Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 2
C
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
C
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 2
Hi, Looking for someone to critiquwe the following.....

Earth's atmosphere is 5.1 ^18 kgs
One degree of climate change requires 5.1^18 kjs
This equates to 1.6^11 watt/years of excess energy for each degree of climate change.
Is this final number correct?

If so, then?..
If I generate 1KWatt via a wind turbine,
Use this to power a 1KWatt Laser pointed out into space,
And assuming a 50% efficiency at removing energy from the atmosphere,

It would take me 320 Million years to dispose of one degree of heat.
Obviously, this is of little value, however I have estimated that this would cost an individual around $500 - $600 USD to prepare such a device, which is significantly cheaper than some of the eco-conscious initiatives asked of individuals. If we could get a couple of million of these around the world, then we may be able to reduce the increase in temperature on an annual basis. It would also be an interesting approach to raising awareness of Global Warming as a critical issue as over time more and more laser beacons light the sky.

Obviously, the best solution would be to solve the cause, however treating the symptom can have short term benefits as well.

I would appreciate any comment on this general theory.


Crunchie
.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
And the thermal efficiency of converting heat to electricity is?

You'd likely make things worse ... not better.

My suggestion ... to cool the planet ... let the ice in the arctic and antarctic melt. And it both is and will. Of course we'll lose a great deal of good agricultural land, and a fair number of major cities, and gain some new respect for tropical diseases ... but what the heck ... at least we won't have to ask any corporate mogul to inconvenience himself.


DA Morgan
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
C
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
C
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
C
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
C
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
posted twice the same link. I meant to post this one:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2000/snowballearth.shtml

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 2
C
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
C
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 2
Sorry, I may not have been too clear here.

I am trying to take energy, in the form of wind, convert this to electricity, convert that to light and then get it out of the planet. If the system was 50% efficient at each stage, then 2Kw of wind energy would be converted to 1Kw of electricity and 1Kw of heat. 1Kw of electrical energy would be converted to 500watts of light, which would equate to 250 watts of energy removed from the planet. At no point do I use energy generated outside of this system. Conservation of energy indicates that I would lower the total energy available within the atmoshper by 250watts.

Regards


Crunchie
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 39
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 39
I don't know who would fund pumping megawatts into space in the form of laser but there would be some thermal emissions in air being heated by the beam, the transmitter itself would have thermal emissions, and then the never ending, meddlesome government/market forces who would see regulation/profit in your system.


But generally, I am probably not the best one to answer this. If you take energy, convert it to power of any form, groups will try in some form to take control of it. Eventually your idea would be converted into a system to generate electricty. Then we get into all kinds of problems. Conversion of (whatever) into electricty (there has to the a thermal transfer in the conversion), send it down wires (resistance of materials over long distance is also a very small thermal emmission), and then allow whoever to use that power - you result with more thermal emissions - if the person uses your wind converted power to run their home air conditioner, you probably are pumping more heat into the biosphere than you are taking out.

Each conversion gives off thermal emissions and the final product of your power certainly will give off heat in some form. Even if it is just to power up high watt lasers, some heat would be leaked off in the process and the area where the beams were being fired off would change temps throughout the atmospheric layers unless it were of a specific wavelenght that is completely transparent to Nitrogen, Oxygen, Carbon, Hydrogen, and any other gas it might encounter.

It this wrong?

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Thermal absorption by the air would not be a big issue as one could use the wavelength of choice to minimize that. But the thermal efficiency of power generation from wind is the issue.

Each step in converting wind, or whatever, to electricity and then the electricity into light will generate heat.

Maybe stuffing rags in policitians mouths would work as it would stop much of the hot air from being generated in the first place.


DA Morgan
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 39
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Thermal absorption by the air would not be a big issue as one could use the wavelength of choice to minimize that. But the thermal efficiency of power generation from wind is the issue.

Each step in converting wind, or whatever, to electricity and then the electricity into light will generate heat.

Maybe stuffing rags in politicians mouths would work as it would stop much of the hot air from being generated in the first place.
I recognize that windows of transmission could be tuned and selected. What frequency would not have some impact on high level ice crystal clouds, the h2o component or the soot/dust/collector atoms that seed the ice crystals?

I was aluring to your last threat (the politicians) in the concern that any form of power generation would be turned from its earlier intent - be it by regulation or de-regulation - if there is power and potential profit, it is sure to be hi-jacked from alturistic long term purposes to one of short term gain.

It would be "nice" to think that such a technological system could be established to confront the challenges of climate change but in realpolitika you have to consider
1. who is going to fund the project
2. how long it will take
3. how effecient (or inefficient) it will be
4. the other players who sit back and allow something to be built, only to "steal it" for other purposes later.

Such a powerful laser system as this would make a great anti-sat weapon project so the DOD comes in confiscates your green-friendlly project and it is never turned on to do as originally wished, but held back for the Day of Need.

Also, there is less and less "free space" to just go and broadcast a death ray. Sats spin and whirl in an amazingly dense cloud. Keeping a zone of projection would only draw more spy sats from competing nations who think this zone would be used to cover up clandestine military programs, propelling hardened sat tech, more death ray research and so on...

Call me a cynic if you wish but there is no effective form of human governance that allows for planning over a centruy-type time span and that is what this project would require for it to truely impact the earth's heat budget.

Nice idea but we humans, the weakest link, could never carry it off.

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Water to electricity conversion is easier, cheaper, the technology is available (see Hoover Dam). The major problem is habitat destruction for aquatic species. Water is more dependable, and the amount of energy available for conversion is dependent on rainfall, a heat driven earthly property. Beavers would love it, eco-nazis would be driven nuts by it. You could design small, self contained portable units that could be carried in by backpack, set up and aimed by a techie with little or no understanding of how it works or why or what it does, and made to last a hundred years. Imagine primitivized people in an ice age hunting them down as "tools of the Devil"; gee, what fun.

I'll have to try that one on and see how it works out.


Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5