Wednesday, September 19, 2007

wind energy!

Over the past few years, wind energy has picked up a lot of attention. Wind turbines are coming up in dozens all over the world and there is talk of entire countries switching to wind energy. So much so that the first zero emission scientific base in Antarctica is coming up which will be powered entirely by wind energy.

I think the idea is not that bright. There are talks of entire convection systems slowing down due to the use of wind energy, reports of almost extinct birds getting killed by these demonic turbines and of course, the ugly picture of going out into the nature and seeing hundreds of man made turbines which provide energy. Wonder how much energy is used to just make them and transport them and finally put them up. When do they break even? What about maintenance?... and all that jazz.

Are they really a solution?

As always, when you criticise some idea, you should be ready to present one of your own. I do have one, which might seems as ridiculous as the original wind energy plan.

I call this 'Wind Energy'.. yes yes, the name is the same. But the plan isn't.

Each and every person in the world passes wind. And if you do some simple calculations and use your knowledge of chemistry you come up with the following conclusion: If you pass wind for about 6 years and 9 months you would have enough gas to produce the same energy as an atomic bomb. I read about this on Null Hypothesis... very interesting reads. So when you further the calculations, assuming that when a person passes wind, its for an average of one second and assuming that everyone in the world passes wind at least once a day, then you can conclude the following: If you capture all the gas from all the people in the world once a day, then you would have enough energy for 600 atomic bombs in a day. Just one time event... over a year you will have 219000 atomic bombs worth of energy.

This is much more than what the world uses right now. Yes my people, wind energy could be the real answer here!

No comments: