Monday, December 8, 2008

plate tectonic

[Collapse]
Wikipedia: Making Life Easier.
$3,491,160
Our Goal: $6 million
Donate Now »
[Expand]
Support Wikipedia: a non-profit project
Donate Now »
[Expand]
Support Wikipedia: a non-profit project — Donate Now
Plate tectonics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Semi-protected
The tectonic plates of the world were mapped in the second half of the 20th century.

Plate tectonics (from Greek τέκτων, tektōn "builder" or "mason") describes the large scale motions of Earth's lithosphere. The theory encompasses the older concepts of continental drift, developed during the first half of the 20th century, and seafloor spreading, understood during the 1960s.

The outermost part of the Earth's interior is made up of two layers: above is the lithosphere, comprising the crust and the rigid uppermost part of the mantle. Below the lithosphere lies the asthenosphere. Although solid, the asthenosphere has relatively low viscosity and shear strength and can flow like a liquid on geological time scales. The deeper mantle below the asthenosphere is more rigid again due to the higher pressure.

The lithosphere is broken up into what are called tectonic plates — in the case of Earth, there are seven major and many minor plates (see list below). The lithospheric plates ride on the asthenosphere. These plates move in relation to one another at one of three types of plate boundaries: convergent or collision boundaries, divergent or spreading boundaries, and transform boundaries. Earthquakes, volcanic activity, mountain-building, and oceanic trench formation occur along plate boundaries. The lateral movement of the plates is typically at speeds of 50—100 mm/a.[1]
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Synopsis of the development of the theory
* 2 Key principles
* 3 Types of plate boundaries
o 3.1 Transform (conservative) boundaries
o 3.2 Divergent (constructive) boundaries
o 3.3 Convergent (destructive) boundaries
* 4 Driving forces of plate motion
o 4.1 Friction
o 4.2 Gravitation
o 4.3 External forces
o 4.4 Relative significance of each mechanism
* 5 Major plates
* 6 Historical development of the theory
o 6.1 Continental drift
o 6.2 Floating continents
o 6.3 Plate tectonic theory
+ 6.3.1 Explanation of magnetic striping
+ 6.3.2 Subduction discovered
+ 6.3.3 Mapping with earthquakes
o 6.4 Geological paradigm shift
* 7 Biogeographic implications on biota
* 8 Plate tectonics on other planets
o 8.1 Venus
o 8.2 Mars
o 8.3 Galilean satellites
o 8.4 Titan
* 9 See also
* 10 References
* 11 Further reading
* 12 External links

Synopsis of the development of the theory
Detailed map showing the tectonic plates with their movement vectors.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, geologists assumed that the Earth's major features were fixed, and that most geologic features such as mountain ranges could be explained by vertical crustal movement, as explained by geosynclinal theory. It was observed as early as 1596 that the opposite coasts of the Atlantic Ocean — or, more precisely, the edges of the continental shelves — have similar shapes and seem once to have fitted together.[2] Since that time many theories were proposed to explain this apparent compatibility, but the assumption of a solid earth made the various proposals difficult to explain.[3]

The discovery of radium and its associated heating properties in 1896 prompted a re-examination of the apparent age of the Earth,[4] since this had been estimated by its cooling rate and assumption the Earth's surface radiated like a black body.[5] Those calculations implied that, even if it started at red heat, the Earth would have dropped to its present temperature in a few tens of millions of years. Armed with the knowledge of a new heat source, scientists reasoned it was credible that the Earth was much older, and also that its core was still sufficiently hot to be liquid.

Plate tectonic theory arose out of the hypothesis of continental drift proposed by Alfred Wegener in 1912[6] and expanded in his 1915 book The Origin of Continents and Oceans. He suggested that the present continents once formed a single land mass that drifted apart, thus releasing the continents from the Earth's core and likening them to "icebergs" of low density granite floating on a sea of more dense basalt.[7][8] But without detailed evidence and a force sufficient to drive the movement, the theory was not generally accepted: the Earth might have a solid crust and a liquid core, but there seemed to be no way that portions of the crust could move around. Later science supported theories proposed by English geologist Arthur Holmes in 1920 that plate junctions might lie beneath the sea and Holmes' 1928 suggestion of convection currents within the mantle as the driving force.[9][10][3]

The first evidence that the lithospheric plates did move came with the discovery of variable magnetic field direction in rocks of differing ages, first revealed at a symposium in Tasmania in 1956. Initially theorized as an expansion of the global crust,[11] later collaborations developed the plate tectonics theory, which accounted for spreading as the consequence of new rock upwelling, but avoided the need for an expanding globe by recognizing subduction zones and conservative translation faults. It was at this point that Wegener's theory became generally accepted by the scientific community. Additional work on the association of seafloor spreading and magnetic field reversals by Harry Hess and Ron G. Mason[12][13][14][15] pinpointed the precise mechanism which accounted for new rock upwelling.

Following the recognition of magnetic anomalies defined by symmetric, parallel stripes of similar magnetization on the seafloor on either side of a mid-ocean ridge, plate tectonics quickly became broadly accepted. Simultaneous advances in early seismic imaging techniques in and around Wadati-Benioff zones together with many other geologic observations soon made plate tectonics a theory with extraordinary explanatory and predictive power.

Study of the deep ocean floor was critical to development of the theory; the field of deep sea marine geology accelerated in the 1960s. Correspondingly, plate tectonic theory was developed during the late 1960s and has since been accepted by almost all scientists throughout all geoscientific disciplines. The theory revolutionized the Earth sciences, explaining a diverse range of geological phenomena and their implications in other studies such as paleogeography and paleobiology.

Key principles

The outer layers of the Earth are divided into lithosphere and asthenosphere. This is based on differences in mechanical properties and in the method for the transfer of heat. Mechanically, the lithosphere is cooler and more rigid, while the asthenosphere is hotter and flows more easily. In terms of heat transfer, the lithosphere loses heat by conduction whereas the asthenosphere also transfers heat by convection and has a nearly adiabatic temperature gradient. This division should not be confused with the chemical subdivision of these same layers into the mantle (comprising both the asthenosphere and the mantle portion of the lithosphere) and the crust: a given piece of mantle may be part of the lithosphere or the asthenosphere at different times, depending on its temperature and pressure.

The key principle of plate tectonics is that the lithosphere exists as separate and distinct tectonic plates, which ride on the fluid-like (visco-elastic solid) asthenosphere. Plate motions range up to a typical 10-40 mm/a (Mid-Atlantic Ridge; about as fast as fingernails grow), to about 160 mm/a (Nazca Plate; about as fast as hair grows).[16][17]

Tectonic plates consist of lithospheric mantle overlain by either of two types of crustal material: oceanic crust (in older texts called sima from silicon and magnesium) and continental crust (sial from silicon and aluminium). Average oceanic lithosphere is typically 100 km thick[18]; its thickness is a function of its age: as time passes, it conductively cools and becomes thicker. Because it is formed at mid-ocean ridges and spreads outwards, its thickness is therefore a function of its distance from the mid-ocean ridge where it was formed. For a typical distance oceanic lithosphere must travel before being subducted, the thickness varies ~6 km thick at mid-ocean ridges to greater than 100 km at subduction zones; for shorter or longer distances, the subduction zone (and therefore also the mean) thickness becomes smaller or larger, respectively.[19] Typical continental lithosphere is typically ~200 km thick[18], though this also varies considerably between basins, mountain ranges, and stable cratonic interiors of continents. The two types of crust also differ in thickness, with continental crust being considerably thicker than oceanic (35 km vs 6 km)[20]

The location where two plates meet is called a plate boundary, and plate boundaries are commonly associated with geological events such as earthquakes and the creation of topographic features such as mountains, volcanoes, mid-ocean ridges, and oceanic trenches. The majority of the world's active volcanoes occur along plate boundaries, with the Pacific Plate's Ring of Fire being most active and most widely known. These boundaries are discussed in further detail below.

Tectonic plates can include continental crust or oceanic crust, and many plates contain both. For example, the African Plate includes the continent and parts of the floor of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. The distinction between oceanic crust and continental crust is based on their modes of formation. Oceanic crust is formed at sea-floor spreading centers, and continental crust is formed through arc volcanism and accretion of terranes through tectonic processes; though some of these terranes may contain ophiolite sequences, which are pieces of oceanic crust, these are considered part of the continent when they exit the standard cycle of formation and spreading centers and subduction betneath continents. Oceanic crust is also denser than continental crust owing to their different compositions. Oceanic crust is denser because it has less silicon and more heavier elements ("mafic") than continental crust ("felsic").[21] As a result of this density stratification, oceanic crust generally lies below sea level (for example most of the Pacific Plate), while the continental crust buoyantly projects above sea level (see isostasy for explanation of this principle).

Types of plate boundaries
Three types of plate boundary.

Three types of plate boundaries exist, characterized by the way the plates move relative to each other. They are associated with different types of surface phenomena. The different types of plate boundaries are:

1. Transform boundaries occur where plates slide or, perhaps more accurately, grind past each other along transform faults. The relative motion of the two plates is either sinistral (left side toward the observer) or dextral (right side toward the observer). The San Andreas Fault in California is one example.
2. Divergent boundaries occur where two plates slide apart from each other. Mid-ocean ridges (e.g., Mid-Atlantic Ridge) and active zones of rifting (such as Africa's Great Rift Valley) are both examples of divergent boundaries.
3. Convergent boundaries (or active margins) occur where two plates slide towards each other commonly forming either a subduction zone (if one plate moves underneath the other) or a continental collision (if the two plates contain continental crust). Deep marine trenches are typically associated with subduction zones. The subducting slab contains many hydrous minerals, which release their water on heating; this water then causes the mantle to melt, producing volcanism. Examples of this are the Andes mountain range in South America and the Japanese island arc.

Transform (conservative) boundaries

Main article: Transform boundary

John Tuzo Wilson recognized that because of friction, the plates cannot simply glide past each other. Rather, stress builds up in both plates and when it reaches a level that exceeds the strain threshold of rocks on either side of the fault the accumulated potential energy is released as strain. Strain is both accumulative and/or instantaneous depending on the rheology of the rock; the ductile lower crust and mantle accumulates deformation gradually via shearing whereas the brittle upper crust reacts by fracture, or instantaneous stress release to cause motion along the fault. The ductile surface of the fault can also release instantaneously when the strain rate is too great. The energy released by instantaneous strain release is the cause of earthquakes, a common phenomenon along transform boundaries.

A good example of this type of plate boundary is the San Andreas Fault which is found in the western coast of North America and is one part of a highly complex system of faults in this area. At this location, the Pacific and North American plates move relative to each other such that the Pacific plate is moving northwest with respect to North America. Other examples of transform faults include the Alpine Fault in New Zealand and the North Anatolian Fault in Turkey. Transform faults are also found offsetting the crests of mid-ocean ridges (for example, the Mendocino Fracture Zone offshore northern California).

Divergent (constructive) boundaries
Bridge across the Álfagjá rift valley in southwest Iceland, the boundary between the Eurasian and North American continental tectonic plates.

Main article: Divergent boundary

At divergent boundaries, two plates move apart from each other and the space that this creates is filled with new crustal material sourced from molten magma that forms below. The origin of new divergent boundaries at triple junctions is sometimes thought to be associated with the phenomenon known as hotspots. Here, exceedingly large convective cells bring very large quantities of hot asthenospheric material near the surface and the kinetic energy is thought to be sufficient to break apart the lithosphere. The hot spot which may have initiated the Mid-Atlantic Ridge system currently underlies Iceland which is widening at a rate of a few centimeters per year.

Divergent boundaries are typified in the oceanic lithosphere by the rifts of the oceanic ridge system, including the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and the East Pacific Rise, and in the continental lithosphere by rift valleys such as the famous East African Great Rift Valley. Divergent boundaries can create massive fault zones in the oceanic ridge system. Spreading is generally not uniform, so where spreading rates of adjacent ridge blocks are different, massive transform faults occur. These are the fracture zones, many bearing names, that are a major source of submarine earthquakes. A sea floor map will show a rather strange pattern of blocky structures that are separated by linear features perpendicular to the ridge axis. If one views the sea floor between the fracture zones as conveyor belts carrying the ridge on each side of the rift away from the spreading center the action becomes clear. Crest depths of the old ridges, parallel to the current spreading center, will be older and deeper (from thermal contraction and subsidence).[citation needed]

It is at mid-ocean ridges that one of the key pieces of evidence forcing acceptance of the seafloor spreading hypothesis was found. Airborne geomagnetic surveys showed a strange pattern of symmetrical magnetic reversals on opposite sides of ridge centers. The pattern was far too regular to be coincidental as the widths of the opposing bands were too closely matched. Scientists had been studying polar reversals and the link was made by Lawrence W. Morley, Frederick John Vine and Drummond Hoyle Matthews in the Morley-Vine-Matthews hypothesis. The magnetic banding directly corresponds with the Earth's polar reversals. This was confirmed by measuring the ages of the rocks within each band. The banding furnishes a map in time and space of both spreading rate and polar reversals.

Convergent (destructive) boundaries

Main article: Convergent boundary

The nature of a convergent boundary depends on the type of lithosphere in the plates that are colliding. Where a dense oceanic plate collides with a less-dense continental plate, the oceanic plate is typically thrust underneath because of the greater buoyancy of the continental lithosphere, forming a subduction zone. At the surface, the topographic expression is commonly an oceanic trench on the ocean side and a mountain range on the continental side. An example of a continental-oceanic subduction zone is the area along the western coast of South America where the oceanic Nazca Plate is being subducted beneath the continental South American Plate.

While the processes directly associated with the production of melts directly above downgoing plates producing surface volcanism is the subject of some debate in the geologic community, the general consensus from ongoing research suggests that the release of volatiles is the primary contributor. As the subducting plate descends, its temperature rises driving off volatiles (most importantly water) encased in the porous oceanic crust. As this water rises into the mantle of the overriding plate, it lowers the melting temperature of surrounding mantle, producing melts (magma) with large amounts of dissolved gases. These melts rise to the surface and are the source of some of the most explosive volcanism on Earth because of their high volumes of extremely pressurized gases (consider Mount St. Helens). The melts rise to the surface and cool forming long chains of volcanoes inland from the continental shelf and parallel to it.[citation needed] The continental spine of western South America is dense with this type of volcanic mountain building from the subduction of the Nazca plate. In North America the Cascade mountain range, extending north from California's Sierra Nevada, is also of this type. Such volcanoes are characterized by alternating periods of quiet and episodic eruptions that start with explosive gas expulsion with fine particles of glassy volcanic ash and spongy cinders, followed by a rebuilding phase with hot magma. The entire Pacific Ocean boundary is surrounded by long stretches of volcanoes and is known collectively as the Pacific ring of fire.

Where two continental plates collide the plates either buckle and compress or one plate delves under or (in some cases) overrides the other. Either action will create extensive mountain ranges. The most dramatic effect seen is where the northern margin of the Indian Plate is being thrust under a portion of the Eurasian plate, lifting it and creating the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau beyond. It may have also pushed nearby parts of the Asian continent aside to the east.[22]

When two plates with oceanic crust converge they typically create an island arc as one plate is subducted below the other. The arc is formed from volcanoes which erupt through the overriding plate as the descending plate melts below it. The arc shape occurs because of the spherical surface of the earth (nick the peel of an orange with a knife and note the arc formed by the straight-edge of the knife). A deep undersea trench is located in front of such arcs where the descending slab dips downward. Good examples of this type of plate convergence would be Japan and the Aleutian Islands in Alaska.
Oceanic / Continental

Continental / Continental

Oceanic / Oceanic

Plates may collide at an oblique angle rather than head-on to each other (e.g. one plate moving north, the other moving south-east), and this may cause strike-slip faulting along the collision zone, in addition to subduction or compression.

Not all plate boundaries are easily defined. Some are broad belts whose movements are unclear to scientists. One example would be the Mediterranean-Alpine boundary, which involves two major plates and several micro plates. The boundaries of the plates do not necessarily coincide with those of the continents. For instance, the North American Plate covers not only North America, but also far northeastern Siberia, plus a substantial portion of the Atlantic Ocean.

Driving forces of plate motion

Tectonic plates are able to move because of the relative density of oceanic lithosphere and the relative weakness of the asthenosphere. Dissipation of heat from the mantle is acknowledged to be the original source of energy driving plate tectonics. The current view, although it is still a matter of some debate, is that excess density of the oceanic lithosphere sinking in subduction zones is the most powerful source of plate motion. When it forms at mid-ocean ridges, the oceanic lithosphere is initially less dense than the underlying asthenosphere, but it becomes more dense with age, as it conductively cools and thickens. The greater density of old lithosphere relative to the underlying asthenosphere allows it to sink into the deep mantle at subduction zones, providing most of the driving force for plate motions. The weakness of the asthenosphere allows the tectonic plates to move easily towards a subduction zone.[23] Although subduction is believed to be the strongest force driving plate motions, it cannot be the only force since there are plates such as the North American Plate which are moving, yet are nowhere being subducted. The same is true for the enormous Eurasian Plate. The sources of plate motion are a matter of intensive research and discussion among earth scientists.

Two and three-dimensional imaging of the Earth's interior (seismic tomography) shows that there is a laterally heterogeneous density distribution throughout the mantle. Such density variations can be material (from rock chemistry), mineral (from variations in mineral structures), or thermal (through thermal expansion and contraction from heat energy). The manifestation of this lateral density heterogeneity is mantle convection from buoyancy forces.[24] How mantle convection relates directly and indirectly to the motion of the plates is a matter of ongoing study and discussion in geodynamics. Somehow, this energy must be transferred to the lithosphere in order for tectonic plates to move. There are essentially two types of forces that are thought to influence plate motion: friction and gravity.

Friction

Basal drag
Large scale convection currents in the upper mantle are transmitted through the asthenosphere; motion is driven by friction between the asthenosphere and the lithosphere.
Slab suction
Local convection currents exert a downward frictional pull on plates in subduction zones at ocean trenches. Slab suction may occur in a geodynamic setting wherein basal tractions continue to act on the plate as it dives into the mantle (although perhaps to a greater extent acting on both the under and upper side of the slab).

Gravitation

Gravitational sliding: Plate motion is driven by the higher elevation of plates at ocean ridges. As oceanic lithosphere is formed at spreading ridges from hot mantle material it gradually cools and thickens with age (and thus distance from the ridge). Cool oceanic lithosphere is significantly denser than the hot mantle material from which it is derived and so with increasing thickness it gradually subsides into the mantle to compensate the greater load. The result is a slight lateral incline with distance from the ridge axis.

Casually in the geophysical community and more typically in the geological literature in lower education this process is often referred to as "ridge-push". This is, in fact, a misnomer as nothing is "pushing" and tensional features are dominant along ridges. It is more accurate to refer to this mechanism as gravitational sliding as variable topography across the totality of the plate can vary considerably and the topography of spreading ridges is only the most prominent feature. For example:

1. Flexural bulging of the lithosphere before it dives underneath an adjacent plate, for instance, produces a clear topographical feature that can offset or at least affect the influence of topographical ocean ridges.
2. Mantle plumes impinging on the underside of tectonic plates can drastically alter the topography of the ocean floor.

Slab-pull
Plate motion is partly driven by the weight of cold, dense plates sinking into the mantle at trenches.[25] There is considerable evidence that convection is occurring in the mantle at some scale. The upwelling of material at mid-ocean ridges is almost certainly part of this convection. Some early models of plate tectonics envisioned the plates riding on top of convection cells like conveyor belts. However, most scientists working today believe that the asthenosphere is not strong enough to directly cause motion by the friction of such basal forces. Slab pull is most widely thought to be the greatest force acting on the plates. Recent models indicate that trench suction plays an important role as well. However, it should be noted that the North American Plate, for instance, is nowhere being subducted, yet it is in motion. Likewise the African, Eurasian and Antarctic Plates. The overall driving force for plate motion and its energy source remain subjects of ongoing research.

External forces

In a study published in the January-February 2006 issue of the Geological Society of America Bulletin, a team of Italian and U.S. scientists argued that the westward component of plates is from Earth's rotation and consequent tidal friction of the moon. As the Earth spins eastward beneath the moon, they say, the moon's gravity ever so slightly pulls the Earth's surface layer back westward. It has also been suggested (albeit, controversially) that this observation may also explain why Venus and Mars have no plate tectonics since Venus has no moon, and Mars' moons are too small to have significant tidal effects on Mars.[26] This is not, however, a new argument.

It was originally raised by the "father" of the plate tectonics hypothesis, Alfred Wegener. It was challenged by the physicist Harold Jeffreys who calculated that the magnitude of tidal friction required would have quickly brought the Earth's rotation to a halt long ago. Many plates are moving north and eastward, and the dominantly westward motion of the Pacific ocean basins is simply from the eastward bias of the Pacific spreading center (which is not a predicted manifestation of such lunar forces). It is argued, however, that relative to the lower mantle, there is a slight westward component in the motions of all the plates.

Relative significance of each mechanism
Plate motion based on Global Positioning System (GPS) satellite data from NASA JPL. Vectors show direction and magnitude of motion.

The actual vector of a plate's motion must necessarily be a function of all the forces acting upon the plate. However, therein remains the problem regarding what degree each process contributes to the motion of each tectonic plate.

The diversity of geodynamic settings and properties of each plate must clearly result in differences in the degree to which such processes are actively driving the plates. One method of dealing with this problem is to consider the relative rate at which each plate is moving and to consider the available evidence of each driving force upon the plate as far as possible.[citation needed]

One of the most significant correlations found is that lithospheric plates attached to downgoing (subducting) plates move much faster than plates not attached to subducting plates. The Pacific plate, for instance, is essentially surrounded by zones of subduction (the so-called Ring of Fire) and moves much faster than the plates of the Atlantic basin, which are attached (perhaps one could say 'welded') to adjacent continents instead of subducting plates. It is thus thought that forces associated with the downgoing plate (slab pull and slab suction) are the driving forces which determine the motion of plates, except for those plates which are not being subducted.[citation needed]

The driving forces of plate motion are, nevertheless, still very active subjects of on-going discussion and research in the geophysical community.

Major plates

The main plates are

* African Plate covering Africa - Continental plate
* Antarctic Plate covering Antarctica - Continental plate
* Australian Plate covering Australia - Continental plate
* Indian Plate covering Indian subcontinent and a part of Indian Ocean - Continental plate
* Eurasian Plate covering Asia and Europe - Continental plate
* North American Plate covering North America and north-east Siberia - Continental plate
* South American Plate covering South America - Continental plate
* Pacific Plate covering the Pacific Ocean - Oceanic plate

Notable minor plates include the Arabian Plate, the Caribbean Plate, the Juan de Fuca Plate, the Cocos Plate, the Nazca Plate, the Philippine Plate and the Scotia Plate.

The movement of plates has caused the formation and break-up of continents over time, including occasional formation of a supercontinent that contains most or all of the continents. The supercontinent Rodinia is thought to have formed about 1 billion years ago and to have embodied most or all of Earth's continents, and broken up into eight continents around 600 million years ago. The eight continents later re-assembled into another supercontinent called Pangaea; Pangaea eventually broke up into Laurasia (which became North America and Eurasia) and Gondwana (which became the remaining continents).

Related article

* List of tectonic plates

Plate tectonics map

Historical development of the theory

Continental drift

For more details on this topic, see Continental drift.

Continental drift was one of many ideas about tectonics proposed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The theory has been superseded and the concepts and data have been incorporated within plate tectonics.

By 1915, Alfred Wegener was making serious arguments for the idea in the first edition of The Origin of Continents and Oceans. In that book, he noted how the east coast of South America and the west coast of Africa looked as if they were once attached. Wegener wasn't the first to note this (Abraham Ortelius, Francis Bacon, Benjamin Franklin, Snider-Pellegrini, Roberto Mantovani and Frank Bursley Taylor preceded him), but he was the first to marshal significant fossil and paleo-topographical and climatological evidence to support this simple observation (and was supported in this by researchers such as Alex du Toit). However, his ideas were not taken seriously by many geologists, who pointed out that there was no apparent mechanism for continental drift. Specifically, they did not see how continental rock could plow through the much denser rock that makes up oceanic crust. Wegener could not explain the force that propelled continental drift.

Wegener's vindication did not come until after his death in 1930. In 1947, a team of scientists led by Maurice Ewing utilizing the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution’s research vessel Atlantis and an array of instruments, confirmed the existence of a rise in the central Atlantic Ocean, and found that the floor of the seabed beneath the layer of sediments consisted of basalt, not the granite which is the main constituent of continents. They also found that the oceanic crust was much thinner than continental crust. All these new findings raised important and intriguing questions.[27]

Beginning in the 1950s, scientists including Harry Hess, using magnetic instruments (magnetometers) adapted from airborne devices developed during World War II to detect submarines, began recognizing odd magnetic variations across the ocean floor. This finding, though unexpected, was not entirely surprising because it was known that basalt—the iron-rich, volcanic rock making up the ocean floor—contains a strongly magnetic mineral (magnetite) and can locally distort compass readings. This distortion was recognized by Icelandic mariners as early as the late 18th century. More important, because the presence of magnetite gives the basalt measurable magnetic properties, these newly discovered magnetic variations provided another means to study the deep ocean floor. When newly formed rock cools, such magnetic materials recorded the Earth's magnetic field at the time.

As more and more of the seafloor was mapped during the 1950s, the magnetic variations turned out not to be random or isolated occurrences, but instead revealed recognizable patterns. When these magnetic patterns were mapped over a wide region, the ocean floor showed a zebra-like pattern. Alternating stripes of magnetically different rock were laid out in rows on either side of the mid-ocean ridge: one stripe with normal polarity and the adjoining stripe with reversed polarity. The overall pattern, defined by these alternating bands of normally and reversely polarized rock, became known as magnetic striping.

When the rock strata of the tips of separate continents are very similar it suggests that these rocks were formed in the same way implying that they were joined initially. For instance, some parts of Scotland and Ireland contain rocks very similar to those found in Newfoundland and New Brunswick. Furthermore, the Caledonian Mountains of Europe and parts of the Appalachian Mountains of North America are very similar in structure and lithology.

Floating continents

The prevailing concept was that there were static shells of strata under the continents. It was observed early that although granite existed on continents, seafloor seemed to be composed of denser basalt. It was apparent that a layer of basalt underlies continental rocks.

However, based upon abnormalities in plumb line deflection by the Andes in Peru, Pierre Bouguer deduced that less-dense mountains must have a downward projection into the denser layer underneath. The concept that mountains had "roots" was confirmed by George B. Airy a hundred years later during study of Himalayan gravitation, and seismic studies detected corresponding density variations.

By the mid-1950s the question remained unresolved of whether mountain roots were clenched in surrounding basalt or were floating like an iceberg.

In 1958 the Tasmanian geologist Samuel Warren Carey published an essay The tectonic approach to continental drift in support of the expanding earth model.

Plate tectonic theory

Significant progress was made in the 1960s, and was prompted by a number of discoveries, most notably the Mid-Atlantic ridge. The most notable was the 1962 publication of a paper by American geologist Harry Hammond Hess (Robert S. Dietz published the same idea one year earlier in Nature. However, priority belongs to Hess, since he distributed an unpublished manuscript of his 1962 article already in 1960). Hess suggested that instead of continents moving through oceanic crust (as was suggested by continental drift) that an ocean basin and its adjoining continent moved together on the same crustal unit, or plate. In the same year, Robert R. Coats of the U.S. Geological Survey described the main features of island arc subduction in the Aleutian Islands. His paper, though little-noted (and even ridiculed) at the time, has since been called "seminal" and "prescient". In 1967, W. Jason Morgan proposed that the Earth's surface consists of 12 rigid plates that move relative to each other. Two months later, in 1968, Xavier Le Pichon published a complete model based on 6 major plates with their relative motions.

Explanation of magnetic striping
Seafloor magnetic striping.

The discovery of magnetic striping and the stripes being symmetrical around the crests of the mid-ocean ridges suggested a relationship. In 1961, scientists began to theorise that mid-ocean ridges mark structurally weak zones where the ocean floor was being ripped in two lengthwise along the ridge crest. New magma from deep within the Earth rises easily through these weak zones and eventually erupts along the crest of the ridges to create new oceanic crust. This process, later called seafloor spreading, operating over many millions of years continues to form new ocean floor all across the 50,000 km-long system of mid-ocean ridges. This hypothesis was supported by several lines of evidence:

1. at or near the crest of the ridge, the rocks are very young, and they become progressively older away from the ridge crest;
2. the youngest rocks at the ridge crest always have present-day (normal) polarity;
3. stripes of rock parallel to the ridge crest alternated in magnetic polarity (normal-reversed-normal, etc.), suggesting that the Earth's magnetic field has reversed many times.

By explaining both the zebralike magnetic striping and the construction of the mid-ocean ridge system, the seafloor spreading hypothesis quickly gained converts and represented another major advance in the development of the plate-tectonics theory. Furthermore, the oceanic crust now came to be appreciated as a natural "tape recording" of the history of the reversals in the Earth's magnetic field.

Subduction discovered

A profound consequence of seafloor spreading is that new crust was, and is now, being continually created along the oceanic ridges. This idea found great favor with some scientists, most notably S. Warren Carey, who claimed that the shifting of the continents can be simply explained by a large increase in size of the Earth since its formation. However, this so-called "Expanding Earth theory" hypothesis was unsatisfactory because its supporters could offer no convincing mechanism to produce a significant expansion of the Earth. Certainly there is no evidence that the moon has expanded in the past 3 billion years. Still, the question remained: how can new crust be continuously added along the oceanic ridges without increasing the size of the Earth?

This question particularly intrigued Harry Hess, a Princeton University geologist and a Naval Reserve Rear Admiral, and Robert S. Dietz, a scientist with the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey who first coined the term seafloor spreading. Dietz and Hess were among the small handful who really understood the broad implications of sea floor spreading. If the Earth's crust was expanding along the oceanic ridges, Hess reasoned, it must be shrinking elsewhere. He suggested that new oceanic crust continuously spreads away from the ridges in a conveyor belt-like motion. Many millions of years later, the oceanic crust eventually descends into the oceanic trenches — very deep, narrow canyons along the rim of the Pacific Ocean basin. According to Hess, the Atlantic Ocean was expanding while the Pacific Ocean was shrinking. As old oceanic crust is consumed in the trenches, new magma rises and erupts along the spreading ridges to form new crust. In effect, the ocean basins are perpetually being "recycled," with the creation of new crust and the destruction of old oceanic lithosphere occurring simultaneously. Thus, Hess' ideas neatly explained why the Earth does not get bigger with sea floor spreading, why there is so little sediment accumulation on the ocean floor, and why oceanic rocks are much younger than continental rocks.

Mapping with earthquakes

During the 20th century, improvements in and greater use of seismic instruments such as seismographs enabled scientists to learn that earthquakes tend to be concentrated in certain areas, most notably along the oceanic trenches and spreading ridges. By the late 1920s, seismologists were beginning to identify several prominent earthquake zones parallel to the trenches that typically were inclined 40–60° from the horizontal and extended several hundred kilometers into the Earth. These zones later became known as Wadati-Benioff zones, or simply Benioff zones, in honor of the seismologists who first recognized them, Kiyoo Wadati of Japan and Hugo Benioff of the United States. The study of global seismicity greatly advanced in the 1960s with the establishment of the Worldwide Standardized Seismograph Network (WWSSN) to monitor the compliance of the 1963 treaty banning above-ground testing of nuclear weapons. The much-improved data from the WWSSN instruments allowed seismologists to map precisely the zones of earthquake concentration world wide.

Geological paradigm shift

The acceptance of the theories of continental drift and sea floor spreading (the two key elements of plate tectonics) may be compared to the Copernican revolution in astronomy (see Nicolaus Copernicus). Within a matter of only several years geophysics and geology in particular were revolutionized. The parallel is striking: just as pre-Copernican astronomy was highly descriptive but still unable to provide explanations for the motions of celestial objects, pre-tectonic plate geological theories described what was observed but struggled to provide any fundamental mechanisms. The problem lay in the question "How?". Before acceptance of plate tectonics, geology in particular was trapped in a "pre-Copernican" box.

However, by comparison to astronomy the geological revolution was much more sudden. What had been rejected for decades by any respectable scientific journal was eagerly accepted within a few short years in the 1960s and 1970s. Any geological description before this had been highly descriptive. All the rocks were described and assorted reasons, sometimes in excruciating detail, were given for why they were where they are. The descriptions are still valid. The reasons, however, today sound much like pre-Copernican astronomy.

One simply has to read the pre-plate descriptions of why the Alps or Himalaya exist to see the difference. In an attempt to answer "how" questions like "How can rocks that are clearly marine in origin exist thousands of meters above sea-level in the Dolomites?", or "How did the convex and concave margins of the Alpine chain form?", any true insight was hidden by complexity that boiled down to technical jargon without much fundamental insight as to the underlying mechanics.

With plate tectonics answers quickly fell into place or a path to the answer became clear. Collisions of converging plates had the force to lift the sea floor to great heights. The cause of marine trenches oddly placed just off island arcs or continents and their associated volcanoes became clear when the processes of subduction at converging plates were understood.

Mysteries were no longer mysteries. Forests of complex and obtuse answers were swept away. Why were there striking parallels in the geology of parts of Africa and South America? Why did Africa and South America look strangely like two pieces that should fit to anyone having done a jigsaw puzzle? Look at some pre-tectonics explanations for complexity. For simplicity and one that explained a great deal more look at plate tectonics. A great rift, similar to the Great Rift Valley in northeastern Africa, had split apart a single continent, eventually forming the Atlantic Ocean, and the forces were still at work in the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.

Biogeographic implications on biota

Continental drift theory helps biogeographers to explain the disjunct biogeographic distribution of present day life found on different continents but having similar ancestors.[28] In particular, it explains the Gondwanan distribution of ratites and the Antarctic flora.

Plate tectonics on other planets

The appearance of plate tectonics on terrestrial planets is related to planetary mass, with more massive planets than Earth expected to exhibit plate tectonics. Earth may be a borderline case, owing its tectonic activity to abundant water.[29]

Venus

See also: Geology of Venus

Venus shows no evidence of active plate tectonics. There is debatable evidence of active tectonics in the planet's distant past; however, events taking place since then (such as the plausible and generally accepted hypothesis that the Venusian lithosphere has thickened greatly over the course of several hundred million years) has made constraining the course of its geologic record difficult. However, the numerous well-preserved impact craters have been utilized as a dating method to approximately date the Venusian surface (since there are thus far no known samples of Venusian rock to be dated by more reliable methods). Dates derived are the dominantly in the range ~500 to 750 Ma, although ages of up to ~1.2 Ga have been calculated. This research has led to the fairly well accepted hypothesis that Venus has undergone an essentially complete volcanic resurfacing at least once in its distant past, with the last event taking place approximately within the range of estimated surface ages. While the mechanism of such an impressionable thermal event remains a debated issue in Venusian geosciences, some scientists are advocates of processes involving plate motion to some extent.

One explanation for Venus' lack of plate tectonics is that on Venus temperatures are too high for significant water to be present.[30][31] The Earth's crust is soaked with water, and water plays an important role in the development of shear zones. Plate tectonics requires weak surfaces in the crust along which crustal slices can move, and it may well be that such weakening never took place on Venus because of the absence of water. However, some researchers remain convinced that plate tectonics is or was once active on this planet.

Mars

See also: Geology of Mars

Unlike Venus, the crust of Mars has water in it and on it (mostly in the form of ice). This planet is considerably smaller than the Earth, but shows some indications that could suggest a similar style of tectonics. The gigantic volcanoes in the Tharsis area are linearly aligned like volcanic arcs on Earth; the enormous canyon Valles Marineris could have been formed by some form of crustal spreading.

As a result of observations made of the magnetic field of Mars by the Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft in 1999, large scale patterns of magnetic striping were discovered on this planet. To explain these magnetisation patterns in the Martian crust it has been proposed that a mechanism similar to plate tectonics may once have been active on the planet.[32][33] Further data from the Mars Express orbiter's High Resolution Stereo Camera in 2007 clearly showed an example in the Aeolis Mensae region.[34]

Galilean satellites

Some of the satellites of Jupiter have features that may be related to plate-tectonic style deformation, although the materials and specific mechanisms may be different from plate-tectonic activity on Earth.

Titan

Titan, the largest moon of Saturn, was reported to show tectonic activity in images taken by the Huygens Probe, which landed on Titan on January 14, 2005.[35]

See also

* List of plate tectonics topics
* List of tectonic plates
* List of tectonic plate interactions
* Geosyncline theory, obsolete explanation of mountain-building
* Plume tectonics, an extension of plate tectonics that attempts to explain other aspects of the field

References

1. ^ Read HH, Watson Janet (1975). Introduction to Geology. New York: Halsted. pp. 13–15.
2. ^ Kious WJ, Tilling RI. "Historical perspective". This Dynamic Earth: the Story of Plate Tectonics (Online edition ed.), U.S. Geological Survey. ISBN 0160482208. http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/historical.html. Retrieved on 29 January 2008. "Abraham Ortelius in his work Thesaurus Geographicus ... suggested that the Americas were "torn away from Europe and Africa ... by earthquakes and floods ... The vestiges of the rupture reveal themselves, if someone brings forward a map of the world and considers carefully the coasts of the three [continents]."".
3. ^ a b Frankel Henry (1978-07). "Arthur Holmes and Continental Drift". The British Journal for the History of Science 11 (2): 130–150. http://www.jstor.org/pss/4025726.
4. ^ Joly J (1909). Radioactivity and Geology: An Account of the Influence of Radioactive Energy on Terrestrial History. London: Archibald Constable. p. 36. ISBN 1402135777.
5. ^ Thomson W (1863). "On the secular cooling of the earth". Philosophical Magazine 4 (25): 1–14. doi:10.1080/14786435908238225.
6. ^ Hughes Patrick. "Alfred Wegener (1880-1930): A Geographic Jigsaw Puzzle". On the Shoulders of Giants. Earth Observatory, NASA. Retrieved on 2007-12-26. "... on January 6, 1912, Wegener ... proposed instead a grand vision of drifting continents and widening seas to explain the evolution of Earth's geography."
7. ^ Alfred Wegener (1966). The Origin of Continents and Oceans, Courier Dover. pp. 246. ISBN 0486617084.
8. ^ Hughes Patrick. "Alfred Wegener (1880-1930): The Origin of Continents and Oceans". On the Shoulders of Giants. Earth Observatory, NASA. Retrieved on 2007-12-26. "By his third edition (1922), Wegener was citing geological evidence that some 300 million years ago all the continents had been joined in a supercontinent stretching from pole to pole. He called it Pangaea (all lands), ..."
9. ^ Holmes Arthur (1928). "Radioactivity and Earth Movements". Transactions of the Geological Society of Glasgow 18: 559–606.
10. ^ Holmes Arthur (1978). Principles of Physical Geology (3rd ed.), Wiley. pp. 640–641. ISBN 0471072516.
11. ^ 1958: The tectonic approach to continental drift. In: S. W. Carey (ed.): Continental Drift – A Symposium. University of Tasmania, Hobart, 177-363 (expanding Earth from p. 311 to p. 349)
12. ^ Korgen Ben J (1995) (PDF). "A Voice From the Past: John Lyman and the Plate Tectonics Story" (PDF). Oceanography 8 (1): 19–20. http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/8_1/8.1_korgen.pdf.
13. ^ Spiess Fred, Kuperman William (2003) (PDF). "The Marine Physical Laboratory at Scripps" (PDF). Oceanography 16 (3): 45–54. http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/16_3/16.3_spiess.pdf.
14. ^ Mason RG, Raff AD (1961). "Magnetic survey off the west coast of the United States between 32°N latitude and 42°N latitude". Bulletin of the Geological Society of America 72: 1259–1266. doi:10.1130/0016-7606(1961)72[1259:MSOTWC]2.0.CO;2.
15. ^ Raff AD, Mason RG (1961). "Magnetic survey off the west coast of the United States between 40°N latitude and 52°N latitude". Bulletin of the Geological Society of America 72: 1267–1270. doi:10.1130/0016-7606(1961)72[1267:MSOTWC]2.0.CO;2.
16. ^ Huang Zhen Shao (1997). "Speed of the Continental Plates". The Physics Factbook.
17. ^ Hancock, Paul L; Skinner, Brian J; Dineley, David L (2000). The Oxford Companion to The Earth, Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198540396.
18. ^ a b Turcotte, D. L.; Schubert, G. (2002). "Plate Tectonics". Geodynamics (2nd edition ed.), Cambridge University Press. pp. 5. ISBN 0-521-66186-2.
19. ^ Turcotte, D. L.; Schubert, G. (2002). "Heat Transfer". Geodynamics (2nd edition ed.), Cambridge University Press. pp. 157–161. ISBN 0-521-66186-2.
20. ^ Turcotte, D. L.; Schubert, G. (2002). "Plate Tectonics". Geodynamics (2nd edition ed.), Cambridge University Press. pp. 3. ISBN 0-521-66186-2.
21. ^ Schmidt Victor A, Harbert William. "The Living Machine: Plate Tectonics". Planet Earth and the New Geosciences (third ed.). ISBN 0787242969. http://geoinfo.amu.edu.pl/wpk/pe/a/harbbook/c_iii/chap03.html. Retrieved on 28 January 2008.
22. ^ Butler, Rob (October 2001). Where and how do the continents deform?, Himalayan tectonics, Dynamic Earth. School of Earth Sciences, University of Leeds. Accessed 2008-01-29.
23. ^ Pedro Mendia-Landa. "Myths and Legends on Natural Disasters: Making Sense of Our World". Retrieved on 2008-02-05.
24. ^ Tanimoto Toshiro, Lay Thorne (2000-11-07). "Mantle dynamics and seismic tomography". Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 97 (23): 12409–12410. doi:10.1073/pnas.210382197. PMID 11035784.
25. ^ Conrad CP, Lithgow-Bertelloni C (2002). "How Mantle Slabs Drive Plate Tectonics". Science 298 (5591): L45. doi:10.1126/science.1074161.
26. ^ Lovett Richard A (2006-01-24). "Moon Is Dragging Continents West, Scientist Says". National Geographic News. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/01/0124_060124_moon.html.
27. ^ Lippsett Laurence (2001). "Maurice Ewing and the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory]". Living Legacies. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/alumni/Magazine/Winter2001/ewing.html. Retrieved on 4 March 2008.
28. ^ Moss SJ, Wilson MEJ (1998). "Biogeographic implications from the Tertiary palaeogeographic evolution of Sulawesi and Borneo" (PDF). in Hall R, Holloway JD (eds). Biogeography and Geological Evolution of SE Asia. Leiden, The Netherlands: Backhuys. pp. 133–163. ISBN 9073348978.
29. ^ Valencia Diana, O'Connell Richard J, Sasselov Dimitar D (November 2007). "Inevitability of Plate Tectonics on Super-Earths". Astrophysical Journal Letters 670 (1): L45–L48. doi:10.1086/524012. http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.0699v1.
30. ^ Bortman Henry (2004-08-26). "Was Venus alive? 'The Signs are Probably There'". Astrobiology Magazine. Retrieved on 2008-01-08.
31. ^ Kasting JF (1988). "Runaway and moist greenhouse atmospheres and the evolution of Earth and Venus". Icarus 74 (3): 472–494. doi:10.1016/0019-1035(88)90116-9.
32. ^ Connerney JEP, Acuña MH, Wasilewski PJ, Ness NF, Rème H, Mazelle C, Vignes D, Lin RP, Mitchell DL, Cloutier PA (1999). "Magnetic Lineations in the Ancient Crust of Mars". Science 284: 794. doi:10.1126/science.284.5415.794. PMID 10221909.
33. ^ Connerney JEP, Acuña MH, Ness NF, Kletetschka G, Mitchell DL, Lin RP, Rème H (2005). "Tectonic implications of Mars crustal magnetism". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102: 14970–14975. doi:10.1073/pnas.0507469102. PMID 16217034.
34. ^ "Tectonic signatures at Aeolis Mensae". European Space Agency (2007-06-28). Retrieved on 2008-01-29.
35. ^ Soderblom Laurence A, Tomasko Martin G, Archinal Brent A, Becker Tammy L, Bushroe Michael W, Cook Debbie A, Doose Lyn R, Galuszka Donna M, Hare Trent M, Howington-Kraus Elpitha, Karkoschka Erich, Kirk Randolph L, Lunine Jonathan I, McFarlane Elisabeth A, Redding Bonnie L, Rizk Bashar, Rosiek Mark R, See Charles, Smith Peter H (2007). "Topography and geomorphology of the Huygens landing site on Titan". Planetary and Space Science 55 (13): 2015. doi:10.1016/j.pss.2007.04.015.

Further reading

* McKnight Tom (2004). Geographica: The complete illustrated Atlas of the world. New York: Barnes and Noble Books. ISBN 076075974X.
* Oreskes, Naomi (ed) (2003). Plate Tectonics: An Insider's History of the Modern Theory of the Earth, Westview. ISBN 0813341329.
* Mantle Convection in the Earth and Planets. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2001. ISBN 052135367X.
* Stanley Steven M (1999). Earth System History, W.H. Freeman. pp. 211–228. ISBN 0716728826.
* Tanimoto Toshiro, Lay Thorne (2000). "Mantle dynamics and seismic tomography". Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 97: 12409. doi:10.1073/pnas.210382197. PMID 11035784.
* Thompson Graham R, Turk Jonathan (1991). Modern Physical Geology, Saunders College Publishing. ISBN 0030253985.
* Turcotte DL, Schubert G (2002). Geodynamics: Second Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0521666244.
* Winchester, Simon (2003). Krakatoa: The Day the World Exploded: August 27, 1883, HarperCollins. ISBN 0066212855.
* Atkinson L, Sancetta C (1993). "Hail and farewell". Oceanography 6 (34).
* Lyman J, Fleming RH (1940). "Composition of Seawater". J Mar Res 3: 134–146.
* Sverdrup HU, Johnson MW, Fleming RH (1942). The Oceans: Their physics, chemistry and general biology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. pp. 1087.
* Vine FJ, Matthews DH (1963). "Magnetic anomalies over oceanic ridges". Nature 199: 947–949. doi:10.1038/199947a0.

External links
Sister project Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Plate tectonics

* The PLATES Project, a comprehensive resource with reconstructions, movies, images, list of publications, and teaching resources, from the University of Texas Institute for Geophysics at the Jackson School of Geosciences.
* The Paleomap Project, Christopher Scotese's website with reconstructions in the past and future, paleogeographies, teaching material etc.
* Movie showing 750 million years of global tectonic activity
* Easy-to-draw illustrations for teaching plate tectonics
* An explanation of tectonic forces
* Bird, P. (2003) An updated digital model of plate boundaries, also available as a large (13 mb) PDF file
* Map of tectonic plates
* MantlePlumes.org, a website debating the existence of deep mantle plumes
* USGS site on plate motions
* The geodynamics of the North-American/Eurasian/African plate boundaries
* Cenozoic dynamics of the African plate with emphasis on the Africa-Eurasia collision
* "Speed of the Continental Plates". The Physics Factbook (1997).
* ImpactTectonics.org, examines tectonic effects associated with hypervelocity bolide impacts on terrestrial planets
* BBC Radio 4 In Our Time - Plate Tectonics

[show]
v • d • e
Tectonic plates
Major
African · Antarctic · Eurasian · Indian · Indo-Australian · North American · Pacific · South American

Minor
Arabian · Caribbean · Cocos · Explorer · Gorda · Jan Mayen · Juan de Fuca · Nazca · Philippine · Scotia
Other
List of tectonic plates
[show]
v • d • e
Structure of the Earth
Crust · Upper mantle · Lithosphere · Asthenosphere · Mesosphere · Mantle · Outer core · Inner core · Plate tectonics
[show]
v • d • e
Elements of Nature
Earth
History of Earth · Earth science · Structure of the Earth · Plate tectonics · Geological history of Earth · Geology
Weather
Climate · Earth's atmosphere
Life
Biosphere · Origin of life · Microbe · Flora · Plants · Fungi · Fauna · Animals · Biology · Evolutionary history of life
Environment
Wilderness · Ecology · Ecosystem
Universe
Matter · Energy · Outer space
Category · Portal

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics"
Categories: Geophysics | Plate tectonics | Geology theories
Hidden categories: Semi-protected against vandalism | All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements since January 2008
Views

* Article
* Discussion
* View source
* History

Personal tools

* Log in / create account

Navigation

* Main page
* Contents
* Featured content
* Current events
* Random article

Search

Interaction

* About Wikipedia
* Community portal
* Recent changes
* Contact Wikipedia
* Donate to Wikipedia
* Help

Toolbox

* What links here
* Related changes
* Upload file
* Special pages
* Printable version
* Permanent link
* Cite this page

Languages

* Alemannisch
* العربية
* বাংলা
* Basa Banyumasan
* Беларуская
* Беларуская (тарашкевіца)
* Български
* Català
* Česky
* Cymraeg
* Dansk
* Deutsch
* Eesti
* Español
* Esperanto
* Euskara
* فارسی
* Français
* 한국어
* हिन्दी
* Hrvatski
* Bahasa Indonesia
* Íslenska
* Italiano
* עברית
* Basa Jawa
* Kiswahili
* Latviešu
* Lietuvių
* Magyar
* മലയാളം
* Bahasa Melayu
* Монгол
* Nederlands
* 日本語
* ‪Norsk (bokmål)‬
* Oromoo
* Polski
* Português
* Română
* Русский
* Simple English
* Slovenčina
* Slovenščina
* Српски / Srpski
* Suomi
* Svenska
* தமிழ்
* ไทย
* Tiếng Việt
* Türkçe
* Українська
* اردو
* 中文

Powered by MediaWiki
Wikimedia Foundation

* This page was last modified on 6 December 2008, at 12:33.
* All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
* Privacy policy
* About Wikipedia
* Disclaimers

sources of energy


Union of Concerned Scientists
Skip to main content
Union of Concerned Scientists: Citizens and Scientists for Environmental Solutions
Home About Us Publications News Center Policy Center
clean energy

* Donate
* Take Action
* Join
* Subscribe

* Scientific Integrity
* Global Warming
* Clean Vehicles
* Clean Energy
o Clean Energy 101
o Energy Technology and Impacts
+ Energy Technologies
+ Energy Impacts
o Clean Energy Solutions
+ Big Picture Solutions
+ Renewable Energy Solutions
+ Energy Efficiency
o What You Can Do
o Successes
* Nuclear Power
* Nuclear Weapons & Global Security
* Food & Agriculture
* Invasive Species

Text SizeAAA
Print
Email
Share

* MySpaceMySpace
* YouTubeYouTube
* FacebookFacebook
* DiggDigg
* Del.icio.usDel.icio.us

Home » Clean Energy » Clean Energy 101
The Sources of Energy

Most of our energy comes from fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas supply about 85 percent of US primary energy consumption. Although the supplies of these fossil fuels are vast, they are not unlimited. And more important, the earth's atmosphere and biosphere may not survive the environmental impact of burning such enormous amounts of these fuels. Carbon stored over millions of years is being released in a matter of decades, disrupting the earth's carbon cycle in unpredictable ways.

But fossil fuels are not the only source of energy, and burning fuel is not the only way to produce heat and motion. Renewable energy offers us a better way. Some energy sources are "renewable" because they are naturally replenished, because they can be managed so that they last forever, or because their supply is so enormous that they can never be meaningfully depleted by humans. Moreover, renewable energy sources have much smaller environmental impacts than fossil and nuclear fuels.

Biomass energy, from plants, is a rich source of carbon and hydrogen, and one that can be used within the natural carbon cycle. Fast-growing plants, such as switchgrass and willow and poplar trees, can be harvested as "power crops." Biomass wastes, including forest residues, lumber and paper mill waste, crop wastes, garbage, and landfill and sewage gas, can be used to produce heat, transportation fuels, and electricity, while at the same time reducing environmental burdens.

Solar energy, power from the sun, is free and inexhaustible. Converting sunlight into useful forms is not free, but the fuel is. Sunlight has been used by humans for drying crops and heating water and buildings for millennia. A twentieth-century technology is photovoltaics, which turns sunlight directly into electricity.

Wind power is another ancient energy source that has moved into the modern era. Advanced aerodynamics research has developed wind turbines that can produce electricity at a lower cost than power from polluting coal plants.

Geothermal energy taps into the heat under the earth's crust to boil water. The hot water is then used to drive electric turbines and heat buildings.

Hydroelectric power uses the force of moving water to produce electricity. Hydropower is one of the main suppliers of electricity in the world, but most often in the form of large dams that disrupt habitats and displace people. A better approach is the use of small, "run of the river" hydro plants.

Coal is the largest source of fuel for electricity production, and also the largest source of environmental harm. Coal provides 54 percent of the US electricity supply.

Oil is used primarily for transportation fuels, but also for power production, heat and as a feedstock for chemicals. The US imports over half of the oil we use, more than ever before.

Natural gas is a relatively clean burning fossil fuel, used mostly for space and water heating in buildings and running industrial processes. Increasingly, natural gas is used in turbines to produce electricity.

Nuclear power harnesses the heat of radioactive materials to produce steam for power generation. Nuclear power provides about 21 percent of US power, but is expected to decline as old plants retire.
Clean Energy
Home
News Center Policy Center
You Can Help
Tell Congress We Don't Need More Dirty Coal

Please urge Congress to oppose the construction of new coal-fired power plants unless they feature carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology and to limit testing of CCS to five to 10 demonstration plants until the technology is proven.
Get Involved
------
Donate
Four Star Charity: Charity Navigator More Ways to Give
Get Email Updates

Other Related Articles

* Sustainable Agriculture Techniques
* A New Agenda for Agriculture Research
* The Truth about Ethanol
* Common Sense on Climate Change Solution #2: Modernize America's Electricity System
* Biodiesel Basics
* Biofuels: An Important Part of a Low-Carbon Diet

Related News

* Sustainable Agriculture Techniques
* A New Agenda for Agriculture Research
* The Truth about Ethanol

©2008 Union of Concerned Scientists

Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Site Map | RSS | Jobs
Union of Concerned Scientists
National Headquarters
2 Brattle Square, Cambridge, MA 02238-9105

Powered by Convio

pangaea


[Collapse]
Wikipedia: Making Life Easier.
$3,491,002
Our Goal: $6 million
Donate Now »
[Expand]
Support Wikipedia: a non-profit project
Donate Now »
[Expand]
Support Wikipedia: a non-profit project — Donate Now
Pangaea
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Semi-protected
For other uses, see Pangaea (disambiguation).
Map of Pangaea

Pangaea, Pangæa or Pangea (IPA: /pænˈdʒiːə/[1], from παν, pan, meaning entire, and Γαῖα, Gaea, meaning Earth in Ancient Greek) was the supercontinent that existed during the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras about 250 million years ago, before the component continents were separated into their current configuration [2].

The name was first used by the German originator of the continental drift theory, Alfred Wegener, in the 1920 edition of his book The Origin of Continents and Oceans (Die Entstehung der Kontinente und Ozeane), in which a postulated supercontinent Pangaea played a key role.
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Configuration of Pangaea
* 2 Formation of Pangaea
* 3 Evidence of Pangaea's existence
* 4 Rifting and break-up of Pangaea
* 5 See also
* 6 References
* 7 External links

Configuration of Pangaea
Physical map of the supercontinent Pangaea (~230 million years ago)

Paleogeographic reconstructions show Pangaea as a roughly C-shaped landmass that was spread across the equator. The body of water that was enclosed within the resulting crescent has been named the Tethys Sea. Owing to Pangaea's massive size, the inland regions appear to have been very dry. The large supercontinent would potentially have allowed terrestrial animals to migrate freely.

The vast ocean that surrounded the supercontinent of Pangaea has been named Panthalassa, which means "all seas". The break-up of Pangaea began about 180 million years ago (180 mya) in the Jurassic Period, first into two supercontinents (Gondwana to the south and Laurasia to the north), thereafter into the continents we have today.

Formation of Pangaea

Rodinia, which formed 1.3 billion years ago during the Proterozoic, was the supercontinent from which all subsequent continents, sub or super, derived. Rodinia does not preclude the possibility of prior supercontinents as the breakup and formation of supercontinents appears to be cyclical through Earth's 4.6 billion years.

Gondwana followed with several iterations before the formation of Pangaea, which succeeded Pannotia, before the beginning of the Paleozoic Era (545 Ma) and the Phanerozoic Eon.

The minor supercontinent of Proto-Laurasia drifted away from Gondwana and moved across the Panthalassic Ocean. A new ocean was forming between the two continents, the Proto-Tethys Ocean. Soon, Proto-Laurasia drifted apart itself to create Laurentia, Siberia and Baltica. The rifting also spawned two new oceans, the Iapetus and Khanty Oceans. Baltica remained east of Laurentia, and Siberia sat northeast of Laurentia.

In the Cambrian the independent continent of Laurentia on what would become North America sat on the equator, with three bordering oceans: the Panthalassic Ocean to the north and west, the Iapetus Ocean to the south and the Khanty Ocean to the east. In the Earliest Ordovician, the microcontinent of Avalonia, a landmass that would become the northeastern United States, Nova Scotia and England, broke free from Gondwana and began its journey to Laurentia.[3]
Euramerica's formation
Appalachian orogeny

Baltica collided with Laurentia by the end of the Ordovician and northern Avalonia collided with Baltica and Laurentia. Laurentia, Baltica and Avalonia formed to create a minor supercontinent of Euramerica or Laurussia, closing the Iapetus Ocean, while the Rheic Ocean expanded in the southern coast of Avalonia. The collision also resulted in the formation of the northern Appalachians. Siberia sat near Euramerica, with the Khanty Ocean between the two continents. While all this was happening, Gondwana drifted slowly towards the South Pole. This was the first step of the formation of Pangaea.[4]

The second step in the formation of Pangaea was the collision of Gondwana with Euramerica. By Silurian time, Baltica had already collided with Laurentia to form Euramerica. Avalonia hadn't collided with Laurentia yet, and a seaway between them, a remnant of the Iapetus Ocean, was still shrinking as Avalonia slowly inched towards Laurentia.

Meanwhile, southern Europe fragmented from Gondwana and started to head towards Euramerica across the newly formed Rheic Ocean and collided with southern Baltica in the Devonian, though this microcontinent was an underwater plate. The Iapetus Ocean's sister ocean, the Khanty Ocean, was also shrinking as an island arc from Siberia collided with eastern Baltica (now part of Euramerica). Behind this island arc was a new ocean, the Ural Ocean.

By late Silurian time, North and South China rifted away from Gondwana and started to head northward across the shrinking Proto-Tethys Ocean, and on its southern end the new Paleo-Tethys Ocean was opening. In the Devonian Period, Gondwana itself headed towards Euramerica, which caused the Rheic Ocean to shrink.

In the Early Carboniferous, northwest Africa had touched the southeastern coast of Euramerica, creating the southern portion of the Appalachian Mountains, and the Meseta Mountains. South America moved northward to southern Euramerica, while the eastern portion of Gondwana (India, Antarctica and Australia) headed towards the South Pole from the equator.

North China and South China were on independent continents. The Kazakhstania microcontinent had collided with Siberia (Siberia had been a separate continent for millions of years since the deformation of the supercontinent Pannotia) in the Middle Carboniferous.

Western Kazakhstania collided with Baltica in the Late Carboniferous, closing the Ural Ocean between them, and the western Proto-Tethys in them (Uralian orogeny), causing the formation of the Ural Mountains, and the formation of the supercontinent of Laurasia. This was the last step of the formation of Pangaea.

Meanwhile, South America had collided with southern Laurentia, closing the Rheic Ocean, and forming the southernmost part of the Appalachians and Ouachita Mountains. By this time, Gondwana was positioned near the South Pole, and glaciers were forming in Antarctica, India, Australia, southern Africa and South America. The North China block collided with Siberia by Late Carboniferous time, completely closing the Proto-Tethys Ocean.

By Early Permian time, the Cimmerian plate rifted away from Gondwana and headed towards Laurasia, with a new ocean forming in its southern end, the Tethys Ocean, and the closure of the Paleo-Tethys Ocean. Most of the landmasses were all in one. By the Triassic Period, Pangaea rotated a little, in a southwest direction. The Cimmerian plate was still travelling across the shrinking Paleo-Tethys, until the Middle Jurassic time. The Paleo-Tethys had closed from west to east, creating the Cimmerian Orogeny. Pangaea looked like a C, with an ocean inside the C, the new Tethys Ocean. Pangaea had rifted by the Middle Jurassic, and its deformation is explained below.

Evidence of Pangaea's existence

Fossil evidence for Pangaea includes the presence of similar and identical species on continents that are now great distances apart. For example, fossils of the therapsid Lystrosaurus have been found in Gandu, South Africa, India and Australia, alongside members of the Glossopteris flora, whose distribution would have ranged from the polar circle to the equator if the continents had been in their present position; similarly, the freshwater reptile Mesosaurus has only been found in localized regions of the coasts of Brazil and West Africa.[5]

Additional evidence for Pangaea is found in the geology of adjacent continents, including matching geological trends between the eastern coast of South America and the western coast of Africa.

The polar ice cap of the Carboniferous Period covered the southern end of Pangaea. Glacial deposits, specifically till, of the same age and structure are found on many separate continents which would have been together in the continent of Pangaea.[6]

Rifting and break-up of Pangaea
Pangaea separation animation

There were three major phases in the break-up of Pangaea. The first phase began in the Early-Middle Jurassic, when Pangaea created a rift from the Tethys Ocean in the east and the Pacific in the west. The rifting took place between North America and Africa, and produced multiple failed rifts. The rift resulted in a new ocean, the Atlantic Ocean.

The Atlantic Ocean did not open uniformly; rifting began in the north-central Atlantic. The South Atlantic did not open until the Cretaceous. Laurasia started to rotate clockwise and moved northward with North America to the north, and Eurasia to the south. The clockwise motion of Laurasia also led to the closing of the Tethys Ocean. Meanwhile, on the other side of Africa, new rifts were also forming along the adjacent margins of east Africa, Antarctica and Madagascar that would lead to the formation of the southwestern Indian Ocean that would also open up in the Cretaceous.

The second major phase in the break-up of Pangaea began in the Early Cretaceous (150–140 Ma), when the minor supercontinent of Gondwana separated into four multiple continents (Africa, South America, India and Antarctica/Australia). About 200 Ma, the continent of Cimmeria, as mentioned above (see "Formation of Pangaea"), collided with Eurasia. However, a subduction zone was forming, as soon as Cimmeria collided.

This subduction zone was called the Tethyan Trench. This trench might have subducted what is called the Tethyan mid-ocean ridge, a ridge responsible for the Tethys Ocean's expansion. It probably caused Africa, India and Australia to move northward. In the Early Cretaceous, Atlantica, today's South America and Africa, finally separated from eastern Gondwana (Antarctica, India and Australia), causing the opening of a "South Indian Ocean". In the Middle Cretaceous, Gondwana fragmented to open up the South Atlantic Ocean as South America started to move westward away from Africa. The South Atlantic did not develop uniformly; rather, it rifted from south to north.

Also, at the same time, Madagascar and India began to separate from Antarctica and moved northward, opening up the Indian Ocean. Madagascar and India separated from each other 100–90 Ma in the Late Cretaceous. India continued to move northward toward Eurasia at 15 centimeters (6 in) per year (a plate tectonic record), closing the Tethys Ocean, while Madagascar stopped and became locked to the African Plate. New Zealand, New Caledonia and the rest of Zealandia began to separate from Australia, moving eastward towards the Pacific and opening the Coral Sea and Tasman Sea.

The third major and final phase of the break-up of Pangaea occurred in the early Cenozoic (Paleocene to Oligocene). North America/Greenland broke free from Eurasia, opening the Norwegian Sea about 60–55 Ma. The Atlantic and Indian Oceans continued to expand, closing the Tethys Ocean.

Meanwhile, Australia split from Antarctica and moved rapidly northward, just as India did more than 40 million years earlier, and is currently on a collision course with eastern Asia. Both Australia and India are currently moving in a northeastern direction at 5–6 centimeters (2–3 in) per year. Antarctica has been near or at the South Pole since the formation of Pangaea about 280 Ma. India started to collide with Asia beginning about 35 Ma, forming the Himalayan orogeny, and also finally closing the Tethys Seaway; this collision continues today. The African Plate started to change directions, from west to northwest toward Europe, and South America began to move in a northward direction, separating it from Antarctica and allowing complete oceanic circulation around Antarctica for the first time, causing a rapid cooling of the continent and allowing glaciers to form. Other major events took place during the Cenozoic, including the opening of the Gulf of California, the uplift of the Alps, and the opening of the Sea of Japan. The break-up of Pangaea continues today in the Great Rift Valley; ongoing collisions may indicate the incipient creation of a new supercontinent.

In around 250 million years, all of the world's continents may be merged together in one landmass again as Amasia or Pangaea Ultima.

See also

* List of supercontinents
* History of Earth
* Supercontinent cycle

References

1. ^ OED
2. ^ Plate Tectonics and Crustal Evolution, Third Ed., 1989, by Kent C. Condie, Pergamon Press
3. ^ Stanley, Steven (1998). Earth System History. USA. pp. 355-359.
4. ^ Stanley, Steven (1998). Earth System History. USA. pp. 386-392.
5. ^ Benton, M.J. Vertebrate Palaeontology. Third edition (Oxford 2005), 25.
6. ^ Barbara W. Murck, Brian J. Skinner, Geology Today: Understanding Our Planet, Study Guide, Wiley, ISBN 978-0-471-32323-5

External links
Sister project Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Pangaea
Look up Pangaea in
Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

* USGS Overview
* In honor of Alfred Wegener, at the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research (AWI) an information system for georeferenced data from earth system research is named [http://www.pangaea.de/ "pangaea
* An explanation of tectonic forces
* Europe's First Stegosaurus Boosts Pangaea Theory
* Map of Triassic Pangaea at Paleomaps

[hide]
v • d • e
Continents of the world



Afro-Eurasia



Americas



Eurasia



Oceania



Africa



Antarctica



Asia



Australia



Europe



N. America



S. America

Geological supercontinents
Gondwana · Laurasia · Pangaea · Pannotia
Rodinia · Columbia · Kenorland · Ur · Vaalbara

Historical continents
Arctica · Asiamerica · Atlantica · Avalonia · Baltica · Cimmeria · Congo craton · Euramerica · Kalaharia · Kazakhstania · Laurentia · Siberia · South China · Ur


Submerged continents
Kerguelen Plateau · Zealandia


Possible future supercontinents
Pangaea Ultima · Amasia


Mythical and theorized continents
Atlantis · Lemuria · Meropis · Mu · Terra Australis
See also Regions of the world
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaea"
Categories: Historical continents | Carboniferous | Permian | Triassic | Jurassic | Plate tectonics | Supercontinents
Hidden category: Semi-protected
Views

* Article
* Discussion
* View source
* History

Personal tools

* Log in / create account

Navigation

* Main page
* Contents
* Featured content
* Current events
* Random article

Search

Interaction

* About Wikipedia
* Community portal
* Recent changes
* Contact Wikipedia
* Donate to Wikipedia
* Help

Toolbox

* What links here
* Related changes
* Upload file
* Special pages
* Printable version
* Permanent link
* Cite this page

Languages

* العربية
* Asturianu
* Brezhoneg
* Български
* Català
* Cebuano
* Česky
* Cymraeg
* Dansk
* Deutsch
* ދިވެހިބަސް
* Eesti
* Ελληνικά
* Español
* Esperanto
* Euskara
* فارسی
* Français
* Gàidhlig
* Galego
* 한국어
* Hrvatski
* Bahasa Indonesia
* Italiano
* עברית
* ქართული
* Kreyòl ayisyen
* Latina
* Lëtzebuergesch
* Lietuvių
* Magyar
* മലയാളം
* Malti
* मराठी
* Nederlands
* 日本語
* ‪Norsk (bokmål)‬
* ‪Norsk (nynorsk)‬
* Novial
* Polski
* Português
* Русский
* Sicilianu
* Simple English
* Slovenčina
* Slovenščina
* Српски / Srpski
* Suomi
* Svenska
* Tagalog
* தமிழ்
* ไทย
* Tiếng Việt
* Türkçe
* Українська
* Walon
* 中文

Powered by MediaWiki
Wikimedia Foundation

* This page was last modified on 25 November 2008, at 19:54.
* All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
* Privacy policy
* About Wikipedia
* Disclaimers

continental drift theory


[Collapse]
Wikipedia: Making Life Easier.
$3,490,859
Our Goal: $6 million
Donate Now »
[Expand]
Support Wikipedia: a non-profit project
Donate Now »
[Expand]
Support Wikipedia: a non-profit project — Donate Now
Continental drift
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Plates in the crust of the earth, according to the plate tectonics theory

Continental drift is the movement of the Earth's continents relative to each other. The hypothesis that continents 'drift' was first put forward by Abraham Ortelius in 1596 and was fully developed by Alfred Wegener in 1912. However, it was not until the development of the theory of plate tectonics in the 1960s, that a sufficient geological explanation of that movement was understood. (This article gives an overview about the development of the continental drift hypothesis before 1950. For the contemporary theory, see the article plate tectonics.)
Contents
[hide]

* 1 History
o 1.1 Early history
o 1.2 Wegener and his predecessors
o 1.3 Controversial years
* 2 Evidence
* 3 The debate
* 4 Notes
* 5 References
* 6 External links

[edit] History

[edit] Early history
Antonio Snider-Pellegrini's Illustration of the closed and opened Atlantic Ocean (1858).

Abraham Ortelius (1596), Francis Bacon (1620), Benjamin Franklin, Antonio Snider-Pellegrini (1858), and others had noted earlier that the shapes of continents on opposite sides of the Atlantic Ocean (most notably, Africa and South America) seem to fit together. W. J. Kious described Ortelius' thoughts in this way:[1]

Abraham Ortelius in his work Thesaurus Geographicus ... suggested that the Americas were "torn away from Europe and Africa ... by earthquakes and floods" and went on to say: "The vestiges of the rupture reveal themselves, if someone brings forward a map of the world and considers carefully the coasts of the three [continents].

[edit] Wegener and his predecessors

The hypothesis that the continents once formed a single landmass, broke up, and drifted to their present locations was fully formulated by Alfred Wegener in 1912. [2] Although Wegener's theory was formed independently and was more complete than those of his predecessors, Wegener later credited a number of past authors with similar ideas: [3] [4] Franklin Coxworthy (between 1848 and 1890), [5] Roberto Mantovani (between 1889 and 1909), William Henry Pickering (1907) [6] and Frank Bursley Taylor (1908).

For example: the similarity of southern continent geological formations had led Roberto Mantovani to conjecture in 1889 and 1909 that all the continents had once been joined into a supercontinent (now known as Pangaea); Wegener noted the similarity of Mantovani's and his own maps of the former positions of the southern continents. Through volcanic activity due to thermal expansion this continent broke and the new continents drifted away from each other because of further expansion of the rip-zones, where now the oceans lie. This led Mantovani to propose an Expanding Earth theory which has since been shown to be incorrect. [7] [8] [9]

Some sort of continental drift without expansion was proposed by Frank Bursley Taylor, who suggested in 1908 (published in 1910) that the continents were dragged towards the equator by increased lunar gravity during the Cretaceous, thus forming the Himalayas and Alps on the southern faces. Wegener said that of all those theories, Taylor's, although not fully developed, had the most similarities to his own. [10]

Wegener was the first to use the phrase "continental drift" (1912, 1915) [2] [3] (in German "die Verschiebung der Kontinente" - since Wegener presented and published in German, his ideas did not reach the majority of scientists until 1922, when his book was translated into English) and formally publish the hypothesis that the continents had somehow "drifted" apart. Although he presented much evidence for continental drift, he was unable to provide a convincing explanation for the physical processes which might have caused this drift. His suggestion that the continents had been pulled apart by the centrifugal pseudoforce of the Earth's rotation was rejected as calculations showed that the force was not sufficient.[11]

[edit] Controversial years

During Wegener's lifetime, his theory of continental drift was severely attacked by leading geologists, who viewed him as an outsider meddling in their field.[12] His hypothesis received support from South African geologist Alexander Du Toit as well as from Arthur Holmes, but was not generally supported due to the lack of a known driving force and the absence of evidence beyond the coastline shapes and fossil records. The possibility of continental drift gradually became accepted by the late 1950s. By the 1960s, geological research conducted by Robert S. Dietz, Bruce Heezen, and Harry Hess, along with a revision of the theory including a mechanism by J. Tuzo Wilson, led to widespread acceptance of the theory among geologists.

[edit] Evidence

For more details on this topic, see Plate tectonics.

Note: This section contains evidence available to Wegener's contemporaries and predecessors
Fossil patterns across continents.
Pangaea separation animation

The notion that continents have not always been at their present positions was suggested as early as 1596 by the Dutch map maker Abraham Ortelius in the third edition of his work Thesaurus Geographicus. Ortelius suggested that the Americas, Eurasia and Africa were once joined and have since drifted apart "by earthquakes and floods", creating the modern Atlantic Ocean. For evidence, he wrote: "The vestiges of the rupture reveal themselves, if someone brings forward a map of the world and considers carefully the coasts of the three continents." Francis Bacon commented on Ortelius' idea in 1620, as did Benjamin Franklin and Alexander von Humboldt in later centuries.

Evidence for continental drift is now extensive. Similar plant and animal fossils are found around different continent shores, suggesting that they were once joined. The fossils of the freshwater crocodile, found both in Brazil and South Africa, are one example; another is the discovery of fossils of the aquatic reptile Lystrosaurus from rocks of the same age from locations in South America, Africa, and Antarctica. There is also living evidence — the same animals being found on two continents. An example of this is a particular earthworm found in South America and South Africa.

The complementary arrangement of the facing sides of South America and Africa is obvious, but is a temporary coincidence. In millions of years, seafloor spreading, continental drift, and other forces of tectonophysics will further separate and rotate those two continents. It was this temporary feature which inspired Wegener to study what he defined as continental drift, although he did not live to see his hypothesis become generally accepted.

Widespread distribution of Permo-Carboniferous glacial sediments in South America, Africa, Madagascar, Arabia, India, Antarctica and Australia was one of the major pieces of evidence for the theory of continental drift. The continuity of glaciers, inferred from oriented glacial striations and deposits called tillites, suggested the existence of the supercontinent of Gondwana, which became a central element of the concept of continental drift. Striations indicated glacial flow away from the equator and toward the poles, in modern coordinates, and supported the idea that the southern continents had previously been in dramatically different locations, as well as contiguous with each other.

[edit] The debate

Before geophysical evidence started accumulating after World War II, the idea of continental drift caused sharp disagreement among geologists. Wegener had introduced his theory in 1912 at a meeting of the German Geological Association. His paper was published that year and expanded into a book in 1915. In 1921 the Berlin Geological Society held a symposium on the theory. In 1922 Wegener's book was translated into English and then it received a wider audience. In 1923 the theory was discussed at conferences by Geological Society of France, the Geological Section of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Royal Geological Society. The theory was carefully but critically reviewed in the journal Nature by Philip Lake.[13] On November 15, 1926, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) held a symposium at which the continental drift hypothesis was vigorously debated. The resulting papers were published in 1928 under the title Theory of continental drift. Wegener himself contributed a paper to this volume.[14]

One of the main problems with Wegener's theory was that he believed that the continents "plowed" through the rocks of the ocean basins. Most geologists did not believe that this could be possible. In fact, the biggest objection to Wegener was that he did not have an acceptable theory of the forces that caused the continents to drift. He also ignored counter-arguments and evidence contrary to his theory and seemed too willing to interpret ambiguous evidence as being favorable to his theory.[15] For their part, the geologists ignored Wegener's copious body of evidence as it contradicted their assumptions.

Plate tectonics, a modern update of the old ideas of Wegener about "plowing" continents, accommodates continental motion through the mechanism of seafloor spreading. New rock is created by volcanism at mid-ocean ridges and returned to the Earth's mantle at ocean trenches. Remarkably, in the 1928 AAPG volume, G. A. F. Molengraaf of the Delft Institute (now University) of Technology proposed a recognizable form of seafloor spreading in order to account for the opening of the Atlantic Ocean as well as the East Africa Rift. Arthur Holmes (an early supporter of Wegener) suggested that the movement of continents was the result of convection currents driven by the heat of the interior of the Earth, rather than the continents floating on the mantle. According to Carl Sagan,[16] it is more like the continents being carried on a conveyor belt than floating or drifting. The ideas of Molengraaf and of Holmes led to the theory of plate tectonics, which replaced the theory of continental drift, and became the accepted theory in the 1960s (based on data that started to accumulate in the late 1950s).

However, acceptance was gradual. Nowadays it is universally supported; but even in 1977 a textbook could write the relatively weak: "a poll of geologists now would probably show a substantial majority who favor the idea of drift" and devote a section to a serious consideration of the objections to the theory.[17]

[edit] Notes

1. ^ Kious, W.J.; Tilling, R.I.. "Historical perspective". This Dynamic Earth: the Story of Plate Tectonics (Online edition ed.), U.S. Geological Survey. ISBN 0160482208. http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/historical.html. Retrieved on 29 January 2008.
2. ^ a b Wegener, A. (1912), "Die Entstehung der Kontinente", Peterm. Mitt.: 185–195, 253–256, 305–309
3. ^ a b Wegener, A. (1929/1966), The Origin of Continents and Oceans, Courier Dover Publications, ISBN 0486617084
4. ^ Wegener, A. (1929), Die Entstehung der Kontinente und Ozeane, 4. Auflage, Braunschweig: Friedrich Vieweg & Sohn Akt. Ges.
5. ^ Coxworthy, F. (1848/1924), Electrical Condition or How and Where our Earth was created, London: W. J. S. Phillips
6. ^ Pickering, W.H (1907), "The Place of Origin of the Moon - The Volcani Problems", Popular Astronomy: 274–287
7. ^ Mantovani, R. (1889), "Les fractures de l’écorce terrestre et la théorie de Laplace", Bull. Soc. Sc. Et Arts Réunion: 41–53
8. ^ Mantovani, R. (1909), "L’Antarctide", Je m’instruis. La science pour tous 38: 595–597
9. ^ Scalera, G. (2003), "Roberto Mantovani an Italian defender of the continental drift and planetary expansion", in Scalera, G. and Jacob, K.-H., Why expanding Earth? – A book in honour of O.C. Hilgenberg, Rome: Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, pp. 71–74
10. ^ Taylor, F.B. (1910), "Bearing of the tertiary mountain belt on the origin of the earth's plan", GSA Bulletin 21 (2): 179–226, doi:10.1130/1052-5173(2005)015[29b:WTCCA]2.0.CO;2 Bearing of the tertiary mountain belt on the origin of the earth's plan]
11. ^ Plate Tectonics: The Rocky History of an Idea
12. ^ W. Jackquelyne Klous and Robert I. Tilling (1996). This Dynamic Earth: The Story of Plate Tectonics, DIANE Publishing. ISBN 0788133187. http://books.google.com/books?id=T5mZVQeigpMC&pg=PA9&dq=%22continental+drift%22+%22severely+attacked%22&lr=&as_brr=1&ei=bMMfSZ_lApTMkATm1pyNDw#PPA10,M1.
13. ^ P. Lake, 'Wegener's Hypothesis of Continental Drift', Nature CXI, 1923a, pp. 226-228
14. ^ Friedlander, Michael W. (1995) At the Fringes of Science, pages 21-27, Westview, ISBN 0-8133-2200-6, 1998 edition with new epilog: ISBN 0-8133-9060-5
15. ^ William F. Williams, editor (2000) Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy Facts on File p. 59 ISBN 0-8160-3351-X
16. ^ Sagan, Carl. (1997) The Demon-Haunted World, Science As a Candle in the Dark, Ballantine Books, ISBN 0-345-40946-9. 1996 hardback edition: Random House, ISBN 0-394-53512-X pp. 302-03
17. ^ Davis, Richard A. (1977) Principles of Oceanography, 2nd edition, Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-01464-5

[edit] References

* Le Grand, H. E. (1988). Drifting Continents and Shifting Theories, Cambridge University. ISBN 0-521-31105-5.

[edit] External links

* A brief introduction to Plate Tectonics, based on the work of Alfred Wegener.
* Maps of continental drift, from the Precambrian to the future
* Four main evidences of the Continental Drift theory
* Wegener and his proofs

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_drift"
Category: Plate tectonics
Views

* Article
* Discussion
* Edit this page
* History

Personal tools

* Log in / create account

Navigation

* Main page
* Contents
* Featured content
* Current events
* Random article

Search

Interaction

* About Wikipedia
* Community portal
* Recent changes
* Contact Wikipedia
* Donate to Wikipedia
* Help

Toolbox

* What links here
* Related changes
* Upload file
* Special pages
* Printable version
* Permanent link
* Cite this page

Languages

* العربية
* বাংলা
* Brezhoneg
* Български
* Česky
* Dansk
* Deutsch
* Eesti
* Español
* Esperanto
* Euskara
* Føroyskt
* Galego
* 한국어
* Hrvatski
* Bahasa Indonesia
* Italiano
* עברית
* Lietuvių
* Bahasa Melayu
* Nederlands
* 日本語
* ‪Norsk (bokmål)‬
* Polski
* Português
* Русский
* Simple English
* Slovenčina
* Српски / Srpski
* Suomi
* Svenska
* தமிழ்
* ไทย
* Tiếng Việt
* Українська
* 中文

Powered by MediaWiki
Wikimedia Foundation

* This page was last modified on 8 December 2008, at 03:26.
* All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
* Privacy policy
* About Wikipedia
* Disclaimers

energy conservation


[Collapse]
Wikipedia relies on your donations: please give today.
$3,490,859
Our Goal: $6 million
Donate Now »
[Expand]
Support Wikipedia: a non-profit project
Donate Now »
[Expand]
Support Wikipedia: a non-profit project — Donate Now
Energy conservation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about decreasing energy consumption. For the law of conservation of energy in physics, see Conservation of energy.

Energy conservation is the practice of decreasing the quantity of energy used. It may be achieved through efficient energy use, in which case energy use is decreased while achieving a similar outcome, or by reduced consumption of energy services. Energy conservation may result in increase of financial capital, environmental value, national security, personal security, and human comfort. Individuals and organizations that are direct consumers of energy may want to conserve energy in order to reduce energy costs and promote economic security. Industrial and commercial users may want to increase efficiency and thus maximize profit.
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Introduction
* 2 By country
o 2.1 United States
o 2.2 Transportation
o 2.3 Residential sector
+ 2.3.1 Home energy consumption averages
+ 2.3.2 Best building practices
o 2.4 Commercial sector
o 2.5 Industrial sector
o 2.6 United Kingdom
* 3 Jevons paradox
* 4 Issues with energy conservation
* 5 See also
* 6 References
* 7 External links

[edit] Introduction

Electrical energy conservation is an important element of energy policy. Energy conservation reduces the energy consumption and energy demand per capita, and thus offsets the growth in energy supply needed to keep up with population growth. This reduces the rise in energy costs, and can reduce the need for new power plants, and energy imports. The reduced energy demand can provide more flexibility in choosing the most preferred methods of energy production.

By reducing emissions, energy conservation is an important part of lessening climate change. Energy conservation facilitates the replacement of non-renewable resources with renewable energy. Energy conservation is often the most economical solution to energy shortages, and is a more environmentally benign alternative to increased energy production.

[edit] By country

[edit] United States
Globe icon
The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page. (August 2008)

The United States is currently the largest single consumer of energy. The U.S. Department of Energy categorizes national energy use in four broad sectors: transportation, residential, commercial, and industrial.[1]
U.S. Energy Flow Trends - 2002. Note that the breakdown of useful and waste energy in each sector (yellow vs. grey) is estimated arbitrarily and is not based on data.

Energy usage in transportation and residential sectors (about half of U.S. energy consumption) is largely controlled by individual domestic consumers. Commercial and industrial energy expenditures are determined by businesses entities and other facility managers. National energy policy has a significant effect on energy usage across all four sectors.

[edit] Transportation

The transportation includes all vehicles used for personal or freight transportation. Of the energy used in this sector, approximately 65% is consumed by gasoline-powered vehicles, primarily personally owned. Diesel-powered transport (trains, merchant ships, heavy trucks, etc.) consumes about 20%, and air traffic consumes most of the remaining 15%.[2]

The two oil supply crisis of the 1970s spurred the creation, in 1975, of the federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program, which required auto manufacturers to meet progressively higher fleet fuel economy targets. The next decade saw dramatic improvements in fuel economy, mostly the result of reductions in vehicle size and weight which originated in the late 1970s, along with the transition to front wheel drive. These gains eroded somewhat after 1990 due to the growing popularity of sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks and minivans, which fall under the more lenient "light truck" CAFE standard.

In addition to the CAFE program, the U.S. government has tried to encourage better vehicle efficiency through tax policy. Since 2002, taxpayers have been eligible for income tax credits for gas/electric hybrid vehicles. A "gas-guzzler" tax has been assessed on manufacturers since 1978 for cars with exceptionally poor fuel economy. While this tax remains in effect, it currently generates very little revenue as overall fuel economy has improved. The gas-guzzler tax ended the reign of large cubic-inched engines from the musclecar era.

Another focus in gasoline conservation is reducing the number of miles driven. An estimated 40% of American automobile use is associated with daily commuting. Many urban areas offer subsidized public transportation to reduce commuting traffic, and encourage carpooling by providing designated high-occupancy vehicle lanes and lower tolls for cars with multiple riders. In recent years telecommuting has also become a viable alternative to commuting for some jobs, but in 2003 only 3.5% of workers were telecommuters. Ironically, hundreds of thousands of American and European workers have been replaced by workers in Asia who telecommute from thousands of miles away.

Fuel economy-maximizing behaviors also help reduce fuel consumption. Among the most effective are moderate (as opposed to aggressive) driving, driving at lower speeds, using cruise control, and turning off a vehicle's engine at stops rather than idling. A vehicle's gas mileage decreases rapidly highway speeds, normally above 55 miles per hour (though the exact number varies by vehicle). This is because aerodynamic forces are proportionally related to the square of an object's speed (when the speed is doubled, drag quadruples). According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), as a rule of thumb, each 5 mph (8.0 km/h) you drive over 60 mph (97 km/h) is similar to paying an additional $0.30 per gallon for gas [3] The exact speed at which a vehicle achieves it's highest efficiency varies based on the vehicle's drag coefficient, frontal area, surrounding air speed, and the efficiency and gearing of a vehicle's drive train and transmission.

[edit] Residential sector

The residential sector refers to all private residences, including single-family homes, apartments, manufactured homes and dormitories. Energy use in this sector varies significantly across the country, due to regional climate differences and different regulation. On average, about half of the energy used in U.S. homes is expended on space conditioning (i.e. heating and cooling).

The efficiency of furnaces and air conditioners has increased steadily since the energy crises of the 1970s. The 1987 National Appliance Energy Conservation Act authorized the Department of Energy to set minimum efficiency standards for space conditioning equipment and other appliances each year, based on what is "technologically feasible and economically justified". Beyond these minimum standards, the Environmental Protection Agency awards the Energy Star designation to appliances that exceed industry efficiency averages by an EPA-specified percentage.

Despite technological improvements, many American lifestyle changes have put higher demands on heating and cooling resources. The average size of homes built in the United States has increased significantly, from 1,500 sq ft (140 m2) in 1970 to 2,300 sq ft (210 m2) in 2005. The single-person household has become more common, as has central air conditioning: 23% of households had central air conditioning in 1978, that figure rose to 55% by 2001.

As furnace efficiency gets higher, there is limited room for improvement--efficiencies above 85% are now common. However, improving the building envelope through better or more insulation, advanced windows, etc., can allow larger improvements. The passive house approach produces superinsulated buildings that approach zero net energy consumption. Improving the building envelope can also be cheaper than replacing a furnace or air conditioner.

Even lower cost improvements include weatherization, which is frequently subsidized by utilities or state/federal tax credits, as are programmable thermostats. Consumers have also been urged to adopt a wider indoor temperature range (e.g. 65 °F (18 °C) in the winter, 80 °F (27 °C) in the summer).

One underutilized, but potentially very powerful means to reduce household energy consumption is to provide real-time feedback to homeowners so they can effectively alter their energy using behavior. Recently, low cost energy feedback displays, such as The Energy Detective or wattson [1], have become available. A study of a similar device deployed in 500 Ontario homes by Hydro One [2] showed an average 6.5% drop in total electricity use when compared with a similarly sized control group.

Standby power used by consumer electronics and appliances while they are turned off accounts for an estimated 5 to 10% of household electricity consumption, adding an estimated $3 billion to annual energy costs in the USA. "In the average home, 75% of the electricity used to power home electronics is consumed while the products are turned off." [3]

[edit] Home energy consumption averages
Sister project Wikibooks has a book on the topic of
How to reduce energy usage

* Home heating systems, 30.7%
* Water heating, 13.5%
* Home cooling systems, 11.5%
* Lighting, 10.3%
* Refrigerators and freezers, 8.2%
* Home electronics, 7.2%
* Clothing and dish washers, 5.6% (includes clothes dryers, does not include hot water)
* Cooking, 4.7%
* Computers, 0.9%
* Other, 4.1% (includes small electrics, heating elements, motors, pool and hot tub heaters, outdoor grills, and natural gas outdoor lighting)
* Non end-user energy expenditure, 3.3%[4]

Energy usage in some homes may vary widely from these averages. For example, milder regions such as the southern U.S. and Pacific coast of the USA need far less energy for space conditioning than New York City or Chicago. On the other hand, air conditioning energy use can be quite high in hot-arid regions (Southwest) and hot-humid zones (Southeast) In milder climates such as San Diego, lighting energy may easily consume up to 40% of total energy. Certain appliances such as a waterbed, hot tub, or pre-1990 refrigerator use significant amounts of electricity. However, recent trends in home entertainment equipment can make a large difference in household energy use. For instance a 50" LCD television (average on-time= 6 hours a day) may draw 300 Watts less than a similarly sized plasma system. In most residences no single appliance dominates, and any conservation efforts must be directed to numerous areas in order to achieve substantial energy savings. However, Ground, Air and Water Source Heat Pump systems are the more energy efficient, environmentally clean, and cost-effective space conditioning and domestic hot water systems available (Environmental Protection Agency), and can achieve reductions in energy consumptions of up to 69%.

[edit] Best building practices

Current best practices in building design, construction and retrofitting result in homes that are profoundly more energy conserving than average new homes. This includes insulation and energy-efficient windows and lighting [5]. See Passive house, Superinsulation, Self-sufficient homes, Zero energy building, Earthship, MIT Design Advisor, Energy Conservation Code for Indian Commercial Buildings.

Smart ways to construct homes such that minimal resources are used to cooling and heating the house in summer and winter respectively can significantly reduce energy costs.

[edit] Commercial sector

The commercial sector consists of retail stores, offices (business and government), restaurants, schools and other workplaces. Energy in this sector has the same basic end uses as the residential sector, in slightly different proportions. Space conditioning is again the single biggest consumption area, but it represents only about 30% of the energy use of commercial buildings. Lighting, at 25%, plays a much larger role than it does in the residential sector.[6] Lighting is also generally the most wasteful component of commercial use. A number of case studies indicate that more efficient lighting and elimination of over-illumination can reduce lighting energy by approximately fifty percent in many commercial buildings.

Commercial buildings can greatly increase energy efficiency by thoughtful design, with today's building stock being very poor examples of the potential of systematic (not expensive) energy efficient design (Steffy, 1997). Commercial buildings often have professional management, allowing centralized control and coordination of energy conservation efforts. As a result, fluorescent lighting (about four times as efficient as incandescent) is the standard for most commercial space, although it may produce certain adverse health effects.[7][8][9][10] Potential health concerns can be mitigated by using newer fixtures with electronic ballasts rather than older magenetic ballasts. As most buildings have consistent hours of operation, programmed thermostats and lighting controls are common. However, too many companies believe that merely having a computer controlled Building automation system guarantees energy efficiency. As an example one large company in Northern California boasted that it was confident its state of the art system had optimized space heating. A more careful analysis by Lumina Technologies showed the system had been given programming instructions to maintain constant 24 hour temperatures in the entire building complex. This instruction caused the injection of nighttime heat into vacant buildings when the daytime summer temperatures would often exceed 90 °F (32 °C). This mis-programming was costing the company over $130,000 per year in wasted energy (Lumina Technologies, 1997). Many corporations and governments also require the Energy Star rating for any new equipment purchased for their buildings.

Solar heat loading through standard window designs usually leads to high demand for air conditioning in summer months. An example of building design overcoming this excessive heat loading is the Dakin Building in Brisbane, California, where fenestration was designed to achieve an angle with respect to sun incidence to allow maximum reflection of solar heat; this design also assisted in reducing interior over-illumination to enhance worker efficiency and comfort.

Recent advances include use of occupancy sensors to turn off lights when spaces are unoccupied, and photosensors to dim or turn off electric lighting when natural light is available. In air conditioning systems, overall equipment efficiencies have increased as energy codes and consumer information have begun to emphasise year round performance rather than just efficiency ratings at maximum output. Controllers that automatically vary the speeds of fans, pumps, and compressors have radically improved part-load performance of those devices. For space or water heating, electric heat pumps consume roughly half the energy required by electric resistance heaters. Natural gas heating efficiencies have improved through use of condensing furnaces and boilers, in which the water vapor in the flue gas is cooled to liquid form before it is discharged, allowing the heat of condensation to be used. In buildings where high levels of outside air are required, heat exchangers can capture heat from the exhaust air to preheat incoming supply air.

[edit] Industrial sector

The industrial sector represents all production and processing of goods, including manufacturing, construction, farming, water management and mining. Increasing costs have forced energy-intensive industries to make substantial efficiency improvements in the past 30 years. For example, the energy used to produce steel and paper products has been cut 40% in that time frame, while petroleum/aluminum refining and cement production have reduced their usage by about 25%. These reductions are largely the result of recycling waste material and the use of cogeneration equipment for electricity and heating.

Another example for efficiency improvements is the use of products made of High temperature insulation wool (HTIW) which enables predominantly industrial users to operate thermal treatment plants at temperatures between 800 and 1400°C. In these high-temperature applications, the consumption of primary energy and the associated CO2 emissions can be reduced by up to 50% compared with old fashioned industrial installations. The application of products made of High temperature insulation Wool is becoming increasingly important against the background of the currently dramatic rising cost of energy.

The energy required for delivery and treatment of fresh water often constitutes a significant percentage of a region's electricity and natural gas usage (an estimated 20% of California's total energy use is water-related.[11]) In light of this, some local governments have worked toward a more integrated approach to energy and water conservation efforts.

To conserve energy, some industries have begun using solar panels to heat their water.[citation needed]

Unlike the other sectors, total energy use in the industrial sector has declined in the last decade. While this is partly due to conservation efforts, it's also a reflection of the growing trend for U.S. companies to move manufacturing operations overseas.

[edit] United Kingdom

Main article: Energy use and conservation in the United Kingdom

Energy conservation in the United Kingdom has been receiving increased attention over recent years. Key factors behind this are the Government's commitment to reducing carbon emissions, the projected 'energy gap' in UK electricity generation, and the increasing reliance on imports to meet national energy needs. Domestic housing and road transport are currently the two biggest problem areas.

The UK Government has jointly funded the Energy Saving Trust to promote energy conservation at a consumer, business and community level since 1993.

[edit] Jevons paradox

Main article: Jevons paradox

Standard economic theory suggests that technological improvements that increase energy efficiency will tend to increase, rather than reduce energy use. This was first observed by William Stanley Jevons in 1865 and is called the Jevons Paradox. In The Coal Question, Jevons argued that, "It is a confusion of ideas to suppose that economical use of fuel is equivalent to diminished consumption. The very contrary is the truth."

The Jevons paradox was later revisited by the economists Daniel Khazzoom and Leonard Brookes in a series of papers about energy conservation. In 1992, the US economist Harry Saunders dubbed this hypothesis the Khazzoom-Brookes Postulate, and showed that it was true under a wide range of assumptions.[12] Increased energy efficiency tends to increase energy consumption by two means. Firstly, increased energy efficiency makes the use of energy relatively cheaper, thus encouraging increased use. Secondly, increased energy efficiency leads to increased economic growth, which pulls up energy use in the whole economy.

This does not imply that increased fuel efficiency is worthless. Increased fuel efficiency enables greater production and a higher quality of life. For example, a more efficient steam engine allowed the cheaper transport of goods and people that contributed to the Industrial Revolution. However, energy conservation cannot be achieved through increased efficiency alone. In order for efficiency gains to improve energy conservation, the ecological economists Mathias Wackernagel and William Rees suggest that cost savings from efficiency gains be "taxed away or otherwise removed from further economic circulation. Preferably they should be captured for reinvestment in natural capital rehabilitation."[13]

[edit] Issues with energy conservation
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2008)

Critics and advocates of some forms of energy conservation make the following arguments:

* It may be difficult for home owners or small business to justify investment in some energy saving measures. Often the available money has higher priorities, and in many cases the time and cost investment is not worthwhile.

* Condensing boilers are much more efficient than older types. Energy savings are achieved by extracting more heat, venting less heat externally. However the increased complexity results in more frequent breakdowns and much higher total servicing costs, and whether the end result is a gain is debated.

* Refrigeration is also a major factor of energy consumption, electronic Energy saving modules (ESM) can be added to some existing HVAC and refrigeration systems at little cost to conserve electricity.

* Some retailers argue that bright lighting stimulates purchasing. Health studies have demonstrated that headache, stress, blood pressure, fatigue and worker error all generally increase with the common over-illumination present in many workplace and retail settings (Davis, 2001), (Bain, 1997). It has been shown that natural daylighting increases productivity levels of workers, while reducing energy consumption.[14] Consumers are also motivated by a number of factors, and corporate stewardship may provide an incentive for shoppers to visit stores who conserve energy. Some believe lower overhead costs may allow retailers to lower prices, stimulating consumption, however few business managers seem to agree with this view.

* The use of telecommuting by major corporations is a significant opportunity to conserve energy, as many Americans now work in service jobs that enable them to work from home instead of commuting to work each day. [15]

* Electric motors consume more than 60% of all electrical energy generated and are responsible for the loss of 10 to 20% of all electricity converted into mechanical energy. [16] No doubt, electricity consumption and associated loss by electric motors will continually grow; particularly, as the transportation sector moves to vehicles with electric drivetrains. Migrating or retrofitting any applied base of electric motors (and electric generators) with energy efficient electric motor and generator technology and systems, such as the brushless wound rotor doubly fed electric motor or generator, can dramatically reduce energy consumption and resulting emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and sulphur dioxide (SO2) to the atmosphere. As a bonus, the technology can have a payback period of less than a year depending on use factors.

[edit] See also
Sustainable development portal
Energy portal

* Annual fuel utilization efficiency (AFUE)
* Brushless wound-rotor doubly-fed electric machine
* Efficient energy use
* Energy crisis
* Energy efficiency
* Energy-efficient landscaping
* Energy Saving Modules
* Energy-Service Company
* Fuel economy
* Fuel efficiency
* Heat Pump
* High temperature insulation wool
* Lighting
o Light pollution
o Over-illumination
* Local Cooling
* Low Carbon Communities
* Low-energy vehicle
* Category:Low-energy building
* Minimum Efficiency Performance Standards
* MIT Design Advisor
* Oil price increases since 2003
* One Watt Initiative
* Over-consumption
* Passive solar building design
* Plug-in hybrid
* Solar hot water
* Renewable heat
* Thermal efficiency
* Timeline of environmental events
* World energy resources and consumption
* In various countries:
o Energy Conservation Building Code for Indian Commercial Buildings
o Energie-Cités
o Energy efficiency in British housing
o Energy use in the United States
o Jatropha incentives in India
o Oil phase-out in Sweden

[edit] References

1. ^ US Dept. of Energy, "Annual Energy Report" (July 2006), Energy Flow diagram
2. ^ US Dept. of Energy, "Annual Energy Outlook" (February 2006), Table A2
3. ^ Tips to improve your gas mileage.
4. ^ US Dept. of Energy, "Buildings Energy Data Book" (2008), sec. 2.3.5
5. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/opinion/09gore.html?ex=1383886800&en=d122cebad6bb8596&ei=5124
6. ^ US Dept. of Energy, "Buildings Energy Data Book" (August 2005), sec. 1.3.3
7. ^ Susan L. Burks, Managing your Migraine, Humana Press, New Jersey (1994) ISBN 0-89603-277-9
8. ^ Cambridge Handbook of Psychology, Health and Medicine, edited by Andrew Baum, Robert West, John Weinman, Stanton Newman, Chris McManus, Cambridge University Press (1997) ISBN 0-521-43686-9
9. ^ L. Pijnenburg, M. Camps and G. Jongmans-Liedekerken, Looking closer at assimilation lighting, Venlo, GGD, Noord-Limburg (1991)
10. ^ Igor Knez, Effects of colour of light on nonvisual psychological processes, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Volume 21, Issue 2, June 2001, Pages 201-208
11. ^ California Energy Commission, "California's Water-Energy Relationship" (November 2005), p.8
12. ^ Harry D. Saunders, "The Khazzoom-Brookes postulate and neoclassical growth." The Energy Journal, October 1, 1992.
13. ^ Wackernagel, Mathis and William Rees, 1997, "Perpetual and structural barriers to investing in natural capital: economics from an ecological footprint perspective." Ecological Economics, Vol.20 No.3 p3-24.
14. ^ Lumina Technologies Inc., Santa Rosa, Ca., Survey of 156 California commercial buildings energy use, August, 1996
15. ^ Best Buy Optimas Award Winner for 2007
16. ^ European Commission of the Institute for Environment and Sustainability, "Electricity Consumption and Efficiency Trends in the Enlarged European Union http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/energyefficiency/pdf/EnEff%20Report%202006.pdf]", 2006

This article includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate.


* Scott Davis, Dana K. Mirick, Richard G. Stevens (2001). "Night Shift Work, Light at Night, and Risk of Breast Cancer". Journal of the National Cancer Institute 93 (20): 1557–1562. doi:10.1093/jnci/93.20.1557. PMID 11604479. http://jncicancerspectrum.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/jnci;93/20/1557?ijkey=e1472aefe9398c2c26bf8515391f5940acc05495.
* Bain, A., “The Hindenburg Disaster: A Compelling Theory of Probable Cause and Effect,” Procs. NatL Hydr. Assn. 8th Ann. Hydrogen Meeting, Alexandria, Va., March 11-13, pp 125-128 (1997}
* Gary Steffy, Architectural Lighting Design, John Wiley and Sons (2001) ISBN 0-471-38638-3
* Lumina Technologies, Analysis of energy consumption in a San Francisco Bay Area research office complex, for (confidential) owner, Santa Rosa, Ca. May 17, 1996
* GSA paves way for IT-based buildings [4]

[edit] External links
Wikibooks
Wikibooks' [[wikibooks:|]] has more about this subject:
How to reduce home energy usage

Resources for homes

* Conserving energy with plants
* Energy savings tips for your home
* Energy conservation tips for apartments
* Energy saving resources for the home
* Energy saving advice and grants for UK consumers

Resources for businesses

* BOMA energy efficiency program
* Product and technology reviews
* US Department of Energy workplace resources
* EnergyStar - for commercial buildings and plants
* California high performance buildings program
* How to raise the energy awareness of staff (to encourage conservation)
* Energy saving advice for UK business

Government and international websites

* US Department of Energy - resources for industry
* IEA Energy Conservation in Buildings and Community Systems Programme.

[show]
v • d • e
Global warming and climate change
[show]

Temperatures
Instrumental record · Satellite record · Past 1,000 years · Since 1880 · Geologic record
[show]

Causes
Anthropogenic
Aviation · Carbon dioxide · Climate sensitivity · Global dimming · Global warming potential · Greenhouse effect · Greenhouse gases · Keeling Curve · Land use and forestry · Urban heat island
Natural
Albedo · Bond events · Cloud forcing · Glaciation · Global cooling · Ocean variability (AMO · ENSO · IOD · PDO) · Orbital variations · Orbital forcing · Radiative forcing · Solar variation · Volcanism
Opinion and
controversy
Scientific opinion · Scientists opposing the mainstream assessment · Climate change denial
[show]

Models and politics
Models
Global climate model
Politics
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC / FCCC) · Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
[show]

Potential effects and issues
General
Climate change and agriculture · Drought · Economics of global warming · Glacier retreat · Mass extinction · Ozone depletion · Ocean acidification · Sea level rise · Season creep · Shutdown of thermohaline circulation
By country
Australia · India · United States
[show]

Mitigation
Kyoto Protocol
Clean Development Mechanism · Joint Implementation · Bali roadmap
Governmental
European Climate Change Programme · United Kingdom Climate Change Programme · Oil phase-out in Sweden
Schemes
Emissions trading · Personal carbon trading · Carbon tax · Carbon offset · Carbon credit · Carbon dioxide sink (carbon sequestration) · Cap and Share
Energy conservation
Efficient energy use · Renewable energy · Renewable energy commercialization · Renewable energy development · Soft energy path
Other
G8 Climate Change Roundtable · Individual and political action on climate change
[show]

Proposed adaptations
Strategies
Damming glacial lakes · Drought tolerance · Irrigation investment · Rainwater storage · Sustainable development · Weather control
Programmes
Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change · Land Allocation Decision Support System
Category:Global warming · Category:Climate change · Glossary of climate change
[show]
v • d • e
Topics related to Environmental technology
Environmental impact assessment · Environmental design · Sustainable development
Pollution
Industrial ecology · Solid waste treatment · Waste management · Air pollution (control · dispersion modeling) · Water (Wastewater treatment · Industrial wastewater treatment · Water purification)
Renewable energy
Alternative energy · Energy development · Energy efficiency · Renewable energy (development) · Sustainable energy · Fuel (Alternative fuel · Biofuel · Hydrogen technologies) · Transportation (Electric vehicle · Hybrid vehicle)
Conservation
Birth control · Permaculture · Conservation ethic · Recycling · Ecoforestry · Conservation biology · Environmental preservation · Remediation · Green computing · Building (Green · Natural · Sustainable architecture)
[show]
v • d • e
Sustainability
Philosophy and
definition
Earth Charter · Environmentalism · Environmental ethics · Rio Declaration on Environment and Development · Sustainable development
Population
Birth control · Family planning · Overpopulation · Population control · Zero population growth
Consumption
Anti-consumerism · Ecological footprint · Ethical consumerism · Overconsumption · Tragedy of the commons
Technology
Environmental technology
[show]

Resource use and conservation
Food and Water
Food security · Local food · Permaculture · Sustainable food system (Agriculture · Fisheries) · Urban horticulture Water (footprint · crisis · efficiency / conservation)
Energy
Biofuels · Carbon footprint · Emissions trading · Energy conservation · Energy descent · Peak oil · Renewable energy · Solar power · Wind power
Materials
Industrial ecology · Recycling · Waste · Zero waste
Biodiversity
Biosecurity · Biosphere · Endangered species · Holocene extinction · Invasive species
[show]

Sustainability disciplines, professions and activities
Subdisciplines
Science · Accounting · Governance
Sustainable activities
and professions
Advertising · Architecture · Art · Business · City (infrastructure · drainage) · Community (UK Sustainable Communities Plan) · Design · Fashion · Forest management / Forestry · Industries · Landscape architecture · Living · Packaging · Procurement · Reporting · Tourism · Transport · Yield
Related disciplines
Conservation biology · Environmental biotechnology / chemistry / design / economics / engineering / ethics / history / law / psychology / science / sociology
[show]

International reports and agreements
UN Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm 1972) · Brundtlandt Commission Report, 1983 (Our Common Future, 1987) · Earth Summit (1992) · Agenda 21 (1992) · Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) · ICPD Programme of Action (1994) · Millennium Declaration (2000) · Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005)
[show]

Lists and glossaries
Lists
Association of Environmental Professionals · Climate change topics · Conservation issues / topics · Environmental agreements / health hazards / issues / organisations / topics (sound topics / studies topics) · Global sustainability statistics
Glossaries
Climate change · Environmental science
Category · Portal
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_conservation"
Categories: Climate change | Energy conservation | Energy policy | Building engineering
Hidden categories: Articles with limited geographic scope | All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements since July 2008 | Articles needing additional references from October 2008 | Articles lacking in-text citations
Views

* Article
* Discussion
* Edit this page
* History

Personal tools

* Log in / create account

Navigation

* Main page
* Contents
* Featured content
* Current events
* Random article

Search

Interaction

* About Wikipedia
* Community portal
* Recent changes
* Contact Wikipedia
* Donate to Wikipedia
* Help

Toolbox

* What links here
* Related changes
* Upload file
* Special pages
* Printable version
* Permanent link
* Cite this page

Languages

* Deutsch
* Español
* Français
* 한국어
* Bahasa Indonesia
* Íslenska
* Italiano
* Lietuvių
* 日本語
* Русский
* Simple English
* Suomi
* Svenska

Powered by MediaWiki
Wikimedia Foundation

* This page was last modified on 5 December 2008, at 00:28.
* All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
* Privacy policy
* About Wikipedia
* Disclaimers

Saturday, December 6, 2008