Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Change?"

[180]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/29/ ... +281088008" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/29/ ... +281088008

Yeah thanks for that post. I love the idea of solar and wind energy...but under our current technological status...if you look at the ENTIRE picture...from total input in production (energy costs and environmental damage( mining etc) ...to operating problems (transient loading, bird kills, lost acreage ) ...to shut down costs (environmental impact)...well maybe this generation of renewables are actually a dumb choice??

[Woodsrider]

Solar waste disposal and recycling is not that challenging and is already being done in most developed nations. Solar provides the best opportunity for developing nations but they lack the resources to recycle at this time. So yes it is an issue. But it is a fraction of the waste issue fracking causes. So let's put this into perspective.

[killyfan]

Solar waste disposal and recycling is not that challenging and is already being done in most developed nations. Solar provides the best opportunity for developing nations but they lack the resources to recycle at this time. So yes it is an issue. But it is a fraction of the waste issue fracking causes. So let's put this into perspective.

I've had my doubts about solar for years - from the battery production to the waste disposal of both the batteries AND the panels - it definitely seems like a less attractive choice than hydro and nuclear. I grew up in a town that was powered by nuclear. I'm all for it - provided that the regulations on plant maintenance are truly stringent. We got to tour the plant as school kids - it was enlightening. The hometown plant is decommissioned now and natural gas has taken over. Totally fine with that too - in face we just converted my mom's house to natural gas within the last 6 months. Her propane tank was removed yesterday - the green hippo in the yard is finally gone!

So, all of that being said, I agree with Woodsrider and I still think solar is a waaaay better method of energy production than drilling/fracking/coal/oil sands/wood etc. I'm in the process of buying a house right now - and once this deed is accomplished, I'll have to sit and think very carefully about energy consumption and how we will handle it at our place. One of my bosses is involved with a community solar company, (she has a large array on her farm) so I will look at this option carefully, but as of yet have no clear plan of action established. Buying into a community solar grid is somewhat appealing though.

[madhatter]

Solar waste disposal and recycling is not that challenging and is already being done in most developed nations. Solar provides the best opportunity for developing nations but they lack the resources to recycle at this time. So yes it is an issue. But it is a fraction of the waste issue fracking causes. So let's put this into perspective.

I've had my doubts about solar for years - from the battery production to the waste disposal of both the batteries AND the panels - it definitely seems like a less attractive choice than hydro and nuclear. I grew up in a town that was powered by nuclear. I'm all for it - provided that the regulations on plant maintenance are truly stringent. We got to tour the plant as school kids - it was enlightening. The hometown plant is decommissioned now and natural gas has taken over. Totally fine with that too - in face we just converted my mom's house to natural gas within the last 6 months. Her propane tank was removed yesterday - the green hippo in the yard is finally gone!

So, all of that being said, I agree with Woodsrider and I still think solar is a waaaay better method of energy production than drilling/fracking/coal/oil sands/wood etc. I'm in the process of buying a house right now - and once this deed is accomplished, I'll have to sit and think very carefully about energy consumption and how we will handle it at our place. One of my bosses is involved with a community solar company, (she has a large array on her farm) so I will look at this option carefully, but as of yet have no clear plan of action established. Buying into a community solar grid is somewhat appealing though.

southern exposure and good insulation is the greenest way to go w/o breaking the bank...

[Mister Moose]

Do you agree that in the winter, a household refrigerator is 100 % efficient? No. there are frictional losses resulting in wear that is not converted to heat. If your assumption was correct, refrigerators would never wear out.
Friction does nothing but generate heat. Accumulated wear is not stored energy. Do you now agree that the fridge is 100% efficient? This is not the same as asking if the fridge is perfect and lasts forever. It is asking from an energy use point of view, is the fridge 100% efficient in the winter? Not necessarily. The COP is purely dependent on the difference in reservoir temperatures. The highest "efficiency" will be when the refrigerator and room are almost the same temperature. Season has no effect. You are ignoring all my previous statements. I am not talking about the singular thermodynamic efficiency of just the refrigerator. I am talking about the total of the energy used to heat the house and run the fridge in the winter. You keep reverting to just the fridge.

Do you agree that (essentially, over a very long period of time) 100% of the energy, ie electricity, used by the refrigerator is turned into heat which warms the house? That there is no other work done, it all turns to heat in the house? See above. When you design a frictionless system I'll built you a perpetual motion machine. Not an answer. If 100% of the energy is not transferred as heat to the house, please explain where it resides.Based on my theoretical calculations I have to agree with this. I was wrong. Removing the ideal conditions will only cause an increase in entropy, which based on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, causes the temperature differential to increase, which also reduces the efficiency of the system. No calculations are necessary. All energy used by the fridge is turned to heat, and all heat is transferred to the house. If you need to calculate, you don't understand the principle.

Do you agree that heat released outdoors in the winter (in any quantity, at any temperature differential) is still heat lost, and must be replaced by the heating plant of the building?Yes. But again, heat lost is less that total energy saved. Are you talking about electrical energy saved?]]I am talking about total energy inputted into the system regardless of source as long as it remains within the boundary in question. If you agree we are talking about total energy, then no, energy of the heat lost by Freeaire to the outdoors is greater than the energy expended outdoors with indoor compressor/condensers, ie zero.

Come on Moose. Friction does more than generate heat. This is what Tribology is all about. Deformation of material due to frictional forces represents irreversible energy loss. I haven't tried it, but I am sure wear and and formation of dissapative structures during friction can be modeled by entropy production if you need to put it into thermodynamic terms.

From an energy point of view, friction does nothing else but generate heat. The fact that friction causes wear to mechanical components does not change where the energy goes.

Deformation, entropy, call it what you want, it does not affect the energy path. A worn bearing will take energy to repair, but does not store any energy. (An example of stored mechanical energy would be a compressed spring. Frictional losses are losses, not stored.) All the heat from the wear inducing friction you focus on dissipates... where? Into the metal, into the house. All conductive surfaces flow toward equilibrium. Heat from the fridge motor bearing friction flows to the room the fridge is in.

Entropy is a measure of randomness, not heat.

Back to the questions above.

A refrigerator cannot be 100% efficient. But this sounds like a fun thermodynamic riddle. I'll attempt a proof later.

Later: Thank you that was a fun exercise. I had forgotten about the ideal Carnot Refrigerator. Essentially, you cannot calculate the efficiency of a refrigerator so they call it the coefficient of performance. Theoretically, it is limitless. The closer the temperature of the hot and cold reservoir the higher the COP. Unity is when Tc=0.5Th. Since this is misleading, I put the energy source within the same boundaries as the refrigerator to calculate actual efficiency (ideal heat engine + ideal heat pump) and to get 100% efficiency the cold reservoir needs to be at absolute zero. The fun part is how this demonstrates how entropy works. Now that was purely theoretical using ideal parameters (adiabatic, isothermal, zero friction, etc). The calculations are based on the very limits of the physical world. Nothing can be better and reality is drastically worse. Again, I am not talking about the singular thermodynamic efficiency of just the refrigerator. I am talking about the total of the energy used to heat the house and run the fridge in the winter. You keep reverting to just the fridge.


I think I answered all your questions. Thank you. We're getting there.



Regardless, none of your questions changes the original questions as to whether a Freeaire system is more or less efficient that a standard system. If a standard system has the condenser outdoors, yes Freeaire is more efficient. If the standard system has the condesnser indoors, the heat is retained in the building, and the use of the building is primarily in the winter, no, Freeaire is less efficient. Based on my theoretical calculations, if the outside air of a Freeaire system is closer to the temperature of the walk-in cooler than the temperature of the lodge, than the Freeaire system is more efficient, e.g. less work is required. Again, efficiency of a reverse heat pump is misleading. Who brought up reverse heat pumps???

Since I answered your questions, please answer mine. Are you certain that the walk-in coolers in question had an existing condenser heat recovery system?

See all my comments above in green. I have no idea what the previous system was. I am stating that taking both building heat and walk-in cooler energy consumption as a related pair, indoor compressors and condensers that vent all their heat to the building is more efficient in total in the winter than venting building heat outdoors using the Freeaire system. The Freeaire system will lower electric use, but increase heating requirements by a larger factor. The Freeaire system vents heat outside the building envelope (and exchanges it for cooler air that doesn't need the compressor energy to do it), and saves electricity by doing so. But in the winter waste heat is good. With indoor compressor/condensers all the waste heat is captured by the building. Heat that is normally lost as waste is beneficial in the winter, and all of that normally wasted heat is less heat the boiler in the building needs to provide. That makes a big difference.

If the old system at Killington had outside condensers, all that transerred heat was being wasted all winter long. The better improvement was to move the condensers inside and warm the building with them. The one case Freeaire is more efficient is if you leave the original outside condensers outside, you will run them less, and save that electricity. But the far far better move is to bring the condensers inside. Obviously we are talking efficiency here, not cost of installation. Depending on rerouting of refrigerant lines, space available indoors in utility rooms, etc, cost may be prohibitive against net energy savings. The rehabbed bear lodge should locate all condensers indoors and retain that heat in the winter, with fans and an insulated exhaust duct for the summer.


Therefore, the Freeaire system is playing a 3 card monte game with energy savings at Killington, and while the electrical savings by themselves are notable, the total combined energy savings of both boiler and walk-in cooler by locating the compressor/condenser inside the building and not venting any heat oudoors (with exterior venting through ductwork for the few warm weeks) is more efficient. Freeaire needs to change their outlook to Saveaire.

[Woodsrider]

Do you agree that in the winter, a household refrigerator is 100 % efficient? No. there are frictional losses resulting in wear that is not converted to heat. If your assumption was correct, refrigerators would never wear out.
Friction does nothing but generate heat. Accumulated wear is not stored energy. Do you now agree that the fridge is 100% efficient? This is not the same as asking if the fridge is perfect and lasts forever. It is asking from an energy use point of view, is the fridge 100% efficient in the winter? Not necessarily. The COP is purely dependent on the difference in reservoir temperatures. The highest "efficiency" will be when the refrigerator and room are almost the same temperature. Season has no effect. You are ignoring all my previous statements. I am not talking about the singular thermodynamic efficiency of just the refrigerator. I am talking about the total of the energy used to heat the house and run the fridge in the winter. You keep reverting to just the fridge.

Do you agree that (essentially, over a very long period of time) 100% of the energy, ie electricity, used by the refrigerator is turned into heat which warms the house? That there is no other work done, it all turns to heat in the house? See above. When you design a frictionless system I'll built you a perpetual motion machine. Not an answer. If 100% of the energy is not transferred as heat to the house, please explain where it resides.Based on my theoretical calculations I have to agree with this. I was wrong. Removing the ideal conditions will only cause an increase in entropy, which based on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, causes the temperature differential to increase, which also reduces the efficiency of the system. No calculations are necessary. All energy used by the fridge is turned to heat, and all heat is transferred to the house. If you need to calculate, you don't understand the principle.

Do you agree that heat released outdoors in the winter (in any quantity, at any temperature differential) is still heat lost, and must be replaced by the heating plant of the building?Yes. But again, heat lost is less that total energy saved. Are you talking about electrical energy saved?]]I am talking about total energy inputted into the system regardless of source as long as it remains within the boundary in question. If you agree we are talking about total energy, then no, energy of the heat lost by Freeaire to the outdoors is greater than the energy expended outdoors with indoor compressor/condensers, ie zero.

Come on Moose. Friction does more than generate heat. This is what Tribology is all about. Deformation of material due to frictional forces represents irreversible energy loss. I haven't tried it, but I am sure wear and and formation of dissapative structures during friction can be modeled by entropy production if you need to put it into thermodynamic terms.

From an energy point of view, friction does nothing else but generate heat. The fact that friction causes wear to mechanical components does not change where the energy goes.

Deformation, entropy, call it what you want, it does not affect the energy path. A worn bearing will take energy to repair, but does not store any energy. (An example of stored mechanical energy would be a compressed spring. Frictional losses are losses, not stored.) All the heat from the wear inducing friction you focus on dissipates... where? Into the metal, into the house. All conductive surfaces flow toward equilibrium. Heat from the fridge motor bearing friction flows to the room the fridge is in.

Entropy is a measure of randomness, not heat.

Back to the questions above.

A refrigerator cannot be 100% efficient. But this sounds like a fun thermodynamic riddle. I'll attempt a proof later.

Later: Thank you that was a fun exercise. I had forgotten about the ideal Carnot Refrigerator. Essentially, you cannot calculate the efficiency of a refrigerator so they call it the coefficient of performance. Theoretically, it is limitless. The closer the temperature of the hot and cold reservoir the higher the COP. Unity is when Tc=0.5Th. Since this is misleading, I put the energy source within the same boundaries as the refrigerator to calculate actual efficiency (ideal heat engine + ideal heat pump) and to get 100% efficiency the cold reservoir needs to be at absolute zero. The fun part is how this demonstrates how entropy works. Now that was purely theoretical using ideal parameters (adiabatic, isothermal, zero friction, etc). The calculations are based on the very limits of the physical world. Nothing can be better and reality is drastically worse. Again, I am not talking about the singular thermodynamic efficiency of just the refrigerator. I am talking about the total of the energy used to heat the house and run the fridge in the winter. You keep reverting to just the fridge.


I think I answered all your questions. Thank you. We're getting there.



Regardless, none of your questions changes the original questions as to whether a Freeaire system is more or less efficient that a standard system. If a standard system has the condenser outdoors, yes Freeaire is more efficient. If the standard system has the condesnser indoors, the heat is retained in the building, and the use of the building is primarily in the winter, no, Freeaire is less efficient. Based on my theoretical calculations, if the outside air of a Freeaire system is closer to the temperature of the walk-in cooler than the temperature of the lodge, than the Freeaire system is more efficient, e.g. less work is required. Again, efficiency of a reverse heat pump is misleading. Who brought up reverse heat pumps???

Since I answered your questions, please answer mine. Are you certain that the walk-in coolers in question had an existing condenser heat recovery system?

See all my comments above in green. I have no idea what the previous system was. I am stating that taking both building heat and walk-in cooler energy consumption as a related pair, indoor compressors and condensers that vent all their heat to the building is more efficient in total in the winter than venting building heat outdoors using the Freeaire system. The Freeaire system will lower electric use, but increase heating requirements by a larger factor. The Freeaire system vents heat outside the building envelope (and exchanges it for cooler air that doesn't need the compressor energy to do it), and saves electricity by doing so. But in the winter waste heat is good. With indoor compressor/condensers all the waste heat is captured by the building. Heat that is normally lost as waste is beneficial in the winter, and all of that normally wasted heat is less heat the boiler in the building needs to provide. That makes a big difference.

If the old system at Killington had outside condensers, all that transerred heat was being wasted all winter long. The better improvement was to move the condensers inside and warm the building with them. The one case Freeaire is more efficient is if you leave the original outside condensers outside, you will run them less, and save that electricity. But the far far better move is to bring the condensers inside. Obviously we are talking efficiency here, not cost of installation. Depending on rerouting of refrigerant lines, space available indoors in utility rooms, etc, cost may be prohibitive against net energy savings. The rehabbed bear lodge should locate all condensers indoors and retain that heat in the winter, with fans and an insulated exhaust duct for the summer.


Therefore, the Freeaire system is playing a 3 card monte game with energy savings at Killington, and while the electrical savings by themselves are notable, the total combined energy savings of both boiler and walk-in cooler by locating the compressor/condenser inside the building and not venting any heat oudoors (with exterior venting through ductwork for the few warm weeks) is more efficient. Freeaire needs to change their outlook to Saveaire.

I completely understand what you are proposing. I needed to perform the calculation to understand if you were right or wrong. The science and math is solid. You are mistaken. The refrigerator and the room it is located in is taken into account in my calculations. Yes the waste heat can be recovered in the room. But the heat pump efficiency drops off dramatically when it is exhausting heat into a room that is significantly warmer than the refrigerator. More work is required to move the heat from cold to hot. The savings in fuel is minimal compared to the increased cost of electricity. A combination Freeaire type system with ducting that diverts condenser air in or out depending on inside/outside air temperature/ humidity with advanced controlling would be the most efficient system. But the expense of designing that as a retrofit would be cost prohibitive. So in my educated opinion, Killington made the right decision. If disagree with me, run the numbers yourself. Math doesn't play shell games.

[GSKI]

Sad. The green movement went red long ago. The goal it to suck as much money out of the US to "help" the poor of the world who are poor simply because of their type of government that does not protect individual rights as our US Constitution should do and weak institutions and culture and their corrupt elites seeking to enrich themselves. Any global warming problems will be solved by technology best enabled by setting people free not by enslaving them. Oh and forget about your horribly energy intensive eastern US skiing it is complete hypocrisy if you think there is an imminent threat to human kind due to man made global warming. Oh and those cheap Chinese made solar panels which the US government subsidizes with big tax credits are made from horribly toxic materials they can just dump into the river there because they have no environmental laws. That is why they are so cheap! Net net a complete disaster environmentally they will have to deal with eventually but that is not their near term goal. Probably when they take over the world because they are a hostile communist dictatorship what ever Nixon's good intentions were for bringing them into the western world they are not gonna change. Conflict is coming eventually it is building now and we made it possible by trying to be their "friends" in the hope they would change. Hows that for you myopic hair shirts who want to unilaterally restrict the US economy and therefore our military dominance in the hope all those good folks who control China will be good people as well. They are not just look at what they did to Hong Kong. Progressive Democrats cannot assume they will end up being the ones with the boot on others people necks.

[freeski]

^^ All true.
After a couple of years of cutting back building coal plants, China is now building more. Looks like they were trying to dupe the Paris agreement folks. China was supposed to start cutting back on carbon emissions in what 15 or 20 years.

[GSKI]

^^ All true.
After a couple of years of cutting back building coal plants, China is now building more. Looks like they were trying to dupe the Paris agreement folks. China was supposed to start cutting back on carbon emissions in what 15 or 20 years

Correct. We are going to have to fight a war with these monsters we created hoping we could change them. Great Britain has extensive economic ties with NAZI Germany before WWII and it did not help them one bit. Sadly the history of the world does not protect us. Before the US became a superpower and stabilized the world order when one a country felt it could take over another it did. China Russia and Iran are not our friends we must always out gun them and a strong US economy makes sure that is possible. Progressive Democrats unilateral restrictions on our energy production will lead to war and an environmental catastrophe far worse than that they seek to prevent. Always over gun no fair fight ensures peace. They cannot have even the slightest hope they might succeed.

[GSKI]

US weakness due to Democrats unilateral US energy restrictions (The Paris Accords) equal a weaker US economy and therefore a weaker US military. I still think the US are the "good guys" but Democrats do not. A weaker US economy and therefore a weaker military invites world war which is the history of the world as we know it. Just read your history. The US is the only country that could have conquered the world militarily and did not.

[Woodsrider]

US weakness due to Democrats unilateral US energy restrictions (The Paris Accords) equal a weaker US economy and therefore a weaker US military. I still think the US are the "good guys" but Democrats do not. A weaker US economy and therefore a weaker military invites world war which is the history of the world as we know it. Just read your history. The US is the only country that could have conquered the world militarily and did not.

I'm not sure I understand this rant GSKI. Domestic energy production grew under a democratic administration. 91% of US energy consumption is now from domestic production. The majority of non-domestic energy comes from Canada. It was the Republicans who started the war in the Middle East over oil.

[killyfan]

US weakness due to Democrats unilateral US energy restrictions (The Paris Accords) equal a weaker US economy and therefore a weaker US military. I still think the US are the "good guys" but Democrats do not. A weaker US economy and therefore a weaker military invites world war which is the history of the world as we know it. Just read your history. The US is the only country that could have conquered the world militarily and did not.

I'm not sure I understand this rant GSKI. Domestic energy production grew under a democratic administration. 91% of US energy consumption is now from domestic production. The majority of non-domestic energy comes from Canada. It was the Republicans who started the war in the Middle East over oil.

[madhatter]

US weakness due to Democrats unilateral US energy restrictions (The Paris Accords) equal a weaker US economy and therefore a weaker US military. I still think the US are the "good guys" but Democrats do not. A weaker US economy and therefore a weaker military invites world war which is the history of the world as we know it. Just read your history. The US is the only country that could have conquered the world militarily and did not.

[GSKI]

I'm not sure I understand this rant GSKI. Domestic energy production grew under a democratic administration. 91% of US energy consumption is now from domestic production. The majority of non-domestic energy comes from Canada. It was the Republicans who started the war in the Middle East over oil.

It grew on private land and because of hydraulic fracking technology. On federal land, which is actually a huge part of the country, energy production was greatly curtailed under the Obama administration. Democrats want to ban fracking like Cuomo in New York who actually have. I expect him to do that when he runs for President. Most Democrats including Clinton voted for the Iraq war and only turned against it when things got difficult and they could use the suffering for political advantage.