Wind turbines are getting huge !

[261252]

The sweep of their blades covers 12.5 NFL football fields!

The reason to build bigger is the higher up you go the more wind as you are above standings object and the bigger the blades the slower they can go and still produce electicity so even a small wind works yet they can withstand a hurricane.

Two of the limits is the tips of the blade becoming supersonic and the logistics of transportation

Think of all the whales they will kill




China is building a wind turbine of unthinkable dimensions | Watch

 

[rouxo boe]

And nuclear is still more efficient...

 

[261252]

And nuclear is still more efficient...

Are you sure?

This one wind turbine will produce 80 GWs per year or 80 billion watts per year

One gigawatt is roughly the size of two coal-fired power plants and is enough energy to power 750,000 homes per year

Nuclear power is hugely more expensive, takes many more years to
build as well as nuclear waste and unsafe

R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant in New York is the smallest nuclear power plant in the United States, and produces 4,697,675 MWh per year

1000 mega in one giga watt

4,697,675 divided by 1000 is 4697.675 or 4697 gigawatts

4697.675 divided by 80 is 58.7

So 58 of these wind turbines is a small nuclear plant

Did I do that right ?

 

[Zoot Allures]

As a sidenote, Norway has the greatest potential for wind turbines as any country in the world as the trade winds collide into their mountains but has no use for them as they harness water for their energy and export 95 % of their oil

Their oil money goes into their soverign fund that can spend only 5% per year by law so it grows every year on investments alone

Ther soverign fund is $2 trillion USA.

NBIM, which invests the Norwegian state's revenues from oil and gas production, is one of the world's largest investors, owning on average 1.5% of all listed stocks worldwide. It also invests in bonds, real estate and renewable energy assets.

What a country

 

[boobtoucher]

And nuclear is still more efficient...

Back that up with data. A nuclear plant needs exponentially more material than a windmill. Once it's running a windmill takes no energy input, whereas a nuclear plant needs constant support / energy input..

 

[rouxo boe]

Back that up with data. A nuclear plant needs exponentially more material than a windmill. Once it's running a windmill takes no energy input, whereas a nuclear plant needs constant support / energy input..

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close

 

[Zoot Allures]

Back that up with data. A nuclear plant needs exponentially more material than a windmill. Once it's running a windmill takes no energy input, whereas a nuclear plant needs constant support / energy input..

I agree. Wind turbines must be way cheaper per watt but it is not practical to build enough to replace nuclear. All green energies combined cannot replace nuclear so we have to choose between carbon or nuclear until nuclear fusion replaces nuclear fission although 261252 claims 58 of his wind turbines is a small nuclear plant

Fission vs. fusion: What's the difference? | Live Science

 

[Zoot Allures]

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close

View attachment 401314

The debate is efficiency or value per dollar not which source produces most electricity

 

[rouxo boe]

The debate is efficiency or value per dollar not which source produces most electricity

I don't get it then my man, does that not make it more efficient?

 

[Zoot Allures]

I don't get it then my man, does that not make it more efficient?

i suspect the answer is no as windmills can not produce the huge amounts of energy as nuclear but what they can produce is cheaper but I am uncertain

Bear in mind there are additional costs to nuclear such as waste storage, decomissioning and accidents that wind turbines do not accrue

 

[K Douglas]

Are you sure?

This one wind turbine will produce 80 GWs per year or 80 billion watts per year

One gigawatt is roughly the size of two coal-fired power plants and is enough energy to power 750,000 homes per year

Nuclear power is hugely more expensive, takes many more years to
build as well as nuclear waste and unsafe

R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant in New York is the smallest nuclear power plant in the United States, and produces 4,697,675 MWh per year

1000 mega in one giga watt

4,697,675 divided by 1000 is 4697.675 or 4697 gigawatts

4697.675 divided by 80 is 58.7

So 58 of these wind turbines is a small nuclear plant

Did I do that right ?

The Bruce nuclear power plant produces 48K GWh per year. Darlington produces 24K per year. That's 72K GWh per year You would need the equivalent of 900 of these wind turbines. Where do you locate these monstrosities in city centres? And what happens when its not windy?

 

[southpaw]

The sweep of their blades covers 12.5 NFL football fields!

Maybe the Chinese are compensating for something.

 

[261252]

The Bruce nuclear power plant produces 48K GWh per year. Darlington produces 24K per year. That's 72K GWh per year You would need the equivalent of 900 of these wind turbines. Where do you locate these monstrosities in city centres?

No one is suggesting we replace nuclear with them

I believe China plans to put them in the sea which is very expensive but they produce so much power it is worth the investment

what happens when its not windy?

The reason to build bigger is the higher up you go the more wind as you are above standings object and the bigger the blades the more they can turn with little wind and still produce electicity

 

[oil&gas]

As a sidenote, Norway has the greatest potential for wind turbines as any country in the world as the trade winds collide into their mountains but has no use for them as they harness water for their energy and export 95 % of their oil

Norway, world's climate change champion, could help save
Earth from climate catastrophe by telling buyers of its oil exports
to cut back on oil imports and switch to wind energy.

 

[seanzo]

If wind and solar are the cats ass then somebody please explain to me why the German economy is cratering like it was hit by an asteroid? The sad truth is renewables are a giant con. Just look at our own energy grid in Ontario. They threw up windmills all over the province and yet the cost of energy went up, significantly, since they were built. Don't even get me started on how much oil based lubricants are needed every year to keep the damn things running, much less the amount of carbon emissions that are put into the atmosphere from building, maintaining and decommissioning after their life cycle.

 

[oil&gas]

Wind , solar power and EV are not cheap but I won't call
them scam or con. Growth of demand for costly renewable
will continue so long as it is profitable for its producers and
fighting climate change remains fashionable. Meanwhile
climate hypocrite nation like Norway will continue squeezing
its remaining fossil fuel resources until its full depletion so as
to fund Norweigians' green lifestyle with no regard to climate
impact of carbon emission generated from consumption of
its oil exports.

 

[K Douglas]

Wind , solar power and EV are not cheap but I won't call
them scam or con. Growth of demand for costly renewable
will continue so long as it is profitable for its producers and
fighting climate change remains fashionable. Meanwhile
climate hypocrite nation like Norway will continue squeezing
its remaining fossil fuel resources until its full depletion so as
to fund Norweigians' green lifestyle with no regard to climate
impact of carbon emission generated from consumption of
its oil exports.

Most of these green energy companies are not profitable. Tesla only started turning profits about 5 years ago after 17 years of being in business. Last year their profits were down 70%. The other automakers lose money on all their EV lines. Which is why some of them are scaling back or abandoning their offerings.

 

[nottyboi]

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close

View attachment 401314

Its quite funny you don't even understand what that means. Nukes are great for baseload becuase they cannot throttle up and down very quickly. So they are kept at max output for most of the time. The others are all different. NG is the most flexible, wind and solar have other well known dependancies. But you don't account for the long maint downtimes of nukes. Probably deleted from these stats.

 

[nottyboi]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

As you can see there are some vary varied cost for wind and solar, so why not pluck the low hanging fruit?

 

[seanzo]

Wind , solar power and EV are not cheap but I won't call
them scam or con. Growth of demand for costly renewable
will continue so long as it is profitable for its producers and
fighting climate change remains fashionable. Meanwhile
climate hypocrite nation like Norway will continue squeezing
its remaining fossil fuel resources until its full depletion so as
to fund Norweigians' green lifestyle with no regard to climate
impact of carbon emission generated from consumption of
its oil exports.

Renewables are advertised as green or 'good for the environment' but when you actually take a look behind facade and see how the sausage is made you will immediately find that they are anything but good for the environment. That is the very definition of a con. Now I'm not going to sit here and say that renewables don't serve any purpose at all. Solar is definitely useful, especially if you are off grid, but clearing acres of what was previously fertile farm land to put up a solar farm is dumb. If you were truly concerned about the environment, rewinding that land or using permaculture to create sustainable harvests is a far better idea. As for EVs, sure they are great in certain circumstances like if you live in a city that has a fair climate but to force all internal combustion engines off the road doesn't serve any real purpose other than making life infinitely more difficult. An EV transport truck is going to run into problems on the high plains in winter. Wind is just plain useless however. Especially for any industrial economy.

Cheap energy is absolutely necessary for industry and you'll never get that out of wind. As for the whole carbon debate, it's a little disingenuous to claim that carbon emissions need to be reduced in Canada or any other western nation while at the same time completely ignoring the emissions that go into making these so called green alternatives and nations like China and India who's power grids rely heavily on coal. Now consider that China is basically the sole exporter of solar panels as an example and those emissions you are purportedly reducing are in reality being exported elsewhere. The carbon still makes it into the atmosphere, it simply happens in a place where you don't see it. The single most glaring indictment of the environmental movement is their silence in the wake of the Nord Stream pipelines being blown up by the Americans, it was the single largest man made emission of carbon into the atmosphere and nobody gave a shit about it.