Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Sparko v. Truthseeker: Would millions of solar concentrating plants drive up glo...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sparko v. Truthseeker: Would millions of solar concentrating plants drive up glo...

    Would thousands of solar concentrator plants drive up global temperatures? Sparko says yes. I say not necessarily. I started this thread because I think the readers of the thread in which Sparko claimed that all those putative plants would heat up the atmosphere--would appreciate a choice of not following the debate or of following it.

    Just concentrating the solar input spatially, onto a small space, does not necessarily change the global temperature overall. What Sparko overlooked is that the total amount of input from the Sun does not change at all, from the unconcentrated state to the putative concentrated state. I concede that it is possible for the global temperature to SLIGHTLY rise, but that would not necessarily be because the input went up. Indeed, the temperature may go down, depending on the details of how the atmosphere-ocean "responds" to the putative different scenario.
    The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

    [T]he truth Iím after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -ó Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

  • #2
    Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
    Just concentrating the solar input spatially, onto a small space, does not necessarily change the global temperature overall.
    How could you avoid storing solar input that would otherwise have been reflected?
    I'm not here anymore.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
      Would thousands of solar concentrator plants drive up global temperatures? Sparko says yes. I say not necessarily. I started this thread because I think the readers of the thread in which Sparko claimed that all those putative plants would heat up the atmosphere--would appreciate a choice of not following the debate or of following it.

      Just concentrating the solar input spatially, onto a small space, does not necessarily change the global temperature overall. What Sparko overlooked is that the total amount of input from the Sun does not change at all, from the unconcentrated state to the putative concentrated state. I concede that it is possible for the global temperature to SLIGHTLY rise, but that would not necessarily be because the input went up. Indeed, the temperature may go down, depending on the details of how the atmosphere-ocean "responds" to the putative different scenario.
      If you want this to be a one-on-one discussion/debate it needs to be moved into the Arena and Sparko has to consent to such an arrangement.

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • #4
        Whether these extensive SynGas power plants would contribute to a increase in tropospheric temperature depends 1) on the average albedo of the land being covered by mirrors, which have albedo close to 100%; 2) on how much heat is released by the conversion process which is of course not 100% thermally efficient. Till we have these data the debate would be fruitless blind conjecture.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
          Whether these extensive SynGas power plants would contribute to a increase in tropospheric temperature depends 1) on the average albedo of the land being covered by mirrors, which have albedo close to 100%;
          The mirrors are supposed to NOT bounce the solar input out to space. The collector should be considered part of the system. If the collector is 100% efficient and the mirrors are perfectly aligned, then the whole system may have zero albedo. Of course you may object that nothing is perfect. In that case, you'd be right.
          2) on how much heat is released by the conversion process which is of course not 100% thermally efficient. Till we have these data the debate would be fruitless blind conjecture.
          No, the conversion absorbs heat.


          So far your posts show laziness in figuring out things or in writing the posts.
          The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

          [T]he truth Iím after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -ó Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
            If you want this to be a one-on-one discussion/debate it needs to be moved into the Arena and Sparko has to consent to such an arrangement.
            As you can see, I welcome a free-for-all.
            The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

            [T]he truth Iím after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -ó Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
              How could you avoid storing solar input that would otherwise have been reflected?
              I do not understand. Perhaps reword? I am going to guess anyway.


              Solar input that goes between the mirrors or misses the collector-concentrator part of course won't get stored in the sun gas.
              The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

              [T]he truth Iím after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -ó Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                The mirrors are supposed to NOT bounce the solar input out to space. The collector should be considered part of the system. If the collector is 100% efficient and the mirrors are perfectly aligned, then the whole system may have zero albedo. Of course you may object that nothing is perfect. In that case, you'd be right.
                No, the conversion absorbs heat.


                So far your posts show laziness in figuring out things or in writing the posts.
                You are really trying hard to sound like a science-challenged dilettante. The solar energy reflected by the mirror, which is broadband EM radiation is focused on a receiver which is designed to absorb IR (heat). This absorption process, like any other thermodynamic process, is not 100% efficient. Ergo not all of the heat goes into the system. And just a little note on thermodynamics -- high temperature heat transfer has a large percent of Gibbs Free Energy -- this high temp heat is needed to drive the catalyzing reactions. The lower temperature (which is still WELL ABOVE ambient tropospheric temperature) energy is released as heat to the surroundings.

                The receivers would need to be designed to re-emit to the system (not the surrounding) efficiently as possible in the IR part of the spectrum.

                Read a simple Wiki on thermodynamics. First learn the dfference between "system: and "surrounding". And then look at how temperature of heat transfer affects efficiency.

                Like I said, we would need data on how large a percent of "low" temperature (or "environmental") heat is released to the surroundings and that percent which has too low of a temperature to drive the reactions.

                Santa
                Last edited by klaus54; 03-20-2014, 10:36 PM. Reason: the normal typing blunders

                Comment


                • #9
                  klaus54 still has not thought about comparing the solar concentrating sungas plant performance IN THE WORLD to what happens in a world like ours (which does not have that plant).

                  Until we have a detailed design for the plant, we cannot make any prediction on which to make a comparison of that sort. But my intuition tells me that BEFORE the output of the plant, i.e., sungas, is used in an engine or furnace, we would have a net decrease of CO2 atmospheric level and greater usefulness of our solar bounty. Also, because of converting some of the solar input to sungas (remember, BEFORE it is burnt in a furnace or engine), the global temperature should be somewhat less. And, hooray, we would have something to fuel our mobile engines.


                  Maybe klaus54 would not recognize open-system thermodynamics (Ilya Prigogine) if it came up and bit his ass. Also, once again, he should stop being so lazy in making sense of others' posts or writing his posts.
                  The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                  [T]he truth Iím after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -ó Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    It's that a scientifically illiterate dope would elect the moniker truthseeker.

                    Study some thermodynamics and come back in few years when you're ready to discuss this beyond a junior high level.

                    Of course this an open input system. That's not the point which is how much of the input energy is trapped in the troposphere. This has nothing to do with Prigogine.

                    I reiterate that there are not enough data for the proposed Sparko/Truthpretender debate.

                    In your study of thermodynamics be sure to understand the relationship among internal energy, entropy, and temperature. And learn the scientific definition of heat. Unless of course you're too lazy or illiterate to do so.

                    Sparko, i pass the baton to you.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Ah, the scientific definition of heat. Please teach us yours.
                      The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                      [T]he truth Iím after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -ó Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                        Ah, the scientific definition of heat. Please teach us yours.
                        Tell us yours first, Oh Seeker of Truth.

                        You can point your "truth seeking" sensors at this link for now: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ermo/heat.html

                        Anyway, this would be a fruitless debate. I'm wary of this SynGas (yes, that's the term I will use) technology because the tremendous amount of metals needed for catalysts. The energy future will be mostly electric with renewable energy sources turning the turbines plus PV cells converting solar energy. Liquid fuels will still be necessary, and perhaps SynGas will be a significant contributor. It's more likely that biodiesel and cellulose ethanol will,

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The flow of heat (energy in transit -- not a property of a body. This is clear if you read the hyperlink) is determined by temperature difference, which must be large to get efficient transfer.

                          Temperature in a constant volume and constant particle number system = Partial derivative of internal energy with respect to entropy. Temperature has to be high enough to get a large change in internal energy with a small change in entropy. Otherwise the reactions won't be driven.

                          Comment

                          Related Threads

                          Collapse

                          Topics Statistics Last Post
                          Started by Juvenal, Yesterday, 04:47 PM
                          2 responses
                          20 views
                          1 like
                          Last Post Seeker
                          by Seeker
                           
                          Started by rogue06, 11-28-2020, 12:54 PM
                          4 responses
                          37 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post shunyadragon  
                          Started by shunyadragon, 11-26-2020, 09:46 PM
                          0 responses
                          12 views
                          1 like
                          Last Post shunyadragon  
                          Started by lee_merrill, 11-23-2020, 10:25 PM
                          5 responses
                          50 views
                          1 like
                          Last Post Seeker
                          by Seeker
                           
                          Started by rogue06, 11-22-2020, 08:25 AM
                          5 responses
                          74 views
                          3 likes
                          Last Post rogue06
                          by rogue06
                           
                          Working...
                          X