Another sample of your "MIT PhD physicist, I work at a National Lab" knowledge?

[kristopher]

You wrote:

For example, did you know that for our personal transportation fleet, about 80% of the energy in the petroleum fuel doesn't even need to be replaced as it is simply wasted as heat and serves no functional purpose?
=========================================

The above is a disingenuous half-truth. While it is true that the engine of a
automobile is about 20% efficient and 80% of the energy goes as waste heat.

However, what he is NOT saying is that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states
that you HAVE to have waste heat in order to get the 20% useful work.

He is attempting to imply that we could somehow get that 20% desired useful
energy without the 80% waste heat.

This shows IGNORANCE of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. We MUST according to
the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics have that waste heat because that is what carries
away the entropy.

The mechanical work energy of the engine doesn't carry away any entropy - so
you would have a source of entropy and no sink for the entropy. Such an engine
could not continue running in a cycle.

So that 80% waste heat DOES HAVE a purpose - it carries away the entropy and
it ALLOWS us to get that 20% useful work.

Without the 80% "waste heat" - you can NOT GET the 20% useful mechanical work.

This is high school level physics - get a high school physics text and turn to
the section of the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Dr. Greg

Leaving aside the other peculiarities of your statement, I'll focus on the main point - why we DON'T have to replace the wasted energy from an internal combustion engine when we consider how to power our personal transportation fleet.

The short version is that you only have that degree of waste heat in this application when your energy carrier is petroleum, not when the energy carrier is electricity.

To assist those not familiar with the topic (like "Dr." Greg):

Petroleum is an energy carrier that requires a chemical reaction to release the solar energy stored in the hydrocarbon bond. To harness that stored energy requires harnessing the heat released on combustion and converting it to mechanical energy via an internal combustion engine. So we have solar energy stored by living organisms that has been sequestered away for eons, then extracted, transported, refined, transported some more and then used in a contained explosion. Further, that mechanical energy must be transferred from the point of the reaction (cylinder) to the point of work (turning the wheel). All of those transactions are a debit against the original solar energy stored in the hydrocarbons.

The fuel 'tank to wheel efficiency' of most autos is actually between 12-20% with most vehicles coming in around 15%.

Alternatively, we can harvest the solar directly with PV or solar thermal, or we can harvest it indirectly by capturing the mechanical force of the wind or water currents (both motions are a product of solar input).

The output of all of those technologies is electricity. This electricity might be distributed for immediate use or it might be stored in various types of batteries (ie thermal, chemical or gravity).

Petroleum has been difficult to replace because of its high energy density. However, as noted above, because of waste from the process of harnessing the stored energy of petroleum, that degree of energy density isn't what needs to be replaced. All that we need to replace is the amount that turns the wheel and propels the auto down the road.

State of the art electric motors turn about 95% of their input electrical energy into mechanical energy. Since the shaft of the electric motor directly turns the wheel of the auto all of the mechanical output goes to pushing the car.

State of the art lithium batteries used in the electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) that all manufacturers are now turning to can store and deliver the input electric energy with efficiencies greater than 85%, almost always higher than 90% and often as high as 99%.

We derive the 'tank to wheel efficiency' for an electric vehicle by putting those numbers together:

From a low of 100%(input) X 85% (battery) X 95% (motor) = 80.75% efficiency

to a high of

1oo% of input stored in a 99% efficient battery through a 95% efficient motor = 94.05% efficiency for a loss to heat of between 6-20% depending on the technology versus a loss of 80-88% for internal combustion technology.

Battery technology is rapidly developing and technologies in the production design phase are capable of storing sufficient energy in battery packs of the weight used today to give an auto the weight of today's Volt or Leaf a range of about 800 miles.

When you hear all the talk about "energy efficiency" being a large part of the solution to our energy problems, this is the type of solution that is under discussion.

So we can waste between 80-88% of the energy in a gallon of gasoline used for our personal transportation or we can waste between 6-20% of each kilowatt of electricity we use.

88% waste or 6% waste.

"Dr." Greg, all of that is consistent with the laws of physics.

[DrGregory]

1. He's hit rock bottom and begun to dig...

So we can waste between 80-88% of the energy in a gallon of gasoline used for our personal transportation or we can waste between 6-20% of each kilowatt of electricity we use.

88% waste or 6% waste.

"Dr." Greg, all of that is consistent with the laws of physics.
===============================================

More demonstrated IGNORANCE of the Laws of Thermodynamics;
specifically the 2nd Law.

Evidently he doesn't know the difference between the potential energy
in a fuel and the thermodynamically "available" energy in work.

That kilowatt-hour ( sic he said "kilowatt" which is a power; what we use / waste is
actually a kilowatt-hour, a unit of energy. ) is a unit of energy that contains
no entropy. Therefore, there is ZERO mandate by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
for the expulsion of waste heat. We don't have any entropy to expel, so we don't
have to exhaust any waste heat to carry away the entropy.

However, the case is different with the gallon of gasoline. When we burn the
gasoline, we WILL have both heat AND entropy. Therefore, we need to expel
waste heat to carry away the entropy.]

Kristopher; you should either LEARN some science and physics so you can talk
about energy and energy policy INTELLIGENTLY; or you can keep doing what you
have been doing. Your choice.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

3. ROFLMAO

The fact that you are a total fraud was just demonstrated conclusively - again. That's about 8 or 10 times in less than a month.

[DrGregory]

5. Name calling?

The fact that you are a total fraud was just demonstrated conclusively - again. That's about 8 or 10 times in less than a month.
=====================

The fact that you can't REFUTE what I say and just resort
to name calling; I interpret as TOTAL CONCESSION.

If I were wrong, you would have been able to say what
physics laws my statements violated.

In case you haven't noticed; that's what I'm doing to you.

However, since ALL my statements are on sound physics ground;
and I even gave you a link to a university physics department
that backed me up - I have nothing to fear from the likes of you.

You can quote chapter and verse all you want; but next time show
us that you UNDERSTAND what you've quoted.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

7. That isn't name calling, it is simply stating the fact that you clearly do not posses

... the education and expertise you claim.

[DrGregory]

10. The fact...,

... the education and expertise you claim.
===========================================

I know the truth that I DO have the degree and
title to which I claim.

The fact that you don't recognize that fact
pleases me no end. It is just further proof
that when you see good science that you don't
recognize it.

It only serves to reinforce my opinion of you.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

12. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=256645#258302

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=256645#258337

[DrGregory]

19. I believe I have answered that.

I believe I have answered those posts.

I said "IF NOT FOR" the Stephan Boltzmann
re-radiation the Earth would heat up; and
what does Muriel do - uses the Stephan Boltzmann
law. That's why the temperature is calculated
from the 4th root.

Can people parse logical statements here?

One cites a premise to a statement, "IF NOT FOR"
that means without this premise, the following
would be true. Then people use the EXCLUDED
premise to prove the statement "wrong".

That is saying EXACTLY the same thing. Does anyone
understand the phrase "IF NOT FOR"??

Dr. Greg

[bananas]

34. Your answers are grossly insufficient (to be polite).

[DrGregory]

36. Only to those...

Your answers are grossly insufficient (to be polite).
=============================================

Only to those that are not learned in science.

I stated, correctly, that a portion of sunlight
is reflected. However, the majority of the energy
is re-radiated as per the Stephan-Boltzmann law.

That re-radiation is a major component of the Earth's
heat balance. I considered a hypothetical case in
which "magically" the Stephan-Boltzmann re-radiation
were turned off.

So we had an influx of sunlight, with about 10% reflected.
That left 90% of the influx "unbalanced". There was no
sink or loss term to counter-balance 90% of the influx
in the Earth's heat balance equation.

So what would happen IF the Stephan-Boltzmann radiation
were turned off. The Earth would heat up. After all,
if one understands the Greenhouse Effect - the CO2
in the atmosphere is blocking some of this re-radiation.

What if something wasn't just blocking part of the
re-radiation, but the whole thing, that is all the
re-radiation were turned off. We would have an
EXTREMELY bad Greenhouse Effect - a "runaway"
Greenhouse Effect.

When would that runaway terminate? It would terminate
when the Earth reached the temperature of the energy
source driving the heat up. That is you can't get
energy from something that is colder than you are.
So that would be the photosphere of the Sun.

Of course, one can't turn off the Stephan-Boltzmann
re-radiation; so the extreme temperatures don't
happen in actuality.

Dr. Greg

[bananas]

39. No, you stated, incorrectly, that "A typical landscape REFLECTS about 90% of the suns energy."

You just wrote:

I stated, correctly, that a portion of sunlight
is reflected. However, the majority of the energy
is re-radiated as per the Stephan-Boltzmann law.

No, as muriel_volestrangler pointed out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=256645&mesg_id=258337

What you did was try to deflect from your ridiculous claim of 90% of the radiation from Earth being being reflected from a typical landscape, which started off the discussion about absoorption and reflection. You said "A typical landscape REFLECTS about 90% of the suns energy".

You made two very wrong statements in your post which started this discussion:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=256645&mesg_id=256760

Also the
argument that the solar proponents give that the sunlight falls
there anyway is false.

A typical landscape REFLECTS about 90% of the suns energy.

You used that wrong number several times in the rest of that post.
If you had meant "re-radiates" instead of "REFLECTS", you would have used the right numbers in the rest of your post, and you would have come to the correct conclusion that the solar proponents are right.
Because you had the wrong numbers, you came to the wrong conclusion.

Here is a partial correction of that post,
using strikeouts and boldface to indicate the corrections:

Also the
argument that the solar proponents give that the sunlight falls
there anyway is false true.

A typical landscape REFLECTS about 90% 20% of the suns energy.
Only 10% About 80% is absorbed and re-radiated as heat.
A PV plant will absorb 100% of the energy if it
is efficient < black in color >, and will convert about 20% to
electricity and discharge 80% as heat.

So if we take a piece of land with 100 watts of sunlight falling
on it; then if we leave it alone - we will have 10 80 watts of solar
heating.

If we build a PV plant; then that same area will give us 20 watts,
and we will have 80 watts of heating - the same as if we didn't build the PV plant.

So the solar proponents are correct.

I previously posted a similar correction: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=256645&mesg_id=258573

[DrGregory]

42. I considered the audience; and over-simplified.

You used that wrong number several times in the rest of that post.
If you had meant "re-radiates" instead of "REFLECTS", you would have used the right numbers in the rest of your post, and you would have come to the correct conclusion that the solar proponents are right.
Because you had the wrong numbers, you came to the wrong conclusion.
====================================================================

The conclusion is NOT wrong.

Because of the EXTREMELY LOW scientific acumen here; I did simplify
by saying "reflects", when technically a small amount is what a
true scientist would call reflection - the majority is re-radiation.
The mechanism is NOT important. So for the non-scientist, I thought
it would be better if I said "reflection".

However, the conclusion is NOT WRONG - it is CORRECT!!!

The soundness of the conclusion is NOT dependent on the mechanism
by which the energy leaves the ground back to space. All that is
necessary for the conclusion to be correct is that the vast majority
of the energy has to go back to the cosmos.

That is all that is necessary for the conclusion to be COMPLETELY
VALID. It doesn't matter that 10% of the energy returns by reflection
and the rest by Stephan-Boltzmann re-radiation. All that is necessary
for the conclusion to be true is that the vast majority of the energy
returns to the cosmos ABSENT a solar power plant.

However, if you put a solar power plant there; then you change the
amount of energy that returns to the cosmos. The solar power plant
is "blacker" than the undisturbed ground. The solar power plant
absorbs energy that would normally have been returned to the cosmos.

The solar power plant then turns a small fraction of that energy into
electricity; on the order of 20% or so. ( SunPower recently claimed
the highest efficiency title with 24% ). Therefore, 80% of the incident
energy winds up as waste heat.

So 20% of the incident energy is turned into heat and 80% is discharged
as waste heat. For every 20 watts of power; one gets 80 watts of waste
heat power. Equivalently, for every 1 watt-sec of electricity; one gets
4 watts-sec of waste heat.

Now a conventional Rankine cycle electric power plant is 40% efficient.
For every 40 watt-sec of electricity, one gets 60 watt-secs of waste heat.
Equivalently, for every 1 watt-sec of electricity, one gets 1.5 watt-secs
of waste heat.

Therefore, the waste heat production of solar plants EXCEED the equivalent
sized Rankine steam cycle plant. Yet the solar proponents complain about
the waste heat from Rankine cycle plants.

People who live in glass greenhouses, shouldn't throw stones.
HYPOCRITES!!!

Dr. Greg

[DrGregory]

45. This is actually REAL SIMPLE

To anyone who doubts the above; here's something
to think about.

Suppose it is a sunny, and very hot day.

You have your choice of what to wear.

Do you dress in a light color?

Or do you dress in a dark color or black?

On this hot day, which one are you going to
be more comfortable in?

Is it not OBVIOUS? You dress in the light color.

The dark colors or black are going to retain more
energy, and you are going to be hotter. What color
are solar cells? They are usually black or dark
blue. If they are going to be efficient; they
need to be a dark color for maximal absorption.

The solar cell is dark in color because we WANT
it to absorb energy, and not send it back to the
cosmos. However, that solar cell will discharge
80% of the energy it absorbs as heat.

Now, your typical desert is light colored; analogous
to you dressing in light colors. You are going to
be cooler.

If you cover your desert with solar cells, you have
make it "blacker". It is analogous to dressing in
dark colors. You are going to feel warmer; and so
is the desert.

Dr. Greg

[DrGregory]

46. and just why is that...???

Because of the EXTREMELY LOW scientific acumen here; I did simplify
by saying "reflects", when technically a small amount is what a
true scientist would call reflection - the majority is re-radiation.
==================================================================

Why is the level of scientific acumen around here SO LOW??

You can make fun and make disparaging remarks about the
"Bible thumpers" or "right wing-nuts" or whatever...

However, I've visited forums in which there were
"Bible thumpers", and right-wingers that had a
grasp of the principles of science and physics
that is VASTLY SUPERIOR to what I've seen here.

Isn't there enough intellectual honesty in the
progressive community to admit that nothing is
perfect.

If one points out a limitation imposed by the
laws of physics on some progressive-favored
technology, then the progessives "think"
( term used loosely ), that they have to
denigrate the claim of the limitation.

When they do that - it is so EASY to PROVE
them WRONG!! One posts a good link to a
University web site. ( Progressives do
respect Universities as sources of good
knowledge, don't they? ) When one denigrates
good physics; one only comes off looking like
a FOOL to the intelligent scholar.

Dr. Greg

[Nederland]

20. Whenever Kristopher writes a post like this one you know he just lost an argument.

The fact that you are a total fraud was just demonstrated conclusively - again. That's about 8 or 10 times in less than a month.

You see it a lot. Someone writes a careful response that point by point refutes a Kristopher post, and he responds with a post completely void of content.

[kristopher]

21. It was already proven wrong.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=258338&mesg_id=259002

[DrGregory]

22. The only thing proven...

The only thing that has been "proven"
by the muddled logic of the above post
is that kristopher has ZERO knowledge
of the Laws of Thermodynamics - particularly]
the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

He doesn't understand "entropy" and why a
engine MUST reject waste heat to carry away
entropy. I have given him the link to a
respected source; the Physics Dept at
Georgia State University:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html

Quoting the above:

"Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is impossible to extract
an amount of heat QH from a hot reservoir and use it all
to do work W . Some amount of heat QC must be exhausted
to a cold reservoir. This precludes a perfect heat engine."

He has one source he quotes ad naseum, and that source isn't
too impressive when it comes to knowledge of physics.

What can one do when people refuse to learn?

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

24. The fundamental basis of science is the ability to practice sound reasoning

You lack that ability.

Dr Greg on energy efficiency, original exchange:

In reply to my statement, "For example, did you know that for our personal transportation fleet, about 80% of the energy in the petroleum fuel doesn't even need to be replaced as it is simply wasted as heat and serves no functional purpose", you wrote:

The above is a disingenuous half-truth. While it is true that the engine of a
automobile is about 20% efficient and 80% of the energy goes as waste heat.

However, what he is NOT saying is that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states
that you HAVE to have waste heat in order to get the 20% useful work.

He is attempting to imply that we could somehow get that 20% desired useful
energy without the 80% waste heat.

This shows IGNORANCE of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. We MUST according to
the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics have that waste heat because that is what carries
away the entropy.

The mechanical work energy of the engine doesn't carry away any entropy - so
you would have a source of entropy and no sink for the entropy. Such an engine
could not continue running in a cycle.

So that 80% waste heat DOES HAVE a purpose - it carries away the entropy and
it ALLOWS us to get that 20% useful work.

Without the 80% "waste heat" - you can NOT GET the 20% useful mechanical work.

This is high school level physics - get a high school physics text and turn to
the section of the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Dr. Greg

My reply:
Leaving aside the other peculiarities of your statement, I'll focus on the main point - why we DON'T have to replace the wasted energy from an internal combustion engine when we consider how to power our personal transportation fleet.

The short version is that you only have that degree of waste heat in this application when your energy carrier is petroleum, not when the energy carrier is electricity.

To assist those not familiar with the topic (like "Dr." Greg):

Petroleum is an energy carrier that requires a chemical reaction to release the solar energy stored in the hydrocarbon bond. To harness that stored energy requires harnessing the heat released on combustion and converting it to mechanical energy via an internal combustion engine. So we have solar energy stored by living organisms that has been sequestered away for eons, then extracted, transported, refined, transported some more and then used in a contained explosion. Further, that mechanical energy must be transferred from the point of the reaction (cylinder) to the point of work (turning the wheel). All of those transactions are a debit against the original solar energy stored in the hydrocarbons.

The fuel 'tank to wheel efficiency' of most autos is actually between 12-20% with most vehicles coming in around 15%.

Alternatively, we can harvest the solar directly with PV or solar thermal, or we can harvest it indirectly by capturing the mechanical force of the wind or water currents (both motions are a product of solar input).

The output of all of those technologies is electricity. This electricity might be distributed for immediate use or it might be stored in various types of batteries (ie thermal, chemical or gravity).

Petroleum has been difficult to replace because of its high energy density. However, as noted above, because of waste from the process of harnessing the stored energy of petroleum, that degree of energy density isn't what needs to be replaced. All that we need to replace is the amount that turns the wheel and propels the auto down the road.

State of the art electric motors turn about 95% of their input electrical energy into mechanical energy. Since the shaft of the electric motor directly turns the wheel of the auto all of the mechanical output goes to pushing the car.

State of the art lithium batteries used in the electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) that all manufacturers are now turning to can store and deliver the input electric energy with efficiencies greater than 85%, almost always higher than 90% and often as high as 99%.

We derive the 'tank to wheel efficiency' for an electric vehicle by putting those numbers together:

From a low of 100%(input) X 85% (battery) X 95% (motor) = 80.75% efficiency

to a high of

1oo% of input stored in a 99% efficient battery through a 95% efficient motor = 94.05% efficiency for a loss to heat of between 6-20% depending on the technology versus a loss of 80-88% for internal combustion technology.

Battery technology is rapidly developing and technologies in the production design phase are capable of storing sufficient energy in battery packs of the weight used today to give an auto the weight of today's Volt or Leaf a range of about 800 miles.

When you hear all the talk about "energy efficiency" being a large part of the solution to our energy problems, this is the type of solution that is under discussion.

So we can waste between 80-88% of the energy in a gallon of gasoline used for our personal transportation or we can waste between 6-20% of each kilowatt of electricity we use.

88% waste or 6% waste.

"Dr." Greg, all of that is consistent with the laws of physics.



Also see:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=256645#258302

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=256645#258337

You have since posted about 10 more posts trying to peddle the same nonsense. Neither solar panels, wind turbines nor electric motors are "engines" converting chemical energy to mechanical energy. Your analysis of the comparative losses of an electric drive vs internal combustion engine are the ravings of someone completely detached from reality that apparently lacks the requisite reasoning ability to even function in daily life, much less do even basic science.

An engine is a machine designed to convert energy into useful mechanical motion. In common usage, an engine burns or otherwise consumes fuel, and is differentiated from an electric machine (i.e., electric motor) that derives power without changing the composition of matter. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine

So... I'll continue to focus on the main point - why we DON'T have to replace the wasted energy from an internal combustion engine when we consider how to power our personal transportation fleet.

The short version is that you only have that degree of waste heat in this application when your energy carrier is petroleum, not when the energy carrier is electricity.

To assist those not familiar with the topic (like "Dr." Greg):

Petroleum is an energy carrier that requires a chemical reaction to release the solar energy stored in the hydrocarbon bond. To harness that stored energy requires harnessing the heat released on combustion and converting it to mechanical energy via an internal combustion engine. So we have solar energy stored by living organisms that has been sequestered away for eons, then extracted, transported, refined, transported some more and then used in a contained explosion. Further, that mechanical energy must be transferred from the point of the reaction (cylinder) to the point of work (turning the wheel). All of those transactions are a debit against the original solar energy stored in the hydrocarbons.

The fuel 'tank to wheel efficiency' of most autos is actually between 12-20% with most vehicles coming in around 15%.

Alternatively, we can harvest the solar directly with PV or solar thermal, or we can harvest it indirectly by capturing the mechanical force of the wind or water currents (both motions are a product of solar input).

The output of all of those technologies is electricity. This electricity might be distributed for immediate use or it might be stored in various types of batteries (ie thermal, chemical or gravity).

Petroleum has been difficult to replace because of its high energy density. However, as noted above, because of waste from the process of harnessing the stored energy of petroleum, that degree of energy density isn't what needs to be replaced. All that we need to replace is the amount that turns the wheel and propels the auto down the road.

State of the art electric motors turn about 95% of their input electrical energy into mechanical energy. Since the shaft of the electric motor directly turns the wheel of the auto all of the mechanical output goes to pushing the car.

State of the art lithium batteries used in the electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) that all manufacturers are now turning to can store and deliver the input electric energy with efficiencies greater than 85%, almost always higher than 90% and often as high as 99%.

We derive the 'tank to wheel efficiency' for an electric vehicle by putting those numbers together:

From a low of 100%(input) X 85% (battery) X 95% (motor) = 80.75% efficiency

to a high of

1oo% of input stored in a 99% efficient battery through a 95% efficient motor = 94.05% efficiency for a loss to heat of between 6-20% depending on the technology versus a loss of 80-88% for internal combustion technology.

Battery technology is rapidly developing and technologies in the production design phase are capable of storing sufficient energy in battery packs of the weight used today to give an auto the weight of today's Volt or Leaf a range of about 800 miles.

When you hear all the talk about "energy efficiency" being a large part of the solution to our energy problems, this is the type of solution that is under discussion.

So we can waste between 80-88% of the energy in a gallon of gasoline used for our personal transportation or we can waste between 6-20% of each kilowatt of electricity we use.

88% waste or 6% waste.

"Dr." Greg, all of that is consistent with the laws of physics.

[DrGregory]

26. Give them a little rope, and they'll hang themselves...

Neither solar panels, wind turbines nor electric motors are "engines" converting chemical energy to mechanical energy. Your analysis of the comparative losses of an electric drive vs internal combustion engine are the ravings of someone completely detached from reality that apparently lacks the requisite reasoning ability to even function in daily life, much less do even basic science.
===============================================

More demonstrated ignorance of the Laws of Physics.

These Laws are UNIVERSAL - they don't just pertain
to something that we label an "engine". BTW
solar panels are LESS efficient than Rankine steam
cycles.

With regard to reasoning ability; I'm afraid that
you are the one that is being Aristotelian in
nature.

My reason and logic seem foreign to you because,
unlike you, I AM trained in science and my logic
and reasoning is that of a physicist.

Yours is the "reasoning" of the pretend scientist.

However, the universe doesn't work the way you
"think" (term used loosely) it does.

Contrary to your assertions, even Mother Nature
has to obey the laws of physics. Even Mother
Nature is limited by the Laws of Physics and
the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Just because you don't see how this happens, one
would at least expect that you might take the
opportunity to learn from someone more educated
in the field than you are.

You can't peddle your new age "junk science"
and call it science.

Keep posting for all to see how the laws of
science elude you, and how you can't even
learn when given a link to an authoritative
source such as a University.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

29. Sorry, but no.

Dr Greg on energy efficiency

You wrote:

For example, did you know that for our personal transportation fleet, about 80% of the energy in the petroleum fuel doesn't even need to be replaced as it is simply wasted as heat and serves no functional purpose?
=========================================

The above is a disingenuous half-truth. While it is true that the engine of a
automobile is about 20% efficient and 80% of the energy goes as waste heat.

However, what he is NOT saying is that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states
that you HAVE to have waste heat in order to get the 20% useful work.

He is attempting to imply that we could somehow get that 20% desired useful
energy without the 80% waste heat.

This shows IGNORANCE of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. We MUST according to
the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics have that waste heat because that is what carries
away the entropy.

The mechanical work energy of the engine doesn't carry away any entropy - so
you would have a source of entropy and no sink for the entropy. Such an engine
could not continue running in a cycle.

So that 80% waste heat DOES HAVE a purpose - it carries away the entropy and
it ALLOWS us to get that 20% useful work.

Without the 80% "waste heat" - you can NOT GET the 20% useful mechanical work.

This is high school level physics - get a high school physics text and turn to
the section of the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Dr. Greg

Leaving aside the other peculiarities of your statement, I'll focus on the main point - why we DON'T have to replace the wasted energy from an internal combustion engine when we consider how to power our personal transportation fleet.

The short version is that you only have that degree of waste heat in this application when your energy carrier is petroleum, not when the energy carrier is electricity.

To assist those not familiar with the topic (like "Dr." Greg):

Petroleum is an energy carrier that requires a chemical reaction to release the solar energy stored in the hydrocarbon bond. To harness that stored energy requires harnessing the heat released on combustion and converting it to mechanical energy via an internal combustion engine. So we have solar energy stored by living organisms that has been sequestered away for eons, then extracted, transported, refined, transported some more and then used in a contained explosion. Further, that mechanical energy must be transferred from the point of the reaction (cylinder) to the point of work (turning the wheel). All of those transactions are a debit against the original solar energy stored in the hydrocarbons.

The fuel 'tank to wheel efficiency' of most autos is actually between 12-20% with most vehicles coming in around 15%.

Alternatively, we can harvest the solar directly with PV or solar thermal, or we can harvest it indirectly by capturing the mechanical force of the wind or water currents (both motions are a product of solar input).

The output of all of those technologies is electricity. This electricity might be distributed for immediate use or it might be stored in various types of batteries (ie thermal, chemical or gravity).

Petroleum has been difficult to replace because of its high energy density. However, as noted above, because of waste from the process of harnessing the stored energy of petroleum, that degree of energy density isn't what needs to be replaced. All that we need to replace is the amount that turns the wheel and propels the auto down the road.

State of the art electric motors turn about 95% of their input electrical energy into mechanical energy. Since the shaft of the electric motor directly turns the wheel of the auto all of the mechanical output goes to pushing the car.

State of the art lithium batteries used in the electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) that all manufacturers are now turning to can store and deliver the input electric energy with efficiencies greater than 85%, almost always higher than 90% and often as high as 99%.

We derive the 'tank to wheel efficiency' for an electric vehicle by putting those numbers together:

From a low of 100%(input) X 85% (battery) X 95% (motor) = 80.75% efficiency

to a high of

1oo% of input stored in a 99% efficient battery through a 95% efficient motor = 94.05% efficiency for a loss to heat of between 6-20% depending on the technology versus a loss of 80-88% for internal combustion technology.

Battery technology is rapidly developing and technologies in the production design phase are capable of storing sufficient energy in battery packs of the weight used today to give an auto the weight of today's Volt or Leaf a range of about 800 miles.

When you hear all the talk about "energy efficiency" being a large part of the solution to our energy problems, this is the type of solution that is under discussion.

So we can waste between 80-88% of the energy in a gallon of gasoline used for our personal transportation or we can waste between 6-20% of each kilowatt of electricity we use.

88% waste or 6% waste.

"Dr." Greg, all of that is consistent with the laws of physics.



Also see:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=256645#258302

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=256645#258337

[DrGregory]

23. Numerous ERRORS

In addition to not knowing the Laws of
Thermodynamics - kristopher also left
out a number of energy losses.

For example, in his calculations, he
ASSUMED 100% conversion of sunlight into
electricity. Solar cells are NOT 100%
efficient:

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/06/sunpower-sets-solar-cell-efficiency-record-at-24-2

For large scale PVs SunPower has set a new
efficiency record of 24%.

Of course, the Rankine steam cycle of a
conventional power plant is about 40% efficient.

He also neglected losses in battery chargers, and
those 85% efficient batteries give you 85% efficiency
in charging, and 85% efficiency in discharging ( the
ohmic heating losses are comparable ).

So if one can LEAVE OUT all the data that runs counter
to one's argument; then one can "prove" most anything,
including contentions that are UNTRUE.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

25. Are you able to contact reality when you use medications?

Because you certainly were not in contact with reality when you wrote that tripe.
"Dr" Greg wrote

In addition to not knowing the Laws of
Thermodynamics - kristopher also left
out a number of energy losses.

For example, in his calculations, he
ASSUMED 100% conversion of sunlight into
electricity. Solar cells are NOT 100%
efficient:

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/20...

For large scale PVs SunPower has set a new
efficiency record of 24%.

Of course, the Rankine steam cycle of a
conventional power plant is about 40% efficient.

He also neglected losses in battery chargers, and
those 85% efficient batteries give you 85% efficiency
in charging, and 85% efficiency in discharging ( the
ohmic heating losses are comparable ).

So if one can LEAVE OUT all the data that runs counter
to one's argument; then one can "prove" most anything,
including contentions that are UNTRUE.

Dr. Greg

1) No claim was made regarding solar panel efficiency. It isn't relevant to the analysis any more than is the original solar input to forming the hydrocarbons in fossilized fuels. You are desperately trying to substitute false claims and false reasoning for sound analysis.

2) The numbers I quoted for battery efficiency include the full charge and discharge cycle. It was clearly written so one can only presume you are, again, out of touch with reality and are not functionally aware of the actual nature of the problem you are trying to analyze.
"State of the art lithium batteries used in the electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) that all manufacturers are now turning to can store and deliver the input electric energy with efficiencies greater than 85%, almost always higher than 90% and often as high as 99%." - K

[DrGregory]

27. The ERRORS keep on coming...Energizer Bunny of ERRORS

1) No claim was made regarding solar panel efficiency. It isn't relevant to the analysis any more than is the original solar input to forming the hydrocarbons in fossilized fuels. You are desperately trying to substitute false claims and false reasoning for sound analysis.

2) The numbers I quoted for battery efficiency include the full charge and discharge cycle.
------------------------------------------------------

I see no where in your analysis where you take into account the
efficiency of the solar panels. If the efficiency of solar panels
are not relevant, as you claim; then why do we have so many scientists
working on attempting to make the efficiency better?

The numbers you quote are those associated with a given charge or
discharge cycle; NOT a combination of both. For that you need
the product of the numbers you quote.

I have yet to see anything REMOTELY resembling "sound analysis"
from you. All we get are parroted bits of junk "pseudo-science"

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

28. Nope.

Dr Greg on energy efficiency

You wrote:

For example, did you know that for our personal transportation fleet, about 80% of the energy in the petroleum fuel doesn't even need to be replaced as it is simply wasted as heat and serves no functional purpose?
=========================================

The above is a disingenuous half-truth. While it is true that the engine of a
automobile is about 20% efficient and 80% of the energy goes as waste heat.

However, what he is NOT saying is that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states
that you HAVE to have waste heat in order to get the 20% useful work.

He is attempting to imply that we could somehow get that 20% desired useful
energy without the 80% waste heat.

This shows IGNORANCE of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. We MUST according to
the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics have that waste heat because that is what carries
away the entropy.

The mechanical work energy of the engine doesn't carry away any entropy - so
you would have a source of entropy and no sink for the entropy. Such an engine
could not continue running in a cycle.

So that 80% waste heat DOES HAVE a purpose - it carries away the entropy and
it ALLOWS us to get that 20% useful work.

Without the 80% "waste heat" - you can NOT GET the 20% useful mechanical work.

This is high school level physics - get a high school physics text and turn to
the section of the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Dr. Greg

Leaving aside the other peculiarities of your statement, I'll focus on the main point - why we DON'T have to replace the wasted energy from an internal combustion engine when we consider how to power our personal transportation fleet.

The short version is that you only have that degree of waste heat in this application when your energy carrier is petroleum, not when the energy carrier is electricity.

To assist those not familiar with the topic (like "Dr." Greg):

Petroleum is an energy carrier that requires a chemical reaction to release the solar energy stored in the hydrocarbon bond. To harness that stored energy requires harnessing the heat released on combustion and converting it to mechanical energy via an internal combustion engine. So we have solar energy stored by living organisms that has been sequestered away for eons, then extracted, transported, refined, transported some more and then used in a contained explosion. Further, that mechanical energy must be transferred from the point of the reaction (cylinder) to the point of work (turning the wheel). All of those transactions are a debit against the original solar energy stored in the hydrocarbons.

The fuel 'tank to wheel efficiency' of most autos is actually between 12-20% with most vehicles coming in around 15%.

Alternatively, we can harvest the solar directly with PV or solar thermal, or we can harvest it indirectly by capturing the mechanical force of the wind or water currents (both motions are a product of solar input).

The output of all of those technologies is electricity. This electricity might be distributed for immediate use or it might be stored in various types of batteries (ie thermal, chemical or gravity).

Petroleum has been difficult to replace because of its high energy density. However, as noted above, because of waste from the process of harnessing the stored energy of petroleum, that degree of energy density isn't what needs to be replaced. All that we need to replace is the amount that turns the wheel and propels the auto down the road.

State of the art electric motors turn about 95% of their input electrical energy into mechanical energy. Since the shaft of the electric motor directly turns the wheel of the auto all of the mechanical output goes to pushing the car.

State of the art lithium batteries used in the electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) that all manufacturers are now turning to can store and deliver the input electric energy with efficiencies greater than 85%, almost always higher than 90% and often as high as 99%.

We derive the 'tank to wheel efficiency' for an electric vehicle by putting those numbers together:

From a low of 100%(input) X 85% (battery) X 95% (motor) = 80.75% efficiency

to a high of

1oo% of input stored in a 99% efficient battery through a 95% efficient motor = 94.05% efficiency for a loss to heat of between 6-20% depending on the technology versus a loss of 80-88% for internal combustion technology.

Battery technology is rapidly developing and technologies in the production design phase are capable of storing sufficient energy in battery packs of the weight used today to give an auto the weight of today's Volt or Leaf a range of about 800 miles.

When you hear all the talk about "energy efficiency" being a large part of the solution to our energy problems, this is the type of solution that is under discussion.

So we can waste between 80-88% of the energy in a gallon of gasoline used for our personal transportation or we can waste between 6-20% of each kilowatt of electricity we use.

88% waste or 6% waste.

"Dr." Greg, all of that is consistent with the laws of physics.



Also see:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=256645#258302

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=256645#258337

[DrGregory]

30. The ERRORS keep on coming...Energizer Bunny of ERRORS

To harness that stored energy requires harnessing the heat released on combustion and converting it to mechanical energy via an internal combustion engine.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't see what good it does to repost your past ERROR
riddled posts. I've read your unimpressive missives, and
just because you repeat your errors and half-truths doesn't
mean that they are going to get any better with age.

In fact, we in science tend to look down even more on
people who repeat their errors, instead of learning from
them.

In the conversion of chemical energy to mechanical energy,
one could use an external combustion engine in lieu of an
internal combustion engine. Doesn't matter, the SAME
Laws of Physics and the SAME Laws of Thermodynamics apply
to both.

They apply universally. The Laws of Thermodynamics are NOT
just for human built engines. Like all Laws of Physics;
they are UNIVERSAL. Mother Nature obeys those SAME Laws.
The atmosphere obeys the SAME Laws of Thermodynamics that
apply to an internal combustion engine.

You keep trumpeting your ignorance and lack of scholarship
by attempting to imply that somehow "natural" or "renewable"
energy somehow "sidesteps" these physical laws.

That is UNTRUE - Mother Nature obeys these laws.

Quit making excuses for the CRAPPY efficiencies of renewables
by pretending somehow that they are efficient because they
can "sidestep" the laws that human-designed engines must obey.

There's a reason that renewables make up such a piddling
percentage of our energy resources, and it is not due to some
conspiracy by evil capitalist corporations.

When renewables account for a respectable percentage of our
energy resources, then we can discuss whether they are the
wave of the future. Until then, they are only a "work in progress".

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

31. It shows how substandard are your reasoning skills

It also speaks directly to your complete lack of intellectual integrity.

Dr Greg on energy efficiency

You wrote:

For example, did you know that for our personal transportation fleet, about 80% of the energy in the petroleum fuel doesn't even need to be replaced as it is simply wasted as heat and serves no functional purpose?
=========================================

The above is a disingenuous half-truth. While it is true that the engine of a
automobile is about 20% efficient and 80% of the energy goes as waste heat.

However, what he is NOT saying is that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states
that you HAVE to have waste heat in order to get the 20% useful work.

He is attempting to imply that we could somehow get that 20% desired useful
energy without the 80% waste heat.

This shows IGNORANCE of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. We MUST according to
the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics have that waste heat because that is what carries
away the entropy.

The mechanical work energy of the engine doesn't carry away any entropy - so
you would have a source of entropy and no sink for the entropy. Such an engine
could not continue running in a cycle.

So that 80% waste heat DOES HAVE a purpose - it carries away the entropy and
it ALLOWS us to get that 20% useful work.

Without the 80% "waste heat" - you can NOT GET the 20% useful mechanical work.

This is high school level physics - get a high school physics text and turn to
the section of the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Dr. Greg

Leaving aside the other peculiarities of your statement, I'll focus on the main point - why we DON'T have to replace the wasted energy from an internal combustion engine when we consider how to power our personal transportation fleet.

The short version is that you only have that degree of waste heat in this application when your energy carrier is petroleum, not when the energy carrier is electricity.

To assist those not familiar with the topic (like "Dr." Greg):

Petroleum is an energy carrier that requires a chemical reaction to release the solar energy stored in the hydrocarbon bond. To harness that stored energy requires harnessing the heat released on combustion and converting it to mechanical energy via an internal combustion engine. So we have solar energy stored by living organisms that has been sequestered away for eons, then extracted, transported, refined, transported some more and then used in a contained explosion. Further, that mechanical energy must be transferred from the point of the reaction (cylinder) to the point of work (turning the wheel). All of those transactions are a debit against the original solar energy stored in the hydrocarbons.

The fuel 'tank to wheel efficiency' of most autos is actually between 12-20% with most vehicles coming in around 15%.

Alternatively, we can harvest the solar directly with PV or solar thermal, or we can harvest it indirectly by capturing the mechanical force of the wind or water currents (both motions are a product of solar input).

The output of all of those technologies is electricity. This electricity might be distributed for immediate use or it might be stored in various types of batteries (ie thermal, chemical or gravity).

Petroleum has been difficult to replace because of its high energy density. However, as noted above, because of waste from the process of harnessing the stored energy of petroleum, that degree of energy density isn't what needs to be replaced. All that we need to replace is the amount that turns the wheel and propels the auto down the road.

State of the art electric motors turn about 95% of their input electrical energy into mechanical energy. Since the shaft of the electric motor directly turns the wheel of the auto all of the mechanical output goes to pushing the car.

State of the art lithium batteries used in the electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) that all manufacturers are now turning to can store and deliver the input electric energy with efficiencies greater than 85%, almost always higher than 90% and often as high as 99%.

We derive the 'tank to wheel efficiency' for an electric vehicle by putting those numbers together:

From a low of 100%(input) X 85% (battery) X 95% (motor) = 80.75% efficiency

to a high of

1oo% of input stored in a 99% efficient battery through a 95% efficient motor = 94.05% efficiency for a loss to heat of between 6-20% depending on the technology versus a loss of 80-88% for internal combustion technology.

Battery technology is rapidly developing and technologies in the production design phase are capable of storing sufficient energy in battery packs of the weight used today to give an auto the weight of today's Volt or Leaf a range of about 800 miles.

When you hear all the talk about "energy efficiency" being a large part of the solution to our energy problems, this is the type of solution that is under discussion.

So we can waste between 80-88% of the energy in a gallon of gasoline used for our personal transportation or we can waste between 6-20% of each kilowatt of electricity we use.

88% waste or 6% waste.

"Dr." Greg, all of that is consistent with the laws of physics.



Also see:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=256645#258302

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=256645#258337

[DrGregory]

32. Improvement????

It also speaks directly to your complete lack of intellectual integrity.
========================================================================

WOW - Kris came up with ONE NEW sentence to add to his previous
ERROR-riddled missives.

Of course, the one sentence is just an ad hominem attack, with
ZERO supporting data, and ZERO scholarship.

Is there any "reasoning" in his attack or error-filled missives?
NO.

Can he cite any physical laws other than the error filled
Aristotelian crap that he makes up on his own?

Besides, my last post basically said that the Laws of Physics
are UNIVERSAL and obeyed by all physical systems; and even
Mother Nature herself obeys these laws in how the atmosphere
operates.

Can there be anything that is more benign yet intellectually
OBVIOUS than the universality of physical law.

Yet, for that claim, I receive the unsupported ad hominem
claim of lack of intellectual integrity.

Surely the hallmark of a SORE LOSER!!!

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

33. Nope.

What you are trying to hide...

Dr Greg on energy efficiency

You wrote:

For example, did you know that for our personal transportation fleet, about 80% of the energy in the petroleum fuel doesn't even need to be replaced as it is simply wasted as heat and serves no functional purpose?
=========================================

The above is a disingenuous half-truth. While it is true that the engine of a
automobile is about 20% efficient and 80% of the energy goes as waste heat.

However, what he is NOT saying is that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states
that you HAVE to have waste heat in order to get the 20% useful work.

He is attempting to imply that we could somehow get that 20% desired useful
energy without the 80% waste heat.

This shows IGNORANCE of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. We MUST according to
the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics have that waste heat because that is what carries
away the entropy.

The mechanical work energy of the engine doesn't carry away any entropy - so
you would have a source of entropy and no sink for the entropy. Such an engine
could not continue running in a cycle.

So that 80% waste heat DOES HAVE a purpose - it carries away the entropy and
it ALLOWS us to get that 20% useful work.

Without the 80% "waste heat" - you can NOT GET the 20% useful mechanical work.

This is high school level physics - get a high school physics text and turn to
the section of the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Dr. Greg

Leaving aside the other peculiarities of your statement, I'll focus on the main point - why we DON'T have to replace the wasted energy from an internal combustion engine when we consider how to power our personal transportation fleet.

The short version is that you only have that degree of waste heat in this application when your energy carrier is petroleum, not when the energy carrier is electricity.

To assist those not familiar with the topic (like "Dr." Greg):

Petroleum is an energy carrier that requires a chemical reaction to release the solar energy stored in the hydrocarbon bond. To harness that stored energy requires harnessing the heat released on combustion and converting it to mechanical energy via an internal combustion engine. So we have solar energy stored by living organisms that has been sequestered away for eons, then extracted, transported, refined, transported some more and then used in a contained explosion. Further, that mechanical energy must be transferred from the point of the reaction (cylinder) to the point of work (turning the wheel). All of those transactions are a debit against the original solar energy stored in the hydrocarbons.

The fuel 'tank to wheel efficiency' of most autos is actually between 12-20% with most vehicles coming in around 15%.

Alternatively, we can harvest the solar directly with PV or solar thermal, or we can harvest it indirectly by capturing the mechanical force of the wind or water currents (both motions are a product of solar input).

The output of all of those technologies is electricity. This electricity might be distributed for immediate use or it might be stored in various types of batteries (ie thermal, chemical or gravity).

Petroleum has been difficult to replace because of its high energy density. However, as noted above, because of waste from the process of harnessing the stored energy of petroleum, that degree of energy density isn't what needs to be replaced. All that we need to replace is the amount that turns the wheel and propels the auto down the road.

State of the art electric motors turn about 95% of their input electrical energy into mechanical energy. Since the shaft of the electric motor directly turns the wheel of the auto all of the mechanical output goes to pushing the car.

State of the art lithium batteries used in the electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) that all manufacturers are now turning to can store and deliver the input electric energy with efficiencies greater than 85%, almost always higher than 90% and often as high as 99%.

We derive the 'tank to wheel efficiency' for an electric vehicle by putting those numbers together:

From a low of 100%(input) X 85% (battery) X 95% (motor) = 80.75% efficiency

to a high of

1oo% of input stored in a 99% efficient battery through a 95% efficient motor = 94.05% efficiency for a loss to heat of between 6-20% depending on the technology versus a loss of 80-88% for internal combustion technology.

Battery technology is rapidly developing and technologies in the production design phase are capable of storing sufficient energy in battery packs of the weight used today to give an auto the weight of today's Volt or Leaf a range of about 800 miles.

When you hear all the talk about "energy efficiency" being a large part of the solution to our energy problems, this is the type of solution that is under discussion.

So we can waste between 80-88% of the energy in a gallon of gasoline used for our personal transportation or we can waste between 6-20% of each kilowatt of electricity we use.

88% waste or 6% waste.

"Dr." Greg, all of that is consistent with the laws of physics.



Also see:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=256645#258302

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=256645#258337

[DrGregory]

37. Guess not...

What you are trying to hide...
===================================

I'm not trying to hide anything.

You are the one that is wasting bandwidth and
disk space reposting the same old error-riddled
missive over, and over, and over again.

You can't answer a direct question - you just
repost your error-riddled misunderstandings
of physical law.

You have this misunderstanding that we can
replace the useful work energy that we desire
without paying the price of the waste heat
that the Laws of Physics demand. You seem
to "think" it is our choice to have waste heat.

The Laws of Physics don't let you have the work
unless you pay the price in waste energy.

It's like wanting to take something home from
the store without paying for it. The store
doesn't have to let you walk out with out
paying.

The Laws of Physics don't let you have useful
work - like mechanical energy or electricity -
without paying for it.

Dr. Greg

[glitch]

40. He suffers fools more gladly than most of us. IMO he has remarkable patience. nt

[DrGregory]

43. You got it backwards..

He suffers fools more gladly than most of us.
------------------------------------------

More like - the fool that needs to be suffered.

Dr. Greg

[DrGregory]

2. BROTHER!!

The short version is that you only have that degree of waste heat in this application when your energy carrier is petroleum, not when the energy carrier is electricity.
========================================

The entire reason we don't have to have the degree of
waste heat with electricity is SOLELY due to the fact
that the power plant that created the electricity
HAS ALREADY EXPELLED the waste heat for us when
it made the electricity.

You don't know about entropy - heat has it and electricity
and mechanical work do not.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was satisfied as to the discharge
of waste heat when the power plant discharged the waste heat
in cooling the condensers. Ever see a power plant, usually
a nuke; with a big hyperbolic concrete cooling tower with a
plume of water vapor rising from the top?

THAT is where the waste heat for the generation of the electricity
is done. We get the energy in a zero entropy form. We could just
as well run a propeller shaft from the plant turbine to your house;
and deliver the energy as mechanical energy.

The power plant is the real "engine"; it discharged the waste heat
and delivered zero entropy energy in the form of electricity or
mechanical energy. But in order to create that work - electricity
or mechanical - the 2nd Law REQUIRED the expulsion of waste heat.
The power plant did it for you.

When you have a fuel; then you need an engine like the power plant
to turn that into useful energy. Now you "SEE" the engine and the
waste heat that is expelled, as per the 2nd Law.

But just because the power plant expelled the waste heat for you
in creating electricity doesn't mean that waste heat doesn't need
to be expelled when we use electricity. It just means someone
else did it FOR us.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

4. ROFLMAO

The fact that you are a total fraud was just demonstrated conclusively - again. That's about 8 or 10 times in less than a month.

[DrGregory]

6. Good that you have laughter in lieu of understanding

The fact that you are a total fraud was just demonstrated conclusively - again. That's about 8 or 10 times in less than a month.
===================================

For Kris; or ANYONE - take my posts above to your
local high school and give them to your local physics
teacher.

The physics teacher will recognize them as CORRECT!!

The fact that good physics is laughed at instead of
learned is sad. No - PATHETIC is probably a better word.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

8. "Dr." Greg on energy efficiency

You wrote:

For example, did you know that for our personal transportation fleet, about 80% of the energy in the petroleum fuel doesn't even need to be replaced as it is simply wasted as heat and serves no functional purpose?
=========================================

The above is a disingenuous half-truth. While it is true that the engine of a
automobile is about 20% efficient and 80% of the energy goes as waste heat.

However, what he is NOT saying is that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states
that you HAVE to have waste heat in order to get the 20% useful work.

He is attempting to imply that we could somehow get that 20% desired useful
energy without the 80% waste heat.

This shows IGNORANCE of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. We MUST according to
the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics have that waste heat because that is what carries
away the entropy.

The mechanical work energy of the engine doesn't carry away any entropy - so
you would have a source of entropy and no sink for the entropy. Such an engine
could not continue running in a cycle.

So that 80% waste heat DOES HAVE a purpose - it carries away the entropy and
it ALLOWS us to get that 20% useful work.

Without the 80% "waste heat" - you can NOT GET the 20% useful mechanical work.

This is high school level physics - get a high school physics text and turn to
the section of the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Dr. Greg

Leaving aside the other peculiarities of your statement, I'll focus on the main point - why we DON'T have to replace the wasted energy from an internal combustion engine when we consider how to power our personal transportation fleet.

The short version is that you only have that degree of waste heat in this application when your energy carrier is petroleum, not when the energy carrier is electricity.

To assist those not familiar with the topic (like "Dr." Greg):

Petroleum is an energy carrier that requires a chemical reaction to release the solar energy stored in the hydrocarbon bond. To harness that stored energy requires harnessing the heat released on combustion and converting it to mechanical energy via an internal combustion engine. So we have solar energy stored by living organisms that has been sequestered away for eons, then extracted, transported, refined, transported some more and then used in a contained explosion. Further, that mechanical energy must be transferred from the point of the reaction (cylinder) to the point of work (turning the wheel). All of those transactions are a debit against the original solar energy stored in the hydrocarbons.

The fuel 'tank to wheel efficiency' of most autos is actually between 12-20% with most vehicles coming in around 15%.

Alternatively, we can harvest the solar directly with PV or solar thermal, or we can harvest it indirectly by capturing the mechanical force of the wind or water currents (both motions are a product of solar input).

The output of all of those technologies is electricity. This electricity might be distributed for immediate use or it might be stored in various types of batteries (ie thermal, chemical or gravity).

Petroleum has been difficult to replace because of its high energy density. However, as noted above, because of waste from the process of harnessing the stored energy of petroleum, that degree of energy density isn't what needs to be replaced. All that we need to replace is the amount that turns the wheel and propels the auto down the road.

State of the art electric motors turn about 95% of their input electrical energy into mechanical energy. Since the shaft of the electric motor directly turns the wheel of the auto all of the mechanical output goes to pushing the car.

State of the art lithium batteries used in the electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) that all manufacturers are now turning to can store and deliver the input electric energy with efficiencies greater than 85%, almost always higher than 90% and often as high as 99%.

We derive the 'tank to wheel efficiency' for an electric vehicle by putting those numbers together:

From a low of 100%(input) X 85% (battery) X 95% (motor) = 80.75% efficiency

to a high of

1oo% of input stored in a 99% efficient battery through a 95% efficient motor = 94.05% efficiency for a loss to heat of between 6-20% depending on the technology versus a loss of 80-88% for internal combustion technology.

Battery technology is rapidly developing and technologies in the production design phase are capable of storing sufficient energy in battery packs of the weight used today to give an auto the weight of today's Volt or Leaf a range of about 800 miles.

When you hear all the talk about "energy efficiency" being a large part of the solution to our energy problems, this is the type of solution that is under discussion.

So we can waste between 80-88% of the energy in a gallon of gasoline used for our personal transportation or we can waste between 6-20% of each kilowatt of electricity we use.

88% waste or 6% waste.

"Dr." Greg, all of that is consistent with the laws of physics.

[DrGregory]

9. It only shows,..,.

The fuel 'tank to wheel efficiency' of most autos is actually between 12-20% with most vehicles coming in around 15%.

.....

State of the art electric motors turn about 95% of their input electrical energy into mechanical energy. Since the shaft of the electric motor directly turns the wheel of the auto all of the mechanical output goes to pushing the car.
====================================

The above quantities are not scientifically comparable. It just
shows that kristopher doesn't know the difference between an
"engine" and a "motor".

A course in physics that includes thermodynamics would enlighten
kristopher. A "motor" converts one form of "work" to another form
of "work". Thermodynamically, electricity and mechanical motion
are considered "work". Neither carries entropy - and therefore
the conversion of one to the other can be very efficient.

The gasoline is a "fuel". In a fuel, we have potential energy; in
this case chemical potential energy. We do NOT as yet have "work".
One has to use an "engine" to convert the potential energy in a
fuel into "work".

However, "engines" are limited by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
When the fuel is burned, we have not only energy but entropy.
The engine can not indefinitely "store" entropy - it operates
in a cycle - it has to come back to the same starting point, so
any entropy has to be exhausted. One can't exhaust entropy without
exhausting heat. This is the waste heat that the 2nd Law dictates.

Lest one think that we are "getting away" with something for free;
if the electrical energy or mechanical work is made by an "engine";
and your local electric power plant, be it coal-fired, gas-fired,
nuclear... is an "engine"; in order to make that electricity, the
power plant engine had to exhaust some entropy - and exhaust some
waste heat.

Suppose Bob and Tom are neighbors. Tom cuts his lawn with a mower
with a 3 HP Briggs and Stratton engine. He notes the exhaust going
to the atmosphere. He also notes the heat rising from the engine.
Tom feels that his mower is not environmentally friendly because
it is emitting both heat and exhaust.

His neighbor Bob loans Tom his electric lawn mower. It has a cord
that goes through the fence back to Bob's house. Tom notes none
of the heat and no exhaust when he mows his lawn with Bob's electric
mower. Tom concludes that this way of mowing the lawn is so much
more environmentally friendly than using his 3HP B&S powered mower.

However, remember that cord that runs back to Bob's house through
the fence. That cord ends at a Honda generator that is powered by
the same 3HP Briggs and Stratton engine that Tom has. All the
exhaust gases and all the heat is still being released to the
environment - Tom just doesn't see it, so he ERRONEOUSLY concludes
that the electric mower is environmentally friendlier.

In actuality, the 2nd method is somewhat WORSE for the environment.
They are running the same 3HP engine; but when that engine sits
on the mower deck, it has a direct mechanical connection to the
blade. You can't beat that.

However, with the electric mower, the 3HP engine is connected to
a generator that is NOT 100% efficient. Additionally, the power
cord is not 100% efficient, and there is ohmic heating loss. The
motor on the electric mower is NOT 100% efficient either.

Because of all the losses, generator, cord, motor; the engine on
the Honda generator has to produce MORE energy to accommodate these
losses than it would have if it were directly connected to the
blade while sitting on the mower deck.

So because of Tom's abject IGNORANCE of physics and engineering;
he has come to the WRONG conclusion. Tom "thinks" ( term used
loosely ) that the electric mower is better for the environment,
when it is actually somewhat worse.

"Tom" should NOT be discussing energy and energy policy.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

11. More "analysis" from the Nuclear Energy Institute?

First electricity and gasoline are both "energy carriers" and are directly comparable in that role.

Second, the grid we are aiming for (which is the point of the entire discussion) is not reliant on centralized THERMAL generation, it is largely composed of systems that harness the the solar energy embodied in light, wind, currents and rain. From those solar inputs we derive electricity with very little heat loss.

And even starting with a grid that is 70% fossil fuels (50% coal 20% natgas), we are introducing substantial carbon savings by means of improved system efficiency.

To put that into perspective:

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) estimates that EV’s operating in the Los
Angeles Basin would produce 98 percent fewer hydrocarbons, 89 percent fewer oxides of nitrogen, and 99 percent less carbon monoxide than ICE vehicles.

In a study conducted by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, EVs are significantly cleaner over the course of 100,000 miles than ICE cars. The electricity generation process produces less then 100 pounds of pollutants (Reactive organic gases and NOX) for EVs compared to 3000 pounds for ICE vehicles. CO2 emissions are also significantly lower. Over the course of 100,000 miles, CO2 emissions from EVs are projected to be 10 tons versus 35 tons for ICE vehicles.

You do not have the expertise you claim.

[DrGregory]

13. WRONG AGAIN!!

First electricity and gasoline are both "energy carriers" and are directly comparable in that role.
==================================================

WRONG!!! Electricity is "work" - it is energy WITHOUT entropy.

Gasoline is a "fuel" - fuel has potential energy - but when it is
burned, in addition to energy, you also have entropy. The 2nd Law
tells us that entropy has to be exhausted - and in order to
exhaust that entropy, you have to also exhaust waste heat.

Since the electricity carries no entropy - there is NO such
constraint on using electricity.

Thermodynamics considers both electricity and mechanical motion;
both forms of "work" to be a "higher quality" of energy than that
embodied in a fuel. Heat energy at a higher temperature is
considered "higher quality" than the SAME amount of energy at
a lower temperature. That is because the former has LESS entropy.

The less entropy the better.

You do NOT know your physics; you do NOT know Thermodynamics;
and that leads you to ERRONEOUS statements.

The more you post; the more you prove you do not know this material.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

14. This just gets better and better...

WRONG AGAIN!!
Posted by DrGregory


(Kris wrote)First electricity and gasoline are both "energy carriers" and are directly comparable in that role.
==================================================

WRONG!!! Electricity is "work" - it is energy WITHOUT entropy.

An energy carrier is a substance or phenomenon that can be used to produce mechanical work or heat or to operate chemical or physical processes (ISO 13600).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_carrier

[DrGregory]

15. This is Thermodynamics - not lawl

An energy carrier is a substance or phenomenon that can be used to produce mechanical work or heat or to operate chemical or physical processes (ISO 13600).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_carrier
========================================

Who cares what some "standards" agency defines
as energy, or energy carrier, or WHATEVER.

This is PHYSICS - not legalese.

In PHYSICS, electric energy, mechanical energy,
are "work" - they are energy with ZERO entropy.

Heat on the other hand contains entropy.

Higher temperature heat contains less entropy
for the same amount of heat energy as does lower
temperature heat.

Fuels store potential energy; usually of chemical
type. When the fuel is burned; we get heat AND
entropy.

We should be basing our energy discussion on
PHYSICS - not legalese. The reason is that there
is no penalty for violating the Laws of Physics -
the Universe just doesn't allow you to do it.

That can't be said for man-made laws.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

16. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=256645#258302

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=256645#258337

[DrGregory]

18. Did you read my response?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
======================================================

Did you read my response?

Reading comprehension is pretty bad around here. I said
the Earth would heat up to the temperature of the photosphere
IF there were no re-radiation via the Stephan-Boltzmann law.

Muriel math takes the 4th root to get the temperature. That's
because she was using the Stephan Boltzmann law; which I showed
in the post to which she responded - that the re-radiation goes
as the 4th power of the temperature.

I said "IF NOT FOR" for the Stephan Boltzmann law - and what does
she do - she uses the Stephan - Boltzmann law.

The point is that the re-radiation of energy by the Earth due
to the Stephan-Boltzmann law is a major factor in the Earth's
heat balance. In fact, if it were not important, then global
warming wouldn't be important. It's the re-radiation as per
the Stephan-Boltzmann law that the CO2 traps.

In order for the Earth to be in heat balance, the outflow of
heat energy has to balance the inflow. There is an inflow
of solar radiation, and only a SMALL percentage is directly
reflected. There is an additional influx of heat energy due
to the natural radioactivity in the Earth.

There has to be a substantial outflow of energy in order to
balance the equation. That direct reflection or albedo doesn't
cut it.

What does keep the Earth in heat balance is the Stephan Boltzmann
re-radiation of energy.

Dr. Greg

[bananas]

35. Your response is grossly insufficient (to be polite).

[DrGregory]

38. Only to those...

Your answers are grossly insufficient (to be polite).
=============================================

Only to those that are not learned in science.

I stated, correctly, that a portion of sunlight
is reflected. However, the majority of the energy
is re-radiated as per the Stephan-Boltzmann law.

That re-radiation is a major component of the Earth's
heat balance. I considered a hypothetical case in
which "magically" the Stephan-Boltzmann re-radiation
were turned off.

So we had an influx of sunlight, with about 10% reflected.
That left 90% of the influx "unbalanced". There was no
sink or loss term to counter-balance 90% of the influx
in the Earth's heat balance equation.

So what would happen IF the Stephan-Boltzmann radiation
were turned off. The Earth would heat up. After all,
if one understands the Greenhouse Effect - the CO2
in the atmosphere is blocking some of this re-radiation.

What if something wasn't just blocking part of the
re-radiation, but the whole thing, that is all the
re-radiation were turned off. We would have an
EXTREMELY bad Greenhouse Effect - a "runaway"
Greenhouse Effect.

When would that runaway terminate? It would terminate
when the Earth reached the temperature of the energy
source driving the heat up. That is you can't get
energy from something that is colder than you are.
So that would be the photosphere of the Sun.

Of course, one can't turn off the Stephan-Boltzmann
re-radiation; so the extreme temperatures don't
happen in actuality.

Dr. Greg

[DrGregory]

17. WRONG AGAIN!!

State of the art electric motors turn about 95% of their input electrical energy into mechanical energy. Since the shaft of the electric motor directly turns the wheel of the auto all of the mechanical output goes to pushing the car.
======================================================

Ever hear of FRICTION!!! Even if you have a motor
that is connected directly to the wheels; you may
not have 100% or ALL of the mechanical output going
to the wheels.

Suppose the axle that links the motor to the wheels
goes through a bearing. There's friction is that
bearing. When the motor turns the wheels; that
bearing will heat up. The heat energy that heats
up the bearing is energy sapped from the output
of motor - it doesn't go to the wheels.

If we listened to you, I guess we'd all forgo
greasing our axle bearings.

Dr. Greg

[madokie]

41. Are you sure you haven't forgotten to grease your axle bearings a few times already?

:rofl:

[DrGregory]

44. Even with grease....

Are you sure you haven't forgotten to grease your axle bearings a few times already?
=================================

You have friction even WITH GREASE.

Do you know of a grease that drives the friction to
a hard zero? Have you ever picked up a grease covered
piece of metal? The only reason you can pick it up
is because you have friction to transfer the force
from you fingers. If the grease were PERFECT; you
couldn't pick it up.

There is NO perfect grease; so even with grease there
is friction.


Dr. Greg