Dirty, polluting, Wind Power

[elektra]

Lighter means a much smaller generator, much smaller. There is a reason that wind turbines are being designed as heavy as they are, they have already designed light ones which failed. Thousands in palm springs. It has been tried, nobody is doing something new here.

Either way, even if it works you need 100's of millions of them, increasing production of industry to supply much less power is insanity.

Further, wind turbines increase the use of coal, you can nit build them without coal.

Point where I've said....anywhere I've said do away with coal? Or not use coal, or gas, or oil?

I've said only do it, if you can make it if it generates more power over it's lifetime, than it requires to produce/maintain.

Are you talking about these? Huge forest of Giant Wind Turbines Near Palm Springs In Southern California

If you're pointing out why those fail...hell son have you not been paying attention that I agree with you about how they're trying to do it now?

Now, tomorrow, and into the future you will always need coal to make the 100's of millions of wind turbines propose. You can not even acknowledge that nobody is even researching a way to produce wind turbines withouy coal.

Either way, if you can not understand that 190's of millions of idle wind turbines is an extreme waste of the earth's resources you are not capable of understanding the propaganda you have linked to. You post tbat garbage as if someone has a solution to a problem that does not exsist.

We dont need wind, solar, or any other green power, we provide for ourselves easily with modern technology.

Wind, solar, and ethanol are old, old, technologies.

Your imagination cant fathom what modern even means.

 

[9aces]

Lighter means a much smaller generator, much smaller. There is a reason that wind turbines are being designed as heavy as they are, they have already designed light ones which failed. Thousands in palm springs. It has been tried, nobody is doing something new here.

Either way, even if it works you need 100's of millions of them, increasing production of industry to supply much less power is insanity.

Further, wind turbines increase the use of coal, you can nit build them without coal.

Point where I've said....anywhere I've said do away with coal? Or not use coal, or gas, or oil?

I've said only do it, if you can make it if it generates more power over it's lifetime, than it requires to produce/maintain.

Are you talking about these? Huge forest of Giant Wind Turbines Near Palm Springs In Southern California

If you're pointing out why those fail...hell son have you not been paying attention that I agree with you about how they're trying to do it now?

Now, tomorrow, and into the future you will always need coal to make the 100's of millions of wind turbines propose. You can not even acknowledge that nobody is even researching a way to produce wind turbines withouy coal.

Either way, if you can not understand that 190's of millions of idle wind turbines is an extreme waste of the earth's resources you are not capable of understanding the propaganda you have linked to. You post tbat garbage as if someone has a solution to a problem that does not exsist.

We dont need wind, solar, or any other green power, we provide for ourselves easily with modern technology.

Wind, solar, and ethanol are old, old, technologies.

Your imagination cant fathom what modern even means.

I'm not sure where you got your "can't produce without coal" dogma. I've certainly never said that, in point of fact I've repeatedly said you need to use it to produce it, and will need to continue using it. I'm only suggesting looking at doing it in a way that's efficient, and it's only a supplement.

No imagination? One is looking at a problem, to see if there's a way to solve it using new technology. One is going "Wind bad...coal good" and can't even answer a simple question.

I asked a simple question, so I could review what you were talking about. Did I get an answer? No I got a rant that had nothing to do with the question.

Why is answering a question so hard?

 

[elektra]

Yes, why is getting an answer so hard.

Lighter means a much smaller generator, much smaller. There is a reason that wind turbines are being designed as heavy as they are, they have already designed light ones which failed. Thousands in palm springs. It has been tried, nobody is doing something new here.

Either way, even if it works you need 100's of millions of them, increasing production of industry to supply much less power is insanity.

Further, wind turbines increase the use of coal, you can nit build them without coal.

Point where I've said....anywhere I've said do away with coal? Or not use coal, or gas, or oil?

I've said only do it, if you can make it if it generates more power over it's lifetime, than it requires to produce/maintain.

Are you talking about these? Huge forest of Giant Wind Turbines Near Palm Springs In Southern California

If you're pointing out why those fail...hell son have you not been paying attention that I agree with you about how they're trying to do it now?

Now, tomorrow, and into the future you will always need coal to make the 100's of millions of wind turbines propose. You can not even acknowledge that nobody is even researching a way to produce wind turbines withouy coal.

Either way, if you can not understand that 190's of millions of idle wind turbines is an extreme waste of the earth's resources you are not capable of understanding the propaganda you have linked to. You post tbat garbage as if someone has a solution to a problem that does not exsist.

We dont need wind, solar, or any other green power, we provide for ourselves easily with modern technology.

Wind, solar, and ethanol are old, old, technologies.

Your imagination cant fathom what modern even means.

I'm not sure where you got your "can't produce without coal" dogma. I've certainly never said that, in point of fact I've repeatedly said you need to use it to produce it, and will need to continue using it. I'm only suggesting looking at doing it in a way that's efficient, and it's only a supplement.

No imagination? One is looking at a problem, to see if there's a way to solve it using new technology. One is going "Wind bad...coal good" and can't even answer a simple question.

I asked a simple question, so I could review what you were talking about. Did I get an answer? No I got a rant that had nothing to do with the question.

Why is answering a question so hard?

What is your question.

And how many questions have you not answered.

Increasing the use of coal to produce any kind of wind turbine is taking my money. It is also the government forcing me to buy a more expensive product that is not needed.

Wind Power us not needed, it does not reduce pollution so that argument is invalid.

Wind Turbines can not supplement our electrical needs, we can produce all our electricity with cleaner cheaper power sources.

Wind Power is one fo the oldest forms of power, imaking more, making them bigger, making them lighter, designig a more effecient blade, is simply a poor attempt at modernizing an old failed clunker.

The first generation of modern wind turbines were sold as providing energy forevet, they are gone and scrapped, as is the second generation, the third generation is niw veing replaced with the forth.

And the argument continues, we can make them better, yet we still dont need them, ever.

 

[9aces]

Yes, why is getting an answer so hard.

Lighter means a much smaller generator, much smaller. There is a reason that wind turbines are being designed as heavy as they are, they have already designed light ones which failed. Thousands in palm springs. It has been tried, nobody is doing something new here.

Either way, even if it works you need 100's of millions of them, increasing production of industry to supply much less power is insanity.

Further, wind turbines increase the use of coal, you can nit build them without coal.

Point where I've said....anywhere I've said do away with coal? Or not use coal, or gas, or oil?

I've said only do it, if you can make it if it generates more power over it's lifetime, than it requires to produce/maintain.

Are you talking about these? Huge forest of Giant Wind Turbines Near Palm Springs In Southern California

If you're pointing out why those fail...hell son have you not been paying attention that I agree with you about how they're trying to do it now?

Now, tomorrow, and into the future you will always need coal to make the 100's of millions of wind turbines propose. You can not even acknowledge that nobody is even researching a way to produce wind turbines withouy coal.

Either way, if you can not understand that 190's of millions of idle wind turbines is an extreme waste of the earth's resources you are not capable of understanding the propaganda you have linked to. You post tbat garbage as if someone has a solution to a problem that does not exsist.

We dont need wind, solar, or any other green power, we provide for ourselves easily with modern technology.

Wind, solar, and ethanol are old, old, technologies.

Your imagination cant fathom what modern even means.

I'm not sure where you got your "can't produce without coal" dogma. I've certainly never said that, in point of fact I've repeatedly said you need to use it to produce it, and will need to continue using it. I'm only suggesting looking at doing it in a way that's efficient, and it's only a supplement.

No imagination? One is looking at a problem, to see if there's a way to solve it using new technology. One is going "Wind bad...coal good" and can't even answer a simple question.

I asked a simple question, so I could review what you were talking about. Did I get an answer? No I got a rant that had nothing to do with the question.

Why is answering a question so hard?

What is your question.

And how many questions have you not answered.

Increasing the use of coal to produce any kind of wind turbine is taking my money. It is also the government forcing me to buy a more expensive product that is not needed.

Wind Power us not needed, it does not reduce pollution so that argument is invalid.

Wind Turbines can not supplement our electrical needs, we can produce all our electricity with cleaner cheaper power sources.

Wind Power is one fo the oldest forms of power, imaking more, making them bigger, making them lighter, designig a more effecient blade, is simply a poor attempt at modernizing an old failed clunker.

The first generation of modern wind turbines were sold as providing energy forevet, they are gone and scrapped, as is the second generation, the third generation is niw veing replaced with the forth.

And the argument continues, we can make them better, yet we still dont need them, ever.

I've answered every question you've asked. Apparently you haven't been reading. Sometimes the answer was, I don't know, there's no way to actually determine the answer at this point.

I asked if the Palm Springs turbines you were referring to were Huge forest of Giant Wind Turbines Near Palm Springs In Southern California

NOTE: Nowhere have I argued about pollution. If you'd asked about that, you'd find I agree with you.

Until such time as fusion power becomes feasible, supplementing additional sources, if it's cost effective makes sense.

Yes the current wind power advocates are going about it all wrong. They're doing some things better, and increasing the efficiency of what they're making now. Still doesn't make them efficient enough to use, and I have questions about the 50% standard they're proclaiming now.

They may never be. I'm looking at can it be done efficiently and asking questions. You're saying don't even try.

 

[elektra]

Yes, why is getting an answer so hard.

Lighter means a much smaller generator, much smaller. There is a reason that wind turbines are being designed as heavy as they are, they have already designed light ones which failed. Thousands in palm springs. It has been tried, nobody is doing something new here.

Either way, even if it works you need 100's of millions of them, increasing production of industry to supply much less power is insanity.

Further, wind turbines increase the use of coal, you can nit build them without coal.

Point where I've said....anywhere I've said do away with coal? Or not use coal, or gas, or oil?

I've said only do it, if you can make it if it generates more power over it's lifetime, than it requires to produce/maintain.

Are you talking about these? Huge forest of Giant Wind Turbines Near Palm Springs In Southern California

If you're pointing out why those fail...hell son have you not been paying attention that I agree with you about how they're trying to do it now?

Now, tomorrow, and into the future you will always need coal to make the 100's of millions of wind turbines propose. You can not even acknowledge that nobody is even researching a way to produce wind turbines withouy coal.

Either way, if you can not understand that 190's of millions of idle wind turbines is an extreme waste of the earth's resources you are not capable of understanding the propaganda you have linked to. You post tbat garbage as if someone has a solution to a problem that does not exsist.

We dont need wind, solar, or any other green power, we provide for ourselves easily with modern technology.

Wind, solar, and ethanol are old, old, technologies.

Your imagination cant fathom what modern even means.

I'm not sure where you got your "can't produce without coal" dogma. I've certainly never said that, in point of fact I've repeatedly said you need to use it to produce it, and will need to continue using it. I'm only suggesting looking at doing it in a way that's efficient, and it's only a supplement.

No imagination? One is looking at a problem, to see if there's a way to solve it using new technology. One is going "Wind bad...coal good" and can't even answer a simple question.

I asked a simple question, so I could review what you were talking about. Did I get an answer? No I got a rant that had nothing to do with the question.

Why is answering a question so hard?

What is your question.

And how many questions have you not answered.

Increasing the use of coal to produce any kind of wind turbine is taking my money. It is also the government forcing me to buy a more expensive product that is not needed.

Wind Power us not needed, it does not reduce pollution so that argument is invalid.

Wind Turbines can not supplement our electrical needs, we can produce all our electricity with cleaner cheaper power sources.

Wind Power is one fo the oldest forms of power, imaking more, making them bigger, making them lighter, designig a more effecient blade, is simply a poor attempt at modernizing an old failed clunker.

The first generation of modern wind turbines were sold as providing energy forevet, they are gone and scrapped, as is the second generation, the third generation is niw veing replaced with the forth.

And the argument continues, we can make them better, yet we still dont need them, ever.

I've answered every question you've asked. Apparently you haven't been reading.

I asked if the Palm Springs

Areogels have promise.. It is what they are now making unbreakable cell phone screens with. You can almost bend them at 90 deg and they wont self destruct. They also survive moderate impact blows.

They also have flaws. They do not handle heat well and are prone to tensile stress fracture. In wind turbine designs there are two major factors.. Heat and tensile stress all coupled with vibration.

Smaller wind turbines will not solve the vibration problem or the heat problem. It would really only help with the tensile strength problem. But smaller means they would have to make many more of them and then battery storage would be a must for long term use.

Bottom line, Wind and PV arrays are not ready for prime time on any level.

Indeed. Look at the flaws a decade ago, and look at them now. Progress, can they get there? I don't know, but the developmental curve is promising.

Smaller would help with the vibration problem I think. What causes a lot of that now? The pressure differential between the blades extremities. Some of the various forms also are fantastic insulators, so the heat issue may be less than you think. Might be what you think, might be more, who knows at this point, it's merely an exercise considering possibilities

Absolutely correct in that they're not ready for prime time at any level, and may never be.

Have you looked at what they're doing with super capacitors and storage models using 3D printing btw?

I asked what type of aerogel and which process. Maybe I missed your answer.

I asked other questions as well. Not omportant though.

Storage, wind and solar together will never come close to supplying peak power so why try storing the energy?

Why use 200 million tons of coal to produce a few wond mills when a nuclear power plant will only use 27 tons of uranium?

We have sources of power today that work perfectly and creat a yiny bit of waste. It is nonsensical to try and fix wind mills problems.

 

[9aces]

Areogels have promise.. It is what they are now making unbreakable cell phone screens with. You can almost bend them at 90 deg and they wont self destruct. They also survive moderate impact blows.

They also have flaws. They do not handle heat well and are prone to tensile stress fracture. In wind turbine designs there are two major factors.. Heat and tensile stress all coupled with vibration.

Smaller wind turbines will not solve the vibration problem or the heat problem. It would really only help with the tensile strength problem. But smaller means they would have to make many more of them and then battery storage would be a must for long term use.

Bottom line, Wind and PV arrays are not ready for prime time on any level.

Indeed. Look at the flaws a decade ago, and look at them now. Progress, can they get there? I don't know, but the developmental curve is promising.

Smaller would help with the vibration problem I think. What causes a lot of that now? The pressure differential between the blades extremities. Some of the various forms also are fantastic insulators, so the heat issue may be less than you think. Might be what you think, might be more, who knows at this point, it's merely an exercise considering possibilities

Absolutely correct in that they're not ready for prime time at any level, and may never be.

Have you looked at what they're doing with super capacitors and storage models using 3D printing btw?

 

[elektra]

Yes, why is getting an answer so hard.

Lighter means a much smaller generator, much smaller. There is a reason that wind turbines are being designed as heavy as they are, they have already designed light ones which failed. Thousands in palm springs. It has been tried, nobody is doing something new here.

Either way, even if it works you need 100's of millions of them, increasing production of industry to supply much less power is insanity.

Further, wind turbines increase the use of coal, you can nit build them without coal.

Point where I've said....anywhere I've said do away with coal? Or not use coal, or gas, or oil?

I've said only do it, if you can make it if it generates more power over it's lifetime, than it requires to produce/maintain.

Are you talking about these? Huge forest of Giant Wind Turbines Near Palm Springs In Southern California

If you're pointing out why those fail...hell son have you not been paying attention that I agree with you about how they're trying to do it now?

Now, tomorrow, and into the future you will always need coal to make the 100's of millions of wind turbines propose. You can not even acknowledge that nobody is even researching a way to produce wind turbines withouy coal.

Either way, if you can not understand that 190's of millions of idle wind turbines is an extreme waste of the earth's resources you are not capable of understanding the propaganda you have linked to. You post tbat garbage as if someone has a solution to a problem that does not exsist.

We dont need wind, solar, or any other green power, we provide for ourselves easily with modern technology.

Wind, solar, and ethanol are old, old, technologies.

Your imagination cant fathom what modern even means.

I'm not sure where you got your "can't produce without coal" dogma. I've certainly never said that, in point of fact I've repeatedly said you need to use it to produce it, and will need to continue using it. I'm only suggesting looking at doing it in a way that's efficient, and it's only a supplement.

No imagination? One is looking at a problem, to see if there's a way to solve it using new technology. One is going "Wind bad...coal good" and can't even answer a simple question.

I asked a simple question, so I could review what you were talking about. Did I get an answer? No I got a rant that had nothing to do with the question.

Why is answering a question so hard?

What is your question.

And how many questions have you not answered.

Increasing the use of coal to produce any kind of wind turbine is taking my money. It is also the government forcing me to buy a more expensive product that is not needed.

Wind Power us not needed, it does not reduce pollution so that argument is invalid.

Wind Turbines can not supplement our electrical needs, we can produce all our electricity with cleaner cheaper power sources.

Wind Power is one fo the oldest forms of power, imaking more, making them bigger, making them lighter, designig a more effecient blade, is simply a poor attempt at modernizing an old failed clunker.

The first generation of modern wind turbines were sold as providing energy forevet, they are gone and scrapped, as is the second generation, the third generation is niw veing replaced with the forth.

And the argument continues, we can make them better, yet we still dont need them, ever.

I've answered every question you've asked. Apparently you haven't been reading. Sometimes the answer was, I don't know, there's no way to actually determine the answer at this point.

I asked if the Palm Springs turbines you were referring to were Huge forest of Giant Wind Turbines Near Palm Springs In Southern California

NOTE: Nowhere have I argued about pollution. If you'd asked about that, you'd find I agree with you.

Until such time as fusion power becomes feasible, supplementing additional sources, if it's cost effective makes sense.

Yes the current wind power advocates are going about it all wrong. They're doing some things better, and increasing the efficiency of what they're making now. Still doesn't make them efficient enough to use, and I have questions about the 50% standard they're proclaiming now.

They may never be. I'm looking at can it be done efficiently and asking questions. You're saying don't even try.

My pics on this page are those turbines in the pic, you can even see the fossil fuel back up plant in one of the pics in your link.

I have video of the not spinning, oh and in your pic you can see a 1st gen tower with a third generation generator.

They have spent 30-40 years, billions of dollars, researching the solution in our government funded universities. Thus far the solution is more, and bigger.

And then the elephant in the room is they are not needed, not now not tomorrow not yesterday.

 

[9aces]

Yes, why is getting an answer so hard.

Point where I've said....anywhere I've said do away with coal? Or not use coal, or gas, or oil?

I've said only do it, if you can make it if it generates more power over it's lifetime, than it requires to produce/maintain.

Are you talking about these? Huge forest of Giant Wind Turbines Near Palm Springs In Southern California

If you're pointing out why those fail...hell son have you not been paying attention that I agree with you about how they're trying to do it now?

Now, tomorrow, and into the future you will always need coal to make the 100's of millions of wind turbines propose. You can not even acknowledge that nobody is even researching a way to produce wind turbines withouy coal.

Either way, if you can not understand that 190's of millions of idle wind turbines is an extreme waste of the earth's resources you are not capable of understanding the propaganda you have linked to. You post tbat garbage as if someone has a solution to a problem that does not exsist.

We dont need wind, solar, or any other green power, we provide for ourselves easily with modern technology.

Wind, solar, and ethanol are old, old, technologies.

Your imagination cant fathom what modern even means.

I'm not sure where you got your "can't produce without coal" dogma. I've certainly never said that, in point of fact I've repeatedly said you need to use it to produce it, and will need to continue using it. I'm only suggesting looking at doing it in a way that's efficient, and it's only a supplement.

No imagination? One is looking at a problem, to see if there's a way to solve it using new technology. One is going "Wind bad...coal good" and can't even answer a simple question.

I asked a simple question, so I could review what you were talking about. Did I get an answer? No I got a rant that had nothing to do with the question.

Why is answering a question so hard?

What is your question.

And how many questions have you not answered.

Increasing the use of coal to produce any kind of wind turbine is taking my money. It is also the government forcing me to buy a more expensive product that is not needed.

Wind Power us not needed, it does not reduce pollution so that argument is invalid.

Wind Turbines can not supplement our electrical needs, we can produce all our electricity with cleaner cheaper power sources.

Wind Power is one fo the oldest forms of power, imaking more, making them bigger, making them lighter, designig a more effecient blade, is simply a poor attempt at modernizing an old failed clunker.

The first generation of modern wind turbines were sold as providing energy forevet, they are gone and scrapped, as is the second generation, the third generation is niw veing replaced with the forth.

And the argument continues, we can make them better, yet we still dont need them, ever.

I've answered every question you've asked. Apparently you haven't been reading.

I asked if the Palm Springs

Areogels have promise.. It is what they are now making unbreakable cell phone screens with. You can almost bend them at 90 deg and they wont self destruct. They also survive moderate impact blows.

They also have flaws. They do not handle heat well and are prone to tensile stress fracture. In wind turbine designs there are two major factors.. Heat and tensile stress all coupled with vibration.

Smaller wind turbines will not solve the vibration problem or the heat problem. It would really only help with the tensile strength problem. But smaller means they would have to make many more of them and then battery storage would be a must for long term use.

Bottom line, Wind and PV arrays are not ready for prime time on any level.

Indeed. Look at the flaws a decade ago, and look at them now. Progress, can they get there? I don't know, but the developmental curve is promising.

Smaller would help with the vibration problem I think. What causes a lot of that now? The pressure differential between the blades extremities. Some of the various forms also are fantastic insulators, so the heat issue may be less than you think. Might be what you think, might be more, who knows at this point, it's merely an exercise considering possibilities

Absolutely correct in that they're not ready for prime time at any level, and may never be.

Have you looked at what they're doing with super capacitors and storage models using 3D printing btw?

I asked what type of aerogel and which process. Maybe I missed your answer.

I asked other questions as well. Not omportant though.

Storage, wind and solar together will never come close to supplying peak power so why try storing the energy?

Why use 200 million tons of coal to produce a few wond mills when a nuclear power plant will only use 27 tons of uranium?

We have sources of power today that work perfectly and creat a yiny bit of waste. It is nonsensical to try and fix wind mills problems.

I said you may have to use various forms of it. All of which are still rapidly developing.

Currently there's no reason to store it. Exactly correct, will that change enough in the future? I don't know, maybe, maybe not. Maybe not is winning right now.

I like nuclear power. I'm a big believer in doing both. My brother-in-law was an X-ray welder for nuclear plant construction.

Solving problems is good. You learn things in the doing you can apply elsewhere.

 

[9aces]

Yes, why is getting an answer so hard.

Point where I've said....anywhere I've said do away with coal? Or not use coal, or gas, or oil?

I've said only do it, if you can make it if it generates more power over it's lifetime, than it requires to produce/maintain.

Are you talking about these? Huge forest of Giant Wind Turbines Near Palm Springs In Southern California

If you're pointing out why those fail...hell son have you not been paying attention that I agree with you about how they're trying to do it now?

Now, tomorrow, and into the future you will always need coal to make the 100's of millions of wind turbines propose. You can not even acknowledge that nobody is even researching a way to produce wind turbines withouy coal.

Either way, if you can not understand that 190's of millions of idle wind turbines is an extreme waste of the earth's resources you are not capable of understanding the propaganda you have linked to. You post tbat garbage as if someone has a solution to a problem that does not exsist.

We dont need wind, solar, or any other green power, we provide for ourselves easily with modern technology.

Wind, solar, and ethanol are old, old, technologies.

Your imagination cant fathom what modern even means.

I'm not sure where you got your "can't produce without coal" dogma. I've certainly never said that, in point of fact I've repeatedly said you need to use it to produce it, and will need to continue using it. I'm only suggesting looking at doing it in a way that's efficient, and it's only a supplement.

No imagination? One is looking at a problem, to see if there's a way to solve it using new technology. One is going "Wind bad...coal good" and can't even answer a simple question.

I asked a simple question, so I could review what you were talking about. Did I get an answer? No I got a rant that had nothing to do with the question.

Why is answering a question so hard?

What is your question.

And how many questions have you not answered.

Increasing the use of coal to produce any kind of wind turbine is taking my money. It is also the government forcing me to buy a more expensive product that is not needed.

Wind Power us not needed, it does not reduce pollution so that argument is invalid.

Wind Turbines can not supplement our electrical needs, we can produce all our electricity with cleaner cheaper power sources.

Wind Power is one fo the oldest forms of power, imaking more, making them bigger, making them lighter, designig a more effecient blade, is simply a poor attempt at modernizing an old failed clunker.

The first generation of modern wind turbines were sold as providing energy forevet, they are gone and scrapped, as is the second generation, the third generation is niw veing replaced with the forth.

And the argument continues, we can make them better, yet we still dont need them, ever.

I've answered every question you've asked. Apparently you haven't been reading. Sometimes the answer was, I don't know, there's no way to actually determine the answer at this point.

I asked if the Palm Springs turbines you were referring to were Huge forest of Giant Wind Turbines Near Palm Springs In Southern California

NOTE: Nowhere have I argued about pollution. If you'd asked about that, you'd find I agree with you.

Until such time as fusion power becomes feasible, supplementing additional sources, if it's cost effective makes sense.

Yes the current wind power advocates are going about it all wrong. They're doing some things better, and increasing the efficiency of what they're making now. Still doesn't make them efficient enough to use, and I have questions about the 50% standard they're proclaiming now.

They may never be. I'm looking at can it be done efficiently and asking questions. You're saying don't even try.

My pics on this page are those turbines in the pic, you can even see the fossil fuel back up plant in one of the pics in your link.

I have video of the not spinning, oh and in your pic you can see a 1st gen tower with a third generation generator.

They have spent 30-40 years, billions of dollars, researching the solution in our government funded universities. Thus far the solution is more, and bigger.

And then the elephant in the room is they are not needed, not now not tomorrow not yesterday.

Thanks, that was the question I asked. Now I know where to look to review what you were talking about.

Agreed, we've overdone this. Some research, even some large scale setups are good. You learn things in practical applications you don't learn in theory.

More, and bigger, I don't think will work. Not efficient enough, that's why I'm looking at something different, which currently can't be done, but theory wise suggests can produce something more efficient. Efficient enough? I don't know, but I'm willing to at least look at it.

 

[elektra]

Yes, why is getting an answer so hard.

Now, tomorrow, and into the future you will always need coal to make the 100's of millions of wind turbines propose. You can not even acknowledge that nobody is even researching a way to produce wind turbines withouy coal.

Either way, if you can not understand that 190's of millions of idle wind turbines is an extreme waste of the earth's resources you are not capable of understanding the propaganda you have linked to. You post tbat garbage as if someone has a solution to a problem that does not exsist.

We dont need wind, solar, or any other green power, we provide for ourselves easily with modern technology.

Wind, solar, and ethanol are old, old, technologies.

Your imagination cant fathom what modern even means.

I'm not sure where you got your "can't produce without coal" dogma. I've certainly never said that, in point of fact I've repeatedly said you need to use it to produce it, and will need to continue using it. I'm only suggesting looking at doing it in a way that's efficient, and it's only a supplement.

No imagination? One is looking at a problem, to see if there's a way to solve it using new technology. One is going "Wind bad...coal good" and can't even answer a simple question.

I asked a simple question, so I could review what you were talking about. Did I get an answer? No I got a rant that had nothing to do with the question.

Why is answering a question so hard?

What is your question.

And how many questions have you not answered.

Increasing the use of coal to produce any kind of wind turbine is taking my money. It is also the government forcing me to buy a more expensive product that is not needed.

Wind Power us not needed, it does not reduce pollution so that argument is invalid.

Wind Turbines can not supplement our electrical needs, we can produce all our electricity with cleaner cheaper power sources.

Wind Power is one fo the oldest forms of power, imaking more, making them bigger, making them lighter, designig a more effecient blade, is simply a poor attempt at modernizing an old failed clunker.

The first generation of modern wind turbines were sold as providing energy forevet, they are gone and scrapped, as is the second generation, the third generation is niw veing replaced with the forth.

And the argument continues, we can make them better, yet we still dont need them, ever.

I've answered every question you've asked. Apparently you haven't been reading.

I asked if the Palm Springs

Areogels have promise.. It is what they are now making unbreakable cell phone screens with. You can almost bend them at 90 deg and they wont self destruct. They also survive moderate impact blows.

They also have flaws. They do not handle heat well and are prone to tensile stress fracture. In wind turbine designs there are two major factors.. Heat and tensile stress all coupled with vibration.

Smaller wind turbines will not solve the vibration problem or the heat problem. It would really only help with the tensile strength problem. But smaller means they would have to make many more of them and then battery storage would be a must for long term use.

Bottom line, Wind and PV arrays are not ready for prime time on any level.

Indeed. Look at the flaws a decade ago, and look at them now. Progress, can they get there? I don't know, but the developmental curve is promising.

Smaller would help with the vibration problem I think. What causes a lot of that now? The pressure differential between the blades extremities. Some of the various forms also are fantastic insulators, so the heat issue may be less than you think. Might be what you think, might be more, who knows at this point, it's merely an exercise considering possibilities

Absolutely correct in that they're not ready for prime time at any level, and may never be.

Have you looked at what they're doing with super capacitors and storage models using 3D printing btw?

I asked what type of aerogel and which process. Maybe I missed your answer.

I asked other questions as well. Not omportant though.

Storage, wind and solar together will never come close to supplying peak power so why try storing the energy?

Why use 200 million tons of coal to produce a few wond mills when a nuclear power plant will only use 27 tons of uranium?

We have sources of power today that work perfectly and creat a yiny bit of waste. It is nonsensical to try and fix wind mills problems.

I said you may have to use various forms of it. All of which are still rapidly developing.

Currently there's no reason to store it. Exactly correct, will that change enough in the future? I don't know, maybe, maybe not. Maybe not is winning right now.

I like nuclear power. I'm a big believer in doing both. My brother-in-law was an X-ray welder for nuclear plant construction.

Solving problems is good. You learn things in the doing you can apply elsewhere.

There is a curve for everything, they started with small light wind turbines, now they are going to big wind turbines. Look at rhe wind turbines in your own link, those there wind turbines produce next to nothing compared to the amount of piwer california needs. You would have to cover the entire state exactly how that huge area in your link shows. I think your link covers at least 200 square miles, less?

California buys more piwer every year from coal plants in wyoming.

Thus far wind is a 100% failure. It is like throwing money in the wind.

 

[9aces]

Yes, why is getting an answer so hard.

I'm not sure where you got your "can't produce without coal" dogma. I've certainly never said that, in point of fact I've repeatedly said you need to use it to produce it, and will need to continue using it. I'm only suggesting looking at doing it in a way that's efficient, and it's only a supplement.

No imagination? One is looking at a problem, to see if there's a way to solve it using new technology. One is going "Wind bad...coal good" and can't even answer a simple question.

I asked a simple question, so I could review what you were talking about. Did I get an answer? No I got a rant that had nothing to do with the question.

Why is answering a question so hard?

What is your question.

And how many questions have you not answered.

Increasing the use of coal to produce any kind of wind turbine is taking my money. It is also the government forcing me to buy a more expensive product that is not needed.

Wind Power us not needed, it does not reduce pollution so that argument is invalid.

Wind Turbines can not supplement our electrical needs, we can produce all our electricity with cleaner cheaper power sources.

Wind Power is one fo the oldest forms of power, imaking more, making them bigger, making them lighter, designig a more effecient blade, is simply a poor attempt at modernizing an old failed clunker.

The first generation of modern wind turbines were sold as providing energy forevet, they are gone and scrapped, as is the second generation, the third generation is niw veing replaced with the forth.

And the argument continues, we can make them better, yet we still dont need them, ever.

I've answered every question you've asked. Apparently you haven't been reading.

I asked if the Palm Springs

Areogels have promise.. It is what they are now making unbreakable cell phone screens with. You can almost bend them at 90 deg and they wont self destruct. They also survive moderate impact blows.

They also have flaws. They do not handle heat well and are prone to tensile stress fracture. In wind turbine designs there are two major factors.. Heat and tensile stress all coupled with vibration.

Smaller wind turbines will not solve the vibration problem or the heat problem. It would really only help with the tensile strength problem. But smaller means they would have to make many more of them and then battery storage would be a must for long term use.

Bottom line, Wind and PV arrays are not ready for prime time on any level.

Indeed. Look at the flaws a decade ago, and look at them now. Progress, can they get there? I don't know, but the developmental curve is promising.

Smaller would help with the vibration problem I think. What causes a lot of that now? The pressure differential between the blades extremities. Some of the various forms also are fantastic insulators, so the heat issue may be less than you think. Might be what you think, might be more, who knows at this point, it's merely an exercise considering possibilities

Absolutely correct in that they're not ready for prime time at any level, and may never be.

Have you looked at what they're doing with super capacitors and storage models using 3D printing btw?

I asked what type of aerogel and which process. Maybe I missed your answer.

I asked other questions as well. Not omportant though.

Storage, wind and solar together will never come close to supplying peak power so why try storing the energy?

Why use 200 million tons of coal to produce a few wond mills when a nuclear power plant will only use 27 tons of uranium?

We have sources of power today that work perfectly and creat a yiny bit of waste. It is nonsensical to try and fix wind mills problems.

I said you may have to use various forms of it. All of which are still rapidly developing.

Currently there's no reason to store it. Exactly correct, will that change enough in the future? I don't know, maybe, maybe not. Maybe not is winning right now.

I like nuclear power. I'm a big believer in doing both. My brother-in-law was an X-ray welder for nuclear plant construction.

Solving problems is good. You learn things in the doing you can apply elsewhere.

There is a curve for everything, they started with small light wind turbines, now they are going to big wind turbines. Look at rhe wind turbines in your own link, those there wind turbines produce next to nothing compared to the amount of piwer california needs. You would have to cover the entire state exactly how that huge area in your link shows. I think your link covers at least 200 square miles, less?

California buys more piwer every year from coal plants in wyoming.

Thus far wind is a 100% failure. It is like throwing money in the wind.

Indeed. They're approaching this the wrong way, they're trying to make something fit a narrative.

 

[RollingThunder]

Even the newest designs leak filthy polluting oil, I have now posted 3 different models covering 20 years of leaky polluting wind turbinesView attachment 61757

Too bad you're so fucking insane!

 

[elektra]

Even the newest designs leak filthy polluting oil, I have now posted 3 different models covering 20 years of leaky polluting wind turbinesView attachment 61757

Too bad you're so fucking insane!

Yet, My post is strong, not one person can refute the evidence

 

[Billy_Bob]

Areogels have promise.. It is what they are now making unbreakable cell phone screens with. You can almost bend them at 90 deg and they wont self destruct. They also survive moderate impact blows.

They also have flaws. They do not handle heat well and are prone to tensile stress fracture. In wind turbine designs there are two major factors.. Heat and tensile stress all coupled with vibration.

Smaller wind turbines will not solve the vibration problem or the heat problem. It would really only help with the tensile strength problem. But smaller means they would have to make many more of them and then battery storage would be a must for long term use.

Bottom line, Wind and PV arrays are not ready for prime time on any level.

Indeed. Look at the flaws a decade ago, and look at them now. Progress, can they get there? I don't know, but the developmental curve is promising.

Smaller would help with the vibration problem I think. What causes a lot of that now? The pressure differential between the blades extremities. Some of the various forms also are fantastic insulators, so the heat issue may be less than you think. Might be what you think, might be more, who knows at this point, it's merely an exercise considering possibilities

Absolutely correct in that they're not ready for prime time at any level, and may never be.

Have you looked at what they're doing with super capacitors and storage models using 3D printing btw?

Any time you have two opposing magnetic fields passing each other at high speed you will have vibration. You can not get around it.

What we should be doing is learning to harness the ions from earths magnetic field, static electricity (lightening) and in wind. (no moving parts).

The problems again are charge rate and storage. Lightening has the potential to power our cities and everything on earth ten fold, IF we knew how to capture it and store it.

Wind turbines and Solar PV are just like band-aids that dont cover the wound your bleeding to death from.. They are worthless and dont fix the problem.

 

[9aces]

Areogels have promise.. It is what they are now making unbreakable cell phone screens with. You can almost bend them at 90 deg and they wont self destruct. They also survive moderate impact blows.

They also have flaws. They do not handle heat well and are prone to tensile stress fracture. In wind turbine designs there are two major factors.. Heat and tensile stress all coupled with vibration.

Smaller wind turbines will not solve the vibration problem or the heat problem. It would really only help with the tensile strength problem. But smaller means they would have to make many more of them and then battery storage would be a must for long term use.

Bottom line, Wind and PV arrays are not ready for prime time on any level.

Indeed. Look at the flaws a decade ago, and look at them now. Progress, can they get there? I don't know, but the developmental curve is promising.

Smaller would help with the vibration problem I think. What causes a lot of that now? The pressure differential between the blades extremities. Some of the various forms also are fantastic insulators, so the heat issue may be less than you think. Might be what you think, might be more, who knows at this point, it's merely an exercise considering possibilities

Absolutely correct in that they're not ready for prime time at any level, and may never be.

Have you looked at what they're doing with super capacitors and storage models using 3D printing btw?

Any time you have two opposing magnetic fields passing each other at high speed you will have vibration. You can not get around it.

What we should be doing is learning to harness the ions from earths magnetic field, static electricity (lightening) and in wind. (no moving parts).

The problems again are charge rate and storage. Lightening has the potential to power our cities and everything on earth ten fold, IF we knew how to capture it and store it.

Wind turbines and Solar PV are just like band-aids that dont cover the wound your bleeding to death from.. They are worthless and dont fix the problem.

Never said you wouldn't have some, said you'd have less. Noted why.

I'd like to figure out how to harness static, I just don't have a clue how that could happen.

I don't look at this as trying to bandage a wound. More like how can I improve the tread on my sneaker so I can go running a little easier. (Hell who am I kidding, I'm too old to run)

 

[elektra]

Indeed. They're approaching this the wrong way, they're trying to make something fit a narrative.

Yes, a narrative, that there is a problem, which there is not. Wind Turbines is all about Big Government, Wall Street, and Financing the rise of China.


AS THE NARRATIVE CONTINUES.

 

[elektra]

One wonders how many stories are unreported.

Cicero Gear Manufacturing Firm Pleads Guilty To Violating Federal Clean Water Act And Agrees To Pay $1.5 Million Fine | USAO-NDIL | Department of Justice

Cicero Gear Manufacturing Firm Pleads Guilty To Violating Federal Clean Water Act And Agrees To Pay $1.5 Million Fine
CHICAGO — A suburban Cicero gear manufacturing company pleaded guilty today to illegally discharging industrial wastewater into the public sewer system and agreed to pay a $1.5 million fine. The defendant company, BRAD FOOTE GEAR WORKS, INC., began cooperating and taking remedial water treatment measures after federal environmental agents executed a search warrant in February 2011.

Brad Foote Gear Works pleaded guilty to one count of violating the federal Clean Water Act on at least 300 separate days between April 2007 and February 2011. The company, which manufactures precision gear parts for wind turbines, among other things, admitted illegally discharging spent acid wastewater and spent alkaline wastewater, industrial rinse waters, acidic solutions, oil, grease, and metal-bearing wastewater into the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago sewer system without a permit. The wastewater was received at the MWRDGC’s Stickney Water Reclamation Plant in southwest Chicago, where it was treated and discharged into the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal.

 

[RollingThunder]

Even the newest designs leak filthy polluting oil, I have now posted 3 different models covering 20 years of leaky polluting wind turbinesView attachment 61757

Too bad you're so fucking insane!

Yet, My post is strong, not one person can refute the evidence

Yeah, your post is strong evidence that you are fucking insane, you poor delusional troll.

 

[Muhammed]

Just because of the fact that people such as OR, Mathew and similar idiots promote wind power does not necessarily mean that it isn't a good source of energy.

 

[elektra]

Just because of the fact that people such as OR, Mathew and similar idiots promote wind power does not necessarily mean that it isn't a good source of energy.

Sure, Wind Power stands on its own, as being inefficient and weak. The solution, is to build more and to build them bigger, now that is science at its best.