We must change the way we see energy
What does it mean Renewals Energies? Strictly nothing, energy is used and never comeback. When we refer to term renewal, this term design a kind of energy which has sources that are regenerate in natural form. It can be a good definition for more people and very similar of majority of definitions in internet, but Oil, for example, can entry in this definition: today Earth continues making oil; in other side Geothermal Energy that is including in renewals category, in fact it doesn’t: geothermal is due to the potential energy of all Earth material had before formation which warmed interior of planet when joint then, volcanoes and earthquakes are cooling slowly the earth because there aren’t any energy input, except of nuclear and gravitational tidal both of very inferior order. So what is due that we believe the reverse of what they are? Essentially because oil consumption is much higher than the capacity of its formation, so much that we can consider today Earth don’t make; and the stored energy still resides inside the planet is so much vastly superior to his release in human scale (100,000 years) that it is virtually the same always.
Thus indicates us that classification isn’t strictly speaking about renewal but usability in time: from a human point of view oil can deplete while geothermal energy can’t. The most paradoxical is solar energy, obviously the sun will stop to radiate energy one of these days, but will not be until 5000 million years that there will not be human, in fact about 3,000 million years either will be life on Earth because the sun's radiation will increase as this will make it impossible.
Another paradoxical case is nuclear power, as the sun has a limited life, but only with the fissionable material existing in the earth's crust may have a durability of the same order as the Sun, therefore we can consider it a renewable energy and important part of society continues to see it the logical replacement as coal. Aside from the military utility, as mentioned in "The atomic age is dying but refuses to die”, it is true that strictly civilian use has grown, in fact countries like Japan that hasn’t nuclear weapons and they lost the possibility of exporting Plutonium (due the reduction weapon treaties) began to use it as a source of energy too; in other hand, the central of third generation can use materials like Thorium which generates very little pollutes, and exist fourth generation power projects that are not only capable to fission all kind of fissionable material but part of no fissionable material (essential to avoid an explosive chain reaction, and inevitable due to difficulty of isotopic separation). But they are descanting by the environmental movement because they are more dangerous, not so much because their facilities are insecure (we can count on the fingers of my serious accidents) but if accident would happen these consequences on a regional and time level are immense. However these plants owe their modern improve the production of neutrons, highly controllable, but difficult to confine, but really the quantity that escape we can considerer despicable.
Other form of named these energies is calling green. As mentioned hydrocarbons (liquid or solid) and nuclear energy are rejected, although they can be qualified also renewable, so there are other qualities to consider when classifying them. This is the sense in which classified Green Energy. The problem is that it is a very general classification, in global terms a green energy is which produces "little" or "”null"” impact on the environment. And there I put quotes because it is not as easy as it seems. I describe some examples.
Thus indicates us that classification isn’t strictly speaking about renewal but usability in time: from a human point of view oil can deplete while geothermal energy can’t. The most paradoxical is solar energy, obviously the sun will stop to radiate energy one of these days, but will not be until 5000 million years that there will not be human, in fact about 3,000 million years either will be life on Earth because the sun's radiation will increase as this will make it impossible.
Another paradoxical case is nuclear power, as the sun has a limited life, but only with the fissionable material existing in the earth's crust may have a durability of the same order as the Sun, therefore we can consider it a renewable energy and important part of society continues to see it the logical replacement as coal. Aside from the military utility, as mentioned in "The atomic age is dying but refuses to die”, it is true that strictly civilian use has grown, in fact countries like Japan that hasn’t nuclear weapons and they lost the possibility of exporting Plutonium (due the reduction weapon treaties) began to use it as a source of energy too; in other hand, the central of third generation can use materials like Thorium which generates very little pollutes, and exist fourth generation power projects that are not only capable to fission all kind of fissionable material but part of no fissionable material (essential to avoid an explosive chain reaction, and inevitable due to difficulty of isotopic separation). But they are descanting by the environmental movement because they are more dangerous, not so much because their facilities are insecure (we can count on the fingers of my serious accidents) but if accident would happen these consequences on a regional and time level are immense. However these plants owe their modern improve the production of neutrons, highly controllable, but difficult to confine, but really the quantity that escape we can considerer despicable.
Other form of named these energies is calling green. As mentioned hydrocarbons (liquid or solid) and nuclear energy are rejected, although they can be qualified also renewable, so there are other qualities to consider when classifying them. This is the sense in which classified Green Energy. The problem is that it is a very general classification, in global terms a green energy is which produces "little" or "”null"” impact on the environment. And there I put quotes because it is not as easy as it seems. I describe some examples.
I've seen advertised on posters: Biomass Energy of the Future. From stoves to power plants are making to profit this energy resource. The basis of this resource is the Pelex wood which is imported mainly from the U.S. and elsewhere with an abundance of wood (Europe destroyed its forest in middle age). The BBC echoed this information in the article "Renewable Energy: U.S. Burning trees in UK power stations" where it denounced massive imports of American wood to burning in English thermal powers. Why do they do? Because wood doesn’t count as CO2 emissions, and it doesn’t count because wood captures CO2 of the atmosphere. Certainly the biomass is considered renewable energy by excellence, cutting a tree and another grows back. But according to the same criteria as oil, unquestionably it isn’t. The wood business isn’t based on agriculture but its basis is predation. A tree needs a minimum of 30 years before we can cut it; and the trees that make furniture, boats and structures, from 80 to 100 years depending to the wood which is clearly unattainable by exploitation, the wood that we can watch in IKEA chipper fornitures comes the indiscriminate cutting of tropical forests. Obviously a low quality wood of tree for 30 years of life is just profiting for paper or Pelex, and as Pelex lasts a few seconds burning in a thermal plant. Report just denounces the incongruence that they are devastating sensational Appalachian forests to produce green power in Europe.
In this sense we would have things like electric cars which can’t produce CO2, cars don’t, but the electricity that we charges into we must be producing with something, and we can be sure that this something is burning coal or nuclear. This we can extend to railway where we can see really kafkanian situations when there are electrified lines with only pass six trains, line need electricity 24 hours with the consequent consumption of energy, line emits more CO2 in atmosphere electrified than trains goes with diesel engines.
But the highest level of stupidity is solar energy. Solar energy is unquestionably the future, but the current use borders on the ridiculous. If not for the subsidies it would not be, except residual uses. We currently have some very good solar cells with acceptable yields which are a good complement to any energy. Only complement. Cells as such are expensive to produce, have a limited life and are very difficult to recycle when its time comes. They aren’t a panacea in terms of power, not their yield but for the energy that reaches them. The power that’s arrive at top of ours atmosphere is 1.7 Kw meter square (Kw/m2), but after through it in Earth surface only rest 0.8 Kw/m2 sufficient to maintenance life and meteorology (in fact it’s lucky thing that main part of it leaves Earth, and precisely it’s the reduction leaves part the current climatic problem). It can reach every square meter to 0.8 kWh if the cell yields 100% (the maximum yield is 20%), and this yield is in equatorial zone at middle day (12:00) because out of this conditions cells are from Sun in some angle which reduces the power flow, to compensate focus cells as sunflowers, but this creates gray areas in the field (where we can't capture energy). We only need to do the exercise to look at the contracted power of our home, to realize how m2 need us and extrapolate the total number of houses, industries, etc… It’s currently covering agricultural areas with solar panels, the so called Solar Farms, which have changed cereal for widespread solar panels, the business is profitable only thanks to subsidies that are charging the collateral costs and the price per kWh is not governed by the market. Now this energy doesn’t cover the expectative and it is far from being considered green energy: cover large areas of land with solar is far from having no impact on nature.
In this sense we would have things like electric cars which can’t produce CO2, cars don’t, but the electricity that we charges into we must be producing with something, and we can be sure that this something is burning coal or nuclear. This we can extend to railway where we can see really kafkanian situations when there are electrified lines with only pass six trains, line need electricity 24 hours with the consequent consumption of energy, line emits more CO2 in atmosphere electrified than trains goes with diesel engines.
But the highest level of stupidity is solar energy. Solar energy is unquestionably the future, but the current use borders on the ridiculous. If not for the subsidies it would not be, except residual uses. We currently have some very good solar cells with acceptable yields which are a good complement to any energy. Only complement. Cells as such are expensive to produce, have a limited life and are very difficult to recycle when its time comes. They aren’t a panacea in terms of power, not their yield but for the energy that reaches them. The power that’s arrive at top of ours atmosphere is 1.7 Kw meter square (Kw/m2), but after through it in Earth surface only rest 0.8 Kw/m2 sufficient to maintenance life and meteorology (in fact it’s lucky thing that main part of it leaves Earth, and precisely it’s the reduction leaves part the current climatic problem). It can reach every square meter to 0.8 kWh if the cell yields 100% (the maximum yield is 20%), and this yield is in equatorial zone at middle day (12:00) because out of this conditions cells are from Sun in some angle which reduces the power flow, to compensate focus cells as sunflowers, but this creates gray areas in the field (where we can't capture energy). We only need to do the exercise to look at the contracted power of our home, to realize how m2 need us and extrapolate the total number of houses, industries, etc… It’s currently covering agricultural areas with solar panels, the so called Solar Farms, which have changed cereal for widespread solar panels, the business is profitable only thanks to subsidies that are charging the collateral costs and the price per kWh is not governed by the market. Now this energy doesn’t cover the expectative and it is far from being considered green energy: cover large areas of land with solar is far from having no impact on nature.
Solar Farm
I have two examples of green energy that does not follow the criteria of impact on the environment. But in fact everything impacts on nature. Windmills in addition to ruin the landscape kill birds, the evolution has not prepared them to learn to avoid the blades, or hydroelectric dams impedes falling sand that regenerates beaches. Any energy capture has got a consequence, even the daily act of eating has led to consequences, the meal in front of us is the grave of a few living beings.
We must change the way we see the energy and think more about how we use it rather than its source. To burn hydrocarbons isn’t good or bad, we create the problem when burning these exorbitant amounts of them today, which involve a change of concentrations of atmospheric gases that will change the climate evolution of it, at the same time an aggressive extraction of these that causes environmental destroyed. In other hand we are consuming so much energy that renewables cannot provide scope. In this interactive panel of the Smithsonian we can see that who more energy is producing at the same time is who are producing more alternative but it is who has the worst average, This is due that alternative energy cannot be as intensive sources as coal or nuclear, when it is required power with guarantees there aren’t alternatives.
We have a consumption of energy far above our needs, and this is the basically error when we are analyzing the current energy problem (evolution of energy consumption since 1776). In the world of image communication and knowledge without limits, simply traveling to see the world, or assist a meeting or symposium, is fully redundant. How much energy would be saved if the climate conference had made everyone at their home, which allows current technology; certainly used more energy in transport from across the world agricultural products that have not been produced due to Solar Farms, that the energy produced by them. It is not a matter of saving is a matter of mentality, but easy access to energy is that we continue to consume without thinking. It's time to start looking with new eyes at our relationship with energy, because the worst isn’t making mistakes when we take a decision, the worst is making a decisions based on a paradigm completely wrong.
We must change the way we see the energy and think more about how we use it rather than its source. To burn hydrocarbons isn’t good or bad, we create the problem when burning these exorbitant amounts of them today, which involve a change of concentrations of atmospheric gases that will change the climate evolution of it, at the same time an aggressive extraction of these that causes environmental destroyed. In other hand we are consuming so much energy that renewables cannot provide scope. In this interactive panel of the Smithsonian we can see that who more energy is producing at the same time is who are producing more alternative but it is who has the worst average, This is due that alternative energy cannot be as intensive sources as coal or nuclear, when it is required power with guarantees there aren’t alternatives.
We have a consumption of energy far above our needs, and this is the basically error when we are analyzing the current energy problem (evolution of energy consumption since 1776). In the world of image communication and knowledge without limits, simply traveling to see the world, or assist a meeting or symposium, is fully redundant. How much energy would be saved if the climate conference had made everyone at their home, which allows current technology; certainly used more energy in transport from across the world agricultural products that have not been produced due to Solar Farms, that the energy produced by them. It is not a matter of saving is a matter of mentality, but easy access to energy is that we continue to consume without thinking. It's time to start looking with new eyes at our relationship with energy, because the worst isn’t making mistakes when we take a decision, the worst is making a decisions based on a paradigm completely wrong.
Comentaris
Publica un comentari a l'entrada