Remember me
▼ Content

Renewable Energy



Page 1 of 212>
Renewable Energy30-10-2018 03:30
Zero Carbon Emissions
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
I am an average I'll informed individual, that has heard a lot of discussion about electricity prices, future demand, solar, wind, coal, batteries, coal power and gas.
But I don't understand how we achieve zero emissions and I believe this is the target we should be aiming for.
Solar and wind are essential but incomplete, how do we supplement these sources at night when the wind isn't blowing.
Has away got an fully costed and feasible answer?
30-10-2018 05:08
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
Zero Carbon Emissions wrote:
.....fully costed and feasible answer?


Not that I've seen.

I'm not that well informed on the subject, but I don't recall seeing such a thing. Lot's of partial answers, but nothing that I've seen seemed both feasible and complete that included costs.

Keeping the lights on all the time using only renewables would be really hard even with lots of battery capacity, especially if most transportation and space heating is electrified. Would have to way overbuild "nameplate capacity" so as to be able to get through cloudy windless periods. Who pays for the overbuild?

Don't know how places like Fairbanks would get through the winter months.

Including nuclear or CCS baseload would make things easier. Except for France, nuclear is unpopular and expensive. CCS remains unproven and seems like it'll be expensive.

To me, cutting CO2 emissions in half is straightforward once there is a cost attached to CO2 emissions. Beyond that it gets harder. The last 10% really hard and maybe not necessary or even a good idea.
30-10-2018 11:15
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
Zero Carbon Emissions wrote:
I am an average I'll informed individual, that has heard a lot of discussion about electricity prices, future demand, solar, wind, coal, batteries, coal power and gas.
But I don't understand how we achieve zero emissions and I believe this is the target we should be aiming for.
Solar and wind are essential but incomplete, how do we supplement these sources at night when the wind isn't blowing.
Has away got an fully costed and feasible answer?


As it happens yes;

http://basicwindtec.webstarts.com/

I am looking for investors/partners to make thic commercial.

Should make electricty at less than 4p/kWhr.

Edited on 30-10-2018 11:15
01-11-2018 00:09
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Zero Carbon Emissions wrote:
I am an average I'll informed individual, that has heard a lot of discussion about electricity prices, future demand, solar, wind, coal, batteries, coal power and gas.
But I don't understand how we achieve zero emissions and I believe this is the target we should be aiming for.
Solar and wind are essential but incomplete, how do we supplement these sources at night when the wind isn't blowing.
Has away got an fully costed and feasible answer?


As it happens yes;

http://basicwindtec.webstarts.com/

I am looking for investors/partners to make thic commercial.

Should make electricty at less than 4p/kWhr.

That particular setup is horribly inefficient. Improvements could be made but turning the wind 90 degrees knocks somewhere like half the efficiency off.

You CAN improve that but not by much. The way it works is to compress the incoming air to increase the air velocity through the turbine. This makes it even more reliant upon wind speed than a normal very large diameter three bladed present day windmill.

The reason they supposedly changed from the multiblade windmills to the present type is because they were getting a lot of bird deaths of the most important and smallest population birds such as large eagles and such.

The point they missed - those new windmills are HUGE. The wingspan of them is about as wide as the US White House or the English House of Parliments. They may LOOK like they are turning slow but they are not. The tip speeds in a wind necessary for generating electricity near capacity is 200 mph. That is so fast that these new windmills are actually killing more raptors. Even hummingbirds cannot dodge the tips.

More importantly perhaps is that they are generating an aerodynamic noise at the ends of the blade that is so loud that at nighttime they kill the insectivorous bats. This in turn has totally changed the environment around these windmills. And because they are not in continuous operation the new environment is not and cannot stabilize. These things are even worse for the environment than the old smaller diameter blades.
01-11-2018 03:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8003)
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Zero Carbon Emissions wrote:
I am an average I'll informed individual, that has heard a lot of discussion about electricity prices, future demand, solar, wind, coal, batteries, coal power and gas.
But I don't understand how we achieve zero emissions and I believe this is the target we should be aiming for.
Solar and wind are essential but incomplete, how do we supplement these sources at night when the wind isn't blowing.
Has away got an fully costed and feasible answer?


As it happens yes;

http://basicwindtec.webstarts.com/

I am looking for investors/partners to make thic commercial.

Should make electricty at less than 4p/kWhr.

That particular setup is horribly inefficient. Improvements could be made but turning the wind 90 degrees knocks somewhere like half the efficiency off.

You CAN improve that but not by much. The way it works is to compress the incoming air to increase the air velocity through the turbine. This makes it even more reliant upon wind speed than a normal very large diameter three bladed present day windmill.

The reason they supposedly changed from the multiblade windmills to the present type is because they were getting a lot of bird deaths of the most important and smallest population birds such as large eagles and such.

The point they missed - those new windmills are HUGE. The wingspan of them is about as wide as the US White House or the English House of Parliments. They may LOOK like they are turning slow but they are not. The tip speeds in a wind necessary for generating electricity near capacity is 200 mph. That is so fast that these new windmills are actually killing more raptors. Even hummingbirds cannot dodge the tips.

More importantly perhaps is that they are generating an aerodynamic noise at the ends of the blade that is so loud that at nighttime they kill the insectivorous bats. This in turn has totally changed the environment around these windmills. And because they are not in continuous operation the new environment is not and cannot stabilize. These things are even worse for the environment than the old smaller diameter blades.

Heh. A raptor is faster than any hummingbird.


The Parrot Killer
01-11-2018 11:41
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Zero Carbon Emissions wrote:
I am an average I'll informed individual, that has heard a lot of discussion about electricity prices, future demand, solar, wind, coal, batteries, coal power and gas.
But I don't understand how we achieve zero emissions and I believe this is the target we should be aiming for.
Solar and wind are essential but incomplete, how do we supplement these sources at night when the wind isn't blowing.
Has away got an fully costed and feasible answer?


As it happens yes;

http://basicwindtec.webstarts.com/

I am looking for investors/partners to make thic commercial.

Should make electricty at less than 4p/kWhr.

That particular setup is horribly inefficient. Improvements could be made but turning the wind 90 degrees knocks somewhere like half the efficiency off.

You CAN improve that but not by much. The way it works is to compress the incoming air to increase the air velocity through the turbine. This makes it even more reliant upon wind speed than a normal very large diameter three bladed present day windmill.

The reason they supposedly changed from the multiblade windmills to the present type is because they were getting a lot of bird deaths of the most important and smallest population birds such as large eagles and such.

The point they missed - those new windmills are HUGE. The wingspan of them is about as wide as the US White House or the English House of Parliments. They may LOOK like they are turning slow but they are not. The tip speeds in a wind necessary for generating electricity near capacity is 200 mph. That is so fast that these new windmills are actually killing more raptors. Even hummingbirds cannot dodge the tips.

More importantly perhaps is that they are generating an aerodynamic noise at the ends of the blade that is so loud that at nighttime they kill the insectivorous bats. This in turn has totally changed the environment around these windmills. And because they are not in continuous operation the new environment is not and cannot stabilize. These things are even worse for the environment than the old smaller diameter blades.


The present 3 blded turbines dream of getting to 25% efficency.

The results from my basic prototype suggest that it may be possible to get a higher efficency than that.

The only place I have a pressure sensor in it is the rain water outlet which has a U bend trap to stop the wind escaping out through the rain water outlet.

The level of the water in it will be pushed about by pressure differentials across the turbine compared to the general outside air.

When it is running the pressure differential s zero. Even when gusts come and go the pressure is unchanged. This means that the wind passing he structure on the outside is sucking the air out as much as the wind is driving the air in.

It is possible that the efficency will be spectacularly high compared to existing designs.

That is, however, not really important. The figure that matters is the cost per kWhr. The energy in wind power is proportionat to the cube of the velocity. So if the design I have needs 50% more power that would be a slight increase in wind speed. The benefits of not having to shut down in high winds are more than enough to make it better.

That the design is cheap and easy to maintain is the real reason why it will be sucessful.
01-11-2018 16:39
Jeffvw
★☆☆☆☆
(84)
Zero Carbon Emissions wrote:
I am an average I'll informed individual, that has heard a lot of discussion about electricity prices, future demand, solar, wind, coal, batteries, coal power and gas.
But I don't understand how we achieve zero emissions and I believe this is the target we should be aiming for.
Solar and wind are essential but incomplete, how do we supplement these sources at night when the wind isn't blowing.
Has away got an fully costed and feasible answer?

There are only two zero emissions power sources that are cost effective; nuclear and hydro. Solar and wind are intermittent and therefore will not be useful until someone discovers a way to economically store power (batteries are currently 5x more expensive that they need to be to compete with natural gas). Nuclear is only cost effective if it is allowed to run 7x24, so it is not compatible with wind and solar.

From and technical and economic standpoint, the best thing to do is use nuclear for all of your baseload, and hydro for everything else. Nuclear has the disadvantage of being feared and therefore overregulated, which makes it more expensive than it needs to be. Hydro also has lots of opposition and does not work well in deserts and very flat locations.

Intermittent power sources such as wind and solar have the disadvantage of needing 100% backup from Natural gas (or some other source that can respond quickly to rapid changes in solar output such as drops caused by clouds), hence they simply add cost to a system. It is cheaper to have an efficient natural gas plant running 85% of the time than to have solar running 25% of the time with a backup quick ramping inefficient natural gas plant running 64% of the time.

If you are concerned about price and zero emissions, push for nuclear and hydro and avoid intermittent power sources. Also remember that natural gas has less CO2 emissions than coal.
01-11-2018 18:11
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8003)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Zero Carbon Emissions wrote:
I am an average I'll informed individual, that has heard a lot of discussion about electricity prices, future demand, solar, wind, coal, batteries, coal power and gas.
But I don't understand how we achieve zero emissions and I believe this is the target we should be aiming for.
Solar and wind are essential but incomplete, how do we supplement these sources at night when the wind isn't blowing.
Has away got an fully costed and feasible answer?


As it happens yes;

http://basicwindtec.webstarts.com/

I am looking for investors/partners to make thic commercial.

Should make electricty at less than 4p/kWhr.

That particular setup is horribly inefficient. Improvements could be made but turning the wind 90 degrees knocks somewhere like half the efficiency off.

You CAN improve that but not by much. The way it works is to compress the incoming air to increase the air velocity through the turbine. This makes it even more reliant upon wind speed than a normal very large diameter three bladed present day windmill.

The reason they supposedly changed from the multiblade windmills to the present type is because they were getting a lot of bird deaths of the most important and smallest population birds such as large eagles and such.

The point they missed - those new windmills are HUGE. The wingspan of them is about as wide as the US White House or the English House of Parliments. They may LOOK like they are turning slow but they are not. The tip speeds in a wind necessary for generating electricity near capacity is 200 mph. That is so fast that these new windmills are actually killing more raptors. Even hummingbirds cannot dodge the tips.

More importantly perhaps is that they are generating an aerodynamic noise at the ends of the blade that is so loud that at nighttime they kill the insectivorous bats. This in turn has totally changed the environment around these windmills. And because they are not in continuous operation the new environment is not and cannot stabilize. These things are even worse for the environment than the old smaller diameter blades.


The present 3 blded turbines dream of getting to 25% efficency.

The results from my basic prototype suggest that it may be possible to get a higher efficency than that.

The only place I have a pressure sensor in it is the rain water outlet which has a U bend trap to stop the wind escaping out through the rain water outlet.

The level of the water in it will be pushed about by pressure differentials across the turbine compared to the general outside air.

When it is running the pressure differential s zero. Even when gusts come and go the pressure is unchanged. This means that the wind passing he structure on the outside is sucking the air out as much as the wind is driving the air in.

It is possible that the efficency will be spectacularly high compared to existing designs.

That is, however, not really important. The figure that matters is the cost per kWhr. The energy in wind power is proportionat to the cube of the velocity. So if the design I have needs 50% more power that would be a slight increase in wind speed. The benefits of not having to shut down in high winds are more than enough to make it better.

That the design is cheap and easy to maintain is the real reason why it will be sucessful.

If the pressure differential is zero than how can it be running?


The Parrot Killer
01-11-2018 18:25
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Zero Carbon Emissions wrote:
I am an average I'll informed individual, that has heard a lot of discussion about electricity prices, future demand, solar, wind, coal, batteries, coal power and gas.
But I don't understand how we achieve zero emissions and I believe this is the target we should be aiming for.
Solar and wind are essential but incomplete, how do we supplement these sources at night when the wind isn't blowing.
Has away got an fully costed and feasible answer?


As it happens yes;

http://basicwindtec.webstarts.com/

I am looking for investors/partners to make thic commercial.

Should make electricty at less than 4p/kWhr.

That particular setup is horribly inefficient. Improvements could be made but turning the wind 90 degrees knocks somewhere like half the efficiency off.

You CAN improve that but not by much. The way it works is to compress the incoming air to increase the air velocity through the turbine. This makes it even more reliant upon wind speed than a normal very large diameter three bladed present day windmill.

The reason they supposedly changed from the multiblade windmills to the present type is because they were getting a lot of bird deaths of the most important and smallest population birds such as large eagles and such.

The point they missed - those new windmills are HUGE. The wingspan of them is about as wide as the US White House or the English House of Parliments. They may LOOK like they are turning slow but they are not. The tip speeds in a wind necessary for generating electricity near capacity is 200 mph. That is so fast that these new windmills are actually killing more raptors. Even hummingbirds cannot dodge the tips.

More importantly perhaps is that they are generating an aerodynamic noise at the ends of the blade that is so loud that at nighttime they kill the insectivorous bats. This in turn has totally changed the environment around these windmills. And because they are not in continuous operation the new environment is not and cannot stabilize. These things are even worse for the environment than the old smaller diameter blades.


The present 3 blded turbines dream of getting to 25% efficency.

The results from my basic prototype suggest that it may be possible to get a higher efficency than that.

The only place I have a pressure sensor in it is the rain water outlet which has a U bend trap to stop the wind escaping out through the rain water outlet.

The level of the water in it will be pushed about by pressure differentials across the turbine compared to the general outside air.

When it is running the pressure differential s zero. Even when gusts come and go the pressure is unchanged. This means that the wind passing he structure on the outside is sucking the air out as much as the wind is driving the air in.

It is possible that the efficency will be spectacularly high compared to existing designs.

That is, however, not really important. The figure that matters is the cost per kWhr. The energy in wind power is proportionat to the cube of the velocity. So if the design I have needs 50% more power that would be a slight increase in wind speed. The benefits of not having to shut down in high winds are more than enough to make it better.

That the design is cheap and easy to maintain is the real reason why it will be sucessful.

If the pressure differential is zero than how can it be running?


The suction effect from the wind going past the sides of the structure creates a low pressure zone behind the cowl. This or the speed it is going past the water in the u bend makes the air pressure lower.

Or ?
01-11-2018 18:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8003)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Zero Carbon Emissions wrote:
I am an average I'll informed individual, that has heard a lot of discussion about electricity prices, future demand, solar, wind, coal, batteries, coal power and gas.
But I don't understand how we achieve zero emissions and I believe this is the target we should be aiming for.
Solar and wind are essential but incomplete, how do we supplement these sources at night when the wind isn't blowing.
Has away got an fully costed and feasible answer?


As it happens yes;

http://basicwindtec.webstarts.com/

I am looking for investors/partners to make thic commercial.

Should make electricty at less than 4p/kWhr.

That particular setup is horribly inefficient. Improvements could be made but turning the wind 90 degrees knocks somewhere like half the efficiency off.

You CAN improve that but not by much. The way it works is to compress the incoming air to increase the air velocity through the turbine. This makes it even more reliant upon wind speed than a normal very large diameter three bladed present day windmill.

The reason they supposedly changed from the multiblade windmills to the present type is because they were getting a lot of bird deaths of the most important and smallest population birds such as large eagles and such.

The point they missed - those new windmills are HUGE. The wingspan of them is about as wide as the US White House or the English House of Parliments. They may LOOK like they are turning slow but they are not. The tip speeds in a wind necessary for generating electricity near capacity is 200 mph. That is so fast that these new windmills are actually killing more raptors. Even hummingbirds cannot dodge the tips.

More importantly perhaps is that they are generating an aerodynamic noise at the ends of the blade that is so loud that at nighttime they kill the insectivorous bats. This in turn has totally changed the environment around these windmills. And because they are not in continuous operation the new environment is not and cannot stabilize. These things are even worse for the environment than the old smaller diameter blades.


The present 3 blded turbines dream of getting to 25% efficency.

The results from my basic prototype suggest that it may be possible to get a higher efficency than that.

The only place I have a pressure sensor in it is the rain water outlet which has a U bend trap to stop the wind escaping out through the rain water outlet.

The level of the water in it will be pushed about by pressure differentials across the turbine compared to the general outside air.

When it is running the pressure differential s zero. Even when gusts come and go the pressure is unchanged. This means that the wind passing he structure on the outside is sucking the air out as much as the wind is driving the air in.

It is possible that the efficency will be spectacularly high compared to existing designs.

That is, however, not really important. The figure that matters is the cost per kWhr. The energy in wind power is proportionat to the cube of the velocity. So if the design I have needs 50% more power that would be a slight increase in wind speed. The benefits of not having to shut down in high winds are more than enough to make it better.

That the design is cheap and easy to maintain is the real reason why it will be sucessful.

If the pressure differential is zero than how can it be running?


The suction effect from the wind going past the sides of the structure creates a low pressure zone behind the cowl. This or the speed it is going past the water in the u bend makes the air pressure lower.

Or ?


Okay, but that's pressure differential the innards of the machine depends on to extract energy from, isn't it?

This may seem a bit nit picky, but it's the kind of question you're going to have to answer in order to sell the concept for this machine. Just beware of the 'zero pressure differential' phrase. It's not correct. The use of it can torpedo your sales pitch.

It's going to difficult enough to break into the wind generator biz with a machine that is so different from the giant propeller systems now in use.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 01-11-2018 18:51
01-11-2018 19:02
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Zero Carbon Emissions wrote:
I am an average I'll informed individual, that has heard a lot of discussion about electricity prices, future demand, solar, wind, coal, batteries, coal power and gas.
But I don't understand how we achieve zero emissions and I believe this is the target we should be aiming for.
Solar and wind are essential but incomplete, how do we supplement these sources at night when the wind isn't blowing.
Has away got an fully costed and feasible answer?


As it happens yes;

http://basicwindtec.webstarts.com/

I am looking for investors/partners to make thic commercial.

Should make electricty at less than 4p/kWhr.

That particular setup is horribly inefficient. Improvements could be made but turning the wind 90 degrees knocks somewhere like half the efficiency off.

You CAN improve that but not by much. The way it works is to compress the incoming air to increase the air velocity through the turbine. This makes it even more reliant upon wind speed than a normal very large diameter three bladed present day windmill.

The reason they supposedly changed from the multiblade windmills to the present type is because they were getting a lot of bird deaths of the most important and smallest population birds such as large eagles and such.

The point they missed - those new windmills are HUGE. The wingspan of them is about as wide as the US White House or the English House of Parliments. They may LOOK like they are turning slow but they are not. The tip speeds in a wind necessary for generating electricity near capacity is 200 mph. That is so fast that these new windmills are actually killing more raptors. Even hummingbirds cannot dodge the tips.

More importantly perhaps is that they are generating an aerodynamic noise at the ends of the blade that is so loud that at nighttime they kill the insectivorous bats. This in turn has totally changed the environment around these windmills. And because they are not in continuous operation the new environment is not and cannot stabilize. These things are even worse for the environment than the old smaller diameter blades.


The present 3 blded turbines dream of getting to 25% efficency.

The results from my basic prototype suggest that it may be possible to get a higher efficency than that.

The only place I have a pressure sensor in it is the rain water outlet which has a U bend trap to stop the wind escaping out through the rain water outlet.

The level of the water in it will be pushed about by pressure differentials across the turbine compared to the general outside air.

When it is running the pressure differential s zero. Even when gusts come and go the pressure is unchanged. This means that the wind passing he structure on the outside is sucking the air out as much as the wind is driving the air in.

It is possible that the efficency will be spectacularly high compared to existing designs.

That is, however, not really important. The figure that matters is the cost per kWhr. The energy in wind power is proportionat to the cube of the velocity. So if the design I have needs 50% more power that would be a slight increase in wind speed. The benefits of not having to shut down in high winds are more than enough to make it better.

That the design is cheap and easy to maintain is the real reason why it will be sucessful.

If the pressure differential is zero than how can it be running?


The suction effect from the wind going past the sides of the structure creates a low pressure zone behind the cowl. This or the speed it is going past the water in the u bend makes the air pressure lower.

Or ?


Okay, but that's pressure differential the innards of the machine depends on to extract energy from, isn't it?

This may seem a bit nit picky, but it's the kind of question you're going to have to answer in order to sell the concept for this machine. Just beware of the 'zero pressure differential' phrase. It's not correct. The use of it can torpedo your sales pitch.

It's going to difficult enough to break into the wind generator biz with a machine that is so different from the giant propeller systems now in use.


I know it is weird. And a prilinary result but very promising.

The point of measurement is before the wind has driven the turbine but after it has done all the turns before entering it and been swept sideways by the director vanes that induce the spin.
01-11-2018 20:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8003)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Zero Carbon Emissions wrote:
I am an average I'll informed individual, that has heard a lot of discussion about electricity prices, future demand, solar, wind, coal, batteries, coal power and gas.
But I don't understand how we achieve zero emissions and I believe this is the target we should be aiming for.
Solar and wind are essential but incomplete, how do we supplement these sources at night when the wind isn't blowing.
Has away got an fully costed and feasible answer?


As it happens yes;

http://basicwindtec.webstarts.com/

I am looking for investors/partners to make thic commercial.

Should make electricty at less than 4p/kWhr.

That particular setup is horribly inefficient. Improvements could be made but turning the wind 90 degrees knocks somewhere like half the efficiency off.

You CAN improve that but not by much. The way it works is to compress the incoming air to increase the air velocity through the turbine. This makes it even more reliant upon wind speed than a normal very large diameter three bladed present day windmill.

The reason they supposedly changed from the multiblade windmills to the present type is because they were getting a lot of bird deaths of the most important and smallest population birds such as large eagles and such.

The point they missed - those new windmills are HUGE. The wingspan of them is about as wide as the US White House or the English House of Parliments. They may LOOK like they are turning slow but they are not. The tip speeds in a wind necessary for generating electricity near capacity is 200 mph. That is so fast that these new windmills are actually killing more raptors. Even hummingbirds cannot dodge the tips.

More importantly perhaps is that they are generating an aerodynamic noise at the ends of the blade that is so loud that at nighttime they kill the insectivorous bats. This in turn has totally changed the environment around these windmills. And because they are not in continuous operation the new environment is not and cannot stabilize. These things are even worse for the environment than the old smaller diameter blades.


The present 3 blded turbines dream of getting to 25% efficency.

The results from my basic prototype suggest that it may be possible to get a higher efficency than that.

The only place I have a pressure sensor in it is the rain water outlet which has a U bend trap to stop the wind escaping out through the rain water outlet.

The level of the water in it will be pushed about by pressure differentials across the turbine compared to the general outside air.

When it is running the pressure differential s zero. Even when gusts come and go the pressure is unchanged. This means that the wind passing he structure on the outside is sucking the air out as much as the wind is driving the air in.

It is possible that the efficency will be spectacularly high compared to existing designs.

That is, however, not really important. The figure that matters is the cost per kWhr. The energy in wind power is proportionat to the cube of the velocity. So if the design I have needs 50% more power that would be a slight increase in wind speed. The benefits of not having to shut down in high winds are more than enough to make it better.

That the design is cheap and easy to maintain is the real reason why it will be sucessful.

If the pressure differential is zero than how can it be running?


The suction effect from the wind going past the sides of the structure creates a low pressure zone behind the cowl. This or the speed it is going past the water in the u bend makes the air pressure lower.

Or ?


Okay, but that's pressure differential the innards of the machine depends on to extract energy from, isn't it?

This may seem a bit nit picky, but it's the kind of question you're going to have to answer in order to sell the concept for this machine. Just beware of the 'zero pressure differential' phrase. It's not correct. The use of it can torpedo your sales pitch.

It's going to difficult enough to break into the wind generator biz with a machine that is so different from the giant propeller systems now in use.


I know it is weird. And a prilinary result but very promising.

The point of measurement is before the wind has driven the turbine but after it has done all the turns before entering it and been swept sideways by the director vanes that induce the spin.

That's fine, but differential measurements require two points of measurement, not one.
What really counts for efficiency anyway is the wattage produced for a given wind speed.
What counts for flexibility is the range of available wind speed the device is capable of using to produce power (up to the point of destruction of the device of course!).

Since traditional wind turbines have a limited flexibility, but very good efficiency (due to the use of large propellers), your machine might have a different kind of sales pitch than just simple efficiency.

Have you been able to get it to produce power yet? I assume you have some figures in this area by now.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 01-11-2018 20:20
02-11-2018 13:41
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Zero Carbon Emissions wrote:
I am an average I'll informed individual, that has heard a lot of discussion about electricity prices, future demand, solar, wind, coal, batteries, coal power and gas.
But I don't understand how we achieve zero emissions and I believe this is the target we should be aiming for.
Solar and wind are essential but incomplete, how do we supplement these sources at night when the wind isn't blowing.
Has away got an fully costed and feasible answer?


As it happens yes;

http://basicwindtec.webstarts.com/

I am looking for investors/partners to make thic commercial.

Should make electricty at less than 4p/kWhr.

That particular setup is horribly inefficient. Improvements could be made but turning the wind 90 degrees knocks somewhere like half the efficiency off.

You CAN improve that but not by much. The way it works is to compress the incoming air to increase the air velocity through the turbine. This makes it even more reliant upon wind speed than a normal very large diameter three bladed present day windmill.

The reason they supposedly changed from the multiblade windmills to the present type is because they were getting a lot of bird deaths of the most important and smallest population birds such as large eagles and such.

The point they missed - those new windmills are HUGE. The wingspan of them is about as wide as the US White House or the English House of Parliments. They may LOOK like they are turning slow but they are not. The tip speeds in a wind necessary for generating electricity near capacity is 200 mph. That is so fast that these new windmills are actually killing more raptors. Even hummingbirds cannot dodge the tips.

More importantly perhaps is that they are generating an aerodynamic noise at the ends of the blade that is so loud that at nighttime they kill the insectivorous bats. This in turn has totally changed the environment around these windmills. And because they are not in continuous operation the new environment is not and cannot stabilize. These things are even worse for the environment than the old smaller diameter blades.


The present 3 blded turbines dream of getting to 25% efficency.

The results from my basic prototype suggest that it may be possible to get a higher efficency than that.

The only place I have a pressure sensor in it is the rain water outlet which has a U bend trap to stop the wind escaping out through the rain water outlet.

The level of the water in it will be pushed about by pressure differentials across the turbine compared to the general outside air.

When it is running the pressure differential s zero. Even when gusts come and go the pressure is unchanged. This means that the wind passing he structure on the outside is sucking the air out as much as the wind is driving the air in.

It is possible that the efficency will be spectacularly high compared to existing designs.

That is, however, not really important. The figure that matters is the cost per kWhr. The energy in wind power is proportionat to the cube of the velocity. So if the design I have needs 50% more power that would be a slight increase in wind speed. The benefits of not having to shut down in high winds are more than enough to make it better.

That the design is cheap and easy to maintain is the real reason why it will be sucessful.

If the pressure differential is zero than how can it be running?


The suction effect from the wind going past the sides of the structure creates a low pressure zone behind the cowl. This or the speed it is going past the water in the u bend makes the air pressure lower.

Or ?


Okay, but that's pressure differential the innards of the machine depends on to extract energy from, isn't it?

This may seem a bit nit picky, but it's the kind of question you're going to have to answer in order to sell the concept for this machine. Just beware of the 'zero pressure differential' phrase. It's not correct. The use of it can torpedo your sales pitch.

It's going to difficult enough to break into the wind generator biz with a machine that is so different from the giant propeller systems now in use.


I know it is weird. And a prilinary result but very promising.

The point of measurement is before the wind has driven the turbine but after it has done all the turns before entering it and been swept sideways by the director vanes that induce the spin.

That's fine, but differential measurements require two points of measurement, not one.
What really counts for efficiency anyway is the wattage produced for a given wind speed.
What counts for flexibility is the range of available wind speed the device is capable of using to produce power (up to the point of destruction of the device of course!).

Since traditional wind turbines have a limited flexibility, but very good efficiency (due to the use of large propellers), your machine might have a different kind of sales pitch than just simple efficiency.

Have you been able to get it to produce power yet? I assume you have some figures in this area by now.


Between work, no wind, more work and the poor materials/build quality of the thing I will need to build a better on out of steel to get any sort of reasonable technical specs. I learn't a lot and had to do it to get such understanding.

The intention is to build a 6kW version which should work at 6kW in any wind speed over 10m/s, about 22mph. Costing(guess) £12,000 to build plus installation/ground works costs.

What panics me is the next bit. So I build a wind turbine that does all this, produces electrcity cheaper than burning coal, what next?

I really need somebody who is in line to take it onwards once I pass that hurdle.
02-11-2018 20:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8003)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Between work, no wind, more work and the poor materials/build quality of the thing I will need to build a better on out of steel to get any sort of reasonable technical specs. I learn't a lot and had to do it to get such understanding.

The intention is to build a 6kW version which should work at 6kW in any wind speed over 10m/s, about 22mph. Costing(guess) £12,000 to build plus installation/ground works costs.

What panics me is the next bit. So I build a wind turbine that does all this, produces electrcity cheaper than burning coal, what next?

I really need somebody who is in line to take it onwards once I pass that hurdle.


How much does the current one produce? Have you measured it at various wind speeds? Are you using a test load, or just hooking it up to your own daily loads?

I have no idea what your material costs and permits costs are going to be, so I assume you have accounted for that in your 12000 pound estimate.

Assuming you can build and get the thing to produce electricity cheaper than coal (whatever your local price for coal is there), and you pass that hurdle, why do you need someone else? Do you need help marketing, or in engineering? Investors? Someone in government? Who is this 'somebody' you have in mind?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 02-11-2018 20:12
02-11-2018 20:26
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Between work, no wind, more work and the poor materials/build quality of the thing I will need to build a better on out of steel to get any sort of reasonable technical specs. I learn't a lot and had to do it to get such understanding.

The intention is to build a 6kW version which should work at 6kW in any wind speed over 10m/s, about 22mph. Costing(guess) £12,000 to build plus installation/ground works costs.

What panics me is the next bit. So I build a wind turbine that does all this, produces electrcity cheaper than burning coal, what next?

I really need somebody who is in line to take it onwards once I pass that hurdle.


How much does the current one produce? Have you measured it at various wind speeds? Are you using a test load, or just hooking it up to your own daily loads?

I have no idea what your material costs and permits costs are going to be, so I assume you have accounted for that in your 12000 pound estimate.

Assuming you can build and get the thing to produce electricity cheaper than coal (whatever your local price for coal is there), and you pass that hurdle, why do you need someone else? Do you need help marketing, or in engineering? Investors? Someone in government? Who is this 'somebody' you have in mind?


The somebody would be sme sort of business man or woman.

I don't think I am the right man to run a reasonable big (well medium) company. Just don't have the experience. So I need investment but even more importantly I need business experience.
03-11-2018 03:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8003)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Between work, no wind, more work and the poor materials/build quality of the thing I will need to build a better on out of steel to get any sort of reasonable technical specs. I learn't a lot and had to do it to get such understanding.

The intention is to build a 6kW version which should work at 6kW in any wind speed over 10m/s, about 22mph. Costing(guess) £12,000 to build plus installation/ground works costs.

What panics me is the next bit. So I build a wind turbine that does all this, produces electrcity cheaper than burning coal, what next?

I really need somebody who is in line to take it onwards once I pass that hurdle.


How much does the current one produce? Have you measured it at various wind speeds? Are you using a test load, or just hooking it up to your own daily loads?

I have no idea what your material costs and permits costs are going to be, so I assume you have accounted for that in your 12000 pound estimate.

Assuming you can build and get the thing to produce electricity cheaper than coal (whatever your local price for coal is there), and you pass that hurdle, why do you need someone else? Do you need help marketing, or in engineering? Investors? Someone in government? Who is this 'somebody' you have in mind?


The somebody would be sme sort of business man or woman.

I don't think I am the right man to run a reasonable big (well medium) company. Just don't have the experience. So I need investment but even more importantly I need business experience.


Business experience can help you find the investors you need. Considering the current mood of the UK, there should be several such business folk around. Finding them is only the first part, and is something only you can really do. Try to hobnob with richer folks to get names.

The first sale YOU will have to make. You have to convince your business partner that what he is getting into is worthwhile financially. Fortunately, it's only one sale. (I know how engineers HATE doing sales
)


The Parrot Killer
08-11-2018 00:59
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Between work, no wind, more work and the poor materials/build quality of the thing I will need to build a better on out of steel to get any sort of reasonable technical specs. I learn't a lot and had to do it to get such understanding.

The intention is to build a 6kW version which should work at 6kW in any wind speed over 10m/s, about 22mph. Costing(guess) £12,000 to build plus installation/ground works costs.

What panics me is the next bit. So I build a wind turbine that does all this, produces electrcity cheaper than burning coal, what next?

I really need somebody who is in line to take it onwards once I pass that hurdle.


How much does the current one produce? Have you measured it at various wind speeds? Are you using a test load, or just hooking it up to your own daily loads?

I have no idea what your material costs and permits costs are going to be, so I assume you have accounted for that in your 12000 pound estimate.

Assuming you can build and get the thing to produce electricity cheaper than coal (whatever your local price for coal is there), and you pass that hurdle, why do you need someone else? Do you need help marketing, or in engineering? Investors? Someone in government? Who is this 'somebody' you have in mind?


The somebody would be sme sort of business man or woman.

I don't think I am the right man to run a reasonable big (well medium) company. Just don't have the experience. So I need investment but even more importantly I need business experience.


Tim, real windy places have average wind speeds of around 12 mph. The southern end of Great Britain and the area around the North Sea might be slightly faster but not much.
08-11-2018 13:44
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Between work, no wind, more work and the poor materials/build quality of the thing I will need to build a better on out of steel to get any sort of reasonable technical specs. I learn't a lot and had to do it to get such understanding.

The intention is to build a 6kW version which should work at 6kW in any wind speed over 10m/s, about 22mph. Costing(guess) £12,000 to build plus installation/ground works costs.

What panics me is the next bit. So I build a wind turbine that does all this, produces electrcity cheaper than burning coal, what next?

I really need somebody who is in line to take it onwards once I pass that hurdle.


How much does the current one produce? Have you measured it at various wind speeds? Are you using a test load, or just hooking it up to your own daily loads?

I have no idea what your material costs and permits costs are going to be, so I assume you have accounted for that in your 12000 pound estimate.

Assuming you can build and get the thing to produce electricity cheaper than coal (whatever your local price for coal is there), and you pass that hurdle, why do you need someone else? Do you need help marketing, or in engineering? Investors? Someone in government? Who is this 'somebody' you have in mind?


The somebody would be sme sort of business man or woman.

I don't think I am the right man to run a reasonable big (well medium) company. Just don't have the experience. So I need investment but even more importantly I need business experience.


Tim, real windy places have average wind speeds of around 12 mph. The southern end of Great Britain and the area around the North Sea might be slightly faster but not much.


That is at a low close to the ground height. The wind turbines you see are up on heigh poles for a reason.
20-11-2018 21:58
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Zero Carbon Emissions wrote:
I am an average I'll informed individual, that has heard a lot of discussion about electricity prices, future demand, solar, wind, coal, batteries, coal power and gas.
But I don't understand how we achieve zero emissions and I believe this is the target we should be aiming for.
Solar and wind are essential but incomplete, how do we supplement these sources at night when the wind isn't blowing.
Has away got an fully costed and feasible answer?


I have recently read some actual cost breakdowns. Solar power actually breaks even and wind power uses more energy to build and the battery systems to hold the power until required uses more than it produces. Both of these systems cause large environmental damage.

While the new windmills look much slower turning than the older much small diameter units the tip speed in a wind high enough to generate expected power levels, is 200 mph. these numbers were presented to the British House of Commons. These things actually kill more birds, particularly raptors than the old ones did. Moreover, a large part of the night time environment are flocks of insect eating bats. The noise off of the blade tips kills bats close to them and renders bats further away deaf and they die rapidly of starvation.

The solar farms cover many acres and the ground beneath them is dead.

So renewable energy is nothing of the kind.
21-11-2018 01:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8003)
Wake wrote:
Zero Carbon Emissions wrote:
I am an average I'll informed individual, that has heard a lot of discussion about electricity prices, future demand, solar, wind, coal, batteries, coal power and gas.
But I don't understand how we achieve zero emissions and I believe this is the target we should be aiming for.
Solar and wind are essential but incomplete, how do we supplement these sources at night when the wind isn't blowing.
Has away got an fully costed and feasible answer?


I have recently read some actual cost breakdowns. Solar power actually breaks even

No, it doesn't. You probably forgot to factor in the cost of real estate to install them.
Wake wrote:
and wind power uses more energy to build
No, it doesn't. A wind turbine can be built of fairly simple materials.
Wake wrote:
and the battery systems to hold the power until required uses more than it produces.
While somewhat true, the difference is insignificant.
Wake wrote:
Both of these systems cause large environmental damage.

Define 'environmental damage'. How, specifically, does either system produce 'environmental damage'?
Wake wrote:
While the new windmills look much slower turning than the older much small diameter units the tip speed in a wind high enough to generate expected power levels, is 200 mph. these numbers were presented to the British House of Commons. These things actually kill more birds, particularly raptors than the old ones did.

So do power lines, cars, aircraft, other birds, and even land and water critters.

It's not as easy being a hawk or an eagle as you think it is!

The occasional hawk, eagle, buzzard, or other bird that sails too close to a blade is actually pretty small.
Wake wrote:
Moreover, a large part of the night time environment are flocks of insect eating bats. The noise off of the blade tips kills bats close to them and renders bats further away deaf and they die rapidly of starvation.

This I simply can't believe. The blades don't make significant noise. If they did, they won't last long!
Wake wrote:
The solar farms cover many acres and the ground beneath them is dead.

Far from it. Critters will actually nest under these things. It's actually a pest problem for solar farms. They nest there, then get on the panels and damage them, or corrode the structure with their droppings and urine.

The panels provide shade and protection from airborne predators, you see.

Wake wrote:
So renewable energy is nothing of the kind.

Both solar and wind are renewable. The problem is consistency of power, and the cost per watt compared to other, cheaper forms of power.

Wind is actually a good solution for areas or applications isolated from normal power sources and where you don't need continuous power.


The Parrot Killer
21-11-2018 01:30
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Zero Carbon Emissions wrote:
I am an average I'll informed individual, that has heard a lot of discussion about electricity prices, future demand, solar, wind, coal, batteries, coal power and gas.
But I don't understand how we achieve zero emissions and I believe this is the target we should be aiming for.
Solar and wind are essential but incomplete, how do we supplement these sources at night when the wind isn't blowing.
Has away got an fully costed and feasible answer?


I have recently read some actual cost breakdowns. Solar power actually breaks even

No, it doesn't. You probably forgot to factor in the cost of real estate to install them.
Wake wrote:
and wind power uses more energy to build
No, it doesn't. A wind turbine can be built of fairly simple materials.
Wake wrote:
and the battery systems to hold the power until required uses more than it produces.
While somewhat true, the difference is insignificant.
Wake wrote:
Both of these systems cause large environmental damage.

Define 'environmental damage'. How, specifically, does either system produce 'environmental damage'?
Wake wrote:
While the new windmills look much slower turning than the older much small diameter units the tip speed in a wind high enough to generate expected power levels, is 200 mph. these numbers were presented to the British House of Commons. These things actually kill more birds, particularly raptors than the old ones did.

So do power lines, cars, aircraft, other birds, and even land and water critters.

It's not as easy being a hawk or an eagle as you think it is!

The occasional hawk, eagle, buzzard, or other bird that sails too close to a blade is actually pretty small.
Wake wrote:
Moreover, a large part of the night time environment are flocks of insect eating bats. The noise off of the blade tips kills bats close to them and renders bats further away deaf and they die rapidly of starvation.

This I simply can't believe. The blades don't make significant noise. If they did, they won't last long!
Wake wrote:
The solar farms cover many acres and the ground beneath them is dead.

Far from it. Critters will actually nest under these things. It's actually a pest problem for solar farms. They nest there, then get on the panels and damage them, or corrode the structure with their droppings and urine.

The panels provide shade and protection from airborne predators, you see.

Wake wrote:
So renewable energy is nothing of the kind.

Both solar and wind are renewable. The problem is consistency of power, and the cost per watt compared to other, cheaper forms of power.

Wind is actually a good solution for areas or applications isolated from normal power sources and where you don't need continuous power.


We simply have you arguing about anything without the slightest bit of information: https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2016/Q3/wind-turbines-killing-more-than-just-local-birds,-study-finds.html

You don't have to figure in the cost or real estate because that has been used for wind and solar farms for two decades. These are SECOND PARTY energy providers and you don't even understand THAT.

Again we have you telling us about things that you don't understand and make not the slightest attempt to learn. The Altamont wind farm is only generating about 10% of the time. While active they can generate a lot of power but it is so spotty that previously they simply dumped into the power grid and PG&E turned down their generators. But thst turned out to make wear and expense of the generators very high so most of the wind farms are installing large battery installations and inverters to change the 6-9 volt battery voltage into 480 AC on demand.

Again without even bothering to look anything up you shoot your mouth off inventing reality as you go: https://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy/environmental-impacts-solar-power.html#.W_SXEfZFyM8

Reducing the temperature in the area of solar farms by 5 degrees C totally changes the environment and the entire ecology of that area. Are you going to convince us all that this will improve the ecology again without the slightest data to back you up?


Again with your "I can't believe that the blades make noise". It is difficult to tell exactly how many bats are killed by these sounds that YOU can't hear but the estimates are between 500,000 and 1,700,000 yearly. Insect eating bats find insect not by echo location as they use for natigation but by hearing them.

Is there absolutely anything that you have any actual knowledge of?
21-11-2018 02:56
James___
★★★★☆
(1299)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Zero Carbon Emissions wrote:
I am an average I'll informed individual, that has heard a lot of discussion about electricity prices, future demand, solar, wind, coal, batteries, coal power and gas.
But I don't understand how we achieve zero emissions and I believe this is the target we should be aiming for.
Solar and wind are essential but incomplete, how do we supplement these sources at night when the wind isn't blowing.
Has away got an fully costed and feasible answer?


I have recently read some actual cost breakdowns. Solar power actually breaks even

No, it doesn't. You probably forgot to factor in the cost of real estate to install them.
Wake wrote:
and wind power uses more energy to build
No, it doesn't. A wind turbine can be built of fairly simple materials.
Wake wrote:
and the battery systems to hold the power until required uses more than it produces.
While somewhat true, the difference is insignificant.
Wake wrote:
Both of these systems cause large environmental damage.

Define 'environmental damage'. How, specifically, does either system produce 'environmental damage'?
Wake wrote:
While the new windmills look much slower turning than the older much small diameter units the tip speed in a wind high enough to generate expected power levels, is 200 mph. these numbers were presented to the British House of Commons. These things actually kill more birds, particularly raptors than the old ones did.

So do power lines, cars, aircraft, other birds, and even land and water critters.

It's not as easy being a hawk or an eagle as you think it is!

The occasional hawk, eagle, buzzard, or other bird that sails too close to a blade is actually pretty small.
Wake wrote:
Moreover, a large part of the night time environment are flocks of insect eating bats. The noise off of the blade tips kills bats close to them and renders bats further away deaf and they die rapidly of starvation.

This I simply can't believe. The blades don't make significant noise. If they did, they won't last long!
Wake wrote:
The solar farms cover many acres and the ground beneath them is dead.

Far from it. Critters will actually nest under these things. It's actually a pest problem for solar farms. They nest there, then get on the panels and damage them, or corrode the structure with their droppings and urine.

The panels provide shade and protection from airborne predators, you see.

Wake wrote:
So renewable energy is nothing of the kind.

Both solar and wind are renewable. The problem is consistency of power, and the cost per watt compared to other, cheaper forms of power.

Wind is actually a good solution for areas or applications isolated from normal power sources and where you don't need continuous power.


We simply have you arguing about anything without the slightest bit of information: https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2016/Q3/wind-turbines-killing-more-than-just-local-birds,-study-finds.html

You don't have to figure in the cost or real estate because that has been used for wind and solar farms for two decades. These are SECOND PARTY energy providers and you don't even understand THAT.

Again we have you telling us about things that you don't understand and make not the slightest attempt to learn. The Altamont wind farm is only generating about 10% of the time. While active they can generate a lot of power but it is so spotty that previously they simply dumped into the power grid and PG&E turned down their generators. But thst turned out to make wear and expense of the generators very high so most of the wind farms are installing large battery installations and inverters to change the 6-9 volt battery voltage into 480 AC on demand.

Again without even bothering to look anything up you shoot your mouth off inventing reality as you go: https://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy/environmental-impacts-solar-power.html#.W_SXEfZFyM8

Reducing the temperature in the area of solar farms by 5 degrees C totally changes the environment and the entire ecology of that area. Are you going to convince us all that this will improve the ecology again without the slightest data to back you up?


Again with your "I can't believe that the blades make noise". It is difficult to tell exactly how many bats are killed by these sounds that YOU can't hear but the estimates are between 500,000 and 1,700,000 yearly. Insect eating bats find insect not by echo location as they use for natigation but by hearing them.

Is there absolutely anything that you have any actual knowledge of?


Snowy owls are almost undetectable when gliding . I think maybe even flying. Kind of how a field mouse or lemming won't know they're coming. Have watched maybe not enough documentaries on them and other wildlife.
What most people don't understand about the power grid is that energy demand drops at night or when heating/cooling isn't needed. Because of this wind farms and solar farms will be shut down before a power plant using gas, oil or coal. A lot of the energy produced at night is dumped because it's more about being ready for the next day. It's a work in progress.
Edited on 21-11-2018 02:57
21-11-2018 10:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8003)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Zero Carbon Emissions wrote:
I am an average I'll informed individual, that has heard a lot of discussion about electricity prices, future demand, solar, wind, coal, batteries, coal power and gas.
But I don't understand how we achieve zero emissions and I believe this is the target we should be aiming for.
Solar and wind are essential but incomplete, how do we supplement these sources at night when the wind isn't blowing.
Has away got an fully costed and feasible answer?


I have recently read some actual cost breakdowns. Solar power actually breaks even

No, it doesn't. You probably forgot to factor in the cost of real estate to install them.
Wake wrote:
and wind power uses more energy to build
No, it doesn't. A wind turbine can be built of fairly simple materials.
Wake wrote:
and the battery systems to hold the power until required uses more than it produces.
While somewhat true, the difference is insignificant.
Wake wrote:
Both of these systems cause large environmental damage.

Define 'environmental damage'. How, specifically, does either system produce 'environmental damage'?
Wake wrote:
While the new windmills look much slower turning than the older much small diameter units the tip speed in a wind high enough to generate expected power levels, is 200 mph. these numbers were presented to the British House of Commons. These things actually kill more birds, particularly raptors than the old ones did.

So do power lines, cars, aircraft, other birds, and even land and water critters.

It's not as easy being a hawk or an eagle as you think it is!

The occasional hawk, eagle, buzzard, or other bird that sails too close to a blade is actually pretty small.
Wake wrote:
Moreover, a large part of the night time environment are flocks of insect eating bats. The noise off of the blade tips kills bats close to them and renders bats further away deaf and they die rapidly of starvation.

This I simply can't believe. The blades don't make significant noise. If they did, they won't last long!
Wake wrote:
The solar farms cover many acres and the ground beneath them is dead.

Far from it. Critters will actually nest under these things. It's actually a pest problem for solar farms. They nest there, then get on the panels and damage them, or corrode the structure with their droppings and urine.

The panels provide shade and protection from airborne predators, you see.

Wake wrote:
So renewable energy is nothing of the kind.

Both solar and wind are renewable. The problem is consistency of power, and the cost per watt compared to other, cheaper forms of power.

Wind is actually a good solution for areas or applications isolated from normal power sources and where you don't need continuous power.


We simply have you arguing about anything without the slightest bit of information: ...deleted Holy Link...

Only local birds are killed. If they are not local to the windmill. They won't get hurt by the blades. Figure it out, dude.
Wake wrote:
You don't have to figure in the cost or real estate because that has been used for wind and solar farms for two decades.

No, Wake. I am talking about building new wind farms, not old ones.
Wake wrote:
These are SECOND PARTY energy providers and you don't even understand THAT.

Irrelevant.
Wake wrote:
Again we have you telling us about things that you don't understand and make not the slightest attempt to learn. The Altamont wind farm is only generating about 10% of the time. While active they can generate a lot of power but it is so spotty that previously they simply dumped into the power grid and PG&E turned down their generators. But thst turned out to make wear and expense of the generators very high so most of the wind farms are installing large battery installations and inverters to change the 6-9 volt battery voltage into 480 AC on demand.

Irrelevant.
Wake wrote:
Again without even bothering to look anything up you shoot your mouth off inventing reality as you go:

Define 'reality'.
Wake wrote:
Reducing the temperature in the area of solar farms by 5 degrees C totally changes the environment and the entire ecology of that area.
Never said it didn't. Why are you making a case about this? I am simply pointing out that the land beneath the collectors is not dead, as you claimed.
Wake wrote:
Are you going to convince us all that this will improve the ecology again without the slightest data to back you up?
Define 'improved'.
Wake wrote:
Again with your "I can't believe that the blades make noise".

If they do, they will soon be destroyed from vibration. These are large blades. They do not take to kindly to any vibration.
Wake wrote:
It is difficult to tell exactly how many bats are killed by these sounds that YOU can't hear but the estimates are between 500,000 and 1,700,000 yearly.

Argument from randU fallacy. You are just making up numbers again.
Wake wrote:
Insect eating bats find insect not by echo location as they use for natigation but by hearing them.
So which get killed first? The insect or the bat?

Do you have any idea the mortality of bats by stuff that has nothing to do with windmills?
Wake wrote:
Is there absolutely anything that you have any actual knowledge of?

Yup. Too bad your bulverism doesn't allow you to see it.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 21-11-2018 10:23
21-11-2018 20:38
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote:
Define 'reality'.

Do you have any idea the mortality of bats by stuff that has nothing to do with windmills?


Reality is something that you aren't even in touch with.

The average age of insect eating bats is 20 years compared to that of a rat of the same size that has a lifespan of about 2 years. Their predators are few and far between which is why bat colonies often grow to the millions.

But we all realize that you knew that right? Even with the simplest thing possible you show no knowledge of, you are even slow since you have to look up more words from your Big Book to make you sound Smart.

I know what - tell us again that you can't define climate change without referring to itself. Or tell us that you don't believe the entire science of Spectroscopy because you don't believe it exists. Hey, I know what - tell me I never worked on the internal communications systems of the International Space Station because you don't like me.

During our several years of debate I gave you every chance in the world to look things up and actually learn science. If you could remember, initially I tried only to correct your errors. Instead you centered your entire attention upon your own ego and how being shown to be incorrect was an insult to your entire being that must be denied. And you persist with this same attitude to this very day.
21-11-2018 21:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8003)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Define 'reality'.

Do you have any idea the mortality of bats by stuff that has nothing to do with windmills?


Reality is something that you aren't even in touch with.

Wrong definition. Try again.
Wake wrote:
The average age of insect eating bats is 20 years compared to that of a rat of the same size that has a lifespan of about 2 years.

...so?
Wake wrote:
Their predators are few and far between which is why bat colonies often grow to the millions.

Actually, quite a lot of things eat bats. They just like to ****. Good thing, too, since so many things like to eat them.
Wake wrote:
But we all realize that you knew that right?

No, you're wrong again.
Wake wrote:
...deleted Mantra Wake1...I know what - tell us again that you can't define climate change without referring to itself.
Okay. You can't.
Wake wrote:
Or tell us that you don't believe the entire science of Spectroscopy because you don't believe it exists.
Okay. It doesn't.
Wake wrote:
Hey, I know what - tell me I never worked on the internal communications systems of the International Space Station because you don't like me.
No, I just don't believe you.
Wake wrote:
During our several years of debate I gave you every chance in the world to look things up and actually learn science.
No, you denied science. You still do.
Wake wrote:
If you could remember, initially I tried only to correct your errors.
It is YOU that denies science, Wake. You deny mathematics too.
Wake wrote:
Instead you centered your entire attention upon your own ego and how being shown to be incorrect was an insult to your entire being that must be denied. And you persist with this same attitude to this very day.

Inversion fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
21-11-2018 21:54
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(717)
The funny thing, is that 'Climate' isn't an actual 'thing, it's a perception. Each individual has their own unique way, it's subjective. 'Climate' and 'Reality' have a lot in common, in that regard, everyone views the world their own way. The 'normal', is the grey are between extremes, we see things similarly, the difference isn't worth complaining much about. The people at the extreme, form sides, one is always 'right' the other is always 'wrong', the people in the grey-area, are just confused. Facts, are proven to be true, and there is just no good argument, that challenges that. Facts, and Truth, are things, not really something we perceive, things we learn. Facts can be misrepresented, omitted, or misused, to sell a deception, which can eventual be proven false, which I guess would make it a fact, you were lied to...
21-11-2018 22:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8003)
HarveyH55 wrote:
The funny thing, is that 'Climate' isn't an actual 'thing, it's a perception.
Each individual has their own unique way, it's subjective.

A brilliant conclusion. You are exactly right.
HarveyH55 wrote:
'Climate' and 'Reality' have a lot in common, in that regard, everyone views the world their own way.

Another one! Again, you are exactly right! You are reasoning this out brilliantly.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The 'normal', is the grey are between extremes, we see things similarly, the difference isn't worth complaining much about.

Very close. I think you will find that 'normal' is just as subjective as 'climate', 'observation', or 'reality'. There is actually a branch of philosophy that discusses these very things, called phenomenology.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The people at the extreme, form sides, one is always 'right' the other is always 'wrong', the people in the grey-area, are just confused.

This actually is a void argument. There is no 'always right' and there is no 'always wrong', and there is no 'in between'. The reason is because there is no subject of discussion here.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Facts, are proven to be true, and there is just no good argument, that challenges that.

Facts are actually not a proof nor the results of a proof. They are not a Universal Truth either.

A fact is actually just an assumed predicate. Like a pronoun, it shortens a discussion for the sake of convenience.

One can assume, for example, that when discussing the fiction works of J.R.R. Tolkien, that hobbits have hairy feet. In such discussions, this is a fact, even though it refers to a work of fiction.

A fact is only a fact as long as everyone in the discussion agrees to the assumed predicate. The moment one disagrees with it, it is no longer a fact. It becomes an argument.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Facts, and Truth, are things, not really something we perceive, things we learn.

They are actually two separate things. A 'fact' I have just described. A Truth has to do with 'reality' again, that word that is defined by phenomenology.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Facts can be misrepresented, omitted, or misused, to sell a deception, which can eventual be proven false, which I guess would make it a fact, you were lied to...

A fact can be used to attempt to deceive. As long as one accepts the fact, any conclusion drawn from that fact (however wrong), will tend to be accepted. It is only when the fact itself is brought into question (thus destroying the fact and converting it into an argument) that the deception can be exposed.

You are making some brilliant conclusions using nothing but the brute power of your own reasoning. This is absolutely wonderful. A whole new world of truths await you! Keep it up! You are walking the footsteps of some truly great philosophers.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 21-11-2018 22:23
21-11-2018 23:58
gfm7175
★★☆☆☆
(158)
Wake wrote:
Reality is something that you aren't even in touch with.

That's not what 'reality' is... Try again...

Wake wrote:
The average age of insect eating bats is 20 years compared to that of a rat of the same size that has a lifespan of about 2 years. Their predators are few and far between which is why bat colonies often grow to the millions.

But we all realize that you knew that right? Even with the simplest thing possible you show no knowledge of, you are even slow since you have to look up more words from your Big Book to make you sound Smart.

Not sure what this all has to do with anything...

Wake wrote:
I know what - tell us again that you can't define climate change without referring to itself.

No one I've run across has EVER been able to define that term without referring to itself... I haven't even seen YOU do so yet, in my very short time here... You need to define it in a non-circular fashion, otherwise you continue to make a void argument.

Wake wrote:
Or tell us that you don't believe the entire science of Spectroscopy because you don't believe it exists.

What is it and how is it science? Define Spectroscopy... Define science...

Wake wrote:
Hey, I know what - tell me I never worked on the internal communications systems of the International Space Station because you don't like me.

I don't believe you.

Wake wrote:
During our several years of debate I gave you every chance in the world to look things up and actually learn science.

Define science.

Wake wrote:
If you could remember, initially I tried only to correct your errors. Instead you centered your entire attention upon your own ego and how being shown to be incorrect was an insult to your entire being that must be denied. And you persist with this same attitude to this very day.

If that's how you perceive it...
26-11-2018 03:11
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:
Reality is something that you aren't even in touch with.

That's not what 'reality' is... Try again...

Wake wrote:
The average age of insect eating bats is 20 years compared to that of a rat of the same size that has a lifespan of about 2 years. Their predators are few and far between which is why bat colonies often grow to the millions.

But we all realize that you knew that right? Even with the simplest thing possible you show no knowledge of, you are even slow since you have to look up more words from your Big Book to make you sound Smart.

Not sure what this all has to do with anything...

Wake wrote:
I know what - tell us again that you can't define climate change without referring to itself.

No one I've run across has EVER been able to define that term without referring to itself... I haven't even seen YOU do so yet, in my very short time here... You need to define it in a non-circular fashion, otherwise you continue to make a void argument.

Wake wrote:
Or tell us that you don't believe the entire science of Spectroscopy because you don't believe it exists.

What is it and how is it science? Define Spectroscopy... Define science...

Wake wrote:
Hey, I know what - tell me I never worked on the internal communications systems of the International Space Station because you don't like me.

I don't believe you.

Wake wrote:
During our several years of debate I gave you every chance in the world to look things up and actually learn science.

Define science.

Wake wrote:
If you could remember, initially I tried only to correct your errors. Instead you centered your entire attention upon your own ego and how being shown to be incorrect was an insult to your entire being that must be denied. And you persist with this same attitude to this very day.

If that's how you perceive it...


Nightmare, you just screwed up. As "gfm7175" you just attacked me using almost the identical verbage you used before you got your "Big Book of Words to Make You Sound Smart."

Is there some reason that you felt you needed support for your positions and so registered as another entity? I hope you do realize that is a sign of a mental disability.
26-11-2018 03:19
gfm7175
★★☆☆☆
(158)
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:
Reality is something that you aren't even in touch with.

That's not what 'reality' is... Try again...

Wake wrote:
The average age of insect eating bats is 20 years compared to that of a rat of the same size that has a lifespan of about 2 years. Their predators are few and far between which is why bat colonies often grow to the millions.

But we all realize that you knew that right? Even with the simplest thing possible you show no knowledge of, you are even slow since you have to look up more words from your Big Book to make you sound Smart.

Not sure what this all has to do with anything...

Wake wrote:
I know what - tell us again that you can't define climate change without referring to itself.

No one I've run across has EVER been able to define that term without referring to itself... I haven't even seen YOU do so yet, in my very short time here... You need to define it in a non-circular fashion, otherwise you continue to make a void argument.

Wake wrote:
Or tell us that you don't believe the entire science of Spectroscopy because you don't believe it exists.

What is it and how is it science? Define Spectroscopy... Define science...

Wake wrote:
Hey, I know what - tell me I never worked on the internal communications systems of the International Space Station because you don't like me.

I don't believe you.

Wake wrote:
During our several years of debate I gave you every chance in the world to look things up and actually learn science.

Define science.

Wake wrote:
If you could remember, initially I tried only to correct your errors. Instead you centered your entire attention upon your own ego and how being shown to be incorrect was an insult to your entire being that must be denied. And you persist with this same attitude to this very day.

If that's how you perceive it...


Nightmare, you just screwed up. As "gfm7175" you just attacked me using almost the identical verbage you used before you got your "Big Book of Words to Make You Sound Smart."

Is there some reason that you felt you needed support for your positions and so registered as another entity? I hope you do realize that is a sign of a mental disability.


Ok, I thought James was paranoid hahahahahaha

I would suggest a slow inhale/exhale regimen (focusing your mind on your breathing sounds) to help clear your mind.
26-11-2018 03:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8003)
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
[quote]Wake wrote:
Reality is something that you aren't even in touch with.

That's not what 'reality' is... Try again...

Wake wrote:
The average age of insect eating bats is 20 years compared to that of a rat of the same size that has a lifespan of about 2 years. Their predators are few and far between which is why bat colonies often grow to the millions.

But we all realize that you knew that right? Even with the simplest thing possible you show no knowledge of, you are even slow since you have to look up more words from your Big Book to make you sound Smart.

Not sure what this all has to do with anything...

Wake wrote:
I know what - tell us again that you can't define climate change without referring to itself.

No one I've run across has EVER been able to define that term without referring to itself... I haven't even seen YOU do so yet, in my very short time here... You need to define it in a non-circular fashion, otherwise you continue to make a void argument.

Wake wrote:
Or tell us that you don't believe the entire science of Spectroscopy because you don't believe it exists.

What is it and how is it science? Define Spectroscopy... Define science...

Wake wrote:
Hey, I know what - tell me I never worked on the internal communications systems of the International Space Station because you don't like me.

I don't believe you.

Wake wrote:
During our several years of debate I gave you every chance in the world to look things up and actually learn science.

Define science.

Wake wrote:
If you could remember, initially I tried only to correct your errors. Instead you centered your entire attention upon your own ego and how being shown to be incorrect was an insult to your entire being that must be denied. And you persist with this same attitude to this very day.

If that's how you perceive it...


Nightmare, you just screwed up.
Wake wrote:
As "gfm7175" you just attacked me using almost the identical verbage you used before you got your "Big Book of Words to Make You Sound Smart."
I am not gfm7175.
Wake wrote:
Is there some reason that you felt you needed support for your positions and so registered as another entity?
I didn't.
Wake wrote:
I hope you do realize that is a sign of a mental disability.

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is imagining socks, just like James. You know...the one you chastised for doing the same thing!

Hypocrite.


The Parrot Killer
26-11-2018 15:59
TrosckMan
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
Zero Carbon Emissions wrote:
I am an average I'll informed individual, that has heard a lot of discussion about electricity prices, future demand, solar, wind, coal, batteries, coal power and gas.
But I don't understand how we achieve zero emissions and I believe this is the target we should be aiming for.
Solar and wind are essential but incomplete, how do we supplement these sources at night when the wind isn't blowing.
Has away got an fully costed and feasible answer?


We can't achieve a zero emissions economy yet in any country of the planet.
Why is this?
Even if we increase the renewable energy generation capacity for solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, biomass, wave, tidal etc. we can't cover the energy demand of the planet.
Nuclear power using the fission reaction is not a source of renewable energy (uranium, plutonium and even thorium are limited resources), only nuclear fusion (the same nuclear reaction used by the Sun to turn hydrogen into helium) would become a powerful source of clean energy and also a source of renewable energy because hydrogen is an abundant resource here on the planet and also in the universe.
https://www.alternative-energies.net/is-nuclear-energy-renewable/

Even if nuclear fusion would become the main source of clean energy on the planet and we would forget about fossil fuels, our carbon footprint would be high again because we are still using cars with internal combustion engines, which again release harmful emissions into the atmosphere.

We need to wait at least three decades from now on to see a large share of the clean sources of power in the energy mix of the planet, and at least eight decades to reach the 100% renewable energy goal.
26-11-2018 18:17
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
TrosckMan wrote:
Zero Carbon Emissions wrote:
I am an average I'll informed individual, that has heard a lot of discussion about electricity prices, future demand, solar, wind, coal, batteries, coal power and gas.
But I don't understand how we achieve zero emissions and I believe this is the target we should be aiming for.
Solar and wind are essential but incomplete, how do we supplement these sources at night when the wind isn't blowing.
Has away got an fully costed and feasible answer?


We can't achieve a zero emissions economy yet in any country of the planet.
Why is this?
Even if we increase the renewable energy generation capacity for solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, biomass, wave, tidal etc. we can't cover the energy demand of the planet.
Nuclear power using the fission reaction is not a source of renewable energy (uranium, plutonium and even thorium are limited resources), only nuclear fusion (the same nuclear reaction used by the Sun to turn hydrogen into helium) would become a powerful source of clean energy and also a source of renewable energy because hydrogen is an abundant resource here on the planet and also in the universe.
https://www.alternative-energies.net/is-nuclear-energy-renewable/

Even if nuclear fusion would become the main source of clean energy on the planet and we would forget about fossil fuels, our carbon footprint would be high again because we are still using cars with internal combustion engines, which again release harmful emissions into the atmosphere.

We need to wait at least three decades from now on to see a large share of the clean sources of power in the energy mix of the planet, and at least eight decades to reach the 100% renewable energy goal.


While radioactive materials are a limited commodity it is far greater than you seem to think it is.

I do not see fission being used to make power. Firstly the amount of pressure could not be contained in Earthly materials and secondly, the amount of energy released is remarkably small.

They believe that they can contain fission inside of a magnetic field. That is unlikely since it would use more power than the fission generates.

Because the Sun puts out so much energy the sheer bulk of it disquises just how large the amount of fission is required to make even a small amount of power.

Finally - there is no such thing as "renewable energy". The construction and maintenance of solar and wind farms uses so much energy compared to that which is generated over the average lifespan of its components that there is only something like a 10% advantage. And both methods are highly fragmentary - solar only where there is a perfectly clear sky and then only from 2 hours before to 2 hours after noon. Wind even more intermittent. If you add storage batteries for either the energy advantage drops into the negatice region.

I have suggested that the only practical way to store energy is to use excess wind and solar energy when generated to be used to pump water back up behind dams. But this can only be used where dams have excess capacity. And it is likely thge trasmission costs would lose that 10% gain.
26-11-2018 20:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8003)
TrosckMan wrote:
Zero Carbon Emissions wrote:
I am an average I'll informed individual, that has heard a lot of discussion about electricity prices, future demand, solar, wind, coal, batteries, coal power and gas.
But I don't understand how we achieve zero emissions and I believe this is the target we should be aiming for.
Solar and wind are essential but incomplete, how do we supplement these sources at night when the wind isn't blowing.
Has away got an fully costed and feasible answer?


We can't achieve a zero emissions economy yet in any country of the planet.
Why is this?
Even if we increase the renewable energy generation capacity for solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, biomass, wave, tidal etc. we can't cover the energy demand of the planet.
Nuclear power using the fission reaction is not a source of renewable energy (uranium, plutonium and even thorium are limited resources), only nuclear fusion (the same nuclear reaction used by the Sun to turn hydrogen into helium) would become a powerful source of clean energy and also a source of renewable energy because hydrogen is an abundant resource here on the planet and also in the universe.
https://www.alternative-energies.net/is-nuclear-energy-renewable/

Even if nuclear fusion would become the main source of clean energy on the planet and we would forget about fossil fuels, our carbon footprint would be high again because we are still using cars with internal combustion engines, which again release harmful emissions into the atmosphere.

We need to wait at least three decades from now on to see a large share of the clean sources of power in the energy mix of the planet, and at least eight decades to reach the 100% renewable energy goal.


We don't burn fossils for fuel.

Oil and natural gas ARE renewable energy. So is hydroelectric power (why does that always seem to get forgotten?).

Nuclear fusion is not available today. In any case, it will only be good for fixed power supplies.

Carbon is not a problem. Neither s carbon dioxide. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth using surface infrared. It is not possible to trap thermal energy or heat.


The Parrot Killer
26-11-2018 20:51
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8003)
Wake wrote:
TrosckMan wrote:
Zero Carbon Emissions wrote:
I am an average I'll informed individual, that has heard a lot of discussion about electricity prices, future demand, solar, wind, coal, batteries, coal power and gas.
But I don't understand how we achieve zero emissions and I believe this is the target we should be aiming for.
Solar and wind are essential but incomplete, how do we supplement these sources at night when the wind isn't blowing.
Has away got an fully costed and feasible answer?


We can't achieve a zero emissions economy yet in any country of the planet.
Why is this?
Even if we increase the renewable energy generation capacity for solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, biomass, wave, tidal etc. we can't cover the energy demand of the planet.
Nuclear power using the fission reaction is not a source of renewable energy (uranium, plutonium and even thorium are limited resources), only nuclear fusion (the same nuclear reaction used by the Sun to turn hydrogen into helium) would become a powerful source of clean energy and also a source of renewable energy because hydrogen is an abundant resource here on the planet and also in the universe.
https://www.alternative-energies.net/is-nuclear-energy-renewable/

Even if nuclear fusion would become the main source of clean energy on the planet and we would forget about fossil fuels, our carbon footprint would be high again because we are still using cars with internal combustion engines, which again release harmful emissions into the atmosphere.

We need to wait at least three decades from now on to see a large share of the clean sources of power in the energy mix of the planet, and at least eight decades to reach the 100% renewable energy goal.


While radioactive materials are a limited commodity it is far greater than you seem to think it is.

I do not see fission being used to make power. Firstly the amount of pressure could not be contained in Earthly materials and secondly, the amount of energy released is remarkably small.

They believe that they can contain fission inside of a magnetic field. That is unlikely since it would use more power than the fission generates.

Because the Sun puts out so much energy the sheer bulk of it disquises just how large the amount of fission is required to make even a small amount of power.

Finally - there is no such thing as "renewable energy". The construction and maintenance of solar and wind farms uses so much energy compared to that which is generated over the average lifespan of its components that there is only something like a 10% advantage. And both methods are highly fragmentary - solar only where there is a perfectly clear sky and then only from 2 hours before to 2 hours after noon. Wind even more intermittent. If you add storage batteries for either the energy advantage drops into the negatice region.

I have suggested that the only practical way to store energy is to use excess wind and solar energy when generated to be used to pump water back up behind dams. But this can only be used where dams have excess capacity. And it is likely thge trasmission costs would lose that 10% gain.


Oil, natural gas, hydroelectric, wind, and solar are all renewable forms of energy, Wake. These supplies of energy are renewed as we use them.

Nuclear fission is not renewable energy. Neither is nuclear fusion, oddly enough.


The Parrot Killer
26-11-2018 21:38
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote:

Oil, natural gas, hydroelectric, wind, and solar are all renewable forms of energy, Wake. These supplies of energy are renewed as we use them.

Nuclear fission is not renewable energy. Neither is nuclear fusion, oddly enough.


When you do not understand what is being said I suggest you ask instead of making assumption. Particular really bad ones.

Nuclear Fusion is the conversion of Hydrogen - the most common material in the Universe, to Helium. The second most common material in the Universe. I neve said it was renewable - just that the materials necessary are so common that it could never been exhausted EVEN on Earth.

The fusion on the Sun, like it or not is raining fusionable materials onto the Earth every day. The Earth's core has a very large percentage of fusionable materials and the moons of Saturn and Jupiter as well.

The processes which generate fossil fuels are so slow that we can adjudge them exhaustible.

Wind and solar have already been shown to be totally incapable of supporting a modern civilization.

But don't let facts stand in the way of your dialog.
26-11-2018 22:39
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8003)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Oil, natural gas, hydroelectric, wind, and solar are all renewable forms of energy, Wake. These supplies of energy are renewed as we use them.

Nuclear fission is not renewable energy. Neither is nuclear fusion, oddly enough.


When you do not understand what is being said I suggest you ask instead of making assumption. Particular really bad ones.

So you think fusion IS renewable??
Wake wrote:
Nuclear Fusion is the conversion of Hydrogen - the most common material in the Universe, to Helium. The second most common material in the Universe. I neve said it was renewable - just that the materials necessary are so common that it could never been exhausted EVEN on Earth.

So you think fusion is not renewable?? Make up your mind dude! You just agreed with me!
Wake wrote:
The fusion on the Sun, like it or not is raining fusionable materials onto the Earth every day. The Earth's core has a very large percentage of fusionable materials and the moons of Saturn and Jupiter as well.

The Earth's core is warmed by fission, not fusion.
Wake wrote:
The processes which generate fossil fuels are so slow that we can adjudge them exhaustible.

Fossils don't burn, wake.

We can synthesize oil or natural gas in less than an hour from nothing more than CO2, hydrogen, lots of heat and lots of pressure. The Earth does the same thing.
Wake wrote:
Wind and solar have already been shown to be totally incapable of supporting a modern civilization.

True. Too many people just don't believe the math. It is still renewable energy though.
Wake wrote:
But don't let facts stand in the way of your dialog.

You just agreed with my arguments. What's your problem?


The Parrot Killer
27-11-2018 22:05
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Oil, natural gas, hydroelectric, wind, and solar are all renewable forms of energy, Wake. These supplies of energy are renewed as we use them.

Nuclear fission is not renewable energy. Neither is nuclear fusion, oddly enough.


When you do not understand what is being said I suggest you ask instead of making assumption. Particular really bad ones.

So you think fusion IS renewable??
Wake wrote:
Nuclear Fusion is the conversion of Hydrogen - the most common material in the Universe, to Helium. The second most common material in the Universe. I neve said it was renewable - just that the materials necessary are so common that it could never been exhausted EVEN on Earth.

So you think fusion is not renewable?? Make up your mind dude! You just agreed with me!
Wake wrote:
The fusion on the Sun, like it or not is raining fusionable materials onto the Earth every day. The Earth's core has a very large percentage of fusionable materials and the moons of Saturn and Jupiter as well.

The Earth's core is warmed by fission, not fusion.
Wake wrote:
The processes which generate fossil fuels are so slow that we can adjudge them exhaustible.

Fossils don't burn, wake.

We can synthesize oil or natural gas in less than an hour from nothing more than CO2, hydrogen, lots of heat and lots of pressure. The Earth does the same thing.
Wake wrote:
Wind and solar have already been shown to be totally incapable of supporting a modern civilization.

True. Too many people just don't believe the math. It is still renewable energy though.
Wake wrote:
But don't let facts stand in the way of your dialog.

You just agreed with my arguments. What's your problem?


I don't know how long you can go with your ignorance. Tell us - why do we drill for oil if we can manufacture artificial oil and natural gas. You continue to understand absolutely nothing while pretending to be some sort of expert.
28-11-2018 00:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8003)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Oil, natural gas, hydroelectric, wind, and solar are all renewable forms of energy, Wake. These supplies of energy are renewed as we use them.

Nuclear fission is not renewable energy. Neither is nuclear fusion, oddly enough.


When you do not understand what is being said I suggest you ask instead of making assumption. Particular really bad ones.

So you think fusion IS renewable??
Wake wrote:
Nuclear Fusion is the conversion of Hydrogen - the most common material in the Universe, to Helium. The second most common material in the Universe. I neve said it was renewable - just that the materials necessary are so common that it could never been exhausted EVEN on Earth.

So you think fusion is not renewable?? Make up your mind dude! You just agreed with me!
Wake wrote:
The fusion on the Sun, like it or not is raining fusionable materials onto the Earth every day. The Earth's core has a very large percentage of fusionable materials and the moons of Saturn and Jupiter as well.

The Earth's core is warmed by fission, not fusion.
Wake wrote:
The processes which generate fossil fuels are so slow that we can adjudge them exhaustible.

Fossils don't burn, wake.

We can synthesize oil or natural gas in less than an hour from nothing more than CO2, hydrogen, lots of heat and lots of pressure. The Earth does the same thing.
Wake wrote:
Wind and solar have already been shown to be totally incapable of supporting a modern civilization.

True. Too many people just don't believe the math. It is still renewable energy though.
Wake wrote:
But don't let facts stand in the way of your dialog.

You just agreed with my arguments. What's your problem?


I don't know how long you can go with your ignorance. Tell us - why do we drill for oil if we can manufacture artificial oil and natural gas.

It's cheaper.
Wake wrote:
You continue to understand absolutely nothing while pretending to be some sort of expert.

I am an expert, Wake. I even have the certifications and licenses to prove it. Won't reveal them here of course. I am not going to reveal my identity to the likes of violent people like you.

I do not need my credentials to support my arguments here. It is YOU that is denying math and science.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 28-11-2018 00:24
28-11-2018 00:51
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(717)
Besides, internet credentials don't mean squat, anybody online, can be anything they want, be as many people as they want. Half the online millionaires probably never work a day in their lives, and still live with mom and dad (or, they live with him...).
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Renewable Energy:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Market trends now favor renewable energy as a cost-effective alternative to fossil fuels - Nov 20171902-12-2017 04:19
My list of recommended renewable energy technologies2707-10-2017 00:17
Reversing Climate Change with Renewable Energy Sources4610-01-2017 04:31
Shale gas alone is not the answer – but neither is renewable energy026-09-2013 06:25
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact