It is fine that some people want to change how we generate power for the grid upon which we all depend, from fossil fuels to something cleaner.
We can understand how some people, gaslighted by a relentless bombardment of climate doomsaying from government and media and those entities that control them, might believe there is some sort of crisis going on that renders the need for change quite urgent.
Even if one has not bought into the climate hysteria, it is reasonable to consider we should opt for the cleanest possible means of powering our civilisation, out of consideration for and duty towards our planetary home and succeeding generations who will be trying to live in it.
A cleaner, cheaper, more environmentally friendly and WORKABLE source of energy would be desirable.
Unfortunately, the more you look closely into the alternatives being foisted off on us by the dimwits running our government and the psychopaths running the dimwits, the more you discover that they are neither clean, nor environmentally friendly, nor even remotely capable of providing the power needed to keep the lights on and the civilisation running.
It comes as a shock, to put it mildly, to discover that the aforementioned dimwits have not done their homework and are seeking to abandon existing workable resources and switch to resources that are clearly catastrophically inadequate! It’s a bit like scrapping the BMW and buying a pedal car, without having first LOOKED to discover what’s under its bonnet.
It takes a bit to get one’s head around the level of stupidity and irresponsibility of which our civilisation’s mis-managers are guilty.
That existing resources would be wound down, dismantled and switched off without first verifying there is an ADEQUATE replacement for them, displays a level of brain-dead ineptitude that beggars belief because it is a policy that GUARANTEES our economic collapse and cold and starvation for the millions saddled with such inept governments.
Of course, there are efforts to justify the reckless stupidity by telling everyone hysterically there is an environmental crisis going on requiring urgent action. But urgent action doesn’t mean action so reckless as to amount to national suicide.
Nuclear or wave power would be, in our opinion, cleaner and far more workable alternatives to oil, gas and coal but these are being studiously ignored – as if someone has deliberately chosen and is pushing the most disastrously unworkable solutions they could come up with. And that of course amounts to an act of war designed to crush and wreck targeted nations
Anyway, a case in point is wind power – if one delves into it a bit and looks past the PR blather, one discovers that, well, it is not all it is cracked up to be, not by a long shot and if we rely on it, we’re dead.
The following article from CFact covers many of the main points admirably.
Offshore wind may not reduce CO2 emissions
There is a common assumption that offshore wind electricity generation greatly reduces CO2 emissions. In fact this is the primary justification for the horrendous cost and adverse impact of these offshore megaprojects.
As with many green assumptions, this may well be false. First, given the way power generation actually works the reduction in fossil fuel emissions may not be all that great. In fact offshore wind could actually increase fossil fuel emissions. This is explained below.
Let’s take New Jersey as an example because they aspire to be the leader in offshore wind development. Their stated goal is a whopping 11,000 MW of offshore generating capacity, at a cost of something like $100 billion. If reducing CO2 emissions is the justification for this incredible cost, there had better be a lot of reduction. Turns out there may be very little, which makes the project very expensive, or even an increase which would make it worse than worthless.
On the generation side there are several factors to consider. To begin with New Jersey already shut down its 2,000 MW of coal fired power so those potential emission reductions are gone. Even worse half of their present generation is nuclear, which has no CO2 emissions. So if wind replaces some nuclear output there is no reduction.
The remaining half of the generation is gas fired and here things get interesting, as well as complex.
Keep in mind that the gas fired system is designed to generate when people need electricity. Wind on the other hand generates when the wind blows. It generates most when the wind blows hard, less when it blows less, and none when it blows low. Roughly speaking output increases linearly from no power at 10 mph to full power at 30 mph.
These are sustained wind speeds, not gusts, so 30 mph is rare. On the other hand less than 10 mph is relatively common, with no power produced, sometimes for days at a time. In between what happens is that the wind and power output go up and down, up and down. A 20% change in output in an hour is common.
These irregular wind oscillations will have a profound impact on gas power emissions. This is because there are two very different kinds of gas fired power plant. These are called, respectively, the simple cycle and the combined cycle plant.
A simple cycle plant is a generator driven by a combustion turbine. This turbine is like a jet engine running on natural gas. These plants are relatively inefficient, with an efficiency of 30 to 38% depending on how old they are
Combined cycle uses a combustion turbine too, but it then uses the extremely hot exhaust to boil water that in turn runs a steam turbine generator, so there are two different generators run in combination, hence the name. Combined cycle plants are much more efficient than simple cycle at around 60%.
Simple cycle plants feature quick start so they are used mostly for meeting peak needs when power usage spikes. For this reason they are often called peakers. Peak need is unlikely to coincide with strong wind, especially heat waves and cold snaps which are often marked by very low to no wind. Both weather extremes are often caused by stagnant high pressure systems.
Thus it is unlikely that offshore wind will do much to reduce the peaker emissions. The coal emissions are gone, nuclear has no emissions and the peaker emissions mostly remain, so this just leaves the combined cycle emissions for possible reduction.
Here the constant variability of wind creates a huge obstacle to emission reduction. The problem is that the huge amount of water in the combined cycle boiler takes a long time to heat up, and once heated the combustion turbine must run flat out to keep it boiling.
This is not a rapid response technology, in fact it is designed to run more or less steadily. It cannot ramp up and down in time to match the wind’s rapidly ramping down and up.
There are two ways the combined cycle system can be run in order to supply the erratic need created by the oscillating output of the wind generators. Unfortunately both are highly inefficient, meaning a lot more gas must be burned per unit of electricity produced, which creates a lot more emissions.
One way is to keep the steam pressure up during the time the wind output is high, which means burning a lot of gas with little or no generation. The other way is to shut down the steam system and just run as a simple cycle combustion turbine. This burns a lot more gas than was the prior-to-wind case when the combined cycle unit ran relatively steadily.
In short adding a lot of intermittent offshore wind to the generation mix radically degrades the efficiency of the gas fired generation. The result is that CO2 emissions are not likely to be greatly reduced and can even increase.
What actually happens is a research question I have not seen studied. A lot depends on the specifics of the intermittency, which likely vary from year to year and place to place.
The point is that if the primary justification for building enormously expensive offshore wind megaprojects is to reduce CO2 emissions then there may be no justification.
The above was featured on UK Reloaded
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
The future will be old fashion windmills with wooden cogs to drive the the power. They will be used for irrigation, food processing, energy, etc.