The Future of Energy

[dagnabit]

So care to explain how I am wrong?

"harvesting" wind will not stop the wind from blowing.
"harvesting" tidal energy will not stop the tides from ebbing.

im not sure how you arrived at your hypothesis but in science it's not the burden to disprove the hypothesis it's the burden to prove the hypothesis.
or
science is not used to prove the negative.

more apt would be to ask; How does harvesting these energy resources diminish them?

 

[grapeman]

lower carbon emissions

And here again is your false circular argument.

The earth has survived for billions of years with CO2, no Co2 and other mix of gasses. The last thread that was closed showed the science you embrace to be a fraud, yet you still cling to algore's bullshit as if you love earth more then others. All the while the government financed institutions that used to employ scientists now are nothing more then agenda driven fact twisters that are putting out flawed studies to modify our behavior and eliminate freedoms. It's all a money grab and a wealth distribution model that you and obama embrace. this is what the US has elections for.... to change directions during bad leadership. It started in 2010 and will continue in 2012, while the mind numb among us will wonder why? You need look no further then the fact that your acclaimed "scientists" (LOL) who's hands you put your life in, are being paid and paid well for their phoney writings. Chief among them the IPCC and Penn State. I always laugh when these agenda driven idiots struggle to explain climate changes over the last 10,000 years before the evil carbon. They can't. Yet those members of the "green" religion never let facts get in their way of their decision making.

 

[Frozenguy]

Wind is generated by the spinning of the Earth and the subsequent Coroilis effect.
Tides are generated by gravitational pull.
How is harvesting these resources going to deplete them?

Uh the main thing that drives wind/storms is pressure difference from temperature differences from the heating of the sun and the cooling of the earth from the oceans. The Coriolis force just displaces it.

Energy is not unlimited. It is not created nor destroyed, only transformed/transferred.

When the wind does work, or the tides do work on the energy extracting device (to generate power), you extract (or rob) that energy. To what amount? I'm not about to quantify it. But it will be enough to notice changes in our environment if we were to go 100% solar/wind/tide etc.

work (physics) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics)

 

[Guest 88950]

Frozen

you believe in the "butterfly effect" dont you?

if by your reasoning

a wind turban farm generating electricity from the wind would slow the velocity of the wind due to friction generated from the interaction between the wind and blade

then

multi story buildings, trees, skyscrapers etc... these objects block and re-direct the wind and what effect have you noticed.

air and fluid are different density but react the same. the turbulence seen using smoke in a wind tunnel will form similar patterns as turbulence in water.


if solar panels can cover enough of terra firma to cool the earth then WHY are we not in an ice age due to the cooling from every structure man has made.

tidal forces are too strong to ever stop them and to illustrate my point look at the Grand Canyon to see how strong flowing water is.

i know the GC wasnt a result of tidal forces but until the moon ceases to exist we will have tides changing 2x daily.

 

[Frozenguy]

"harvesting" wind will not stop the wind from blowing.
"harvesting" tidal energy will not stop the tides from ebbing.

im not sure how you arrived at your hypothesis but in science it's not the burden to disprove the hypothesis it's the burden to prove the hypothesis.
or
science is not used to prove the negative.

more apt would be to ask; How does harvesting these energy resources diminish them?

Dude..

So you think we could hook up the worlds most powerful generator to many propellers and the wind would still blow with the same force after powering those propellers? No. They would not.

I never made any assumptions about the earth stopping its spin or moons gravity ceasing to exist. That would be silly. The earth/moon gravitational system is proportional only to the product of their masses and the squared inverse of the distance between them..

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Someone has been using solar power with the bloom box or is this just speculation? I hadn't heard anyone was doing this yet. Is there a link?
And a battery is a storage device. The bloom box (whether it is running on solar, natural gas, diesel, etc) is a generator, or converter even. Everything credible source I have read (including their site) says it can't store energy or makes no mention of it.

You're right, it's oxygen and fuel. No solar. But they did refer to it as a battery.

 

[Frozenguy]

Frozen

you believe in the "butterfly effect" dont you?

if by your reasoning

a wind turban farm generating electricity from the wind would slow the velocity of the wind due to friction generated from the interaction between the wind and blade

then

multi story buildings, trees, skyscrapers etc... these objects block and re-direct the wind and what effect have you noticed.

air and fluid are different density but react the same. the turbulence seen using smoke in a wind tunnel will form similar patterns as turbulence in water.


if solar panels can cover enough of terra firma to cool the earth then WHY are we not in an ice age due to the cooling from every structure man has made.

tidal forces are too strong to ever stop them and to illustrate my point look at the Grand Canyon to see how strong flowing water is.

i know the GC wasnt a result of tidal forces but until the moon ceases to exist we will have tides changing 2x daily.

Beautiful points SSH.. Things I do think about. What do you think will happen if we did in fact cover the entire soil surface with concrete? do you think the earth could breath and function normally? Why haven't we noticed it yet?

Why haven't we notice the effect of the blocked air by cities?

Because it isn't enough.

You guys think I'm underestimating the power of wind etc. I am not. But it does have a limiting factor.

I have been saying CONVERTING ALL OUR ENERGY NEEDS. All the planes trains ships automobiles buildings reserach labs homes omg I can't even name it all. We consume so much energy. To make that all go to wind/tide/solar would be something like we have never seen.

Solar farms as far as the eye can see. Tidal farms as far as the eye can see. more giant wind farms.

If you look at earth from space, you will see humans still have left a lot of open land. Land that would be used to convert from oil. I don't know if we have 'blocked' enough to make it significant enough to see. Maybe we have, look at our weather lol. Maybe we haven't and its just mother nature playing out her cycle.

 

[Guest 88950]

When the wind does work, or the tides do work on the energy extracting device (to generate power), you extract (or rob) that energy. To what amount? I'm not about to quantify it. But it will be enough to notice changes in our environment if we were to go 100% solar/wind/tide etc.

work (physics) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics)

you dont know what amount that is being "robbed" and you dont know the TOTAL enegry in the oceans so if you will not research to verify YOUR hunch then why should any of us.

you are unsure but confident your assumptions are correct enough to call someone out.

show FACTS not OPINIONS.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

And here again is your false circular argument.

The earth has survived for billions of years with CO2, no Co2 and other mix of gasses. The last thread that was closed showed the scinece you embrace to be a fraud, yet you still cling to algore's bullshit as if you love earth more then others. All the while the government financed institutions that used to employ scientists now are nothing more then agenda driven fact twisters that are putting out flawed studies to modify our behavior and eliminate freedoms. It's all a money grab and a wealth distribution model that you and obama embrace. this is what the US has elections for.... to change directions during bad leadership. It started in 2010 and will continue in 2012, while the mind numb among us will wonder why? You need look no further then the fact that your acclaimed "scientists" (LOL) who's hands you put your life in, are being paid and paid well for their phoney writings. Chief among them the IPCC and Penn State. I always laugh when this agenda driven idiots struggle to explain climate changes over the last 10,000 years before the evil carbon. They can't. Yet those members of the "green" religion never let facts get in their way of their decision making.

Lord Monckton speaks.

 

[grapeman]

what does GM or Chrysler have to do with my question. i mentioned Public Companies that didnt receive an bail-out money.


nice Side Step........care to answer my question directly. you do know what that means dont you? explain how the examples i listed are owned by the govt.




ive never said i support the bail-outs. i thought that in a Capitalist market it was Survival of The Fittest, not subsidize the weak.

Those I mentions USED to be publicly owned companies. That wasn't a side step. It was an example of government abuse in the name of "hope & change". But of the retailers that you mentioned that are installing solar on their rooftops, it is for the appearance of being green and government mandates, both local and state. I know, as a provider of fruit to Wal-Mart, we have to submit our packaging every year so Wal-Mart can determine how our shipping containers jibe with their "green" program to satisfy the treehuggers. Who pays? The increased shipping costs is passed by Wal-Mart on to the buying public. Same with their energy program. If they pay 10 million dollars to cover their roof with solar panels, who do you think ends up paying that bill?

Where I disagree with you is in your assertion that solar is ready for prime time, which it is not. It will be, but if one removes all subsidies and grants from the solar equation, there would be very little interest in development. It is happening here and now in Riverside County where dozens of solar companies are vying for options on land in and around Blythe CA. Many are foreign owned and all are applying for US government grants and loan guarantees. Of this I have intimate knowledge, as I have known the County Planning Commissioner my entire life. It is borderline thievery. They cannot build their solar farm with investor's money because it's a bad investment to build an energy plant that produces energy at a higher cost/watt then other energy sources, so the government is stepping in and giving billion dollar grants and loan subsidies. Couple that with obama's all out assault on coal and oil, pushing their cost skyward in order to make solar more competitive.

Who losses? All Americans lose when they artificially pay more for energy, which has a trickle effect from homeowners to businesses. Home owners have less disposable income and American businesses become less competitive globally, as China has 2 coal fired plants coming into production each and every week.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6769743.stm
We shut down our coal plants and now we export that coal to China who then makes cheap power with our coal (and bullshit solar panels to re-sell back to us in the U.S.). But the treehuggers are happy when they see solar farms being built.

I can't paint a clearer picture for you. When solar is ready for prime time (maybe 10 to 15 years or so) THEN you will see a rush of private businesses and home owners installing them on their own, without the government subsidies that cost so much money and increase the cost of energy.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Do you have rebuttal w/o the built in political comments?

 

[Frozenguy]

you dont know what amount that is being "robbed" and you dont know the TOTAL enegry in the oceans so if you will not research to verify YOUR hunch then why should any of us.

you are unsure but confident your assumptions are correct enough to call someone out.

show FACTS not OPINIONS.

Well you're right. I even said in the passage of mine you quoted, that I cannot quantify to what extent this will have on the earth. What I said however, was fact. I did say it would have a 'noticeable' effect just as fossil fuels do today. To what extent? Again, I wont try to quantify that. All I'm saying is no energy source (on earth) comes without 'problems' with this much population.

I feel the best option (in our current situation) would be to balance it all out between nuclear, fossil, 'renewable' (i dislike that word, rather misleading to some).
They all have their place.


Again, I'm not saying we would destroy the earth if we went to wind/tidal/solar. I don't think we will destroy the earth keeping fossil/nuclear (as long as we observe some efficiency standards/practices. But everything has their problems.

 

[Guest 88950]

Beautiful points SSH.. Things I do think about. What do you think will happen if we did in fact cover the soil with concrete? do you think the earth could breath and function normally? Why haven't we noticed it yet?

large densities of population like NYC, CHICAGO etc. have a large % of land mass covered in concrete / buildings and it has a WARMING effect due to the materials absorbing heat and then slowly releasing it as the sun goes down.

some city buildings in Chicago converted 1/2 of its roof to a GREEN ROOF, plants and lightweight soil act as an insulator and are much cooler. i think the roof top temp was 20F+ lower than traditional roofs.

Why haven't we notice the effect of the blocked air by cities?

Because it isn't enough.

and neither is any disruption caused by wind / tidal turbines.

You guys think I'm underestimating the power of wind etc. I am not. But it does have a limiting factor.

not in the was you are implying.

I have been saying CONVERTING ALL OUR ENERGY NEEDS. All the planes trains ships automobiles buildings reserach labs homes omg I can't even name it all. We consume so much energy. To make that all go to wind/tide/solar would be something like we have never seen.

Solar farms as far as the eye can see. Tidal farms as far as the eye can see. more giant wind farms.

If you look at earth from space, you will see humans still have left a lot of open land. Land that would be used to convert from oil. I don't know if we have 'blocked' enough to make it significant enough to see. Maybe we have, look at our weather lol. Maybe we haven't and its just mother nature playing out her cycle.

do some research regarding the technology you think you know and understand b/c you assume too much.

 

[grapeman]

Do you have rebuttal w/o the built in political comments?

It's all political momo. Wake the fuck up. How could it NOT be political when the government interferes in the free market and mandates certain behavior?

How can you say otherwise when the most corrupt political organization on earth, the U.N., is trying to suck money from America and re-distribute it to others via the IPCC, while those that run the U.N. keep their ill begotten "vig".

I don't know if you are stupid or just 13 years old sometimes.

 

[dagnabit]

Dude..

So you think we could hook up the worlds most powerful generator to many propellers and the wind would still blow with the same force after powering those propellers? No. They would not.

sure they would!!!

the minuscule amount of turbulence generated by wind turbines at the altitude we would place them(well under 1000') is a piss in the ocean that is the troposphere.

lets put aside the other layers of atmosphere completely unaffected by turbine turbulence and focus solely on the troposphere.

the process you suggest will be impacted(weather patterns and thermoregulation)

the troposphere is 4~12 miles high (depending on many variables) most of your weather is generated in the top portion (tropopause) by convective heat from the surface reacting with cooler temperatures higher in the tropopause.

the contention that wind turbines below the weather will affect the weather in the upper atmosphere is ill conceived.

not to write a blog but with tidal generation the "harvesting" is done on the wasted Z axis which (if diminished) would have an impact on erosion rates but the thermoregulation system of deep water conveyance is not a tidal force and takes place on the X/Y axis .

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Talk about circular argument. If it ain't corrupt science, it's corrupt government. But you definitely have the asshole factor workin' for ya.

 

[grapeman]

Talk about circular argument. If it ain't corrupt science, it's corrupt government. But you definitely have the asshole factor workin' for ya.

You're sleep walking if you didn't already know that.

 

[Frozenguy]

sure they would!!!

the minuscule amount of turbulence generated by wind turbines at the altitude we would place them(well under 1000') is a piss in the ocean that is the troposphere.

lets put aside the other layers of atmosphere completely unaffected by turbine turbulence and focus solely on the troposphere.

the process you suggest will be impacted(weather patterns and thermoregulation)

the troposphere is 4~12 miles high (depending on many variables) most of your weather is generated in the top portion (tropopause) by convective heat from the surface reacting with cooler temperatures higher in the tropopause.

the contention that wind turbines below the weather will affect the weather in the upper atmosphere is ill conceived.

not to write a blog but with tidal generation the "harvesting" is done on the wasted Z axis which (if diminished) would have an impact on erosion rates but the thermoregulation system of deep water conveyance is not a tidal force and takes place on the X/Y axis .

I'm not a meteorologist. But I've spoken with a few and they agreed that if you stopped the wind close to the surface of the earth, it will effect weather patterns. It had to do with interrupting the pressure difference balance further down the road. I'm not talking about show stopping events here, hitting the source and killing all weather patterns.

I'm not talking about huge catastrophic events at all. I am talking about effects. Magnitudes of which I can't quantify.


And why do you think that z-axis work is generally wasted in tidal power generation? Is there a link to this?

 

[dagnabit]

And why do you think that z-axis work is generally wasted in tidal power generation? Is there a link to this?

i think you misread..

tidal energy is generated on the Z axis (using current methods)

addressing your concerns(weather systems and thermoregulation) the Z axis is a non effector(wasted is the wrong term but im trying to find the right one)

 

[Frozenguy]

large densities of population like NYC, CHICAGO etc. have a large % of land mass covered in concrete / buildings and it has a WARMING effect due to the materials absorbing heat and then slowly releasing it as the sun goes down.

some city buildings in Chicago converted 1/2 of its roof to a GREEN ROOF, plants and lightweight soil act as an insulator and are much cooler. i think the roof top temp was 20F+ lower than traditional roofs.

Thats awesome
Although I can't decide if you're posting an argument or sharing. I don't get the argument if it is one.

and neither is any disruption caused by wind / tidal turbines.

If we powered everything in the world by wind/tidal/solar? Yes, we would notice something.

do some research regarding the technology you think you know and understand b/c you assume too much.

I have done a lot of research on these technologies. I'm not assuming anything really.