Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 Next »
Reply To Thread

Global Warming good for the earth?Follow

#52 Apr 17 2009 at 11:21 AM Rating: Good
Timelordwho wrote:
And it's explosive, so that's always fun.


Well, so's fertiliser, and that's not fun at all.
#53 Apr 17 2009 at 11:51 AM Rating: Decent
It sounds to me like we just need a giant solar reflector in space...
#54 Apr 17 2009 at 11:57 AM Rating: Decent
Ttial wrote:
It sounds to me like we just need a giant solar reflector in space...


I'm not sure that'd hold up against space debris, comets and space invaders.
#55 Apr 18 2009 at 8:30 AM Rating: Default
****
6,580 posts
yossarian wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
So, how do you tap the heat all around us and turn it into electricity in a way that is not based on temperature difference, the heating or cooling of an object or does not require you to reach an unrealistically high temperature, such as the boiling point of water? I'm all ears.


Use a mixture of water and Diethyl ether. Yes it's based on a temperature differential, much like that between day and night in a desert environment.

And it's explosive, so that's always fun.


Why would this suddenly become practical with global temperature increase? If it is practical now, why are we not using it?
I don't know, that's why I made the post - it sounds like something we could use, yet we aren't. Why? I don't know much about the subject, if I did, then I would have written something with more facts and ideas and tried to get it seen by some important body. This is just someone's idea that I posted to see others' opinions on the matter.

Kavekk wrote:
Here's a question: what has led you to this belief? Baseless idiocy like your first post? You're not smart. You're not a scientist. You're not a doctor. Where did your life go so wrong?
That's quite a large assumption to make off one topic. At least my life didn't go so wrong that I like to play bully on an online-gaming forum.

Here, one very simple google search, top result:
www.energysavingtrust.org.uk wrote:
How does a ground source heat pump work?

A ground source heat pump circulates a mixture of water and antifreeze around a loop of pipe - called a ground loop - which is buried in the garden. When the liquid travels around the loop it absorbs heat from the ground - used to heat radiators, underfloor heating systems and even hot water.

The length of the ground loop depends on the size of your home and the amount of heat you need - longer loops can draw more heat from the ground.

Normally the loop is laid flat, or coiled in trenches about two metres deep, but if there is not enough space in your garden you can install a vertical loop to a depth of up to 100 metres.

The efficiency of a ground source heat pump is measured by a coefficient of performance (CoP) - the amount of heat it produces compared to the amount of electricity needed to run it.
This domestic example works with copper piping, water and anti-freeze. Would it really be hard to expand this simple idea onto a larger scale? Foe example, ground piping under a ski resort: Remove heat fromthe ground, preserving the ski slopes and use this to heat/power the resort village.
If the piping could be laid safely, why couldn't this idea work?
#56 Apr 18 2009 at 8:39 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Noodles wrote:
Foe example, ground piping under a ski resort: Remove heat fromthe ground, preserving the ski slopes and use this to heat/power the resort village.
If the piping could be laid safely, why couldn't this idea work?


No. Because in order to remove heat to a temperature lower than surrounding area you have to spend energy (The idea behind a refrigerator or air conditioner). You wouldn't be able to keep the mountain cold and power the resort at the same time.

Ground heating like that just relies on the fact that once you go down about 4 or 5 feet into the earth, the temperature is fairly constant year round (I think it's about 50 degrees Fahrenheit).

So you can circulate 50 degree water through your floors, which make your house feel warmer without using your heater.

But you can't keep the ground under 32 degrees and use the "energy" from that extra 18 degrees to power the resort. You'd be spending much more energy "removing" that 18 degrees worth of energy.


You can make your resort more comfortable by providing a 50 degree water source flowing through the floors so they aren't freezing. But you won't be "preserving the slopes" or "powering the resort".
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#57 Apr 18 2009 at 1:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Noodles wrote:
Would it really be hard to expand this simple idea onto a larger scale? Foe example, ground piping under a ski resort: Remove heat fromthe ground, preserving the ski slopes and use this to heat/power the resort village.
Ummm... the idea of a ground heat pump is to extract heat from the ground and put it into the air, namely the air inside your home thus heating it in the winter. If the problem is that your ski slope's snow is melting, it's melting because the air is already warmer than 32F. How do you intend to save it by making the local air warmer with a giant heat pump?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#58 Apr 18 2009 at 3:38 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
Why would this suddenly become practical with global temperature increase? If it is practical now, why are we not using it?


Because It's science from the future.

But it works around at around 97° and the ideal environment is a desert where it would exceed the boiling temp of ether in the day and drop below it at night. The water is so it doesn't explode. create an hourglass structure with a turbine around the center. Build an array out of durable materials and you can potentially power something beneath the sands. Before you ask, the reason you wouldn't add solar cells to this is because sand tears them up pretty fast.

The main reason we don't use it is because no one cares about deserts that don't already have a source of power. But with advanced stages of global warming we will have many more places to use them.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#59 Apr 18 2009 at 4:46 PM Rating: Default
****
6,580 posts
Quote:
Ummm... the idea of a ground heat pump is to extract heat from the ground and put it into the air,
Actually, you can do more than just pump that heat into the air, it can be converted into electricity (Or so I was told, though I forget how >.>).

But with the resources (which we don't actually have), you could put piping under some of the wasteland that takes up a lot of southern america, and use that to power (I'd imagine) a pretty damn large area. Of course, this is going on the assumption that you can get electricity out of this system. But just do a quick search, thers's lots about converting Heat to Electricity.

Of course, the next step would be finding an alternative to Cu piping, as obviously we wouldn't have enough to use this idea globally. Someone needs to go about creating a cheap heat-absorbing, high-melting point polymer... Then theres using an alternative to antifreeze...
Still, it works for 67% of Swiss households.

Still. It's an idea right? I think it should be explored more. We need new methods of getting wide spread energy because you know if we keep doing what we are, but just less, that's only going to delay the inevitable. We'll still have an energy crisis, just a few more years on. Of course politicians don't care about that. They care about today. **** tomorrow!

Also, here's another thought for those that say "continue global warming and we will kill XXX species". We need energy. We don't have enough to go around. Personally, I'd be more worried about people killing each other over energy, than a few polar bears dieing in the heat. Because if we cant find better sources of energy, that is what is going to happen. People will go to war over it.
#60 Apr 18 2009 at 6:01 PM Rating: Decent
Why are you still talking about things you know nothing about?

Quote:
Also, here's another thought for those that say "continue global warming and we will kill XXX species". We need energy. We don't have enough to go around. Personally, I'd be more worried about people killing each other over energy, than a few polar bears dieing in the heat.


You clearly understand the full impact of unchecked climate change. I realise you're a tad slow on the uptake, so I'll help you out: I was being sarcastic. In fact, I believe that is possibly the worst description of the consequences of climate change I have ever heard. By the way, it's spelt "dying". You're welcome.

Quote:
Actually, you can do more than just pump that heat into the air, it can be converted into electricity (Or so I was told, though I forget how >.>).


I assume you are talking about thermoelectrity.
#61 Apr 18 2009 at 8:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Noodles wrote:
Actually, you can do more than just pump that heat into the air, it can be converted into electricity
Very little electricity is produced and most of the energy is lost (or continues unchanged) as heat.
Quote:
Still, it works for 67% of Swiss households.
As a device which transfers heat from point A to point B, yes. Not as a device which eliminates heat energy.

Edited, Apr 18th 2009 11:09pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#62 Apr 22 2009 at 3:21 PM Rating: Decent
Noodles wrote:
yossarian wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
So, how do you tap the heat all around us and turn it into electricity in a way that is not based on temperature difference, the heating or cooling of an object or does not require you to reach an unrealistically high temperature, such as the boiling point of water? I'm all ears.


Use a mixture of water and Diethyl ether. Yes it's based on a temperature differential, much like that between day and night in a desert environment.

And it's explosive, so that's always fun.


Why would this suddenly become practical with global temperature increase? If it is practical now, why are we not using it?
I don't know, that's why I made the post - it sounds like something we could use, yet we aren't. Why? I don't know much about the subject, if I did, then I would have written something with more facts and ideas and tried to get it seen by some important body. This is just someone's idea that I posted to see others' opinions on the matter.

...

Here, one very simple google search, top result:
www.energysavingtrust.org.uk wrote:
How does a ground source heat pump work?

A ground source heat pump circulates a mixture of water and antifreeze around a loop of pipe - called a ground loop - which is buried in the garden. When the liquid travels around the loop it absorbs heat from the ground - used to heat radiators, underfloor heating systems and even hot water.

The length of the ground loop depends on the size of your home and the amount of heat you need - longer loops can draw more heat from the ground.

Normally the loop is laid flat, or coiled in trenches about two metres deep, but if there is not enough space in your garden you can install a vertical loop to a depth of up to 100 metres.

The efficiency of a ground source heat pump is measured by a coefficient of performance (CoP) - the amount of heat it produces compared to the amount of electricity needed to run it.
This domestic example works with copper piping, water and anti-freeze. Would it really be hard to expand this simple idea onto a larger scale? Foe example, ground piping under a ski resort: Remove heat fromthe ground, preserving the ski slopes and use this to heat/power the resort village.
If the piping could be laid safely, why couldn't this idea work?


Reread my earlier post about the second law. Global warming will cause this to be less efficient. Next, you should either: (A) retract your original statement: that the extra heat energy added by global warming is useful or (B) come up with some other mechanism for the extra heat to be useful. After that point, we can discuss why geothermal energy, although it powers, say, Iceland, is unlikely to contribute a significant amount of power to a typical city.

1 2 3 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 251 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (251)