- Joined
- Jan 12, 2005
- Messages
- 23,580
- Reaction score
- 12,388
- Location
- New Mexico
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Matt Ridley in "The Spectator" presents what appears to be a very good argument against all those miles of wind turbines we frequently drive past out here in fly over country.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05...r-green-and-they-provide-zero-global-energy/#
One factoid in the story suggests that all those thousands and thousands of wind turbines are creating only .46% - that is less than 1/2 of 1% - of the global energy consumption. Solar and tide are creating less than that.
And for wind turbines to generate enough electricity to keep up with just the increase in demand each year would require an area the size of Russia.
I can't verify how accurate his facts are in this story, but it sure makes for a good argument of why we need to find feasible ways to use our fossil fuels for some time into the future.
Discuss.
We can just use less energy and eat less meat. Then we will only need half of Russia and they can keep the rest.
No. Please. No more "Russia"! :mrgreen:Matt Ridley in "The Spectator" presents what appears to be a very good argument against all those miles of wind turbines we frequently drive past out here in fly over country.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05...r-green-and-they-provide-zero-global-energy/#
One factoid in the story suggests that all those thousands and thousands of wind turbines are creating only .46% - that is less than 1/2 of 1% - of the global energy consumption. Solar and tide are creating less than that.
And for wind turbines to generate enough electricity to keep up with just the increase in demand each year would require an area the size of Russia.
I can't verify how accurate his facts are in this story, but it sure makes for a good argument of why we need to find feasible ways to use our fossil fuels for some time into the future.
Discuss.
and reduce the population of humans. Less humans , less demand.:mrgreen:
They also are not bird safe.
"Wind turbines kill an estimated 140,000 to 328,000 birds each year in North America, making it the most threatening form of green energy"
Will Wind Turbines Ever Be Safe For Birds? | Audubon
A known conservative hack of a paper.. so the article has to be taken with a massive grain of salt. It is basically a hachet job... why?
Well the whole argument is that gas and nuclear are the future and wind and solar are not. The article claims that ½ of 1% of global energy production is made by wind. Not exactly true I suspect if you actually look at the numbers. For example, there is more wind power generated on a global scale than there is nuclear power... funny how the article forgets to mention that part... in fact the article only mentions nuclear twice, despite starting out by advocating for nuclear and gas!
Nuclear power production - 392553 MWe
Window power production - 432419 MWe
Solar power production - 256000 MWe
So basically from the start, the whole article starts out with a lie. Now is Gas, Oil and Coal the big producers of energy? you betcha, but it is declining, which pisses off the oil and coal industry, who pay a lot of bribes.. err sorry campaign contributions to right wing conservative politicians world wide.
Matt Ridley in "The Spectator" presents what appears to be a very good argument against all those miles of wind turbines we frequently drive past out here in fly over country.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05...r-green-and-they-provide-zero-global-energy/#
One factoid in the story suggests that all those thousands and thousands of wind turbines are creating only .46% - that is less than 1/2 of 1% - of the global energy consumption. Solar and tide are creating less than that.
And for wind turbines to generate enough electricity to keep up with just the increase in demand each year would require an area the size of Russia.
I can't verify how accurate his facts are in this story, but it sure makes for a good argument of why we need to find feasible ways to use our fossil fuels for some time into the future.
Discuss.
Or.... notMatt Ridley in "The Spectator" presents what appears to be a very good argument against all those miles of wind turbines we frequently drive past out here in fly over country.
Yeah, that sounds like nonsense. Especially since it doesn't go up every single year.For wind turbines to generate enough electricity to keep up with just the increase in demand each year would require an area the size of Russia.
No. Please. No more "Russia"! :mrgreen:
IMO the future will be powered by hydrogen fuel cell. It will eventually allow the vulnerable and inefficient electrical grid to be dismantled, and will be fueled by the most abundant chemical element in the Universe and on Earth.
What will be required to get there is energy that is cheap and available. And that is fossil fuels.
uh...no. it is a matter managing the size.Every now and then we pass a loooooooong flatbed truck transporting a single blade for one of those turbines--that's all the weight the truck can handle.
Or.... not
Wind generates around 5.5% of the electricity in the US, and 13% in Germany. Its carbon footprint is near zero. There are definitely issues with birds, but other types of power generation does far more damage to wildlife than wind and solar. There is definitely more room for growth in wind.
We will still need to use fossil fuels for some time. That doesn't mean that we should stop using or developing wind.
Yeah, that sounds like nonsense. Especially since it doesn't go up every single year.
You could be right. I have no doubt that by the time the world uses up the fossil fuels--and that won't be in our lifetime or that of our grandchildren--the brightest and best of technological expertise will have discovered and developed far more safe, effective, and efficient energy.
Nuclear power plants generate 14 percent of the world's electricity, but some countries are more dependent on this power source than others. France relies on nuclear for 75.2 percent of its electricity; the United States, about 20 percent.A Nuclear-Powered World : NPR
As for wind generated energy, some countries benefit more than others:
Today, wind power provides 1.9 percent of all the energy consumed in the United States. Though wind power has increased substantially since 1970, it constitutes only a small fraction of U.S. electricity supply. In 2015, wind power accounted for 4.7 percent of all electricity generated in the U.S.http://instituteforenergyresearch.o.../wind-Energy-Consumption-updated-mar-2016.png
I couldn't find a source citing the percentage of wind generated energy on a global scale.
uh...no. it is a matter managing the size.
Uh, because..an average turbine pays for itself in terms of its energy cost to produce the turbine....in 6 months.How can you say that a device weighing more than 140,000 tons and made of stuff requiring a LOT of energy to manufacture, transport, install, and maintain has no carbon footprint?
As you can see from your own investigation, the OP article is utter biased right wing bull****.
Um...he is a serial denier/liar.How so? What source are you using to dispute it?
and reduce the population of humans. Less humans , less demand.:mrgreen:
They also are not bird safe.
"Wind turbines kill an estimated 140,000 to 328,000 birds each year in North America, making it the most threatening form of green energy"
Will Wind Turbines Ever Be Safe For Birds? | Audubon
Unsurprisingly, this has already been calculated. It's about 1% that of coal, 1.7% that of gas, 30% of rooftop solar PV.Looking at that enormous hunk of metal--it takes three of them for every turbine plus a massive base that is sunk deep into the ground--and the high maintenance requirements for them--you wonder how much energy it requires to manufacture, transport, assemble, operate, and maintain them compared to the amount of energy one produces in its lifetime.
Sorry, "environmentalists" only care about wildlife if it benefits their Marxist agenda.
Wind turbines are also devastating to bat populations, a critical part of the ecosystem.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?