36 trillion comes fro
I'm a problem solver. Pretty good one through the years, and I see lots of problems with this as it is currently being used/approached.
That's not to say there may not be a way, I think I see one. If you'll stop, take a breath and think. I know you're a decent engineer, how CAN it work? What would it take? Yes you have an energy cost to produce it, so will you need to generate power under lighter wind conditions? Use less energy to produce them, have better storage capability....lots of problems. But...maybe some solutions. Solve one problem, then another, then another....
I'm not blindly following the path the warmers and the greeners are following bleating like sheep, and hurling themselves from the cliffs like lemmings because someone told them to click the link and how to think. I'm looking at the problem and not just throwing money and propaganda at it.
I think there's a way to make it work. Look at the problem, look at the flaws, not based off materials you know. Look at one you might not and see if you think there's possibilities there, based off what it currently does, and what very well might be possible.
Is that a certainty? No of course not. It's just a possibility. Might not work, and I'll be wrong. I've been wrong before, just doesn't happen much.
Better storage, for what, wind can never supply a fraction of what we need, and at that you are proposng millions to be built? It dont matter what material you use, you still need coal and oil to produce what you have proposed.
So you have proposed increasing the use of coal, endlessly.
36 trillion dollars, or more is what is being proposed.
What a shame.
And the capacity factor?
It's sad. Your mind is so closed you won't even consider the problem. You're stuck in the argument they've framed and apparently can't escape the loop.
I'm not projecting 36 trillion dollars. You've fabricated this number from someone and attributed it to me.
I don't know what the capacity factor might be. Because I'm looking at using materials in ways they've never been done before, that currently can't do it. BUT...if they can increase the structural capability, it might be. A LOT of engineering would need to be done to look at proper size to get the return you'd get the best cost efficiency at. I can't even begin to solve that problem yet, but I can see the possibility that a material may be on the horizon that will at least give me something to look at.
But you cannot tell me that you won't get a better transfer ratio by using a material that reduces your blade weight by a substantial percentage, that will have it usable for longer periods. Generates less friction, less vibration, has better storage potential.
Can it be made actually energy profitable? I don't know. I know the path they're on now won't. Time to look at walking a different one.
So, other than a press release, an idea, and a dream you have nothing.
I think I cant get you to answer because the materials required to manufacture the millions of wind turbines you propose will increase our energy demand and use of hydrocarbons.
The simple fact is it will never be econmical to replace our current piwer plants with millions and millions and millions of your dream.
Even if what you think were to work, you still must construct and build 100's of millions of wind turbines.
Trillions of dollars will be loaned by banks, your udea is a mandate, ony feasable by the confiscation of my private property.
You have closed your mind to what has already failed, building millions more will never change the facts.
Where on earth did you get that idiocy from? You are STUCK in thinking this is trying to do it "the old way" that the morons today think if they just throw enough money at or say it often enough it'll work.
For the last goddamn time.....THINK.
You're not thinking. You're simply preaching the dogma of "it'll never work". Hell son, I'm AGREEING WITH YOU that how they're doing it now will never work. I have no doubt I'm older than you, and I'm NOT stuck with the argument they've framed.
Yes, I have an idea, and a dream. A whole lot of inventions started with nothing more. Many failed....but every one starts the same way. And the same old "it'll never work" crowd proclaims it'll never work. Remember what Edison said when asked about the incandescent light? I think this has possibilities that wind energy will probably be one of the LEAST useful applications it may unlock.
Yes, if it works, millions of them will be built. But ask yourself a question, if it works...why wouldn't they be built? If they can become actual energy producers instead of drains.
THAT is the problem I'm looking to find a way to solve. And it doesn't require any of your property, won't need trillions of dollars of government funding...and last but not fisking least. I'm NOT FISKING TRYING TO REPLACE CURRENT SOURCES!!! I'm looking to try and supplement them, with something that actually works. Not something that's just a fisking drain on current resources.