CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 30650
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:22 pm
 


Title: WORLD�S FIRST OFFSHORE WIND FARM RETIRES: A POST-MORTEM
Category: Environmental
Posted By: Freakinoldguy
Date: 2017-10-20 03:03:21
Canadian


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26145
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:22 pm
 


Here's the link:

https://www.thegwpf.com/worlds-first-of ... st-mortem/

In fairness, I think I heard somewhere the Global Warming Policy Forum is a right wing think tank. I imagine there's some funding Progressives will need their fainting couches nearbye to hear about.

Quick Beave off to Desmog blog with you for the hysterical smear and slur version.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26145
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:29 pm
 


However, if we're just going to consider facts and conclusions that can be drawn from them, the article seems pretty reasonable to me.

Here's a clip.

$1:
Date: 18/10/17 M J Kelly, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom

The first-ever offshore wind farm, Vindeby, in Danish waters, is being decommissioned after twenty-five years, DONG Energy has announced.[1] By its nature it was an experiment, and we can now see whether or not it has been a successful alternative to fossil or nuclear-fuelled electricity.

Image


Here's the conclusion he comes to:

$1:
The disappointing results from Vindeby, and the likely results from Hornsea and similar projects must be seen in the context of the increasing wealth of a growing world population. If all the world’s 10.3 billion people alive in 2055 were to lead a European (as opposed to American) style of life, we would need 2.5 times the primary energy as used today. If, say, half of the energy is suddenly produced with an energy return on investment of 5.5:1 (i.e. half the present world average), then for the same investment we would get only 75% of the energy and we would need to cut energy consumption: the first 10% reduction could come by curtailing higher education, international air travel, the internet, advanced medicine and high culture. We could invest proportionately more of our economy in energy production than we do now, but that will still mean a step backward against the trend of the last 200 years of reducing the proportion of the total economy taken by the energy sector.[13] To avoid this undesirable scenario we would need new forms of energy to match the fossil/nuclear fuel performance.

In this context it is useful to remember that global economic growth is very sensitive to the cost of energy. The energy cost spikes in the mid-1970s and in 2010 form the boundaries between the 5% growth rate of the global economy from 1950–1975, the 3% from 1980–2008, and the 2.5% since 2012. There is a lot at stake in the choice between cheap fossil fuels and expensive renewables.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:35 pm
 


tl;dr version is that wind energy is not going to be "the future of energy".


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 53483
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 6:22 am
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
tl;dr version is that wind energy is not going to be "the future of energy".


So, does that imply that with all the coal companies going bankrupt, that Trumps' ending the 'war on coal' isn't the future either?


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 2827
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 6:54 am
 


It means that someone in the Ontario government will say “disregard it can’t be right “


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 12398
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:45 am
 


DrCaleb DrCaleb:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
tl;dr version is that wind energy is not going to be "the future of energy".


So, does that imply that with all the coal companies going bankrupt, that Trumps' ending the 'war on coal' isn't the future either?


What's needed is a technological leap in energy storage.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 35270
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:57 am
 


PluggyRug PluggyRug:
What's needed is a technological leap in energy storage.

You mean like putting water behind a dam. :wink:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 12398
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 11:38 am
 


raydan raydan:
PluggyRug PluggyRug:
What's needed is a technological leap in energy storage.

You mean like putting water behind a dam. :wink:


Yeah that would probably work. :D

A massive leap forward in battery technology would solve many problems.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26145
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 12:10 pm
 


Although, these days things happen incrementally, and there does appear to have been incremental improvements to battery storage. Electric cars go farther without a charge I notice. Or is that a result of improvements somewhere else?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 35270
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 12:40 pm
 


We've pretty much reached the theoretical limit of lithium ion technology and are now looking at sodium ion and sodium metal battery tech that could double the driving distance per charge... but maybe they can get 'silicon-air' batteries to work.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11830
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 1:31 pm
 


Or maybe you don't need batteries at all.
$1:
You mean like putting water behind a dam. :wink:

Which windfarms could easily do. Which windmills were originally used for.
Or flywheels.

Or maybe we can just go on posting articles about how something that just generated electricity out of thin air for 25 years was a "failure" and go back to coal or whale oil.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Calgary Flames


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4039
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 5:42 pm
 


herbie herbie:
Or maybe we can just go on posting articles about how something that just generated electricity out of thin air for 25 years was a "failure" and go back to coal or whale oil.


Accept the fact that windfarms are garbage and contribute little and move on. I'm still of the opinion that fusion power generators need to be researched harder so as to bring them to fruition. Until that happens, I'm all for nuclear power.

-J.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15244
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 6:39 pm
 


So what? The worlds oldest car and oldest computer weren’t very efficient either. Today’s turbines are far more advanced than the 30 year old technology used here , which is why the same company that’s retiring this one is now building the worlds largest windfarm.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9445
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 6:59 pm
 


Wind power is a failed pipe dream, solar power is the future of renewable energy.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  1  2  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.