Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Renewable Energy: How to power the world without burning dead things

1235»

Posts

  • LaliluleloLalilulelo Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    There's also the rebound effect to consider. The more efficient a technology is, the more people (as a whole) tend to use it. People who have hybrid cars for example have shown to drive their cars around more because the car is more efficient, cancelling out the benefit of it being efficient at all.

    Why does energy consumption keep increasing, and why does it need to keep increasing?
    Because POPULATION.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

    STRONGHOLD. THE WEBCOMIC. Monday - Friday
    Art is not an abstracted ideal, and does not exist for its own sake in its own world.
  • hanskeyhanskey Registered User
    edited April 2011
    I'm calling bullshit on that. The rebound effect, in absence of data, is simply a slippery slope fallacy. Just in case you don't recognize that you are speaking fallacy, I'll disprove that claim with a counter example:

    I actually drive less in my hybrid than I do in my standard, and my driving did not increase when I got the hybrid. It's the "wife's car" and I have a longer commute.

    I didn't add more light sockets just because I got CFL bulbs ... Need I go on?

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    hanskey wrote: »
    I'm calling bullshit on that. The rebound effect, in absence of data, is simply a slippery slope fallacy. Just in case you don't recognize that you are speaking fallacy, I'll disprove that claim with a counter example:

    I actually drive less in my hybrid than I do in my standard, and my driving did not increase when I got the hybrid. It's the "wife's car" and I have a longer commute.

    I didn't add more light sockets just because I got CFL bulbs ... Need I go on?

    No, but with the money saved you're likely to buy other things. Gaming consoles, a bigger TV etc.

    Even if those things individually use less power then you're saving, they cost power to develop and represent other power consuming enterprises.

    Dis' wrote: »
    Cancer is when cells stop letting the body mooch off their hard work - clearly a community of like-minded cells should isolate themselves and do the best job each can do, even if the rest of the body collapses!
  • hanskeyhanskey Registered User
    edited April 2011
    Or people might dump the savings into an interest bearing investment, pay down their mountain of personal debt, give the saving to a charity or a church, or finally get to the doctor and the dentist. They could even spend the money on additional entertainment that requires no increase in energy usage, such as upgrading their cable service, or getting Netflix.

    Since you ignore the myriad of other possibilities for what people could do with the money, your argument is a slippery slope fallacy.
    ... A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom ... The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. Modern usage avoids the fallacy by acknowledging the possibility of this middle ground.
    - wikipedia, slippery slope

  • hanskeyhanskey Registered User
    edited April 2011
    I'm re-posting, because it's that important:

    If people knew how easy it is to save lots of money (with the side benefit to us all of using less energy) without changing your lifestyle fundamentally, then people would be all over that shit, but most people haven't even thought about it.

    Check out some articles for simple efficiency improvements from the magazine Home Power.

    First Steps
    Basics
    Details
    Eliminate Standby Energy Losses

  • LaliluleloLalilulelo Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    So what the scientists/surveyors conducting that study are patently wrong? Must their claims be mutually exclusive with yours?

    STRONGHOLD. THE WEBCOMIC. Monday - Friday
    Art is not an abstracted ideal, and does not exist for its own sake in its own world.
  • LaliluleloLalilulelo Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    ....why? I wasn't speaking in absolute terms or for everyone -- saying that ALL people do not and cannot conserve. That's obviously false.

    STRONGHOLD. THE WEBCOMIC. Monday - Friday
    Art is not an abstracted ideal, and does not exist for its own sake in its own world.
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    I find the notion that the US, a country who would have a declining population if not for immigration, a country where people heat their whole fucking houses, where hardly anyone hangs clothes to dry, where CFL legislation is seen as socialist, cannot lower its energy consumption laughable.

    Seriously, it's actually kind of funny that there are people that think that.

    But Override, if electricity increased in price we might have to dress warmer in the fall rather than turn the heat on and we have to hang our clothes because the drier costs too much to run is what I'm hearing here.

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • hanskeyhanskey Registered User
    edited April 2011
    You over-generalized their results and did exactly what the slippery slope definition says.

    As an aside, your description of the survey tells us little beyond your interpretation, and without a link no one else can examine the validity of the claim you make or the validity of the study itself.

    One might say that you made an unjustified leap in your reasoning and got called out for it.

  • acidlacedpenguinacidlacedpenguin Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    from where I'm sitting (an administration building not 100m from a CANDU-6) the number one problem with nuclear sustainability in the United States is that CANDU reactors are outlawed. This old-ass CANDU-6 is capable of using enriched uranium, spent uranium, reprocessed uranium, thorium, and plutonium, and the newer generation ACR1K is pretty much the same but smaller, more efficient, and significantly safer.

    edit:

    also, has anyone looked into that Honda FCX Clarity project? Pretty sure it's been on trial in LA for a year or two now, and the gist of it is using natural gas to fill up its hydrogen cells. Drive it all day, plug it into your natural gas powered BBQ at night, enjoy tasty steaks while laughing at your h2o emissions.

    GT: Acidboogie PSNid: AcidLacedPenguiN
  • LaliluleloLalilulelo Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    hanskey wrote: »
    You over-generalized their results and did exactly what the slippery slope definition says.

    As an aside, your description of the survey tells us little beyond your interpretation, and without a link no one else can examine the validity of the claim you make or the validity of the study itself.

    One might say that you made an unjustified leap in your reasoning and got called out for it.

    Ohhh man, busted! :? Ya got me!

    I don't see how I over-generalized what I read:
    As a piece of technology becomes more efficient, our use of it goes up, too. So if we invent new building materials that mean it takes less energy to heat a house, humans respond by building giant new homes

    Disregarding I thought the unwritten rule here was that board members in discussions are given a certain degree of crediblity (if everyone had to post citations for everything they said we'd be here all day):

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/science/08tier.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

    STRONGHOLD. THE WEBCOMIC. Monday - Friday
    Art is not an abstracted ideal, and does not exist for its own sake in its own world.
  • hanskeyhanskey Registered User
    edited April 2011
    Lalilulelo wrote: »
    hanskey wrote: »
    You over-generalized their results and did exactly what the slippery slope definition says.

    As an aside, your description of the survey tells us little beyond your interpretation, and without a link no one else can examine the validity of the claim you make or the validity of the study itself.

    One might say that you made an unjustified leap in your reasoning and got called out for it.

    Ohhh man, busted! :? Ya got me!
    <img class=" title=":lol:" class="bbcode_smiley" /> Yeah, sorry about that, someone put the silly goose snarky-snark pants on this morning.
    Spoiler:
    Let's just forget about the whole disagreement. Maybe you're right and rebound is a problem at the macro-scale.

    I know for me that it has been great to spend less money on electricity every month.
    Lalilulelo wrote: »
    Disregarding I thought the unwritten rule here was that board members in discussions are given a certain degree of crediblity (if everyone had to post citations for everything they said we'd be here all day):

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/science/08tier.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
    God I wish!! I thought the same thing, but over the last 3-5 days in this thread, I've been repeatefly snarked to death for lack of citations. Just a bad habit I picked up, which I apologize for. What I got out of the NY Time article is that the "rebound effect" might or might not be real. Certainly the author was convinced, but the evidence was not as strong as it was made out to be by the author when I read a bit closer (a few examples do not a trend make, and all that).
    ...The author of the 2007 report, Steve Sorrell, noted that these effects could, in some circumstances, “potentially increase energy consumption in the long term.” ...
    My take is that the author of the NY Times article is also overstating his case, since the actual scientist's language is much more cautious and filled with hedges because of real uncertainty in the research.

  • LaliluleloLalilulelo Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    hanskey wrote: »
    Lalilulelo wrote: »
    hanskey wrote: »
    You over-generalized their results and did exactly what the slippery slope definition says.

    As an aside, your description of the survey tells us little beyond your interpretation, and without a link no one else can examine the validity of the claim you make or the validity of the study itself.

    One might say that you made an unjustified leap in your reasoning and got called out for it.

    Ohhh man, busted! :? Ya got me!
    <img class=" title=":lol:" class="bbcode_smiley" /> Yeah, sorry about that, someone put the silly goose snarky-snark pants on this morning.
    Spoiler:
    Let's just forget about the whole disagreement. Maybe you're right and rebound is a problem at the macro-scale.

    I know for me that it has been great to spend less money on electricity every month.
    Lalilulelo wrote: »
    Disregarding I thought the unwritten rule here was that board members in discussions are given a certain degree of crediblity (if everyone had to post citations for everything they said we'd be here all day):

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/science/08tier.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
    God I wish!! I thought the same thing, but over the last 3-5 days in this thread, I've been repeatefly snarked to death for lack of citations. Just a bad habit I picked up, which I apologize for. What I got out of the NY Time article is that the "rebound effect" might or might not be real. Certainly the author was convinced, but the evidence was not as strong as it was made out to be by the author when I read a bit closer (a few examples do not a trend make, and all that).
    ...The author of the 2007 report, Steve Sorrell, noted that these effects could, in some circumstances, “potentially increase energy consumption in the long term.” ...
    My take is that the author of the NY Times article is also overstating his case, since the actual scientist's language is much more cautious and filled with hedges because of real uncertainty in the research.

    1288507969382.jpg

    STRONGHOLD. THE WEBCOMIC. Monday - Friday
    Art is not an abstracted ideal, and does not exist for its own sake in its own world.
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    So Jerry Brown just signed into law a bill that will require California power companies to get 33% of their power supply from green sources (hydro/solar/geothermal) by the end of 2020. This is a 13% increase over the 20% requirement Arnold Schwarzenegger set. Apparently energy companies are on the fence about this - theyre fine with using more renewable sources, but theyre displeased that the 33% has to come from inside California. I guess previously they were going to hit 20% by building plants outside of California and transporting the energy to the state.

    It would be nice to see some support for new nuclear plants, but I knew that wasnt going to happen. Oh well, some progress is better than no progress.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/04/12/BUA91IVBDL.DTL

    Also, the fact that theres claims of socialism that the government is "banning" traditional lightbulbs is fucking ridiculous. God bless America?

    camo_sig2.png
  • LaliluleloLalilulelo Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    I didn't know there was a 'traditional' lightbulb. People don't know what socialism is, it's just their word for shit they don't like.

    STRONGHOLD. THE WEBCOMIC. Monday - Friday
    Art is not an abstracted ideal, and does not exist for its own sake in its own world.
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Incandescent light bulbs are traditional light bulbs.

    camo_sig2.png
  • LaliluleloLalilulelo Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    All I'm saying is, what's the 'tradition' behind it? It's a damn light bulb, and it's what we've used up to this point because we didn't know any better. Now we have better light bulbs.

    It's like using a rotary phone in place of a wireless one at home because of the tradition. Except rotary phones didn't consume 3 times the energy of wireless phones.

    STRONGHOLD. THE WEBCOMIC. Monday - Friday
    Art is not an abstracted ideal, and does not exist for its own sake in its own world.
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Id say its traditional because theyve been used for 100 years? I dont mean traditional in the ceremonial sense, but in the usage over time sense. Incandescent is practically synonymous with light bulb, when you think of a light bulb you think of an incandescent. Thats not to say theyre the only type of light bulb, or that it was the only type of bulb for a long time since fluorescents have been around for a long time too, but you typically dont think fluorescent bulb when you think light bulb.

    camo_sig2.png
  • Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Lalilulelo wrote: »
    People don't know what socialism is, it's just their word for shit they don't like.

    Socialism basically means "Hey, let's help each other out and not be total cocks to one another."

    When people say they are against socialism, they're basically saying "I am a selfish bastard and refuse to inconvenience myself in the slightest to help my fellow man."

    Friend Code: 1590-5696-7916
    Friend Safari Type: Rock
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    emp123 wrote: »
    Id say its traditional because theyve been used for 100 years? I dont mean traditional in the ceremonial sense, but in the usage over time sense. Incandescent is practically synonymous with light bulb, when you think of a light bulb you think of an incandescent. Thats not to say theyre the only type of light bulb, or that it was the only type of bulb for a long time since fluorescents have been around for a long time too, but you typically dont think fluorescent bulb when you think light bulb.

    Well, also the fact that traditionally incandescent bulbs produce a softer colored light, and don't have electronic flicker.

    Those are problems which have only recently been knocked out with modern fluorescents, and they're still pretty widespread.

    Dis' wrote: »
    Cancer is when cells stop letting the body mooch off their hard work - clearly a community of like-minded cells should isolate themselves and do the best job each can do, even if the rest of the body collapses!
  • ShadowfireShadowfire Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    emp123 wrote: »
    Id say its traditional because theyve been used for 100 years? I dont mean traditional in the ceremonial sense, but in the usage over time sense. Incandescent is practically synonymous with light bulb, when you think of a light bulb you think of an incandescent. Thats not to say theyre the only type of light bulb, or that it was the only type of bulb for a long time since fluorescents have been around for a long time too, but you typically dont think fluorescent bulb when you think light bulb.

    Well, also the fact that traditionally incandescent bulbs produce a softer colored light, and don't have electronic flicker.

    Those are problems which have only recently been knocked out with modern fluorescents, and they're still pretty widespread.

    CFLs still don't work in the cold. We have to put incandescents in our outdoor lights from October to April. We have CFLs just about everywhere else in the apartment, though (except the living room fixture, we haven't been able to find any that fit).

    steam_sig.png
    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    emp123 wrote: »
    Id say its traditional because theyve been used for 100 years? I dont mean traditional in the ceremonial sense, but in the usage over time sense. Incandescent is practically synonymous with light bulb, when you think of a light bulb you think of an incandescent. Thats not to say theyre the only type of light bulb, or that it was the only type of bulb for a long time since fluorescents have been around for a long time too, but you typically dont think fluorescent bulb when you think light bulb.

    Well, also the fact that traditionally incandescent bulbs produce a softer colored light, and don't have electronic flicker.

    Those are problems which have only recently been knocked out with modern fluorescents, and they're still pretty widespread.

    CFLs still don't work in the cold. We have to put incandescents in our outdoor lights from October to April. We have CFLs just about everywhere else in the apartment, though (except the living room fixture, we haven't been able to find any that fit).

    I suspect the problem is "instant-start" types don't work in the cold, since there's just not enough vaporized mercury for them to do their "blast the fuck out of the filaments" deal.

    A slow start CFL you might have more luck with.

    Dis' wrote: »
    Cancer is when cells stop letting the body mooch off their hard work - clearly a community of like-minded cells should isolate themselves and do the best job each can do, even if the rest of the body collapses!
  • hanskeyhanskey Registered User
    edited April 2011
    It's not a bad idea to try different brands even if you don't have any real problems, because some of the CFLs are much better made than others. The color of the light produced also varies quite a bit more than what used to be the case, so if one brand is to blue then try another! It's worth the effort. Even if it only saves like 50 bucks in electricity a month once switched, that's still $600 extra bucks in your pocket over a year for doing nearly nothing. In addition, in my experience, CFLs are usually cheaper over the bulb lifetime than incandescent bulbs, even though the up front price can make you sweat a little when you compare it to the price of an incandescent. Check out the calculator here. I get the many bulb packages at Lowe's or wherever I see a deal, because the per bulb price drops like a rock, so I've been able to score 23-25 Watt CFLs (100 watt incandescent replacement) for $2 a pop!

    I'm looking forward to some killer LED bulbs that might come out of the little LED x-prize. My understanding is that they are still in testing, but maybe I missed a winner being chosen. You can get a little info here. The light color is one of the success measures, and it should be a soft yellowish light from my recollection.

    From the Homepower articles I've read in the past another bit of low hanging fruit for cutting the electric budget (cutting usage), is to put everything on surge protectors. Then when you turn something off using the surge protector's power switch, you actually prevent it from continuing to use power. This is more important than most people realize, because there are many devices which actually draw more watts when off than when on, and there are even more appliances that draw no less power when off than on. I found that was pretty useful info, because that could be the case for almost any household appliance like a toaster, or dvd player, especially if there is a built in clock.

  • ACSISACSIS Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    In my opinion the real danger is whatever China decides to do. They currently buy about 50% of world coal, and 25+% goes to electricity production. They're building more coal power stations now, but also pushing hard on nuclear power.

    Hydroelectrics. The Gorges Dam has 26 turbines, each with a capacity of 700MW. They are currently in the process of rigging six more in and the projected output for 2012 is 22,500MW.

    That is a lot by anyones standarts (a modern nuclear reactor produces between 600-800MW for a comparision).

    Of course a lot of people had to leave their home, there were landslides and sites of religious as well as historical value were flooded.

    But from an environmental perspective... its a clean, unlimited powersupply. A testament to what you can do with hydroelectrics if you are determined enough.

  • DemerdarDemerdar Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    There is almost an infinite supply of energy in water (fluids.. relative to our power needs). Hell, I'm sure you could even use the ocean currents to generate power. There is so much energy in nature, it's all about balancing energy with environmental impacts.. really. It is not easy either.

    For example: Wind power.. who would have thought that bat's hearts would explode if they were caught into the low-pressure wake of the turbine? Who can predict that?

    parabol
    nin_new2.gif
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    So like, if this turns out to be viable it would be pretty interesting as a way to drive down costs of solar power.

    Basically, it may be possible to pull power from sunlight using just glass - the predicted efficiencies aren't huge, but if it lends itself to easy, non-semiconductor wafer processing then that would be huge.

    At the very least its an interesting effect.

    Dis' wrote: »
    Cancer is when cells stop letting the body mooch off their hard work - clearly a community of like-minded cells should isolate themselves and do the best job each can do, even if the rest of the body collapses!
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Demerdar wrote: »
    There is almost an infinite supply of energy in water (fluids.. relative to our power needs). Hell, I'm sure you could even use the ocean currents to generate power. There is so much energy in nature, it's all about balancing energy with environmental impacts.. really. It is not easy either.

    For example: Wind power.. who would have thought that bat's hearts would explode if they were caught into the low-pressure wake of the turbine? Who can predict that?

    Tidal has a lot of promise, but I doubt we can really accurately model what happens to that ecosystem when you're ripping a couple thousand MWh out of the tidal energy.

    sig.png
  • LaliluleloLalilulelo Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    The major drawback with tidal is, salt water is extremely corrosive. Maintenance would be a nightmare over any length of time.

    STRONGHOLD. THE WEBCOMIC. Monday - Friday
    Art is not an abstracted ideal, and does not exist for its own sake in its own world.
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Lalilulelo wrote: »
    The major drawback with tidal is, salt water is extremely corrosive. Maintenance would be a nightmare over any length of time.

    Not if you coat the entire thing in plastic.

    We run shipping industries, I'd say we can manage a bunch of stationary power generators over the long haul.

    Dis' wrote: »
    Cancer is when cells stop letting the body mooch off their hard work - clearly a community of like-minded cells should isolate themselves and do the best job each can do, even if the rest of the body collapses!
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Demerdar wrote: »
    There is almost an infinite supply of energy in water (fluids.. relative to our power needs). Hell, I'm sure you could even use the ocean currents to generate power. There is so much energy in nature, it's all about balancing energy with environmental impacts.. really. It is not easy either.

    For example: Wind power.. who would have thought that bat's hearts would explode if they were caught into the low-pressure wake of the turbine? Who can predict that?

    Tidal has a lot of promise, but I doubt we can really accurately model what happens to that ecosystem when you're ripping a couple thousand MWh out of the tidal energy.

    I actually think this is kind of an interesting question as far as wind power, too: in the hypothetical future when we're getting a ton of power by sucking it out of the wind, does this have any impact on weather patterns and so on?

    Although the answer to wind (and tides too) is probably that there's so much energy being generated that we'd never notice the difference even if we plugged all of los angeles into it

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    'we got hella people, they got helicopters'
  • HonkHonk Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2011
    CFL's are the only allowed light bulbs in Sweden since some random time last year.

    A major irritant has been that instant start ones have been very hard to find for basically all types and sizes.

    So I put in halogen lights because screw waiting 40 minutes to get proper reading light.

  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Demerdar wrote: »
    There is almost an infinite supply of energy in water (fluids.. relative to our power needs). Hell, I'm sure you could even use the ocean currents to generate power. There is so much energy in nature, it's all about balancing energy with environmental impacts.. really. It is not easy either.

    For example: Wind power.. who would have thought that bat's hearts would explode if they were caught into the low-pressure wake of the turbine? Who can predict that?

    Tidal has a lot of promise, but I doubt we can really accurately model what happens to that ecosystem when you're ripping a couple thousand MWh out of the tidal energy.

    I actually think this is kind of an interesting question as far as wind power, too: in the hypothetical future when we're getting a ton of power by sucking it out of the wind, does this have any impact on weather patterns and so on?

    Although the answer to wind (and tides too) is probably that there's so much energy being generated that we'd never notice the difference even if we plugged all of los angeles into it

    Wind comes from the earth's rotation so we are good.

    Its like saying that we are using up all the hydrogen in the sun with solar power.

  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Demerdar wrote: »
    There is almost an infinite supply of energy in water (fluids.. relative to our power needs). Hell, I'm sure you could even use the ocean currents to generate power. There is so much energy in nature, it's all about balancing energy with environmental impacts.. really. It is not easy either.

    For example: Wind power.. who would have thought that bat's hearts would explode if they were caught into the low-pressure wake of the turbine? Who can predict that?

    Tidal has a lot of promise, but I doubt we can really accurately model what happens to that ecosystem when you're ripping a couple thousand MWh out of the tidal energy.

    I actually think this is kind of an interesting question as far as wind power, too: in the hypothetical future when we're getting a ton of power by sucking it out of the wind, does this have any impact on weather patterns and so on?

    Although the answer to wind (and tides too) is probably that there's so much energy being generated that we'd never notice the difference even if we plugged all of los angeles into it

    Wind comes from the earth's rotation so we are good.

    Its like saying that we are using up all the hydrogen in the sun with solar power.

    But Universal Heat Death is fast approaching! We'll have to invest in Sprial Energy starting now!

    steam_sig.png
  • Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Cantido wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Demerdar wrote: »
    There is almost an infinite supply of energy in water (fluids.. relative to our power needs). Hell, I'm sure you could even use the ocean currents to generate power. There is so much energy in nature, it's all about balancing energy with environmental impacts.. really. It is not easy either.

    For example: Wind power.. who would have thought that bat's hearts would explode if they were caught into the low-pressure wake of the turbine? Who can predict that?

    Tidal has a lot of promise, but I doubt we can really accurately model what happens to that ecosystem when you're ripping a couple thousand MWh out of the tidal energy.

    I actually think this is kind of an interesting question as far as wind power, too: in the hypothetical future when we're getting a ton of power by sucking it out of the wind, does this have any impact on weather patterns and so on?

    Although the answer to wind (and tides too) is probably that there's so much energy being generated that we'd never notice the difference even if we plugged all of los angeles into it

    Wind comes from the earth's rotation so we are good.

    Its like saying that we are using up all the hydrogen in the sun with solar power.

    But Universal Heat Death is fast approaching! We'll have to invest in Sprial Energy starting now!

    I'm pretty sure the problem in Gurren Lagann was
    Spoiler:
    .

    Friend Code: 1590-5696-7916
    Friend Safari Type: Rock
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Demerdar wrote: »
    There is almost an infinite supply of energy in water (fluids.. relative to our power needs). Hell, I'm sure you could even use the ocean currents to generate power. There is so much energy in nature, it's all about balancing energy with environmental impacts.. really. It is not easy either.

    For example: Wind power.. who would have thought that bat's hearts would explode if they were caught into the low-pressure wake of the turbine? Who can predict that?

    Tidal has a lot of promise, but I doubt we can really accurately model what happens to that ecosystem when you're ripping a couple thousand MWh out of the tidal energy.

    I actually think this is kind of an interesting question as far as wind power, too: in the hypothetical future when we're getting a ton of power by sucking it out of the wind, does this have any impact on weather patterns and so on?

    Although the answer to wind (and tides too) is probably that there's so much energy being generated that we'd never notice the difference even if we plugged all of los angeles into it

    Wind comes from the earth's rotation so we are good.

    Its like saying that we are using up all the hydrogen in the sun with solar power.

    I took his question to mean, will all the turbines we have going have a measurable effect on wind - will the turbines disrupt wind patterns leading to an environmental disaster we did not expect.

    I assume the wind behind the turbine is more turbulent than the wind in front of it, but I really dont know.

    camo_sig2.png
  • DemerdarDemerdar Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    emp123 wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Demerdar wrote: »
    There is almost an infinite supply of energy in water (fluids.. relative to our power needs). Hell, I'm sure you could even use the ocean currents to generate power. There is so much energy in nature, it's all about balancing energy with environmental impacts.. really. It is not easy either.

    For example: Wind power.. who would have thought that bat's hearts would explode if they were caught into the low-pressure wake of the turbine? Who can predict that?

    Tidal has a lot of promise, but I doubt we can really accurately model what happens to that ecosystem when you're ripping a couple thousand MWh out of the tidal energy.

    I actually think this is kind of an interesting question as far as wind power, too: in the hypothetical future when we're getting a ton of power by sucking it out of the wind, does this have any impact on weather patterns and so on?

    Although the answer to wind (and tides too) is probably that there's so much energy being generated that we'd never notice the difference even if we plugged all of los angeles into it

    Wind comes from the earth's rotation so we are good.

    Its like saying that we are using up all the hydrogen in the sun with solar power.

    I took his question to mean, will all the turbines we have going have a measurable effect on wind - will the turbines disrupt wind patterns leading to an environmental disaster we did not expect.

    I assume the wind behind the turbine is more turbulent than the wind in front of it, but I really dont know.

    If anything, the helical vortex behind the turbine will tend to relaminarize the flow. Almost everything in the atmosphere is super turbulent (inside the boundary layer, at least), but I would guess that the wind is more turbulent upstream than it is downstream. These things are not easy to model, or measure.

    parabol
    nin_new2.gif
1235»
Sign In or Register to comment.