Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Can FOSS Help In the Fight Against Climate Change?
dryriver writes: Before I ask my question, there already is free and open-source software (FOSS) for wind turbine design and simulation called QBlade. It lets you calculate turbine blade performance using nothing more than a computer and appears compatible with Xfoil as well. But consider this: the ultimate, most efficient and most real-world usable and widely deployable wind turbine rotor may not have traditional "blades" or "foils" at all, but may be a non-propeller-like, complex and possibly rather strange looking three-dimensional rotor of the sort that only a 3D printer could prototype easily. It may be on a vertical or horizontal axis. It may have air flowing through canals in its non-traditional structure, rather than just around it. Nobody really knows what this "ultimate wind turbine rotor" may look like.
The easiest way to find such a rotor might be through machine-learning. You get an algorithm to create complex non-traditional 3D rotor shapes, simulate their behavior in wind, and then mutate the design, simulate again, and get a machine learning algorithm to learn what sort of mutations lead to a better performing 3D rotor. In theory, enough iterations -- perhaps millions or more -- should eventually lead to the "ultimate rotor" or something closer to it than what is used in wind turbines today. Is this something FOSS developers could tackle, or is this task too complex for non-commercial software? The real world impact of such a FOSS project could be that far better wind turbines can be designed, manufactured and deployed than currently exist, and the fight against climate change becomes more effective; the better your wind turbines perform, and the more usable they are, the more of a fighting chance humanity has to do something against climate change. Could FOSS achieve this?
The easiest way to find such a rotor might be through machine-learning. You get an algorithm to create complex non-traditional 3D rotor shapes, simulate their behavior in wind, and then mutate the design, simulate again, and get a machine learning algorithm to learn what sort of mutations lead to a better performing 3D rotor. In theory, enough iterations -- perhaps millions or more -- should eventually lead to the "ultimate rotor" or something closer to it than what is used in wind turbines today. Is this something FOSS developers could tackle, or is this task too complex for non-commercial software? The real world impact of such a FOSS project could be that far better wind turbines can be designed, manufactured and deployed than currently exist, and the fight against climate change becomes more effective; the better your wind turbines perform, and the more usable they are, the more of a fighting chance humanity has to do something against climate change. Could FOSS achieve this?
The best way to fight climate change with it is to turn it off.
FOSS can solve the hunger crisis, cure all disease, and anything else your imagination wants to believe.
Reality may be different however.
You get an algorithm to create complex non-traditional 3D rotor shapes, simulate their behavior in wind, and then mutate the design, simulate again, and get a machine learning algorithm to learn what sort of mutations lead to a better performing 3D rotor. In theory, enough iterations -- perhaps millions or more -- should eventually lead to the "ultimate rotor"
You're describing Genetic Algorithms. It's a fairly old technique. It shouldn't be too hard to implement it. The problem here is not FOSS, it's computational power. You need quite a lot of CPU time to run all the simulations and evolve the solution.
Some sort of distributed computing framework like INSERT_PROJECT_NAME@home would work. But then you'd have to convince everyone to use it....
...Such that they slice the birds into easy-to-swallow bite-sized pieces instead of mostly just pulverizing them?
Summer BBQ season is nearly upon us, after all.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
And they’re wasting tons of energy for funbux.
A massive carbon tax would do a much more effective job at accelerating our transition off fossil fuels and slowing global warming.
A massive carbon tax so that, to start with, Americans pay the same for gas as Europeans, who do just fine with that, and then keep increasing it.
That's the best thing that would work, because except for tilting the playing field the way we have to move, it lets the free market take care of how to achieve the change.
But unfortunately, an effectively large carbon tax would take politicians with brains, a conscience, and guts. So I'm not that optimistic given the garbage we currently have.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
"Traditional" turbine designs are already up to 80% theoretical maximum efficiency. Trying to eke that last 20% is not really going to save the planet since we're nowhere near using that much wind in the first place.
That is - if you want to get FOSS to improve tech adoption, direct it to making things more affordable or accessible, not toward having more expensive higher-efficiency, higher-complexity devices.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
"In theory, enough iterations -- perhaps millions or more -- should eventually lead to the "ultimate rotor" or something closer to it than what is used in wind turbines today."
That pretty much sums up machine learning/AI today. A million monkeys on a million typewriters will eventually write Shakespeare. Except it won't happen.
Fluid flow simulation is what one might call a military grade problem - efficient and accurate ways of doing it are either protected by commercial secretcy (because CAD software to design multimillion dollar yachts and aircraft is expensive) or actual military secrecy - because the problem you're solving is the same sort of problem that's being solved (for example) when designing SSBN propellers and hulls to minimize cavitation and make the ships run silent.
The whole point of a carbon tax is:
Energy != Fossil Fuels
There are other ways we can harness solar energy, and geothermal energy. Our addiction to the drug of cheap fossil fuels is preventing us from getting to those other ways fast enough.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
These "glboal warming" stories have pretty much hijacked the content on Slashdot.
Slashdot has always done science stories. Anthropogenic climate change is science.
I remember when almost all Slashdotters respected science. That was a long time ago.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
A free software package, Tux Racer, could help in the fight against Climate Change. No, I'm not talking about the Tux Racer game as we all, ahem, normally play it. This would be a version where the player moves a cardboard cutout 'tux' down the 'screen' (a big sheet of cardboard.)
The energy savings would be immense, though Steam would lose a lot of revenue.
If you want to save the world through free and open source software, there's an easy way to do this: stop building systems that waste resources.
Don't use programming languages that spend 10 CPU cycles to do 1 cycle of work. Don't arrange things so a program is recompiled every time it is run. Write software that uses less RAM. Write replacements for spyware-laden crap. Do not support battery-burning DRM and tell them why. Encourage wired rather than wireless connections.
Stop thinking like a coder and start thinking like an engineer.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
There is no point in hunting for a more efficient rotor design for two reasons:
1) The current designs are so near perfect efficiency that there's little to be gained for a lot of effort.
2) Efficiency of the rotor, once it's "good enough" is not a big deal. When your "fuel is free" except for the cost of the equipment to collect it, the significant measures of efficiency become "power per dollar spent on equipment" and "energy per dollar spent on maintenance and site and equipment amortization".
As with the carnot limit on how much of the energy in heat can be extracted by a heat engine, there is a theoretical limit to how much of the kinetic energy you can extract from the air (or other compressible fluid) passing through a given swept area. It is called the "Betz limit". It is16/27ths, about 59.3%. It occurs because extracting energy from the wind slows it down, reducing the amount of air passing through the mill. It works like the laffer curve in tax rates: If you take no energy as the wind passes by, you get no energy. If you take all the energy you stop the wind, so you get no energy. Somewhere between there's a percentage of extraction that gets you the maximum. For wind, that's 16/27ths.
As you approach the Betz limit you reach a point of diminisihing returns. You can throw progressively larger amounts of money into the design of your mill to get progressively smaller amounts of additional energy. Or you can spend a little extra money to just make your mill a little bigger, which lets it sweep a lot more area and collect a lot more energy.
Modern 3-bladed horizontal-axis wind turbines (HAWTs), running at a tip speed ratio in the 6 to 7 range, get within a few percent of Betz perfection. (Higher TSR would get you a little more, but above 6 you're starting to get to where a storm could make the airflow near the tips go supersonic, which is a problem structurally.) Scaling them up gives you more power per unit cost, so the utility mills converged to giant 3-blade HAWTs.
Horizontal axis because vertical axis designs tend to be either FAR less efficient or have terrible issues with vibration (though the helical darrius seems practical for small mills). The main advantage of a VAWT over a HAWT for small (i.e. off-grid residential/farm/small business) mills is that HAWTs need to be made to track the wind but "furled" in a high wind to avoid damage, which makes them more complex and failure prone. (HAWTs may need furling, too, but they don't need tracking and they're easier to overbuild to reduce the need for furling).
Three blade because one blade (like a maple leaf) and two-blade have vibration problems when yawing to face a changing wind. Three or more do not. More blades don't buy you any extra efficIency so three is the least expensive to build.
If you want to improve wind turbines you'd do well to concentrate on less expensive construction methods, rather than trying to chase the tiny amount of efficiency that's left.
If you want to improve other aspects of renewable energy, there's more room for improvement in control, storage, photovoltaic designs, direct collection of heat, and cooling (including radiative coupling to the four-degree kelvin cosmic background temperature through the "infrared window").
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way