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.
The next big thing in wind energy, flying windmills?
Quote:
Our Innovation Analysts recently looked into emerging technologies and up-and-coming startups working on solutions for the energy sector. As there is a large number of startups working on a wide variety of solutions, we want to share our insights with you. This time, we are taking a look at 5 promising airborne wind energy systems.
Heat Map: 5 Top Airborne Wind Energy Systems
For our 5 top picks, we used a data-driven startup scouting approach to identify the most relevant solutions globally. The Global Startup Heat Map below highlights 5 interesting examples out of 84 relevant solutions. Depending on your specific needs, your top picks might look entirely different.
There are various problems with renewable energy, such as the point that significant components of it are not renewable. There are more details in the documentary Planet of the Humans:
The counter-arguments are wrong. For example, the claim that energy returns are higher are based on ideal conditions. Measurements of systems actually used show the opposite.
The same error takes place for footprint. The claim is based on operations of renewable energy, but the documentary looks at mining and manufacturing.
The same goes for emissions: critics look at operations of the systems. The documentary looks at the manner by which renewable energy components are made: that's where the emissions take place.
In short, the reasons given by critics to show why the documentary is flawed are ironically the same points challenged by the documentary: what's green isn't actually green. What has higher energy returns due to laboratory conditions or lifecycle actually has the opposite because most don't actually know how renewable energy components are made. Thus, what the documentary reveals is what critics don't want to talk about.
One bonus: critics then argue that the documentary is pro-oil because it's anti-green. Actually, it's neither. Rather, it argues that what is supposed to be green is actually driven by oil. What, then, is pro-green? View the documentary to the end to find out.
The counter-arguments are wrong. For example, the claim that energy returns are higher are based on ideal conditions. Measurements of systems actually used show the opposite.
The same error takes place for footprint. The claim is based on operations of renewable energy, but the documentary looks at mining and manufacturing.
The same goes for emissions: critics look at operations of the systems. The documentary looks at the manner by which renewable energy components are made: that's where the emissions take place.
In short, the reasons given by critics to show why the documentary is flawed are ironically the same points challenged by the documentary: what's green isn't actually green. What has higher energy returns due to laboratory conditions or lifecycle actually has the opposite because most don't actually know how renewable energy components are made. Thus, what the documentary reveals is what critics don't want to talk about.
One bonus: critics then argue that the documentary is pro-oil because it's anti-green. Actually, it's neither. Rather, it argues that what is supposed to be green is actually driven by oil. What, then, is pro-green? View the documentary to the end to find out.
You make a bunch of sweeping claims but provide zero evidence in support.
The Wiki article I linked has rebuttals to specific points.
Here's more from Yale Climate Connections.
Solar and wind are, at best, a supplement to existing power plants. Tidal power is good for coastal communities but again, a supplement. Geothermal can be used in more areas and could provide continuous energy compared to wind and solar. I still believe stationary power plants such as coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear should be the main provider with alternative sources to supplement and their use as a supplement increases as theri technology and reliability of energy production increases. Stationary plants have the benefit of being able to quickly ramp up energy production to meet the surge in demand that comes in the day and during certain weather events. Having a home solar and or wind generator must include circuit protection should city power be loss, you’re not sending electricity back through the lines.
It's similar for other types of renewable energy. That's because lifecycle analyses use laboratory conditions, e.g., put the panel in a lab, shine a light on it, and then compare the energy produced with the energy used to make the panel. In addition, they don't look at the energy costs of inverters, charge controllers, wires, maintenance, the point that the sun doesn't shine 24/7, and that light strength is strongest only a few hours a day.
When it comes to actual usage, e.g., solar farms, the returns are even lower:
That's because lifecycle analyses also don't look at maintenance, the energy cost of infrastructure, etc. With that, the return can go down to 3. And that's for a sunny country.
The returns are low overall, together with supply, because the limits to growth which affect oil:
also affect renewable energy components that rely on material resources, all of which are discussed in the same documentary, and seen in the first bubble graph of this article:
That is, all energy sources have limitations in terms of quality (returns) and quantity (supply), not to mention the point that the supply is not continuous (as in the case of hydroelectric, wind, and solar), that there are components that are lacking (like rare earth metals needed for nuclear reactors), and more. And we haven't touched on energy density yet.
Meanwhile, the world needs continuous energy at returns of 15 or better:
and even higher as diminishing returns affect things ranging from oil to minerals, all of which are needed for green energy that is in no way "green."
All these points were ironically discussed in the documentary but overlooked by their critics. Instead, they wave them away and then imply that the producers and presenters are simply pro-oil, anti-environmentalist, and even anti-climate change. The documentary promotes none of those. Instead, it argues the ff:
1. All energy sources, including "green" energy, have low returns and quantity. The material resources like minerals needed for "green" energy also have low returns and quantity. Other requirements, like arable soil, ecosystems, and even fresh water are threatened by damage and pollution.
2. A global economy needs high returns and quantity. That's why it used oil in the first place, which had high returns, high energy density, and even tens of thousands of applications, such as petrochemicals. In general, much of manufacturing and mechanized agriculture, not to mention mining and even shipping across very extensive supply chains require lots of oil and fossil fuels in general.
3. Peak oil started in 1979, which is why the world had to use all sorts of energy sources to compensate, but they all need oil (imagine the minerals and processes needed to make just solar panels, not to mention countries and supply chains involved), too, together with minerals face similar problems:
4. Pollution has increased readily, together with ecoystem destruction. The documentary looks at the extensive damage caused by mining, plant destruction, water pollution, etc., needed to manufacture renewable energy components.
I think the U.S. will move back towards nuclear power. Some of these firms with designs for small modular reactors (SMR) are now going to construction:
$1.35B project in Idaho using SMR designed by NuScale. Scheduled to come online in 2029 with capacity of 462 megawatts.
$3B project in Wyoming using SMR designed by GE Hitachi and TerraPower (founded by Bill Gates). Scheduled to come online in late 2020s with capacity of up to 500 megawatts.
Lots of MOUs signed with other utilities, both domestic and foreign, for SMRs. Westinghouse is another big player in the SMR field. Of course, waste recycling and storage is a concern; visit the various company websites to read how they are addressing this concern.
The only "green" energy I will listen to arguments in support of is nuclear energy, which I actively support. Wind and solar are destroying our natural environment. Who wants to drive to the coast and see wind turbines in the ocean? Who wants to drive into the countryside and see acre after acre of solar farms?
Nobody around here cares about the wind farms we see in the distance. The great plains are a great place to put wind farms.
I live in the "coteau des prairies" of South Dakota which is the part on this map where the winds appear to blow from the north and west. There are a number of wind farms around here. There is no issue with them being here. Nobody cares that they can see them from a distance.
We have the wind to make wind farms work. There is plenty of unused land on the planet to dispose the blades if we don't end up recycling them, which we eventually will. Wind is here to say and there's nothing the naysayers can do about it. It's an established industry. Here's a wind map...
could not agree More. Wind is the biggest scam since Enron. crazy how many people fall for it. 3W per sq. meter is what we're getting. never mind all the other environmental disasters that go with it.
People want PV, be my guest. But wind? it's just silly
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atari2600
I'm all for being smart in energy production, but I think a lot of the "green energy" that we produce is not at all green.
Take for example, wind power. It's probably the biggest farce that's been perpetuated. A home owner can get a wind power generator, and that's pretty decent, but these large wind farms that we have all over Texas, New Mexico, etc... this is a waste. They are extremely expensive to make, use a lot of petroleum for plastics and many other chemicals which are bad for the environment, and are almost all made in China. We're basically offshoring our power to China. How does that work if China decided to stop sending us wind turbine blades? Furthermore, they have a shelf life of 10 years, and they can't be recycled... so they end up in landfills like this:
The only article I was able to find, was some basically BS fake "factcheck" article by Yahoo which is almost entirely false, trying to buck the narrative that they can be recycled. Sure... these could be used for a lot of things. They could be cut up for roofing tiles, or they could be ground up for new fiberglass construction, whatever... but no one does it, and in doing so would create more waste.
Solar isn't bad, but it's cost-prohibitive.
Hydroelectric dams are not horrible, but extremely expensive and cause ecological problems.
BEST solution is nuclear power. We need to invest in new Gen-3 and Gen-4 nuclear power plants. Gen 4 power plants can literally reuse all the prior waste from Gen-1/2 plants as a fuel source. It's significantly better... but the energy lobby from foreign governments continues to push a narrative and convince "green energy" supporters that it's bad.
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.
