I read this on another forum and thought it was interesting.
"The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another
The concept of "green energy" has always puzzled me and the assertion that essentially it just needs harvesting via solar panels, windmills, wave generators, etc. and has no effect on anything
The First Law of Thermodynamics might suggests that could be problematic
This "free energy" generally comes to us in one form or another, so if we gather this energy to do things humans see as important its no longer available to do whatever it was doing before
The First Law of Thermodynamics might suggests that could be problematic
This "free energy" generally comes to us in one form or another, so if we gather this energy to do things humans see as important its no longer available to do whatever it was doing before
Discuss"
I have tried to tell my wife this many times but, she still finds things for me to do that require my energy.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 02-24-2021).]
With the exception of geothermal and nuclear power, which have their origins in the formation of the planet, all other energy we use comes from the sun, including hydroelectric, oil and coal.
Hydroelectric dams alter the ecosystem up- and downstream. There is a lot written about the effects of Glen Canyon dam on the Grand Canyon, from sediment deposits to nutrients.
Solar panels block the sun from the ground, so plants will not grow. Plants turn in to coal or are eaten by animals which turn into oil.
Wind turbines kill birds. Birds are responsible for spreading seeds.
Nothing happens in a vacuum. I'm sure you have heard of the "butterfly effect".
It means you can't convert energy from one form to another without waste of some kind (typically this waste is heat through friction).
Think of these different ways to charge a battery:
Burning coal creates heat and pollution (sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, etc). Building a coal burning plant creates a small fraction of the pollution the plant then puts out over its lifetime.
Charging a solar panel creates heat, but no pollution. Pollution is only created when the panel is made, and thrown away after it's useful life (typically 20-30 years), and like building the coal plant, is a tiny fraction.
The main point of the law is no process is 100% efficient, and cannot be more than 100% efficient, which would make it a perpetual motion machine.
The sunlight absorbed by solar panels is going to be there even if the panel is not. You can then choose to harness that power or not, and maximize the investment by putting it in a location that absorbs the maximum amount of sunlight.
Coal has to be transported from the coal mine to the power plant, typically by rail, creating more pollution by diesel locomotives.
With most solar installations, the panels are absorbing the sunlight, preventing it from being absorbed by the roof of a house. At worst this means you don't get free heating of the roof by the sun to warm up a house more quickly on the floor directly beneath the roof, if the house is poorly insulated.
Brad lived in California..... He was sick of the world, of Covid-19, Trump, Russian belligerence, China, global warming, racial tensions, and the rest of the disturbing stories that occupy media headlines.
Brad drove his car into his garage and then sealed every doorway and window as best he could. He got back into his car and wound down all the windows, selected his favorite radio station, started the car and revved it to a slow idle.
Two days later, a worried neighbor peered through his garage window and saw him in the car.
She notified the emergency services and they broke in, pulling Brad from the car.
A little sip of water and, surprisingly, he was in perfect condition, but his Tesla had a dead battery.
Brad is a registered California Democrat.
Had me rolling on the floor laughing...
Not that I think all California Dems are like that.
Sorry Larryinkc, I did not mean to ignore your discussion. "The First Law of Thermodynamics" is beyond my pay grade. It did to me not sound right to describe it as "Law of Conservation of Energy" So I looked up Thermodynamics in the dictionary.
quote
Originally posted by Larryinkc: I read this on another forum and thought it was interesting.
"The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another
quote
noun (used with a singular verb) the science concerned with the relations between heat and mechanical energy or work, and the [color=red]conversion[/color of one into the other: modern thermodynamics deals with the properties of systems for the description of which temperature is a necessary coordinate.
There is a difference between conservation and conversion. What forum did you read that on ?
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 02-25-2021).]
Sorry Larryinkc, I did not mean to ignore your discussion. "The First Law of Thermodynamics" is beyond my pay grade. It did to me not sound right to describe it as "Law of Conservation of Energy" So I looked up Thermodynamics in the dictionary.
There is a difference between conservation and conversion. What forum did you read that on ?
Your consternation concerning the conversation may indicate that your comprehension is convoluted. Consider the conditions: While the energy is converted, it is not depleted. Consequently, it is conserved.
I read this on another forum and thought it was interesting.
"The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another.
The concept of "green energy" has always puzzled me and the assertion that essentially it just needs harvesting via solar panels, windmills, wave generators, etc. and has no effect on anything
The First Law of Thermodynamics might suggests that could be problematic
This "free energy" generally comes to us in one form or another, so if we gather this energy to do things humans see as important its no longer available to do whatever it was doing before
Discuss"
Ok. Thinking about it, ... eating food creates energy in the human body and every other living being.
Ok. Thinking about it, ... eating food creates energy in the human body and every other living being.
It does not create energy though. The food has the energy (the amount it contains is clearly printed on the packaging). Your body just converts it from potential energy.
[This message has been edited by LitebulbwithaFiero (edited 02-25-2021).]
