Look, this is not a subject that rewards speculation. Rather than telling me what you think physics can't do, come back after studying it and tell me what it actually can't, in terms derived from thermodynamics rather than gut feel. This is pointless.
Its not pointless, its the heart of the action when it comes to our disagreements, and Id rather try and nail it this time.
I didnt speak of gut feelings, or of something physics cant do. I spoke of something you cant legitimately do with the physics in question, and Im sticking to it. If you wanted me to give a mini-lecture on thermodynamics then I would need to swot up and learn some things for the very first time, since I studied physics but it was 20 years ago now. However I know enough to say that our disagreement is not really about any particular theory along that branch of science at all, it is to do with quite how far the implications of these theories stretch.
If I did not recognise the very attractive energy densities fossil fuels offer, nor the energy inputs & lengths of time that went into their creation, or the rate as which humanity has guzzled through these stocks, then I would not be very interested in peak oil in the first place. And I probably already went on earlier this month about how the term sustainable energy really doesnt tend to look properly at the actual long term sustainability of a particular technology, all the things that can prevent it being sustainable. How can it when Its no secret that our reliance on all sorts of finite substances means we have no long term security in this regard at all.
So why are we at loggerheads? In general because whenever you try to paint the picture you seem to turn some of the variables into constants, miss some things out and count others twice. I'll come back to this later, but despite my science rust I think I will make another attempt to explain my complaint about your thermodynamic thing, in light of the recent way you put it.
I'm stating that there is no configuration of solar panels which can replicate, from real time flows of low grade diffuse energy, the power demanded by those thousands of subsystems and currently supplied from high grade energy stocks accumulated over geological time. I'm further stating that this is a function of physics, and not of economics, sociology, politics, or industrial quantities of wishful thinking.
Sticking to the scientific principals rather than the results of calculations is what Im getting at. There is no thermodynamic law that states that the total amount of useful energy we can extract from fossil fuels per period of time absolutely must be higher than the amount we could get from solar panels over the same time period. If it happens to be the case its due to a myriad of factors including where humans direct their efforts.
Thermodynamic principals do not alone fully inform us as to how much energy we could end up with from solar, though in conjunction with other scientific understanding it can help provide a maximum. Its true that no wishful thinking can overcome that maximum, but you take the point much further than that, you make it seem implicit that the maximum must be rubbish. Likewise the amount of energy from fossil fuels that we are able to lay our hands on right now is hardly the result of a simple calculation that insinuates that long geological processes must be assumed to be a much better collector of energy than anything we can muster for ourselves.
Again I want to stress that Im not implying anything about the actual quality of renewable technologies, or fossil fuels. Im talking about the difference between statements that implicitly follow on from a particular scientific law, and conclusions that can only be drawn by performing measurements using actual data and taking other things into account.
There is no doubt that the challenge of getting alternative energy sources to scale up to anything even vaguely approaching what we enjoy today is immense. But there is nothing in thermodynamics that automatically precludes the possibility of scaling these technologies up to a pretty impressive level. You seem to think that by bringing the entire world and all its systems and all our current sources and uses of energy into the equation at whatever level suits, whacking it on one side of the balance sheet to further illuminate the possible scale of the energy deficit, that you have a magic trump card. One that enables you to zoom in on any single detail of our plight, cast it in concrete and declare it to be supported by science. Sometimes it may be fine to do so, but you push it way too far not to comment repeatedly, why are you tying up variables and forcing them to wear a fixed grin? And in such a fickle manner, its not as if you are in denial about whether any of these variables are factors that make the equation look gloomy, but you pick and choose when to bind them and when to set them free, whatever works for a particular inflexible point you are trying to make.
Its exactly how the current system will deal with much of the problem, demolition.
