Republican Science
- Thread starter nhboy
- Start date
That's just crazy talk.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/february/hurricane-winds-turbine-022614.html
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/february/hurricane-winds-turbine-022614.html
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
And now to the actual quote (from 2009):
Of course, powering the world with wind has it's drawbacks (which people seem to always forget). Look at the link below and you'll see that wind turbines develop about 1.8 megawatts each. Wikipedia says that worldwide energy consumption in 2008 was 143 petawatts. That works out to about 8 million turbines of that size, or about 1 turbine every 7 square miles (assuming, of course, if wind were to power the globe, and they all met their generating capacity)
http://www.tva.com/greenpowerswitch/wind_faq.htm
So, yes, the statement wasnt entirely true to begin with, people did vote for him, and the same people who put out these dumbass narratives have idiots following them as well.
World keeps on spinning.
Of course, powering the world with wind has it's drawbacks (which people seem to always forget). Look at the link below and you'll see that wind turbines develop about 1.8 megawatts each. Wikipedia says that worldwide energy consumption in 2008 was 143 petawatts. That works out to about 8 million turbines of that size, or about 1 turbine every 7 square miles (assuming, of course, if wind were to power the globe, and they all met their generating capacity)
http://www.tva.com/greenpowerswitch/wind_faq.htm
So, yes, the statement wasnt entirely true to begin with, people did vote for him, and the same people who put out these dumbass narratives have idiots following them as well.
World keeps on spinning.
Tilted
..
This is how I think of the various ways that we humans create electrical / mechanical energy suitable for our purposes, in so far as these kinds of big picture / abstract considerations go:
Solar / Hydro / Wind - We're taking kinetic energy that the earth is actively using and converting it to another form of kinetic energy suitable for our purposes. We're taking energy away (e.g. from particular systems, from particular forms) / re-tasking it (e.g. into other particular systems, in other forms). In general (though not in specific) we aren't changing the amount of kinetic energy in the system, but we are changing the form and immediate use of that energy. We're using it for our purposes instead of how the earth had been choosing to use it.
Fossil Fuels - We're taking energy that the earth, for whatever reason, decided it didn't (at the time) need or want and thus chemically stored, and we're converting that potential energy (which was chemically stored) back into kinetic energy. We are changing the amount of kinetic energy in the system, but we aren't re-tasking the energy that the earth had otherwise been actively making use of.
Nuclear - We're taking energy that the Universe, for whatever reason, decided it didn't (at the time) need or want and thus atomically stored (i.e. converted into matter), and we're converting that potential energy (which was stored as matter) back into kinetic energy. We are changing the amount of kinetic energy in the system, and indeed in the Universe, but we aren't really re-tasking the energy that the earth (or the Universe) had otherwise been actively making use of.
Thinking about it big picture, e.g. the likelihood of disrupting natural (i.e. as unaffected by humans) phenomena, I'm not sure which strategy - re-tasking the energy that the earth was otherwise actively making use of OR unlocking energy that the earth or the Universe didn't otherwise have a use for or preferred to store for now - makes more sense. But that's the basic paradigm I've long used to think about the various sources of our human-purposed energy production.
Solar / Hydro / Wind - We're taking kinetic energy that the earth is actively using and converting it to another form of kinetic energy suitable for our purposes. We're taking energy away (e.g. from particular systems, from particular forms) / re-tasking it (e.g. into other particular systems, in other forms). In general (though not in specific) we aren't changing the amount of kinetic energy in the system, but we are changing the form and immediate use of that energy. We're using it for our purposes instead of how the earth had been choosing to use it.
Fossil Fuels - We're taking energy that the earth, for whatever reason, decided it didn't (at the time) need or want and thus chemically stored, and we're converting that potential energy (which was chemically stored) back into kinetic energy. We are changing the amount of kinetic energy in the system, but we aren't re-tasking the energy that the earth had otherwise been actively making use of.
Nuclear - We're taking energy that the Universe, for whatever reason, decided it didn't (at the time) need or want and thus atomically stored (i.e. converted into matter), and we're converting that potential energy (which was stored as matter) back into kinetic energy. We are changing the amount of kinetic energy in the system, and indeed in the Universe, but we aren't really re-tasking the energy that the earth (or the Universe) had otherwise been actively making use of.
Thinking about it big picture, e.g. the likelihood of disrupting natural (i.e. as unaffected by humans) phenomena, I'm not sure which strategy - re-tasking the energy that the earth was otherwise actively making use of OR unlocking energy that the earth or the Universe didn't otherwise have a use for or preferred to store for now - makes more sense. But that's the basic paradigm I've long used to think about the various sources of our human-purposed energy production.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
At least, there's some sense of it. For one thing, while wind is everywhere and the Earth is always making more of it, there's only so much. Powering the world with wind means at some point - you're just going to run out.
And at that point, it's no more ridiculous to claim that a world covered in wind turbines will affect climate than a world dotted with industry does the same.
And then, there's this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7XXVLKWd3Q
And at that point, it's no more ridiculous to claim that a world covered in wind turbines will affect climate than a world dotted with industry does the same.
And then, there's this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7XXVLKWd3Q
cwo_ghwebb
No Use for Donk Twits
Darn! Beat me to it!