Slashdot Mirror
Converting More Heat To Useful Energy
An anonymous reader writes "New Scientist has an article
about a technology proposed by Wow Energies which can nearly double the efficiency of power stations, utilise waste heat from many industrial processes, and reduce toxic pollution. The secret is to use propane vapour, which boils at much lower temperatures than steam, and so can convert more heat to useful energy. Even better, it uses existing pump and turbine technology. Could this be a big weapon in the fight against global warming?"
Nuclear reactors are currently even less efficient than coal-burning powerplants, and produce even more medium grade waste heat. This technology should be especially useful there. It should help fusion power even more, since the cost of a fusion core (per thermal MW) is projected to be many times that of a fission core, so getting the most power out of it will be very important.
Nice logic, buddy.
Except, you've taken an argument that would establish the fact that this won't solve global warming, oil depletion, rising energy costs, and so on, while the statement was that it would be a "weapon in the fight against global warming." M-16s solely can't win a war, nor can tanks, Apaches, aircraft, crew served weapons, effective intelligence, secure supply routes, or anything else by itself win a war. But an effective application of several weapons can.
Besides, global warming ISN'T exponential. It's logarithmic too. Sort of. Really, it's more of an oscillatory pattern, one that's going to make life difficult in the short and medium terms. Having a tool in dampening these oscillations, such as the benefits that may come from using propane, would definitely be useful. A useful tool for dampening any man-made amplifications of natural climatic oscillations could very well be considered a "weapon in the fight against global warming" without being incorrect.
It's good you're putting those math skills of yours to use. Broaden your experience base, and you may be able to effectively apply them to real world situations.
Population is not really expected to continue growing at current rates. IANAD[emographer], but they say growth is starting to decrease, and by 2070 it will be almost flat. The link has a nice graph too.
Exactly! That curve you describe is a Gaussian curve. It occurs when there is an exponential draw on a finite resource. It can be seen in the population of bacteria over time when bacteria are grown in a finite medium. It can be seen as the Hubbert curve which describes accurately oil production as a function of time.
With these three functions (logarithmic, exponential, and gaussian) one can draw several conclusions about the future of humanity. Ultimately unlimited exponential growth is not possible. Whether it is energy consumption, human population, or the economy, they all must stop growing eventually. One of the arguments that people reach for when arguing for unlimited exponential growth is improvement in efficiency or conservation. Unfortunately, those functions are logarithmic and cannot offset exponential growth indefinitely. Thus the only alternative is an end to exponential growth. Whether steady state manifests itself as constant, oscillatory, or a descent to zero as in a Gaussian, it must happen.
Michael.
Linux : Mac
I understand now. At first I was puzzled by your reference to "M.A.L.T.H.U.S.". I thought it was a computer (like W.O.P.R. in War Games) and perhaps you were humorously implying that I was being too analytical. After searching for 10 minutes for a computer named "M.A.L.T.H.U.S.," I took a guess and assumed you just meant "Malthus" as in Thomas Malthus. It seems now I was correct, although after reading your post above, I realize now that it was in fact an ad hominem argument, where the use of Thomas Malthus's name is a negative connotation meant to discredit the analysis. Given that your rehtoric was modded up and my post was modded down twice as "overrated", it seems that I have stumbled upon something that I didn't realize was controversial! Naturally, both posts deserve a reply, so first I'll hit the rhetoric and then I'll swing around and restate the science.
Both your models are overly simplistic and overly pessimistic.
Amusingly, none of this is accurate. What you've done is attributed to me by means of a single post my state of mind (pessimism), my point of view (green or environmentalist), and my hypothetical actions (right next to Augustus pointing out). It seems this post is a rhetoric rebuttal to a perceived point of view, where you cloak me in attributes that you disagree with, using those attributes as sounding boards for your own opinions. Unlike your first attempt at rhetoric (which was quite successful and even gave me a refresher on Thomas Malthus), this post mixes rhetorical and logical arguments, neither of which support each other. Further it runs the risk that I'll post a reply stating that you're quite mad for reading all that into a single post (which I believe I just did). (Although I have to say I'm very amused that you placed me into European history and attributed to me the perpetuation of the Dark Ages! I'm still giggling about that.
As for the science, improvements in efficiency are by definition logarithmic. As time goes to infinity the efficiency of a given system approaches but never reaches the 100%-efficiency asymptote. The product of a logarithmic and exponential function as they go to infinity is an exponential function. Thus, if the concern is the consumption of a finite resource or the creation of undersirable waste, an improvement in efficiency will not solve the problem as long as the consumption or generation is exponential. That's all I'm saying in that post. Nothing more, nothing less.
As for where I was going with such a thought, I did expand on it later in this post.
Michael
Linux : Mac