| ??? 05/01/07 00:44 Read: times |
#138352 - That's what proves the fools are running things Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Rob Vassar said:
Richard Erlacher said:
Then, of course, there's the matter of the power wasted in the distribution grid. The only real way to mitigate the global warming crisis is to tackle the global warming, not just from the standpoint of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, but also by mitigating the warming itself that human activity causes. What electrical/mechanical/chemical processes do you bring about every day that cause waste energy to be given off as heat? Loss of those processes would be inconvenient, but devising ways of avoiding energy waste as heat would probably not be so inconvenient. Does anyone even bother with that. What's the ratio of power generated at the power plant to power delivered to the end user? What's the ratio of power delivered to work done? If energy conservation is purportedly being encouraged, why do large users and wasters of energy have to pay less per kWH than small users? Richard, The United States has a surface area of 3,537,441 square miles, or 9.1619301e12 square meters. According to the DOE for 2005, we have a "generator nameplate" generating capacity of 1067010 Megawatts. Solar influx at the equator is 1368 watts per square meter. At 30 deg. lat. it's roughly 87% of this. Most of the landmass area of the US is north of 30 deg. Assume 1190 watts per meter solar influx average for the US, normalize the units and figure out how much heat the entire US "generator nameplate capacity" adds to every square meter of the US. I got 0.116 watts per square meter. Accounting for a 40% powerplant effeciency rating, that's .29 watts per square meter over the entire landmass of the US. US 0.29 Sun 1190 My arithmetic isn't what it used to be. Someone double check my numbers, but... I believe they speak for themselves. To be honest, I am surprised it was even that high. Rob So what has that to do with the question asked? What I'm getting at is that when you put current in one end of a wire and take it out at the other, some heat is generated, among other forms of lost energy. Thta heat goes somewhere other than where it can do some useful work. Likewise, when the power does get there, to your electric motor or whatever, it does some work with part of the energy delivered, but the rest, most of it, is wasted as heat. That goes somewhere. I don't care about how many picoergs per square acre are being absorbed from outside the planet. I'm concerned about the energy that's wasted as heat and added to the thermal energy on the planet for no useful purpose. The reason I mention this at all is not because electricity is evil or because, as you say, power generation is only 40% efficient, but because it would make much more sense to genreate one's electricity at the point of load and not heat the planet with the waste over the power lines, transformers, etc. It's bad enough that nearly nothing is 100% efficient. Heaven knows I'm not! I dont know what your point was in citing the energy per square millimeter, or whatever. Perhaps it's to show how small a percentage of the total energy on the land mass that is, but I'm here to tell you that even though a small amount of lead is not a terrible thing, if a 158 grains (a grain = 1/7000 of a pound) of it ends up in your head, particularly if it gets there at 1200 fps, it will work out badly for you. It's not just the quantity. RE |
