Sign in to follow this  
Fweethawt

Single huge offshore wind farm ‘could power the entire world’, researchers say

Recommended Posts

https://www.yahoo.com/news/single-huge-offshore-wind-farm-power-entire-world-researchers-say-093421575.html

 

The entire world could be powered by a single offshore, deep sea wind farm, researchers have said – but it’d have to be rather large.

 

Specifically, it would be the size of India, researchers say – stretching over a million square miles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Keeping this site online isn't free, so we need your support! Make a one-time donation or choose one of the recurrent patron options by clicking here.



It would also have to be capable of withstanding huge storms.

 

What about joint Wind/Solar farms at sea?

 

Have the necessary area while getting redundancy into the power grid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with all alternative energy proposals is cost. It would seem certain that clean energy of one kind or another could power the whole world, no doubt, but how much more would the consumer have to pay for this energy. If any one of these clean energy proposals were cost effective, governments all over the world would be investing big into them. Wind-power proposals in this country are subsidized by the government. I was in Spain where this is also the case. The same cost problem also exists for solar power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If any one of these clean energy proposals were cost effective, governments all over the world would be investing big into them

 

Governments don't give two shits about cost effectiveness. Look at the F35, which has already cost tax payers $2T and it can't even fly under normal conditions. The Russian SU35 outperforms it in virtually every possible way and costs 1/10th the price. The US isn't adopting clean energy in a significant way because it's still controlled by the oil lobbies. They are spending billions on pipleline projects simply because the oil lobbies have gotten the government to commit to oil into the future even though it's a dying energy source. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wind seems promising, but solar has to be the focus I'd think just in terms of the huge power difference between the two. Wind is a biproduct of the sun's rays, right? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     Solar is great but has issues.  Wind is 24/7 while solar is not.  Wind can be used in regions where solar isn't as effective.  Turbines also don't suffer from the same manufacturing issues as solar panels (ie. the pollution is less).

 

     Down here in SoCal solar is about the best solution.  We don't get a lot of steady winds.  We do have wind farms in some areas but the sun is almost always shining.  In either case we need tech to "smooth" out the load to the electric grid.  When winds hit the it's "bursty" and the old grid wasn't designed for that.  Also, we get a lot of power generated during the day with solar (so much so that we sometimes have to shunt it off to other states...you think it would be super cheap as a result but it's not...it's actually fairly expensive) but it drops off at night and we need storage to even that all out.

 

     There's no reason to simply focus on a single tech when using several to compliment the others would be a better way to go.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how wind could be 24/7 except occasionally. Some places, of course are better than others. My point is more general than specifically related to today's current tech. It just makes more sense to me to focus on developing solar tech given it's the source of energy and wind is simply a biproduct of that huge, massive source. Virtually all energy on the planet originates with the sun, right? 

I've read that tech is in development that will make even northern climates like the one I live in viable solar areas as they are able to collect even through the clouds. With developing battery tech, solar seems to be promising as a primary source even though the sun is available only during the day. 

 

But, yeah, diversify. Why not? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     Well, I don't know about where you live but where I live the wind has been known to blow at any given hour of the day (and night).  And in some areas/altitudes a breeze can be going literally all the time.  Wind works 24/7.  Whereas the sun only likes to come out for only a part of that time.  It's a tad shy especially in the winter months.

 

     They are working on solar that works on different parts of the spectrum but when that will finally show up is anyone's guess (they always say five years to get funding).  Solar, as it is, is very inefficient.  It's just the nature of the tech.  They'll improve it but it will hit a point of diminishing returns.  We should really just expect incremental increases in the tech over time, as has been happening, as opposed to major breakthroughs.

 

     And wind not only comes from the sun but the rotation of the Earth.  Not that this really matters.

 

     I think solar is probably going to be where people go but I think it would be unwise to put all our eggs in that basket.  Monocultures always have a way of crapping out.  I think we should diversify especially on energy (that doesn't mean we should back dead industries like coal, unless, coal is the only energy source available but that's quickly becoming not the case).

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Vigile said:

 

Governments don't give two shits about cost effectiveness. Look at the F35, which has already cost tax payers $2T and it can't even fly under normal conditions. The Russian SU35 outperforms it in virtually every possible way and costs 1/10th the price. The US isn't adopting clean energy in a significant way because it's still controlled by the oil lobbies. They are spending billions on pipleline projects simply because the oil lobbies have gotten the government to commit to oil into the future even though it's a dying energy source. 

 

Alternative energy sources will not likely become a government project because of its inefficiencies, and private sectors require cost effectiveness. According to today's technologies "green" sources of energy are not cost effective so they will not be considered seriously by industry until a future time. Governments can endorse the promotion of green energy, but IMO the US will not invest in a large way in such projects until they become close to being cost effective. Once they become cost effective private industry will then take over.

 

A proposal about 20 years ago was to have solar satellites, many dozen of them, surrounding the planet Venus. Venus being closer to the sun, such solar satellites could produce vast quantities of electricity, then transfer this energy to the Earth via microwave transmissions. The cost was estimated to be more than a trillion US dollars but it could have been done at that time. Some of the major problems identified then were the lack of efficiency of solar cells at that time, their required replacement over time, and the extent of power loss concerning the present technology involving the transmission, reception, and conversion of micro-waves into electricity. The proposal also had the additional advantage of being able to power Earth satellites, space travel, planetary colonization, etc.  But not being cost effective at that time was the eventual killer of the proposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mwc said:

     Well, I don't know about where you live but where I live the wind has been known to blow at any given hour of the day (and night). 

 

It probably blows more here, since I live on the sea, near the Bay of Finland. But wind doesn't blow non stop even here. So I don't see why it's different than solar in that there are lulls that need to be accounted for using battery tech. A breeze may turn the turbines, but I bet not much. I don't have any issues with wind power. Again, my point is general and about the future, not necessarily now, based on current tech. I've already explained why I think so. 

 

 

Quote

And wind not only comes from the sun but the rotation of the Earth.  Not that this really matters.

 

Really? This is new info for me. Are you sure? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Alternative energy sources will not likely become a government project because of its inefficiencies, and private sectors require cost effectiveness. According to today's technologies "green" sources of energy are not cost effective so they will not be considered seriously by industry until a future time. Governments can endorse the promotion of green energy, but IMO the US will not invest in a large way in such projects until they become close to being cost effective. Once they become cost effective private industry will then take over.

 

A proposal about 20 years ago was to have solar satellites, many dozen of them, surrounding the planet Venus. Venus being closer to the sun, such solar satellites could produce vast quantities of electricity, then transfer this energy to the Earth via microwave transmissions. The cost was estimated to be more than a trillion US dollars but it could have been done at that time. Some of the major problems identified then were the lack of efficiency of solar cells at that time, their required replacement over time, and the extent of power loss concerning the present technology involving the transmission, reception, and conversion of micro-waves into electricity. The proposal also had the additional advantage of being able to power Earth satellites, space travel, planetary colonization, etc.  But not being cost effective at that time was the eventual killer of the proposal.

 

Virtually all new tech is government subsidized until it becomes cost effective for the private sector. This was even true of fossil fuel tech which required the government to build the infrastructure before it became viable in mass markets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Vigile said:

 

It probably blows more here, since I live on the sea, near the Bay of Finland. But wind doesn't blow non stop even here. So I don't see why it's different than solar in that there are lulls that need to be accounted for using battery tech. A breeze may turn the turbines, but I bet not much. I don't have any issues with wind power. Again, my point is general and about the future, not necessarily now, based on current tech. I've already explained why I think so. 

     I'm not sure how much energy those turbines create.  They're quite large so a little goes a long ways.

 

     I don't know if placing them offshore changes things all that much are not either.

 

10 hours ago, Vigile said:

 

Really? This is new info for me. Are you sure? 

     Pretty sure.  From Wikipedia on wind:



Wind is caused by differences in the atmospheric pressure. When a difference in atmospheric pressure exists, air moves from the higher to the lower pressure area, resulting in winds of various speeds. On a rotating planet, air will also be deflected by the Coriolis effect, except exactly on the equator. Globally, the two major driving factors of large-scale wind patterns (the atmospheric circulation) are the differential heating between the equator and the poles (difference in absorption of solar energy leading to buoyancy forces) and the rotation of the planet. Outside the tropics and aloft from frictional effects of the surface, the large-scale winds tend to approach geostrophic balance. Near the Earth's surface, friction causes the wind to be slower than it would be otherwise. Surface friction also causes winds to blow more inward into low-pressure areas.[1][2]

     Google other sources if you like since the answers are all the same.  As I said before it really doesn't matter though.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mwc said:

     I'm not sure how much energy those turbines create.  They're quite large so a little goes a long ways.

 

     I don't know if placing them offshore changes things all that much are not either.

 

     Pretty sure.  From Wikipedia on wind:

 

 

     Google other sources if you like since the answers are all the same.  As I said before it really doesn't matter though.

 

          mwc

 

 

Yeah, I looked it up after I posted. Not sure I fully comprehend it, but there it is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Vigile said:

 

Virtually all new tech is government subsidized until it becomes cost effective for the private sector. This was even true of fossil fuel tech which required the government to build the infrastructure before it became viable in mass markets. 

 

Hi Vigile.

 

Humor me, but, nowadays a few new technologies have been subsidized by the government,  not "virtually all."  The fossil fuel industry, in the US, first involved the coal and tar-pitch industry, then, concerning distillation, was greatly expanded by the kerosene industry, and finally improved drilling capabilities as well as  a  countrywide delivery infrastructure systems were developed by the petroleum industry headed up by John D. Rockefeller, for gasoline and natural gas. The government did not, and cannot provide major development funding or financial support for private industry without the approval of congress. This has been the case for clean energy subsidizing, but not for the fossil fuel industry.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Hi Vigile.

 

Humor me, but, nowadays a few new technologies have been subsidized by the government,  not "virtually all."  The fossil fuel industry, in the US, first involved the coal and tar-pitch industry, then, concerning distillation, was greatly expanded by the kerosene industry, and finally improved drilling capabilities as well as  a  countrywide delivery infrastructure systems were developed by the petroleum industry headed up by John D. Rockefeller, for gasoline and natural gas. The government did not, and cannot provide major development funding or financial support for private industry without the approval of congress. This has been the case for clean energy subsidizing, but not for the fossil fuel industry.  

 

I saw a PBS doc years ago that showed how the internal combustion engine won out due to government support; especially in terms of building fueling depots and refineries across the nation giving it the sole advantage over other competitors. Hell, where would the oil industry be now if they had to pay for building the roads?


 

Quote

 

https://cen.acs.org/articles/89/i51/Long-History-US-Energy-Subsidies.html

Their study finds a paucity of government support for renewable energy sources compared with past government investment in coal, gas, oil, or nuclear energy sources, which helped the country transition to new energy technologies and infrastructures.

 

 

Today, the fossil fuel industry is still massively subsidized. Pipeline projects alone make up huge amounts of subsidization in terms of land lease and eminent domain land grabs. But that's not even the half of it. Imagine if the oil industry had to pay for its own security or had to compete with the countries the military has just gone in and cleared out competition. The US tax payers have spent trillions on this and the sole beneficiaries have been the fossil fuel industry. 

 

I stand by my virtually all industries. The computer industry would have never got off the ground without government subsidies. Nearly every single part of the iPhone was developed in universities paid for by grant programs. Industry like Apple would have never survived if they had to pay for the initial R&D costs. The internet and internet infrastructure? Forget about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Vigile said:

 

I saw a PBS doc years ago that showed how the internal combustion engine won out due to government support; especially in terms of building fueling depots and refineries across the nation giving it the sole advantage over other competitors. Hell, where would the oil industry be now if they had to pay for building the roads?

 

Today, the fossil fuel industry is still massively subsidized. Pipeline projects alone make up huge amounts of subsidization in terms of land lease and eminent domain land grabs. But that's not even the half of it. Imagine if the oil industry had to pay for its own security or had to compete with the countries the military has just gone in and cleared out competition. The US tax payers have spent trillions on this and the sole beneficiaries have been the fossil fuel industry. 

 

I stand by my virtually all industries. The computer industry would have never got off the ground without government subsidies. Nearly every single part of the iPhone was developed in universities paid for by grant programs. Industry like Apple would have never survived if they had to pay for the initial R&D costs. The internet and internet infrastructure? Forget about it. 

 

From what I have read and my knowledge of the oil and gas industry and its history, the US government was not involved concerning financial support for its development. See what other links you can find to support this idea that the government was financially involved. I couldn't find any. I'm guessing government support for the petroleum industry related more to the socialist countries of Europe and elsewhere. In the US, tax breaks (reduced taxation rates) are/ were offered to oil companies when/ if they manage their resources according to, what is considered, the best interests of the country -- if not there are no tax breaks.

 

Your statement about asset protection is valid but that is part of what their taxes pay for, as well as the taxes for all other industry and commerce which pay for their own protection through taxes.  No additional funding is required. The US government has a huge net financial benefit from the oil and gas industry.

 

http://insideenergy.org/2016/11/04/ie-questions-how-does-the-government-subsidize-oil-and-gas/

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_industry

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you don't like my link and want to send me on an errand to satisfy you? I demonstrated how the industry is still massively subsidized. It's the most heavily subsidized industry in history. We spend trillions on the military and wars for oil, etc...  I reject the claim that the government/tax payers receive a net benefit. The world is in chaos right now. The US is fighting 7 active wars and has bombed, droned and sent commando units into upwards of 150 countries just since Obama was president. This doesn't even touch the cost in terms of the environment. US citizens receive far less from their government than every single one of their peers; largely because of the money spent on so-called defense. 

 

Sorry, but I'm having a hard time taking this seriously at this point. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vigile said:

So, you don't like my link and want to send me on an errand to satisfy you? I demonstrated how the industry is still massively subsidized. It's the most heavily subsidized industry in history. We spend trillions on the military and wars for oil, etc...  I reject the claim that the government/tax payers receive a net benefit. The world is in chaos right now. The US is fighting 7 active wars and has bombed, droned and sent commando units into upwards of 150 countries just since Obama was president. This doesn't even touch the cost in terms of the environment. US citizens receive far less from their government than every single one of their peers; largely because of the money spent on so-called defense. 

 

Sorry, but I'm having a hard time taking this seriously at this point. 

 

 

 

I'm not sure that you realize that tax incentives (slightly reduced tax rates) to do what the government would like you to do, are not the same as subsidizing. The government has never given the oil industry anything from any of my readings. They have provided tax incentives for reduced production, research and development, etc. through reduced taxation rates.

 

subsidize defined:  to support financially or pay part of the cost of production.

 

Your link does not address how, or in what way, the US government has ever subsidized the oil industry. The statements made in your link do not seem to be supported by the necessary details to support the statements.

 

The three largest U.S. oil and gas companies paid a total of $289.7 billion in corporate income taxes between 2007 and 2012, the biggest portion of corporate taxes in absolute terms, according to analysis by Standard & Poor’s Capital IQ. US corporate tax income from oil companies is the largest of all corporate taxes paid,  with a 44.6% tax rate, a tax rate 3 times higher than what Apple Computer pays, for instance.

 

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/3-us-oil-companies-paid-highest-corporate-income-taxes-2897b-2007-12

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this