If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Discovery)   Surprising contributor to global warming: wind farms   (news.discovery.com) divider line 308
    More: Interesting, global warming, wind farms, Discovery News, West Texas, zhou, warm air, farming, wind turbines  
•       •       •

17277 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Apr 2012 at 12:20 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



308 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-30 12:56:37 PM

karmaceutical: Obvious to me... the cult of Global Warming has overplayed their hand. So these Global Warming machines artificially raise temperatures, so the alarmists can bang the drum, then after Al Gore has bought up all the crippled US industry... the Obama will flip the switch and shut these machines down. Occam's razor...


BUT I WAS TOLD HUMANS DIDN'T AFFECT CLIMATE?!?!?!?! *head explode*
 
2012-04-30 01:02:59 PM

sufferpuppet: chimp_ninja: and think that local mixing will cause global warming.

Right, I'm sure constant "local" phenomenon that is planet wide and been occurring for years could never actually effect anything. Just like everybody's carbon car exhaust. That's only a local event too so I'm sure that couldn't effect global conditions either.


You're taking a volume of cooler air and mixing it with a volume of warmer air. Please explain how the overall temperature increases.

Very different from the greenhouse effect, which increases the fraction of solar radiation that gets retained by the planet.

But you knew that. You're being deliberately obtuse as part of a political agenda.
 
2012-04-30 01:07:57 PM

DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke: 1. Local warming is not global warming

2. The warming could hurt local farmers, who have already suffered through a killer drought over the past few years = dumbass writer is dumbass.

3. What is the relative impact on enviroment of a wind farm vs. a conventional power plant, whether hydro, natural gas, nuke or coal, for the same production?


Versus nuclear? I was right up with you until the anti-science derp.
 
2012-04-30 01:15:35 PM
REPEATED CAUSE A BUNCH OF PEOPLE ARE STILL BEING IGNORANT UP IN THIS THREAD

FTA: "But Zhou and his colleagues found that turbulence behind the wind turbine blades stirs up a layer of cooler air that usually settles on the ground at night, and mixes in warm air that is on top."

This is NOT "contributing to global warming", subby.
.


The only way to combat the loudest of ignorant global warming "experts" is by being even louder with the actual, real science.

And I am an actual real scientist that is my occupation.
 
2012-04-30 01:19:35 PM

machoprogrammer: You really don't think human overpopulation is a problem? Do you have any idea how many resources we humans consume? It is a shiatload


So what do you propose we do about it? Mass murder on a scale never seen in history? Seems like we have to work with what we've got. We've done a lot to reduce birth rates in both the developed and developing world. Without immigration, I believe the U.S. would be below replacement rate. We have to reduce the resources we consume and their impact, given the population we already have.
 
2012-04-30 01:19:44 PM

Pochas: REPEATED CAUSE A BUNCH OF PEOPLE ARE STILL BEING IGNORANT UP IN THIS THREAD

FTA: "But Zhou and his colleagues found that turbulence behind the wind turbine blades stirs up a layer of cooler air that usually settles on the ground at night, and mixes in warm air that is on top."

This is NOT "contributing to global warming", subby..

The only way to combat the loudest of ignorant global warming "experts" is by being even louder with the actual, real science.

And I am an actual real scientist that is my occupation.


sure you are! And I am the King of Siam!
 
2012-04-30 01:21:53 PM

chimp_ninja: sufferpuppet: chimp_ninja: and think that local mixing will cause global warming.

Right, I'm sure constant "local" phenomenon that is planet wide and been occurring for years could never actually effect anything. Just like everybody's carbon car exhaust. That's only a local event too so I'm sure that couldn't effect global conditions either.

You're taking a volume of cooler air and mixing it with a volume of warmer air. Please explain how the overall temperature increases.

Very different from the greenhouse effect, which increases the fraction of solar radiation that gets retained by the planet.

But you knew that. You're being deliberately obtuse as part of a political agenda.


You're being deliberately obtuse as part of a political agenda IF anybody would recognize that, it would be you. But maybe you are not deliberately obtuse, it could be innocent ignorance.
 
2012-04-30 01:31:06 PM

meanmutton: DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke: 1. Local warming is not global warming

2. The warming could hurt local farmers, who have already suffered through a killer drought over the past few years = dumbass writer is dumbass.

3. What is the relative impact on enviroment of a wind farm vs. a conventional power plant, whether hydro, natural gas, nuke or coal, for the same production?

Versus nuclear? I was right up with you until the anti-science derp.


Assuming 'catastrophic risk' is separate from construction and operational enviromental costs, how is comparing impact per MWh produced 'anti-science derp'?
 
2012-04-30 01:33:04 PM

sufferpuppet: chimp_ninja: and think that local mixing will cause global warming.

Right, I'm sure constant "local" phenomenon that is planet wide and been occurring for years could never actually effect anything. Just like everybody's carbon car exhaust. That's only a local event too so I'm sure that couldn't effect global conditions either.


ALSO FTA: "That layering effect is usually reversed during the daytime, with warm air on the surface and cooler air higher up."The year-to-year land surface temperature over wind farms shows a persistent upward trend from 2003 to 2011, consistent with the increasing number of operational wind turbines with time," Zhou said."

So Wind Farms make it about 1 degree hotter at night and about 1 degree cooler during the day, and no net heat is added to the system so it is not glabal warming and locally it does not even change the average temperature. Even on a local scale.
 
2012-04-30 01:39:46 PM

chimp_ninja: You're taking a volume of cooler air and mixing it with a volume of warmer air. Please explain how the overall temperature increases.


If you are looking at a pure thermodynamics mix hot/cold argument the overall difference is diddly. However, the very nature of the turbines is to pull wind energy out of the system. Who's to say that reduction of wind wont cause air to now stagnate and cause some areas growing ever hotter?

Region A may swelter so that region B may have power. Who's political agenda should be listened to there? A or B?
 
2012-04-30 01:45:16 PM
For every action, there is a reaction.

If you try and extract energy from the environment without repercussions of any kind, you're going to have a bad time.

/not up for discussing what those repercussions are. I don't know, but they will exist.
 
2012-04-30 01:46:19 PM

sufferpuppet: Region A may swelter so that region B may have power. Who's political agenda should be listened to there? A or B?


Region A should move to where the power and AC is if they are sweltering.

/worked for Sam Kinnison.
 
2012-04-30 01:51:42 PM

sufferpuppet: ...the very nature of the turbines is to pull wind energy out of the system. Who's to say that reduction of wind...


This is like arguing that a hamster running in a wheel might suddenly disappear because energy is being transferred from the hamster to the wheel. You might want to rethink your approach unless you're gearing up for a zen lesson.
 
2012-04-30 01:58:45 PM

hypnoticus ceratophrys: This is like arguing that a hamster running in a wheel might suddenly disappear because energy is being transferred from the hamster to the wheel. You might want to rethink your approach unless you're gearing up for a zen lesson.


Wait a second here, your arguing that a hamster running in a wheel causes the hamster to loose zero energy? HOLD THE PHONE PEOPLE!!! We just solved all our energy problems. Alert washington, we're going to need millions of hamsters and a crap ton of wheels.
 
2012-04-30 02:04:46 PM

sufferpuppet: Wait a second here, your arguing that a hamster running in a wheel causes the hamster to loose zero energy?


Nope, try again:

hypnoticus ceratophrys: This is like arguing that a hamster running in a wheel might suddenly disappear because energy is being transferred from the hamster to the wheel.

 
2012-04-30 02:08:23 PM

hypnoticus ceratophrys: sufferpuppet: ...the very nature of the turbines is to pull wind energy out of the system. Who's to say that reduction of wind...

This is like arguing that a hamster running in a wheel might suddenly disappear because energy is being transferred from the hamster to the wheel. You might want to rethink your approach unless you're gearing up for a zen lesson.


Parts of the hamster (body fat) do "disappear" to power the wheel's motion, though. As might the hamster, if it ever figures out a way to fling itself out of the cage using the wheel.
 
2012-04-30 02:09:21 PM

Tatterdemalian:
/interesting, but not unexpected to those that remember when ground stations were 100% accurate... until they started reporting data that didn't fit the narrative
//remember the tree rings?


Nor is it unexpected to those who know the computer simulations they were using a few years ago can only deal with 200 mile areas. So the data couldn't accurately tell you if the reason it's always warmer around London is London itself or something else; you can make educated guesses but the simulation itself wouldn't tell you diddly squat about what'll happen.

I'm not saying anything on either side of the debate other than it seems a great many people are attributing a level of predictive accuracy on to a system that isn't capable of delivering as expected. You can get good data out of them yes but I strongly doubt it's to the degree that appears in the media.
 
2012-04-30 02:09:48 PM

hypnoticus ceratophrys: sufferpuppet: Wait a second here, your arguing that a hamster running in a wheel causes the hamster to loose zero energy?

Nope, try again:

hypnoticus ceratophrys: This is like arguing that a hamster running in a wheel might suddenly disappear because energy is being transferred from the hamster to the wheel.


That isn't why the hamster 'disappeared'

www.nypost.com

Bigger than a gerbil for more 'advanced' users.
 
2012-04-30 02:15:43 PM

Tatterdemalian: As might the hamster, if it ever figures out a way to fling itself out of the cage using the wheel.


My son had a hamster with a ball attached to the top of her cage. She discovered that if she could get it to get going fast enough, the ball would fly off the cage and she was free to roam, so I'm laughing very hard at this atm ;p
 
2012-04-30 02:20:18 PM

sufferpuppet: chimp_ninja: You're taking a volume of cooler air and mixing it with a volume of warmer air. Please explain how the overall temperature increases.

If you are looking at a pure thermodynamics mix hot/cold argument the overall difference is diddly. However, the very nature of the turbines is to pull wind energy out of the system. Who's to say that reduction of wind wont cause air to now stagnate and cause some areas growing ever hotter?

Region A may swelter so that region B may have power. Who's political agenda should be listened to there? A or B?



I think there has been at least one estimate on the effect of pulling wind energy out of the system due to wide-spread wind power generation.

Just keep in mind two things. First, the potential effect that you're talking about now (and that the paper I linked to addresses) is very different from the process talked about in TFA. What TFA talks about (and has been pointed out to you) is tantamount to local mixing, not the effect of withdrawing kinetic energy from wind. The second thing thing to note is that the potential impact of both processes so far appear to be rather minimal, especially considering fossil-fuel based alternatives.
 
2012-04-30 02:26:02 PM

Baryogenesis: darwin

Don't be a dick.
 
2012-04-30 02:28:42 PM

indarwinsshadow: Baryogenesis: darwin
Don't be a dick.


Dick or not, he also had a very valid point.
 
2012-04-30 02:30:34 PM

Ninja Otter: machoprogrammer: You really don't think human overpopulation is a problem? Do you have any idea how many resources we humans consume? It is a shiatload

So what do you propose we do about it? Mass murder on a scale never seen in history? Seems like we have to work with what we've got. We've done a lot to reduce birth rates in both the developed and developing world. Without immigration, I believe the U.S. would be below replacement rate. We have to reduce the resources we consume and their impact, given the population we already have.


Agreed on the reducing resources we consume and their impact... People don't need a new damn cell phone every 2 years, or a new iPad every 6 months, or a new car every 3 years.

I think we need to do more to promote birth control in the developed and developing world. We need to inform people (particularly poor and less educated) that children are expensive and to think things through before having them. I also think a tax on having children, rather than the opposite, would do good. And, unfortunately, I don't think one should get more incentives to have children if one is on welfare, and to be on welfare, one should have to be on birth control of some sort. A male birth control would really help, too, I think.

At the rate we are going, there is going to be something bad that will go down. The Earth can only sustain so many people, and the population growth rate, while declining, is still insanely high (they are expecting between 7.5 and 10 billion people on Earth by 2050).
 
2012-04-30 02:40:15 PM

Smidge204: Keizer_Ghidorah: Seriously, nothing we do seems to help. Hydroelectric? Cutting off water flow to other places, disrupting wildlife. Wind? Mass bird kills, heat buildup. Solar? We'd need a facility that covered the entire Southwestern US to provide any appreciable power. Nuclear? People are terrified of radiation, environmentalists won't let us dispose of the waste.

Clearly the solution is to do nothing, then!


I never said "The solution is to do nothing", did I? Why do people always insist on putting words in others' mouths?
 
2012-04-30 02:45:46 PM

indarwinsshadow: Baryogenesis: darwin
Don't be a dick.


I'll make sure to treat every ridiculously simplistic long since debunked troll post with the respect it deserves.
 
2012-04-30 03:09:56 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: I never said "The solution is to do nothing", did I? Why do people always insist on putting words in others' mouths?


Because that's the kind of attitude your post had. Maybe you could temper your complaints with some thoughts and opinions on how to rectify the problem?


machoprogrammer: I also think a tax on having children, rather than the opposite, would do good.


Cap & Trade on children. On their 16th birthday everyone gets 0.75 child credits. You may purchase or otherwise form contracts (eg marry) with other people to transfer or combine your child credits. One coueple gets 1.5 credits, and will have to buy half a credit from somewhere to have a second child. Adoptions are free, fertility clinic assistance costs double (triple if third-party donated cells are used).

This, I feel, would have a number of social and economic benefits.
=Smidge=
/ha ha only serious
 
2012-04-30 03:34:00 PM

machoprogrammer: archichris: Whar'sMuhWhiskey: Marcintosh: There's too damn many of us.

THIS!

My kids and their kids laugh at you. Feel free to off yourself, just do us all a favor and make sure the title to your real estate is free of encumbrances will you?

You really don't think human overpopulation is a problem? Do you have any idea how many resources we humans consume? It is a shiatload


I think over population of people in underdeveloped ares is a problem because they are literally unable to feed themselves. Consumption of resources is not a problem in my book, it just creates incentives to find newer and more efficient ways of providing resources. Thats called technological innovation and it is what will save us.

The only way we can tech our way out of our problems with a smaller population is by screening the unborn population and eliminating the useless people.

Is that what you are for? Or you only want rich people to breed? Even if they are too stupid to keep the desalinization plants running? Or you want to take all the resources and control who gets them so that only the important people are allowed access?/


Which Orwellian dictatorship exactly do you favor?
 
2012-04-30 03:44:22 PM

archichris: I think over population of people in underdeveloped ares is a problem because they are literally unable to feed themselves. Consumption of resources is not a problem in my book, it just creates incentives to find newer and more efficient ways of providing resources. Thats called technological innovation and it is what will save us.

The only way we can tech our way out of our problems with a smaller population is by screening the unborn population and eliminating the useless people.

Is that what you are for? Or you only want rich people to breed? Even if they are too stupid to keep the desalinization plants running? Or you want to take all the resources and control who gets them so that only the important people are allowed access?/


Which Orwellian dictatorship exactly do you favor?


I don't favor either extreme, but there is only a finite amount of resources. Reducing the global population by half (or more) would do a lot of good for the planet.

There is a limit to what technology can do. When we run out of certain things, we are going to be farked. Helium, Lithium, and Phosphorus come to mind particularly. The ocean's fish stocks are being severely depleted, of which when some species go, the whole ocean food chain will be farked. Not to mention the amount of carbon humans create.
 
2012-04-30 03:47:16 PM
Haven't read the entire thread yet so if this is a repeat, sorry. It seems that the turbines do not move on their own, there is a source that moves them, WIND. Since the wind moves the turbines which mix the air, then the wind is mixing the air. Seems like second grade science to me, but what do I know.
 
2012-04-30 03:50:38 PM

machoprogrammer: Ninja Otter: machoprogrammer: You really don't think human overpopulation is a problem? Do you have any idea how many resources we humans consume? It is a shiatload

So what do you propose we do about it? Mass murder on a scale never seen in history? Seems like we have to work with what we've got. We've done a lot to reduce birth rates in both the developed and developing world. Without immigration, I believe the U.S. would be below replacement rate. We have to reduce the resources we consume and their impact, given the population we already have.

Agreed on the reducing resources we consume and their impact... People don't need a new damn cell phone every 2 years, or a new iPad every 6 months, or a new car every 3 years.

I think we need to do more to promote birth control in the developed and developing world. We need to inform people (particularly poor and less educated) that children are expensive and to think things through before having them. I also think a tax on having children, rather than the opposite, would do good. And, unfortunately, I don't think one should get more incentives to have children if one is on welfare, and to be on welfare, one should have to be on birth control of some sort. A male birth control would really help, too, I think.

At the rate we are going, there is going to be something bad that will go down. The Earth can only sustain so many people, and the population growth rate, while declining, is still insanely high (they are expecting between 7.5 and 10 billion people on Earth by 2050).


upload.wikimedia.org
SOON!
 
2012-04-30 03:56:13 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: ArcadianRefugee: For god's sake, they aren't windmills, they are wind turbines.

mill: a machine for grinding, crushing, or pulverizing any solid substance, such as grain
windmill: a mill powered by the wind

turbine: a machine for producing continuous electric power
wind turbine: a turbine powered by the wind

Get it? Not that hard, tards.

You should check the definition of "turbine" again.


Turbines do not produce electricity, they produce mechanical energy used to turn a generator which produces electricity
 
2012-04-30 04:00:19 PM

TommyDeuce: SOON!


Malthus was just about food production. Food production is fine, at least, until we run out of ways to produce real potent fertilizer (which admittedly will be a while). There are other problems with overpopulation, however...
 
2012-04-30 04:07:21 PM

sharkbeagle: Greens won't be happy until we're all living in the Middle AgesDark Ages.


FTFY

"We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion -- guilt-free at last! " Stewart Brand (writing in the Whole Earth Catalogue

"Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed. "-- Pentti Linkola


"The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world" -- John Shuttleworth

"We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels." -- Carl Amery

"Every time you turn on an electric light, you are making another brainless baby "-- Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists

"To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem "Lamont Cole
 
2012-04-30 04:15:51 PM

b2theory: What's strange is that the exact opposite thing should happen. When energy is removed from the air the net effect should be cooling. I want to say there were some large scale simulations done in the last couple years.


The turbines are mixing the air, allowing warmer air to come in contact with the surface, raising surface temperatures. Nothing was said about the total energy of the system, however. It's just being distributed differently, resulting in higher surface temperatures.

Imagine putting a fan blowing across a pot of boiling water. The water gets cooler, but everyone else downwind gets warmer.
 
2012-04-30 04:20:20 PM

TommyDeuce: machoprogrammer: Ninja Otter: machoprogrammer: You really don't think human overpopulation is a problem? Do you have any idea how many resources we humans consume? It is a shiatload

So what do you propose we do about it? Mass murder on a scale never seen in history? Seems like we have to work with what we've got. We've done a lot to reduce birth rates in both the developed and developing world. Without immigration, I believe the U.S. would be below replacement rate. We have to reduce the resources we consume and their impact, given the population we already have.

Agreed on the reducing resources we consume and their impact... People don't need a new damn cell phone every 2 years, or a new iPad every 6 months, or a new car every 3 years.

I think we need to do more to promote birth control in the developed and developing world. We need to inform people (particularly poor and less educated) that children are expensive and to think things through before having them. I also think a tax on having children, rather than the opposite, would do good. And, unfortunately, I don't think one should get more incentives to have children if one is on welfare, and to be on welfare, one should have to be on birth control of some sort. A male birth control would really help, too, I think.

At the rate we are going, there is going to be something bad that will go down. The Earth can only sustain so many people, and the population growth rate, while declining, is still insanely high (they are expecting between 7.5 and 10 billion people on Earth by 2050).

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x290]
SOON!


pppfffttt. That prediction was made before:

During the sixties it was the Population Bomb scare from the book of the same title. According to this very flawed book, the World's population would soon out grow the earth's ability to sustain it.
The book predicted by the 1970s the United States would be forced to suspend foreign food aid and impose food rationing on its own populace.Yet here we are still paying famres not to grow food andusign food for fuel.

The book also predicted that due to famine the world would experience a population "die back" that would reduce the earth's population to 2 Billion. This would all happen of course unless we submitted to more centralized control of our lives and more equitable sharing/allocation (meaning your being moved to a collective) of the world's resources. Guess who gets to do the allocating. But here we are hitting 7 billion people and most issues of shortages have to due with government corruption and mismanagment not a world wide shortages.

You guys are like those rapture guys who predicted the end of the world and when it does not happen they move their predictions forward.
 
2012-04-30 04:28:53 PM

nmrsnr: As I said in the redlit thread:

This just in: You can't take large amounts of energy out a system and not affect that system.

Also

DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke: Local warming is not global warming

this.


Wouldn't taking energy out of the system cool it down? Or is the warming caused because there are less winds to cool the ground?
 
2012-04-30 04:41:44 PM

You Are All Sheep: Anyone who agrees with this, and then doesn't just run out and off themselves, are mountainous hypocrites.


Not really. Just stop breeding.
 
2012-04-30 04:41:51 PM
Somewhere Al Gore and his investments are laughing their butts off.... OFF I say!
 
2012-04-30 04:47:07 PM

mccallcl: Treize26: Uchiha_Cycliste: Keizer_Ghidorah
So, no matter what type of energy we try to use, we're going to destroy the planet regardless.

we *could* get everyone to ride a bike to work, but no. that would fix too many problems. it's not the profit driven american way.

You're aware that not everyone lives in a city right? And that the economy is shiat and people take jobs where they can get them... and, well, mainly not every person lives in/can afford to live in a goddamned city.

Seriously, I'm all for doing everything we can to improve the environment. I drive the most fuel efficient car that I can afford, I shop local, and my only regular long-distance commute is to work and back. People like you are not helping anything with suggestions that only apply to you or your immediate surroundings.

If you want people to think globally, you may actually have to come halfway and realize that not everyone has the same options on how to go about that as you instead of implying that it's some great evil that we all don't live a reasonable bike ride away from our jobs like you apparently do.

First off, yes as far as anything important is concerned, Americans live in cities. Since the industrial revolution, rural life has been marginalized. This is just progress an the very definition of "civilization". Rural areas should be kept as free from people as possible because they are inefficient for us to civilize.

If you drive 50 miles to work every day, you are taking advantage of absurd paradigms you have only a limited window of time to abuse. Unless you are engaged in a rural lifestyle, you are misusing the land and should move somewhere else. If you can't manage to do that, hey whatevs. But don't get self righteous about it.

It's not my bad that I observed progress and made a life for myself that took advantage of reality and now I expect the same for other modern human beings. I don't expect a ticker tape parade, but I don't give a lot of deference to complaints abou ...


Just so we are clear, riding a bike 50 miles a day is still cool right?
It makes me ever so happy.
 
2012-04-30 04:47:52 PM

Smidge204: Keizer_Ghidorah: I never said "The solution is to do nothing", did I? Why do people always insist on putting words in others' mouths?

Because that's the kind of attitude your post had. Maybe you could temper your complaints with some thoughts and opinions on how to rectify the problem?


Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know that I couldn't say anything about the subject unless I had a spreadsheet of suggestions to offer.

Every solution brought up gets shot and scorned by at least one group, and some groups scorn them all (environmentalists, mainly). And some of the reasons, like what I mentioned, are real and have already happened. What could I offer? I'm not a scientist or an engineer, I can't think of anything amazing and world-changing that will solve our energy needs without some kind of impact.

Right now, the solution with the least impact is nuclear. My suggestion is go with it until we iron the bugs out of the other alternate energy sources.
 
2012-04-30 04:53:21 PM

Bennie Crabtree: Wouldn't taking energy out of the system cool it down? Or is the warming caused because there are less winds to cool the ground?


The article is talking about mixing of warmer air with cooler air, averaging their temperatures. It ends up a little warmer at ground level, and a little cooler higher up.

Taking energy out of the system would theoretically cool it down, but keep in mind that those turbines don't pump that energy into space. (There are minor exceptions, such as poorly designed lighting.) They send it through wires (resistively heating them), then eventually perform some sort of work (converting some fraction back into heat energy), etc. Nearly all of that energy re-enters the global system as heat within a very short time interval.

There are exceptions-- for example, you might charge a battery and not use the battery for a while. You might use the electricity to drive a chemical reaction, like electrolysis to generate aluminum metal. This converts it to chemical energy, which will be released when the aluminum eventually oxidizes again, possibly years later.

But the lion's share of that energy? It's coming right back out as heat after one or a few quick steps. You're just moving it from one place (turbine location) to another (point of use).
 
2012-04-30 04:55:53 PM

hasty ambush: TommyDeuce: machoprogrammer: Ninja Otter: machoprogrammer: You really don't think human overpopulation is a problem? Do you have any idea how many resources we humans consume? It is a shiatload

So what do you propose we do about it? Mass murder on a scale never seen in history? Seems like we have to work with what we've got. We've done a lot to reduce birth rates in both the developed and developing world. Without immigration, I believe the U.S. would be below replacement rate. We have to reduce the resources we consume and their impact, given the population we already have.

Agreed on the reducing resources we consume and their impact... People don't need a new damn cell phone every 2 years, or a new iPad every 6 months, or a new car every 3 years.

I think we need to do more to promote birth control in the developed and developing world. We need to inform people (particularly poor and less educated) that children are expensive and to think things through before having them. I also think a tax on having children, rather than the opposite, would do good. And, unfortunately, I don't think one should get more incentives to have children if one is on welfare, and to be on welfare, one should have to be on birth control of some sort. A male birth control would really help, too, I think.

At the rate we are going, there is going to be something bad that will go down. The Earth can only sustain so many people, and the population growth rate, while declining, is still insanely high (they are expecting between 7.5 and 10 billion people on Earth by 2050).

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x290]
SOON!

pppfffttt. That prediction was made before:

During the sixties it was the Population Bomb scare from the book of the same title. According to this very flawed book, the World's population would soon out grow the earth's ability to sustain it.
The book predicted by the 1970s the United States would be forced to suspend foreign food aid and impose food rationing on its own po ...


Not sure which "you guys" I'm supposed to be part of - I was really just going for the humor of the "soon" meme. That being said, I think there is truth to the idea of a maximum capacity of a closed system with finite resources. Find a way to bring in resources from outside Earth's biosphere or create "free" energy (say, Quantum Mining as long as you don't blow up/collapse the universe) and that might not be an issue anymore.
Not saying we're really close to that cap now though.
 
2012-04-30 05:04:02 PM

Baryogenesis: indarwinsshadow: Baryogenesis: darwin
Don't be a dick.

I'll make sure to treat every ridiculously simplistic long since debunked troll post with the respect it deserves.


Right back at you f*ck face.
 
2012-04-30 05:08:36 PM

dellsworth1007: Lenny_da_Hog: ArcadianRefugee: For god's sake, they aren't windmills, they are wind turbines.

mill: a machine for grinding, crushing, or pulverizing any solid substance, such as grain
windmill: a mill powered by the wind

turbine: a machine for producing continuous electric power
wind turbine: a turbine powered by the wind

Get it? Not that hard, tards.

You should check the definition of "turbine" again.

Turbines do not produce electricity, they produce mechanical energy used to turn a generator which produces electricity


Shh! I wanted *him* to check it.
 
2012-04-30 05:14:22 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: So, no matter what type of energy we try to use, we're going to destroy the planet regardless.


Keizer_Ghidorah: Every solution brought up gets shot and scorned by at least one group, and some groups scorn them all (environmentalists, mainly).


The fallacy you're committing is implying that all solutions are equally bad, when that's blatantly untrue. Smidge204 is absolutely justified in calling you out on your hyperbole, especially when absolutely no one is claiming that local mixing of air will "destroy the planet".

Keizer_Ghidorah: Right now, the solution with the least impact is nuclear.


That's not true on a per-unit basis. Wind, solar thermal or PV, geothermal, etc. all have much lower downsides in terms of their overall externalities. Fission's virtues are that it has a low climate impact, you can put it in most geographical areas, and it scales well. Older reactors have significant but manageable waste and safety issues. Newer designs significantly reduce those problems, but then you're talking about the massive cost of putting up new reactors.

Fission is part of almost anyone's plan for base load, but there's quite a bit of room for discussion about how much and when. Nearly anything that takes a chunk out of coal or petroleum consumption would be a step forward-- they're at the bottom of the list in any discussion, especially if you correctly price their externalities. Coal only looks cheap if you ignore what comes out of the stacks, mine tailings, slurries, etc., especially their impact on public health.
 
2012-04-30 05:20:16 PM

chimp_ninja: Keizer_Ghidorah: So, no matter what type of energy we try to use, we're going to destroy the planet regardless.

Keizer_Ghidorah: Every solution brought up gets shot and scorned by at least one group, and some groups scorn them all (environmentalists, mainly).

The fallacy you're committing is implying that all solutions are equally bad, when that's blatantly untrue. Smidge204 is absolutely justified in calling you out on your hyperbole, especially when absolutely no one is claiming that local mixing of air will "destroy the planet".

Keizer_Ghidorah: Right now, the solution with the least impact is nuclear.

That's not true on a per-unit basis. Wind, solar thermal or PV, geothermal, etc. all have much lower downsides in terms of their overall externalities. Fission's virtues are that it has a low climate impact, you can put it in most geographical areas, and it scales well. Older reactors have significant but manageable waste and safety issues. Newer designs significantly reduce those problems, but then you're talking about the massive cost of putting up new reactors.

Fission is part of almost anyone's plan for base load, but there's quite a bit of room for discussion about how much and when. Nearly anything that takes a chunk out of coal or petroleum consumption would be a step forward-- they're at the bottom of the list in any discussion, especially if you correctly price their externalities. Coal only looks cheap if you ignore what comes out of the stacks, mine tailings, slurries, etc., especially their impact on public health.


What about not using mechanical energy for transportation?
Wouldn't that make a hell of a dent in our fossil fuel usage?
 
2012-04-30 05:28:22 PM

im14u2c: Not really. Just stop breeding.


My wife and I are doing that.

:)

/ Of course, it was before I even heard of this movement.
 
2012-04-30 05:36:27 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: What about not using mechanical energy for transportation? Wouldn't that make a hell of a dent in our fossil fuel usage?


First, you're using some sort of mechanical energy in any form of transportation. I'm assuming you mean fossil fuels, vs. the sugars your body converts to mechanical energy (old-school biofuels).

Absolutely, but then it's a matter of scale, not the mix. Conservation is usually the cheapest way forward, but realistically there are limits to how much you can reap from it. Sooner or later, it takes a certain number of Joules to move a given mass from point A to point B.

Bike to work? Sure, although not everyone is physically capable. Substitute phone calls, videoconferencing, etc. for business travel? Sure. Train instead of airplane for mid-distance travel? Sure. Plan communities so walking, biking, and electric mass transit are easy and productive? Sure.

But sooner or later, you have to haul a lot of weight, and for that you need portable energy sources. Presently, we derive most of that from fossil sources, but carbon-neutral options are in the works if we as a society decide to prioritize them. Electric vehicles partnered with a much more carbon-neutral grid help a great deal for smaller vehicles.

Wind's a big step towards that. Several countries already derive 10-20% of their electricity from it, and it has a fantastic return on investment in terms of the energy required to construct a turbine vs. its lifetime output. TFA getting wound up over local air mixing is ridiculous given the life cycles of the alternatives.

We could certainly close a ton of coal plants with minimal political will.
 
2012-04-30 05:40:27 PM

Gleeman: Now now, don't forget that 97% of scientists have a consensus on global climate change.


/75 out of 77 who were active publishers in climate change



What pisses me off about people who use that "consensus" language is that is goes against how science works. Consensus doesn't mean correct. At one time the consensus said that the Sun went around the Earth. BTW if you want an interesting read along those lines look at the scientists who disagree with the big bang theory. There aren't very many, but their theories explain observable facts that the big bang theory does not, and they are having a hard time getting funding trying to determine if their theories might be valid.

The other thing that kills me is scientific "compromise." Which is "my data shows A, B, and C, but since I'm in the minority and everyone else's data doesn't show C or they weren't looking at or for C, and we're voting, C will be eliminated."
 
2012-04-30 05:49:28 PM

hasty ambush: sharkbeagle: Greens won't be happy until we're all living in the Middle AgesDark Ages.

FTFY

"We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion -- guilt-free at last! " Stewart Brand (writing in the Whole Earth Catalogue

"Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed. "-- Pentti Linkola


"The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world" -- John Shuttleworth

"We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels." -- Carl Amery

"Every time you turn on an electric light, you are making another brainless baby "-- Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists

"To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem "Lamont Cole


I don't know a single "Green" that supports any of these statements. You have cherry picked the words of some extremists and applied them to a very large and diverse group in an attempt to spread ridiculous propaganda.

No surprise to find a denier being intellectually dishonest ... it is the standard MO.
 
Displayed 50 of 308 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report