Author Topic: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2  (Read 333565 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AndyDT

  • Posts: 2229
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #560 on: December 12, 2009, 05:55:37 AM »
There are probably many layers between Truth and a world-influencing computer "model"

reallity and truth --> human perception and ability --> "expert" and associated infallibility, influences, ego etc --> consultee --> personal prejudice, opinion, pressure, influences --> communication processes --> programmer and associated infallibility --> computational limitations --> ability to identify, select and present relevatn data --> selection of "experts" to present to influenced in turn by funding body, allegiances, other pressures, prejudices, gripes, rivalries.


This is what has happened with the IPCC in the past, they select the data presented to them by scientists. This is the danger of all powerful supranational bodies like the UN or EU with weak or no accountability.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #561 on: December 12, 2009, 02:22:30 PM »
There are probably many layers between Truth and a world-influencing computer "model"

reallity and truth --> human perception and ability --> "expert" and associated infallibility, influences, ego etc --> consultee --> personal prejudice, opinion, pressure, influences --> communication processes --> programmer and associated infallibility --> computational limitations --> ability to identify, select and present relevatn data --> selection of "experts" to present to influenced in turn by funding body, allegiances, other pressures, prejudices, gripes, rivalries.


This is what has happened with the IPCC in the past, they select the data presented to them by scientists. This is the danger of all powerful supranational bodies like the UN or EU with weak or no accountability.

Wow... this is perhaps the most coherent post I've read by andydt.


Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #563 on: December 13, 2009, 03:36:54 PM »
There are probably many layers between Truth and a world-influencing computer "model"

reallity and truth --> human perception and ability --> "expert" and associated infallibility, influences, ego etc --> consultee --> personal prejudice, opinion, pressure, influences --> communication processes --> programmer and associated infallibility --> computational limitations --> ability to identify, select and present relevatn data --> selection of "experts" to present to influenced in turn by funding body, allegiances, other pressures, prejudices, gripes, rivalries.


This is what has happened with the IPCC in the past, they select the data presented to them by scientists. This is the danger of all powerful supranational bodies like the UN or EU with weak or no accountability.

Andy, while the acting on the predictions of the models is subjective, the selection of the best model is not. That is the very power of the modeling process, that you're developing the model on a certain set of data, and validate it on a different one. And, have it validated by different people who are competing with each other.
Unless you subscribe to one massive conspiracy theory, where opposing teams still "collude" and only run the opposing teams' models against data that will confirm that team's model, it simply doesn't sound reasonable that this is happening.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline emindead

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11053
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #564 on: December 14, 2009, 11:21:24 AM »
I predict that the guy who broke Berlusconi's nose and knocked two teeth off will be sleeping with the fish soon.

Offline Sigz

  • BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13537
  • Gender: Male
  • THRONES FOR THE THRONE SKULL
Quote
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.

Offline AndyDT

  • Posts: 2229
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #566 on: December 15, 2009, 06:55:55 AM »
There are probably many layers between Truth and a world-influencing computer "model"

reallity and truth --> human perception and ability --> "expert" and associated infallibility, influences, ego etc --> consultee --> personal prejudice, opinion, pressure, influences --> communication processes --> programmer and associated infallibility --> computational limitations --> ability to identify, select and present relevatn data --> selection of "experts" to present to influenced in turn by funding body, allegiances, other pressures, prejudices, gripes, rivalries.


This is what has happened with the IPCC in the past, they select the data presented to them by scientists. This is the danger of all powerful supranational bodies like the UN or EU with weak or no accountability.

Andy, while the acting on the predictions of the models is subjective, the selection of the best model is not. That is the very power of the modeling process, that you're developing the model on a certain set of data, and validate it on a different one. And, have it validated by different people who are competing with each other.
Unless you subscribe to one massive conspiracy theory, where opposing teams still "collude" and only run the opposing teams' models against data that will confirm that team's model, it simply doesn't sound reasonable that this is happening.

rumborak

CRU scientists were colluding, it's in the climategate emails and the selection of the "best" model is of course subjective.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #567 on: December 16, 2009, 11:22:25 AM »

Offline Sigz

  • BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13537
  • Gender: Male
  • THRONES FOR THE THRONE SKULL
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #568 on: December 16, 2009, 10:13:07 PM »
https://www.theonion.com/content/infograph/some_of_mans_most_important

Quote
Some Of Man's Most Important Inventions

Inclined Plane: A simple machine consisting of a flat surface whose topmost point is higher than its bottommost point, this is yet another example of mankind's propensity for "inventing" things they just found lying around.

Telephone: This groundbreaking communication device allowed people a more dramatic way to end conversations with subordinates or lovers, and also played a key role in Martin Scorcese's film The Departed.

Printing Press: The mass production of printed matter was an instant hit with readers everywhere, who at the time numbered nearly 1,000 and were spread out over some 57.4 million square miles.

Easy Cheese: A pioneering aerosol-powered food- delivery system that made it possible for people to discharge high-velocity streams of cheese directly into their mouths, usually from a prone or inverted position.

God: This multipurpose tool has allowed billions to soothe their mortal fears while easily excusing a wide variety of unconscionable actions such as war and homophobia.

Gatling Gun: Capable of firing 200 rounds a minute, this powerful weapon was a vast improvement over its less lethal predecessor, the Gatling Baton.

 :rollin
Quote
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #570 on: December 17, 2009, 02:58:41 PM »


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs

You'll notice the comci isn't solely about climate change. The most expensive one I see on there is livable cities, which would be pretty costly.

As for the rest of it, it's pretty much a straw man because I probably won't agree on what needs to be done to address climate change. I'd also have questions for how he calculates the economic value. Does it take into account long-term boons? Does it take into account side-affects and other benefits of the solution(s)?

The video also points out how cheap some of the problems would be to solve.

Offline Progmetty

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7127
  • Gender: Male
I wouldn't want somebody with 18 kids to mow my damn lawn, based on a longstanding bias I have against crazy fucks.

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 30572
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #572 on: December 18, 2009, 09:48:27 AM »
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Appeal2/en?utm_source=2009_Jimmy_Appeal4&utm_medium=sitenotice&utm_campaign=fundraiser2009&target=Appeal2
BS or valid?
What part are you questioning?  WP has been doing a pledge drive for a week or two now.  They do this once a year it would seem.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #573 on: December 19, 2009, 01:13:51 AM »

Offline Sigz

  • BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13537
  • Gender: Male
  • THRONES FOR THE THRONE SKULL
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #574 on: December 19, 2009, 01:15:12 AM »
Quote
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.

Offline pogoowner

  • Pancake Bunny
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 2872
  • Gender: Male
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #575 on: December 19, 2009, 10:38:39 AM »
So long, but so good.  :lol

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #576 on: December 19, 2009, 04:58:39 PM »
https://www.swifteconomics.com/2009/12/17/global-warming-rank-world-problems/

The Copenhagen Consensus 2008 ranked the proposals for cost benefit as follows:

Quote
As you can see, global warming doesn’t come in until proposal number fourteen. If I put on my analyst cap, this means that thirteen other issues would produce greater benefits to more people if money was allocated to it. Yet the United States is proposing a Cap and Trade bill to curb carbon emissions during a down, vulnerable economy. The carbon credits, or carbon indulgences as coined on this website, will hurt business during a time when the unemployment rate is in the double digits. (3)

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #577 on: December 22, 2009, 11:04:49 PM »
Most of those problems you point to can be done quite cheaply as compared to global warming. Meaning, there's no reason we can't do multiple things at once - the idea that we can't combat global warming because there are other good things to do is fallacious.  The video you linked to before gave the monetary value needed, but completely ignored how cheap they were.

And again, it also doesn't address how many of these issues can be combated together. For example, giving AFricans and poor countries solar, wind and other green energy would be a great boon to their economy - which would lead to better education, less disease and malnutrition.


Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #578 on: December 23, 2009, 01:22:27 AM »
You seem to misunderstand, why would multitasking all of a sudden make any of low carbon technologies cheaper? All you are talking about is allocating more toward low carbon tech and less toward what is actually cost effective. The point is that outright low carbon technologies are expensive and should not be funded in comparison to actual problems that are plaguing people in the millions that we could more efficiently allocate money we are already spending.

To answer your suggestion. Solar power as an example is still incredibly expensive and the benefits are commonly overstated. To give an entire country or even small portions of it power via solar panels that would be needed to have even the smallest economic benefit would be outrageously expensive. The situation is the same with other green technologies like wind and hydro power. They cannot be efficiently and cheaply produced en mass in the number needed, and they cannot reliably produce the power needed to sustain change.



Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #579 on: December 23, 2009, 11:59:29 AM »
Sorry, but it's untrue that solar power is STILL expensive and inefficient. That article is from early 2008, making is technologically out of date and inaccurate. Same goes for wind power, which has been a viable alternative for years now. These technologies pay for themselves in a matter of years, and after that save you money.

And hydro power is a different issue completely, and if you are talking about damns, is counter productive. Good thing we can get it done with solar and wind, though.

You're also avoiding the fact that those other problems are cheap to address on their own. I"m not suggesting we ignore them, I"m suggesting we target them at the same time. Maybe this weakens the funding for global warming a little, but $18 billion is simply not that much money in today's economy - especially globally. 

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #580 on: December 23, 2009, 03:26:00 PM »
I think you need to read up a little more on all of those technologies before we continue this discussion. None of them are cheap enough to mass produce and provide more or equal power to that of fossil fuels.

Where are you getting your numbers from where you can say that problems 1-13 are cheap to solve?

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #581 on: December 23, 2009, 05:45:50 PM »
"Cheap" is a relative term. Could I afford them? No. Can the countries afford them? No. Can the US and the modern world afford them? Yes. And I got that information from Bjorn Lomburg. He made a point about how cheap some of the solutions would be, notably the ones concerning disease and malnutrition. But those issues can be combated by improving a nations economy as well.

Also, I'm not premising my argument on the idea that solar or wind power is on par with fossil fuel. Don't need that, though wind power has been on par with fossil fuels for a while now, and solar is quickly approaching.

https://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/may/12/solar-energy-price-fall

https://www.meic.org/energy/global_warming_pollution/renewable-energy-alternatives-1/wind_cost

Quote
Over the last two years, coal- and natural gas-fueled power prices have risen more than 40%, nuclear power prices more than 70%. Wind power prices, meanwhile, have risen a relatively paltry 13%.

As a result, wind power is now cheaper than gas or nuclear. Conventional (dirtiest) coal's small price advantage—about eight-tenths of a cent per kilowatt-hour—will soon be erased by regional and/or federal regulations on climate-polluting greenhouse-gas emissions.

I think YOU need to read up a little more on these technologies. You're 5 years in the past, not the present.




Offline AcidLameLTE

  • Nae deal pal
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11134
  • Gender: Male
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #582 on: December 23, 2009, 05:48:51 PM »
I don't know if this contributes to this discussion (mainly because I'm too tired and lazy to read it) but 22% of UK's energy now comes from renewable sources, which is a 9% increase on 2007 (saw this on the BBC news tonight).

I'm pretty sure a lot of it comes from hydro too.

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #583 on: December 23, 2009, 06:51:24 PM »
Quote
https://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/may/12/solar-energy-price-fall

I could find articles from random websites that say farts could fuel the western hemispheres power needs. It doesn't make it true, and it was one of the criticisms that the the author in the article I linked to had. Solar systems as of 2009 cost $2-9 per watt. maybe in 2013 you could find some way to pay for it. But even then, unless you were to allocate much more than the united states is willing as an example you would be left off with little to no economic and climate benefit.

Not just that, but the above article doesnt say anything for the actual output of an average solar system on homes now which you seem to be seriously overstating. They produces less than half of the power needed for an average home, and little to none during winter or dark months.

Quote
https://www.meic.org/energy/global_warming_pollution/renewable-energy-alternatives-1/wind_cost

As interesting as wind power is, deploying it on a large scale would cost way too much money and again not be ultimately reliable. Look at the UK, they are thinking of switching the entire country to wind power, but even by their estimates it would cost billions and not be ready until 2020

Quote
Wind turbines have proved to be controversial onshore and offshore. On land there have been complaints that they are a blot on some of Britain's best loved, and most dramatic, landscapes, while at sea there have been concerns about their impact on shipping, fishing and birds. The Government's plans would mean a turbine for every half mile of coast.

The point is regardless of where you stand on the issue of renewable vs fossil, you cannot correctly say that switching an entire country over to the current renewable resources we have now would produce anywhere near enough power or be cost effective.


« Last Edit: December 23, 2009, 11:41:50 PM by Nigerius Rex »

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #584 on: December 24, 2009, 01:22:22 AM »
Quote
https://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/may/12/solar-energy-price-fall

I could find articles from random websites that say farts could fuel the western hemispheres power needs. It doesn't make it true, and it was one of the criticisms that the the author in the article I linked to had. Solar systems as of 2009 cost $2-9 per watt. maybe in 2013 you could find some way to pay for it. But even then, unless you were to allocate much more than the united states is willing as an example you would be left off with little to no economic and climate benefit.

LOL! You attack my link for being some random website, and then insert your own random website as a counterpoint! Also, completely irrelevant because it ignores the facts on the ground the solar power is rapidly become more efficient, cheaper and viable. Which the solarbuzz site even states:

Quote
We have reached the final survey of 2009. By any standards, this has been a momentus year in the long history of the solar photovoltaic industry. Never have there been such dramatic moves in pricing in a single 12 month period.

Quote
Not just that, but the above article doesnt say anything for the actual output of an average solar system on homes now which you seem to be seriously overstating. They produces less than half of the power needed for an average home, and little to none during winter or dark months.

Good thing I"m not putting all my marbles in solar power, now is it? And seeing as how I haven't made any comments on the actual output of current systems, I can't imagine how I have overstated them.
Quote
Quote
https://www.meic.org/energy/global_warming_pollution/renewable-energy-alternatives-1/wind_cost

As interesting as wind power is, deploying it on a large scale would cost way too much money and again not be ultimately reliable. Look at the UK, they are thinking of switching the entire country to wind power, but even by their estimates it would cost billions and not be ready until 2020

Quote
Wind turbines have proved to be controversial onshore and offshore. On land there have been complaints that they are a blot on some of Britain's best loved, and most dramatic, landscapes, while at sea there have been concerns about their impact on shipping, fishing and birds. The Government's plans would mean a turbine for every half mile of coast.

The point is regardless of where you stand on the issue of renewable vs fossil, you cannot correctly say that switching an entire country over to the current renewable resources we have now would produce anywhere near enough power or be cost effective.

Look up the new wind turbine designs. This last year saw numerous new designs that are not only more efficient, but take up less space, are aesthetically pleasing and don't have large propellers.

« Last Edit: December 24, 2009, 11:26:35 AM by Scheavo »

Offline AcidLameLTE

  • Nae deal pal
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11134
  • Gender: Male
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #585 on: December 24, 2009, 06:24:59 AM »
@Nigerius Rex: I don't think anyone is suggesting moving straight over to renewable sources but to make a gradual change. The UK's original target was to have a third of our energy come from renewable sources by 2012 (I think) but, at this rate, they think we'll be relying on more than that.

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #586 on: December 24, 2009, 09:49:34 PM »
Quote
LOL! You attack my link for being some random website, and then insert your own random website as a counterpoint! Also, completely irrelevant because it ignores the facts on the ground the solar power is rapidly become more efficient, cheaper and viable. Which the solarbuzz site even states:

No, I am stating something and then saying that an author not affiliated with some random news website agrees with me that news website commonly lie or mislead in order to make it look like the next big break is happening tomorrow. In fact, the author is writing from a solar hobbyist site which if anything gives them reason to always shed praise for solar power. Can you buy solar panels for $1/watt? Yes, from some companies. Can you mass produce solar cells for $1/watt and then install them and produce enough power to outweigh the use and effects of fossil fuels? No.

You are getting yourself lost in the good but not good enough news. Prices have fallen since the increase in interest in solar power, but although interest has risen substantially it has not risen enough to lower prices to a number low enough to enable mass distribution.

Quote
Good thing I"m not putting all my marbles in solar power, now is it? And seeing as how I haven't made any comments on the actual output of current systems, I can't imagine how I have overstated them.

I basically said solar power is not ready, but you countered by saying its becoming cheaper every year. I then say that even though its becoming cheaper, its not cheap enough and still cannot makeup enough power to be considered a viable alternative. If its not a viable alternative regardless of cost, then it cannot be used to replace fossil fuels globally and we are back at square one until it becomes cheap enough and efficient enough to mass produce and distribute.

Quote
Look up the new wind turbine designs. This last year saw numerous new designs that are not only more efficient, but take up less space, are aesthetically pleasing and don't have large propellers.

Thats great but irrelevant. Something being smaller, smoother, or more aesthetically pleasing don't say much for their ecological effects. The AWEA is still doing research to figure out exactly how the wind turbines will affect ocean life. Despite that, the larger wind turbines that will be placed out to see will be much larger than those on land and during construction and maintenance may do some harm.

Quote
Offshore turbine designs now under development will have larger rotors—at the moment, the largest has a 110-meter rotor diameter—because it is easier to transport large rotor blades by ship than by land.

Small wind turbines intended for residential or small business use are much smaller. Most have rotor diameters of 8 meters or less and would be mounted on towers of 40 meters in height or less.

I am not trying to discredit renewable energy, I hope it develops rapidly soon so we can start using en mass. The point is regardless of that desire, it likely will not happen for many years.

Merry christmas everyone.
« Last Edit: December 25, 2009, 02:50:28 AM by Nigerius Rex »

Offline AcidLameLTE

  • Nae deal pal
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11134
  • Gender: Male
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #587 on: December 25, 2009, 04:48:52 AM »
The AWEA is still doing research to figure out exactly how the wind turbines will affect ocean life. Despite that, the larger wind turbines that will be placed out to see will be much larger than those on land and during construction and maintenance may do some harm.
I suppose all those oil rigs are much more aesthetically pleasing and don't damage the environment at all then?

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #588 on: December 25, 2009, 06:28:50 AM »
Not as much you would think, but that is besides the point. Cost, reliability, and then affects on oceanic life and environment is the order this argument progressed.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #589 on: December 26, 2009, 01:28:06 AM »
Quote
LOL! You attack my link for being some random website, and then insert your own random website as a counterpoint! Also, completely irrelevant because it ignores the facts on the ground the solar power is rapidly become more efficient, cheaper and viable. Which the solarbuzz site even states:

No, I am stating something and then saying that an author not affiliated with some random news website agrees with me that news website commonly lie or mislead in order to make it look like the next big break is happening tomorrow. In fact, the author is writing from a solar hobbyist site which if anything gives them reason to always shed praise for solar power. Can you buy solar panels for $1/watt? Yes, from some companies. Can you mass produce solar cells for $1/watt and then install them and produce enough power to outweigh the use and effects of fossil fuels? No.

You are getting yourself lost in the good but not good enough news. Prices have fallen since the increase in interest in solar power, but although interest has risen substantially it has not risen enough to lower prices to a number low enough to enable mass distribution.

So, you admit if interest were high enough, the prices would fall and it would enable mass distribution? Well then, I guess I had better continue to try and raise interests in solar power! I had also better support public subsidization, because that will also help mass-production and lower prices.

Quote
Quote
Good thing I"m not putting all my marbles in solar power, now is it? And seeing as how I haven't made any comments on the actual output of current systems, I can't imagine how I have overstated them.

I basically said solar power is not ready, but you countered by saying its becoming cheaper every year. I then say that even though its becoming cheaper, its not cheap enough and still cannot makeup enough power to be considered a viable alternative. If its not a viable alternative regardless of cost, then it cannot be used to replace fossil fuels globally and we are back at square one until it becomes cheap enough and efficient enough to mass produce and distribute.

But it is ready, just not for your straw man usage. People in northern climates are obviously going to have to find other sources of power, but I think the major thing you're doing is assuming I'm trying to switch our energy to one specific supply. I want to diversify our energy supply, using mostly green energy: Hydrogen, solar, wind, geo-thermal, biomass, algae-conversion (really, solar power), osmotic, hydro, nuclear, ethanol, natural gas - and yes, even fossil fuels where necessary. I know I haven't been overly clear about that, but I have never said anything to the contrary.

So is it ready for everyone to use [/i]everywhere[/i]? No. Doesn't need to be. But remember, one of the usages of solar I brought up would be for developing nations, which have a much much smaller electrical demand than developed nations.

It's also untrue that solar power can't fully supply a house's energy needs. Many people with solar panels sell power back to the grid because they create more than they use.

Quote
Quote
Look up the new wind turbine designs. This last year saw numerous new designs that are not only more efficient, but take up less space, are aesthetically pleasing and don't have large propellers.

Thats great but irrelevant. Something being smaller, smoother, or more aesthetically pleasing don't say much for their ecological effects. The AWEA is still doing research to figure out exactly how the wind turbines will affect ocean life. Despite that, the larger wind turbines that will be placed out to see will be much larger than those on land and during construction and maintenance may do some harm. j

It's hardly irrelevant. One of the major problems cited with traditional turbines is their affect on birds. Smaller turbines, with no blades, gets rid of this problem. Either way, who says this has to be put out at sea? It also gives wind power even greater efficiency, making large wind farms off shore less of a requirement. Ignoring all that, there is no requirement that such farms be built to begin with, and it still leaves plenty of room for wind energy to be a viable option for people.

One especially promising design: https://www.mariahpower.com/

Quote
Quote
Offshore turbine designs now under development will have larger rotors—at the moment, the largest has a 110-meter rotor diameter—because it is easier to transport large rotor blades by ship than by land.

Small wind turbines intended for residential or small business use are much smaller. Most have rotor diameters of 8 meters or less and would be mounted on towers of 40 meters in height or less.

So after I point out that such rotors are no longer required, you bring up that rotors present problems?



And Merry Christmas. On a personal note, I hope I keep most of the discussion idealistic, and not personal

Offline Arcaeus

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4357

Online Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 36093
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #591 on: December 28, 2009, 02:09:12 AM »
Not arab, doesn't matter.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #592 on: December 28, 2009, 11:02:13 AM »

Offline millahh

  • Retired Pedantic Bastard
  • Moderator Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 3800
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Mark
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #593 on: December 28, 2009, 11:03:58 AM »
What's with this?

https://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/x1045395303/Al-Qaeda-link-seen-in-failed-plane-attack

Does this mean we have to remove our underwear to get on a plane?

With some of the new imaging equipment, we may as well be doing so already...
Quote from: parallax
WHEN WILL YOU ADRESS MY MONKEY ARGUMENT???? NEVER???? THAT\' WHAT I FIGURED.:lol

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #594 on: December 28, 2009, 11:13:23 AM »
What's with this?

https://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/x1045395303/Al-Qaeda-link-seen-in-failed-plane-attack

Does this mean we have to remove our underwear to get on a plane?

With some of the new imaging equipment, we may as well be doing so already...

Ya... I've gone through those. Still had to take off my shoes though.