Major project breakthrough.
Stupid somewhat subtle fault found.
Time for a brief veg before testing to see if there are any other 
findable by me now problems.

So

>> It's not that it's *fossil* energy per se that needs inputting - 
>> it's
>> the fact (apparently) that overall the net process loses energy.

> I keep wondering why the powers that be insist in calculating the 
> energy output
> of biofuels with 'fossil energy input'. Obviously the production of 
> a biofuel
> would strive to use NO fossil energy. Therefore the energy input 
> must be
> calculated in biofuel energy input (as in wood, peat, solar etc).

We agree then :-)

>> The arguments are that all of these (except for fusion) are in fact
>> net energy negative and/or not renewable. eg Nuclear fission is

> Look, all energy sources are net negative. 'Renewable' simply means 
> that He3 can
> be imported from offearth or that sun energy can be used in some 
> form to
> 'replenish' the resources. All the bullshit statements about net 
> 'negative' are
> point-of-view euphemistical sofisms. ALL energy sources are net 
> 'negative'
> because by using them one simply taps off a little bit from the 
> increase of
> entropy that occurs anyway naturally on a billion year scale.

"Net negative" has the ery real meaning "net negative for me" where 
"me" is the person/organisation/continent/world trying to survive. ie 
IF we do this we will have more entropy and be a little colder. The 
aim is to do something and have more entropy and be a little (or a 
lot) warmer.

By this measure, it is said by the nay sayers that all sources of 
canned energy and eiother net negative or have really nasty downsides 
EXCEPT nuclear fusion. Actually, the nay sayers never mention nuclear 
fusion and lunar He3 as it ruins a lovely doomsday argument :-).

> It depends on what one defines as 'positive', just as it depends on 
> what one defines as 'up'.

Indeed. As above, positive is "I am warmer now". (Not just feel warm 
because I've been chopping wood :-) ).

> Neither gravity nor entropy care, things will still 'fall' in the 
> same way and
> in the same direction.

Black holes suck!

> The whole energy business is one of efficiency. How many % of the 
> tapped source
> turns into how many usable joules for how many $.

And, as anove, the may sayers say that all sources of stored energy 
take more of "my" energy to attain them than I can recover from them. 
I find this vvv hard to believe, but that doesn't seem to stop them 
saying it :-).


> And whether the particular
> method used to tap Joules is liable to cause serious damage of some 
> kind.

Fast breeder fission tends to win better than most things, and as a 
bonus produces lots of lovely shiny Plutonium..

> It has
> been calculated that the sun energy input to this planet is 
> sufficient to supply
> all energy needs a couple of times over. It is our inability to tap 
> this source
> directly or indirectly (and other sources) efficiently

ie at an efficncy of > 100% work done to work produced, as the nay 
sayers say.

> Oil and fossil fuel are 'canned' solar energy after all.

All energy sources available to us are solar or other star sourced (or 
appear to be :-) ).
Some need a bit more creative explaining to make them so. eg deep 
borehole thermal which depends on the earth's core temperature is 
annoying. You have to start waving fish and explaining that any 
radionucleotides above iron were formed in stars. [[Iron is star 
ash]].

> They are not 'renewable' because nobody can
> wait 2 million years for new deposits to form naturally.

And if they could they STILL wouldn't be renewable :-).



        Russell


-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist