5 ms·

Wind is a second-order force. It’s even worse than solar - hard to believe!

by sunkenvicar 7y ago

bash_profile 7y ago
Second-order force?
- ncmncm 7y ago
  Doubletalk.
sfink 7y ago
I'm not sure what you mean exactly, but I think 2nd order force is a fair description. Except you diss solar, so I'm a little confused. To me, solar is first-order. Solar leads to wind, so it's second-order. (Though really, solar heats water and air, producing wind, so it's kinda third-order.) Oil is... uh... the sun grows the plants which die and get compacted, then we pump up the remnants. I'm not sure what you'd call that. Uranium is, like, zeroth order then. Fusion in the Sun produces solar. And yet, none of this really means much. Unless you're constructing Dyson spheres, it really doesn't matter how efficiently you're capturing the max theoretical energies. If you don't believe me, stop eating. Try replacing food with sucking on a power cord.
- sunkenvicar 7y ago
  I’m referring to energy density. Because civilization requires ever-increasing amounts of energy to grow and prosper. Solar, even concentrated desert solar, is no good at all. Wind is a distant derivative and much, much worse. Hydrocarbons and nuclear are the fuels of today and tomorrow because they are orders of magnitude more energy dense. These energy sources are so dense they double as energy storage.
  - adrianN 7y ago
    Come back with your concerns when we fully exploit the potential of wind and solar and run out of energy. Right now covering single digit percentages of the world with solar panels would satisfy our energy needs.
    - sunkenvicar 7y ago
      I am concerned now because covering the world in solar panels and wind turbines is unsustainable. Each siting location by definition is worse than the one before. The vast land area required will cause tremendous societal and environmental impact. Problems of energy storage, rotating mass, and baseload power remain unsolved by wind and solar. We need to get on nuclear. Then we can help poorer nations with nuclear power so they can undergo their own Clean Industrial Revolutions. In 80 years we all want the world’s ~11 billion plus people to live far better than we live in the West today.
      - adrianN 7y ago
        Energy storage and baseload are in fact solved problems: a good grid (because it's always windy somewhere), and a combination of batteries for overnight storage and power-to-gas for long term storage. I'm in favor of nuclear power too, but it takes too long to build.
        realusername 7y ago
        > Energy storage and baseload are in fact solved problems: a good grid (because it's always windy somewhere), and a combination of batteries for overnight storage and power-to-gas for long term storage. That's far from solved, countries close to each other have very similar weather pattern and wind electricity is especially unreliable. We're also very unlikely to have a massive breakthrough in turbines since we're close to the theoretical maximum already.
        adrianN 7y ago
        The talks I heard by the engineers that actually studied this disagree with you.
  - usrusr 7y ago
    Take waste disposal into account and hydrocarbons are not dense at all, they change the composition of the entire atmosphere with their emissions.
  - NGC404 7y ago
    Solar and Wind are free and widely availabe primary energy sources. No infrastructure is needed to dig it/pump it up, transport it and process it befor it is usable, as with fossile fuels and nuclear power.
    - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
      One you take into account energy storage, backup and associated supply chain I think benefits are minor at best
  - imtringued 7y ago
    Energy density isn't exactly the most important criteria of an energy source. Nuclear has a higher energy density than hydrocarbons or batteries but we still don't see nuclear powered cars and aircraft everywhere.
dredmorbius 7y ago
Solar has a maximum uniform density of 1kW/m^2, roughly, at Earth's surface. Wind, though a 2nd-order form of solar energy, concentrates at some points on the surface. Since both forms work by way of building some form of collection capital and recovering energy, wind allows a higher site-specific EROEI than solar, given favourable siting. Not in all locations, but in some. That's why wind power makes sense. Though I'm skeptical of airborne / kite-based generation.

Wind is a second-order force. It’s even worse than solar - hard to believe!

bash_profile 7y ago

Second-order force?

ncmncm 7y ago
Doubletalk.

sfink 7y ago

I'm not sure what you mean exactly, but I think 2nd order force is a fair description. Except you diss solar, so I'm a little confused. To me, solar is first-order. Solar leads to wind, so it's second-order. (Though really, solar heats water and air, producing wind, so it's kinda third-order.) Oil is... uh... the sun grows the plants which die and get compacted, then we pump up the remnants. I'm not sure what you'd call that. Uranium is, like, zeroth order then. Fusion in the Sun produces solar. And yet, none of this really means much. Unless you're constructing Dyson spheres, it really doesn't matter how efficiently you're capturing the max theoretical energies. If you don't believe me, stop eating. Try replacing food with sucking on a power cord.

sunkenvicar 7y ago
I’m referring to energy density. Because civilization requires ever-increasing amounts of energy to grow and prosper. Solar, even concentrated desert solar, is no good at all. Wind is a distant derivative and much, much worse. Hydrocarbons and nuclear are the fuels of today and tomorrow because they are orders of magnitude more energy dense. These energy sources are so dense they double as energy storage.
- adrianN 7y ago
  Come back with your concerns when we fully exploit the potential of wind and solar and run out of energy. Right now covering single digit percentages of the world with solar panels would satisfy our energy needs.
  - sunkenvicar 7y ago
    I am concerned now because covering the world in solar panels and wind turbines is unsustainable. Each siting location by definition is worse than the one before. The vast land area required will cause tremendous societal and environmental impact. Problems of energy storage, rotating mass, and baseload power remain unsolved by wind and solar. We need to get on nuclear. Then we can help poorer nations with nuclear power so they can undergo their own Clean Industrial Revolutions. In 80 years we all want the world’s ~11 billion plus people to live far better than we live in the West today.
    - adrianN 7y ago
      Energy storage and baseload are in fact solved problems: a good grid (because it's always windy somewhere), and a combination of batteries for overnight storage and power-to-gas for long term storage. I'm in favor of nuclear power too, but it takes too long to build.
      - realusername 7y ago
        > Energy storage and baseload are in fact solved problems: a good grid (because it's always windy somewhere), and a combination of batteries for overnight storage and power-to-gas for long term storage. That's far from solved, countries close to each other have very similar weather pattern and wind electricity is especially unreliable. We're also very unlikely to have a massive breakthrough in turbines since we're close to the theoretical maximum already.
        adrianN 7y ago
        The talks I heard by the engineers that actually studied this disagree with you.
- usrusr 7y ago
  Take waste disposal into account and hydrocarbons are not dense at all, they change the composition of the entire atmosphere with their emissions.
- NGC404 7y ago
  Solar and Wind are free and widely availabe primary energy sources. No infrastructure is needed to dig it/pump it up, transport it and process it befor it is usable, as with fossile fuels and nuclear power.
  - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
    One you take into account energy storage, backup and associated supply chain I think benefits are minor at best
- imtringued 7y ago
  Energy density isn't exactly the most important criteria of an energy source. Nuclear has a higher energy density than hydrocarbons or batteries but we still don't see nuclear powered cars and aircraft everywhere.

dredmorbius 7y ago

Solar has a maximum uniform density of 1kW/m^2, roughly, at Earth's surface. Wind, though a 2nd-order form of solar energy, concentrates at some points on the surface. Since both forms work by way of building some form of collection capital and recovering energy, wind allows a higher site-specific EROEI than solar, given favourable siting. Not in all locations, but in some. That's why wind power makes sense. Though I'm skeptical of airborne / kite-based generation.