NYTimes: Lack of Transmission Lines Is Restricting Wind Power

Agloco.

Consider something.

I said I understand Fluid Dynamics. I never claimed to be an expert on the topic. What you are doing is similar to if someone tells you they are a good bowler, then you suddenly make fun of them for not having consistent 300 games.

Do you by chance see your arrogant, assumptive stupidity?

:lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Agloco.

Consider something.

I said I understand Fluid Dynamics. I never claimed to be an expert on the topic. What you are doing is similar to if someone tells you they are a good bowler, then you suddenly make fun of them for not having consistent 300 games.

Do you by chance see your arrogant, assumptive stupidity?

---

Describe the NS equation and give an example of a problem that it could solve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Describe the NS equation and give an example of a problem that it could solve.

---

Do you live with your mommy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Describe the NS equation and give an example of a problem that it could solve.

---

I don't need to. It isn't a requirement to understanding the parts I do, or apply. You really should stop being such a stupid shit.

Why do you think it not possible to understand a concept without applying math to it?

You are a real dipshit if you believe that.

--dp--

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I don't need to. It isn't a requirement to understanding the parts I do, or apply. You really should stop being such a stupid shit.

Why do you think it not possible to understand a concept without applying math to it?

You are a real dipshit if you believe that.

---

I wasn't asking you to do math. I was asking you to explain the formula that is the epitome of fluid dynamics. You just demonstrated your lack of knowledge. Well you do that just by writing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by symple19

Do you live with your mommy?

---

Do you fellate farm animals? You might want to rephrase that btw. It's difficult to wade through ignorance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

I wasn't asking you to do math. I was asking you to explain the formula that is the epitome of fluid dynamics. You just demonstrated your lack of knowledge. Well you do that just by writing.

---

It's not necessary, hence, I'm not wasting my time for for fishing expedition.

How about instead, you tell me why I am wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

It's not necessary, hence, I'm not wasting my time for for fishing expedition.

How about instead, you tell me why I am wrong?

---

You are wrong in saying that you understand fluid dynamics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

You are wrong in saying that you understand fluid dynamics.

---

And how would you know?

Prove it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

And how would you know?

Prove it!

---

Prove it? Well your solution to the question of how a turbine would effect climate was on the basis of a generic wind energy number you pulled off a chart and the efficiency of the turbine. This is akin to you trying to describe the behavior of the ocean on the basis of a solubility chart. Now you are going to claim that I am making assumptions but you do the same simpleminded shit every time. We've been down this road before with you.

You are the one that needs to prove your knowledge and all you have proven so far is that you lack it and when pressed on it bluster and dissemble. If you do not understand field theory and multivariable PDE's then you do not understand fluid dynamics. Blathering about KE and efficiency tells me you are up to about high school physics.

So go ahead and claim that I am making assumptions and hide behind the claim that you don't have to understand the fundamentals. All you do is paint yourself as the same simpleminded fool as always.

Start with multivariable calculus. There are great tools you can use at stanford.edu to start. Then when you have a grasp of field operations, you can start looking into how FD is handled scientifically. Once you are comfortable with the theory try executing problems and solving them. You are not going to learn FD from google. What you are doing right now is akin to saying you understand physics because when you throw a ball it moves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WC's understanding of FD

When you put something in the wind its going to block and change the KE of the wind . Turbulent flow makes swirlies! DERP DERP!! I will make the asinine assumption that the only things I need to consider are a scalar windspeed and a scalar efficiency so I can use the highest level of math I can demonstrate in simple arithmetic. I will use terms like kinetic energy and the names of the variables I found on google and maybe that will fool someone. Then when people point out that I am leaving out a whole bunch of stuff I will bullshit about them making assumptions. DERP!!!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Prove it? Well your solution to the question of how a turbine would effect climate was on the basis of a generic wind energy number you pulled off a chart and the efficiency of the turbine.

---

Liar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

This is akin to you trying to describe the behavior of the ocean on the basis of a solubility chart.

---

I haven't done that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Now you are going to claim that I am making assumptions but you do the same simpleminded shit every time. We've been down this road before with you.

---

Yes, and you always lose. I linked some information of studies, and there are several more I read that I did not link.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

You are the one that needs to prove your knowledge and all you have proven so far is that you lack it and when pressed on it bluster and dissemble. If you do not understand field theory and multivariable PDE's then you do not understand fluid dynamics. Blathering about KE and efficiency tells me you are up to about high school physics.

---

I have better things to do than prove my knowledge to you. You cannot argue against what I say and you want me to waste more time proving something you don't understand?

Wow... Just wow... Yopu are so lame...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

So go ahead and claim that I am making assumptions and hide behind the claim that you don't have to understand the fundamentals. All you do is paint yourself as the same simpleminded fool as always.

---

Well, since you are not arguing against the supporting links I furnished, what am I to think? I even forget what was obvious of you assiming, and I'm not going to go back to refresh my memory. You simply are not worth it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Start with multivariable calculus.

---

Why? Not needed. I maintain my contention because of supporting research already done by others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

There are great tools you can use at stanford.edu to start. Then when you have a grasp of field operations, you can start looking into how FD is handled scientifically. Once you are comfortable with the theory try executing problems and solving them. You are not going to learn FD from google. What you are doing right now is akin to saying you understand physics because when you throw a ball it moves.

---

Have at it.

You know, it is becoming so comical, watching you make a clown of yourself all the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I can't prove it so I will just say I don't wnat to prove it and act like it's convincing.

---

I guess I am going to have to embarrass you once again by pulling up RG's pseudoscience thread because that is where your fizzing soda solubility chart stupidity is to be found.

You tried this same denial shit when you claimed you didn't say racist shit. I pulled up all that bigotry and posted it in the Martin thread and then you waffled and claimed it was out of context when what I did was put up your whole posts. You can't front around here because we all know how you operate. Old dogs don't learn new tricks especially when theyre dumb.

I have shit to do but when I get back i know the search terms to use and your soda and solubility chart ocean model will be dredged up for all to see.

Ocean modeled by solubility chart post:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post5458585

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...inSeaWater.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stupidity

Lets just take 5C at 34 psu. The value is 52.44. If we relate it to the carbon absorbed in the ocean for the ratio of 40,000 GtC total with 750 of it in the atmosphere, then we can say the ocean contains 39,250 GtC.

Now if the increase the entire ocean temperature was about 0.1 degrees, we can approximate change by calculating 1/50 the value of 52.44 - 44.13, or 0.1662. We would have an approximate decrease of equilibrium to 52.27 (5244 - 0.17).

Now this 52.27 is 99.68% of the other value, but 99.68% of 39,250 is 39,127. Now, for equilibrium, we have to force another 123 GtC of carbon, or about 60 ppm into the atmosphere.

That is with no added CO2 by man, and only a 0.1 C increase.

Of course, this will be inaccurate because most the ocean is colder and some is warmer than the 5C I used, but I just wanted to show you how little changes can make bug difference.

---

Ocean as a soda

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post5458330

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by More stupidity

The ocean is like a soda, going flat.

I suggest you do some real studying on the effects of temperature for a solutions ability to absorb gas, and the related equilibrium.

I will maintain my contention that temperature drives CO2. CO2 does not drive temperature.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Liar.

I haven't done that.

You know, it is becoming so comical, watching you make a clown of yourself all the time.

---

Uh huh

Despite Conservative Attacks, States Continue to Realize the Benefits of Renewable Energy Standards

Though Congress has failed to enact a nationwide standard, policymakers at the state level have enthusiastically filled the void, with 29 states and the District of Columbia adopting hard targets for renewable energy production and another eight states setting renewable energy goals. Standards place an obligation on electricity-supply companies to reach set targets, while renewable energy goals are voluntary for companies—although states might incentivize a utility for reaching a set goal.


Those mandates have brought a wide range of benefits, ranging from robust clean energy economies to lower carbon emissions and improved public health. Since the beginning of 2009, eight states—California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Kansas, Nevada, New Jersey, and New York—have increased their standards, while three states—Indiana, Oklahoma, and West Virginia—have established voluntary goals. Six other states—Colorado, Maine, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, and Washington state—have beaten back attempts to repeal their standards. Most of the states with renewable energy standards on the books are meeting or are close to meeting their interim targets.

Two conservative organizations looking to repeal state renewable energy standard policies are the Heartland Institute and the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC. These two organizations worked together to write model legislation—the Electricity Freedom Act—to roll back state standards. The policy, which ALEC’s board of directors adopted last October, argues that “a renewable energy mandate is essentially a tax on consumers of electricity that forces the use of renewable energy sources beyond what would be called for by real market forces and under conditions of real competition in generation resources.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...rgy-standards/

Fuck ALEC, Fuck Heartland, Fuck all VRWC.

Yes idiot. I posted the salinity/CO2 chart. That does not mean what you implied is correct.

I have to wonder.

Do you know the definition of "if?"

Fuzzy...

You have some serious mental issue. You either took the time to locate that, or had it saved just to use.

We can find a padded room for you...

'if' this solubility chart is true then the soda must fizz.

when you were talking about how you could envision the dynamics of what was going on, I immediately thought of the soda analysis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

'if' this solubility chart is true then the soda must fizz.

when you were talking about how you could envision the dynamics of what was going on, I immediately thought of the soda analysis.

---

Then once again, you are an idiot. My example of a soda going flat was for people who don't understand solubility of gasses in fluids. Almost everyone realizes soda holds less CO2 when warm than when cold. For you to think I literally meant the ocean acts like soda, to the degree soda responds... is so laughable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Then once again, you are an idiot. My example of a soda going flat was for people who don't understand solubility of gasses in fluids. Almost everyone realizes soda holds less CO2 when warm than when cold. For you to think I literally meant the ocean acts like soda, to the degree soda responds... is so laughable.

---

No the issue then was that you dumb down the behavior of the ocean to the soda analogy. Now its whatever asinine model you failed to articulate. You were talking to RG about the soda when you wrote that stupidity. I just linked it so you can verify it. The only one that needs it dumbed down like that is you.

As was explained to you by presenting the UW study, it is an issue of alkalinity thermal layers and fluid dynamics an not your stupidity. Further it was demonstrated to you that the surface interaction of the CO2 diffusion is a function of wind speed not 'like a soda.' As I said then as I say now: you are too simpleminded to be able to grasp the functions that are used to describe these phenomenon so you fall back on simplistic analogies like 'the ocean is like a soda.' Well it's not.

I will go back to good old Bert:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bert Russell

A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.

---

ie "the ocean is like a soda, going flat.' That explanation was for yourself and for no one else in that conversation. RG, Manny, nor me needed it. Just you.

Fizzy...

I'm not going to continue to argue every other thread that are far off from the threads theme. If you want to discuss that, bring it up in that thread, or make a new related thread to the topic. This thread is about power transmission and wind power. Talking about climate changes from the changes in wind patters is as far as it should go off topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Fizzy...

I'm not going to continue to argue every other thread that are far off from the threads theme. If you want to discuss that, bring it up in that thread, or make a new related thread to the topic. This thread is about power transmission and wind power. Talking about climate changes from the changes in wind patters is as far as it should go off topic.

---

Then you shouldn't call me a liar. I demonstrated that not to be the case.

WE got as far as input - input * efficiency = output. So expound on that some more for us. Hundreds of watts was your conclusion. Go explain to us how it will impact the climate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Then you shouldn't call me a liar. I demonstrated that not to be the case.

WE got as far as input - input * efficiency = output. So expound on that some more for us. Hundreds of watts was your conclusion. Go explain to us how it will impact the climate.

---

The simple scale of it.

Texas now has a capacity of 11 GigaWatts of wind power. That is as much as 11 GW less energy to do the work that wind does for climate. It alters moisture and heat exchanges from what they would have been between the surface and atmosphere.