Interesting off shore wind farm study

[sesmith]

http://phys.org/news/2014-02-offshore-farms-hurricanes.html

 

[Where2]

Somewhere there are a bunch of intellectuals who thought that Hurricane Wilma coming in to South Florida off the Gulf of Mexico would be at tropical storm strength by the time it reached the east coast of Florida. After all, it had 100 miles of wind drag on dry land to slow it down.

I honestly don't see a farm of windmills doing anything substantial to a wind storm like a hurricane. The amount of energy in a hurricane is mind-numbing. The destruction they leave in their wake is devastating.

 

[Frozen Canuck]

Wanted: Investors willing to pony up 100 billion for equipment that will be placed directly in the path of future hurricanes…….
Needed: Individuals who are willing to connect to & rely upon a power grid & generators that are in the path of future hurricanes…….
Absolutely necessary: No more hurricanes……..

Good luck.

 

[begreen]

All it takes is an array of 78,000 windmills.

 

[Doug MacIVER]

Wanted: Investors willing to pony up 100 billion for equipment that will be placed directly in the path of future hurricanes…….
Needed: Individuals who are willing to connect to & rely upon a power grid & generators that are in the path of future hurricanes…….
Absolutely necessary: No more hurricanes……..

Good luck.

those investors will end up being the rate paying customers.

 

[jebatty]

The article again is a reminder that the earth is awash in energy, whether wind or solar. The problem is humans who have adapted their lifestyle to an unnatural model. All other living things are adapted to living, surviving and excelling in nature as she is, where she is, and how she is. Only humans have regressed to the point of attempting to modify nature contrary to her nature to make human the norm nature is to satisfy, rather than nature the norm to which humans must adapt.

Using energy from coal, oil, and NG is like drawing from a savings account. Proper use of savings is to fill in the voids when nature does not momentarily provide sufficient energy. Instead, humans have decided to live on the savings and discard the abundant free energy available because it is "too expensive." Savings will not last forever. More likely, the "too expensive" free energy from wind and solar more realistically reflects the real cost of energy, and many of us are fooling ourselves when we think we can live on savings. The housing boom and living on equity loans is a gentle reminder of this folly, as is the retirement savings of most Americans that won't do diddly to get them through retirement.

For a 7+ billion population world, living on energy savings of coal, oil and NG is like living on home equity loans -- enjoy the ride while it lasts, but a bailout from nature just might not be in the cards.

 

[Doug MacIVER]

The article again is a reminder that the earth is awash in energy, whether wind or solar. The problem is humans who have adapted their lifestyle to an unnatural model. All other living things are adapted to living, surviving and excelling in nature as she is, where she is, and how she is. Only humans have regressed to the point of attempting to modify nature contrary to her nature to make human the norm nature is to satisfy, rather than nature the norm to which humans must adapt.

Using energy from coal, oil, and NG is like drawing from a savings account. Proper use of savings is to fill in the voids when nature does not momentarily provide sufficient energy. Instead, humans have decided to live on the savings and discard the abundant free energy available because it is "too expensive." Savings will not last forever. More likely, the "too expensive" free energy from wind and solar more realistically reflects the real cost of energy, and many of us are fooling ourselves when we think we can live on savings. The housing boom and living on equity loans is a gentle reminder of this folly, as is the retirement savings of most Americans that won't do diddly to get them through retirement.

For a 7+ billion population world, living on energy savings of coal, oil and NG is like living on home equity loans -- enjoy the ride while it lasts, but a bailout from nature just might not be in the cards.

The same can be said about wood. Our colonial forefathers stripped the land bare.So much so , that New England has only one stand of virgin forest.
Then man with nature's help reforested. Now comes someone who finds those black rocks that burned.

Oil and coal will gradually be replaced by necessity, by some things we see today and others that are in the future. question in my mind is, do we force it ahead of it's time or let it come along when it's time is less of an economic shock. Remember Pres. Obama said" under my program energy costs will skyrocket" .

I think the system will take care of itself and when the new stuff fits in ,it's time will have arrived.

 

[jebatty]

Our colonial forefathers stripped the land bare.... Then man with nature's help reforested.

The first part is correct, the second is not. Take man off the land and nature does just fine, reforests all by itself. Nature did it before and will do it again without man. Nature reforests, man strips the land.

There is no new savings, replenishing the account, for coal, oil and NG. You're correct that as these become more expensive, necessity will force a change. But in the meantime we are using up the savings that would be there for future generations, and not only using it up, but wasting most of it on really quite frivolous things, kind of like spending the retirement/pension funds on expensive travel and dining that will deplete those funds long before a person dies and really needs the funds for essentials. "Long before a person dies" is the equivalent of future generations; they too will need these precious resources for essentials; but the current generation is spending them now.

We really are pretty close in agreement. I just think we now should pay the real cost of our use of energy resources (environmental cost, pollution cost, health cost in disease and death, etc.), which would "force" a change, and instead now use sustainable and renewable energy resources rather than spending the wealth that could be saved for the generations that follow. We are living on borrowed time, let's stop the borrowing.

 

[Doug MacIVER]

The first part is correct, the second is not. Take man off the land and nature does just fine, reforests all by itself. Nature did it before and will do it again without man. Nature reforests, man strips the land.

There is no new savings, replenishing the account, for coal, oil and NG. You're correct that as these become more expensive, necessity will force a change. But in the meantime we are using up the savings that would be there for future generations, and not only using it up, but wasting most of it on really quite frivolous things, kind of like spending the retirement/pension funds on expensive travel and dining that will deplete those funds long before a person dies and really needs the funds for essentials. "Long before a person dies" is the equivalent of future generations; they too will need these precious resources for essentials; but the current generation is spending them now.

We really are pretty close in agreement. I just think we now should pay the real cost of our use of energy resources (environmental cost, pollution cost, health cost in disease and death, etc.), which would "force" a change, and instead now use sustainable and renewable energy resources rather than spending the wealth that could be saved for the generations that follow. We are living on borrowed time, let's stop the borrowing.

We are already paying. Closing coal electrical plants after expensive scrubbers, same with the few oil fired plants, low sulfur heating oil, blended gas, catalytic converters, demand on increased mileage, the list goes on. With a hundred plus years of nat gas in the ground advancements we don't even see yet will replace it by then. in the mean time maybe the next generation of human beings will discover those black rocks that burn. just my opinion

 

[ihookem]

Thewind miils are where they are supposed to be,, where the wind blows. They would have been better off using hydro turbins though. There is almost always a current, and it is very powerfull.