External Content youtu.beContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
Planet of the Humans was posted in this thread at some point.
I see it now , 4 years ago. seems its in my 1 day ago listing..
That video is absurd. Everyone knows how long wind turbines last. Millions of them have been deployed since the 1980s. They do not last "a few decades." The towers last 50 to 100 years. The turbine blades and generators last 20 to 30 years, and then they are mostly recycled. The energy cost of recycling is low. Only a few months of the energy output from the turbine is needed. In other words, if the turbine lasts for 20 years (which is about the minimum) then 1.25% of the energy they produce is needed to recycle them and put a new turbine back.
Wind turbine generators are about the same as gas turbines or nuclear plant generators in that regard. All generators wear out and must be recycled. They are made of materials such as steel and copper, which can be recycled 100%. For steel, this takes much less energy than starting from ore.
In a nuclear plant, the reactor itself lasts 60 to 80 years but the steam turbines have to be replaced and recycled more often.
2017
Abstract:
QuoteA significant number of wind turbines will reach the end of their planned service life in the near future. A decision on lifetime extension is complex and experiences to date are limited. This review presents the current state-of-the-art for lifetime extension of onshore wind turbines in Germany, Spain, Denmark, and the UK. Information was gathered through a literature review and 24 guideline-based interviews with key market players. Technical, economic and legal aspects are discussed. Results indicate that end-of-life solutions will develop a significant market over the next five years. The application of updated load simulation and inspections for technical lifetime extension assessment differs between countries. A major concern is the uncertainty about future electricity spot market prices, which determine if lifetime extension is economically feasible.
This says 20 years is the minimum expected lifetime. Other sources say 25 to 30. It depends partly on location and capacity factor. As discussed in this article, the blades wear out first, then the turbine and generator. Towers erected in recent decades are expected to last much longer, possibly 50 to 100 years. The tower is by far the most expensive component. The infrastructure of wires from the tower to the outside world should also last much longer than 20 years. This is also expensive.
Wind turbines resemble hydroelectric dams. The dam itself is the most expensive component, and most of them last longer than 100 years. The turbines and generators inside the dam do not last that long. I think they usually last 50 to 100 years. Hydroelectric generators improve a great deal over 100 years, so you would want to replace them even if they did not wear out. See the history of the Cornell U. generator, first installed in the 1880s. It went from 300 kW initially to 850 kW in 1957 after upgrades, to 1,780 kW in 1981.
Hydroelectric Plant | Facilities and Campus Services
Gas turbine generators last 20 to 30 years. The capacity factor for combined cycle generators is higher than a wind turbine, and the temperature and other conditions are much more extreme.
The Bard ChatBot, which is increasingly useful, told me this. Which I sorta knew but it is convenient to have in one place, well summarized:
A combined cycle turbine (CCGT) typically has a longer lifespan than a simple gas turbine. This is because a CCGT uses both a gas turbine and a steam turbine to generate electricity, which results in lower operating temperatures and pressures. Lower operating temperatures and pressures mean that the materials in the CCGT are less likely to be damaged, which leads to a longer lifespan.
In addition, CCGTs are typically operated under more stable conditions than simple gas turbines. This is because CCGTs are often used to provide baseload power, which means that they are operated at a constant load for long periods of time. Stable operating conditions help to extend the lifespan of the CCGT.
Of course, the lifespan of any turbine will also depend on the quality of the materials used, the level of maintenance, and the operating conditions. However, in general, a CCGT can be expected to last for longer than a simple gas turbine.
Here is a table that summarizes the lifespan of different types of turbines:
| Simple gas turbine | 20-30 years |
| Combined cycle turbine | 30-40 years |
| Steam turbine | 40-50 years |
It is important to note that these are just general estimates, and the actual lifespan of any turbine will vary depending on the specific conditions.
The “planet of the humans” video was made to highlight some aspects of the narrative being used to promote so called “green energy” with the aim of short term profit instead of truly promoting sustainability.
All technologies have pros and cons. Some make sense in a specific situation and context and not in others. The problem is not technology, is the use of it as factor of narrative control and their abuse to create short term profit buckets.
The dam itself is the most expensive component, and most of them last longer than 100 years.
It seems not everyone shares your enthusiasm for dams...
Also, from the Guardian: Hydroelectric dams are doing more harm than good to emerging economies
On the other hand, according to this website, there seem to be no downsides whatsoever to hydroelectric power schemes.
if its in print it must be true.. or false ... no way to know when money is involved like everything else
Energy Vault’s First Grid-Scale Gravity Energy Storage System Is Near Complet
Swiss startup Energy Vault came out of stealth mode in 2018, and has been on an upward trajectory since then. The company created a system to store electricity by elevating concrete blocks, and investors quickly jumped on board: Energy Vault raised $110 million from the SoftBank Vision Fund in 2019, and another $100 million led by Prime Movers Lab in 2021. It seems they’ve put that funding to good use, because last week the company announced commissioning of their first grid-scale energy storage system outside Shanghai, China.
The system is like a solid version of pumped hydro, which uses surplus generating capacity to pump water uphill into a reservoir. When the water’s released it flows down through turbines, making them spin and generate energy
Energy Vault’s First Grid-Scale Gravity Energy Storage System Is Near Complet
I do not think this is a good idea, for the reasons described in this short video:
(It is 3:49 long. A longer version is linked to it.)
The system is like a solid version of pumped hydro, which uses surplus generating capacity to pump water uphill into a reservoir.
This video discusses pumped hydro, saying it is a much better idea. I agree.
This video discusses pumped hydro, saying it is a much better idea. I agree.
Yes as here in Switzerland with water an valleys everywhere. What about a desert? Or just a big plane?
Nature-Based Ecologist Specializing In Eco-Restoration and Research
85 articles Following
August 11, 2023
###b class="artdeco-button artdeco-button--secondary artdeco-button--muted artdeco-button--1" type="button" style="font-family: inherit; color: var(--color-text-low-emphasis-shift); font-size: 1.4rem;"###Open Immersive Reader
400 million salmon can't be wrong, it seems Mother Nature is giving us a big wink and a nudge with instructions on how to get back into the game and save our Blue Planet. Like her volcano that delivered nourishing mineral dust just when the baby salmon needed it, Mother Nature is sending her blessing to the European Union who has just passed into law the most important environmental law in 30 years. The EU Nature Restoration Law calls for a massive effort to restore her Trees and Seas, starting with major funding of €8.3 Billion per year.
Ocean restoration may sound new to many, but there have been nearly 50 years of international research, beginning with the launch of the first ocean pasture ocean plankton satellite in 1978. The late great John Martin declared that ocean plant life, the phytoplankton pastures were is a terrible state of collapse after 10 years of satellite and at sea data. He correctly identified the cause was diminished mineral dust that helps the ocean pastures flourish.
Martin professed that by sprinkling a relatively small amount of iron into certain areas of the ocean one could create large blooms of phytoplankton, the grass of ocean pastures.
He had shown with impeccable science that the growth of the ocean pasture would take in so much carbon from the atmosphere that they could reverse the global warming greenhouse effect and cool the Earth. His prescription to accomplish this goal would be a mere half a ship-load of iron per year! John died too young, in Feb 1993, just as the first large ocean missions that would prove him right was about to sail from his Moss Landing Marine laboratory.
Rest in peace, John, you showed us the way.
The USA not to be outdone by the EU has the US Ocean Restoration ACT ready to introduce in Congress upon the return from summer recess. Sponsored by Republican representative Buddy Carter of Georgia, a man who can fill the shoes of Teddy Roosevelt when it comes to his love and devotion to conservation.
The EU and USA laws are incentive measures that lead with incentives to draw the private sector into deploying the technologies that are clearly so vital to restore the health of our Blue Planet. Give your representative whether in the EU or USA your support for this work.
Former UK chief scientist Sir David King pulled no punches beaming into Melbourne’s National Climate Emergency summit, arguing for a fast track to zero emissions and urgent deployment of carbon draw-down technologies.
“We have to move rapidly,” said Professor Sir David King, founder and chair of the Centre for Climate Repair at Cambridge University and a former advisor to both the Blair and Brown governments.
“What we do over the next three to four years, I believe, is going to determine the future of humanity. We are in a very very desperate situation.”
One promising new technique is ocean iron replenishment (OIR), which stimulates the growth of phytoplankton, a key building block of ocean ecosystems and the global carbon cycle. The phytoplankton have the dual benefit of removing carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere, as well as stimulating “a massive increase in ocean fish stocks”.
“We believe OIR would take up about 30 billion tons of greenhouse gases a year, so this one technique could deliver a very big part of what we are aiming for,” said King.
Here's a more detailed report on how volcanos, Mother Nature, and the European Union are showing us the way. Russian Volcano Bezymianny Brings Back The Fish - Russ George
Report this
Yes as here in Switzerland with water an valleys everywhere. What about a desert? Or just a big plane?
Gravity energy storage does not work well in a desert or a broad plain. You have to use some other energy storage. Building a tower is not a good solution in a desert or anywhere else, for the reasons given in the video.
We do not have many hills in Georgia, so pumped storage is not an option. We don't have much wind, either, so there are no wind turbines. Wind turbines are excellent in the middle of the continent. The area from Texas to northern Canada has the most concentrated, reliable wind in the world. So, we should use wind in these places but not in other places. In Europe, the North Sea has abundant wind resources. Years ago I read there is enough to generate 4 times more electricity than Europe needs.
A desert has abundant solar power, obviously. If most of the demand is during the day, solar is ideal, and no energy storage is needed.
Areas such as the U.S. Great Plains have abundant wind power, as do flat oceans.
And by "electric", they mean battery plus overhead recharging.
Also:
Germany is partly ruled by the car construction mafia and thus says no to trains in general!!
|
|
A bitcoin mine located at a waste coal power plant in Pennsylvania wants to add a new fuel to its power generation mix: scrap tires.
Stronghold Digital Mining describes itself as an “environmentally beneficial” bitcoin miner. But during a virtual press conference on Monday, Russell Zerbo, an advocate at Clean Air Council, said the facility, Panther Creek, had received at least seven air quality violations since it was acquired by the cryptocurrency mining company in 2021.
The press conference brought together representatives of local and national environmental organizations, including Earthjustice and PennFuture, along with residents of Carbon County—where the plant is located—to ask the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to reject Stronghold’s permit application for this new fuel source.
Tires are a significant waste problem: The United States generates some 300 million scrap tires every year. According to the EPA, burning scrap tires is better than dumping them in a landfill, but not as beneficial as finding ways to reuse or recycle them. In a landfill, the flammable materials that tires are made of can pose a risk of uncontrolled tire fires. Abandoned tires can also become breeding grounds for disease vectors like mosquitoes.
Another problem is that the burning of tires releases a number of air pollutants. In addition to the usual pollutants and greenhouse gases associated with burning fossil fuels—such as carbon oxides, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides—burning tires can also release polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), along with other hazardous air pollutants and metals. Many PAHs are carcinogenic, but as the environmental organizations protesting Stronghold’s application point out, Panther Creek does not monitor releases of these pollutants.
RELATED:
Wildfires push air quality in East Coast cities almost off the charts
Stronghold is hardly the first company to think of burning tires to mine cryptocurrencies. In 2017, Vice News reported that the company Standard American Mining had partnered with PRTI, a tire “thermal demanufacturing” company based in North Carolina. Both the websites for Standard American Mining and the company that apparently acquired them are now nonoperational, but PRTI was still burning tires to mine cryptocurrency as recently as 2021.
Mel Magazine reported on another company in Texas, XcelPlus International Inc., which claimed it could convert all kinds of waste and garbage, including tires, and convert it to fuel to mine bitcoin. That company’s website is now also defunct, but an archived snapshot shows the company boasted that this would net them carbon credits, tax credits, and waste disposal fees.
As I previously reported for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the history of bitcoin mining has been a race to find the cheapest energy available. Increasingly, miners have resorted to acquiring the means of power production themselves. Some have purchased retired power plants, others have installed generators at gas wells, mining bitcoin at the source. Tire-derived fuels are cheaper than other fossil fuels, so the trend of bitcoin miners chasing cheap energy continues.
Even though recycling scrap tires is considered superior, this can also come with risks. Artificial turf made in part from recycled tires can release acutely toxic levels of metals like copper and zinc into stormwater, which if it flows into streams or other bodies of water, can be toxic to aquatic life. Home gardeners have even been warned to not use tires as cheap raised beds because they contain aluminum, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, selenium, and sulfur, which can be released into the water and soil as the tires break down.
RELATED:
Landmark climate trial puts constitutional Green Amendment to the test
Even if there are few good options for disposing of scrap tires, environmental advocates have asked Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection to consider the use to which the energy produced at Panther Creek is being put. Electricity generation powers homes and businesses, and until the transition to renewable energy is complete, burning fossil fuels could arguably be necessary, to a certain degree. But using it to mine cryptocurrency is of little to no use for the residents of Carbon County.
“Cryptocurrency is a completely useless private product that provides absolutely no benefit to residents currently impacted by Panther Creek’s incineration of waste coal,” Zerbo said. He argued that as such, the plant should be permitted as a solid waste incinerator, which would be subject to more air pollution monitoring requirements than a power plant.
Linda Christman, a resident of Carbon County and president of the local environmental group Save Carbon County, pointed out that Carbon County is among the poorest counties in the state of Pennsylvania, making this an environmental justice issue. She said that 36 percent of the population within a mile of Panther Creek are living under the federal poverty level. “That may lead companies like Panther Creek to think that they can get away with anything,” she said. “We’re here to say, ‘no.’”
Alan Smith , I wonder how many BTC-MWh they could be “mining”. I am under the impression that ENG8 has said something about putting their tech to this use, but may as well be my imagination.
Burning stuff for energy is all about how cheap is the stuff you burn and how clean you can make the exhaust. It can be done right, if you intend to, but if all you care about is to maximize profit, then the likelihood that the cost of doing it right as opposed as just doing it will not be attractive.
Just shocked to see that it takes an average of 142 MWh to mine 1 BTC. Bonkers.
