Yes, I'm working a bit on planning a wind farm (possibly the tallest in our area). But it will take years just to prepare and approve the environmental studies, process the building permits, secure the rights-of-way for the connecting cables, .... And often these projects get stuck on something, or by the time it's all sorted out, the economic situation changes and eventually nothing gets built.
Great video but a bit confusing. The primary improvement has been in sweept area and moving from 2-3 MW to 4-6MW onshore in the past 15 years. Offshore has seen a massiv raise from 8MW to now protoypes of 16 to 18 MW. Commercial deployment has been up to 15 MW Turbine. Big improv
The video has some mistakes many low wind turbine habe been deployed for decades. Primarly produced by Nordex as Gemma and Delta 3000 Series or N131 -3000 to 3900. Those type have been in production for over a decade now. Auch Enercon baut Schwachwindanlagen.
I live in an area with 2nd most number of wind turbines in Thailand. AFAIK the race here is not to have the best tech but to maintain lowest operating cost. Vestas and Siemens pioneered wind farms in this area, but now the majority of growth seems to come from the Chinese. If the Chinese machinery cost less while all else are equal, then they make more money - as simple as that.
I own a rope access company in the US that maintains wind turbines, among other projects. My favorite turbine innovation (that seems to be all but abandoned now) is direct drive generators made with neodymium magnets. I worked on a bunch of GE 3.2 MW direct drive machines back in 2013, on a 320 MW farm, performing "punch list" items in preparation for transferring ownership of the machines from the construction company to the O&M company. These were really impressive for a smaller form factor: 100M hub height and 137M blade/rotor diameter generating up to 4MW (3.2MW nominal) is quite a feat, especially for back in 2013. Moving forward, however, it appears that direct drive technology has been pretty much mothballed in favor of big heavy gearboxes. I assume that's due in large part to a shortage of neodymium making direct drive tech too expensive.
They didn't have rare earth magnets fifty years ago when huge turbines were built for the thermal power plants. The generator used electromagnets that were just as powerful. But apparently the idea lost favor when they found that the weight was greater. I think that they could develop a generator that is not behind the blades, it could be located down low and driven by hydraulic fluid from the hub.
To be honest, I understand the cost pressure and all, but all this issue came down to one thing, cost. I understand they don't want to lose any money but the fact that cost is the only thing holding us back kind of hurt me.
Money is just an abstraction used by societies to allocate scarce resources. You could reject the concept of money, but you would still need to come up with an alternative system to allocate those scarce resources. A good system would probably still require some kind of unified metric that represents how much scarce resources are needed for any type of good or service.
It does kind of hurt your soul a little bit, but companies don't want to invest in innovation without almost certain R.O.I. If we had more government funded R&D we could achieve so much more in almost all fields
@@wcoenen That's why you need CCP as an investor.The Chinese government prefers to invest in innovative companies rather than profit-making ones. That's why they saved Neo auto which makes battery swap technology. (Buying 35% of the shares of the nearly bankrupt Neo company and injecting 5 billion dollars from the regional development Bank) . But not with jiyue auto..
How many industries are forced to make their products cheaper and cheaper every year, even when they are already among the most affordable options? You don’t see this happening with the oil industry or the profits of coal, oil, and gas power plants-especially when they capitalize on short-term failures of wind and solar. So who’s to blame? It seems to me that the governments are at fault. They refuse to pay a fair price that would allow companies to make even the smallest profit, yet they continue to subsidize and protect fossil fuels without the same pressure to cut costs. And it all started the year when governments decided that a new bidding system should be used, where contracts are awarded based purely on who can build it the cheapest. While competition is good, I think governments went too far. By prioritizing rock-bottom prices over sustainability and long-term reliability, they have created an unstable market where companies struggle to survive, leading to delays, bankruptcies, and ultimately fewer wind and solar projects getting built.
You missed an important point: wind power is not in retreat. Exponentially more is getting built all the time, and in countries all over the world. Moreover, the technology is getting better and cheaper, becoming more competitive with fossil gas and other fossil alternatives as time goes on. The current problems industry faces boil down to increased competition, in addition to the factors of interest rates and commodity prices which you did mention. The upshot of the current era is going to be wind technology that is even cheaper and easier to deploy, and that is going to do a lot to increase pressure on fossil fuel market share by the late 20's. Moreover, wind is complementary to solar power, and however cheap solar becomes it will still make sense to add something that works at night or during cloudy weather. It is also much faster to deploy as compared to nuclear or even gas.
Wind power _will never_ be competitive with fossil fuels (in the current geopolitical climate) We should really just not dictate whether or not to save the planet based primarily (or at all) on how much money it makes to select people
Wind may be faster to deploy than Nuclear, but that is only because Nuclear has a dozen of regulations and costs and politics chaining it down since Nuclear Energy was to be made commercial. Wind is okay for decentralized power. But no energy source can compare to Nuclear for centralized baseload energy this century.
@@jacka9612 Atomic is cheaper than Solar and Wind per unit power. It takes magnitudes times less land. It produces nearly zero true wastes per unit power. All of this while Atomic is opressed by every government and ancient regulations, while Wind-Solar is promoted with subsides and reliefs. Imagine if Atomic saw as much support and assistance as Wind-Solar.
Hey there! Yes, it would take a very different approach to consider nature's needs. We actually looked at the idea of pricing nature a while ago in this video 👉 ua-cam.com/video/MSxIBYOMQOU/v-deo.html Do you think this concept would work? ✨
Hey there! Glad to hear that you liked our video. We post videos like this one regularly. Would love to see you subscribe and hear what you think about upcoming content ✨
I think that focusing on newer materials that are easier to assemble will help improve the price of wind turbines to go down and make them cheaper to make. Overall, I enjoyed the video it was very informative to watch.
The problems with new materials, like composites, are the recycling after the end of life and the durability. Wood and cellulosic matrix composites can be a way but we cant´t be able of reach high power density.
@antoniocirino8444 I was also thinking about the new materials they would use on winter turbines that are easy to make and dispose of after their lifespans in service.
The best part is no part - todays large wind turbines do NOT use a gearbox!! Instead they have a larger number of poles in the generator winding - the poles are attached to the main shaft The shaft will spin at the best rpm to extract the energy from the wind - this produces "Wild AC" which is converted to "Tame AC" by the power electronics
If you remove the gearbox, you spend a lot more money on the generator and power electronics, which need a lot of expensive materials: copper, magnets...
Hey there! Happy to hear that you liked our video :) We post regularly so we would love to see you subscribe and hear what you think about upcoming ones. ✨
Edit: It seems I need to spell it out more. For a company that has limited finances to invest in green energy, solar panels are far cheaper on a per unit basis, so if you start out with a lot less money you can invest it in a solar park, even if you can't afford wind turbines. Another likely challenge for wind energy, is the fact that Solar is so ubiquitous at this point. Solar is far easier to install, and it has very little running costs as compared to wind turbines. The price of solar is also still coming further and further down, so the need for wind related power is decreasing over time. On top of this interconnectivity of different regions result in the variability of energy production being less and less of a problem, and adding better energy storage onto the mix just hits the point home even more.
@@old-pete For sure, but solar is cheaper and easier to install. So if a company has the choice between the two, they're plausibly more likely to choose solar. This isn't a dealbreaker on its own, but on top of all the other effects and issues that wind turbines face, it can be a bit of a kidney shot in the moment.
As far I know - wind is cheaper - that massive wind turbines get close to their full capacity a lot of the time - you can’t do that with solar energy. When batteries get cheaper - windy places won’t need solar. (But probably best to supplement anyway)
One very important point, you forgot to point out that these cost pressures affect all industries using these materials. Investor pull-outs are due to the reduced profits they were promised from these projects, not because they are not viable. Also onshore wind is as cheap as solar, and given its productivity, offshore is at about the same cost, perhaps 25% higher, when done properly. Wind and solar are the CHEAPEST, yes the cheapest forms of electricity generation. Your video seems to make out that wind is unbearably expensive and unsustainable, this IS NOT TRUE!!! Why would China install 20 new GWH of capacity, if this were the case? They did this in the last two years.
Hey, I know this is off-topic, but I have attention deficit disorder and close captioning really ruins my experience. Respectfully requesting content without it thank you. Have a great day :-) PS between my platform and my device I can select close captioning if I want it. ❤
Sadly this video has missed some important improvement. Steel towers pile being able to be driven directly in to seabed means a massic cost reduction and the ability to mount even large turbines.
Nitpick regarding wind speeds. The energy available in the wind is proportional to the cube of its speed. If for example, the speed doubles, the available enegy increases by a factor of eight.
What is the second improved turbine shown in this video, please, if I may ask? The smaller one is the exact one I have, and it has survived 3 major storms, with gusts up to 70 MPH / 112 KMH. It is an amazing piece of kit and it is still going. Plus, it is only meant as a toy!
@@DWPlanetA Thank you, but no worries, I found it. 1:17 and it is called the KOSMOS Wind Rod. Nice looking toy. I might buy one myself. Kind of an upgrade. :)
No. Wind electricity production to grid is the most R*E*T*A*R*D*E*D deciction to destroy tax money, because it's WEATHER DEPENDANT and therefore NOT PREDICTABLE and NOT PLANABLE
Hey there! There are several reasons why the gearbox is not put down to the ground. One of them is that positioning it closer to the top minimizes the need for complex transmission systems (such as long shafts or excessive gearing) and allows for a more direct, efficient connection between the rotor and the generator.
How would that work with the turbine need to turn to face the wind? A chain that can handle the millions Nm ( or LbF) or torque would be too heavy and expensive.
@niconico3907 Good point about turning to face the wind. Hadn't considered that. The chain would be balanced on either side, so weight wouldn't be an issue after overcoming initial inertia.
When people talk about the difficulties changing to a grid powered by renewables, I like to ask, when did the last sailing ship take wheat from Australia to England? It was 1949. All the problems we have changing from fossil fuel to renewable energy have happened before, when we changed from renewable energy to fossil fuels. It will be slow and complicated but the end result will be a richer human population.
Thanks for this great report, I find out, the idea of building a turbine (which can generate in a lower wind) economically is very viable, especially from a price perspective (you produce when wind is low equivalent to higher price in the market). However you didn't mention the maintenance & service cost.. which is already increasing considerably. Certainly, with larger scale turbines, this component will get more & more investing.
Discovery of a huge, endless energy source!!! With a cosmic source for free electricity generation!!! The end of the era of nuclear power plants, wind, combined cycle, etc.!!!
This says theres a limit to the size because it'll become too big to transport otherwise, but offshore wind turbines are largely built on the coast like the ones in Scotland and then I assume put directly onto the ship that transports them to their location in the sea. Is there a size limit in these cases?
It generates additionally engineering challenges, as the tower flexes in the wind. A long shaft would need to flex too and be strong enogh to transfer many MW of power.
If you use a shaft you need gears at the top as well and the shaft weight is huge. If you use a chain you still need a gear at the top. As the most critical gears are the ones taking the largest torque there are no advantages, but huge disadvantages, e.g. much more material.
There is no reason to put the gearbox on the ground. The turbine tower need to be strong enough to whistand the thousands of tonnes of sideways wind loading of the rotor. 40 tonnes of gearbox on top of the tower is nearly nothing. Transfering a lot of power mechanically is more expensive than electric cables.( you dont imagine a power grid with mechanical chains and gears would be cheaper than an electric grid)
Put the blade production facility on a large ship. The have the ship sail to where the wind farm is being built and produce the blades onsite. Then move on to the next job…
Blade production as a single piece is done with an autoclave, which is really tricky. Plus, the best workers probably won't want to live on a ship. If you can give engineers and trade workers a consistent solid job, their ability will rise and rise over time. If you're only hiring people who will work on ships, you're chopping off 80% of the labour market.
Some wind turbine production sites are already at the shore and no road transport is needed already. And you probably underestimate the size of these factories.
They Have to build a wind battery unit, the tower will be the tank,a compressor instead of a generator( no copper ore neodimium magnet) alll the air will go to a central production motor, 90 % efficiency is posible if air is use directly hot from the compressor,make the hub bigger a round structure is very strong, specially if is pressure inside a beach ball is a good example, next the first part of the blade coul be a sinple tub10 to 15 meters wit slive shape like a wing,so technically the wing will be attached at the 25 meter from the center,at 15 rpm technically you could ad 2 or 3 more blades. Just a though......
What would be the focuses for India to get development and high amount of energy from Wind Turbines...and what procedures should be taken to increase more productivity and more use of integrated technology involving energy engineering...?
Regarding larger wind turbines being more inclined to gear and generator problems. Don’t you find the solution to be as trivial as splitting a single generator and gear into several smaller ones fed by a common driving shaft? Elon Musk uses the same type of rocket engines but with varying number of them for a reason.
The video doesn’t even cover that windmills breaks easily under strong winds and they are extremely difficult to repair due to the heights. And windmill blades deteriorate within a few years of operation. And the blades are not recyclable. Can only be buried in landfills.
Hey there! Wind turbines have a lifespan of about 20 years and withstand strong winds. The recyclability of wind turbine blades is definitely a challenge. But there is a lot of research and improvement happening - we looked at the developments there a few months ago in this video 👉 ua-cam.com/video/HzQShAlObn8/v-deo.html&ab_channel=DWPlanetA
@old-pete As I understand it, the industry has been pushing toward 16+ MW turbines for offshore locations because the infrastructure can support them. But at a certain point, building two smaller turbines may be more economical than one larger turbine, due to scaling inefficiencies in manufacturing, maintenance and installation. My thinking is based on the fact that doubling a turbine’s size doesn’t necessarily double its power output, due to the square-cube law (as blade length increases linearly, mass and material needs scale cubically).
@@commelinalesI think they mentioned that they work similarly to airplane wings. I am pretty sure that one can understand how a car engine works without calculating the Carnot efficiency.
Hey there! There was a study in 2014 that showed that big offshore wind farms have the potential to reduce the wind speeds and therefore reduce the severity in a way. However, there are not many recent studies on this.
Surprised the video didn't mention the alternatives many European, and international, turbine manufactures are exploring inclduing the various forms of cluster-type wind turbine systems (multiple rotors per tower), which seek to obtain similar advantages to larger bladed systems but at a lower cost. Multi-rotor systems often provide larger swept-area coverage and higher power output than single rotor designs and can also offer similar low wind advantage to supersized single turbines. The cluster-type also suffer less from the stall wake issues that larger turbines can introduce requiring larger deployment areas, reducing the wind energy capture density per square kilometre.
Don't look at internet picture from startups claiming their ideas are the best, and the cheapest while they don't even have a small scale working prototype. Multirotor turbine is just a bad idea, it will never work.
@@niconico3907 - you seem to be discounting all the studies that prove otherwise, from multiple research and university centres in China, Germany, Japan and the UK and the USA. Plus not taking account large scale commercial manufactures, like Vestas, are trialing multi-rotor designs.
Wind turbines are WAY better then solar because>>> -Takes up less real estate -generates power 24/7 never stops even after dark gen power all night long while solar sleeps -Solar panels require regular cleaning for max power-not wind. -best place for wind turbine is 20miles offshore just over the horizon where they wont disrupt the beautiful scenery PLUS very few birds out there. !
Wind turbines are bad because they are so land expensive each one needs on average 20-30 acres, and the economics are just not there solar is way better it’s predictable it gets better with scale,
Until there is no wind. Wind power still costs significantly more. Wind generation is very difficult in freezing conditions where ice forms on the blades. Wind turbines need a lot of maintenance. They are a good part of the renewable energy mix but are not without their issues.
why not put a hydraulic pump on the turbine head and put the gear box and the generator on the ground? sure it would be tricky to get the hydraulic hose down from the rotating head but i'm sure there is a engineering solution to that
Has anyone asked the car maker Koenigsegg as they have been making wildly efficient transmissions and that sort of knowledge seems like it could be useful for the gearbox.
A car gearbox is designed for about 4 month of continuous use because a car is stopped 95% of the time. A wind turbine is designed to last 20 years. A wind turbine has only 1 speed, no need to shift, a car as 6 gearbox ratios. A turbine gearbox can be rated 1000times more torque than a car. Completely different products.
Matt Ferrell has a youtube channel called Undecided with Matt Ferrell. He has done a few segments on wind technology that are really exciting. It might be REALLY fun & informative for DW Planet A and Matt to do a collaborative segment on these topics!
small efficient turbines are better,you need to find right places.The industry badly needs out of the box innovators and a practical approach.The herd mentality is costly and time consuming
Solar is the worst of renewable generation for grid supply, even where it is very sunny. Wind is not much better and there is not really any point in making them slightly more efficient as the inherent flaws remain. It is intermittent, which is significant and unfeasible flaw to overcome. It is also asynchronous, has no inertia or reactive power input, all requirrements for grid supply.
Pete, simply not true., although it depends what you call small, that is subjective. However even the smallest under generation requires some thing else in it's place. Logically it makes no sense. That is before you consider the technical deficiencies of wind and solar, they are not an equivalent to conventional generators, or a replacement.
The big problem with the gearboxes is durability. That is the reason for using journal bearings: they last much longer. Wind turbine lifetime has been disappointing so far.
Compared to solar wind seems to become more and more complicated and costly to install. Smaller units would open the market to average farmers and land owners. Not dangling the transmission and alternator 60ft in the air might be helpful too.
@@DoorsOfPerceptionPDM he's refering to reserve I think. It's about 44 million MT. Twice as much as the next country. But this doesn't impact wind turbine manufacturing in real terms. Research and funding is the most important factor. So vote in governments that want to make more green energy.
I have found that small wind turbines do not require much height and wind power, and the generator has a very high efficiency, reducing noise and installation space problems, and can produce more electricity than general large wind turbines.
I'll take wind energy seriously when spent blades are recyclable, not a bunch of toxic non-biodegradable plastic resin and fiberglass buried in landfills.
@old-pete ya that's coz they shred the blades, claim the recycling and green tax credits then flog the blade trash off somewhere else to be their problem to deal with. That's Europe. Elsewhere they just get buried with a "nothing to see here" attitude.
@@old-pete Thank you for your reply. Would you please share some sources to support your claims? I am genuinely interested, and my research led me to a completely different conclusion.
@@realname9091 Why are you lying? You either never did the research or lie about the results. The studies are conclusive. Read Schleisner, 2000, "Life cycle assessment of a wind farm and related externalities" or Besseau et al, 2019, "Past, present and future enviromental footprint of the Danish wind turbine fleet".
@ Thank you for the informative sources you shared with me. The problems I have with sources of similar caliber are the following: - more often than not, those researchers talk about estimates, not direct measures. If I estimate that China produces everything as cleanly as Denmark does, I believe my estimate might not hold through the scrutiny of actual measurement. - The first source you have linked, states that "The land-based wind farm, with a yearly production of 19,800 MWh, is paid back in 0.26 years." . Why would anyone invest in something like real estate ever again (generally takes more than a decade to get the money back) if this investment takes 0.26 years to get the money back?! I do understand that the investments in this form of energy generation are growing substantially, however I believe that having your money back in 0.26 years should render those numbers a few orders of magnitude bigger. Although I do not appreciate the initial tone, I have to ignore the insulting accusations from time to time just to have a "discussion" with the people from the "other" side. Again, I am just genuinely curious, especially since (in my understanding at least) numbers do not add up.
@@realname9091 They are not talking about money.... but energy... If you were not talking BS, like the hundreds of other people that share your view, you would have brought a source that supports your view...
Perfect wind turbine is like perfect sling shot. The first one will never produce real power, the second will never win with a rifle. Just tell people that an ideal, unachievable turbine that is 100% efficient, cannot extract more than 51% of wind energy. Period.
@ What you mean by that? What I am saying is that win turbines are nothing but a snake oil that offers no real solution. Humanity needs more and more energy. Wind can’t cut it. We need to develop better nuclear power, perhaps that runs on thorium, as a stepping stone to nuclear fusion.
Hey Dan! There is no machine that is 100% efficient, including wind turbines. Since you mention Thorium nuclear energy, let me recommend a video of ours where we looked at its potential 👉ua-cam.com/video/Km6kqykX900/v-deo.html
An interesting look at the engineering , cost etc of wind turbines. The 'elephant in the room' though is why and what for? Do we have a CO2 problem? Will all these wind turbines ultimately contribute to changing the weather? Fossil fuels will run out eventually but are these impressive structures really the answer; or are they a semi ill-thought out quick solution to a problem that does not actually exist, all the while requiring vast resources and spoiling our view of the World? I don't know, but the World seems reluctant to have that debate.
Windturbines are over 80 years in development. Hardly something one can call a quick solution.... And yes, the debate is over. We need to reduce CO2 emissions.
Regarding the fossil fuels it takes to create a wind turbine, they recoup it within 6 months of operation. Considering wind farms usually are designed to operate for 20+ years
20% more diameter, 44% increase in efficiency provided there's 1-to-1 correspondence of efficiency vs area swept by the rotor, which I doubt it is. There's a natural limit of how high and wide we can build those structures. The wind energy density is extremely low, compared to almost all other sources. It's a fools errand.
Imagine thinking you've mastered fission when you've had 5 INES level 5 or above nuclear accidents in 70 years - 2 creating long term nuclear exclusion zone wastelands. Imagine calling it mastery when you still have no single nuclear state with a long term storage or disposal solution for the nuclear waste it generates; and when you have three quarters of the world's uranium supply coming from Kazakhstan, a former soviet block nation firmly in Russia's sphere of influence. Imagine thinking that's "mastery" huh. Imagine.
@MidnightSouls and imagine people think they've mastered fission when it's far more expensive than 30 years ago and that's not including properly storing highly radioactive waste😅 😂
@@paxundpeace9970 That's fusion and technically we do have working examples of fusion that produce more energy than they take. It's just way too much energy to the point where containment becomes a major issue. But technically we could make an internal combustion engine powered by fusion nukes. Except we don't need to do that since we have a fairly well developed fission technology that would easily power our civilization in a clean and safe way. Antinuclear sentiment is largely why we have a climate crisis today.
Money laundering by generating power at one third the strike price of alternative generation? That's the sort of money laundering consumers can get behind. Nice.
Have you seen any new, different wind turbines in your area?
Hemp 💚
Yes, I'm working a bit on planning a wind farm (possibly the tallest in our area). But it will take years just to prepare and approve the environmental studies, process the building permits, secure the rights-of-way for the connecting cables, .... And often these projects get stuck on something, or by the time it's all sorted out, the economic situation changes and eventually nothing gets built.
No... but I'm from Bavaria
Great video but a bit confusing.
The primary improvement has been in sweept area and moving from 2-3 MW to 4-6MW onshore in the past 15 years.
Offshore has seen a massiv raise from 8MW to now protoypes of 16 to 18 MW.
Commercial deployment has been up to 15 MW Turbine.
Big improv
The video has some mistakes many low wind turbine habe been deployed for decades.
Primarly produced by Nordex as Gemma and Delta 3000 Series or N131 -3000 to 3900.
Those type have been in production for over a decade now.
Auch Enercon baut Schwachwindanlagen.
I live in an area with 2nd most number of wind turbines in Thailand. AFAIK the race here is not to have the best tech but to maintain lowest operating cost. Vestas and Siemens pioneered wind farms in this area, but now the majority of growth seems to come from the Chinese. If the Chinese machinery cost less while all else are equal, then they make more money - as simple as that.
I live in Thailand; I thought the Thais were smarter than that.
I own a rope access company in the US that maintains wind turbines, among other projects. My favorite turbine innovation (that seems to be all but abandoned now) is direct drive generators made with neodymium magnets. I worked on a bunch of GE 3.2 MW direct drive machines back in 2013, on a 320 MW farm, performing "punch list" items in preparation for transferring ownership of the machines from the construction company to the O&M company. These were really impressive for a smaller form factor: 100M hub height and 137M blade/rotor diameter generating up to 4MW (3.2MW nominal) is quite a feat, especially for back in 2013. Moving forward, however, it appears that direct drive technology has been pretty much mothballed in favor of big heavy gearboxes. I assume that's due in large part to a shortage of neodymium making direct drive tech too expensive.
Have you ever heard anyone talking about Iron Nitride magnets from Niron here in the states as an alternative to neodymium?
Enercon builds wind turbines with direct drives.
@@dyske- and without magnets :)
Also quite reliable because one doesn't need to refit a gearbox after 10 years
They didn't have rare earth magnets fifty years ago when huge turbines were built for the thermal power plants. The generator used electromagnets that were just as powerful. But apparently the idea lost favor when they found that the weight was greater. I think that they could develop a generator that is not behind the blades, it could be located down low and driven by hydraulic fluid from the hub.
I was under the impression that gearboxes are high maintenance and direct drive was gaining ground for offshore turbines.
To be honest, I understand the cost pressure and all, but all this issue came down to one thing, cost. I understand they don't want to lose any money but the fact that cost is the only thing holding us back kind of hurt me.
Money is just an abstraction used by societies to allocate scarce resources. You could reject the concept of money, but you would still need to come up with an alternative system to allocate those scarce resources. A good system would probably still require some kind of unified metric that represents how much scarce resources are needed for any type of good or service.
It does kind of hurt your soul a little bit, but companies don't want to invest in innovation without almost certain R.O.I. If we had more government funded R&D we could achieve so much more in almost all fields
@@wcoenen That's why you need CCP as an investor.The Chinese government prefers to invest in innovative companies rather than profit-making ones.
That's why they saved Neo auto which makes battery swap technology.
(Buying 35% of the shares of the nearly bankrupt Neo company and injecting 5 billion dollars from the regional development Bank) .
But not with jiyue auto..
It really isn't
Wind is _way_ cheaper than fossil fuels
What's holding us back is more insidious
Profit
How many industries are forced to make their products cheaper and cheaper every year, even when they are already among the most affordable options? You don’t see this happening with the oil industry or the profits of coal, oil, and gas power plants-especially when they capitalize on short-term failures of wind and solar.
So who’s to blame? It seems to me that the governments are at fault. They refuse to pay a fair price that would allow companies to make even the smallest profit, yet they continue to subsidize and protect fossil fuels without the same pressure to cut costs.
And it all started the year when governments decided that a new bidding system should be used, where contracts are awarded based purely on who can build it the cheapest. While competition is good, I think governments went too far. By prioritizing rock-bottom prices over sustainability and long-term reliability, they have created an unstable market where companies struggle to survive, leading to delays, bankruptcies, and ultimately fewer wind and solar projects getting built.
You missed an important point: wind power is not in retreat. Exponentially more is getting built all the time, and in countries all over the world. Moreover, the technology is getting better and cheaper, becoming more competitive with fossil gas and other fossil alternatives as time goes on.
The current problems industry faces boil down to increased competition, in addition to the factors of interest rates and commodity prices which you did mention. The upshot of the current era is going to be wind technology that is even cheaper and easier to deploy, and that is going to do a lot to increase pressure on fossil fuel market share by the late 20's.
Moreover, wind is complementary to solar power, and however cheap solar becomes it will still make sense to add something that works at night or during cloudy weather. It is also much faster to deploy as compared to nuclear or even gas.
Wind power _will never_ be competitive with fossil fuels (in the current geopolitical climate)
We should really just not dictate whether or not to save the planet based primarily (or at all) on how much money it makes to select people
Wind may be faster to deploy than Nuclear, but that is only because Nuclear has a dozen of regulations and costs and politics chaining it down since Nuclear Energy was to be made commercial.
Wind is okay for decentralized power. But no energy source can compare to Nuclear for centralized baseload energy this century.
Not cheaper when u realise that u need to build 3-4 time as much MW in wind compared to other plannable electricity productions.
@@jacka9612 Atomic is cheaper than Solar and Wind per unit power. It takes magnitudes times less land. It produces nearly zero true wastes per unit power.
All of this while Atomic is opressed by every government and ancient regulations, while Wind-Solar is promoted with subsides and reliefs. Imagine if Atomic saw as much support and assistance as Wind-Solar.
Offshore windpower in the north see will growth 4 times in the next decade. Will already being one of the largest areas for wind farms.
All these years I’ve been using my hairdryer wrong. If only I had held it higher my hair would have dried faster! 😂
Why not contra rotating wind turbines 🧐
The wind turbine rotates in the opposite direction. I have completed the design in 2008.
Brushless commutator
Wish short term profit wasn't always prioritized over the long term health of our planet
Hey there! Yes, it would take a very different approach to consider nature's needs. We actually looked at the idea of pricing nature a while ago in this video 👉 ua-cam.com/video/MSxIBYOMQOU/v-deo.html Do you think this concept would work? ✨
Thanks. Factual contents and nice animations.
Hey there! Glad to hear that you liked our video. We post videos like this one regularly. Would love to see you subscribe and hear what you think about upcoming content ✨
Nordex and Enercon German engineering of Windturbines 💪💪💪💪💪
Germans on their way to over engineer the most useless of things
I think that focusing on newer materials that are easier to assemble will help improve the price of wind turbines to go down and make them cheaper to make. Overall, I enjoyed the video it was very informative to watch.
The problems with new materials, like composites, are the recycling after the end of life and the durability.
Wood and cellulosic matrix composites can be a way but we cant´t be able of reach high power density.
@antoniocirino8444 I was also thinking about the new materials they would use on winter turbines that are easy to make and dispose of after their lifespans in service.
The best part is no part - todays large wind turbines do NOT use a gearbox!!
Instead they have a larger number of poles in the generator winding - the poles are attached to the main shaft
The shaft will spin at the best rpm to extract the energy from the wind - this produces "Wild AC" which is converted to "Tame AC" by the power electronics
I thought the major innovation with regards to gearboxes was removing the need for them completely....
If you remove the gearbox, you spend a lot more money on the generator and power electronics, which need a lot of expensive materials: copper, magnets...
Super interesting and helpful, thank you for these!
Hey there! Happy to hear that you liked our video :) We post regularly so we would love to see you subscribe and hear what you think about upcoming ones. ✨
GE has had segmented blades on it’s largest onshore turbines for many years. They solved this to make transportation easier.
At 9:55. Could you please stop showing gas turbines when you talk about wind turbines? Quite confusing.
Edit: It seems I need to spell it out more. For a company that has limited finances to invest in green energy, solar panels are far cheaper on a per unit basis, so if you start out with a lot less money you can invest it in a solar park, even if you can't afford wind turbines.
Another likely challenge for wind energy, is the fact that Solar is so ubiquitous at this point. Solar is far easier to install, and it has very little running costs as compared to wind turbines. The price of solar is also still coming further and further down, so the need for wind related power is decreasing over time.
On top of this interconnectivity of different regions result in the variability of energy production being less and less of a problem, and adding better energy storage onto the mix just hits the point home even more.
Solar has a small power window. It is better to use both. They complement each other.
@@old-pete For sure, but solar is cheaper and easier to install. So if a company has the choice between the two, they're plausibly more likely to choose solar.
This isn't a dealbreaker on its own, but on top of all the other effects and issues that wind turbines face, it can be a bit of a kidney shot in the moment.
@op4000exe If all panels produce electricity at the same time. That is an issue.
And there is also a need for electricity at night and winter.
Solar and wind power are the perfect combination. In winter wind is much more present than in summer while in summer you have more sun
As far I know - wind is cheaper - that massive wind turbines get close to their full capacity a lot of the time - you can’t do that with solar energy. When batteries get cheaper - windy places won’t need solar. (But probably best to supplement anyway)
One very important point, you forgot to point out that these cost pressures affect all industries using these materials. Investor pull-outs are due to the reduced profits they were promised from these projects, not because they are not viable. Also onshore wind is as cheap as solar, and given its productivity, offshore is at about the same cost, perhaps 25% higher, when done properly. Wind and solar are the CHEAPEST, yes the cheapest forms of electricity generation. Your video seems to make out that wind is unbearably expensive and unsustainable, this IS NOT TRUE!!! Why would China install 20 new GWH of capacity, if this were the case? They did this in the last two years.
Hey, I know this is off-topic, but I have attention deficit disorder and close captioning really ruins my experience. Respectfully requesting content without it thank you. Have a great day :-)
PS between my platform and my device I can select close captioning if I want it. ❤
Hey there! Thanks for sharing your view. You can just switch off the subtitles here as well. Hope that helps ✨
Sadly this video has missed some important improvement.
Steel towers pile being able to be driven directly in to seabed means a massic cost reduction and the ability to mount even large turbines.
Nitpick regarding wind speeds. The energy available in the wind is proportional to the cube of its speed. If for example, the speed doubles, the available enegy increases by a factor of eight.
Depends on the type of turbine. But correct for flat bladers.
Great video, wind industry is developing but I think that there wasn't really big new innovations in how we design and build them.
What is the second improved turbine shown in this video, please, if I may ask? The smaller one is the exact one I have, and it has survived 3 major storms, with gusts up to 70 MPH / 112 KMH. It is an amazing piece of kit and it is still going. Plus, it is only meant as a toy!
Hey there! Could you tell us the time code? That would make it easier for us to know exactly which one you are looking for 😊
@@DWPlanetA Thank you, but no worries, I found it. 1:17 and it is called the KOSMOS Wind Rod. Nice looking toy. I might buy one myself. Kind of an upgrade. :)
I just think they're neat.
If there's a labor shortage, they can hire all the engineers from VW that got laid off.
Bigger and bigger turbines is the future:)
No.
Wind electricity production to grid is the most R*E*T*A*R*D*E*D deciction to destroy tax money, because it's WEATHER DEPENDANT and therefore NOT PREDICTABLE and NOT PLANABLE
2:08 200m above sea level? I would have to dig a 1000m deep hole to get down to that level.
Should be groundlevel
Why not use a chain and sprockets to do some of the reduction and move the gearbox down to the ground?
Hey there! There are several reasons why the gearbox is not put down to the ground. One of them is that positioning it closer to the top minimizes the need for complex transmission systems (such as long shafts or excessive gearing) and allows for a more direct, efficient connection between the rotor and the generator.
How would that work with the turbine need to turn to face the wind? A chain that can handle the millions Nm ( or LbF) or torque would be too heavy and expensive.
@niconico3907 Good point about turning to face the wind. Hadn't considered that. The chain would be balanced on either side, so weight wouldn't be an issue after overcoming initial inertia.
"Unfortunately, none of the manufacturers were willing to talk to us about their innovations."
One of the worst hidden harms of capitalism. 💔
When people talk about the difficulties changing to a grid powered by renewables, I like to ask, when did the last sailing ship take wheat from Australia to England? It was 1949.
All the problems we have changing from fossil fuel to renewable energy have happened before, when we changed from renewable energy to fossil fuels. It will be slow and complicated but the end result will be a richer human population.
ahh lovely to spend 3 months on a ship or 19 Hours on a plane? theres a reason we use fossil fuels
@@Slavicplayer251And there is a reason to change back.
So why rely on wind?
@@nickhanlon9331People do not rely on wind alone. They rely on wind, solar, hydro, biofuels and geothermic energy.
Thanks for this great report, I find out, the idea of building a turbine (which can generate in a lower wind) economically is very viable, especially from a price perspective (you produce when wind is low equivalent to higher price in the market).
However you didn't mention the maintenance & service cost.. which is already increasing considerably. Certainly, with larger scale turbines, this component will get more & more investing.
Wind energy has been around for a lot more than centuries!!!
(I did understand what you said but ... the joke ... it overpowers me!)
Discovery of a huge, endless energy source!!! With a cosmic source for free electricity generation!!! The end of the era of nuclear power plants, wind, combined cycle, etc.!!!
10:10 You need to mention all the wind farms projects cancelled are off shore.
Mainly in the US because of high permit and building cost.
This says theres a limit to the size because it'll become too big to transport otherwise, but offshore wind turbines are largely built on the coast like the ones in Scotland and then I assume put directly onto the ship that transports them to their location in the sea. Is there a size limit in these cases?
An engineering one.
I doubt they know how to build or setup blades with over 200m length, yet.
Regarding shipping i don't see much of an issue even with current /state of the art 100 to 130m blades. Still plenty of room left.
Why does the gearbox need to be at the top? Couldn't they transfer the rotation down first, or would a shaft that long weigh even more?
It generates additionally engineering challenges, as the tower flexes in the wind.
A long shaft would need to flex too and be strong enogh to transfer many MW of power.
If you use a shaft you need gears at the top as well and the shaft weight is huge. If you use a chain you still need a gear at the top. As the most critical gears are the ones taking the largest torque there are no advantages, but huge disadvantages, e.g. much more material.
There is no reason to put the gearbox on the ground. The turbine tower need to be strong enough to whistand the thousands of tonnes of sideways wind loading of the rotor. 40 tonnes of gearbox on top of the tower is nearly nothing. Transfering a lot of power mechanically is more expensive than electric cables.( you dont imagine a power grid with mechanical chains and gears would be cheaper than an electric grid)
"I hope all those windmills help keep those turtles cool!"
"THAT'S NOT HOW WINDMILLS WORK. GOODNIGHT."
Turbine blades with a thin pressurised cylindrical aluminium core, and aluminium airfoil sheath, for light weight and strength.
Put the blade production facility on a large ship. The have the ship sail to where the wind farm is being built and produce the blades onsite. Then move on to the next job…
Blade production as a single piece is done with an autoclave, which is really tricky.
Plus, the best workers probably won't want to live on a ship. If you can give engineers and trade workers a consistent solid job, their ability will rise and rise over time. If you're only hiring people who will work on ships, you're chopping off 80% of the labour market.
Some wind turbine production sites are already at the shore and no road transport is needed already. And you probably underestimate the size of these factories.
The size of the blades are not a problem for offshore wind farm. It is a problem for onshore windfarm that need to be transported on the roads.
A perfect wind turbine is a wind turbine that doesn't exist.
That's pure nightmare.
There is no perfect machine. Live with it.
They Have to build a wind battery unit, the tower will be the tank,a compressor instead of a generator( no copper ore neodimium magnet) alll the air will go to a central production motor, 90 % efficiency is posible if air is use directly hot from the compressor,make the hub bigger a round structure is very strong, specially if is pressure inside a beach ball is a good example, next the first part of the blade coul be a sinple tub10 to 15 meters wit slive shape like a wing,so technically the wing will be attached at the 25 meter from the center,at 15 rpm technically you could ad 2 or 3 more blades. Just a though......
(1.2)^2=1.44 ... that's just basic geometry.
1:07 with or without Zayne?
Weird. Steel scrap is at the lowest it’s been for some time. 2019 was 260-280 a ton, now 150-170 a ton.
What would be the focuses for India to get development and high amount of energy from Wind Turbines...and what procedures should be taken to increase more productivity and more use of integrated technology involving energy engineering...?
Regarding larger wind turbines being more inclined to gear and generator problems. Don’t you find the solution to be as trivial as splitting a single generator and gear into several smaller ones fed by a common driving shaft? Elon Musk uses the same type of rocket engines but with varying number of them for a reason.
The video doesn’t even cover that windmills breaks easily under strong winds and they are extremely difficult to repair due to the heights.
And windmill blades deteriorate within a few years of operation.
And the blades are not recyclable. Can only be buried in landfills.
Windturbines are designed for hurricane winds...
The blades can last over 20 years and they are easily recyclable.
@ recyclable?
ua-cam.com/video/knX7NkJILhs/v-deo.html
Hey there! Wind turbines have a lifespan of about 20 years and withstand strong winds. The recyclability of wind turbine blades is definitely a challenge. But there is a lot of research and improvement happening - we looked at the developments there a few months ago in this video 👉 ua-cam.com/video/HzQShAlObn8/v-deo.html&ab_channel=DWPlanetA
@@jamsbongYes. A video is not fact...
At what point does building a bigger wind turbine become less cost efficient than building a second one next to it.
Depends on the location.
Offshore, 16 MW turbines seem to be the solution and bigger ones get introduced.
@old-pete As I understand it, the industry has been pushing toward 16+ MW turbines for offshore locations because the infrastructure can support them.
But at a certain point, building two smaller turbines may be more economical than one larger turbine, due to scaling inefficiencies in manufacturing, maintenance and installation.
My thinking is based on the fact that doubling a turbine’s size doesn’t necessarily double its power output, due to the square-cube law (as blade length increases linearly, mass and material needs scale cubically).
@mikmop Yes, it more than doubles the power output.
As long as one can build them and they work, one will build the larger one.
I see no mention to the betz's law, which states that at most, around 60% energy can be extracted from the wind.
Why should that be mentioned?
@@old-pete to explain the shape and physics behind the blade
@@commelinalesI think they mentioned that they work similarly to airplane wings.
I am pretty sure that one can understand how a car engine works without calculating the Carnot efficiency.
EY working on renewables analysis? well no wonder it went up 40%
I read offshore wind farms reduce the severity of hurricanes.
Hey there! There was a study in 2014 that showed that big offshore wind farms have the potential to reduce the wind speeds and therefore reduce the severity in a way. However, there are not many recent studies on this.
Surprised the video didn't mention the alternatives many European, and international, turbine manufactures are exploring inclduing the various forms of cluster-type wind turbine systems (multiple rotors per tower), which seek to obtain similar advantages to larger bladed systems but at a lower cost. Multi-rotor systems often provide larger swept-area coverage and higher power output than single rotor designs and can also offer similar low wind advantage to supersized single turbines. The cluster-type also suffer less from the stall wake issues that larger turbines can introduce requiring larger deployment areas, reducing the wind energy capture density per square kilometre.
Don't look at internet picture from startups claiming their ideas are the best, and the cheapest while they don't even have a small scale working prototype. Multirotor turbine is just a bad idea, it will never work.
@@niconico3907 - you seem to be discounting all the studies that prove otherwise, from multiple research and university centres in China, Germany, Japan and the UK and the USA.
Plus not taking account large scale commercial manufactures, like Vestas, are trialing multi-rotor designs.
Wind turbines are WAY better then solar because>>>
-Takes up less real estate
-generates power 24/7 never stops even after dark gen power all night long while solar sleeps
-Solar panels require regular cleaning for max power-not wind.
-best place for wind turbine is 20miles offshore just over the horizon where they wont
disrupt the beautiful scenery PLUS very few birds out there.
!
Wind turbines are bad because they are so land expensive each one needs on average 20-30 acres, and the economics are just not there solar is way better it’s predictable it gets better with scale,
One needs both and more.
Wind and solar complement each other.
Until there is no wind. Wind power still costs significantly more. Wind generation is very difficult in freezing conditions where ice forms on the blades. Wind turbines need a lot of maintenance. They are a good part of the renewable energy mix but are not without their issues.
Sad that wind didn't grow as fp are
why not put a hydraulic pump on the turbine head and put the gear box and the generator on the ground? sure it would be tricky to get the hydraulic hose down from the rotating head but i'm sure there is a engineering solution to that
That means adfitional losses and a high pressure line that needs to withstand the dynamic movements of the tower.
Has anyone asked the car maker Koenigsegg as they have been making wildly efficient transmissions and that sort of knowledge seems like it could be useful for the gearbox.
Different technology. Also Koenigsegg uses exotic materials which scaled up might be be cost prohibitive.
A car gearbox is designed for about 4 month of continuous use because a car is stopped 95% of the time. A wind turbine is designed to last 20 years.
A wind turbine has only 1 speed, no need to shift, a car as 6 gearbox ratios.
A turbine gearbox can be rated 1000times more torque than a car.
Completely different products.
Matt Ferrell has a youtube channel called Undecided with Matt Ferrell. He has done a few segments on wind technology that are really exciting. It might be REALLY fun & informative for DW Planet A and Matt to do a collaborative segment on these topics!
Sorry to spoil it for you, but he's often clueless to what he's talking about, and often fall for snake oil sales pitches.
Maybe a drone deployed cable stabilized wind harvesting means? ergo a kite. Carbon fiber cable
That was an idea over ten years ago. Now they are just too expensive.
@old-pete So we're battery vehicles once upon a time; right?
@@clavo3352No, since they got better.
Wind kites get outperformed by windturbines now, since windturbines got better, but kites did not.
@old-pete I see no point in continuing. Thanks for your understanding reply.
@@clavo3352I do not see a point in your post...
Moving parts means higher maintenance cost due to wear. Pass. I will pick solar over wind in the cloudiest place on earth.
Windpower is cheaper in these areas..
And solar power alone is extremly difficult to load balance.
He looks like an grown ass elf
small efficient turbines are better,you need to find right places.The industry badly needs out of the box innovators and a practical approach.The herd mentality is costly and time consuming
Nobody wishes an efficient turbine because will solve the need for energy. They wish just to take money. My turbines will change that dab mentality.
transport the blades by airship (blimp)
That did not work too well.
They are too vulnerable to wind and unloading heavy loads is an issue.
Solar is the worst of renewable generation for grid supply, even where it is very sunny.
Wind is not much better and there is not really any point in making them slightly more efficient as the inherent flaws remain.
It is intermittent, which is significant and unfeasible flaw to overcome.
It is also asynchronous, has no inertia or reactive power input, all requirrements for grid supply.
But that flaw is overcome everyday, worldwide.
The more windturbines and solar panels, the smaller the intermittency.
Pete,
simply not true., although it depends what you call small, that is subjective.
However even the smallest under generation requires some thing else in it's place. Logically it makes no sense.
That is before you consider the technical deficiencies of wind and solar, they are not an equivalent to conventional generators, or a replacement.
@@iareid8255All power grids involving wind and solar work.
The ones in the west are even quite reliable.
This is stupid. O-Wind turbines are superior.
The big problem with the gearboxes is durability. That is the reason for using journal bearings: they last much longer. Wind turbine lifetime has been disappointing so far.
Hemp bast hemi cellulose fiber and graphene
Compared to solar wind seems to become more and more complicated and costly to install.
Smaller units would open the market to average farmers and land owners.
Not dangling the transmission and alternator 60ft in the air might be helpful too.
For small units, that is no issue.
Unfortunately, China has most of the rare earth material that are required... They will dictate the price
😂that’s a pretty one sided opinion, imo. There’s always a positive angle too😉 other than conspiracy theories ofc 😂
@@DoorsOfPerceptionPDM he's refering to reserve I think. It's about 44 million MT. Twice as much as the next country. But this doesn't impact wind turbine manufacturing in real terms. Research and funding is the most important factor. So vote in governments that want to make more green energy.
I have found that small wind turbines do not require much height and wind power, and the generator has a very high efficiency, reducing noise and installation space problems, and can produce more electricity than general large wind turbines.
That is doubtful.
The physics favor large turbines.
I'll take wind energy seriously when spent blades are recyclable, not a bunch of toxic non-biodegradable plastic resin and fiberglass buried in landfills.
They can be recycled for years.
@old-pete look into blade yards.. no, they're not recycled they're dumped in landfills or shredded then dumped somewhere
@Drmcclung No every country has blade yards...
You should ask yourself why some countries do not recycle...
@old-pete ya that's coz they shred the blades, claim the recycling and green tax credits then flog the blade trash off somewhere else to be their problem to deal with. That's Europe. Elsewhere they just get buried with a "nothing to see here" attitude.
@@DrmcclungNo, they get recycled there...
Will it generate more energy than it takes to make it and install it? That was not the case so far.
That is the case for decades.
@@old-pete Thank you for your reply. Would you please share some sources to support your claims? I am genuinely interested, and my research led me to a completely different conclusion.
@@realname9091 Why are you lying?
You either never did the research or lie about the results.
The studies are conclusive.
Read Schleisner, 2000, "Life cycle assessment of a wind farm and related externalities" or Besseau et al, 2019, "Past, present and future enviromental footprint of the Danish wind turbine fleet".
@ Thank you for the informative sources you shared with me. The problems I have with sources of similar caliber are the following:
- more often than not, those researchers talk about estimates, not direct measures. If I estimate that China produces everything as cleanly as Denmark does, I believe my estimate might not hold through the scrutiny of actual measurement.
- The first source you have linked, states that "The land-based wind farm, with a yearly production of 19,800 MWh, is paid back in 0.26 years." . Why would anyone invest in something like real estate ever again (generally takes more than a decade to get the money back) if this investment takes 0.26 years to get the money back?! I do understand that the investments in this form of energy generation are growing substantially, however I believe that having your money back in 0.26 years should render those numbers a few orders of magnitude bigger.
Although I do not appreciate the initial tone, I have to ignore the insulting accusations from time to time just to have a "discussion" with the people from the "other" side. Again, I am just genuinely curious, especially since (in my understanding at least) numbers do not add up.
@@realname9091 They are not talking about money....
but energy...
If you were not talking BS, like the hundreds of other people that share your view, you would have brought a source that supports your view...
build nuclear power plants , renewable energy is next bubble to burst
EE booms worldwide. Nuclear is in decline since the mid 90s.
@@old-pete thats coz big oil , now world realizing nuclear is only way , that why AI companies planning for nuclear energy
@@AkshayKumar-vg2piThey claimed they realized that over 30 years ago. Nothing happened.
Nuclear power is still in decline.
How to say you don't know what you're talking about without saying you don't know what you're talking about.
@Loronline im an electric engineer 😁😁😁
Best wind turbine is the one that wasn't built
Drill baby drill
They just noisy as hell, noise pollution
Added fake sounds are an insult to senses.
This is unwatchable.
Perfect wind turbine is like perfect sling shot.
The first one will never produce real power, the second will never win with a rifle.
Just tell people that an ideal, unachievable turbine that is 100% efficient, cannot extract more than 51% of wind energy. Period.
There is no perfect machine.
@ What you mean by that?
What I am saying is that win turbines are nothing but a snake oil that offers no real solution.
Humanity needs more and more energy. Wind can’t cut it.
We need to develop better nuclear power, perhaps that runs on thorium, as a stepping stone to nuclear fusion.
@@danandrewkarpat3228That NO machine is perfect...
Windturbines provide more and more electricity. Exactly what humanity wants.
Hey Dan! There is no machine that is 100% efficient, including wind turbines. Since you mention Thorium nuclear energy, let me recommend a video of ours where we looked at its potential 👉ua-cam.com/video/Km6kqykX900/v-deo.html
An interesting look at the engineering , cost etc of wind turbines. The 'elephant in the room' though is why and what for? Do we have a CO2 problem? Will all these wind turbines ultimately contribute to changing the weather? Fossil fuels will run out eventually but are these impressive structures really the answer; or are they a semi ill-thought out quick solution to a problem that does not actually exist, all the while requiring vast resources and spoiling our view of the World? I don't know, but the World seems reluctant to have that debate.
Windturbines are over 80 years in development. Hardly something one can call a quick solution....
And yes, the debate is over. We need to reduce CO2 emissions.
Regarding the fossil fuels it takes to create a wind turbine, they recoup it within 6 months of operation. Considering wind farms usually are designed to operate for 20+ years
Nuclear is the future yet we spend money on windfarms
Nuclear is too expensive and too slow to build.
What cost pressure? Vast amounts of European tax payers money is being spent/wasted on this.
They produce electricity...
Why not contra rotating wind turbines 🧐
20% more diameter, 44% increase in efficiency provided there's 1-to-1 correspondence of efficiency vs area swept by the rotor, which I doubt it is. There's a natural limit of how high and wide we can build those structures. The wind energy density is extremely low, compared to almost all other sources. It's a fools errand.
It provides a lot of cheap electricity. It is a fools errand to get it more expensive.
The best design i have seen is the one that shows that they are all useless.
Total nonsense
That makes no sense.
@old-pete
Sorry Pete that's my point none of them make any sense.
It's green washing.
@@dtglover2782Producing electricity makes no sense?
Are you from Stone Age Inc.?
Nonsense opinion
Wind energy is a really bad idea---and should be scrapped.
It works great, worldwide.
Imagine putting up windmills after having mastered fission.
Imagine thinking you've mastered fission when you've had 5 INES level 5 or above nuclear accidents in 70 years - 2 creating long term nuclear exclusion zone wastelands. Imagine calling it mastery when you still have no single nuclear state with a long term storage or disposal solution for the nuclear waste it generates; and when you have three quarters of the world's uranium supply coming from Kazakhstan, a former soviet block nation firmly in Russia's sphere of influence. Imagine thinking that's "mastery" huh. Imagine.
@MidnightSouls and imagine people think they've mastered fission when it's far more expensive than 30 years ago and that's not including properly storing highly radioactive waste😅 😂
Imagine thinking fission is cheaper and faster to build...
We don't even have a working prototype and commercial deployment is about 25 years away
@@paxundpeace9970 That's fusion and technically we do have working examples of fusion that produce more energy than they take. It's just way too much energy to the point where containment becomes a major issue. But technically we could make an internal combustion engine powered by fusion nukes.
Except we don't need to do that since we have a fairly well developed fission technology that would easily power our civilization in a clean and safe way. Antinuclear sentiment is largely why we have a climate crisis today.
Quite effective money laundering
😂 isn’t every industry just that?
"money laundering"? Are they in it with the mafia?!
Money laundering by generating power at one third the strike price of alternative generation? That's the sort of money laundering consumers can get behind. Nice.
Horrible technology.
Proven technology over many decades.
It works great.
It is the future ⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️
The horrible technology is burning fossil fuels and damaging the only planet we have.