The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by sendler

Are the advantages of almost no moving parts worth it for ease of maintenance and longevity? Especially since the most modern application has shifted to non-synchronous DC transmission.

From what I have seen a 3mw gearless uses more copper and rare earth's (normal geared turbines don't use any rare earths) than what a 10mw geared turbine uses.
The problem is a 500' or bigger blade diameter is the blades are only going to turn about 9 rpm or less. To get enough relative motion out of 7 to 10 rpm to make a lot of use able power your armature and exciter are going to have to be freaking huge, like the size of a small school bus.
GE already makes variable speed alternator wind turbines that take variable frequency AC, turn it to DC then invert it to 60hz AC for local high voltage transmission.
Plus all mechanical power generation starts as AC.
So turning it into DC is the extra step.

[oil pan 4]

Remember that the The "quantification in ocean heat up take from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition" paper that showed the oceans in a dire rapid changing state was actually based on junk science and has been retracted.
So the oceans are probably fine, aside from all the plastic.

[litesong]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Gearless turbines use astounding amounts of copper and rare earth magnets compared to geared turbines for the power they produce.

Yeah, I hate to give communist china (always small letters) any more of an advantage, as they develop their cheating free enterprise methods. The rare earths are bad on the environment, specially in communist chinese (always small letters) mining & productions.

Do you think any of the alternatives in Europe, to make less intensive REE magnets or superconductors or Great Britain's ferrite magnets have reasonable directions toward efficient production & use?

I love the idea of the gearless wind turbines, specially in huge applications.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by litesong

Yeah, I hate to give communist china (always small letters) any more of an advantage, as they develop their cheating free enterprise methods. The rare earths are bad on the environment, specially in communist chinese (always small letters) mining & productions.

Do you think any of the alternatives in Europe, to make less intensive REE magnets or superconductors or Great Britain's ferrite magnets have reasonable directions toward efficient production & use?

I love the idea of the gearless wind turbines, specially in huge applications.

Aside from China the only countries mining rare earths and not getting them as a byproduct of something else is Russia and a few countries in Africa.
Last time I checked western Europe had effectively 0, China had 80%, Russia had most of the remainder.
The us may have restarted rare earth mining after about a 35 year break.
The problem with rare earth mining is all the unwanted radio crap that comes with rare earth mining. For every unit of mass of rare earth product you get, an equal amount of useless radio active crap comes with.

[freebeard]

Ever wonder how much rare earth elements there might be in Greenland?

[sendler]

It looks like all of the new generation of giant wind turbines are direct drive.
.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kqIV489ITc

.
https://www.ge.com/renewableenergy/w...fshore-turbine
.

[litesong]

Originally Posted by freebeard

.....rare earth elements there might be in Greenland...?

Yes, its important to get Greenland mining started now, before the weak Greenland gov't can protect the environment. Get going before the communist chinese (always small letters) BUY Greenland...... oh, yeah, that was "don'T rump".

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I just listened to a podcast hosted by Niall Ferguson with guest speaker Peter Thiel. Peter suggests an economic contraction or at least a stagnation might be on the near horizon due to slowing technological advancement.

Certainly we've plucked the low hanging fruit of science and technology, so that means that further improvements will be more difficult. There is some speculation based on Moore's Law that technology will advance at an increasing rate, since we can leverage existing technology to solve increasingly difficult problems, but so far that remains to be seen. Moore's Law has died. Intel has missed their own roadmap for producing 10nm transistors in quantity, and it isn't likely they will get much smaller. We may be at the beginning stages of technology stagnation, which would mean a slowdown in the problems we're able to solve.

What technological development do you think we lack to address climate change? From what I've read,we have everything we already need to advance to a solution.

[freebeard]

I know you're asking redpoint5, but I'd suggest replacing the Cartesian coordinate system with Synergetics. The eye cannot see what the mind does not know.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Just listened to a very interesting overview of Nazism and the connection with Nietzsche philosophy by Stephen Hicks. When humanity decides that morality is subjective, and looks to nature to justify survival of the fittest, very bad things happen. Hicks listed socialism as a big component of Germany's descent into Nazism. While Nazi leaders didn't adopt Nietzsche's philosophy in its entirety, they did gather inspiration by parts of it.

As far as I can tell, modern philosophy is continued upon Nietzsche's philosophy, and tribalism will continue to be our greatest obstacle.

There's no universal causality established between socialism and the NAZI party.
Hitler nationalized the people,rather than business.Technically,it was a derivative of the 'Third Way', command and control over over privately-owned corporations.