- Joined
- Sep 22, 2015
- Messages
- 819
And so it begins
- Thread starter baz
- Start date
KiwiShane
VIP MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2021
- Messages
- 2,377
A Realist ...sometimes reality hurts ones feelings... thankful folk like Chevy put a smile on people's faces.Are you a socialist or a capitalist? I can't tell
Or just a complainer?
What affiliation are you ?
KiwiShane
VIP MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2021
- Messages
- 2,377
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2015
- Messages
- 819
Non binary
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2010
- Messages
- 4,195
If you listen to all you'll find that these are all bad ways to power the nation:
Hydroelectric (hurts fish and water supplies)
Wind (kills birds and to some is ugly)
Solar (destroys the ecosystem of large areas)
Coal (bad for air quality)
Oil (almost as bad as coal)
Lumping all these together makes it seem like they all are in the same boat.
Hydroelectric DOES kill fish and hinders water supply
Wind power killing birds is a political bullcrap talking point
Solar destroys ecosystems (haven't heart that tinfoil hat postulate before)
Coal and oil ARE dirty and are slowly ruining the environment
So you see, lumping all these together in one statement is confusing because some things are true and some are BS.
Maybe I read it wrong, but you sure didn't put it together in any sort of factual way.
marshg246
VIP MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2015
- Messages
- 4,128
Let me be very clear - those are things people say as to why each is bad. To that list more can be added. Some factual and some wacko. The two you disagree with, I disagree with but are real in the minds of those who believe them.
I doubt that you can find a power source that no one is against! Some of the biggest wackos are 1) true wacos 2) protecting their constituents (think coal) 3) protecting their own income 4) misinformed do gooders
Solar: https://www.clean-energy-ideas.com/...s to conserve the earth’s natural resources.
Wind Power: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/environmental-impacts-wind-power
There was a proposal a few years ago to install Wind Turbines offshore of NJ, DE, MD. The outrage was huge. Even when it was made clear that they would not be visible from the beaches, the environmentalists complained - I'm happy to see that NJ is going forward with the project and it will power half a million homes (tiny dent).
Fast Eddie
VIP MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2013
- Messages
- 20,672
I’ve worked in the offshore windmill industry and was shocked.
The 25 year life expectancy simply is not met.
Turrets changes every 5 years instead of 25 (MASSIVE components inside).
Fleets of ‘platform ships’ required to do this unscheduled maintenance.
Predicted utilisations not met (like by less than 60%).
Large amount of un-recyclable material (ie blades).
And more.
It was frankly quite depressing.
The 25 year life expectancy simply is not met.
Turrets changes every 5 years instead of 25 (MASSIVE components inside).
Fleets of ‘platform ships’ required to do this unscheduled maintenance.
Predicted utilisations not met (like by less than 60%).
Large amount of un-recyclable material (ie blades).
And more.
It was frankly quite depressing.
Fast Eddie
VIP MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2013
- Messages
- 20,672
Negativity is irritating.
False positivity is dangerous !
False positivity is dangerous !
marshg246
VIP MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2015
- Messages
- 4,128
One thing nice about wind power - assuming you have the wind, is that it can be put near the need. When I left Germany in 2001 there were single turbines being installed on hilltops not usable for much else. I don't know if that has continued but I liked the idea at the time and to me they were majestic (I'm sure some say them as eyesores).
The New Jersey offshore wind farms are using a combination of seafloor mounted and floating turbines. They plan to be producing 3500 megawatts by 2030 (enough for 2 million homes). This is something interesting I found: "New Jersey now has signed off on the second-most offshore wind power of any state, behind only New York. The two projects are a 110-turbine wind farm by Atlantic Shores, which is owned by European power companies Shell New Energies US and EDF Renewables North America, and a 82-turbine farm by Ørsted called Ocean Wind 2."
marshg246
VIP MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2015
- Messages
- 4,128
The announcement was made on Tuesday as predicted and they indeed did produce more power than starting and containing the reaction took. Since its laser contained, it's now a matter of much more powerful/efficient lasers or other breakthroughs. A massive breakthrough would be magnetic containment but that's, if possible, a long way off. The Govt. facility (Lawrence Livermore national Laboratory) doing the research is quite outdated so the next breakthrough will likely be after the ITER is finished.
From a 2020 news piece: "After 35 years of painstaking preparation and countless delays, scientists have finally broken ground by kicking off the five-year assembly phase of the massive International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), the world's largest fusion reactor, in Saint-Paul-les-Durance, France.
Funded by six nations, including the US, Russia, China, India, Japan, and South Korea, ITER will be the world's largest tokamak fusion device with an estimated cost of ~$24 billion and capable of generating about 500 MW of thermal fusion energy as early as 2025. "
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 7, 2005
- Messages
- 6,819
If these Wind farms were all they were cracked up to be why is the major player in manufacturing in financial trouble.
Last week Wind was providing 1% of the UK's electricity, the answer to that problem is seemingly to build more. Well my maths even at a low level of understanding tells me that doubling Wind Turbines would get us from 1% to 2% if last weeks weather was to be repeated.
Betz law is at work here, ie always look at the physics before applying your Unicorn fart solutions.
en.wikipedia.org
According to Betz's law, no turbine can capture more than 16/27 (59.3%) of the kinetic energy in wind. The factor 16/27 (0.593) is known as Betz's coefficient. Practical utility-scale wind turbines achieve at peak 75–80% of the Betz limit.
UK onshore wind farms have utilisations of 15 to 20% annually, off shore is higher at 30 to 40% but maintenance is problematical.
Last week Wind was providing 1% of the UK's electricity, the answer to that problem is seemingly to build more. Well my maths even at a low level of understanding tells me that doubling Wind Turbines would get us from 1% to 2% if last weeks weather was to be repeated.
Betz law is at work here, ie always look at the physics before applying your Unicorn fart solutions.
Betz's law - Wikipedia
According to Betz's law, no turbine can capture more than 16/27 (59.3%) of the kinetic energy in wind. The factor 16/27 (0.593) is known as Betz's coefficient. Practical utility-scale wind turbines achieve at peak 75–80% of the Betz limit.
UK onshore wind farms have utilisations of 15 to 20% annually, off shore is higher at 30 to 40% but maintenance is problematical.
marshg246
VIP MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2015
- Messages
- 4,128
No dispute; however, a gas turbine power plant has an overall efficiency of about 35% so not a lot better.If these Wind farms were all they were cracked up to be why is the major player in manufacturing in financial trouble.
Last week Wind was providing 1% of the UK's electricity, the answer to that problem is seemingly to build more. Well my maths even at a low level of understanding tells me that doubling Wind Turbines would get us from 1% to 2% if last weeks weather was to be repeated.
Betz law is at work here, ie always look at the physics before applying your Unicorn fart solutions.
Betz's law - Wikipedia
According to Betz's law, no turbine can capture more than 16/27 (59.3%) of the kinetic energy in wind. The factor 16/27 (0.593) is known as Betz's coefficient. Practical utility-scale wind turbines achieve at peak 75–80% of the Betz limit.
UK onshore wind farms have utilisations of 15 to 20% annually, off shore is higher at 30 to 40% but maintenance is problematical.
Let me pretend to be a green energy nut for a moment. We can't rely on just one power source, we need Wind, Wave, and Solar to save the planet. Now let me switch to logical.
1) Wind: proven to provide power at a reasonable overall cost, but will never be enough to power the US, especially when the Sun goes down and the wind in most areas stops.
2) Wave: proven to provide power at a reasonable overall cost, but it not being pursued and would never provide a huge amount of power.
3) Solar: Need technological breakthroughs. If all buildings going forward had solar electric roofs, we might be able to supply a large portion of need, but that's probably a pipe dream. The Tesla Roof stands a chance if the price gets a little more competitive with shingles. It might be competitive now in countries with tiles roofs. Since the Sun is not always available, especially in winter, large, safe battery arrays are also required.
If all houses used geothermal for heat/AC, gas for additional heat, hot water, and cooking; and, your house was oriented optimally, a solar electric roof with batteries could easily handle the house's electric power requirements. That's a bunch of ifs and the Govt in many areas is trying to outlaw gas!
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2015
- Messages
- 819
And ignorance is bliss
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2015
- Messages
- 819
One size does not fit all. People don't seem to get that
And Greg, noted that you are a greenie
marshg246
VIP MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2015
- Messages
- 4,128
JA,One size does not fit all. People don't seem to get that
And Greg, noted that you are a greenie
Nope. I'm neither a greenie nor denier. Tell me something logical, especially with factual backup, and I'll agree.
From my own experience, there are coming problems with the environment and there are improvements in the environment.
Bad:
The 20 years that I owned a beach house and noticed the water getting closer to it. Glacier Nation Park having no glaciers. Fishing off the MD coast - don't bother - nothing worth catching anymore.
Good:
In the 70s I fixed copiers for a living. In the summer in DC, I would often walk breathing through my tie because the air was so terrible. I never see a bad day today and in 2022 there was only one substandard air quality day. We all hated the automobile pollution controls of the 70s, but they worked. There are now about 3 times as many cars than 1970 in the DC area and the air is clean. The DC area has no industry - almost all pollution comes from cars.
I've been that assure by some that God will do whatever it takes to resolve any environmental problems and even if not, the Earth is a big place that can handle it. I would rather be a greenie than an Ostridge with my head in the sand! I was also assured that there is no such thing as the "greenhouse effect" and that any excess heat is simply dissipated to space - when I asked why all heat does not dissipate to space, the genius reply: "It's a closed loop system".
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2013
- Messages
- 169
It seams your views have been shaped by facts and reason. Very reassuring but sadly rare on a environmental / energy discussion...JA,
Nope. I'm neither a greenie nor denier. Tell me something logical, especially with factual backup, and I'll agree.
From my own experience, there are coming problems with the environment and there are improvements in the environment.
Bad:
The 20 years that I owned a beach house and noticed the water getting closer to it. Glacier Nation Park having no glaciers. Fishing off the MD coast - don't bother - nothing worth catching anymore.
Good:
In the 70s I fixed copiers for a living. In the summer in DC, I would often walk breathing through my tie because the air was so terrible. I never see a bad day today and in 2022 there was only one substandard air quality day. We all hated the automobile pollution controls of the 70s, but they worked. There are now about 3 times as many cars than 1970 in the DC area and the air is clean. The DC area has no industry - almost all pollution comes from cars.
I've been that assure by some that God will do whatever it takes to resolve any environmental problems and even if not, the Earth is a big place that can handle it. I would rather be a greenie than an Ostridge with my head in the sand! I was also assured that there is no such thing as the "greenhouse effect" and that any excess heat is simply dissipated to space - when I asked why all heat does not dissipate to space, the genius reply: "It's a closed loop system".
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2010
- Messages
- 4,195
Those ships all end up beached in India and scrapped out. Where do you think all these repop fuel tanks come from? I wonder why wind generator props are not recyclable?I worked in the shipping industry for many years and a cargo ships life expectancy is no where near 25 yrs
They end up decommissioned long before that.
The figures I quoted etc where from a quick read of a nz news rag
Trying to stay Optimistic
News article
Plans for wind farm 22km off the coast of Raglan revealed
The wind farm off the Waikato coast - capable of eventually generating enough power for 700,000 homes - is in the feasibilty stage.www.rnz.co.nz
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2010
- Messages
- 4,195
I saw a news piece yesterday where someone has come up with a method for recycling bagged garbage from a landfill. All that remains is to figure out how to make a profit or make it illegal NOT to do it. I'm pushing 72 and proposed when I was in 6th grade that it should be illegal to produce any packaging that wasn't recyclable. We're nearly there 60 years later.
baz
VIP MEMBER
- Joined
- May 26, 2010
- Messages
- 7,280
I've never known if it were true or not but Henry Ford was said to have specified wooden packing case size from bearing suppliers so he could use them for flooring in his cars
On a basic level we used to reuse milk bottles and soft drink bottles
Etc
All these things are lost to the past!
Let's also not forget Sweden burns all of its non recyclable rubbish to generate electricity rather than send it to landfill
