Peak Oil News and Message Boards

This is a short rant directed at all the peeps in the media who go on about "saving energy".

Energy is neither created nor destroyed, it just changes from one form to another. When we burn oil, oil is destroyed, heat is created, but the total amount of energy is unchanged.

We are running out of fuel, not energy.

Just had to get that off my chest. It just annoys me. That's all. Thank you.

Really? The media talking about saving energy annoys you? That has got to be one of the few things the media says that I agree with. The fact that they are conflating energy and exergy should not be rant worthy. I'm just glad the message they are trying to get out is a positive one. I don't expect the average journalist to know the difference between energy, exergy, anergy, etc.

Energy is never destroyed during a process; it changes from one form to another. In contrast, exergy accounts for the irreversibility of a process due to increase in entropy. Exergy is always destroyed when a process involves a temperature change. This destruction is proportional to the entropy increase of the system together with its surroundings. The destroyed exergy has been called anergy.

Exergy

We are not running out of energy or exergy or anergey. We are running out of fuel - coal, oil, gas - the stuff that Canada and Venezuela and Saudi Arabia have.

For as long as people confuse energy with fuel, befuddlement will rein.

I think "saving energy" is a concise way to ask people to reduce consumption, even if it is not technically correct. "saving fuels" just does not have the same ring to it.

No no no. "Saving energy" only has a ring to it because you've heard the phrase a million times. Not because it makes sense.

Fuel is finite. Energy is infinite.

"saving fuels" SHOULD have a ring to it.

This conversation reminds me of a previous one:

pstarr wrote:The wall goes up . . . but what powers it? Is the energy free? Invisible? Or is there a big fat electric cord stretching all the way to Venus? I know my critique sounds kind of stuffy or pedantic or obvious or something . . . but it really grates me the way screenplays and audiences are so damn ignorant of thermodynamics. Energy seems to be a complete mystery to most Americans.

kublikhan wrote:This is a common response when audiences view technically inaccurate details in their field of expertise or study. For you the pain point is thermodynamics. When I was talking to geologists, it was the movie Volcano that made them groan. Climate scientists roll their eyes at the "science" in The Day After Tomorrow. Tech guys groaned watching the inaccuracies in Hackers.

ROCKMAN wrote:K – “the pain point”. I like that. My engineer is a former volunteer fireman and can’t watch firemen movies. My worst paint point came in “Armageddon” when the drill drew was laughing and congratulating each other as the oil was blowing thru the derrick. I doubt the 11 on the Macondo well were doing likewise when it came in on them. Such is the way of Hollywood.

So I guess you "pain point" is thermodynamics

spotty - ""Saving energy" only has a ring to it because you've heard the phrase a million times. Not because it makes sense." Bubba, now you're just being silly: interjecting the idea of common sense into the discussion about the MSM and the public. What freaking planet are you from? LOL.

spot5050 wrote:No no no. "Saving energy" only has a ring to it because you've heard the phrase a million times. Not because it makes sense.

Fuel is finite. Energy is infinite.

"saving fuels" SHOULD have a ring to it.

With respect, I think this is simply a semantics issue.

If fuel (the fuel we know how to practically use) isn't stored energy, then what is it? I contend that it IS stored energy (to the extent it is burned to give up that energy for those who need it).

So I contend that wasting fuel IS wasting energy, for all practical purposes

...

And the idea that "energy is infinite" might work for the universe as a whole. But for currently usable energy for planet earth -- it is very finite. That's the core reason this site exists.

But, you can save energy & fuel by using the right fuel in the right engine....the right fuel being low 87 octane, ethanol-free gasoline(E0), & the right engine is low 87 octane, low compression ratio(9:1 to 11:1), standard in most cars. The wrong fuel being 10% ethanol blended fuels(E10), which the EPA & "ethanol in gasoline industry" have forced into our national gasoline stocks, lose 8%, 8%, 7%-8%, 7% & 5% mpg in my five low 87 octane, low compression ratio cars, as compared to low 87 octane E0. 114 octane ethanol needs high 114 octane, high compression ratio(16:1) ethanol engines to extract its energy efficiently.