Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

17286 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Apr 2012 at 12:20 AM (3 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 05:54:19 PM  

pedobearapproved: 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."


Nothing you said actually happens in the scientific arena. The consensus is a media term being used to describe the fact that the vast majority of scientists have taken the same position. Not because of a conspiracy or a "consensus" but because they have formed their opinions based on the evidence available which has led them to the same conclusion.

The denier hand-waving about "consensus" is just an extension of their ridiculous conspiracy theories ... all part of their anti-science disinformation campaign.
 
2012-04-30 05:57:41 PM  
► chimp_ninja [TotalFark]


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.

I agree with everything you said. But I feel that at least half of able bodied adults should be able to bike to work instead of drive, and I think that would make one hell of a dent in our daily fossil fuel usage. It's so sad no one is willing to try.
 
2012-04-30 06:53:13 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".


I wasn't saying that we should not do anything or give up, however. I also didn't say that I agree with it, I was bringing up the usual notes and points about alternate energies.

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.


Yes, building new reactors would be expensive, but well-designed and built ones will last many years and pay back their cost, while also providing more than coal and gas can per site. The older ones can be retrofitted, or condemned if needed and replaced. I'd rather spend now and save later than spend little now to spend a lot more later.

I'm thinking about the overall. We can't keep pushing back what we have today while we wait for the future to bring us the solution. Use what we have now, and the burden will be less later.
 
2012-04-30 07:16:59 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: 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".

I wasn't saying that we should not do anything or give up, however. I also didn't say that I agree with it, I was bringing up the usual notes and points about alternate energies.

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.

Yes, building new reactors would be expensive, but well-designed and built ones will last many years and pay back their cost, while also providing more than coal and gas can per site. The older ones can be retrofitted, or condemned if needed ...


after what happened in Japan last year, nobody is going to want a nuclear reactor anywhere near their community.
 
MrT
2012-04-30 07:24:52 PM  

b0rscht: So morons blathering about energy being created can STFU, you don't know WTF you're talking about (the tiny, tiny amount of heat created due to friction with the blades and the assembly itself is negligible).


Would you actually like to give some basis for this assertion or are you just going to pull it out of your ass?

For a wind turbine, as with any other airfoil, the ratio at which useful work is generated to energy being dumped into the air flow is pretty much the lift/drag ratio. This is around 50 for a decent laminar-flow wing. So a 3MW turbine operating at a L/D of 50 will be dumping energy into the flow at a rate of 600KW. This comes mostly in the form of vortex drag, where the tip vortices will mix out and be dissipated as heat throughout the wake of the turbine. This energy is not being "created", it represents energy from the bulk airflow which is diverted into a smaller vortex flow structure that will dissipate over a much smaller length-scale.

Take for example this turbine. At its design point of 15m/s its 90m rotor sweeps about 117 tonnes of air per second. If you dump 600kW of energy into 117 tonnes of air per second you get a temperature rise of about 0.5 degrees.

Turbine drag is not negligible when it comes to heating the turbine wake.
 
2012-04-30 07:44:04 PM  

chuckufarlie: after what happened in Japan last year, nobody is going to want a nuclear reactor anywhere near their community.


They don't want natural gas fracking either. so no gas plants.

They dont want coal cause it's dirty, so no coal.

Windmills kill birds.

Solar is too loud.

NIMBY's will have to take their medicine one way or another, or they can sit in the dark without power. It doesn't matter what crap spews out of their mouths. They need their electricity. They can't charge their iPhones without electricity. Or blog about how no power plants should be built again ever.
 
2012-04-30 08:46:22 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: 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.


You're my idol, in not just responsible living but physical fitness too. Lifetime brag card issued and stamped. You probably have a rockin no and are a mellow dude as well.

/high five, sincerely
 
2012-04-30 09:10:25 PM  

chuckufarlie: after what happened in Japan last year, nobody is going to want a nuclear reactor anywhere near their community.



Because other than every 500 years or so along the Left Coast the USA gets too many tsunamis, right?



/the tsunami was the root cause, not the earthquake
 
2012-04-30 09:12:43 PM  

mccallcl: Uchiha_Cycliste: 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 d ...


Thanks! Iono what to say, I'm blushing.
My only advice is that riding every day isn't so bad if you start small and take the months necessary to build up. At one point it becomes one hell of an awesome addiction. The last few weeks mileage/climbing have been: 169/4500' 162/7500' 207/6500' and this week will be 250/5000'.
First you build a spin, then power then endurance. And then you can do whatever you want =D

on a side note I reckon you may like some of my art too, I'll dump some in here much to the dismay of others in a little while.
 
2012-04-30 09:20:03 PM  

chuckufarlie: 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!


I am a beautiful, smart, woman with large breasts. I'm easy too.
 
2012-04-30 09:53:39 PM  

chimp_ninja: indarwinsshadow: [upload.wikimedia.org image 290x277]

Yeah, let's skip the fact there's a big glowing ball in the sky that goes through cycles of heating and cooling. That's just crazy talk.

You keep pointing this out, even after being corrected regarding the actual impact of this simplistic argument. This is because you aren't merely ignorant, but rather a liar.

NASA data regarding insolation:
[sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov image 640x428]

You'll note that irradiance has actually trended slightly downwards over the past several decades. There have been studies on the impact of insolation, cosmic ray flux, sunspots, etc. From that publication: "Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."

[rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org image 316x440]

Panel (e) is the temperature trend over the last three solar cycles, shown in (d), and sunspot cycles, shown in (a).

It has become obvious that you will continue to repeat the lie that solar factors drive the recently observed climate change, even after being repeatedly confronted by clear evidence to the contrary. The only question is: Why?


So there is no big glowing ball in the sky?

Good to know. I'll put that myth on the shelf right next to the great sky wizard.
 
2012-04-30 09:55:21 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.


What about mechanical heat caused by the turning of the generators?
 
2012-04-30 10:05:07 PM  
this is a work in progresss, I used gimp to fill in what's missing. It's 18''x18'' and All (and only) colored pencil. All freehand
i451.photobucket.com
Here it is animated, for shiats and giggles:
i451.photobucket.com
And here it is as my work desktop:
i451.photobucket.com
This is my coffee cup at work, it holds a half gallon:
i451.photobucket.com
here, for scale:i451.photobucket.com
because it's coffee cups on a coffee cup xzyhbit makes an appearance on the bottom:
i451.photobucket.com
made this for my best friend, all felt and yarn, it's a Gir costume for Domo:
i451.photobucket.comi451.photobucket.com

these guys are a series that will eventually be ten pieces; they are related to each other in a really cool way, take a close look and try to figure it out. If you can't let me know and I'll explain it:
i451.photobucket.com
i451.photobucket.com
i451.photobucket.com

Incidentally I don't have the original of the second one, only a scan, because I used it to pay a bar tab. (I also drew it at the bar with a bic pen) I'm proud of the detail managed, while drinking and with a bic pen

Here's my baby:
i451.photobucket.com
i451.photobucket.com
They are both water colors, and only water colors. The upper one I did first, the lower one I did a month later.
My homage to Pink Floyd, I took DSOTM and replaced the prism with a disco ball so that I could transition for a continuous spectrum to a discretzed one. This is also only colored pencils, on 24''x18'' white paper. and again free hand.i451.photobucket.com

Because of my hair, I am required by law to have a happy, happy tree painting. This was painted up at Sunrise Lakes in Yosemite. water colors: (It really looks much better in person)
i451.photobucket.com

Here is a 3'x4' finger painting that I sometimes tape to my ceiling and stare at stoned:
i451.photobucket.com
Here's the first painting I ever did in my whole life. I had just been fired from my prior job (a long bullshiat story for a different day) So I rolled my target and bought a set of cheap crayola water colors for like 8 bucks. I'm proud of the composition, specially because at the time I didn't know what a composition was:
i451.photobucket.com
I did this in HS. It was actually in an art gallery in Laguna Beach for 4 months, which is pretty cool
i451.photobucket.com
i451.photobucket.com
And finally, this one is a little small (Fark size limits) but gives a good idea. so my best friend in the whole world's little sister was really sick, So I asked what her favorite anime was and I was told it was Ouron HS host club. So I took their characters, drew them, brought the drawings in to the computer and animated them to look like they were walking around the screen. It was sized the same as her desktop's resolution and made so it could lay over anything,.
i451.photobucket.com

All through college I wanted to do some sort of art, but didn't have time. So since I graduated in spring '06 I've started drawing and painting when I have time. It's great.


\I have more, but thought this was a good batch.
 
2012-04-30 10:06:05 PM  

MrT: b0rscht: So morons blathering about energy being created can STFU, you don't know WTF you're talking about (the tiny, tiny amount of heat created due to friction with the blades and the assembly itself is negligible).

Would you actually like to give some basis for this assertion or are you just going to pull it out of your ass?

For a wind turbine, as with any other airfoil, the ratio at which useful work is generated to energy being dumped into the air flow is pretty much the lift/drag ratio. This is around 50 for a decent laminar-flow wing. So a 3MW turbine operating at a L/D of 50 will be dumping energy into the flow at a rate of 600KW. This comes mostly in the form of vortex drag, where the tip vortices will mix out and be dissipated as heat throughout the wake of the turbine. This energy is not being "created", it represents energy from the bulk airflow which is diverted into a smaller vortex flow structure that will dissipate over a much smaller length-scale.

Take for example this turbine. At its design point of 15m/s its 90m rotor sweeps about 117 tonnes of air per second. If you dump 600kW of energy into 117 tonnes of air per second you get a temperature rise of about 0.5 degrees.

Turbine drag is not negligible when it comes to heating the turbine wake.


This. And when you stack them up together, the change is not insignificant,though it is pretty local .

It would be more interesting to see how wind farms change the air currents, though.
 
2012-04-30 10:20:11 PM  

RedVentrue: MrT: b0rscht: So morons blathering about energy being created can STFU, you don't know WTF you're talking about (the tiny, tiny amount of heat created due to friction with the blades and the assembly itself is negligible).

Would you actually like to give some basis for this assertion or are you just going to pull it out of your ass?

For a wind turbine, as with any other airfoil, the ratio at which useful work is generated to energy being dumped into the air flow is pretty much the lift/drag ratio. This is around 50 for a decent laminar-flow wing. So a 3MW turbine operating at a L/D of 50 will be dumping energy into the flow at a rate of 600KW. This comes mostly in the form of vortex drag, where the tip vortices will mix out and be dissipated as heat throughout the wake of the turbine. This energy is not being "created", it represents energy from the bulk airflow which is diverted into a smaller vortex flow structure that will dissipate over a much smaller length-scale.

Take for example this turbine. At its design point of 15m/s its 90m rotor sweeps about 117 tonnes of air per second. If you dump 600kW of energy into 117 tonnes of air per second you get a temperature rise of about 0.5 degrees.

Turbine drag is not negligible when it comes to heating the turbine wake.

This. And when you stack them up together, the change is not insignificant,though it is pretty local .

It would be more interesting to see how wind farms change the air currents, though.


Honestly, I can't see how they would. the wind is the results of differentials on pressure and temperature. Those differences originating sometimes very far away from each other and very high up.
I don't see how ground effects could have even an appreciable effect on those deltas.
For instance in the Bay area there is always a headwind going home because the desert heats up and the ocean and the bay stay cold. Even if there were wind mills EVERYWHERE and not just out by Livermore, the desert and oceans would still be doing there thing. How could they effect the very thing driving them?
 
2012-04-30 10:41:27 PM  
Any of you guys know anything about protein absorption?
I've heard the body can only take in so much in a certain time frame.
I had 3 (45g) Myoplex drinks. I've had two since I got home at 5. (one at 5, one just now)
when should I drink the last one for maximum benefit?
 
2012-04-30 10:58:59 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: RedVentrue: MrT: b0rscht: So morons blathering about energy being created can STFU, you don't know WTF you're talking about (the tiny, tiny amount of heat created due to friction with the blades and the assembly itself is negligible).

Would you actually like to give some basis for this assertion or are you just going to pull it out of your ass?

For a wind turbine, as with any other airfoil, the ratio at which useful work is generated to energy being dumped into the air flow is pretty much the lift/drag ratio. This is around 50 for a decent laminar-flow wing. So a 3MW turbine operating at a L/D of 50 will be dumping energy into the flow at a rate of 600KW. This comes mostly in the form of vortex drag, where the tip vortices will mix out and be dissipated as heat throughout the wake of the turbine. This energy is not being "created", it represents energy from the bulk airflow which is diverted into a smaller vortex flow structure that will dissipate over a much smaller length-scale.

Take for example this turbine. At its design point of 15m/s its 90m rotor sweeps about 117 tonnes of air per second. If you dump 600kW of energy into 117 tonnes of air per second you get a temperature rise of about 0.5 degrees.

Turbine drag is not negligible when it comes to heating the turbine wake.

This. And when you stack them up together, the change is not insignificant,though it is pretty local .

It would be more interesting to see how wind farms change the air currents, though.

Honestly, I can't see how they would. the wind is the results of differentials on pressure and temperature. Those differences originating sometimes very far away from each other and very high up.
I don't see how ground effects could have even an appreciable effect on those deltas.
For instance in the Bay area there is always a headwind going home because the desert heats up and the ocean and the bay stay cold. Even if there were wind mills EVERYWHERE and not just out by Livermore, the desert and oceans ...


Wind turbines take e from the wind, slowing the wind down by resistance and generating e. I bet if you get enough of them together, the wind pattern will chang, at least at lower elevations. Kind of like how a large forest can alter weather patterns as the weather moves through.
 
2012-04-30 11:25:50 PM  

RedVentrue: Uchiha_Cycliste: RedVentrue: MrT: b0rscht: So morons blathering about energy being created can STFU, you don't know WTF you're talking about (the tiny, tiny amount of heat created due to friction with the blades and the assembly itself is negligible).

Would you actually like to give some basis for this assertion or are you just going to pull it out of your ass?

For a wind turbine, as with any other airfoil, the ratio at which useful work is generated to energy being dumped into the air flow is pretty much the lift/drag ratio. This is around 50 for a decent laminar-flow wing. So a 3MW turbine operating at a L/D of 50 will be dumping energy into the flow at a rate of 600KW. This comes mostly in the form of vortex drag, where the tip vortices will mix out and be dissipated as heat throughout the wake of the turbine. This energy is not being "created", it represents energy from the bulk airflow which is diverted into a smaller vortex flow structure that will dissipate over a much smaller length-scale.

Take for example this turbine. At its design point of 15m/s its 90m rotor sweeps about 117 tonnes of air per second. If you dump 600kW of energy into 117 tonnes of air per second you get a temperature rise of about 0.5 degrees.

Turbine drag is not negligible when it comes to heating the turbine wake.

This. And when you stack them up together, the change is not insignificant,though it is pretty local .

It would be more interesting to see how wind farms change the air currents, though.

Honestly, I can't see how they would. the wind is the results of differentials on pressure and temperature. Those differences originating sometimes very far away from each other and very high up.
I don't see how ground effects could have even an appreciable effect on those deltas.
For instance in the Bay area there is always a headwind going home because the desert heats up and the ocean and the bay stay cold. Even if there were wind mills EVERYWHERE and not just out by Livermore, the ...


But even a bunch of them... when the desert and the Ocean that are causing the temp diff are hundreds of miles away from each other, what effect could the turbines have on that temp diff.
For the winds to change the ocean and desert must have temps much closer to each other... will wind turbines really cause that?
 
2012-04-30 11:35:39 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: RedVentrue: Uchiha_Cycliste: RedVentrue: MrT: b0rscht: So morons blathering about energy being created can STFU, you don't know WTF you're talking about (the tiny, tiny amount of heat created due to friction with the blades and the assembly itself is negligible).

Would you actually like to give some basis for this assertion or are you just going to pull it out of your ass?

For a wind turbine, as with any other airfoil, the ratio at which useful work is generated to energy being dumped into the air flow is pretty much the lift/drag ratio. This is around 50 for a decent laminar-flow wing. So a 3MW turbine operating at a L/D of 50 will be dumping energy into the flow at a rate of 600KW. This comes mostly in the form of vortex drag, where the tip vortices will mix out and be dissipated as heat throughout the wake of the turbine. This energy is not being "created", it represents energy from the bulk airflow which is diverted into a smaller vortex flow structure that will dissipate over a much smaller length-scale.

Take for example this turbine. At its design point of 15m/s its 90m rotor sweeps about 117 tonnes of air per second. If you dump 600kW of energy into 117 tonnes of air per second you get a temperature rise of about 0.5 degrees.

Turbine drag is not negligible when it comes to heating the turbine wake.

This. And when you stack them up together, the change is not insignificant,though it is pretty local .

It would be more interesting to see how wind farms change the air currents, though.

Honestly, I can't see how they would. the wind is the results of differentials on pressure and temperature. Those differences originating sometimes very far away from each other and very high up.
I don't see how ground effects could have even an appreciable effect on those deltas.
For instance in the Bay area there is always a headwind going home because the desert heats up and the ocean and the bay stay cold. Even if there were wind mills EVERYWHERE and not just out by Liv ...


I believe that you would have slower moving, warmer air downwind of the farm. Each turbine slows and warms the air a fraction, but when you have hundreds or thousands of turbines together the effect would be cumulative. Not having studied this myself and collected data, this is only a hypothesis.
 
2012-04-30 11:45:21 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: RedVentrue: Uchiha_Cycliste: RedVentrue: MrT: b0rscht: i>

I'm not saying that the effect will be more than local/regional, but I've seen storms roll across the midwest that intensify/dissipate depending on local topography. The I35 corridor through Oklahoma is a good example. Areas west of I35 get a lot of tornadoes. Areas east, not so many. This is because of a change in temp, pressure, humidity above the terrain in the area.

 
2012-05-01 12:02:54 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: Any of you guys know anything about protein absorption?
I've heard the body can only take in so much in a certain time frame.
I had 3 (45g) Myoplex drinks. I've had two since I got home at 5. (one at 5, one just now)
when should I drink the last one for maximum benefit?


It's helpful to understand that the protein you're ingesting isn't going to be used directly in new muscle synthesis. It has to be broken down into constituent amino acids before it can be used to synthesize new muscle proteins. With available amino acids, synthesis will be stimulated under stress before you finish exercising. From a metabolic standpoint then, you would optimize synthesis by ingesting protein continuously before, during, and after endurance or resistance training, in a time frame of half an hour before and about an hour after. Ingestion prior to training makes amino acids available for synthesis during training, but ingesting too early would result in the amino acids being passed in waste. Your body ought to have addressed the bulk of its need for new synthesis in the hour after training even though you will continue synthesis at lower levels for a while after that. You'll also want to be intaking carbs along with the protein as a readily available energy supply to support the synthesis. Additionally, the great majority of 135g of ingested protein is going to be passed as waste. One of those drinks at 45g a pop ought to give your body more than enough to work with.
 
2012-05-01 01:17:30 AM  

hypnoticus ceratophrys: Uchiha_Cycliste: Any of you guys know anything about protein absorption?
I've heard the body can only take in so much in a certain time frame.
I had 3 (45g) Myoplex drinks. I've had two since I got home at 5. (one at 5, one just now)
when should I drink the last one for maximum benefit?

It's helpful to understand that the protein you're ingesting isn't going to be used directly in new muscle synthesis. It has to be broken down into constituent amino acids before it can be used to synthesize new muscle proteins. With available amino acids, synthesis will be stimulated under stress before you finish exercising. From a metabolic standpoint then, you would optimize synthesis by ingesting protein continuously before, during, and after endurance or resistance training, in a time frame of half an hour before and about an hour after. Ingestion prior to training makes amino acids available for synthesis during training, but ingesting too early would result in the amino acids being passed in waste. Your body ought to have addressed the bulk of its need for new synthesis in the hour after training even though you will continue synthesis at lower levels for a while after that. You'll also want to be intaking carbs along with the protein as a readily available energy supply to support the synthesis. Additionally, the great majority of 135g of ingested protein is going to be passed as waste. One of those drinks at 45g a pop ought to give your body more than enough to work with.


Thanks! This is a lot of useful information for the future.
For more reference on timing. As soon as I got off the bike (at work, around 12:30) I went and got a big fat burrito (chili verde beef) from the cafeteria. When I got home from work I was starting the protein so that I could help my muscles rebuild.

I've been taught and learned over the years that eating asap after a ride, is very important, and I am very vigilant about this. Especially when I am riding twice a day, 6 days straight. I care less when it's my last ride before a rest day. In fact, when I am going on long rides, rides in excess of 80 minutes I make a point of eating something every 15-20 minutes, as long as I am not climbing. Either a big bite of a cliff bar, or a tangerine, or half a banana. Just a constant influx of calories to help sustain rides exceeding an hour+
.
But in today's case, it was 5 hours after getting out of saddle and since today was my first of six straight days, I want to rebuild my muscles as much as possible. I drank a 45g drink at 5. I drank another at 7:45 and then ate a box(bag) of frosted mini "spooners" at 8.
I threw up a TFD thread asking about this and the consensus was to stop the protein and start eating lots of food.

I guess:
firstly) was drinking the second 45g at 7:45 a waste?
secondly) should I consume the last drink tonight?
thirdly) in the future, how much can I consume in what time frame to maximize happy muscles and minimize wasting the drinks.
Fourthly) thank you for your help.
 
2012-05-01 02:25:56 AM  
I really need to sleep now.
I'm sorry I wont be up to engage you in a nutritional conversation. But I really do hope you respond, and I'll check back first thing in the morning.
Thanks again for your help so far, and I really do hope you can/will respond to my last queries. nite.
god I need sleep, thank Biki the cat black finally came in and I can end my door guard duties.
 
2012-05-01 09:02:22 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: Thanks! This is a lot of useful information for the future.
For more reference on timing. As soon as I got off the bike (at work, around 12:30) I went and got a big fat burrito (chili verde beef) from the cafeteria. When I got home from work I was starting the protein so that I could help my muscles rebuild.

I've been taught and learned over the years that eating asap after a ride, is very important, and I am very vigilant about this. Especially when I am riding twice a day, 6 days straight. I care less when it's my last ride before a rest day. In fact, when I am going on long rides, rides in excess of 80 minutes I make a point of eating something every 15-20 minutes, as long as I am not climbing. Either a big bite of a cliff bar, or a tangerine, or half a banana. Just a constant influx of calories to help sustain rides exceeding an hour+
.
But in today's case, it was 5 hours after getting out of saddle and since today was my first of six straight days, I want to rebuild my muscles as much as possible. I drank a 45g drink at 5. I drank another at 7:45 and then ate a box(bag) of frosted mini "spooners" at 8.
I threw up a TFD thread asking about this and the consensus was to stop the protein and start eating lots of food.

I guess:
firstly) was drinking the second 45g at 7:45 a waste?
secondly) should I consume the last drink tonight?
thirdly) in the future, how much can I consume in what time frame to maximize happy muscles and minimize wasting the drinks.
Fourthly) thank you for your help.


Sorry, we're likely on different time zones. I can't speak to specifics about your training as I'm definitely not a nutritionist or health science type person, but I have a pretty solid background in biochem/metabolism so I figured I'd chime in. I do run regularly but not competitively or anything comparative to your biking.

I can say this, which you sound like you probably already know: With your level of regular exercise, your body is expending all sorts of essentials that it needs to both recover from your workouts and maintain itself at a healthy level in between, so it's a good idea to focus on a well rounded intake of all the things your body needs first and foremost in the form of healthy meals. If those basic requirements aren't met, anything you intake is going to go as best as your body can use it to meet those needs before anything else. In other words, if you didn't take that meal right after a ride, any straight protein that you ingest at that point is going to be broken down into basic sugars that your body can use elsewhere in metabolism and not into muscle synthesis.

To your specific questions 1 & 3) I can't say with complete certainty that it was a complete waste, but I can say that it's not going to give you anywhere near the benefit of protein ingested right before and after your workout. The amount of protein your body can use at one time varies with the individual, their level of fitness, activities engaged in, etc, but I can't see more than a moderate amount at a time being beneficial, and 45g of anything is a lot for your body to process. You can only metabolize so much at one time in a given pathway, and excess is going to be put into other pathways, usually at a higher energy cost to your body, or broken down entirely and excreted as waste. I've got to move on to other things this morning, but I'll check back later. Here's something that you might find useful: Link
 
2012-05-01 09:44:24 AM  

RedVentrue: 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.

What about mechanical heat caused by the turning of the generators?


You're transferring the kinetic energy of the wind into kinetic energy of a moving generator. Some of that will be turned into thermal energy, just like the thermal energy that caused the wind to move in the first place.

You can convert the energy back and forth into various forms, but you aren't raising the energy of the overall system. Very different from the greenhouse effect.
 
2012-05-01 09:47:45 AM  

MrT: Would you actually like to give some basis for this assertion or are you just going to pull it out of your ass?

For a wind turbine, as with any other airfoil, the ratio at which useful work is generated to energy being dumped into the air flow is pretty much the lift/drag ratio. This is around 50 for a decent laminar-flow wing. So a 3MW turbine operating at a L/D of 50 will be dumping energy into the flow at a rate of 600KW. This comes mostly in the form of vortex drag, where the tip vortices will mix out and be dissipated as heat throughout the wake of the turbine. This energy is not being "created", it represents energy from the bulk airflow which is diverted into a smaller vortex flow structure that will dissipate over a much smaller length-scale.


Don't you mean 60 kW?

MrT: Take for example this turbine. At its design point of 15m/s its 90m rotor sweeps about 117 tonnes of air per second. If you dump 600kW of energy into 117 tonnes of air per second you get a temperature rise of about 0.5 degrees.

Turbine drag is not negligible when it comes to heating the turbine wake.


Wouldn't the temperature rise be 0.05K?
 
2012-05-01 05:40:38 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: Keizer_Ghidorah
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.


My prostate is not interested in riding a bike any more.
 
2012-05-01 06:08:02 PM  

utoddl: Uchiha_Cycliste: Keizer_Ghidorah
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.

My prostate is not interested in riding a bike any more.


Why not get a saddle similar to a Specialized Body Geometry saddle, which was designed with men's prostates and perennial nerves in mind? One of those along with the right bike shorts and proper riding form got rid of ALL: of the`, um, issues I had been experiencing.
 
2012-05-01 06:19:32 PM  
BronyMedic:
20 comments and no GeneralJim to tell us all how we've bought the big lie?

Wow. I guess shill paychecks are bouncing in this economy too.

Still with the herp-a-derp about "ebil erl compnees?" You don't get it, do you?

Oil companies are not against anti-carbon legislation. If it passes, they will make MORE money, more reliably, and for longer than they do now. If ANYBODY is paying anyone, it's the environmental groups paying people to agitate FOR the falsified AGW hypothesis. And, if they are, it's funny, because they are collecting donations from people who hate oil companies, and doing the work for the oil companies for free.

Any time environmentalists go against oil companies, the oil companies hand them their collective ass.


www.orthodoxytoday.org
What a collectivist
ass might look like
 
2012-05-01 07:51:41 PM  
Tatterdemalian:
Satellite data. The same NASA/NOAA data the AGW uses as an absolute, unquestionable proof that Earth's entire atmosphere is warning... is subject to errors. Due to cloud cover.

/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?

Of all the data we have, the satellite data is the best. It does cover the whole planet equally, unlike the land and ocean data sets, which favor the northern hemisphere heavily.

They are also able to be corrected, en masse, after the fact, if an error is located. And, as a side benefit, the satellite record from UAH and RSS show no sign of having been manipulated. Handy. One can only use what one has, and for tracking climate temperature, satellites are the current state of the art.


www.woodfortrees.org
Satellite data shows a cooling trend since 1997
 
2012-05-01 08:01:32 PM  
Christian Bale:
. . . according to the American Wine Energy Association.


www.winespectator.com
What an American Wine Energy Association meeting
might look like.
 
2012-05-01 08:21:16 PM  
b0rscht:
So, to review: No net heating, just a "homogenization" of near-surface air, which erodes the nocturnal inversion. Makes it warmer at the surface, cooler aloft (and "aloft" is only maybe the bottom few hundred meters of the atmosphere).

You are correct that the blades cause no measurable change in temperature. On the other hand, they DO cause it to be warmer near the ground, which has an effect on the MEASUREMENT of temperature. So, windmills near temperature monitoring stations will cause FALSE warming... sort of like James Hansen.

However, if we were to get ALL of our energy needs from wind power, that WOULD slow planetary circulation enough to cause warming, assuming they could find enough places to put all the windmills. We use a LOT of energy.
 
2012-05-01 08:30:42 PM  
Theaetetus:
FTFY. When are you going to stop trying to pass off 10 years of data as if it were a hundred years?

It's 15 years, and NOAA refers to that as a trend. Temperatures have been declining for 15 years, which is inexplicable according to the AGW hypothesis.

And, when are YOU going to stop looking at only 150 years? In terms of climate, 150 years isn't much better than 15. You need a bigger picture to see the horrors of global warming.


earthintime.com
 
2012-05-01 08:40:07 PM  
theMightyRegeya:
See, here's the thing: they don't give a fark about cognitive dissonance. They'll still attack it because fark Al Gore.

The science doesn't support AGW. But, you keep thinking that the objections are to Al Gore. Stupidity makes you weak.
 
2012-05-01 08:50:27 PM  
Egoy3k:
The only way to ensure the survival of the human race is to find some more baskets to put our eggs in.

Absolutely correct. It's a safety issue.

2.bp.blogspot.com
The basket I use for my "eggs."
 
2012-05-01 09:11:24 PM  
weiserfireman:
/not anti-wind, just wondered why people always assumed they would have no effect.

digitalnipples.files.wordpress.com
ANTI-WIND
 
2012-05-01 09:15:42 PM  
Right on time ... the thread has died down and there is no one left who has the patience to re-debunk* the green thread-shiatter's lies.

Here come the posts.

* They've all been debunked dozens of times in the past.
 
2012-05-01 10:31:47 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?

Really? Serious question? Okay, assuming it IS....

I think it is because they can't refute what people are ACTUALLY saying. "I think the estimates of climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide have been grossly over-estimated. Here's the science upon which I base that idea" is tough to counter, so "ZOMG! Climate never changes, and Earth is 6000 years old" is what people argue against. In any case, since the vast majority of those shilling for government and the environmental activist groups are ignorant posers, they at LEAST have to warp any argument into one that is covered on their list of canned responses.
 
2012-05-01 11:10:05 PM  
And, when are YOU going to stop looking at only 150 years? In terms of climate, 150 years isn't much better than 15. You need a bigger picture to see the horrors of global warming.

[earthintime.com image 506x286]


Thanks for this. I'm saving it.
 
2012-05-01 11:20:41 PM  

GeneralJim: "ZOMG! Climate never changes, and Earth is 6000 years old"


ZOMG! Humans can never affect the climate, and Urantia is 5 epochal revelations old!
i.imgur.com
Science is not faith, no matter how hard you project that aspect of your own belief onto the "other side", Jim.
 
2012-05-02 12:02:08 AM  

symbolset: And, when are YOU going to stop looking at only 150 years? In terms of climate, 150 years isn't much better than 15. You need a bigger picture to see the horrors of global warming.

[earthintime.com image 506x286]

Thanks for this. I'm saving it.


He actually has a good point, the bigger the picture the better. Be sure you save these fpr the last 400,000 years, too.

i.imgur.com
i.imgur.com
 
2012-05-02 12:19:23 AM  
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 energy taken out of the system is KINETIC energy. Moving wind becomes slower moving wind. That energy is converted into electricity. But, technically, there is friction in the system so there is SOME heat. Good luck measuring it.
 
2012-05-02 12:49:09 AM  
hypnoticus ceratophrys:

I have graphs with no citations too! can I play?
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-05-02 12:58:16 AM  

hypnoticus ceratophrys: symbolset: And, when are YOU going to stop looking at only 150 years? In terms of climate, 150 years isn't much better than 15. You need a bigger picture to see the horrors of global warming.

[earthintime.com image 506x286]

Thanks for this. I'm saving it.

He actually has a good point, the bigger the picture the better. Be sure you save these fpr the last 400,000 years, too.

[i.imgur.com image 640x256]
[i.imgur.com image 640x298]


Better yet, use the one that includes several reconstructions rather than only the worse case one:

www.newscientist.com

Borrowed from New Scientist. Keep in mind about 12k years ago was the peak of Milankovitch Forcing, and we should, if anything, be cooling very very gradually at the moment due to those same forces.
 
2012-05-02 01:01:50 AM  

fluffy2097: hypnoticus ceratophrys:

I have graphs with no citations too! can I play?
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 375x323]


Not him, but is NASA good enough for you? Bonus: it's so basic that this link goes to the NASA kids page.
 
2012-05-02 01:30:00 AM  
chimp_ninja:
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).

A typical Monkey Boy response -- full of fatuous detail, but based upon a total lack of understanding of the most basic elements involved. Windmills do NOT take heat out of the environment, you dimwit. They reduce air's kinetic energy, and convert that to electricity. What a ridiculous poser.

Monkey Boy explains things...
 
2012-05-02 01:43:49 AM  
chimp_ninja:
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.

Well, thank God that a giant bank of batteries to save power (for when it's dark, or there's no wind blowing) isn't made of hundreds of pounds of lead and sulfuric acid, or rare metals and caustic sodas, because that would strain the planet's resources, and create "externalities" in manufacture, storage, and disposal.

i47.tinypic.com
And, thank God solar panels
grow on organic trees...
 
2012-05-02 01:51:16 AM  
UnspokenVoice:
I am a beautiful, smart, woman with large breasts. I'm easy too.

Mom?
 
2012-05-02 02:21:06 AM  
hypnoticus ceratophrys:
GeneralJim: "ZOMG! Climate never changes, and Earth is 6000 years old"

ZOMG! Humans can never affect the climate, and Urantia is 5 epochal revelations old!
[i.imgur.com image 400x400]

Science is not faith, no matter how hard you project that aspect of your own belief onto the "other side", Jim.

Well, dumbass, YOU are the only one injecting religion into science here -- I haven't. That makes sense, from some pea-brain who worships anyone in a lab coat, and UTTERLY misses the point of science.
 
2012-05-02 04:51:36 AM  
hypnoticus ceratophrys:
He actually has a good point, the bigger the picture the better. Be sure you save these fpr the last 400,000 years, too.

Nice irrelevant bit of crap there. But, why stop at less than half a million years? Let's look at the whole time Earth has had diversified flora and fauna, a bit more than a half-billion years.

At that time scale, we see that there is essentially no correlation between carbon dioxide levels and temperature, that temperature varies between two stable levels, for the most part, that we are in an unusual cold spell, an ice age, and that carbon dioxide levels are at historic lows. Of course, none of this bodes well for the power-grab that is AGW policy, but, so be it. Facts are facts.


www.paulmacrae.com
 
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 »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report