It's a matter of taste some people think any construction is ugly but I look at a lot of human structures and think they look really cool. Then there's those buildings that everyone complains about "oh they're gross" and whatever then they get ripped down and the complainers celebrate for 5 minutes before they realise a piece of the city's character is gone and they really liked having that landmark building. Even the empire state and chrysler building got called ugly back in the day and people eventually came to see the beauty.
off-shore windfarms generally produce an area where marinelife is sheltered. After the site is operational, there is no shipping causing noisepolution and no fishing. It is therefor even positive for fishing industry in the long run.
@@sturgoncomp07 I am from the uk and we have a lot of offshore wind farms. They say that populations of birds have not really changed around turbines. Sure birds die but not enough to cause the general population issues.
@@randeep6346 I think what Nhil actually meant to say is "how you take a very negative fact - "this area is no longer usable for anything" - and give it a quick makeover" :)
@@sturgoncomp07 with all the windturbines currently in the US between 140.000 and 500.000 birds die each year. If you want to offset the effect of extra off-shore windfarms, just ban all housecats, as they are responsible for 2,4 billion dead birds per year.
@@sturgoncomp07 that depends, bird deaths are pretty negligible on some of the more recent turbines especially when they paint them reflective colors. Bird deaths are more an issue for onshore birds like eagles and stuff. Not a concern for seagulls and albatross for example.
Salem MA is approved and received $120 million for a windmill building and staging ground for the windfarm going off of marthas vinyard. Oh they're coming soon.
New Englander here. So how many hillsides are we to cut down to make room for your beautiful windmills. How many ruined vistas. Surely if they were smokestacks you would be horrified by the aesthetics but since windmills make certain people feel warm and fuzzy then certain people can convince themselves they are not eyesores. Also who owns the land where thousands of bird Cuisinarts are to be planted? Public lands? And if the public says no thanks? Put them elsewhere? Private land? And if the landowners say no? Eminent domain? How many acres? At what cost? Can't wait to see the hills of Vermont covered with windmills. Or long island sound. Or cape cod. Hundreds of them. Thousands of them. Yeah the people I know in new england will be thrilled to see it. I can see rich people in Greenwich with mansions on the water demanding offshore windmills.
The USA has the same *offshore* wind ambitions. Onshore wind turbines are significantly cheaper and quicker to roll out, and the USA has lots of good sites for them. That's where the main action is. We want to keep developing offshore because it might end up being a better option for some locations (some costal cities). Plus, even if we don't end up using a lot of offshore wind (at least not anytime soon), it is nice to make and sell them to places where onshore isn't an option ;)
7 offshore wind farms generating 30 GW by 2030 is in fact a very low goal. As of 2021 Europe already has a total installed offshore wind capacity of 25 GW with 5K grid-connected wind turbines across 12 countries.
I’m from the uk and I think it’s about geography. Europe has a lot more coastline than the us and we have a lot of sheltered seas not deep oceans in many places. The UK has wind turbines far out to sea as it’s windy and the sea bed is no more than 200m down. So the economics are easier. Conversely we have far less empty onshore land so it’s harder to find enough sites away from people to do it on land.
Offshore wind is significantly more expensive than onshore, and the USA has lots of places good for onshore. Offshore costs will come down as we get better at it and build up the infrastructure/expertise... But we aren't sure how much. This 30GW goal is more about keeping offshore wind developing than really going for it as a major component of the power generation mix. It is a good option to have since it will be a cheaper option in for some locations, but probably not that many (though some of those may be big coastal cities... So, yeah, complicated.)
The difference is, we started much earlier in Europe. The first big wind turbine manufacturers started in Denmark, in the early 70s. In the 90s, the country was already covered with turbines, and it had also become way more popular in other European countries as well.
Can you imagine the turbines in the Gulf of Mexico during hurricane season? Lol. They would be able to power up to Canada. (I know that’s not actually possible.)
Wind turbines have brakes to stop them if there is too much wind. Technically the output would be Zero during a hurricane 😉. It's actually not feasible to put wind turbines in very high wind areas
@@calypso ? Wind power can totally replace the entire planet's energy needs. This needs massive interconnector buildout as well as massive grid upgrade as a whole, and much more grid storage is also necessary. The cost comes under 10c/KWh across the whole system. Of course, you could also replace the world's energy with a huge number of nuclear reactors, but the 10c/KWh number would be very challenging.
@@calypso cool, except nuclear requires a mined and largely imported fuel source to sustain it whereas wind does not. Also nuclear energy currently still has many waste recycling, waste storage, and waste management problems that create more long term issues and harm than wind does.
Until you find out how much oil and grease is needed to keep them running and how few wind turbine blades get recycled due to size material complexity.
Other dude has a point, but there really fragile so they damage easily and they are very ineffective damaged so they need to be replaced but thats only part of it, so you have to make more and then you have to get rid of them which is now to bury them which in is very non eco friendly.
Offshore is definitely the future unless fusion actually becomes feasible. More people live near coasts than they do deserts and other sun rich areas and oceanic winds are far more consistent AND stronger.
Depends on the Country. Around the Mediterranean its going to be solar, same in India and Australia. In Northern Europe and Eastern USA offshore wind is more practical.
Offshore is nice because of the reduced impacts on birds (pun not intended). And to throw my two cents into the green energy debate: construction cost and time, and materials are important; but don't forget about lifespan.
So we shouldn't care about gun related deaths? Because heart disease will kill significantly more. Our quest for green energy is so wrapped around climate issues that other aspects of the environment are ignored or dismissed as unimportant.
@@DrKahnihoochima Sea winds tend to be more stable, and offshore turbines can be bigger (boats are bigger than trucks) so you get even more stable high altitude winds. So capacity utilisation will be higher even if lifespan is lower.
An upgrade to the power distribution system is needed harassing much because it’s one thing to produce power but it needs to be sent around working along with other source of energy.
being worked on, EU has the continent wide exchanges, UK company set to start mass producing ultra high voltage under water cables, China is building their ultra high voltage transmission lines to bring solar from the NW desert area that is rather quickly becoming more solar farm then dessert. Not sure about any US projects though probably some private venture around testing some things out home battery storage and smart meters and EVS will help stabilise things as more get on the grid they can charge and be discharged (given permission and compensation for the electricity taken from your batteries, and only down to a pre agreed level) as needed and will work like small speaker plants dotted all over the country once there are enough of them and if the systems get set up right, Although given the fractured nature of the US's grids it would take some regulation and stepping in by the government and not sure there is the political will, most the EU will have that as a potential solution in the near future though as home battery or thermal storage become a thing it'll get integrated into stabelisation efforts.
@@Thebreakdownshow1 not realy, I have an interest I tend to follow stories on the transition the environment and where I can I check sources and read the papers, studies or press releases. So I know more then the average person I'd say but I'm far from an expert just a curious amature.
Wind and solar are not real solutions, if you truly care for "green energy" you would be pushing for nuclear but with you people it all about virtue signaling
@@stachowi true but the biggest flaw with nuclear is that it’s limited to the amount of fuel that is mined and imported in order to sustain it and how to effectively and properly use and store the waste. Wind, solar, and hydro on the other hand do not have those issues.
So the assertion that wind farms are an eyesore is completely unchallenged? 1. Wind farms look awesome, and given the option, I would move to have a view of one 2. Have you seen yachts parked in harbours? Floating pieces of fibreglass garbage owned by the worst people in the world? I'm willing to have a conversation about the aesthetics of wind farms, if you concede that parking boats in harbours should be banned, and they either need to be garaged, or also parked 26 miles offshore
I noticed that too. They were probably trying to seem neutral and just explain the facts, but of course there's always some bias. It's ridiculous how much power we give nimbys to block things in the name of "community input."
I don't understand why a more decentralized model isn't encouraged more. Do it closer to the home (solar home, maybe small windmill in larger backyard)
It's probably that it's not as profitable as big wind turbines because of economies of scale. Rooftop solar is increasingly common and it's cost effective but they still don't produce enough to fully power most households
@@udishomer5852 @niels lund @ocean, I did say in larger backyards, inferring the suburbs. Here's the deal: MASSIVE wind farms will never 1) offer reliable energy, 2) offshore ones will be subjected to corrosion (and have been at exponential rates) compared to land based ones, and 3) are eyesores when they aren't killing birds (sometimes endangered species). The energy density is not there compared to nuclear or fossil fuels. And it never will be.
@@MJCLAXDEN anytime someone says never they're not understanding how long forever is and how much things can change. But even now the worlds first subsidy free offshore wind farm just opened because it is commercially viable. Also, wind turbines and solar panels don't need continual fossil fuel extraction and don't have the operational costs from that. reliability is an issue thats why for now wind/ solar are mostly suplemented by fossil fuels when not producing but in the future we could have supergrids that send power from where its being produced to where its needed to solve for that. energy storage is getting better too
@@ocean6462 Uh-huh...because transmission is NEVER a problem in the Pollyanna world in which you live. Sorry, physical laws won't make it possible for generations...and likely not make it practical for generations after that. Besides, I thought "locally-sourced" was the "soy latte crowd's mantra".
Atlantic Canada also has tremendous potential for off shore wind generation. Combined with the hydro-electric plants in Quebec and Labrador, off-shore wind off the east coast of Canada and the USA could power the entire East Coast and even some Mid-West states such as Ohio and Michigan. We would need to build high voltage transport lines, such as the 720 kV lines used by Hydro-Quebec to transport power from the north to Montreal.
Si je me trompe pas le Québec ne peut plus augmenter de façon significative hydroélectricité les autochtones bloquerons la construction des futurs barrages. En plus avec le dérèglement climatique il n'est pas garantie que le taux de remplissage des réservoirs soit satisfaisant. Sans parler des difficulté à construire des interconnexion.
@@quentinnapieray5699 Avec les autochtones c'est toujours négociable; Selon les prévisions il devrait y avoir plus de précipitation au Québec et Labrador; Plusieurs interconexions existent déjà, ce n'Eat pas un obstacle important.
it'll be important to build integrated models that allow the wind energy to be stored, for example through hydrogen electrolysis. Offshore windfarms might have regulatory/planning challenges, but at least there is no NIMBYism from private individuals. The thought of building huge factories close to the coast and then shipping out blades and sockets is appealing to me - much better than overland transport. Luckily, the large oil companies have tremendous experience building structures in deep waters, so we might be able to ramp up more quickly than seems possible now.
3 weeks ago, I had dinner with a senior executive of one of the world-leading companies building far off-shore (i.e. floating) oil-drilling platforms . We had a conversation on renewable energies and the future of oil. When I stated that I believed that oil would be dead (as a major energy commodity) within 20-30 years, he corrected me: more like 10-20 years according to him. So, I asked him what his company was doing with their soon-to-disappear business. He explained me that they are modifying their unique technology to build floating wind-turbine platforms. They envision large wind farms, as far as hundreds of km offshore (he mentioned that the Southern Indian Ocean, way off the coast of Australia, would be a great place, as the winds are almost constantly very strong... and neighbors few). The generated power would be used on-site by a floating factory, converting all that energy, not to hydrogen (although it would obviously be the indispensable intermediate in the process), but to ammonia, far easier, safer and cheaper to store and transport. This ammonia would be shipped by tankers to high-population centers where it would be converted back to power, or used to produce nitrogen fertilizers... also in dire need! So, that future is not a pipe dream, major companies are preparing themselves for it!
Hydrogen electrolysis works best with purified water and I think traditionally PW is required for industrial scale operations but Stanford reports they've a solution to directly convert seawater by way of a specially designed anode that will outlast normal limit of 12 hours and allow 10x higher voltage. news stanford edu/2019/03/18/new-way-generate-hydrogen-fuel-seawater
@@nunya___ The problem with water hydrolysis is that its thermodynamic efficiency is limited by the oxidation to O2 at the anode, and not by the reductive generation of H2 at the cathode. If you replace the anode reaction by another, more favored oxidation reaction at the anode, you not only decrease the necessary potential, but you also produce two valuable chemicals, rather than a single one (oxygen having no industrial value). I have been working on the concept for the last 6-7 years... BTW, no need for purified water in those conditions!
@@st-ex8506 I think that's mostly what I said but O2 is used for medical and industry such as welding, steel production and also in sewage treatment and of course, rocket engines. What the Stanford team is quite clever.
Your location for the tallest land based wind turbine in the US is wrong. Just East of Canyon, TX stands a wind turbine with an overall height of 653.5 ft. It was constructed in 2018.
What are the reasons why only big windmills are being considered, rather than smaller "house-sized" windmills that anyone could attach to a roof? Infrastructure to and from the house is basically there already, to latch onto the main, and installing the system for solar shouldn't be too different than installing a system for wind.. I'm not savvy in electronic engineering, which is why I have so many questions!
They kind of touched on some of the reasons in the video. Larger blades, higher turbines, and flat unobstructed land all contribute to faster wind and more power. The inverse of that is smaller blades, lower towers, with lots of buildings and obstructions which basically describes most small personal wind power in urban/suburban areas. That’s not to say they can’t work in some situations. I know of a few on oceanfront residences/hotels for instance. But it would be hard to make it work in most residential neighborhoods. Solar, on the other hand, isn’t nearly as sensitive to scale.
Smaller scale wind turbines are not exactly feasible at the moment. A number of the reasons are touched upon in this video. Undecided with Matt Farrell had a video not long ago about small scale wind energy, the problems with wind at that scale, and some technology and companies that are working to try to make it feasible on the small scale. You should probably give that video a look.
Dumb question, but why do these turbines only use three blades? Wouldn't you leverage the surface area more if you added a lot more blades, like a jet engine?
If they go over 57%-ish efficiency the air building up behind the turbine slows down too much and gets in the way of air going through. So extra blades doesn't help.
onshore being cheaper takes into account the less reliable wind and distance of transmission etc... the fastest way to net zero is to relocate everyone living in wyoming (who doesnt like it) and cover the state with turbines there. offshore wind is in question in the same way that natural gas is not a replacement for coal. Build onshore wind and inshore wind, not offshore wind. Build turbines 20% less output but completely silent and its still cheaper than offshore.
My impression is that fisheries benefit from havens: areas that aren't fished and can help repopulate the areas that are. But declaring an area off-limits to fishing doesn't actually ensure that it isn't fished. Building a wind farm does ensure that at least the immediate area isn't fished.
Local individuals/groups and companies have way too much power to scupper projects that can benefit hundreds of thousands/millions of people. The needs of the many have to take precedence over the whims of the few.
The "eyesore" argument is so dumb. Oh, your poor eyes, how can they handle such a sight! I think buildings and roads are an eyesore, but I would rather have them and deal with the unsightliness
It depends on a number of factors (size of the wind farm, distance to coast, offshore turbines use slightly more steel than onshore turbines for example) but most estimates are approx 6-12 months of operation before the wind farm is carbon neutral.
A offshore wind turbine over its lifetime will emit 8-35 gCO2eq/kWh. Coal is 740-910 gCO2eq/kWh. Natural Gas is 410-650 gCO2eq/kWh. Look up "Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of energy sources".
So the industry is behind in finding recycling solutions... It's not a reason to stop all together. Do you have any idea how many lead acid batteries are in landfills... Now they can recycle 95% of them (and growing).
@@domtweed7323 So you're saying that after they are done being used as turbine blades that we should find another use for the material? I wish there was a word for that...
@@clintforest44 I think your misunderstanding. "Recycling", as it's commonly used, means breaking them down into component materials and reusing those. I'm saying whole blades could be useful components in the construction industry. For example, you could build a bridge out of a few blades + a decking over them.
I think they look cool but one issue with land based wind turbines is that they make low frequency noise. Like it's not loud but the background noise in rural areas is very quiet so it drives people nuts. woooosh woooosh woooosh
@@calypso Space is not an issue, you can put them near/in fields and they take very small space. Its the eye-sore, noise, height problem (aviation) and harm to birds.
Wind power doesn't disrupt a waterway, nor does it emit harmful fumes the way burning something for power does. Nuclear power is probably a bit cleaner, but the sight of a line of windmills along a ridge line is somewhat uplifting. That's why I feel that wind power is cleaner and better than burning coal or natural gas, although hydroelectric does have some virtues.
Wind energy can drive generators, and thermal power generation requires coal, oil and natural gas, so wind power can save power generation costs than thermal power.
Wouldn't vertical-axis / helical turbines be a better choice? They require less area so can be more densely grouped, they don't need to turn to face into the wind, and they also are less noticeable to the human eye than a spinning propeller.
Vertical axis turbines are simply less efficient in these sorts of 'good' locations. Folks did the maths on this stuff many many decades ago and did consider pretty much any configuration you would imagine, along with lots you probably wouldn't even imagine ;) When you start talking about small turbines in relatively bad locations, vertical axis can make sense. They also look cooler. But for big power generation, yeah, horizontal just wins because of the laws of physics.
Then there's the fact, that wind turbines actually correct themselves towards the wind direction. They also tip their blades, to be as effective as possible, during low and high wind.
@@travcollier so would vertical axis be more effective for home and urban use where wind currents are more complex and unpredictable. Also on top of large motor yachts amongst the vast domes and radars?
@@mikeward1701 I think those are cases where vertical might be more efficient. Engineering with Rosie has a couple of good videos on the topic. Here's one: ua-cam.com/video/EM-gCvhQhPU/v-deo.html
8:28 "Considering all the stakeholders" is 90% of the problem. If renewable energy is as existential as you say, then what stakeholders think is irrelevant. You simple do it and destroy anyone who gets in the way. If you aren't willing to do that, the issue clearly isn't existential and can be put on the back burner
You're comparing apples to oranges. 30GW is how much the wind farms could produce during ideal wind speeds at any moment. 30GWh is how much they would produce operating at 30GW for 1 hour. 365*24*30GW=262800GWh is how much they could theoretically produce for 1 year. Wind farms don't operate at maximum output constantly, so they use an uptime coefficient to adjust expected daily/yearly production. If we use a 0.25, that would give us 0.25*365*24*30GW = 65700GWh. It's still less than 2% of annual use, but you don't get there without having wind farms.
In French we have a saying that would translate to "little streams make large rivers". A single of those wind turbine would power a decent size town... or around 10'000 EVs. Less than 100 off-shore turbine is equivalent to a medium-size nuclear reactor... and they can be built much quicker!
Couple things, 1. You boasted about how with offshore turbines they can be bigger and generate more power, you failed to mention that the bigger the turbine, the more maintenance it needs, the bigger the blades, the faster the ends of those blades spin, and even with smaller turbines they spin at hundreds of miles an hour, so while the part of the blades closest to the center have no issues, further out, particles in the air drastically damage the blades, and this effect is exponential with blade length, so bigger does NOT mean better, 2. Noise pollution, turbines are obnoxiously loud, to the point the power they are able to produce is limited more by the level of sound they produce than anything else, we literally limit the rpm on them to keep sound levels below a certain decibal, at sea, sound going into water is amplified, to the point it usually drives alot of marine wildlife from the area, i am all for green tech, but wind has plenty of issues making it the worst of renewable energy production, and putting them in the ocean only makes those issues even worse, it pains me how blind people can be to these issues
The best place for a wind farm is outside in your yard, along with your solar panels. Big turbines might be more efficient at generating but factor in all the transmission losses and grid vulnerabilities and it makes more sense to just have your own decentralized wind and solar.
Small Garten wind turbines, makes a lot of noise, are very inefficient. It's also way more easy to maintain 10 large turbines, than to maintain 10.000 small ones. There's a reason why wind turbines are only getting bigger, and bigger. We started out with 10-50KW turbines in the 70s, and they've only been going up in size, ever since.
Nothing to do with finding places to put the OFWs and everything to do with the Jones act why the US is so far behind Europe and parts of Asia when it comes to offshore wind.
30GW / 10 million homes = 3kW continuous draw around the clock from every one of these homes = 72kWh per day per home! Something is wrong here , not even Americans can use that much electricity.
The installed capacity is different from the actual production, probably by a factor of 3-5. Also Americans have the highest electricity consumption per capita so this statement may be true.
Yeah the environmental concern is kind of make me laugh because it's like oh okay we'll just keep burning coal and cook the entire world and ruin everything instead of this one small area
True but there's ways to do renewable energy that are more sustainable than others, less destructive to local ecosystems. I largely agree with you tho because if its displacing fossil fuel use then that's reducing emissions and climate impacts
It isn't just the turbines or the reactors that get the ridiculous project timescales. An interconnector took 17 years to get approval (I forget exactly which state). NIMBYism is the main challenge to reasonable timescales.
Nobody is telling us what this nonsense will cost, how reliable they are, how difficult and expensive they are to maintain, and how many clams, oysters, and other crustaceans will be decimated. Commercial Fishermen in New Jersey say these will be built precisely where they fish, and it will hurt their business or put them out of business and all local restaurants that buy fish from them will be hurt also. I don't think the damage they will create and the cost of putting them in service is worth what they will produce and since nobody can control the wind they are not 100% reliable to produce what is needed when it's needed. I think Windmills are absolutely a stupid idea and solar panels should not be depended on either. Common sense electric energy is the newer safer Nuclear power. One last note, we need to fix our fragile means of delivering power that anything producing electricity flows through.
Its not tricky- its wrong. Turbines don't belong en-mass out in the sea. NJ USA is planning up to 5000 turbines in farms with some 150 substations... in total containing some 35Million gallons of hazardous fluids and 3.5Million pounds of SF6 (most potent GHG known to humanity, with a warming potential 23,900 times that of carbon dioxide (CO2) and atmospheric residence of up to 3,200 years.)... those fluids leaking and at risk to dumping into the sea en-mass with a natural disaster or military conflict. They are NOT Green, NOT Safe, NOT low cost energy. In fact, European citizens report to us that their electric rates went up 2-3x. The installation process in NJ puts them only 10-15 miles offshore in prime fishing, clamming and scallop grounds. Total destruction of these fisheries is expected due to disturbance of the ground from the installing the bases as well as the maze of connecting cables. And after installation, the choking of all living creatures will continue with constant silt generation to tidal currents moving around the bases of the turbines. Photos of such silt generation is observable at sites that have been installed. Further, NJ has no made apparent the "take charts", which are the declarations by the installers of potentially how many marine mammals the prospecting and installation is EXPECTED to "kill". NJ plays dumb that it doesn't know why our whales and dolphins are washing up on the shore during the seismic testing of the seabed. They know why, they approved it. And NJ is just the ground zero for the entire US coast, with Ocean City NJ being the start with the Oersted Ocean Wind 1 & 2. Our environment protection organizations are now approving of this, we have reason to believe their silence has been payed for. If you love the Jersey Shore, donate to our legal defense fund which is our most powerful method to STOP OFFSHORE WIND TURBINES NOW at protectourcoastnj.com
I support various forms of energy such as this and all, but honestly, anything shy of going nuclear is going to fall incredibly short, and it will take forever to even do that much. Nuclear is the safest, consistent, and clean form of energy that we have to work with. The amount of materials, up to and including toxic chemicals, that are involved in various projects, by just sheer scope, and we could just do so much more with nuclear. We gotta move forward and we gotta do it fast.
It may take 10 years to plan and construct an offshore wind turbine farm of 100 10MW turbines. It takes longer than that, to plan and build a nuclear power plant, with the same capacity.
@@akyhne I agree that building nuclear is definitely a long process, and I still support green energy projects in the meantime, but based on the energy we need versus the land / resources needed for nuclear versus every other option, nuclear is just overall the most effective method. So short-term green projects are good, but we need to make a HUGE push to start thinking and planning long-term projects that are absolutely necessary such as nuclear energy. At least until fusion goes commercial, but as the says goes we're always 20 years away. Until then, nuclear is critical, from small module reactors to massive facilities.
@@domtweed7323 Because the objective is often not to build the infrastructure, but to pass a bill, provide jobs to the most superficially diverse set of applicants, and convert the project into a subscription-based service for manufacturers and installation contractors at the expense of taxpayers. President Hunter’s dad is holding a gun to the heads of every American taxpayer, and Congress keeps pulling his trigger.
@@jeffreyboyd2758 Yes, but sometimes big infrastructure projects are genuinely useful. The issue you've got is their planning offshore wind on such a small scale, so the per unit costs are very high. If you had a massive role our of thousands of turbines they'd be much cheaper per unit, and at a reasonable cost per kilowatt. There's also value is a diverse electrical system: If one thing breaks the lights stay on (for example, my native UK is heavily gas dependent, and really suffering from exploding gas prices atm). So a bit of expensive offshore wind is useful because it adds resilience.
@@domtweed7323 Certainly agreed on energy diversification, but I think it makes sense to prove the concept on a small scale before becoming pot committed. At one time, there were more horse-drawn buggies than automobiles, until the automobile became more efficient to operate. The Swedish middle school drop out ruling global energy policy has certainly backed everyone into a corner, having to shun the single most reliable, scalable, portable, and efficient energy source our civilization was built upon in favor of wind-powered oceanic transport vessels (who could have imagined it?) and shaving the forests and leveling mountain tops to make way for fields of delicate solar panels to power in-home electric lighting (what a time to be alive!). There are massive fields of wells in the North Sea, and a growing number of wind turbines. How many turbines would it take to make one well obsolete?
@@jeffreyboyd2758 Firstly offshore wind is a proven technology. Not in North America, but Europe (specifically the North sea) it's producing a large chunk of the UK's electricity (30-40% from wind of all types). I agree it's a bummer needing to give up fossil fuels. But the only sector more important than electricity is agriculture, and large scale agriculture won't work in an unstable climate (tropical agriculture is very possible in Norway or Canada, but a lot of people would starve during the decade-long transition), so we don't have a choice. And lastly we won't use much useful land for the current transition to solar/wind. Solar works best in deserts (lots of sun with no clouds), so we won't be losing many forests/grasslands too them. And wind turbine footprints aren't much bigger than a large tree after installation, and pretty negligible at sea. (Though, with energy demand growing exponentially, I dare say that will be an issue by 2100.)
Can we just agree that nimby people moaning that turbines are an eyesore and therefor should not be built, should be publicly executed to our entertainment and their bodies fed into a coal powerstation they must be loving so much? Ok joke aside.... WTF are the priorities of these people? Not only have windmills been around way before these people were even born and before we used the concept for electricity they actually look quite nice in my opinion. I like looking at them turning and they collect humongous amounts of energy. If someone is triggered by them turning nicely on the horizon well... we should tell them to move inland and they won't have to look.
Another point to consider is that offshore wind *can* reduce the impact of hurricanes. Pulling gigawatts of power out of the edge of a hurricane is enough to diffuse its vortex ;)
Let's say offshore wind deployments track growth in human power demand, so 3% a year. That's a doubling every 24years-ish, so x16 a century. I wonder long it is until we run out of wind/sea. 2200? 2300?
The Great Lakes would be the best place for a wind turbines I don't know why we haven't started their yet Cleveland, Chicago and Detroit would be the quickest and essayist places to get to 100% green energy. I know that's not the largest population centers but it would be a great start.
So these things will get designed, permitted, built, used, dismantled and dumped into landfils half a dozen times over the lifespan of a typical nuclear plant... And it's supposed to be a green technology?
The biggest problem for off shore wind power and the USA anyways is the introduction of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors that appear to be en route to the US power grid. Since all of the siting and connecting infrastructure has already been built out there is a very impressive "plug and play" advantage to this idea...again in the USA although presumably in Canada as well.
SMRs have the same problem as all new NPPs - they're too expensive and take decades to build, with huge billion dollar cost overruns and decade delays.
Could be great when they actually build them. SMR's don't exist yet, so lets build our postmodern windmills for now and focus on SMR's when their ready for production at scale.
The real reason it is so hard to find a suitable place to put windmills has nothing to do with nature, it has to do with aesthetics. The liberals who push the myth of "man-made" global climate change want windmills and solar panels - JUST NOT IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS. -- If the liberals actually believe that the oceans are rising and we're in real danger of losing our coastlines, then why do they all seem to live so close to the beach in their huge mansions that they reach in fleets of gas guzzling SUV's after being flown there in their private jets?
I predict a terrible tragedy will happen with the Floating Wind Turbines and the melting of the “Doomsday Glacier “. That’s a recipe for disaster if I ever saw one. Not to mention H.A.A.R.P. ‘S capabilities.
In the middle of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, far away from everything. Floating turbines + solar using electrolysis to generate Hydrogen (and byproducts). All shipped back to shore in drone ships. Drones could also double as hydrogen filling stations for trans-ocean Hydro-powered cargo ships.
Why is wind even a consideration? Solar panels are incredibly cheep and don't ruin the beautiful views of the ocean. I'm dumbfounded that this is even an option when the alternative is so much better! Solar is silent, low profile, can be built stealthily into homes, can occupy desserts or unfarmable land, can be used in parallel with farming to shade crops, and lasts for 25 to 50 years. A ocean turbine lasts for between 5 and 20 years and needs continuous maintenance. Again the fact that wind is even being considered is absolutely DUMBFOUNDING...
“An Ahundred…” 😳 07:40 “In May of 2022 two energy companies bought an ahundred 10 thousand acre site…”. Why do some folks keep saying “an ahundred” when they mean “a one hundred”? You either use “an” or “a” but not both together. In this case “an” is entirely unnecessary. Part of the problem here may be the difference between what’s in the script and how the presenter is choosing to say it. When a script is going to be read aloud then numbers should be spelled out as words instead of digits. Then the poor narrator doesn’t have to do mental gymnastics trying to decide if “an” or “a” should be used.
So let me get this right. You invest in an intermittent energy source that is unreliable what percentage of the time. Which means installed capacity and transmission lined must be built out at a factor of what 2 to 3 times what's need for conventional sources. And let's say all these windmill dreams in the west come true. China and India are opening new coal plants every week. So the west will spend trillions on wind energy and the net effect on global temperatures will be what?there is an energy crisis unfolding right in front of our eyes in western Europe and California ground zero for green fantasies. And yet instead of giving pause green advocates want to double down.
China are aiming to have the world's largest wind power installed capacity, because they want to be the world leader in the technology. And because they have massive hydoelectric capacity (about 18% of their grid) they can use to offset the intermittency. Why can't America do the same?
Where do *I* think the best spot for offshore wind farms are? Well gee, let's ignore the experts and just get me out there with my binoculars picking spots. I know these questions are all about driving engagement, but sometimes it's okay to acknowledge that the average viewer just doesn't have the knowledge and expertise to give an informed opinion.
I’m surprised they are considered an “eyesore”, I think they look really cool. I’ve been to the UK and seen a lot of them off the coast
It's a matter of taste some people think any construction is ugly but I look at a lot of human structures and think they look really cool. Then there's those buildings that everyone complains about "oh they're gross" and whatever then they get ripped down and the complainers celebrate for 5 minutes before they realise a piece of the city's character is gone and they really liked having that landmark building. Even the empire state and chrysler building got called ugly back in the day and people eventually came to see the beauty.
I find them very relaxing to watch as they turn.
Never under estimate baby boomers
Rich NIMBYs don't care about what's good for the community.
I love seeing them around the countryside and off the coast (brit here). To me they are visible sign of progress towards the future.
off-shore windfarms generally produce an area where marinelife is sheltered. After the site is operational, there is no shipping causing noisepolution and no fishing. It is therefor even positive for fishing industry in the long run.
And all the birds die around them too great for the fish they get free food
@@sturgoncomp07 I am from the uk and we have a lot of offshore wind farms. They say that populations of birds have not really changed around turbines. Sure birds die but not enough to cause the general population issues.
@@randeep6346 I think what Nhil actually meant to say is "how you take a very negative fact - "this area is no longer usable for anything" - and give it a quick makeover" :)
@@sturgoncomp07 with all the windturbines currently in the US between 140.000 and 500.000 birds die each year. If you want to offset the effect of extra off-shore windfarms, just ban all housecats, as they are responsible for 2,4 billion dead birds per year.
@@sturgoncomp07 that depends, bird deaths are pretty negligible on some of the more recent turbines especially when they paint them reflective colors.
Bird deaths are more an issue for onshore birds like eagles and stuff. Not a concern for seagulls and albatross for example.
New Englander here. Love wind farms! I hope to see many more in future
Salem MA is approved and received $120 million for a windmill building and staging ground for the windfarm going off of marthas vinyard. Oh they're coming soon.
Talk to Vermont you hypocrites.
Said none of the wealthy Leftist who paid millions for their ocean view at Martha's Vinyard. Haha
@@brianjonker510 About what?
New Englander here. So how many hillsides are we to cut down to make room for your beautiful windmills. How many ruined vistas. Surely if they were smokestacks you would be horrified by the aesthetics but since windmills make certain people feel warm and fuzzy then certain people can convince themselves they are not eyesores. Also who owns the land where thousands of bird Cuisinarts are to be planted? Public lands? And if the public says no thanks? Put them elsewhere? Private land? And if the landowners say no? Eminent domain? How many acres? At what cost? Can't wait to see the hills of Vermont covered with windmills. Or long island sound. Or cape cod. Hundreds of them. Thousands of them. Yeah the people I know in new england will be thrilled to see it. I can see rich people in Greenwich with mansions on the water demanding offshore windmills.
Damn guys the whole of US has the same wind ambitions as the tiny Netherlands...
The USA has the same *offshore* wind ambitions. Onshore wind turbines are significantly cheaper and quicker to roll out, and the USA has lots of good sites for them. That's where the main action is.
We want to keep developing offshore because it might end up being a better option for some locations (some costal cities). Plus, even if we don't end up using a lot of offshore wind (at least not anytime soon), it is nice to make and sell them to places where onshore isn't an option ;)
7 offshore wind farms generating 30 GW by 2030 is in fact a very low goal. As of 2021 Europe already has a total installed offshore wind capacity of 25 GW with 5K grid-connected wind turbines across 12 countries.
I’m from the uk and I think it’s about geography. Europe has a lot more coastline than the us and we have a lot of sheltered seas not deep oceans in many places. The UK has wind turbines far out to sea as it’s windy and the sea bed is no more than 200m down. So the economics are easier.
Conversely we have far less empty onshore land so it’s harder to find enough sites away from people to do it on land.
Offshore wind is significantly more expensive than onshore, and the USA has lots of places good for onshore.
Offshore costs will come down as we get better at it and build up the infrastructure/expertise... But we aren't sure how much.
This 30GW goal is more about keeping offshore wind developing than really going for it as a major component of the power generation mix. It is a good option to have since it will be a cheaper option in for some locations, but probably not that many (though some of those may be big coastal cities... So, yeah, complicated.)
The difference is, we started much earlier in Europe. The first big wind turbine manufacturers started in Denmark, in the early 70s. In the 90s, the country was already covered with turbines, and it had also become way more popular in other European countries as well.
So how are things working out in windmill powered Europe these days? Energy must be pretty cheap and reliable.
Go ahead and propose a windfarm off Martha vineyard
Can you imagine the turbines in the Gulf of Mexico during hurricane season? Lol. They would be able to power up to Canada. (I know that’s not actually possible.)
Wind turbines have brakes to stop them if there is too much wind. Technically the output would be Zero during a hurricane 😉.
It's actually not feasible to put wind turbines in very high wind areas
Ya, you have a good point.😂
I just imagine out lights glowing mad bright during hurricane season haha
It’s funny cuz you had to say (that’s not actually possible)lol
Funny thought :) Several manufacturers actually offer typhoon proof turbines to the Asian market
People who consider wind farms in the water, an eyesore; are just going to have to stuff it. we did this to ourselves
Totally, the effects of global warming are by far a bigger eyesore that a few windmills
Wind turbines don't generate nearly as much power as nuclear
@@calypso ? Wind power can totally replace the entire planet's energy needs. This needs massive interconnector buildout as well as massive grid upgrade as a whole, and much more grid storage is also necessary. The cost comes under 10c/KWh across the whole system. Of course, you could also replace the world's energy with a huge number of nuclear reactors, but the 10c/KWh number would be very challenging.
@@calypso cool, except nuclear requires a mined and largely imported fuel source to sustain it whereas wind does not. Also nuclear energy currently still has many waste recycling, waste storage, and waste management problems that create more long term issues and harm than wind does.
@@calypso squares are bigger than circles
As soon as the person said " Size Does Matter" . My heart broke
truth hurts sometimes 😂
We should put next to where the rich people build their beachfront properties.
why
@@ingislakur you know they are doing everything to avoid giving back to society
I think the spinning propellers are beautiful, especially since they mean my electricity is environmentally-friendly and cheaper.
Until you find out how much oil and grease is needed to keep them running and how few wind turbine blades get recycled due to size material complexity.
Other dude has a point, but there really fragile so they damage easily and they are very ineffective damaged so they need to be replaced but thats only part of it, so you have to make more and then you have to get rid of them which is now to bury them which in is very non eco friendly.
yeah no its not. i can see that you are an american. but wind turbines are not cheaper or better.
Yeah, environmentally-friendly decimating birds.
And the piles of dead birds and bats is something to see too.
Offshore is definitely the future unless fusion actually becomes feasible. More people live near coasts than they do deserts and other sun rich areas and oceanic winds are far more consistent AND stronger.
And tidal energy!
Depends on the Country. Around the Mediterranean its going to be solar, same in India and Australia.
In Northern Europe and Eastern USA offshore wind is more practical.
Offshore is nice because of the reduced impacts on birds (pun not intended).
And to throw my two cents into the green energy debate: construction cost and time, and materials are important; but don't forget about lifespan.
Wind turbines kill 100,000 to 450,000 birds a year
Domestic cats kill approximately 2,400,000,000 birds a year
So we shouldn't care about gun related deaths? Because heart disease will kill significantly more.
Our quest for green energy is so wrapped around climate issues that other aspects of the environment are ignored or dismissed as unimportant.
At least you mention the lifespan of these intrusive structures. These affect pelagic birds.
@@DrKahnihoochima Sea winds tend to be more stable, and offshore turbines can be bigger (boats are bigger than trucks) so you get even more stable high altitude winds. So capacity utilisation will be higher even if lifespan is lower.
An upgrade to the power distribution system is needed harassing much because it’s one thing to produce power but it needs to be sent around working along with other source of energy.
being worked on, EU has the continent wide exchanges, UK company set to start mass producing ultra high voltage under water cables, China is building their ultra high voltage transmission lines to bring solar from the NW desert area that is rather quickly becoming more solar farm then dessert. Not sure about any US projects though probably some private venture around testing some things out home battery storage and smart meters and EVS will help stabilise things as more get on the grid they can charge and be discharged (given permission and compensation for the electricity taken from your batteries, and only down to a pre agreed level) as needed and will work like small speaker plants dotted all over the country once there are enough of them and if the systems get set up right, Although given the fractured nature of the US's grids it would take some regulation and stepping in by the government and not sure there is the political will, most the EU will have that as a potential solution in the near future though as home battery or thermal storage become a thing it'll get integrated into stabelisation efforts.
@@YearRoundHibernater Dang this is a very detailed have you researched this in the past for some school work or anything?
@@Thebreakdownshow1 not realy, I have an interest I tend to follow stories on the transition the environment and where I can I check sources and read the papers, studies or press releases. So I know more then the average person I'd say but I'm far from an expert just a curious amature.
I kind of find them relaxing to look at. If I lived at the beach, I'd be cool if I could see them.
Technology: It can be done.
Republicans: But we'll use up all the wind! (actual quote)
Yeah, it's called nuclear... the rest is a waste... I'm an electrical engineer, I know what i'm talking about.
@@stachowi If we gonna go all green, all options should be used not just any particular sources. Nuclear, wind, solar, thermal, hydro
Wind and solar are not real solutions, if you truly care for "green energy" you would be pushing for nuclear but with you people it all about virtue signaling
@@DOSFS why? nuclear is carbon free and can out-power everything else... don't forget it takes energy to build and deploy wind and solar...
@@stachowi true but the biggest flaw with nuclear is that it’s limited to the amount of fuel that is mined and imported in order to sustain it and how to effectively and properly use and store the waste. Wind, solar, and hydro on the other hand do not have those issues.
So the assertion that wind farms are an eyesore is completely unchallenged?
1. Wind farms look awesome, and given the option, I would move to have a view of one
2. Have you seen yachts parked in harbours? Floating pieces of fibreglass garbage owned by the worst people in the world? I'm willing to have a conversation about the aesthetics of wind farms, if you concede that parking boats in harbours should be banned, and they either need to be garaged, or also parked 26 miles offshore
I noticed that too. They were probably trying to seem neutral and just explain the facts, but of course there's always some bias. It's ridiculous how much power we give nimbys to block things in the name of "community input."
I mean oil drilling sites, coal and oil plant etc are even worse. lung sore too
I don't get it either.
They look way better off shore. Wind farms on shore look awful.
@@AC-im4hi why does it matter though?
PETA probably yelling "think of the seagulls!"
Far enough off-shore that they aren't even seagulls for neighbors!
Peta never think, that's their problem 😅
@@masteryoda394 Same for Greepeace when it comes to nuclear!
Think of all the fish those dead seagulls will feed.
@@st-ex8506 definitely
I don't understand why a more decentralized model isn't encouraged more. Do it closer to the home (solar home, maybe small windmill in larger backyard)
It's probably that it's not as profitable as big wind turbines because of economies of scale. Rooftop solar is increasingly common and it's cost effective but they still don't produce enough to fully power most households
The power of a large offshore wind turbine is easily 1000 times more than what you can get from one small turbine in your yard.
@@udishomer5852 @niels lund @ocean, I did say in larger backyards, inferring the suburbs. Here's the deal: MASSIVE wind farms will never 1) offer reliable energy, 2) offshore ones will be subjected to corrosion (and have been at exponential rates) compared to land based ones, and 3) are eyesores when they aren't killing birds (sometimes endangered species). The energy density is not there compared to nuclear or fossil fuels. And it never will be.
@@MJCLAXDEN anytime someone says never they're not understanding how long forever is and how much things can change. But even now the worlds first subsidy free offshore wind farm just opened because it is commercially viable. Also, wind turbines and solar panels don't need continual fossil fuel extraction and don't have the operational costs from that. reliability is an issue thats why for now wind/ solar are mostly suplemented by fossil fuels when not producing but in the future we could have supergrids that send power from where its being produced to where its needed to solve for that. energy storage is getting better too
@@ocean6462 Uh-huh...because transmission is NEVER a problem in the Pollyanna world in which you live. Sorry, physical laws won't make it possible for generations...and likely not make it practical for generations after that. Besides, I thought "locally-sourced" was the "soy latte crowd's mantra".
Atlantic Canada also has tremendous potential for off shore wind generation. Combined with the hydro-electric plants in Quebec and Labrador, off-shore wind off the east coast of Canada and the USA could power the entire East Coast and even some Mid-West states such as Ohio and Michigan. We would need to build high voltage transport lines, such as the 720 kV lines used by Hydro-Quebec to transport power from the north to Montreal.
Si je me trompe pas le Québec ne peut plus augmenter de façon significative hydroélectricité les autochtones bloquerons la construction des futurs barrages.
En plus avec le dérèglement climatique il n'est pas garantie que le taux de remplissage des réservoirs soit satisfaisant.
Sans parler des difficulté à construire des interconnexion.
@@quentinnapieray5699 Avec les autochtones c'est toujours négociable; Selon les prévisions il devrait y avoir plus de précipitation au Québec et Labrador; Plusieurs interconexions existent déjà, ce n'Eat pas un obstacle important.
Id love to see HVDC lines go in, then the east coast wind could team up with the solar energy of the American southwest
it'll be important to build integrated models that allow the wind energy to be stored, for example through hydrogen electrolysis. Offshore windfarms might have regulatory/planning challenges, but at least there is no NIMBYism from private individuals. The thought of building huge factories close to the coast and then shipping out blades and sockets is appealing to me - much better than overland transport. Luckily, the large oil companies have tremendous experience building structures in deep waters, so we might be able to ramp up more quickly than seems possible now.
3 weeks ago, I had dinner with a senior executive of one of the world-leading companies building far off-shore (i.e. floating) oil-drilling platforms . We had a conversation on renewable energies and the future of oil. When I stated that I believed that oil would be dead (as a major energy commodity) within 20-30 years, he corrected me: more like 10-20 years according to him. So, I asked him what his company was doing with their soon-to-disappear business. He explained me that they are modifying their unique technology to build floating wind-turbine platforms. They envision large wind farms, as far as hundreds of km offshore (he mentioned that the Southern Indian Ocean, way off the coast of Australia, would be a great place, as the winds are almost constantly very strong... and neighbors few). The generated power would be used on-site by a floating factory, converting all that energy, not to hydrogen (although it would obviously be the indispensable intermediate in the process), but to ammonia, far easier, safer and cheaper to store and transport. This ammonia would be shipped by tankers to high-population centers where it would be converted back to power, or used to produce nitrogen fertilizers... also in dire need!
So, that future is not a pipe dream, major companies are preparing themselves for it!
Hydrogen electrolysis works best with purified water and I think traditionally PW is required for industrial scale operations but Stanford reports they've a solution to directly convert seawater by way of a specially designed anode that will outlast normal limit of 12 hours and allow 10x higher voltage.
news stanford edu/2019/03/18/new-way-generate-hydrogen-fuel-seawater
@@nunya___ That's great, but doesn't solve the storage, transportation, and inefficiency problems of hydrogen.
@@nunya___ The problem with water hydrolysis is that its thermodynamic efficiency is limited by the oxidation to O2 at the anode, and not by the reductive generation of H2 at the cathode. If you replace the anode reaction by another, more favored oxidation reaction at the anode, you not only decrease the necessary potential, but you also produce two valuable chemicals, rather than a single one (oxygen having no industrial value). I have been working on the concept for the last 6-7 years...
BTW, no need for purified water in those conditions!
@@st-ex8506 I think that's mostly what I said but O2 is used for medical and industry such as welding, steel production and also in sewage treatment and of course, rocket engines.
What the Stanford team is quite clever.
Your location for the tallest land based wind turbine in the US is wrong. Just East of Canyon, TX stands a wind turbine with an overall height of 653.5 ft. It was constructed in 2018.
What are the reasons why only big windmills are being considered, rather than smaller "house-sized" windmills that anyone could attach to a roof? Infrastructure to and from the house is basically there already, to latch onto the main, and installing the system for solar shouldn't be too different than installing a system for wind.. I'm not savvy in electronic engineering, which is why I have so many questions!
They kind of touched on some of the reasons in the video.
Larger blades, higher turbines, and flat unobstructed land all contribute to faster wind and more power.
The inverse of that is smaller blades, lower towers, with lots of buildings and obstructions which basically describes most small personal wind power in urban/suburban areas.
That’s not to say they can’t work in some situations. I know of a few on oceanfront residences/hotels for instance. But it would be hard to make it work in most residential neighborhoods.
Solar, on the other hand, isn’t nearly as sensitive to scale.
Smaller scale wind turbines are not exactly feasible at the moment. A number of the reasons are touched upon in this video. Undecided with Matt Farrell had a video not long ago about small scale wind energy, the problems with wind at that scale, and some technology and companies that are working to try to make it feasible on the small scale. You should probably give that video a look.
Dumb question, but why do these turbines only use three blades? Wouldn't you leverage the surface area more if you added a lot more blades, like a jet engine?
And why are they so huge? Can't the cities put them on top of buildings like the old antenas they used to have?
If they go over 57%-ish efficiency the air building up behind the turbine slows down too much and gets in the way of air going through. So extra blades doesn't help.
@@nancyfahey7518 Bigger ones make cheaper power (double the turbine length to x4 the output), and taller turbines capture more stable wind.
Oh yeah perfect put them in hurricane alley really smart.
Measuring the blade length in both feet and football field and not putting meters is just insane… This is not how you provide proper information
onshore being cheaper takes into account the less reliable wind and distance of transmission etc... the fastest way to net zero is to relocate everyone living in wyoming (who doesnt like it) and cover the state with turbines there. offshore wind is in question in the same way that natural gas is not a replacement for coal. Build onshore wind and inshore wind, not offshore wind. Build turbines 20% less output but completely silent and its still cheaper than offshore.
My impression is that fisheries benefit from havens: areas that aren't fished and can help repopulate the areas that are. But declaring an area off-limits to fishing doesn't actually ensure that it isn't fished. Building a wind farm does ensure that at least the immediate area isn't fished.
We need more offshore wind farms.
Dumb idea. You have no idea what you are talking about, these dint do what they tell you..
Local individuals/groups and companies have way too much power to scupper projects that can benefit hundreds of thousands/millions of people. The needs of the many have to take precedence over the whims of the few.
The "eyesore" argument is so dumb. Oh, your poor eyes, how can they handle such a sight! I think buildings and roads are an eyesore, but I would rather have them and deal with the unsightliness
What is the total carbon footprint for manufacture and installation of the wind farms and when is the break even point?
It depends on a number of factors (size of the wind farm, distance to coast, offshore turbines use slightly more steel than onshore turbines for example) but most estimates are approx 6-12 months of operation before the wind farm is carbon neutral.
A offshore wind turbine over its lifetime will emit 8-35 gCO2eq/kWh. Coal is 740-910 gCO2eq/kWh. Natural Gas is 410-650 gCO2eq/kWh. Look up "Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of energy sources".
Actually wind generation has two problems: one is location and the second is blade degradation and the fact they cannot be recycled.
So the industry is behind in finding recycling solutions... It's not a reason to stop all together.
Do you have any idea how many lead acid batteries are in landfills... Now they can recycle 95% of them (and growing).
@@clintforest44 Why do we need to "recycle" them? There just big pieces of artificial timber, lets build stuff with them.
@@domtweed7323 So you're saying that after they are done being used as turbine blades that we should find another use for the material?
I wish there was a word for that...
@@clintforest44 I think your misunderstanding. "Recycling", as it's commonly used, means breaking them down into component materials and reusing those.
I'm saying whole blades could be useful components in the construction industry. For example, you could build a bridge out of a few blades + a decking over them.
In the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic the problem is they would be destroyed by Hurricanes.
They work fine in the middle of the North Sea! Their designed to deal with high winds (in fact, that's rather the point)
Great video but please tone down on the music next time
Nuclear ☢️ today🫵
Nuclear ☢️ tomorrow🫵
Nuclear ☢️ FORVER 🫵
Put a dozen of those things about 40 yards off the shoreline of Obama's house.
Can the floating ones be moved to other locations?
Theyre usually constructed onshore and floated into place and anchored to the oceanfloor when they are put into service.
people think it is an eyesore? Really? The privilege is real.🙄 if anything I think it is so awesome seeing these turbines spin.
With the occasional dead whale
I think they look cool but one issue with land based wind turbines is that they make low frequency noise. Like it's not loud but the background noise in rural areas is very quiet so it drives people nuts. woooosh woooosh woooosh
They also waste a lot of space and kill hundreds of birds
@@calypso Space is not an issue, you can put them near/in fields and they take very small space. Its the eye-sore, noise, height problem (aviation) and harm to birds.
The UK has the world's biggest offshore wind farm of the coast of Grimsby in the North Sea
Wind power doesn't disrupt a waterway, nor does it emit harmful fumes the way burning something for power does. Nuclear power is probably a bit cleaner, but the sight of a line of windmills along a ridge line is somewhat uplifting. That's why I feel that wind power is cleaner and better than burning coal or natural gas, although hydroelectric does have some virtues.
I keep seeing those massive cliff sides and can't help but see a turbine turned on its side making use of that "continuous" updraft.
Wind energy can drive generators, and thermal power generation requires coal, oil and natural gas, so wind power can save power generation costs than thermal power.
Yeah, that's kind of how all electricity is made... With generators...
Wind turbines cannot run without fossil fuels.
Wouldn't vertical-axis / helical turbines be a better choice? They require less area so can be more densely grouped, they don't need to turn to face into the wind, and they also are less noticeable to the human eye than a spinning propeller.
Vertical axis turbines are simply less efficient in these sorts of 'good' locations. Folks did the maths on this stuff many many decades ago and did consider pretty much any configuration you would imagine, along with lots you probably wouldn't even imagine ;)
When you start talking about small turbines in relatively bad locations, vertical axis can make sense. They also look cooler. But for big power generation, yeah, horizontal just wins because of the laws of physics.
Then there's the fact, that wind turbines actually correct themselves towards the wind direction. They also tip their blades, to be as effective as possible, during low and high wind.
@@travcollier so would vertical axis be more effective for home and urban use where wind currents are more complex and unpredictable. Also on top of large motor yachts amongst the vast domes and radars?
@@mikeward1701 I think those are cases where vertical might be more efficient.
Engineering with Rosie has a couple of good videos on the topic. Here's one:
ua-cam.com/video/EM-gCvhQhPU/v-deo.html
Can I lease my backward to a wind turbine? Can I charge rent and/or receive free electricity?
Do you live in the middle of nowhere? Then maybe.
Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.
8:28 "Considering all the stakeholders" is 90% of the problem.
If renewable energy is as existential as you say, then what stakeholders think is irrelevant. You simple do it and destroy anyone who gets in the way.
If you aren't willing to do that, the issue clearly isn't existential and can be put on the back burner
1:34 i guess the best unit of measurements, is football fields
How about we build more nuclear power plants.
A wind turbine is not an eyesore.
Put a few right offshore from Mor-On-Lardo, Florida, just for the lulz.
Dude seek help, you suffer from a severe case of TDS 🤣... oh wait with bideninflation you probably can barely afford food
3930000 GWH is how much the United States uses a year. 30GWH is so miniscule
*GWh not GW
@@masteryoda394 thanks
@@fyodorgalyukov you're welcome
You're comparing apples to oranges. 30GW is how much the wind farms could produce during ideal wind speeds at any moment. 30GWh is how much they would produce operating at 30GW for 1 hour. 365*24*30GW=262800GWh is how much they could theoretically produce for 1 year. Wind farms don't operate at maximum output constantly, so they use an uptime coefficient to adjust expected daily/yearly production. If we use a 0.25, that would give us 0.25*365*24*30GW = 65700GWh. It's still less than 2% of annual use, but you don't get there without having wind farms.
In French we have a saying that would translate to "little streams make large rivers".
A single of those wind turbine would power a decent size town... or around 10'000 EVs. Less than 100 off-shore turbine is equivalent to a medium-size nuclear reactor... and they can be built much quicker!
3:59 that's what she said
No mention of the mooring cables for floating windmills and their impact on whales?
Turn your background music on your videos down. REALLY ANNOYING!
Maybe offer the shoreline NIMBY's electricity at a 30% discount
0:09 30 GW is nothing when compared to industrial needs.
Couple things, 1. You boasted about how with offshore turbines they can be bigger and generate more power, you failed to mention that the bigger the turbine, the more maintenance it needs, the bigger the blades, the faster the ends of those blades spin, and even with smaller turbines they spin at hundreds of miles an hour, so while the part of the blades closest to the center have no issues, further out, particles in the air drastically damage the blades, and this effect is exponential with blade length, so bigger does NOT mean better, 2. Noise pollution, turbines are obnoxiously loud, to the point the power they are able to produce is limited more by the level of sound they produce than anything else, we literally limit the rpm on them to keep sound levels below a certain decibal, at sea, sound going into water is amplified, to the point it usually drives alot of marine wildlife from the area, i am all for green tech, but wind has plenty of issues making it the worst of renewable energy production, and putting them in the ocean only makes those issues even worse, it pains me how blind people can be to these issues
The Cape of Storms is the best place. But sjoe.... too much vulnerable marine life.
How viable would it be to attach wind turbines on a blimp/airship or space elevator?
Well, since à space elevator is currently impossible, that's kind of out
The best place for a wind farm is outside in your yard, along with your solar panels. Big turbines might be more efficient at generating but factor in all the transmission losses and grid vulnerabilities and it makes more sense to just have your own decentralized wind and solar.
Sure every apartment in New York and Boston will put one in their balcony.
Small Garten wind turbines, makes a lot of noise, are very inefficient.
It's also way more easy to maintain 10 large turbines, than to maintain 10.000 small ones.
There's a reason why wind turbines are only getting bigger, and bigger. We started out with 10-50KW turbines in the 70s, and they've only been going up in size, ever since.
Nothing to do with finding places to put the OFWs and everything to do with the Jones act why the US is so far behind Europe and parts of Asia when it comes to offshore wind.
They just approved one in Lake Erie.
30GW / 10 million homes = 3kW continuous draw around the clock from every one of these homes = 72kWh per day per home! Something is wrong here , not even Americans can use that much electricity.
The installed capacity is different from the actual production, probably by a factor of 3-5.
Also Americans have the highest electricity consumption per capita so this statement may be true.
@@udishomer5852 Yes She must be talking about installed power, so yes 20%+ is more likely the actual output.
20% is very very low though, offshore usually has more than 40% capacity factor.
SAVE THE SNAPPERS!!!!
Wind farms are beautiful.
This would have been interesting to watch but the background music is just too much. I’ll stick to the transcript then.
Good
Yeah the environmental concern is kind of make me laugh because it's like oh okay we'll just keep burning coal and cook the entire world and ruin everything instead of this one small area
True but there's ways to do renewable energy that are more sustainable than others, less destructive to local ecosystems. I largely agree with you tho because if its displacing fossil fuel use then that's reducing emissions and climate impacts
Wind turbines cannot function without a steady supply of fossil fuels.
Why do half of her statements sound like questions?
Jeez some of those cost and build time figures make even the worst nuclear power plant projects look reasonable.
It isn't just the turbines or the reactors that get the ridiculous project timescales. An interconnector took 17 years to get approval (I forget exactly which state). NIMBYism is the main challenge to reasonable timescales.
With a nuclear power plant the barrier to entry is a lot higher. With wind, it's at least possible to gradually scale up.
Nobody is telling us what this nonsense will cost, how reliable they are, how difficult and expensive they are to maintain, and how many clams, oysters, and other crustaceans will be decimated. Commercial Fishermen in New Jersey say these will be built precisely where they fish, and it will hurt their business or put them out of business and all local restaurants that buy fish from them will be hurt also. I don't think the damage they will create and the cost of putting them in service is worth what they will produce and since nobody can control the wind they are not 100% reliable to produce what is needed when it's needed. I think Windmills are absolutely a stupid idea and solar panels should not be depended on either. Common sense electric energy is the newer safer Nuclear power. One last note, we need to fix our fragile means of delivering power that anything producing electricity flows through.
Enable caption
Its not tricky- its wrong.
Turbines don't belong en-mass out in the sea. NJ USA is planning up to 5000 turbines in farms with some 150 substations... in total containing some 35Million gallons of hazardous fluids and 3.5Million pounds of SF6 (most potent GHG known to humanity, with a warming potential 23,900 times that of carbon dioxide (CO2) and atmospheric residence of up to 3,200 years.)... those fluids leaking and at risk to dumping into the sea en-mass with a natural disaster or military conflict.
They are NOT Green, NOT Safe, NOT low cost energy. In fact, European citizens report to us that their electric rates went up 2-3x. The installation process in NJ puts them only 10-15 miles offshore in prime fishing, clamming and scallop grounds. Total destruction of these fisheries is expected due to disturbance of the ground from the installing the bases as well as the maze of connecting cables. And after installation, the choking of all living creatures will continue with constant silt generation to tidal currents moving around the bases of the turbines. Photos of such silt generation is observable at sites that have been installed. Further, NJ has no made apparent the "take charts", which are the declarations by the installers of potentially how many marine mammals the prospecting and installation is EXPECTED to "kill". NJ plays dumb that it doesn't know why our whales and dolphins are washing up on the shore during the seismic testing of the seabed. They know why, they approved it. And NJ is just the ground zero for the entire US coast, with Ocean City NJ being the start with the Oersted Ocean Wind 1 & 2. Our environment protection organizations are now approving of this, we have reason to believe their silence has been payed for. If you love the Jersey Shore, donate to our legal defense fund which is our most powerful method to STOP OFFSHORE WIND TURBINES NOW at protectourcoastnj.com
These "windmills" i call death machines! If you can't stop them, then move.
I support various forms of energy such as this and all, but honestly, anything shy of going nuclear is going to fall incredibly short, and it will take forever to even do that much. Nuclear is the safest, consistent, and clean form of energy that we have to work with. The amount of materials, up to and including toxic chemicals, that are involved in various projects, by just sheer scope, and we could just do so much more with nuclear. We gotta move forward and we gotta do it fast.
It may take 10 years to plan and construct an offshore wind turbine farm of 100 10MW turbines.
It takes longer than that, to plan and build a nuclear power plant, with the same capacity.
@@akyhne I agree that building nuclear is definitely a long process, and I still support green energy projects in the meantime, but based on the energy we need versus the land / resources needed for nuclear versus every other option, nuclear is just overall the most effective method.
So short-term green projects are good, but we need to make a HUGE push to start thinking and planning long-term projects that are absolutely necessary such as nuclear energy. At least until fusion goes commercial, but as the says goes we're always 20 years away. Until then, nuclear is critical, from small module reactors to massive facilities.
OH NO!!!!!! How are the fish off Carolina going to survive the windmills in the air??!!!! HOW DARE YOU!!!??? YOU HAVE RUINED MY CHILDHOOD
4:00
4:01 sorry fellas
Do the Block Island turbines generate enough power to power Block Island? (No.)
Yeah, they only installed 5 of them. Why is America incapable of building big infrastructure without doing a half-arse job?
@@domtweed7323 Because the objective is often not to build the infrastructure, but to pass a bill, provide jobs to the most superficially diverse set of applicants, and convert the project into a subscription-based service for manufacturers and installation contractors at the expense of taxpayers. President Hunter’s dad is holding a gun to the heads of every American taxpayer, and Congress keeps pulling his trigger.
@@jeffreyboyd2758 Yes, but sometimes big infrastructure projects are genuinely useful.
The issue you've got is their planning offshore wind on such a small scale, so the per unit costs are very high. If you had a massive role our of thousands of turbines they'd be much cheaper per unit, and at a reasonable cost per kilowatt.
There's also value is a diverse electrical system: If one thing breaks the lights stay on (for example, my native UK is heavily gas dependent, and really suffering from exploding gas prices atm). So a bit of expensive offshore wind is useful because it adds resilience.
@@domtweed7323 Certainly agreed on energy diversification, but I think it makes sense to prove the concept on a small scale before becoming pot committed. At one time, there were more horse-drawn buggies than automobiles, until the automobile became more efficient to operate. The Swedish middle school drop out ruling global energy policy has certainly backed everyone into a corner, having to shun the single most reliable, scalable, portable, and efficient energy source our civilization was built upon in favor of wind-powered oceanic transport vessels (who could have imagined it?) and shaving the forests and leveling mountain tops to make way for fields of delicate solar panels to power in-home electric lighting (what a time to be alive!). There are massive fields of wells in the North Sea, and a growing number of wind turbines. How many turbines would it take to make one well obsolete?
@@jeffreyboyd2758 Firstly offshore wind is a proven technology. Not in North America, but Europe (specifically the North sea) it's producing a large chunk of the UK's electricity (30-40% from wind of all types).
I agree it's a bummer needing to give up fossil fuels. But the only sector more important than electricity is agriculture, and large scale agriculture won't work in an unstable climate (tropical agriculture is very possible in Norway or Canada, but a lot of people would starve during the decade-long transition), so we don't have a choice.
And lastly we won't use much useful land for the current transition to solar/wind. Solar works best in deserts (lots of sun with no clouds), so we won't be losing many forests/grasslands too them. And wind turbine footprints aren't much bigger than a large tree after installation, and pretty negligible at sea. (Though, with energy demand growing exponentially, I dare say that will be an issue by 2100.)
TLDR: NIMBY, also bigger and taller is better.
Can we just agree that nimby people moaning that turbines are an eyesore and therefor should not be built, should be publicly executed to our entertainment and their bodies fed into a coal powerstation they must be loving so much? Ok joke aside.... WTF are the priorities of these people? Not only have windmills been around way before these people were even born and before we used the concept for electricity they actually look quite nice in my opinion. I like looking at them turning and they collect humongous amounts of energy. If someone is triggered by them turning nicely on the horizon well... we should tell them to move inland and they won't have to look.
Another point to consider is that offshore wind *can* reduce the impact of hurricanes. Pulling gigawatts of power out of the edge of a hurricane is enough to diffuse its vortex ;)
Let's say offshore wind deployments track growth in human power demand, so 3% a year. That's a doubling every 24years-ish, so x16 a century. I wonder long it is until we run out of wind/sea. 2200? 2300?
Laughs in danish
The Great Lakes would be the best place for a wind turbines I don't know why we haven't started their yet Cleveland, Chicago and Detroit would be the quickest and essayist places to get to 100% green energy. I know that's not the largest population centers but it would be a great start.
I don't understand how they can be an eyesore i was thought it made an sight more impactful.
This is literally a mapped out foreshadowing of the whale beachings we are seeing at present.
So these things will get designed, permitted, built, used, dismantled and dumped into landfils half a dozen times over the lifespan of a typical nuclear plant... And it's supposed to be a green technology?
The biggest problem for off shore wind power and the USA anyways is the introduction of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors that appear to be en route to the US power grid. Since all of the siting and connecting infrastructure has already been built out there is a very impressive "plug and play" advantage to this idea...again in the USA although presumably in Canada as well.
SMRs have the same problem as all new NPPs - they're too expensive and take decades to build, with huge billion dollar cost overruns and decade delays.
Could be great when they actually build them. SMR's don't exist yet, so lets build our postmodern windmills for now and focus on SMR's when their ready for production at scale.
The real reason it is so hard to find a suitable place to put windmills has nothing to do with nature, it has to do with aesthetics. The liberals who push the myth of "man-made" global climate change want windmills and solar panels - JUST NOT IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS.
-- If the liberals actually believe that the oceans are rising and we're in real danger of losing our coastlines, then why do they all seem to live so close to the beach in their huge mansions that they reach in fleets of gas guzzling SUV's after being flown there in their private jets?
I predict a terrible tragedy will happen with the Floating Wind Turbines and the melting of the “Doomsday Glacier “. That’s a recipe for disaster if I ever saw one. Not to mention H.A.A.R.P. ‘S capabilities.
I like giant fans they do make some crazy sounds but only if your close
Metric please
Heck yeah!
It's Cheddar!
Better than Vox
In the middle of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, far away from everything. Floating turbines + solar using electrolysis to generate Hydrogen (and byproducts). All shipped back to shore in drone ships. Drones could also double as hydrogen filling stations for trans-ocean Hydro-powered cargo ships.
0:10 and enough to kill a million whales
Why is wind even a consideration? Solar panels are incredibly cheep and don't ruin the beautiful views of the ocean. I'm dumbfounded that this is even an option when the alternative is so much better! Solar is silent, low profile, can be built stealthily into homes, can occupy desserts or unfarmable land, can be used in parallel with farming to shade crops, and lasts for 25 to 50 years. A ocean turbine lasts for between 5 and 20 years and needs continuous maintenance. Again the fact that wind is even being considered is absolutely DUMBFOUNDING...
What if you want power at night?
Woot, First!
“An Ahundred…” 😳
07:40 “In May of 2022 two energy companies bought an ahundred 10 thousand acre site…”. Why do some folks keep saying “an ahundred” when they mean “a one hundred”? You either use “an” or “a” but not both together.
In this case “an” is entirely unnecessary. Part of the problem here may be the difference between what’s in the script and how the presenter is choosing to say it.
When a script is going to be read aloud then numbers should be spelled out as words instead of digits. Then the poor narrator doesn’t have to do mental gymnastics trying to decide if “an” or “a” should be used.
So let me get this right. You invest in an intermittent energy source that is unreliable what percentage of the time. Which means installed capacity and transmission lined must be built out at a factor of what 2 to 3 times what's need for conventional sources. And let's say all these windmill dreams in the west come true. China and India are opening new coal plants every week. So the west will spend trillions on wind energy and the net effect on global temperatures will be what?there is an energy crisis unfolding right in front of our eyes in western Europe and California ground zero for green fantasies. And yet instead of giving pause green advocates want to double down.
China are aiming to have the world's largest wind power installed capacity, because they want to be the world leader in the technology. And because they have massive hydoelectric capacity (about 18% of their grid) they can use to offset the intermittency. Why can't America do the same?
Where do *I* think the best spot for offshore wind farms are? Well gee, let's ignore the experts and just get me out there with my binoculars picking spots.
I know these questions are all about driving engagement, but sometimes it's okay to acknowledge that the average viewer just doesn't have the knowledge and expertise to give an informed opinion.
Make sure after its service to take it down, solar is better than wind