From:  "H. E. Taylor" <het@despam.autobahn.mb.ca>
Date:  20 Jan 2006 06:11:04 Hong Kong Time
Newsgroup:  news.alt119.net/sci.energy
Subject:  

Re: Energy flows - questions & numbers

NNTP-Posting-Host:  66.187.72.57

In article <43CEB68B.B6581F95@eagle.ca>,
 G. R. L. Cowan wrote:
> "H. E. Taylor" included:
>>
>>         The solar constant as measured by satellite is ~1365 watts/m^2.
>>         
>>         
>>         At the bottom of the atmosphere this is attenuated to ~350 watts/m^2.
> 
> Earth's surface area is four * pi * r_equatorial * r_polar.
> Its projected area as seen from the sun is pi * r_equatorial * r_polar ,
> exactly a quarter as much, and that, not atmospheric attenuation,
> is I think the source of the 350 W/m^2.
> 
> Attenuation brings surface insolation annual averages lower than that:
> according to my CRC, p. F-202, to 290 W/m^2 at 30°N, 240 W/m^2 at 45°N.
> This does not include the effects of clouds.
> 
>> 8) Humans use approximately 12*10^12 watts of energy per year.
> 
> Just watts, not watts per year.
> 

	Okay.  Thanks for the corrections.  I am in muddle through mode.

	However the question of NPP compared to human energy usage remains.
	
	On another page van der Pluijm states that about 0.023% of the sun's energy 
	is captured by photosynthesis.  Which would mean:
	0.023/100 * (1.7*10^17) watts ==> 39.1 * 10^12 watts. 
	Which compares well with Hubbert's value of 40*10^12 watts.	 

	The van der Pluijm page is at:
	

	This number breaks down to respiration and net primary production.
	If we take the Kling's values for GPP & NPP, we can calculate NPP.

	GPP = 5.83 x 10^6 cal m-2 yr-1 	 
	NPP = 4.95 x 10^6 cal m-2 yr- 1  
	NPP/GPP = 4.95/5.83  = 0.849
	
	NPP = 0.849 * 40*10^12 ==> 33.96 * 10^12 watts

	Some part of this NPP will be in the oceans and basically inaccessible.
	Again using Kling's figures [Table 1], we can calculate the 
	power required for terrestrial NPP at:

	(132.1/224.5) * (33.96*10^12) watts ==> 19.96 * 10^12 watts.

	[The Kling page was earlier URL'ed.]	

	Do you see a problem with these calculations?


-het


PS
	Roger, the screwy thing about the units in this inquiry is 
	that NPP [GPP & R] are given in units of kcal/m^2/yr
	or petagrams, which is a reflection that it is a conversion
	from sunlight to plant material.


-- 
"Education is an admirable thing. But it is well to remember from 
 time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught."
-Oscar Wilde

Name your Poison: http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/catastrophes.html
H.E. Taylor  http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/