Wind-Turbine Farms - Better Efficiency at Lower RPMs

[[e-mail]]

https://techxplore.com/news/2024-09-offs-turbines.html

The cost effectiveness of wind farms could be significantly
improved by reducing the speed of wind turbines that are
clustered together, which could improve their longevity
and also reduce noise pollution.

"By reducing the rotational speed of the leading turbines,
the speed of the ones behind can be increased so that all
the turbines in a group spin at the same speed.

"This might have a small impact on the total energy generated
by wind farms, but this is outweighed by important benefits,
some of which are hidden but some, such as reduced noise
pollution, are more obvious."

. . .

In short, high RPMs encourages the creation of
a large spiral vortex behind each turbine, which
interferes with others.

High RPMs also significantly increase noise levels.

High RPMs also require blades with more end-2-end
tensile strength and vibration-resistance construction.

Wind farms are PART of our efforts to use more
"alternative" means in our overall energy equation.
They DO have problems. However this research may
diminish those problems.

Nothing wrong with "alternatives" so long as those
whose expertise does not extend beyond political
agitation understand that it is just NOT possible
to throw the proverbial switch and toss out all
the oil, coal and uranium. Physics is not impressed
with political ideologies.

[JTEM]

Post by ***@ud0s4.net
The cost effectiveness of wind farms could be significantly
improved

So they haven't been significantly improved.

That *Is* what your statement means in English.

Nothing has seen any improvements, you just want us to
believe that they could be improved... that such
improvement lies within the realm of possibilities, in
the future, even though nobody on earth has ever seen
it happen.

[[e-mail]]

Post by JTEM

Post by ***@ud0s4.net
The cost effectiveness of wind farms could be significantly
improved

So they haven't been significantly improved.
That *Is* what your statement means in English.

Article's text. There would have been no POINT in
the article saying "COULD BE significantly improved"
unless there WAS some room for improvement out there.

Post by JTEM
Nothing has seen any improvements, you just want us to
believe that they could be improved... that such
improvement lies within the realm of possibilities, in
the future, even though nobody on earth has ever seen
it happen.

Umm ... pretty much EVERY machine has been "improved"
over time. We even use spring-steel levers now instead
of dead tree limbs ! Ergo your "nobody on earth"
statement is just nuts.

THIS is what the first computer looked like :

Loading Image...

I'm gonna guess you are using an 'improved' version.

Oh, and today's power-gen windmills are a LOT more
efficient than those old things from Dutch landscape
paintings.

But can't tell if you're a "dino-juice forever" fanatic
or hyper 'green' fanatic.

Either way, I'll stick by my statement that SANE BALANCE
is needed in energy policies - a lot more of it than we
have been seeing the past few decades.

[JTEM]

  Article's text. There would have been no POINT in
  the article saying "COULD BE significantly improved"
  unless there WAS some room for improvement out there.

...unless there was room for SIGNIFICANT improvement
but that they were never ever improved.

[[e-mail]]

   Article's text. There would have been no POINT in
   the article saying "COULD BE significantly improved"
   unless there WAS some room for improvement out there.

    ...unless there was room for SIGNIFICANT improvement
but that they were never ever improved.

Ummmm ... what meds are you on ? Maybe reduce
the dosage just a tad ?

The windmills WILL be improved. Newer ones will
incorporate improvements and at least some of
the older ones can be upgraded. The main fix
HERE isn't so much in the design as in how those
designs are employed. Dropping RPMs a little bit
can improve the overall efficiency of the farm.

Wind farms can be, oft are IMHO, just a propaganda
statement - large/obvious monuments to the 'greenie'
ideology. However that does not make them "useless",
merely 'not for everyone'.

[JTEM]

  Ummmm ... what meds are you on ? Maybe

Hey, retard: What answer changes the fact that your windmills
have NOT been significantly improved, that you're "Reporting"
something that never ever happened?

Get it? Speaking rhetorically... "Get it?" You're suffering
an emotional breakdown in defense of a story about something
that NEVER EVER happened.

Let that sink in, moron.

[[e-mail]]

   Ummmm ... what meds are you on ? Maybe

Hey, retard:  What answer changes the fact that your windmills
have NOT been significantly improved, that you're "Reporting"
something that never ever happened?

Not improved ? Every gen of the things is "improved".
At this point, they're about as good as we'll get.

In fact the entire theme here had NOTHING to do with
the physical design of the windmills, just a more
effective/efficient way to use them in large GROUPS.

Sorry, they ARE going to keep being made, ARE going
to be deployed on larger and larger scales. Whatever
your complaint just FORGET IT.

Get it? Speaking rhetorically... "Get it?" You're suffering
an emotional breakdown in defense of a story about something
that NEVER EVER happened.
Let that sink in, moron.

Sounds like a jar of Adderall a day to me. No hope
of sane discussion.

It's plonking time ...

[JTEM]

Hey, retard:  What answer changes the fact that your windmills
have NOT been significantly improved, that you're "Reporting"
something that never ever happened?

  Not improved ?

Yup, that *Is* what the story you are so badly "Defending"
said: NOT improved!

Yup.

And you are a fucking idiot, a drool soaked imbecile who chose
to "Argue" against reality than accept what was printed out in
front of your goddamn face.

Pretty typical... and why I'm laughing at you!

[Grimble Crumble]

Post by JTEM

Post by ***@ud0s4.net
The cost effectiveness of wind farms could be significantly
improved

So they haven't been significantly improved.
That *Is* what your statement means in English.

That is not what his statement means in English.

You claim he said that windmills could be significantly improved; he
actually claimed that *only* their cost efficiency can be. In his sentence,
"wind farms" is an object of "of", meaning it can not be simply stuck to
"could be" as if it's the subject.

Post by JTEM
Nothing has seen any improvements, you just want us to
believe that they could be improved... that such
improvement lies within the realm of possibilities, in
the future, even though nobody on earth has ever seen
it happen.

You're right here. Wind is quite expensive for how much it actually
outputs. Nuclear is definitely ideal, but you can't always just build a
plant, and sometimes the sun doesn't shine enough, so you're stuck with
wind. It's honestly more of a symbol than anything else.

[JTEM]

Post by Grimble Crumble

Post by JTEM
So they haven't been significantly improved.
That *Is* what your statement means in English.

That is not what his statement means in English.

Of course it does, you snot eating useless twat.

Noting that there's room for significant improvement
is an acknowledgment that no such improvement has
occurred.

"You can go to the store" means you haven't gone.

"You can eat dinner now" means you haven't eaten dinner yet.

This is pretty basic stuff, and yet you're so LeftTarded
you are compelled to deny it!

[Grimble Crumble]

Post by JTEM

Post by Grimble Crumble

Post by JTEM
So they haven't been significantly improved.
That *Is* what your statement means in English.

That is not what his statement means in English.

Of course it does, you snot eating useless twat.
Noting that there's room for significant improvement
is an acknowledgment that no such improvement has
occurred.

No, that is not always, and I will explain why. Imagine we are at version 1
of the hypothetical Wind Mill. There is much improvement to come, and no
improvement has been made. In this case, you are correct. However, when we
do improve to (hypothetical) version 2, we have made an improvement. Now,
imagine version 3 comes out. When we are upgrading to version 3, we still
have significant improvement to come, but we have improved to version 2
before. So, just because there *is* improvement to come, that doesn't mean
(ipso facto) that we have not improved in the past. When it comes to
windmills, you're mostly correct, but this inductive reasoning does not
apply to all things.

Post by JTEM
"You can go to the store" means you haven't gone.

Not necessarily. What if I forgot to get something? I can always go to the
store. If I went earlier today, I am probably less likely to go, but I
always can.

Post by JTEM
"You can eat dinner now" means you haven't eaten dinner yet.

Not necessarily. What if I didn't eat enough? I can still eat a second
dinner, if I wanted or needed to.

Post by JTEM
This is pretty basic stuff, and yet you're so LeftTarded
you are compelled to deny it!

I've proven how this reasoning isn't reliable. What a bold statement to
call something so wrong "basic stuff"! What's funny is that I support
Trump, and am a conservative. You're quick to insult, and slow to explain.

[JTEM]

No

Lol! You're such a train wreck, so emotionally damaged that
you can't admit the bleeding obvious!

YOU'RE HILARIOUS!

What do you care? Honestly. Why is your psyche so goddamn fragile
that it can't accept reality?

I mean, I get it, you're a fucking moron! To admit so much as a
crack of doubt will send your whole tower of idiocy crashing to
the ground!

Solar and wind are NOT efficient! The kingdom of north Korea
watched tens of thousands of their own die for lack of fuel, for
lack of energy, and contrary to you jackasses they do get some
sun up there, and the wind does blow. But they are NOT an
alternative energy utopia.

Not a single medium sized city can sustain itself on wind and
solar and you LeftTards think whole nations can!

[Grimble Crumble]

Post by JTEM

No

You refuse to even cite my argument. Since you refuse to face it; you lose
to it.

Post by JTEM
Lol! You're such a train wreck, so emotionally damaged that
you can't admit the bleeding obvious!

Emotionally? What have I said that even concerns emotion? You must have a
leak in your brain, reading imaginary words from me that I have not wrote.

Post by JTEM
YOU'RE HILARIOUS!

This must be the reason why you argue so idiotically. Alcohol and drugs
have ruined your mind; it's all pleasure, and pleasure only, to you.

Post by JTEM
What do you care? Honestly. Why is your psyche so goddamn fragile
that it can't accept reality?

Reality and truth is found through debate and discussion. YOU are NOT
correct YOURSELF. You can be correct, if you work through your beliefs.

I tried to engage with you, but you refuse to engage with me. YOU believe
YOU are IPSO FACTO correct. Your EGO gets in the way of your potential
intellegence.

Post by JTEM
I mean, I get it, you're a fucking moron! To admit so much as a
crack of doubt will send your whole tower of idiocy crashing to
the ground!

Why would I listen to a non-argument. Your calling me an idiot proves
nothing. I tried to engage logically and reasonably with you.

Post by JTEM
Solar and wind are NOT efficient! The kingdom of north Korea
watched tens of thousands of their own die for lack of fuel, for
lack of energy, and contrary to you jackasses they do get some
sun up there, and the wind does blow. But they are NOT an
alternative energy utopia.
Not a single medium sized city can sustain itself on wind and
solar and you LeftTards think whole nations can!

Where are your sources?

[JTEM]

Post by Grimble Crumble
You refuse to even cite my argument.

Wait. You made an "Argument?" You really think so?

Oo!

Post by Grimble Crumble

Post by JTEM
Solar and wind are NOT efficient! The kingdom of north Korea
watched tens of thousands of their own die for lack of fuel, for
lack of energy, and contrary to you jackasses they do get some
sun up there, and the wind does blow. But they are NOT an
alternative energy utopia.
Not a single medium sized city can sustain itself on wind and
solar and you LeftTards think whole nations can!

Where are your sources?

I need a source? You're going to believe that cities and whole nations
are reliably powered by wind & solar unless I cite a source explaining
that you're mentally ill and imagining things?

Typical.

[Paul Aubrin]

Post by Grimble Crumble

Post by JTEM
Not a single medium sized city can sustain itself on wind and
solar and you LeftTards think whole nations can!

Where are your sources?

There is an Spanish island in the Atlantic named El Hierro. It's
electrical red was designed to be 100% renewable. It kept a fuel
generator named the Llanos Blancos thermic plant.
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_t%C3%A9rmica_de_Llanos_Blancos

Here is month by month the electrical production in El Hierro island :

https://www.goronadelviento.es/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/00-2023-CHGV23Parte_anual-contrata.pdf

Please note that in February, June, September, October, November and
December, the fuel plant provided more electricity than Gorona del
Viento. Despite being built for that purpose, the 100 % "renewable" goal
has not been reached and will never be.

More information on El Hierro electricity generation project here :
http://euanmearns.com/el-hierro-another-model-for-a-sustainable-energy-future/

[Paul Aubrin]

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by Grimble Crumble

Post by JTEM
Not a single medium sized city can sustain itself on wind and
solar and you LeftTards think whole nations can!

Where are your sources?

There is an Spanish island in the Atlantic named El Hierro. It's
electrical red was designed to be 100% renewable. It kept a fuel
generator named the Llanos Blancos thermic plant.
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_t%C3%A9rmica_de_Llanos_Blancos
https://www.goronadelviento.es/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/00-2023-
CHGV23Parte_anual-contrata.pdf
Please note that in February, June, September, October, November and
December, the fuel plant provided more electricity than Gorona del
Viento. Despite being built for that purpose, the 100 % "renewable" goal
has not been reached and will never be.
http://euanmearns.com/el-hierro-another-model-for-a-sustainable-energy-
future/

An archived reference proves that the goal was to make El Hierro
electricity 100% renewable. It failed. It was due to fail.

https://web.archive.org/web/20150827224422/https://www.endesa.com/en/aboutEndesa/businessLines/principalesproyectos/El_Hierro_ENG

El Hierro 100% Renewable

El Hierro 100% Renewable project aims to cover the electricity
consumption of the island with energy from renewable sources. To achieve
this objective a hydro-wind power facility, consisting of a wind farm
and a hydraulic plant connected with the existing electrical system, has
been designed and built.

50-80% of total demand will be met using renewable energy during the
initial implementation phases.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by Grimble Crumble

Post by JTEM
Not a single medium sized city can sustain itself on wind and
solar and you LeftTards think whole nations can!

Where are your sources?

There is an Spanish island in the Atlantic named El Hierro. It's
electrical red was designed to be 100% renewable. It kept a fuel
generator named the Llanos Blancos thermic plant.
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_t%C3%A9rmica_de_Llanos_Blancos
https://www.goronadelviento.es/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/00-2023-
CHGV23Parte_anual-contrata.pdf
Please note that in February, June, September, October, November and
December, the fuel plant provided more electricity than Gorona del
Viento. Despite being built for that purpose, the 100 % "renewable"
goal has not been reached and will never be.
http://euanmearns.com/el-hierro-another-model-for-a-sustainable-energy- future/

An archived reference proves that the goal was to make El Hierro
electricity 100% renewable. It failed. It was due to fail.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150827224422/https://www.endesa.com/en/aboutEndesa/businessLines/principalesproyectos/El_Hierro_ENG
El Hierro 100% Renewable
El Hierro 100% Renewable project aims to cover the electricity
consumption of the island with energy from renewable sources. To achieve
this objective a hydro-wind power facility, consisting of a wind farm
and a hydraulic plant connected with the existing electrical system, has
been designed and built.
50-80% of total demand will be met using renewable energy during the
initial implementation phases.

I don't mind them TRYING ... but DO mind the LIES they
soon slip into because they really CAN'T deliver.

For current needs, a MIX of power sources is the only
sane path. This requires REASONING, working the numbers,
not ideology and sloganeering.

Various locales/situations require a different mix of
energy sources. Let honest people figure that out and
kick the fanatics of any ilk in the nut-sack.

[Paul Aubrin]

Post by Paul Aubrin
An archived reference proves that the goal was to make El Hierro
electricity 100% renewable. It failed. It was due to fail.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150827224422/https://www.endesa.com/en/
aboutEndesa/businessLines/principalesproyectos/El_Hierro_ENG
El Hierro 100% Renewable
El Hierro 100% Renewable project aims to cover the electricity
consumption of the island with energy from renewable sources. To
achieve this objective a hydro-wind power facility, consisting of a
wind farm and a hydraulic plant connected with the existing electrical
system, has been designed and built.
50-80% of total demand will be met using renewable energy during the
initial implementation phases.

  I don't mind them TRYING ... but DO mind the LIES they
  soon slip into because they really CAN'T deliver.

They probably imagined that they could go 100 % renewable. But they
materially could not. They tried, and they achieved a very nice result.
But 100% (or even less) is impossible. The more you try and the more you
waste resources.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by Paul Aubrin
An archived reference proves that the goal was to make El Hierro
electricity 100% renewable. It failed. It was due to fail.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150827224422/https://www.endesa.com/en/
aboutEndesa/businessLines/principalesproyectos/El_Hierro_ENG
El Hierro 100% Renewable
El Hierro 100% Renewable project aims to cover the electricity
consumption of the island with energy from renewable sources. To
achieve this objective a hydro-wind power facility, consisting of a
wind farm and a hydraulic plant connected with the existing
electrical system, has been designed and built.
50-80% of total demand will be met using renewable energy during the
initial implementation phases.

   I don't mind them TRYING ... but DO mind the LIES they
   soon slip into because they really CAN'T deliver.

They probably imagined that they could go 100 % renewable. But they
materially could not. They tried, and they achieved a very nice result.
But 100% (or even less) is impossible. The more you try and the more you
waste resources.

Mix wind/tide/hydro/PVs and you probably COULD get
to 100% ... but the PRICE of all that figures large
in the equation too. If "renewable" costs three,
five, ten times as much then it's NOT a solution.

The fanatics are SO fixated on the Zero-CO2 thing
that the 'affordability' factor never ruffles
their brain cells. They imagine everything would
be just fine ... until the FOOD stops coming and
their phones/net turn off and the toilet doesn't
flush anymore and ..........

[John Doe]

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by Paul Aubrin
An archived reference proves that the goal was to make El Hierro
electricity 100% renewable. It failed. It was due to fail.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150827224422/https://www.endesa.com/
en/ aboutEndesa/businessLines/principalesproyectos/El_Hierro_ENG
El Hierro 100% Renewable
El Hierro 100% Renewable project aims to cover the electricity
consumption of the island with energy from renewable sources. To
achieve this objective a hydro-wind power facility, consisting of a
wind farm and a hydraulic plant connected with the existing
electrical system, has been designed and built.
50-80% of total demand will be met using renewable energy during the
initial implementation phases.

   I don't mind them TRYING ... but DO mind the LIES they
   soon slip into because they really CAN'T deliver.

They probably imagined that they could go 100 % renewable. But they
materially could not. They tried, and they achieved a very nice
result. But 100% (or even less) is impossible. The more you try and
the more you waste resources.

  Mix wind/tide/hydro/PVs and you probably COULD get
  to 100% ... but the PRICE of all that figures large
  in the equation too. If "renewable" costs three,
  five, ten times as much then it's NOT a solution.
  The fanatics are SO fixated on the Zero-CO2 thing
  that the 'affordability' factor never ruffles
  their brain cells. They imagine everything would
  be just fine ... until the FOOD stops coming and
  their phones/net turn off and the toilet doesn't
  flush anymore and ..........

There are fanatics out there, but they aren't the majority. Most people
are aware that cost is a big part of the equation.

They're also aware that if we experiment with new technologies, that
increases the odds that they will one day be more economical. The only
people who profit from halting new research are the oil companies.

[Paul Aubrin]

Post by John Doe
They're also aware that if we experiment with new technologies, that
increases the odds that they will one day be more economical. The only
people who profit from halting new research are the oil companies.

The fuel of wind turbines or solar panels is at the mercy of Mother
Nature. They cannot produce "on demand", they always will need a backup
which means they will never reach 100% of demand.
Of course, the more you try too reach 100%, he higher the cost to
produce one MWh.

[John Doe]

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by John Doe
They're also aware that if we experiment with new technologies, that
increases the odds that they will one day be more economical. The only
people who profit from halting new research are the oil companies.

The fuel of wind turbines or solar panels is at the mercy of Mother
Nature. They cannot produce "on demand", they always will need a backup
which means they will never reach 100% of demand.
Of course, the more you try too reach 100%, he higher the cost to
produce one MWh.

I agree that trying to get anything to 100%, whether it's energy
production or computer use, etc. results in diminishing returns. I'm
advocating continuing research and development, not the fever dream
fanaticism that opponents think everyone has. And I don't think
experimental efforts at self-sufficiency on a small scale hurt other people.

Most of us do realize sunlight only hits the sunward side of the planet.
Even in the regular electrical grid, it's difficult to make production
exactly match demand. These are some of the reasons that batteries and
energy storage are also vital research goals.

I am similarly in favor of other efforts to learn more, whether it's
cancer research or more energy efficient CPUs.

[Paul Aubrin]

Post by John Doe
I agree that trying to get anything to 100%, whether it's energy
production or computer use, etc. results in diminishing returns. I'm
advocating continuing research and development, not the fever dream
fanaticism that opponents think everyone has. And I don't think
experimental efforts at self-sufficiency on a small scale hurt other people.
Most of us do realize sunlight only hits the sunward side of the planet.
Even in the regular electrical grid, it's difficult to make production
exactly match demand. These are some of the reasons that batteries and
energy storage are also vital research goals.
I am similarly in favor of other efforts to learn more, whether it's
cancer research or more energy efficient CPUs.

Euarn Mearns blog had a lot of interesting posts on energy storage.
Exemple : How California’s electricity sector can go 100% renewable
http://euanmearns.com/how-californias-electricity-sector-can-go-100-renewable/

https://swisscows.com/fr/web?query=energy+storage+site%3Aeuanmearns.com

[John Doe]

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by John Doe
I agree that trying to get anything to 100%, whether it's energy
production or computer use, etc. results in diminishing returns. I'm
advocating continuing research and development, not the fever dream
fanaticism that opponents think everyone has. And I don't think
experimental efforts at self-sufficiency on a small scale hurt other people.
Most of us do realize sunlight only hits the sunward side of the
planet. Even in the regular electrical grid, it's difficult to make
production exactly match demand. These are some of the reasons that
batteries and energy storage are also vital research goals.
I am similarly in favor of other efforts to learn more, whether it's
cancer research or more energy efficient CPUs.

Euarn Mearns blog had a lot of interesting posts on energy storage.
Exemple : How California’s electricity sector can go 100% renewable
http://euanmearns.com/how-californias-electricity-sector-can-go-100-
renewable/
https://swisscows.com/fr/web?query=energy+storage+site%3Aeuanmearns.com

Thanks very much for the link!

[Paul Aubrin]

Post by Paul Aubrin
They probably imagined that they could go 100 % renewable. But they
materially could not. They tried, and they achieved a very nice
result. But 100% (or even less) is impossible. The more you try and
the more you waste resources.

  Mix wind/tide/hydro/PVs and you probably COULD get
  to 100% ...

They "could" occasionally get to 100% one day or even seven or ten. But
as those sources cannot produce "on request" because they depend on
mother nature for their fuel, they need a backup.

[John Doe]

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by Grimble Crumble

Post by JTEM
Not a single medium sized city can sustain itself on wind and
solar and you LeftTards think whole nations can!

Where are your sources?

There is an Spanish island in the Atlantic named El Hierro. It's
electrical red was designed to be 100% renewable. It kept a fuel
generator named the Llanos Blancos thermic plant.
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_t%C3%A9rmica_de_Llanos_Blancos
https://www.goronadelviento.es/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/00-2023-
CHGV23Parte_anual-contrata.pdf
Please note that in February, June, September, October, November and
December, the fuel plant provided more electricity than Gorona del
Viento. Despite being built for that purpose, the 100 % "renewable" goal
has not been reached and will never be.
http://euanmearns.com/el-hierro-another-model-for-a-sustainable-energy-
future/

Glass half full or half empty. I'm personally glad that rev 1.0 did so
well. I bet rev 2.0, 3.0, etc will each bring us closer to free energy.

[JTEM]

Post by John Doe
Glass half full or half empty. I'm personally glad that rev 1.0 did so
well. I bet rev 2.0, 3.0, etc will each bring us closer to free energy.

Your pissed stained shorts would get you closer to free energy, if
someone writes "Free Energy" on the road and you walk those shorts
over to it...

There's no such thing as free energy. You can "Argue" <sic> free
FUEL but not free energy. Wind turbines and solar panels both
require a lot of real estate. They both need to be manufactured,
transported & maintained. The energy needs to be transmitted to
and across the grid... the grid itself... and because both are
hideously unreliable you need storage systems on a scale so
massive that they boggle the imagination. It's all so preposterous
that I've often argued that we should resort to the law of
averages:

Determine what the "Average" energy output is. Use it to produce
hydrogen from water. burn the daily "Average" in a power plant to
generate electricity for the grid.

There. Artificial reliability. And it STILL wouldn't anywhere
near as reliable as a coal plant, but it would move us a lot
closer... and several times the price.

[Paul Aubrin]

Post by JTEM

Post by John Doe
Glass half full or half empty. I'm personally glad that rev 1.0 did so
well. I bet rev 2.0, 3.0, etc will each bring us closer to free energy.

Your pissed stained shorts would get you closer to free energy, if
someone writes "Free Energy" on the road and you walk those shorts
over to it...
There's no such thing as free energy. You can "Argue" <sic> free
FUEL but not free energy.

Obvious. But their prejudices prevent them from understanding.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by JTEM

Post by John Doe
Glass half full or half empty. I'm personally glad that rev 1.0 did
so well. I bet rev 2.0, 3.0, etc will each bring us closer to free
energy.

Your pissed stained shorts would get you closer to free energy, if
someone writes "Free Energy" on the road and you walk those shorts
over to it...
There's no such thing as free energy. You can "Argue" <sic> free
FUEL but not free energy.

Obvious. But their prejudices prevent them from understanding.

Windmills are *expensive* - and *expensive* to maintain.
PV cells are *expensive* and evil-chem messy tech and MOST
won't last 10 years. Hydro requires massive massive
concrete dams - and concrete is *expensive* and CO2-intensive
to the extreme. Ocean/river currents are relatively low
energy-gradient and any harvesters are also *expensive* and
need *expensive* maint.

Oil/coal/gas is *cheap* and *cheap* to maintain.

Nuke is not cheap - but HAS proven long-term viable and
thus cheap THAT way. IMHO, go with "pebble bed" tech.

Now, over TIME, the 'alternatives' WILL get cheaper
and better. Perovskite solar cells ARE quickly
improving and, while only a 10 year max tech, they
will be *so* cheap it doesn't matter - kinda like
electric house paint. Windmills are still being
mechanically/deployment refined ... MIGHT eventually
be 25% or better more bang for the buck.

The BIG bugaboo is STORAGE - batteries just SUCK.
Despite the tech-news hype of the week, almost NONE
of those 'better' batteries will EVER see the market
because they can't be scaled-up industrially and/or
because China buys 'em out and BURIES the tech to
ensure their lithium profits.

BEST home/area energy storage tech right now -
"vanadium flow cells". They don't sell 'em on
Amazon yet alas, maybe soon. Similar storage
to lithium but basically infinite recharge cycles
and they DON'T explode.

THIS is the energy landscape today - and there
is NO getting around it real quick. Energy
planners TAKE NOTE and kick the Greenie nutters
in their tiny hippie-dip balls. Govts generally
protect themselves against big lawsuits, but
you CAN sue INDIVIDUALS - bad advisors and/or
those who TAKE the bad advice - individually.
There are a zillion hungry lawyers out there.
So, if yer power bills suddenly double or triple
or worse ......

[Paul Aubrin]

Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Perovskite solar cells

How much kWh produces 1 m² of perovskite solar cell at night or when the
sky is covered with clouds ? Or when covered in snow ?

[[e-mail]]

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Perovskite solar cells

How much kWh produces 1 m² of perovskite solar cell at night or when the
sky is covered with clouds ? Or when covered in snow ?

Not much. However that's what the BATTERIES are for.
Elon Musk sells GIGANTIC lithium packs for just that
sort of thing. So FAR none have exploded.

But again you seem think I'm pushing some 100%
"renewable" agenda when I've repeatedly said
that a correct MIX is required for each locale.

Sorry, don't own any tie-dye or Birkenstocks.

Oh, DID see a micro-doc today about those big
windmills ... seems that in Denmark (I think
they make 'em there) they put in a few hundred
of the things out in the North Sea (good wind !).

However they mistakenly copied from the oil
industry and stuck the things to their piers
with what's basically cement/mortar. Oil
platforms are square and low and have at least
four legs. Windmills are tall and top-heavy and
there's only the ONE 'leg'. Ergo the physical
stress on the cement is causing it to crack up
and go away. This WILL cause the things to snap
and fall over soon enough.

NOW they have to figure out what to do, with
HUNDREDS of the things :-)

Remember when I said MAINT was part of the overall
mix equation ?

[Paul Aubrin]

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Perovskite solar cells

How much kWh produces 1 m² of perovskite solar cell at night or when
the sky is covered with clouds ? Or when covered in snow ?

  Not much. However that's what the BATTERIES are for.
  Elon Musk sells GIGANTIC lithium packs for just that
  sort of thing. So FAR none have exploded.

None ? Are you sure ?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-27/tesla-battery-fire-at-queensland-renewable-energy-project/102905302

By the way, small lithium batteries cause a lot of fires too.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-20/lithium-ion-batteries-10000-fires-australia-waste-management/104002912

[[e-mail]]

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Perovskite solar cells

How much kWh produces 1 m² of perovskite solar cell at night or when
the sky is covered with clouds ? Or when covered in snow ?

   Not much. However that's what the BATTERIES are for.
   Elon Musk sells GIGANTIC lithium packs for just that
   sort of thing. So FAR none have exploded.

None ? Are you sure ?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-27/tesla-battery-fire-at-queensland-renewable-energy-project/102905302

Well, nothing's perfect :-)

Anyway, put yer Tesla packs out in a field somewhere,
not in yer basement. For individual off-grid homes,
Edison batteries are still worth looking at though,
as I mentioned somewhere, the new vanadium flow batts
are better modern fix.

Post by Paul Aubrin
By the way, small lithium batteries cause a lot of fires too.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-20/lithium-ion-batteries-10000-fires-australia-waste-management/104002912

THAT I'm quite aware of. I also discourage anybody with
an attached garage from buying an EV. Someday, 3am ...

Those little Chinese 'scooter' things seem especially
explosive. People not only bring them inside, but
the chargers are too aggressive and likely the batts
are 2nd-tier. There have been a lot of house/apt fires,
some fatal, because of those scooters.

I once had a 3" square flatpak go off on me - it'd
been sitting on a table for months. barely TOUCHED the
thing and it went up in lithium red flames. They are
NOT 'safe'. Alas there's just NO good replacement for
the things energy-density wise ... they've promised
for almost 20 years now, always the latest greatest
lab/research reports, but NADA. The protos never make
it out of the lab, can't be scaled-up affordably.

Oh, finally, Trump or K or whomever, 'alternative'
energy WILL continue to infiltrate the old coal/oil
stuff. Complain all you want, 'the future' is gonna
be shifted much further towards 'alternative'. My
only warning is trying to FORCE that transition,
cooking yer chicken before she lays an egg.

[JTEM]

Post by Paul Aubrin
How much kWh produces 1 m² of perovskite solar cell at night or when
the sky is covered with clouds ? Or when covered in snow ?

  Not much. However that's what the BATTERIES are for.
  Elon Musk sells GIGANTIC lithium packs for just that
  sort of thing. So FAR none have exploded.

That's a lie. You are lying.

Those BATTERIES that Elon Musk sells are designed to ass
rape consumers.

Those batteries were conceived, built & put online to
exploit the idiocy of wind & solar, making a huge profit
at the expense of businesses and families.

It all comes down to market fluctuations.

They buy energy when it's at it's cheapest, to charge the
batteries, and then sell it back to the grid when it's at
the most expensive.

https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/tesla-big-battery-in-south-australia-gets-colossal-profits

  But again you seem think I'm pushing some 100%
  "renewable" agenda when I've repeatedly said
  that a correct MIX is required for each locale.

They are literally gaming the system to ass rape you, gouge
as much money out of you as they can, and you think the
problem is some unrealized goal of 100% alternatives?

They're fucking us right now.

[Paul Aubrin]

Post by John Doe
Glass half full or half empty. I'm personally glad that rev 1.0 did so
well. I bet rev 2.0, 3.0, etc will each bring us closer to free energy.

It won't because it is impossible : you cannot make the wind to blow at
will.

[John Doe]

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by John Doe
Glass half full or half empty. I'm personally glad that rev 1.0 did so
well. I bet rev 2.0, 3.0, etc will each bring us closer to free energy.

It won't because it is impossible : you cannot make the wind to blow at
will.

There's no requirement that anyone puts all the eggs in one basket. A
sensible multi-prong approach brings in solar on sunny days, wind on
windy days, tidal power, geothermal, etc. Storage techniques are getting
better all the time.

Sources like coal and fracking are not dying just because of pie in the
sky regulations. They are dying because cheaper sources are coming online.

Plus this is all self-fueling. The more we experiment and learn about
new energy sources, the more we find and the more efficient we can make
them.

I'm glad we didn't stop with Rev 1 of Windows and Mac and the Internet,
and I'm glad we're experimenting with Rev 1 of cheaper energy.

[Paul Aubrin]

Post by John Doe

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by John Doe
Glass half full or half empty. I'm personally glad that rev 1.0 did
so well. I bet rev 2.0, 3.0, etc will each bring us closer to free
energy.

It won't because it is impossible : you cannot make the wind to blow
at will.

There's no requirement that anyone puts all the eggs in one basket. A
sensible multi-prong approach brings in solar on sunny days, wind on
windy days, tidal power, geothermal, etc. Storage techniques are getting
better all the time.

If you want to pay six times dearer your electricity, just build and
maintain in operational conditions six generators, on for sunny days
(day time), one for windy days (but not with too much wind), one with
geothermal... of course you must add batteries...
Why have one simple and cost effective solution when you can combine
five or six ?

[John Doe]

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by John Doe

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by John Doe
Glass half full or half empty. I'm personally glad that rev 1.0 did
so well. I bet rev 2.0, 3.0, etc will each bring us closer to free
energy.

It won't because it is impossible : you cannot make the wind to blow
at will.

There's no requirement that anyone puts all the eggs in one basket. A
sensible multi-prong approach brings in solar on sunny days, wind on
windy days, tidal power, geothermal, etc. Storage techniques are
getting better all the time.

If you want to pay six times dearer your electricity, just build and
maintain in operational conditions six generators, on for sunny days
(day time), one for windy days (but not with too much wind), one with
geothermal... of course you must add batteries...
Why have one simple and cost effective solution when you can combine
five or six ?

I was thinking about the regional level or the national level rather
than at the personal or neighborhood level.

But I can certainly see the attraction at the personal level. Every time
I read about a long widespread outage, the idea of being more
self-sufficient seems more attractive.

[Paul Aubrin]

Post by John Doe

Post by Paul Aubrin
If you want to pay six times dearer your electricity, just build and
maintain in operational conditions six generators, on for sunny days
(day time), one for windy days (but not with too much wind), one with
geothermal... of course you must add batteries...
Why have one simple and cost effective solution when you can combine
five or six ?

I was thinking about the regional level or the national level rather
than at the personal or neighborhood level.

It's nighttime over 180° of meridians at every moment of the day.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by John Doe

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by John Doe
Glass half full or half empty. I'm personally glad that rev 1.0 did
so well. I bet rev 2.0, 3.0, etc will each bring us closer to free
energy.

It won't because it is impossible : you cannot make the wind to blow
at will.

There's no requirement that anyone puts all the eggs in one basket. A
sensible multi-prong approach brings in solar on sunny days, wind on
windy days, tidal power, geothermal, etc. Storage techniques are
getting better all the time.

If you want to pay six times dearer your electricity, just build and
maintain in operational conditions six generators, on for sunny days
(day time), one for windy days (but not with too much wind), one with
geothermal... of course you must add batteries...
Why have one simple and cost effective solution when you can combine
five or six ?

That's the thing ... nobody CAN pay five times as
much for energy AND sustain a 1st-world, maybe even
2nd-world, society. Just won't work. It's a shit-
encrusted short-n-horrible life thereafter.

[R Kym Horsell]

Post by ***@ud0s4.net
https://techxplore.com/news/2024-09-offs-turbines.html
The cost effectiveness of wind farms could be significantly
improved by reducing the speed of wind turbines that are
clustered together, which could improve their longevity
and also reduce noise pollution.

....

Kinda of a moot point.

Centralized power is part of the energy problem.
Of course the rent seekers that pay of certain PR releases
would like the public to continue to view that as the only way
things can be done.

But it isn't and will not be in the future.

Wind-farms obviously "mine" an until-now mostly untapped source
of energy. But they are inherently low efficiency. The US in particular
has a problem over its land area -- wind speeds are on the decline.
The only region that is seeing higher average windspeeds according to
the data is Alaska.

While wind will "never run out" unlike various forms of extractive
energy beloved of rentseekers -- oil (50y), gas (50y), coal(150y) --
it has a comparatively low energy density over the planet.

And energy density is ultimately what dictates the cost of extracting
the relevant power and maybe somewhat contradictorily the OPPSOITE
of what customers will pay for what centralized generators will
provide over the short term.

If we take the Wikipedia "energy density" for different power sources
(and Wiki has not yet caught up with Quantum Physics and the very
live possibility of extracting energy "from the universe" in various
ways, some of which have been demonstrated 50+ years ago)
and then adjust some numbers so everything is on a comparable basis
we find the comparison looks like:

median power den (W/m2)
Solarpower 6.63
coal 5.351(*)(**)
Geothermal 2.24
Windpower 1.84
gas .527(*)
oil .524(*)
Hydropower 0.14
Biomass 0.08

(*)Assuming all know reserves could be extracted and put through
an efficient gas turbine plant or plants in 1 hour.
If it will take 50 years to extract known reserves (as for oil
and gas) or 150 years (for coal) then the energy density is very
very very much less.
(**)The "collecting surface" is the total earth for gas and oil,
but restircted to land mining for coal.

Full discloser:
I am a data scientist (an old web page at <kaggle.com/kymhorsell1>)
and have worked for both oil companies and renewable generators
over the past 50y.

[JTEM]

Post by R Kym Horsell
Centralized power is part of the energy problem.

No it isn't.

Make energy by burning coal. use the waste energy, heat, to
power some facility you build just next door.

If you watch old movies/TV shows you can pick up references
to steam bills. Because steam was a utility, pumped to
customers across NYC. We can produce that steam as a biproduct
of energy production, then use it to power an industrial
process, heat homes... heat hot water... whatever.

And the coal plant that is producing the electricity and making
the steam as a biproduct will last 50 years, easy. No windfarm
has ever lasted 20... 0r 16....

[[e-mail]]

Post by JTEM

Post by R Kym Horsell
Centralized power is part of the energy problem.

No it isn't.
Make energy by burning coal. use the waste energy, heat, to
power some facility you build just next door.

Aluminum smelters are often located "next door" to
large power plants - preferably hydro.

Post by JTEM
If you watch old movies/TV shows you can pick up references
to steam bills. Because steam was a utility, pumped to
customers across NYC. We can produce that steam as a biproduct
of energy production, then use it to power an industrial
process, heat homes... heat hot water... whatever.
And the coal plant that is producing the electricity and making
the steam as a biproduct will last 50 years, easy. No windfarm
has ever lasted 20... 0r 16....

AH ! A wind-farm hater !!!

In any case, there can be ops to make use of 'waste'
energy, typically heat. A huge amount of energy is
spent just heating up stuff, so pipe something from
a nearby coal/oil/nuke plant. If it's still a little
warm after that, maybe a tropical fish farm ?

Anyway, an appropriate solution matrix for every
situation. That's SANE.

[R Kym Horsell]

Post by ***@ud0s4.net

Post by JTEM

Post by R Kym Horsell
Centralized power is part of the energy problem.

No it isn't.
Make energy by burning coal. use the waste energy, heat, to
power some facility you build just next door.

Aluminum smelters are often located "next door" to
large power plants - preferably hydro.

...

JTEM is a typical rentseeker booster.

The reason fossil fuels have been so exploited in the past couple
centuries is they are low density. They are so comparatively rare
you can fence off the area they are found and charge any rent
for customers to access them.

Nitwit's "solution" to this is to play right into their hands
and move onto their property.

We've seen this kind of thing in the past. To work for X you have
to live at the factory. Out of your pay packet you pass the boss
for room and board, power and water, and -- if he can figure a way to
do it -- for the air you breathe.

Distributed power systems dont have this social evil attached to them.
The power is made at your home or business.
Maybe they have others. Big Busines is great at finding such things.
Noone can charge you for the power you make. Only the machinery to make it.
You have taken charge of something for yourself, not left it to
some charletan to charge you whatever they like.

As it is fossil power is one of the biggest and longest-running scams
in history. Proposed as the "only possible solution" for a non-problem,
you are charged a fee micro-managed by the producers to maximize their
profits. They essentially make their product for free on the taxpayer's
dime, manipulate governments, production and prices to suit their various
whims, and sell a product that produces large-scale harm to its employees
and customers, has a built-in 80% waste factor (i.e. even the best
tech can only extract 20-30% of the energy actually in the product --
the price is therefore 70-80% profit padding), and is anyway scheduled
to run out in 50y (for oil and gas, anyway).

You can get an indication of the their desperation at the
prospect of this last bit when the producers advertise the "new discovery"
of what is essentially only a few extra weeks of energy supply at current
levels of use.

[[e-mail]]

Post by R Kym Horsell

Post by ***@ud0s4.net

Post by JTEM

Post by R Kym Horsell
Centralized power is part of the energy problem.

No it isn't.
Make energy by burning coal. use the waste energy, heat, to
power some facility you build just next door.

Aluminum smelters are often located "next door" to
large power plants - preferably hydro.

...
JTEM is a typical rentseeker booster.
The reason fossil fuels have been so exploited in the past couple
centuries is they are low density. They are so comparatively rare
you can fence off the area they are found and charge any rent
for customers to access them.
Nitwit's "solution" to this is to play right into their hands
and move onto their property.
We've seen this kind of thing in the past. To work for X you have
to live at the factory. Out of your pay packet you pass the boss
for room and board, power and water, and -- if he can figure a way to
do it -- for the air you breathe.
Distributed power systems dont have this social evil attached to them.
The power is made at your home or business.
Maybe they have others. Big Busines is great at finding such things.
Noone can charge you for the power you make. Only the machinery to make it.
You have taken charge of something for yourself, not left it to
some charletan to charge you whatever they like.
As it is fossil power is one of the biggest and longest-running scams
in history. Proposed as the "only possible solution" for a non-problem,
you are charged a fee micro-managed by the producers to maximize their
profits. They essentially make their product for free on the taxpayer's
dime, manipulate governments, production and prices to suit their various
whims, and sell a product that produces large-scale harm to its employees
and customers, has a built-in 80% waste factor (i.e. even the best
tech can only extract 20-30% of the energy actually in the product --
the price is therefore 70-80% profit padding), and is anyway scheduled
to run out in 50y (for oil and gas, anyway).
You can get an indication of the their desperation at the
prospect of this last bit when the producers advertise the "new discovery"
of what is essentially only a few extra weeks of energy supply at current
levels of use.

I think JTEM is off his lithium again ...

As for the oil biz, it IS, well, a BIZ - with all the
angling and promos and maneuvering and bullshitting we
expect. The psychology of 'shortage' is extensively
used. As such I do not find their schemes especially
unusual. Of a little more political import than say
the McDonalds/BK burger wars, but still ...

Oh, that 30% energy efficiency - STILL "good enough"
for a mass number of practical uses.

In short I'm not gonna trash petroleum energy or the
biz behind it - not at this TIME anyhow. However at
this TIME I can't get behind JTEM's rabid anti-alt
rants either. We've reached a point were we CAN have
a 'mix' and even tune that mix to local needs. This
is a GOOD thing.

Windmills have faults - but DO grab relatively 'free'
energy we'd been throwing away until now. If the
cost/result ratio works out properly then USE the
things where appropriate. Same goes for PV panels
and the rest.

The trick is to stay SANE about it all - to not let
ideology and zealotry skew the equation. JTEM does
not get that ... MAYbe you do, but the gigantic
anti-petro/capitalist-pigs rant makes me wonder
a bit :-)

[JTEM]

  Aluminum smelters are often located "next door" to
  large power plants - preferably hydro.

Aluminum comes from Bauxite and is extracted via electrolysis.

You need a lot of electricity to produce aluminum.

This is why it was an early adopter of recycling: It's
already aluminum!

Alcoa had aluminum recycling centers long before you LeftTards
decided to mistake headlines for "Science."

[[e-mail]]

Post by JTEM

   Aluminum smelters are often located "next door" to
   large power plants - preferably hydro.

Aluminum comes from Bauxite and is extracted via electrolysis.
You need a lot of electricity to produce aluminum.

Yes, a LOT.

But aluminum lasts a long time, so it's mostly worth it.

Post by JTEM
This is why it was an early adopter of recycling:  It's
already aluminum!

Iron is also heavily re-cycled. It's already iron !

A *problem* with both are ALLOYS. Once you add some
magnesium/zinc/copper/vanadium/etc TO your metal it's
kinda hard to remove. You can't just melt down a truck
of iron or aluminum and expect instant useful product.

The aluminum in that Bud Lite can you're holding is
alloyed to be stiff and high-tensile, which is why
such thin stuff can hold in that much pressure. It
is also why you can pull that tab and pop the rest
loose from the the can. But the flip is that it is
brittle and not very fatigue-resistant - you can't
just melt some beer cans and use that for stadium
roof beams or a vehicle frame.

Likewise you can't use junky old high-sulfur steel
to build a ship - or you get the Titanic.

"Re-cycling" is only a half-right term here. Metals
usually require "re-refining". STILL less total
energy than starting with bauxite, but ain't "free"
either. X-amount of new iron and aluminum are also
needed yearly to add to the 'recycled' stuff to get
a good alloy mix.

Post by JTEM
Alcoa had aluminum recycling centers long before you LeftTards
decided to mistake headlines for "Science."

Sorry, I vote red all the way this year.

But there IS such a thing as a 'ri-tard' too.
I'm beginning to think I've met one ...

Lower-efficiency power sources aren't necessarily
bad. Up-front and maint costs figure into the
equation. PV panels don't REALLY make the cut,
not quite yet except maybe on giant farms, but
they're close and there's posturing/propaganda
value in them. If they EVER get perovskite PV
cells to work right they will be cheap enough
to push the equation to the positive fer sure.

I've long been interested in the possibilities of
"low-headwater hydro" because the up-front costs
are very low. Indeed some rivers could host farms
of 'barges' with like paddle-wheels dipping into
the stream (paddles are better because they are
less likely to snag/jam than turbines from crap
in the river). With AI I'm sure ultra-efficient
'wheels' could be designed, indeed customized for
each specific use. There's a LOT of water always
running downhill - the energy CAN be used.

Oh, and you can use all that waste styrofoam for
the floats on the power barges :-)

Did ya ever see the Dutch trick for houses in
flood zones ? A float underneath and a couple
of 'guide poles'. If the water rises the house
can float up eight or ten feet, held in place
by the poles. The power/plumbing use flex
tubing. As flooding is becoming a larger USA
issue, again a use for all that styrofoam.

[JTEM]

Post by JTEM
Aluminum comes from Bauxite and is extracted via electrolysis.
You need a lot of electricity to produce aluminum.

  Yes, a LOT.

I was speaking of waste heat, NOT producers buying electricity
from a plant but utilizing the waste heat.

And easy way to do this is to locate a power plant INSIDE OF
population centers. Then the waste heat can be piped to nearby
homes and used to heat the home, heat hot water...

[[e-mail]]

Post by R Kym Horsell

Post by ***@ud0s4.net
https://techxplore.com/news/2024-09-offs-turbines.html
The cost effectiveness of wind farms could be significantly
improved by reducing the speed of wind turbines that are
clustered together, which could improve their longevity
and also reduce noise pollution.

....
Kinda of a moot point.
Centralized power is part of the energy problem.
Of course the rent seekers that pay of certain PR releases
would like the public to continue to view that as the only way
things can be done.
But it isn't and will not be in the future.
Wind-farms obviously "mine" an until-now mostly untapped source
of energy. But they are inherently low efficiency. The US in particular
has a problem over its land area -- wind speeds are on the decline.
The only region that is seeing higher average windspeeds according to
the data is Alaska.
While wind will "never run out" unlike various forms of extractive
energy beloved of rentseekers -- oil (50y), gas (50y), coal(150y) --
it has a comparatively low energy density over the planet.
And energy density is ultimately what dictates the cost of extracting
the relevant power and maybe somewhat contradictorily the OPPSOITE
of what customers will pay for what centralized generators will
provide over the short term.
If we take the Wikipedia "energy density" for different power sources
(and Wiki has not yet caught up with Quantum Physics and the very
live possibility of extracting energy "from the universe" in various
ways, some of which have been demonstrated 50+ years ago)
and then adjust some numbers so everything is on a comparable basis
median power den (W/m2)
Solarpower 6.63
coal 5.351(*)(**)
Geothermal 2.24
Windpower 1.84
gas .527(*)
oil .524(*)
Hydropower 0.14
Biomass 0.08
(*)Assuming all know reserves could be extracted and put through
an efficient gas turbine plant or plants in 1 hour.
If it will take 50 years to extract known reserves (as for oil
and gas) or 150 years (for coal) then the energy density is very
very very much less.
(**)The "collecting surface" is the total earth for gas and oil,
but restircted to land mining for coal.
I am a data scientist (an old web page at <kaggle.com/kymhorsell1>)
and have worked for both oil companies and renewable generators
over the past 50y.

Well, Alaska needs light and heat, so install more
windmills there :-)

You seem to be thinking in all-or-none mode, but this
is NOT appropriate to the problem. Power issues seem
to be rather 'regional' so you use the correct MIX
of solutions for each area. Solar, for example, is
NOT a good solution for Alaska.

[R Kym Horsell]

In alt.global-warming ***@ud0s4.net <***@ud0s4.net> wrote:
...

Post by ***@ud0s4.net
You seem to be thinking in all-or-none mode, but this
is NOT appropriate to the problem. Power issues seem
to be rather 'regional' so you use the correct MIX
of solutions for each area. Solar, for example, is
NOT a good solution for Alaska.

You seem to be thining in all-or-none mode. ;)

Solar power in Alaska has been primarily used in remote locations, such as the Nenana Teen Center near Fairbanks, where long summer days provide most of the electricity generated. In 2015, Alaska ranked 45th in installed solar among U.S. states. Rooftop solar panels could provide 23% of all electricity used in Alaska.
-- wiki

[[e-mail]]

Post by R Kym Horsell
...

Post by ***@ud0s4.net
You seem to be thinking in all-or-none mode, but this
is NOT appropriate to the problem. Power issues seem
to be rather 'regional' so you use the correct MIX
of solutions for each area. Solar, for example, is
NOT a good solution for Alaska.

You seem to be thining in all-or-none mode. ;)
Solar power in Alaska has been primarily used in remote locations, such as the Nenana Teen Center near Fairbanks, where long summer days provide most of the electricity generated. In 2015, Alaska ranked 45th in installed solar among U.S. states. Rooftop solar panels could provide 23% of all electricity used in Alaska.
-- wiki

They may HAVE 'em because there's NOTHING ELSE, but the
sun angle is VERY bad and the entire northern half of
the state gets NO sun for around 30+ days a year.

As such, Alaska may be better suited for wind farms
in SOME AREAS. Windmills CAN ice-up alas, so not
all areas may be appropriate.

Hydroelectric ... the low pop makes it less attractive
for that large an up-front investment.

There's some company I've seen in the news that is
or plans to sell "mini-nuke-plants". Might not be
the worst idea, at least for aux capacity, near
a few of the larger cities/ports. Got the impression
the whole plant fits inside three or four cargo
containers.

[R Kym Horsell]

Post by ***@ud0s4.net

Post by R Kym Horsell
...

Post by ***@ud0s4.net
You seem to be thinking in all-or-none mode, but this
is NOT appropriate to the problem. Power issues seem
to be rather 'regional' so you use the correct MIX
of solutions for each area. Solar, for example, is
NOT a good solution for Alaska.

You seem to be thining in all-or-none mode. ;)
Solar power in Alaska has been primarily used in remote locations, such as the Nenana Teen Center near Fairbanks, where long summer days provide most of the electricity generated. In 2015, Alaska ranked 45th in installed solar among U.S. states. Rooftop solar panels could provide 23% of all electricity used in Alaska.
-- wiki

They may HAVE 'em because there's NOTHING ELSE, but the

...

I thought according to you there was always something else. :)

Despite the availability of gas or diesel gens and wind turbines
and water wheels and thermocouples and heatpumps and 1000 other things
1/4 of AK power comes from rooftop PV because it is where it is needed
and needs nothing owned by some 3rd party to work out of the box.
There is a one-off payment of around $1 per watt and you
get to use unmetered power pretty much when and where you need it.

[[e-mail]]

Post by R Kym Horsell

Post by ***@ud0s4.net

Post by R Kym Horsell
...

Post by ***@ud0s4.net
You seem to be thinking in all-or-none mode, but this
is NOT appropriate to the problem. Power issues seem
to be rather 'regional' so you use the correct MIX
of solutions for each area. Solar, for example, is
NOT a good solution for Alaska.

You seem to be thining in all-or-none mode. ;)
Solar power in Alaska has been primarily used in remote locations, such as the Nenana Teen Center near Fairbanks, where long summer days provide most of the electricity generated. In 2015, Alaska ranked 45th in installed solar among U.S. states. Rooftop solar panels could provide 23% of all electricity used in Alaska.
-- wiki

They may HAVE 'em because there's NOTHING ELSE, but the

...
I thought according to you there was always something else. :)

Not when trudging across the tundra :-)

Post by R Kym Horsell
Despite the availability of gas or diesel gens and wind turbines
and water wheels and thermocouples and heatpumps and 1000 other things
1/4 of AK power comes from rooftop PV because it is where it is needed
and needs nothing owned by some 3rd party to work out of the box.
There is a one-off payment of around $1 per watt and you
get to use unmetered power pretty much when and where you need it.

$1/watt is still kinda a lot of up-front cost.

Bet 50% of those PV arrays will have only HALF
the advertised lifespan. Makers ARE known to LIE
after all and there's little to do about Chinese
manufacturers.

And there's still the DARK problem in Alaska.

Perovskite panels - IF they ever get 'em right - should
be maybe a quarter of the cost. That alone will make
PV roofs and such much more useful.

I've recently read of notable improvements to "Vanadium
flow batteries" which now are probably THE best tech
for storing power from PVs - competitive with lithium
but with almost unlimited cycle life and do not explode.

But they don't sell 'em on Amazon yet ...