Wind turbines

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

The turbulence will dissipate, but the energy removed from the wind suggests it's less windy around the turbines.

Some turbine rotor blades are rated up to 80% efficiency, so in this case, 20% of the local energy would be lost, plus there's the turbulence from the tower itself, which is heat.
The 'river' of air passing the wind farm may be of such volume though, that the 'interference' of the turbine is essentially meaningless, compared to the 'supply' of air coming their way.
Knowing the air density, the size of the turbine's disc, overall mechanical efficiency of the turbine, and power output at any given moment, would allow you to reverse-engineer the raw power available in the wind stream passing by.
The difference would be the loss due to the presence of the turbine.
Whatever separations we observe today, implies an acceptable arrangement for the farm operator. All costs are returned within 3-years, after which, they're looking at only maintenance, as the 'fuel' is all free.

[redpoint5]

Cost is a very complex subject by itself. People think it's as simple as taking the average price paid per kWh (gigawatt hour in utility terms) and multiplying it by the projected production of the turbine (or solar panel) and spitting out the break-even on investment.

Non-dispatchable (so-called renewable) electricity is not as valuable as dispatchable (supply varies to match demand), yet it's purchased at the same price as dispatchable production. Not only that, but it raises the price of dispatchable production because it steals away production that dispatchable plants would otherwise have provided, pushing out the payback time for constructing the plant in the first place. It doesn't allow for any of the dispatchable infrastructure to be eliminated because it's necessary for when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing.

It's at this point in the conversation that most believers refer to unicorn storage. "We can store excess non-dispatchable (renewable) electricity and turn it into dispatchable electricity". Perhaps that's all technically achievable sometime in the future, but we don't live in the future. It's like saying there shouldn't be deaths due to cancer now because someday in the future we'll probably cure it. Fine, I'm hopeful for that too, but in the meantime we have to treat cancer with the tools we have available.

[Accordowner]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Not me! I fabricated my own solar panels from locally sourced, free range, hormone free, ethically treated rocks using my bare hands. Now my tipi has more electricity than I know what to do with.

Your sarcasm is blatant but ridiculous!

United Satanists of of ecomodder, don't you guys have anything better to do than to nitpick on anything I write!? Like tend to your kid's hinnies!? or snitch on your non-conforming neighbors of COVID lockdown or put a new tattoo on your tongue or something!?

Let me clarify; the way most governments around the world wants us to consume 'renewable' energy is to depend on their utilities/grid to be able to function. They want people to depend on these GIANT wind turbines going up all around the country to provide for our wind generated electricity. Same with Massive Solar farms, etc. There are massive inefficiencies and externalized expenses with such centralized systems that these powers don't want you to know about. Plus, anytime you centralize anything you massively weaken its ability to withstand any kind of natural/man-made disaster!

I didn't mean for you to go out and build your own solar panel factory at home as some genius here was insinuating!

[aerohead]

In China, there are solar farms with grid-scale batteries where, if a cloud comes over the electronics seamlessly dovetails into the batteries, providing output without a hiccup. We don't need to invent a thing.
When automobiles came out, there were virtually no paved roads or filling stations, and horse drawn vehicles dominated the roads.
Anyone born today might presume that whatever infrastructure they see and take for granted has always existed. They'd be wrong.
There's no long-term future for pistons, gasoline, diesel, coal, and natural gas. They're a solution to a problem we no longer have. And their emissions are the reason we've got to give them up. Times about up.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Accordowner

Your sarcasm is blatant but ridiculous!

United Satanists of of ecomodder, don't you guys have anything better to do than to nitpick on anything I write!? Like tend to your kid's hinnies!? or snitch on your non-conforming neighbors of COVID lockdown or put a new tattoo on your tongue or something!?

Let me clarify; the way most governments around the world wants us to consume 'renewable' energy is to depend on their utilities/grid to be able to function. They want people to depend on these GIANT wind turbines going up all around the country to provide for our wind generated electricity. Same with Massive Solar farms, etc. There are massive inefficiencies and externalized expenses with such centralized systems that these powers don't want you to know about. Plus, anytime you centralize anything you massively weaken its ability to withstand any kind of natural/man-made disaster!

I didn't mean for you to go out and build your own solar panel factory at home as some genius here was insinuating!

We at EcoModder.com have been told explicitly not to discuss things like governments.

[redpoint5]

I expect utility electricity solutions to be eclectic.

There likely is a role for batteries to play, and it's probably to smooth rapid changes in electricity supply / demand for a few seconds to tens of minutes at a time.

Even larger capacity energy storage solutions will be required, and they will need to be cost competitive. It's absolutely necessary if conventional generation is to be displaced with renewables. Another possibility is to have grids so interconnected and dynamically responsive that surplus can be transported to where demand is.

Or, we could just have nuclear. I wonder what CO2 emissions would look like today if Chernobyl never happened?

[Accordowner]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I expect utility electricity solutions to be eclectic.

There likely is a role for batteries to play, and it's probably to smooth rapid changes in electricity supply / demand for a few seconds to tens of minutes at a time.

Even larger capacity energy storage solutions will be required, and they will need to be cost competitive. It's absolutely necessary if conventional generation is to be displaced with renewables. Another possibility is to have grids so interconnected and dynamically responsive that surplus can be transported to where demand is.

Or, we could just have nuclear. I wonder what CO2 emissions would look like today if Chernobyl never happened?

Chernobyl was puny by comparison to Fukushima disaster in Japan! But Chernobyl got much more publicity at that time than Fukushima did because of the Cold war! Most of the Pacific is now thoroughly contaminated! They are seeing massive die-offs of sea life as far away as Alaska coasts!

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I expect utility electricity solutions to be eclectic.

There likely is a role for batteries to play, and it's probably to smooth rapid changes in electricity supply / demand for a few seconds to tens of minutes at a time.

Even larger capacity energy storage solutions will be required, and they will need to be cost competitive. It's absolutely necessary if conventional generation is to be displaced with renewables. Another possibility is to have grids so interconnected and dynamically responsive that surplus can be transported to where demand is.

Or, we could just have nuclear. I wonder what CO2 emissions would look like today if Chernobyl never happened?

Tesla is active on all fronts:
* Powerwall microgrids will run a 13-Kw home for a day, They can be ganged up to ten units. Plug and play.
* Neighborhoods can be ganged.
* Cities can be ganged.
* Counties are the next target.
* Megabatteries have already been displacing peaking plants with 100- gang + capacity and growing.( 1.6-Gw )
* Tesla is entering the Texas retail electricity business, buying, producing, storing ,selling.
* Some are taking a very hard look at nukes. Another Chernobyl-like event seems extremely unlikely with present state-of-the-art.
* JASON / RAND Corp. types say that we should expect a 'mix' of everything we can throw at the challenge.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Accordowner

Chernobyl was puny by comparison to Fukushima disaster in Japan! But Chernobyl got much more publicity at that time than Fukushima did because of the Cold war! Most of the Pacific is now thoroughly contaminated! They are seeing massive die-offs of sea life as far away as Alaska coasts!

The California wine industry can prove the authenticity of some of the Napa, Sonoma, and Mendocino County origin, as it is radioactive from fallout from the Dai Ichi reactor which exploded in 2011. Bottoms up!

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Accordowner

Chernobyl was puny by comparison to Fukushima disaster in Japan! But Chernobyl got much more publicity at that time than Fukushima did because of the Cold war! Most of the Pacific is now thoroughly contaminated! They are seeing massive die-offs of sea life as far away as Alaska coasts!

It's my satanist / humanist devotion that has me blindly declaring Chernobyl the worst nuclear accident by far because it killed at least 31 people.

Your saintly / anti-humanist evaluation that since Fukushima killed no people, it's the greater disaster.

Scientists say their most sensitive equipment can just barely register any radioactivity above background from Fukushima. Fishing is permitted except in a 6 mile radius nearest to Fukushima.

The map you incorrectly cite as a radioactivity map is actually the earthquake tsunami height. It's unclear if you meant to deceive us, or were the victim of deception. I always assume ignorance before malevolence when there is a lack of evidence suggesting intention.

However, that chart did not actually track or measure radioactive discharge emanating from Fukushima in 2013, or any other aspect of the Fukushima disaster. It was a plot created by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) immediately after the Tohoku earthquake in March 2011 showing the wave height of the tsunami that followed. It had (and has) nothing to do with the flow or spread of radioactive seepage from Fukushima.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fukushima-emergency/

Regarding sea animal die-off, most information on the subject references virus and bacterial causation.