Wind energy 3x more efficient

[dickfour]

they better hurry up cos we don't really have 20 years oil is running out. WHAT WE REALLY NEED IS:

strange i got news that israel found a new oil deposit

I don't remember where exactly, but I recall an article saying that we have anywhere from 30 to 50 years of oil left, depending on how we use it. It won't last us forever, obviously, but there is still a good amount left.

Hopefully we can use that time to come up with alternatives that will faze out the fuel as the supplies dwindle. If we don't.... well, the outcomes won't be so pretty.

The problem with that is massive reserves of oil like the tar sands in Canada keep being discovered. Between now oil finds and natural gas we have 100's of years of energy. A good thing too because green energy has been a scam. It's most likely going to take at least 100 years to have something that's really viable.

 

[KingVamp]

I wasn't going to respond to this, but why does green energy has been a scam, fake and a lie?

It show the fan increasing energy, seem like a small model to me.

 

[Qtis]

I wasn't going to respond to this, but why does green energy has been a scam, fake and a lie?

It show the fan increasing energy, seem like a small model to me.

Actually it isn't a scam, it just isn't as powerful (at the moment) as fossil fuels. On the other hand making cars with electricity, which is produced with oil, is more efficient than having cars do the same thing. It's just a point of perspective that leads to such claims as "Green energy is BS!". Currently the only real possibility to reduce Greenhouse emissions is nuclear power, since it's a) cheap, b) pretty safe and c) the tech is available at this time and age. Not the only option, but for most nordic countries like Canada, Northern Europe, Russia, etc. power consumption for heating is a lot more than in countries closer to the equator. Coal is not a viable option anymore. Actually never has been, but there weren't any alternatives..


-Qtis

Inb4 Anti-nuclear rage: Look up deaths related to mining coal (or any other power source for that matter) and compare them to using nuclear power. It's pretty obvious that the daily impact is a lot smaller for nuclear power even after taking into account larger accidents like Tsjernobyl and Fukushima. Single accidents are larger, but still that is a lot safer :3

 

[Veho]

Also, would putting one of those on top of a moving car help keep the battery charged longer?

No, because the "wind" that would power the turbine would be caused by the car's movement, and that movement is powered by gasoline (or batteries, in case of electric cars), so the turbine would, in a very very inefficient way, run on gasoline (or batteries). Plus, it would actually increase fuel consumption because of the added aerodynamic drag.

 

[BlueStar]

they better hurry up cos we don't really have 20 years oil is running out. WHAT WE REALLY NEED IS:

strange i got news that israel found a new oil deposit

You'll hear that on a regular basis thanks to evangelical nuts who are sure that a massive find in Israel has been prophesised and will usher in the end of days and the fiery murder of the infidels they're always so excited about.

eg:
http://www.oilinisrael.net

The rumour or 'news' rears its head every month or so, I've never seen it come to anything, just like every time I hear people talking about how they've found Noah's Ark.

And anyway, whenever I hear "OMG, I just heard there's 40 years worth of oil under America in the Balkan formation" or whatever, even without going into the veracity of the guess work or the logistics of actually getting it out I tend to just think "Oh, well, that's OK then. It'll never be 40 years from now. Throw all non-fossil fuel technology in the bin."

 

[Pyrmon]

they better hurry up cos we don't really have 20 years oil is running out. WHAT WE REALLY NEED IS:

strange i got news that israel found a new oil deposit

I don't remember where exactly, but I recall an article saying that we have anywhere from 30 to 50 years of oil left, depending on how we use it. It won't last us forever, obviously, but there is still a good amount left.

Hopefully we can use that time to come up with alternatives that will faze out the fuel as the supplies dwindle. If we don't.... well, the outcomes won't be so pretty.

The problem with that is massive reserves of oil like the tar sands in Canada keep being discovered. Between now oil finds and natural gas we have 100's of years of energy. A good thing too because green energy has been a scam. It's most likely going to take at least 100 years to have something that's really viable.

Actually, it is predicted that we will have mastered Nuclear fusion fifty years from now at most. It could happen as soon as 2035.

 

[Veho]

Thorium reactors get my vote.

 

[Depravo]

It's good news but people still won't go for it. I live within sight of one of the largest coal power stations in western Europe but local people are still signing petitions to stop windfarms because they're unsightly/noisy etc.

I also heard of another case where the residents of a town around 30 miles away made a petition against the building of a wind farm. One of the arguments against was that there was a pig farm between the proposed wind farm site and the town. The yokels reasoned that the wind farm would 'blow' the pig stench toward the town. The sad thing is the petition was successful.

 

[DarkStriker]

Norway gets already 90% of their energy from water. And we still have this insane oil industry that made Norway prosperous or how u spell it. Now if we put those wind lens next to the coast then yeah.. We pretty much secure our energy for the rest of the century.

 

[injected11]

It's good news but people still won't go for it. I live within sight of one of the largest coal power stations in western Europe but local people are still signing petitions to stop windfarms because they're unsightly/noisy etc.

I also heard of another case where the residents of a town around 30 miles away made a petition against the building of a wind farm. One of the arguments against was that there was a pig farm between the proposed wind farm site and the town. The yokels reasoned that the wind farm would 'blow' the pig stench toward the town. The sad thing is the petition was successful.

[youtube]ZQg8JKo_3ZQ[/youtube]
Gotta love when the stupidity of others drags you down with them.

I fully support this, but I also know the government will only half-assedly back it, and the oil companies will stomp it out any way they can, rather than joining the wave of the future and get into the business themselves. And yeah, we probably have 30-50 or whatever years of oil left, yet nobody seems to realize that as we have less and less, the cost to you will rise and rise.

 

[Bladexdsl]

I also heard of another case where the residents of a town around 30 miles away made a petition against the building of a wind farm. One of the arguments against was that there was a pig farm between the proposed wind farm site and the town. The yokels reasoned that the wind farm would 'blow' the pig stench toward the town. The sad thing is the petition was successful.

well that's a good enough reason to make a petition i would have signed it too

the only way wind farms will work is if they are built in the middle of no where with no towns, humans whatnot around for miles. and there's not many places left like that.

and those thinking we have 50 years of oil left....not a chance the way were using it these days.

 

[Qtis]

and those thinking we have 50 years of oil left....not a chance the way were using it these days.

At least companies like Hummer are going bankrupt with their 25+ liters average per 100 km (roughly 10 gallons per 100 miles or something like that in US measuring?). Admittedly the oil usage is elevating at present, but at least newer cars don't have such horrendous consumption regarding petrol

-Qtis

 

[Ergo]

and those thinking we have 50 years of oil left....not a chance the way were using it these days.

We have, literally, hundreds of years of oil left and we discover more very year because the technology to find and extract it becomes more sophisticated and cheaper to employ.

Wind power does not work, period, because of transmission issues (getting it from "the middle of nowhere" to somewhere), storage issues (we do not have anything like the battery tech required to make storing the excess viable), and supply issues (if there's no wind, there is no power which makes replacing current sources impossible).

Add in the NIMBY factor, the environmental impact (windmills are bird-murdering cyborgs from the future), the sheer amount of land required to make them viable, and the various cost issues (the actual cost of the power; the extremely high maintenance of wind turbines; etc.), and it's a non-starter built on fuzzy-headed dreams of 'clean' energy. (It isn't terribly clean if you have to mow down entire forests, displacing all the wildlife*, etc., to make room for them.)

*Sorry, but if you want to employ these on a large scale (and you have to to get the costs under control), you're going to have to cut down a lot of forest and despoil a lot of land to get there.

 

[Jamstruth]

I think electromobiles are a perfect application for hydrogen fuel cells. Lithium, which is used for high-density batteries, is too scarce to use it in the large batteries cars need (and it is used anyway - way to get rid of resource-dependency...), and have the problem of requiring charging, which takes time. Hydrogen fuel cells, while their efficiency is somewhat lower, can be refilled at stations like combustion engines can, but their fuel can be generated without significant depletion of resources if you have a source of energy for that, enabling extension of their range with fuel stations similar to conventional vehicles, a solution I would certainly prefer over lithium batteries, despite potentially higher cost and space requirements.

...and the dangers in transporting, storing and using it. Plus to get hydrogen, you need to split water, which is a huge waste of energy.

That may be but in terms of practicality for transport its a lot more practical than batteries. Batteries take too long to charge and are way too expensive. Yes Hydrogen is dangerous but if we can figure out the logistics and get an infrastructure in place there's no reason it can't become the basis for our fuel. Yes its hard to get at but so's Oil when you think about it. How much money do we spend each year finding reserves, building platforms etc? How much energy does THAT use?

QUOTE

is perfectly symbiotic with projected growth in electric vehicles

o joy those sweet cards that take 6 hours to charge and run for 3 hours at 30mph

If you knew what you are talking about, you'd know that most fully electric card manage more than 100 miles at usual driving speeds. Also the charging time is irrelevant, as all you need to do is them into a regular outlet when you're not using them. The cost of charging an electric car is usually a lot less than the cost of the equivalent amount of gasoline/petrol, even in the US where your gas is a lot cheaper than here.
The only thing stopping electric cars from being a mass success is the propaganda being spread by oil companies about how crap they are, when really, for regular town drivers they are better.


[edit]Of all the words to misspell, oil had to be it

[/edit]

the funny thing is that i do know what i am talking about

My dad has sometimes said that a car like the Nissan Leaf would actually be practical for him to commute to work. He only needs a certain amount of miles each day so he could manage a couple of days on a single charge then recharge overnight. Its not good for holiday trips but definitely practical for commuters. Of course the cost on these things is severely prohibitive at the moment. A Leaf costs something like £30k which is a serious investment for what is just a small car.