Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wind farms can offset their emissions within two years, new study shows

newsroom.taylorandfrancisgroup.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 196 posts

Re: Wind farms can offset their emissions within two years, new study shows

#31

Post by andyferris »

pedroma wrote: post #20
yareal wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't speak to profit. I spoke to energy return.

My answer applies to both cases actually. For example, if one wanted to maximize profits, energy wise, there are better options than wind turbines and batteries. The choice to go with wind seems politically motivated due to optics of the alternatives.

I thought wind was often quoted as the cheapest per MWh compared to everything else?

(I realise that profit in $ might differ in that the wind doesn’t blow on demand while eg gas might - but even then businesses will spring up to fill every profitable niche).

Re: Wind farms can offset their emissions within two years, new study shows

#32

Post by nerdbert »

Alupis wrote: post #8
pedroma wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>negative return on investment, energy wise, no one would be building wind farms I don't think it's this simple considering politics is usually involved. But if it was a simple profit question I still don't think people would be building wind farms.

Exactly right. Government subsidies makes a lot of things appear viable and/or affordable, when in reality they are not. Subsidies are bolstered by politics. Wind farms appear as ridiculous as they are. Yet... they keep getting built because there's government money to be made. There's government money to be made because they give the appearance of "doing something, anything" while in fact doing almost nothing. Follo…

They can be built much more quickly than nuclear plants and they take coal and oil out of furnaces right now, which is exactly what we need. That's nothing but good.

Re: Wind farms can offset their emissions within two years, new study shows

#33

Post by garbageman »

pedroma wrote: post #20
yareal wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't speak to profit. I spoke to energy return.

My answer applies to both cases actually. For example, if one wanted to maximize profits, energy wise, there are better options than wind turbines and batteries. The choice to go with wind seems politically motivated due to optics of the alternatives.

Maybe 20 years ago. On-shore wind and solar are currently the cheapest practical way to make electricity based on LCOE.

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/electricity_generation/pdf/...

Re: Wind farms can offset their emissions within two years, new study shows

#34

Post by yareal »

pedroma wrote: post #20
yareal wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't speak to profit. I spoke to energy return.

My answer applies to both cases actually. For example, if one wanted to maximize profits, energy wise, there are better options than wind turbines and batteries. The choice to go with wind seems politically motivated due to optics of the alternatives.

It's not either or, it's both and. Of course there are different options that have better results in some axes. Building wind does not mean not building nuclear, solar, hydro, tidal, biomass pyrolysis, etc.

Re: Wind farms can offset their emissions within two years, new study shows

#35

Post by heavyset_go »

xnx wrote: post #21
christkv wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is still the problem of recycling the blades. https://theconversation.com/wind-turbine-blades-inside-the-b... .

Why do blades need to be recycled? What's the harm in piling them up on empty land until someone finds use for them (or not)?

That's basically what's happening with them besides the ones that are burned or buried.

One potentially bad thing is that plastics degrade and leach into the environment over time.

Re: Wind farms can offset their emissions within two years, new study shows

#36

Post by MetaWhirledPeas »

xnx wrote: post #21
christkv wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is still the problem of recycling the blades. https://theconversation.com/wind-turbine-blades-inside-the-b... .

Why do blades need to be recycled? What's the harm in piling them up on empty land until someone finds use for them (or not)?

We need to be considering the impact of any big changes we make in regards to our energy. But the thing is, we already know the answers to most of these "but what about" questions and they've been answered time and time again, yet they keep being brought up and used in an effort to slow progress.

Which is worse, the __________ caused by technology Z or the airborne carbon dioxide they prevent?

THE CARBON DIOXIDE IS WORSE, most of the time.

Can we at least start at a place of the carbon dioxide is worse and go from there? I'm not against listening to reason, I'm just against people looking for every reason not to change how we gain and consume our energy.

Re: Wind farms can offset their emissions within two years, new study shows

#37

Post by CyanBird »

xnx wrote: post #21
christkv wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is still the problem of recycling the blades. https://theconversation.com/wind-turbine-blades-inside-the-b... .

Why do blades need to be recycled? What's the harm in piling them up on empty land until someone finds use for them (or not)?

The blades could easily be cut and used as modern "sleek" housing, or games for kids in parks

There is market for that I feel

Re: Wind farms can offset their emissions within two years, new study shows

#38

Post by MetaWhirledPeas »

heavyset_go wrote: post #35
xnx wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do blades need to be recycled? What's the harm in piling them up on empty land until someone finds use for them (or not)?

That's basically what's happening with them besides the ones that are burned or buried. One potentially bad thing is that plastics degrade and leach into the environment over time.

Is it preferable to burn coal and natural gas then? I'm not saying you're wrong (you could be right) but let's not forget why we are pushing for renewable energy.

Re: Wind farms can offset their emissions within two years, new study shows

#39

Post by CyberDildonics »

Alupis wrote: post #17
thebruce87m wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wind farms appear as ridiculous as they are. What do you mean by this? My country is mostly powered by wind. Edit: https://electricityproduction.uk/in/scotland/

Scotland is microscopic in relation to the landmass and population that is the US. Yet... look at the sheer volume of wind turbines Scotland has to operate to get anywhere between 10% - 80% of their power generation, depending on the day and wind conditions. You cannot build a reliable grid based on wind. It requires other non-temperamental energy sources to be available when the wind isn't blowing. Solar? What if it…

Yet... look at the sheer volume of wind turbines Scotland has to operate

What 'sheer volume'? You didn't give any numbers or sources.

Here is some actual information:

https://www.gov.scot/publications/renewables-and-wind-power-...

" In 2022, almost 28 TWh of zero carbon electricity was generated by renewable wind in Scotland, representing 35% of all wind generation in the UK. This could power the equivalent of approximately:

a. 10 million households - over a third of the total households in the UK. b. 85% of total Scottish annual electricity demand."

It requires other non-temperamental energy sources to be available when the wind isn't blowing. Solar? What if it's an overcast day?

Good thing the entire UK is on a shared grid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Grid_(Great_Britain)

Using wind and/or solar does not automagically make your system better or more green.

Why not?

People have pigeon-holed themselves into a reality where only wind and solar are acceptable...

Says who?

and then we hide away the actual sources that provide the necessary backfill.

What does this mean? People are happy that there are economically viable and scalable sources of electricity that don't burn oil and gas. Who is 'hiding' anything away?

Re: Wind farms can offset their emissions within two years, new study shows

#40

Post by heavyset_go »

MetaWhirledPeas wrote: post #38
heavyset_go wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's basically what's happening with them besides the ones that are burned or buried. One potentially bad thing is that plastics degrade and leach into the environment over time.

Is it preferable to burn coal and natural gas then? I'm not saying you're wrong (you could be right) but let's not forget why we are pushing for renewable energy.

Definitely better than burning coal. Doesn't mean we shouldn't look for ways to reduce or recycle waste products.
Post reply on HN