What do you think about Wind Power. What features do you like about it?If anything, I think wind power is a bad source of power and these are some of my thoughts.
1: You need to mine and refine some rather valuable and rare materials to make the actual turbines
2: They have a short lifespan (15-20 years)
3: Their lifespan shortens more if they are in the sea because of the water and salt erosion (10-15 years)
4: A wind turbine produces enough power to power one house so you need quite a few to power some large towns which means every 15-20 years you'd need replace a lot of turbines.
5: Each turbine costs 1-2$ Million plus making, mining and refining some of the materials will make it even more expensive on the other end.
6: You need to build roads to the turbines so you can get vehicles to maintain them.
7: There are days when no wind is present so basically there's no power... Some would say that you'd need energy storage. Has anyone given a thought on how a big battery to store the energy would take build and how much excess power there would be...
8: People say wind power keeps the environment clean. If that's true then why does it also erode the environment?
9: Not many people will get this but doesn't wind power take the power out of the wind? Just ponder on it for a few minutes...
So what are your opinions on wind power? Do you think it's good and do you have any opinions that counter my opinions and what other energies could we use?
Some of your points are correct, though I have issues with "taking the power out of the wind". All wind is is an unequal change in temperature and pressure. There's no "taking out" in anything here.
I'm a big fan of nuclear power and the fancy new idea of making every interstate and highway out of solar panels.
1: If this were true at all, it would be the same of every electrical turbine in existence. Fortunately, glass and plastic are quite inexpensive and easy to obtain these days.
4: That would be a false dichotomy. Few people would advocate pure wind power as the sole source of energy.
6: Same as any other generator, except that maintenance is restricted to routine checkups, rather than round-the-clock supervision and manual operation.
8: Absolute nonsense. Wind does not erode the environment. Weathering erodes rocks and various other materials. This is not a detriment to the environment. It also isn't caused by the wind.
Think on it for a while. The actual wind won't disappear, it is the power. It's isn't a bad thing anyway, it's just something to think about.
FishPreffered
Some good points but:
1: I'm not talking about glass, I'm talking about the materials used in the aspect of generating the power.
4: So what's the point? If you build turbines you still use power plants for non windy days and extra houses. Without wind power you still use power plants.
6: how many roads would you need to build to, say 30 wind generators...
8: How do you build a wind turbine, you can't just plop it down like a stick in some sand. You've got to dig out a place in the ground in the base then you've got put wires in the ground by digging up the ground (again) so you can transport the generated electricity to the desired location.
Think on it for a while. The actual wind won't disappear, it is the power. It's isn't a bad thing anyway, it's just something to think about.
Gas particles are too erratic for wind power to cycle back or carry over long distances. The power is also diminished far more by the broad side of a three-storey building, so this effect is doubly negligible.
1: I'm not talking about glass, I'm talking about the materials used in the aspect of generating the power.
That would be the generator, not the turbine, and guess what: If that were true of the generator, it would be the same of every industrial generator in existence.
4: So what's the point?
Um...
If you build turbines you still use power plants for non windy days and extra houses. Without wind power you still use power plants.
That is the point.
6: how many roads would you need to build to, say 30 wind generators...
Two, if the primary concern is efficiency. Otherwise, fewer.
8: How do you build a wind turbine, you can't just plop it down like a stick in some sand. You've got to dig out a place in the ground in the base then you've got put wires in the ground by digging up the ground (again) so you can transport the generated electricity to the desired location.
None of that has any clear relation to erosion, nor is it any more deleterious than any other generator aside from solar.
Gas particles are too erratic for wind power to cycle back or carry over long distances. The power is also diminished far more by the broad side of a three-storey building, so this effect is doubly negligible.
As I said before, this isn't a bad aspect in wind power, it's only a thing to think about.
That would be the generator, not the turbine, and guess what: If that were true of the generator, it would be the same of every industrial generator in existence
Very true, but due to the productive lifespan of the wind turbine, you'd need to replace LOTS of wind turbines every 15-20 years to do this when a power plant wouldn't have nearly as many generators replaced quickly. Read this
That is the point.
Could you clarify what you mean?
Two, if the primary concern is efficiency. Otherwise, fewer
How long would the roads be in a wind farm? the road has to reach each turbine.
None of that has any clear relation to erosion, nor is it any more deleterious than any other generator aside from solar
Again, a wind farm is bigger than any power plant. A power plant would take up less space than a field of wind turbines.
To anyone who complains about wind turbines, I always say the same thing: Yes, they are inefficient, unreliable, and noisy, but you'd rather build them than more nuclear power stations wouldn't you?
Actually nuclear power is quite efficient. If you build it by the sea then the sea water can be used to cool the reactors. Nuclear waste can be stored in a safe way (read this) and a single power plant can power a large area.
To anyone who complains about wind turbines, I always say the same thing: Yes, they are inefficient, unreliable, and noisy, but you'd rather build them than more nuclear power stations wouldn't you?
They may be inefficient, unreliable, and noisy, but somehow Germany still manages to produce a big part of their energy in a green way using wind energy, among others. On the other side, I don't expect all countries to be capable of reproducing this success *runs away*
Actually nuclear power is quite efficient. If you build it by the sea then the sea water can be used to cool the reactors. Nuclear waste can be stored in a safe way (read this) and a single power plant can power a large area.
- Most nuclear plants in the continent are build at rivers for this same reason. Now imagine that there just happens to be a big drought which shrinks the river dramatically; is there enough water left to cool the radioactive material sufficiently? This scenario is probably more likely than many imagine. Probability increasing.
- Seashore plants? I give you ***ushima.
- Yes, nuclear can be stored in a safe way. It cannot be definitely disposed off, however, so we are left with temporary solutions, at least as long as the waste is increasing. And usually, the waste is not stored away safely, rather dumped somewhere in a grotto or buried under a few meters of earth and pollutes ground water.
Wholly irrelevant. Neodymium is not a necessary generator component, nor, according to this source, is it even rare. It is all the more curious when you promote the nuclear industry, given their high demand for actinides and numerous other elements and compounds, many of which will not be useable for the next few million years or so.
Could you clarify what you mean?
Your argument in #4 (and, to a lesser extent, #7) is a false dichotomy, as it suggests that wind power cannot be used in conjunction with other sources, and uses this entirely false suggestion as a talking point against wind power in general.
How long would the roads be in a wind farm? the road has to reach each turbine.
That would depend on the terrain, but these things can be constructed a stone's throw apart without reducing their efficiency, so you could have a winding road meet all of them in ~750m. Wind farms often don't have roads going directly to each turbine tower, however.
Again, a wind farm is bigger than any power plant. A power plant would take up less space than a field of wind turbines.
No. That would require a smaller lot, most or all of which is occupied by immense concrete foundations. Wind farms can be built on actual farmland, with actual crops growing under them and only occupy the combined area of each tower's foundation. Therefore, they do not take up anywhere near as much space.
If you build it by the sea then the sea water can be used to cool the reactors.
Yes. It's also pumped directly into the spent fuel pool, where it comes into contact with the superheated fuel rods before being pumped out again. Clearly the chemical composition of the steam isn't the only concern here.
Nuclear waste can be stored in a safe way (read this)
Can â Â Is
No company is going to spend the amount required to make waste entirely safe from the combined forces of erosional damage, tectonic plate shifting, and government zoning laws.
1: You need to mine and refine some rather valuable and rare materials to make the actual turbines
True of any generator. If you get down to it this is true of any electronic.
2: They have a short lifespan (15-20 years)
They are built with a lifespan of about 25 years. This is still a bit short compared to more conventional plants such as nuclear or coal which tends to run a life span of about 30-40 years. Overall, not that bad in comparison.
3: Their lifespan shortens more if they are in the sea because of the water and salt erosion (10-15 years)
Wouldn't surprise me, though from what I can find in a quick search the study citing a 10-15 year life span comes from someone with a known bias to wind power and doesn't cite who peer reviewed the study. This makes me think we should take it with a grain of salt.
4: A wind turbine produces enough power to power one house so you need quite a few to power some large towns which means every 15-20 years you'd need replace a lot of turbines.
It's usually advocated that wind be used in conjunction with other alternative sources of power. Personally I think a combination of solar, wind and nuclear would be good.
5: Each turbine costs 1-2$ Million plus making, mining and refining some of the materials will make it even more expensive on the other end.
This is just a matter of further development and refinement of the technology. Yes that is the cost of a utility scale turbine, however that cost has come down dramatically as the technology has improved.
6: You need to build roads to the turbines so you can get vehicles to maintain them.
I fail to see how that doesn't apply to any generator.
7: There are days when no wind is present so basically there's no power... Some would say that you'd need energy storage. Has anyone given a thought on how a big battery to store the energy would take build and how much excess power there would be...
Yes the wind doesn't blow all the time, that's why it would be used in conjunction with other forms of power generation. Also we need a means of power storage for any generator, so I again fail to see your point there.
8: People say wind power keeps the environment clean. If that's true then why does it also erode the environment?
It doesn't, moving on...
9: Not many people will get this but doesn't wind power take the power out of the wind? Just ponder on it for a few minutes...
No they don't. This was stated by a parody site (like the Union) that doesn't tend to make it self well forthcoming as being a parody. I think this might have been also picked up by an idiot politician as well.
So what are your opinions on wind power? Do you think it's good and do you have any opinions that counter my opinions and what other energies could we use?
As I noted I think solar and nuclear would be good in conjunction with wind. The nuclear plant would be used to pick up any slack from the other sources admitted inconsistent nature.
True of any generator. If you get down to it this is true of any electronic
But it comes down to a matter of how many generators you need, one for each turbine so a field would use more generators in comparison to a power plant.
They are built with a lifespan of about 25 years. This is still a bit short compared to more conventional plants such as nuclear or coal which tends to run a life span of about 30-40 years. Overall, not that bad in comparison.
Yes, they are built to last 25 years but their productive lifespan lasts 15-20 years
Wouldn't surprise me, though from what I can find in a quick search the study citing a 10-15 year life span comes from someone with a known bias to wind power and doesn't cite who peer reviewed the study. This makes me think we should take it with a grain of salt
Wind turbines use metal as their main foundation just to let you know. Add that fact to the 3rd section of thiswebpage. This webpage is unlikely to be biased to wind turbines but the fact that metal erodes with salt is clear.
It's usually advocated that wind be used in conjunction with other alternative sources of power. Personally I think a combination of solar, wind and nuclear would be good
I cant argue against your opinion.
his is just a matter of further development and refinement of the technology. Yes that is the cost of a utility scale turbine, however that cost has come down dramatically as the technology has improved.
i'll have to think on that...
I fail to see how that doesn't apply to any generator.
As I said before a field of generators would need a lot of road going to it
Yes the wind doesn't blow all the time, that's why it would be used in conjunction with other forms of power generation. Also we need a means of power storage for any generator, so I again fail to see your point there.
Very true, you've proved me on that point so I will present another fact. When there is no wind, it takes power from the grid (or power storage) to keep the turbines spinning so they don't seize up.
It doesn't, moving on...
It does when you have to build the roads ,attach the turbines to the power grid with lines and make a big concrete base for each individual turbine.
no they don't. This was stated by a parody site (like the Union) that doesn't tend to make it self well forthcoming as being a parody. I think this might have been also picked up by an idiot politician as well
Yes, they are built to last 25 years but their productive lifespan lasts 15-20 years
That is what lifespan of it means, how long it can run before needing to be upgraded/replaced.
Wind turbines use metal as their main foundation just to let you know. Add that fact to the 3rd section of thiswebpage. This webpage is unlikely to be biased to wind turbines but the fact that metal erodes with salt is clear.
Let's start with the cement and concrete. (near of which we really have to worry about eroding.) This is made up of aggregates and crushed stone, clay and shale, gypsum, limestone, and silica sand. If you have a problem with this then you would most definitely need to have a problem with virtually any modern building. In fact I would be willing to bet that a single nuclear plant would use more of these as they require very thick concrete and cement walls to help insulate against the radiation and to prevent leakages.
The steel requires iron ore and molybdenum (the latter being common in the production of steel alloys) The steel is also galvanized with zinc, which would reduce it's chances of rusting. The process of making the steel leaves a coal by product. (But that is nothing compared to a coal plant and is likely added to because of the use of coal plants) With the right galvanized steel this part of the turbine would be protected from corrosion for about 50-75 years. basically the turbine would be replaced at least twice before that part of it corroded.
With the electrical we have copper wiring, Copper can handle water pretty well and this copper would likely be insulated from the elements. This just leaves that magnets which would likely be the most vulnerable part.
Also non of this seems like we are in huge scarcity and would need to be dug up for use one way or the other. It seems the damage done by having to dig up and use these metals is negligible.
I cant argue against your opinion.
The second sentence was opinion, the first sentence was not.
It does when you have to build the roads ,attach the turbines to the power grid with lines and make a big concrete base for each individual turbine.
Some maintenance roads and concrete is hardly a huge impact on the environment and wouldn't cause deterioration of said environment. The only time I can think of that a maintenance road might have a significant impact on the environment would be if it was place through a jungle or forest. (not an ideal setting for a wind turbine farm)
You win. I've never been good at debates and I feel that i'm on the losing side of this anyway. Still, in my opinion, I feel that wind power isn't a reliable source of energy and we should research other, less costly and efficient techniques in producing energy.
This was fun and i'd certainly participate in other debates and things.
