Posted on 06/27/2017 11:12:16 AM PDT by Thalean
Between 2013 and 2014, using IEA data, global demand for energy grew by 2,000 terawatt hours.
Let’s figure out how many wind turbines we’d need to build to meet this growing demand—we’ll ignore the fact that “environmentalists” would like us to simultaneously replace existing generating capacity.
Given that a standard two-megawatt wind turbine can produce 0.005 terawatt hours per year, we’d need to build some 350,000 wind turbines to meet this demand.
That’s 50% more turbines than we’ve build since the year 2000.
And it gets worse: at a standard density of 1 megawatt per 50 acres of land, we’d need to cover an area the size of the British Isles (the UK and Ireland together) with wind turbines—and that’s just to meet the demand for one year.
Our energy demands increase every year—at an accelerating pace.
And of course, better turbines won’t save us: the Betz limit imposes a physical restriction on the potential efficiency of a wind turbine.
Likewise, there’s only so-much energy that can be harvested from a fluid anyways—and each additional turbine (imperceptibly) reduces the efficiency of every other turbine in the region. Each turbine adds resistance.
Putting all that aside, it’s impossible, in practical terms, for us to erect enough turbines to meet our growing energy demands—even if we wanted to.
A two-megawatt wind turbine weighs some 250 tons. It’s made of steel
Given that it takes half a ton of coal to make a ton of steal (a source of carbon is needed), and add to that the coal needed to make the cement, each turbine requires some 150 tons of coal to build.
Multiplied by 350,000 turbines, this means we’d need some 50 million tons of coal per year—nearly half of Europe’s annual coal production...
(Excerpt) Read more at nationaleconomicseditorial.com ...
How many eagles have gone through the mixmaster? Where are the tree huggers for that?
Im a big fan of real geo-thermal heating and cooling for all new construction where it is remotely reasonable. The same for renovation cobstruction or heating/cooling replacement. Starting point of 55° is a pure winner.
If it can be produced at competitive rates, why not?
Tell it to Governor Moonbeam the Idiot.
I despise the blight these ugly turbines cause where they are deployed, especially in large numbers. The fact that we shouldn’t even bother makes me realize how disingenuous these eco-freaks are about finding real energy solutions. Whatever makes them feel better is the solution.
Wind farms are coming to North Carolina, I’ve just discovered. Booked a week at a cool beach house at Carova Beach, which I’ve never been to despite being born here and living here practically my entire life. Northeastern NC gets a pretty reliable, stiff breeze and has a great deal of underutilized private land. At $8,000 a pop annual land lease, the farmers are actually thrilled and the company doing this will be the largest taxpayer in the county in one fell swoop. So, I have mixed emotions. I don’t like the looks of the things, am worried that it’s a boondoggle, but if it’s not subsidized and the landholders as well as the jurisdiction is benefiting and none of them are up in arms, I can’t say that I see the problem other than aesthetics.
Those land leases provide our farmers with a steady stream of income, they're very happy.
The coastal plain of NC is deceptive, looking at a map. Driving down to the beach, you think you’re almost there when you get east of Raleigh or Fayetteville, but oh no you’re not, the flat just rolls, on and on. There is a whole lot of open, flat, largely undeveloped and largely unpopulated land there. I’m not talking about offshore or immediate coastal, I’m talking about the so-called “Inner Banks” inland of the sounds. The real estate and tourism people would throw an absolute fit over those things within sight of the beaches, and they won’t be.
In wind rich areas, wind generators are paying to generate because of Production Tax Credits.
Real Generators who do not depend on wind will not generate for a loss and shut down.
The grid will shut down due to fluke in the weather. Don’t expect the wind generators to be able to restart it do to lack of inertia.
Pretty much the end of the world for 80% of the population in the first year.
But at least we will not have to listen to the MSM/Gore and some other CNN looser how they almost got it right.
Why not? Here’s why:
1. Energy density is very low. It takes 1,000 times more land than a conventional coal or gas fired plant.
2. It destroys raptors at an incredible rate.
3. The constant thrump-thrump-thrump of low frequencies damages humans. Many ranchers have had to leave the land that’s been in families for generations because of the noise.
4. The shadow of the blades through early morning and late evening sun drives humans nuts.
5. The visual blight upon the beautiful American landscape is awful. These are the most hideous machines ever built. They are destroying the magnificent vistas all across the west.
6. You cannot dispatch the power. It’s available and you have to take it whether you want it or not. Surplus wind power almost totally collapse the Texas grid a couple years ago.
7. If you produce 100 MW of wind power, you have to have 100 MW of fossil-generated power on hot standby for the time the wind stops blowing. Wind blows mostly during the day and not so much at night in most parts of the US. So you have to spend 2X on your capital plant than you otherwise would have.
8. Windmills are extremely wasteful of steel and concrete compared to conventional plants. Both steel and concrete take a HUGE amount of coal to produce.
9. They cannot succeed without federally mandated State Renewable Energy Plans. Without public subsidies, the wind industry would die by tomorrow morning.
Other than those few problems, wind is great.
bkmk
Whales.
That’s your answer right there.
Hook these windmills up to a whale.
Then, as the whale swims along, he will be generating electricity.
You have to have a waterproof extension cord, but that’s like $8, so no big deal.
Yep.....windwhales.....that’s the trick.
Yearly wind energy production is also growing rapidly and has reached around 4% of worldwide electric power usage.
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power
Not a waste. The right pockets were lined.
Only because the electric companies are forced by law to buy wind generated power at market rates. The electric companies are also forced by law to permit access to the grid.
Given the choice electric companies would never buy wind generated electricity. It is erratic and unreliable (just like the wind).
Did you read the article? If you did read it again.
The title says “Wind Energy Meets Just 0.46% Of Global Energy Demand” not Electric Power Demand.
Energy means; liquid fuels, biofuels, natural gas, electricity and others.
Huge waste of money and resources. Like most “green” ideas.
Wind companies need two major things to generate wind power.
A place that has reliable winds.
And that place needs to be near electric power transmission lines.
Such locations are not that common and most of them are already in use.
And thanks to the NIBY spirit of US citizens these days building a new transmission line is almost impossible and very VERY expensive.
Good catch, Chief. (Sorry, DM.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.