The project Neo is referring to is not actually zero CO2 carbon emissions, it is carbon emission in a form that can be removed for sequestration.

(May 26, 2017 at 10:36 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: The project Neo is referring to is not actually zero CO2 carbon emissions, it is carbon emission in a form that can be removed for sequestration.

The truth is carbon sequestration hugely impinges on the efficiency of fossil fuel powered thermal generation, to the degree where they become no longer economically competitive with existing renewable generation, thus carbon sequestration to a large degree undermines half of the basic justification of fossil generation.

Fossil generation is either cheaper and dirtier than renewable, or as clean but more expensive.

(May 24, 2017 at 6:39 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(May 24, 2017 at 6:13 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: wind power is a big problem for birds actually, it kills thousands of birds a year. But the problem with it is that there isn't enough of it to power much of anything. If are willing to not use electricity then wind power is great.

It was just a snarky comment pointing out that renewables are, on balance, much safer that fossil fuels.

And yes, wind turbines kill (according to some estimates) about 300 000 birds worldwide every year.  Out of a total bird population of 400 billion.  This is something under .0001%. Trust me - the bird population is in no danger.

As for how much wind can power, a 3 MW turbine can generate about 6 million KwH of electricity in a year (an average house uses about 4000 KwH in a year).  We currently get about 5% of our electric here from wind power. Not a huge amount, true, but it is projected to triple over the next 10 years.

Boru

I'm not against wind power, but it's not a replacement for fossil fuels and never will be. I also grew up in an area with a lot of wind turbines, and it's a really really windy place. However most places aren't. There will never be enough wind to power diddly squat.

I think there is a concatenation of windpower with hydropower that is being overlooked. Co-locating wind farms with hydro facilities would allow utilization of the existing grid facilities and also allowing the hydro facility to buffer the vagaries of the wind. Additionally, cutting the overall amount of water through some of the western watersheds in droughty areas would be a + too.

Sigh Australia already solved the scarcity problem for wind power

(May 26, 2017 at 3:27 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(May 24, 2017 at 6:39 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: It was just a snarky comment pointing out that renewables are, on balance, much safer that fossil fuels.

And yes, wind turbines kill (according to some estimates) about 300 000 birds worldwide every year.  Out of a total bird population of 400 billion.  This is something under .0001%. Trust me - the bird population is in no danger.

As for how much wind can power, a 3 MW turbine can generate about 6 million KwH of electricity in a year (an average house uses about 4000 KwH in a year).  We currently get about 5% of our electric here from wind power. Not a huge amount, true, but it is projected to triple over the next 10 years.

Boru

I'm not against wind power, but it's not a replacement for fossil fuels and never will be. I also grew up in an area with a lot of wind turbines, and it's a really really windy place. However most places aren't. There will never be enough wind to power diddly squat.

The bit I bolded is simply not true. In another three years, wind power is expected to supply 15% of all household electricity in the EU (that number is a bit higher if we add in industrial applications of wind generated electricity, but let's keep it simple). The population of the EU is roughly 750 million people. 15% of that is a little more than 110 million.

Supplying electricity to 110 million people is 'diddly squat'? Come on. Elimination of wind power in Europe would be the equivalent of Poland, Romania, the Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, Portugal, and about half of Sweden going dark.

Will wind ever be the sole source of power generation for the planet? Of course not. But to contend that it isn't a viable adjunct to other forms of power is simply wrong and misinformed.

Boru

(May 26, 2017 at 3:27 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(May 24, 2017 at 6:39 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: It was just a snarky comment pointing out that renewables are, on balance, much safer that fossil fuels.

And yes, wind turbines kill (according to some estimates) about 300 000 birds worldwide every year.  Out of a total bird population of 400 billion.  This is something under .0001%. Trust me - the bird population is in no danger.

As for how much wind can power, a 3 MW turbine can generate about 6 million KwH of electricity in a year (an average house uses about 4000 KwH in a year).  We currently get about 5% of our electric here from wind power. Not a huge amount, true, but it is projected to triple over the next 10 years.

Boru

I'm not against wind power, but it's not a replacement for fossil fuels and never will be. I also grew up in an area with a lot of wind turbines, and it's a really really windy place. However most places aren't. There will never be enough wind to power diddly squat.

Bull. Total wind energy theoretically extractable with existing technology exceed global human energy use by an order of magnitude.

(May 24, 2017 at 6:13 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(May 24, 2017 at 6:11 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Sure, zero emission coal would be a win for everyone.  Except for those of us who object to coal sludge in our water, I mean.

Even if you whip ALL the emissions associated with fossil fuels, it is a notoriously dirty process to get them out of the ground in the first place.  Mercury, lead, sulfur, arsenic, selenium, and a whole host of other contaminants you wouldn't want to get within a long mile of if you could help it are intrinsic to the extraction processes.

Granted, renewables have their own problems.  We all remember the horror of the big Wind Spill Of 2005 - flags fluttered as much as 100 feet way and at least half a dozen birds were momentarily startled.  Tragic.

Boru

wind power is a big problem for birds actually, it kills thousands of birds a year. But the problem with it is that there isn't enough of it to power much of anything. If are willing to not use electricity then wind power is great.

Bird deaths as a "big problem" is an urban legend. House cats kill about 10,000 times more birds each year than wind turbines. And wind turbines can generate huge amounts of power in the right locations. Denmark generates about 40% of its power with wind. It's clearly not a total solution but it can be a good source of supplemental power in the right locations. 

(May 27, 2017 at 6:36 pm)Crunchy Wrote:

(May 24, 2017 at 6:13 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: wind power is a big problem for birds actually, it kills thousands of birds a year. But the problem with it is that there isn't enough of it to power much of anything. If are willing to not use electricity then wind power is great.

Bird deaths as a "big problem" is an urban legend. House cats kill about 10,000 times more birds each year than wind turbines. And wind turbines can generate huge amounts of power in the right locations. Denmark generates about 40% of its power with wind. It's clearly not a total solution but it can be a good source of supplemental power in the right locations. 

Clearly, Canada needs to step things up. The only category in which they lead the US is 'Power Line Collision', and it's a tiny, tiny lead.

C'mon, Canada - these birds aren't going to kill themselves (the Greater Suicidal Chaffinch excepted).

Boru