3 hours ago, martin-w said:

For farmers, this means that crops can continue to be planted right up to the base of turbines, and they can be harvested with the usual farm machinery. For ranchers, it means that livestock can continue to graze on land in and around the towers, even while the tower is in operation.

Indiana is currently ranked 17th in the nation for wind farms. Many times I've driven up and down I-65 and marveled at the thousands of turbines standing up like giant flowers, as far as one's eyes can see.

Despite this density, the fact is that they only occupy ~5% of the farmland, so they don't really affect the crop yields at all.

16 minutes ago, n4gix said:

Indiana is currently ranked 17th in the nation for wind farms. Many times I've driven up and down I-65 and marveled at the thousands of turbines standing up like giant flowers, as far as one's eyes can see.

Despite this density, the fact is that they only occupy ~5% of the farmland, so they don't really affect the crop yields at all.

 

Yep, I quite like the look of them to be honest, and what they represent. The other myth is bird deaths of course. In fact climate change is the number one killer of birds according to the National Audubon Society. 

3 hours ago, martin-w said:

Although wind turbines are large structures, they are relatively small at the base. The average turbine measures just eight to 10 metres across at the foot of each tower.

I didn't say that the wind turbines require a lot of acreage.  I said that the solar plants do.  The wind turbines just block our view of the sky and kill birds.

A 60 cell 5.4ft x 3.25ft solar panel produces about 300 watts with peak solar irradiance.  The average U.S. home consumes about 1.25kW per hour, so in an area that gets 5 hours of sunlight each day, one would actually need 6,000kW of output, which requires 20 solar panels for a total area of 360 sq ft.  Not too bad.  The problem is that very few places get 5 hours of sun every day, thus requiring even more panels.  Then there's the battery storage and expensive components like the inverters.  Moreover, the panels must be replaced every 10-15 years.

I had a work colleague who bragged that his home was powered solely by solar panels.  This was in New Mexico, a good place for using solar.  His inverter failed after a couple years and a new one cost him $5,000.  There were also times where, due to inclement weather, his available power got so low that he had to be very careful about his powr usage to the point where he could not run the microwave and air conditioner at the same time.  He ended up connecting to the commercial utility grid to have a reliable backup.  He also said the battery plant would need expensive replacement batteries within 10 years.  My point is that relying on a single source for energy is not a good idea.  Renewables alone are not the answer, at least for the time being.

In some areas, solar is a viable option, but not in most areas.

Like I've said several times already, we need more conservation, which gives the biggest bang for the buck, and a mix of nuclear, natural gas, hydroelectric, wind, and solar. 

There is no free lunch.  Every single type of energy production uses raw materials, which involves energy intensive operations like mining and processing.  Energy cannot be created from nothing.  Something must be converted into a useful form of energy, and that takes resources.

We need to practice better conservation and consume less, period. 

Dave

Quote

  The problem is that very few places get 5 hours of sun every day, thus requiring even more panels.  Then there's the battery storage and expensive components like the inverters. 

 

No you don't require more panels. Solar panels on roofs augment your power requirements. in the, often cloudy, UK its a useful saving. When I lived in the UK numerous neighbours had solar panels. My next door neighbour did and was very pleased with the saving on her bills. And with battery backup the saving is even higher. Furthermore, if its a new house and highly insulated, a passive house, you can cover even more of your energy needs. In fact in a passive house your own body heat is enough to warm the house and very little if any mains power is required. Solar panels can cover the entire power requirements. And of course, as efficiency improves (hence the new 50% efficient cells) even more of your energy requirements are met. 

 

Quote

Moreover, the panels must be replaced every 10-15 years.

 

No they don't, that's not true at all. Solar panels can be generating power up to an estimated 200 years. Manufacturers guarantee 90% efficiency  up to ten years. After that 10 years they guarantee no less than 80% efficiency for the remaining 15 to 20 years. 

The latest solar panels on the market have a lifespan of 40 to 50 years. The warranty keeps them protected for half of that and that includes invertors etc.  

Payback time is an average of 9.7 years. 

https://www.renewableenergyhub.co.uk/main/solar-panels/how-long-do-solar-panels-last/

Edited February 21, 20215 yr by martin-w

2 hours ago, martin-w said:

In fact in a passive house your own body heat is enough to warm the house

I live in a place where the Winters are very mild, very close to the border of Florida.  The temperature rarely goes below freezing at night and the daytime temps. are around 10-15C.  My house is well insulated using spray foam insulation and double pane energy efficient windows. Now, I can tell you in no uncertain terms that our body heat doesn't come close to warming even just the bedroom, let alone the house. 

The panels degrade over time, especially in very hot or cold climates.  They do not last forever, and every year they produce less and less power.  For some people the solar panels are worth the expense, and that's great.  I understand that they can augment one's power, but for many it just isn't worth it.  Then there is the up front equipment cost, maintenance, and replacement of old or failed components.  My colleague lost 3 years of electric bill savings when his inverter failed.

I'm not anti-solar or anti-wind.  They should be a part of the energy mix.  I just do not believe that we can run the world on renewables alone, at least not with current technology.  More development is needed.

Dave

 

11 hours ago, dave2013 said:

I live in a place where the Winters are very mild, very close to the border of Florida.  The temperature rarely goes below freezing at night and the daytime temps. are around 10-15C.  My house is well insulated using spray foam insulation and double pane energy efficient windows. Now, I can tell you in no uncertain terms that our body heat doesn't come close to warming even just the bedroom, let alone the house. 

 

Dave

 

 

 

David, you don't know what a passive house is do you? 😀

I was talking about a passive house, not a house with a bit of insulation and double glazing. The majority of the houses in the UK have insulation and double glazing. in fact modern building regs are very stringent in terms of insulation. So much so that most modern houses in the UK have very low energy bills. But that's STILL not a passive house.

To be granted a passive house certificate a building has to be tested and certified. A passive house is a house that is TRULLY energy efficient, comfortable and affordable. Passive houses are 90% plus efficient. they are so well insulated that, as I said, even the occupants own body heat warms the house. Most passive houses have minimal heating or cooling requirements. Even in the height of the summer or depths of winter with snow on the ground. They are pretty much sealed. Heat is extracted from the air that's vented from the house and used to warm the air that enters. They usually have solar panels and sometimes ground source heat pumps, thus, use minimal electricity. The connection to the grid remains though, so that on the rare occasion they need grid power, its there, and of course to feed surplus energy back to the grid, which in the UK and US they get paid for.

You can of course go beyond the passive Standard, many new builds do, and opt for a "net zero" house. A net zero house is a passive house that generates ALL of its own energy from solar panels, ground source heat pumps and other methods of generation. 

A net-zero building produces as much energy as it consumes. It starts with an energy-efficient building envelope (walls, foundation, roof), high-quality windows, and high-efficiency heating and ventilation systems to keep the overall consumption as low as possible. Renewable energy sources like rooftop solar panels provide enough power to operate it. They can store energy or sell it to the grid when they produce more than needed.

If the cost is compared with a high end custom home builder they are comparable. From a volume builder slightly more expensive. The savings on power bills though are obviously colossal.

In my opinion ALL houses built should be passive or net zero. It should be the law.

 

Quote

They do not last forever, and every year they produce less and less power

 

Did you read what I typed? modern panels are designed to last 40 to 50 years. Not the 10 years you claimed. And they are guaranteed for 25 - 30 years dependant on the supplier. Payback in the UK is 9.7 years on average. They are guaranteed not to drop below 80% efficiency for the full 25 to 30 year warranty. And beyond that evidence shows they lose further efficiency very slowly. Just because a panel has dropped to 80% efficiency or lower does NOT mean they are scrap. They are paid for by that time and generating FREE electricity. Plus, technology continues to improve and the cost of solar panels continues to drop rapidly.

 

Quote

Then there is the up front equipment cost, maintenance, and replacement of old or failed components.  My colleague lost 3 years of electric bill savings when his inverter failed

 

Most dont have that issue and it should have been under warranty. Furthermore... he is a sample size of one. MY next door neighbour had hers for years with zero issues.

 

Quote

just do not believe that we can run the world on renewables alone,

 

 

Now, probably not. Don't think anyone is claiming you can. But the future is bright for reenable energy and as technology improves YES we will be able to.

From the National Renewable Energy lab...

 

Quote

Renewable electricity generation from technologies that are commercially available today, in combination with a more flexible electric system, is more than adequate to supply 80% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2050.

https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/can-the-world-run-on-renewable-energy/

In the UK 25-30% of the native sea birds have declined in the past 5 years killed buy wind turbines RSPB.  

1 hour ago, G-RFRY said:

In the UK 25-30% of the native sea birds have declined in the past 5 years killed buy wind turbines RSPB.  

 

See below...

 

Quote

We conclude that careful siting during the planning phase can avoid a multitude of potential conflicts with avian populations and that despite generally inadequate post-construction monitoring (especially during periods of unusual weather), experience shows low levels of collision rates, especially among long-lived large-bodied bird species considered most at risk.

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335703152_Offshore_wind_farms_and_their_effects_on_birds

 

 

https://theconversation.com/wind-farms-are-hardly-the-bird-slayers-theyre-made-out-to-be-heres-why-79567

wind farms killed approximately seven thousand birds in the United States in 2006 but nuclear plants killed about 327,000 and fossil-fuelled power plants 14.5 million.

 

Feral cats, domestic cats, oil pits, poison, vehicles, electrical lines, and cell-phone towers all kill more birds than wind turbines. After cats, buildings with glass windows are the deadliest human-related cause of bird death. Nearly 600 million US birds die colliding into them each year.

 

P.S. Please don't say anything nasty about cats, cats are awesome, I love cats. 😼

Edited February 22, 20215 yr by martin-w

On the bright side (pun totally intended!) at least solar panels are silent and don't kill any birds. Regardless of the bird deaths by other means, some (however small that quantity is) have been killed by wind turbines).

Why mention silent? Because there is some acknowledgement of at least an "annoyance" if not a higher detriment to health due to proximity to wind turbines.

https://www.euro.who.int/en/media-centre/sections/press-releases/2018/press-information-note-on-the-launch-of-the-who-environmental-noise-guidelines-for-the-european-region

OK if they're built in remote locations then.  Not sure if the cattle will all be driven mad grazing at the bases of some turbines...  (as has been stated, the actual physical footprint of a turbine compared to the field of cattle is rather small).

3 hours ago, martin-w said:

P.S. Please don't say anything nasty about cats, cats are awesome, I love cats. 😼

Don't let any keen gardeners know! My nextdoor neighbour loathes cats. We have a cat, but she's an indoor one. Never let outside so she'll never word not allowed in his garden  She was rescued as a kitten by my daughter after her sibling was killed by the Alsatian at the farm (where our horse is stabled) where the cats are semi feral. We have a couple of dogs so our cat is part dog having grown up with them lol! The thing is she's really taken to me, like my little grey ninja shadow .

I don`t think cats are killing our sea birds we have some big sea bird colleens around the UK Puffins don`t nest on the mainland, most islands around UK Scotland, and more large windfarms are planed they make loads of money for the consortium PEEL Holdings now no longer interested in retail centres but wind farms yes.   

5 hours ago, martin-w said:

Passive houses are 90% plus efficient. they are so well insulated that, as I said, even the occupants own body heat warms the house

I'll bet that these houses are tiny. 

A lot of things that you talk about in relation to climate change and green energy are, frankly, fringe technologies, or just plain pie in the sky.  The vast, vast majority of folks cannot afford or obtain this stuff.

The typical, standard solar panel does not last 40-50 years.  The average panel lasts 20-25 years.  Perhaps there are very new, and very expensive, ones that *claim* to last that long, but again most people probably cannot afford them.

I'm trying to be realistic and practical when it comes to transitioning away from fossil fuels.  I, too, want to stop burning fossil fuels for energy, but the transition must be done gradually and smartly, not rushed because of a belief that we're all doomed if we don't act within 7 years. 

The radical plans to eliminate fossil fuels by 2035, or even 2030, are unrealistic.  My worry is that the more zealous and fanatical proponents of climate change will be able to force everyone to submit to their demands, thereby destroying the economy and ruining millions of lives.

Dave

Here's a thought, given that the efficiency of solar panels is improving, will they begin to generate more power in daylight on overcast and cloudy days? 

Speaking of energy efficiency, I spent most of Sunday afternoon assisting my neighbour replacing some of the bulbs in his 1937 Rolls Royce 25/30 with tailor made (bespoke? Remember that post?) LEDs. Should he take the car out at night then he'll be able to see the road rather than the lights just being purely for the convenience of being noticed by other road users! 

49 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

I'll bet that these houses are tiny. 

 

Dave

 

Oh god no Dave. Passive houses don't have to be tiny. Mind you, you are from the US and I know you guys tend to have much larger houses than here in Europe. Below is a passive house, and as you can see, its by no means small.

 

 

 

Edited February 22, 20215 yr by martin-w

49 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

 

A lot of things that you talk about in relation to climate change and green energy are, frankly, fringe technologies, or just plain pie in the sky.  The vast, vast majority of folks cannot afford or obtain this stuff.

 

Dave

 

Like what? Passive houses are now more common. Solar panels are certainly VERY common in the UK. So what is "fringe" and unaffordable? 

 

Quote

 The average panel lasts 20-25 years. 

 

Again... that's not true. See the links I previously posted. If you don't count loss of efficiency a solar panel can last 200 years. I note, that you are no longer claiming that they last 10 years and are now saying 25 years. NO! They don't last only 25 years. They can drop to 80% efficiency in that time frame but they are not therefore scrap and useless. I have already pointed this out in the previous reply. After dropping in efficiency they can be used for many more years until the home owner decided to replace them. 80% efficiency is still very good and useful. 

 

Quote

the transition must be done gradually and smartly,

 

Smartly yes, that's what's happening. But as for gradually, no, the science disagrees with you. And now what is happening is what I feared, this conversation is drifting in the direction of climate change and risks now being locked... again!

 

Quote

The radical plans to eliminate fossil fuels by 2035, or even 2030, are unrealistic.  My worry is that the more zealous and fanatical proponents of climate change will be able to force everyone to submit to their demands, thereby destroying the economy and ruining millions of lives.

 

if you want this debate to continue, then I suggest not bringing climate change into the discussion. Every time we have debated this before its ended up being locked.

50 minutes ago, HighBypass said:

Here's a thought, given that the efficiency of solar panels is improving, will they begin to generate more power in daylight on overcast and cloudy days? 

 

 

 

Yep, they would generate more power on cloudy days. 

In a single hour, the amount of power from the sun that strikes the Earth is more than the entire world consumes in an year. To put that in numbers, from the US Department of Energy: Each hour 430 quintillion Joules of energy from the sun hits the Earth. 

If we can continue to improve the efficiency of photovoltaic panels and keep the costs down it truly will be utterly revolutionary. Same for batteries of course, if  the battery technology in the lab now, makes it into production, all manner of amazing things will be possible.