As the article says, the researchers are going to find out why this gene isn't already stopping HIV infection. I.e. back to square one. This is not a cure, it's an interesting in vitro study.
HIV is hard to fix because it evolves so quickly in an individual, in response to the immune system and anti-retrovirals. It appears already to have evolved around this gene's activity in vivo. Not sure why this is a headline.
NIMBYs are powerful, but the scary statistic of two per mile of UK coast is misleading. As with existing plans, many will be far from shore in shallow water like the Thames estuary. One major cost determinant of off-shore wind is the water depth. Another surprisingly important factor is the weather, especially waves: difficulty in access leads to reduced power generation since maintenance has to be delayed, sometimes for weeks. Therefore, there are few places (economically) suitable for off-shore wind power generation, and many of them will be barely noticable from the shore.
There are two incorrect assumptions in this discussion: a) that we have to make generation fit usage, not the reverse, and b) that we don't know what the wind is going to be doing in a few hours time.
a) Many industries could use power when available, not on demand. Desalination is a great example. The problem is that energy delivery and markets are not structured to work this way. Yet.
b) With short-term prediction of hours to days, you can master the variability by scheduling conventional generation around the wind. The concept of a baseload is not helpful: just plot the wind at the bottom of the chart, and the problem is different.
Adaptability is an inherited property, so the original comment is not wrong in all contexts. The human brain gives us the ability to adapt: versatility is an asset.
"After years of controversy, 71 percent of Americans now say they think global warming is real."
Science, popular or not, is not democratic. After all, everyone used to think the world was flat. Besides, half of all Americans think the world was literally created a few thousand years ago. I wonder what the Venn diagram looks like combining creationism with the global warming acceptance.
The energy you can take from the wind is proportional to the area of the device, and the cube of the wind speed. Three-bladed wind turbines are tall and big because wind is faster higher up, and so they can sweep a huge area. A three blade arrangement is aerodynamically optimal, getting closest to the Betz limit of about 59% (not 20-30% or whatever the web page said).
Also, bird death is about 1 per turbine per year for current technology. This is about 9 orders of magnitude less than bird death from buildings/vehicles/airplanes etc., and that's not considering the enviornmental consequences on bird life of NOT using renewable sources...
Dumpy little vertical axis machines may have limited uses in isolated installation, and for revolving advertising, but they are not practical for large scale generation. The rotor of a modern 5MW wind turbine is about the same size as an athletics track. Imagine how big this vertical axis machine would have to be to match the wind capture of this. If the alternative is to have many small devices, there would be a very large number indeed: this carries costs of electrical interconnection, massive maintenance overhead from trillions of puny alternators and gearboxes, all of which was probably ignored in arriving at the 2.5 cents per kWh.
The only way to make money with this turbine is to be the poor guy's patent attourney.
Slashdot Mirror
As the article says, the researchers are going to find out why this gene isn't already stopping HIV infection. I.e. back to square one. This is not a cure, it's an interesting in vitro study. HIV is hard to fix because it evolves so quickly in an individual, in response to the immune system and anti-retrovirals. It appears already to have evolved around this gene's activity in vivo. Not sure why this is a headline.
NIMBYs are powerful, but the scary statistic of two per mile of UK coast is misleading. As with existing plans, many will be far from shore in shallow water like the Thames estuary. One major cost determinant of off-shore wind is the water depth. Another surprisingly important factor is the weather, especially waves: difficulty in access leads to reduced power generation since maintenance has to be delayed, sometimes for weeks. Therefore, there are few places (economically) suitable for off-shore wind power generation, and many of them will be barely noticable from the shore.
There are two incorrect assumptions in this discussion: a) that we have to make generation fit usage, not the reverse, and b) that we don't know what the wind is going to be doing in a few hours time.
a) Many industries could use power when available, not on demand. Desalination is a great example. The problem is that energy delivery and markets are not structured to work this way. Yet.
b) With short-term prediction of hours to days, you can master the variability by scheduling conventional generation around the wind. The concept of a baseload is not helpful: just plot the wind at the bottom of the chart, and the problem is different.
Adaptability is an inherited property, so the original comment is not wrong in all contexts. The human brain gives us the ability to adapt: versatility is an asset.
"After years of controversy, 71 percent of Americans now say they think global warming is real."
Science, popular or not, is not democratic. After all, everyone used to think the world was flat. Besides, half of all Americans think the world was literally created a few thousand years ago. I wonder what the Venn diagram looks like combining creationism with the global warming acceptance.
The energy you can take from the wind is proportional to the area of the device, and the cube of the wind speed. Three-bladed wind turbines are tall and big because wind is faster higher up, and so they can sweep a huge area. A three blade arrangement is aerodynamically optimal, getting closest to the Betz limit of about 59% (not 20-30% or whatever the web page said).
Also, bird death is about 1 per turbine per year for current technology. This is about 9 orders of magnitude less than bird death from buildings/vehicles/airplanes etc., and that's not considering the enviornmental consequences on bird life of NOT using renewable sources...
Dumpy little vertical axis machines may have limited uses in isolated installation, and for revolving advertising, but they are not practical for large scale generation. The rotor of a modern 5MW wind turbine is about the same size as an athletics track. Imagine how big this vertical axis machine would have to be to match the wind capture of this. If the alternative is to have many small devices, there would be a very large number indeed: this carries costs of electrical interconnection, massive maintenance overhead from trillions of puny alternators and gearboxes, all of which was probably ignored in arriving at the 2.5 cents per kWh.
The only way to make money with this turbine is to be the poor guy's patent attourney.