.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Visit Freedom's Zone Donate To Project Valour

Sunday, September 16, 2012

How Bad Stanford University "Experts" Are

DU starts to work on this claim RE the feasibility of powering the East Coast with a rapture of wind turbines, and thoroughly debunks it:
15. The spacing would be more like 2500 feet (5 to 8 rotor diameters) 
So a single rank of turbines would contain 4,000 units. That means about 40 ranks of turbines, with the ranks also separated by 2500 feet. 
That results in an offshore "wind farm" 2000 miles long by at least 20 miles deep, with the blade tips reaching over 500 feet in the air. Even if there is that much suitable offshore shelf, I'm quite sure the USAF and NORAD would have something to say about this because of radar interference. 
It ain't happening. Large Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States - an Assessment of Opportunities and Barriers (PDF) 
Note that this poster and many others commenting strongly support wind power. They also figure out that just the wind turbines would cost 2 trillion dollars, without accounting for grid problems, etc. This is what the professorship has created. In the next revolution, the motto will be:
First, we kill all the professors....


Ex . . Latin for out

Spurt . . . A big drip.

Expert . . . A big drip on the way out.

I've always heard that one as:
Ex - a has been
Spurt - a drip under pressure
Expert - a has been drip under pressure
First, we kill all the professors....

Just think of the gallows humor potential! ;)

Q: Why did the professor cross the tower?

A: He was stapled to the ivory chicken.
This has been obvious for at least 20 years. If you examine wind power considering return on investment, it simply can't be implemented. Even if the turbines pay, the grid ties and spinning reserve (or power storage) makes the return negative. The whole energy economy slowly runs down like an unwound clock. Same goes for photovoltaic solar (except in certain applications where its independence from the grid makes sense).

That's why "global warming" was so important. A universally-observed taboo was the only possible way to get widespread acceptance of these technologies.
I wonder if the perfessers did any research into what a typical east coast hurricane would do to an offshore wind farm.
I wonder if the perfessers did any research into what a typical east coast hurricane would do to an offshore wind farm.
Gordon - the newest turbines have this arrangement where the blades should automatically drop themselves.

But imagine being a ship trying to steer your way through this giant cordon of turbines in stormy/rough weather. That's what makes this so funny - it's like a kid's dream of the "bar all shipping" Maginot line.

I can't imagine what this dingbat was thinking.
Submarine container ships! To get around the windmills, that is.

Seriously though, if wind-generated electricity were practical it would have been established in the 1920s. Most farms were still not on the grid, and almost all had a windmill to pump water for the livestock. The greatest danger was fire, particularly barn fires caused by accidents involving coal-oil lanterns. So there was a demand for electric lighting and automotive DC generators and batteries were available. It would have been a simple matter to convert the reciprocating motion of the windmill shaft to a rotary motion to spin a generator. Yet the legions of inventors in North America did not market such a thing when there were hundreds of thousands of farms, each one a potential customer.

The answer is Pol Pot light then?
In 1970 Michigan built nuclear plants that run 24 hrs per day. They built a pump storage facility that stores energy at night and runs turbines during the day. Now that the 40+ year life of the nuclear plants is being reached they are expanding the pump storage and building windmills to pump water. Storage of energy is key to renewables. Storage is the final frontier to renewable energy. It will happen.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?