Wind turbines and politics

[JohnMoosenl]

I'll take wind over coal (especially open cast strip-mined German brown coal!) any day!

Never.
For the amount of energy coming from a coal mine (and 24/7) you will need thousands of wind parks devastating a huge amount of landscape.

Its about energy density and renewable's win that battle.

[gildasd]

I'll take wind over coal (especially open cast strip-mined German brown coal!) any day!

Never.
For the amount of energy coming from a coal mine (and 24/7) you will need thousands of wind parks devastating a huge amount of landscape.

Its about energy density and renewable's win that battle.

There are quite a lot of the giant kind around where I live and I don't mind them. Kind of nice in "giant benevolent scifi mastodons" way.
The example cited earlier are fields of the older shorter ones (lots of those in Zeeland) and I agree that that specific arrangement is not ideal.
But for us (Belgium) a country with few energy sources, the options are at best buying energy from our neighbours and at worst from wahabis that want to machine gun us...
In any case it drives the trade deficit the wrong way...

[zapta]

How do they sync the output frequency/phase of those windmills to the grid? Controlling the rotation of the blades? continuously variable transmission? DC/AC converter? 

[gildasd]

Some of the ones where I live turn at a constant Rpm "steps", power output is regulated by blade angle...
The latest ones have no gear boxes and I have no idea.

[Simon]

This sums up rather well what I think of people flatly opposed to wind turbines.

If you want to live in a preindustrial landscape then you should forego all the benefits of industrialisation. Oh shit that means you will live by candlelight hand wash all your clothing have no TV no telephone no Internet. The problem with people living in the country is that they think they have a right to have it all. If they want their modern way of life they should go and live next to a coal fired power station and then complain.

[Kleinstein]

For controlling the frequency, there are different solutions. Some use gears, though usually not continuously variable. Some use electronic DC/AC converters, variable pole number generators and / or AC excitation with variable frequency and older, smaller ones used asynchronous generators. There are still different solutions around.

Getting coal from underground mines also has some downsides. You don't see the mines, but the ground is slowly sinking, causing quite some trouble over hundreds of years. But long term coal is not an alternative at all, unless you have a permanent sink for CO2.

[gildasd]

For controlling the frequency, there are different solutions. Some use gears, though usually not continuously variable. Some use electronic DC/AC converters, variable pole number generators and / or AC excitation with variable frequency and older, smaller ones used asynchronous generators. There are still different solutions around.

Getting coal from underground mines also has some downsides. You don't see the mines, but the ground is slowly sinking, causing quite some trouble over hundreds of years. But long term coal is not an alternative at all, unless you have a permanent sink for CO2.

Not forgetting burning coal for energy is short sighted in the industrial context.
Energy, as electricity or heat, can be gotten by other means, while replacing coal in the production of steel is rather problematic.
Burning the brown crap can defended, but the highest grades should be reserved for the future of our industry.
Same goes for oil, certain varieties are the "go to" to produce carbon fibre and resins, burning it in SUV's is criminal.

[Kilrah]

If you want to live in a preindustrial landscape then you should forego all the benefits of industrialisation. Oh shit that means you will live by candlelight hand wash all your clothing have no TV no telephone no Internet.

Yeah, because we've had to do all that for the past 100 years to be able to live with the landscapes we currently have... 

[Simon]

If you want to live in a preindustrial landscape then you should forego all the benefits of industrialisation. Oh shit that means you will live by candlelight hand wash all your clothing have no TV no telephone no Internet.

Yeah, because we've had to do all that for the past 100 years to be able to live with the landscapes we currently have... 

I don't quite follow. To put it another way there is a village not far from me which being somewhere in the country is a bit of a market. This village is also the site of an airfield that has been there since the Second World War. The airfield has long argued to have a hard runway for its light aircraft and plans for this were in place long before some very loud complainers about their plans moved to the village. Arguments against the hard runway ranged from objections to the airfield having jet planes landing and taking off and the fact that it would mean more helicopters. Basically when somebody doesn't like something happening near them they will come up with any amount of stupid and unreasonable reasons why it should not happen because ultimately people only care about themselves. I would quite happily live near a wind turbine. It would produce no emissions I would not hear it (and I am very sensitive to low-frequency sound) and I would actually be able to see the landscape beyond it which is more than I can say the people living near  warehousing which nobody seems to object to. Strangely warehousing is often built on highpoints and completely obstruct the view yet people complain about a stick with a fan on top of it. Environmental excuses are usually just excuses if people don't mind warehouses they can bloodily well have wind turbines

[gildasd]

If you want to live in a preindustrial landscape then you should forego all the benefits of industrialisation. Oh shit that means you will live by candlelight hand wash all your clothing have no TV no telephone no Internet.

Yeah, because we've had to do all that for the past 100 years to be able to live with the landscapes we currently have... 

I don't quite follow. To put it another way there is a village not far from me which being somewhere in the country is a bit of a market. This village is also the site of an airfield that has been there since the Second World War. The airfield has long argued to have a hard runway for its light aircraft and plans for this were in place long before some very loud complainers about their plans moved to the village. Arguments against the hard runway ranged from objections to the airfield having jet planes landing and taking off and the fact that it would mean more helicopters. Basically when somebody doesn't like something happening near them they will come up with any amount of stupid and unreasonable reasons why it should not happen because ultimately people only care about themselves. I would quite happily live near a wind turbine. It would produce no emissions I would not hear it (and I am very sensitive to low-frequency sound) and I would actually be able to see the landscape beyond it which is more than I can say the people living near  warehousing which nobody seems to object to. Strangely warehousing is often built on highpoints and completely obstruct the view yet people complain about a stick with a fan on top of it. Environmental excuses are usually just excuses if people don't mind warehouses they can bloodily well have wind turbines

In a village in the south of France where I lived, some city idiot moved in because 'bucolic" and then promptly filed a complaint at the Gendarmerie (Police) about the farm cockerels making noise in the morning.
Then was all sad when nobody wanted to sell him eggs/milk/veg/fruits at any price, the baker only having broken/burnt baguette, the butcher always out of prime cuts (etc) and he had to drive 25km to get said staples at the supermarket.

As for the infra sounds, in bed when all is still, I can hear the coal trains being formed up at the steel mill (6km away) but I've never heard the wind turbines within a km of my house.
To hear them, you need to get close and perpendicular to the disk. Then it's a nice rippling/woosh sound that's quite captivating.
The best moment to do that is when the ground wind is nill but the blades are turning with higher currents.

[HackedFridgeMagnet]

I would like to invite people in favor of wind power to take a look at what happened in Germany:

http://notrickszone.com/2015/06/02/shocking-before-and-after-photos-how-wind-parks-are-devastating-idyllic-german-countryside/#sthash.U1dr2E3d.dpbs

 

maybe this power station is more to your liking.



https://www.google.com.au/search?q=hazelwood+power+station&biw=1216&bih=595&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjIk7Cf-pPLAhVFp5QKHX7bByoQ_AUICCgC&dpr=1.58
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-10/hazelwood-mine-fire-special-health-improvement-zone-recommended/7154950

[mtdoc]

Thank goodness the Chinese don't have those awful wind turbines ruining their vistas

[Someone]

I would like to invite people in favor of wind power to take a look at what happened in Germany:

http://notrickszone.com/2015/06/02/shocking-before-and-after-photos-how-wind-parks-are-devastating-idyllic-german-countryside/#sthash.U1dr2E3d.dpbs

 

maybe this power station is more to your liking.



https://www.google.com.au/search?q=hazelwood+power+station&biw=1216&bih=595&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjIk7Cf-pPLAhVFp5QKHX7bByoQ_AUICCgC&dpr=1.58
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-10/hazelwood-mine-fire-special-health-improvement-zone-recommended/7154950

To be fair they have put scrubbers on all the major power stations in Australia, so you don't see the plumes anymore and the particulate pollution has been reduced substantially. But coal is going to run out quickly at the rate its being used, and those large coal power stations in Victoria are built on top of huge mines because the coal is uneconomic to transport. The towns that form around the sites have no problem with putting their schools or aged car facilities a few km away from the power plants, and could make for some interesting data.

[zapta]

Thank goodness the Chinese don't have those awful wind turbines ruining their vistas

Putting things in perspective. They live longer than ever.

[mtdoc]

Putting things in perspective. They live longer than ever.

Equally relevant to the discussion of electricity generation effects on views , they also export more turnips than ever. 




And just imagine how many more turnips they would export or lifespan might increase if they just burned more coal!  Er, or maybe not  

[zapta]

Putting things in perspective. They live longer than ever.

Equally relevant to the discussion of electricity generation effects on views , they also export more turnips than ever. 




And just imagine how many more turnips they would export or lifespan might increase if they just burned more coal!  Er, or maybe not  

Hmm, somebody on the internet has hard time recognizing the many benefits that abundance, cheap and reliable energy bring to developing countries. Oh, well, it's a diverse group here.

[mtdoc]

Hmm, somebody on the internet has hard time recognizing the many benefits that abundance, cheap and reliable energy bring to developing countries. Oh, well, it's a diverse group here.

It's just not what the discussion was about. It was about what are the pros and cons of wind power relative to other electricity generation sources. Your post was unrelated.

My view - as I've stated before - is that fossil fuels have made possible the rapid rise in world food production , technology and as a result, rising world population.  Certainly it has allowed a small portion of the population to accumulate a large amount of material wealth. Whether or not any or all of those are good things is a matter of perspective.

As far as average life span - it is primarily due to improvement in public health measures and global immunization efforts.  This happened despite the well known ill health effects of burning fossil fuels. Correlation does not mean causation.

So - you'll get no disagreement from me that the excess energy that fossil fuels have provided has meant more technology, more food production and more people -as well as more material wealth for some.  But of course the question is how long will those "benefits" last and what happens when the party's over? 

The serious question is: Is there a way to replace at least some of the electricity production currently done by burning fossil fuels with cleaner sources of energy that are more sustainable and less harmful to health?

My view is we will never replace it all. But should we try to replace some of it while we still can?
 
More serious questions:

Should we be saving as much coal as possible so that we don't run out of steel?
Should we be saving as much easily extractable oil as possible so that we can continue to have it to manufacture other things that have no replacement  like polymers, plastics, pharmaceuticals, etc?

So you see, anyone really interested in more sustainable abundance would not be trying to muddy the waters with illogical correlations.

But for those only concerned with short term abundance - by all means, Party On!

[zapta]

So - you'll get no disagreement from me that the excess energy that fossil fuels have provided has meant more technology, more food production and more people -as well as more material wealth for some...

Must be hard to admit. Good job! 

[mtdoc]

So - you'll get no disagreement from me that the excess energy that fossil fuels have provided has meant more technology, more food production and more people -as well as more material wealth for some...

Must be hard to admit. Good job!

Nothing to admit. Those are the facts. That's been my view for years and I've stated it on this forum many times.(and many times in debates with you!)   I've never claimed otherwise.

Now - any suggestions on answers to the important questions?

[zapta]

So - you'll get no disagreement from me that the excess energy that fossil fuels have provided has meant more technology, more food production and more people -as well as more material wealth for some...

Must be hard to admit. Good job!

Nothing to admit. Those are the facts. That's been my view for years and I've stated it on this forum many times.(and many times in debates with you!)   I've never claimed otherwise.

Now - any suggestions on answers to the important questions?

Sorry mtdoc, I don't have bandwidth to entertain yet another catastrophes-will-happen-unless-if-you-will-adopt-my-point-of-view.

[mtdoc]

So - you'll get no disagreement from me that the excess energy that fossil fuels have provided has meant more technology, more food production and more people -as well as more material wealth for some...

Must be hard to admit. Good job!

Nothing to admit. Those are the facts. That's been my view for years and I've stated it on this forum many times.(and many times in debates with you!)   I've never claimed otherwise.

Now - any suggestions on answers to the important questions?

Sorry mtdoc, I don't have bandwidth to entertain yet another catastrophes-will-happen-unless-if-you-will-adopt-my-point-of-view.

Ok - as I thought.  No interest in a rational discussion of the real questions that many are struggling with.

Party On!

[mtdoc]

It looks like China has recognized the need to cap coal consumption and favors renewables and nuclear for future development. I wonder why?

Here's their goverment roadmap. Wind plays a big part - as big as coal by 2050.  I'm skeptical.




Interesting study by the MIT Joint Program on what more realistically it might look like and how they could possibly do it without undermining economic development. 

I'm skeptical it will play out this way, but we'll see.

[Mechanical Menace]

I would like to invite people in favor of wind power to take a look at what happened in Germany:

There's hardly any difference and tbh they look nice. Especially when compared to having this:



:nearby.

Those who whine about windmills would complain even more about that ruining there view.

[CatalinaWOW]

I would like to invite people in favor of wind power to take a look at what happened in Germany:

There's hardly any difference and tbh they look nice. Especially when compared to having this:



:nearby.

Those who whine about windmills would complain even more about that ruining there view.

There is a real difference and it is due to density.  The plant you have shown is ugly, but it takes a huge number of windmills to generate the equivalent peak power, even more to generate the equivalent average power.  If there is just one place that is ugly I can just not look there.  That is more difficult when the answer is don't look there and there and there and ....

Personally I would prefer not to look at the windmills, but realize the benefits and am willing to accept the tradeoff.  Others don't like the trade.  I am OK with them.  The ones I don't like are those who tout the benefits of wind power, but don't want it generated anywhere near anyplace they go.

[zapta]

The ones I don't like are those who tout the benefits of wind power, but don't want it generated anywhere near anyplace they go.

Such as the Kennedys

http://grist.org/article/capecod/

...Greenpeace USA staged a demonstration against well-known eco-activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who’s been an outspoken opponent of the proposal for a 130-turbine wind-power project in Horseshoe Shoal