let's say hypothetically we set up a billion offshore wind turbines and
solar panels, positioned to harvest the maximum energy from wind and sun.
Each turbine, each solar panel steals a small amount of the natural energy,
right?

Would this diminish the energy of wind and sun inland? Could it "use up" the
wind and sun energy if we used enough panels and windmills and therefore
leave less for everything else?

What I'm trying to get at is, at any particular moment in time is the energy
of the wind and sun finite? Or could we harness the complete maximum power
of each but still leave enough to perform all of the natural functions like
carrying seeds, photosynthesis etc? Would it be impossible to "divert"
enough of each to make a difference to everyday life?

On 11/07/2013 10:15, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
let's say hypothetically we set up a billion offshore wind turbines and
solar panels, positioned to harvest the maximum energy from wind and
sun. Each turbine, each solar panel steals a small amount of the natural
energy, right?

Would this diminish the energy of wind and sun inland? Could it "use up"
the wind and sun energy if we used enough panels and windmills and
therefore leave less for everything else?

What I'm trying to get at is, at any particular moment in time is the
energy of the wind and sun finite? Or could we harness the complete
maximum power of each but still leave enough to perform all of the
natural functions like carrying seeds, photosynthesis etc? Would it be
impossible to "divert" enough of each to make a difference to everyday
life?

Well, solar panels over the sea stop sunlight hitting it, preventing
photosynthesis and warming so certainly have a local effect. The wind
question is meaningless. If you cram enough windmills close enough
together they will interfere with each other and not be very efficient,
but wind would still blow over the top of them, like it does over a
forest, for example. I suppose if you built windmills all the way up to
the stratosphere you could significantly affect atmospheric circulation
as you would, for that matter, if you covered the planet with housing
with its roof at around 10 km.

On 11/07/13 10:15, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
let's say hypothetically we set up a billion offshore wind turbines
and solar panels, positioned to harvest the maximum energy from wind
and sun. Each turbine, each solar panel steals a small amount of the
natural energy, right?

Would this diminish the energy of wind and sun inland? Could it "use
up" the wind and sun energy if we used enough panels and windmills and
therefore leave less for everything else?

What I'm trying to get at is, at any particular moment in time is the
energy of the wind and sun finite? Or could we harness the complete
maximum power of each but still leave enough to perform all of the
natural functions like carrying seeds, photosynthesis etc? Would it be
impossible to "divert" enough of each to make a difference to everyday
life?
Oh yes.

I think someone calculated the sum of tidal solar and wind energy and
declared that if populatoin growth continued at its current rate, there
wouldn't be enough renewable energy in the whole world to keep them
alive beyond 2150 or so.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

"Mentalguy2k8" wrote in message
...
let's say hypothetically we set up a billion offshore wind turbines and
solar panels, positioned to harvest the maximum energy from wind and sun.
Each turbine, each solar panel steals a small amount of the natural
energy, right?

Would this diminish the energy of wind and sun inland? Could it "use up"
the wind and sun energy if we used enough panels and windmills and
therefore leave less for everything else?

What I'm trying to get at is, at any particular moment in time is the
energy of the wind and sun finite? Or could we harness the complete
maximum power of each but still leave enough to perform all of the natural
functions like carrying seeds, photosynthesis etc? Would it be impossible
to "divert" enough of each to make a difference to everyday life?

The earth receives more solar energy every hour than the human race consumes
from all its sources (primarily fossil fuels) in a year. Nothing we can
possibly do to tap into that source of power at our current level of
technology or energy use requirement can make more than a miniscule blip on
the general course of life on earth.

Total wind energy is only a tiny fraction of total solar energy, which
drives it of course, but again we can't extract enough of it to make any
real difference to the climate. We might manage to slightly slow the average
wind speed at turbine height near ground level if we installed enough wind
turbines but that wouldn't make a jot of difference to the wind energy at
higher altitudes like the jet stream where it can be hundreds of mph.
--
Dave Baker

In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
On 11/07/13 10:15, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
let's say hypothetically we set up a billion offshore wind turbines
and solar panels, positioned to harvest the maximum energy from wind
and sun. Each turbine, each solar panel steals a small amount of the
natural energy, right?

Would this diminish the energy of wind and sun inland? Could it "use
up" the wind and sun energy if we used enough panels and windmills and
therefore leave less for everything else?

What I'm trying to get at is, at any particular moment in time is the
energy of the wind and sun finite? Or could we harness the complete
maximum power of each but still leave enough to perform all of the
natural functions like carrying seeds, photosynthesis etc? Would it be
impossible to "divert" enough of each to make a difference to everyday
life?
Oh yes.

I think someone calculated the sum of tidal solar and wind energy and
declared that if populatoin growth continued at its current rate, there
wouldn't be enough renewable energy in the whole world to keep them
alive beyond 2150 or so.



JOOI and I'm sure we covered this before;!. Where does all the heat we
use and waste go to over time seeing that energy cannot be destroyed ?.

This just heating up the earth which now seems to be debunked or does it
just radiate off into space as Infra Red radiation and thats well,
that?....

--
Tony Sayer

On 11/07/2013 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/07/13 10:15, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
let's say hypothetically we set up a billion offshore wind turbines
and solar panels, positioned to harvest the maximum energy from wind
and sun. Each turbine, each solar panel steals a small amount of the
natural energy, right?

Would this diminish the energy of wind and sun inland? Could it "use
up" the wind and sun energy if we used enough panels and windmills and
therefore leave less for everything else?

What I'm trying to get at is, at any particular moment in time is the
energy of the wind and sun finite? Or could we harness the complete
maximum power of each but still leave enough to perform all of the
natural functions like carrying seeds, photosynthesis etc? Would it be
impossible to "divert" enough of each to make a difference to everyday
life?
Oh yes.

I think someone calculated the sum of tidal solar and wind energy and
declared that if populatoin growth continued at its current rate, there
wouldn't be enough renewable energy in the whole world to keep them
alive beyond 2150 or so.


And then, we can start to build a Dyson Sphere

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere

On 11/07/2013 10:15, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
let's say hypothetically we set up a billion offshore wind turbines and
solar panels, positioned to harvest the maximum energy from wind and
sun. Each turbine, each solar panel steals a small amount of the natural
energy, right?

Would this diminish the energy of wind and sun inland? Could it "use up"
the wind and sun energy if we used enough panels and windmills and
therefore leave less for everything else?

What I'm trying to get at is, at any particular moment in time is the
energy of the wind and sun finite? Or could we harness the complete
maximum power of each but still leave enough to perform all of the
natural functions like carrying seeds, photosynthesis etc? Would it be
impossible to "divert" enough of each to make a difference to everyday
life?

If you cover a field with PV, you can't grow crops there - it does
obviously make a difference to photosynthesis in the shadow. But the
effect is limited to the shadow. And if you've got it on somewhere
you're not trying to grow stuff (buildings, etc), there's no difference.

With wind, yes, it's finite, but that finite number is way bigger than
you can hope to affect with some piddly turbines - and even the biggest
ones people are putting in now are piddly compared to the size of the
atmosphere. So yes, in practice there's enough to not worry about using
it up.

On 11/07/2013 11:21, Dave Baker wrote:
The earth receives more solar energy every hour than the human race
consumes from all its sources (primarily fossil fuels) in a year.

By a considerable margin:

173 petawatts (according to that fount of all knowledge, Wiki) -
depending on how assessed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget

--
Rod

Clive George wrote:
On 11/07/2013 10:15, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
let's say hypothetically we set up a billion offshore wind turbines and
solar panels, positioned to harvest the maximum energy from wind and
sun. Each turbine, each solar panel steals a small amount of the natural
energy, right?

Would this diminish the energy of wind and sun inland? Could it "use up"
the wind and sun energy if we used enough panels and windmills and
therefore leave less for everything else?

What I'm trying to get at is, at any particular moment in time is the
energy of the wind and sun finite? Or could we harness the complete
maximum power of each but still leave enough to perform all of the
natural functions like carrying seeds, photosynthesis etc? Would it be
impossible to "divert" enough of each to make a difference to everyday
life?

If you cover a field with PV, you can't grow crops there - it does
obviously make a difference to photosynthesis in the shadow. But the
effect is limited to the shadow. And if you've got it on somewhere
you're not trying to grow stuff (buildings, etc), there's no difference.

With wind, yes, it's finite, but that finite number is way bigger than
you can hope to affect with some piddly turbines - and even the biggest
ones people are putting in now are piddly compared to the size of the
atmosphere. So yes, in practice there's enough to not worry about using
it up.
I'm guessing that a similar question but on tidal power might have a
different answer. It seem plausible that extracting enough energy from
the tide could bring it to a standstill.

On 11/07/2013 12:11, Bob Minchin wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 11/07/2013 10:15, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
let's say hypothetically we set up a billion offshore wind turbines and
solar panels, positioned to harvest the maximum energy from wind and
sun. Each turbine, each solar panel steals a small amount of the natural
energy, right?

Would this diminish the energy of wind and sun inland? Could it "use up"
the wind and sun energy if we used enough panels and windmills and
therefore leave less for everything else?

What I'm trying to get at is, at any particular moment in time is the
energy of the wind and sun finite? Or could we harness the complete
maximum power of each but still leave enough to perform all of the
natural functions like carrying seeds, photosynthesis etc? Would it be
impossible to "divert" enough of each to make a difference to everyday
life?

If you cover a field with PV, you can't grow crops there - it does
obviously make a difference to photosynthesis in the shadow. But the
effect is limited to the shadow. And if you've got it on somewhere
you're not trying to grow stuff (buildings, etc), there's no difference.

With wind, yes, it's finite, but that finite number is way bigger than
you can hope to affect with some piddly turbines - and even the biggest
ones people are putting in now are piddly compared to the size of the
atmosphere. So yes, in practice there's enough to not worry about using
it up.
I'm guessing that a similar question but on tidal power might have a
different answer. It seem plausible that extracting enough energy from
the tide could bring it to a standstill.
Don't the tides get two new boosts of energy every day as the earth
spins with respect to the moon?

On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 12:30:05 +0100, Andrew May wrote:

I'm guessing that a similar question but on tidal power might have a
different answer. It seem plausible that extracting enough energy from
the tide could bring it to a standstill.
Don't the tides get two new boosts of energy every day as the earth
spins with respect to the moon?

As the population of greens increases the speed of rotation of the earth slows
down. Eventually tides stop. One side of the earth becomes a desert, the other
side becomes icy cold. Global warming and cooling.


--

On 11/07/2013 10:15, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
let's say hypothetically we set up a billion offshore wind turbines and
solar panels, positioned to harvest the maximum energy from wind and
sun. Each turbine, each solar panel steals a small amount of the natural
energy, right?

Would this diminish the energy of wind and sun inland? Could it "use up"
the wind and sun energy if we used enough panels and windmills and
therefore leave less for everything else?

What I'm trying to get at is, at any particular moment in time is the
energy of the wind and sun finite? Or could we harness the complete
maximum power of each but still leave enough to perform all of the
natural functions like carrying seeds, photosynthesis etc? Would it be
impossible to "divert" enough of each to make a difference to everyday
life?

Simple answer, no we couldn't use it all, not without changing the
climate and the environment.
In fact if you believe the met offices claim that we have changed the
global temps by 0.2% so far then using more than 0.2% of the energy is
bound to have an effect on climate of at least as much.
You would be moving energy from large areas and putting it into
localised hotspots and that already affects the climate when you are
just adding energy to the hotspot, taking it from elsewhere must be worse.

On 11/07/2013 10:31, newshound wrote:

8

If you cram enough windmills close enough
together they will interfere with each other and not be very efficient,
but wind would still blow over the top of them, like it does over a
forest, for example.

I wouldn't rely on that being true.
If you stop the wind lower down then there will be less evaporation and
less mixing of water vapour in the atmosphere, it would have significant
climate change effects.

On 11/07/2013 12:30, Andrew May wrote:

I'm guessing that a similar question but on tidal power might have a
different answer. It seem plausible that extracting enough energy from
the tide could bring it to a standstill.
Don't the tides get two new boosts of energy every day as the earth
spins with respect to the moon?

It does but, if you extract all the energy from the tides it will affect
the environment. The energy currently does something to the natural
environment and removing it cannot have zero effect.
Silting of estuaries and the susequent floods would be one effect. There
are going to be many that nobody has thought about yet.

On Thursday, 11 July 2013 11:35:36 UTC+1, Andrew May wrote:
On 11/07/2013 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 11/07/13 10:15, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

let's say hypothetically we set up a billion offshore wind turbines

and solar panels, positioned to harvest the maximum energy from wind

and sun. Each turbine, each solar panel steals a small amount of the

natural energy, right?



Would this diminish the energy of wind and sun inland? Could it "use

up" the wind and sun energy if we used enough panels and windmills and

therefore leave less for everything else?



What I'm trying to get at is, at any particular moment in time is the

energy of the wind and sun finite? Or could we harness the complete

maximum power of each but still leave enough to perform all of the

natural functions like carrying seeds, photosynthesis etc? Would it be

impossible to "divert" enough of each to make a difference to everyday

life?

Oh yes.



I think someone calculated the sum of tidal solar and wind energy and

declared that if populatoin growth continued at its current rate, there

wouldn't be enough renewable energy in the whole world to keep them

alive beyond 2150 or so.





And then, we can start to build a Dyson Sphere



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere

I wonder if scotty will get marooned on it.

On 11/07/13 11:27, tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
On 11/07/13 10:15, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
let's say hypothetically we set up a billion offshore wind turbines
and solar panels, positioned to harvest the maximum energy from wind
and sun. Each turbine, each solar panel steals a small amount of the
natural energy, right?

Would this diminish the energy of wind and sun inland? Could it "use
up" the wind and sun energy if we used enough panels and windmills and
therefore leave less for everything else?

What I'm trying to get at is, at any particular moment in time is the
energy of the wind and sun finite? Or could we harness the complete
maximum power of each but still leave enough to perform all of the
natural functions like carrying seeds, photosynthesis etc? Would it be
impossible to "divert" enough of each to make a difference to everyday
life?
Oh yes.

I think someone calculated the sum of tidal solar and wind energy and
declared that if populatoin growth continued at its current rate, there
wouldn't be enough renewable energy in the whole world to keep them
alive beyond 2150 or so.


JOOI and I'm sure we covered this before;!. Where does all the heat we
use and waste go to over time seeing that energy cannot be destroyed ?.

This just heating up the earth which now seems to be debunked or does it
just radiate off into space as Infra Red radiation and thats well,
that?....

well exactly.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On Thursday, 11 July 2013 11:45:39 UTC+1, Clive George wrote:
On 11/07/2013 10:15, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

let's say hypothetically we set up a billion offshore wind turbines and

solar panels, positioned to harvest the maximum energy from wind and

sun. Each turbine, each solar panel steals a small amount of the natural

energy, right?



Would this diminish the energy of wind and sun inland? Could it "use up"

the wind and sun energy if we used enough panels and windmills and

therefore leave less for everything else?



What I'm trying to get at is, at any particular moment in time is the

energy of the wind and sun finite? Or could we harness the complete

maximum power of each but still leave enough to perform all of the

natural functions like carrying seeds, photosynthesis etc? Would it be

impossible to "divert" enough of each to make a difference to everyday

life?



If you cover a field with PV, you can't grow crops there - it does

obviously make a difference to photosynthesis in the shadow. But the

effect is limited to the shadow. And if you've got it on somewhere

you're not trying to grow stuff (buildings, etc), there's no difference.

depends how large the area is, have you ever been out when an eclipse occurs, the one is 1998 or was it 99 the brids stopped singing and tehre was a a errie silence so it might just not be crops that are affected y lack of light.


With wind, yes, it's finite, but that finite number is way bigger than

you can hope to affect with some piddly turbines - and even the biggest

ones people are putting in now are piddly compared to the size of the

atmosphere. So yes, in practice there's enough to not worry about using

it up.

Wind is a starnge one as it;'s prioduced by changes in heat to if you have massive solar panles perhaps in orbit that could well change the amount and direction of winds.

On 11/07/2013 15:06, whisky-dave wrote:

If you cover a field with PV, you can't grow crops there - it does

obviously make a difference to photosynthesis in the shadow. But the

effect is limited to the shadow. And if you've got it on somewhere

you're not trying to grow stuff (buildings, etc), there's no difference.

depends how large the area is, have you ever been out when an eclipse occurs, the one is 1998 or was it 99 the brids stopped singing and tehre was a a errie silence so it might just not be crops that are affected y lack of light.

It's very obvious that animal life is effected by lack of light - try
walking anywhere with your eyes shut for an example.

But if you've removed the vegetation from a field for a PV array, you'll
also get rid of pretty much all the animal life. There will still be a
bit of light leaking through to see by, so it won't all go, but it'll be
similar to building a big car park.

On Thursday, 11 July 2013 15:16:06 UTC+1, Clive George wrote:
On 11/07/2013 15:06, whisky-dave wrote:



If you cover a field with PV, you can't grow crops there - it does



obviously make a difference to photosynthesis in the shadow. But the



effect is limited to the shadow. And if you've got it on somewhere



you're not trying to grow stuff (buildings, etc), there's no difference.



depends how large the area is, have you ever been out when an eclipse occurs, the one is 1998 or was it 99 the brids stopped singing and tehre was a a errie silence so it might just not be crops that are affected y lack of light.



It's very obvious that animal life is effected by lack of light - try

walking anywhere with your eyes shut for an example.



But if you've removed the vegetation from a field for a PV array, you'll

also get rid of pretty much all the animal life. There will still be a

bit of light leaking through to see by, so it won't all go, but it'll be

similar to building a big car park.

So why do some greenies want massive car parks ;-)

On 11/07/2013 14:11, dennis@home wrote:
On 11/07/2013 12:30, Andrew May wrote:

I'm guessing that a similar question but on tidal power might have a
different answer. It seem plausible that extracting enough energy from
the tide could bring it to a standstill.
Don't the tides get two new boosts of energy every day as the earth
spins with respect to the moon?

It does but, if you extract all the energy from the tides it will affect
the environment. The energy currently does something to the natural
environment and removing it cannot have zero effect.
Silting of estuaries and the susequent floods would be one effect. There
are going to be many that nobody has thought about yet.

Extracting energy from the tides doesn't stop the tides. At most it
delays their effects for six hours within part of the system.

"Mentalguy2k8" wrote in message
...
let's say hypothetically we set up a billion offshore wind turbines and
solar panels, positioned to harvest the maximum energy from wind and sun.
Each turbine, each solar panel steals a small amount of the natural
energy, right?

Would this diminish the energy of wind and sun inland? Could it "use up"
the wind and sun energy if we used enough panels and windmills and
therefore leave less for everything else?

What I'm trying to get at is, at any particular moment in time is the
energy of the wind and sun finite? Or could we harness the complete
maximum power of each but still leave enough to perform all of the natural
functions like carrying seeds, photosynthesis etc? Would it be impossible
to "divert" enough of each to make a difference to everyday life?

The total amount of energy falling on the earth would still be the same.
The only thing that makes any difference is "albedo" ie clouds, snow and ice
reflecting heat back into space.
I suppose theoretically, cloud formation could be somehow affected.
More clouds would reflect more enrgy back into space.

It is theorised that if the polar ice was to melt, more heat would be
absorbed by the Earth, so giving a runaway heating effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 11/07/13 10:15, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
let's say hypothetically we set up a billion offshore wind turbines and
solar panels, positioned to harvest the maximum energy from wind and sun.
Each turbine, each solar panel steals a small amount of the natural
energy, right?

Would this diminish the energy of wind and sun inland? Could it "use up"
the wind and sun energy if we used enough panels and windmills and
therefore leave less for everything else?

What I'm trying to get at is, at any particular moment in time is the
energy of the wind and sun finite? Or could we harness the complete
maximum power of each but still leave enough to perform all of the
natural functions like carrying seeds, photosynthesis etc? Would it be
impossible to "divert" enough of each to make a difference to everyday
life?
Oh yes.

I think someone calculated the sum of tidal solar and wind energy and
declared that if populatoin growth continued at its current rate, there
wouldn't be enough renewable energy in the whole world to keep them alive
beyond 2150 or so.

Is that so?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_e...y_from_the_Sun

More ******** fromTurNiP

On 11/07/2013 17:27, harryagain wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 11/07/13 10:15, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
let's say hypothetically we set up a billion offshore wind turbines and
solar panels, positioned to harvest the maximum energy from wind and sun.
Each turbine, each solar panel steals a small amount of the natural
energy, right?

Would this diminish the energy of wind and sun inland? Could it "use up"
the wind and sun energy if we used enough panels and windmills and
therefore leave less for everything else?

What I'm trying to get at is, at any particular moment in time is the
energy of the wind and sun finite? Or could we harness the complete
maximum power of each but still leave enough to perform all of the
natural functions like carrying seeds, photosynthesis etc? Would it be
impossible to "divert" enough of each to make a difference to everyday
life?
Oh yes.

I think someone calculated the sum of tidal solar and wind energy and
declared that if populatoin growth continued at its current rate, there
wouldn't be enough renewable energy in the whole world to keep them alive
beyond 2150 or so.

Is that so?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_e...y_from_the_Sun

More ******** fromTurNiP


More ******** from harry. Someone might very well have calculated as TNP
posted. Doesn't mean either that it is true, nor that TNP believed it.

--
Rod

On 11/07/2013 11:35, Andrew May wrote:
On 11/07/2013 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/07/13 10:15, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
let's say hypothetically we set up a billion offshore wind turbines
and solar panels, positioned to harvest the maximum energy from wind
and sun. Each turbine, each solar panel steals a small amount of the
natural energy, right?

Would this diminish the energy of wind and sun inland? Could it "use
up" the wind and sun energy if we used enough panels and windmills and
therefore leave less for everything else?

What I'm trying to get at is, at any particular moment in time is the
energy of the wind and sun finite? Or could we harness the complete
maximum power of each but still leave enough to perform all of the
natural functions like carrying seeds, photosynthesis etc? Would it be
impossible to "divert" enough of each to make a difference to everyday
life?
Oh yes.

I think someone calculated the sum of tidal solar and wind energy and
declared that if populatoin growth continued at its current rate, there
wouldn't be enough renewable energy in the whole world to keep them
alive beyond 2150 or so.


And then, we can start to build a Dyson Sphere

Rather have a Numatic one....


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 11/07/13 17:22, harryagain wrote:
"Mentalguy2k8" wrote in message
...
let's say hypothetically we set up a billion offshore wind turbines and
solar panels, positioned to harvest the maximum energy from wind and sun.
Each turbine, each solar panel steals a small amount of the natural
energy, right?

Would this diminish the energy of wind and sun inland? Could it "use up"
the wind and sun energy if we used enough panels and windmills and
therefore leave less for everything else?

What I'm trying to get at is, at any particular moment in time is the
energy of the wind and sun finite? Or could we harness the complete
maximum power of each but still leave enough to perform all of the natural
functions like carrying seeds, photosynthesis etc? Would it be impossible
to "divert" enough of each to make a difference to everyday life?
The total amount of energy falling on the earth would still be the same.
The only thing that makes any difference is "albedo" ie clouds, snow and ice
reflecting heat back into space.
I suppose theoretically, cloud formation could be somehow affected.
More clouds would reflect more enrgy back into space.

It is theorised that if the polar ice was to melt, more heat would be
absorbed by the Earth, so giving a runaway heating effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo


It has also been hypothesised that a hotter earth with melting poles
would generate more water voupur, leading to more clouds and an overall
cooling effect.

Fortunately, Antarctica is getting colder and icier every year.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 11/07/13 17:27, harryagain wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 11/07/13 10:15, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
let's say hypothetically we set up a billion offshore wind turbines and
solar panels, positioned to harvest the maximum energy from wind and sun.
Each turbine, each solar panel steals a small amount of the natural
energy, right?

Would this diminish the energy of wind and sun inland? Could it "use up"
the wind and sun energy if we used enough panels and windmills and
therefore leave less for everything else?

What I'm trying to get at is, at any particular moment in time is the
energy of the wind and sun finite? Or could we harness the complete
maximum power of each but still leave enough to perform all of the
natural functions like carrying seeds, photosynthesis etc? Would it be
impossible to "divert" enough of each to make a difference to everyday
life?
Oh yes.

I think someone calculated the sum of tidal solar and wind energy and
declared that if populatoin growth continued at its current rate, there
wouldn't be enough renewable energy in the whole world to keep them alive
beyond 2150 or so.
Is that so?

Yes harry, that is so.,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_e...y_from_the_Sun

More ******** fromTurNiP




--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 11/07/13 18:17, polygonum wrote:
On 11/07/2013 17:27, harryagain wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 11/07/13 10:15, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
let's say hypothetically we set up a billion offshore wind turbines
and
solar panels, positioned to harvest the maximum energy from wind
and sun.
Each turbine, each solar panel steals a small amount of the natural
energy, right?

Would this diminish the energy of wind and sun inland? Could it
"use up"
the wind and sun energy if we used enough panels and windmills and
therefore leave less for everything else?

What I'm trying to get at is, at any particular moment in time is the
energy of the wind and sun finite? Or could we harness the complete
maximum power of each but still leave enough to perform all of the
natural functions like carrying seeds, photosynthesis etc? Would it be
impossible to "divert" enough of each to make a difference to everyday
life?
Oh yes.

I think someone calculated the sum of tidal solar and wind energy and
declared that if populatoin growth continued at its current rate, there
wouldn't be enough renewable energy in the whole world to keep them
alive
beyond 2150 or so.

Is that so?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_e...y_from_the_Sun

More ******** fromTurNiP


More ******** from harry. Someone might very well have calculated as
TNP posted. Doesn't mean either that it is true, nor that TNP believed
it.

undeed. the key issues was 'if population continues to rise atcurrent rates'

But harry is so worried that people will recognise renewable energy for
the fraud that it s, that he has to attack using the wrong methodology.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 12:11:23 +0100, Bob Minchin wrote:

I'm guessing that a similar question but on tidal power might have a
different answer. It seem plausible that extracting enough energy from
the tide could bring it to a standstill.

Tidal power relies on the water moving. If the water isn't moving you
can't extract any energy from it.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 11/07/2013 14:05, dennis@home wrote:
On 11/07/2013 10:31, newshound wrote:

8

If you cram enough windmills close enough
together they will interfere with each other and not be very efficient,
but wind would still blow over the top of them, like it does over a
forest, for example.

I wouldn't rely on that being true.
If you stop the wind lower down then there will be less evaporation and
less mixing of water vapour in the atmosphere, it would have significant
climate change effects.


Good point. Also you won't produce as much of the salt microcrystals
which I think are reckoned to be important nucleation sites for clouds.
So, fewer clouds, the less solar heat is directly reflected

It has already been observed than wind turbines create wind shadows and some
turbulence, so I'd imagine eventually it would affect climate. Also changing
the reflective of vast areas of the planet are going to change the climate.
Depending on the efficiency of each device I suppose you can get serious
changes, after all the climate is changing locally in cities etc merely by
there being building there.

There is nothing unconnected.
At the moment as has been noted in a Nature article, woodland species are
able to take up more co2 while losing less water through their leaves due to
the greater amount of it in the air, so maybe one way to go is to attempt
to breed trees that use the same amount of water but instead fix more of the
co2 and release more oxygen.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Mentalguy2k8" wrote in message
...
let's say hypothetically we set up a billion offshore wind turbines and
solar panels, positioned to harvest the maximum energy from wind and sun.
Each turbine, each solar panel steals a small amount of the natural
energy, right?

Would this diminish the energy of wind and sun inland? Could it "use up"
the wind and sun energy if we used enough panels and windmills and
therefore leave less for everything else?

What I'm trying to get at is, at any particular moment in time is the
energy of the wind and sun finite? Or could we harness the complete
maximum power of each but still leave enough to perform all of the natural
functions like carrying seeds, photosynthesis etc? Would it be impossible
to "divert" enough of each to make a difference to everyday life?

On 11/07/2013 15:16, Clive George wrote:
On 11/07/2013 15:06, whisky-dave wrote:

If you cover a field with PV, you can't grow crops there - it does

obviously make a difference to photosynthesis in the shadow. But the

effect is limited to the shadow. And if you've got it on somewhere

you're not trying to grow stuff (buildings, etc), there's no difference.

depends how large the area is, have you ever been out when an eclipse
occurs, the one is 1998 or was it 99 the brids stopped singing and
tehre was a a errie silence so it might just not be crops that are
affected y lack of light.

It's very obvious that animal life is effected by lack of light - try
walking anywhere with your eyes shut for an example.

But if you've removed the vegetation from a field for a PV array, you'll
also get rid of pretty much all the animal life. There will still be a
bit of light leaking through to see by, so it won't all go, but it'll be
similar to building a big car park.


I pass a large array in a field from time to time. The panels have to be
spaced some distance apart to avoid being in the shadow of other panels
and sheep graze the grass between them.

Colin Bignell

On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 12:11:23 +0100, Bob Minchin
wrote:

Clive George wrote:
On 11/07/2013 10:15, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
let's say hypothetically we set up a billion offshore wind turbines and
solar panels, positioned to harvest the maximum energy from wind and
sun. Each turbine, each solar panel steals a small amount of the natural
energy, right?

Would this diminish the energy of wind and sun inland? Could it "use up"
the wind and sun energy if we used enough panels and windmills and
therefore leave less for everything else?

What I'm trying to get at is, at any particular moment in time is the
energy of the wind and sun finite? Or could we harness the complete
maximum power of each but still leave enough to perform all of the
natural functions like carrying seeds, photosynthesis etc? Would it be
impossible to "divert" enough of each to make a difference to everyday
life?

If you cover a field with PV, you can't grow crops there - it does
obviously make a difference to photosynthesis in the shadow. But the
effect is limited to the shadow. And if you've got it on somewhere
you're not trying to grow stuff (buildings, etc), there's no difference.

With wind, yes, it's finite, but that finite number is way bigger than
you can hope to affect with some piddly turbines - and even the biggest
ones people are putting in now are piddly compared to the size of the
atmosphere. So yes, in practice there's enough to not worry about using
it up.
I'm guessing that a similar question but on tidal power might have a
different answer. It seem plausible that extracting enough energy from
the tide could bring it to a standstill.

Sticking big lumps of land all over the oceans probably seemed like a bad idea a few
billion years ago ...



--
Regards, Paul Herber, Sandrila Ltd.
http://www.sandrila.co.uk/ twitter: @sandrilaLtd

On 11/07/2013 12:11, Bob Minchin wrote:
It seem plausible that extracting enough energy from the tide could
bring it to a standstill.

You don't need to bring it to a standstill, just slow it enough that the
sediment settles out.

All over your turbine, or the floor of your pond, or...

Windmills undoubtedly slow the wind. You'd need a heck of a lot of them
to affect the climate enough to notice - say 10% of the country. Watch
that space!

Andy

On 11/07/13 21:49, Brian Gaff wrote:
It has already been observed than wind turbines create wind shadows and some
turbulence, so I'd imagine eventually it would affect climate. Also changing
the reflective of vast areas of the planet are going to change the climate.
Depending on the efficiency of each device I suppose you can get serious
changes, after all the climate is changing locally in cities etc merely by
there being building there.

There is nothing unconnected.
At the moment as has been noted in a Nature article, woodland species are
able to take up more co2 while losing less water through their leaves due to
the greater amount of it in the air, so maybe one way to go is to attempt
to breed trees that use the same amount of water but instead fix more of the
co2 and release more oxygen.
Brian

It appears that deserts are getting greener as a result of excess CO2.

http://www.csiro.au/en/Portals/Media...ising-CO2.aspx


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 11/07/13 21:44, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 12:11:23 +0100, Bob Minchin wrote:

I'm guessing that a similar question but on tidal power might have a
different answer. It seem plausible that extracting enough energy from
the tide could bring it to a standstill.
Tidal power relies on the water moving. If the water isn't moving you
can't extract any energy from it.

Tidal power relies on slowing the movement down. If you don't do that
you haven't extracted any energy from it.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 11/07/13 21:50, Nightjar wrote:
On 11/07/2013 15:16, Clive George wrote:
On 11/07/2013 15:06, whisky-dave wrote:

If you cover a field with PV, you can't grow crops there - it does

obviously make a difference to photosynthesis in the shadow. But the

effect is limited to the shadow. And if you've got it on somewhere

you're not trying to grow stuff (buildings, etc), there's no
difference.

depends how large the area is, have you ever been out when an eclipse
occurs, the one is 1998 or was it 99 the brids stopped singing and
tehre was a a errie silence so it might just not be crops that are
affected y lack of light.

It's very obvious that animal life is effected by lack of light - try
walking anywhere with your eyes shut for an example.

But if you've removed the vegetation from a field for a PV array, you'll
also get rid of pretty much all the animal life. There will still be a
bit of light leaking through to see by, so it won't all go, but it'll be
similar to building a big car park.


I pass a large array in a field from time to time. The panels have to
be spaced some distance apart to avoid being in the shadow of other
panels and sheep graze the grass between them.

But there is no grass under them

Colin Bignell


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 11/07/2013 23:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/07/13 21:50, Nightjar wrote:
On 11/07/2013 15:16, Clive George wrote:
On 11/07/2013 15:06, whisky-dave wrote:

If you cover a field with PV, you can't grow crops there - it does

obviously make a difference to photosynthesis in the shadow. But the

effect is limited to the shadow. And if you've got it on somewhere

you're not trying to grow stuff (buildings, etc), there's no
difference.

depends how large the area is, have you ever been out when an eclipse
occurs, the one is 1998 or was it 99 the brids stopped singing and
tehre was a a errie silence so it might just not be crops that are
affected y lack of light.

It's very obvious that animal life is effected by lack of light - try
walking anywhere with your eyes shut for an example.

But if you've removed the vegetation from a field for a PV array, you'll
also get rid of pretty much all the animal life. There will still be a
bit of light leaking through to see by, so it won't all go, but it'll be
similar to building a big car park.


I pass a large array in a field from time to time. The panels have to
be spaced some distance apart to avoid being in the shadow of other
panels and sheep graze the grass between them.

But there is no grass under them

I'm fairly sure there is, although I will now have to check next time I
drive past.

Colin Bignell

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 11/07/13 17:27, harryagain wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 11/07/13 10:15, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
let's say hypothetically we set up a billion offshore wind turbines and
solar panels, positioned to harvest the maximum energy from wind and
sun.
Each turbine, each solar panel steals a small amount of the natural
energy, right?

Would this diminish the energy of wind and sun inland? Could it "use
up"
the wind and sun energy if we used enough panels and windmills and
therefore leave less for everything else?

What I'm trying to get at is, at any particular moment in time is the
energy of the wind and sun finite? Or could we harness the complete
maximum power of each but still leave enough to perform all of the
natural functions like carrying seeds, photosynthesis etc? Would it be
impossible to "divert" enough of each to make a difference to everyday
life?
Oh yes.

I think someone calculated the sum of tidal solar and wind energy and
declared that if populatoin growth continued at its current rate, there
wouldn't be enough renewable energy in the whole world to keep them
alive
beyond 2150 or so.
Is that so?

Yes harry, that is so.,

Ah another idiot such as yourself.
I hear someone has calculated that the moon is made of green cheese but we
don'tmention that in sensible society because it is also obviously so
stupid.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_e...y_from_the_Sun

More ******** fromTurNiP

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 11/07/13 17:22, harryagain wrote:
"Mentalguy2k8" wrote in message
...
let's say hypothetically we set up a billion offshore wind turbines and
solar panels, positioned to harvest the maximum energy from wind and
sun.
Each turbine, each solar panel steals a small amount of the natural
energy, right?

Would this diminish the energy of wind and sun inland? Could it "use up"
the wind and sun energy if we used enough panels and windmills and
therefore leave less for everything else?

What I'm trying to get at is, at any particular moment in time is the
energy of the wind and sun finite? Or could we harness the complete
maximum power of each but still leave enough to perform all of the
natural
functions like carrying seeds, photosynthesis etc? Would it be
impossible
to "divert" enough of each to make a difference to everyday life?
The total amount of energy falling on the earth would still be the same.
The only thing that makes any difference is "albedo" ie clouds, snow and
ice
reflecting heat back into space.
I suppose theoretically, cloud formation could be somehow affected.
More clouds would reflect more enrgy back into space.

It is theorised that if the polar ice was to melt, more heat would be
absorbed by the Earth, so giving a runaway heating effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo


It has also been hypothesised that a hotter earth with melting poles would
generate more water voupur, leading to more clouds and an overall cooling
effect.

Fortunately, Antarctica is getting colder and icier every year.

More lies. 100Gigatons of ice are being lost per year in Antarctica.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarct...obal_sea_level
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarct...global_warming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_i...t heir_trends

So full of crap as usual.

On 12/07/2013 07:05, harryagain wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 11/07/13 17:22, harryagain wrote:
"Mentalguy2k8" wrote in message
...
let's say hypothetically we set up a billion offshore wind turbines and
solar panels, positioned to harvest the maximum energy from wind and
sun.
Each turbine, each solar panel steals a small amount of the natural
energy, right?

Would this diminish the energy of wind and sun inland? Could it "use up"
the wind and sun energy if we used enough panels and windmills and
therefore leave less for everything else?

What I'm trying to get at is, at any particular moment in time is the
energy of the wind and sun finite? Or could we harness the complete
maximum power of each but still leave enough to perform all of the
natural
functions like carrying seeds, photosynthesis etc? Would it be
impossible
to "divert" enough of each to make a difference to everyday life?
The total amount of energy falling on the earth would still be the same.
The only thing that makes any difference is "albedo" ie clouds, snow and
ice
reflecting heat back into space.
I suppose theoretically, cloud formation could be somehow affected.
More clouds would reflect more enrgy back into space.

It is theorised that if the polar ice was to melt, more heat would be
absorbed by the Earth, so giving a runaway heating effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo


It has also been hypothesised that a hotter earth with melting poles would
generate more water voupur, leading to more clouds and an overall cooling
effect.

Fortunately, Antarctica is getting colder and icier every year.

More lies. 100Gigatons of ice are being lost per year in Antarctica.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarct...obal_sea_level
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarct...global_warming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_i...t heir_trends

So full of crap as usual.


At best you're confusing Arctic and Antarctic - see your last reference,
footnote 12 for example. Also:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...nother-record/

At worst you're deliberately misrepresenting the case.

--
Cheers, Rob

- At least I'm housebroken (Lebowski 1998) -