The Environment

What has always been lost on me is; even if you believe that we (humans) are not responsible for global warming, is transitioning to renewable energy such a bad thing? It is going to HAVE to happen eventually, and there are fortunes to be made in that transition. These politicians are willing to mortgage the future, in order to keep their pockets lined... As Trump would say "Sad!"

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree B.B., +1. But some people don't understand the difference between renewable and nonrenewable resources. By brother and I were talking about this over Christmas at my parents. It was a really good conversation about renewable technology that we were on opposites sides of. Until he tried to tell me that we won't run out of oil because "all of the plants and fish that turned into oil didn't die on the same day."

The point he was trying to make was that oil and coal was being continuously created under our feet, therefore we'd never run out. My mom was smart enough to butt in at that moment and send me to the store for butter....

 
Landlord of Memorial Stadium said:
DrunkOffPunch said:
-Wind energy is very inefficient. Somewhere around 30%. Where it's at right now (or at least ~3 years ago) is more of a starting point than an indicator of its ability.
Click to expand...

Based off my understanding from the little research I've done this isn't true. I've always heard ~45-50%
Click to expand...
Did a quick google search. That % seems to be maximum efficiency.

"If a turbine's best efficiency is 40% at a wind velocity of 9 meters per second (about 20 mph), it will be 40% only at that wind speed. At all other wind speeds it will be something worse. That wind turbine will generally operate at lower than its best efficiency, because wind speeds are never constant or average. "

http://www.ftexploring.com/energy/wind-enrgy.html

Either way, no matter how inefficient it is it's a useful venture and one that should be pursued.

 
DrunkOffPunch said:
I have a close friend who used to work in wind energy. I saw this thread pop up and asked his opinions on wind energy as a whole and thought I'd share with you guys. Keep in mind I have basically no knowledge on the subject so I'll be paraphrasing his words. Also, this isn't to push any sort of political view and as he's been out of wind energy for ~3 or so years some of the info he gave me could be out of date. Here goes...

-Wind energy is very inefficient. Somewhere around 30%. Where it's at right now (or at least ~3 years ago) is more of a starting point than an indicator of its ability.

-By the time a turbine pays for itself the generator needs to be replaced which is the most expensive part of the turbine.

-They're working on pretty much eliminating the need for a generator to power the blades once they start. He said once this happens wind energy will be comparable to fossil fuels as far as effiency, all while cutting down on maintenance costs and of course being way cleaner than fossil fuels. They just need to figure out the technology.

-A regular work week was ~100 hours if they were on schedule and ~120 if they were behind. 18 hour workdays with with Sundays of if they were on schedule. One of the guys who worked there put in ~140 hours in week. That's nuts. Climbing a turbine on average took 30 minutes give or take.

I realize a lot of this isn't pertinent to the conversation at hand, but I just thought I'd share.
Click to expand...
Efficiency is something of a red herring when it comes to a power source that requires no fuel. Sure, you'd get more power from the same wind turbine if it had higher efficiencies, but it doesn't change the operational cost.

The discussion of work hours strikes me as a problem with the company he worked for. If your employees are normally working 100 hour weeks, then you need 2.5 times more employees. And if they have surge work that can go up to 140 hours per week, then having more employees makes even more sense.

 
RedDenver said:
DrunkOffPunch said:
I have a close friend who used to work in wind energy. I saw this thread pop up and asked his opinions on wind energy as a whole and thought I'd share with you guys. Keep in mind I have basically no knowledge on the subject so I'll be paraphrasing his words. Also, this isn't to push any sort of political view and as he's been out of wind energy for ~3 or so years some of the info he gave me could be out of date. Here goes...

-Wind energy is very inefficient. Somewhere around 30%. Where it's at right now (or at least ~3 years ago) is more of a starting point than an indicator of its ability.

-By the time a turbine pays for itself the generator needs to be replaced which is the most expensive part of the turbine.

-They're working on pretty much eliminating the need for a generator to power the blades once they start. He said once this happens wind energy will be comparable to fossil fuels as far as effiency, all while cutting down on maintenance costs and of course being way cleaner than fossil fuels. They just need to figure out the technology.

-A regular work week was ~100 hours if they were on schedule and ~120 if they were behind. 18 hour workdays with with Sundays of if they were on schedule. One of the guys who worked there put in ~140 hours in week. That's nuts. Climbing a turbine on average took 30 minutes give or take.

I realize a lot of this isn't pertinent to the conversation at hand, but I just thought I'd share.
Click to expand...
Efficiency is something of a red herring when it comes to a power source that requires no fuel. Sure, you'd get more power from the same wind turbine if it had higher efficiencies, but it doesn't change the operational cost.

The discussion of work hours strikes me as a problem with the company he worked for. If your employees are normally working 100 hour weeks, then you need 2.5 times more employees. And if they have surge work that can go up to 140 hours per week, then having more employees makes even more sense.
Click to expand...
Sounds like some former coal workers need training for new jobs.

 
The plunging cost of solar power is leading U.S. electric companies to capture more of the sun just when President Donald Trump is moving to boost coal and other fossil fuels.

Solar power represents just about 1 percent of the electricity U.S. utilities generate today, but that could grow substantially as major electric utilities move into smaller-scale solar farming, a niche developed by local cooperatives and non-profits.

It's both an opportunity and a defensive maneuver: Sunshine-capturing technology has become so cheap, so quickly, that utilities are moving to preserve their core business against competition from household solar panels.
Click to expand...
Link

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have been very critical of the US environmental policy as it pertains to agreements with other countries.

This on the other hand is a good sign that maybe China at least is starting to realize that not having any environmental regulations is a bad thing.

Exclusive: China mulls radical output cuts, port coal ban in war on smog - document

China is considering forcing steel and aluminum producers to cut more output, banning coal in one of the country's top ports and shutting some fertilizer and drug plants as Beijing intensifies its war on smog, a draft policy document shows.

The Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) has proposed the measures in the document seen by Reuters. If implemented, they would be some of the most radical steps so far to tackle air quality in the country's most polluted cities.
Click to expand...
 
DrunkOffPunch said:
I have a close friend who used to work in wind energy. I saw this thread pop up and asked his opinions on wind energy as a whole and thought I'd share with you guys. Keep in mind I have basically no knowledge on the subject so I'll be paraphrasing his words. Also, this isn't to push any sort of political view and as he's been out of wind energy for ~3 or so years some of the info he gave me could be out of date. Here goes...

-Wind energy is very inefficient. Somewhere around 30%. Where it's at right now (or at least ~3 years ago) is more of a starting point than an indicator of its ability.

-By the time a turbine pays for itself the generator needs to be replaced which is the most expensive part of the turbine.

-They're working on pretty much eliminating the need for a generator to power the blades once they start. He said once this happens wind energy will be comparable to fossil fuels as far as effiency, all while cutting down on maintenance costs and of course being way cleaner than fossil fuels. They just need to figure out the technology.

-A regular work week was ~100 hours if they were on schedule and ~120 if they were behind. 18 hour workdays with with Sundays of if they were on schedule. One of the guys who worked there put in ~140 hours in week. That's nuts. Climbing a turbine on average took 30 minutes give or take.

I realize a lot of this isn't pertinent to the conversation at hand, but I just thought I'd share.
Click to expand...
This is very similar to what I have heard before from people in the industry.

As for the new technology, it is going to be really interesting to see if/when they do figure it out, can the old turbines by retrofitted or will new turbines need to be put up to replace the old inefficient ones?

 
This kind of sh#t disgusts me so much and I have no idea what to do about it so I try my best not to read any of it and hope nothing is irreversible after 4 years.

http://www.dailypress.com/news/science/dp-nws-bay-budget-slashed-20170302-story.html

I'll say it again and again, this country isn't worth protecting if we turn it into a pile of sh#t, so spending $ on more military instead of things like this is f'ing stupid.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moiraine said:
I hope the Michigan and Wisconsin people who voted for Trump and spend time at the kinda big lake are keeping track of this.

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2017/03/trump_great_lakes_epa_cuts.html
Click to expand...
To put this in easily graspable terms:

Trump's budget:

- Has to shave $.29B off this Great Lakes cleanup funding (and ultimately, $2B total from the EPA and laying off 1 in 5 EPA employees)

- Is totally fine with adding $54B to military spending

Comparative numbers make it seem even more absurd. Is this the kind of financial genius people want leading us?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top