Binge watching all your videos for tomorrow's AP Environmental Science Exam at 8 AM, Wooooo, so excited :( Hope the exam goes well, also great work on these videos Mr. Anderson.
_"In 2013 research, Keith described how each wind turbine creates a “wind shadow” behind it where air has been slowed down by the turbine’s blades. Today’s commercial-scale wind farms carefully space turbines to reduce the impact of these wind shadows, but given the expectation that wind farms will continue to expand as demand for wind-derived electricity increases, interactions and associated climatic impacts cannot be avoided."_ _"What was missing from this previous research, however, were observations to support the modeling. Then, a few months ago, the U.S. Geological Survey released the locations of 57,636 wind turbines around the U.S. Using this data set, in combination with several other U.S. government databases, Keith and postdoctoral fellow Lee Miller were able to quantify the power density of 411 wind farms and 1,150 solar photovoltaic plants operating in the U.S. during 2016."_ _“For wind, we found that the average power density - meaning the rate of energy generation divided by the encompassing area of the wind plant - was up to 100 times lower than estimates by some leading energy experts,” said Miller, who is the first author of both papers. “Most of these estimates failed to consider the turbine-atmosphere interaction. For an isolated wind turbine, interactions are not important at all, but once the wind farms are more than five to 10 kilometers deep, these interactions have a major impact on the power density.”_ _"The observation-based wind power densities are also much lower than important estimates from the U.S. Department of Energy and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."_ Comments ?
And of course the first problem of the equation is...PROFIT MOTIVE. We need to change our fundamental way of recourse distribution and thinking. -The world should be run by science, technology, and intrinsic motivation. -The world should NOT be run by a labor system for profit/survival (especially in light of machine automation and cybernetics), Profit motive that leads to social inequality and a lot of crime, and a "democratic" government that is actually run by corporate interest as a result of fiat monetary corruption. Monetary trade is a corrupt system that generates corrupt behavior, and this in turn is the source of almost all structural violence in the world. Plain and simple. A return ratio of 1.3:1 is more than acceptable. Anything with a positive ratio is fine as long as it's renewable...The point is that it returns more than we put in. And over time, it will only get better. In todays world, we're looking at it from a monetary profit perspective, not an efficiency and symbiotic perspective. Great video. Thank you :) I just had to rant.
+Cara Diann I do think he teaches mainly in a human centered way, as discussed in the posts of another video of his. That probably means anything environmental should not be against human principles like earning profits through programs. Are you suggesting capitalism is not the right way to develop sustainably? Btw there is actually a strong appeal for this "de-neoliberalism" in public service including global health. But it seems to me striking a balance is indeed important.
A low return ratio in clean renewables can be worse than some of the non-renewables for the government. Consider nuclear vs ethanol. Nuclear with centrifugal enrichment produces a ration of 75:1. Whereas corn ethanol produces a ratio of 1.3:1. If we say that we require 500 kilo-watts of energy - 6.6667 ratio units of energy expended to get the resources for nuclear and 384.6 ratio units of energy expended to get resources for ethanol. Considering that the raw resource extraction is often harmful to the environment - mining for nuclear and land requirements, fertilizer/pesticide/herbicide/insecticide pollution, and .fossil fuel usage for farming machinery in the case of corn ethanol. In the wide spectrum of environmental friendliness, a larger ratio is an extremely important factor.
if the ratio stays the same consumption wise, what about the energy/ equipment/ area, would that remain the same? like using soybean oil for desal, will production costs, land taken be the same as oil?
Well produced videos. But as a teacher in physics I dare not use them to educate my pupils, since the errors are to big and they will be misled. Start by fixing: Error 1: Watts is not a measure of energy. TWh, kWh and J are common measures of energy though. What did you really mean with your numbers?
Good catch, the “year” suffix is missing in the graph on some energy sources. But to be fair he says, "TW every year". So to answer your question he means TW/yr. But then it really doesn't matter because what he wants to show it's proportion. In fact, he can even use is very own units like "sun" or "Paul Andersen Energy Unit" it would not change anythings. Say that, what you really mean by "energy", "space" and "time" in physics? :P
Anyone watching for science homework
Yeehaw
Me I have to do it for OI
Yea lol
Never enough time in our class lol
You win best teaching graphics of the year. The whole thing was pretty engaging, kudos
my daughter is doing a report on renewable energy tonight. she's using this video. :)
Binge watching all your videos for tomorrow's AP Environmental Science Exam at 8 AM, Wooooo, so excited :( Hope the exam goes well, also great work on these videos Mr. Anderson.
how was ur exam?
How was your exam?
Stop dick riding 💀
Your Outro Sounds like the ending of Mr.Bightside by The Killers
He has good style of speaking.
Say EINSTEIN. Then use the three letters EIN when saying Turb-INE.
LOL what if he pronounces Einstein "Instin"
_"In 2013 research, Keith described how each wind turbine creates a “wind shadow” behind it where air has been slowed down by the turbine’s blades. Today’s commercial-scale wind farms carefully space turbines to reduce the impact of these wind shadows, but given the expectation that wind farms will continue to expand as demand for wind-derived electricity increases, interactions and associated climatic impacts cannot be avoided."_
_"What was missing from this previous research, however, were observations to support the modeling. Then, a few months ago, the U.S. Geological Survey released the locations of 57,636 wind turbines around the U.S. Using this data set, in combination with several other U.S. government databases, Keith and postdoctoral fellow Lee Miller were able to quantify the power density of 411 wind farms and 1,150 solar photovoltaic plants operating in the U.S. during 2016."_
_“For wind, we found that the average power density - meaning the rate of energy generation divided by the encompassing area of the wind plant - was up to 100 times lower than estimates by some leading energy experts,” said Miller, who is the first author of both papers. “Most of these estimates failed to consider the turbine-atmosphere interaction. For an isolated wind turbine, interactions are not important at all, but once the wind farms are more than five to 10 kilometers deep, these interactions have a major impact on the power density.”_
_"The observation-based wind power densities are also much lower than important estimates from the U.S. Department of Energy and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."_
Comments ?
I have a science test it will be good because I have you(^人^)
who else is here for their biology class🤣
And of course the first problem of the equation is...PROFIT MOTIVE.
We need to change our fundamental way of recourse distribution and thinking.
-The world should be run by science, technology, and intrinsic motivation.
-The world should NOT be run by a labor system for profit/survival (especially in light of machine automation and cybernetics), Profit motive that leads to social inequality and a lot of crime, and a "democratic" government that is actually run by corporate interest as a result of fiat monetary corruption.
Monetary trade is a corrupt system that generates corrupt behavior, and this in turn is the source of almost all structural violence in the world. Plain and simple.
A return ratio of 1.3:1 is more than acceptable. Anything with a positive ratio is fine as long as it's renewable...The point is that it returns more than we put in. And over time, it will only get better. In todays world, we're looking at it from a monetary profit perspective, not an efficiency and symbiotic perspective.
Great video. Thank you :) I just had to rant.
+Cara Diann I do think he teaches mainly in a human centered way, as discussed in the posts of another video of his. That probably means anything environmental should not be against human principles like earning profits through programs. Are you suggesting capitalism is not the right way to develop sustainably?
Btw there is actually a strong appeal for this "de-neoliberalism" in public service including global health. But it seems to me striking a balance is indeed important.
A low return ratio in clean renewables can be worse than some of the non-renewables for the government. Consider nuclear vs ethanol.
Nuclear with centrifugal enrichment produces a ration of 75:1. Whereas corn ethanol produces a ratio of 1.3:1.
If we say that we require 500 kilo-watts of energy - 6.6667 ratio units of energy expended to get the resources for nuclear and 384.6 ratio units of energy expended to get resources for ethanol. Considering that the raw resource extraction is often harmful to the environment - mining for nuclear and land requirements, fertilizer/pesticide/herbicide/insecticide pollution, and .fossil fuel usage for farming machinery in the case of corn ethanol.
In the wide spectrum of environmental friendliness, a larger ratio is an extremely important factor.
I meant "environment" instead of "government" in the first sentence. Sorry.
Tanks you gave me good explanation
Cool i like it science is my favorite
if the ratio stays the same consumption wise, what about the energy/ equipment/ area, would that remain the same? like using soybean oil for desal, will production costs, land taken be the same as oil?
You're the best! Thank you
Great explanation..!
Thanks again daddy
wouldn't burning of wood be carbon neutral, as the carbon is released just be from the carbon that the tree took in
Your voice is a little boring, but a lot of info
#outgoones
That was very helpful.
whata the answer for guid question
Hello Andrew
what language is that????
I don’t get it
Wave and tidal... where is that ?
SOUTH FACING WINDOWS AAHHHh!
Well produced videos. But as a teacher in physics I dare not use them to educate my pupils, since the errors are to big and they will be misled. Start by fixing:
Error 1: Watts is not a measure of energy. TWh, kWh and J are common measures of energy though. What did you really mean with your numbers?
As a teacher in physics you set homework that discusses the flaws in the video to teach critical thinking skills. Or too busy teaching to the test?
Good catch, the “year” suffix is missing in the graph on some energy sources. But to be fair he says, "TW every year". So to answer your question he means TW/yr. But then it really doesn't matter because what he wants to show it's proportion. In fact, he can even use is very own units like "sun" or "Paul Andersen Energy Unit" it would not change anythings. Say that, what you really mean by "energy", "space" and "time" in physics? :P
Can you give me a ref. where you got the ratios or cost analysis? Great video! What software do you use?
Thanks for sharing this information with us. Su usefull.
paul anderson sir can u help me in any video regarding equilibrium
Okay! I know this sounds heartless but some people are going to have to go. Earth is populated lol
you mean overpopulated. like yeah of course its populated
Some people could be you
u should be first
Let’s start with the people with the lowest IQ…
TW is a unit of Power; Power is NOT ENERGY
Super
How did you calculate that?
Saw it thank you.
why do smart people refuse to say some words correctly that they've formed habits around like this guy says turbine turbin
It might be owing to his accent
Sorry bro 😉