I recently drove 5,250 miles from the West Coast to the East Coast and back, and I couldn't help but be struck by how unattractive these massive wind turbines are.
Most of them were stationary, worst of all they mar the beautiful mountain, farmland, and valley landscapes that once defined cross-country driving.
As many of us have recognized for years, wind turbines don't produce enough energy to justify the substantial costs associated with their engineering, manufacturing, transportation, installation, and ongoing maintenance (leaving hoards of them motionless across the countryside).
Furthermore, the electrical grid isn’t capable of efficiently capturing and distributing the energy they generate. Wind power is highly intermittent, fluctuating as wind speeds change or go to nil.
There is currently, and never will be imo, an efficient and effective technology to store energy for use when the wind isn’t blowing or blows too much—produces more that the system can distribute.
Battery storage, which some think may resolve the issue, is similarly inefficient. It also comes with its own significant costs—ranging from the engineering, manufacturing, and installation—and suffers from short life spans and high risk safety issues—further limiting its practicality as a solution.
We cant make energy out of nothing it has to come out of somewhere, solar from the sun. And gas is packed full of energy we harvest.
For reasons we cannot harvest the magnetic field of the earth. BUT the easiest reason is that if (if) we could we be stealing from the magnetic barrier that shields the earth from charged particles from the sun.
For more technical reasons we cant, but IF we could, we'd weaken the shield and smaller solar flares could get through and fry satellites and ground electronics maybe.
I agree with your points, but I believe they are somewhat irrelevant in this context. The amount of energy we would use is negligible, and more importantly, the use of this energy does not deplete or harm the original energy source in any way. This means that, despite the concerns raised, the overall impact remains minimal and does not lead to any long-term depletion or negative consequences.
I'm really glad to hear this.
I recently drove 5,250 miles from the West Coast to the East Coast and back, and I couldn't help but be struck by how unattractive these massive wind turbines are.
Most of them were stationary, worst of all they mar the beautiful mountain, farmland, and valley landscapes that once defined cross-country driving.
As many of us have recognized for years, wind turbines don't produce enough energy to justify the substantial costs associated with their engineering, manufacturing, transportation, installation, and ongoing maintenance (leaving hoards of them motionless across the countryside).
Furthermore, the electrical grid isn’t capable of efficiently capturing and distributing the energy they generate. Wind power is highly intermittent, fluctuating as wind speeds change or go to nil.
There is currently, and never will be imo, an efficient and effective technology to store energy for use when the wind isn’t blowing or blows too much—produces more that the system can distribute.
Battery storage, which some think may resolve the issue, is similarly inefficient. It also comes with its own significant costs—ranging from the engineering, manufacturing, and installation—and suffers from short life spans and high risk safety issues—further limiting its practicality as a solution.
Not "never" a way, but a long ways off. Superconducting loops already house currents which are permanently in motion without loss.
Theyre seen in tokomak reactors. Today they require supercold temps, but evidence is suggesting it can be done without it eventually.
Loooong way off, we'll have fusion power well before then and the storage issue wont matter
I agree... fusion is most likely the future. Can we tap into the EM waves around the earth, per N. Tesla? That sounds like the ultimate energy answer.
We cant make energy out of nothing it has to come out of somewhere, solar from the sun. And gas is packed full of energy we harvest.
For reasons we cannot harvest the magnetic field of the earth. BUT the easiest reason is that if (if) we could we be stealing from the magnetic barrier that shields the earth from charged particles from the sun.
For more technical reasons we cant, but IF we could, we'd weaken the shield and smaller solar flares could get through and fry satellites and ground electronics maybe.
I agree with your points, but I believe they are somewhat irrelevant in this context. The amount of energy we would use is negligible, and more importantly, the use of this energy does not deplete or harm the original energy source in any way. This means that, despite the concerns raised, the overall impact remains minimal and does not lead to any long-term depletion or negative consequences.
Also, regarding your point, "We cant make energy out of nothing":
Energy is infinite, we use it after converting the enrgy source into a state that is needed for the application.