On Saturday 15 Dec 2007 11:41 pm, Charles Haynes wrote:
> Do you assume the effects must needs be negative?
In fact I have no assumptions. No solutions. Nothing. This whole train of
discussion was started off by my saying that nobody knows the exact effects,
good or bad, although the bad tends t
On Saturday 15 Dec 2007 7:53 pm, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> Of course if you truly believe that, you should commit suicide immediately.
Well I do intend to be dead later, if not sooner, so my heart's in the right
place. :)
shiv
On Dec 15, 2007 5:02 PM, shiv sastry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 15 Dec 2007 2:16 pm, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> > Wind farms don't kill birds -- but the damn things kill sleep,
> > if you live nearby. They're NOISY.
> Nobody knows the local effects of removing 0.05% (or more?) of energy
Eugen Leitl wrote [at 08:12 PM 12/15/2007] :
> What percentage of energy extraction is safe? How was the figure
arrived at?
Currently, humanity needs about 1/1th of entire Earth (that is surface,
not orbit) insolation. In contrast, we're tapping one third to one half of
Earth entire photos
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 05:02:44PM +0530, shiv sastry wrote:
> Nobody knows the local effects of removing 0.05% (or more?) of energy locally
Have you heard of trees? Solitary big ones, like redwoods? Well, there
are even no trees offshore. But I wouldn't do it offshore, I would put
the installat
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 05:24:22PM +0530, shiv sastry wrote:
> Actually, I believe it would achieve nothing for the environment. But it is a
Sounds a bit futile, and wasteful, then.
> lesson in human behavior which suggests that the best bet for anyone is to
> squeeze out whatever he can as so
On Saturday 15 Dec 2007 5:05 pm, Udhay Shankar N wrote:
> > > Accepting this hypothesis for the purpose of the discussion, exactly
> > > what is it you are recommending?
> >
> >I was recommending nothing. But since you ask maybe I should recommend a
> >refresher course in the history of pollution a
At least one corner of the UK is already wind powered..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7145026.stm
Flatulent cow puts wind up locals
A smoke machine ensures the cow emits its gas at set times
A mechanical cow that breaks wind on the hour has become Edinburgh's lat
shiv sastry wrote [at 04:53 PM 12/15/2007] :
> Accepting this hypothesis for the purpose of the discussion, exactly
> what is it you are recommending?
I was recommending nothing. But since you ask maybe I should recommend a
refresher course in the history of pollution and environmental damage f
On Saturday 15 Dec 2007 2:16 pm, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> Wind farms don't kill birds -- but the damn things kill sleep,
> if you live nearby. They're NOISY.
Nobody knows the local effects of removing 0.05% (or more?) of energy locally
from surface winds in terms of pollen and seed dispersal, insect
On Saturday 15 Dec 2007 8:44 am, Udhay Shankar N wrote:
> Accepting this hypothesis for the purpose of the discussion, exactly
> what is it you are recommending?
I was recommending nothing. But since you ask maybe I should recommend a
refresher course in the history of pollution and environmental
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 07:47:34AM +0530, shiv sastry wrote:
> If enough countries in the world tap surface winds to meet most of their
> energy requirements, they will certainly alter surface wind patterns to an
No, on several counts. Wind farms don't stop wind dead, nor can you
build enough w
shiv sastry wrote [at 07:47 AM 12/15/2007] :
Since my mind works in this manner, let me make an unsubstantiated and AFAIK
currently unprovable assertion.
Accepting this hypothesis for the purpose of the discussion, exactly
what is it you are recommending?
If enough countries in the world t
Since my mind works in this manner, let me make an unsubstantiated and AFAIK
currently unprovable assertion.
If enough countries in the world tap surface winds to meet most of their
energy requirements, they will certainly alter surface wind patterns to an
extent that is likely to have environm
Perfidious.
Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 09:56:56AM
+0530, Udhay Shankar N wrote:
> The schedule sounds unrealistic to me. Comments from those who know more?
I don't know more, but offshore wind farms are not particularly cheap
to build, nor cheap to operate. I
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 09:56:56AM +0530, Udhay Shankar N wrote:
> The schedule sounds unrealistic to me. Comments from those who know more?
I don't know more, but offshore wind farms are not particularly cheap
to build, nor cheap to operate. It would do much better to just put
up the turbines on
The schedule sounds unrealistic to me. Comments from those who know more?
Udhay
http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/10/news/international/britian_turbines.ap/index.htm
'Wind' electricity in every home: UK plan
British business secretary outlines goal of 60-fold increase in
offshore wind farm producti
17 matches
Mail list logo
