Wind Power: The Truth
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 сер 2012
- Wind power is set to play a vital role in the UK's future energy mix, yet the truth of its versatility and usefulness is often lost in a bluster of myths and untruths. Our Wind Power Facts video is packed with interesting and current facts about wind power, and is a great learning resource about wind energy.
The video sets out factually supported evidence of the expediency of wind power, answers a host of common questions and dispels a cloud of myths which surround the industry.
Following popular demand we have put all of the facts, calculations and references from the video on the ASC Renewables website which you can find here at www.ascrenewables.com/content/...
Thanks and acknowledgements:
Creative talent: Cristina Chapman and TBI media.
Copyright Disclaimer: Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. - Наука та технологія
The UK has the most wind because of all the baked beans we eat.
lol, lol I agree !!
Wrong energy source. That wind, if refined, is called "clean natural gas". I haven't looked up the identity of the intestinal methanogens, but you might like to try it. Oho, I did. The dominant one seems to be Methanobrevibacter smithii.
Don't let AOC find out!
TRUE!
@@albertrogers8537 r/wooosh
The big issue with wind and solar is that we cannot effectively store electricity and the regions where we can produce wind and solar energy are relatively far from where we consume it most. This means that for every Kw of power produced by wind and solar we need to have something that can produce that same amount of power while the renewables aren't producing. Often these are coal and gas powerplants, which are even less efficient while ramping up to meet demand and ramping down when the renewables kick in, undercutting the carbon footprint reduction of the renewables.
Beyond that, Wind is one of the deadliest forms of energy by KwH produced. The energy density of wind is low compared to other powersources and it requires constant maintenance high up in and on the gondola, every year many workers fall to their deaths.
Beyond that their figures on nuclear decomissioning makes no sense. 70 bil / 226 years since the french revolution comes out to about 300mil a year. The UK govt alone subsidizes the windmill industry to the tune of approx 1,2 bil a year. That's just the subsidies. Also their figures don't factor in the value of the amount of energy that those NPPs have produced that would have otherwise had to come from somewhere else.
Beyond that a program of nuclear decomissioning wouldn't even be needed if we maintained and continued to upgrade our nuclear power plants to more modern and safer designs.
Also, ironically nuclear is one of the least deadly forms of energy production per KwH produced, and that's including Fukushima and Chernobyl.
+Semni Istiqlal It's good to see your logic and truth of the matter. They certainly have put out some slick propaganda, however, it ignores or plays down the serious short comings in the application of Wind Energy.
.....................................
I have had some involvement in the Generation Industry and it has to be said : the subsidies, tax relief & industry bias towards supporting green renewable's is nothing short of corrupt.!!! I have witnessed, fossil fuel based Power stations in other Countries, being run out of business due to; financial support for "Wind" competitors.
......................................
Only then do they realize their mistake, when the intermittent wind falls so low everything blacks out. We sometimes see claims of 40% or more,,, then I've found the records to fall to 2% on some days; that's reality.!
Wind & Solar are extremely difficult to achieve, as "base load power" in an industrialized society.
1arritechno
Renewables would be feasible if we could transmit electricity long distances in an affordable manner or store it, however we cannot.
+Semni Istiqlal Yes, I believe we are on the same page. I am aware of the cryogenic storage conversion to reduce intermittent generation problems and even pumping up to hydroelectricity dams by day to off set down time,,, even though they work,, they are not efficient.
.........................................................................................................
Long distance supply is problematic due to powerfactor - phase instability in high tension because it comes from too many sources that have to be synchronized & stepped up. Not ideal for base load on the Grid.
Obviously if enough money is thrown at it ; it's all achievable... but not in any way practical...
+1arritechno And if we had communities or cities producing their own wind power could that work? Energy would not need to be transmitted along long distances, and communities and cities would be in charge of their own power supply. Surely you can collect enough power from wind to keep for when there is a short fall?
Meeka Tomey-Alleyne
We have no practical way of storing city scale levels of electrical energy. More over, even if we did, if say windmills were generating sufficient power 50% of the time, we'd need to have twice as much generating power than we'd otherwise need because we'd have to be making up for the shortfall in that period.
Further, few cities are located in very windy areas, which reduces the amount of time that the installed windmills are generating power which means you need more excess generating capacity.
Further, many cities have tall buildings which impede the flow of the wind which further reduces windmill efficiency.
Further, windmills are fairly noisy, if you are building them literally inside the city limits people would not like you very much.
All of these factors combine to having cities require windmill parks much larger in surface area than the cities themselves, which results in a very costly and environmentally unfriendly solution to your problem ( the raw materials for the windmills need to be mined, refined, transported and manufactured somehow ).
Yes we have used wind for thousands of years for transportation, and im sure anyone who was stuck on one of those ships would tell you it sure does such when the wind dies!
Wind is blowing because the sun is heating the earth unevenly. And as long as the sun shines on earth the wind will not die. If it dies, I would rather worry about freezing to death and not about getting stuck on the ocean.
***** You're obviously the one who clearly do not know what you're talking about. Wind power is anything but reliable and stable. You don't seem to realize the fact that you need an overcapacity of 100% to make it work. What you do in your back yard does not prove a thing, compared to powering an entire city.
Look at how terrible it works up here in Denmark. Also, look at the fact that you need to produce 100 more equal sized wind powered generators for each generator you need for steam, gas or hydro power. Do you know how much energy it takes to mine and reffine the metals going into those generators? Have you any idea about how toxic it is to leach copper, produce aluminium and the composites needed? Do you have a solution for recycling the composites of old wind turbines, or the toxic waste created from the production? I don't think so, since the worlds leading manufactures haven't been able to find a solution, other than store it or burry it in a land fill. Finish off by looking into how many of those materials people work with in wind turbine production and the waste are carcinogens, seeping into the ground, and eventually ground water.
Matthias Hahn The wind does not have to die, it just have to settle down enough. And it does that a lot. Ever hear about that dark thing called night? Or calm days? There by no means enough wind all the time for wind power to work, unless you run an overcapacity that is beyond ridiculous. Trust me, I know, I live in Denmark, where we get shafted by Vestas and the goverment each time we pay for power.
@Matthias Hahn
I think you missed the point. He doesn't mean the wind literally dies like a person would, he means dies as in stops blowing. This happens a lot. I'm sure you've been outside and noticed that sometimes there is a ton of wind, and sometimes there is no wind. This is the issue of intermittency and is one of the biggest hurdles of sources like wind, tidal, and solar.
yeah wind can die if your not in the right area but wind turbines are placed in areas that have consistant wind patterns like the Great Plains or the coastlines.
everyone on youtube got a Phd in environmental engineering...
Ha ha. It maybe that some of the brighter users do some research rather than accept half-truths and downright lies ?
Yeah, but my daughter got a PhD from MIT in environmental engineering. There's a difference.
YOU HAVE A SON
Philip Eriksson how?
and social studies.
As for wind turbines spoiling the view; wind turbines ARE the view.
I lve in Rhos-On-Sea, where there is a large offshore wind farm and I must certainly agree with you.
Wind turbines and solar panels, (and water turbines if you live near a stream or river) while expensive to buy, make an excellent long-term investment because their power source will never run out, no matter how much of it you use.
I wouldn't count on anything anymore with the governments that we have here(USA) and around the world, everything could come to an end in seconds. one thing that I'm working on is a small steam engine for back up power hoping that I'll still have some wood and water.
Good plan. The world is unlikely to run out of either.
Thats a great point. I know hundreds of homeowners with wind turbine on the roof. Not one wants to camo or repaint them. The best view is to the owner. The view of his power bill which is zero or close to it. BUT, compared to that, these utility turbines do not benefit a homeowner at all. The govt and utilities in most cases charge more and use the consumer to retool their wasteful technology. My main point is.. buy your own, and reap the benefits of it. THEN, it looks so nice turning wind into savings.
What a low blow against nuclear power. The price of these 2 energies are like night and day. Wind turbines are an extremely expensive energy source.
How expensive was Fukushima? As I live in this neighborhood, I can tell you that one Fukushima incident will cost more than all the wind power ever produced. They can't even put a price tag on it. If it's man-made, it's going to break. You can't take that chance with nuclear power.
Japan is going back to burning fossil fuels. Do we really want that? You can't power a country with wind and solar energy. There was a 2 weeks period in Denmark where no wind was blowing at all. Did I not use my computer or flush the toilet during that time?
Coal destruction each year cost more than every nuclear accidents combined. And wind turbines do not produce power all the time. So you can't compare it to other energy sources. We only use it as a part time energy in Denmark and have the most expensive energy in the world because of our wind turbines. The Japanese electricity price will go up. It will become much higher than it was before 2011.
Jurij Fedorov The secret to making renewables work is diversification: You don't put all your eggs in one basket. Sure, Denmark might have had a calm spell for two weeks--hey, it happens---but I'll bet each of those days were sunny. Then there is ocean current/wave power (bet the Atlantic wasn't calm during that period). The best idea I ever saw for renewable energy was in a book titled "Sun Power" by Ralph Nansen, an engineer who touted placing gigantic solar power satellites in geosynchronous orbit, which would transmit their captured energy to Earth in the form of a microwave beam, which in turn would be converted back into electricity--no pollution at all. He explains it all in great detail. Check it out. The book is out of print but is online. Just Google his name, you'll find it. One of the more stunning pieces of info he gives (and this has the ring of truth), is that any solar cell will produce FIVE times as much power in space than it would on the best location on Earth. Such a scenario would definitely solve the issue of "baseload," which you rightly inferred in your posts and has been the bane of all renewable energy concepts.
You don't get it. We don't need green energy tomorrow. We need it now! The earth is going to get 2 degrees warmer no matter what and it will probably get at least 4 degrees hotter. But if we wait for wind power or solar power to become a good energy source, which it is not at all today, we will destroy life as it is in the meantime. We need to build a nuclear power plant every day for the next 100 years if we want life to continue as it is.
I really can't remember I saw a bird colliding with a building and they state that is the primary cause of bird fatality by far. Hm...
Buildings don't jump in front of birds.
But have u ever seen a bird be killed by a wind turbine either? The chances of someone coincidentally seeing either is very low but it happens.
I live in southern Alberta in Canada. Lots of migratory birds killed every year by wind turbines here. Lots of things ignored in this blog like what happens to the turbines at the end of their life cycle. Too damn expensive .
@@keithharley9729 here in Ohio big windows kill a fuckton of birds
@@keithharley9729 Here in in russia wind kills birds
This is all great, an encouraging story from a company with a vested interest in the proliferation of wind technology.
Now compare it to advanced nuclear reactors and tell me what your best option is.
Still wind, it's cheaper
@@luongmaihunggia plus it's safer
It’s easier to construct and uses up less space. Finding an area to place the is very difficult
@@danieljohnsopardenilla997
Nuclear energy is the safest form of energy ever developed. It kills almost half of what wind does globally, and in the US wind kills 1,500 times as many people as Nuclear per unit of energy generated. Wind is very safe, but it shows that nuclear is insanely safe, contrary to what the average person may believe. The public opinion needs to shift. Its scary to think that oil and coal companies have convinced the public that nuclear is more dangerous than coal, when coal kills 150,000 times as many people as nuclear in the US.
@@Henriburger1 Oil and gas companies could not care about nuclear. Oil will be used in cars planes and ships. And gas is so cheap. The same people who are anti-nuclear, are also anti oil and gas. Those are the crazy radical environmentalists.
I'm a big supporter of nuclear power. It's highly reliable with a capacity factor of +90%. It does have a drawback when it comes to safety. If, if a mistake occurs, the damage will be unfathomable. Still worth it. Clean and abundant power.
Not mentioned is the fact that wind power on the grid ensures dependence on fossil fuels. Since the turbines don't spin all the time, windmills don't produce electricity all the time and the grid can fail. Luckily backup gas generators kick in whenever needed to sustain the grid.
Batteries
@@insertyourfeelingshere8106 lol had they forgetten those existed?
Just because a turbine is spinning 80% of the time doesn't mean it's producing electricity. Total capacity factor is usually around 30%. If you just assume it's producing it's rated power output just because it's spinning you will get skewed numbers.
leerman22 Point me where it says in the video that turbines produce their rated power 80% of the time. I can't find that slide...
LHFX
That's not what I said. Not showing people the capacity factor and showing the percentage of "sniping time" misleads them.
leerman22 Usually less than 30% would be more like it. Wind Force is proportional to the square of the speed, power to the cube.
leerman22 Well people who would assume that by watching the video are also the ones who don't have any idea what "capacity factor" means. What is certain is that all other estimates take into account a realistic capacity factor. "Spinning time" is also a meaningful statistic as it gives an indication on the distribution of power output over time.
LHFX
If turbines are just spinning it doesn't mean they have enough torque to drive the grid. If they use synchronous generators then they would need to also spin at a set RPM, then they synchronize and lock into the grid frequency.
Capacity factor is a more realistic measure for how much energy they actually produce in a year but it doesn't tell us what time of day they are actually running at.
....and when you have no wind during several days ...how do you have electricity....???
A bike + generator
Contrary to what you've been told about batteries, we're not there yet and when there's a YET, I don't hold my breath.
You might want to talk about Tesla batteries, but at absolute best they last 10yrs and by then they are greatly diminished. I bought an eGo electric lawnmower, which used the same exact cells that Tesla was using and I lost 30% capacity per year. By the beginning of year 3, the mower wouldn't cut grass. Replacing the batteries was 70% of replacing the whole system. So, I really got 8mo total out of those batteries. I could have bought and run 4 gas powered lawnmowers, which would have lasted 10yrs or better. That's probably a 15x better return.
I'm not basing everything on that batteries and especially not lawnmower batteries, but batteries are far from ready. The UK in particular has historically based its ROI (Return On Investment) on 30% of nameplate power, that means a 1 megawatt turbine would basically be like having a 300kW turbine (on average). However, the real numbers show the UK turbines to be outputting 16%. So a 1 megawatt turbine outputs 160kw (on average). You might want to call that free energy, but it's anything but. At 16%, the turbine would NEVER ROI. Regardless what they're telling you, what they are selling you is green optics, a feel good technology.
Of course outcomes can be improved, but they should start with rigorous financial and engineering principles, not feel good optics. Above all, our governments should be working with real numbers, not rainbow unicorn glitter numbers.
@@cornpop7805 if you got a new lawnmower would it be petrol powered?
@@NuttyCuts_
I recently bought a petrol powered lawnmower and I'm very pleased with it. Why do you ask?
@@cornpop7805 I was just wondering if you stayed with electric
People are reporting significant health problems with type of energy, and the experience in Germany has been a disaster for their energy production . Much more research is needed.
+ScotsmaninUtah you really like fossil fuels and the end of the world don't you ; )
+ScotsmaninUtah Too bad the 1998 Darmstadt Manifesto went unheeded. We sure don't need "more research" to see what they're doing to the world's landscapes. It's the worst form of modern energy blight I can think of. They are much taller than most oil infrastructure (though some offshore rigs are about 400 feet) and their white color and motion makes them stick out instantly. The rationalizations for all that blight are sickening in themselves, and the noise just tops it off.
+TheSonic1685 That's a typical snide comment that's designed to wish-away the negative impacts of wind turbines, and it also promotes a fantasy all-electric economy that would never work. Heavy industry, global transport and modern farming are only possible with dense energy from fossil fuels, namely oil for the transport side. You need fossil fuels to build wind turbines and also solar panels. Learn the physics of different energy forms and the wind saga falls far short of its hype. Wind turbines are relatively primitive devices and very inefficient in terms of size per energy yield and land use. Rooftop solar has flaws but it doesn't keep ruining landscapes.
You forgot to mention a single nuclear reactor can produce the same energy as thousands of turbines which take up a heck of a lot of room. Also unlike turbines it can produce this energy 24/7 365 days a year.
that nuclear power plant can also create waste which is useless and lasts thousands of years. there is also contamination risk of the environment.
who pays for the construction of the nuclear power plant?
breeder reactors don't produce much waste as they can "breed" more nuclear fuel from spent fuel.
DanM194 -what a stupid ass comment.
Nuclear power plants do not compare to Wind or Solar power
With nuclear plants,
-have to pay employees to man them
-produces toxic waste
-uses a shit load of water
-dangerous to the environment
Turbines can produce say have of the years power while Solar produces the rest with batteries in the home
With out employees, danger to the environment no need to use water
DanM194 and you forgot to mention the de-comisioning costs, just one nuclear power station was at 67 billion and rising. What's more, nuclear accidents are averaging one every decade, God only knows the mess in Fukushima. And you also forgot to mention we have a very large nuclear reactor at a very safe distance away , look up , its called the Sun, and it drives the wind that powers the turbines, and powers a few solar panels too!
Great video! Lovely clear graphics about bird kill, clearly showing the proportion due to various man made objects. I look forward to seeing a similar quality one about solar...
Great insight into the build just subscribed and it’s a nice compact turbine I also have built a homemade 650 watts wind turbine, a treadmill motor turbine and a little but powerful ametek 30v turbine and built 2 diy solar panels, be careful in high winds one of my first turbines blew up 😕and now have only 2 wonderful turbines working daily 😊it’s very satisfying watching those things working, keep up the good work buddy 👍
Facts maybe, but not the whole story by a long way.
Google gridwatch and on that site monitor how much is generated by wind power month on month, it's pretty pathetic considering the total installed capacity. Also the essential thermal stations run all the time when the wind blows and when it doesn't they increase output to make up the shortfall. It's really quite very wasteful. Renewables are not the answer, but a huge problem. The video mentiiones Germany, they are having serious grid problems due to wind, and Denmark, even with it's large installed capacity only gets 25% or so of it's power from wind.
This sort of video puits a nice gloss on things but there's no fabric behind the shine.
"The Truth" this is the most one sided video i have ever seen. Please make a video about the disadvantages of wind turbines.
what disadvantages, that they take up space in the desolate plains of Kansas and make an annoying noise if your near them.
That was 2 years ago...
everyday people are advancing themselves to improve and narrow down the disadvantages of the wind turbines, so you will be fine my friends.
In fact the turbines alone are inefficient, put that in perspective to all intermediate costs such as, shipping, construction cost, recycling, et.c. The green has been lost along the line from the get-go.
@@Crroow they say the energy use to setup the turbine, is returned within 6 month. and the turbine has another 20 year to supply energy. so yeah.
Offshore wind farms currently receive about £150 - roughly triple the market price of power - for every megawatt-hour of power they generate. Ministers have said that cost should be cut to £100 for projects being awarded contracts in 2020.
So if you're wondering why your utility bill has gone through the roof
What about the fact that nobody wants to live near them because they are ugly and loud?
That constant humming would drive me crazy.
Is there an updated link to the references website?
Brilliant video outlining why the UK news more renewable power! This is why I started my own renewable company
That is the right way, I think. And the time wasn't any better than yet, to invest in green wind technologie.
Tell me more
***** I would not mind to live next to one, but I believe that Holland Park's wind resource is rather poor. Further do I believe it might be impossible to obtain a planning permit. But please, go ahead, move next to a nuclear plant or a coal plant or a fracking site if you prefer.
I grew up in sight of over 200 turbines from 11 wind farms and I adore the technology. I believe that they are very pretty and a landscape without them looks boring to me.
And in terms of your "number": Please do some more research. According to a experts such as DECC and the European Union's own DG Climate the UK has the best wind resource in Europe and already, over the year we generate about 15% of Electricity from wind Power (DECC) and last month was the highest for wind generation in history, reaching 22% of electricity generated in the UK.
And lastly, contrary to popular belief, today wind power is cheaper than any form of electricity, including shale and even half the price of nuclear (but why would you know about the billions the government pays to subsidise oils, nuclear and coal so they appear cheaper. And don't get me started on "green levies" because they are paid to people who own GAS POWER PLANTS to keep them on standby NOT to green energy suppliers.
***** Thank you for your comment, but so far, I have been rather happy with the noise level. Even inside (which is a brilliant experience) I have not had any audible distractions from them. I believe the turbines you talk about must be from ancient times as modern turbines make so little noise that it is almost not noticeable (turbines such as Vestas V90 and the 3MW platform or the modern Siemens and Nordex turbines as well as the Sulzon and Senvion range). The clear point is that the new generation of Wind Turbines uses much larger, slower spinning rotors, greatly reducing noise.
As for choice: in Germany, one of the world's No 1 nations for wind power, most wind farms have been build and financed by the local communities themselves meaning that they themselves put them up near to them and so do a lot of farmers.
Sadly the UK still has an extraordinarily high amount of misinformation and prejudice that is being spread.
I am seriously considering to set up a department at YOUR!Energy that would tour schools and organises excursions so pupils can see turbines in person and also learn the facts about wind power, underlined with real data from credible sources.
Way to often I see that newspapers such as the Daily Mail or even political parties seem to take data out of thin air just to support their thinking. With any questions, please feel free to ask.
''Some of the largest incidents of whale and dolphin beaching have occurred on beaches that are in close proximity to either coastal or offshore wind farms. One of the largest incidents, where some 194 pilot whales and several bottlenose dolphins beached themselves on Naracoopa Beach on King Island Tasmania in 2009,is an area where several coastal and offshore wind farms are in operation. Many large beaching of whales and dolphins have occurred during the 1990s and since 2000, following the implementation of massive numbers of coastal and offshore wind farms.
Most incidents of whale and dolphin beaching and having them wash ashore dead are in areas of the world, where coastal and offshore wind farm development has exploded''.
PrairleDoggedRez I didn't know of that connection but the ruined views alone are enough of a problem.
PrairleDoggedRez NOT OFFSHORE. ONSHORE. DURRR
Jessica whittingham ??? WTF are you on about?
This, by my reckoning, is the very worst incidence and evidence of the harm from LFN, infrasound, which undoubtedly is something that large sea animals use and can detect at very low power.
Bs sponsored by coal industry.
Just spend all the money into making a working fusion reactor and we will never have to worry about electricity again. We are already really close.
What did you use for the video? (Powtoon?)
Nice video. Although hard to believe that UK get 40% of Europe's wind.
+Valentin Batler Pretty sure that scam is called 'climate change' now that global warming has been thoroughly debunked, just like the coming 'ice age' we were warned about in the 70's before it.
Deathdefiant debunked by people who don't have any credibility in the scientific community whatsoever.
Debunked enough to force them to re-brand their Agenda 21 scam as 'Climate Change' because the term 'Global Warming' became synonymous with bogus science after it was proven that no matter what data was input into their government funded magic future Earth climate predicting programs, the results produced were always the same and always those desired for the political agenda that was funding the so-called 'science'.
And by the fact that both poles showed record low temperatures while your 'credible' scientific community, led by the highly reputable Al Gore, was telling us we'd all be under water in no time from melting ice caps.
But I guess even that isn't enough to dissuade the globalist science cult's true believers.
So called science!! Which so called scientists are supporting your claims? Which claims are you actually proposing - is is all wrong?
Deathdefiant lol, you are in so much denial. You cant' explain why we get hotter and hotter years since records began. Go and get an education and learn about how academia works.
If it's so clear cut then why are there so many questions.
+phil123711 Because people are getting health problems from the Low Frequency Noise (LFN) produced by industrial turbines.
Sleep disturbance, tachacardia, visual blurring, migraines, ear pressure & loss of hearing, nausea, tinnitus, problems with concentration & memory and panic episodes among other problems.
Did you know LFN was used for torture??? The duration was limited by the fact that humans cannot survive w/o sleep.
+Susan Bye-Walsh
There was a study done where they used LFN from wind turbines and didn't let anybody know about it. No one was effected. In that very same study they told a separate group wind turbines were in the area and people magically got "sick". The known cure for this sickness is cash grist.org/list/2011-04-07-money-is-a-miracle-cure-for-wind-turbine-syndrome/
+Susan Bye-Walsh. Did you ever hear about particulate matter? We are ALL dieing by cancer because of this particulate matter! It's not part of our sustainable future. There are always golddiggers seeking to find a reason to get benefit in whatever way and to get money out of it. Even by inventing diseases. When wind turbines in small sizes could be accepted on every house. The grid will go crazy and energy management gets complicated more and more. But is possible to depend on only wind energy and solar power in whole Europe incl. UK. And reduce the need to only 3 electricity production units depending on carbon. There is also the possibility to power a grid charging cars batteries when the car is moving. Electricity is a reliable energy source, with a lot potential to make comfort sustainable.
mmmm....no particulate matter or highly toxic waste in construction and running of these things is there?
How the devil do you "use LFN from wind turbines" if there are no wind turbines in the vicinity?
Presumably you make a recording of the real thing. How do you pick up the stuff that travelled by ground?
I say the study was a fake.
For every wind turbine you need an equivalent coal power station in the background, running, for when the wind stops. Focus on storing energy first, then sell wind turbines and other intermittent green power sources. This is just a money making racket at present.
And the colliery owners in Colombia and Australia, where our coal comes from, (Thanks to Mad Maggie) are laughing all the way to the bank.
Unlike coal which has been making millionaires fro centuries,
Storing wind energy will never be economically viable. Energy storage is expensive. It's only used in UK to meet peak electricity demand, as pumped storage. To be viable pumped storage must make money daily by selling electricity and must eventually make enough money to pay off its construction costs (with interest). Wind is so intermittent that the energy store will be fitfully used so will not be economically viable.
It's telling that in UK, wind and solar fanatics want the grid to pay the cost of storage, and all electricity providers contribute towards grid costs. Wind and solar after another "free lunch".
There are two costs, the production cost and the maintenance cost. The production cost of a wind farm is definitely more than a coal power plant, but the maintenance cost a surprisingly lower. Which means the average cost is lowered in the long run. And with the production of wind turbines more and more available on a mass scale. The stuff can be mass produced, lowering the production cost further.
or just use nuclear
My qualified support for wind power. 1. Looks great to power my house and will have a huge impact on my monthly electricity bill. Are wind mills allowed in residential areas? 2. Denmark seems to have a large investment in wind farms. Did they mothballed their coal/nuclear power stations? If not, why not? 3. It is NOT a green/clean technology. 1 example: How much pollutants are released in the production of the neodynium magnets inside a turbine - answer: a huge amount 4. What about maintenance?
We used to have wind powered well pumps,ships and wheat grinders but what made them obsolete? Fossil fuels
you forgot the part about them occasionally exploding
foodhatesme solar panels can catch fire and nuclear power stations can have a melt down. Cars can catch fire and can explode but we still use them. Just because something happens doesn’t mean it’s a common occurrence
@@Benjamin-lt6nk what is a common occurrence with wind power is the deaths of hundreds of birds flying through them...
Btw solar panels suck, nuclear power plants only have meltdowns due to human error, and cars are a form of transportation not a means of creating power. My original point 2 years ago is wind power is expensive with far less pay off than a nuclear plant.
foodhatesme then again nuclear power plants need a lot of people to be able to run. Where as wind turbines need occasional maintenance. And it’s often difficult to find an area to put a nuclear power plant at since people don’t want to live next to it. Birds do get killed but that number can be reduced be better placement and the numbers aren’t significant. I referred to cars to show that just because something can explode doesn’t mean it’s bad. If you want to save birds reduce the amounts of cats since they drove multiple species extinct.
the link doesn't work, I'm writing a report on sustainable energy and it would be helpful if I could see the references and stuff please :)
and Denmark still takes power from nuclear sources when the wind stops which is fairly regular
Wind turbines are very clever, complex engineering marvels, but there's nothing they can do about the variations in the wind. The marvels of sailing ships shown at the beginning should be taken with the grain of observational salt that coal and oil swept them out of existence. The Queen Elizabeth, QE2, USS United States could all go as fast as a gale, right across the Atlantic. Can you imagine a wind turbine design that could even compete with Francis Chichester's first solo race, against a friend, for a bet (I think it was "I'll bet you a bob" =one shilling) across the Atlantic?
+Albert Rogers To use a harsh analogy, nuclear weapons are also very clever. I find turbine landscape blight to be downright evil. It puts a permanent industrial stain on a place and you can't acquire a taste for it without pretending the original scenery wasn't worth saving. Turbines are being forced on communities in similar ways to fracking, though they stick out on the horizon much more and the land won't get reclaimed. They will never fix the visual blight problem and it's a major one. I can envision some future time, if wind power becomes obsolete, when full-time aesthetic repair crews will dismantle them for scrap, but it may prove too costly. The cement pads will probably never be removed. Cleared roads may take centuries to recover, and only in areas with trees and brush. Also, wind turbines just extend fossil fuels, so in a world of depleted oil, there may simply not be enough mobile energy to tear them down.
+4aSteadyStateEconomy You are quite right, but did you not get it that I agree with you? See transatomicpower.com for the REAL answer to the threat of Disastrous Climate Change.
The very fact that by far the best developed wind technology failed in the face of fossil carbon competition means that wind turbines, which are not as clever, cannot possibly turn things around. Solar, biomass, -- and in the name of Hades (where spirits go, and fade away as they are forgotten) Carbon Capture -- have NO chance of solving the problem.
I find myself in the minority, I think, in that I fear Al Gore does not fully appreciate the seriousness of what he calls an "Inconvenient Truth", and that I am totally certain the nuclear power is the only alternative. See transatomicpower.com
It is mis-spelled on one of my posts.
Never forget - Al Gore makes money from being a part of the booming "Anxiety Industry".
Not telling all the facts about intermittency, true locations of pollution, etc. has become the new norm.
We need to address climate change. A combination of renewable sources, some greater efforts on energy efficiencies and smarter grids will go a long way towards dealing with the problem. There is no longer a viable position to say it is ok to carry on with business as usual and burning fossil fuels as we have done in the last 100 or 200 years. We are burning and releasing stored carbon that has been locked up naturally over millions of years, over a few decades. It has to be dramatically curtailed, and consideration really should be given to those countries that have not yet become industrialised. It is a moral imperative that the wealthier countries address the increasing levels of carbon dioxide, that we are largely responsible for and have benefitted from.
the wind might blow 80% of the time but not hard enough to produce max power according to the capital cost of new power plants by the eia (us gov't funded program not biased) though basic calculation by total capacity megawatts of a wind farm and energy produced you will get 15-20% max power and that's it this info becomes use full by the info you get though the eia power plant capital cost pdf 2013
capital cost is for wind onshore is 2200$ usd per kw plus 39$ per kw for yearly maintenance and offshore cc is 6200$ kw and 74$ per kw yearly onshore wind is 9.5 cents kw at 20% and I don't think their is a place with 40% but 4.7 cents high as I went CCNG at 95% is 1.11 cents kw coal is 2.8 at 95% and nuclear is 5.15 cents usd per kwh to generate
soalr is 14 cents at 20% and 7 cents for 40$
if you don't like my calculations then go to eia updated capital cost for power plants
Well one problem with the cost comparison: the decomissing cost of nuclear energy plants has NEVER been included in any of those "nuclear efficiency calculations" - as all power generating companies do socialize these costs to the taxpayer!
refurbishment of Bruce power 1 and 2 cost 3108cad per kwh with replacement of steam generators and fuel pipes
if people where willing to pay 25 cents per kwh we could have 100% nuclear with hydrogen power peaking stations and reuse the steel from nuclear plants into new ones and breed non fisle u-238 to p-239 which is fisle but if you don't like the thought of breeding plutonium you can use thorium nuclear is the future
Berlinoa The costs of nuclear decommissioning is included in a (something like a) .5cent per kWh add in cost. It should take care of it. However, we want a BETTER type of nuclear called the molten salt reactor. Search LFTR and MSR.
fireofenergy Bruce will be running into the 2040's, yes I know of molten salt reactors they where making them back in the 50's in usa then france and the environmentalist don't bring up the decommissioning of wind and solar because the blades and silicon wafer is costly to recycle
***** But I'm not against wind and solar either if they get cheaper and if they get cheap storage such as pumped storage and molten salts. Dealing with electronic trash and radioactive vessels (at time for decommissioning, along with the enormous amounts of land for RE and the nasty fission products from nuclear) is much better than altered biospheres caused from too much CO2.
We need to make sure every body knows: WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE.
Giromill
A subtype of Darrieus turbine with straight, as opposed to curved, blades. The cycloturbine variety has variable pitch to reduce the torque pulsation and is self-starting.[41] The advantages of variable pitch are: high starting torque; a wide, relatively flat torque curve; a higher coefficient of performance; more efficient operation in turbulent winds; and a lower blade speed ratio which lowers blade bending stresses. Straight, V, or curved blades may be used.[42]
Savonius wind turbine
Main article: Savonius wind turbine
These are drag-type devices with two (or more) scoops that are used in anemometers, Flettner vents (commonly seen on bus and van roofs), and in some high-reliability low-efficiency power turbines. They are always self-starting if there are at least three scoops.
Twisted Savonius is a modified savonius, with long helical scoops to provide smooth torque. This is often used as a rooftop wind turbine and has even been adapted for ships.[43]
Parallel
The parallel turbine is similar to the crossflow fan or centrifugal fan. It uses the ground effect. Vertical axis turbines of this type have been tried for many years: a unit producing 10 kW was built by Israeli wind pioneer Bruce Brill in the 1980s.[44][unreliable source?]
One thing i dont like about it is its definitely not scalable.
If you have an array of 4 wind turbines, you must be such an optimist to think it will extract 4 times as much power. Turbines slow down the downwind windspeed. Adding more turbines doesnt mecessarily mean proportionally more power
Video is a decade old and 100% OBSOLETE.
Really depends on the geography of where you're at to decide whether you should invest in wind or solar. As for utility companies, they should go all out on nuclear.
We need both Wind turbine & Solar panels!!!!!
+Brian McCann right thanks bro
The more the merrier.
And maybe a few fossil fuel (preferably natural gas) power plants just in case a few wind turbines aren't working well.
What happens when the choice is either renewable energy or freeze in the dark?
+John Benton Global warming happens, so don't worry.
i would like to see your sources, so i might write an presentation on renewable energy
Any details to a green recycling of the huge fibre glass blades in 20-25 years after their life cycles are up?
105db at the base! Good god that's loud!
recently I flew over a hill in Nth South Australia and the geiger counter went crazy. The geologist said "there's enough energy in the uranium in that one hill below us to power the entire planet for 2000 years on current technology". Forget this faddish stuff and put the money into clean nuclear power. After all, we all know that's where we're going
You realize we're depleting our uranium faster than ever, right?
Uranium abundance isn't really a factor. Honestly the fuel is largely the cheapest part of nuclear power. The biggest issues are waste disposal and construction. We are trying to tackle the latter with modular designs meaning its more consistent between. It's basically like manufacturing a wind turbine at a factor oppose to a new one everytime. If we know what works we use it. For the waste though this is more complicated. The waste itself is actually usable as fuel (MOX fuel) as the reactors produce Pu239, a fissionable isotope. If that is doped into U238 pellet the reactors are capable of producing fuel every trip around drastically increasing uranium supplies. The other aspects of the waste are complicated. Short lived isotopes are toxic but can potentially have uses. Currently though, deep ground storage is best option and I like this option but some people don't. If we ever crack accelerator driven fission we can then actually burn this waste for more fuel. Its like using every part of the cow haha.
I would say that entire planet uranium hill story is a bit of an exaggeration. I believe we have on the order of 1000's with terrestrial uranium, but that is from all sources (Largely Canada, Australia, Kazakhstan and Russia). If we refine from sea water that number jumps up even further.
clean nuclear is an oxymoron. it simply isn't possible.
+bruce s isn't possible.well that's a fucking stretch of the imagination. please let's have a discussion. is the dirty part the waste issue? also is nuclear the only carbon free tech that isn't clean or do things like solar panels and the complex turbine systems, or the effects of hydro Power on surrounding land mass and wild life have no impact?
I'm actually very pro wind buddy. I am of the mind use what fits to the situation. Say what ever you want but the fact is, we may be able to go pure wind and or solar in certain areas, but you do realize you can draw a circle smaller than Australia in South East Asia and display over half of the world's population being with in it? those population densities require that the power come from either hyper dense energy sources, or be transmitted from far away, outside the borders far which has issues altogether. That's only if meeting electrical demands currently. You realize that in terms of energy usage it occupies but a fraction of our energy consumption? Try in the area of 20%. which would mean to kick our fossil fuel habit we might need over five times our current electrical capacity plus who knows how much storage and batteries.
that being said I don't doubt there are Nations that can do pure wind, or even pure solar. it's largely about geography. but I also think nuclear, especially nuclear fusion if we crack it, will also play a huge roll.
the vast area of Australian lands with uranium deposits have for 1000's of years been traditionally off-limits to Aboriginal people since it was regarded as evil and poisonous - people got sick by being there or eating any food contaminated with naturally occurring radiation. In other words - naturally occurring uranium is a "natural pollutant". Yellowcake is not benign. To say that another way.. if spent fuel is placed back into mines in deep storage; this is simply extracting radioactive ore... taking out some radioactivity.. and putting it back where it was with less radioactivity. Reactors simply accelerate fission and fusion reactions that occur naturally within the ore mass - uranium eventually ends up as lead one way or another. Nett result is an improvement in the environment. So what is everyone making a fuss about? Just stick it back in the hole it came from.
As to the quantity of uranium in the world, and in particular Australia... when I say "hill".. I say hill in the context of Central Australia. You would call it an entire mountain range. I doubt that my geologist friend was wrong since he gets paid an awful lot of money to know such things
whats the music in this video?
And what about the concrete, steel and CFRP blades were these factored into the carbon footprint?
I'm not a specialist in the matter but I read that book Smaller Faster Lighter Denser Cheaper by Robert Bryce and he really shoots wholes in wind turbines. They can generate no more than 2 or 3W per square meter, that is a low density, and in an increasingly overpopulated world we need density. He also states that if the US would get the yearly increase in consumption from wind turbines they would need an area like 3 times Italy. Every year. They also have to be 2km away from people because the infrasonic soundwaves cause insomnia and depression. That's what he says, he knows more about it than me, personally I'd go for solar and fusion. A windturbine here and there is better than nothing though.
If you appreciate dolphins and whales, consider the infrasound problems of offshore wind turbines. Unlike humans, they can hear infrasound, AND the sea conducts it very well.
Householders who have had wind "farms" imposed upon their vicinity experience a problem additional to the loss of sleep and its attendant mental stress. The property upon which they laboured and spent money, substantially loses value. That should be classed by any decent economist (I had a boss who was a brilliant one) as part of the "social cost" of wind turbines, and I think that if properly assessed, would make them prohibitively expensive, as if they were not so, already.
There are two renewable energy sources, called thorium 232 and uranium 238. You are deluded about Britain or the USA achieving energy independence with wind turbines and solar PV panels built in Spain, Germany, and China.
@@albertrogers8537 Sir, I've learnt a lot of you just reading this comment section. 10/10. If you or someone like you had the time and the will, it would be very nice to have videos explaining and sharing your knowledge. Thank you and greetings from Spain.
Wind turbines are an expensive novelty.
bcstractor Since 1992, the federal government has expended almost $24 billion to encourage investment in wind power through direct spending, tax breaks, R&D, loan guarantees and other federal support of electric power. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that a one-year extension of existing federal subsidies for wind power would cost taxpayers almost $12 billion.
The costs of wind subsidies are extraordinarily high-$52.48 per one million watt hours generated, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. By contrast, the subsidies for generating the same amount of electricity from nuclear power are $3.10, from hydro power 84 cents, from coal 64 cents, and from natural gas 63 cents.
We know who is paying for this novelty idea the middle class tax payer. My question is who is making money from wind power.
lmullen56 "My question is who is making money from wind power." The Green industry and lobby.
bcstractor
Did you read this.
The costs of wind subsidies are extraordinarily high-$52.48 per one million watt hours generated
If it wasn't for government subsidies wind power wouldn't be considered by power companies.
If it wasn't for the government taking money out of my pocket and handing it over the the power companies there wouldn't be any wind generators.
Something you don't seem to consider is the cost of producing the metals and plastics used in manufacturing wind turbines is always tied to coal and oil.
bcstractor
Sounds like I pissed you off by putting the truth in front of you. You are just another liberal who has no concept of balancing economics with ecology. You want it your way and only your way. That doesn't make you right.
bcstractor
You forgot the word economy, you know management of money. But since you are one of Obey's boys you don't give a fuck about money and how some of us live from month to month with what we have.
Precise facts.. Loved the video
Guess what a wind turbine with no wind = 0 solar panels.
THIS IS THE MOST,
BADASS VIDEO ABOUT WIND ENERGY THANK YOU.
Say yes to Nuclear Power!
+Swedish Airsoft Most countries at this point are saying no, and with good reason. Nuclear power is extremely expensive and unsafe, not to mention a hazard to everyone around it. There is a reason most countries are decommissioning their nuclear power stations
Joshua Egan But the power m8
But the cost m8
Joshua Egan Windmills are ugly and no one fucking think they look good in the nature. And when was the last nuclear reaction disaster? (Not caused by nature disatsers)
The problem with nuclear power stations is that in the 21st century they are astronomically expensive, and for the most part countries are decommissioning the ones they have due to the issues and costs of running them.
While admittedly there having been any actual disasters, there have been a lot of close calls. Belgium's Doel reactor has been shut down numerous times over the past decade, every time citing new safety concerns about different safety mechanisms. Of its last 5 examinations, it has passed 1 of them. That is not exactly what people hope for from a building which could put a sizeable hole in a country.
I live in Canada, and just down the road from me is the Pickering station. Its being shut down in 2022, but the site is so contaminated that they won't be able to take the building down until sometime into the 2060s to 2070s. That plant has also had its fair share of disaster. In 1997 they had to shut down reactor number 2 due to a leak, and in 2006, when they were finally able to restart it without safety concerns, it was going to cost upwards of $4 billion. They decided against doing it because of its scheduled closure in 2022.
As well, everyone living in Pickering and surrounding neighbourhoods was given a monthly stipend of Iodine tablets to take daily. A lot of my friends from that area were going bald in their late teens. You can argue that the plant had nothing to do with that, but it was a trend limited to only their demographic.
On top of all these issues is the real problem behind nuclear power though; cost. Everyone likes to say that nuclear power is cheap, and against its base cost to production amount, it is. However, what people fail to factor in is maintenance, restarts (like Pickering) and insurance. You have to insure power plants, and PS, nobody wants to insure nuclear power plants anymore. There is the *tiniest* chance that something might go wrong, but if it does, there is no way an insurance company could cover it. As a result, the price of insuring a nuclear power plant, if you can manage to find someone who actually wants to, is ridiculously expensive.
And all of this is not factoring in the waste. Spent fuel rods need to go somewhere, and nobody is too pleased if a truck carrying spent fuel rods rolls through their neighbourhood. As a result most power stations store nuclear waste on site, however that is also an issue. At Pickering the rods were safely removed to a special storage facility, built at the cost of over $200 Billion. The facility is going to have to be on and manned for the next 400 years, which only adds to the true operating costs of a nuclear power station.
On the other hand, the majority of wind farms are generally built out of sight of the general public. They are efficient, clean, and after the base cost they need only a small crew of engineers to check in on them. They have no ill effects on humans, they do not produce toxic waste, and the maintenance on them is relatively low. As for not looking good in nature, can you say that living next to a nuclear power plant raises your property value? The advantage to wind farms is, as I said above, they can be built anywhere, while nuclear power stations have to be built in or near to populated areas.
6 years on, and the UK is the top wind power producer in the EU [maybe the world]. Saying things like "1 windmill = power for X houses" is bogus without mentioning the power output. The windmills available when this video came out were around 1~4 megawatts. GE just unveiled a FIFTEEN MEGAWATT turbine.
And don't forget all components can be manufactured in either the UK, USA, or Europe because the process of mining, smelting and disposal of waste is in no way harmful to life or the environment.
There is something called energy sustain. There are peak energy demand varying within everyday. You can burn more gas to produce more energy to meet the peak demand lets say mostly at night times. But you cant blow more wind onto the turbine to produce more energy. What do we do, pray for more wind? They are not to replace gas or nuclear but to help them carry the burden with less effort= less CO2 in the atmosphre in the end.
Renewable energy has to be coupled with some form of energy storage for peak demand or to account for natural fluctuations. In time, technology will free us from fossil fuels.
with gas there is no choice because gas is a finite resource, and nuclear causes too much hassle. (Have you decided where all the nuclear waste is going to go yet?)
@John Benton
Yes, we have decided. We're going to use it in reactors. If you're wondering why we weren't doing that already, its because current reactors are based on a design intended to produce fissionables for nuclear weapons. Future reactors will be capable of processing more than the current 3% of fuel.
Leap away and do it then. You do not have to convince me or other users of UA-cam.
John Benton You're trying to convince me that you're right, but I can't try to do the same thing with you?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Each turbine saves 174,000 bathtubs of water? Ha! Water can't be used, and water can't be saved. To say you are saving water is like saying you are saving air. Perhaps they mean to discuss the cost of water pumping, but the way it's stated is WRONG.
No need to be pedantic when it's quite clear what they are trying to express; it's water that isn't used by the power generation process. In any case, to save can also mean to store for future use. Although the turbine isn't 'storing' water, by not using it, it does mean the water it would have used can be used elsewhere.
It's not really a valid point to make, but they probably included it in the video for the sake of emphasis.
Will Davis Yes, but I'm tired of people stating that they are contributing to the saving of the planet by saving water. I hear it all the time. Only non-thinkers can say that.
Cotronixco ''Only non-thinkers can say that.''
Yep thats your average econut.
I bet California wishes they saved that amount of water. It's true that we will never run out of water, but fresh water sources such as rivers, lakes and groundwater can be depleted which is happening across the entire southwest. Oh and you just got schooled by a gun loving hardcore conservative. BOOM!!!
Adam DeLucia When you idiot greens put the wellbeing of a few Smelt above humans then that is where your wheels fall off.
Turbine monitoring and diagnostics
See also: Wind turbine prognostics
Due to data transmission problems, structural health monitoring of wind turbines is usually performed using several accelerometers and strain gages attached to the nacelle to monitor the gearbox and equipment. Currently, digital image correlation and stereophotogrammetry are used to measure dynamics of wind turbine blades. These methods usually measure displacement and strain to identify location of defects. Dynamic characteristics of non-rotating wind turbines have been measured using digital image correlation and photogrammetry.[51] Three dimensional point tracking has also been used to measure rotating dynamics of wind turbines.[52]
Recent developments in technology
Wind turbine rotor blades are being made longer to increase efficiency. This requires them to be stiff, strong, light and resistant to fatigue.[53] Materials with these properties are composites such as polyester and epoxy, while glass fiber and carbon fiber have been used for the reinforcing.[54] Construction may use manual layup or injection molding.
The presentation is fantastic
Finally a video showing the positives eveyone I thinks wind turbines are so bad in every way
***** oh and by the way they are not that noisy
***** well i know somebody who lives right next to one and hasn't died yet he said he wouldn't swap the location for anywhere
this is a positive video and can you haters quite kindly reside in the negative wind farm videos
oh and carry on bunting coal and oil which is destroying the atmosphere or carry on with your nuclear stations which have waste which none knows what the hell to do with
let me guess... your a microsoft fan...
assumptions
***** i just make a comment about the video and i end up in an argument its worse than those xbox playstation nikon cannon iPhone samsung arguments i see everywhere
***** well whats not to understand about that comment?
im comparing this to the consol phone tablet camera and computer arguments i seem to get involved with
***** are we even having an argument about wind power anymore
I'm so sorry to complain about green energy but @ 1:49 It says that Wind Turbines cut 2,365 Tonnes of CO². In Canada (Ontairo) we are replacing our ZERO EMISSION Coal planets for these Wind Turbines that actually generate power from wind 1% of the time. The Wind turbines in Ontario run on Gas, the same stuff you put in your car. Yeah you know Wind turbines are so clean because it produces more electricity from gas so it can replace Coal Plants. So thanks for your Propaganda ad, and PS, Wind turbines also caused a complete reroute for bird migration and Scares away worms which ends up beginning the process of Desertification! So yeah lets turn the world into a desert!
>>davidbuddy, I don't believe you have any idea what you've said! O emission coal, come on, that isn't true. What about the energy used to extract the coal and transport it? All that creates CO2 emissions, as well as the emissions when the coal is burned!! and all that upkeep expense and pollution? How do you figure a wind turbine runs on gasoline?? You've evidently been consuming the ethynol .
John P I think davidbuddy was trying to say what you can see here: live.gridwatch.ca/home-page.html - Ontario has almost completely decarbonized its electric power supply by replacing coal plants with nuclear power.
And he meant to say that because windmills typically only generate 25%-30% of their nameplate capacity, and because there are times when the wind doesn't blow at all, they require 100% fossil fuel backup, which in most cases means natural gas plants. Unless your part of the world has lots and lots of hydro, if you're building lots of windmills and deploying lots of solar panels, you're also building lots of natural gas power plants (or in Germany's case, lots of lignite-fired coal plants).
That's kind of the big dirty secret of renewables: they don't displace fossil fuels; they lock them in.
coal plants are NOT zero emissions. They can't be. The sequestration process is nowhere near perfected. windfarm objectors: umad?
dangerouslytalented John P www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/01/carbon_seq/2b2.pdf
Zero Emission Coal is possible :) China and the EU's coal plants are almost Zero Emissions
How wind turbines can scare worms?and how the lack of worms causes desertification?go home bro,you're drunk.
whats the song?
Will someone please tell me the name of this song
Extreme Ways - Moby. It was played on the Bourne film trilogy.
Most horizontal axis turbines have their rotors upwind of the supporting tower. Downwind machines have been built, because they don't need an additional mechanism for keeping them in line with the wind. In high winds, the blades can also be allowed to bend, which reduces their swept area and thus their wind resistance. Despite these advantages, upwind designs are preferred, because the change in loading from the wind as each blade passes behind the supporting tower can cause damage to the turbine.
Turbines used in wind farms for commercial production of electric power are usually three-bladed. These have low torque ripple, which contributes to good reliability. The blades are usually colored white for daytime visibility by aircraft and range in length from 20 to 80 meters (66 to 262 ft). The size and height of turbines increase year by year. Offshore wind turbines are built up to 8 MW today and have a blade length up to 80 meters (260 ft). Designs with 10 to 12 MW were in preparation in 2018,[32] and a "15 MW+" prototype with three 118 meters (387 ft) blades is planned to be constructed in 2022.[33] Usual multi megawatt turbines have tubular steel towers with a height of 70 m to 120 m and in extremes up to 160 m.
Vertical-axis wind turbines (or VAWTs) have the main rotor shaft arranged vertically. One advantage of this arrangement is that the turbine does not need to be pointed into the wind to be effective, which is an advantage on a site where the wind direction is highly variable. It is also an advantage when the turbine is integrated into a building because it is inherently less steerable. Also, the generator and gearbox can be placed near the ground, using a direct drive from the rotor assembly to the ground-based gearbox, improving accessibility for maintenance. However, these designs produce much less energy averaged over time, which is a major drawback.[27][34]
Vertical turbine designs have much lower efficiency than standard horizontal designs.[35] The key disadvantages include the relatively low rotational speed with the consequential higher torque and hence higher cost of the drive train, the inherently lower power coefficient, the 360-degree rotation of the aerofoil within the wind flow during each cycle and hence the highly dynamic loading on the blade, the pulsating torque generated by some rotor designs on the drive train, and the difficulty of modelling the wind flow accurately and hence the challenges of analysing and designing the rotor prior to fabricating a prototype.[36]
When a turbine is mounted on a rooftop the building generally redirects wind over the roof and this can double the wind speed at the turbine. If the height of a rooftop mounted turbine tower is approximately 50% of the building height it is near the optimum for maximum wind energy and minimum wind turbulence. While wind speeds within the built environment are generally much lower than at exposed rural sites,[37][38] noise may be a concern and an existing structure may not adequately resist the additional stress.
Subtypes of the vertical axis design include:
Darrieus wind turbine
Main article: Darrieus wind turbine
"Eggbeater" turbines, or Darrieus turbines, were named after the French inventor, Georges Darrieus.[39] They have good efficiency, but produce large torque ripple and cyclical stress on the tower, which contributes to poor reliability. They also generally require some external power source, or an additional Savonius rotor to start turning, because the starting torque is very low. The torque ripple is reduced by using three or more blades, which results in greater solidity of the rotor. Solidity is measured by blade area divided by the rotor area. Newer Darrieus type turbines are not held up by guy-wires but have an external superstructure connected to the top bearing.[40]
What song is this?
No industrialized country can survive on wind power. The turbines are costly and they require costly maintenance. In most country's they are subsidized. They would work best in holiday resorts where there is no heavy industry and combined with electric vehicles and clean air. For this to succeed water would have to be pumped into a massive lake. This water could flow with gravity into turbines. The power then could be controlled and maybe also produce fresh water. This would be a costly but a successful venture.
And they only last 20 years though I've read that's optimistic and around 10 and a bit is more accurate. A 450 ft. tower of metal must produce a hell of a lot pollution in its manufacture.
A major downside of wind power is that when the wind is inadequate we need back up generating capacity. So every MW of installed wind power needs an equivalent amount of back up capacity, we cannot easily store much electricity, so back up power plants have to turn on and off to balance demand.We can go for several days/weeks when there is zero wind.
This forces the back up plants to be very inefficient,cycling up and down is not good news for a power plant,it lowers the overall run time, and lowers the efficiency during the start up and shut down .periods.
Power generators will not want to build capacity to only run say at 70% utilisation, and have frequent startup/shutdown periods, they will sell their output accordingly.
I drive an electric car, large scale EV usage/adoption, combined with smart metering systems could help balance out the fluctuations,effectively using the EV battery as storage. Most EV's are charged overnight( solar no use then), but wind blows at night when demand is low.
A final point, I only drive an EV because UK fuel duty, and Gov grants, and Zero road tax and reduced company car tax etc make it very economically viable, I am not convinced about the environmental arguments.
Too bad for the turbinistas that recently elected MPs may derail UK subsidies by 2016. Europe has seen enough of these industrial pinwheels and I hope the U.S. wises up before its relatively larger land area gets too blighted. The number of new projects being rejected is no coincidence. The rationalization of "careful siting" has always been bogus due to limited optimal conditions. The very concept of wind turbines forces them to be widely visible.
How much did all this wind lower electricity prices in the UK?
Is it windy in the UK ?
@@MrSummitville Yes, except when it isn't.
@@kerryrus London is NOT a very windy city ...
weather-and-climate.com/average-monthly-Wind-speed,London,United-Kingdom
It appears that Wind Turbines are not an appropriate device for the UK.
@@MrSummitville Wind is broken even where it is windy, because of the requirement for standby power. So it requires double infrastructure, wind turbines and fossil fuel turbines. Fossil fuel turbines need to be on standby ready to take over in 1/50 of a second. Wind power is fake power in the windiest cities, that's why countries that adopt them see no particular reduction in emissions and have very expensive electricity.
@Leonie Bouget Moby: Extreme Ways. Its lyrics really fits what's happening with wind industry!
Large three-bladed horizontal-axis wind turbines (HAWT) with the blades upwind of the tower produce the overwhelming majority of wind power in the world today. These turbines have the main rotor shaft and electrical generator at the top of a tower, and must be pointed into the wind. Small turbines are pointed by a simple wind vane, while large turbines generally use a wind sensor coupled with a yaw system. Most have a gearbox, which turns the slow rotation of the blades into a quicker rotation that is more suitable to drive an electrical generator.[28] Some turbines use a different type of generator suited to slower rotational speed input. These don't need a gearbox and are called direct-drive, meaning they couple the rotor directly to the generator with no gearbox in between. While permanent magnet direct-drive generators can be more costly due to the rare earth materials required, these gearless turbines are sometimes preferred over gearbox generators because they "eliminate the gear-speed increaser, which is susceptible to significant accumulated fatigue torque loading, related reliability issues, and maintenance costs."[29] There is also the pseudo direct drive mechanism, which has some advantages over the permanent magnet direct drive mechanism.[30][31]
A wind turbine is a device that converts the wind's kinetic energy into electrical energy. Hundreds of thousands of large turbines, in installations known as wind farms, now generate over 650 gigawatts of power, with 60 GW added each year.[1] They are an increasingly important source of intermittent renewable energy, and are used in many countries to lower energy costs and reduce reliance on fossil fuels. One study claimed that, as of 2009, wind had the "lowest relative greenhouse gas emissions, the least water consumption demands and... the most favourable social impacts" compared to photovoltaic, hydro, geothermal, coal and gas.[2]
Smaller wind turbines are used for applications such as battery charging for auxiliary power for boats or caravans, and to power traffic warning signs. Larger turbines can contribute to a domestic power supply while selling unused power back to the utility supplier via the electrical grid.
Wind turbines are manufactured in a wide range of sizes, with either horizontal or vertical axe
Good, accurate video!
I read all the comments AND the profanity. After five years of living comfortably off grid with solar panels and 6 micro wind turbines, I have come to the conclusion that the construction and use of "individual infrastructure" in and on every home where it is possible is the best, easiest, most cost effective and safest way to proceed into a green energy future for RESIDENCES. Moving a majority of residences off the grid will lessen the dependence and need for the more dirty grid power, mitigating, until technology moves further, greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, having to monitor electrical usage against production, naturally creates conservation that soon becomes applied to other aspects of life: water, packaging, transportation, food and so on.
Also, birds flying BELOW 300 feet altitude have been shown to have a higher instinctive danger awareness trigger that causes them to avoid smaller wind turbines. It might be said that the only birds killed by wind turbines and the stupid ones!
I just cannot understand why folks today cannot show passion without becoming profane. Am I the only one who finds this trend tiresome?
'' It might be said that the only birds killed by wind turbines and the stupid ones!''
OMG you really typed that?
póg mo thóin Yes, I typed that. It was intended to be bit tongue-in-cheek and not a factual observation. Still, all the "climate-deniers-turned-wind-power opponents" really have for an argument is that they kill birds......... but only the ones stupid enough to fail to see the blades as they approach from a distance! Here in west Texas, home of "the Picken's plan" and thousands of wind turbines, I have yet to see a single dead bird under a wind turbine, while hundreds lie dead on the side of the road. Maybe cars are the bad idea?
eco-ranch.us Well it appears there are one heck of a lot of stupid birds about …well there used to be should I say ….savetheeaglesinternational.org/releases/spanish-wind-farms-kill-6-to-18-million-birds-bats-a-year.html
póg mo thóin I have birds running into my windows and breaking their necks all the time, even with stickers and stained glass panels hanging in them, does that mean by your logic all the windows of my house should be removed? You have to be a paid shill for the Big Oil climate and alternate energy denier program, how much do you get paid, can I join?
zeogiannes Don't bullshit me ~ i have lived on this planet for sixty five years and have only ever had ONE bird get killed on my windows and you know what it was NOT a Gryphon Vulture or a Golden Eagle now begone you Big Wind shill.
Wind Power Density (WPD) is a quantitative measure of wind energy available at any location. It is the mean annual power available per square meter of swept area of a turbine, and is calculated for different heights above ground. Calculation of wind power density includes the effect of wind velocity and air density.[15]
Wind turbines are classified by the wind speed they are designed for, from class I to class III, with A to C referring to the turbulence intensity of the wind.[16]
Class Avg Wind Speed (m/s) Turbulence
IA 10 16%
IB 10 14%
IC 10 12%
IIA 8.5 16%
IIB 8.5 14%
IIC 8.5 12%
IIIA 7.5 16%
IIIB 7.5 14%
IIIC 7.5 12%
Great video
Well done daniyal
So is it wise to use nanobots to get it to spin if there was no wind?
saving energy can be costly but when you invest on renewable energy you'll get saving for a lifetime...
All forms of mammals are repelled by the giant rotors. Most four-legged creatures, except the ones that are fenced in by farmers, and rodents, tend to leave the area. Insects, as a result, thrive. Most birds, and nearly all raptors (Eagles, Hawks), tend to leave also. The strobe effect at sunrise/sunset on homes is pure torture to the residents, and stretches for miles. Many unexplained sicknesses are reported at every wind farm...nausea, sleep apnea, anxiety, etc., due to ultra-low frequencies.
Need a job on renewable energy please reply if have some opportunities
Wind is fantastic. I was against on shore wind but loved off shore wind.
Now I’m thinking we should have more on shore wind. We have many places which could benefit from Wind Turbines which are unpopulated or have ugly features like Motorways already. If you have a Motorway close to you, what difference will a Windmill make to you.
I live under a flight path and next to a busy road. Seems odd but I hardly notice the planes. Time I notice them most is in the summer when I’m sunbathing. I can literally see the landing gear.
So would Wind Turbines effect me? No!
If I can sleep through planes flying 150 meters over the house and cars driving by at 60 mph at night. I think I can handle a Wind Turbine.
FYI I do of course notice how quiet the country is in comparison. When I go to my girlfriends house which neither in the flight path or close to a main road. It’s dead quiet!
It is the music from movie Bourne Identity.
I dint understand the windturbine with the solar panel comparison.. what is the area of each solar panel and its location vs what wind turbine power in what location..
I know that wind turbines are the best energy choice today but there is no need to try to make it look bigger with graphics.
It's not about the size but the energy production. Assuming that a 3 MW wind turbine produces 6,000 MWh per year and that a 10 kW residential rooftop system with 40 250W solar panels produces 15 MWh per year, you need 400 of the latter, i.e., 16,000 250W solar panels.
i have learned alot
Once a 🐦 just flew out of nowhere into the road and got swewewshed within 2secs.. and I was so high I didn't knew how to react
Small wind turbines may be used for a variety of applications including on- or off-grid residences, telecom towers, offshore platforms, rural schools and clinics, remote monitoring and other purposes that require energy where there is no electric grid, or where the grid is unstable. Small wind turbines may be as small as a fifty-watt generator for boat or caravan use. Hybrid solar and wind powered units are increasingly being used for traffic signage, particularly in rural locations, as they avoid the need to lay long cables from the nearest mains connection point.[70] The U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) defines small wind turbines as those smaller than or equal to 100 kilowatts.[71] Small units often have direct drive generators, direct current output, aeroelastic blades, lifetime bearings and use a vane to point into the wind.
Larger, more costly turbines generally have geared power trains, alternating current output, and flaps, and are actively pointed into the wind. Direct drive generators and aeroelastic blades for large wind turbines are being researched.
which is better? wind energy or biomass
This depends on many things. Wind's main downside is that it's intermittent, meaning you can have frequency and voltage problems with a lot of wind turbines in the power grid. Biomass is not appropriate to use where there is no forest increment and it needs flue gas filters mainly due to particulate matter. I would not discuss the electricity price from them, because it depends on many variables like location, what kind of biomass is used etc. So in short, they are both sustainable (wind is basically an infinite source for our needs, biomass has it's restrictions), biomass is better for the power grid, wind is a little bit cleaner technology (no fuel burning). It mostly comes down to the price, in some places wind is better and in some places biomass is better.
In your next video could you touch on how many hundreds of pounds of rare earth metals such as neodymium magnets are used in each wind turbine?
The first electricity-generating wind turbine was a battery charging machine installed in July 1887 by Scottish academic James Blyth to light his holiday home in Marykirk, Scotland.[8] Some months later American inventor Charles F. Brush was able to build the first automatically operated wind turbine after consulting local University professors and colleagues Jacob S. Gibbs and Brinsley Coleberd and successfully getting the blueprints peer-reviewed for electricity production in Cleveland, Ohio.[8] Although Blyth's turbine was considered uneconomical in the United Kingdom,[8] electricity generation by wind turbines was more cost effective in countries with widely scattered populations.[7]
From what I experienced, the majority of profit a windmill makes goes back into repairing the damn thing. It's the moving parts and like a car, things tend to break the more it is used. Now I'm all for bladeless designs, but unfortunately none of the concepts out there seem to nail the expected returns.... yet.
You forgot the infra sound which cannot be detected by the human ear, but can make people sick for up to 1 km from the turbine. The low frequency sound waves vibrate the internal organs. You also forgot to mention that UK wind farms produced diddly squat or 2 months this summer (2018), but fortunately we had enough gas capacity to cover it. We may not in the winter so the grid has commissioned mothballed coal fired stations to be reopened at a cost to the consumer of £1000 per MWh.
£1000/MWh? Is this because of the very low capacity factors, if they are running only in the winter?
I like the bgm
A few localities have exploited the attention-getting nature of wind turbines by placing them on public display, either with visitor centers around their bases, or with viewing areas farther away.[69] The wind turbines are generally of conventional horizontal-axis, three-bladed design, and generate power to feed electrical grids, but they also serve the unconventional roles of technology demonstration, public relations, and education.
1 wind turbine being the equivalent in generation to 16,000 solar panels. wow. uk needs more wind turbines!
Excellent!!! Very nice video, I´d like to transform this video for a institutional in my country, use a UK by a example of success in wind farm substantial renew energy. Let me try: can you available to me a adobe after effects file project by a template? I can use that to translate by portuguese and spanish too, i think this a good sense idea to UK policy UK´s wind farm. Please.
2:34 plastic litter in the oceans is probably also a majour cause for bird-deaths. Besides the wind-turbines, lines for transfering this electricity are needed, and besides this some technology for saving the energy (in a chemical way, for example) will do so much good!
The big problem is the same with oil. People own land with oil under nether, but the can't access it, the system is jig, only big oil companies can get the oil. People own land, but they put up wind turbines? No, but big oil companies are investing big in wind power, and they are the only ones who can put the things up. The problem is not the source of power, but the monopolies.
True.
Interesting. Can you tell us the link from big oil companies to wind power? Maybe. I'm trying to work it out. I thought it was governments taking huge loans to pay wind power companies to supply, install and run wind power. That never returns the loans. Wind power is basically governments shovelling money out the back door to private companies. Greenies are people who blindly run around and think wind power is doing some kind of good. And the rest just blindly go along with it for the sake of peace.
How can you build a wind turbine in your backyard, do you have an idea how big they are and how much noise they make?
I´m make a college work, Where the Sources of the infos you show on the video??
+Cassio VA Come to the areas near, but thankfully not close to our home, and you can talk to people negatively affected, at least those that haven't abandoned their homes for the sake of their family's health.
+Susan Bye-Walsh ????????????????????
+Cassio VA Check out Mojave, Ca. How do you stay in your home surrounded by a thousand wind turbines 500 feet tall (50 stories)? Many people have abandoned their homes in the US, Australia & Germany that I know of so far.
One coal gas or nuclear power plant takes up less space than thirty large windmills,produces power as thousands of windmills and is available 100% of the time instead the only 20~25% that windmills generate real world power.For example 3MW turbine that only delivers 150KW is not to be taken serious.So for 0nly 25% of the time those turbines produce really a percentage of their maximum rating.
Wind turbine spacing
On most horizontal wind turbine farms, a spacing of about 6-10 times the rotor diameter is often upheld. However, for large wind farms distances of about 15 rotor diameters should be more economical, taking into account typical wind turbine and land costs. This conclusion has been reached by research[72] conducted by Charles Meneveau of Johns Hopkins University[73] and Johan Meyers of Leuven University in Belgium, based on computer simulations[74] that take into account the detailed interactions among wind turbines (wakes) as well as with the entire turbulent atmospheric boundary layer.
Recent research by John Dabiri of Caltech suggests that vertical wind turbines may be placed much more closely together so long as an alternating pattern of rotation is created allowing blades of neighbouring turbines to move in the same direction as they approach one another.[75]
Great video but the music is too much aggressive :(
Oh my god it's Jason Bourne!
Why Jason Bourne music