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.

(The Register)   Peak wind is coming. Not a Taco Bell thread   (theregister.co.uk) divider line 61
    More: Interesting, Harvard, upper limit, confidential information, wind powers, Taco Bell, wind turbines  
•       •       •

2777 clicks; posted to Geek » on 13 Mar 2013 at 11:45 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-13 09:34:48 AM
So if they built that much capacity it would change climate more than all the carbon being dumped into the atmosphere. Awesome.
 
2013-03-13 10:44:31 AM
OH MY GOD WE'RE USING UP ALL THE WIND!!11!!!

/meh... never
//not as long as politicians exist
 
2013-03-13 11:52:13 AM
Theoretically, you could build wind generators on all the flat land, but then you could build them on top of buildings and on platforms in the ocean and make wind towers with multiple generators, so I don't see peak wind coming anytime soon.
 
2013-03-13 11:55:44 AM
It's a good thing that nobody I've heard is proposing using only wind power then.


/wind, solar, hydro, whatever - all together
 
2013-03-13 11:55:45 AM
... of North Carolina uni, have weighed into a row ... boffins ....

Brit typing detected
 
2013-03-13 12:03:18 PM
[Eyeroll] So, really, wind turbines are basically an increase in the surface roughness of the land area, which absorbs more of the wind's energy. I suppose if you had enough wind turbines deplyed, this could deplete the available wind energy somewhat. However, the North American continent used to be covered with mature forest from the Mississippi Valley to the Eastern Seaboard. This forest, itself a rough surface, would have absorbed many orders of magnitude more energy than wind turbines. And yet there was still wind for the colonists to biatch about! Amazing!
 
2013-03-13 12:05:11 PM

wjllope: ... of North Carolina uni, have weighed into a row ... boffins ....

Brit typing detected


It took me way too long to find out which "North Carolina uni" she works at (the correct answer is UNC Charlotte), partially because if you google "Amanda Adams" you get a lot of pictures of somebody else who is... um... well, I got a little distracted
 
2013-03-13 12:10:50 PM

flucto: So if they built that much capacity it would change climate more than all the carbon being dumped into the atmosphere. Awesome.


Cimate change is from too much energy being trapped in the atmosphere.
Wind turbines extract energy from the atmosphere.

Sound like a winner.
 
2013-03-13 12:12:12 PM

wjllope: ... of North Carolina uni, have weighed into a row ... boffins ....

Brit typing detected


i've never seen the word boffins in my life.
 
2013-03-13 12:14:26 PM

Donnchadha: partially because if you google "Amanda Adams" you get a lot of pictures of somebody else who is...


not ugly.... at least not to me... I like sharp knees.

www.bodydesignpersonaltraining.com
 
2013-03-13 12:15:10 PM
Old article that has been debunked multiple times.
 
2013-03-13 12:17:11 PM
Installed Capacity
As of the end of December 2012, Iowa has 5,137 megawatts of installed wind capacity which is 3nd in the nation.

IWEA
Average Wind Capacity Factor
33.3% - IUB


5.1 TW * .33 = 1.7 TW.

Iowa is producing 1.7 Terawatts. 2 others produce more (Cali and Texas I'm assuming), for a total of 5.1 TW

FTFA: "Keith and Adams are referring to Archer and Jacobson's paper last year, in which they suggested that a "practical" windpower system of the future - employing 4 million wind towers spread all round the world to avoid damage to the environment (!) - might yield average output of 7.5 terawatts over time."

I'm assuming Germany and the Netherlands, with Iowa, California and Texas, are already producing that much. So I'm assuming the author F'd up a unit or two.
 
2013-03-13 12:18:25 PM

impaler: I'm assuming Germany and the Netherlands, with Iowa, California and Texas, are already producing that much. So I'm assuming the author F'd up a unit or two.


Or I did.

Terrawatt, Giggawatt.

Damn it.
 
2013-03-13 12:33:53 PM
solar's KW/m2 density is higher than wind's(makes sense, really).  wind is nice if you can site it right but massive-scale wind requires some serious acreage compared to other options.

or we could shrug, go over to full-burnup breeder reactors(1% of the waste of current light-water reactors), and have energy densities that make sense.
 
2013-03-13 12:37:29 PM

GanjSmokr: It's a good thing that nobody I've heard is proposing using only wind power then.


/wind, solar, hydro, whatever - all together


Yeah, I'm gonna go with this.  There's a weird industry of people out there bashing the viability of non-fossil fuels, that uses the stupidest straw men arguments about why they're all pipe dreams.  I wonder why.
 
2013-03-13 12:44:10 PM

dehehn: Yeah, I'm gonna go with this.  There's a weird industry of people out there bashing the viability of non-fossil fuels, that uses the stupidest straw men arguments about why they're all pipe dreams.  I wonder why.


Yeah, it is a strawman but at the same time the feasibility of all of those making 100% to reduce climate change is their actual argument.  When the charge to increase our amount of renewable energy infrastructure is lead by the profs from the article, it's going to falter when they use bogus numbers that are 4-8 times higher than a moderate projection.

It's like there's liars on both sides.
 
2013-03-13 12:55:39 PM
The Register needs to get its shiat together.
 
2013-03-13 01:00:50 PM
The wind power future ... where the lights never even turn on

Um, NO.  More like "the wind power future, where fossil fuels are not as readily available/cheap, and so we have to start turning the lights OFF when we don't need them, like not leaving the oven light on all night just in case we might want to get up for a snack, or not lighting empty office buildings all bloody night.

I can't wait until the oil starts getting low, like in "The Wind-Up Girl".  Sure, my life will become less convenient, but many many other people will be MISERABLE.
 
2013-03-13 01:31:30 PM

mrlewish: Old article that has been debunked multiple times.


Citation, please.

Common sense and physics coincide on this. There really isn't such a thing as a free lunch. Energy generated from wind has to come from the energy IN the wind: mass speed, volume moved. etc. The environmental effects of this are totally unknown, and the chance of massive unintended consequences are huge.

I place wind power fanatics in the same bucket as perpetual motion idiots.
 
2013-03-13 01:38:36 PM
Wind turbines do more than just produce power, they clean up grid power quite well actually. I know the local power utility loves our turbines because they make their grid much much more stable. Powering everything from wind power isn't feasible though. The whole point of having wind power is to reduce reliability on oil, not completely replace it. Same goes for solar and any other non-fossil fuel source of power.

/wind turbine technician
//300ft up on lunch break as I type this
///my companies turbines in that picture in the article
 
2013-03-13 01:45:40 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: I place wind power fanatics in the same bucket as perpetual motion idiots.


Except we can generate electricity from wind, and the other is physically impossible. Totally on the same level.
 
2013-03-13 02:01:09 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: mrlewish: Old article that has been debunked multiple times.

Citation, please.

Common sense and physics coincide on this. There really isn't such a thing as a free lunch. Energy generated from wind has to come from the energy IN the wind: mass speed, volume moved. etc. The environmental effects of this are totally unknown, and the chance of massive unintended consequences are huge.


Not really.

The average wind turbine is what, a couple hundred feet tall? The atmosphere goes up tens of thousands of feet. So, even if we carpeted the entire surface of the Earth with wind turbines, we're only using the bottom 1% or so of the atmosphere.

Now, about 2/3 of the Earths surface is water. And though we have some 'offshore' wind turbines, they aren't placed far from land. So, now we're using at most 1/3 of 1 percent of the atmosphere, assuming every square foot of land is covered with turbines.

Of course, that's a stupid assumption. Much of the land surface is not suitable- too little wind, too variable wind, not readily accessible, etc. So, not we're talking about, what, maybe 1/100th of 1/3 of 1 percent?? Assuming we build those areas to capacity. Which we won't, for varying reasons.

The point is, even if we built as many turbines as we could, we'd only be using a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the total.

I place wind power fanatics in the same bucket as perpetual motion idiots.
 
2013-03-13 02:08:15 PM

lousyskater: //300ft up on lunch break as I type this


You just made my ass pucker a little...

/HATE heights
 
2013-03-13 02:10:27 PM

fredklein: The point is, even if we built as many turbines as we could, we'd only be using a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the total.


During school, we had someone come out and do a study of one of our fields off campus for a civil engineering courses.  It's a constantly windy field, about 200 acres, and no trees to be found.  They said it wasn't even worth it, and that the wind varied in direction too much.  Really perplexes me how little we could actually use them.
 
2013-03-13 02:11:06 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: mrlewish: Old article that has been debunked multiple times.

Citation, please.

Common sense and physics coincide on this. There really isn't such a thing as a free lunch. Energy generated from wind has to come from the energy IN the wind: mass speed, volume moved. etc. The environmental effects of this are totally unknown, and the chance of massive unintended consequences are huge.

I place wind power fanatics in the same bucket as perpetual motion idiots.


Not sure what you are talking about:
img2u.info


On a more serious note... wind power is a simple function of solar power translated into air currents. It is constantly renewed by the input of heat from the sun, and dissapated by structures on the earth, like mountains, trees, cities, and the like. Adding wind turbines doesn't really upset the balance any more than a city does.

Increasing winds are actually a product of "global climate change" - if anything, turbines would help cut the dramatic, extreme weather events that are supposedly caused by climate change. They also have ZERO effect on jet streams, which have a greater impact on earth's ecosystem globally.

The only people who can kinda-sorta complain about turbines are those who live next to them (though some, like the late Ted Kennedy are ignorant hypocrites), but even that seems more like "first world problems" of an elite class. I live near railroad tracks, but I don't crusade against trains, nor do I petition the state to banish the tracks from my neighborhood.
 
2013-03-13 02:13:05 PM

fredklein: The point is, even if we built as many turbines as we could, we'd only be using a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the total.

I place

anti-wind power fanatics in the same bucket as perpetual motion idiots.

I think I fixed that for you.

I agree with the fixed version of that statement.
 
2013-03-13 02:13:14 PM

lousyskater: Wind turbines do more than just produce power, they clean up grid power quite well actually. I know the local power utility loves our turbines because they make their grid much much more stable. Powering everything from wind power isn't feasible though. The whole point of having wind power is to reduce reliability on oil, not completely replace it. Same goes for solar and any other non-fossil fuel source of power.

/wind turbine technician
//300ft up on lunch break as I type this
///my companies turbines in that picture in the article


Hope you're not a lousyclimber. My palms are are sweating, thanks.
 
2013-03-13 02:15:21 PM

GanjSmokr: lousyskater: //300ft up on lunch break as I type this

You just made my ass pucker a little...

/HATE heights


Love it up here:
sphotos-a.ak.fbcdn.net
 
2013-03-13 02:18:29 PM

lousyskater: GanjSmokr: lousyskater: //300ft up on lunch break as I type this

You just made my ass pucker a little...

/HATE heights

Love it up here:
[sphotos-a.ak.fbcdn.net image 850x637]


That is an awesome view.  I wish I wasn't such a baby with heights.
 
2013-03-13 03:04:31 PM

thecpt: dehehn: Yeah, I'm gonna go with this.  There's a weird industry of people out there bashing the viability of non-fossil fuels, that uses the stupidest straw men arguments about why they're all pipe dreams.  I wonder why.

Yeah, it is a strawman but at the same time the feasibility of all of those making 100% to reduce climate change is their actual argument.  When the charge to increase our amount of renewable energy infrastructure is lead by the profs from the article, it's going to falter when they use bogus numbers that are 4-8 times higher than a moderate projection.

It's like there's liars on both sides.


Germany already factually covers 10% of its electricity needs in wind power, and it has hardly broken the bank to do so (although it worked out a way to make the middle/working class foot the bill instead of paying for it out of general revenues), and it isn't exactly covered in every square foot with wind turbines, and it isn't a low population density country, or a with a very low level of energy usage to cover, or any other special case that means the same wouldn't apply to most other countries. So basically wind power has already been proven to work, and can cut a big chunk off fossil fuel dependency at a minimum, and is affordable. So it is hard not to see the people claiming it is impossible as shills, because this information is not hard to find.
 
2013-03-13 03:08:49 PM

GanjSmokr: lousyskater: GanjSmokr: lousyskater: //300ft up on lunch break as I type this

You just made my ass pucker a little...

/HATE heights

Love it up here:
[sphotos-a.ak.fbcdn.net image 850x637]

That is an awesome view.  I wish I wasn't such a baby with heights.


I have no problem with heights, but that photo still wigs me out.

/afraid of widths, ya see
 
2013-03-13 03:29:03 PM

lousyskater: GanjSmokr: lousyskater: //300ft up on lunch break as I type this

You just made my ass pucker a little...

/HATE heights

Love it up here:
[sphotos-a.ak.fbcdn.net image 850x637]


Wow, that wind farm looks impressive...

...

...ly expensive!
 
2013-03-13 04:28:42 PM

impaler: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: I place wind power fanatics in the same bucket as perpetual motion idiots.

Except we can generate electricity from wind, and the other is physically impossible. Totally on the same level.


Ah, yet another context-challenged True Believer......

Actually, in practice, yes it is. Wind power fanatics seem to implicitly assume that the generated electricity is totally free of, well, you could call it "pollution."  It's not. Done on a huge scale it would be a massive degradation of the power of the air to (among other things) help create ocean waves and move particulates and moisture from one place to another. Both of these effects in turn have massive consequences for rainfall patterns, fish migrations and spawning areas, coastal erosion, possibly (over enough time) even the angular momentum of the planet.

Heh. You sound like a Denier. Tell us, what has the Wind Industry paid you to be a paid shill?
 
2013-03-13 04:43:49 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Done on a huge scale it would be a massive degradation of the power of the air to (among other things) help create ocean waves and move particulates and moisture from one place to another.


If only you had some actual science to back that claim up. But you don't.
 
2013-03-13 04:59:00 PM

xria: Germany already factually covers 10% of its electricity needs in wind power, and it has hardly broken the bank to do so (although it worked out a way to make the middle/working class foot the bill instead of paying for it out of general revenues), and it isn't exactly covered in every square foot with wind turbines, and it isn't a low population density country, or a with a very low level of energy usage to cover, or any other special case that means the same wouldn't apply to most other countries. So basically wind power has already been proven to work, and can cut a big chunk off fossil fuel dependency at a minimum, and is affordable. So it is hard not to see the people claiming it is impossible as shills, because this information is not hard to find.


I agree with all of that, and 10% would be fantastic.  I just think there are misconceptions that it could cover 33% of our demand, and that idealists can hurt the cause.
 
2013-03-13 04:59:51 PM
EVERY energy source is finite. With wind, I think the much bigger question is not "is there a peak, or a peak much lower than some say" but "how much of what is available is being used". Ask that question, and it looks completely different.

As for grid issues and energy storage, often you can used pumped hydro, and if we went all-renewable we could always deal with residential issues by having everyone have batteries at home like they have a hot water heater now. In any case, we are FAR from where we need to worry about that in the US. Wind and solar are woefully underdeveloped.

This is a stupid arguement about something that hasn't even come close to being an issue yet.
 
2013-03-13 05:06:58 PM

THE GREAT NAME: lousyskater: GanjSmokr: lousyskater: //300ft up on lunch break as I type this

You just made my ass pucker a little...

/HATE heights

Love it up here:
[sphotos-a.ak.fbcdn.net image 850x637]

Wow, that wind farm looks impressive...

...

...ly expensive!


I dunno, our customer was willing to buy 100 more from us even if the PTC didn't get renewed. They're making a lot of money off of our turbines.
 
2013-03-13 05:10:10 PM

fredklein: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: mrlewish: Old article that has been debunked multiple times.

Citation, please.

Common sense and physics coincide on this. There really isn't such a thing as a free lunch. Energy generated from wind has to come from the energy IN the wind: mass speed, volume moved. etc. The environmental effects of this are totally unknown, and the chance of massive unintended consequences are huge.

Not really.

The average wind turbine is what, a couple hundred feet tall? The atmosphere goes up tens of thousands of feet. So, even if we carpeted the entire surface of the Earth with wind turbines, we're only using the bottom 1% or so of the atmosphere.

Now, about 2/3 of the Earths surface is water. And though we have some 'offshore' wind turbines, they aren't placed far from land. So, now we're using at most 1/3 of 1 percent of the atmosphere, assuming every square foot of land is covered with turbines.

Of course, that's a stupid assumption. Much of the land surface is not suitable- too little wind, too variable wind, not readily accessible, etc. So, not we're talking about, what, maybe 1/100th of 1/3 of 1 percent?? Assuming we build those areas to capacity. Which we won't, for varying reasons.

The point is, even if we built as many turbines as we could, we'd only be using a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the total.

I place wind power fanatics in the same bucket as perpetual motion idiots.


Hmmmmm.... And what is the percentage of Global Climate Change attributed to industrial activity, car exhaust, etc.?

According the the Climate Change Believers, little contributions can have huge effects, right? Why not in this case? What's the tipping point? Oh, you don't know? Better find out first.

How much is the Wind Industry paying you to be a paid shill?
 
2013-03-13 05:12:50 PM

LesserEvil: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: mrlewish: Old article that has been debunked multiple times.

Citation, please.

Common sense and physics coincide on this. There really isn't such a thing as a free lunch. Energy generated from wind has to come from the energy IN the wind: mass speed, volume moved. etc. The environmental effects of this are totally unknown, and the chance of massive unintended consequences are huge.

I place wind power fanatics in the same bucket as perpetual motion idiots.

Not sure what you are talking about:
[img2u.info image 200x266]


On a more serious note... wind power is a simple function of solar power translated into air currents. It is constantly renewed by the input of heat from the sun, and dissapated by structures on the earth, like mountains, trees, cities, and the like. Adding wind turbines doesn't really upset the balance any more than a city does.

Increasing winds are actually a product of "global climate change" - if anything, turbines would help cut the dramatic, extreme weather events that are supposedly caused by climate change. They also have ZERO effect on jet streams, which have a greater impact on earth's ecosystem globally.


The only people who can kinda-sorta complain about turbines are those who live next to them (though some, like the late Ted Kennedy are ignorant hypocrites), but even that seems more like "first world problems" of an elite class. I live near railroad tracks, but I don't crusade against trains, nor do I petition the state to banish the tracks from my neighborhood.


You don't KNOW any of that for certain. Please cite studies to that effect.

How much is the Wind Industry paying you to be a paid shill?
 
2013-03-13 05:30:32 PM
So this calculation says that if we built a thousand times more wind turbines than anyone is actually planning to over any time horizon, it wouldn't generate as much power as a different calculation says it would?

Okay then.

But, y'know, there is a metric farkload (farkwatt?) of wind power out there. And I'm just talking about the low-hanging fruit. They've only gotten serious about putting them up in the last ten years or so. There are still plenty of places with decent wind, cheap property values, and electricity-hungry population centers to sell to, although there are fewer every day.

Just sayin'.
 
2013-03-13 05:30:44 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: You don't KNOW any of that for certain. Please cite studies to that effect.

How much is the Wind Industry paying you to be a paid shill?


OK, you got me....

...laughing. Very nice troll.
 
2013-03-13 05:38:34 PM

Dinki: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Done on a huge scale it would be a massive degradation of the power of the air to (among other things) help create ocean waves and move particulates and moisture from one place to another.

If only you had some actual science to back that claim up. But you don't.


What science do you have to back up your claim that it won't?

And how much is the Wind Industry paying you to be a paid shill?
 
2013-03-13 05:39:31 PM

LesserEvil: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: You don't KNOW any of that for certain. Please cite studies to that effect.

How much is the Wind Industry paying you to be a paid shill?

OK, you got me....

...laughing. Very nice troll.


What's good for the goose.....  ;-)
 
2013-03-13 05:43:47 PM
Just Another OC Homeless Guy:

How much is the Wind Industry paying you to be a paid shill?

How much is the Wind Industry paying you to be a paid shill?


10/10
 
2013-03-13 06:21:48 PM
and we won't have to worry about the bird deaths because apparently we ate them all
 
2013-03-13 07:08:42 PM

aug3: and we won't have to worry about the bird deaths because apparently we ate them all


I found the first dead bird in probably 8 months the other day under one of my turbines. It's funny, people complain about these things killing them and conveniently ignore the all the dead ones on the side of the highways around here. Even the bird guys that walk around my wind farm taking statistics think it's a crock of shiat.

The smaller lattice towers though, those things are bird murdering machines. They can at least avoid the blades on the bigger ones, not so much on the little ones though.
 
2013-03-13 08:58:25 PM
Peak wind?I'm relieved. After that choirizo burrito from Freebirds, I thought this would never end.
 
2013-03-14 12:31:47 AM

theorellior: [Eyeroll] So, really, wind turbines are basically an increase in the surface roughness of the land area, which absorbs more of the wind's energy. I suppose if you had enough wind turbines deplyed, this could deplete the available wind energy somewhat. However, the North American continent used to be covered with mature forest from the Mississippi Valley to the Eastern Seaboard. This forest, itself a rough surface, would have absorbed many orders of magnitude more energy than wind turbines. And yet there was still wind for the colonists to biatch about! Amazing!


^this.
 
2013-03-14 12:48:19 AM
We better start chopping down all the trees!! Their slowing down the wind!
 
2013-03-14 04:48:18 AM

Wrencher: We better start chopping down all the trees!! Their slowing down the wind!


You lot will have to chop down all the trees, just to make room for all the wind turbines. After protesting to have them protected for so many years. What turncoats you are.
 
Displayed 50 of 61 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report