Slashdot Mirror

No, I get annoyed because one isn't addressing some key points. Which have been raised numerous times by criticis:

http://bravenewclimate.com/200...

http://www.resilience.org/stor...

http://bravenewclimate.com/201...

http://www.windaction.org/post...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

One of the key points, for instance, is the economical viability of it. Let me simplify the issue: say, you have country 1 and country 2. both have judged the way to go is 100% for renewable energy, like wind. say, there is no wind in country 1. What the authors now say is: no problem, we'll create a smart grid, and that will transport it from country 2.

HOWEVER... what they then don't realise is, that if country 2 has made more or less enough windmills to get going, it CAN NOT sustain a complete other country, unless they have double the amount needed to sustain their own (assuming both countries use roughly the same amount).

Thus they need far more capacity, if they are going to provide another country. However, this also means that for most of the time, there will be a HUGE overcompensation (namely all the times there is wind). Which means half of those windmills will have nothing to do at that time, while yet having been costly to built.

The same goes for country 2 in regard to country 1. Worse, if there is a large weather-front which is wind-poor, it could be that both countries need to get the electricity from a third or fourth country. Which in turn has to provide enough electricity for BOTH countries, then. so even more over-compensating must happen, to deal with this possibility.

Now, I don't know how things go in the USA, but that sure as hell wouldn't work in Europe, where the countries are much smaller, and much more heavily populated. And it would be quite economically unsound to have a windmill-park that is much larger than needed for ones' own demand, just in case another country would fall without.

Now, I read the rosy look that "storage of heat in soil and water" will deal with that, but I just don't think that's plausible. The current best systems, don't let you recuperate the stored energy for more than a couple of hours at best.

I find such claims, and especially the lack of answers and facts in these sort of papers wholly unsatisfactory. There have been many, many valid counterarguments and criticism on it, yet I see it nowhere addressed let alone refuted by the authors of any of those pro-renewable papers.

Shove it up your lying asshole, fucktard.

It's not just coal. Hydroelectric dams create a large reservoir behind them, making that land unusable. China had to permanently relocate 1.3 million people to build Three Gorges Dam. And ice throws from wind turbines are now recognized as a hazard, with a recommended setback distance of 1.5x(D+H), or about a quarter kilometer radius for a standard GE 1.5 MW turbine (80-100 meters high, 77-82.5 m diameter blades). Figure the exclusion zone front/back is one-fifth that (eyeballing the diagrams), for a total of 0.5*.05 = 0.025 km^2 per turbine. Nuclear's capacity factor is about 0.9, so the 4700 MW Fukushima plant generated on average 4230 MW. To match that with wind at a (optimistic) capacity factor of 0.25, you'd need 16920 MW nameplate capacity, or 11280 of the 1.5 MW turbines. That works out to 282 km^2 of unusable land (well you might be able to farm on it provided the insurance company was ok with the liability to the farmer). Yes Fukushima's evacuation zone is bigger, but that was only after an accident. The exclusion zone around a turbine in ice-prone climates would be unavoidable and permanent as long as the turbine is there.

Everything has its drawbacks. The moment you start comparing assuming one of the choices has no drawbacks, you're doing it wrong.

Not true.

That turbine was located in a 5 turbine installation in hornslet denmark.

The main gear assembly failed, and the brake was destroyed.

here is a translation of the actual engineering report for the failure.

The report also includes information about a second failure within 2 days, both caused by the same +130km/hr winds.

Think of the Condors!

there is zero chance you'll be able to come up with a convincing case for one oil rig being less dangerous to workers than any practical size of wind farm

The grandparent post is definitely talking out his ass, but it's an interesting question, so I ran the numbers myself.

No question more people die mining coal than running wind power, but since coal is a much bigger industry, I think the fairest comparison is number of accidental deaths per unit electricity produced.

US coal mine deaths, 2005-2009: 30/year

http://www.msha.gov/stats/charts/coal2009yearend.asp

US coal energy produced, 2008: 22.4 quads (or exajoules)
Heat -> Electricity efficiency factor: 30%

https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/energy/energy.html

US energy from coal: 6.7 exajoules/year

Worldwide wind power deaths, 2000-2006: At least 15, avg 2.7/year
http://www.windaction.org/documents/1318

Worldwide wind power installed capacity, avg 2001-2006: 40,000 MW
http://www.wwindea.org/home/index.php

Average capacity factor for wind plants: 25%

Estimated world wind energy output, 2001-2006 avg: 0.32 exajoules/year

Bottom line:

US Coal mining deaths per exajoule electricity produced: 4.5
World wind power deaths per exajoule electricity produced: at least 8.4

Surprised? I sure was! I expect the wind power number to drop dramatically as the industry develops, of course.

"Among the wind farm operators surveyed by Frontier, gearbox failures accounted for the largest amount of downtime, maintenance and loss of power production. Such failures can add up to 15 to 20 percent of the price of the turbine itself, according to Frontier."

Maintaining the wind turbine revolution

The solution a hydraulic "gearbox"? Artemis Intelligent Power.

Let's hope the Chinese made turbines are better than the ones made in India.

While I agree with the sentiment I cannot go so far as to be guilted into not using Google. This craziness stretches into other areas. Large plasma TVs are facing face being banned in the EU. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/giant-plasma-tvs-face-ban-in-battle-to-green-britain-1299665.html

There is talk about heavily taxing the airline industry to bring down the number of miles flown.

There seems to be no middle ground. Either its denial of global warming or banning major economic and social activity in the name of the environment.

Of course we can solve the problem. We need to use non carbon emitting sources such as nuclear power, solar and wind power. Instead the greenies on Europe want to guilt anyone who uses energy. In the end all that does is to depress the economy, raise unemployment and lower standards of living.

Its also ironic that the greenies always try to inhibit the green power they always go on about. The have stopped wind power on top of mountains in Vermont ( http://www.windaction.org/news/3653 )and filed lawsuits against solar power in the Nevada desert. http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/09/25/are-some-solar-projects-no-longer-%E2%80%98green%E2%80%99/ They even oppose wind power out at sea - Nantucket sound. http://www.nesea.org/publications/NESun/cape_controversy.html Why? Because it's development and they hate ALL development. They always have some objection.

The irony is that we cannot address global warming BECAUSE of the opposition to environmentalists. Indeed if we are to use electric cars we are going to need many more (non carbon emitting) power stations which the experimentalists fight against tooth and nail.

And then I am always amazed by how so many people seem to forge that China is the number one emitter now and that India will soon be number two. If you cannot get these countries on board you are wasting your time. So while the EU impoverishes itself trying to reduce its carbon emissions by 1% China happily adds 10 times that every year anyway.

It doesn't matter if you lump them together or not. Quite literally, the rotten apples spoil the barrel. If the threat of lawsuits grows large enough, investors will back away from putting money into wind farms, just like with what happened to nuclear plants.

http://www.windaction.org/
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2005/10/69177
http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1189201220164870.xml&coll=1
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=135298&ac=PHnws

Want more examples? Wind power actually does kill thousands of birds every year (many of which are endangered). Not that I think the outrage against wind farms is pretty ridiculous -- a stable and cheap energy supply is a necessary requirement of modern society. Even the most atavistic of greens will be as lost as the rest of us when their local REI store can't open because there's no power in the city.