Thanks. The reason for big turbines is because they are more efficient. You use less materials for more power. So you’ll never convince an engineer of all this.
I wonder if there is a maximum size of turbine that can be built with steel, given how heavy it is. Wind might become a lot more expensive.
Which would not be a bad thing because the world needs to start converting to sea-swell power asap.
That’s a misleading statement because the efficiency calculations are done with assumptions based on current load, usage patterns, and supergrid as prerequisites.
To do a proper efficiency calculation we need a page 1 rewrite of how we handle energy entirety, as I described. I can prove I’m right with maths.
Also, aluminum not steel. Because you only need 1 meter bladespan when only generating one household of energy.
As for industrial needs, they can be handled by nuclear. Trying to scale up wind or solar is just too environmentally destructive.
But again, the key here is not to keep generating more and more energy, or using existing base loads as a starting point, we need to reduce energy usage drastically. It’s so wasteful right now.
efficiency calculations are done with assumptions based on current load, usage patterns, and supergrid as prerequisites.
Could be. At least for rural areas, small scale could be more efficent.
aluminum not steel
IIRC aluminium is never used for rotating parts because of the way it fatigues. After a certain number of strain cycles it will snap.
not to keep generating more and more energy
Yes but now this is a political issue. How are you going to stand between big business’s and its thirst for AI? The usage is growing exponentially and IMO will soon be dominant and the rest of the economy becomes more efficient.
Yes but now this is a political issue. How are you going to stand between big business’s and its thirst for AI? The usage is growing exponentially and IMO will soon be dominant and the rest of the economy becomes more efficient.
It has always been a political issue. We had 3 generations to fix the problem. Corruption and lack of leadership resulted in the massive failure mode we are experiencing.
Now we need drastic changes quickly. We could be completely fossil fuel free in 5 years, but we’d need to basically retool everything and a billion lifestyles would have to change. (worth pointing out that the change would result in much more comfortable, happy and healthy lives) Now you could argue that’s impossible but I argue it’s the only possibility. Business as usual WILL result in the collapse of society and over a billion lifestyles will have to change anyway. (worth pointing out that this forced change would result in uncomfortable unhappy and potentially unhealthy lives, and even many deaths) That’s just the reality we live in.
Most of the worlds’s society is collapsing. Much of the world is becoming uninhabitable. But only a small corner of the earth needs to remain prosperous, for the rich to keep living rich lives.
Since we’re talking politics now, the solution is direct democracy, where the electorate can compel the government to make a certain law, or take certain measures. Major changes become possible which are impossible now.
Nothing which harms the powerful vested interests will ever happen without direct democracy. Today, governments can simply decline to do things which don’t suit them, even if the electorate demands them.
Anyone who believes in any issue at all, your first priority is direct democracy. It is your new goal. Without it your protests are ignored. With it, you can directly change the world without even having to protest.
I don’t think direct democracy is a good idea, at least not with our current structure. The problem is dumb and easily manipulated people, if you think them voting for representatives that work against their own best interests is bad wait until you see the damage done by voting for actual laws against their best interest. I’ll even give an example: prop 22 in California. There are so many other examples but that one is just so clear cut and over the top.
What I think is better is decentralized federated models. The USA was originally a confederation and then federation of States. It’s in the name. Thing is, back then states were only expected to be a couple million or less citizens. Now cities are that size. And yet even today there are states with less than 500k citizens.
I think a restructuring based on population and land area (territory) is in order.
It’s ok if a small town votes that trans people can’t use a certain bathroom, or they vote that some race is not allowed to move in. But when such laws affect large land masses or large populations then there is a problem.
Things like air particulates affect the entire globe, that should be governed at a global level. There are all kinds of things in between.
These bad laws happen with elected representatives too, but worse. At least with direct democracy, laws will not be made which are against the majority’s best interest, and laws have a legitimate mandate.
For example it’s hard to imagine a direct democracy starting a war of convenience, like representative democracies frequently do and are doing right now. All the most egregious crimes of government would stop.
But the quality of all the little laws is debatable. I would argue it’s higher under DD but I can see why some people disagree.
But it’s hard to discuss very specific examples, because they are always cherry-picked.
Finally, there are several forms of DD and the Californian style is probably the least beneficial.
Thanks. The reason for big turbines is because they are more efficient. You use less materials for more power. So you’ll never convince an engineer of all this.
I wonder if there is a maximum size of turbine that can be built with steel, given how heavy it is. Wind might become a lot more expensive.
Which would not be a bad thing because the world needs to start converting to sea-swell power asap.
That’s a misleading statement because the efficiency calculations are done with assumptions based on current load, usage patterns, and supergrid as prerequisites.
To do a proper efficiency calculation we need a page 1 rewrite of how we handle energy entirety, as I described. I can prove I’m right with maths.
Also, aluminum not steel. Because you only need 1 meter bladespan when only generating one household of energy.
As for industrial needs, they can be handled by nuclear. Trying to scale up wind or solar is just too environmentally destructive.
But again, the key here is not to keep generating more and more energy, or using existing base loads as a starting point, we need to reduce energy usage drastically. It’s so wasteful right now.
Could be. At least for rural areas, small scale could be more efficent.
IIRC aluminium is never used for rotating parts because of the way it fatigues. After a certain number of strain cycles it will snap.
Yes but now this is a political issue. How are you going to stand between big business’s and its thirst for AI? The usage is growing exponentially and IMO will soon be dominant and the rest of the economy becomes more efficient.
It has always been a political issue. We had 3 generations to fix the problem. Corruption and lack of leadership resulted in the massive failure mode we are experiencing.
Now we need drastic changes quickly. We could be completely fossil fuel free in 5 years, but we’d need to basically retool everything and a billion lifestyles would have to change. (worth pointing out that the change would result in much more comfortable, happy and healthy lives) Now you could argue that’s impossible but I argue it’s the only possibility. Business as usual WILL result in the collapse of society and over a billion lifestyles will have to change anyway. (worth pointing out that this forced change would result in uncomfortable unhappy and potentially unhealthy lives, and even many deaths) That’s just the reality we live in.
Most of the worlds’s society is collapsing. Much of the world is becoming uninhabitable. But only a small corner of the earth needs to remain prosperous, for the rich to keep living rich lives.
Since we’re talking politics now, the solution is direct democracy, where the electorate can compel the government to make a certain law, or take certain measures. Major changes become possible which are impossible now.
Nothing which harms the powerful vested interests will ever happen without direct democracy. Today, governments can simply decline to do things which don’t suit them, even if the electorate demands them.
Anyone who believes in any issue at all, your first priority is direct democracy. It is your new goal. Without it your protests are ignored. With it, you can directly change the world without even having to protest.
I don’t think direct democracy is a good idea, at least not with our current structure. The problem is dumb and easily manipulated people, if you think them voting for representatives that work against their own best interests is bad wait until you see the damage done by voting for actual laws against their best interest. I’ll even give an example: prop 22 in California. There are so many other examples but that one is just so clear cut and over the top.
What I think is better is decentralized federated models. The USA was originally a confederation and then federation of States. It’s in the name. Thing is, back then states were only expected to be a couple million or less citizens. Now cities are that size. And yet even today there are states with less than 500k citizens.
I think a restructuring based on population and land area (territory) is in order.
It’s ok if a small town votes that trans people can’t use a certain bathroom, or they vote that some race is not allowed to move in. But when such laws affect large land masses or large populations then there is a problem.
Things like air particulates affect the entire globe, that should be governed at a global level. There are all kinds of things in between.
These bad laws happen with elected representatives too, but worse. At least with direct democracy, laws will not be made which are against the majority’s best interest, and laws have a legitimate mandate.
For example it’s hard to imagine a direct democracy starting a war of convenience, like representative democracies frequently do and are doing right now. All the most egregious crimes of government would stop.
But the quality of all the little laws is debatable. I would argue it’s higher under DD but I can see why some people disagree.
But it’s hard to discuss very specific examples, because they are always cherry-picked.
Finally, there are several forms of DD and the Californian style is probably the least beneficial.