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

PamW

(1,825 posts)
11. Lack of understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics...
Sat Nov 30, 2013, 02:33 PM
Nov 2013

Once again, kristopher demonstrates his lack of understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics with the above "apples and oranges" comparison.

Scientists who DO understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics realize that when we discuss energy; we have to divide energy into two different types of energy as the 2nd Law says different things about the two types.

The first type is called "work" - work is "high quality energy" and is characterized by being free of entropy. Rotational / Translational motion and electric energy are examples of "work".

The second type is "heat" - heat is "low quality energy" and is characterized by the fact that it DOES contain entropy.

The 2nd Law forces us to consider these two types of energy separately and not conflate them as kristopher has done in the above "apples and oranges" comparison.

If we examine the summary chart from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; electrical energy which is work comprises 38.1 units of energy.

Nuclear power is ONLY used to provide electric power or work and as a percentage of the total electric energy nuclear provides ( as per the LLNL chart ):

Nuclear power % = 8.05 / 38.1 = 21.13%

So contrary to kristopher's ill-informed contention above; nuclear is over 21% of the type of energy that we use nuclear energy to produce. Additionally, there is no reason why nuclear can not be a larger percentage. After all, France is over 80% nuclear power. We just need to build more nuclear plants.

Let's look at kristopher's favorite energy forms wind and solar as how they relate to producing electric energy. In order to do an "apples to apples" comparison, and not the "apples to oranges" that kristopher did; we shall consider only the part of solar and wind that go into providing high quality "work" or electric power.

As per the LLNL chart; solar gives us 0.0408 units of energy for electric power.

As per the LLNL chart: wind gives us 1.36 units of energy for electric power.

So the sum of wind and solar for electric energy gives us 1.40 units or 3.68% of our electric power.

So far from being "trivial", nuclear which is only used to provide high quality "work" in the form of electric energy provides nearly 5.74 TIMES as much high quality work or electric energy as do renewables.

Because he doesn't understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics; kristopher failed to take into account the difference in energy QUALITY.

It would be like comparing two sources of metal; source A and source B.

Source A gives you 6 times as much metal by weight as does Source B. So Source A is more valuable? Right?

Not necessarily.

Suppose the metal you get from Source A is Iron.

Suppose the metal you get from Source B is Gold and Platinum.

The fact that you only get 1/6-th the mass of metal is OVERWHELMED by the fact that Source B's metal is valuable Gold and Platinum.

It's an "apples and oranges" comparison to compare "Iron" on one hand to "Gold and Platinum" on the other.

That's the ERROR that kristopher essentially makes in FAILING to account for the difference in energy quality dictated by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics; that he can't comprehend.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

Recommendations

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

Yes, the EIA publish data on expected energy future use AND all sources of energy. happyslug Nov 2013 #1
That tells you nothing of the sort kristopher Nov 2013 #2
Lack of understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics... PamW Nov 2013 #11
Nope kristopher Nov 2013 #13
100% WRONG AGAIN as always!! PamW Nov 2013 #15
This message was self-deleted by its author kristopher Nov 2013 #22
It was EXACTLY the level of journalistic quality that I would have expected from "The Nation". caraher Nov 2013 #3
I don't have a favorite political publication PamW Nov 2013 #7
Well, I think we all get that The Nation is not a technical journal caraher Nov 2013 #17
It's STILL an ERROR PamW Nov 2013 #18
Kerry didn't lie, in fact he was validated by MIT a decade later bananas Nov 2013 #4
More typical anti-nuke "logic" PamW Nov 2013 #8
There are four primary problem area with nuclear technology (not counting social and systems issues) kristopher Nov 2013 #9
We can address those... PamW Nov 2013 #20
"The MIT study chooses "once through" over closed due to cost." - Nope. kristopher Nov 2013 #21
100% WRONG!! PamW Dec 2013 #25
You're morphing your previous failure into yet another failed argument kristopher Dec 2013 #27
100% WRONG as ALWAYS!! PamW Dec 2013 #29
MIT study on Proliferation Resistant Fast Reactor PamW Dec 2013 #30
I'm sure NNSA and MIT didn't have that data. kristopher Dec 2013 #31
I'm SURE NNSA and MIT had that data PamW Dec 2013 #32
The conclusions of both MIT and NNSA refute your claims. kristopher Dec 2013 #33
NOT AT ALL PamW Dec 2013 #34
You've been completely and absolutely refuted kristopher Dec 2013 #35
Non-scientist kristopher is 100% WRONG AGAIN PamW Dec 2013 #36
A "Proliferation Resistant" Reactor is like a "Water Resistant" Watch bananas Dec 2013 #39
OH REALLY????? PamW Dec 2013 #40
PamW wrote: "Iran is seeking NOT a plutonium bomb, but a uranium bomb." bananas Nov 2013 #5
Do you doubt it? PamW Nov 2013 #10
What about the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)? kristopher Nov 2013 #14
You are arguing with the SCIENTISTS!!! PamW Nov 2013 #16
No, I'm quoting the scientists kristopher Nov 2013 #19
WRONG!!! PamW Nov 2013 #23
No, it isn't wrong. kristopher Nov 2013 #24
100% WRONG as ALWAYS!! PamW Dec 2013 #28
DOE: "Virtually any combination of plutonium isotopes...can be used to make a nuclear weapon." bananas Nov 2013 #6
Actualy; the above is NOT true. PamW Nov 2013 #12
No, PamW; Richard Garwin, John Holdren, and President Obama all know you're wrong. bananas Dec 2013 #37
Its a fools errand madokie Dec 2013 #38
BALONEY!!! PamW Dec 2013 #41
No, Pamw, you're wrong again. bananas Dec 2013 #42
Sorry... once again, you've cited something that you simply don't understand. FBaggins Dec 2013 #43
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!! PamW Dec 2013 #44
Sorry... once again, you've corrected someone when it's you that's wrong kristopher Dec 2013 #46
100% WRONG!! AGAIN!! PamW Dec 2013 #48
I can read and Selden's language is unambiguous kristopher Dec 2013 #49
WRONG AGAIN!! PamW Dec 2013 #50
Ah... but not if you read without understanding. FBaggins Dec 2013 #56
CORRECT!!! PamW Dec 2013 #62
bananas and kristopher certainly win on source credibility here caraher Dec 2013 #51
NOPE!! They do NOT!! PamW Dec 2013 #52
Well, it seems you are a liar, traitor or a fool - your choice caraher Dec 2013 #53
NOPE!!! PamW Dec 2013 #55
Nope. FBaggins Dec 2013 #54
EXCELLENT!!! PamW Dec 2013 #58
"If you have any type of plutonium in sufficient quantities you can make a bomb." Selden 2009 kristopher Dec 2013 #59
An we've both explained to you what that means. FBaggins Dec 2013 #60
A clear example of how he was being SLOPPY!!! PamW Dec 2013 #61
More citations on the point of plutonium for weapons kristopher Dec 2013 #63
Non-scientist kristopher MISSES the implicit assumption PamW Dec 2013 #64
"what comes out of an Integral Fast Reactor" kristopher Dec 2013 #65
Yes - I know Harold... PamW Dec 2013 #66
And that brings us full circle kristopher Dec 2013 #67
100% WRONG!! AGAIN!! PamW Dec 2013 #68
Oh look - George Stanford says it TWICE in that interview! bananas Dec 2013 #69
bananas LITANY of ERRORS!! PamW Dec 2013 #70
Evidently bananas does NOT understand... PamW Dec 2013 #71
What's happened to HONESTY!!! PamW Dec 2013 #45
Yes, what happened to honesty? kristopher Dec 2013 #47
Pam - don't worry about him FreakinDJ Dec 2013 #57
The movie was such a blatant farce, I dont know who would waste the energy attacking or defending it NoOneMan Dec 2013 #26
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»ERRORS in rebuttal to &qu...»Reply #11