TheBeastie
1 MW
Hillhater said:
I seen some comparisons of windfarms against built cars, forgot exact numbers but it was something like an average windfarm is the equiv of 40,000 cars in steal/materials and energy to produce them.
But I was thinking about how when I moved place years ago I started leaving my car outside parked on the street and I couldnt believe how quickly my car started to show signs of rust and wear everywhere, it was rapidly aging being left in the elements.
Both cars and windturbines are designed to be in the outside elements but if its anything like cars then its understandable that windturbines lasting even 20 years being subjected to the harshest outside elements possible is a difficult thing to achieve.
Now that summer is over I been watching South Australia still on electricitymap.org and I been surprised to see that SA still elect to using Victorian coal via the interstate grid as much as 35% (yesterday) even on cool days (around 22c).
It seems like if there is no wind then the next choice is Victorian coal via the interstate-grid and then if they have to they use their own gas as a last resort.
I been looking for other countries they have a high reliance on wind with minimal cheating.
South Australias first level cheats is using over 1/3rd of its power from another state.
Germany's main cheat is using 10GW of continuous nuclear of its own, then pulling power from other states, as well as some hydro.
The thing I have discovered is there are no countries who have only 2 sources of electricity such as wind+gas, most have 5 sources minimum. Most countries who have large wind setups also have large amount of nuclear and or hydro on top.
South Australia despite pulling a huge percentage of its power compared to other countries/states from external sources as well as its heavy gas usage is about as pure wind powered as it gets.
One state that does come kind of close is Italy.
It has no nuclear but a large wind installation, it does have hydro but not a huge amount, it does import electricity from as many as 6 other neighboring countries at times.
Overall though its technically less "cheating" compared to other countries where the windturbines are almost just for show or built because of the power of politics and Facebook renewable memes.
Italy using 17% wind which is above average from other days I have looked at it.
Denmark have vary quite alot, sometimes its almost entirely just coal+gas powered, other days are a lot better. But this almost proves as much as Germany has that if these two countries can even come remotely close to France in co2 emissions then no one ever will. (Germany almost always emitting 5times as much co2 than France, but freuqently 10 times as much as France)
Denmark having the most successful company in windturbine technology (Vestas).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestas
Vestas doing 8billion euros a year in windturbine sales.
When they had the Copenhagen climate summit, I saw it purely has Denmarks chance to push their windturbine business which as it turned out has been very successful for such a small country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference
But almost 10 years later its amusing to now look at electrictymap and see them at times more dependent on coal and gas than anyone on top of importing a notable amount of electricity from Germany.
One thing I am still realizing about electrictymap.org is how much is deliberately distorting the co2-grams per KWh in general. For example all of Australia is classed under the same amount of co2 per KWh but everyone knows that Queensland and NSW have export quality black coal with moisture etc that burns about 30% more efficiently than brown coal/lignite coal which is typically used in cooler states/countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthracite
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bituminous_coal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lignite
It would be great if there was a button to turn off rubbish information "no baloney mode" on electricitymap so everything can be looked at in a more accurate way.
One thing I been wondering about is the battery capacity of the Tesla Semi truck. It was originally speculated to be about 1MW/h as this is where the top of the line ebuses are now at. But since the official announcement of the Tesla Semitruck where you can now purchase but wait years for it to be built, the specs on weight etc on the Tesla semi truck have come out in most areas EXCEPT for the MW/h capacity of the battery pack, a lot of articles say the battery pack weighs around 20tons etc, so this suggests the battery pack is much higher like +3MW/h.sendler2112 said:Anyone still think megacities in NE USA will still be viable in Winter when liquid fuel for road maintenance runs out in 50 years? Everything we are doing and where we live needs to change.
.
.
.
.
And I think the main reason why Tesla hasn't listed the MW/h of the battery pack is because it undermines "giant" grid storage battery packs like the "giant" South Australia Tesla battery pack, as the SA Tesla grid battery suddenly looks quite small if it can only charge up 30 Tesla trucks rather than the claim it can power 100,000 homes for 30mins etc.
Brilliant !
