nwdiver
Well-Known Member
What is typically found in the wild. Properly cited wind farms enjoy a CF of ~50%.
Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion
- Thread starter Raffy.Roma
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
What is typically found in the wild. Properly cited wind farms enjoy a CF of ~50%.
.... A single 2MW wind turbine will produce >150GWh over its life. You would need to burn >75k tons of coal to generate that much energy. So what would you rather have? 5 tons of 'indestructible' wind turbine blades or burning >75,000 tons of coal? Fools fuel is also more lethal to birds than wind. So.... context
The best thing we can really do is drive the industry to make larger turbines. Larger turbines will produce more energy relative to the material needed for the blade and the blades rotate slower which means fewer bird deaths and the blades last longer. So instead of a 2MW turbine with a life of 20 years we need 4MW turbines with a 30 year life. OR... even better ~20MW offshore wind turbines
It is a miracle style engineering feat to build anything in an ocean environment with any kind of lifespan.
One of the issues with big turbines is the bearings. The enormous loads actually dent the bearings. One workaround is to spin the blades when they are not moving.
There is a good reason to go solar, and that is it does not take much maintenance.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Solar still has a ways to go before it's cheaper than wind, even once that occurs wind and solar compliment each other since wind is dominant in the winter and night. The Nacelle of an offshore wind turbine can be ~100m from the sea and future turbines will likely be even larger. We build large ships that last decades (with some routine maintenance) I have no doubt we'll succeed with offshore wind as well. The energy we can harvest as well as the consistency is well worth the cost. GEs Halide X recently broke a new record producing 288MWh in a 24 hour period..... that's from a single 12MW turbine.
It's good that we have coal as options. Let's store the coal ash in red states since they like it so much.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Merrill
Merrill
I have been thinking about doing a small residential wind generator and wondering if anyone knows about a reasonable priced unit. The last time I did some research a few years ago they were still expensive and needed an average wind speed of 6mph yearly.
winfield100
Supporting Member
Can you have it a minimum of 30 ft above any obstruction
If/when it falls over will it stay on your property
Can you do maintenance every year for next 20-30 when you are old and creaky
Read free stuff on
Homepower.com
They have lot of free issues online detailing how why problems etc.
(Cannot attach to house, acoustic coupling will drive you crazy for instance)
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Unless you're in a unique situation where you have almost no sun and a lot of wind small wind makes zero sense. It's cheaper to buy a 200w solar panel and a battery if you want power at night when it's windy. Wind doesn't scale down. Solar is WAAY cheaper than any wind <100kW.
Wind is almost comically terrible. Bergy is one of the best 'residential' turbines and even those are large meaning smaller ones are even worse. Their turbines cost ~$100k and generate ~20MWh/yr in a good area. ~15MWh/yr is more typical. 10kW of solar costs ~$30k and will generate >15MWh/yr.
I like to say that small wind is twice as expensive for half as much energy and half the life span vs solar.
Merrill
Merrill
This is pretty much the conclusion I came to but just trying to hedge against lack of solar production in the winter.
I#, new to this thread, so bear with me if below was already known. Some may argue, that what a small country like Denmark do, does not alter a lot, but we do transport and export natural gas in big quantities.
The Copenhagen Post - Danish News in English
The Copenhagen Post - Danish News in English
You might have heard about the idea of a trillion trees. Several groups, including the World Economic Forum, traditional environmental groups and youth activists have jumped on the bandwagon. The idea is a global campaign to encourage governments, businesses, civic organizations and individuals to join together in a massive climate-change focused global reforestation effort.
A study published last summer in the journal Science suggested that the Earth had the potential for reforestation that could absorb more than a third of all the carbon humans have emitted since the industrial revolution. While the study was criticized in the same publication in the fall for significantly overestimating the carbon-sequestering potential of reforestation, there is no doubt that having a trillion extra trees on the planet would be beneficial in many other ways.
Trees provide habitat for animals like insects and birds, encourage forest diversity, prevent erosion, help conserve water, and make for great recreational areas. The shade of a tree canopy can reduce the need for air conditioning in urban areas.
<snip>
Unfortunately, one drawback of the tree planting scheme is that it takes 10 or 20 years for trees to grow and absorb enough carbon to make a difference. Meanwhile, worldwide greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow every year.
<snip>
Tree planting seems like an easy solution to climate change, but without a reduction in fossil fuel emissions, the effort is a drop in the bucket. It cannot be used as a licence to continue business as usual, or a cover to make it look like governments are going green while continuing to cultivate the source of the problem.
<snip>
Full article at:
A trillion trees will not be enough if emissions continue to rise
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Thought of a new analogy. The idea of planting trees to address climate change is a lot like when the tobacco companies came up with the concept of filtered cigarettes to address the health concerns of smoking.
Planting trees is great.... FOR HABITAT RESTORATION NOT FIGHTING CLIMATE CHANGE.
If anything climate change should give people pause about planting trees. There are many areas that can simply no longer support a forest because.... the climate has changed and will continue changing for centuries because of our pathetic addiction to fools fuel.
I worked on a ship. There is a crew working at maintenance every day.
This is BS The world is greening as a result of increased CO2. There is nowhere on Earth where the climate has changed enough to alter the lifespans of trees. I am not saying there may be an increase of temps somewhere so certain trees don't do well but on the whole more CO2 is what plants thrive on.
I'm all for reducing CO2 but let's not muddle the waters with crap.
This is BS The world is greening as a result of increased CO2. There is nowhere on Earth where the climate has changed enough to alter the lifespans of trees. I am not saying there may be an increase of temps somewhere so certain trees don't do well but on the whole more CO2 is what plants thrive on.
I'm all for reducing CO2 but let's not muddle the waters with crap.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Cutting Fossil Fuel Subsidies Could Be Even More Beneficial Than We Realized
The world wastes trillions of dollars every year on fossil fuel direct and indirect subsidies. Trillions! The U.S. alone spends hundreds of billions of dollars on them, ten times as much as it spends on education.
That’s reason enough to shift priorities. But then there’s the climate, which would benefit if we burned less fossil fuels (or even better, none). Now, new research published in Nature shows that eliminating those huge sums would have significant consequences for the climate. The study contests previous research which found that subsidies don’t actually have that much impact on the world’s climate crisis.
What’s more, the emissions reductions resulting from slashing subsidies could be even greater than that because it could significantly change the oil industry. More of the world’s energy comes from oil than any other fuel, and the industry is still expanding quickly, in part because subsidies make exploration and expansion much cheaper. Without subsidies, corporations may not actually grow their drilling operations nearly as much because it would be too risky to invest that much of their own money or take out loans.
Why fossil fuel producer subsidies matter | Nature
The world wastes trillions of dollars every year on fossil fuel direct and indirect subsidies. Trillions! The U.S. alone spends hundreds of billions of dollars on them, ten times as much as it spends on education.
That’s reason enough to shift priorities. But then there’s the climate, which would benefit if we burned less fossil fuels (or even better, none). Now, new research published in Nature shows that eliminating those huge sums would have significant consequences for the climate. The study contests previous research which found that subsidies don’t actually have that much impact on the world’s climate crisis.
What’s more, the emissions reductions resulting from slashing subsidies could be even greater than that because it could significantly change the oil industry. More of the world’s energy comes from oil than any other fuel, and the industry is still expanding quickly, in part because subsidies make exploration and expansion much cheaper. Without subsidies, corporations may not actually grow their drilling operations nearly as much because it would be too risky to invest that much of their own money or take out loans.
Why fossil fuel producer subsidies matter | Nature
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Climate emergency?? I think not. Global warming is good for the world's economy. Please keep burning those fossil fuels:
"The analysis finds that, contrary to the FUND projections, global warming of 3 °C relative to 2000 would reduce US energy expenditure and, therefore, would have a positive impact on US economic growth. FUND projects the economic impact to be −0.80% of GDP, whereas our analysis of the EIA data indicates the impact would be +0.07% of GDP. We infer that the impact of global warming on energy consumption may be positive for the regions that produced 82% of the world’s GDP in 2010 and, by inference, may be positive for the global economy."
Global Warming is Beneficial!
"The analysis finds that, contrary to the FUND projections, global warming of 3 °C relative to 2000 would reduce US energy expenditure and, therefore, would have a positive impact on US economic growth. FUND projects the economic impact to be −0.80% of GDP, whereas our analysis of the EIA data indicates the impact would be +0.07% of GDP. We infer that the impact of global warming on energy consumption may be positive for the regions that produced 82% of the world’s GDP in 2010 and, by inference, may be positive for the global economy."
Global Warming is Beneficial!
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
So.... who pays for all the coastal flooding? Send the bill to the people saving on their heating bill?
‘Sunny-day flooding’ is projected to put parts of the US underwater for at least 100 days per year. Here’s what the Gulf and East coasts should expect.
The fact is the world is greener now than it was twenty years ago. Analysis of Satelite data shows significantly increased plant life. Plantlife is encroaching into the deserts. There is a theory that by animal ranching on the edges of deserts the soil will improve enough to make growable what was ungrowable.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Ok.... did I say it wasn't 'greener'? I said there are places that can no longer support forests because they are now too dry or too wet or too hot or too salty because of our pathetic addiction to fools fuel. Forests need a certain climate... in many areas that climate is either gone or will soon be gone.
Once the amazon reaches a tipping point that region will no longer be able to support trees that were once native there and planting more would just be a waste of time and resources.
Last edited:
Similar threads
