If you think nuclear physicists are "caveman" then so be it. Nuclear is fully developed and the most efficient with the least environmental impact. Yes, technology will develop other options, but wind power and solar plants aren't the solution. Though, rooftop solar is a great option. We have nearly an endless supply of roof tops, we don't need to destroy wide swaths of land for solar plants and transmission lines. There is actually a program starting in California to promote rooftop mini-plants but the biggest obstacle are the power companies that don't like competition. SDGE has the highest energy rates in the continental US, second only to Hawaii in the country.
Climate and Weather
- Thread starter espola
- Start date
It's not the nuclear physicists that are the problem. It's the MBAs and lawyers running the for-profit utilities that use nuclear plants that are killing the industry. I have often expressed the opinion that the US Navy has the best record running nuclear power because the engineering was designed for safety and maintenance and the operators sleep in the reactor building every night.
Do you think the stork delivers batteries for electric vehicles?
"Tremendous amount of petroleum to operate" a windmill? Because of the need for grease to lubricate the gears?
Think about that for a second. Of the petroleum you use for your car, how much is in the form of transmission fluid and chassis lube? Even crankcase oil isn't all that much. I probably use about six quarts of lubricant (all kinds) for every thousand quarts of gasoline I use. (One oil change every 7500 miles, 30 mpg, etc.)
Lubricating gears is very important, but it doesn't account for a "tremendous" use of petroleum products. You'd be better off talking about the natural gas used to make the concrete for the base, or smelting process to make the aluminum for the support structure.
You sure about that? My buddy's wife is now blaming CNN for misinformation because her son is always sick and thinks he has long Covid. That place preached lies all day long and they hate Trump.
How much is "a tremendous amount"?
Just catching up on old posts?
Yes. Unlike you, I have a job, hobbies and other reasons to get out of bed.
... and since you're well over 15,000 posts, I don't wanna miss anything great you've contributed.
Nah. I think we use diesel fuel to mine the metals, then some kind of fossil fuel to provide the energy to smelt them. Then more fossil fuels to generate the electricity to charge the batteries after they are built.
But, for small vehicles, it's considerably less energy than I'd use to propel a gasoline vehicle with similar size and similar performance.
For large vehicles, like semi trucks, I'm still dubious.
I was under the impression that the towers were made out of steel.
Most of my greatest posts were lost in the repeated electro-mechanical failures that wiped out earlier generations of this forum.
I just hope I don't need to charge my EV when Governor Gavin shuts off my power for 48 hours.
My loss not knowing you during your peak. The spiral downward has been nothing less than glorious.
You're out of your league here, you have no clue. I was the liquidating Trustee for the worlds largest windpower company, Kenetech, prior to it filing BK. The stress on the gearboxes when you have blades as big as 30m is insane. They require a lot of lube and often fail because of the gear box. Next time you drive past a wind plant notice the dark staining on the nacelle and sometimes down the side of the tower. Thats not honey coming out, thats gear oil. Also notice how many windmills are non-operational. More windpower projects have failed then have been successful.
Hüsker Dü
DA
By caveman I was referring to those that strictly back fossil fuels and turn a blind eye to the future. Fossil fuel won’t last forever. Nuclear is tricky but doable, the kinks just need to be worked out.
Hüsker Dü
DA
As a kid in the 60’s-70’s I hated going north of Camp Pendleton because the smog made my eyes burn. And yeah I’m saying the indigenous peoples and some of the down to basics groups like the Amish are the only ones that truly deserve a heaven. The rest of us integrated into the post Industrial Revolution heathens deserve what we get. It’s not all our fault but it’s certainly not true progress.
I might be out of my league, if there weren't so many orders of magnitude in my favor.
We're comparing oil used for lubrication to oil used as fuel.
But, if you insist, let's compare. How many barrels of oil per megawatt hour?
A standard oil plant uses about 80 gallons of petroleum per MWH.
So, to make 6,000 MWH, you need about 480,000 gallons of petroleum.
A 2.5 to 3 MW turbine will make about 6000 MWH in a year. It will also need about a thousand gallons of lubricant. (700 gallons every 9-16 months)
Going Green - Wind Turbines & Lubricant Testing - Savant Labs
Wind energy continues to grow in importance in the US and around the world. With about 380 billion kilowatt-hours produced in the US in 2021, it accounted for
www.savantlab.com
So, per unit of production, the fossil plant is using about 500X as much petroleum.
In other words, windmill lubricant is a relatively small factor. Not zero. But smaller than the environmental costs normally involved in making that much power.
You should have gone for concrete. That 2.5 MW turbine has a 800 ton concrete base. At 900 kg CO2 per ton, that's 720 tons of CO2- the same as is released from burning 80,000 gallons of fuel oil. It'll take you 80 years to get a number that big from lubricants.
Same point. Coal used to make the coke to make the steel, instead of natural gas to make the electricity to smelt the aluminum. No free lunch, either way.
There is always a cost, and you have to ask which price is lower. You can't simply say "Look, dead birdie. Must be bad."
This is true whether the bird was killed by a windmill or an oil spill.
Strawman, because I'm not making the case for an oil plant. My only point was that wind turbines use a lot of petroleum which you scoffed at until you did a Google search and realized they use at least 700 gallons of oil per turbine a year. Combine that with the fact that turbines are horribly inefficient and breakdown constantly you get an unreliable, and not that environmentally sound energy source.I might be out of my league, if there weren't so many orders of magnitude in my favor.
We're comparing oil used for lubrication to oil used as fuel.
But, if you insist, let's compare. How many barrels of oil per megawatt hour?
A standard oil plant uses about 80 gallons of petroleum per MWH.
So, to make 6,000 MWH, you need about 480,000 gallons of petroleum.
A 2.5 to 3 MW turbine will make about 6000 MWH in a year. It will also need about a thousand gallons of lubricant. (700 gallons every 9-16 months)
Going Green - Wind Turbines & Lubricant Testing - Savant Labs
Wind energy continues to grow in importance in the US and around the world. With about 380 billion kilowatt-hours produced in the US in 2021, it accounted for
So, per unit of production, the fossil plant is using about 500X as much petroleum.
In other words, windmill lubricant is a relatively small factor. Not zero. But smaller than the environmental costs normally involved in making that much power.
You should have gone for concrete. That 2.5 MW turbine has a 800 ton concrete base. At 900 kg CO2 per ton, that's 720 tons of CO2- the same as is released from burning 80,000 gallons of fuel oil. It'll take you 80 years to get a number that big from lubricants.
In my Navy days, I often drove between San Diego and the Pt. Mugu NAS/Oxnard area. Driving through LA usually gave me a headache, but not anymore. I lived in California for almost a year (1970) before I realized you could see mountains from downtown LA when traveling through on a day after a good rainstorm had cleared the air.
There is often a solution --I might be out of my league, if there weren't so many orders of magnitude in my favor.
We're comparing oil used for lubrication to oil used as fuel.
But, if you insist, let's compare. How many barrels of oil per megawatt hour?
A standard oil plant uses about 80 gallons of petroleum per MWH.
So, to make 6,000 MWH, you need about 480,000 gallons of petroleum.
A 2.5 to 3 MW turbine will make about 6000 MWH in a year. It will also need about a thousand gallons of lubricant. (700 gallons every 9-16 months)
Going Green - Wind Turbines & Lubricant Testing - Savant Labs
Wind energy continues to grow in importance in the US and around the world. With about 380 billion kilowatt-hours produced in the US in 2021, it accounted for
So, per unit of production, the fossil plant is using about 500X as much petroleum.
In other words, windmill lubricant is a relatively small factor. Not zero. But smaller than the environmental costs normally involved in making that much power.
You should have gone for concrete. That 2.5 MW turbine has a 800 ton concrete base. At 900 kg CO2 per ton, that's 720 tons of CO2- the same as is released from burning 80,000 gallons of fuel oil. It'll take you 80 years to get a number that big from lubricants.
Climate | Bouygues Construction
Bouygues Construction aims to achieve a 30% reduction in its CO2 emissions by 2030. Responsible and committed to the environment, the group is leading the way in the field of sustainable construction, with innovative solutions to design, implement and operate projects across all fields of...