Slashdot Mirror
Texas Has Enough Sun and Wind To Quit Coal, Rice Researchers Say (houstonchronicle.com)
According to new research from Rice University, Texas has enough natural patterns of wind and sun to operate without coal. "Scientists found that between wind energy from West Texas and the Gulf Coast, and solar energy across the state, Texas could meet a significant portion of its electricity demand from renewable power without extensive battery storage," reports Houston Chronicle. "The reason: These sources generate power at different times of day, meaning that coordinating them could replace production from coal-fired plants." From the report: Texas is the largest producer of wind energy in the United States, generating about 18 percent of its electricity from wind. Most of the state's wind turbines are located in West Texas, where the wind blows the strongest at night and in the early spring, when demand is low. The resource, however, can be complemented by turbines on the Gulf Coast, where wind produces the most electricity on late afternoons in the summer, when power demand is the highest. Solar energy, a small, but rapidly growing segment of the state's energy mix, also has the advantage of generating power when it is needed most -- hot, sunny summer afternoons.
In the summer, Gulf Coast wind generation could overtake West Texas wind capacity from about 1 p.m. to 8 p.m. when sea breezes kick in, Rice research showed. From about 8 a.m. until 6 p.m., solar power average capacity also could exceed wind generation in West Texas, which increases as evening turns to night. In the winter, winds in West Texas strengthen and generation increases, dropping off about 9 a.m., when solar energy begins to ramp up. "It's all a matter of timing," said Dan Woodfin, senior director of system operations at the state's grid manager, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas. Weather, however, remains unpredictable. Texas would still need battery storage and natural gas-fired power plants to fill in gaps when, for example, winds might slacken earlier than expected.
In the summer, Gulf Coast wind generation could overtake West Texas wind capacity from about 1 p.m. to 8 p.m. when sea breezes kick in, Rice research showed. From about 8 a.m. until 6 p.m., solar power average capacity also could exceed wind generation in West Texas, which increases as evening turns to night. In the winter, winds in West Texas strengthen and generation increases, dropping off about 9 a.m., when solar energy begins to ramp up. "It's all a matter of timing," said Dan Woodfin, senior director of system operations at the state's grid manager, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas. Weather, however, remains unpredictable. Texas would still need battery storage and natural gas-fired power plants to fill in gaps when, for example, winds might slacken earlier than expected.
Nicole Foss on renewables http://bit.ly/2rzS5Pq
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
how exactly is wind a proper substitute for rice.
Of course
Yes, but do they have the balls?
*** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
Wow, thanks Rice! Building all those solar panels and windmills will NOT be cheap! So awesome of you to step up!
A use for west Texas.
As the Gulf Coast tends to see tropical systems of varying strength from time to time.
Unlikely wind turbines will be running during the storms and, if damaged, will need repair before resuming operation.
Same for transmission lines that would be carrying said energy across the State.
Just set up road signs on generators and allow the locals to shoot at them (like they would anyway)
The sun goes down.
The wind stops.
Then its time for that really big natural gas-fired power plant to fill the gap.
Then its sunny again and the wind works as expected again.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
> the Gulf Coast tends to see tropical systems of varying strength from time to time.
> Unlikely wind turbines will be running during the storms
Worse than that, the power of wind is proportional to the the velocity CUBED. That means wind turbines are great where you have steady, sustained wind.
Suppose you build a turbine to start generating power with a 10mph wind. Obviously that has implications for the design, how sturdy vs "lightweight" you make it, if you want the power of a 10mph breeze to both spin it (overcoming inertia, friction, etc) and have extra power you can draw off as electricity.
When a 100mph tropical storm / hurricane comes to the coast, the turbine will have to withstand 1,000 times as power as it's designed to spin with. A stronger hurricane would require withstanding over 4,000 times as much power.
It's entirely likely they'd be not working because they'd be strewn across the beach in many pieces.
This might be a tremendous boon in a state where people gave a shit about anything other than themselves, but here in the good ol' Lone Star State, home of rollin' coal, I don't think this is going to make a damn bit of difference. Texans are going to keep burning coal long after all of the states that surround it have switched to nuclear fusion, just because fuck you, hippy.
For you are not a real man if you don't burn fossil fuel.
We get a great deal of hurricanes in the gulf coast, making the real world utility of that much coastal based wind impractical.
"Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
This is all about the potential. It is also has the potential to run the state on nuclear without coal. How about algae power? Gerbil power?
The variability of wind and solar will ensure a lasting market for natural gas, which will produce most of the energy, and must be ready to support 100% of demand on a moments notice. Wind and solar will produce "low-cost" and low-value energy, for purposes of green-washing indispensable natural gas, which people appear to have forgotten, is still a fossil fuel. The major propaganda campaign by natural gas and the "environmental" groups they fund has been quite effective.
Here's the airspeed indicator of a very popular plane, one I studied thoroughly, the Cessna 172:
https://fsxtimes.files.wordpre...
The stall speed (minimum speed Vni) of the 172 is listed at 48 or 53 (flaps up or down). The Vr, minimum speed for level flight, is 55.
The green arc, extending to 129, is the normal operating range. 129 is Vno, the Maximum structural cruising speed.
The yellow arc is speeds that must only be hit in smooth air, and with great caution. "Maximum structur cruising speed"" means this in this range, above 129, turbulence can break the aircraft apart.
So the airspeed at which the aircraft may break is 2 1/2 times it's minimum speed. Hurricanes are 150MPH - a heck of a lot more than 2.5 times the 10mph sea breeze! (Hurricanes are turbulent, btw).
The red line is the Velocity Never Exceed, Vne. At 158 structural failure of the aircraft is to be expected.
So you want to make an analogy to prop-driven planes? They are destroyed at three times their minimum operating airspeed.
If you want to stick to the prop plane analogy, that suggests that a turbine designed for 10MPH would have structural failure at 30MPH. Still like that analogy?
By the way, I didn't create the cube power law. I don't even like it, hence the title "the cube power law is a bitch". It's a pain in the ass when designing planes because the cube power bitch tries to rip the control surfaces and wings off. It did rip the nose off of one of my prototypes. So don't blame me if you find the cube power law inconvenient. I didn't create it, or even like it, I just have to know it.
Sad you got modded up for that thoughtless tripe.
Guessing by your comment, you are not a real engineer or involved in the energy sector at all. If there were truly a magic bean that we could use to reliably supply power at a competitive cost, it would be done. In fact, in regions where it really is possible, such projects as solar, wind etc are put into place. The bald truth is that the energy density of fossil fuels is really high, the level of engineering of the generators is really good and highly efficient, and the reliability of production is amazing.
The idea that there is a cartel of evil men twirling their mustaches saying, "WE LOVE TO POLLUTE AND WILL CRUSH ALL IN FAVOR OF CHEAPER, CLEANER POWE, mu hahahahahah." is just the stuff of (bad) cartoons. Perhaps, you need to grow up and leave such trivial thinking, like the cartoons behind.
"Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
The companies are moving to Texas with increasing numbers. Along comes renewable energy to Texas. The new silicon valley?
Well enough for Nancyboi energy energy ... wind and sun , but where do hellish burning red embers come from to toast Trotsky-slut warmists into tiny black specks of carbon ? Coal ... it's what's for dinner! Love that BBQ Texas style !
know about energy? It's not like there's a lot of unknown science around rice. It's one of the oldest cultivated plants.
So when the next 'weather event' takes 20-40% of the renewables grid off line because of damage/destruction then what?
Localized power generation and a distributed grid provides redundancy.
Don't be surprised when all your power generation is massed in two or three areas and then get wiped out by a disaster.
Because there's no such thing as *Grid Scale* batteries.-> FIFY
Or... maybe there is now.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
People get REALLY upset by *any* outages so the power grid needs to be very reliable to not have a lot of political backlash.
Texas might be able to drop coal but they'd need significant storage to ensure the reliability they have now. Keeping the existing coal plants going is likely the cheapest option right now.
...have Red Dead Redemption 2 and soy sauce, they will never give up rice.
This perpetual motion machine Lisa made is a joke, it just keeps getting faster and faster. - Homer
Planes fly. Windmills do not.
So planes have to be built fairly lightly, but windmills can be much more solid. More like the propeller, which on a 172 is near supersonic at the tips.
The windmills simply feather their blades much like the variable pitch prop on the plane you move to after you have mastered the 172.
There are issues, mainly that the wind does not blow steadily from one direction.
For small wind systems, the tower itself is typically hinged so that it can be dropped in a storm. Probably not practical for the bigger systems.
Texas needs to have not nat gas, but nuke power (or geo-thermal or hydro) to depend on. ALL nations have to stop using fossil fuels.
It is one thing to switch from coal to nat gas (cuts CO2 emissions by nearly 1/2), BUT it is foolish to ADD more nat gas plants.
Texas has nuclear power plants. A smart move is to add NuScale reactors in various locations, ideally, within 50 miles of the ocean, using ocean water for cooling.
At the same time, it is easy to add heat based desalination for next to free. Then the water can be piped 50 miles around.
All states have CO2 and water issues. Time to address both.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Ovecast, calm cold days in winter? Let me see little or no energy from solar, no energy from wind and higher than normal demand due to lover than normal tempratures, wher do they get the difference between suply and demand from ? Neucler ... hold on no one wants a reactor near by, ok natural gas well co2. I’m not defending coal here but renewables seem to have there chalanges, or dou you just import ftom other olaces and let them deal with the co2 qoutas or other negatives connected to production. Not trolling here renewables is the future but ar present there are stil chalanges, I’m shore they will be solved in time, how m well that will be up to people way smarter thsn me to figure out
All nations do, but America needs to the most.
You see per person, Americans use much more power/electricity/gas than regular people. Americans like to pretend they are clean, using 50% cleaner energy. But it's pointless if they are using 6x more total electricity.
Some simpleminded people think if America uses 6GW of clean energy and $other country uses only 3GW, so America must be better, right?
Wrong if that other country uses much less energy in total.
Let's try some numbers. Say America is 50% clean, 20 clean units and 20 dirty units for a total of 40 units.
Random example country is only 10% clean, 1 clean unit and 9 dirty units for a total of 10.
Simpleminded people will point out America is 5x cleaner!! 50%v10%
Even sillier people will claim they are 20x cleaner !!! 20v1
But you can dismiss those people as WindBournes. It's the dirty part that pollutes. So America's 20 units are much worse than the other countries 9 units. In this example America is over twice as polluting.
TLDR - Americans are the most polluting because they use the most energy in total.
I didn't know rice could be grown using coal in the first place. Frankly, I would rather eat rice that was grown using the sun instead of using coal. It tastes better that way.
(Sorry for the lame joke. That's why I am Anonymous Coward.)
Per person you are still 2x most developed countries.
When you catch up (you won't) we can talk about all the cleaner developing countries you will need to drop even further to match.
Wind power has been used to power ships for a millennia. The Dutch have been using wind to pump water for centuries. So wind, in the right places, which includes west texas, is a feasible source of power.
Pretty sure paying for grid scale batteries is cheaper than paying to change the weather/climate...
Those rice researchers, what do they know anyway? Besides, rice is just a fake theory invented by China! What, you wanna tell me those little pieces of plastic are good for anything? Naah, we'll have good old American coal etc.
> comparing to aircraft stall speed is utterly irrelevant.
FYI, the wind turbine blades actually are airfoils. Just like airplane wings. In fact, technically they are wings. Like an airplane wing, they have a stall angle which implies a stall speed.
> . Swept wing aircraft have far larger differences between their minimum and maximum speeds.
Stall speed of a (swept like the TU) Boeing 737: 140 knots
Maximum speed: 473 knots
Factor: 3.38
I said 2.5-5 and sure enough, it's right in the middle of the range at 3.38.
> So planes have to be built fairly lightly, but windmills can be much more solid.
I don't know if you've ever seen a wind turbine, but the blades are actually long skinny things, much like the wings on a glider, and for the same reason. We call that "high aspect ratio" when we're designing airfoils, and the aspect ratio needs to be high for a reason. It makes a HUGE difference in efficiency. Wind turbine blades need to have a much higher aspect ratio than airplane wings.
Long skinny things get broken easily, because of the leverage and certain mechanics of geometry that I don't a laymen's term for. The force of the wind pushing near the tips is far from the hub, having a lot of leverage that multiplies the force trying to break it off the hub. At the same time, the airfoil isn't very thick, and thin things break easily. I'm not sure how to explain why this is so, but you intuitively know that it's a lot easier to break a thin piece of wood than a thick one - even if the thick one is a hollow truss.
So you have a weak shape (long and skinny) and high loads due to high leverage between the turbine tips and the hub.
What happens when the sun is absorbed in larger amounts, cooling the area
And the wind is obstructed in unnatural ways upsetting the ecosystem?
given we already recycle almost all of the materials in one way or another, then it's not magic unless you don't understand what you're bleating on about.
But even if you were not merely clueless, in what way is your asinine sneer "what about EOL?", the FACT that there's an EOL on all machinery, including all fossil fuel generators, this is sufficient to make your whinge null and void: never head YOU whinge about the waste of EOL'd fossil fuel generators for all its 200 year history.
We have 50 year old stuff, and that's after almost all of it has been replaced many times meaning about all that is still original is the foundations for the original plant footprint.
I live in an area with no gas mains. That means my HVAC, water heater, 1.5hp well pump and 1.5hp septic system pump all require electricity. When I figure out how much solar I need for replacement, I get numbers that would require a second mortgage.
That's a FACT too. Yet somehow you dont see this fact as a problem for coal...
Indicating the problem isn't the wind destructibility but the production vehicle itself.
Sandy took out several coal and gas powered stations. It appears that fossil fuels don't do well in storms.
Actually if you click, you'll see I was replying to someone who said basically:
A given wind turbine design can easily function at both 10MPH and 150MPH, because airplanes do.
Well no, they don't. An airplane that flies at 10uV suffers structural failure at about 30-40uV, because the forces on the structure are so much higher - proportional to velocity cubed.
You will note that Texas isn't telling anyone how to generate power. They aren't sending people to Congress to preach renewable energy. They aren't grandstanding at some international conference (after flying there on private jets) and trying to shame anyone into using renewable energy.
Nope. We just fucking do it.
Take that as a lesson. Don't go trying to force shit on someone. Just do it yourself and set the example.
BTW, when you are in trouble, you call men with guns. Same thing applies. Take responsibility for yourself.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
> Yes, that was supposed to be swing wing instead of swept wing.
Ah yes. That's very, very different. A swing wing greatly changes the aspect ratio, becoming a very different wing.
> Take your F-14 as an example. Must be at least 10x difference.
The F-14 has swinging wings, full-length leading edge slats, trailing edge slots, and bleed vanes that can be opened and closed. These significantly change the camber of the wing, the aspect ratio, the total wing area ... two totally different wings. Still, the F-14 was called the turkey due to its low-spwed handling. Coming in for a landing with its low-spwed wings, it flew like a turkey does. Very, very different from its high-speed configuration. With the totally different wing configurations, it is indeed about a 10X difference in speed. Not with the same wing, of course. You can't do Mach 1 with the slats open and you can't land with the bleeds open.
Btw another thing to consider is that drag (and therefore airframe loading) is proportional to air density. At 56,000 feet, the is 65% less air than at sea level. The same plane can go ~ three times as fast at that altitude than it can at sea level.
Wind turbines don't fly at 56,000 feet.
Btw you mentioned the Concorde.
Drag (and therefore the forces the structure must withstand) is proportional to air density. At 60,000 feet where the Concorde reaches top speed, the is 66% less air than at sea level. The same plane can go ~ three times as fast at that altitude than it can at sea level.
If you factor that in, looking at the Concorde's top speed at sea level, you'll find it's top sea level speed is about 3.3 times its minimum sea level speed. Similarly, its minimum speed at 60,000 feet is - one third of its maximum speed at that altitude. Again, this isn't a coincidence.
Wind turbines don't switch between sea level and 60,000 feet. As someone mentioned, wind turbines don't fly*. :)
* Though actually you can do the math as if they do - the airfoil bears a load - the generator, which is analogous to the load borne by the wings of an aircraft. It's all airfoils.
> Airplanes can be designed for a wider range of speeds than you think they are capable of...and often are.
I'll believe you if you can give one single example. Go ahead, I'll wait.
Btw keep in mind that the forces (induced and parasitic drag) on a plane are proportional to air density. At 60,000 feet, there is 66% less air than at sea level. So the structural maximum speed at sea level will be about 1/3rd the maximum speed at 60,000 feet. Conversely, the minimum speed at altitude will be about three times the minimum speed at sea level. If you forget that and compare minimum at sea level vs maximum at altitude you'll accidentally get a factor that is three times too large. Wind turbines don't fly up to 60,000 feet.
The SU-27 can do 1240 kts at 62,000 feet.
Induced and parasitic drag (load on the aircraft) is proportional to air density. At that altitude, the air density is less than a third of what it is at sea level. That makes the structural load 1/3rd. You're accidentally comparing velocity at sea level with velocity at 1/3rd the density and thinking you're calculating the load factor at 10. To get the load factor you'd need to divide by the density difference, so 10X / 3 = 3.3X. Hey there's the same number AGAIN. That keeps coming up about the same for every aircraft we try, from a Cessna to a jet fighter and a 737 . Maybe that's not a coincidence.
I lean libertarian, but this article indicates that there really is a role for government to play in renewables that does not boil down to the President writing big checks to his political donors. IMHO, one of the proper roles of government is to enable markets. Building a road system enables farmers to bring their crops to the cities, and for cities to sale their manufactured goods to farmers. It doesn't make sense for either group to build the roads by themselves, and having a third party build, own and control the roads puts to much power in the hands of individuals, and creates innefficient roads since the builder would have to negotiate terms with individual land owners to build the roads in the first place.
The current situation with renewables is that small amounts of power are created at different times of the day in different areas. Getting the power from the western plains to the eastern factories to take advantage of all that wind is problematic (drive across Indiana and you see a large portion of the windmills stopped even though the wind is vigorous). The biggest boost the Feds could give to renewables is to put the federal electricity distribution grid on steroids. Once I can sell my wind produced energy on an open market the size of the US, I'd never let them to stop. And I'd probably put up more for even more passive income.
I know there is currently a federal grid, but it should be beefed up and anyone allowed to participate in the market in the same way that anyone can set up a trucking company.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
I think that long term this is going to happen. We've already seen a drastic reduction on coal as natural gas took over and wind has helped make that story even better. I'm looking forward to some great things happening in the state of Texas.
But, alas, as a coastal state with a lot of refinery operations, not sure that's going to change much.... there's just too much money there today (emphasis on today).
It's difficult to make any drives on I-45 without seeing many many fan blades in transit.
Solar? Well, I think that we'll see advancements there and the possibility of solar farms.... it's just more of a "land grab" than wind is. But who knows? If a power company sees enough profit, they'll pay the big bucks to get the land required. If Democrats take the White House next election, maybe they'll coerce the power companies so that they'll have no choice, either go solar (major) and earn less money or die completely (a precarious position given that even Democrats love electricity).
Btw, it's OKAY to not be a pilot, or an aeronautical engineer. Nobody knows everything. It's interesting to talk about things we don't know about because that's how we LEARN.
Or, we can pretend to be a pilot when it's plainly obvious we would have never passed ground school, and stubbornly refuse to learn anything. That's the way to guarantee everlasting ignorance.
You seem to think saying "hey that's cool, I didn't know that" means a huge failure on your part. It does not. The huge failure is the stubborn refusal to learn anything, claiming to be a pilot while also saying that approach velocity is the same thing as touchdown velocity. Which shows you probably haven't even flown an *RC model* aircraft. I have my FAA log book here. I've got my hours as pilot in command of an actual airplane, not pixels. That doesn't mean you have to. You probably know 1,000 times as much about sports as I do. That's okay.
Texas ain't got no coal -- they got OIL! and lots of it. Ahhh! Texas Tea.
> On a powered craft you flare ... trade some of your velocity for the extra lift you get.
You are correct that the flare reduces your velocity. You do NOT want "extra lift" when you're two feet off the tarmac! You want to set the plane down. Anyway, you're aware that the flare reduces airspeed below the approach speed. Now let's have a look at what the approach speed should be, before you slow with a roundout and flare.
Here's the FAA pilots license test requirements:
http://www.kingschools.com/pts...
Which says that to pass your test and get licensed you must:
5. Maintains a stabilized approach and recommended
airspeed, or in its absence, not more than 1.3 VSO
Anything over 1.3VSO (stall speed) on approach is a fail. Maybe that's why you don't have your license? After the approach, which must be less than 1.3 X stall, you then slow in the roundout, and slow more in the flare. What do you think you get when you start with "less than 1.3â, then reduce it twice? You get about 1.0.
> you'll fnd yourself overshooting the field and landing in a hedge.
Sounds like you need to work on your roundout, and probably your approach speed. Again, your approach needs to be not much above stall, per FAA license requirement. Then you slow in the roundout to have a nice sink rate rather than descending by having your nose down. Finally, 1-2 feet above the deck, flare to scrub further speed as the main gear touch down. Hold the stick back to further reduce speed so you don't go off the end of the runway or have to stomp on the brakes - you don't have much traction at this point since you still have airspeed.
The press report makes declarations the study does not make. The study claims and conclusions are very measured.
The full conclusion:
"West Texas wind produced the most total power annually, followed by South Texas wind production and then solar. Over the year, solar production is complementary with both WT and ST wind. WT wind paired with solar provided the highest levels of firm capacity at an 87.5% threshold. Accordingly, combining solar resources with WT wind might increase reliable power production on an annual basis. On a daily basis, however, WT wind, ST wind and solar all have different peak production times with ST wind peaking in the later afternoon, when demand for power is highest. This suggests that combining solar with ST wind might increase reliable power production over the course of a summer day during hours of high demand.
Directly comparing the sites’ hourly production with times of greatest demand throughout the year yielded further insights. Solar production was the highest during summer hours when load on the ERCOT grid was highest, and WT and ST wind productions were the highest during winter peak hours. WT wind showed greater production during both the summer and winter peak hours than the ERCOT estimate, suggesting ERCOT’s approach is conservative in this case. Our results also suggest a need for ERCOT to re-evaluate its estimates of ST wind availability during seasonal peak hours. We estimate that these coastal sites provide more output during winter peak load than summer, contrary to ERCOT’s assumptions in its resource assessments.
Comparisons of different solar configurations show that, though a west-facing fixed-tilt system yields less than half the output of a dual-axis tracking system, it can produce almost as much power during the peak load hours for summer. This suggests that a relatively low-cost system could play a valuable role in meeting summer peak demand.
Areas for further investigation include expanding the scope of measurements from seven sample sites to locations throughout the state in order to pinpoint specific locations that maximize complementarity (thus reliability) and best meet demand over the course of each day. Further research could also explore alternatives to the ERCOT resource adequacy factors that might more fully characterize the reliable production potential of Texas renewables. These results might suggest ways to organize future renewables projects to maximize reliability with minimal investment in expensive storage technologies. Such analyses will become increasingly important as the mix of Texas variable renewable electricity supply shifts from predominately West Texas wind to include more solar power and a broader mix of wind locations."
Texas also has enough hot air to eliminate their need for fossil fuels.
If you fly an ASK21, I'm curious about your speeds during approach, roundout, and touchdown.
The manufacturer says the ideal speed for the approach descent is 53, then you slow a bit during the roundout to level, then just before you touchdown you slow a bit more by raising the nose a tad.
Given the approach speed of 53, I figure after the roundout to level you'd be going maybe 48-50. A touch of backstick to touchdown would put you somewhere around 45-49?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...–present)
Now, since you ask such simplistic, juvenile questions, prove that you do not self mod or get a friend to do it. Such trivial things should not be modded up by any thinking human.
"Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
There is a lot of energy in the wind, so windmills do not have to be particularly energy efficient. Unlike a propeller which is being driven by the engine.
The efficiency that counts for windmills is cost per kilowatt extracted, not percentage of wind energy captured.
That said, they do look rather fragile, although I presume made of steel (as weight is no issue). I presume that strength vs energy capture vs cost of manufacture is the design trade off.
> So planes have to be built fairly lightly, but windmills can be much more solid.
At the same time, the airfoil isn't very thick, and thin things break easily. I'm not sure how to explain why this is so, but you intuitively know that it's a lot easier to break a thin piece of wood than a thick one - even if the thick one is a hollow truss.
So you have a weak shape (long and skinny) and high loads due to high leverage between the turbine tips and the hub.
Is that why you think commercial airliners can't fly faster than the Cesna in your earlier example? Or are you saying that the jet turbine tip is is spinning at 300,000kph?
Maybe you could think of the wind turbine blade as the wing of the 600mph plane instead of the thing that pulls the plane through the air by spinning at what amounts to a few orders of magnitude within relativistic speeds.
COMPLETE BULLSHIT. You do precisely that, but not necessarily in the generation method. You have an army of oil shills in DC doing your own anti-renewable campaign. You may not care how your hydrocarbons are burned, but by god, they're gonna be burned, consequences be damned. You fuckers own all the goddamned school text books. Every manufacturer around that wants decent sales write books to your backasswards standards regardless of where the intended audience is. There's other examples I don't feel like typing. I do know one thing though, Y'ALL DON'T DO SHIT. You piss and moan until you get your way, just like every other fucking state.
Bullpussy. I fucked 2 or 3 bitches outside Nacogdoches in the ass, for free I might add but not at the same time sadly. One of them could have been your mom or your sister. I wouldn't know exactly though, cause bitches don't have names.
I'm sure Texas is going to listen to a university in Illinois when their entire economy is based on fossil fuels and hundreds of thousands of people are fleeing Illinois for Texas.
Everything is bigger in it.