>The core problem is that wind turbines generate electricity by extracting energy out of the air, slowing down wind and otherwise altering “the exchange of heat, moisture, and momentum between the surface and the atmosphere,” the study explains. That can produce some level of warming.
People they are quoting are activists. They obviously say so, because this confirms the problems with Paris agreement, and Paris agreement is widely embraced by them for ideological reasons.
Problem being, this one confirms the point they really didn't want confirmed, that Paris agreement giving China blank cheque to build more CO2 emitting power generation for upcoming years until 2030 (iirc) cut off. Hence "we confirmed it, but we don't really believe it".
First part of that sentence is a fact. Second is opinion. The fact that you prefer to use latter to deny the former is telling.
Warming may be regional, but the baseline mechanism is same as with global warming. Reduction in thermal energy vented into space. That means that totality of the semi-closed system that is earth's atmosphere will get globally warmed with reasonably widespread wind energy generation.
"But the opponents may use it" is an ideological argument. Anyone saying this belongs with the global warming denialists in the "but muh dogma" pit, where they can slug it out in the mud. I have no interest in it.
Cost is massive, as this is a proof of concept prototype. Cost efficiency is not a concern at this stage.
Target for methane is irrelevant (but electricity generating CCGTs would obviously love to have it, especially since this one is going to be of extremely high purity) because this is a proof of concept.
Kerosene is the current oil supply chain bottleneck. Doesn't matter if we cut down use of other oil distillates. Planes need the kerosene, and you get a very specific amount of kerosene from oil that doesn't vary to a significant degree between various oils.
That means that even if we were to say cut our use of gasolene, we can't afford to refine less oil, because growing civil aviation needs more kerosene. If we can actually generate kerosene from this process with any kind of meaningful cost effectiveness, we stand to benefit tremendously from less need to refine oil.
And the study obviously talks about "boundary layer mixing preventing emission of heat from the system" which I got wrong in the initial post. Otherwise, meaning of the post is exactly the same.
Mea culpa. I was answering another person about "no heat generated at all at the windmill" which got the "friction" stuck in my head through several other replies.
Original post is supposed to say "thermal energy conserved within atmosphere by reducing emissions into space" which is what study references.
Correction to above post, I accidentally confused this with another reply. The heating occurs due to reduction of heat loss from atmosphere because of boundary layer mixing. Essentially similar reason as to how global warming works, except that unlike CO2 emissions, this effect is static and not cumulative.
I don't think it lends any validity to original post, considering I disputed it in my other reply. I'm simply addressing things that I see being wrong/missing as I see them.
I'm well familiar with slashdot's weirdo green ultras who hold religious style dogmaic beliefs on global warming, and have butted heads with them quite often in the past when they post nonsense.
The faster we get rid of various versions of LNT, and actually get reasonable scientific definitions, the better. Our bodies are designed to easily handle certain amount of toxins, carcinogens, radiation, etc. It's a part of normal metabolic process.
The problem is when we receive more of a dose of aforementioned things than our natural metabolic, immune etc processes can handle. When that happens we get sick, poisoned, killed or suffer long term cell damage that leads to cancer. The worst offender by far in this category is the radiation LNT model. It's been long debunked (yes, you get a significant radiation dose by flying, no, it's not a carcinogenic factor to fly to your yearly holiday because the additional dose is much lower than surplus of your natural cell repair mechanisms held in reserve).
Same applies to toxins, poisons, carcinogens and so on. What we need to know is not just that "this material/process can be toxic/poisonous/carcinogenic" but "how much of an exposure to this needs to occur for the toxic/poisonous/carcinogenic effect to actually occur in human body".
Sigh. I hate posting on laptop. Last paragraph is supposed to read "It's not a pro-CO2 argument. It's pro-other than wind carbon neutral or carbon negative generation sources."
That's given. The study literally states that in long term, wind energy is better when it comes to handling global warming. The claim being made is that as we remove carbon emitters from energy generation, wind power gets relatively worse to other sources of such energy generation due to having a warming effect.
It's an a pro-CO2 argument. It's pro-other than wind carbon neutral or carbon negative generation sources.
Study expressly states that wind is better long term than fossil fuels when it comes to controlling global warming. The claim it makes is that as we remove carbon emitters from power generation, wind becomes a relatively worse option compared to alternatives from the same point of view, because it does cause significant amount of warming per electric energy generated through mechanical friction.
Problem being that localized heat increase happening over many locales over many decades has a global impact. Thermal energy has to go somewhere, it doesn't just vanish because it's not generated by sun rays in this case. That's why paper is talking about 0,5GW of generation across the US, not a single wind park.
The summary takes into account the basics of law of energy conservation. I'm not sure how you think that the fact that thermal energy generated by friction at the windmills being eventually dissipated across the continent is "pro-fossil-fuel-FUD". Can you please elaborate?
We're literally coming out of ice age. It was here just a few tens of thousands of years ago. Problem is, we've accelerated the warming process to the point where adaptation to it has become a significant challenge for many species, including ourselves.
How this ignorance of basic physics got modded "+5 insightful" tells a lot of anti-scientific bias among certain activist types when science contradicts their ideology. It's exceedingly obvious that wind power generates heat which is dissipated into the atmosphere. You need not go beyond high school level physics for this, as both laws of energy conservation, thermodynamics and friction are covered there.
The angle of the study is that "as electric generation reduces its carbon emissions, wind power becomes less and less beneficial from view of global warming over next hundred years". This is rather obvious, as power generation from the wind is generated by literally converting kinetic energy of atmospheric air to kinetic energy using large propeller blades. Which generate friction in the process, both on the blades and as various thermodynamic losses during kinetic > electric conversion. And friction generates heat, which is dissipated into surrounding air.
So the study has grand total of zero of "pro fossil fuel FUD".
By definition, to disturb balance in one direction, you do not need a significant increase on the "emission" end. You just need enough to be more than "absorption" part. No altering of any other patterns is necessary.
Like most vaccines, there are side effects for small portion of those vaccinated. It's a serious ethical concern to vaccinate people who do not benefit from vaccination in any tangible way, but still have to suffer the side effects.
In general, vaccination logic goes that benefits must be notably greater than potential side effects for treatment to be considered ethical. HPV is typically completely harmless in humans, and even when it does cause some harm, it's rapidly self-resolving. Cancers as a result of it are exceedingly rare compared to infection rates, so you'd have to crunch the math on whether potential cancer or potential side effects are worse in terms of likelihood. It appears there's recently emerged a consensus that in human females, there's a clear net benefit due to cervical cancer potential.
Same cannot be said for males who do not possess cervix.
The only thing to add is that while the pathway from HPV infection to cervical cancer is well understood, not even scientists behind it try to suggest that HPV is the sole factor even in 85% of cases where they found the virus in people with cancer.
Let me repeat that, since you clearly didn't read my actual statement. 85% is not the causal link. It's the correlation of people who have cervical cancer who were tested for HPV. And even if you were to make this assumption, and be correct, a claim that even activists driving this one don't make, there are still 15% of cases unaccounted for.
They do make cars that sorta kinda comply with regulatory standards. But they have little chance of breaking into the market, because of all the factors you mention affecting reputation of the brand.
Notably, South Koreans are still suffering from their branding issues because they had most of the problems you list just a few decades ago. Back then, they had the same problem with the utterly protected local market where they had really easy time selling their cars. And as a result, they didn't really have to compete with foreign brands on merits, and their products had all those problems that Chinese ones have today.
They'll get over those problems in a decade or two most likely. How long the brand damage will end up lasting is a wholly different story. South Koreans are still suffering from it, their sales numbers nowhere near their Japanese counterparts in Western European markets for example. And it's been decades since they had those quality problems.
Slashdot Mirror
Abstract disagrees.
>The core problem is that wind turbines generate electricity by extracting energy out of the air, slowing down wind and otherwise altering “the exchange of heat, moisture, and momentum between the surface and the atmosphere,” the study explains. That can produce some level of warming.
People they are quoting are activists. They obviously say so, because this confirms the problems with Paris agreement, and Paris agreement is widely embraced by them for ideological reasons.
Problem being, this one confirms the point they really didn't want confirmed, that Paris agreement giving China blank cheque to build more CO2 emitting power generation for upcoming years until 2030 (iirc) cut off. Hence "we confirmed it, but we don't really believe it".
First part of that sentence is a fact. Second is opinion. The fact that you prefer to use latter to deny the former is telling.
Warming may be regional, but the baseline mechanism is same as with global warming. Reduction in thermal energy vented into space. That means that totality of the semi-closed system that is earth's atmosphere will get globally warmed with reasonably widespread wind energy generation.
"But the opponents may use it" is an ideological argument. Anyone saying this belongs with the global warming denialists in the "but muh dogma" pit, where they can slug it out in the mud. I have no interest in it.
Cost is massive, as this is a proof of concept prototype. Cost efficiency is not a concern at this stage.
Target for methane is irrelevant (but electricity generating CCGTs would obviously love to have it, especially since this one is going to be of extremely high purity) because this is a proof of concept.
It's not a start. It's a prototype.
Kerosene is the current oil supply chain bottleneck. Doesn't matter if we cut down use of other oil distillates. Planes need the kerosene, and you get a very specific amount of kerosene from oil that doesn't vary to a significant degree between various oils.
That means that even if we were to say cut our use of gasolene, we can't afford to refine less oil, because growing civil aviation needs more kerosene. If we can actually generate kerosene from this process with any kind of meaningful cost effectiveness, we stand to benefit tremendously from less need to refine oil.
Efficiency.
And the study obviously talks about "boundary layer mixing preventing emission of heat from the system" which I got wrong in the initial post. Otherwise, meaning of the post is exactly the same.
Mea culpa. I was answering another person about "no heat generated at all at the windmill" which got the "friction" stuck in my head through several other replies.
Original post is supposed to say "thermal energy conserved within atmosphere by reducing emissions into space" which is what study references.
Correction to above post, I accidentally confused this with another reply. The heating occurs due to reduction of heat loss from atmosphere because of boundary layer mixing. Essentially similar reason as to how global warming works, except that unlike CO2 emissions, this effect is static and not cumulative.
I don't think it lends any validity to original post, considering I disputed it in my other reply. I'm simply addressing things that I see being wrong/missing as I see them.
I'm well familiar with slashdot's weirdo green ultras who hold religious style dogmaic beliefs on global warming, and have butted heads with them quite often in the past when they post nonsense.
The faster we get rid of various versions of LNT, and actually get reasonable scientific definitions, the better. Our bodies are designed to easily handle certain amount of toxins, carcinogens, radiation, etc. It's a part of normal metabolic process.
The problem is when we receive more of a dose of aforementioned things than our natural metabolic, immune etc processes can handle. When that happens we get sick, poisoned, killed or suffer long term cell damage that leads to cancer. The worst offender by far in this category is the radiation LNT model. It's been long debunked (yes, you get a significant radiation dose by flying, no, it's not a carcinogenic factor to fly to your yearly holiday because the additional dose is much lower than surplus of your natural cell repair mechanisms held in reserve).
Same applies to toxins, poisons, carcinogens and so on. What we need to know is not just that "this material/process can be toxic/poisonous/carcinogenic" but "how much of an exposure to this needs to occur for the toxic/poisonous/carcinogenic effect to actually occur in human body".
Sigh. I hate posting on laptop. Last paragraph is supposed to read "It's not a pro-CO2 argument. It's pro-other than wind carbon neutral or carbon negative generation sources."
That's given. The study literally states that in long term, wind energy is better when it comes to handling global warming. The claim being made is that as we remove carbon emitters from energy generation, wind power gets relatively worse to other sources of such energy generation due to having a warming effect.
It's an a pro-CO2 argument. It's pro-other than wind carbon neutral or carbon negative generation sources.
Study expressly states that wind is better long term than fossil fuels when it comes to controlling global warming. The claim it makes is that as we remove carbon emitters from power generation, wind becomes a relatively worse option compared to alternatives from the same point of view, because it does cause significant amount of warming per electric energy generated through mechanical friction.
Problem being that localized heat increase happening over many locales over many decades has a global impact. Thermal energy has to go somewhere, it doesn't just vanish because it's not generated by sun rays in this case. That's why paper is talking about 0,5GW of generation across the US, not a single wind park.
The summary takes into account the basics of law of energy conservation. I'm not sure how you think that the fact that thermal energy generated by friction at the windmills being eventually dissipated across the continent is "pro-fossil-fuel-FUD". Can you please elaborate?
Strange comparison considering Mercury has no stable atmosphere, unlike Venus (and Earth).
We're literally coming out of ice age. It was here just a few tens of thousands of years ago. Problem is, we've accelerated the warming process to the point where adaptation to it has become a significant challenge for many species, including ourselves.
How this ignorance of basic physics got modded "+5 insightful" tells a lot of anti-scientific bias among certain activist types when science contradicts their ideology. It's exceedingly obvious that wind power generates heat which is dissipated into the atmosphere. You need not go beyond high school level physics for this, as both laws of energy conservation, thermodynamics and friction are covered there.
The angle of the study is that "as electric generation reduces its carbon emissions, wind power becomes less and less beneficial from view of global warming over next hundred years". This is rather obvious, as power generation from the wind is generated by literally converting kinetic energy of atmospheric air to kinetic energy using large propeller blades. Which generate friction in the process, both on the blades and as various thermodynamic losses during kinetic > electric conversion. And friction generates heat, which is dissipated into surrounding air.
So the study has grand total of zero of "pro fossil fuel FUD".
Problem is described in your own post. "Balance".
By definition, to disturb balance in one direction, you do not need a significant increase on the "emission" end. You just need enough to be more than "absorption" part. No altering of any other patterns is necessary.
Like most vaccines, there are side effects for small portion of those vaccinated. It's a serious ethical concern to vaccinate people who do not benefit from vaccination in any tangible way, but still have to suffer the side effects.
In general, vaccination logic goes that benefits must be notably greater than potential side effects for treatment to be considered ethical. HPV is typically completely harmless in humans, and even when it does cause some harm, it's rapidly self-resolving. Cancers as a result of it are exceedingly rare compared to infection rates, so you'd have to crunch the math on whether potential cancer or potential side effects are worse in terms of likelihood. It appears there's recently emerged a consensus that in human females, there's a clear net benefit due to cervical cancer potential.
Same cannot be said for males who do not possess cervix.
Thank you for conceding the point for the OP.
The only thing to add is that while the pathway from HPV infection to cervical cancer is well understood, not even scientists behind it try to suggest that HPV is the sole factor even in 85% of cases where they found the virus in people with cancer.
Let me repeat that, since you clearly didn't read my actual statement. 85% is not the causal link. It's the correlation of people who have cervical cancer who were tested for HPV. And even if you were to make this assumption, and be correct, a claim that even activists driving this one don't make, there are still 15% of cases unaccounted for.
Now read my claim.
Literally, topic. You cannot eliminate certain type of cancer by eliminating one of the risk factors. The claim is patently absurd.
They do make cars that sorta kinda comply with regulatory standards. But they have little chance of breaking into the market, because of all the factors you mention affecting reputation of the brand.
Notably, South Koreans are still suffering from their branding issues because they had most of the problems you list just a few decades ago. Back then, they had the same problem with the utterly protected local market where they had really easy time selling their cars. And as a result, they didn't really have to compete with foreign brands on merits, and their products had all those problems that Chinese ones have today.
They'll get over those problems in a decade or two most likely. How long the brand damage will end up lasting is a wholly different story. South Koreans are still suffering from it, their sales numbers nowhere near their Japanese counterparts in Western European markets for example. And it's been decades since they had those quality problems.