I DID START MY OWN THREAD.

It was titled, "The Liquid Fuels Crisis" and was in the current energy news forum.

Montequest merged it with this thread. evaluate pages 3-7ish again.

BTW, I did provide the meaning in context the very first time I posted it.

your explanation of meaning, is also riddled with the word YOU, and it's as I've said, not relevant to the topic.

Back to the point:

We all knew your grasp of thermodynamics when you posted this:



Thermodynamics applies to every single physical activity there is in the Universe.

We don't produce oil, we harvest or extract it. Referring to oil as an energy source is misleading.

If you accept Bruce Thomson's definition of embodied solar energy, you would find the EROEI of fossil fuels to be 1 to 50,000.

Let us be clear, that's 50,000 units of energy pumped in to produce 1 unit of stored energy.

Now factor in the losses when converting to useful work.



As as once had to be done with oil. Oil is an energy sink, not an energy source.


Absolutely true. But this might be better stated as the total energy output of any system is equal to the total energy put into the system, less any conversion losses due to inefficient conversion.

This means you can design a system that captures more energy throughput over its useful life than was required to build the system. The conversion of energy will be at a loss, but the total value of the converted energy will be greater than the initial energy required to build the system that captures it.

In other words, we will never be able to use all of the energy that acts on the system, but we will have a net gain of useable energy compared to our direct cost to build the infrastructure.

Sort of like a savings account. If you had $900,000.00 invested at 4%, you could earn $36,000.00 per year. $3,000.00 a month to live on. That would let you pay a mortgage, buy food, heat and cool. And you could do this endlessly. If you spent less than $3,000.00, you could reinvest it and increase your overall return.

If you compare this to an oil economy, it's like carrying around $900,000.00 in your pocket. If you spend $36,000.00 a year, you run through your money in 25 years.

We have been using fossil fuels to subsidize our explosive growth over the last century, and of course it can't last. But instead of whining about how nothing we do can replace the stored energy found in oil, we should be developing infrastructures to capture and store energy in any way we can.

If this means using chemically derived hydrogen, and recycling the aluminum and gallium required for the reaction, so be it. It's stored energy that's easily transportable. If we trap energy from renewables, it's from a source that's not likely to be depleted for eons.

I mean, lets face facts. If the sun goes out, we're pretty much pooched. As long as it's up there burning, we will find a stable level of use.

Well, seems we have two posters who do not have a grasp of 1st Law and 2nd law.

You conflate thermodynamics with EROEI and your statements become nonsensical.

Okay,

We build a windmill. This requires 100 units of energy.

The wind blows 3 units of energy per day on average.

Our windmill is 33 and 1/3 % efficient in capturing the energy in the wind, and therefor has an output of 1 unit of energy per day.

100 days of operation makes our windmill energy neutral.

101 days of operation makes our windmill a net producer.

Every day thereafter increases the total useful energy produced, for a fixed cost for infrastructure.

It still costs 3 units of energy for each unit we can use, but this is input from outside our system. Solar derived effects, effectively power from the sun.

No energy created or destroyed.

Losses in the conversion of wind energy to electricity.

Seems like the first and second laws are covered.

Or am I a total moron?

Oh yeah,

In our example, the EROIE is 1 to 103 on day 1, and we have a daily operational EROIE of 1 to 3, that is 3 units of energy required for each unit we can use. The total EROIE will continue to approach, but never actually reach 1 to 3 over time.

As we're getting the wind as a solar thermal effect that exists whether we use it or not, monetarily speaking, the energy is free.

The net return we will see over time increases each day the windmill is in operation.

So while the total energy in is 100 units, + 3 units per day, and the daily output is 1 unit per day, our total energy available to use is # days - 100 units of energy. The longer it runs, the more we get for a fixed cost.

Please note that I am not saying that we are getting more energy out of the system than is acting on it.

I am saying that we are harnessing more useful energy over time than was required to build the system to harness it. It still costs 3 units of energy for each unit we can use, but we only had to provide 100 units of energy to make the system to capture it.

No, just confused.

The only energy we are concerned about is the energy contained in the wind; the energy running through the system.

Thermodynamics is the study of the inter-relation between heat, work and the internal energy of a system.

You are talking about EROEI. The amount of energy invested to produce energy in relation to how much energy you get.

Entirely different concepts.

Are you trying to suggest that there is no relationship between thermodynamics and EROIE?

Seems to me the link is intrinsic. Basically trying to balance energy equations.

Didn't say that or even imply it. Your lack of a grasp of the concepts causes you to ask such a question.

You cannot get more energy out of a system than you put into it. And if you think you can, or are convinced you can explain it and prove it, then you are not talking about thermodynamics and the internal energy of a system. Period.

You are talking about EROEI.

The phrase: "You cannot get more energy out of a system than you put into it." refers to the 1st law of thermodynamics (energy cannot be created) and explained by 2nd law( there is always a loss in the conversion due to entropy) and nothing else.

Not these made up explanations that are now being posted over a dozen pages.

Energy illiteracy is, and is going to be, a huge obstacle to a sustainable future.

Entropy: It’ll get you every time.

Yes,I believe I already said that.Apparently,in spite of the fact that I put it in bold print,you missed the "billions of years" part.

So please tell us about your patented time displacement doohicky thingamajig that allows your solar collector to absorb millions of years worth of solar energy within a few days.We're all dying to know how it works!



Ummmmmm,

again,billions of years!A time in which (mostly) single celled organisms ruled the world.



Yup!

We managed to burn through half of 2+ billion years worth of stored solar energy in less than 200 years.



Ummmmmm,
NO(!!!),you also have to make up for the rate of depletion,which may turn out to be quite steep.



Have you considered how much energy(fossil fuel - billions of years of energy)it will take to set up the infrastructure needed to collect all the energy from the sun we need?



This is the only sensible thing you've said in this entire post.

Before these arguements become circular, I'll just drop it.

MonteQuest, if you can point to any instance where one of my statements showed a lack of understanding about EROIE, or where I said something that violated the laws of thermodynamics, I would appreciate the input so I won't make similar mistakes in future.

BastardSquad, what are we depleting?

The gallium doesn't go anywhere, the aluminum doesn't go anywhere, just oxidizes. The hydrogen we release eventually combines with oxygen to do useful work, and form water again.

Resmelting the aluminum oxide to get aluminum and oxygen brings everything back to square one.

What matters is where we get the energy from.

Your implicit assumption is that the only energy available to provide the infrastructure is in fossil fuel. That assumption is false.

The implication, however, that renewable energy sources will not allow for the same wasteful use of energy we currently enjoy, is true.

"what are we depleting?"

Oil,NG,and coal.

The magical energy fairy is going to grant you two wishes.She is going to setup full scale production of your aluminum-gallium aparatus needed to power the U.S.(or west in general) auto fleet,and(second wish)she is going to upgrade the entire auto fleet in order that it may use this technology free of (energy input)charge.

However,the magical energy fairy is a sick,cruel,sadistic bitch!She will not grant you your third wish.

The amount of solar energy we currently produce and consume is infinitesimaly small when compared to fossil fuels.In other words,we require reletively large amounts of FF energy to create the apparatus needed to capture and harness solar energy.

You,if I understand correctly,are suggesting that we can build enough solar energy collecting apparatus to provide enough energy to A)keep building more solar collecting apparatus,and B)have enough (collected solar)energy needed to power the entire U.S. auto fleet.

But if the energy(FF) needed to build the apparatus to collect the solar energy,needed to produce enough apparatus,needed to collect enough solar energy to become self sustaing is running out,can it be in place before your initial source of energy(FF)runs out?