Seemingly trivial things that intrigue you

morstar

Ok, so anybody who remembers high school physics will be aware that energy is a constant.

Assuming a world where all our energy needs are met through renewables, how does this impact the world we live in?

When we absorb huge amounts of energy from the sun, wind and tides, this will ultimately also change the world we live in.

What will be the impacts and will they be tangible or insignificant?

surrey_commuter

morstar said:

Ok, so anybody who remembers high school physics will be aware that energy is a constant.

Assuming a world where all our energy needs are met through renewables, how does this impact the world we live in?

When we absorb huge amounts of energy from the sun, wind and tides, this will ultimately also change the world we live in.

What will be the impacts and will they be tangible or insignificant?

we will look back fondly on the days when we power on demand 24/7, 365

morstar

surrey_commuter said:

morstar said:

Ok, so anybody who remembers high school physics will be aware that energy is a constant.

Assuming a world where all our energy needs are met through renewables, how does this impact the world we live in?

When we absorb huge amounts of energy from the sun, wind and tides, this will ultimately also change the world we live in.

What will be the impacts and will they be tangible or insignificant?

we will look back fondly on the days when we power on demand 24/7, 365

Agreed but was thinking environmental.

Imagine we absorb so much light from the sun that it has a cooling effect on the atmosphere.

It is a fact that this will happen and most likely insignificant. What if it’s impact is measurable?

kingstongraham

This is interesting. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep35070

Locally, seems to have a warming effect, particularly at night.

monkimark

I seem to remember that the solar energy falling on the earth is around 10,000 times more than the global energy requirement so even allowing for inefficiency of solar panels, I'm going to go with insignificant - especially compared with the fossil fuel alternative.

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

This is interesting. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep35070

Locally, seems to have a warming effect, particularly at night.

Makes sense. They reflect more than the absorb.

Anyone see a few weeks ago Bill Gates suggesting high-altitude seeing with dust, to scatter sunlight and cool the planet?

morstar

kingstongraham said:

This is interesting. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep35070

Locally, seems to have a warming effect, particularly at night.

It is, thanks for posting.

It’s interesting to see what happens. We have to follow the renewables route but a non-natural transformation of energy in gigajoules across the globe is inevitably going to have some unforeseen consequences on environments.

morstar

monkimark said:

I seem to remember that the solar energy falling on the earth is around 10,000 times more than the global energy requirement so even allowing for inefficiency of solar panels, I'm going to go with insignificant - especially compared with the fossil fuel alternative.

I agree it is the correct path but there are always unexpected outcomes.

rjsterry

morstar said:

Ok, so anybody who remembers high school physics will be aware that energy is a constant.

Assuming a world where all our energy needs are met through renewables, how does this impact the world we live in?

When we absorb huge amounts of energy from the sun, wind and tides, this will ultimately also change the world we live in.

What will be the impacts and will they be tangible or insignificant?

If the vast majority of the energy received from the sun is absorbed as heat by the atmosphere, land and oceans, taking a proportionally tiny amount of that and running it through the grid before eventually emitting it as heat back into the atmosphere is not going to change anything very much.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance/page4.php#:~:text=About 23 percent of incoming,absorbed by the Earth system.

Solar radiation hitting the earth is 340Wm^-2 × 0.5 × 510.1trillion m^2.

86717 terawatts all day every day.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

Ok, so anybody who remembers high school physics will be aware that energy is a constant.

Assuming a world where all our energy needs are met through renewables, how does this impact the world we live in?

When we absorb huge amounts of energy from the sun, wind and tides, this will ultimately also change the world we live in.

What will be the impacts and will they be tangible or insignificant?

If the vast majority of the energy received from the sun is absorbed as heat by the atmosphere, land and oceans, taking a proportionally tiny amount of that and running it through the grid before eventually emitting it as heat back into the atmosphere is not going to change anything very much.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance/page4.php#:~:text=About 23 percent of incoming,absorbed by the Earth system.

Solar radiation hitting the earth is 340Wm^-2 × 0.5 × 510.1trillion m^2.

86717 terawatts all day every day.

And mainly, if it were to be collected and used on earth, one way or another it'll be released back out to the environment. Conservation of energy, innit.

Would be like trying to cool the planet by using a fridge.

morstar

But the thought process I’m exploring is what are the unforeseen consequences as there will always be some.

The article on solar already makes an interesting case.

Pross

morstar said:

But the thought process I’m exploring is what are the unforeseen consequences as there will always be some.

The article on solar already makes an interesting case.

The problem with unforeseen consequences is that we don't know about them in advance

morstar

Pross said:

morstar said:

But the thought process I’m exploring is what are the unforeseen consequences as there will always be some.

The article on solar already makes an interesting case.

The problem with unforeseen consequences is that we don't know about them in advance

I feel to liven the forum up I should go for a full blown meltdown at this point and flounce.

Alternatively...

Substitute are with may be.

pangolin

morstar said:

But the thought process I’m exploring is what are the unforeseen consequences as there will always be some.

The article on solar already makes an interesting case.

I think the scale is just too far off though. If you put a big waterwheel in a stream and use that to generate power, you are going to have an affect on that stream. But when it comes to the sun, it's more like sticking 1 waterwheel in the ocean and worrying that it's going to affect the tides.

morstar

pangolin said:

morstar said:

But the thought process I’m exploring is what are the unforeseen consequences as there will always be some.

The article on solar already makes an interesting case.

I think the scale is just too far off though. If you put a big waterwheel in a stream and use that to generate power, you are going to have an affect on that stream. But when it comes to the sun, it's more like sticking 1 waterwheel in the ocean and worrying that it's going to affect the tides.

With solar, wave and wind, I’m inclined to agree.

Ground source heat pumps?

rjsterry

morstar said:

pangolin said:

morstar said:

But the thought process I’m exploring is what are the unforeseen consequences as there will always be some.

The article on solar already makes an interesting case.

I think the scale is just too far off though. If you put a big waterwheel in a stream and use that to generate power, you are going to have an affect on that stream. But when it comes to the sun, it's more like sticking 1 waterwheel in the ocean and worrying that it's going to affect the tides.

With solar, wave and wind, I’m inclined to agree.

Ground source heat pumps?

You generally only use those when the building is already super-insulated and needs relatively little heat input. They do locally cool the ground by a degree or two, but again the numbers are miniscule compared with the amount of solar heat energy absorbed by the ground.

pblakeney

I must admit to being intrigued as to the amount of Earth core cooling could be affected by geo-thermal withdrawal (Iceland for example). But not intrigued enough to read up.....

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

pangolin said:

morstar said:

But the thought process I’m exploring is what are the unforeseen consequences as there will always be some.

The article on solar already makes an interesting case.

I think the scale is just too far off though. If you put a big waterwheel in a stream and use that to generate power, you are going to have an affect on that stream. But when it comes to the sun, it's more like sticking 1 waterwheel in the ocean and worrying that it's going to affect the tides.

With solar, wave and wind, I’m inclined to agree.

Ground source heat pumps?

You generally only use those when the building is already super-insulated and needs relatively little heat input. They do locally cool the ground by a degree or two, but again the numbers are miniscule compared with the amount of solar heat energy absorbed by the ground.

What about p!ssing in the ocean? Does that bleach coral?

morstar

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

pangolin said:

morstar said:

But the thought process I’m exploring is what are the unforeseen consequences as there will always be some.

The article on solar already makes an interesting case.

I think the scale is just too far off though. If you put a big waterwheel in a stream and use that to generate power, you are going to have an affect on that stream. But when it comes to the sun, it's more like sticking 1 waterwheel in the ocean and worrying that it's going to affect the tides.

With solar, wave and wind, I’m inclined to agree.

Ground source heat pumps?

You generally only use those when the building is already super-insulated and needs relatively little heat input. They do locally cool the ground by a degree or two, but again the numbers are miniscule compared with the amount of solar heat energy absorbed by the ground.

But this where we’re supposedly going for heating.
London would absorb a lot of heat.

But heck it’s just conjecture.

morstar

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

pangolin said:

morstar said:

But the thought process I’m exploring is what are the unforeseen consequences as there will always be some.

The article on solar already makes an interesting case.

I think the scale is just too far off though. If you put a big waterwheel in a stream and use that to generate power, you are going to have an affect on that stream. But when it comes to the sun, it's more like sticking 1 waterwheel in the ocean and worrying that it's going to affect the tides.

With solar, wave and wind, I’m inclined to agree.

Ground source heat pumps?

You generally only use those when the building is already super-insulated and needs relatively little heat input. They do locally cool the ground by a degree or two, but again the numbers are miniscule compared with the amount of solar heat energy absorbed by the ground.

What about p!saying in the ocean? Does that bleach coral?

FWIW, I get that you’re mocking me.

I’m a little bit surprised that as a professed scientist and logical thinker, you see no discussion points worth exploring. I like to question stuff.

I guarantee there will be some surprises along the way.

First.Aspect

morstar said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

pangolin said:

morstar said:

But the thought process I’m exploring is what are the unforeseen consequences as there will always be some.

The article on solar already makes an interesting case.

I think the scale is just too far off though. If you put a big waterwheel in a stream and use that to generate power, you are going to have an affect on that stream. But when it comes to the sun, it's more like sticking 1 waterwheel in the ocean and worrying that it's going to affect the tides.

With solar, wave and wind, I’m inclined to agree.

Ground source heat pumps?

You generally only use those when the building is already super-insulated and needs relatively little heat input. They do locally cool the ground by a degree or two, but again the numbers are miniscule compared with the amount of solar heat energy absorbed by the ground.

What about p!saying in the ocean? Does that bleach coral?

FWIW, I get that you’re mocking me.

I’m a little bit surprised that as a professed scientist and logical thinker, you see no discussion points worth exploring. I like to question stuff.

I guarantee there will be some surprises along the way.

Gently teasing.

The effect of volcanos on climate is interesting. Nothing new of course, but it does create short term variations in both directions, depending on what gets spat out. Think there's a more or less on this.

Bill Gates' idea is also worth mulling over. He tends not to suggest things that aren't actually possible. But it could be early signs of decline. I don't know enough about it.

surrey_commuter

morstar said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

pangolin said:

morstar said:

But the thought process I’m exploring is what are the unforeseen consequences as there will always be some.

The article on solar already makes an interesting case.

I think the scale is just too far off though. If you put a big waterwheel in a stream and use that to generate power, you are going to have an affect on that stream. But when it comes to the sun, it's more like sticking 1 waterwheel in the ocean and worrying that it's going to affect the tides.

With solar, wave and wind, I’m inclined to agree.

Ground source heat pumps?

You generally only use those when the building is already super-insulated and needs relatively little heat input. They do locally cool the ground by a degree or two, but again the numbers are miniscule compared with the amount of solar heat energy absorbed by the ground.

What about p!saying in the ocean? Does that bleach coral?

FWIW, I get that you’re mocking me.

I’m a little bit surprised that as a professed scientist and logical thinker, you see no discussion points worth exploring. I like to question stuff.

I guarantee there will be some surprises along the way.

I get where you are coming from but I see the problems as being in the manufacturing process for instance shortages of key inputs.

pinno

First.Aspect said:

morstar said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

pangolin said:

morstar said:

But the thought process I’m exploring is what are the unforeseen consequences as there will always be some.

The article on solar already makes an interesting case.

I think the scale is just too far off though. If you put a big waterwheel in a stream and use that to generate power, you are going to have an affect on that stream. But when it comes to the sun, it's more like sticking 1 waterwheel in the ocean and worrying that it's going to affect the tides.

With solar, wave and wind, I’m inclined to agree.

Ground source heat pumps?

You generally only use those when the building is already super-insulated and needs relatively little heat input. They do locally cool the ground by a degree or two, but again the numbers are miniscule compared with the amount of solar heat energy absorbed by the ground.

What about p!saying in the ocean? Does that bleach coral?

FWIW, I get that you’re mocking me.

I’m a little bit surprised that as a professed scientist and logical thinker, you see no discussion points worth exploring. I like to question stuff.

I guarantee there will be some surprises along the way.

Gently teasing.

The effect of volcanos on climate is interesting. Nothing new of course, but it does create short term variations in both directions, depending on what gets spat out. Think there's a more or less on this.

Bill Gates' idea is also worth mulling over. He tends not to suggest things that aren't actually possible. But it could be early signs of decline. I don't know enough about it.

Care to elaborate?

They scatter talcum powder in the clouds in certain parts of North America to induce rain and in so doing, avoid the formation of hail stones which have historically in these locations, been big and destroy crops.

First.Aspect

pinno said:

First.Aspect said:

morstar said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

pangolin said:

morstar said:

But the thought process I’m exploring is what are the unforeseen consequences as there will always be some.

The article on solar already makes an interesting case.

I think the scale is just too far off though. If you put a big waterwheel in a stream and use that to generate power, you are going to have an affect on that stream. But when it comes to the sun, it's more like sticking 1 waterwheel in the ocean and worrying that it's going to affect the tides.

With solar, wave and wind, I’m inclined to agree.

Ground source heat pumps?

You generally only use those when the building is already super-insulated and needs relatively little heat input. They do locally cool the ground by a degree or two, but again the numbers are miniscule compared with the amount of solar heat energy absorbed by the ground.

What about p!saying in the ocean? Does that bleach coral?

FWIW, I get that you’re mocking me.

I’m a little bit surprised that as a professed scientist and logical thinker, you see no discussion points worth exploring. I like to question stuff.

I guarantee there will be some surprises along the way.

Gently teasing.

The effect of volcanos on climate is interesting. Nothing new of course, but it does create short term variations in both directions, depending on what gets spat out. Think there's a more or less on this.

Bill Gates' idea is also worth mulling over. He tends not to suggest things that aren't actually possible. But it could be early signs of decline. I don't know enough about it.

Care to elaborate?

They scatter talcum powder in the clouds in certain parts of North America to induce rain and in so doing, avoid the formation of hail stones which have historically in these locations, been big and destroy crops.

Totally different concept. (a) global, not local (b) light scattering, not nucleation (c) stratosphere, not atmosphere (though stratosphere might not be the right term... much higher up anyway).

Don't get me wrong. If Lakagigar could cause a temporary ice age, the principle is sound. I just don't know whether it is as technologically feasible as nuclear fusion powered personal spacecraft, or as simple as launching a satellite or ten full of soot.

pinno

First.Aspect said:

pinno said:

First.Aspect said:

morstar said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

pangolin said:

morstar said:

But the thought process I’m exploring is what are the unforeseen consequences as there will always be some.

The article on solar already makes an interesting case.

I think the scale is just too far off though. If you put a big waterwheel in a stream and use that to generate power, you are going to have an affect on that stream. But when it comes to the sun, it's more like sticking 1 waterwheel in the ocean and worrying that it's going to affect the tides.

With solar, wave and wind, I’m inclined to agree.

Ground source heat pumps?

You generally only use those when the building is already super-insulated and needs relatively little heat input. They do locally cool the ground by a degree or two, but again the numbers are miniscule compared with the amount of solar heat energy absorbed by the ground.

What about p!saying in the ocean? Does that bleach coral?

FWIW, I get that you’re mocking me.

I’m a little bit surprised that as a professed scientist and logical thinker, you see no discussion points worth exploring. I like to question stuff.

I guarantee there will be some surprises along the way.

Gently teasing.

The effect of volcanos on climate is interesting. Nothing new of course, but it does create short term variations in both directions, depending on what gets spat out. Think there's a more or less on this.

Bill Gates' idea is also worth mulling over. He tends not to suggest things that aren't actually possible. But it could be early signs of decline. I don't know enough about it.

Care to elaborate?

They scatter talcum powder in the clouds in certain parts of North America to induce rain and in so doing, avoid the formation of hail stones which have historically in these locations, been big and destroy crops.

Totally different concept. (a) global, not local (b) light scattering, not nucleation (c) stratosphere, not atmosphere (though stratosphere might not be the right term... much higher up anyway).

Don't get me wrong. If Lakagigar could cause a temporary ice age, the principle is sound. I just don't know whether it is as technologically feasible as nuclear fusion powered personal spacecraft, or as simple as launching a satellite or ten full of soot.

Has that Laka wotist got anything to do with the cold northerly we're having at the minute 'cos i'm damn fed up of cycling in it?

rjsterry

morstar said:

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

pangolin said:

morstar said:

But the thought process I’m exploring is what are the unforeseen consequences as there will always be some.

The article on solar already makes an interesting case.

I think the scale is just too far off though. If you put a big waterwheel in a stream and use that to generate power, you are going to have an affect on that stream. But when it comes to the sun, it's more like sticking 1 waterwheel in the ocean and worrying that it's going to affect the tides.

With solar, wave and wind, I’m inclined to agree.

Ground source heat pumps?

You generally only use those when the building is already super-insulated and needs relatively little heat input. They do locally cool the ground by a degree or two, but again the numbers are miniscule compared with the amount of solar heat energy absorbed by the ground.

But this where we’re supposedly going for heating.
London would absorb a lot of heat.

But heck it’s just conjecture.

London is definitely
not going for ground source heat pumps. They only make sense for the few buildings which have low heat demand and lots of land around them. I think you are confusing them with air source heat pumps.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

pangolin said:

morstar said:

But the thought process I’m exploring is what are the unforeseen consequences as there will always be some.

The article on solar already makes an interesting case.

I think the scale is just too far off though. If you put a big waterwheel in a stream and use that to generate power, you are going to have an affect on that stream. But when it comes to the sun, it's more like sticking 1 waterwheel in the ocean and worrying that it's going to affect the tides.

With solar, wave and wind, I’m inclined to agree.

Ground source heat pumps?

You generally only use those when the building is already super-insulated and needs relatively little heat input. They do locally cool the ground by a degree or two, but again the numbers are miniscule compared with the amount of solar heat energy absorbed by the ground.

But this where we’re supposedly going for heating.
London would absorb a lot of heat.

But heck it’s just conjecture.

London is not going for ground source heat pumps. I think you are confusing them with air source heat pumps.

They can be built downwards, so it's possible they could be used in London notwithstanding the genral underground mess of London.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

pangolin said:

morstar said:

But the thought process I’m exploring is what are the unforeseen consequences as there will always be some.

The article on solar already makes an interesting case.

I think the scale is just too far off though. If you put a big waterwheel in a stream and use that to generate power, you are going to have an affect on that stream. But when it comes to the sun, it's more like sticking 1 waterwheel in the ocean and worrying that it's going to affect the tides.

With solar, wave and wind, I’m inclined to agree.

Ground source heat pumps?

You generally only use those when the building is already super-insulated and needs relatively little heat input. They do locally cool the ground by a degree or two, but again the numbers are miniscule compared with the amount of solar heat energy absorbed by the ground.

But this where we’re supposedly going for heating.
London would absorb a lot of heat.

But heck it’s just conjecture.

London is not going for ground source heat pumps. I think you are confusing them with air source heat pumps.

They can be built downwards, so it's possible they could be used in London notwithstanding the genral underground mess of London.

Even for that option you need some external space with nothing underneath it and access for a piling rig. Not impossible but a long way down the list of options for the vast majority of buildings.

rjsterry

morstar said:

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

pangolin said:

morstar said:

But the thought process I’m exploring is what are the unforeseen consequences as there will always be some.

The article on solar already makes an interesting case.

I think the scale is just too far off though. If you put a big waterwheel in a stream and use that to generate power, you are going to have an affect on that stream. But when it comes to the sun, it's more like sticking 1 waterwheel in the ocean and worrying that it's going to affect the tides.

With solar, wave and wind, I’m inclined to agree.

Ground source heat pumps?

You generally only use those when the building is already super-insulated and needs relatively little heat input. They do locally cool the ground by a degree or two, but again the numbers are miniscule compared with the amount of solar heat energy absorbed by the ground.

But this where we’re supposedly going for heating.
London would absorb a lot of heat.

But heck it’s just conjecture.

London does absorb a huge amount of heat in the built fabric and paved surfaces. That's why frosts are so rare from about Zone 3 inwards. It's a real problem as it means the cooling load on buildings in summer is that much higher.

https://www.cibse.org/getattachment/Networks/Groups/Resilient-Cities/Past-Events-and-Presentations/presentation3-Kolokotroni.pdf.aspx

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

pangolin said:

morstar said:

But the thought process I’m exploring is what are the unforeseen consequences as there will always be some.

The article on solar already makes an interesting case.

I think the scale is just too far off though. If you put a big waterwheel in a stream and use that to generate power, you are going to have an affect on that stream. But when it comes to the sun, it's more like sticking 1 waterwheel in the ocean and worrying that it's going to affect the tides.

With solar, wave and wind, I’m inclined to agree.

Ground source heat pumps?

You generally only use those when the building is already super-insulated and needs relatively little heat input. They do locally cool the ground by a degree or two, but again the numbers are miniscule compared with the amount of solar heat energy absorbed by the ground.

But this where we’re supposedly going for heating.
London would absorb a lot of heat.

But heck it’s just conjecture.

London is not going for ground source heat pumps. I think you are confusing them with air source heat pumps.

They can be built downwards, so it's possible they could be used in London notwithstanding the genral underground mess of London.

Even for that option you need some external space with nothing underneath it and access for a piling rig. Not impossible but a long way down the list of options for the vast majority of buildings.

I'm not suggesting retrofitting is going to happen, but new developments could include communal ones.