Why Aren’t Wind Turbines 100% Efficient?

Why Aren't Wind Turbines 100% Efficient?
Image Courtesy:
link: http://www.politico.eu/article/small-old-wind-towers-make-for-big-new-problems/
author: Politico Europe

C O N T E N T S:

KEY TOPICS

  • The entire country was powered solely through a combination of “solar panels, wind turbines, biofuels, geothermal heat and hydroelectric power” (Bird).(More…)
  • Scientists from Universidad Carlos III de Madrid (UC3M) have designed a new control system for wind turbines in offshore wind farms that allows power transmission to the coast in a more flexible and cheaper way than current.(More…)

POSSIBLY USEFUL

  • We have an incredible amount of solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro power penetrating this earth right now and only a small portion of this energy needs to be utilized to power the globe.(More…)
  • In the long run, widespread deployment of EVs could also be a source of energy storage, filling a critical need as our electricity system moves away from fossil fuels toward intermittent sources of power, such as wind and solar.(More…)

RANKED SELECTED SOURCES

KEY TOPICS

The entire country was powered solely through a combination of “solar panels, wind turbines, biofuels, geothermal heat and hydroelectric power” (Bird). [1] That way, you don’t rely on traffic for the energy generation, plus horizontal axis wind turbines can extract much more energy from the wind than vertical axis wind turbines. [2] A wind turbine more like these ones would more efficiently generate electricity from passing vehicles. [2]

If the wind from a car going one way causes drag on a car going the other way, this turbine could improve energy efficiency of the vehicles. (It would be worse at that job than a wall between the two lanes, though.) [2] The presence of the turbine means that the vehicle requires slightly more energy to go past this point, for the same reason that driving into a head wind requires more energy than driving with a tail wind. [2] If we are talking about wind drag creating energy with a turbine. [2] This is the wind that these turbines are using to generate power. [2] If the wind in your lane mostly goes forwards, and the turbine is naturally spinning a little slower than the airflow from the cars, then that airflow will be slowed by it. [2] The wind created by the vehicles’ movement (regardless if they are gas or electric powered) is what is spinning/turning this turbine. [2]

You can remove the turbine and let that energy be 100% wasted, or you can have a turbine there and recover some small % of it. [2]

Scientists from Universidad Carlos III de Madrid (UC3M) have designed a new control system for wind turbines in offshore wind farms that allows power transmission to the coast in a more flexible and cheaper way than current. [3] Climate discussions typically center on the need to replace fossil-fuel power plants with technologies like wind turbines and solar panels. [4] Mount a couple of wind turbines on the wings and let them generate power for your SFO to Shanghai flight. [4] A typical new wind turbine will avoid over 4,300 metric tons of CO2 annually, nearly 900 cars’ worth of CO2 emissions Still waiting for your cost curve on nukes – we want to compare it to wind and solar. [3] My colleagues and I calculated the health impact of generating electricity through offshore wind turbines – which until now the U.S. has barely begun to do. [3] It can’t enable reliable wind/solar generation.” – Jun 29, 2018 http://science.sc. full.pdf “WWF says we have no alternative to gas!” “WWF are now only realizing that back up of wind turbines with lithium batteries is horrendously expensive!” http://pbs.twimg. [3] Hey did you guys ever hear of this? “One reason scientists proposed use of wind power on Mars is that wind turbines still could generate electricity during month-long martian global dust storms that can make days on the red planet as dark as night. [3] RTL Equipment has been involved in the wind energy sector for years, offering cranes that help with the transport, assembly, and the erection of wind turbines. [5] How come Britain had a record year for renewables in 2017? Onshore wind generated 28.7TWh in 2017, up 37% on 2016, with offshore turbines producing 20.9TWh – an increase of 27.3% on the previous 12 months. http://renews.biz. -record/ And the tide keeps coming in. [3] That accounted for 55 percent of all new generation, with solar panels beating new wind and natural gas turbines for a second straight quarter. [6]

“Net Zero” energy implies that your solar panels or wind turbines produce enough energy to offset the amount of power used. [7] More people die creating Hydro electric dams, Geothemral stations, wind turbines, and solar panels, than do from any aspect of nuclear power generation, or waste storage. [8] This is the new standard set by Ampere LLC. Solar panels, wind turbines or other clean or renewable energy sources produce power that is both used and stored simultaneously. [7] If your system is at net zero, then why do you stay connected to your local grid? Because while your solar panels or wind turbines are creating power all day, even if you’re not using it it’s still being inverted and then stored. [7]

Clearly, this result depends on the growth rate and the expected lifespan of production facilities for solar panels, concentrated solar power, wind turbines, etc. The result will be similar whenever the factory lifespan is similar to the time it takes to reach the capacity growth target. [9] In my understanding, this is relevant but different from the effect of the economic return on investment on the factories producing the solar panels, wind turbines, etc. What effect does a minimum life-span of these factories have on the energy transition? As I could not find a publication (please comment, if you know one!), I decided to investigate this. [9] No CO 2 is emitted by wind turbines while generating electricity. (The figure does not include the energy to build the turbines.) [10] To simplify, I use the capacity growth value for solar photovoltaic panels (0.105 GW 1992 to 405 GW projection 2017, 39.14% annual or 2.78% monthly growth) as representative for the entire renewable energy mix needed in the future (the combined growth rate of wind turbines, concentrated solar, geothermal, etc. would lead to a more complex and more realistic picture). [9] Since both solar panels and wind turbines are relatively mature technologies, I assume an increase in capacity for a given factory of 30% over the 30-year lifetime (modeled as 1.32% per year in the first 20 years, with no further investments and gains in the final years). [9] German demand for solar panels and wind turbines coincided with rapidly growing Chinese industrial capacity in the early years of the new millennia, as factories across the People’s Republic learned to make the panels ever more cheaply. [11] The model assumes that factories producing solar panels, concentrated solar plants, wind turbines, etc., require a production time of 30 years for an economic return on investment. [9] Huge productions facilities would have to be built for the necessary solar panel and wind turbines to be used only for a very short time. [9] The sun shines every day, and the wind always picks up eventually, there is such a thing as battery storage, and you can put up more solar panels and wind turbines a hell of a lot more easily than you can dig into the ground to find fossil fuels — plus you won’t be polluting the planet anywhere near as much. [12] The production capacity for solar panels, wind turbines, etc. in 2017 is about 114 GWpeak/year (please comment if you think this number is incorrect!). [9] The 18 engineering cloud case studies are about a flash dryer, irrigation systems, wind turbines, combustion modelling, desalinization, fan performance, gas-liquid flow, geo-thermal perforation, fluttering of aircraft wings, microelectronic packaging, frontal car crash, spray modeling, engine intake manifold, airbag simulation, implantable planar antenna simulation, and more. [13] Supported by UberCloud’s novel software container technology, the various teams have tackled complex tasks, ranging from acoustic modelling and simulating dry-type transformers to air flow through an engine intake and the simulation of wind turbines, to thermal modelling of a reactor. [13]

We have to switch off of coal, oil, and gas, and on to 100% wind, water, and sun energy sources.” [11]

During the Ready for 100% presentation before the Community Planning and Transportation Committee in March, Ready for 100% policy committee chair Katherine Trent suggested that a wind farm could be a viable option. [10]

POSSIBLY USEFUL

We have an incredible amount of solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro power penetrating this earth right now and only a small portion of this energy needs to be utilized to power the globe. [1] Renewable sources of energy, such as solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro, have been on the rise. [1] “The technology evolution that dropped the cost of solar modules by around 75% between 2009 and 2014 is now being followed by political and financial initiatives that are further driving down costs.” (Steiner) I believe the same pattern will follow with wind and wave energy technological breakthroughs in the near future. [1] In 2017, eighteen percent of energy generated in Texas was in the form of solar or wind and a few small towns there, such as Denton, are striving to rely solely on clean energy (1). [1] The intermittent nature of wind brings up questions of how large a percentage of the state’s energy needs can be met by wind while still keeping the grid stable. [1] That air distortion is from wind resistance which is wasted energy that disburses into the atmosphere. [2] LOL, I thought it was a solar powered fan to help add wind in the direction of traffic to lower air resistance. [2] Strong winds and low traffic times makes the whole solar driven motor unnecessary and expensive in comparisson. 2 infinite duty cycle motors instead of 1. [2]

I?m referring to the fact that the wind the car produces to power these would never increase the efficiency of the car producing the wind. [2] Commissioner Brian Kalk said that “as we bring in more wind and as companies continue to retire coal and potentially nuclear, the reliability of the power grid, I think, is threatened.” [1]

With this being a 2 lane scenario it harvests the eddys between them and may actually increase fuel economy relieving the wind drag on vehicles in the opposite lane while keeping the slip stream. [2] The state of North Dakota has enough wind capacity to generate more than 1 billion kWh of electricity. [1] The U.S. DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory produced the following map of the wind resource in North Dakota at 80 meters. [1]

The turbine is connected to a generator that turns the kinetic energy of the blades into electrical energy, which is fed into the power grid further inland (1995). [1] Regardless of turbine choice, I think enough energy would be generated to power that solar panel. [2] The energy that powers the turbine would otherwise be lost to shear/eddy dispersion. [2] This question has a very straight forward answer: the vehicle is slightly less efficient because of this turbine, but it’s not enough to worry about because the turbine uses even less energy than the vehicle’s accessories do. [2] If the energy to the turbine comes from turbulent air, then there’s comparably less drag on the vehicle, but if the energy comes from the laminar flow, then there’s more drag, right? Is there a strict cut off between the two or is it much more complicated? My sense is that it’s much more complicated. [2] You’re saying that the important energy loss/gain system is the air and turbine, and energy is transferred from the vehicle to the air either way. [2] The turbine is not using energy that was lost regardless of the presence of the turbine, even though a lot of energy is required to push air out of the way of the vehicle. [2]

Since the vehicles are heavy and move fast, conservation of momentum makes it “easy” for the vehicles to turn the turbine; therefore, any additional lost energy from powering the turbine likely doesn?t translate into a noticeable difference in fuel economy. [2] Well, it’s physically impossible for this effect to cause the vehicle to lose less energy than the turbine produces, because of the conservation of energy. [2] I was saying that conservation of energy isn’t really applicable to the problem, and that “the energy lost to a vehicle due to the presence of the turbine” can either be more or less than the energy gained by the turbine. [2] I think you have it backwards in the beginning, since if you just added a turbine which was incapable of rotating, you’d be taking more energy from the vehicle than you’d gain from the turbine. [2] The turbine is likely a few tens of Watts, perhaps 100 Watts max, and it gets this energy from the vehicle. [2] The turbine turns because the vehicles are driving by, therefore some energy from the vehicles drives the turbine. [2] It’s totally possible for the turbine to get more energy than the vehicle loses, since energy loss should be defined as the energy the vehicle loses in addition to what it would lose normally. [2] I don’t doubt that these turbines would collect energy and insert it in the grid, but rather how the mileage of the (multiple) cars would be affected by these turbines. [2] The turbine is generating a lot more energy than the amount of extra energy a car has to expend because of the turbine’s presence. [2] The turbine takes away energy from the moving atmosphere, not the car. [2] The energy to turn the turbine would certainly not provide any noticeable difference to a 2 ton car. [2] Argument here is that the turbine might create more drag for the busses, which in turn require more energy than it does before, burning more fuel. [2] The other is that this thing sucks energy from the passing vehicles, thereby increasing the fuel consumption, and is thus just an inefficient gas-powered turbine. [2] Imagine instead of collecting it, we sent energy to the turbine causing it to rotate at this speed, transferring energy to passing vehicles in the form of reduced air pressure. [2] That kinetic energy of the air could easily be harnessed by these turbines. [2] The energy that moves the turbine has to come from somewhere, in this case, the moving air. [2] I’m trying to figure out though if the amount of energy these turbines produce would significantly exceed the manufacturing costs of each, and mttf / downtime. [2] I’m probably underestimating how much energy these turbines generate. [2] The debate lies in determining whether or not that same energy (or a negligible amount less) would still be stolen from the bus, without the presence of the turbine. [2] The vehicles experience negligible losses but the turbine has enough net power for something simple. [2] The fumes coming from furnace are hot enough to use them to power a steam turbine. [2]

A more efficient method here would have the cars enter an underground tunnel, where the change in pressure would turn a turbine located in a small ventilation shaft to the outside world. [2] Part of the air gets captured by the turbine and creates a pressure difference in the “cloud” of air that the car is dragging with itself, which causes air in front of the car to move backwards faster and therefore causes more drag. [2] While there may be some initial drag on the car, there may be other effects at play that make the turbines worthwhile in the end. [2] The turbine absolutely increases drag on the vehicle, even though it’s a small effect and not enough to care about. [2] The basic question is “does placing a turbine at that location increase fuel consumption for the vehicles that pass it”. [2] Adding a turbine close enough to the vehicle that it would be intersecting the laminar flow field would cause a “trip” in the air flow, which would cause a turbulent condition to take the place of the laminar one. [2] With air on a highway it’s more complex, because the motion of the turbine after vehicle 1 passes by might create subtle turbulence for vehicle 2. [2] There’s a pressure build up in front of the turbine, which makes it slightly harder to push air around the vehicle near the turbine. [2] My intuition is that, to the extent that the turbines would be happy to rotate in the opposite direction, turbulent flow is dominant, and vehicle efficiency is unaffected. [2] If reversing the chirality of the turbines would make a difference, laminar flow is key and this significantly reduces vehicle efficiency. [2] If vehicle is making turbine spine vehicle will experience some extra drag. [2] Sticking a turbine in that already moving air doesn’t necessarily make a difference to the drag. [2] Solar generators or farming plots (that are not set to grow trees) can be placed in the exclusion zone without blocking the turbine. [14] I don?t know the details of the how the flow behind the train (or car, in this case) looks, but if it were to shed vortices, then these could surely be used to turn the turbine with no further loss of efficiency (if there ever was a significant amount ) to the car. [2] From my experience with F1 cars, this turbine is pretty far outside of the laminar flow. [2] As cars and buses enter and exit the tunnel, the tunnel would “breath” through the small ventilation shafts and therein turn a turbine to generate electricity. [2] Either way, passing vehicles would initially feel a lateral force as they pass by the turbine. [2]

Some people argue that a wind farm will never generate more energy than the cost of maintaining and producing it, but it’s main purpose is to supply electricity which is otherwise non existent in the town/city. [2] Vancouver city strives for 100% clean energy, including electricity, heating and cooling, and potentially hydroelectric transportation. [1] Plans towards reaching 100% renewable energy is now trending across the states and it is only a matter of time before it will be accomplished. [1]

Wind energy growth may slow down for the time being due to the aforementioned concerns about the grid. [1] This greatly increases the efficiency of the grid and allows wind energy to be more reliable. [1] This blog post will examine the wind energy resource in North Dakota, and then tackle the problem of balancing grid stability concerns with progressing towards a renewable-dominated energy future. [1] Glacier Ridge Wind Farm LLC, a wind energy company based in Colorado and operating in the Midwest, has recently announced plans to pursue a 300 MW wind farm development in Barnes County, North Dakota. [1]

By 2013, the state had 1.7 GW of wind energy installed, producing 16% of its energy needs. The reason behind North Dakota’s vast wind resource is its location in the wind-swept Great Plains. [1]

In 2017, it represented. 38% of global power generation.” http://www.vox.c. e-change “Most people think of solar and wind as new energy sources. [3] “Renewable energy promoters and advocates know that solar and wind depend on natural gas as back-up and are working with the American Petroleum Institute, Sierra Club and EDF to shut down nuclear plants in Ohio and Pennsylvania.” [3] “Would you be surprised to learn that the oil and natural gas companies are perfectly aware that solar and wind lock-in their main product? That’s why they are only all too happy to invest in and promote solar and wind.” http://www.forbe. pensive/ “If nuclear is not the answer, then renewables are even farther away from being the answer. [3]

Each time wind, solar, hydro (or nuclear) generation replace coal or gas generation, all the electric cars, on average, use cleaner electricity. [15] If you have an electric car, theres at least the possibility that some of your power will come from non-fossil sources (solar, wind, hydroelectric, nuclear). [15] Why are wind/solar a trillion-dollar fiasco at reducing emissions? Because they are backed up 80% of time by coal/gas-fired power plants to compensate intermittencies. we want to compare it to wind and solar. [3] Up to 30% of the world’s electricity can be generated from wind and solar photovoltaic (PV) power without creating carbon emissions. [5] India is moving from a plan to power growth with coal, to a plan in which additions of capacity will be mainly wind and solar. [15] Put another way, 1 GW of PV solar capacity is worth about 600 MW of wind capacity, which is worth about 350 MW of hydro capacity, which is worth about 300 MW of natural gas capacity, which is worth about 230 MW of coal capacity, which is worth about 160 MW of nuclear capacity. [6] Wind and solar are safer? Try again (Sorry for the formatting) Deaths per terrawatt hour (Worldwide): Coal (world) 244.00 Oil 52.00 Biofuel/Biomass 50.00 Peat 50.00 Natural Gas 20.00 Coal (US) 10.00 Wind 0.15 Solar 0.10 Hydro 0.10 Nuclear (world) 0.04 Data from here. [4] Contrast this with wind (0.2-0.35), hydro (0.4-0.5, mainly because it’s used for peaking power rather than base load), natural gas (0.5, also used for peaking load), coal (0.6-0.7), and nuclear (0.9). [6]

There is no doubt in my mind that grid scale storage is good for wind and solar power. [6] Wind and solar contribute only 2.6 percent–and less than 0.5 percent of world energy consumption [3]http://euanmearns. issions/ “$2 Trillion spent on wind, solar over past decade, but they account for 0.8% of total global primary energy consumption. [3] Subsidies raised silently from your energy bill.” http://www.dailym. ick.html “Wind farm blades eroding after few years at sea” – Mar 12, 2018 http://www.itv.co. -at-sea/ http://www.theti. dv76g7cm “Offshore wind? Wind off? Sure.” [3] That’s right: feces is a more important energy source than wind power.” http://pbs.twimg. ayq4.jpg http://pbs.twimg. dWLa.jpg http://pbs.twimg. uWMm.jpg http://pbs.twimg. uH36.jpg “The world is mostly run on fossil fuels (81%). [3] “Wind and Solar Power Advance, but Carbon Refuses to Retreat” – Nov 2017 http://www.nytim. les.html http://www.thegu. -warning “The world is mostly run on fossil fuels (81%). [3] The rest is from hydropower and from renewable energy, including wind and solar power and the burning of wood and refuse. [3] Wind and solar are going to keep getting cheaper – and so projections are that they will become the default for new power installation. [3] “Wind power and solar power may complement each other on Mars.” http://www.nasa. 2AR.html -Yes that’s right, NASA. They do know this green stuff will never replace nukes up there which is why “NASA and DOE officials announced the completion of successful ground tests of the experimental reactor, called the Kilopower Reactor Using Stirling Technology (KRUSTY) [3]

“If you have nuclear, why piss around with wind & solar? Variable cost of fuel in a nuclear plant is small.” [3] Solar and wind are cheap “Batteries never included” neither fossil-fueled backup plants nor integration costs. [3] Still waiting for your cost curve on nukes – we want to compare it to wind and solar. [3] This one has a shot: http://www.cell.com/joule/abstract/S2542-4351(17)30032-6 Air-Breathing Aqueous Sulfur Flow Battery for Ultralow-Cost Long-Duration Electrical Storage Wind and solar generation can displace carbon-intensive electricity if their intermittent output is cost-effectively re-shaped using electrical storage to meet user demand. [6] D9UO.jpg “Electricity produced by onshore wind costs twice as much as conventional gas-fired electricity generation; offshore wind three times as much. [3] I talk about how Oklahoma gets 30% of it’s electricity from renewables (mostly wind) and has some of the cheapest electricity costs in the world. [3] Oklahoma grid is dirty, wind is only serving as greenwashing for cheap gas/fracking You just keep moving the goal posts don’t you? We were talking about how renewable energy affects cost. [3] As one of the fastest-growing renewable energy sources, wind has caught the attention of business owners who are ready to save on energy costs as well as make a greater commitment to protecting the environment by using cleaner energy. [5] The losers are the world’s poor.” http://pbs.twimg. wlKZ.jpg “Is Renewable Energy Making A Difference? Carbon Emissions Rise Despite Record Solar And Wind” – 06/19/2018 http://dailycalle. issions/ ‘ “Climate action” the biggest scam ever conceived by the human mind [3] Wind and solar are scalable in installed-capacity but a trillion-dollar fiasco at reducing emissions, and hydro/geothermal are site-specific(geographically limited) and biomass is worse than coal in terms of greenhouse gases and competes with agriculture. closing down old polluters like coal. [3] Replacing coal and oil with offshore wind will reduce emissions of air pollutants like fine particulate matter, nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide. [3] Oklahoma. has very cheap electricity. wind. is now producing more power than coal. [3]

Let me add some other reasons for building out wind and solar farms besides the economics and “coolness” factors of it. [3] ” Wind and solar are inherently intermittent and don’t replace fossil fuels, they just provide them with “greenwashing”. wind/solar 20% wind/solar + 80% coal/oil/gas “good ideas are copied, bad ideas are imposed”. [3] ShGx.jpg Wind and solar have low ERoI, worse yet when including batteries; just fossil-addicted parasites, a distraction to keep burning fossil fuels, in no way solution to stop Climate Change. [3]

ROFL ! remember ‘too cheap to meter’ ? fusion will not in a thousand years be cheaper than solar (or wind). [6] Interesting side note: some of these companies I have invested in have started in the last two years or so to sell their solar and wind assets. [6] Solar and wind are cheap, very very en-expensive in all aspects to alternatives systems of electrical generation. [3] By stating “3 – 8 cents for wind and solar”, not including batteries/storage / coal/gas-fired backup plants, makes you a big fat liar, dishonest and hypocritical. [3] Far less then wind $0.30-0.55/kWh and far less then solar at $0.20-1.20kWh. [6]

While it may not be possible, practical or necessary to build offshore wind everywhere, even replacing a small portion of the nation’s fossil-fueled electricity will be good for everyone’s health. [3] “Nuclear however provides reliable electricity, wind does not. [3] Cheap natural gas had nothing to do with the fact that Oklahoma gets around 1/3 of its electricity from the wind. [3]

Wind power generated 43.4 percent of electricity consumed in Denmark last year, a new record for the Nordic nation which aims to rely on renewables for half of its energy needs by 2030, authorities said Thursday. [3] “An offshore wind farm can cost can cost nearly triple that of a onshore project, according to the International Energy Agency.” – June 22, 2018 http://www.houst. 5718.php. forces shaping the energy transition. robust growth in renewables and natural gas. [3]

Intermittent renewables requires tons of fossil fuels to be manufactured/mined/transported/installed/repaired/recycled and to keep lights on when wind isn’t blowing or sun isn’t shining. http://pbs.twimg. [3] Oklahoma grid is dirty, wind is only serving as greenwashing for cheap gas/fracking. http://uploads.d. 55ff.png Wind/solar are a waste of time, money, and ecological resources, in the fight against Climate Change. [3] “we should measure climate progress based on tons of CO2 emissions prevented Good idea On average, wind generation today will avoid approximately 0.70 metric tons of CO2 for every megawatt hour of wind generation. [3]

Well wind energy increased by 13% in 2017, and is now producing more power than coal. [3] The health benefits of moving to wind power would be significant, particularly for regions that rely more heavily on coal and oil to generate electricity. [3] The Swedish Wind Power Association (SWPA) says their members are on track to generate 18 terawatt-hours of electricity every year by the end of 2018, putting the nation on track to reach their goal 12 years early. [16] New plans to build two commercial offshore wind farms near the Massachusetts and Rhode Island coasts have sparked a lot of discussion about the vast potential of this previously untapped source of electricity. [3] We projected that a 1,100-megawatt wind farm off the coast of New Jersey, a bit smaller than the two approved offshore wind farms, would save around 13 lives per year. [3]

As one of the largest wind farm contractors in existence, they?ve wind power projects in three provinces and thirty-two states. [5] It depends on the weather and the time of day, and forecasts of wind power 24 hours in advance are usually accurate to within 10% of wind capacity. [15]

” – how is it inefficient? having to replenish fossil fuel to burn all the time is inefficient, once a solar panel/wind turbine is up and connected to a battery of some kind (they are getting cheaper over the time), you are done except for a bit of maintenance now and again. [6] A 100% switch to electric cars should increase electrical energy consumption by about 20%. [6] This proposal would use 100% of the revenue generated by a state fuel tax increase that began in 2015. [5]

We’re going to have to start removing CO2 from the atmosphere, so really all we need to do is put a tax on 100% of emissions. [4]

In the long run, widespread deployment of EVs could also be a source of energy storage, filling a critical need as our electricity system moves away from fossil fuels toward intermittent sources of power, such as wind and solar. [17] How is it competitive when it can?t replace fossil fuels, but only serves as a supplemental source of power that reduces fuel consumption in the fossil-fuel plants? Since it costs far more to reduce the fuel consumed than it is worth, wind and solar make absolutely no sense. [18] Launch loops as a form of electric propulsion can be clean, and can be run on geothermal, nuclear, wind, solar or any other power source, even intermittent ones, as the system has huge built-in power storage capacity. [19] Ok beyond a certain penetration level of solar and wind then yes – additional back up or storage will have to be built but not generally in situations where penetration is in the 15-20% range and the grid is served by a wide variety of energy sources. [18] In Colorado, Xcel Energy plans to retire two units of coal and replace them with 1,100 MW of wind generation, 700 MW of large-scale solar and 275 MW of large-scale battery storage, along with adding about 380 MW of existing natural gas generation – because building new gas is too expensive. [18] We literally cannot sustain our current energy use, or growth, with Wind, Solar, GeoThermal, or Hydro. [8] Solar wind and tidal energy are in my opinion humanities future, we just are not at the level to meet energy demands yet, one day we won’t be using nuclear apart from in specific situations (subs, spacecraft),I have a suspicion our descendants will look down at us for using it, and can only hope they don’t suffer from it. [8]

Many people also use wind generators and solar cells to keep their 12 volt system charged. [20] Solar cells generally have less output for the money than wind generators and require special mounting racks or cabin or bimini top space. [20] Devices that do this usually come with the wind generator or solar cell. [20] If you are building large conventional hydropower plants (not pumped storage) for supporting wind and solar, why not simply save a ton of money and generate electricity from hydro like it does Russia, Canada, Norway, Iceland, Swede, China, Brazil, NewZealand. [18] If you don’t want to listen that’s up to you, but wind and solar have major limitations that aren’t going away any time soon. [18] We are constantly treated to disinformation claiming that wind or solar is competitive with fossil fuels. [18]

If people could be persuaded to do without electricity for a few per cent of the time when wind dies and the diesel generators are fired up then no problem. [18] Your passion for offshore wind in particular, Rep. Haddad, gave us a nation-leading offshore wind target that the state is moving quickly to implement. [17]

It’s physically impossible to create enough solar, and wind power to satisfy a grid, even with a hypothetical super battery. [8]

Why move from a wonderfully efficient power unit (becoming more efficient) where the fan produces 80% of the thrust (20% from the core turbine exhaust) and replace it with turbines with generators, heavy batteries, high current power electronics and a heavy motors and propellers. [21] Save the weight of the generator and electric motor and just power the plane directly from the turbine. [21]

MHD systems are about as efficient as turbine systems for converting fuel to electricity, and they can burn hydrogen to reduce pollution. [19] You get sunburnt on cloudy days right? tracking panels even more. they wouldn’t install them if they weren’t cost effective. same as turbines. [18]

Imagine a 150km tall tower with a 100% efficient electromagnetic launch mechanism on the top, including the energy required to lift stuff up that tower and assuming no energy loss from the sled, no mass for the encapsulating of the payload, and 100% efficiency for electromagnetic launch. [19] Old reactors use the fuel from 100% to 97%, in which case the fuel is “spent” and it’s stored. [8]

RANKED SELECTED SOURCES(21 source documents arranged by frequency of occurrence in the above report)

1. (58) Reddit is debating whether this is actually efficient or not, i.e., is this just a pointless gasoline powered turbine or a brilliant way to recoup otherwise wasted energy? : Physics

2. (45) The public health benefits of adding offshore wind to the grid

3. (17) Energy and the Environment-A Coastal Perspective – Uncategorized

4. (10) Solar Has Overtaken Gas, Wind As Biggest Source of New US Power – Slashdot

5. (8) Solar Is Starting To Replace The Largest Coal Plant In The Western U.S. – Renewables – Oil Price Community

6. (7) Cassandra’s Legacy: 2018

7. (5) RTL Equipment News – A Construction Equipment Dealer in Iowa – Part 6

8. (5) What was the fallout from Fukushima? – Sensationalist Headlines – Forum

9. (4) How are electric cars better for the environment if they use electricity generated by non-renewable resources? – Quora

10. (4) We Still Have No Idea How To Eliminate More Than a Quarter of Energy Emissions – Slashdot

11. (3) Surface to Orbit – Atomic Rockets

12. (3) 12 Volt Electrical Systems – BoatTECH – BoatUS

13. (3) 100% DC Powered Homes and Facilities | Ampere LLC | Denver, CO

14. (2) Blog

15. (2) May 2018 All Points of View

16. (2) UberCloud Voice

17. (2) UCS Blog – The Equation (text only) | Union of Concerned Scientists

18. (2) Pipe dream: Norway wants electric airplanes to provide passenger service | Watts Up With That?

19. (1) Thieves in the Temple.: solar power

20. (1) Wind turbine – RimWorld Wiki

21. (1) Solar Power News