4 ms·

Oil and gas ("energy") companies are investing a lot into wind energy. They know they have to adopt. In the end they just want profits and they have the capital

Oil and gas ("energy") companies are investing a lot into wind energy. They know they have to adopt. In the end they just want profits and they have the capital to make the right investments. I really wish the environmentalist movement saw them as just another money hungry corporation instead some evil villain out to destroy the planet. They would love to diversify their revenue stream, now is a good time to work with them because of the huge fossil fuel demand and the political pressure to wind down dependence on it. On a separate note, I have two questions: why don't wind turbinea have more than one "wheel"? And does anyone know if ground tethered floating turbines (like airships) will be commercially viable?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
7952 7y ago
The industry seems like a good fit for specialist contractors (many of which also work for oil companies) rather than an integrated oil company. They may have access to lots of capital, but that is hardly unique. Arguably their real talent is dealing with market volatility, which could come to renewables when strike prices and subsidy levels get reduced.
- badrabbit 7y ago
  They already own large wind farms and similar investments. It is already happenig. Regarding capital,oil and gas has very very deep pockets possibly second to actual governments. And their existing positio as supplier also gives them an advantage to be able to migrate existing consumers to renewables.
shmerl 7y ago
> another money hungry corporation instead some evil villain out to destroy the planet. Greed can destroy the planet all the same. So money hungry is hardly an excuse for evil behavior.
- badrabbit 7y ago
  It's not an excuse, it is bad but their problem is the problem of capitalism. The problem with fossil fuels is both supply and demand. Involving suppliers with your efforts to move demand to a better fuel source is wisw in my opinion. Antagonizing supply while creating separate competition against fossil supply while scaring consumer demand to their competition means you made yourself their natural enemy. With a fight you must win in order to succeed. With a partnership you must find a viable solution to succeed but even then you still have to solve for demand. Also,geopolitics: the west won agai at oil and gas? Cools, CNOOC,Gazprom and Aramco will supply most of the planet that can't afford to buy green cars and switch their electric grids to green sources, make their ships green,etc... Dying American geopolitical strong arming can only take you so far.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
> why don't wind turbines have more than one "wheel" Which I take to mean more than one set of blades? In which case it's because they interfere with each other, and reduce the power generation possible in all surrounding turbines. Wind farms come with a minimum separation that is something like 5 or 10 blade diameters spacing, depending on prevailing winds. That spacing gives every turbine clear air free of induced eddy currents. This is also why scaled down rooftop and urban wind generation doesn't really work - there are too many eddy currents such that generation becomes very intermittent.
- badrabbit 7y ago
  Thank you, first time learnig about eddy currents. Maybe the mobility of sea based turbines makes them a bit more attractive if they can move around to position themselves for maximum efficiency?
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    It's a similar effect to wake turbulence from large jets - invisible without added cloud or smoke, but can have a dramatic effect, so they space landings out well. The offshore turbines I know of are in relatively shallow water, and fixed construction on the sea bed. Not sure if deep water turbines could move around, but I imagine the processing needed to calculate would be immense - fluid dynamics is pretty complex!
666lumberjack 7y ago
The cynic in me thinks the reason fossil energy companies are keen to invest in wind and solar is that they don't believe it can operate independently of natural gas backup any time in the near future and they want to secure some baseline level of demand going forward by ensuring it wins out over nuclear (fission or fusion), advanced geothermal or any other promising low-carbon generation option that doesn't have intermittency issues.
- hodgesrm 7y ago
  Another reading is that those companies are in the energy business and at some level don't really care how it's generated as long as it's utility scale and has sufficiently low cost that they can make money. After all you still need distribution networks, load management, marketing, sales, administration, etc. regardless of where energy comes from. That's what energy companies provide.
  - badrabbit 7y ago
    Renewables tend to come with less risk and volatility as well. No oil spills,geopolitics affecting prices,etc...

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

7952 7y ago

The industry seems like a good fit for specialist contractors (many of which also work for oil companies) rather than an integrated oil company. They may have access to lots of capital, but that is hardly unique. Arguably their real talent is dealing with market volatility, which could come to renewables when strike prices and subsidy levels get reduced.

badrabbit 7y ago
They already own large wind farms and similar investments. It is already happenig. Regarding capital,oil and gas has very very deep pockets possibly second to actual governments. And their existing positio as supplier also gives them an advantage to be able to migrate existing consumers to renewables.

shmerl 7y ago

> another money hungry corporation instead some evil villain out to destroy the planet. Greed can destroy the planet all the same. So money hungry is hardly an excuse for evil behavior.

badrabbit 7y ago
It's not an excuse, it is bad but their problem is the problem of capitalism. The problem with fossil fuels is both supply and demand. Involving suppliers with your efforts to move demand to a better fuel source is wisw in my opinion. Antagonizing supply while creating separate competition against fossil supply while scaring consumer demand to their competition means you made yourself their natural enemy. With a fight you must win in order to succeed. With a partnership you must find a viable solution to succeed but even then you still have to solve for demand. Also,geopolitics: the west won agai at oil and gas? Cools, CNOOC,Gazprom and Aramco will supply most of the planet that can't afford to buy green cars and switch their electric grids to green sources, make their ships green,etc... Dying American geopolitical strong arming can only take you so far.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

> why don't wind turbines have more than one "wheel" Which I take to mean more than one set of blades? In which case it's because they interfere with each other, and reduce the power generation possible in all surrounding turbines. Wind farms come with a minimum separation that is something like 5 or 10 blade diameters spacing, depending on prevailing winds. That spacing gives every turbine clear air free of induced eddy currents. This is also why scaled down rooftop and urban wind generation doesn't really work - there are too many eddy currents such that generation becomes very intermittent.

badrabbit 7y ago
Thank you, first time learnig about eddy currents. Maybe the mobility of sea based turbines makes them a bit more attractive if they can move around to position themselves for maximum efficiency?
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  It's a similar effect to wake turbulence from large jets - invisible without added cloud or smoke, but can have a dramatic effect, so they space landings out well. The offshore turbines I know of are in relatively shallow water, and fixed construction on the sea bed. Not sure if deep water turbines could move around, but I imagine the processing needed to calculate would be immense - fluid dynamics is pretty complex!

666lumberjack 7y ago

The cynic in me thinks the reason fossil energy companies are keen to invest in wind and solar is that they don't believe it can operate independently of natural gas backup any time in the near future and they want to secure some baseline level of demand going forward by ensuring it wins out over nuclear (fission or fusion), advanced geothermal or any other promising low-carbon generation option that doesn't have intermittency issues.

hodgesrm 7y ago
Another reading is that those companies are in the energy business and at some level don't really care how it's generated as long as it's utility scale and has sufficiently low cost that they can make money. After all you still need distribution networks, load management, marketing, sales, administration, etc. regardless of where energy comes from. That's what energy companies provide.
- badrabbit 7y ago
  Renewables tend to come with less risk and volatility as well. No oil spills,geopolitics affecting prices,etc...