Maybe we are not doomed after all

bobbygloss

In Norway electricity is used for everything though. There really isn't much other choice. Houses have an electric heat pump and immersion heater, and older ones have a wood stove as a backup.

Wheelspinner

seanoconn said:

rjsterry said:

Wheelspinner said:

bobbygloss said:

Yes, maybe the map is rubbish, sorry. TBB's link above also indicates at least some things are wrong.
It was posted on our intranet in a theme about clean energy, discussing how Norway is exporting clean green electricity to the UK and Netherlands, but importing almost the same amount of "dirty" electricity from Germany and Denmark.

Also interesting is that Norway has an extremely high per capita consumption of power, at almost 2.5 times the Australian average, and about 4 times the UK average, but nobody seems to mind? Any reason I wonder? Iceland is twice as bad as Norway.

They may *produce* power quite "cleanly" but the consumption end is no different from anywhere else I'd wager, meaning waste heat and emissions from all those activities. Of course, a lot of the domestic consumption will be specifically to generate heat so they can stay cosy and have saunas I suppose.

It's quite cold and dark in Norway for quite a lot of the year.

This seemed the obvious explanation. Iceland colder and darker still.

Seriously? Is it 5 times colder and darker in Norway than the UK? I’ve been to Oslo in November and Glasgow in October and IIRC they were both pretty f^cking bleak and cold. I’m unconvinced the difference is that significant.

seanoconn

Wheelspinner said:

seanoconn said:

rjsterry said:

Wheelspinner said:

bobbygloss said:

Yes, maybe the map is rubbish, sorry. TBB's link above also indicates at least some things are wrong.
It was posted on our intranet in a theme about clean energy, discussing how Norway is exporting clean green electricity to the UK and Netherlands, but importing almost the same amount of "dirty" electricity from Germany and Denmark.

Also interesting is that Norway has an extremely high per capita consumption of power, at almost 2.5 times the Australian average, and about 4 times the UK average, but nobody seems to mind? Any reason I wonder? Iceland is twice as bad as Norway.

They may *produce* power quite "cleanly" but the consumption end is no different from anywhere else I'd wager, meaning waste heat and emissions from all those activities. Of course, a lot of the domestic consumption will be specifically to generate heat so they can stay cosy and have saunas I suppose.

It's quite cold and dark in Norway for quite a lot of the year.

This seemed the obvious explanation. Iceland colder and darker still.

Seriously? Is it 5 times colder and darker in Norway than the UK? I’ve been to Oslo in November and Glasgow in October and IIRC they were both pretty f^cking bleak and cold. I’m unconvinced the difference is that significant.

You’re a lot more grumpy in cake stop.

Pross

@Wheelspinner I have no idea on the consumption but I guess as it is cold and dark for so much of the year. It terms of energy 'waste' if you are generating from a 100% clean and renewable source surely it makes no difference. Heat just moves around.

My understanding is limited but I believe the issue is heat getting trapped by greenhouse gases so the heat moving in from the sun can't move back over the same space. What I don't understand is how heat penetrates to earth but can't back out. I guess it is just a time delay issue. It's all far beyond my limited comprehension.

Wheelspinner

Jezyboy said:

I think the more relevant critique of Norway is they got mega rich off oil and gas they exported and have used that to build up preachy green energy system.

Still probably better than getting mega rich off exporting coal and not doing anything about your own energy system.

It might hurt to hear that we are doing stuff. Have a read.

https://amp.abc.net.au/article/100561218

Yep, there’s still problems to be addressed. So?

Perhaps also worth noting that the proportion of Australian energy generated from coal has declined from a peak of over 80% in about 2000 to a bit under 60% in 2018, so a 20% drop.

The EU has also dropped it’s coal generation percentage by about 20% (40 down to 20) but over a considerably longer period of almost 35 years.

Indonesia has (meanwhile) gone from exporting about 77 million tonnes in 2000 to nearly 500 million tonnes last year - more than Australia in total now - never mind what they use domestically. How much do you hear about that compared to Australia as the coal problem?

Its a genuine question. I’ve no disagreement with the idea that Australia is lagging in efforts to fix *our* stuff. I’m just surprised so many people seem ignorant of what else is going on.

China alone *produces* HALF the coal used in the world (and uses all they produce), and they still import more.
The top 4 producing countries in 2019 combined is more than 70% of the world total.

China, India, US, Indonesia.

Australia - number 5 on that list of production countries - accounts for about 6% of that global production total. Thats not changed that much in a fair while. If anything, our slice of the global production total has dropped significantly thanks to China humongous increase in the last 20 years.



Australia is the dark blue blocks across the middle.

Did you know that? You still think we’re a major problem here?

I think Australia uses domestically about 20% of what we produce, meaning our actual coal consumption is roughly one fifth of 6 percent, or 1.2% of the world consumption totals.

We could stop tomorrow and you’d almost never notice, because that capacity is being built faster elsewhere, and mined and produced and exported by other countries faster than we can switch ours off.

rjsterry

Wheelspinner said:

seanoconn said:

rjsterry said:

Wheelspinner said:

bobbygloss said:

Yes, maybe the map is rubbish, sorry. TBB's link above also indicates at least some things are wrong.
It was posted on our intranet in a theme about clean energy, discussing how Norway is exporting clean green electricity to the UK and Netherlands, but importing almost the same amount of "dirty" electricity from Germany and Denmark.

Also interesting is that Norway has an extremely high per capita consumption of power, at almost 2.5 times the Australian average, and about 4 times the UK average, but nobody seems to mind? Any reason I wonder? Iceland is twice as bad as Norway.

They may *produce* power quite "cleanly" but the consumption end is no different from anywhere else I'd wager, meaning waste heat and emissions from all those activities. Of course, a lot of the domestic consumption will be specifically to generate heat so they can stay cosy and have saunas I suppose.

It's quite cold and dark in Norway for quite a lot of the year.

This seemed the obvious explanation. Iceland colder and darker still.

Seriously? Is it 5 times colder and darker in Norway than the UK? I’ve been to Oslo in November and Glasgow in October and IIRC they were both pretty f^cking bleak and cold. I’m unconvinced the difference is that significant.

I don't think Glasgow gets down to -15C in January. Oslo does.
A stat I found said Glasgow averages 3.8C warmer than Oslo. Hammerfest at the other end of Norway is ~1800km further north. I'm not sure climate would explain all of the difference, though.

Wheelspinner

Pross said:

@Wheelspinner I have no idea on the consumption but I guess as it is cold and dark for so much of the year. It terms of energy 'waste' if you are generating from a 100% clean and renewable source surely it makes no difference. Heat just moves around.

This is the crux of it.

There is no such thing as 100% “clean” production. Absolutely not possible.

EVERY process has some inefficiency - generation, transmission, storage then consumption ALL have a waste component and that waste is almost always seen as heat.

Produce more, use more = more waste heat. Whether your initial production was comparatively good doesn’t change the subsequent waste heat problem.

And climate change is all about… the heat increase.

rick_chasey

Wheelspinner said:

Jezyboy said:

I think the more relevant critique of Norway is they got mega rich off oil and gas they exported and have used that to build up preachy green energy system.

Still probably better than getting mega rich off exporting coal and not doing anything about your own energy system.

It might hurt to hear that we are doing stuff. Have a read.

https://amp.abc.net.au/article/100561218

Yep, there’s still problems to be addressed. So?

Perhaps also worth noting that the proportion of Australian energy generated from coal has declined from a peak of over 80% in about 2000 to a bit under 60% in 2018, so a 20% drop.

The EU has also dropped it’s coal generation percentage by about 20% (40 down to 20) but over a considerably longer period of almost 35 years.

Indonesia has (meanwhile) gone from exporting about 77 million tonnes in 2000 to nearly 500 million tonnes last year - more than Australia in total now - never mind what they use domestically. How much do you hear about that compared to Australia as the coal problem?

Its a genuine question. I’ve no disagreement with the idea that Australia is lagging in efforts to fix *our* stuff. I’m just surprised so many people seem ignorant of what else is going on.

China alone *produces* HALF the coal used in the world (and uses all they produce), and they still import more.
The top 4 producing countries in 2019 combined is more than 70% of the world total.

China, India, US, Indonesia.

Australia - number 5 on that list of production countries - accounts for about 6% of that global production total. Thats not changed that much in a fair while. If anything, our slice of the global production total has dropped significantly thanks to China humongous increase in the last 20 years.



Australia is the dark blue blocks across the middle.

Did you know that? You still think we’re a major problem here?

I think Australia uses domestically about 20% of what we produce, meaning our actual coal consumption is roughly one fifth of 6 percent, or 1.2% of the world consumption totals.

We could stop tomorrow and you’d almost never notice, because that capacity is being built faster elsewhere, and mined and produced and exported by other countries faster than we can switch ours off.

What’s your argument?

That the Uk shouldn’t bother because it is such a small country?

rjsterry

Pross said:

@Wheelspinner I have no idea on the consumption but I guess as it is cold and dark for so much of the year. It terms of energy 'waste' if you are generating from a 100% clean and renewable source surely it makes no difference. Heat just moves around.

My understanding is limited but I believe the issue is heat getting trapped by greenhouse gases so the heat moving in from the sun can't move back over the same space. What I don't understand is how heat penetrates to earth but can't back out. I guess it is just a time delay issue. It's all far beyond my limited comprehension.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/geophysical/chapter/heat-transfer-in-the-atmosphere/

Wheelspinner

rjsterry said:

Wheelspinner said:

seanoconn said:

rjsterry said:

Wheelspinner said:

bobbygloss said:

Yes, maybe the map is rubbish, sorry. TBB's link above also indicates at least some things are wrong.
It was posted on our intranet in a theme about clean energy, discussing how Norway is exporting clean green electricity to the UK and Netherlands, but importing almost the same amount of "dirty" electricity from Germany and Denmark.

Also interesting is that Norway has an extremely high per capita consumption of power, at almost 2.5 times the Australian average, and about 4 times the UK average, but nobody seems to mind? Any reason I wonder? Iceland is twice as bad as Norway.

They may *produce* power quite "cleanly" but the consumption end is no different from anywhere else I'd wager, meaning waste heat and emissions from all those activities. Of course, a lot of the domestic consumption will be specifically to generate heat so they can stay cosy and have saunas I suppose.

It's quite cold and dark in Norway for quite a lot of the year.

This seemed the obvious explanation. Iceland colder and darker still.

Seriously? Is it 5 times colder and darker in Norway than the UK? I’ve been to Oslo in November and Glasgow in October and IIRC they were both pretty f^cking bleak and cold. I’m unconvinced the difference is that significant.

I don't think Glasgow gets down to -15C in January. Oslo does.
A stat I found said Glasgow averages 3.8C warmer than Oslo. Hammerfest at the other end of Norway is ~1800km further north. I'm not sure climate would explain all of the difference, though.

Sure, I know that. Assuming climate difference *is* the cause of the consumption difference, why aren’t they being hammered to fix it? Or move to Spain?

Wheelspinner

rick_chasey said:

What’s your argument?

That the Uk shouldn’t bother because it is such a small country?

No, not at all.

I’m sure we get a very selective and biased media view, but the perception I see here is the EU and UK in particular are especially critical of Australia in this policy area. We export lots of coal, therefore we’re the problem.

And in the land of the internet, people’s opinions are formed by reading a headline, never mind facts or context. I’m not disagreeing with the “Australia is statistically poor at the climate change stuff” - we are, in terms of what we do in our own country. I’m arguing that blaming Australia for the fact that the rest of the world is burning more coal faster than ever is wrong. And that’s the impression we see from the media reporting. A bunch of countries in the Pacific reckon sea level rising is our fault entirely. Jesus wept…

It pi$$es me off. I’m proudly Australian, and I’m just trying to provide some balance here.

Oz makes about 40-50 billion pounds a year from coal exports. Here’s a cheap fix. Pay us that money to *stop* shipping any coal at all to anywhere. Chicken feed in the EU and UK budgets.

It is quite genuinely a vastly cheaper option than managing the effects of using the stuff elsewhere, so why not?

What do you think the outcome would be? Global chaos, or business as usual because everybody else will just ramp up production and take advantage, charging a *much* higher price for it? I know where my money would go in a bet…

Wheelspinner

rick_chasey said:

Speaking of individuals people making a difference, ostensibly or otherwise, I do think some vision of what the future will actually look like that isn't some sh!t version of our current world is quite key to getting everyone's head around the idea that this is something we all ought to do.

And this, TBH, is exactly my view in this thread. I really don’t believe the way forward is simply to find “cleaner” or “more sustainable” ways to continue to do the same sh!t the human race currently does.

Behaviour has to change, radically, rapidly, and at an individual level of responsibility. Waiting for governments to decide what to change for us is too late.

And yeah, life looks genuinely less fun through that lens. Sucks, but what’s your choice?

lesfirth

Wheelspinner said:

Pross said:

Wheelspinner said:

bobbygloss said:

Yes, maybe the map is rubbish, sorry. TBB's link above also indicates at least some things are wrong.
It was posted on our intranet in a theme about clean energy, discussing how Norway is exporting clean green electricity to the UK and Netherlands, but importing almost the same amount of "dirty" electricity from Germany and Denmark.

Also interesting is that Norway has an extremely high per capita consumption of power, at almost 2.5 times the Australian average, and about 4 times the UK average, but nobody seems to mind? Any reason I wonder? Iceland is twice as bad as Norway.

They may *produce* power quite "cleanly" but the consumption end is no different from anywhere else I'd wager, meaning waste heat and emissions from all those activities. Of course, a lot of the domestic consumption will be specifically to generate heat so they can stay cosy and have saunas I suppose.

Consumption is irrelevant to climate change though, it's the CO2 from generation that is contributing to the greenhouse effect and global warming. Any heat produced just follows the laws of thermodynamics and moves around, it isn't 'new' heat.

If I take 5 kw input to a room, use it solely to run a bunch of things that are (say) 95% efficient and which only “waste” 5% as heat, the effect on the room temp will be minimal. If I have a second room and take all 5 kw to just run a bar element heater and nothing else, the room will be a sauna in no time. And if I open the doors of both rooms that heat will go out and (slightly) warm up the outside environment nearby. It has to end up somewhere, according to those thermodynamic rules, yes? It will be significantly more local environmental impact outside the sauna room?

Can you explain, to a simple lad like me, if the 5kw running "95% efficient things" is only putting 5% as heat into the room, where is the other 95 % of the energy going?

rjsterry

lesfirth said:

Wheelspinner said:

Pross said:

Wheelspinner said:

bobbygloss said:

Yes, maybe the map is rubbish, sorry. TBB's link above also indicates at least some things are wrong.
It was posted on our intranet in a theme about clean energy, discussing how Norway is exporting clean green electricity to the UK and Netherlands, but importing almost the same amount of "dirty" electricity from Germany and Denmark.

Also interesting is that Norway has an extremely high per capita consumption of power, at almost 2.5 times the Australian average, and about 4 times the UK average, but nobody seems to mind? Any reason I wonder? Iceland is twice as bad as Norway.

They may *produce* power quite "cleanly" but the consumption end is no different from anywhere else I'd wager, meaning waste heat and emissions from all those activities. Of course, a lot of the domestic consumption will be specifically to generate heat so they can stay cosy and have saunas I suppose.

Consumption is irrelevant to climate change though, it's the CO2 from generation that is contributing to the greenhouse effect and global warming. Any heat produced just follows the laws of thermodynamics and moves around, it isn't 'new' heat.

If I take 5 kw input to a room, use it solely to run a bunch of things that are (say) 95% efficient and which only “waste” 5% as heat, the effect on the room temp will be minimal. If I have a second room and take all 5 kw to just run a bar element heater and nothing else, the room will be a sauna in no time. And if I open the doors of both rooms that heat will go out and (slightly) warm up the outside environment nearby. It has to end up somewhere, according to those thermodynamic rules, yes? It will be significantly more local environmental impact outside the sauna room?

Can you explain, to a simple lad like me, if the 5kw running "95% efficient things" is only putting 5% as heat into the room, where is the other 95 % of the energy going?

Moving things or emitting light, or sound (which is just moving air). I'm not sure what those things might be, though to achieve such a high efficiency. Having just done the vacuuming I'd say my Vax wastes quite a bit of energy as noise (cf. people wanging on about how clicky their freehub is).

Pross

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

@Wheelspinner I have no idea on the consumption but I guess as it is cold and dark for so much of the year. It terms of energy 'waste' if you are generating from a 100% clean and renewable source surely it makes no difference. Heat just moves around.

My understanding is limited but I believe the issue is heat getting trapped by greenhouse gases so the heat moving in from the sun can't move back over the same space. What I don't understand is how heat penetrates to earth but can't back out. I guess it is just a time delay issue. It's all far beyond my limited comprehension.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/geophysical/chapter/heat-transfer-in-the-atmosphere/

That's a really interesting site, I could find myself getting engrossed in it for ages. A lot of it I recall from GCSE Geography (my favourite subject) and Physics but it covers the various wind systems in a lot more detail. The bit on heat transfer pretty much backs up what I was saying earlier and that heat would just move around and maintain equilibrium if not for the greenhouse effect but I still don't really understand why the incoming heat gets through whilst the outgoing heat doesn't.

Am I right or wrong in my assumption that heat wastage isn't really contributing to global warming though (assuming energy production isn't contributing to greenhouse gases)? It feels like the equivalent that the heat from a fridge doesn't really heat your house up.

Pross

rjsterry said:

lesfirth said:

Wheelspinner said:

Pross said:

Wheelspinner said:

bobbygloss said:

Yes, maybe the map is rubbish, sorry. TBB's link above also indicates at least some things are wrong.
It was posted on our intranet in a theme about clean energy, discussing how Norway is exporting clean green electricity to the UK and Netherlands, but importing almost the same amount of "dirty" electricity from Germany and Denmark.

Also interesting is that Norway has an extremely high per capita consumption of power, at almost 2.5 times the Australian average, and about 4 times the UK average, but nobody seems to mind? Any reason I wonder? Iceland is twice as bad as Norway.

They may *produce* power quite "cleanly" but the consumption end is no different from anywhere else I'd wager, meaning waste heat and emissions from all those activities. Of course, a lot of the domestic consumption will be specifically to generate heat so they can stay cosy and have saunas I suppose.

Consumption is irrelevant to climate change though, it's the CO2 from generation that is contributing to the greenhouse effect and global warming. Any heat produced just follows the laws of thermodynamics and moves around, it isn't 'new' heat.

If I take 5 kw input to a room, use it solely to run a bunch of things that are (say) 95% efficient and which only “waste” 5% as heat, the effect on the room temp will be minimal. If I have a second room and take all 5 kw to just run a bar element heater and nothing else, the room will be a sauna in no time. And if I open the doors of both rooms that heat will go out and (slightly) warm up the outside environment nearby. It has to end up somewhere, according to those thermodynamic rules, yes? It will be significantly more local environmental impact outside the sauna room?

Can you explain, to a simple lad like me, if the 5kw running "95% efficient things" is only putting 5% as heat into the room, where is the other 95 % of the energy going?

Moving things or emitting light, or sound (which is just moving air). I'm not sure what those things might be, though to achieve such a high efficiency. Having just done the vacuuming I'd say my Vax wastes quite a bit of energy as noise (cf. people wanging on about how clicky their freehub is).

Whilst using Henry earlier which drives the dog nuts that I'm surprised this like vacuum cleaners and hair dryers aren't quieter as noise is just wasted energy. My thinking was it is partly deliberate i.e. people feel they are more powerful if they make more noise.

pangolin

seanoconn said:

rjsterry said:

Wheelspinner said:

bobbygloss said:

Yes, maybe the map is rubbish, sorry. TBB's link above also indicates at least some things are wrong.
It was posted on our intranet in a theme about clean energy, discussing how Norway is exporting clean green electricity to the UK and Netherlands, but importing almost the same amount of "dirty" electricity from Germany and Denmark.

Also interesting is that Norway has an extremely high per capita consumption of power, at almost 2.5 times the Australian average, and about 4 times the UK average, but nobody seems to mind? Any reason I wonder? Iceland is twice as bad as Norway.

They may *produce* power quite "cleanly" but the consumption end is no different from anywhere else I'd wager, meaning waste heat and emissions from all those activities. Of course, a lot of the domestic consumption will be specifically to generate heat so they can stay cosy and have saunas I suppose.

It's quite cold and dark in Norway for quite a lot of the year.

This seemed the obvious explanation. Iceland colder and darker still.

Doesn't Iceland also use loads for bitcoin mining?

rjsterry

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

@Wheelspinner I have no idea on the consumption but I guess as it is cold and dark for so much of the year. It terms of energy 'waste' if you are generating from a 100% clean and renewable source surely it makes no difference. Heat just moves around.

My understanding is limited but I believe the issue is heat getting trapped by greenhouse gases so the heat moving in from the sun can't move back over the same space. What I don't understand is how heat penetrates to earth but can't back out. I guess it is just a time delay issue. It's all far beyond my limited comprehension.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/geophysical/chapter/heat-transfer-in-the-atmosphere/

That's a really interesting site, I could find myself getting engrossed in it for ages. A lot of it I recall from GCSE Geography (my favourite subject) and Physics but it covers the various wind systems in a lot more detail. The bit on heat transfer pretty much backs up what I was saying earlier and that heat would just move around and maintain equilibrium if not for the greenhouse effect but I still don't really understand why the incoming heat gets through whilst the outgoing heat doesn't.

Am I right or wrong in my assumption that heat wastage isn't really contributing to global warming though (assuming energy production isn't contributing to greenhouse gases)? It feels like the equivalent that the heat from a fridge doesn't really heat your house up.

Yes, the amount of energy absorbed by the atmosphere seas and land surface is one of those numbers that is difficult to get your head around.

Of the 340 watts per square meter of solar energy that falls on the Earth, 29% is reflected back into space, primarily by clouds, but also by other bright surfaces and the atmosphere itself. About 23% of incoming energy is absorbed in the atmosphere by atmospheric gases, dust, and other particles. The remaining 48% is absorbed at the surface.

The earth's surface area is 510 trillion m2.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance/page4.php

It's us increasing the absorption of the atmosphere that is causing the problem. The heat emitted by human activity does create micro climate changes - frosts are rare in London - but are not enough to affect the wider climate.

pangolin

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

@Wheelspinner I have no idea on the consumption but I guess as it is cold and dark for so much of the year. It terms of energy 'waste' if you are generating from a 100% clean and renewable source surely it makes no difference. Heat just moves around.

My understanding is limited but I believe the issue is heat getting trapped by greenhouse gases so the heat moving in from the sun can't move back over the same space. What I don't understand is how heat penetrates to earth but can't back out. I guess it is just a time delay issue. It's all far beyond my limited comprehension.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/geophysical/chapter/heat-transfer-in-the-atmosphere/

That's a really interesting site, I could find myself getting engrossed in it for ages. A lot of it I recall from GCSE Geography (my favourite subject) and Physics but it covers the various wind systems in a lot more detail. The bit on heat transfer pretty much backs up what I was saying earlier and that heat would just move around and maintain equilibrium if not for the greenhouse effect but I still don't really understand why the incoming heat gets through whilst the outgoing heat doesn't.

Am I right or wrong in my assumption that heat wastage isn't really contributing to global warming though (assuming energy production isn't contributing to greenhouse gases)? It feels like the equivalent that the heat from a fridge doesn't really heat your house up.

Yes, the amount of energy absorbed by the atmosphere seas and land surface is one of those numbers that is difficult to get your head around.

Of the 340 watts per square meter of solar energy that falls on the Earth, 29% is reflected back into space, primarily by clouds, but also by other bright surfaces and the atmosphere itself. About 23% of incoming energy is absorbed in the atmosphere by atmospheric gases, dust, and other particles. The remaining 48% is absorbed at the surface.

The earth's surface area is 510 trillion m2.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance/page4.php

It's us increasing the absorption of the atmosphere that is causing the problem. The heat emitted by human activity does create micro climate changes - frosts are rare in London - but are not enough to affect the wider climate.

Is that 340w per sqm on the bit closest to the sun? So it would diminish to zero at the point it's dark? Still a massive number obviously...

TheBigBean

Australia is very well suited for green hydrogen production. A point noted by its former chief scientist. It would be a more effective decarbonisation strategy to focus on this positve rather than the potential, but inevitable, loss of coal mining.

Japan would be a very willing buyer.

rjsterry

pangolin said:

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

@Wheelspinner I have no idea on the consumption but I guess as it is cold and dark for so much of the year. It terms of energy 'waste' if you are generating from a 100% clean and renewable source surely it makes no difference. Heat just moves around.

My understanding is limited but I believe the issue is heat getting trapped by greenhouse gases so the heat moving in from the sun can't move back over the same space. What I don't understand is how heat penetrates to earth but can't back out. I guess it is just a time delay issue. It's all far beyond my limited comprehension.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/geophysical/chapter/heat-transfer-in-the-atmosphere/

That's a really interesting site, I could find myself getting engrossed in it for ages. A lot of it I recall from GCSE Geography (my favourite subject) and Physics but it covers the various wind systems in a lot more detail. The bit on heat transfer pretty much backs up what I was saying earlier and that heat would just move around and maintain equilibrium if not for the greenhouse effect but I still don't really understand why the incoming heat gets through whilst the outgoing heat doesn't.

Am I right or wrong in my assumption that heat wastage isn't really contributing to global warming though (assuming energy production isn't contributing to greenhouse gases)? It feels like the equivalent that the heat from a fridge doesn't really heat your house up.

Yes, the amount of energy absorbed by the atmosphere seas and land surface is one of those numbers that is difficult to get your head around.

Of the 340 watts per square meter of solar energy that falls on the Earth, 29% is reflected back into space, primarily by clouds, but also by other bright surfaces and the atmosphere itself. About 23% of incoming energy is absorbed in the atmosphere by atmospheric gases, dust, and other particles. The remaining 48% is absorbed at the surface.

The earth's surface area is 510 trillion m2.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance/page4.php

It's us increasing the absorption of the atmosphere that is causing the problem. The heat emitted by human activity does create micro climate changes - frosts are rare in London - but are not enough to affect the wider climate.

Is that 340w per sqm on the bit closest to the sun? So it would diminish to zero at the point it's dark? Still a massive number obviously...

No that's the annual average.

pangolin

rjsterry said:

pangolin said:

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

@Wheelspinner I have no idea on the consumption but I guess as it is cold and dark for so much of the year. It terms of energy 'waste' if you are generating from a 100% clean and renewable source surely it makes no difference. Heat just moves around.

My understanding is limited but I believe the issue is heat getting trapped by greenhouse gases so the heat moving in from the sun can't move back over the same space. What I don't understand is how heat penetrates to earth but can't back out. I guess it is just a time delay issue. It's all far beyond my limited comprehension.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/geophysical/chapter/heat-transfer-in-the-atmosphere/

That's a really interesting site, I could find myself getting engrossed in it for ages. A lot of it I recall from GCSE Geography (my favourite subject) and Physics but it covers the various wind systems in a lot more detail. The bit on heat transfer pretty much backs up what I was saying earlier and that heat would just move around and maintain equilibrium if not for the greenhouse effect but I still don't really understand why the incoming heat gets through whilst the outgoing heat doesn't.

Am I right or wrong in my assumption that heat wastage isn't really contributing to global warming though (assuming energy production isn't contributing to greenhouse gases)? It feels like the equivalent that the heat from a fridge doesn't really heat your house up.

Yes, the amount of energy absorbed by the atmosphere seas and land surface is one of those numbers that is difficult to get your head around.

Of the 340 watts per square meter of solar energy that falls on the Earth, 29% is reflected back into space, primarily by clouds, but also by other bright surfaces and the atmosphere itself. About 23% of incoming energy is absorbed in the atmosphere by atmospheric gases, dust, and other particles. The remaining 48% is absorbed at the surface.

The earth's surface area is 510 trillion m2.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance/page4.php

It's us increasing the absorption of the atmosphere that is causing the problem. The heat emitted by human activity does create micro climate changes - frosts are rare in London - but are not enough to affect the wider climate.

Is that 340w per sqm on the bit closest to the sun? So it would diminish to zero at the point it's dark? Still a massive number obviously...

No that's the annual average.

Wow. Silly numbers

pinno

What gets me is the untapped energy - Iceland have so much geo thermal energy on their fingertips, Australia has so much space and sun for Solar energy and fast sea currents in the south for example.
The production of energy has to fundamentally change to illicit fundamental change. The continued (and rising) use of coal is environmentally unsustainable.
How we put pressure on China, Indonesia, India etc, I have no idea.
It actually requires global collusion.

We will see what comes out of COP26. I am cynical. Too many lobby groups and commercial interest will temper any meaningful change.

lesfirth

rjsterry said:

lesfirth said:

Wheelspinner said:

Pross said:

Wheelspinner said:

bobbygloss said:

Yes, maybe the map is rubbish, sorry. TBB's link above also indicates at least some things are wrong.
It was posted on our intranet in a theme about clean energy, discussing how Norway is exporting clean green electricity to the UK and Netherlands, but importing almost the same amount of "dirty" electricity from Germany and Denmark.

Also interesting is that Norway has an extremely high per capita consumption of power, at almost 2.5 times the Australian average, and about 4 times the UK average, but nobody seems to mind? Any reason I wonder? Iceland is twice as bad as Norway.

They may *produce* power quite "cleanly" but the consumption end is no different from anywhere else I'd wager, meaning waste heat and emissions from all those activities. Of course, a lot of the domestic consumption will be specifically to generate heat so they can stay cosy and have saunas I suppose.

Consumption is irrelevant to climate change though, it's the CO2 from generation that is contributing to the greenhouse effect and global warming. Any heat produced just follows the laws of thermodynamics and moves around, it isn't 'new' heat.

If I take 5 kw input to a room, use it solely to run a bunch of things that are (say) 95% efficient and which only “waste” 5% as heat, the effect on the room temp will be minimal. If I have a second room and take all 5 kw to just run a bar element heater and nothing else, the room will be a sauna in no time. And if I open the doors of both rooms that heat will go out and (slightly) warm up the outside environment nearby. It has to end up somewhere, according to those thermodynamic rules, yes? It will be significantly more local environmental impact outside the sauna room?

Can you explain, to a simple lad like me, if the 5kw running "95% efficient things" is only putting 5% as heat into the room, where is the other 95 % of the energy going?

Moving things or emitting light, or sound (which is just moving air). I'm not sure what those things might be, though to achieve such a high efficiency. Having just done the vacuuming I'd say my Vax wastes quite a bit of energy as noise (cf. people wanging on about how clicky their freehub is).

I was hoping for a reply from Wheelspinner. He has been to Uni and should know what he is talking about. The paragraph in his post I referred to is nonsense.
Unless you have stored some of the 5kw e.g. to raise some heavy weights up to the ceiling to store some potential energy or accelerated a flywheel to store some kinetic energy, the temperature of both rooms will be the same.
How" efficient" you use the 5kw is irrelevant.

pinno

lesfirth said:

How" efficient" you use the 5kw is irrelevant.

...because you have still consumed 5kw?

pangolin

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58996348

Bbc quiz on what lifestyle changes save the most co2. Is the electric car question assuming the car cost nothing (in emissions) to produce?

TheBigBean

pangolin said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58996348

Bbc quiz on what lifestyle changes save the most co2. Is the electric car question assuming the car cost nothing (in emissions) to produce?

Not sure comparing a renewably charged electric car with a disel bus is particularly helpful.

veronese68

TheBigBean said:

pangolin said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58996348

Bbc quiz on what lifestyle changes save the most co2. Is the electric car question assuming the car cost nothing (in emissions) to produce?

Not sure comparing a renewably charged electric car with a disel bus is particularly helpful.

It does seem a ridiculous comparison

Wheelspinner

veronese68 said:

TheBigBean said:

pangolin said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58996348

Bbc quiz on what lifestyle changes save the most co2. Is the electric car question assuming the car cost nothing (in emissions) to produce?

Not sure comparing a renewably charged electric car with a disel bus is particularly helpful.

It does seem a ridiculous comparison

At a time when it would seem sensible to encourage people to do any and everything possible, it also seems unhelpful to label the lower-impact choices as WRONG, even if the article then explains that those things are still a positive contribution.

pinno

So, the Chinese are lowering their expectations and their President is not even turning up to COP26 and didn't even attend COP17 when it was held in China.
Does it require some huge natural disaster and food shortages in China to get them to sit up and notice?