6 ms·

Imagine having more electricity than we need in California, especially from wind. We could desalinate water from the ocean all night long.

technofiend 11y ago
Nothing stopping you but some NIMBYs who don't want the wind farms from spoiling your views.
- what_ever 11y ago
  Ehh, you don't need to put wind farms in the cities/suburbs where NIMBYs are located. There is Central CA with abundance of flat lands as well as mountains
  - URSpider94 11y ago
    You clearly don't have experience with California environmental politics. There's not a single spot of land (or water) in the state where SOMEONE won't complain about a wind farm installation.
  - technofiend 11y ago
    Perhaps, but then you're wasting energy pumping water inland.
- voltagex_ 11y ago
  And also NIMBYs who believe turbines are making them ill.
  - msandford 11y ago
    Actually infrasound is pretty bad for you. At the right frequency around 18-19Hz you start seeing ghosts. Substantially lower can really do a number on you too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrasound https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrasound
    - voltagex_ 11y ago
      Pollution from coal-fired power plants is pretty bad for you, too.
    - arjie 11y ago
      Source only states effects on people working on the turbine, and, in general, people exposed to infrasound at volumes higher than those you get from having a wind turbine nearby. You practically have to be on the device. No danger from this.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    I sometimes wonder how and if various groups of NIMBYs - i.e. anti-wind-farm, anti-nuclear, etc. overlap with each other. Sometimes I just wish I could point a finger and accuse someone of attempting to kill people and/or destroy civilization.
    - voltagex_ 11y ago
      >Sometimes I just wish I could point a finger and accuse someone of attempting to kill people and/or destroy civilization. Funny, that's what anti-wind/solar/nuclear people say! I think it comes down to a lack of science education and a fear of the unknown.
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        > Funny, that's what anti-wind/solar/nuclear people say! Yes, I know :). That's (among others) a reason I don't go and point my finger too much :). > I think it comes down to a lack of science education and a fear of the unknown. I'd add a collapse of trust in authority as an underlying cause for this and movements like anti-vaccination. I talk to people holding such beliefs quite a bit, and I've noticed they're perfectly willing to (selectively) trust science; they can even have an above-average understanding of it. It's often that they don't trust the intentions of governments and corporations (the "Big Pharma", evil Monsanto, etc.). So I think painting them as anti-science idiots, as it is often done on-line, is counterproductive. Not just because it's always counterproductive to paint the other side as idiots, but also because it's missing the point.
maerF0x0 11y ago
why not solar instead of wind? So many farms dont have water, may as well cover them over with panels or mirrors, no ?
- suneilp 11y ago
  Solar panels would have to be maintained rigorously for any leakages. Some of the chemicals in them are not so good for us.
  - URSpider94 11y ago
    Can you be more specific? All of the solar panels that I'm aware of are 100% solid state, there is nothing that can "leak" out...
    - suneilp 11y ago
      Arsenic, cadmium, lead, polyvinyl fluoride, and probably more. There are indeed liquid based solar panels. The toxicity of solar panels both in their production and their usage has been reported on a great deal. Some companies are making changes to make them safer but I have no clue how far along those efforts are. Solar farms are hurting the ecosystem when they break and leak out. Even if they aren't liquid based, solid state versions have thin films which contain some chemicals like cadmium and arsenic. Cadmium telluride has been introduced more recently has it is safer.
      - pjc50 11y ago
        This comment is a weird mix of truth and untruth. Yes, there's a lot of toxic chemicals involved in solar panel production, as there is in IC production and a whole load of other production processes. http://www.solarindustrymag.com/issues/SI1309/FEAT_05_Hazardous_Materials_Used_In_Silicon_PV_Cell_Production_A_Primer.html http://www.solarindustrymag.com/issues/SI1309/FEAT_05_Hazard... Liquid solar panels are simply not a production-ready technology. There are no commercial liquid solar cell farms. Installed solar panels are solid. They're not particularly prone to corrosion and 'leaking', and are >99% silicon with trace amounts of boron and phosphorous. CdTe is actually nastier. Solar farms are hurting the ecosystem when they break and leak out [citation needed]
TeMPOraL 11y ago
That's why you'll never have more electricity than you need - you just gave an example of how the usage could adjust to consume all the surplus. Welcome to the fascinating world of Umeshisms/Malthusianisms, per [0]. :). [0] - http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=418 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=418

technofiend 11y ago

Nothing stopping you but some NIMBYs who don't want the wind farms from spoiling your views.

what_ever 11y ago
Ehh, you don't need to put wind farms in the cities/suburbs where NIMBYs are located. There is Central CA with abundance of flat lands as well as mountains
- URSpider94 11y ago
  You clearly don't have experience with California environmental politics. There's not a single spot of land (or water) in the state where SOMEONE won't complain about a wind farm installation.
- technofiend 11y ago
  Perhaps, but then you're wasting energy pumping water inland.
voltagex_ 11y ago
And also NIMBYs who believe turbines are making them ill.
- msandford 11y ago
  Actually infrasound is pretty bad for you. At the right frequency around 18-19Hz you start seeing ghosts. Substantially lower can really do a number on you too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrasound https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrasound
  - voltagex_ 11y ago
    Pollution from coal-fired power plants is pretty bad for you, too.
  - arjie 11y ago
    Source only states effects on people working on the turbine, and, in general, people exposed to infrasound at volumes higher than those you get from having a wind turbine nearby. You practically have to be on the device. No danger from this.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  I sometimes wonder how and if various groups of NIMBYs - i.e. anti-wind-farm, anti-nuclear, etc. overlap with each other. Sometimes I just wish I could point a finger and accuse someone of attempting to kill people and/or destroy civilization.
  - voltagex_ 11y ago
    >Sometimes I just wish I could point a finger and accuse someone of attempting to kill people and/or destroy civilization. Funny, that's what anti-wind/solar/nuclear people say! I think it comes down to a lack of science education and a fear of the unknown.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      > Funny, that's what anti-wind/solar/nuclear people say! Yes, I know :). That's (among others) a reason I don't go and point my finger too much :). > I think it comes down to a lack of science education and a fear of the unknown. I'd add a collapse of trust in authority as an underlying cause for this and movements like anti-vaccination. I talk to people holding such beliefs quite a bit, and I've noticed they're perfectly willing to (selectively) trust science; they can even have an above-average understanding of it. It's often that they don't trust the intentions of governments and corporations (the "Big Pharma", evil Monsanto, etc.). So I think painting them as anti-science idiots, as it is often done on-line, is counterproductive. Not just because it's always counterproductive to paint the other side as idiots, but also because it's missing the point.

maerF0x0 11y ago

why not solar instead of wind? So many farms dont have water, may as well cover them over with panels or mirrors, no ?

suneilp 11y ago
Solar panels would have to be maintained rigorously for any leakages. Some of the chemicals in them are not so good for us.
- URSpider94 11y ago
  Can you be more specific? All of the solar panels that I'm aware of are 100% solid state, there is nothing that can "leak" out...
  - suneilp 11y ago
    Arsenic, cadmium, lead, polyvinyl fluoride, and probably more. There are indeed liquid based solar panels. The toxicity of solar panels both in their production and their usage has been reported on a great deal. Some companies are making changes to make them safer but I have no clue how far along those efforts are. Solar farms are hurting the ecosystem when they break and leak out. Even if they aren't liquid based, solid state versions have thin films which contain some chemicals like cadmium and arsenic. Cadmium telluride has been introduced more recently has it is safer.
    - pjc50 11y ago
      This comment is a weird mix of truth and untruth. Yes, there's a lot of toxic chemicals involved in solar panel production, as there is in IC production and a whole load of other production processes. http://www.solarindustrymag.com/issues/SI1309/FEAT_05_Hazardous_Materials_Used_In_Silicon_PV_Cell_Production_A_Primer.html http://www.solarindustrymag.com/issues/SI1309/FEAT_05_Hazard... Liquid solar panels are simply not a production-ready technology. There are no commercial liquid solar cell farms. Installed solar panels are solid. They're not particularly prone to corrosion and 'leaking', and are >99% silicon with trace amounts of boron and phosphorous. CdTe is actually nastier. Solar farms are hurting the ecosystem when they break and leak out [citation needed]

TeMPOraL 11y ago

That's why you'll never have more electricity than you need - you just gave an example of how the usage could adjust to consume all the surplus. Welcome to the fascinating world of Umeshisms/Malthusianisms, per [0]. :). [0] - http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=418 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=418