prag

Energy-wise, we need to ‘go solar’ or die out. This is an implication of the second law of thermodynamics. For every local ordering (technological fix) of a system on earth, there results a greater disorder (pollution) elsewhere that can only be reversed by an outside source of energy (the sun). In other words, currently proposed technological fixes (such as hybrid cars and coal gasification) can’t save us.

Pats&Sox

I dont think anyone expects hybrids to save us, I think most people expect them to be a bridge. Coal well.. just sucks.

prag

:

If the energy policy makers do not grasp the Entropy concept (below), you can dismiss them as incompetent. Entropy is the problem, not energy!

We can neither create energy nor destroy it. We will always have as much energy as we ever had according to the Conservation of Energy principle. So, how can we experience an energy crisis?

The crisis develops from another law of energy: The Entropy Law. It states that energy always suffers some loss of quality or availability during use. Physics characterizes this loss as Entropy.

Increasing Entropy seems to have a slightly different character for each system under consideration. For example, heat always flows from the hotter to the colder body, never the reverse. Perfume molecules escape their container and spread throughout the room, but never gather back into the bottle of their own accord.

While heat is flowing, or perfume molecules are spreading, they can do work—are useful. Even after heat flows down its temperature hill, or the molecules spread out in a room, overall energy remains constant, but that energy is now unavailable for use. It is no good for doing work. Popular designations for Entropy’s inevitable increases are time’s arrow, disorder, or pollution.

Entropy applies thermally, structurally, and environmentally. Just as a weight cannot supply any mechanical work once it reaches its lowest available level, thermal energy is not available for use after it falls to an ambient temperature. It simply becomes ‘waste’ heat, like car exhaust.

There are various mathematical expressions for Entropy, such as S = k ln W (where k is a constant and W is the microstates per macrostate). Due to its broad, complex, and abstract formulations, some have rejected the Entropy Law—even deemed it an illegitimate natural principle because too ‘anthropomorphic’ (as if scientific laws had any other origin). Einstein, however, thought the Entropy Law was the one law that would never be overthrown.

Some have said that life transcends the Entropy Law, but no contradiction exists since the overall Entropy increase (system plus surroundings) still exceeds the Entropy decrease of a structuring organism.

By extension of the Entropy Law, matter also becomes unavailable for use. High Entropy copper junk (because dispersed in refuse dumps) is too costly to recycle, both monetarily and environmentally, thus practically unavailable.

Economic problems develop per the Entropy Law beyond the control of price mechanisms. From an Entropy perspective, economic growth can be understood as the progressive transformation of usable energy into unavailable energy. This leads to an overall decrease in our living ability—except that the sun’s outside gift of energy may compensate for this decrease by driving the earth’s large-scale regenerative cycles (carbon, oxygen, etc). The sun’s finite input, however, can only compensate if economic activity’s Entropy production is not too large.

All large-scale technical fixes such as coal, nuclear, or ethanol create quality (Entropy) issues. Energy from coal results in acid rain, global warming, methyl mercury pollution of fish, and toxic submicron particles in the air we breathe. Nuclear plants create radioactive waste in direct proportion to the energy produced—some of which (Plutonium 40) must be guarded in environmental isolation for hundreds of thousands of years. Ethanol production emits two to nine times the greenhouse gas emissions ‘saved’ by substituting it for gasoline.

In short, the Entropy Law sets limits to the types and rates of energy use humans can sustain. It, however, does not govern social phenomena. We can choose to assess and respect the Entropy Law’s implications, or we can continue to make energy policy in ignorance.

Because of the high environmental costs we pay for creating high-grade energies such as electricity or hydrogen fuel, we should use them only where their quality is absolutely necessary. Electric space heating and hybrid cars remain prohibitive.

Finally, technological orderings always result in a greater loss of order elsewhere. This applies to every application—even to pollution control devices and recycling. A mix increasingly weighted toward low Entropy solar applications is unavoidable. Reversible Entropy is not merely a tree-hugger’s fancy; it is an ecological necessity.

Preston

I was going to put an ebonics answer similar to prag. but he hits it on the money. amd entrophy seems inreversable like a 3 move check mate.

prag

In what sense would coal-electric or hydrogen fueled cars (hybrids) serve as a bridge?

Grez

Well, we have so much damn coal here in the US, it's definitely an option. Its been stated that its profitable to turn coal into gas if Oil is above 40$ a gallon. So, yea, it could easily be a cheap bridge for a long time. A long time. Its better using coal than corn, thats for sure.

Pats&Sox

Well for one, I didnt say coal-electric. I said hybrid which means gas-electric. Todays' hybrids arent plugins. They regenerate electricity from inertia.

Slartibartfas

And the 2nd law of thermodynamics says we finally die out anyway.

Even though we may survive countless million years longer if we base our civilsation on more sustainable basis.

That entropy prevention most likely is the key issue in the future and might even rival energy production as such in importance is not a totally new concept. But it seems to become increasingly clear that its the way we are heading. The concept might not have found into the mainstream yet though.

__________________
"Every country gets the cuisine it deserves"

Common insult examples and how to avoid them

prag

Regerative breaking can't supply the bulk of battery charging needed--that will have to come from plulgging in to a polluting electric utility. Coal gasification's price is not the main issue--its pollution is.

Neither coal gasification nor electric cars are environmentally acceptable according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. As I explained above, both create more environmental disorder than benefit--and one doesn't even have to do the details to conclude this.

Go solar or die of disorder.

Neither poster seems to 'get it'.

prag

Yes, the issue is, 'What is sustainable?' My point is, only 'low (mostly reversible) entropy' from outside energy (solar) is sustainable.

Go solar or die of disorder (pollution). Technical solutions can sometimes look good, but only because they don't take the big picture into account (net energy, entropy).