h a l f b a k e r yNumber one on the no-fly list
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Jim has been thinking about the current trends in energy production…
He reckons that energy production is a red herring and prefers energy
absorption. Over the past few years the amount of energy absorbed
by the planet has varied. Some times there is lots of growth in the
sector and some times
there is decline.
Currently it is difficult to pick if energy absorption (from the sun) is
improving or not. And yet energy production is easy to pick.
Wing, wave, solar and renewables count as absorption as does food
production. Fossil and atomic energy sources do not...
Whatever the currennt trend - energy absorption is more important
than production.
It is said.
Energy balance sheet
http://www.newscien...-green-forever.html
Not really right to be honest... [madness, Jun 19 2012]
[link]
|
| |
There was an article on exactly this subject in New Scientist recently, within the past year. |
|
| |
Do you have a link --- would like to read it... |
|
| |
and this isn't a generic Global Warming index because... |
|
| |
Linked what I hope is the article indicated... |
|
| |
The article hints at the possibility to recapture the energy released from fossil fuels through wind and wave --- which is good. |
|
| |
The energy balance sheet appears to miss a component of energy stored/absorbed. Since this is a significant amount of energy entering the biomass of the planet the article is flawed is it not? |
|
| |
I think what you're looking for is the inverse of albedo, which is a measurement of reflectivity.. |
|
| |