(Where can I know)图中的这些公式(Ulbrich and Speth, 1991)称为能量循环的混合时空域公式是如何推导出来的?
参考Arpe et al.(1986)，我在网上找不到，有人能找到吗?< / p >
Arpe, K., Brancovic, C., Oriol, E., Speth, P., 1986: Variability in time and space of energetics from a long series of atmospheric data produced by ECMWF. Beitr. Phys. Atmos., 59, 321-363.
U. Ulbrich and P. Speth, 1991: The global energy cycle of stationary and trasient atmospheric wave: results from ECMWF anayses. Meteorol. Atmos. Phys. 45, 125-138.
福克兰群岛领土辽阔，人口稀少，地处南风路径上，南风几乎不停地吹。风能的潜力应该是巨大的。< / p > Such potential has never been exploited because they are too isolated, but I was wondering if the hydrogen economy could change that. Transporting hydrogen over a long distance would be dangerous, but the electricity produced on the islands could be used to produce calcium hydride, or pure magnesium or any other element or compound that reacts with water producing hydrogen. That could be a safe way to transport hydrogen. The economic returns could be good because also the byproducts will be useful, burning hydrogen you get fresh water and calcium hydride would be turned into caustic lime. What could be the actual potential of such project? Just looking at the map it appears that the islands could produce several gigawatts of electricity simply using inshore turbines. One caveat is that I don't know if the islands have the enough manpower for such project.
根据 energy 分析，为什么一焦耳牧草不等于一焦耳肉?是因为进入牧场的能源可以是可再生的，也可以是不可再生的吗?< / p >
wikipedia defines it as:
Waste heat is heat that is produced by a machine, or other process that uses energy, as a byproduct of doing work. All such processes give off some waste heat as a fundamental result of the laws of thermodynamics.
In that wikipedia there is a section talking about disposal, not sure if that is the same though. It says:
Low temperature heat contains very little capacity to do work (Exergy), so the heat is qualified as waste heat and rejected to the environment. Economically most convenient is the rejection of such heat to water from a sea, lake or river. If sufficient cooling water is not available, the plant can be equipped with a cooling tower or air cooler to reject the waste heat into the atmosphere. In some cases it is possible to use waste heat, for instance in district heating systems.
Wondering if anyone on here has insights into it.
Thanks
这是一张来自过去几十年大气中CO2浓度来源的图表:
我预计，由于我们已经使用清洁能源多年了，图表将开始趋向于我们都希望很快看到的水平渐近线。
为什么能量跃迁的开始没有反映在图中?< / p >
为了做到这一点，它必须具有某种吸收和释放能量的功能。如果吸收太多，就会变得太热。如果它释放太多，就会变得太冷。< / p >
From what I can research, some of the major factors in keeping Earth from getting "too hot" are:
- the magnetic field diverting solar winds and charged particles (similar question, NASA's Cosmos): without these "the earth would fry"
- seemingly, this is the most important one for stability (??)
- our distance from the sun (which is also a "not too cold" factor")
- infrared emissions: basically molecules launching off photons. any photon emission would work, but infrared is the most common on human inhabitable planets (??)
The "not too cold" factors are:
- once again, our distance from the sun being amicable
- atmospheric absorption of greenhouse gasses (greenhouse effect)
- ?? that's it that I know of
Overall, it seems like things had to be just perfect to create a planet with a workable balance of magnetic fields, greenhouse gasses, and distance from the sun. But this is just my layman's understanding.
What other major vectors/inhibitors/regulators of energy transfer to/from Earth are there?
Traditional hydrocarbons had their chemical reaction as:
hydrocarbon + oxygen => carbon (di/mono)oxide + other harmful residual gases Which is certainly polluting and is causing climate change and global warming. Whereas hydrogen fuel cell overall (both fuel cell anode and cathode) reaction is:
hydrogen + oxygen => water (vapor) + electricity Here we become relaxed as we know that water isn't toxic to the environment and some FCEV (fuel cell electric vehicle) manufacturers claim that the water from the exhaust of their vehicles is fit for drinking.
But the common factor in both of the reactions is that the environmental oxygen is entrapped in either some oxide form or water, which will need a definite amount of external energy to again be in the form of oxygen molecule.
The question is, who is going to spend that energy? Hydrogen production, storage and delivery is already a very energy and capital consumptive process and even the businesses that generate hydrogen through mass scale water electrolysis will use/sell the oxygen by product to add to their overall profits.
Tree Plantation/Reforestation cannot compensate for these oxygen losses alone.
It seems that we are not actually solving the whole of the problem and the part which is being ignored, can itself be the next crisis.
我是一名工业工程专业的学生，我正在做一份与开发墨西拿海峡电流发电有关的商业计划。谁有潮汐流图(速度或能量)，我可以使用?谢谢大家
例如，在沙特阿拉伯建立Ghawar油田花费了多少钱?南非的南深金矿有多贵?< / p >
My question is triggered by the expected costs related to deep geological disposal of radioactive waste, it should be on the order of 50/100 billions USD/EUR, so I would like to compare apples and oranges to understand how credible is that estimate.