21–30 of 196 posts
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…
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)?
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…
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)?
Could take the same route with nuclear waste imho.
But how much energy is used to create the wind farm?
A lot less than they create? Like, if it was a negative return on investment, energy wise, no one would be building wind farms. Wind turbines produce whole integer MW, which is way more than they cost to make.
Unfortunately, cost does not track emissions that closely. People do all sorts of things that cause emissions all the time, and usually their choice is dictated by which option is lowest cost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I'm not sure the linked study has accounted for the energy required to acquire and operate the batteries used alongside these wind farms. But it would be interesting to see what percentage batteries factor into this equation. I would imagine it's massive.
It has to be massive. There is no other way to manage a 70% production swing in as short as a couple minutes and not have the grid go dark. Which then begs the question of how green the batteries are over decades.
We've picked the least reliable energy source and intellectually anchored ourselves to it - then we don't talk about how we actually keep the lights on 24/7. It's kind of nuts.
That's an amazing investment if it can pay for itself entirely in 2 years and keep generating money after that.