toecutter

32 ms·

1.
by toecutter 5y ago
I read his analysis, I found it roughly to be back of the envelope math and I did not think it was authoritative especially when he uses phrases like "my crude estimate" and "my stupid calculation". The "per-linear-
2.
by toecutter 5y ago
"wave power (the latter is effectively nil) " ~30 terawatts, about double the electrical consumption of the whole planet, is effectively nil? " [tidal is] slightly more viable than wave energy" Why do you say this?
3.
by toecutter 5y ago
Wave energy would be any type of machine that uses the motion of individual waves or swells, rather than tides. There is a wide range of ideas, most are at small scale, early stage, and no winner has emerged the same way that wind energy ha
4.
by toecutter 5y ago
Why don't they scale? is there not enough ocean in the world or something?
5.
by toecutter 5y ago
Well the comment you replied to that you agree with "100%" also said wave energy + tidal energy. Your method of analysis is assuming we exist in the best of all possible worlds. "Flying machines have been tried time and again
6.
by toecutter 5y ago
The existence of fundamentally non-effective wind capturing technologies, such as rooftop windmills, vawts, and kites, does not preclude existance of effective designs aka multi-megawatt 3 bladed wind turbines. By analogy, just because earl
7.
by toecutter 5y ago
Quick note, confusingly throughout this thread people have used the phrase "wave energy" as essentially a synonym for "tidal energy", they are separate technologies sometimes talked about under the combined category of o