s what we do as a living(some of us) : harvest renewable solar energy, with chain saws....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.