Posted by
Catmman on Saturday, October 24, 2009 11:09:59 AM
or "
How E=mc2/E=mv2 Crushes Warmists Vision of Renewable Energy".
Renewable energy simply doesn't deliver enough bang for the buck. This statement isn't biased or partisan, it's mathematical:
How is this manifested in everyday life? Most of what we are calling
“renewable energy” is actually the kinetic flows of matter in nature.
Wind and water are matter in motion that we harness to produce energy.
Therefore they are measured by the formula for kinetic energy.
Let’s
start with hydroelectricity. Water falling off a high dam reaches a
speed of about 60 miles per hour or 80 feet per second. Raising the
height of the dam by 80 or more feet cannot increase the velocity by
more than 20 miles per hour. The only way to increase the energy output
is to increase the mass, meaning we must use more water.
Wind is less dense than water so the land requirements are even
greater. Contemporary 50-story windmills generate 1-½ MW apiece, so it
takes 660 windmills to get 1000 MW. They must be spaced about half a
mile apart so a 1000-MW wind farm occupies 125 square miles.
Unfortunately the best windmills generate electricity only 30 percent
of the time, so 1000 MW really means covering 375 square miles at
widely dispersed locations.
Tidal power, often suggested
as another renewable resource, suffers the same problems. Water is
denser than wind but the tides only move at about 5 mph. At the best
locations in the world you would need 20 miles of coastline to generate
1000 MW.
What about solar energy? Solar radiation is the
result of an E = mc2 transformation as the sun transforms hydrogen to
helium. Unfortunately, the reaction takes place 90 million miles away.
Radiation dissipates with the square of the distance, so by the time
solar energy reaches the earth it is diluted by almost the same factor,
10-15. Thus, the amount of solar radiation falling on a one square
meter is 400 watts, enough to power four 100-watt light bulbs. “Thermal
solar” – large arrays of mirrors heating a fluid – can convert 30
percent of this to electricity. Photovoltaic cells are slightly less
efficient, converting only about 25 percent. As a result, the amount of
electricity we can draw from the sun is enough to power one 100-watt
light bulb per card table.
This is not an insignificant amount of electricity. If we covered
every rooftop in the county with solar collectors, we could probably
power our indoor lighting plus some basic household appliances – during
the daytime. Solar’s great advantage is that it peaks exactly when it
is needed, during hot summer afternoons when air conditioning pushes
electrical consumption to its annual peaks. Meeting these peaks is a
perennial problem for utilities and solar electricity can play a
significant role in meeting the demand. The problem arises when solar
enthusiasts try to claim solar power can provide base load power for an
industrial society. There is no technology for storing commercial
quantities of electricity. Until something is developed – which seems
unlikely – wind and solar can serve only as intermittent, unpredictable
resources.
There is only so much energy we can draw from
renewable sources. They are limited, either by the velocities attained,
or by the distance that solar energy must travel to reach the earth. So
is there anyplace in nature where we can take advantage of that “c2”
co-efficient and tap transformations of matter into energy? There is
one that we have used through history. It is called “chemistry.”
The power drawn from 'renewable' sources will only provide so much and what it does provide, it provides only during sporadic time frames. The technology does not exist to store enough of the energy collected from renewable sources, and the cost in resources, specifically land, is so great it is simply disingenuous to state otherwise. Mathematics proves it.
Read the whole thing.