3 ms·

I wouldn't call wind turbines exactly clean energy, between the need to have thermic power plant on stand-by to pick up the slack, since wind is highly irregula

I wouldn't call wind turbines exactly clean energy, between the need to have thermic power plant on stand-by to pick up the slack, since wind is highly irregular, the metric cube of concrete poured in the ground in the middle of nowhere to built them, the kilometers of copper to link them back to the network and the batteries to keep the excess electricity. And it's even worse when you see a field of turbines where half of them are not turning.

Tade0 9y ago
The carbon footprint of all these items is still miniscule comparing to the amount of clean energy generated over a turbine's lifetime. Overall wind trubines have a gross carbon footprint of 14g/kWh. That's even slightly less than nuclear (15g/kWh).
ocschwar 9y ago
> I wouldn't call wind turbines exactly clean energy, between the need to have thermic power plant on stand-by to pick up the slack Depending on the source of thermal power, the amount consumed on standby can go to 0. If you have a decent transmission grid, the amount of standby power you need goes down. And if you have hydro, your emissions go down to 0. > the metric cube of concrete poured in the ground in the middle of nowhere to built them, the kilometers of copper to link them back to the network and the batteries to keep the excess electricity. One time expenses, which apply to other power sources too. As opposed to fuel, which is 0 in the case of wind. Batteries, by the way, are not needed at all for a wind farm. > And it's even worse when you see a field of turbines where half of them are not turning. You'll usually see that when the wind is strong but demand for electricity is weak, so the farm operators use the time to do maintenance.
- baud147258 9y ago
  The problem with wind farm is that they are often built in area with little or no human presence, which is whey I consider this a problem, especially since the grid would be further away.
  - ocschwar 9y ago
    You can check data from ERCOT, SPP or MISO, and see for yourself that at least as yet, wind power in the US is not overwhelming local distribution and transmission capacity.In a lot of the Midwest, just automating the operation of water towers is enough to slurp up excess juice from wind.
    - baud147258 9y ago
      > wind power in the US is not overwhelming local distribution and transmission capacity. I don't get what you're saying here.
  - jonknee 9y ago
    No one wants a power plant next door (especially nuclear!) and transmission is an issue for everything other than solar panels on your own roof.
Milner08 9y ago
Except, in the grand scheme of things thats very clean. Compared to Gas or Coal power plants that are much more difficult to build and are also often located in relatively remote locations. We need some kind of power to pick up the slack but not necessarily fossil fuel based. There are all sorts of ways to store energy created at times of high wind for later use, from simple batteries to things like Dinorwig in Wales. The reason half of them aren't turning is often because it takes so long to stop a fossil fuel based power station and the wind turbines would only be generating excess power and affecting the grid, so they have to stop them. With more investment in storing energy they can keep them running far longer and decrease the use of fossil fuels even further. I'm not saying they are 100% clean, just that realistically nothing ever will be. We can offset that, and we can work to minimise it. For the moment Wind turbines are one of the cleanest ways we have.
- baud147258 9y ago
  Thank you for Dinorwig. I did not know about this.
raverbashing 9y ago
Thanks, I didn't know thermal power plants required no concrete and magically connected themselves to the rest of the grid with no wires.

Tade0 9y ago

The carbon footprint of all these items is still miniscule comparing to the amount of clean energy generated over a turbine's lifetime. Overall wind trubines have a gross carbon footprint of 14g/kWh. That's even slightly less than nuclear (15g/kWh).

ocschwar 9y ago

> I wouldn't call wind turbines exactly clean energy, between the need to have thermic power plant on stand-by to pick up the slack Depending on the source of thermal power, the amount consumed on standby can go to 0. If you have a decent transmission grid, the amount of standby power you need goes down. And if you have hydro, your emissions go down to 0. > the metric cube of concrete poured in the ground in the middle of nowhere to built them, the kilometers of copper to link them back to the network and the batteries to keep the excess electricity. One time expenses, which apply to other power sources too. As opposed to fuel, which is 0 in the case of wind. Batteries, by the way, are not needed at all for a wind farm. > And it's even worse when you see a field of turbines where half of them are not turning. You'll usually see that when the wind is strong but demand for electricity is weak, so the farm operators use the time to do maintenance.

baud147258 9y ago
The problem with wind farm is that they are often built in area with little or no human presence, which is whey I consider this a problem, especially since the grid would be further away.
- ocschwar 9y ago
  You can check data from ERCOT, SPP or MISO, and see for yourself that at least as yet, wind power in the US is not overwhelming local distribution and transmission capacity.In a lot of the Midwest, just automating the operation of water towers is enough to slurp up excess juice from wind.
  - baud147258 9y ago
    > wind power in the US is not overwhelming local distribution and transmission capacity. I don't get what you're saying here.
- jonknee 9y ago
  No one wants a power plant next door (especially nuclear!) and transmission is an issue for everything other than solar panels on your own roof.

Milner08 9y ago

Except, in the grand scheme of things thats very clean. Compared to Gas or Coal power plants that are much more difficult to build and are also often located in relatively remote locations. We need some kind of power to pick up the slack but not necessarily fossil fuel based. There are all sorts of ways to store energy created at times of high wind for later use, from simple batteries to things like Dinorwig in Wales. The reason half of them aren't turning is often because it takes so long to stop a fossil fuel based power station and the wind turbines would only be generating excess power and affecting the grid, so they have to stop them. With more investment in storing energy they can keep them running far longer and decrease the use of fossil fuels even further. I'm not saying they are 100% clean, just that realistically nothing ever will be. We can offset that, and we can work to minimise it. For the moment Wind turbines are one of the cleanest ways we have.

baud147258 9y ago
Thank you for Dinorwig. I did not know about this.

raverbashing 9y ago

Thanks, I didn't know thermal power plants required no concrete and magically connected themselves to the rest of the grid with no wires.