PDA

View Full Version : It's not the time to discuss climate change



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

hungryjoe
9/11/2017 1:13pm,
Nope, nobody cares about wind energy in the USA...
https://www.nrel.gov/gis/wind.html

GIS is geographical information system, BNET, so expect to see some maps (pictures).

Well, that same website has all sorts of stuff...must have been made in China !
https://www.nrel.gov/gis/maps.html

LOL

Replace 20kV in my post above with 20kW. Not able to edit due to time constraints.

submessenger
9/11/2017 1:34pm,
LOL

Replace 20kV in my post above with 20kW. Not able to edit due to time constraints.

LOL, didn't realize we had a subject matter expert on hand. In before Bnet claims "you must not be very good at your job."

hungryjoe
9/11/2017 1:54pm,
LOL, didn't realize we had a subject matter expert on hand. In before Bnet claims "you must not be very good at your job."

I wish. If I could have a dream about a way to overcome the mechanical issues with horizontal wind generation it would be very lucrative. At this time the downsides are reduced efficiency and destructive high winds. They are much more attractive and have the ability to generate, dependent upon design, at lower wind speeds typical with reduced height.

to add

We had a chance to possibly have this issue as last years engineering project for Oklahoma State University. The customer didn't want to go that route because he has little faith in numbers, engineers, etc. and prefers to experiment through prototyping. That was fine when his product was remote control technology. He didn't want to face the complexity of the physics involved with regard to design, efficiency and stability at extremes. You can dump wind in the portion of rotation needed to improve efficiency but it requires more moving parts, maintenance and service. Then again there's the high wind issue. I've shelved my participation on the project for now.

Waiting on that dream......

Bnet will call it quitting.

submessenger
9/11/2017 2:00pm,
I wish. If I could have a dream about a way to overcome the mechanical issues with horizontal wind generation it would be very lucrative. At this time the downsides are reduced efficiency and destructive high winds. They are much more attractive and have the ability to generate, dependent upon design, at lower wind speeds typical with reduced height.

How about ocean-borne or lake-borne units? They wouldn't need to be giant oil platform type things, just tethered somehow. Barge-relocatable. Maybe 10 feet off the waterline for the primary horizontal rotor.

BKR
9/11/2017 2:13pm,
How about ocean-borne or lake-borne units? They wouldn't need to be giant oil platform type things, just tethered somehow. Barge-relocatable. Maybe 10 feet off the waterline for the primary horizontal rotor.

They had a proposal for that kind of thing off the east coast a few years ago.

Guess who went all NIMBY ?
This is the newest one.
http://www.delmarvanow.com/story/news/local/maryland/2017/04/10/ocean-city-offshore-wind/100139644/

This is the older one I was thinking of for this post.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/mar/2/20060302-124537-9804r/

hungryjoe
9/11/2017 2:21pm,
How about ocean-borne or lake-borne units? They wouldn't need to be giant oil platform type things, just tethered somehow. Barge-relocatable. Maybe 10 feet off the waterline for the primary horizontal rotor.

Those are the horizontal units in play worldwide at this time. They're big but out there and we can expect to see more. Material science is an exploding field. See my edited post above. The guy who offered to help me get this project before OSU has a PHD in material science and we'd worked closely on other projects. Customer? I'd headed his R&D on the mechanical end for a decade before he sold the company. Lead rope/horse/water/drink thingy.

submessenger
9/11/2017 2:35pm,
I think I have my terminology wrong. By horizontal, I meant vertical-axis. Reduces height issues with birds and aesthetics, no yaw required. Putting them on the water where there's usually abundant wind. But, I see the problem - it's the drag on the back side. I think this can be solved. Need a variable pitch blade that can be shaped based on detected wind direction.

submessenger
9/11/2017 3:42pm,
I think I have my terminology wrong. By horizontal, I meant vertical-axis. Reduces height issues with birds and aesthetics, no yaw required. Putting them on the water where there's usually abundant wind. But, I see the problem - it's the drag on the back side. I think this can be solved. Need a variable pitch blade that can be shaped based on detected wind direction.

Huh, I was about 20 years too late for that idea: http://www.windturbine-performance.com/www/PDF%20dosyalar/TUBITAK%20RAPORU%20KOMPLE%20-%20YAVUZ%20ALI%20SENER.pdf

hungryjoe
9/11/2017 3:52pm,
I think I have my terminology wrong. By horizontal, I meant vertical-axis. Reduces height issues with birds and aesthetics, no yaw required. Putting them on the water where there's usually abundant wind. But, I see the problem - it's the drag on the back side. I think this can be solved. Need a variable pitch blade that can be shaped based on detected wind direction.

No, I have confused the issue by not specifying the axis which means I have completely confused the issue. I was referring to the wind dump blade design would be in horizontal plane. Which puts it in the category of VAWT (vertical axis). My bad. HAWT (horizontal axis for those not interested) is the norm we see here.

Expecting Bnet in 3, 2, 1...

Guird
9/12/2017 1:39am,
"Climate change isn't real"
"Climate change is so bad that it's all hopeless and there's no point"
Anything to avoid doing something I guess?

Just because the problem can't be entirely solved doesn't mean we shouldn't bother. We should be funding infrastructure changes, research, etc to still reduce the long term effects.
Many nations have sucessfully reduced their carbon emissions. And why not? It benefits them politically (less dependence on oil-rich nations), economically (creation of many jobs in building and maintaining ifrastructure) and whatever it costs it's expected to save money in the long term by reducing the ecomonic impacts of climate change.

submessenger
9/12/2017 6:59am,
For what I know, car fuel use is spectacularly inefficient, so moving to electric cars would do the tricks.
http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=126079

MisterMR
9/12/2017 7:37am,
http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=126079

Thanks, but I meant the "loss of energy". This blog post from 2013 gives an overall efficiency (counting also the production of energy) that is double for electric cars than for "normal" cars:


So now we have a number that we really can compare directly to a gasoline car – we’re accounting for everything from the well to the wheel, and that number is around 30%.
So what’s a typical number for well-to-wheel for a conventional car? About 14%.

https://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/wells-to-wheels-electric-car-efficiency/

Bneterasedmynam
9/12/2017 7:59am,
"Climate change isn't real"
"Climate change is so bad that it's all hopeless and there's no point"
Anything to avoid doing something I guess?

Just because the problem can't be entirely solved doesn't mean we shouldn't bother. We should be funding infrastructure changes, research, etc to still reduce the long term effects.
Many nations have sucessfully reduced their carbon emissions. And why not? It benefits them politically (less dependence on oil-rich nations), economically (creation of many jobs in building and maintaining ifrastructure) and whatever it costs it's expected to save money in the long term by reducing the ecomonic impacts of climate change.

You're wasting your time with the "burn baby burn" crowd.

submessenger
9/12/2017 8:56am,
You're wasting your time with the "burn baby burn" crowd.

Science has never been wrong. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories)

Bneterasedmynam
9/12/2017 9:52am,
Science has never been wrong. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories)

Thanks, but I'll take the word of every legit scientist on earth over your bullshit.

submessenger
9/12/2017 10:20am,
Thanks, but I'll take the word of every legit scientist on earth over your bullshit.

Same, here. I am not opposed to changing my mind about something, but it sure as hell won't be because of your regurgitated vitriol from whatever source(s) of disinformation you are using. This goes for sciency stuff, like this, and for politics, and probably for any other general topic you've ever engaged in on these forums. You probably aren't as stupid as I think, but you're a **** poster. You aren't even a good troll, which I could appreciate. You're just annoying. I think you need a little Carnegie (https://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/0671027034) in your diet.