This thread is a reveal for the new applications of technology applied to the delivery and use of energy in “Green” ways. Further to the massive investment in wind power revealed in this post, I encountered this article which indicates how alternative energy sources are being used to provide Hydrogen for mass-transport systems.
Scottish Power’s wind and solar farms will soon help produce green hydrogen to run buses, ferries and even trains as part of a pioneering strategic partnership to develop the UK’s nascent hydrogen economy.
The renewable energy company, owned by Spain’s Iberdrola, will work alongside companies that specialise in producing and distributing the zero-carbon gas. Hydrogen is expected to play a major role in helping the UK to meet its climate targets.
Hydrogen powered cars have been talked about for a long time. Electric cars aren’t that green because the batteries need recharging, meaning the power has to come from hydroelectric dams, or power stations that run on fuel or nuke.
I don’t know how much power windmills can produce. They kill a lot of birds, unless there are design changes.
For those who can’t manage to follow the “this post” link above, here is the article concerning the scale of wind power in the North Sea as harvested by German and Dutch generating businesses.
TenneT, the largest operator of electricity grids in Germany and the Netherlands IPO-TTH.AS, said offshore wind from North Sea turbines had represented a 15.6% share of Germany’s total wind power production of 73.7 TWh in the six months.
TenneT’s German division plays a key role in the industry because it is the responsible for linking North Sea wind farms to onshore grids in the states of Lower Saxony and Schleswig Holstein.
TenneT operates platforms and converter stations to turn direct current electricity from the offshore turbines into alternating current used in onshore power systems.
Its German North Sea connection capacity currently amounts to 7,132 megawatts (MW) and is due to rise to 17,000 MW by 2030.
I beg to disagree.
But you’re entitled to your opinion.
“Nuclear energy” is not clean or green at all.
Someone said it’s like a flat without toilet, meaning nuclear waste material grows and grows and grows, with nowhere to dispose of it.
Nuclear energy is more costly — in terms of money — and yet it is pushed because the ultimate goal lies in the military.
(Nuclear warheads need to be replaced on a regular basis)
Disposing of nuclear waste in the densely populated American Midwest is another story, because they know all of Canada and a major portion of the mainland US, including the Midwest, will be uninhabitable anyway under glaciers and ice sheets in the first part of this century.
The British nuclear industry at Sellafield is devoted to processing exactly this kind of material.
I see nothing wrong with finding a suitable deep-located site in which to abandon nuclear waste. After all, it came out of the ground in the first place. Shell, BP, Chevron must have hundreds of suitable facilities by now.
Yes, uranium comes from the soil, but not in a concentrated form as used in the industry and military, and plutonium is totally artificial material.
Humanity isn’t really ready for this kind technology. It brings about nothing but disaster after disaster. I don’t know how it was possible, but the ancient Indian site (which is actually in Pakistan) of Mohenjo Daro was certainly nuked.
The main issue is that there is not, as yet, sufficient ‘storage’ capacity for days/nights when there is no wind. I am sure we will get there. Personally I believe that an amount of gas turbine generating capacity should be retained. Such generating facility can be run-up within about an hour, maybe less.
The whole idea of green technology is the survival of humanity in a reasonably well preserved natural environment.
Nuclear energy
It may appear cost efficient, but once shit hits the fan, the expenses to clean up the mess are endless, not to mention the amount of human suffering. The crises at Chernobyl and Fukushima are far from over.
Hydroelectric
Dams don’t last forever. They eventually collapse and it’s not a matter of if but when. They often cause big earthquakes too.
“So-called” fossil fuel
There is room for improvement to combustion of natural gas, oil and coal more efficiently. CO2 causing “global warming” is a hoax.
Solar and wind power
They may not be perfect and have their shortcomings.
But they are good additions to the mix of different sources of energy.
The only true “green” and efficient tech is nuclear energy. Their R&D has been severely hammered and disrupted due to fear-mongering; yet it has proven to be safe and effective for decades: France is currently 70% powered by nuclear energy
If your country is at war, full-scale or otherwise, or have simple old-fashioned border disputes, your country can be blackmailed or go down the drain by a single missile from a submarine or even by a drone.
The UK buys a lot of nuclear power from France. That is historic data from the retail supplier EDF. Now that domestic wind and solar generation are burgeoning I expect that to decrease.
Know how large a storage facility would needed to be to store an hours worth of power for a city???
Not to mention the wind doesn’t blow all the time nor does the sun shine every night.
Of course there’s the little problem of transmission lines. Wind power generated in the farm lands of Iowa is used at that local level as the cost of HV power lines as well as the loss in transmission lines is a bit problematic.
When the wind stops and a power plant comes on line it can produce the equivalent of a months pollution in a short time start up. The power plants will always be required as fall, winter often bring days of cloudy skies.
With wind there is a minor power of disposal of fiber glass structures. They are not recyclable
If you believe people cause pollution and global warming perhaps you should be advocating the reduction of people on this planet, 7+ billion and growing.
Agreed the US has more significant distances to cover with power transmission. In Europe the problems are much reduced and the high voltage transmission network is well-developed.
As for population, a year or three back I read about a model which predicted a plateau at 11-billion. Of course if the model was sponsored by the Gates foundation it immediately becomes suspect, however Africa is expected to increase population by around 3 billion. The plateau occurs due to increased education and life-chances which lead to a reduction in birth rate (as seen in Europe and Japan).
I am not in favour of genetic meddling to reduce or control population. That has the potential to be influenced by Murphy’s Law.
