Jump to content
Zuul

Big affs

Recommended Posts

Of course if it was transported directly to the grid that problem would be avoided. If telecommunication cables can be laid along the sea floor, then I see no reason why power lines couldn't. 

One possible DA (disclaimer: no research done), is that telecom lines don't really have much in them.  Power lines have by definition way higher voltages.  Magnetic/Electric fields could screw with marine life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if they'd actually have higher amperages or not. (I assume amperage would be the key player here, since that's sort of like the "volume" of electricity if I remember my physics correctly) Telephone lines are also carrying electrical impulses to transmit signals.

 

Regardless, the lines would have to be shielded to protect them from the pressure and being nibbled on or something so that should be able to take care of it.

 

I think the real problem is if there was like an earthquake and the line snapped. Would it just be pumping electricity straight into the water or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course if it was transported directly to the grid that problem would be avoided. If telecommunication cables can be laid along the sea floor, then I see no reason why power lines couldn't. 

The problem is the energy source isn't reliable, thus the back bone of the power industry i.e. coal cannot be eliminated. Building these wind turbines wouldn't do anything to effect emissions, and it wouldn't be enough to make a dent. The wind turbines on land are connected directly to the grid now and they're still used as peak shavers, wind turbines in the ocean would be no different. Furthermore the number of individual units necessary to make the grid entirely dependent on them would be an enormousness as well as functionally impossible because; A. the water get's deeper the farther into the ocean which means a lot more energy is going to have to go into giving each unit a base B. the amount needed would probably obstruct shipping and the like so some sort of ports DA could be theoretically articulated C. the amount theoretically needed would most definitively have an environmental impact.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is the energy source isn't reliable, thus the back bone of the power industry i.e. coal cannot be eliminated. Building these wind turbines wouldn't do anything to effect emissions, and it wouldn't be enough to make a dent. The wind turbines on land are connected directly to the grid now and they're still used as peak shavers, wind turbines in the ocean would be no different. Furthermore the number of individual units necessary to make the grid entirely dependent on them would be an enormousness as well as functionally impossible because; A. the water get's deeper the farther into the ocean which means a lot more energy is going to have to go into giving each unit a base B. the amount needed would probably obstruct shipping and the like so some sort of ports DA could be theoretically articulated C. the amount theoretically needed would most definitively have an environmental impact.

and for all those reasons, of course, only nuclear ever solves :P

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and for all those reasons, of course, only nuclear  thorium ever solves :P

Edited by Knightdej
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re:Bataille

 

actually in Land's book on Bataille, and in the death drive version of the bataille k (7wk) the entire chapter on bataille and freud's death drive is contrasting Kant's dislike (god why do all trendy philosophers hate Kant) for noumena with the destructive power of the ocean and the cyclone that hit the Philippines. I think a death drive arg is definitely feasible. And yes Bataille is forever gone to me and so is Nick land. (Doesn't mean I won't read their crazy sh)

 

From land (p.77): An utter intoxication such as this is quite different from its Kantian anticipation, although Kant too contests the right of dogmatic theology to guide his journey: Nothing but the sobriety of a critique, at once strict and just, can free us from this dogmatic delusion, which through the lure of an imagined felicity keeps so many in bondage to theories and systems. Such a critique confines all our speculative claims rigidly to the field of possible experience; and it does this not by shallow scoffing at ever-repeated failures or pious sighs over the limits of our reason, but by an effective determining of these limits in accordance with established principles, inscribing nihil ulterius on those Pillars of Hercules which nature herself has erected in order that the voyage of our reason may be extended no further than the continuous coastline of experience itself reaches—a coast we cannot leave without venturing upon a shoreless ocean which, after alluring us with ever-deceptive prospects, compels us in the end to abandon as hopeless all this vexatious and tedious endeavour [K IV 392– 3]. For Kant it is not enough to have reached the ocean, the shoreless expanse, the nihil ulterius as positive zero. He recognizes the ocean as a space of absolute voyage, and thus of hopelessness and waste. Only another shore would redeem it for him, and that is nowhere to be found. Better to remain on dry land than to lose oneself in the desolation of zero. It is for this reason that he says the ‘concept of a noumenon is…a merely limiting concept’ [K IV 282]. In this way the Occidental obsession with the object consummates itself in the blind passivity of its nihilism. Beyond experience, it is suggested, there must be thought ‘an unknown something’ [K III 283], although ‘we are unable to comprehend how such noumena can be possible’ [K III 281]. More precisely: [The noumenon]…is not indeed in any way positive, and is not a determinate knowledge of anything, but signifies only the thought of something in general, in which I abstract from everything that belongs to the form of sensible intuition [KIII 281]. That no transcendent object is found is an event which retains the sense of a lost or absent object, rather than that of a contact with or through objectlessness. The ocean has no sense except as a failure of the land.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if they'd actually have higher amperages or not. (I assume amperage would be the key player here, since that's sort of like the "volume" of electricity if I remember my physics correctly) Telephone lines are also carrying electrical impulses to transmit signals.

 

Regardless, the lines would have to be shielded to protect them from the pressure and being nibbled on or something so that should be able to take care of it.

 

I think the real problem is if there was like an earthquake and the line snapped. Would it just be pumping electricity straight into the water or what?

You are correct about your understanding of physics.  Current is what matters.  That said I think shielding would have to be specifically built to shield magnetic field - just pressure isn't going to do it.  And if an earthquake occurs it will probably screw with the composition of water in the area, and then because the resistivity of sea water is a couple of orders of magnitude below that of the sea floor the electricity will disperse into the water.  (although it will fry anything within a certain radius)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...