The Bangui Windmill in Ilocos is not a result of the Marcos' initiative as they claimed.
Rather, we owed the initiative to the study conducted by the National Renewal Energy Laboratory in 1996.
Wind energy harvesting has two main criteria: (1) Wind energy density (2) Low historical maximum winds.
Wind energy density is usually derived from the wind energy spectrum that was determined using continuous data gathering on different location.
Wind energy density can also be extrapolated (from the synoptic data) from evaluating the wind exposure.
The Bangui bay is situated at the Northwestern End of the Cordilleras. Therefore the location is exposed to both the sustained winds from the northeast (Amihan) and the southwest (Habagat).
Being the open valley along the mountainous shoreline of northern shores of Ilocos Norte, the topography induces a channeling effect (with the valley acting as an opening) resulting to higher wind energy densities up to 30 W/sq.m, ideal for wind turbines.
At the same time, the Cordillera mountain range provides a shielding effect that protects the wind farm from severe winds brought by typhoons by reducing the magnitude.
Typhoons don't normally traverse Northeast at that latitude unless they are on the weakening stage (with the exception of Typhoon Ryan in the 90s). So the area is less likely to experience a full brunt of a strong typhoon. Hence, a lower demand for structural capacity.
This is attested by the Generalized Extreme Value Analysis that projects the maximum wind speed that the location can experience throughout the wind turbines' service lifetime. GEV analysis determined a 100-year winds of 150 kph. The historical maximum is around 170 kph.
Given that this was an attractive business pitch also, the Northwind Power Development Corp. heavily invested on this. And through some international funding and Danish support, the wind mills became operational in 2005.
The Marcoses, who happened to be the ruling political clan there, just did the ribbon cutting ceremony in the day of its inauguration.
And just like the nutribun, the miracle rice, & the other societal/scientific endeavours, the Marcoses shamelessly took the credit of this also.
Erratum: National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
The same principle applies to the Pililla Wind Frame. The orographic effects along with its exposure on both on its NE (Mabitac portion of Laguna Lake) and SW (Pililla portion of Laguna Lake) sectors made it an ideal place for wind energy harvesting.
On a side note, I was quite thankful that I didn't pursue my first graduate research involving Fluid-Structure Interaction to do Structural Health Monitoring on these turbines. That topic is already on the PhD level na pala.
*Pililla Wind Farm
(Joshua, come on. You kept on mistyping things.)
Resibo of the credit-grabbing (from Bongbong's website itself):
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Re: Face shields on various scenarios (Another thread)
I was asked, in the spirit of the RCTs, whether I have explored the other scenarios concerning face shields.
Well, yes, I did.
The intervention of face shields against sporadic emissions at different angles of attack was simulated and observed, and as it turned out that the ballistic protection only applies for emissions coming from the front. From other angles, risk increases:
The speed of cough simulated was 50 mph. Here, it was illustrated how the momentum of the emission decreases over distance, while also noting the advection also:
Misinformation and falsehoods cascade across three layers:
First is with the perpetrators who spread disorienting misinformation in social media.
Second is with the media on which some are disoriented and pass on the disorientation to the masses.
Third is with the masses.
Indeed, the battleground may be dealing with the source. But the ripples of misinformation still trickled down to its main interest and intended audience: the masses.
Given that the surveys determined that mainstream media are still the main source of information of people, we look at media personalities who package their commentaries, which contained their personal biases, as if those were the news.
I see that some of the scientists from other countries are considering recommending face shields to be worn in public.
I beg to differ, presenting how face shields represented the poorest pandemic response in the world.
December 11, 2020
The Inter-Agency Task Force (IATF) against Covid-19 of the Philippine Government, through its Resolution no.88, mandated the use of face shields even in public, outside of hospital settings. pna.gov.ph/articles/11544….
The technical advisory body of the IATF, spearhead by infectious disease experts Dr. Anna Lisa Ong-Lim and Dr. Edsel Salvana claimed that a randomized control trials (RCT) conducted in the public hospitals and another performed in India reported 90% efficacy rate.
Kindly ask those "lolo" and "lola" giving anecdotes that "attest" the Marcos regime the year-by-year state of affairs during that period. Ask them the specifics, what specifically happened in '72, '77, '81, '83, 84', and '86.
That's how historiography establishes veracity.
If they can't provide any to establish the veracity of their narrative, then that points of view that they are presenting, like the other dramatis personae in the past making good light of themselves, will be rebuked, shunned, and reprimanded.
You could also ask your lolos and lolas about their knowledge of how government works, the separation of powers, their knowledge of the constitution.