Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

Think. Again.

(22,456 posts)

1. That's a good point...

Reply to honest.abe (Original post)

Fri Jul 7, 2023, 03:00 PM

Jul 2023

...we should start considering ALL of the peripheral effects of any of our energy uses, like that disregarded waste heat, and of all our energy generation too.

Since we're just beginning the transition from fossil fuels to...everything else, now seems like the time to re-frame the way we think about all of this stuff.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

29 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

When evaluating fossil fuels shouldn't we also consider the direct heating effect of using the fuel? [View all] honest.abe Jul 2023 OP

That's a good point... Think. Again. Jul 2023 #1

another reason to markie Jul 2023 #2

Yes. Good idea! calimary Jul 2023 #3

SHOULD be PART of the evaluation. elleng Jul 2023 #4

Should not be. It's miniscule, lost in the noise. 8320 global warming vs 44.4 heat Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2023 #20

Urban Heat Implications from Parking, Roads, and Cars: a Case Study of Metro Phoenix mahatmakanejeeves Jul 2023 #5

Parking lots do not combust fossil fuels. They do collect energy, so they should all be white. . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2023 #7

Better yet... Think. Again. Jul 2023 #23

Yes. You made me think again. . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2023 #24

Some interesting information in the introduction. honest.abe Jul 2023 #13

No need. The level of heating is insignificant compared to CO2, because CO2 operates for decades Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2023 #6

Yeah but direct heat doesn't go away either. honest.abe Jul 2023 #9

Sure. But you are comparing a one-time energy release to decades of heating by trapping solar Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2023 #21

Insignificant compared with the suns heat Blues Heron Jul 2023 #8

Yes, that's the question I was asking. honest.abe Jul 2023 #10

think how hot your garage got from that engine vs how hot the sahara desert gets Blues Heron Jul 2023 #11

I was looking for a more quantitative answer. honest.abe Jul 2023 #12

OK - world energy demand is about 624 exajoules/year, the sun gives us 3,850,000 exajoules/year Blues Heron Jul 2023 #14

Would you mind providing a link to support your numbers? honest.abe Jul 2023 #15

no prob Blues Heron Jul 2023 #16

Thank you. honest.abe Jul 2023 #17

directly caused by our added CO2 above pre industrial levels? or total CO2 Blues Heron Jul 2023 #18

Numbers do exist. See my post #20. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2023 #22

there are numbers for that - the total energy demand per year vs the radiative forcing of CO2 Blues Heron Jul 2023 #25

Thanks. I will take a look later. honest.abe Jul 2023 #26

radiative forcing of 1.8 W/M due to our added CO2 is like space heaters 72 feet apart Blues Heron Jul 2023 #27

That's intense! honest.abe Jul 2023 #29

World energy consumption in 2021 was 167,781 terawatt-hours muriel_volestrangler Jul 2023 #19

You know what? NNadir Jul 2023 #28