Comments by "" (@old-pete) on "Business Insider" channel.

  1. It is enough to power large parts of different economies worldwide. The secret is combining different sources of energy.
    1
  2. It is cleaner. Coal power plants produce at least tentimes the waste for each kWh. And that waste contains water solvable toxins.
    1
  3. How long do you plan to wait?
    1
  4.  @TR-uw2sp  And waiting sounds like a solution to you?
    1
  5.  @TR-uw2sp  You claimed nuclear is the answer. There must have been a question.
    1
  6.  @TR-uw2sp  There you have your answer. Do want to live on with these issues, until someday there might be more nuclear power, or solve them?
    1
  7. It helps to read different sources and to think for oneself.
    1
  8. But they do. In Europe the big windturbine producers want to change the laws to make landfill disposal of turbine blades illegal, which is already the case in some countries since 2005.
    1
  9. So you think removing mountain tops is better? Windturbines result in a lot less CO2 emissions and waste than fossil fuels.
    1
  10. It is much much less.
    1
  11. If what?
    1
  12. So you would prefer tentimes the waste from coal powered plants?
    1
  13. Moving with up to 400km/h for 20 years through rain and dust will peel of the edges. There is also the problem of a billion load cycle in their lifetime, that damages their structural integrity. And it is better to remove the blades BEFORE they fail or it can get ugly.
    1
  14.  @Secretsofsociety  They are not designed to break. As I told you, breaking is to be avoided. And if you want to be nitpicky. The fastest large turbine goes over 320km/h. I must have mistaken the numbers from some experimental ones. The Vestas V126 goes up to 390km/h.
    1
  15. You are right, modern blades can last 25+ years.
    1
  16. One can recycle them all. It is mandatory in other countries. The energy used is much lower than the energy produced by them.
    1
  17. They cannot endure the load. Windturbine blades have around 1000times the loadcycles than. airplane wings.
    1
  18. The birds recycle itself. Nature is quite efficient that way.
    1
  19. Natural change is not as fast as it happens now. There also no natural driver for an increase in temperature.
    1
  20. That is why one combines a windpark with other windparks in different areas, solar, hydro, biogas, biomatter and when possible geothermic energy.
    1
  21. These nuclear technologies do not work yet in production models. Wind works at night, contrary to solar, which complement each other. Windpower does not need much agriculture land, especially if you compare that to bioethanol, which many farmers happily supply.
    1
  22. Wind energy is older than Marxists...
    1
  23. Since they produce much more energy than is needed in the creation, I do not see the issue.
    1
  24. ​ @Pete4875  As I wrote, the ressources needed are very small compared to the electricity produced. Bird killing can be reduced, but is much smaller than the number of birds killed by global warming or glass windows. Turbine blades landing in landfills is the result of countries not having proper enviromental protection laws. In other countries this is forbidden and recycling is mandated.
    1
  25. Depending on location, coal and nuclear are the most expensive option.
    1
  26. Less than 1/10th of the waste and 1/100th of the CO2 emissions of coal power plants would I not call evil...
    1
  27. Wind turbines run longer than car transmissions and they produce electricity cheaper than most fossil fueled power plants and that with a negative carbon footprint.
    1
  28. Lack of rain is not good for the plants. And hundreds of millions of people migrating to the cooler parts of the world is probably not good either, but I guess you have a spare room for half a dozen people.
    1
  29. ​ @jackreacher.  But you are forgetting that it gets warmer too and the effect you describe is minimal, especially when considering that plants need more water when getting bigger. Overall this will not be good for most plants.
    1
  30. Modern windturbines produce electricity cheaper than fossil fuel power plants.
    1
  31. Nuclear waste is hardly green.
    1
  32. Neither are cheap and only hydrogen is clean.
    1
  33. That is a personal problem. Countries could make the stuff themselves and I am pretty sure GE produces stuff in the US.
    1
  34. It is math. The usuable energy increases with volume of air used. The volume increases quadratic with the radius of the turbine blades.
    1
  35. You do not save it with fossil fuels...
    1
  36. It also creates an amount of toxic ash that is tentimes as large as the waste from windturbines.
    1
  37.  @beautifulsydney  Did you never burn coal or listen in school? It should be obvious that coal leaves ash. That is 5s on google, if you want a picture. If you are on it, google mountain top mining or open pit mining of coal. A more traditional look is spoil tips from subterranean mining. Some are over 100m high. And we did not even talk about the exhaust gases yet that include arsenic, lead, PAH, mercury, sulfur dioxide, sulfur nitrate, chromium, NOx, cadmium, cyanides and fine dust particles.
    1
  38. The impact is smaller than producing the same amount of electricity with coal power plants. They produce tentimes as much waste just in ash.
    1
  39. ​ @murigrim Yes. Btw all power plants need electricity to run. Waggons of frozen coal have to be unfrozen before one can empty the waggon.
    1
  40.  @murigrim  Coal does not thaw when it is frozen outside. And one cannot shovel coal frozen to a solid block, unless one want to shovel chunk by chunk, but that way feeding a coal power plant in winter will be difficult. All power plants that are disconnected from the grid, need some form of backup to run. That is the problem of grid failure. If the grid had worked, other windturbines could have supplied the power. Many nuclear power plants have built in diesel generators for emergencies as they need constant cooling, even when not running. The emissions are considered. The energy needed for transports is very small compared to construction, upkeep and maintenance.
    1
  41.  @murigrim  A nuclear power plant needs 40 to 60 MW electricity when NOT running, to be able to start again. Even for weeks, if it has a long downtime. If you take a nuclear power plant offgrid, it cannot start. No powerplant can! One either needs a grid connection to get jump started from other power plants or one uses a backup generator. That is the problem of a blackout. Getting all the power plants back up can take a lot of time. Do talk about power plants, if you do not know how they work. If your car has a dead battery it does not start. You either get a back up starter or another car (fuel powered generator) to start it. As long as windturbines have a working grid connection, they are fine.
    1
  42. ​ @murigrim  It is a designed feature that power plants need power.
    1
  43. ​​​​ @murigrim There is no logic in that. And they run fine with windpower, if the grid is not down. You do not seem to understand the problem. It was a grid failure, not a windpower failure. A grid failure applies to ALL power plants. Btw. the power of diesel generators is very low compared to the 40 to 60 MW needed for nuclear plants or the 20 to 40 MW of coal plants. Even gasturbines need heating not to freeze up. And yes, that is a lot more power than they are producing in standbye... And I have no idea about what rolling blackouts you are talking... And all power plants sell electricity for profit. That is how they work.
    1
  44. Because that is dangerous. One blade weighs many tons, if that goes flying, someone might get hurt. And there is a good chance that the rest of the turbine gets damaged and might fail too.
    1
  45. In other countries companies PAY money to get a license to build wind farms.
    1
  46. There is no plastic in the cement. It all burns up. Burning fossil fuels is worse. Have you seen the mountains, that have been beheaded for coal or the open pits in other countries?
    1
  47. Considering that coal power plants produce at least tentimes the waste per produced kWh, the exchanged a lot of waste for a lot less waste and a lot less CO2 emissions.
    1
  48. It produces more power with much less carbon emission than fossil fuels.
    1
  49. A solution is available for years. It is goverments that do not care about nature and allow dumping the blades.
    1
  50. That is why a multi energy source approach is better. The US is rich in hydro and solar sources. With 330 million people and millions of farm animals there should also be enough sources for biogas, which can also be easily stored.
    1