Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - [permaculture] Joules Ain't Joules ( energy/ethanol)

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Laurence Gaffney" <lgaffney@bigpond.com>
  • To: <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [permaculture] Joules Ain't Joules ( energy/ethanol)
  • Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 11:17:26 +1000

1. Toby Hemenway wrote:-
"Doesn't that suggest that referring to total solar energy hitting the Earth
is meaningless?"

I am not exactly sure what you mean here Toby but I don't think it is
meaningless.
Doesn't the figure for total solar energy hitting the earth (per annum say)
help provide the basis of an annual budget for sustainable energy use for
humans and all other life as well as all earth processes?.

2. Toby also wrote:-
"What matters is not how much energy reaches the planet, but how much can be
usefully converted."

Both matter, and I think the Howard Odum approach which uses a concept of
energy quality contributes to this discussion. Odum uses a term Solar
Transformity which he describes as the solar energy calories(joules) required
directly and indirectly to make one calorie(Joule) of a product, service or
energy of another kind.
Some examples from page 69 of his 2001 book called "A Prosperous Way Down"
are :-
(A) It takes 1500 Calories of Sunlight energy to make 1 Calorie of wind
energy.
(B) It takes 50,000 Calories of sunlight energy to make 1 Calorie of
fossil fuel energy
(C) It takes 170,000 Calories of sunlight energy to make1 Calorie of
electric power.

Note that these are very generalized numbers and that it is the orders of
magnitude that are significant here.
Note that wind energy is not additional to the earths annual solar energy
budget as it is derivative.
So one Joule of Electric Power is of much higher quality than one Joule of
Sunlight Energy due to its "embedded" solar energy which Odum refers to as
its Solar Emergy.

Question:- How does the current Solar Emergy consumption of humans in the USA
per annum compare with the annual input of Solar Energy over its Land
Mass/Boundaries?.

Joules ain't Joules

Laurence Gaffney

PS:- What is the source of your figures Nathan?



Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 08:45:19 -0700
From: Toby Hemenway <toby@patternliteracy.com>
Subject: Re: [permaculture] energy/ethanol
To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <46D8378F.8000700@patternliteracy.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Nathan Czuba wrote:
> The total solar energy available to the earth is approximately 3850 ZJ
> (zettajoules) per year.
> Oceans absorb approximately 285 ZJ of solar energy per year.
> Winds can theoretically supply 6 ZJ of energy per year.
> Biomass captures approximately 1.8 ZJ of solar energy per year.
> Worldwide energy consumption was 0.471 ZJ in 2004.
>
It's those last two numbers that are the most revealing. All the life on
Earth, after about 3 billion years of evolution, blanketing nearly the
whole land surface and much of the ocean, can capture 0.05% of the
sunlight that hits the planet. So how much do you think humans can
capture? Doesn't that suggest that referring to total solar energy
hitting the Earth is meaningless? What matters is not how much energy
reaches the planet, but how much can be usefully converted. All of life,
all over the planet, can only capture about 4 times more solar energy
than the energy humans use in the form of petroleum. That gives you an
idea of how much hardware we'd need to keep up the current rate without
oil. We already redirect for our needs about 40% of current biomass
produced on the planet, according to some figures. So it's going to be
tough to increase that amount without even more seriously disrupting
ecosystem function.

I'm curious about the figure for wind. Is that how much energy all the
winds on the whole planet produce? If so, it's meaningless. Remember,
you have to build the hardware, and keep it running, to catch energy,
which drops the EROI. That's why plants are only about 7% efficient. PV
panels themselves are more efficient, but once you add in embedded
energy costs, transmission and conversion costs, etc., PV drops to worse
than plants. PV panels take years just to pay back their embedded
energy, while plants pay as they go.

Here's a thought problem: if a PV panel takes years to pay off its cost
of construction, how many PV panels will it take to build one PV panel?
I think if we used most of the petroleum left to build PV panels and
wind generators, we could keep up our current lifestyle for a while
after oil gets scarce. But we're not doing that.

Toby

http://patternliteracy.com




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page