3 ms·
Energy doesn't come from nowhere. It comes either from the sun, from nuclear fuel, or from fossil fuels being burned. If it's not one of those three, we have a
by joebiden2 3y ago
Energy doesn't come from nowhere. It comes either from the sun, from nuclear fuel, or from fossil fuels being burned. If it's not one of those three, we have a nobel prize winner.
So, it probably comes from the sun¹. The sun didn't change its output much according to relevant science in the last few years, solar cycles notwithstanding. So, it must be related to the amount of energy not being reflected into space.
Which is where greenhouse gases come into play. The earth reflects a certain amount of energy it receives back into the vastness of space. The ratio of how much it reflects is affected by greenhouse gases.
Now, there are a lot of greenhouse gases. CO² is one of the least potent of all, but its sheer volume in the atmosphere - being increased by human emissions - makes it the most relevant actor here: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases
So, we're keeping more solar energy within earth's atmosphere. We can use that energy as solar energy, or as wind energy, or whatever we like, but as long as it is solar energy, the energy budget within earth's atmosphere won't change. We either have to reflect it back to space, or we'll suffer the same consequences as not using it as renewable energy².
That's it. This is just a collection of facts which are really obvious, but from my experience few people really consider in their threat model. I think not one fact I just posted is false, but I would really welcome to be educated where I am wrong.
¹ Energy generated on earth compared to energy received from the sun is almost negligible: the energy generated on Earth is roughly 0.0000000000054% of the energy received from the Sun (3.8 x 10^26 watts, compared to a ballpark around 10^15 watts of fossil + nuclear fuels combined).
² This is probably obvious, but by reducing greenhouse gases in absolute terms, we reduce the albedo of earth, which in turn means reflecting more energy into space. Right now, we're just focusing on reducing the 2nd derivative of greenhouse gas emissions. In 2023, we do nothing at all in terms of actively increasing the albedo, that is, reflecting energy back into space.
- tuatoru 3y agoRe footnote 2: Good effort, but it's not reflection (albedo). Greenhouse gases are all about the part of solar radiation that isn't immediately reflected. Most incident sunlight is absorbed (either in the lower atmosphere or on the surface). At the same time long wave infrared radiation (heat) is emitted, proportional to the temperature of the surfaces. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere slow down the rate at which that heat escapes to space.
- joebiden2 3y agoThis is one definition of albedo¹, a more sophisticated one is here² ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo ² https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1918770116 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1918770116 Please think about the effects to understand albedo. It can be perceived as a complex topic, but in reality, it isn't. Good night
- 1970-01-01 3y ago>Energy doesn't come from nowhere. It comes either from the sun, from nuclear fuel, or from fossil fuels being burned. If it's not one of those three, we have a nobel prize winner. You hooked me with the Nobel Prize line. Where do I pick it up? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_internal_heat_budget#Primordial_heat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_internal_heat_budget...
- joebiden2 3y agoThis is negligible compared to all other energy sources. Sorry for that :)