Wind Farms cause global warming

[Tom Ligon]

Off on a tangent, if wind farms DO cause global warming, then general aviation may help prevent it!

Our mountain in WV was scheduled to get a string of turbines, part of the complex going in around Mount Storm (some deal to offset the gigawatts of coal burning there). But about a month ago they announced, with regrets, that they'd encounterer a snag. When the did detailed site surveys for the actual installation, they decided they needed to move the turbines a bit. At that point the FAA quashed the project.

My cabin, for you aviators, is about 6 nm NW of the Kessel VOR. That means there are several "Victor airways" (radial vectors) coming off Kessel to other VORs, which route traffic over our mountain. Normally they keep these about 2000 ft or more above the mountain top, but the turbines raise that 400 ft, probably eliminating a whole layer of available altitudes. Turbulence may also have been a factor.

Only general aviation aircraft fly low enough for this to be a concern. The airlines fly so high these turbines have not have been a factor. So score one for the piston singles!

[pbelter]

Interior Looks to Expand Permits for Killing Bald Eagles to Accommodate Wind Energy

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/09/int ... nd-energy/

We have reviewed applications from proponents of renewable energy projects, such as wind and solar power facilities, for programmatic permits to authorize eagle take that may result from both the construction and ongoing operations of renewable energy projects.

So not only global warming but accelerated species extinction...

[pbelter]

tomclarke:

Germany is a very highly regulated country - more than UK

Historical information is not relevant: 2 world war and marshal plan changed things

Italy is in trouble, as you know, I am sure.

You are missing the point. Germany is indeed a highly regulated country but the north is roughly regulated the same as the sought and they still have not recovered financially from the centuries of minor regulation, even now after all what has happened in XX century.
Same about Italy. Those countries are in trouble right now, as everybody else since they have singed up for the hyperegulatory experiment called EU, but even if they had no regulation the same would be true: It takes centuries to recover from centuries of even minor regulation.
When you have more free market, you produce more capital and compound interest accelerates your growth further.

[pbelter]

As for "more people => more progress"

You act as though there can be no inherent material limits to supporting people. Historically the US has been SO FAR from any limits that has been effectively true. Now it is still far from (possible future) limits. But other places not. Of course science can change limits, has done so, will continue to do so (better GM crops, etc). But it only an ideologue with no science would say that in principle there are no limits.

But there are no limits!!! over 300 billion stars in our galaxy and hundreds of billions of galaxies. We have no technological means of getting all those resources yet, but the same can be said about bushmen in Bostwana 100 years ago, when they had a casual bonfire talk about mining all the Uranium in their rich land. Well, now they do.
We need more people with more bright ideas to accelerate the technological progress.
We shouldn't be talking about how to limit population but how to increase it. The real problem is that with all the regulation and tax burdens in the developed world, it became too expensive/difficult to have enough children to even sustain stable population.


Here is what John Lewis, the author of "Mining the Sky" says in his book:

With a nine-foot ceiling, we could provide each family with a floor area of 3,000 square feet for private residential use and still set aside 3,000 square feet of public space per family. This artificial world would contain enough room to accommodate more than ten quadrillion [a million times a billion] people

There may be some limits to growth, such as the thermal death of the Universe, but by that time it happens we may well have technologies to create our own private universes. The theoretical growth limits are so theoretical that are not really worth consideration, the same way limited hydrogen supply in the Sun is not a concern to a solar cell manufacturer.

[tomclarke]

As for "more people => more progress"

You act as though there can be no inherent material limits to supporting people. Historically the US has been SO FAR from any limits that has been effectively true. Now it is still far from (possible future) limits. But other places not. Of course science can change limits, has done so, will continue to do so (better GM crops, etc). But it only an ideologue with no science would say that in principle there are no limits.

But there are no limits!!! over 300 billion stars in our galaxy and hundreds of billions of galaxies. We have no technological means of getting all those resources yet, but the same can be said about bushmen in Bostwana 100 years ago, when they had a casual bonfire talk about mining all the Uranium in their rich land. Well, now they do.
We need more people with more bright ideas to accelerate the technological progress.
We shouldn't be talking about how to limit population but how to increase it. The real problem is that with all the regulation and tax burdens in the developed world, it became too expensive/difficult to have enough children to even sustain stable population.


Here is what John Lewis, the author of "Mining the Sky" says in his book:

With a nine-foot ceiling, we could provide each family with a floor area of 3,000 square feet for private residential use and still set aside 3,000 square feet of public space per family. This artificial world would contain enough room to accommodate more than ten quadrillion [a million times a billion] people

There may be some limits to growth, such as the thermal death of the Universe, but by that time it happens we may well have technologies to create our own private universes. The theoretical growth limits are so theoretical that are not really worth consideration, the same way limited hydrogen supply in the Sun is not a concern to a solar cell manufacturer.

Like most ideologies, this rests on theoretical truisms that often break in practice.

The historical reason for this, in your case, is probably because you come from a frontier culture - USA but possibly Australia, Canada, where by definition the easily accesible natural resources are still available without competition, or have been until recently.

And of course science changes what is possible. But it does not provide infinitely good solutions to everything. For example, getting off this planet is a very big ask and always likely to be more difficult, per person, than making new children.

[Betruger]

For example, getting off this planet is a very big ask and always likely to be more difficult, per person, than making new children.

No.

It's only hard for the same reason as technology is "hard". Not enough people willing to support it via (mainly, to pick one, but there's other means as well) taxes. We only need to break out of this gravity well. It's an endemic myopia that space is "crazy". A round earth, new continents, were all "crazy" to the degree that they didn't warrant considering pragmatically. Yes, it's about the frontier. We are all on the frontier right now, all of us on this planet. A rude but concise way to put it is that we have our heads too far up our asses to realize it. The "Overview Effect" is evidence of this, I believe.
It's myopic to think only of what this planet has to offer. That we couldn't escape it starting today. We're not in the middle ages anymore. Space X and Planetary Resources and Bigelow are all making headway, however difficult... We have the means.

It's a matter of will, and at that point it's not about ideology or philosophy. It's a test of human character, nothing more. Insisting that space is out of reach is a self fulfilling cultural handicap.

easily accesible natural resources are still available without competition

No competition for resources in space.

[tomclarke]

For example, getting off this planet is a very big ask and always likely to be more difficult, per person, than making new children.

No.

It's only hard for the same reason as technology is "hard". Not enough people willing to support it via (mainly, to pick one, but there's other means as well) taxes. We only need to break out of this gravity well. It's an endemic myopia that space is "crazy". A round earth, new continents, were all "crazy" to the degree that they didn't warrant considering pragmatically. Yes, it's about the frontier. We are all on the frontier right now, all of us on this planet. A rude but concise way to put it is that we have our heads too far up our asses to realize it. The "Overview Effect" is evidence of this, I believe.
It's myopic to think only of what this planet has to offer. That we couldn't escape it starting today. We're not in the middle ages anymore. Space X and Planetary Resources and Bigelow are all making headway, however difficult... We have the means.

It's a matter of will, and at that point it's not about ideology or philosophy. It's a test of human character, nothing more. Insisting that space is out of reach is a self fulfilling cultural handicap.

easily accesible natural resources are still available without competition

No competition for resources in space.

I think we'll have to disagree.

The basic tenet: "anything is possible at viable cost" is untrue.

This forum is all about seeing whether fusion can be possible at viable cost. No-one here is saying whether Polywell will work commercially depends just on the strength of beleif of the Polywell team and money invested. That would be laughable.

It is your argument on this thread.

[Betruger]

Breaking the orbital access Catch 22 is not an uncertainty of the kind that "working" Polywell or some other forever-"20 years away" device is. Bussard & co (or Dr B at least) have said Polywell is only a matter of engineering and that the physics "are done", but for all we know there are unknown show stoppers. As far as I know there are no such show stoppers for orbital access. Do you know any? How is it not just a matter of paying the bill for it like we have for the ISS (semi-purposefully chosen example; one Bigelow module would outsize whole ISS)? How are the technical solutions required for breaking even in space anything like the money pit that e.g. ITER has been and will be for the foreseeable future? I do not see the likeness.

I'm not lumping orbital access economies of scale, etc, along with "everything else" (as in "anything is possible at viable cost"). I am specifically arguing our breaking out of this gravity well, and only that.

[tomclarke]

Breaking the orbital access Catch 22 is not an uncertainty of the kind that "working" Polywell or some other forever-"20 years away" device is. Bussard & co (or Dr B at least) have said Polywell is only a matter of engineering and that the physics "are done", but for all we know there are unknown show stoppers. As far as I know there are no such show stoppers for orbital access. Do you know any? How is it not just a matter of paying the bill for it like we have for the ISS (semi-purposefully chosen example; one Bigelow module would outsize whole ISS)? How are the technical solutions required for breaking even in space anything like the money pit that e.g. ITER has been and will be for the foreseeable future? I do not see the likeness.

I'm not lumping orbital access economies of scale, etc, along with "everything else" (as in "anything is possible at viable cost"). I am specifically arguing our breaking out of this gravity well, and only that.

I've not said we can't get to space, just that it is materially more expensive than pregnancy and not likely therefore to solve resource scarcity on the earth.

[Betruger]

Where's the disconnect between getting to space and exploiting what's inarguably an astronomical volume of resources?

[tomclarke]

Where's the disconnect between getting to space and exploiting what's inarguably an astronomical volume of resources?

The material cost of getting stuff (even energy) in/out of that gravity well is large. This is a big physics limit. Such limits are much less susceptible to technological finessing than things like chemistry (find a new catalyst) or communications/computers (intrinsic costs per bit incredibly small and not yet reached).

I am not arguing that travel to from LEO etc will not get cheaper. Just that it is not the type of problem that gets arbitrarily cheaper.

Interestingly, the only kind of travel that is very very cheap in principle - dirigible air travel - is not successful commercially. Must be no-one wanting it enough. Shame trhough, it is a nice idea and there are Uk companies with products:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7918 ... d-age.html

[KitemanSA]

LEO = ~ 7.1 km/sec. =~7100m/s

E=(1/2)mv^2 =0.5*7100^2 kgm2/s2 ~25 MJ

1 kWh = 1000*3600 J = 3.6MJ

1kg to 7.1 km.sec takes 25MJ/3.6MJ = ~7kWh. @ $0.14/kWh, energy cost to LEO = ~$1.00

It SHOULD be VERY cheap. But it is VERY inefficient.

A skyhook (beanstalk?) could be almost 90% efficient. There could very well be an "arbitrarily cheaper" way.

[Betruger]

Where's the disconnect between getting to space and exploiting what's inarguably an astronomical volume of resources?

The material cost of getting stuff (even energy) in/out of that gravity well is large. This is a big physics limit. Such limits are much less susceptible to technological finessing than things like chemistry (find a new catalyst) or communications/computers (intrinsic costs per bit incredibly small and not yet reached).

I am not arguing that travel to from LEO etc will not get cheaper. Just that it is not the type of problem that gets arbitrarily cheaper.

Interestingly, the only kind of travel that is very very cheap in principle - dirigible air travel - is not successful commercially. Must be no-one wanting it enough. Shame trhough, it is a nice idea and there are Uk companies with products:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7918 ... d-age.html

And how is this problem apples and apples to something still very much steeped in theory like Polywell?

In-space industry is only a matter of throwing enough money at it during its initial establishment. Unlike Polywell and ITER as far as we know at this point. And I'd argue that in-space industry is definitely within reasonable reach. You wouldn't need to bankrupt the world for it. The USA on its own might be enough to kickstart things with a double or tenfold increase from current NASA budget.

[Tom Ligon]

Guys, let me let you in on the dirty little secret of space exploitation.

Yeah, most people on Earth will never go to space. Most people in Spain and England never came to the New World, either.

Yet the New World is populated with the descendants of people from places like Spain and England. How is that? Well, they're descended from the ones who did come.

Spain and England expected to profit greatly from the stuff sent back from the New World. How is that working out for them? The people who came found and created enormous wealth, but the mother countries only got a trickle of it. Most of it is still here. And most of of it will stay here.

The place it the thing of value. The ones who will benefit are the ones who grit their teeth, pay for the ticket, tolerate the gees, and go there. And that won't be most people. And most of the wealth they create will stay in space.

The gravity well is real enough ... it is the test to discriminate between the go-getters and the its-too-harders. Any great mystery that some of the people making things happen in space are people who recently created booming companies?

[Tom Ligon]

Tom,

Blimps. Think blimps. They're not dead.

But they are kind of slow, and time is money. Also rather more sensitive to weather than airliners are, so weather disrupts their destination operations more. Hence their lack of passenger service.

But they're viable for some cargo and for surveilance.