Wind turbines are the devil. Just look at the graphs and you can easily see that you have the same amt of traditional, reliable power plants. You might save a few pennies in natural gas, but likely not coal, because coal has difficulty in following the widely fluctuating wind output. Also, we only pay 11 cents per kilowatt for electricity. All countries only build wind turbines because they are highly subsidized by the gov't. You don't like wind turbines, you like "the idea of them".
You are trying to misinform people and discard wind turbines like the devil. I would prefer to pay more for my energy coming from wind turbines or photovoltaics than less for energy coming from nuclear plants. BUT it's a personal decision. You don't like wind turbines, I like them. I have studied their operation and know their pros and cons. In EU the regulations are becoming more strict and in a few years I believe wind turbine plants will be supporting the grid and not a hazard.
For small countries that don't own a bunch of oil pumps or the technical knowledge to build nuclear plants, renewable energy sources is really a cheap solution. In my country (Cyprus) we have 350 days a year of sunshine for free. Why should we pay for oil or gas? In Denmark they already cover 20% of their energy from wind turbines. They have a goal to get it up to 50% by 2020 or so. But if you are a big-strong country and can take your nuclear waste and throw them on a third world country...
Solar is outrageously expensive EVERYWHERE! Your Gov't will go broke building them. The politicians and their buddy will be very happy to fool you forever thinking they are building value. I never heard that the US ships their nuclear waste anywhere. We store it here as far as I know. More misinformation. Denmark pays 35 cents per kilowatt for electricity, I pay 11 cents. HA HA HA!!!
Another thing not considered is the Inefficiency of the Natural Gas Plants that have to follow the wind around, and there are reports that say the NatGas/Wind Combo doesn't even save CO2. Of course, i could care less about CO2, and "dreamy" way to Steal Our Money.
60% Efficient. So building 5,000 Wind Turbines is not enough to replace one nuclear plant on 60 acres. So now you want to build 8,000 wind turbines to replace one Nuclear Plant. I can only say "are you nuts". go ahead and junk up YOUR COUNTRY, but please don't suggest i am such a fool to consider that is the best approach for my country. And we haven't even considered cost. But of course, you could care less, just keep printing money and bankrupt the country for the Green Smile!
The efficiency of this is ~60%. You get back 60% of what you stored. It's not science fiction and it's something that already works in Scandinavian countries. You don't need to have the government build it, you make the companies that want to install Wind turbines do it. I am not from USA so I don't know the policies there. The same idea is already being used. At night, thermal power plants have very cheap power, so they pump water in dams using that cheap power. Then it is reclaimed at peak.
Wind energy can be used to replace conventional energy. BUT you must compine it with storage solutions. That is, you take the power produced by the wind and you store it somehow, afterwards you can access this power RELIABLY and in whatever matter you want and when needed. You will say, ok then, batteries? NO, of course not (although in some situations batteries are used) the solution is combined with hydro plants. Wind energy->pump water to hydro plants->take back this energy any time you need.
o we need 10,000 turbines to do this. Another incredibly ridiculous idea like all these "ideas". You are a real "forward thinker".
And I guess you just want to have the Gov't build this monstrosity, and have my kids and grandchildren and my ancestors paying interest on this for hundreds of years. It is all NONSENSE. YOU PAY FOR IT!!!!!
This idea is ridiculous and completely inefficient. So we need 5,000 turbines rated at 2MW which put out 25% of their rating yearly to yield, 2500 MW per year. That is the same amount as the nuclear plant where I get my electricity. One plant on 60 acres of land, versus a couple 10 thousand acres of turbines destroying the landscape. And let's just guess, probably 50% of that "energy" used for the pump storage is lost in the process of pumping the water up the hill.
i see your point. but in remote places. 15 miles from grid, its a life saver. I think people should have thier own, not the companies that sell it to begin with.
The lead-acid battery banks at the powerplants store about 30 seconds of energy (at full-rate power output). These storage banks are used to accomodate small fluctuations in demand.
For thirty seconds? Amazing. Try to go through the 30 hours shown in this video. The batteries are very expensive and inefficient. And they use LEAD. Is that really what you want? LEAD?
Look at all the trees they cut down to builds the useless thing, environmental? Wind and solar don't work on our grid because the power the provide fluctuates. Any source of power that fluctuates will not work on our grid. Wind is very expensive and isn't advanced enough for industrial use.
It is a problem. Because when it does provide power, it puts other power plants on standby until they are needed again. It still burns fuel but doesn't provide power to the grid.
Wind turbines are the devil. Just look at the graphs and you can easily see that you have the same amt of traditional, reliable power plants. You might save a few pennies in natural gas, but likely not coal, because coal has difficulty in following the widely fluctuating wind output. Also, we only pay 11 cents per kilowatt for electricity. All countries only build wind turbines because they are highly subsidized by the gov't. You don't like wind turbines, you like "the idea of them".
nobadbacks 1 year ago
You are trying to misinform people and discard wind turbines like the devil. I would prefer to pay more for my energy coming from wind turbines or photovoltaics than less for energy coming from nuclear plants. BUT it's a personal decision. You don't like wind turbines, I like them. I have studied their operation and know their pros and cons. In EU the regulations are becoming more strict and in a few years I believe wind turbine plants will be supporting the grid and not a hazard.
p3tris 1 year ago
For small countries that don't own a bunch of oil pumps or the technical knowledge to build nuclear plants, renewable energy sources is really a cheap solution. In my country (Cyprus) we have 350 days a year of sunshine for free. Why should we pay for oil or gas? In Denmark they already cover 20% of their energy from wind turbines. They have a goal to get it up to 50% by 2020 or so. But if you are a big-strong country and can take your nuclear waste and throw them on a third world country...
p3tris 1 year ago
Solar is outrageously expensive EVERYWHERE! Your Gov't will go broke building them. The politicians and their buddy will be very happy to fool you forever thinking they are building value. I never heard that the US ships their nuclear waste anywhere. We store it here as far as I know. More misinformation. Denmark pays 35 cents per kilowatt for electricity, I pay 11 cents. HA HA HA!!!
nobadbacks 1 year ago
Another thing not considered is the Inefficiency of the Natural Gas Plants that have to follow the wind around, and there are reports that say the NatGas/Wind Combo doesn't even save CO2. Of course, i could care less about CO2, and "dreamy" way to Steal Our Money.
glenncz 1 year ago
60% Efficient. So building 5,000 Wind Turbines is not enough to replace one nuclear plant on 60 acres. So now you want to build 8,000 wind turbines to replace one Nuclear Plant. I can only say "are you nuts". go ahead and junk up YOUR COUNTRY, but please don't suggest i am such a fool to consider that is the best approach for my country. And we haven't even considered cost. But of course, you could care less, just keep printing money and bankrupt the country for the Green Smile!
glenncz 1 year ago
The efficiency of this is ~60%. You get back 60% of what you stored. It's not science fiction and it's something that already works in Scandinavian countries. You don't need to have the government build it, you make the companies that want to install Wind turbines do it. I am not from USA so I don't know the policies there. The same idea is already being used. At night, thermal power plants have very cheap power, so they pump water in dams using that cheap power. Then it is reclaimed at peak.
p3tris 1 year ago
Comment removed
glenncz 1 year ago
Comment removed
p3tris 1 year ago
Wind energy can be used to replace conventional energy. BUT you must compine it with storage solutions. That is, you take the power produced by the wind and you store it somehow, afterwards you can access this power RELIABLY and in whatever matter you want and when needed. You will say, ok then, batteries? NO, of course not (although in some situations batteries are used) the solution is combined with hydro plants. Wind energy->pump water to hydro plants->take back this energy any time you need.
p3tris 1 year ago
o we need 10,000 turbines to do this. Another incredibly ridiculous idea like all these "ideas". You are a real "forward thinker".
And I guess you just want to have the Gov't build this monstrosity, and have my kids and grandchildren and my ancestors paying interest on this for hundreds of years. It is all NONSENSE. YOU PAY FOR IT!!!!!
glenncz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This idea is ridiculous and completely inefficient. So we need 5,000 turbines rated at 2MW which put out 25% of their rating yearly to yield, 2500 MW per year. That is the same amount as the nuclear plant where I get my electricity. One plant on 60 acres of land, versus a couple 10 thousand acres of turbines destroying the landscape. And let's just guess, probably 50% of that "energy" used for the pump storage is lost in the process of pumping the water up the hill.
glenncz 1 year ago
After this video was uploaded, Basin Electric stopped updating their weekly wind.
NoFreeWind 2 years ago
How ionic. I am putting this on my website, letting you know.
WarOnWind 2 years ago
i see your point. but in remote places. 15 miles from grid, its a life saver. I think people should have thier own, not the companies that sell it to begin with.
mudd
muddymuddymuddmann 2 years ago
The lead-acid battery banks at the powerplants store about 30 seconds of energy (at full-rate power output). These storage banks are used to accomodate small fluctuations in demand.
hitssquad 2 years ago
For thirty seconds? Amazing. Try to go through the 30 hours shown in this video. The batteries are very expensive and inefficient. And they use LEAD. Is that really what you want? LEAD?
Look at all the trees they cut down to builds the useless thing, environmental? Wind and solar don't work on our grid because the power the provide fluctuates. Any source of power that fluctuates will not work on our grid. Wind is very expensive and isn't advanced enough for industrial use.
WarOnWind 2 years ago
"Wind and solar don't work on our grid because the power the provide fluctuates."
Fluctuation isn't the fundamental problem with wind/solar. Fuel diffuseness is.
"Wind is very expensive"
That is because it is a diffuse fuel.
hitssquad 2 years ago
It is a problem. Because when it does provide power, it puts other power plants on standby until they are needed again. It still burns fuel but doesn't provide power to the grid.
WarOnWind 2 years ago
What is pumped storage?
hitssquad 2 years ago