WORLD’S FIRST OFFSHORE WIND FARM RETIRES: A POST-MORTEM

Environmental | 207709 hits | Oct 20 3:03 am | Posted by: Freakinoldguy

Comments

by N_Fiddledog
Fri Oct 20, 2017 7:22 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.
by N_Fiddledog
Fri Oct 20, 2017 7:29 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.

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. 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.

Here's the conclusion he comes to:

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. 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.
by BartSimpson
Fri Oct 20, 2017 7:35 pm
tl;dr version is that wind energy is not going to be "the future of energy".
by DrCaleb
Sat Oct 21, 2017 1:22 pm
"BartSimpson" said
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?
by housewife
Sat Oct 21, 2017 1:54 pm
It means that someone in the Ontario government will say “disregard it can’t be right “
by PluggyRug
Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:45 pm
"DrCaleb" said
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.
by raydan
Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:57 pm
"PluggyRug" said
What's needed is a technological leap in energy storage.

You mean like putting water behind a dam.
by PluggyRug
Sat Oct 21, 2017 6:38 pm
"raydan" said
What's needed is a technological leap in energy storage.

You mean like putting water behind a dam.

Yeah that would probably work.

A massive leap forward in battery technology would solve many problems.
by N_Fiddledog
Sat Oct 21, 2017 7:10 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?
by raydan
Sat Oct 21, 2017 7:40 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.
by herbie
Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:31 pm
Or maybe you don't need batteries at all.

You mean like putting water behind a dam.

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.
by CDN_PATRIOT
Sun Oct 22, 2017 12:42 am
"herbie" said

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.
by BeaverFever
Sun Oct 22, 2017 1:39 am
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.
by BRAH
Sun Oct 22, 2017 1:59 am
Wind power is a failed pipe dream, solar power is the future of renewable energy.

view comments in forum

Page 1 2

You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news.

Share

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net