Name one bad thing about wind energy

Name one bad thing about wind energy.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Nuclear energy is the future.

Expensive at first, cheap over time. It can't be used as an emergency source of energy.

Fugly and kills birds, that's two.

Ever driven through a wind farm? Looks like shit.

It's so volatile that on windy days it floods the grid and produces a ton of extra power that we can't store and on calm days produces nothing. You still need coal, hydroelectric, geothermal, or nuclear to produce power 24/7 with no weather effects. Also why solar sucks.

Kind of cheap at first, but gets progressively expensive. Great source of emergency energy.

High maintenance.

Low reliability.

Ugly as sin.

Slows down the rotation of the planet by an imperceptible microfraction of a fraction.

All the wasted space used for wind farms could have been used to develop genetically modified niko cats.

there is no bad thing about.

Cost is expensive (installation, maintenance) most places in the US are under catagory 4. Wind power needs to be category 6 to be any kind of effective. Wind is also unpredictable. they break a lot because shit blows into them

This. Solar/wind plain aren't viable. Even without going into the ludicrous costs per unit.

Lotta dead birds and bats. Significant employee/worker yearly death toll. Fags.

People who work in electric utilities call them "variable generation sources," because their energy output fluctuates so heavily. If it's a cloudy or windless day, the electrical grid won't have enough power to supply the demanded energy, and the entire grid will shit its pants. If it's too sunny and windy, the electrical grid gets overwhelmed and can fry itself.

average nominal output of about 25%
expensive maintenance an infrastructure required
highest accident and death rate of any energy source
we build a bunch of these everywhere here, shut down nuclear plants and are now more dependent on coal energy than ever

So assuming average output, how many of these things would be needed to generate the amount necessary to power the whole world?

>costly
>no ability to supply base load power

>fugly
>looks like shit

according to whom?

Iceland has the highest average output at 50% but I doubt we'll be relying on it in the future

>pic related so beautiful

Wasteful, and not really very green.

Yea, but that shouldn't be a measure of it.

According to the International Windmill Committee of Go Fuck Yourself

>Coal plant uusually located in a valley or lowland where there is a water source (produces mainly vapor emissions)
>Windmills covering the entirety of beautiful mountain ranges and detracting from the view from every direction (kills thousands of birds each day)

Choose one.

>One small plant, isolated from the world
>vs vast swathes of windmills you often can't do anything else near

Needs wind all the time, are ugly as fuck, kill birds and are unreliable and hard to maintain. Coal fired power station need's one match on an oily rag at startup, as stated in this thread are beautiful, birds like them as they tend to plant tree's around them to accentuate their beauty are reliable as fuck as they're just a big kettle leaking steam onto a shaft covered in magnets.

noise pollution

killing birds, loud repetitive sound if you live near it

It costs more energy than it produces.

Wind turbines only produce a net surplus in virtue signalling energy, and you can't power a goddamned thing with it.

What we gonna do when the fossil fuels are up?

Hopefully by then we'll have other ways of making plastic, and we'll have switched to nuclear/thorium by the early 2020s.

Bad to the environment.

>stupid and useless.
>expensive
>hydroelectricity is much more efficient

ah, they're a wonderful bunch
hmmmmmmm pic related shitty SoCal desert no one gives a FUCK about and no one lives around..... HMMMMMM NO IMMEDIATE WATER POLLUTION HMMMMMMMM
Fuckin A dude I just really fucking wish I could play ultimate frisbee RIGHT WHERE that nuke plant is :/ but I can't.. fucking drumpfkins

Nothing, except how wind can blow without windmills, but if you live on a farm this would be good to have near you or get.

lulz forgot pic for
this faggit

Approximately a fuck ton.

Not worth the price

Those things are powering an oil refinery. Let that sink in.

Untill you run out of places to store nuclear waste that stays radioactive for 24,000 - 15.7 million years

You mean when you run out of Australia, Russia, and USA empty space, for something which doesn't take up a whole lot of room?
By then we can let the Dyson Sphere worry about it.

Network instability so you either spend a fuckload of cash to correct and store the power before it goes to the network you can expect power surges to lock down the network every time there is a sudden change in wind velocity.

Literally nothing of what you said is true.

Only works in the wind

>Its highly volatile and unstable i.e. unreliable

>When you said it was unreliable that isn't true
Well which is it retard?

Unnecessary and expensive.
This "green energy" bs is forced as shit and has nothing to do with real progress.
We could invest all this money to improve nuclear plants or in the development of fusion reactors.
But instead we got this "lets raze whole square kilometers of forests, to save the nature" thing.

Unreliable means you can't predict when the wind turbines will be able to function which isn't true because you can predict wind patterns years in advance (to the degree needed for most turbines to work) but what you can't predict are wind gusts which can be orders of magnitude larger than the wind speeds at any given time and that jolt in movement and power production (if not corrected properly before going into a power network) can fuck up a networks frequency and force the network to shut down.

Thus you need intermittent storage/correction in a much larger scale than you need in solar power, which of course has its own set of problems and applications.

I meant to add that they kill birds also..the user above me got it though

I'm not arguing for or against either, I'm saying your point of
>"muh they're ugly"
is fucking retarded

every power plant is a fucking eyesore

noise, ugly sight.

Causes depression apparantly

Not masculine enough, seems like a gay european thing.

Some pros of offshore windfarms:
-placed in the middle of the sea, nobody can see them from shore, no horizon pollution
-marine wildlife prospers in these regions as fishing is forbidden offshore windfarms
-build offshore, save space onshore
-more wind and stable wind offshore
- current tenders are being sold without subsidies and can produce electrical energy at the price of 50-60 euro/MWh which is competetive with gas/nuclear power plants
-295 Megawatt/hour of free electrical power, just add some lubrication and spare parts!
-from 0 Mw/h to 295 Mw/h in just 3 minutes
-Import less fossil fuels from russian and middle east meaning all money spent on this stays in the local economy!
-more local jobs

Pic related, the current state of an offshore windfarm in the EU

It's viable for minor regional production. Not more than 10% or so of total production, or your grid will begin to suffer from outages due to irregularity and unpredictbility of wind.

That's not what unreliable means, it can mean either scenario, you can't rely on it at all times, it is unreliable.

You have IDs on this board and you can't tell different posters? I don't even have his flag.

Who said fission was the only option. Fusing hydrogen to make helium produces the most energy of all fusion reactions (hence why stars run on it).

vs.

>just add some lubrication and spare parts!
This. This is the problem.

Some windfarms have bat/bird detection systems which make them stop for a short moment as wildlife is migrating.
And the death toll is just as high as in other industries i guess? Where did you get this information?
You should diversify your power plants, not rely on wind completely.
network instability? But we already got windfarms and it's been years we had a power loss? Maybe something only greece has a a problem?

>not using excess power to pump water into an elevated reservoir and then letting it flow back down through turbines when you need it

the oil used by typically causes corrosion within 2-3 years of installation thus leaking its contents on agriculturally rich soils. replacement or repair cost about the same

this.. is actually stupid.

whats the max windspeed before the emergency stop fails

That single reactor produced 11 TWh of electricity last year.
That means that 7 such reactors could produce as much electricity AS ALL GERMAN WIND TURBINES COMBINED (77 TWh).

And there tens of thousands of wind turbines in Germany. (pic related)

We're doing it fucking stupidly,
So corporations can incur revenue in constant repairs need to current models

the three gorges damn slowed down the earths rotation so no its not stupid

it isn't, it's like battery

no it's a completely normal way to store vast amounts of power
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
round-trip efficiency is around 80%, which is pretty damn good

That's how they all work, dingus.
Protip: Energy isn't just stored in AA batteries.

>But we already got windfarms and it's been years we had a power loss? Maybe something only greece has a a problem?
That's the point, you haven't had a power loss because the people in change of said windfarms have invested 25-30% of the total cost of the windfarm more to correct the surges before they enter the network but that bump in budget is why many either choose not to invest in wind, invest in small scale wind or forego the surge protection and leave the people working in the local power plant taking the extra frequency load and hating their fucking guts.

Don't know what your regulations are but the change in law dictating that windfarms above a certain kW threshold need to invest in surge protection was changed after Crete and a few other islands blacked out a couple of dozen times because of the lack thereof.

Before the emergency stop even kicks in the system will do a normal controlled stop when wind speeds get too high.
Even if the power and data slipring systems to the hub fail it will do a controlled stop as the pitch system can completely work on it's own.
Even if 2/3 of the pitch system fails the system will stop by turning one blade out the wind.
So to answer your question: no idea, never happened before.

...

>not using excess power to pump water into an elevated reservoir and then letting it flow back down through turbines when you need it

That isn't profitable at all, a Swiss electricity company recently had to write off a billion dollar investment in such a plant because renewables had made it unprofitable. (pic related)
So basically solar and wind make the only realistic energy storage solution (pumped hydro) unprofitable.

You see these plants were built to use excess electricity from baseload power plants (coal and nuclear) at night to pump water into their storage basins to then release it during the day when electricity use is high.
Intermittent renewables make such a scheme impossible, therefore most pumped hydro storage plants in Europe are losing money like crazy right now.
No one who is in their right mind would build one at the moment.

All machines need to be maintained, be it a car, a nuclear power plant or a wind turbine. It's normal?

Is not good for my oil stocks.

There are only certain places on the planet that are worth placing them, wind corridors, otherwise they are too inefficient. You can't just put them anywhere and the locations that they would work best are undesirable for locals e.g. coastlines.

Seems like its producing 300MW/¿second?¿day?, for 48 turbines.

Comparing it with a 2000MW nuclear reactor(that... seems to be the average in a quick wikipedia check), are these two really comparable? Because I tried looking for economical figures for the cost of installing and maintainging one of these farms but I only found 2008 figures that surely no longer apply.

Killing all those birds

>Is not good for my oil stocks.

Oil is barely even used in electricity generation.
Oil and renewables don't directly compete with each other.

This

TL;DR - High opportunity cost due to space inefficiency.

Density of most green energy production is low, which means that apparently low cost of production is offset by the opportunity cost of not using the land to build a generator using more power-dense technology, or literally using it for any other more profitable endeavour.

Consider a scenario where San Francisco wants to use green energy to power the whole city. The cost of setting up the power production and transmission would be high simply because it would need to be built on either 1) expensive property with high taxes or 2) be built on difficult to develop land (e.g. the ocean).

There's massive investments in offshore wind at the moment here in west europe, Rentel project with Siemens turbines. That project is worth 1.4 Billion Euro. Do you think they would invest this much if they didn't get some nice profit out of it?
Even during low wind days the windfarms HELP the grid by delivery more active and reactive power increasing efficiency of the grid overall. Here in belgium there's strict rules when delivering power to the grid, when you don't comply to those rules withing a certain time, let's say 20 minutes, they are allowed to litterally disconnect you from the grid to prevent a blackout. This however has never happened before in my country, everything is kept in order with automated systems and double checked by engineers in control rooms 24/7.
Sounds like Greece should step their game up, hire skilled engineers and stop fucking around.

Literally teaching this unit to middle schoolers right now.

Wind turbines don’t “flood the grid” or “fry everything” on really windy days. There’s a maximum allowable output from each unit and each farm. If a single unit is spinning too fast (normally requires hurricane-force winds) then that unit stops transferring its energy to the turbine to prevent overload. On a wind farm they do the same thing. If the units as a whole are producing too much power then they shit down the generator abilities of the windmills one by one so that only the maximum allowable output is being produced.

Fucking retards. Do your research before you wander around spouting carastrophist bullshit.

>That isn't profitable at all
It is for most other hydro plants. It's just how it works.
Don't know how you guys are losing money with them.

I've always loved this kind of aesthetic.
I'm doing modelling work on computer all day long but I'm glad to be in an actual industrial area instead of a standardized office complex. Only soyboy dislike chimneys. I'd understand if it was semi-toxic fumes, but your picture is literally water vapor.

This only one of the few wind farms in that location.
There's multiple manufacturers, (Senvion, Siemens, Vestas) present in the north sea, each with their own zone of wind farms.
Their price ranging between 1-1.5 billion.
Compare that price of a nuclear power plant, one being built in france for example : EPR Flamanville 3 project which has already cost 11 billion and is still not finished.
Pic related : all the zones where a windfarm will be built.

>oil
>electricity
Until you can make container ships, cars and plastic production run with wind your oil prices are fine.

If you use up the wind making electricity there won't be any to pollinate the plants. So much for green energy.

>the pitch system can completely work on it's own.
you mean the wind wont actually propel it?
interestong

hmm

Vestas turbines. They sell em cheap so they can afford them catch fire once in a while.

ugly fans

People with functioning eyes.

The pitch system(in the rotating part) will complete some actions on it's own when it can no longer communicate with the rest of the turbine.
These actions will result in a safe stop.

wind turbines aremostly steel
you need over 100 tonnes of coal to make one wind turbine
global energy demand increases 4% per year
over 100,000 turbines each year needed just to cover this
all that coal huh? so much for being green
simply not capable of replacing other forms of energy production with these
also
the birbs and batts

It slows down the wind. 100 billion wind mills can slow down all the winds on the planet. . so there will be extra climate change for the worst. Also... . waste of materials for few energy production

Nuclear should be pretty much safe now right? Why not just go with that? Even waste production has been reduced to a fraction of what it used to be

Gay

they blow up

GE wind fag here. Our shit runs -158 C with wind speed as low as 4 m/s. They're the only platform I worked on that are extremely reliable and very easy to troubleshoot. Electric components is superior to hydraulics components. The only bad thing I can say is the grid system we use here for them. The substation and grid tech is very archaic and unable to use more of the power generated. I believe 40% wasted. Turbines themselves are great just everything around them blows.

The market is not retarded.

If renewables are faster and cheaper and only require wasted space to be stablished they will have priority over nuclear that always require high initial investments.

Nuclear security is a meme, and has been an argument played ad nauseum by greenpeace and the like to deter R&D development and expansion in this sector.