171–180 of 192 posts
The Earth’s angular momentum is the exact opposite of renewable. It’s even less renewable than so-called fossil fuels.
RENEWABLE ENERGY IS IN VIOLATION OF THERMODYNAMICS. WE ARE ALL HEADING TOWARDS THE HEAT DEATH OF THE UNIVERSE.
Does it present a navigation hazard?
I'm thinking loudly about three questions: 1. How does the maintenance fee and replacement fee look like, per year? 2. Is it possible to develop a home use version? 3. I assume the tide is going to be consistent, but need to dig deeper into this.
> a home use version > 28-ton, 1.2-megawatt tidal kite Yes, one for your shower drain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A kettle uses ~1.5KW, a geyser ~2KW, an oven ~5KW, a stove about ~3KW. These are fairly high estimates I got from some quick googling. If you add these all up, and account for some more appliances (HVAC, fridge/freezer etc.), I think it is safe to estimate that a household less than 20KW at peak, even though it is a fairly high estimate. So going backwards from there, 1.2MW = 1200KW and 1200KW / 20KW = 60 households…
If the average home was using 10kW constant it be using 240 kWh a day, which is enormously high. In terms of average usage an average sized home in the US is much closer to 50kWh a day, so roughly 2kW average demand. That would mean 1 MW is enough for 500 homes on average. The one thing that doesn’t is peak demand load, say when everyone gets home from work and turns everything on at the same time or a particularly c…
2600 sq ft home kept at 71f, electric heat pump, & heat pump water heater, but I had a few holes in the walls for several days due to repairs during the coldest month of the winter so far which messed up my average using electric heaters to backfill the gap.
Obviously, the holes were covered over when not being worked on but it wasn't as air tight as compared to buttoned up and fully insulated as usual.
My power consumption is usually 30 to ~75% of that depending on weather and activity.
Since the number 1.2MW didn't mean much to me, modern on-shore wind turbines seem to supply 3-4MW and offshore ones 8 - 12MW. But this seems a lot easier to transport and install compared to cranes and the nightmare of navigating turbine blades on trucks through places. And if these hold up to water and don't cause too many problems for wildlife, there would be a lot less discussions about these "messing up my skylin…
I just don't understand why we spend so much time and money on renewables like this when Japan has an 8GW nuclear plant. If the US focused on building these en masse then we'd be in a great place.
Since the number 1.2MW didn't mean much to me, modern on-shore wind turbines seem to supply 3-4MW and offshore ones 8 - 12MW. But this seems a lot easier to transport and install compared to cranes and the nightmare of navigating turbine blades on trucks through places. And if these hold up to water and don't cause too many problems for wildlife, there would be a lot less discussions about these "messing up my skylin…
Another reference point: the coal plant in my area outputs 2.3GW. It would take almost 2,000 of these tidal kites to match that output. I just don't understand why we spend so much time and money on renewables like this when Japan has an 8GW nuclear plant. If the US focused on building these en masse then we'd be in a great place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another reference point: the coal plant in my area outputs 2.3GW. It would take almost 2,000 of these tidal kites to match that output. I just don't understand why we spend so much time and money on renewables like this when Japan has an 8GW nuclear plant. If the US focused on building these en masse then we'd be in a great place.
Because a lot of people hate nuclear energy, and don't support building new plants. So it's not really a choice between nuclear and renewables, it's a choice between renewables and fossil fuel power plants. Besides, I think there's definitely a benefit to decentralizing the power grid, and to learning how to tap different energy sources. I imagine that there are places in the world where nuclear is not appropriate, b…
I guess that is my point: the hate is counter-productive. Neglecting nuclear was one of the biggest blunders of the 20th century.
More renewable is good.. but there is always one fear in my crazy mind about these: This isn't actually renewable but taking energy out of a huge reservoir (Same for solar if pea counting, but solar is really endless until the end of the solar system).. and if we'd scale it massively the result could be another catastrophe. (Same btw. with geothermal?). (Btw.. I maybe got tidal wrong, so if it is just taking energy f…
Solar isn't as limitless as you'd think. It is limited to the surface of the earth, more precisely, the surface area of the 2 dimensional disk from the perspective of the sun. And on earth, that's what drives life, so harvesting solar energy on the surface is something that, if deployed beyond what we think we need right now, can have a negative impact on the earth. Harvesting it in space and beaming it down would heat the earyy up too, as the energy is used it produces waste heat which means on a large scale even using the energy on earth would have a negative impact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apparently that isn't true and just shifting the blame away from the pesticide and agricultural industry which have decimated insect populations. Which are the food source for many birds. Much like blaming consumer's personal choices for CO2 emissions.
"We estimate that free-ranging domestic cats kill 1.3–4.0 billion birds and 6.3–22.3 billion mammals annually. Un-owned cats, as opposed to owned pets, cause the majority of this mortality. Our findings suggest that free-ranging cats cause substantially greater wildlife mortality than previously thought and are likely the single greatest source of anthropogenic mortality for US birds and mammals." https://www.nature.…