4 ms·

Did you ever sit down and made a back of the envelope calculation to how much "fossil" fuel needs to burn to put up Wind Turbines? Here is a good article to re

by sremani 10y ago

Did you ever sit down and made a back of the envelope calculation to how much "fossil" fuel needs to burn to put up Wind Turbines? Here is a good article to read, http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/to-get-wind-power-you-need-oil http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/to-get-wind-power... I wish this board was less susceptible to green-washing campaigns and look at this problem through more thorough scientific and engineering lens.

anexprogrammer 10y ago
...and how much steel goes into your typical 50 or 60,000 ton oil rig? They're mostly steel after all. Given we're starting from nearly all fossil of course fossil fuel needs to burn to do just about anything. So long as there is a sensible pay-back period, and reasonable life beyond, what's it matter? Come replacement time hopefully the steel will be smelted with entirely renewable electricity. If we reach that point having to keep using some coal and oil for coke and other products we cannot get elsewhere is going to be environmentally trivial comparatively. Would you prefer to stay away from renewables and stay on fossil?
- sremani 10y ago
  Again, over the sea rigs are already in decline. Because of shale revolution, the foot print is much much lesser.
llukas 10y ago
Taken from link you posted: "Undoubtedly, a well-sited and well-built wind turbine would generate as much energy as it embodies in less than a year." Sounds like good payout time - wind turbines life span is typically 10+ years.
- sremani 10y ago
  But the bottom line is this... For a long time to come—until all energies used to produce wind turbines and photovoltaic cells come from renewable energy sources—modern civilization will remain fundamentally dependent on fossil fuels. edit: I am not against wind or solar, but they in their current form need lot more oil and that will continue for a long time, probably our life times. edit2: The previous poster partially quoted a sentence, others would be well served if they read the full sentence.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - oska 10y ago
    > edit2: The previous poster partially quoted a sentence, others would be well served if they read the full sentence. What? llukas quoted a full sentence. And I don't think you understand the term ‘green-washing’. It's when a company that has a bad environmental reputation does some sort of (tokenistic) project to appear ‘green’.
    - sremani 10y ago
      It's not just companies but politicians also carry feel good campaigns, and so do governments.
  - llukas 10y ago
    Educate yourself and stop spreading FUD. Solar panels already paid their cumulative greenhouse emission debt and if not it is likely happen very soon. Fossil fuels wouldn't disappear overnight but there is less and less real dependency on them and more of a choice of using them. There is no reason not to go wind/solar if looking just at greenhouse gases emissions. http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13728 http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13728 "As a result, we show a break-even between the cumulative disadvantages and benefits of photovoltaics, for both energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, occurs between 1997 and 2018, depending on photovoltaic performance and model uncertainties."
    - sremani 10y ago
      Oh Please! You do not have to educate me, unlike Moral Horsemen, I already have 10 KW SolarPV, my disagreement was not with Solar that much. We are discussing Wind Turbines here. If a counter point article in IEEE spectrum is FUD, good luck! The major point you have not quoted it, Wind's intermittent generation relies heavily on an infrastructure that is majorly oil based. Also Wind kills lots and lots of birds.. but lets ignore that too.

by sremani 10y ago

anexprogrammer 10y ago

...and how much steel goes into your typical 50 or 60,000 ton oil rig? They're mostly steel after all. Given we're starting from nearly all fossil of course fossil fuel needs to burn to do just about anything. So long as there is a sensible pay-back period, and reasonable life beyond, what's it matter? Come replacement time hopefully the steel will be smelted with entirely renewable electricity. If we reach that point having to keep using some coal and oil for coke and other products we cannot get elsewhere is going to be environmentally trivial comparatively. Would you prefer to stay away from renewables and stay on fossil?

sremani 10y ago
Again, over the sea rigs are already in decline. Because of shale revolution, the foot print is much much lesser.

llukas 10y ago

Taken from link you posted: "Undoubtedly, a well-sited and well-built wind turbine would generate as much energy as it embodies in less than a year." Sounds like good payout time - wind turbines life span is typically 10+ years.

sremani 10y ago
But the bottom line is this... For a long time to come—until all energies used to produce wind turbines and photovoltaic cells come from renewable energy sources—modern civilization will remain fundamentally dependent on fossil fuels. edit: I am not against wind or solar, but they in their current form need lot more oil and that will continue for a long time, probably our life times. edit2: The previous poster partially quoted a sentence, others would be well served if they read the full sentence.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- oska 10y ago
  > edit2: The previous poster partially quoted a sentence, others would be well served if they read the full sentence. What? llukas quoted a full sentence. And I don't think you understand the term ‘green-washing’. It's when a company that has a bad environmental reputation does some sort of (tokenistic) project to appear ‘green’.
  - sremani 10y ago
    It's not just companies but politicians also carry feel good campaigns, and so do governments.
- llukas 10y ago
  Educate yourself and stop spreading FUD. Solar panels already paid their cumulative greenhouse emission debt and if not it is likely happen very soon. Fossil fuels wouldn't disappear overnight but there is less and less real dependency on them and more of a choice of using them. There is no reason not to go wind/solar if looking just at greenhouse gases emissions. http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13728 http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13728 "As a result, we show a break-even between the cumulative disadvantages and benefits of photovoltaics, for both energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, occurs between 1997 and 2018, depending on photovoltaic performance and model uncertainties."
  - sremani 10y ago
    Oh Please! You do not have to educate me, unlike Moral Horsemen, I already have 10 KW SolarPV, my disagreement was not with Solar that much. We are discussing Wind Turbines here. If a counter point article in IEEE spectrum is FUD, good luck! The major point you have not quoted it, Wind's intermittent generation relies heavily on an infrastructure that is majorly oil based. Also Wind kills lots and lots of birds.. but lets ignore that too.