Simonbob
Well-known member
Yup.
Too fast? Shut them down. Too slow? Don't work.
Generally useless? Yup.
Science Where does enviormental realism start and end?
- Thread starter Free-Stater 101
- Start date
Yup.
Too fast? Shut them down. Too slow? Don't work.
Generally useless? Yup.
Sort of. When a wind turbine exceeds its cut-out speed, it is necessary to brake the rotor so that it does not overload, which sacrifices power output -- it doesn't necessarily mean the system has to immediately shut down. Modern wind turbines are typically designed for a cut-out speed of 25 m/sec (56 MPH), although their survival speeds are far higher, typically not less than 40 m/sec and up to as much as 80 m/sec.
Tell that to All the techs I talk to here in West Texas. Generation ceases above 14mph.
Might be dealing with older wind turbines, or they just build them cheap and flimsy in Texas.
There's plenty of sources documenting that 25 m/sec is the typical cut-out speed for modern wind turbines:
What is a wind turbine and how it works | ACCIONA
Do you want to know everything about wind turbines, how they work and their life time? Learn more about wind turbines.
Last edited:
Let's see...things not covered by what I just saw:
- rebalancing/reconditioning of the blades every 3-5 years
- replacement of transmissions in each tower every 6 months to 2 years
- lack of ability to actually fund themselves w/out subsidies (no wind operation is actually profitable without them)
- rebalancing/reconditioning of the blades every 3-5 years
- replacement of transmissions in each tower every 6 months to 2 years
- lack of ability to actually fund themselves w/out subsidies (no wind operation is actually profitable without them)
Robovski
Well-known member
So a windmill, like any renewable source generator, is a situational solution to power generation. Obviously, they only generate when the wind blows. Less obviously, the wind has to blow hard enough to generate and not too hard (too hard varies depending on the turbine's design and functions, some can feather to adjust for higher speed winds) and when it is much to hard they are supposed to have shut down states so that they don't catastrophically fail. If they are not maintained, they will fail, just like any machine. They don't like snow, they don't like rain, and they wear out (again like any machine). What they like is consistent wind speeds and can generate A/C or D/C power.
Should they be a focus of generation? IMO no they should not, they can be an accent but we generally lack effective power storage to store unneeded generation and the load must meet the demand or the grid fails (or catches fire). Currently this is managed through accumulators (where available) and through the real prime movers, the generating stations (be they coal, gas or nuclear).
A windmill can be great for a situation where you are off the grid and can feed some batteries for your on-demand needs (like a cabin) or if you need A/C but don't care how much you get (like running a pump) but in that particular example you'd be better off going old-school and just making a mechanical connection for your pump draw (like an old farmhouse windmill).
Should they be a focus of generation? IMO no they should not, they can be an accent but we generally lack effective power storage to store unneeded generation and the load must meet the demand or the grid fails (or catches fire). Currently this is managed through accumulators (where available) and through the real prime movers, the generating stations (be they coal, gas or nuclear).
A windmill can be great for a situation where you are off the grid and can feed some batteries for your on-demand needs (like a cabin) or if you need A/C but don't care how much you get (like running a pump) but in that particular example you'd be better off going old-school and just making a mechanical connection for your pump draw (like an old farmhouse windmill).
Inconvenient truth for globalists: Arctic ice at 30-year high
www.wnd.com
The U.S. only has power capacity for 24M EVs, and only 20% of that comes from renewable energy. EVs destroy the planet by ripping it up for rare earth elements using gas-guzzling mining equipment. EVs cause more CO2 emission than conventional.
Inconvenient truth for globalists: Arctic ice at 30-year high
The World Economic Forum and the globalist movement it helps lead have used the "climate crisis" and the COVID-19 pandemic as pretexts for measures to redistribute the wealth of nations. But this week, as WEF convenes is annual conference in Davos, Switzerland, the Arctic sea ice expanse so far...
www.wnd.com
The World Economic Forum and the globalist movement it helps lead have used the "climate crisis" and the COVID-19 pandemic as pretexts for measures to redistribute the wealth of nations.
But this week, as WEF convenes is annual conference in Davos, Switzerland, the Arctic sea ice expanse so far this month is at a 30-year high, according to data from intergovernmental European Organization for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites, points out climate-change skeptic Tony Heller.
EUMETSAT, as the organization is known, was created through an international convention signed by 30 European nations.
The extent of Arctic ice during the warmer months long has been a metric for climate-change alarmists. In 2007, Al Gore began warning the world that scientists were predicting that by 2013, the Arctic would be ice-free during the summer.
Last September, Heller noted the Arctic Ocean had gained a record amount of sea ice for that time of year.
"Most years the Arctic loses ice, but this year ice extent has increased" more than 77,000 square miles, he wrote on Twitter, adding the news likely would not be reported by CNN, BBC News or the New York Times.
Meanwhile, the sea melt last summer was the lowest in 15 years, and the expanse of Antarctic sea was well above average.
Last September, amid the increase in Arctic ice, the New York Times reported a number of leading health and medical journals declared climate change "the greatest threat to global public health" and called on governments to respond with the urgency with which they confronted the coronavirus pandemic.
The declarations followed the announcement that the Biden Health and Human Services Department would treat climate change as a public health issue.
The Daily Caller pointed out at the time that governments and public health bodies could invoke emergency authority as they had in response to COVID-19 and enforce drastic measures such as curbing private-vehicle use, consumption of animal products and fossil fuel drilling.
This week, amid charges of ceding U.S. sovereignty to the World Health Organization, 12 of 13 amendments to the International Health Regulations submitted by the Biden administration for a vote in the World Health Assembly in Geneva were removed from consideration.
Among the amendments was a measure that would give the WHO director-general unilateral authority to declare a health emergency in a member nation according to the U.N. agency's broad definition of health as "a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity."
Researchers who published a study in Nature Climate Change in March 2021 were delighted to find that during the 2020 lockdowns, carbon emissions fell by about 2.6 billion metric tons that year. A pandemic-scale lockdown once every two years, they concluded, would produce an equivalent decline in emissions over the long-term.
"If climate activists were allowed, they would take us from COVID lockdowns straight into climate lockdowns," JunkScience.com founder Steve Milloy told the Daily Caller. "Now that they've seen arbitrary lockdowns successfully imposed under the guise of a 'public health emergency,' they can’t wait for federal, state and local declarations of a climate emergency to achieve the same sort of dominance over us."
EDITOR'S NOTE: Last year, America's doctors, nurses and paramedics were celebrated as frontline heroes battling a fearsome new pandemic. Today, under Joe Biden, tens of thousands of these same heroes are denounced as rebels, conspiracy theorists, extremists and potential terrorists. Along with massive numbers of police, firemen, Border Patrol agents, Navy SEALs, pilots, air-traffic controllers, and countless other truly essential Americans, they're all considered so dangerous as to merit termination, their professional and personal lives turned upside down due to their decision not to be injected with the experimental COVID vaccines. Biden's tyrannical mandate threatens to cripple American society – from law enforcement to airlines to commercial supply chains to hospitals. It's already happening. But the good news is that huge numbers of "yesterday's heroes" are now fighting back – bravely and boldly. The whole epic showdown is laid out as never before in the sensational October issue of WND's monthly Whistleblower magazine, titled "THE GREAT AMERICAN REBELLION: 'We will not comply!' COVID-19 power grab ignites bold new era of national defiance."
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@wndnewscenter.org.
The U.S. only has power capacity for 24M EVs, and only 20% of that comes from renewable energy. EVs destroy the planet by ripping it up for rare earth elements using gas-guzzling mining equipment. EVs cause more CO2 emission than conventional.
Robovski
Well-known member
While at the same time doing nothing to make you less dependent upon a car. It's more feel good environmentalism that lacks rational thought.
Last edited:
Because your dealing with cultists not rational people
It ends when you start telling other people how they have to live their lives.
Bassoe
Well-known member
The problem is that from an objective point of view, technological civilization as a whole is harmful to the environment and the more people it provides with a quality of life we'd consider acceptable, the more harm it does. The question is what to do about this.
- Reduce consumption by reducing quality of life for the majority of the population. This is popular among egotistical authoritarian technocrats because it gives them all kinds of additional powers to enforce their vision upon society as a whole and completely removes the possibility of anyone building up wealth to rival them.
- Reduce consumption by reducing the population of consumers. So far they've stuck with peaceful means like making raising a family unaffordable and turning all media into anti-family propaganda, but this is probably only because they still need human working classes and security until automation technologies advance sufficiently.
- Get more resources. The ruling corporatocracy flatly refuses to do so since they accurately fear it'd mean the rise of competitors ideally optimized to prey upon the demonstrated weakness of modern corporatism, countries with resource monopolies. Saudi Arabia got away with 9/11 because the petrodollar depends upon them, Taiwan can drag us all into WW3 to defend them from the PRC since we need their microchip plants, boycotting Russia for invading Ukraine failed since poor countries need Russian wheat more than American lectures, etc. Launch costs cannot realistically be cheaper than local manufacturing and paying local workers whatever wage they demand rather than importing scab labor, so it'd be cheaper to make asteroid-mining and powersat colonies independent than the alternative. Meaning there's no reason why the hypothetical colonists couldn't say "we're nationalizing all our infrastructure, setting up a rival currency based on the hard value of our rare earth ores and beamed electricity rather than your fiat and you can't boycott us since you economically need us more than we need you or regime change us because we've got the resources for moving large masses around the solar system/high-voltage microwave projectors in orbit and therefore we possess a MAD deterrent" and completely supplant the corporatocracy in one move.
This is false.
We are seeing many ways in which to provide for more people using less energy and less impact upon the environment.
See: 'Nukuler'
powerYou forgot an option.
4. So what? We're not a druidic civilization, environment is not the highest sacred value to us (at least not most of us, the greens are extremist nutjobs) we have the option of saying so what to this issue. Some level of harm to environment is acceptable, and we are the ones to determine how much is that, what tradeoffs are worthwhile, and which parts of it are more useful for us to protect than others.
After all, this is the attitude that the west had towards industrialization until well into the atomic age, and it got where it is thanks to it.
Bassoe
Well-known member
Making artificial environment substitutes essential by destroying the original one while retaining human needs for oxygen, food, clean water, etc, would give artificial environment substitute companies an unacceptable degree of control over society by making everyone into a captive market. The price of hydroponically grown food and rental of airtight artificial habitats is now equivalent to all your earnings turning you into a perpetual debt-slave, don't like it, feel free to go outside and suffocate.
the crows were hired by the oil barons to sabotage solar farms
IMO environmentalism is what Teddy Roosevelt preached.
Anything else is just far left dogma with a coat of green paint
Last edited:
a) This isn't a binary question. You could do a shitload of damage to the environment and still not have everyone reliant on artificial substitutes.
b) This goes for suppliers of food and water in many places already, yet your doom scenario doesn't happen, what's the difference.
c) In some parts of the world for a significant part of the year you already need a semi-airtight artificial habitat plus a source of energy or you will fucking freeze do death whether you stay inside or go outside.