Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nothing has zero environmental impact. EV have way lower an impact than ICE autos. Lots of misinformation being spread by the American Petroleum Institute. Don't be a rube.
Yep. Have used and designed according to API Specs and Manuals for years . . . I suppose Decades, now, and really respected the effort and share of knowledge from Shell and others.
But the recent API foray into Politics and in particular -- public disinformation and FUD -- is really disgusting.
The problem is that they're looking at things statically. The useful lifespan for these have been extended to 30 years, and will extend further. The manufacturing process will change over time to reduce the use of coal in producing the steel blades.
Wind turbine lifespan is still at best, 25 years. And recycling wouldn't be a problem if their blades were made of steel, but they're not. They are made of fiberglass. Where Do Wind Turbines Go To Die? | Inside Energy
Quote:
Originally Posted by lchoro
You're pinning your hopes on excavating uneconomical sources of energy. That can't continue indefinitely. If anything, it's undermining the development of oil and gas reserves in deep water because they require the price of crude oil to be nearly double the current price.
So? Get the cheap oil first, then when necessary go after the stuff that's more expensive to produce.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lchoro
It's foolish to rely on a source of energy that has such a steep production curve which will likely be just as steep in decline and result in price shocks to the economy. That will drive up the cost of replacement energy sources. The best time to implement alternatives is while they're relatively cheap.
In general, wind and solar are probably limited to replacing a certain percentage of the energy generated using fossil fuels. The main problem is that it requires a large amount of land which is far from urban centers.
Speaking of price shocks, what do you think is going to happen to the price of materials needed for electric cars, wind turbines, and solar panels when demand outstrips supply in the next few years?
This is one reason why I equate this effort with a fourth grade civics project. It's more a "you have start somewhere" or "we have to to something" than consideration of whether that something or somewhere does any good.
We ran square into that issue here in Washington. The dams on the Columbia River system have over 34,000MW of generating capacity, yet our past two governors have demanded more and more wind power. The best season for wind generation here is in the spring, at exactly the same time all of our dams are running near full nameplate dealing with spring snow melt. For some reason wind power gets priority, so hydro generation gets cut back, but stream flows have to remain constant for fish, so instead of generating power water is just spilled, throwing away tens of billions of kWhrs of dirt cheap hydro power for wind. But hey at least we can brag about how "green" we are. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco...h=5a608dc42f55
We ran square into that issue here in Washington. The dams on the Columbia River system have over 34,000MW of generating capacity, yet our past two governors have demanded more and more wind power. The best season for wind generation here is in the spring, at exactly the same time all of our dams are running near full nameplate dealing with spring snow melt. For some reason wind power gets priority, so hydro generation gets cut back, but stream flows have to remain constant for fish, so instead of generating power water is just spilled, throwing away tens of billions of kWhrs of dirt cheap hydro power for wind. But hey at least we can brag about how "green" we are. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco...h=5a608dc42f55
Virtue signalling at its finest. Also, on another note, ever notice that "climate change" or "global warming" suddenly became an issue when the "energy crisis" was no longer an excuse people could use to tax, regulate and strangle us into submission?
I drive by a large wind farm about twice a month. Out of the 90 wind turbines, at least 8 to 10 are shut down for repairs. This is my biggest issue with wind power, it's very maintenance intensive. Due to their scale, repairs aren't easy. Most parts have to be lifted with either a massive crane, or a helicopter. Since windfarms are placed in many remote locations that means parts are shipped long distances via truck. Now just imagine the amount of work needed to keep the 100's of millions of wind turbines operating, that it would take to completely replace fossil fuels. This wind farm takes up a huge amount of land, 8,300 acres. It's supposed to produce 450,000,000 kwh of electricity a year. The average home uses 10,600 kwh per year. That powers 42,452 homes.
Let's play with this data a bit because we have real world numbers. If we had a million homes to power in Montana, we would need 10.6 billion kwh of electricity per year. That would equal 24 wind farms of this size, which would total about 190,000 acres, or about 296 square miles. That's just to power our state.
I'm not a green energy hater, I just have a hard time seeing how we as a species can transition to everything being powered by electricity.
The problem is that they're looking at things statically. The useful lifespan for these have been extended to 30 years, and will extend further. The manufacturing process will change over time to reduce the use of coal in producing the steel blades.
You're pinning your hopes on excavating uneconomical sources of energy. That can't continue indefinitely. If anything, it's undermining the development of oil and gas reserves in deep water because they require the price of crude oil to be nearly double the current price.
It's foolish to rely on a source of energy that has such a steep production curve which will likely be just as steep in decline and result in price shocks to the economy. That will drive up the cost of replacement energy sources. The best time to implement alternatives is while they're relatively cheap.
In general, wind and solar are probably limited to replacing a certain percentage of the energy generated using fossil fuels. The main problem is that it requires a large amount of land which is far from urban centers.
While this is a very important and correct statement. The main reason intermittent generation resources like wind and solar can't be depended on is that they have an adverse effect on grid stability. Without the rotating mass of solid or gaseous fuel units to maintain voltage and cycles the grid would collapse..................
While this is a very important and correct statement. The main reason intermittent generation resources like wind and solar can't be depended on is that they have an adverse effect on grid stability. Without the rotating mass of solid or gaseous fuel units to maintain voltage and cycles the grid would collapse..................
The only solution to that is battery technology. Manufacturing and using batteries has problems of its own.
While this is a very important and correct statement. The main reason intermittent generation resources like wind and solar can't be depended on is that they have an adverse effect on grid stability. Without the rotating mass of solid or gaseous fuel units to maintain voltage and cycles the grid would collapse..................
Well of course that is not true. Trying to use rotating mechanical mass as a source or loads on an electrical system is where latency, lag, and power factors come from.
With electronics acting 1000x faster, and inverters creating (or even correcting) the system at unity (100% voltage aligned with amps), a grid can stay perfectly aligned and even load-add or load-shed to balance the overall system.
The only solution to that is battery technology. Manufacturing and using batteries has problems of its own.
Batteries are mostly hype from battery salespeople. Have to promote their own product, and all.
Truth is surplus Solar PV and surplus Wind can just be "dumped." A solar spill is just a Sunny day. Surplus wind is just a day to fly a kite.
Extra water at a Hydro Dam site, just goes over the dam. We do not try to run of drop of water through the turbines, and then save all the rest. Why would we have to do that with Solar PV or Wind?
Just try to learn to live in Surplus. A fresh batch of Sunshine comes up every day.
I drive by a large wind farm about twice a month. Out of the 90 wind turbines, at least 8 to 10 are shut down for repairs. This is my biggest issue with wind power, it's very maintenance intensive. Due to their scale, repairs aren't easy. Most parts have to be lifted with either a massive crane, or a helicopter. Since windfarms are placed in many remote locations that means parts are shipped long distances via truck. Now just imagine the amount of work needed to keep the 100's of millions of wind turbines operating, that it would take to completely replace fossil fuels. This wind farm takes up a huge amount of land, 8,300 acres. It's supposed to produce 450,000,000 kwh of electricity a year. The average home uses 10,600 kwh per year. That powers 42,452 homes.
Let's play with this data a bit because we have real world numbers. If we had a million homes to power in Montana, we would need 10.6 billion kwh of electricity per year. That would equal 24 wind farms of this size, which would total about 190,000 acres, or about 296 square miles. That's just to power our state.
I'm not a green energy hater, I just have a hard time seeing how we as a species can transition to everything being powered by electricity.
There is "play(ing) with data" as you say and then there is real math.
Real Math is Big Wind takes about 3000 to 4000 sq. ft per tower of dedicated land at the base.
How do things work out if you start with real numbers?
Personal vehicles are profitable industry. But not green whatever powers them. Manufacturing and short lifespan of manufactured goods is good for business, not for the environment. You want green, you design machines and buildings good for a century or at least half a century. Not one to five years.
No personal vehicle comes anywhere close to mass transit in being green. cause you still need roads and other infrastructure to support them. Far less required for mass transportation. Personal transportation should really be designed for local use only.
Designing communities that require long commutes is stupid. Jobs and residential neighborhoods need to be integrated. Not an hour drive away from each other with a personal vehicle the only practical option. Personal vehicles always make sense for local use in rural areas, mass transport with small population density isnt practical.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
