Wind is the way to go!

[whatnot]

We all know that we can not depend on the fossil fuels forever. Not just because they are limited in supplies but also due to their environmental impact.

The only viable replacements at this point of the game is either dams, nuclear, or wind. Even then there is problems associated with each of them:

Dams - kills fish and destroys the ecosystem
Nuclear - produces radioactive wastes
Wind - kills bird and produces loud noise

Among these three choices, wind is the best alternative. The benefits of utilizing wind includes:

Zero emissions - meaning no CO2, sulfur, nitrogen oxide, particulates, trace metals, or solid waste
Renewable - wind is in constant supply
No additional cost - since wind powers production, operation costs are effectively zero
Quick installation - installation can be completed in months
Price stability - cost are relatively fixed and will likely to drop over time
Small footprint - interferes little with surface activity

So what if wind turbines kill a few birds here and there, it is still better than relying on other energy sources that have negative environmental or health consequences. Besides, I believe it is only a matter of time before we find a way to eliminate the amount of bird deaths and reduce the noises generated by the turbines.

Wind energy is the only clean and reliable source of renewable energy!

What are your thoughts?

[jtanguay]

Wind is alright, but the magnet generators would be even better. A solid state generator with no moving parts ideal.

The problem with a consumer based market is that we need to keep producing junk that requires maintenance and fails within a relatively short timespan. That way we're hooked on the feedbag like chickens. In that case, wind is an excellent idea as it requires a fair amount of maintenance which creates jobs.

With the track record of nuclear, we should really be moving away from it. I'm just shooting in the dark here but I bet overall wind would be the most cost effective means of producing electricty over the span of hundreds of years. Best of all it does offer a level of redundancy as not all wind towers will fail at the same time...

It would really be a move in the right direction!

[gravityblock]

Water Vortex Power Plant

The only viable replacements at this point of the game is either dams, nuclear, or wind. Even then there is problems associated with each of them:

Dams - kills fish and destroys the ecosystem
Nuclear - produces radioactive wastes
Wind - kills bird and produces loud noise
......
............
Wind energy is the only clean and reliable source of renewable energy!

What are your thoughts?

Gravitational Water Vortex Drives Power Plant

This system is safe for fish and it aerates the water in a gentle manner while being beneficial to the ecosystem. The Energy Tower transfers the principle of the water vortex on its head to use air as a working medium. Solar power could also be vastly improved from its current state. I disagree wind energy is the only clean and reliable source of renewable energy if we did things properly.

GB

[Farmhand]

THe vortex water generator could be improved on further in a few ways, I read somewhere that Viktor Shuabacker (Spelling sorry) made a vortex water generator that "misted" the water after it was used to generate power in the turbine, then the water floated up as mist, collected on an appropriate collector "maybe polarised" above the souce of the water, then the water was channeled back to the source by gravity.

Can anybody confirm this ?

I dissagree with wind being any better than solar or hydro. All three are good and can be improved greatly with unbiased minds working on the problem.

Cheers

P.S I guess Victor just put the water "after it went through the turbine" through a "Transformer" to slightly "transform" the water to a different state so that the water could raise it's own potential back to above where it was before so it could be directed back to the source with only gravity.

A water mister. "transformer".

[phi1.62]

In terms of energy generation methods abiding by "acceptable" scientific principles, I have always believed that Focus Fusion is the best energy generation method:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post135369

whatnot, if you haven't been to the following site before then I'd highly recommend you have a look at it:

Main Page - PESWiki

In my opinion wind is an unreliable method of energy production. It will never be capable of meeting the peak loads of a large city.

[gravityblock]

Green Power Plant

I helped to pour the foundation for the Blackfoot Clean Energy Facility (Vectren) which captures methane gas from land-fill waste. I personally know the engineer who is responsible for maintaining the operation of the plant on a daily basis. Totally green technology in addition to being helpful to the environment. Wind, hydro, and solar aren't the only viable solutions for replacing the so-called fossil fuels.

GB

[Savvypro]

When you look at wind power on a large scale centralised basis - its a joke. Its damaging to the power grids, it's completely unpredictable, power is mostly generated when there isn’t demand, wind farms interfere with civil aircraft radar. And you need to build back up power stations for when the wind isn't blowing. So if your going to have to spend money on the back up power plants, you might as well not bother wasting money on the wind farms and just go with the real power plants.

The issue is that only large scale centralised methods are pushed, when we would all be a lot better off copying nature and having a decentralised power generating "grid" in which power is generated at the local level for the local community. Preferably at the street or even home level.

[whatnot]

When you look at wind power on a large scale centralised basis - its a joke. Its damaging to the power grids, it's completely unpredictable, power is mostly generated when there isn’t demand, wind farms interfere with civil aircraft radar. And you need to build back up power stations for when the wind isn't blowing. So if your going to have to spend money on the back up power plants, you might as well not bother wasting money on the wind farms and just go with the real power plants.

The issue is that only large scale centralised methods are pushed, when we would all be a lot better off copying nature and having a decentralised power generating "grid" in which power is generated at the local level for the local community. Preferably at the street or even home level.

Sure wind can be unpredictable at times that's why we should only be building wind turbines at areas with relatively consistent amount of wind at all time of the day. Besides, what about offshore wind? Consistency seems to be pretty good with those.

The problem with what you are suggesting is that cost will escalate at local level. Large scale centralized methods are pushed because they have economies of scale.

Look, I'm not trying to say that wind alone can release us from our dependency on fossil fuels. No single form of energy could do that. I agree with other posters that there are other alternatives. I'm just saying that in my opinion wind is the best alternative for us right now.

[mbrownn]

As well as the problem of not knowing when the wind will blow there is the problem of lack of energy density, meaning the turbines have to be large for the amount of energy they generate. Tidal turbines are much smaller for the same power and we know when the tides will available to give us energy and when they wont.

We have two tides per day and I believe 4 slack water times so to have continuous supply we have to have two sites separated by some distance giving double the peak capacity we need, not good. If we make this type of generation common then we may have 10 or more sites connected to the grid reducing the need for overcapacity. The more sites we have the more efficient it is. The energy density is 20 times that of wind and its movements are known and reliable.

The two major drawbacks are if a whale swims into it causing damage and silting problems. Most aquatic animals do not have a problem avoiding the blades although large jellyfish would be vulnerable. Silting can be largely avoided by not placing the turbines too close together on a site.

Maintenance will be more expensive than wind turbines because the plant is underwater but systems have already been designed that give above water access. It will be more labor intensive than coal or oil but similar to wind.

The system lends itself well to a grid network and its environmental impact on humans is negligible. On wildlife it could be a advantageous to most aquatic animals as they will consider it as a reef.

[sucahyo]

Sun also provide free energy in heat and electricity.

However, this remind me of problem recently arise from more aircraft contrails. People often notice absolutely no wind and no sun when the sky filled with clouds created from contrails.

Many people mention that seeing blue sky and sun and getting wind is rarer today.

Without wind, tidal wave is less too...


If we really concern with free energy from the sun and wind, we should ask goverment to make regulation that deal with aircraft clouds and contrails. Curently there is none.

[Savvypro]

Sure wind can be unpredictable at times that's why we should only be building wind turbines at areas with relatively consistent amount of wind at all time of the day. Besides, what about offshore wind? Consistency seems to be pretty good with those.

Sorry but your statements are based on: theory being reality. Heres a news flash for you: theory is not reality.

Here in the UK, a report was published on wind power contribution to the national grid. For the period studied (I believe it was 2009), the study found that all the wind farms (4GW capacity in 2009), contributed an average of way less than 1% of the total energy put into the national grid for the whole year. Let me make this clear: for 365 days all the wind generators in the most windy country in Europe, combined were incapable of generating 1% of the total energy put into the national grid of a country of over 60 million people.

The problem with what you are suggesting is that cost will escalate at local level. Large scale centralized methods are pushed because they have economies of scale.

Economies of scale are nice but who said it had to be centralized. Ever heard of group buying?

Look, I'm not trying to say that wind alone can release us from our dependency on fossil fuels. No single form of energy could do that. I agree with other posters that there are other alternatives. I'm just saying that in my opinion wind is the best alternative for us right now.

[Savvypro]

Without wind, tidal wave is less too...

Not quite true, as the moon's gravitational pull has a very noticeable effect on the tides as well as the earths crust.

In fact, in some places of the world where they have 2 tides (as it's not everywhere), there is only a 14 minute period during the day, when the tide stops flowing - while the moon is over head.

Out of every 24 hour period, you have a 14 minute down time, and you know when it will be - in advance. Can't get more predictable than that.

[sucahyo]

Not quite true, as the moon's gravitational pull has a very noticeable effect on the tides as well as the earths crust.

In fact, in some places of the world where they have 2 tides (as it's not everywhere), there is only a 14 minute period during the day, when the tide stops flowing - while the moon is over head.

Out of every 24 hour period, you have a 14 minute down time, and you know when it will be - in advance. Can't get more predictable than that.

I see. I confuse it with wind wave. thanks.

[mathewrobert]

We all know that we can not depend on the fossil fuels forever. Not just because they are limited in supplies but also due to their environmental impact.

The only viable replacements at this point of the game is either dams, nuclear, or wind. Even then there is problems associated with each of them:

Dams - kills fish and destroys the ecosystem
Nuclear - produces radioactive wastes
Wind - kills bird and produces loud noise

Among these three choices, wind is the best alternative. The benefits of utilizing wind includes:

Zero emissions - meaning no CO2, sulfur, nitrogen oxide, particulates, trace metals, or solid waste
Renewable - wind is in constant supply
No additional cost - since wind powers production, operation costs are effectively zero
Quick installation - installation can be completed in months
Price stability - cost are relatively fixed and will likely to drop over time
Small footprint - interferes little with surface activity

So what if wind turbines kill a few birds here and there, it is still better than relying on other energy sources that have negative environmental or health consequences. Besides, I believe it is only a matter of time before we find a way to eliminate the amount of bird deaths and reduce the noises generated by the turbines.

Wind energy is the only clean and reliable source of renewable energy!

What are your thoughts?

Thanks for sharing such a valuable information. Also, there are many other advantages such as wind is free and efficient energy resource, the energy produced by wind turbine does not cause green house gases or other pollutants, wind farms are an interesting feature of the landscape.

Energy Conservation Tips