AG: Energy RETURN EQUALS work (as defined by physics) MINUS WASTE HEAT)
Wrong again. :emthdown:
Waste Heat is what it says it is - waste, it doesn't do work by definition.
Instead of wasting electrons on this load of crap, you should learn some Physics first.
I apologize for the confusing statement about waste heat. I was trying to say ENERGY RETURN should EXCLUDE WASTE HEAT because WASTE HEAT doesn't contribute to Energy Return, but it came out a bit mangled. I suppose you will want me to study English too.
So, let me fix the phrase so you can understand it: Energy RETURN MINUS WASTE HEAT EQUALS work (as defined by physics).
The old "dismissal" type fallacious argument technique, complete with aspersions to the opponent's level of intelligence and education is really tired, but thanks for the great laugh, Palloy.
Here's to waste heat electrons And as to your laughable claim to know what you are talking about, you just exposed yourself as being an abysmally, and embarrassingly, ignorant example of one BESOTTED (
your adjective for me is far more applicable to you ) with fossil fuel love.
What you just said about WASTE HEAT is RIDICULOUS!
WHY? Because, although it is true that WORK excludes WASTE HEAT because WASTE HEAT DOESN'T DO WORK, ENERGY RETURN, as calculated by the fossil fuel industry cherry pickers, ASSUMES that WASTE HEAT CONTRIBUTES to the "HIGH" ENERGY DENSITY. You are trying to talk your way around that.
It's just MORE science challenged BULLSHIT from Palloy, the biosphere math challenged mathematician.
How stupid can you be to claim WASTE HEAT isn't figured in the ENERGY in ALL the enthalpy of formation tables known to thermodynamics?
ALL HEAT is ENERGY. THAT is where the fossil fuel ERoEI MATH gets it's BASIC DATA.
ONLY when it cannot do MECHANICAL WORK is it CLASSIFIED as "WASTE", you ignorant, double talking fossil fueler.
When you figure out how Hess's Law works, THEN you can make some intelligent remarks about physics in general and thermodynamics in particular, instead of displaying your abysmal ignorance of science side by side with your brain dead bias for fossil fuels.
I have met some stubborn, hide bound, recalcitrant sophists in my day, but you take the prize for STRAW GRASPING DENIAL of reality.
Have a nice day.
If we are going to talk about how much MONEY to invest in an energy source, based on how much MONEY it will cost to DO THAT, and how much MONEY we can get in a RETURN on our INVESTMENT, it is customary (
if you aren't Gail Tverberg or PALLOY doing the bidding of the fossil fuel industry) to SUBTRACT all the COSTS of said energy source.