|Wind Turbines Look good but not worth it!31-03-2019 15:08|
|Lord Christopher Moncton has a good youtube vid where he outlines the economics of using wind turbines to save CO2. |
After he shows us all the maths, wind turbines don't save much CO2 and that is what they are built for!
They use up to 10 times more area than coal fired stations and only last 25 years. The continually fall in efficiency so that at the end of their life they are only at 75% efficiency. But they do LOOK green don't they?
Placates a concerned public!
|75% sounds very generous... Think it's stretching a little at 35%, if placed in an ideal location. The IPCC keeps push that global warming is changing wind and weather patterns, so ideal locations, shouldn't be so good later on, if the prophesies are to be believed. Those wind generators are huge, would be quite expensive to install thousands of them, only to have to relocate them. The main issue with climate change, is that these folks don't want to change, want everything to stay the same, meaning they don't want to give up the land they own. Wind farms and solar will never be placed in the most ideal locations, just places considered useless for anything else. Guess it really doesn't matter, since they seem to think there is no limit on spending. It takes a lot of land and materials to build solar and wind farms, that barely compete with a coal plant, presuming that the sun and wind cooperate 24/7. Manufacturing and transporting the parts, would need a lot of energy, producing CO2, in addition to our normal output. They aren't saving the planet, they are accelerating the same problem, they claim to be fight for use. The IPCC has no problem ignoring their own guidelines, or spending money no one has, but still keeps insisting we can fix this 'problem', and it's affordable. None of it really makes much sense, yet it sell so easy.|
The new extremely large windmills can only make power in very hard winds. And they are so large and heavy that they cannot be started by the winds in which they can generate power. So they are electrically driven. The USE power for a lot longer than they generate power. While in winds that are strong enough to generate power they make more than they consume the difference is very little. Wind and solar in California can supply barely 2% of the power used by this state. This year probably 1% because of the almost continuous cloud cover since the New Year started. Also the winds haven't come from the normal directions and hence a large number of the windmills have been blocked by the surrounding hills and they simply turned them off so that they don't absorb energy constantly.
In the famous three year "drought" when the California world was ending, it had been clear the whole year and the wind was at a velocity that would operate about half of the old smaller windmills and they managed to generate 3% of the power that year.
Thorium is 4 times more common than uranium and a molten salt thorium reactor is safer than a dam. And the fuel is easy to recycle. You have to ask yourself why they're spending almost as much money on "green" energy as on a cheap reliable source of energy.
|Not such good news||32||01-07-2020 21:37|
|good news and speculation||12||19-06-2020 07:38|
|A bit of good news.||33||14-03-2020 07:28|
|Poll:Good idea or bad idea?||85||10-03-2020 17:57|
|Wind power is the earliest way to generate power, but there's a reason it stopped being used.||13||21-02-2020 20:12|