Solution to all the world's problems: wind power

Micawber

Verified User
"ADVANTAGES OF WIND POWER
Wind energy is a clean fuel source. Wind energy doesn't pollute the air like power plants that rely on combustion of fossil fuels, such as coal or natural gas. Wind turbines don't produce atmospheric emissions that increase health problems like asthma or create acid rain or greenhouse gases. According to the Wind Vision Report, wind has the potential to reduce cumulative greenhouse gas emissions by 14%, saving $400 billion in avoided global damage by 2050.
Wind power does not use water, unlike conventional electricity sources. Producing nuclear, coal, or gas-fired power uses water for cooling. Water is becoming a scarce resource all over the country. Wind power uses zero water in its energy generation.
Wind is a domestic source of energy. The nation's wind supply is abundant. Over the past 10 years, wind capacity increased an average of 31% per year, reaching a cumulative capacity of over 75,000 MW in 2016, enough to power over 20 million homes. Wind power is the largest source of annual new generating capacity, well ahead of the next two leading sources, solar power and natural gas.
Wind power is inexhaustible. Wind is actually a form of solar energy. Winds are caused by the heating of the atmosphere by the sun, the rotation of the Earth, and the Earth's surface irregularities. For as long as the sun shines and the wind blows, the energy produced can be harnessed to send power across the grid.
Wind power is cost-effective. It is one of the lowest-cost renewable energy technologies available today, with power prices offered by newly built wind farms averaging 2 cents per kilowatt-hour, depending on the wind resource and the particular project’s financing. Even without government subsidies, wind power is a low-cost fuel in many areas of the country.
Wind turbines can be built on existing farms or ranches. This greatly benefits the economy in rural areas, where most of the best wind sites are found. Farmers and ranchers can continue to work the land because the wind turbines use only a fraction of the acreage. Wind power plant owners make rent payments to the farmer or rancher for the use of the land, providing landowners with additional income. In 2015, annual land lease payments in the United States were estimated to total $222 million. This additional income provides the agricultural community an avenue to diversify revenue and reduce reliance on uncertain commodity prices. According to the Wind Vision Report, annual land lease income for rural American landowners could increase to $1 billion by 2050.
Wind creates jobs. In 2016, the wind energy sector invested more than $8.8 billion of private capital in the U.S. economy to build projects and employed more than 101,000 workers (approximately 30% women, 11% veterans, and 25% minorities), according to the 2017 U.S. Energy and Employment Report. More than 8,800 technicians were employed in 2015 to monitor and maintain wind turbines, and this profession is expected to grow by 108% in the next decade, making it the country’s fastest-growing occupation (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics). According to the Wind Vision Report, wind has the potential to support more than 600,000 jobs in manufacturing, installation, maintenance, and supporting services by 2050."

Department of energy
 
the way I understand it is that wind is the most space intensive out of all the power methods. Like you need the most physical space for it. With the way global population is rising exponentially i doubt its the solution.
 
It's not the solution, nothing says we shouldn't have wind power, solar power, and whatever else kind of power we can find to be more planet friendly.
But you still need fossil fuels, and the US being out front of that fact shows a grip on reality.
 
"How Much CO2 Gets Emitted to Build a Wind Turbine?
August 16, 2014


The ONLY justification for wind power – the massive subsidies upon which it entirely depends (see our post here); spiralling power prices (see our post here); and the suffering caused to neighbours by incessant low-frequency noise and infrasound (see our post here) – is the claim that it reduces CO2 emissions in the electricity sector.
STT has pointed out – just once or twice – that that claim is nothing more than a central, endlessly repeated lie.
Because wind power fails to deliver at all hundreds of times each year, 100% of its capacity has to be backed up 100% of the time by fossil fuel generation sources – which run constantly in the background to balance the grid and prevent blackouts when wind power output collapses – as it does on a routine, but unpredictable, basis (see our posts here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). And for more recent woeful ‘efforts’:
The Wind Power Fraud (in pictures): Part 1 – the South Australian Wind Farm Fiasco
The Wind Power Fraud (in pictures): Part 2 – The Whole Eastern Grid Debacle
The mountains of dismal hard data tends to cut against the wilder claims emanating from the wind-worship-cult compounds that wind power ‘displaces’ – and will eventually ‘replace’ – conventional generation sources, but the ‘threat’ to BIG COAL, BIG GAS & BIG OIL is more imagined than real:
Why Coal Miners, Oil and Gas Producers Simply Love Wind Power
Even before the blades start spinning – the average wind farm clocks up thousands of tonnes of CO2 emissions: “embedded” in thousands of tonnes of steel and concrete. So, every wind farm starts with its CO2 abatement ledger in the negative.
Here’s Andy’s Rant with a breakdown of just how much CO2 goes to build one of these things.
So what’s the carbon foot print of a wind turbine with 45 tons of rebar & 481m3 of concrete?

Its carbon footprint is massive – try 241.85 tons of CO2.
Here’s the breakdown of the CO2 numbers.
To create a 1,000 Kg of pig iron, you start with 1,800 Kg of iron ore, 900 Kg of coking coal 450 Kg of limestone. The blast furnace consumes 4,500 Kg of air. The temperature at the core of the blast furnace reaches nearly 1,600 degrees C (about 3,000 degrees F).
The pig iron is then transferred to the basic oxygen furnace to make steel.
1,350 Kg of CO2 is emitted per 1,000 Kg pig iron produced.
A further 1,460 Kg CO2 is emitted per 1,000 Kg of Steel produced so all up 2,810 Kg CO2 is emitted.
45 tons of rebar (steel) are required so that equals 126.45 tons of CO2 are emitted.
To create a 1,000 Kg of Portland cement, calcium carbonate (60%), silicon (20%), aluminium (10%), iron (10%) and very small amounts of other ingredients are heated in a large kiln to over 1,500 degrees C to convert the raw materials into clinker. The clinker is then interground with other ingredients to produce the final cement product. When cement is mixed with water, sand and gravel forms the rock-like mass know as concrete.
An average of 927 Kg of CO2 is emitted per 1,000 Kg of Portland cement. On average, concrete has 10% cement, with the balance being gravel (41%), sand (25%), water (18%) and air (6%). One cubic metre of concrete weighs approx. 2,400 Kg so approx. 240 Kg of CO2 is emitted for every cubic metre.
481m3 of concrete are required so that equals 115.4 tons of CO2 are emitted.
Now I have not included the emissions of the mining of the raw materials or the transportation of the fabricated materials to the turbine site so the emission calculation above would be on the low end at best.
Extra stats about wind turbines you may not know about:
The average towering wind turbine being installed around beautiful Australia right now is over 80 metres in height (nearly the same height as the pylons on the Sydney Harbour Bridge). The rotor assembly for one turbine – that’s the blades and hub – weighs over 22,000 Kg and the nacelle, which contains the generator components, weighs over 52,000 Kg.
All this stands on a concrete base constructed from 45,000 Kg of reinforcing rebar which also contains over 481 cubic metres of concrete (that’s over 481,000 litres of concrete – about 20% of the volume of an Olympic swimming pool).
steel in turbine
Each turbine blade is made of glass fibre reinforced plastics, (GRP), i.e. glass fibre reinforced polyester or epoxy and on average each turbine blade weighs around 7,000 Kg each.
Each turbine has three blades so there’s 21,000 Kgs of GRP and each blade can be as long as 50 metres.
A typical wind farm of 20 turbines can extend over 101 hectares of land (1.01 Km2).
Each and every wind turbine has a magnet made of a metal called neodymium. There are 2,500 Kg of it in each of the behemoths that have just gone up around Australia.
The mining and refining of neodymium is so dirty and toxic – involving repeated boiling in acid, with radioactive thorium as a waste product – that only one country does it – China. (See our posts here and here).
All this for an intermittent highly unreliable energy source.
And I haven’t even considered the manufacture of the thousands of pylons and tens of thousands of kilometres of transmission wire needed to get the power to the grid. And what about the land space needed to house thousands of these bird chomping death machines?
You see, renewables like wind turbines will incur far more carbon dioxide emissions in their manufacture and installation than what their operational life will ever save.
Maybe it’s just me, but doesn’t the “cure” of using wind turbines sound worse than the problem? A bit like amputating your leg to “cure” your in-growing toe nail?
Metal emission stats from page 25 from the 2006 IPCC Chapter 4 Metal Industry Emissions report."

https://stopthesethings.com/2014/08/16/how-much-co2-gets-emitted-to-build-a-wind-turbine/
 
Because like Republicans they lack nimble executory function which would allow them to navigate in modern society.

So you admit to hating birds along with a very large percentage of American citizens. How refreshing for a liberal to admit that.
 
So you admit to hating birds along with a very large percentage of American citizens. How refreshing for a liberal to admit that.

And of course, the most liberal of liberals, NIMBY Ted "Splash" Kennedy fought against wind mills because they messed up his view and property value. :palm:
 
BigDog, that story about wind creating more CO2 has been widely debunked. It's really alarmist nonsense. You need to research it more.

And it doesn't undermine the OP regardless. Computers used to take up entire rooms. Harnessing alternative sources of energy will only get more refined and efficient as time goes on.
 
BigDog, that story about wind creating more CO2 has been widely debunked. It's really alarmist nonsense. You need to research it more.

And it doesn't undermine the OP regardless. Computers used to take up entire rooms. Harnessing alternative sources of energy will only get more refined and efficient as time goes on.

The idea that "scientists" can predict the climate a 100 years into the future has been widely debunked.
 
For 100's of million of years, life on the planet has been fueled by atmospheric CO2, and now that fuel is almost depleted.
 
Wind produces less than 6% of the total electricity in the US, you think from these braggarts that it was 30% or more!!

Major energy sources and percent shares of U.S. electricity generation at utility-scale facilities in 2016

Natural gas = 33.8%
Coal = 30.4%
Nuclear = 19.7%
Renewables = 14.9%
Hydropower = 6.5%
Wind = 5.6%
Biomass = 1.5%
Solar = 0.9%
Geothermal = 0.4%
Petroleum = 0.6%
Other gases = 0.3%
Other nonrenewable sources = 0.3%
Pumped storage hydroelectricity =-0.2%4

Sent from my iPhone 10S
 
the way I understand it is that wind is the most space intensive out of all the power methods. Like you need the most physical space for it. With the way global population is rising exponentially i doubt its the solution.

Not even close.
Solar thermal generation is by gar the most land intense which is one reason they are invariably built on worthless dessert land.
Windmills allow the continued use of the land they are built upon.
Read the OP for fuck's sake.
 
the way I understand it is that wind is the most space intensive out of all the power methods. Like you need the most physical space for it. With the way global population is rising exponentially i doubt its the solution.

The government article partially addresses that limitation by noting that it coexists well on land already dedicated to use, as for example farms.
 
BigDog, that story about wind creating more CO2 has been widely debunked. It's really alarmist nonsense. You need to research it more.

And it doesn't undermine the OP regardless. Computers used to take up entire rooms. Harnessing alternative sources of energy will only get more refined and efficient as time goes on.
It is certainly true that if you include the need for dispatchable power like CCGT to be available at all times then it is highly dubious that turbines save any CO2.

Sent from my iPhone 10S
 
Back
Top