1) Calculating CO2 emissions should be the entire life cycle total. For example it takes thousands of tons of concrete for the base of the structure and they need replacing.
2) Wind turbines power drops exponentially as the wind drops; ie 50% wind drop, 80% power drop.
3) Using wood to make blades reduces the ability of the forest to absorb CO2 and produce oxygen.
4) Germany on shore wind power is a disaster with about 28,000 subsidized wind turbines. You need to maintain average load on a national grid and peak. The wind doesn't blow all the time. It is called Green Poverty.
5) Remember plants and oceans require CO2 to survive and in turn produces oxygen for the people and animals.
Hey Stuart, thanks for your detailed thoughts and the data you shared!
I also find lifecycle data for CO2 emissions to be more valuable. There’s an interactive graph on that topic—have you come across it?
You’re absolutely right that the drop in wind power is a significant issue. As far as I know, there are efforts underway to address this, which you might already be familiar with: taller, slower-rotating turbines with larger blades are being developed to operate more efficiently at lower wind speeds by capturing more energy across a wider range of conditions.
Regarding point 5, are you suggesting that CO2 emissions are necessary and that we shouldn’t aim to reduce them? I wasn’t entirely sure if I understood your comment there.
One more thing I’m curious about, just to better understand your perspective: do you find wind energy to be less beneficial or practical compared to other energy sources?
I think we need to first realize CO2 is needed for the plants and oceans to survive which produce oxygen. How much is the question. With the slightly higher, (300 to 400ppm) CO2 plants grow faster and are more resilient to drought. The large turbines require power to begin to turn them since the wind is not sufficient. The issue with the power generated dropping quickly as wind speed drops is a function of physics. I believe looking at the disaster in Germany with their wind turbines is a good case study. Using solar and wind to power a national grid is not possible since it is intermittent. This makes energy more scarce which drives up the cost of energy, Green Poverty. I believe nuclear is an acceptable choice due to the small footprint and the power generated.
A few points:
1) Calculating CO2 emissions should be the entire life cycle total. For example it takes thousands of tons of concrete for the base of the structure and they need replacing.
2) Wind turbines power drops exponentially as the wind drops; ie 50% wind drop, 80% power drop.
3) Using wood to make blades reduces the ability of the forest to absorb CO2 and produce oxygen.
4) Germany on shore wind power is a disaster with about 28,000 subsidized wind turbines. You need to maintain average load on a national grid and peak. The wind doesn't blow all the time. It is called Green Poverty.
5) Remember plants and oceans require CO2 to survive and in turn produces oxygen for the people and animals.
Hey Stuart, thanks for your detailed thoughts and the data you shared!
I also find lifecycle data for CO2 emissions to be more valuable. There’s an interactive graph on that topic—have you come across it?
You’re absolutely right that the drop in wind power is a significant issue. As far as I know, there are efforts underway to address this, which you might already be familiar with: taller, slower-rotating turbines with larger blades are being developed to operate more efficiently at lower wind speeds by capturing more energy across a wider range of conditions.
Regarding point 5, are you suggesting that CO2 emissions are necessary and that we shouldn’t aim to reduce them? I wasn’t entirely sure if I understood your comment there.
One more thing I’m curious about, just to better understand your perspective: do you find wind energy to be less beneficial or practical compared to other energy sources?
Looking forward to your thoughts!
I think we need to first realize CO2 is needed for the plants and oceans to survive which produce oxygen. How much is the question. With the slightly higher, (300 to 400ppm) CO2 plants grow faster and are more resilient to drought. The large turbines require power to begin to turn them since the wind is not sufficient. The issue with the power generated dropping quickly as wind speed drops is a function of physics. I believe looking at the disaster in Germany with their wind turbines is a good case study. Using solar and wind to power a national grid is not possible since it is intermittent. This makes energy more scarce which drives up the cost of energy, Green Poverty. I believe nuclear is an acceptable choice due to the small footprint and the power generated.