Wind Energy | Future of Renewable Energy | Full Documentary
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 сер 2021
- Wind power is one of the fastest-growing renewable energy technologies. Usage is on the rise worldwide, in part because costs are falling. Global installed wind-generation capacity onshore and offshore has increased by a factor of almost 75 in the past two decades, jumping from 7.5 gigawatts (GW) in 1997 to some 564 GW by 2018, according to IRENA's latest data. Production of wind electricity doubled between 2009 and 2013, and in 2016 wind energy accounted for 16% of the electricity generated by renewables. Many parts of the world have strong wind speeds, but the best locations for generating wind power are sometimes remote ones. Offshore wind power offers tremendous potential.
Wind turbines first emerged more than a century ago. Following the invention of the electric generator in the 1830s, engineers started attempting to harness wind energy to produce electricity. Wind power generation took place in the United Kingdom and the United States in 1887 and 1888, but modern wind power is considered to have been first developed in Denmark, where horizontal-axis wind turbines were built in 1891 and a 22.8-metre wind turbine began operation in 1897.
Wind is used to produce electricity using the kinetic energy created by air in motion. This is transformed into electrical energy using wind turbines or wind energy conversion systems. Wind first hits a turbine’s blades, causing them to rotate and turn the turbine connected to them. That changes the kinetic energy to rotational energy, by moving a shaft which is connected to a generator, and thereby producing electrical energy through electromagnetism.
The amount of power that can be harvested from wind depends on the size of the turbine and the length of its blades. The output is proportional to the dimensions of the rotor and to the cube of the wind speed. Theoretically, when wind speed doubles, wind power potential increases by a factor of eight.
Wind-turbine capacity has increased over time. In 1985, typical turbines had a rated capacity of 0.05 megawatts (MW) and a rotor diameter of 15 metres. Today’s new wind power projects have turbine capacities of about 2 MW onshore and 3-5 MW offshore.
Commercially available wind turbines have reached 8 MW capacity, with rotor diameters of up to 164 metres. The average capacity of wind turbines increased from 1.6 MW in 2009 to 2 MW in 2014.
Full Documentary
thanks for your uniqe video on edge of the technology of wind turbines
At 12 - 14 minutes into this video, watching the hot forging of the metal ring is very interesting! They made it exactly 6 meters and 2 mm in diameter! And that takes into account that the metal ring will shrink by a few mm as it cools off!
If there is simply low or no wind, then there is simply no electricity. You can build a 1,000 megawatt off shore wind farm, unless you have sufficient wind speeds or flat calm days,there is no power into the grid.
We were prospecting for wind power sites in 1980, but came to the conclusion it was impractical. I was a power conversion engineer and wound up working on cell towers, aircraft, missiles, and defibrillators.
I have questions. Can we connect?
Times have changed. Technology, logistics and capabilities as a whole have improved.
There are many huge problems with these designs.
1) Not base load capable. You still need coal. Probably the only reason development was allowed by the fossil fuel industry. As time moves forward they will jack up fuel prices higher and higher continuing to make a fortune.
2) The life spans of these machines are terribly short and the machines are massively expensive. Again, shield for fossil fuel companies.
3) Prices of electricity will never fall with this bogus science.
There is a better design that allows local governments to build 100 year capable machine using 100% wind as an energy source. This machine looks different because it us unlike anything you have ever seen.
The local government will own operate and repair these units eliminating profits from these huge unnecessary corporations. Because your local government can not profit the local community will enjoy electricity at 5% of the original outside sources.
I have already publicly disclosed this design so it is no longer patent-able.
We will be building one of these this year for Pinaplata, Philippines. In 20 years all electricity will be generated by local communities.
We look forward to your video on utube.@@newrenewableenergycontrol5724
Nice documentary.
2022 - I think Vestas has 118m blades on the 15MW offshore turbine.
Vestas V236 15MW has 115,5 m blades, the remaining 5 m to make the 236m diameter is tanken up the Hub. It is now installed at Østerild and has produced its first KW.
@@Anne-rw8ce
Thanks for correcting the information in my comment.
I still don't see winglets on the blades and the floating structures could be held steady by making masts just under water level and attaching cables from those masts to the ocean floor to cancel the wind forces and keep the turbine upwards. A single cable for the floating windmills might also be possible, but harder to design.
Years of effort have gone into producing standards for measurement, so in this video you make another system, madness.
Yes in 1919 farmers were no oil gas needed windmills keep.ponds full .rockafellas faked Betz limits phyics law to offset Enstines1905 relativity of natural currents infinite values .
Nice info, thanks for sharing :)
Is there a standard power consumption per home and if so, what is it? That way I can workout the power generated, I need to work it out, I can see that we will not be told,
It would not be difficult to calculate an average or median value for a set of personal dwellings, across a range of dwelling sizes. Obviously, they are not all the same size, and some will have different consumption than others depending on efficiency of appliances, etc.
quaooo amazing
Watched this same show on TV last night how much does it cost to recoup the cost of making the wind turbine itself ?made in Spain or Scandanavia then transported to the sites the deep sea turbines off Scotland are already rusty how long before for that reason will they have to be replaced ? .
A rusty surface can be painted, or repainted.
Thumb down for text that won't turn off. Other than that, pretty good video.
what was the total cost of the wind farm? what was the total kwh of electric energy generated in a year?why mislead us as to its output by stating its capability instead of reporting the actual kwh of output.
you want to look up capcity factors for the comparison
@@leroibolos4679people with a strong opinion against something will never check facts or look into the subject.
The wind farms have been in use for several years, so you can get exact output from the power company that sources them for power. There's nothing misleading about describing capacity.
Very nice effort to control energy crisis and facilitate public transport sector best private company
It painful to see that - even for such a strategic project for the UK - everything complex was built outside the UK - in this case by a majority German company (a subsidiary of Siemens). During the last big deindustrialization, the UK lost much of its industrial potential -during the Thatcher era. 2022-25 may well go down in history when Germany loses its industrial heart. Europe will get more and more dependent on other world regions - and poorer.
All of the components are extremely time sensitive, so they could never be built in the UK,because of union problem . The same unions that destroyed the british car and ship building industries
China is the only country that has the coal and oil resources to build them because the rest of the countries insist on destroying our enviromet
Amazing video showing enormous efforts and resources dedicated to such a blatantly flawed idea... I just wonder why it does not mention that these huge blades must be rotated by an electric motor on quiet days - otherwise their bearings would be damaged rendering this gigantic structure completely unoperable; their actual average capacity factor barely exceedes 40%,meaning that you need two and a half times of it to get the desired amount in any reasonable period... Nobody has any idea how to handle these blades after their service life. Environmental harm they do is never mentioned, but they kill many birds, bats and disrupt the life of whales and other sea species. If not for massive governmental subsidies no sane investor would even look at these. Pure madness!
wind pushes what it touches it can not push the gaps between the blades regards Graham Flowers MEng
Sound on this video stops at 38:15 and doesn't resume until 39:08
This is the past. I am a maintenance technician who sees the bearing fires and the lack of reliable energy generation.
It's amazing to consider the incredibly massive amounts of material involved for any energy resource. Coal trains, offshore oil platforms, millions of miles of pipelines and wells, biofuel fields and harvesting, nuke containments and cooling towers, fusion reactors the size of skyscrapers, wind turbines that can't fit under freeway overpasses, solar panels outnumbering trees. No such thing as a free lunch.
The golden rule of resource intensity is density. The more energy dilute the power source the more resources required.
@@dodiewallace41 And you get this information just how?
@@ronaldgarrison8478
The power of power density by Robert Bryce on youtube is a good explanation of this principle.
@@dodiewallace41 I'm quite familiar with Brycs's view, from long ago. I'd expect him to put forth such a "principle." The facts don't support it.
@@ronaldgarrison8478
If you take a look at the materials throughput per unit of power production from any sources that you like the results are clear.
Windmills are the past not the future.
They are not renewable, rely on digging up vast amounts of landscape for minerals, notwithstanding the amount of land required for the farms, and most of all for energy return on energy invested are not viable without heavy subsidies. Nuclear offers 100-1 return, oil 30-1 and windmills 5-1, when the wind blows, which then leads to the next problem, storage, which require more minerals, mines, and refining.
Good to see the fossil fuel lobby has moved onto new bs arguements. The "most harmful particles come from vehicle tires anyway" one was getting old 😂
Wow,,cute number 102 and dalmation and doggerbank❤❤
We really need to put a wind farm off shore of Martha’s Vineyard….the people living there are the ones that would really appreciate seeing these monstrosities on a daily basis……
@@martinr1834 That's dippy!
Yes! Instead of all that speakers talking "about it" those people could have been "blowing on it".
Deeply inspiring, an urgent need for all coal burning areas especially, Mumbai in India!!!
No one seems to have ever asked if offshore oil platforms could operate under harsh sea conditions.
Just close your eyes, and you’ll envision Director Bullock from American Dad explaining it to you like he would be Stan
9:34 "more than enough power to replace a typical coal fired power plant". Anytime somebody is saying they are replacing fossil fuel power plants with solar voltaic generation or wind turbines for grid quality power it basically has to be a lie. When replacing older fossil fuel plants with renewable energy that renewable energy is made viable typically by working jointly with new natural gas combined cycle electric power plants. The erratic power delivery from wind turbine and especially from solar voltaic sources means the power needs to be conditioned and stabilized to be grid quality. That in practice is done by fossil fuel plants. Wind and solar voltaic electric power generation have to be 100% replaced when there is no usable wind or solar and they add no capacity to the electric grid.
Implicating the absence of the sun and wind would mean we are long fucking gone?
Sure but modern offshore wind farms in the North Sea will achieve 60% capacity factor
As a fleet spread across the oceans it will be closer to 75%
So yeah you probably won't get 100% of your power from wind but it's better to be 75% wind 25% natural gas than to be 100% natural gas
My sailboat goes about the same speed at full throttle with the 10 hp engines as it does under sail with 20 mph winds. 10 hp is about 7500 watts. It might make a good wind turbine if there were a lot of huge sailboats attached to spokes on a giant wheel turning a generator. They are not at the ideal height to capture the higgest vekocity wind but they capture a lot more of the wind than the three bladed turbines. The largest wind turbine n the world generates about 16 megawatts of electricity near its cut off wind velocity which is about 55 mph. That is about 2% of the wind energy that passes through the swept area at the tip of the blades. There may be materials cost considerations that decide things. Lokking at a three bladed turbine, one would not expect it to capture much of the wind energy in the swept area since the blades take up such a small fraction of the swept area.
Another option might be to combine wind, solar, and wave energy in a lower level platform that uses much smaller support towers to support a huge surface instead of just one turbine. A giant platform made out of aluminum and covered in aluminum concentrated solar panels. Aluminum trough mirriors heating compressed air in aluminum ppes to 500°C to drive a giant gas turbine that is situated at the center of the curculat platform and durected downward.
Floats like giant soda bottles filled with compressed air attached by lever arms to the platform might generate 100 megawatts of electricity in average seas. The same floats could support the sail like blades of the giant turbine that circles the platform and delivers about another 100 negawatts of electricity in moderate winds. Combined trough mirror and PV solar would generate about 500 megawatts of electricity. In strong winds the total power outout would be over a billion watts.
And it flies. The central turbine would deliver two or three hundred thousand horsepower in thrust. Anither 200 hundred thousand horsepower could be supplied to giant drone motors from the PV component of the solar collectors.
( Leave your comment English )
Very informative , whole lotta thanks for the post tbh
Profits confirm good ideas succeed. Subsidies ensure bad ideas are adopted.
Profits ensure profitable ideas succeed, not necessarily good ones for human health. Subsidies help emerging technologies compete with established tech to alter the status quo.
@@Orbital_Inclination If it's profitable it means there is demand. People want the product or service. So by definition they are good ideas. Subsidies should not be necessary for a successful product or service. Nobody subsidized Microsoft, Apple, Google and a million other corporations. Nobody subsidized the VCR, CD player or digital camera, all new technology.
Bureaucrats are behind all of the recent subsidies and bureaucrats should not be in charge of deciding which products we buy. No government should be subsidizing luxury automobiles for any reason. You don't tax working people so rich people can trade their BMWs in for a Tesla.
@@anthonymorris5084 you realise that oil companies get massive subsidies too, right?
@@Orbital_Inclination Oil subsidies are not synonymous with current subsidies on renewables or EVs. They are in the form of land leases and interest free loans. All governments receive royalties in the billions from all extraction companies. The subsidies are investments. The subsidies on wind turbines, solar, charging and EVs are solely because they wouldn't be able to survive the free market without them.
The drug trade is immensely profitable. It doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Will we get passed all the structural engineering rigmarole?
Wind and solar is a fool's game.
Whenever you here music in a documentary you’re being conned. Cutting energy use by 50% would do more than all the wind turbines and solar panels on the planet multiplied by 10
Cutting energy use can only go so far, we still need to find ways to generate clean energy and beside, why not do both, cut energy use and build solar, wind and hydropower? Doing as you suggest, only delays the problem and beside, world population is going up at a rapid pace, so cutting energy by 50% won't actually help much if the population keeps increasing.
Also, we're going to need far more energy than we are using today because of population growth and developing countries developing.
@@paul1979uk2000 Since the earth is a certain limited size population and consumption will reach their limits. Retooling the culture to not celebrate waste and bringing biodiversity literally to our backyards and towns is just a start for any hope at all
The concern of these people for the regeneration of wind energy is commendable!
foolish!
Dolt
The gyro wind turbine is the most powerful turbine in the world for it's size regards Graham Flowers MEng
It is beautiful...
So a year of one wind turbine does 8800 homes in 24hr s and 3000 electric cars
And
One wind turbine does one home under the worst wind and 600 000 homes in 24 hours with 102 turbines for a year is average
Or
Yeah
And the solar boat can go 2km per hour on low for 72 hours instead of 6
Moge wam zaoferowac prad po 30 gr; i liczniki jedno taryfowe , nie niszczcie swiata tym ustrojstwem . To co robicie to nie ma sensu
My idea is create a pipe on a lopp hole desigmlike a zig zag formation u place a generator with a turbine attached on the tip.of the shaft both top.amd.buttom are heaving generator motoes generate electricity do tjhe thimgs up to the end of the loop u cant used water to flow on the loop tube we being made because once the water are almost occupied the tune the turbine blade doesnt move at all. Because occupied the entire space no more movent being made now my ixea is create a jet electric motor could released massive ampunt of highly pressurized wind blow inside the pupe just need to calculate the rhow far they could much more farther if we atleast makr twp jet electroc motor up to the farthest they could hit the blade of generator could able to spinned it up.properly if u could make 30 generator on tube loop hole.and. got 200 kilo wat input but u create a 1000 wats of energy u could make a good storage of electricity. That could.restore realy fast to make have lobg period of time that jets could rest alittle bit more fastet so it could being work last longet!
They actually built that style of wind generator back in the 80's, as well as many other designs. The weight of the blades VS the amount of power collected was a problem, and they could never overcome that problem, as the blades are to heavy on a 150 KW wind turbine. And they can not scale up the design to full size, let along the 2,500 KW that is common in Texas.
The progress we need...
هناك شبهة استغفال للفطنه مش شبهة استغفال للفطنه ولكن شبهة استخفاف للذكاء مش شبهة استخفاف للذكاء ولكن شبهة سخيمة صدر مش شبهة سخيمة صدر ولكن شبهة غل قلب مش شبهة غل قلب ولكن شبهة حقد دفين على الاطققة اشمسسه والرياح وطاقة الأمواج
مش شبهات ولكن نحسن الظن.
هناك شبهة سطول ومسطلين. مش شبهة سطول ومسطلين ولكن شبهة حمير.
I'm an engineer on this field but i didn't found a job despite i have a lot of ideas
and what when this underwater 3 legged structure rusts out
If some random guy on UA-cam has thought about it, why wouldn't you think that industry leading engineers haven't thought about it?
I'm amazed at the level of smugness in UA-cam comments.
looks like this channel posted one great video and then gave up..
how do you get the energy to mine the raw materials to build the turbine and then manufacture the turbines? using wind turbines?
No. But one day you could be right, we will.
2023 and we are going back to the oldest form
Of electricity… makes sense… one power plant can power the entire north east almost but we need 100s of giant towers to power 2 million homes… waste of space
Without giant government subsidies none of this would ever happen. We the people are being fleeced.
L éolienne vertical la plus efficace que ceux la de l argent getter par la fenêtre mais çà continue.envaissante bruillente dangereuses pour la faune,les verticale silencieuse moins dangereuse moins de place démarre avec moins de vent.
Pay for it and they will build it ---good or bad ....
Governments should also invest in windmills as a mechanical powersoure, like in the Netherland's past. Also citizens should be teached how to build wind turbines, they are easy to build and make-shift turbines would greatly expand the energy income without additional investment needed from governments.
Not only is wind power less costly but the fossil fuel plants pay price for mining and transport of the coal but wind power you just need to pay for construction and maintenance
And it can’t be built, transported, installed, or maintained without fossil fuels.
They will NEVER recoup the cost to make them then how do you dispose when at use by date?
compare GRP usage in a turbine blade to amount of plastic produced every day
@@leroibolos4679 What are you saying?
Yes an it's not gonna bother any of the wildlife or ocean creatures like whales I'm sure the humming and buzzing doesn't bother us so if we don't hear it how could sealife ?
There is no long future in windturbines. MSR will do it much better!!!
I can only imagine the amount of coal used to make so much of steel.
Question is, how much coal do you need to produce the amount of energy a wind turbine can produce through its life? you're not seeing the big picture.
@@paul1979uk2000 The steel is used in sea conditions, so it corrodes 10 times faster than in normal conditions. Its not for life.
Yes nob head, it’s called an energy TRANSITION DERRRRRR 🙄🙄🙄🙄
And all the plastics are a by product of crude oil. And are not recycled
@@Ravi-ot6xj anodic and cathodic protection mate
There is NO such thing as Green Energy or vehicle "EV's"!
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good
How many birds can escape something approaching at 200 km per hour? Peregrine falcons maybe....
Good to see that they can scale them up to peak efficiency. If their longevity plays the part right then we are on track to de carbonize this planet. Time to shove doubters out of the way!
Wind is far too resource intensive and chaotic to ever be capable of doing the heavy lifting of meeting our energy needs. Why would we want to when there are far better alternatives available. NP is the gold standard of clean energy. It’s as clean and safe as any alternative, requires a fraction of the resources and produces clean, reliable energy 24/7/365. NP really is the premier example of dematerialization in which we actually use less to produce more. And we certainly don't add intermittent power sources to harden our increasingly fragile grids.
First and foremost, existing light water reactor technology is unsustainable. Even at current consumption rates, we have less than a century of readily accessible uranium. Fast breeder reactors could extend that in theory, but they are not readily available today, and it would be decades even with a concerted effort to replace existing fossil plants with breeder reactors.
Second, if you agree that global warming is an absolute crisis, then you agree in principle that we must reduce fossil fuel consumption as rapidly as possible. And we have to do it EVERYWHERE, even poor nations with limited power grids and political structures.
Third, wind and solar are, indeed, sufficient to replace fossil fuel. Scaling 10x from where we are now - enough to replace most fossil fuel - is a pretty straightforward exercise. The technology is mature. The hardest part is building energy storage to match the output of wind/solar to consumption patterns, but storing energy is a straightforward engineering problem with many solutions, so it’s just a function of cost. And economies of scale will keep reducing the cost, just as it has been doing radically for over a decade now.
Wind and solar are ready to go, right now, and can be deployed anywhere, at any scale. Nuclear cannot compete with that.
@@davestagner
You should look at what you think you know about the subject, you have a lot of misconceptions.
The inconvenient fact is that low-carbon energy generation depends on metals and minerals, just like high-carbon energy generation depends on oil and gas. You can’t call these metals and minerals with a prayer or make them in a lab. They have to be mined. As dilute intermittents like wind and solar are so problematic both in the enormous amount of resources the require and in loss of efficiency when incorporated into infrastructure they have a far larger environmental impact than the other low-carbon options.
I think there are appropriate applications for all energy sources, meeting the needs of 7.5 going on 10 B of us in vastly different circumstances will likely take all options.
As NP is so extremely energy dense and has such high capacity factors, it requires a fraction of the resources of W&S, nor does it need backup, it provides clean reliable power 24/7/365.
Intermittents can exist only when supported by sufficient reliable sources. They don’t stand on their own. They require a reliable grid that gives them 24/7 life support.
NP is by far the least environmentally disruptive method available for clean, reliable energy.
Most of us have no idea what energy infrastructure functionality requires and we should if we're going to have opinions about how to do it. For a explanation that we don’t have to be engineers to understand this is a great resource. Shorting the Grid: The Hidden Fragility of Our Electric Grid by Meredith Angwin.
And if you're interested in Who does clean electricity well right now check out ElectricityMap.Org. 24/7 reporting. The electricity generation makes changes constantly. Tons of data. Look at it daily for a month I promise you’ll know more about real world electricity production and 98% of the people on the planet! Knowledge is real power to fix what needs repaired.
And follow GrantChalmers on Twitter to see Carbon Intensity of Electricity consumption graphs from electricitymap.org.
@@dodiewallace41 I don’t think you demonstrated any misconceptions on my part. Yes, I’m aware of the “inconvenient fact” that it requires metal and minerals to make wind turbines and solar panels, and those materials have to be mined. However… the materials footprint is far, far, smaller than fossil fuels. (And, speaking of mining, I raised the point that we will soon run out of U-235 using conventional light water reactors, and a scalable fast breeder reactor program can’t be done fast enough to deal with the pace of global warming. Care to address that?)
I’m also well aware of the capacity factor issues of wind and solar. But capacity averages out over time, so we can make very accurate predictions of output over longer timeframes, from weeks to decades. This makes building storage to level the output predictable as well. And storage systems can be much more responsive to varying grid demand than sluggish base load systems like, well, nuclear. I agree that we need “all options”, and I am not opposed to nuclear, and don’t worry about the safety issues. But. Nuclear has serious cost problems (and they’re not caused by “regulation”). It has high initial costs, long construction times, and requires a significant level of grid quality and political/regulatory stability wherever we want to build it. Nobody’s building nuclear power in Yemen anytime soon. Nuclear isn’t cheap, no matter what proponents wish to believe. It needed subsidy and significant government intervention to even compete with coal. Right now, wind and solar (and modern combined-cycle gas plants) are drastically cheaper, and getting more so. Prices will probably drop another 50% in the next decade, thanks to economies of scale. Cheap, easy to install, fast to implement at grid scale… these are all places nuclear falls down. You can say “Wind can’t work” until the cows come home, but the simple fact is, wind and solar are growing exponentially, and nuclear is not growing at all right now. That’s because they’re cheap, they’re easy, and they work.
Speaking of books to read, I’d encourage you to read “Electrify”, by Saul Griffith, and I’ll check out the ones you recommend.
@@davestagner
Thinking that we're unable to fuel NP well into the future is a misconception. Today most fuel for nuclear fission plants is Uranium mined from known veins in the ground. This supply might run out in less than 1,000 years if we build a lot more nuclear power plants. However there are several alternative options. Thorium can be used as fuel in reactors and is much more plentiful in the Earth’s crust. Alternatively, we can extract uranium from sea-water. There is enough uranium available in this way to outlast the Sun, even if we change to get 100% of our global energy from nuclear power plants. The technology to extract uranium from sea-water is available now, but isn’t currently used at industrial scale, as it is currently a little cheaper to mine uranium from the ground, than extracting it from sea-water. If we invest in optimizing the sea-water extraction from sea-water, it will eventually become cheaper than mining it from the ground.
You may find the glex energy calculator and Global Energy Footprint interesting. On this site you will find tools that shed light on aspects related to energy consumption and energy sources. The aim is to better understand the totality, which requires focus not only on climate, but also on health, economy, nature and the environment. The goal is to provide the user with relevant information that provides just such a comprehensive overview. It is not a goal that those who use the tools agree with everything, but that the debate changes focus from opinion-based to fact-based. We believe this is fundamental in order to be able to mitigate the climate challenges while meeting the sustainability goals.
@@dodiewallace41 Maybe known and accessible reserves of uranium will improve (but right now, known reserves are NOT 1000 years). Thorium in practice is a lot less attractive than thorium on the internet, which is why it’s never actually been built. (The polonium poisoning problem would be my guess, but I’m not a nuclear physicist.) But even if nuclear becomes a more viable solution down the road, it’s not a viable solution for the critical next twenty years or so, when we NEED to end fossil fuel use. The startup costs are too high, expertise is short, international cooperation isn’t there, and much of the world is neither technically nor politically capable of operating nuclear plants. Renewables, even with their shortcomings, are the only solution that can work in the timeframe we have to at least minimize the climate damage fossil fuels are causing.
why not build on decommissioned ships,,,,,ships are broke up inPakistan when there are so any uses like storage and ven accomodation
The ship, unless you take it into a drydock every 6 years the bottom will rust through, and the ship will sink at some point. Look at a video of the Texas battleship, they must tow it into a drydock every few years to renew the paint on it's hull. And the Queen Mary, in Long Beach Harbor in California is predicted to sink soon, because nobody ever took care of the hull, and it is rusting through, and creating holes in the base of the ship! Nobody in charge of the Queen Mary had any knowledge that it needed to be drydocked and the hull painted every 6 years!
wrong shape, although recycling is a good idea
Meny inovation we learn to make home s block and bricks all places family s require one no use materials not sustentablely of planet Young's and adults tech. we have live world health to avance
🤦🏻♀️
Pretty ignorant about all the dead animals these cause and the destroyed health of anyone within 5 miles of these things. It's out right criminal.
Lol 😂
It doesn't work, simple.
It very much does, which is why fossil fuel companies are pouring a lot of money into discrediting it.
Betz limit has been smashed and debunked by the gyro wind turbine regards Graham Flowers
Perhaps we could be using drones for carrying them around or atleast helium filled balloons in their transportation!!!
Don't talk wet
these green ideas will make us poor
algore and lurch should be in jail.
So what happens when we stop putting Co2 into the air and the levels drop to 150ppm and the plants all start to die, food production starts falling and famine and war become common place?
I dont think all the plants will die. They will probably grow slower, and crop will produce less food.
@@bendoe5863 Actually it is a common understanding that plants can not survive at or below 150 parts per million of Co2. Just like humans can't survive on mount Everest without oxygen. When all plants die, we die.
@@bendoe5863 That's not okay.
This has to be satire please tell me this is satire
the absence of humans increasing saturation did not impact the growth of vegetation for millions of years
A single nuclear plant occupying ½ a square mile can replace 400+ of these monsters.
FOUR HUNDRED !
And remember, that practically everyone who learns the news, that a wind turbine farm, or even a single turbine is about to be built in their vicinity, objects.... because the housing prices drop like a rock.
Unfortunately for them, the wind turbines are never placed in the areas of the woke green heart feeling decision making politicians in the large cities.
They are placed in rural areas with the rest of us.
Here, in Denmark... the pioneering country of the wind energy industry, you literally can't take a drive, without seeing a wind turbine.... unless you go near Copenhagen, where all the politicians live.
Now THAT must give you an idea as to why even the IPCC recommends nuclear energy to save the planet.
Apart from all the understandable complaints, the IPCC is, of course, much more concerned with, what can actually power the planet... and wind turbines do not even come close. Wind energy may supply St. Greta Thunberg with an orgasm, but it doesn't even come close to supplying the world with enough energy !
No it isn't the future!
Correct, it's already happened.
@@ianhamilton3113 Have you heard of Nuclear?
@@thelightinthisdarkworld2649 Expensive to build and expensive to decommission but running cost are pretty good. Oh! and a lot safer than most people believe.
@@thelightinthisdarkworld2649 any energy that is not green is not future proof those words are contradictory
the biggest scandal i century
Remarkable engineering feat. Unfortunately for the wind industry, a single small gas turbine plant can easily supply well over a million homes…at a fraction of the cost environmentally. As the CO2 hoax becomes increasingly exposed, and the blight of wind farms become opposed by the public, things will right themselves. These offshore farms will become fabulous reef structures as they are abandoned and collapse…so there is a silver lining to mans folly and collective psychosis.
Factoring in manufacturing, operational life and decommissioning, wind and solar are far cleaner and safer than fossil fuel power.
Wind and solar require carbon emissions during construction and installation, but produce virtually no emissions over their operational lives. Fossil fuel plants emit CO2 every single day in vast quantities, and during manufacture and installation too.
If wind energy is the future then there is no future.
Thanks for that incredibly nuanced insight.
It will surprise you that Iowa has well over 50% of it's electricity produced on most winter days by wind power, and yes it is the way we can power all of America! We just need permission to install more wind turbines along the coast of California, and many other locations, where wind power is great, but there is not a lot of population!
As for building electric generators in a county with a very low population, they said the same thing about the Gran Coulee Dam in Washington. There will never be customers for all that electricity! That was printed in the newspaper back in the 30's. We now know that the power and that of many other power plants is all sold on a daily basis!
Wind power - same thing. Build it and they will buy the electricity from the wind projects!
This guy probably thinks coal just APPEARS at the power plant. The cost of infrastructure and specialized machines required to mine, process and transport just the fuel for most power plants is insane but it's also HEAVILY subsidized and it's had some 100 years to be developed and implemented. You build these turbines and they don't need fuel, they just need a Lil lube and they are good to go.
I would much rather have a wind turbine 2 miles from my house, than a nuclear power station, even if that power station was 10 miles away! Nobody really wants a nuclear power station near their homes, and coal is the same problem, not near me!
In 2021, wind and solar together produced more electricity than nuclear. Yes, that threshold has now been blown away. You don't need a weatherman to know which way...OK, I'll let up on the metaphors.
Yes they are the prince of darkness. They have to go all wind and solar so we huddle in the cold and dark and don't throw all of the alarmists in prison for life@
Nothing is greener than nuclear energy.
As a result of this engineering extravagance, we have record high electricity prices in the UK which is finishing many businesses completely, and pushing families into fuel poverty.
This video is the most sickening propaganda puff piece. Where's the piece on mass storage required to make this viable?
It's the cost of natural gas that has caused the rise in UK electricity prices not wind. Price of electricity is set by the highest provider which is currently NG.
@@ianhamilton3113 the price of wind is the price of natural gas because gas power stations have to be kept on standby for when wind drops out.
@@chairmakerPete But on standby they don't consume NG and it's NG that is a huge and now, a much more expensive input cost.
What you should be saying is that wind turbines in conjunction with NG powered plants should help reduce the overall cost of electricity. It's the way the electricity market sets prices using the highest priced supplier, is the cause of the high rates.
I love a NARRATIVE, THEY NEVER TELL YOU THE FLIP SIDE TO THEIR NARRATIVE.
What happens to all the Blade, they last about 10 years before they need replacing and then you have the Turbine itself, depending on its weather environment where it’s installed can last up to 25 years.
They don’t DECOMPOSE, at the moment they are either buried in land fill or sitting in fields piling up.
Don’t forget you were just told the measurements of these things
That’s why I hate NARRATIVES, YOU NEVER GET THE FULL PICTURE, ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY
You've done zero research on the topic or you'd know they have biodegradable ones now
Modern wind turbines are the wrong design. Ill effects from infrasound and the deaths of tens of thousands of birds and bats? The correct design should vertical, helical blades - easier to put anti bird netting around and efficient in any wind direction.
It's not green at all..this is an advertisement
there is nothing green at all even going back to the caves wouldn't
How the actual &#*@ is it wind power not green?
@@justbanana7116 Go and have a look how much these turbines cost to make and how much materials they use...and look at their lifespan
@@ricksanchez3628 The label "green energy" was coined by news media many decades ago and the label stuck. That said, you're getting distracted by word semantics of "green". I see this often in the forums.
The danger of this thinking is it can be used by others as an excuse to keep running business as usual with fossil fuels. It can be a form of "moral licensing" that helps absolve the mind of guilt. Humans can be very clever with these things.
Wind turbines have a lifetime of 20 to 30yrs and operate with very low carbon emissions during this long period of time. They would offset their carbon from construction within 7mo to a few years. Look up "co2 carbon payback wind turbine". The turbines themselves can be recycled and there are companies already doing this.
Above all, the critical to understand this: as the global fossil fuel hegemony is dismantled, construction of *everything* will have ever smaller carbon footprint as the years go by. Of course, that would include construction of renewables. Bottom line: construction of renewables solves their _own_ emissions problems whereas fossil fuels just _perpetuates_ its problems. What's the best thing to do when you find yourself in a hole? Stop digging!
At 99.9% the mass of the solar system, the power of the sun is truly cosmic. The coasts have enough wind energy to power the world 11-times over. Also, much less than 1% of the world's total land mass of solar panels can power all of the world's grids. Wind and sunlight are clean forms of energy that cannot be sanctioned, embargoed, or blockaded. Some combination of both is available in all regions of the Earth. The sun has provided power billions of years before humans and will continue do so billions of years after us too.
The US and EU already have a goal of a zero-carbon or net-zero grid by 2035 and they're well on their way to do so.
greener than fossil fuel ...
It's expensive unsightly an uneconomical.. Someone's making money from the consumer.. We are being played.. The carbon footprint of manufacturing is vast
But this wind farms offset the carbon from manufacture as early as 6 months into installation as supposed to burning fossil fuels which generates endless carbon be it at manufacturing phase or energy production phase .
don't forget that there is a big exhaust on every wind turbine, they just pollute forever. /s
No it's not the future There is a fatal flaw in your design Your design will wear out in less than a decade. GIVE ME A BILLION DOLLARS AND ILL TELL YOU WHY Don't give it to me YOU WILL LOSE A LOT MORE 😊
Utter rubbish! ....Source, "The society to preserve the British countryside"......insulate 5,000 roofs in the UK for the price of a medium windmill. In 2 years the insulation saving MORE power than the windmill does in its 25 year life....AND in 100 years, the insulation still working and 4 windmills in the landfill. "Oh, I don't know boyo. I am thick."
Yes betza 4 higgins rpm.betz bogus.oil discovery 1919 scam .
Nothing is green.
Plants? Last time I looked.