Voting, Alternative Energy and other issues

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Huh. I ask you to identify specific mainstream science magazines that support your proposition, and this is what you came up with?

You site a book available on Amazon that's one step away from being published on a vanity press. The publisher only has 12 books in its entire catalog. This book has a sales rank on Amazon of 1,500,000th most popular. I've actually written a novel that's on Amazon myself, and it's ranked 1,700,000th most popular, and it hasn't sold a copy in 16 months. (Turns out I'm a crappy novelist. But that's besides the point.) So basically you are citing a book produced by a nobody publisher that isn't selling to anybody. Wow.

Now your second source is coming from a site with this in its "About" page:

So basically it's a libertarian advocacy site. Which is fine. But not exactly a science journal.

Man, you seem to have cornered the market on bad sources. How's that Zogby poll working for you, by the way?

I see. Sales figures determine the quality of the science! No wonder it's important for Gore to win an Oscar and a Nobel - it makes his silly powerpoint based upon shoddy science into good science.

Thanks!
 
Man, you seem to have cornered the market on bad sources. How's that Zogby poll working for you, by the way?

I was thinking about what I wrote here and it wasn't terribly classy. Had a few beers before posting. Sorry about this.
 
I was thinking about what I wrote here and it wasn't terribly classy. Had a few beers before posting. Sorry about this.

Of course, by apologizing, I get to make the snide comment yet still come off as a cool guy.

Hmmm. That's not terribly cool. I feel even worse now.

I recommend everybody say something real smart ass in this thread to somebody else and then apologize. If only to make me feel less guilty.

Fucking Zima. There's been four Zimas sitting in the back of my fridge for about 3 months. So I said fuck it and finally drank the wretched stuff, for want of better alcohol. And now here I am being conflicted asshole/introspective/environmentalist/drunk dude. Fucking Zima.
 
I see. Sales figures determine the quality of the science! No wonder it's important for Gore to win an Oscar and a Nobel - it makes his silly powerpoint based upon shoddy science into good science.

Thanks!

Hey, man, you're libertarian. You of all people should know that real science is proven in the free market. :)

Seriously, though, I've never seen Gore's powerpoint, but I'd guess it's been it's seen more scientific peer reviews than either of the guys you cited above. In fact, I'd bet more scientists have seen his movie, just here in Boise, than scientists have seen both of the sources you listed combined.

On opening weekend.
 
I am fully aware of the German experiment and it's not a real success. The heavy subsidies by the German govt. are already too much to bear. See article below. I beg to differ, but no approach to solar can make the sun shine more, shine at night, or violate the first law of thermodynamics.

Electrolysis is 50% to 70% efficient, WAY better than solar cells :)

The reason I talk about nuclear as the answer is that it is a nuclear reaction, not a chemical one. Due to the chain reaction, it produces orders of magnitude more energy than is put into the system.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis

http://seekingalpha.com/article/79378-german-subsidy-fears-trigger-solar-downgrades
Denny that part I bolded is way off. I`m not arguing about the effectiveness of solar panels.

Because the efficiency of electrolysis is not creating energy like solar panels do. It ìs merely converting energy from electrical energy into the potential energy that Hydrogen holds. Whenever you perform electrolysis you are losing net energy.

However a fully operational solar panel is producing energy. So in pure production terms, a solar panel has to be considered more efficient in terms of energy production than electrolysis.

However if you were talking about purely the automotive industry (which solar is terrible at), and were talking Nuclear in conjunction with Electrolysis (hydrogen fueled vehicles). Then it makes sense.
 
Last edited:
That's not it. The sun simply doesn't shine enough light on the earth. Maybe when it turns into a red giant, tho...

The more solar panels are produced, the less a % of all energy produced is from solar. Think about that.

The science isn't that difficult to understand. The first law of thermodynamics states you can't get more energy out of something than you put in. And in practice/reality, some energy is lost along the way (friction, etc.).

Uh, you don't quite understand the first law in this application.

I'm not a solar fan, but your argument above for why it isn't a strong option is far off base.

If you are proposing building solar panels, and then burning them to take out the energy, then yes, you are fighting the first law. You won't get as much energy out as you put in. I don't think anybody is proposing building devices in order to pull the energy out by burning them or letting them decompose.

Solar panels are not producing energy, they are CONVERTING energy to a usable form.
 
Hey, man, you're libertarian. You of all people should know that real science is proven in the free market. :)

Seriously, though, I've never seen Gore's powerpoint, but I'd guess it's been it's seen more scientific peer reviews than either of the guys you cited above. In fact, I'd bet more scientists have seen his movie, just here in Boise, than scientists have seen both of the sources you listed combined.

On opening weekend.

One of the reasons I like posting here is that many of the posters talked about the classes they had in critical thinking, and yet when it comes to this man made global warming hysteria, it sure looks to me like insufficient science to come to the conclusion that man has much to do with it. Without critical thinking and skepticism, science isn't science but a belief system akin to religion. I doubt either one of us wants science to be that.

Science isn't a democracy, either. It's completely irrelevant if some majority of scientists believe something if the scientific truth is something else altogether. Again, I doubt either one of us wants science to be that as well.

History is full of stories of scientists who found the scientific truth, or the best explanation of something, who were rejected by peer review. A recent example is the discovery that the first Americans were here thousands of years earlier than the consensus of scientists believed, and even though the geologic and carbon dating evidence clearly showed the consensus to be wrong, the scientists presenting the truth were assailed and ridiculed by their peers.

There is a terribly corrupting force in science when massive government grants are involved. When you have many scientists living off those grants and the power they achieve and access to expensive toys, there's an understandable resistance to finding a truth that made years of this kind of investment bogus.

The real danger in Gore's kind of science (he's not a scientist, but a celebrity and fairly stupid in general) is in popularizing it and particularly his claims that anyone who has an opposing view should be stifled.

I don't claim to know if global warming is man made. I see a lot of "evidence" that it is, but I am dubious of a lot of it. Climate models that can't predict the past given really accurate data are being used to predict the future. The evidence is actually disparate and not necessarily related in any way, let alone the ways that some scientists demand.

All this is neither here nor there when it comes to whether solar energy is truly viable. It's been only viable with massive government subsidies, and the actual science isn't that hard to figure out why it isn't viable otherwise. Massive government subsidies make all kinds of unviable things viable - like sending a man to the moon.

In case you do think consensus is what makes something scientific truth:

Ignoring celebrities, here is a list of scientists who have, at some point or another, shown scepticism towards the climate change orthodox. The biggest name on this list is probably Reid Bryson who has been dubbed by many as the "Father of Scientific Climatology". I'll leave it to others to judge the merits of each individual on the list.

A. Alan Moghissi, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Technical University of Karlsruhe, Germany
Aksel Wiin-Nielsen, Professor of Geophysical Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Albrecht Glatzle, Ph.D. Agricultural Biology, University of Hohenheim, Germany
Alfred (Al) H. Pekarek, Ph.D. Geology, Associate Professor of Geology, St. Cloud State University, USA
Allan M.R. MacRae, B.Sc., M.Eng., P.Eng, Canada
Andreas Prokoph, B.Sc. Geology, Ph.D. Earth Sciences, University Tubingen, Germany
Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, Purdue University, USA
Antonino Zichichi, Professor Emeritus of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy
Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Chemistry, University of California, San Diego, USA
Arthur Rorsch, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Ben Herman, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona, USA
Bjarne Andresen, Ph. D. Theoretical Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Bob Durrenberger, Retired Climatologist, Former President of the American Association of State Climatologists, USA
Boris Winterhalter, Ph.D. Geology, Helsinki University, Finland
Brian Pratt, Ph.D. Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan, Canada
Bruce N. Ames, Ph.D. BioChemistry, California Institute of Technology, USA
Bruno Wiskel, B.Sc. Geology, University of Albert, Canada
Bryan Leyland, M.Sc. Electrical and Mechanical Engineering, New Zealand
Carl Johan Friedrich (Frits) Böttcher, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physical Chemistry, University of Leiden, The Netherlands
Charles Gelman, B.S. Chemistry, M.S. Public Health, University of Michigan, USA
Chauncey Starr, Ph.D. Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, USA
Chris de Freitas, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Christiaan Frans van Sumere, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, University of Gent, Belgium
Christoph C. Borel, Ph.D. Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Massachusetts, USA
Christopher Essex, Ph.D. Professor of Applied Mathematics, University of Western Ontario, Canada
Christopher Landsea, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, USA
Claude Allegre, Ph.D. Physics, University of Paris, France
Cliff Ollier, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Geology, University of Western Australia, Australia
Clinton H. Sheehan, Ph.D. Physics, University of Western Ontario, Canada
Craig D. Idso, M.S. Agronomy, Ph.D. Geography, Arizona State University, USA
Dan Carruthers, M.Sc. Wildlife Biology Consultant, Specializing in Animal Ecology in Arctic and Subarctic Regions, Canada
Daniel B. Botkin, Ph.D. Biology, Rutgers University, USA
David Deming, B.S. Geology, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Utah, USA
David E. Wojick, B.S. Civil Engineering, Ph.D. Mathematical Logic, University of Pittsburgh, USA
David Evans, B.Sc. Applied Mathematics and Physics, M.S. Statistics, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Stanford, USA
David G. Aubrey, B.S. Geological Sciences, Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California at San Diego, USA
David H. Douglass, Ph.D. Physics, MIT, USA
David J. Bellamy, B.Sc. Botany, Ph.D. Ecology, Durham University, UK
David Kear, Ph.D. Geology, New Zealand
David L. Hill, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA
David Nowell, M.Sc. Meteorology, Royal Meteorological Society, Canada
David R. Legates, Ph.D. Climatology, University of Delaware, USA
Dennis P. Lettenmaier, Ph.D. Professor of Hydrology, University of Washington, USA
Dick Thoenes, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D. Geology, University of Washington, USA
Donald G. Baker, Ph.D. Soils, Geology, University of Minnesota, USA
Douglas V. Hoyt, Solar Physicist and Climatologist, Retired, Raytheon, USA
Duncan Wingham, Ph.D. Physics, University of Bath, UK
Eckhard Grimmel, Ph.D. Geography, University of Hamburg, Germany
Edward Wegman, Ph.D. Mathematical Statistics, University of Iowa, USA
Eigil Friis-Christensen, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Elliot Abrams, M.S. Meteorology, Penn State, USA
Eric S. Posmentier, Adjunct Professor of Earth Sciences, Dartmouth, USA
Ernst-Georg Beck, M.Sc. Biology, Merian-Schule, Germany
Fred Goldberg, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
Fred Michel, B.Sc. Geological Sciences, M.Sc., Ph.D. Earth Sciences, University of Waterloo, Canada
Fred W. Decker, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, USA
Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of Physics, Princeton University, USA
G. Cornelis van Kooten, B.Sc. Geophysics, Ph.D. Agricultural & Resource Economics, Oregon State University, USA
Gabriel T. Csanady, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering, University of New South Wales, Australia
Garth Paltridge, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia
Gary D. Sharp, Ph.D. Marine Biology, University of California, USA
Gary Novak, M.S. Microbiology, USA
Geoff L. Austin, Ph.D. Professor of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand
George E. McVehil, B.A. Physics, M.S. Ph.D. Meteorology, AMS Certified Consulting Meteorologist, USA
George H. Taylor, M.S. Meteorology, University of Utah, USA
George Kukla, Micropalentologist, Special Research Scientist of Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, USA
George V. Chilingarian, Ph.D. Geology, University of Southern California, USA
George Wilhelm Stroke, Ph.D. Physics, University of Paris, France
Gerd-Rainer Weber, Ph.D. Consulting Meteorologist, Germany
Gerhard Gerlich, Ph.D. Physics, Technical University of Braunschweig, Germany
Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD Geology, New Zealand
Gordon E. Swaters, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics and Physical Oceanography, University of British Columbia, Canada
Gordon J. Fulks, Ph.D. Physics, University of Chicago, USA
Graham Smith, Associate Professor of Geography, University of Western Ontario, Canada
H. Grant (H.G.) Goodell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, USA
H. Michael (Mike) Mogil, M.S. Meteorology, Florida State University, USA
Hans Erren, B.Sc. Geology and Physics, M.Sc. Geophysics, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Hans Jelbring, Ph.D. Climatology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Harry N.A. Priem, Professor Emeritus of Isotope and Planetary Geology, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Hartwig Volz, Geophysicist, RWE Research Lab, Germany
Hendrik Tennekes, Former Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, The Netherlands
Henrik Svensmark, Solar System Physics, Danish National Space Center, Denmark
Henry R. Linden, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, Illinois Institute of Technology, USA
Howard C. Hayden, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Connecticut, USA
Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Ph.D. Meteorology, Formerly with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, USA
Ian D. Clark, Ph.D. Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada
Ian R. Plimer, Ph.D. Professor of Geology, University of Adelaide, Australia
Indur M. Goklany, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, India
J. Scott Armstrong, B.A. Applied Science, B.S. Industrial Engineering, Ph.D. MIT, USA
Jack Barrett, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Manchester, UK
James J. O’Brien, Ph.D. Meteorology, Texas A&M University, USA
James R. Stalker, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama, USA
Ján Veizer, Professor Emeritus, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada
Jay H. Lehr, Ph.D. Groundwater Hydrology, University of Arizona, USA
Jennifer Marohasy, Ph.D. Biology, University of Queensland, Australia
Joel M. Kauffman, Ph.D. Organic Chemistry, MIT, USA
Joel Schwartz, B.S. Chemistry, M.S. Planetary Science, California Institute of Technology, USA
John Brignell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Department of Electronics & Computer Science, University of Southampton, UK
John E. Gaynor, M.S. Meteorology, UCLA, USA
John E. Oliphant, B.A. Mathematics and Physics, M.S. Meteorology Penn State, USA
John K. Sutherland, Ph.D. Geology, University of Manchester, UK
John R. Christy, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, USA
Joseph Conklin, M.S. Meteorology, Rutgers University, USA
Joseph D’Aleo, M.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, USA
Joseph (Joe) P. Sobel, Ph.D. Meteorology, Penn State, USA
Keith D. Hage, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta, Canada
Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany, Arizona State University, USA
Kelvin Kemm, Ph.D. Nuclear Physics, Natal University, South Africa
Kenneth E.F. Watt, Ph.D. Zoology, University of Chicago, USA
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, University of Leningrad, Russia
Klaus Wyrtki, Ph.D. Oceanography, Physics, Mathematics, University of Kiel, Germany
Lance Endersbee, Professor Emeritus of Engineering, Monash University, Australia
Lee C. Gerhard, Ph.D. Geology, University of Kansas, USA
Lee Raymond, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, University of Minnesota, USA
Louis Hissink, M.Sc. Geology, Macquarie University, Australia
Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physics, Rutgers, USA
Madhav Khandekar, B.Sc. Mathematics and Physics, M.Sc. Statistics, Ph.D.
Martin Livermore, B.S. Chemistry, University of Oxford, UK
Meteorology, Florida State University, USA
Manik Talwani, Ph.D. Physics, Columbia University, USA
Marcel Leroux, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France
Mel Goldstein, Ph.D. Meteorology, NYU, USA
Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard, USA
Michael D. Griffin, B.S. Physics, M.S. Applied Physics, Ph.D. Aerospace Engineering, University of Maryland, USA
Michael E Adams, Ph.D. Meteorology, Lyndon State College, USA
Michael Savage, B.S. Biology, M.S. Anthropology, M.S. Ethnobotany, Ph.D. Nutritional Ethnomedicine, USA
Michael R. Fox, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, University of Washington, USA
Michel Salomon, M.D. University of Paris, Director, International Centre for Scientific Ecology, France
Noah E. Robinson, Ph.D. Chemistry, California Institute of Technology, USA
Neil Frank, Ph.D. Meteorology, Florida State University, USA
Nils-Axel Mörner, Professor Emeritus of Palegeophysics and Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden
Nir J. Shaviv, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, Israel Institute of Technology, Israel
Norman Brown, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, University of Ulster, UK
Ola M. Johannessen, Professor, Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center, Norway
Olavi Kärner, Ph.D. Atmospheric Physics, Leningrad Hydrometeorological Institute, Estonia
Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Ph.D. Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, USA
Paavo Siitam, M.Sc. Agronomist, Canada
Paul Copper, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Canada
Paul Driessen, B.A. Geology and Field Ecology, Lawrence University, USA
Paul Reiter, Professor of Medical Entomology, Pasteur Institute, France
Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Patrick Moore, B.Sc. Forest Biology, Ph.D. Ecology, University of British Columbia, Canada
Peter Stilbs, Ph.D. (TeknD) Physical Chemistry, Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden
Petr Chylek, Ph.D. Physics, University of California, USA
Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus of Biogeography, University of London, UK
Piers Corbyn, B.Sc. Physics, M.Sc. Astrophysics, Queen Mary College, UK
R.G. Roper, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA
R. Timothy (Tim) Patterson, B.Sc. Biology, Ph.D. Professor of Geology, Carleton University, Canada
R.
W. Gauldie, Ph.D. Research Professor, Hawaii Institute of Geophysics
and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology,
University of Hawaii, USA
Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Ph.D. Physics, University of Hamburg, Germany
Randall Cerveny, Ph.D. Geography, University of Nebraska, USA
Reid A. Bryson, B.A. Geology, Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Chicago, USA
Richard C. Willson, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of California Los Angeles, USA
Richard S. Courtney, Ph.D. Geography, The Ohio State University, USA
Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT, USA
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., Forest Microclimate Specialist, Canada
Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University, USA
Robert C. Whitten, Physicist, Retired Research Scientist, NASA, USA
Robert E. Davis, Ph.D. Climatology, University of Delaware, USA
Robert G. Williscroft, B.Sc. Marine & Atmospheric Physics, M.Sc., Ph.D. Engineering, California Coast University, USA
Robert Giegengack, Ph.D. Geology, Yale, USA
Robert H. Essenhigh, M.S. Natural Sciences, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, University of Sheffield, UK
Robert L. Kovach, Professor of Geophysics, Stanford University, USA
Robert (Bob) M. Carter, B.Sc. Geology, Ph.D. Paleontology, University of Cambridge, Australia
Robin Vaughan, Ph.D. Physics, Nottingham University, UK
Roger A. Pielke (Sr.), Ph.D. Meteorology, Penn State, USA
Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, USA
S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA
Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard, USA
Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D. Soil Science, University of Minnesota, USA
Simon C. Brassell, B.Sc. Chemistry & Geology, Ph.D. Organic Geochemistry, University of Bristol, UK
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D. Department of Geography, University of Hull, UK
Steve Milloy, B.A. Natural Sciences, M.S. Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, USA
Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, University of Toronto, Canada
Stewart W. Franks, Ph.D. Environmental Science, Lancaster University, U.K.
Sylvan H. Wittwer, Ph.D. Horticulture, University of Missouri, USA
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Alaska, USA
Tad S. Murty, Ph.D. Oceanography and Meteorology, University of Chicago, USA
Thomas Schmidlin, Ph.D. Professor of Geography, Kent State University, USA
Timothy (Tim) F. Ball, Ph.D. Geography - Historical Climatology, University of London, UK
Tom Harris, B. Eng. M. Eng. Mechanical Engineering (thermo-fluids), Canada
Tom V. Segalstad, B.S. Geology, University of Oslo, Norway
Ulrich Berner, Geologist, Federal Institute for Geosciences, Germany
Vern Harnapp, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Geography, University of Akron, USA
Vincent Gray, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Cambridge University, UK
Vitaliy Rusov, Ph.D. Physics and Mathematics, Professor of Physics, Odessa Polytechnic University, Ukraine
W. Dennis Clark, Ph.D. Botany, Sacramento State College, USA
Walter Starck, Ph.D. Marine Science, University of Miami, USA
Warwick Hughes, B.S. Geology, Auckland University, Australia
Wm. Robert Johnston, B.A. Astronomy, M.S. Physics, University of Texas, USA
Wibjorn Karlen, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Willem de Lange, Ph.D. Senior Lecturer, Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Waikato University, New Zealand
William B. Hubbard, Ph.D. Professor of Planetary Atmospheres, University of Arizona, USA
William (Bill) Bauman, B.S., Meteorology, M.S., Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, North Carolina State University, USA
William Cotton, M.S. Atmospheric Science, Ph.D. Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University, USA
William E. Reifsnyder, B.S. Meteorology, M.S., Ph.D. Forestry, Yale, USA
William
J.R. Alexander, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and
Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa
William M. Briggs, M.S. Atmospheric Science, Ph.D. Statistics, Cornell University, USA
William (Bill) M. Gray, M.S. Meteorology, Ph.D. Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, USA
Willie Soon, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, USA
Wolfgang Thüne, Ph.D. Geography, University of Wuerzburg, Germany
Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D. Ph.D. D.Sc., Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Poland
 
Uh, you don't quite understand the first law in this application.

I'm not a solar fan, but your argument above for why it isn't a strong option is far off base.

If you are proposing building solar panels, and then burning them to take out the energy, then yes, you are fighting the first law. You won't get as much energy out as you put in. I don't think anybody is proposing building devices in order to pull the energy out by burning them or letting them decompose.

Solar panels are not producing energy, they are CONVERTING energy to a usable form.

I'm not proposing building solar panels and then burning them.

But to make a solar panel, you are burning something somewhere in the manufacturing process. The panels cannot ever produce more energy than is put into making them. That is not even accounting for the batteries which need to be manufactured and replaced every few years (burning something somewhere).

If these things were viable, all you'd have to do is make one and use all the energy it produces to make another, then use the energy they produce to make 2 more, etc. It's not at all working that way.

In fact, the more solar panels are put up, the less a % of energy produced is from solar. See attached graph.
 

Attachments

  • snapshot5.jpg
    snapshot5.jpg
    17.9 KB · Views: 4
I'm not ripping your post, but I thought this entry was funny.


Weiner was a respected scientist and author until he decided to change his name to Savage and rant on the radio.
 
Weiner was a respected scientist and author until he decided to change his name to Savage and rant on the radio.

No, I get it, I just thought it was funny. You see all the names of these scientists and then you see his name. Regardless of his academic credentials, all you can think of is his radio show.
 
I'm not proposing building solar panels and then burning them.

But to make a solar panel, you are burning something somewhere in the manufacturing process. The panels cannot ever produce more energy than is put into making them. That is not even accounting for the batteries which need to be manufactured and replaced every few years (burning something somewhere).

If these things were viable, all you'd have to do is make one and use all the energy it produces to make another, then use the energy they produce to make 2 more, etc. It's not at all working that way.

In fact, the more solar panels are put up, the less a % of energy produced is from solar. See attached graph.

That graph you posted has nothing whatsoever to do with photovoltaics, it's just a list of the percentage of our energy that comes from "solar" sources over time, with wood being counted as a source (justified I suppose, by the fact that photosynthesis allowed the trees to grow in the first place). All that has to happen on that graph for "solar" energy sources to be continually less of a % of our energy regime is to reduce the consumption of wood products as an energy source, increase energy production from things like Hydro, gas, coal, etc. and the slice of the pie that it occupies becomes smaller. It's no secret that photovoltaic energy output is (and always has been) well under 1% of all energy production in the U.S. but suggesting that making more of them somehow reduces the amount of energy given to the grid is not only counter intuitive it's flat out wrong. The only accurate thing you could say about the manufacture of solar panels is that they create a short run energy debt in order to manufacture and deploy them, but given enough time they recoup that "debt" and become net energy gainers.

This is about utilizing (essentially) limitless extra terrestrial energy vs. ultimately limited terrestrial sources. the biggest drawback with solar is that it takes several years to overcome this energy "debt" incurred from the manufacturing process -- you don't just spit out a photovoltaic cell and have it generate all of the energy that went into it's manufacture and immediately enable your hypothetical situation where a cell is created and it magically has enough energy to create two duplicates.

Here's a couple of things from the department of energy that explains it far better than I can.

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/37322.pdf

http://www.energy.gov/news/4503.htm
 
That graph you posted has nothing whatsoever to do with photovoltaics, it's just a list of the percentage of our energy that comes from "solar" sources over time, with wood being counted as a source (justified I suppose, by the fact that photosynthesis allowed the trees to grow in the first place). All that has to happen on that graph for "solar" energy sources to be continually less of a % of our energy regime is to reduce the consumption of wood products as an energy source, increase energy production from things like Hydro, gas, coal, etc. and the slice of the pie that it occupies becomes smaller. It's no secret that photovoltaic energy output is (and always has been) well under 1% of all energy production in the U.S. but suggesting that making more of them somehow reduces the amount of energy given to the grid is not only counter intuitive it's flat out wrong. The only accurate thing you could say about the manufacture of solar panels is that they create a short run energy debt in order to manufacture and deploy them, but given enough time they recoup that "debt" and become net energy gainers.

This is about utilizing (essentially) limitless extra terrestrial energy vs. ultimately limited terrestrial sources. the biggest drawback with solar is that it takes several years to overcome this energy "debt" incurred from the manufacturing process -- you don't just spit out a photovoltaic cell and have it generate all of the energy that went into it's manufacture and immediately enable your hypothetical situation where a cell is created and it magically has enough energy to create two duplicates.

Here's a couple of things from the department of energy that explains it far better than I can.

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/37322.pdf

http://www.energy.gov/news/4503.htm

There's nothing wrong with the graph. Before electricity, the only energy man used was burning wood and whatever came from the sun; burning wood was a tiny fraction of it all, we basically were 100% solar energy powered. If it costs 1000 watts to make a solar panel and it produced 900 watts, it's quite obvious why the more we produce the less a % of energy is from solar.

You have to be very careful when looking at the claims and statistics of the solar lobby. They're not including the cost of replacing batteries and recycling them, and they're spinning the numbers based upon a best case scenario that isn't practical. Sun overhead on a clear day at the most optimal spot on the face of the earth, and panel directly facing the sun. The lifetimes of the cells are theoretical, as well - few, if any, are going to make it to their full lifetime; they degrade over time, the lifetimes are again for ideal conditions, they get replaced with "better" ones, etc.

When I say 10% to 15% efficiency, I am giving the industry credit for all the advances they could possibly make, but am including all the other factors they're not going to brag about.

As an aside, do you know of any company making solar panels that uses 100% solar energy in the production?
 
Last edited:
Denny that part I bolded is way off. I`m not arguing about the effectiveness of solar panels.

Because the efficiency of electrolysis is not creating energy like solar panels do. It ìs merely converting energy from electrical energy into the potential energy that Hydrogen holds. Whenever you perform electrolysis you are losing net energy.

However a fully operational solar panel is producing energy. So in pure production terms, a solar panel has to be considered more efficient in terms of energy production than electrolysis.

However if you were talking about purely the automotive industry (which solar is terrible at), and were talking Nuclear in conjunction with Electrolysis (hydrogen fueled vehicles). Then it makes sense.

http://www.hyweb.de/Knowledge/w-i-energiew-eng3.html
 
I'm not proposing building solar panels and then burning them.

But to make a solar panel, you are burning something somewhere in the manufacturing process. The panels cannot ever produce more energy than is put into making them. That is not even accounting for the batteries which need to be manufactured and replaced every few years (burning something somewhere).

If these things were viable, all you'd have to do is make one and use all the energy it produces to make another, then use the energy they produce to make 2 more, etc. It's not at all working that way.

In fact, the more solar panels are put up, the less a % of energy produced is from solar. See attached graph.


You don't understand, so I will try again.

Solar panels do NOT PRODUCE energy. The first law does NOT apply here, because they are not producing energy, they are CONVERTING energy. There is nothing else to understand. The control volume can be drawn around the panel. You have EM energy from the sun coming in, and electrical energy leaving. The ratio of these two is the efficiency. No energy is being produced. If you leave it in the Sun for long enough, it WILL convert more energy to electrical energy than it took to create the panel. The efficiency is simply how long it will take to break even.

I'm not a fan of solar energy, so I'm not looking to argue in favor of solar. However, it is misleading to start using the First Law as an excuse for why we should not use solar. It just does not apply in the way you are attempting to use it.
 
You don't understand, so I will try again.

Solar panels do NOT PRODUCE energy. The first law does NOT apply here, because they are not producing energy, they are CONVERTING energy. There is nothing else to understand. The control volume can be drawn around the panel. You have EM energy from the sun coming in, and electrical energy leaving. The ratio of these two is the efficiency. No energy is being produced. If you leave it in the Sun for long enough, it WILL convert more energy to electrical energy than it took to create the panel. The efficiency is simply how long it will take to break even.

I'm not a fan of solar energy, so I'm not looking to argue in favor of solar. However, it is misleading to start using the First Law as an excuse for why we should not use solar. It just does not apply in the way you are attempting to use it.

I am not misusing the 1st law. You have a closed system that includes the MANUFACTURE of the solar panel as well as MAINTENANCE. You are putting energy into the system by burning coal or gas or oil somewhere to manufacture it and burning gasoline to drive it to where it is installed, and you are getting less energy out than it cost to produce before it stops working. Otherwise, we have found the holy grail - something akin to a perpetual motion machine.

It may be confusing because part of the closed system is somewhere else - upstream.

They have the same problem with wind power. It costs more energy to make the windmill than it'll produce in its lifetime.
 
I am not misusing the 1st law. You have a closed system that includes the MANUFACTURE of the solar panel as well as MAINTENANCE. You are putting energy into the system by burning coal or gas or oil somewhere to manufacture it and burning gasoline to drive it to where it is installed, and you are getting less energy out than it cost to produce before it stops working. Otherwise, we have found the holy grail - something akin to a perpetual motion machine.

It may be confusing because part of the closed system is somewhere else - upstream.

If you want to extend the control volume out that far, you have to extend it around the sun as well, since that is the energy we are converting.

They have the same problem with wind power. It costs more energy to make the windmill than it'll produce in its lifetime.

I don't know how else to say this: solar panels and windmills do NOT PRODUCE energy. Since you continue to say they do, it is clear that you don't understand how to apply the First Law.

You ARE misusing the First Law. Do you honestly think that solar panels are PRODUCING energy? If so, then it would get the same amount of energy out of the panel whether it were sunny or cloudy. It is converting energy, and thus, you can't apply the First Law like you are trying to. The First Law is what keeps us from having solar panels that have an efficiency of greater than 100% (or even approaching 100%).
 
Last edited:
Once again, you ARE misusing the First Law. Do you honestly think that solar panels are PRODUCING energy? If so, then it would get the same amount of energy out of the panel whether it were sunny or cloudy. It is converting energy, and thus, you can't apply the First Law like you are trying to.

In no system but a nuclear chain reaction is energy produced, it can only be changed from one form to another.

This is true for a gasoline engine or a solar panel.

You are making the mistake of imagining that solar panels are magically created with no mechanical processes involved, or energy applied. Or that the energy converted isn't fungible.
 
In no system but a nuclear chain reaction is energy produced, it can only be changed from one form to another.

Wow. Now you are breaking the First Law. Even in a nuclear reaction, no energy is produced. It is once again, converted to a different form of energy.

This is true for a gasoline engine or a solar panel.

You are making the mistake of imagining that solar panels are magically created with no mechanical processes involved, or energy applied. Or that the energy converted isn't fungible.

Nope, I'm not forgetting that at all. That is why I mentioned above that it takes time to convert as much solar energy to electrical, usable energy, as was put in to the manufacturing of the panel. That amount of time is based on the efficiency. The First Law is what limits this efficiency.
 
Wow. Now you are breaking the First Law. Even in a nuclear reaction, no energy is produced. It is once again, converted to a different form of energy.

It is the conversion of nuclear mass to energy, not one form of energy to another. e = mc**2

Nope, I'm not forgetting that at all. That is why I mentioned above that it takes time to convert as much solar energy to electrical, usable energy, as was put in to the manufacturing of the panel. That amount of time is based on the efficiency. The First Law is what limits this efficiency.

The first law does limit the efficiency if you look at the panel on its own. Again, there's a closed system where you are putting energy in.
 
It is the conversion of nuclear mass to energy, not one form of energy to another. e = mc**2



The first law does limit the efficiency if you look at the panel on its own. Again, there's a closed system where you are putting energy in.

I don't mean to be rude, but you really don't understand what you are talking about. You can't draw a closed system around a solar panel, unless you are including the sun. Do you understand what a closed system means? This is why are you misusing the First Law.
 
I don't mean to be rude, but you really don't understand what you are talking about. You can't draw a closed system around a solar panel, unless you are including the sun. Do you understand what a closed system means? This is why are you misusing the First Law.

I am including the sun, but I am not looking at the solar panel by itself as a closed system. But there's a bigger logical closed system that includes the manufacturing and delivery and so on. And ALL of the solar panels deployed everywhere. Your portrayal of this is solar panel + sun, mine is solar panel + sun + all the upstream things that are the fuel for a much larger (but still closed) system.

An anecdote: I bought a Prius, thinking that I'd be driving around causing very little emissions. Turns out that to make the car, more emissions were created to make the car than it saves over close to 150K miles. Turns out that a Hummer, all things told, is more carbon footprint friendly.
 
I am including the sun, but I am not looking at the solar panel by itself as a closed system.

Good, because solar panel is nothing close to a closed system. That is exactly the point.


But there's a bigger logical closed system that includes the manufacturing and delivery and so on. And ALL of the solar panels deployed everywhere.

Your portrayal of this is solar panel + sun, [/quote]

No, it isn't. I understand that manufacturing, transportation, implementation and destruction all take energy that must be included.

mine is solar panel + sun + all the upstream things that are the fuel for a much larger (but still closed) system.

Ok, if you are calling the system that you have defined as closed, there your argument about the First Law is moot. If you know what a closed system is, then you'll know why.
 
I took the time to draw two diagrams: what you call a closed system, and what I call a closed system.

The 2nd is too simplistic (there are certainly more factories), but enough to illustrate the point. I'm not including the ore mines where the metals are dug up, the mills where the ore is converted to metals, and that kind of thing. Equally important but missing is the 2nd solar panel installation in Canada, where there's less sunlight. And the third, etc. Also missing are the recycling plants.

Expected lifetime of the solar panels are (EXPECTED) 20 years before you are almost certain to replace them (put more energy in, 15 years is probably pushing it). For Canada, expect maybe 10 years. Expected lifetime of the batteries is 3-4 years (put more energy in).
 

Attachments

  • solar.jpg
    solar.jpg
    9.3 KB · Views: 4
I took the time to draw two diagrams: what you call a closed system, and what I call a closed system.

The 2nd is too simplistic (there are certainly more factories), but enough to illustrate the point. I'm not including the ore mines where the metals are dug up, the mills where the ore is converted to metals, and that kind of thing. Equally important but missing is the 2nd solar panel installation in Canada, where there's less sunlight. And the third, etc. Also missing are the recycling plants.

Expected lifetime of the solar panels are (EXPECTED) 20 years before you are almost certain to replace them (put more energy in, 15 years is probably pushing it). For Canada, expect maybe 10 years. Expected lifetime of the batteries is 3-4 years (put more energy in).


I'm glad you took the time to draw the diagrams. I see where the confusion is now. You don't know what a closed system is, because neither diagram you drew represents a closed system.
 
I'm glad you took the time to draw the diagrams. I see where the confusion is now. You don't know what a closed system is, because neither diagram you drew represents a closed system.


Yes they do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_system

A closed system is a system in the state of being isolated from the environment. It is often used to refer to a theoretical scenario where perfect closure is an assumption, however in practice no system can be completely closed; there are only varying degrees of closure.

Every part of my closed system is isolated from the environment.

A better version of the same image:

solar.png
 
Yes they do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_system



Every part of my closed system is isolated from the environment.

A better version of the same image:

solar.png


No, you really don't understand.

Both of your diagrams show energy coming in, sunlight, and energy leaving, eletrical energy. By definition, that is NOT a closed system. A closed system would NOT have energy inputs and outputs. Like I said, neither of your diagrams represent a closed system.
 
With all due respect Denny, you're trying to have it both ways (and I'm not sure what throwing the emissions argument into this has to do with the price of tea in china). Furthermore, your claims that nuclear energy is "created" from the chain reaction, decay of atomic nuclei is wrong -- that energy is contained within the the atom and is released in a fission reaction; the fact that it creates a cascade effect from a small energy input is irrelevant.

And finally your assertion that wind turbines and photovoltaics never end up generating (converting) enough power to overcome the energy it took to manufacture and deploy them is simply and utterly incorrect. Each type of energy collecting device has finite, fixed costs associated with their creation (in energy terms) once deployed they then begin converting wind or radiant energy into a certain amount of kilowatts of power ad infinitum, or until they break down mechanically.

Let's put it another way, 200 years ago a miller decides that instead of using a hand-crank to mill grain he's going to build a new mill next to a rushing creek, and will use a water wheel to power his mill. the costs in energy terms to build the mill can be counted in the calories expended by he and his ox: cutting and hauling lumber, the carpentry involved with building the mill, etc. Let's say that it took the equivalent of ten bushels of corn (in calories) to supply the calories needed to build this mill; that is a fixed, finite cost. Now the mill is up and running and the water wheel is cranking over and over and over, generating a certain amount of kilowatts (or kilocalories) of energy each minute, hour and day that it is allowed to run. Eventually that mill is going to have "captured" or converted enough kinetic energy, from the creek, into more calories or kilowatts of energy than were consumed in the manufacture of the mill and its wheel.

In any case I'm done arguing, if you don't get it, there's probably nothing I or anyone else can say to convince you otherwise.
 
No, you really don't understand.

Both of your diagrams show energy coming in, sunlight, and energy leaving, eletrical energy. By definition, that is NOT a closed system. A closed system would NOT have energy inputs and outputs. Like I said, neither of your diagrams represent a closed system.

I think you don't understand. The next sentence from wikipedia:

In physics, a closed system can exchange heat and work, but not matter, with its surroundings.

And to quote you:

You can't draw a closed system around a solar panel, unless you are including the sun.
 
With all due respect Denny, you're trying to have it both ways (and I'm not sure what throwing the emissions argument into this has to do with the price of tea in china). Furthermore, your claims that nuclear energy is "created" from the chain reaction, decay of atomic nuclei is wrong -- that energy is contained within the the atom and is released in a fission reaction; the fact that it creates a cascade effect from a small energy input is irrelevant.

And finally your assertion that wind turbines and photovoltaics never end up generating (converting) enough power to overcome the energy it took to manufacture and deploy them is simply and utterly incorrect. Each type of energy collecting device has finite, fixed costs associated with their creation (in energy terms) once deployed they then begin converting wind or radiant energy into a certain amount of kilowatts of power ad infinitum, or until they break down mechanically.

Let's put it another way, 200 years ago a miller decides that instead of using a hand-crank to mill grain he's going to build a new mill next to a rushing creek, and will use a water wheel to power his mill. the costs in energy terms to build the mill can be counted in the calories expended by he and his ox: cutting and hauling lumber, the carpentry involved with building the mill, etc. Let's say that it took the equivalent of ten bushels of corn (in calories) to supply the calories needed to build this mill; that is a fixed, finite cost. Now the mill is up and running and the water wheel is cranking over and over and over, generating a certain amount of kilowatts (or kilocalories) of energy each minute, hour and day that it is allowed to run. Eventually that mill is going to have "captured" or converted enough kinetic energy, from the creek, into more calories or kilowatts of energy than were consumed in the manufacture of the mill and its wheel.

In any case I'm done arguing, if you don't get it, there's probably nothing I or anyone else can say to convince you otherwise.

The cost isn't finite, this is not a correct assumption. The lumber breaks, the mill stone wears out, you do have to continuously feed the oxe, you have to clean the algae and junk from the paddle wheel in the water, and where parts touch they're going to wear out.

This is why the trend in windmill technology is to make them hugely larger - the hope is that they do capture enough energy before they wear out.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top