Re: Earth thermodynamics

[brian whatcott <inet@intellisys.net>]

At 14:56 6/11/97 PST, Tom Wayburn wrote:
> ... we have no proven sustainable
> alternative energy technology, i.e., a technology that has a
> non-negative availability efficiency when indirect availability costs
> are counted,
> we are not doing the research to find out just how
> desperate our situation is as the petroleum era draws to a close 
....
> Tom

> P.S.  Help!!!!
Despite goodwill on my part, I have found it difficult to tell
what sort of help would prove useful to you.
 There is a suspicion that your text is at a level that is relatively
inaccessible to me at least - and if so, to whom could it be directed?

 Your concern appears to be identical to that of the group of people called
the "Club Of Rome", some of whom wrote a popular account of the future for
energy consumption on Earth in the next century or two.
 This was called "The Limits to Growth"     Meadows, Meadows, Randers,
Behrens , Pan Books 1972

Their predictions though dire were not based on a strictly
mathematical-physics approach. Rather, they used a world model, which was
inevitably full of estimated fitting parameters, and with dynamic linkages
which were not justified in a rigorous way.

  In this connection, it has been noted within the last year or two that
world weather models have run into trouble with the energy balance
calculations they adopted; in particular, the effective albedo of the
Earth's cloud cover, and the flux of heat energy due to clouds.

 You noted that some texts which were relevant to your task were too
formidable for the small contribution required from this topic.
  A text in this category which came to mind was Chandrasekhar's
classic monograph "Stellar Structure" (1937)
 In the first few chapters, he treats thermodynamics strictly at
the level of detail which you seem to need, though he makes no mention
of Prigogine.

As to the transfer of solar energy to the biosphere, it seems to me that
whereas a thermodynamic efficiency of (3000 - 3)/3000  x 100% could be
approached for some direct conversion method - the heat gain at 300 K
represents a thermodynamic efficiency of less than (300 - 270)/300 
x 100% for the thermal range available in an average diurnal cycle.

As to the solar constant, I have no difficulty with the dictionary
definition of
"The flux of solar energy passing normally through unit area at the earth's
mean orbital distance."

I only wish I could have provided something of more direct help.

Regards
brian whatcott <inet@intellisys.net>
Altus OK