Manufactruiring emissions are present regardless of what generation source you use. The chart I postes shows wind can provide the lowest cost of power (given the most favorble install locations) . Over the lifetime, you are not burning any fuel, so with solar or wind the carbon footprint is lower and solar and wind absorb energy from the sun/wind rather then releasing more energy in terms of nuclear reactions or buring fuel They are gathering energy rather then releasing more stored energy, same with hydro.
Wind turbines are getting huge !
- Thread starter 261252
- Start date
Manufactruiring emissions are present regardless of what generation source you use. The chart I postes shows wind can provide the lowest cost of power (given the most favorble install locations) . Over the lifetime, you are not burning any fuel, so with solar or wind the carbon footprint is lower and solar and wind absorb energy from the sun/wind rather then releasing more energy in terms of nuclear reactions or buring fuel They are gathering energy rather then releasing more stored energy, same with hydro.
Energy is no longer cheap.
Not too long ago crude oil trading near $30 was considered
unacceptably expensive. Those days are long gone.
$50--$70 oil has not capped global economic growth in the last
2 decades only because China and the rest of the developing world
can prosper on a more frugal lifestyle by comparison to the living
standard of the west.
At some point the whole world will have to live on renewable
energy not because it is cheap and clean though. Fossil fuel
being a limited resource will only become more costly until it
is no longer affordable.
I wonder if the $12 billion Bay Du Nord deep water oil drilling project
offshore Newfoundland approved by Steven Guilbeault with the support
of Trudeau, Freeland and Wilkinson is less economical than a $12 billion
project of offshore wind power construction in its place.
My guess is Trudeau and his liberals dumb they were did understand
offshore wind power was not worth the risk of losing money.
What makes you think that place is a good for offshore wind, its far too deep and far too far for offshore wind. Its not even a great place to drill for oil, but the oil is there and money can be made extracting it.
Its 500 km off shore and in over 1000m of water. No one would build a windfarm there so saying they decided one over another is even more dumb then they are.
Actually there are offshore wind power developments in
Newfoundland. You don't have to plant wind turbines in
exactly the same spots where oil is drilled. Capital deployed
most likely won't be anywhere close to $12 billion though.
Newfoundland and Labrador is positioning itself as the primary benefactor and regulator when it comes to offshore wind developments in the province — but the deal hinges on federal legislation passing in Ottawa.
The memorandum of understanding with the federal government identifies 16 bays as exclusive provincial jurisdiction, allowing the province to develop wind farms as though they were on land.
...........................................................
Newfoundland. You don't have to plant wind turbines in
exactly the same spots where oil is drilled. Capital deployed
most likely won't be anywhere close to $12 billion though.
Newfoundland and Labrador is positioning itself as the primary benefactor and regulator when it comes to offshore wind developments in the province — but the deal hinges on federal legislation passing in Ottawa.
The memorandum of understanding with the federal government identifies 16 bays as exclusive provincial jurisdiction, allowing the province to develop wind farms as though they were on land.
...........................................................
As I said, not one over the other. There are much better places to put the wind farms, where there is wind, shallow water and as close to land as possible so you don't have to send the power too far.
Renewable energy is a scam... We are getting into a future with more and more energy demand by the day
