tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7193000495744135887.post6522061239581195743..comments2015-06-10T08:04:55.662-07:00Comments on Ecological Society: A Riddle of Energy Part 1www.ecological-society.orghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03277606873549006844noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7193000495744135887.post-9484026624988885112009-02-03T06:46:00.000-08:002009-02-03T06:46:00.000-08:00Dear AllIn reply to your comments on our papers we...Dear All<BR/><BR/>In reply to your comments on our papers we, myself and Girish Abhyankar have prepared our common reply. Hope this satisfies most of your queries. We all thank you for your patient reading and appreciate your feedback. We also understand the limitations of email exchange. Not all the things can be explained in one article. May be someday we can make online presentation where you all can also participate and interact. <BR/><BR/>For now here is the reply- <BR/><BR/>Girish Abhyankar writes <BR/><BR/>A Common reply to points raised in e-discussion on the subject “Riddle of Energy”<BR/><BR/>1) Objective of my article is to scientifically prove that <BR/>Solar, wind, nuclear, hydro and bio-fuels are not renewable/sustainable/inexhaustible energy sources suitable for the life style based on current technology, needing high energy density inputs. <BR/>Using solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, bio-fuels and natural gas energy is, in fact, using coal and crude oil indirectly and inefficiently depleting the coal and crude oil reserves faster, damaging the environment even more than using coal and crude oil directly for the same purpose. <BR/>Energy resources that are of low entropy at ambient conditions on the surface of the earth are the only useful resources to the human societies - biomass energy alone. (Currently exploited coal and crude oil reserves near the surface of the earth and may be few more). <BR/><BR/>2) Funding, subsidies, incentives, tax rebates for using solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, bio-fuels and natural gas energy and expenditure on development, advertisement, promotion of the same and exploration of other high entropy resources is wasteful.<BR/>In the larger interest of the human society; funds and efforts for using local biomass, coal and crude oil directly or by minimum conversions to provide energy services will be more useful and meaningful. For example, illumination by LPG-mantle is far more efficient solution than by photovoltaic-battery-LED/CFL. Providing funds and efforts for LPG-mantle is a better idea. Research and development for direct efficient use of biomass energy with minimum embodied energy equipments needs to be undertaken. Fortunately many have realised this need and they are already working in the right direction.<BR/><BR/>3) Our energy measuring system has to be and is unidirectional - in the direction of increasing entropy. We convert all energies in question to heat and then compare. We convert solar radiant energy to heat and measure. We burn biomass and measure the heat released. We compare these two measurements and conclude that 100 kJ of solar radiant energy must have been necessary to make 1 kJ of biomass energy. But since we do not know how to decrease entropy - convert solar radiant energy to electrical energy - we can not experimentally measure how much solar radiant energy is necessary for, say 1 kJ of electrical energy. A photovoltaic cell is necessary for this conversion which is made using coal and crude oil energy as original source, available for free in nature. If the input energy is largely free; overall efficiency of photovoltaic cell can not be estimated. Thus input/output method of evaluation of non-biomass - wind, nuclear, hydro, etc - energy sources is not applicable.<BR/>We pay only for the human services involved in providing us derivatives of coal, crude oil or biomass energy (as and when we want them) but the original energy is free.<BR/><BR/>4) Costs reflect energy inputs and therefore, solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, bio-fuels and natural gas energy can not be economically viable. They operate with huge and continuous subsidy given in every country for years together by the local governments in hope that they will be self sufficient some day but this will never happen. <BR/>No institution or university in the world takes up such a viability study because the study will only reveal validity of the law of entropy. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Mrinalinee Vanarase writes- <BR/><BR/>Only to highlight above mentioned points- <BR/><BR/>• In the assessment of non-conventional energy sources, cost analysis and energy analysis are to be assessed separately. Many a times they are mixed and that doesn’t give us proper assessment. <BR/>• It is important to identify objectives of energy consumption before we raise the problems of generating electricity in remote areas and other such problems. This exercise leads us to far more creative and efficient ideas of energy generation and utilization. Many a times objectives are not defined or not defined in the light of holistic development and hence we adopt conventional solutions (i.e. solar, wind, biodiesel etc.) <BR/>• It is very well understood that coal and crude oil are not equally distributed and not available to every one in the same quantity and price. When we say that crude and coal are available for free, what we mean is their calorific value is available for free, what we pay for is the transport, storage and distribution of these resources. This is the reason why we should pay attention to the fact that renewable bizz is actually wasting available resources and money. Once we sweep away those options we are left with more equitable and responsible use of conventional energy. ‘Efficiency’ becomes important criterion in selection of technology. <BR/>• Our comfort and convenience is also to be understood in the light of ‘what human beings are made for (ergonomically) and what human beings are not made for. We as human beings also work as thermodynamic machines and exert energy in order to keep ourselves functioning. Why not to make use of this energy to make our lives more healthy comfortable and enjoyable!? <BR/><BR/>We very much agree that we now need to think on what is to be done next when we accept the first claim that socalled renewable is not renewable and not green. Various ‘Soft Technologies’ are to be discussed which are more efficient and satistfy the objectives of comfortable, enjoyable, safe life. Ofcourse, design and application of any particular soft technology is not a universal solution, it is to be adopted with reference to what you seek and where you are. The next discussion will be based on ‘Soft Technologies’. <BR/><BR/>Your comments are most welcome<BR/><BR/>Best regards<BR/><BR/>Girish and Mrinalineewww.ecological-society.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03277606873549006844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7193000495744135887.post-16379959998572370082009-01-31T02:10:00.000-08:002009-01-31T02:10:00.000-08:00Two papers that you sent make very interesting rea...Two papers that you sent make very interesting reading. First of all there is passionate analysis by Ms. Vanarase of the energy riddle in terms of the total energy needed to put renewable devises in action and what we get from that during its life time.It is nothing but ' Life Cycle Analysis ' ( LCA ) that is used in measuring the effectiveness of the system as compared to the resource used in its life. <BR/> <BR/>While pedagogical form of the article is very appealing, we need to be careful . For example Switzerland produces 95% of its electricity from water. And surely it is possible to make renewable equipments from such energy without coal and oil. Unfortunately human being developed steel making that mostly uses coal but innovative potential of the human mind is so high that it is possible that we can make renewable energy without use of coal and oil. <BR/> <BR/>In any case, it is not true that energy generated by wind mill is always less than energy used in its construction. You may like to see some articles where opposite is said <BR/> <BR/>Windmill<BR/> <BR/>http://www.worldsteel.org/pictures/programfiles/Wind%20energy%20case%20study.pdf<BR/>http://www.scientificjournals.com/sj/lca/abstract/ArtikelId/9759<BR/>http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/01/wind_turbine_lca.php<BR/> <BR/>PV ( another case of RE) <BR/> <BR/>http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf<BR/>http://www.ecotopia.com/Apollo2/pvlever.htm<BR/>http://www.energybulletin.net/node/17219<BR/>www.esu-services.ch/download/jungbluth-2005-LCA-PV-PIP.pdf<BR/> <BR/>Using traditional economics energy pay back time indicated in the literature is around 6 month for wind mill and two to three years for PV over 20 years operation. There are number of ifs and buts in that analysis, ( one of the most passionate 'buts' -and Ms Vanarase would love it-is : is present day economics of payback is really the right way to measure the payback or balance of energy?) <BR/> <BR/>Coming to entropy, I must confess that this fundamental physics note rekindled my IIT-days debates on entropy and the universe! I had almost forgotten about entropy after coming to UNEP except that I always thanked God for making universe expand continuously to create more space to accommodate increasing entropy!! <BR/> <BR/>Coming to the more serious response, am not sure about the utility of connecting entropy to energy riddle. The law of entropy applies to close systems. Therefore, in case of energy production / transformation on earth, you have to consider in first the system sun - earth, and its true that in this system, the global entropy will permanently increase, with the result of disappearance of the sun in some billion years.Thats all I can remark. <BR/> <BR/>Finally, the riddle paper says that coal and oil are available to us free of cost. This I did not understand. We pay for that . But yes, we do not pay adequately because the economics that we use is traditional or even archaic. Thats why we have now to consider carbon tax and other cosmetic measures. Anmd thats why NGO deliberation on Green Economics is good start for the change. <BR/> <BR/>Best Regards <BR/> <BR/> <BR/> <BR/>Rajendra Shende, <BR/>Head OzonAction<BR/>United Nations Environment Programmewww.ecological-society.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03277606873549006844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7193000495744135887.post-6911684881154483402009-01-27T06:27:00.000-08:002009-01-27T06:27:00.000-08:00What we all need, clearly, is good data on which t...What we all need, clearly, is good data on which to base our comparisons which can then help to decide what energy investments give the best return financially, environmentally and socially. Who has done the solid life cycle analysis of different energy sources? <BR/><BR/>barbarawww.ecological-society.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03277606873549006844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7193000495744135887.post-54299239700682933262009-01-27T06:26:00.000-08:002009-01-27T06:26:00.000-08:00Dear Mrinalinee and All,I was so much motivated af...Dear Mrinalinee and All,<BR/><BR/>I was so much motivated after having discussions with Girishji on the<BR/>concepts of Energy, during our presentations at "Art of Living",<BR/>Bangalore last year on Energy. I congratulate both of them for<BR/>creating so much awareness and thinking.<BR/><BR/>I am a strong believer of Biomass - a major source of energy in the<BR/>future too. The fossil fuels and coal are different manifestations of<BR/>the same biomass, which are still the major source of energy on this<BR/>planet. The simple concept of sustainability is one to one+ or two<BR/>(atleast). I am focussed and working on energy from biomass. Designed<BR/>15 efficient good stoves http://www.e-geo.org including charcoal<BR/>producing stoves. Carbon sequestration using charcoal+ amendments<BR/>http://www.e-terrapreta.blogspot.com for reclaiming degraded soils,<BR/>Improved technology for efficient charcoal production and crop residue<BR/>management.<BR/><BR/>I strongly endorse Girish and Mrinalinee, and many other pioneers who<BR/>have contributed and still working in this field.<BR/><BR/>The growth of a plant is possible because of the basic rule that one<BR/>leaf is able to produce two or more leaves. A seed while in the<BR/>process of germination emerges with one or two leaves, these leaves<BR/>give raise to two or more leaves. This process expands from a sapling<BR/>stage to a fully grown tree. The leaf takes energy from the sun. Human<BR/>creations cannot match the nature. The total energy from a solar<BR/>photo-voltaic (PV) panel will not be able meet the energy requirements<BR/>to produce two or more solar PV panels. Therefore they are not<BR/>sustainable as much as any plant. The solar PV panel is a<BR/>manifestation of energy spent from other sources renewable /<BR/>non-renewable. The direct solar energy and the energy from biomass are<BR/>the two main sources of energy which would sustain life on this earth<BR/>in the future.<BR/>http://e-geomusings.blogspot.com/2008/12/one-leaf-to-two-leaves.html<BR/><BR/>One of the group (yahoo) working with similar belief is<BR/><BR/>killer_ape-peak_oil<BR/>Jay the founder of the Groups says:<BR/><BR/>One thing I would like to dispel is the<BR/>notion of renewables. There is no such thing as a renewable.<BR/>Ultimately, some resources are lost no matter what. There may be<BR/>things that linger, and are more recalcitrant, but renewable is an<BR/>illusion.<BR/><BR/>Solar and Wind are not renewable. The energy from solar and from wind<BR/>is available but not renewable. An oak tree is renewable. A horse is<BR/>renewable. They reproduce themselves.<BR/><BR/>But, and a very important but, the human made equipment used to<BR/>capture solar energy or wind energy is not renewable. In fact, there<BR/>is considerable fossil fuel energy embedded in this equipment. The<BR/>glazing on a solar collector of any kind – solar thermal water, solar<BR/>thermal air, and solar electric – requires energy to manufacture.<BR/><BR/>326 Members, Archives: Membership required<BR/>America was specifically designed by special interests (e.g., General<BR/>Motors, Firestone and Standard Oil) to require fossil fuel and<BR/>automobiles to survive. Peak oil will leave many millions of Americans<BR/>with no access to food or water and facing certain death. This group<BR/>mainly discusses what the evolved human brain "does". Besides "what<BR/>the brain does", we can also discuss (to a limited extent) "how the<BR/>brain works". Of most interest will be fitness strategies which<BR/>evolved to address the type ...(more)<BR/><BR/>http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/killer_ape-peak_oil<BR/>http://dematerialism.net/onjayhanson.htm<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Dr. N. Sai Bhaskar Reddywww.ecological-society.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03277606873549006844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7193000495744135887.post-251194445149299192009-01-27T06:24:00.001-08:002009-01-27T06:24:00.001-08:00Barbara, We need to look at 2 aspects for renewabl...Barbara,<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>We need to look at 2 aspects for renewable energy:<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>1. Are we already spending the energy and correspondingly have already emitted the greenhouse gases when making the corresponding equipment for renewable energy conversion aka windmills / solar panels and<BR/><BR/>2. Whether the conversion of higher entropy energy (less usable directly – like wind) to lower entropy energy (more usable – like electricity) is viable if we account for end to end energy (and not costs in terms of money) and all the losses we incur in energy conversion? This point is interesting and must be debated – even while availability of energy at remote places through renewable means can be separate social discussion. <BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/><BR/><BR/>Ajaywww.ecological-society.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03277606873549006844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7193000495744135887.post-45675199283448587932009-01-27T06:24:00.000-08:002009-01-27T06:24:00.000-08:00My own apologies for a late comment. In comparing...My own apologies for a late comment. In comparing renewable energies versus fossil fuels, the absolute amount of energy used to produce the energy we need is one issue, which all the comments have addressed. I have no strong opinions as I do not know the figures when the life cycle energy balance of renewable v fossil fuel energy is compared. Not only will different renewables have different net benefits/costs, but different fossil fuels will also have different costs and benefits. Oil produced from shale or tar sands, for example, is extremely energy intensive in its production.<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>However, perhaps the more important consideration is the net production of green house gases from renewables versus fossil fuels on a life cycle accounting. Arguably, the renewables are producing much less greenhouse gas over their lifetimes than fossil fuels. This could be what makes the critical difference, especially if the more radical scientists are right and that in the next 100 years we face the risk of accelerated warming and climate shocks due to feedback effects in the climate system. If they are right, then the risks of continuing the use of fossil fuels are so enormous that we will soon be facing the equivalent of a wartime economy to reduce consumption and shift to low CO2 sources of fuel.<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>Barbarawww.ecological-society.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03277606873549006844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7193000495744135887.post-31956577839914207262009-01-27T06:23:00.000-08:002009-01-27T06:23:00.000-08:00Hi,Not really related, but here’s the link to the ...Hi,<BR/><BR/>Not really related, but here’s the link to the Ministry of Non-Conventional and Renewable Energy’s newsletter.<BR/><BR/>http://mnes.nic.in/akshayurja/contents.htm<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>Does Girish’s paper take into account the energy generated from non-conventional over their entire lifetime, and is this less than the energy needed to make them. Just another riddle. Is there any way to calculate the energy balance implicit in windmills, dams, thermal power plants, nuclear power plants, tidal power plants, solar power, oil, natural gas, wood, paper, straw/farm residue….<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>We need to conserve. One way is to use less. Another is to produce and use at the same place. I don’t think anybody is ready to give up our energy-intensive lifestyles but we do need to rationalize them – be sensible, use muscle power when possible, to open doors for example. Or to walk to shops. First we consume energy to become fat, then we consume energy in gyms to become thin!<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/><BR/>Nitya Jacobwww.ecological-society.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03277606873549006844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7193000495744135887.post-2393193854505536992009-01-27T06:22:00.000-08:002009-01-27T06:22:00.000-08:00Could not resist placing before the group this sol...Could not resist placing before the group this solar energy use plan based on what a roof receives<BR/><BR/> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FSuWorTInw&feature=channel_page<BR/><BR/>This saves embodied energy in water by harvesting rainwater at roof level<BR/>use solar energy for lighting,cooking and water heating<BR/>Saves energy required for waste water treatment<BR/>use solar energy to grow food<BR/><BR/>My idea of energy management which is decentralised<BR/>regards<BR/>Vishwanathwww.ecological-society.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03277606873549006844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7193000495744135887.post-19691586864208577492009-01-27T06:20:00.000-08:002009-01-27T06:20:00.000-08:00Hi Mrinal,Anthropogenic use of energy has always b...Hi Mrinal,<BR/><BR/>Anthropogenic use of energy has always been over and above the expenditure of energy in stabilizing the energy systems of the universe, for instance lightning causing fire, fire destroying vegetation, energy expended to regenerate vegetation and so on. There is the law which says that whenever there is a change in the state or form of matter or energy, there is a loss, therefore the source that undergoes the least change would be the most efficient. However, anthropogenic use of energy in today's world, which has acquired complex dimensions can only, be met thru modification or harnessing of energy sources which require equipment to do so. Therefore, there will always be a cost attached to the anthropogenic use of energy in both ecological as well as energy terms. There is no getting away from it. <BR/><BR/>The only options therefore available are perhaps: <BR/><BR/>Reduce energy needs. <BR/><BR/>Design and manufacture the most energy and ecologically efficient systems for production of energy.<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/><BR/>There will be many parameters to evaluate the energy and ecological efficiency of systems and for each of the systems a life cycle analysis from cradle to grave would need to be done to identify the most efficient system vis a vis the form, quality and the quantum of energy required by humans for their needs. We may always have to be prepared for the fact that the most efficient systems may not meet the parameters of human needs. But any system that reduces the ecological and energy burden which would perhaps be the measure of the cost of production would then be in the interests of mankind and his environment and as such alternative systems of energy need to be explored for future use. <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Just for information and referring to Jyoti’s mail, the thumb rule requirements of solar power for electricity is 1W of solar panel for 5W of electrical power for 1 hour, 1W of electrical power would light up 10 sq. ft. of area using LED lights which would cost Rs. 250/- per watt of which Rs. 165/- would be the cost of the solar panel.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>For solar heating 1 sq. ft. of solar panel is required to heat 4 gallons of water and costs roughly Rs. 115-125 per 1 liter of water. <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>This information was collected at the Renewable Energy India 2008 Expo, Pragati Maidan, New Delhi held in August 2008. <BR/><BR/>Best regards,<BR/><BR/>Jayeshwww.ecological-society.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03277606873549006844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7193000495744135887.post-80082787861787580532009-01-27T06:14:00.000-08:002009-01-27T06:14:00.000-08:00Dear Mrinal & Girish,Sorry for the delay in re...Dear Mrinal & Girish,<BR/><BR/>Sorry for the delay in reply. <BR/><BR/>A lot of replies have also come in, but i am writing my comments without having gone thru them, sorry again if there would be an overlap. Intend to go thru these replies also during the weekend considering the holiday series. Will surely add on if required later.<BR/><BR/>Good content to go thru (both the files - the technical & the simplified versions). My comments are as under - <BR/><BR/>1. Is it possible to quantify how much energy does it take to create a wind mill or a hydro-power station etc.(as comparative statement)? Then, how much energy would it reallly produce in its life time (average life being considered). Third - what would be the per capita electricity consumption in rural, semi-urban & urban areas. These 3 figures will help in establishing the co-relation between existing parameters.<BR/><BR/>2. Secondly, i would take a different stand while i 'recommend' or 'stay away' from any technology of producing energy. As per my views, instead of generalising, i would perhaps think of selective utilisation of technologies in relevant geographical locations. Let me simplify - today you are generating electricity about a 500 km place away, then feeding in a grid, (bearing T & D losses which may be as high as lets 30% or 40% in some cases also, though i hope these figures should be to the tune of 20% considering the seperation of companies as - generation, transmission & distribution - so, ideally, accounting by now should be much better) & then using it at a remote location. In such cases, while you generate 100 units, at a larger scenario, your net usage might be ablut 60 - 70. So, all farther locations with relatively lower energy requirements can ideally be made self-sustaining by making them depend upon any of the non-conventional sources depending upon their geographical characteristics. Anyways, today, rural India bears a large electricity cuts. So, why not make them independant? (Generation & Consumption - at the source)<BR/><BR/>3. I would say this because nothing is so positive or negative in use - there are always 2 sides of the coin. It would be on our skill how to use what & in what % to reach our goals & also be sustainable. Thats a matter of planning & policy formulation. Applying a same formula all over might be easy, but not the best choice. <BR/><BR/>4. Of course, all this should be done while we are also reducing our wants parallely, use what is minimum required (necessity v/s luxury).<BR/><BR/>In case you need any clarifications on the above stated thoughts, please do let me know.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>Pavaman Jainapurwww.ecological-society.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03277606873549006844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7193000495744135887.post-28184713133650540902009-01-27T06:12:00.000-08:002009-01-27T06:12:00.000-08:00Mrunal & Girish, Some quick comments after I h...Mrunal & Girish,<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>Some quick comments after I have gone through both the papers:<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>1. There are certain oversimplifications in the way it is presented. <BR/><BR/>2. We should have certain suggestions over and above the message of reduced consumption – which is perfect anyway.<BR/><BR/>3. Would human powered machines be better?<BR/><BR/>4. If we can develop a quick list of available forms of energy and what application is can be put to use – that might be very useful. E.g – drying clothes using sun is a right application of solar energy and not really using a dryer or for that matter trying to generate electricity! Using wind energy for pumping water might be OK – but not so much for generating electricity. Etc…<BR/><BR/>5. How can we harness the power of plants and trees – which are also a sure source of energy for all of us through food and wood as well.<BR/><BR/>6. While I have understood the very basic argument, it will become clear only through debate.<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>Having said that, if we can develop a handbook of appropriate energy use and try to put that across, even while we start discussing this subject, it might go a long way…<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>These are just my perspectives….<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/><BR/><BR/>Ajaywww.ecological-society.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03277606873549006844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7193000495744135887.post-80069222992620010762009-01-27T06:11:00.000-08:002009-01-27T06:11:00.000-08:00Dear All, Thank you very much for your response!! ...Dear All,<BR/> <BR/>Thank you very much for your response!!<BR/> <BR/>We, Myself and Girish Abhyankar, are trying to write a consolidated reply to all the mails in couple of days. I am sure some people are still reading the articles and we will keep getting responses. But we will send our first cut for the mails we have received so far. <BR/> <BR/>We are happy that the dialogue is started. The argument will now find its way through further debate and discussions. Those who are based in Pune- we can meet sometime for one to one discussion. That helps a lot in clarifying the doubts. For others, we will keep interacting on emails and will try and respond to all the queries. <BR/> <BR/>Our ultimate interest is in defining appropriate action, and this debate will lead us to think on correct lines. As I Krishnamurty said, there are no immediate solutions to immediate problems! But knowing our predicament is perfectly is not a bad start. <BR/> <BR/>Thank you<BR/> <BR/>Mrinalinee and Girishwww.ecological-society.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03277606873549006844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7193000495744135887.post-9529915128463052712009-01-27T06:10:00.000-08:002009-01-27T06:10:00.000-08:00Dear Mrinalinee, Thank you ...Dear Mrinalinee,<BR/> Thank you for including me-I am not at all knowledgeable in these things but did enjoy the discussions very much.I do realise that tapping wind and solar energy may lead to more questions of waste and recycling. And may not be the best use of resources. I do also agree that less consumption is a much better way to go <BR/>The point I would like to make is this:<BR/> <BR/> Wind and solar energy can bring power to places which do not have electricity-like in the villages in Panvel where TCS Maitree volunteers are working. <BR/> <BR/>Methane,natural Gas are also making life much easier for many villagers.<BR/> <BR/>Is there an alternate way to do this(alternately!),please?<BR/>Cost of keeping so many people beyond the reach of alternate power should also be a consideration in all this argument.<BR/> <BR/>Coming to the articles- yours is much simpler and easier to understand. The other article is more technical but interesting would need more effort for lay people. But reading both of them one after the other made a lot of sense!! From the simple to the complex...<BR/>Thank you <BR/>Warm Regards<BR/><BR/>Mala Ramadoraiwww.ecological-society.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03277606873549006844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7193000495744135887.post-12244627700958049342009-01-27T06:07:00.000-08:002009-01-27T06:07:00.000-08:00Hi,may i try to understand your position in bits? ...Hi,<BR/>may i try to understand your position in bits? through small steps?<BR/>Could you explain, why do you say energy harnessed from the wind will be always less than that required to construct the wind mills? <BR/>Unlike nuclear fuel ,only small part of wind energy can be converted into high grade (mechanical or electrical) energy . Agreed. But here we are talking about efficiency And when we talk about the total energy required to create wind energy converters there is no need to bring in efficiency.Just because a source such as wind has low grade energy (due to high entropy) it does not mean that the total quantity of high grade energy it will yield will be less than that required for constructing (manufacturing and installing) the wind mill.<BR/>May be i have not grasped your point and missing something obvious...<BR/>pardon me if i happen to respond late to your response to this.<BR/>thanks and look forward to your response,<BR/>milindwww.ecological-society.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03277606873549006844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7193000495744135887.post-31004449572193332862009-01-27T06:04:00.000-08:002009-01-27T06:04:00.000-08:00Dear Mrinalinee and Girish,Nice to see a technical...Dear Mrinalinee and Girish,<BR/>Nice to see a technical write-up as well as an abstract for lay-man written by both of you. After seeing the responce and the list of people in Cc,I couldn't help myself from writing my comments.<BR/>First of all, let me agree that the best way to tackle the Energy issue (and for that matter to tackle environmental, mental, physical (obesity!) and monetory issues) is to REDUCE CONSUMPTION and DECREASE NEEDS.<BR/>Having said that, I have a confronting view on the logic of using Entropy to prove that the altenative energy resources being considered today and not of practicle use. Please see the attachment for my comments.<BR/>I would like to confront with Jyoti too, rather her views on Technology. I think Technology development is a never ending process. Like Jyoti pointed out, one technogoly solves a problem but creates 10 new. My point is, the same sword of Knowledge and Technology can be used to tackle those 10 new problems. However, the best way is to reduce consumption to a minimum so that the number of requirements and problems would be reduced to Nil .... but that is a hypothetical situation. So we would need Technology and Knowledge base to live together as a Society. Judicious use of technology reaps lot of benefits in terms of health, safety, longivity and conmfirt. Also, Jyoti's questioning of Ecological films is also out of place, the amount of environmental damage done by a good thought provoking film is far too less for the awarness it brings.<BR/>Winding up for now. Due to large number of mail addresses, I doubt whether this mail would reach to all in the Cc list.<BR/>Regards,<BR/><BR/>Yogesh Borolewww.ecological-society.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03277606873549006844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7193000495744135887.post-17724235422881399722009-01-27T06:02:00.000-08:002009-01-27T06:02:00.000-08:00Mrinal,The subject of embodied energy has been wel...Mrinal,<BR/>The subject of embodied energy has been well studied - starting with the systems ecologist Howard T. Odum. Google his name and you will find lots of material and many applications from him the extensive hierarchy of students that have emerged from his teachings.<BR/>There has been a lot of discussion on the blogs recently on net energy analysis. You probably can find a number of links to it at www.eroiinstitute.org especially from Charles Hall.<BR/>Not easy to apply, but the system itself is not simple. Pretty cool stuff... this emergy!<BR/>Hope that helps.<BR/><BR/>Nitin Panditwww.ecological-society.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03277606873549006844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7193000495744135887.post-28083541743565009162009-01-27T06:01:00.000-08:002009-01-27T06:01:00.000-08:00MrinalineeThank you for raising a nice question bu...Mrinalinee<BR/>Thank you for raising a nice question but is there numbers somewhere, with a methodology, to suggest what is the embodied energy in each of these cases and the likely energy savings achieved.<BR/>For example can we start with a solar box cooker? What is the embodied energy in producing one and how much of an energy does it make/ save in its lifetime.?<BR/>Same thing with a solar panel.<BR/><BR/>One other point, seems to me that solar energy incident on the earth on a daily basis seems to be the only additional energy available to us on earth. The rest add significant negative dividend in terms of loss and entropy. Is that right?<BR/>In which case the entitlement of energy for the earth as a whole which is sustainable , is the energy available from the sun ( which also includes the tides that are created nd the winds that flow) . Is that right?<BR/><BR/>Sometimes the basics are the most problematic for a simpleton like me .<BR/><BR/>Finally I like both the papers , since the job of a paper is not to be God's truth but to start discussion and improve understanding of our world. One paper targets a more scientifically erudite audience and another a more simpler audience.<BR/><BR/>regards<BR/>Vishwanathwww.ecological-society.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03277606873549006844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7193000495744135887.post-48734970493210212142009-01-27T05:57:00.000-08:002009-01-27T05:57:00.000-08:00the author clearly doesn't understand entropy and ...the author clearly doesn't understand entropy and the second law of thermodynamics..<BR/>aburd to say that high entropy energy cannot be converted into low entropy energy - it is being done all the time. Human beings themselves are low entropy systems.<BR/><BR/>what the second law says is that the total entropy of the universe will increase because of windmills etc - fair enough. but who cares? are we trying to reverse the second law or something? it is even true that the total 'energy' available in the world will decrease because of windmills etc. but again why should we care? Re we trying to prevent the sun from burning out?<BR/>ashokwww.ecological-society.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03277606873549006844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7193000495744135887.post-1914057986113795012009-01-27T05:54:00.000-08:002009-01-27T05:54:00.000-08:00Hi, again I notice that Jyoti Patil sent his repl...Hi, again <BR/> <BR/>I notice that Jyoti Patil sent his reply to your entire distribution list. Should I also do that? <BR/> <BR/>Also, in addition to what I sent you I have a few further comments. But I won't do anything until I hear back from you.<BR/> <BR/>I think that is is an extremely important and interesting discussion. Whether we all agree is not important. It is part of the ideal of academic freedom that we learn from free discussion. The important thing is that the discussion take place and that we learn from one another.<BR/> <BR/><BR/> <BR/>Yeruhamwww.ecological-society.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03277606873549006844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7193000495744135887.post-67766666133963872632009-01-27T05:52:00.000-08:002009-01-27T05:52:00.000-08:00Hi Mrinalinee, I read the articles you had sent ye...Hi Mrinalinee, <BR/><BR/>I read the articles you had sent yesterday and its indeed a coincidence that I was actually thinking on the similar lines, though at a most elementary level, i.e what does it take to produce the non conventional energy sources and can the technology used to produce these alternate sources of energy ever be eco friendly.? What about the waste that is generated through these sources? Is that waste bio degradable waste and if not have we thought of how to manage that waste? While in Ladakh I could see the redundant solar panels contributing to the non degradable waste. That is one region where solar energy has been highly promoted and in a way become alternate source of energy in the true sense. In Sangli , some time back a farmer mentioned that land required to lay the solar panels to generate power to run simple water pump, to be around one acre( I don’t know if that is so) and then the rational behavior still would be to put the land under cultivation than use it for laying the solar panels. The other day my sister was boiling water using houshold trash for fire. When I questioned her about the pollution she is generating she asked me back " and what about the pollution created to extract and transport the LPG? Point! <BR/><BR/>I feel both the articles are questioning the liberal and neo liberal arguments that markets will do the efficient allocation of resources and that the technology will diffuse the limits to growth. The proponents of alternative energy sources belong to the school that technology is answer to all the environmental issues. So this school would never question the side effects of the technology. Till date no technology has ever been full proof. While it has given solution to one problem it has created ten other problems that need some other technological solution and thus proliferates the chain of so called researchers, designers and demi scientists who bring in a car that runs on battery but do not tell us how that battery is produced and if all that gets into the battery is eco friendly. So I feel to understand the concept of entropy is important. <BR/><BR/>You have quoted the example of butter milk to explain the concept of entropy. I would like to take it a little further and question the rational behind the production of so called environmental films we have been making. Every NGO feels it important to make a film today. However no one is ready to question the environmental cost of making even a small film of five to ten minutes. Majority of the people don’t even get to see these films and they only remain well stacked in a shelf some organization. The budgets of some of the documentaries, the ones shot on simple video cameras is also quoted to be nothing less then five lakhs. However there are handful of films that have generated the required impact that such a film should create. Has there been any environmental movement instigated by a film? And we still call the medium to be powerful! I think in the name of technology we are only creating sophisticated clutter and are actually wasting our energy generating waste and then again on how to degenerate that waste. <BR/><BR/>After reading both the articles I feel that none of the articles have defined the message. I need to know why should I know the concept of entropy and where do you want to take me after understanding what entropy is. You have raised an important issue and the same needs to be debated however your article needs to be a bit more articulate. While the first article is heavy on jargon ( I guess its an academic paper and not meant for the lay person), your article bends towards over simplification and you wish to make the lay person understand the debate. Let us know what you are questioning through the concept of entropy and the direction of thought that we as readers with your help should be taking. <BR/><BR/>I wonder if I have understood the concern and the issue correctly or have drifted away from what you and Girish Abhyankar have to say. <BR/><BR/>Cheers <BR/>Jyotiwww.ecological-society.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03277606873549006844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7193000495744135887.post-63116189204637225012009-01-27T05:49:00.000-08:002009-01-27T05:49:00.000-08:00Thanks for the articles. In the first place, I at...Thanks for the articles. In the first place, I attended a workshop in 1974 at Goddard College in Vermont, USA, on organic agriculture, alternative energy and eco-friendly anarchism. One of the lecturers made approximately the same point which I think you are making.<BR/> <BR/>I am not convinced, however, that the energy input in manufacturing alternative technology will always be greater than the input. <BR/> <BR/>If monetary cost and savings can be used as a measure of energy input and output, then I think there are some strong arguments against your thesis. Here in Israel solar water heaters are very popular because the cost of the solar collecting panels, the tank, the pipes and the installation is covered within a year or two by the reduced cost of electricity. If you have a solar water heater, then you will use electricity for heating water only when the days are very cloudy. And that is not very often in Israel, even in winter. And then after you have paid for the solar water heater you can use it for years with no added cost (if it is high quality). <BR/> <BR/>I know that windmills both for electricity production and for direct operation of water pumps are very popular in the US plain states where they have very high winds. I don't think farmers would use them if they were not economical.<BR/> <BR/>For many years I had a bicycle light powered by a dynamo which was turned by my front wheel. I could use the same dynamo-light set for many years, only having to replace the light bulb. Now it is hard to get them and I have to use a battery lamp and either change or recharge the batteries. I cannot believe that the dynamo set takes more energy input in production than it puts out. They really do last for years and years.<BR/> <BR/>Maybe the scale of things is important. Maybe, but I am not sure even of this, a city-scale methane plant is energy inefficient. But can this really be said of the small, family scale methane plants which you and I have discussed and which I remember the State of Maharashtra was subsidizing?<BR/> <BR/>As for city-scale plants, I have heard that they are used on a large scale in Sweden and that Volvo cars even run on their methane there. It might be possible to verify the energy input-output question on this by checking with the Swedish government.<BR/> <BR/>As for hydro-electric power, maybe the input is greater than the output for huge dam projects. But in Scotland in the 1960s I saw very small hydroelectric systems run by small streams. I wonder if their input is really greater than their output.,<BR/> <BR/>Besides scale two further considerations, location and durability, should be discussed. Solar power is very popular and I think very energy efficient in Israel where we have a great deal of sunshine. This might not be so in every part of the world, certainly -- to take another extreme -- not in Britain. <BR/> <BR/>As for durability, if your device, whether it be a windmill, a solar hot water heater, or whatever, is very well made so that it will last for many years, then there will be more of a chance for output to catch up with and to pass input. <BR/> <BR/>In short, I think that the matter is much more complex than you and Girish present it. <BR/><BR/> <BR/>--Yeruhamwww.ecological-society.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03277606873549006844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7193000495744135887.post-14377329860166172532009-01-24T22:22:00.000-08:002009-01-24T22:22:00.000-08:00Hi, I need your feedback on the article. This arti...Hi,<BR/> <BR/>I need your feedback on the article. This article is about energy and I found this view radically different than the current trends in renewable energy. The article is based on main article 'Evaluation of Energy Sources'by Girish Abhyankar, a Pune based thinker, researcher and practitioner. People find the main article too technical sometimes and hence I have tried to made it bit easy in my article. <BR/> <BR/>Your feedback will be of great help in finding out what to do next and how to propagate this thought. <BR/> <BR/>Hoping to hear from you,<BR/> <BR/>Mrinalinee Vanarasewww.ecological-society.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03277606873549006844noreply@blogger.com