you have said nothing, sure a solar panel and windmills dont emit gh gases same with putting it in the ground at its eol.
We are talking about creating that resource which is what is important as the overall emissions of that green source of power might be negative for the planet.
Is biomass a positive or a negative, perhaps it just depends on which feedstock is allowed to be used to feed that plant to get a subsidy?
Bulldoze the forest, plant sugar, burn it and convert to ethanol…
if it made from coal or oil its not a renewable is it?
Unless it gets made back into coal and oil when its worn out
YOU are talking about the manufacturing process, which MAY require power from a coal fired power plants, but doesn’t always.
More and more power are produced from hydro, solar, wind or nuclear power sources. More will come within the next decade or more.
Are you arguing for stopping that development, just so Australia can sell more coal? Even a lot of Aussies don’t see it that way after the last few years of wild fires, floods and cyclones.
You are having a reading for comprehension problem…
I am not talking about the power source I am ONLY talking about items that are required to be made from oil and coal
Can you make steel or silicone without burning coal, thats part of the chemical process and a one way street.
Same with making carbon fibre which comes from a product cracked from oil.
There are some development in resins that dont come from oil but not sure where they are used.
Back to nuclear whose carbon footprint must beat them all in the short and long term.
just need a secure lockup at the end…
“In considering wind energy compared to other energy sources, the carbon intensities for the turbines analyzed ranged from 5.4 to 29.5 kgCO2eq/MWh. The range Varun et al. [39] established for wind turbines was 9.7 to 123.7 kgCO2/MWh. The turbines considered in this study fall near the lower end of this range due to the limited information available from manufacturers, where more detailed information available, including shipping to the country of installation and the decommissioning of turbines, the carbon intensity would be higher. Renewable technology emission values for wind, solar PV, biomass, solar thermal, and hydro, have overlap [40], but wind has the lowest value for the top of its range. This suggests that even if the additional data were available and included, it is unlikely the turbines would increase their range of carbon intensities to surpass biomass’s maximum of 178 kgCO2/MWh. To do so, the 100 kW turbine with the highest carbon intensity would need to have its production emissions increase so substantially that the carbon intensity were six times greater.
With carbon intensities for coal and natural gas ranging from 900 to 1,200 kgCO2/MWh and 400 to 500 kgCO2/MWh, respectively, it is unlikely that carbon intensities from wind turbines would become high enough to rival those of coal and natural gas [41]. The only conventional power system any of the turbines exceeded in carbon intensity was nuclear, which has a carbon intensity of 24.2 kgCO2/MWh [42]. Only the 50 kW turbine and the 100 kW turbine exceeded this (26.1 and 29.5 kg/CO2eq/MWh, respectively).“
Yes, compared to available alternatives which take more. Nuke is close but if you’re concerned about waste disposal of fiberglass? Yeah Nuke wouldn’t be for you. And you also had lifecycle cost concerns about wind, nukes have significant lifecycle costs.
Particularly when nuke fuel is spent and looking for a parking place. The wind farm blades disposal pose nowhere near the hazard of that problem.
You can replace coal as heat source in the process of making steel, aluminum, silicone cement and fertilizer with electric arc furnaces.
Where cheap renewable energy are plentiful (Norway, Iceland etc) this is already the prefered method.
Cheap energy is and has been the reason for siting ferroalloy and aluminum smelters, or fertilizer factories near hydroelectric sources in Norway since early last century. The ore, bauxite and potash needed in the production have to be shipped in from far away places. The products was/is export to other far away places.
BTW; With more and more scrap metal available in the rich world, recycling is also a major source of “raw material” for steel mills and smelters.
No. YOU are having a comprehension problem.
You are harping up again old discredited arguments, used by climate change deniers for years.
It is the GHGs that goes up in the stratosphere that count, not what is buried in landfills (that is a different problem)
Waste from nuclear plants is a major problem. but it does not cause climate change- (Nor does polluted water, or littering, but it is a problem that need to be addressed).
yes what goes up in smoke when you make silicone, steel and cement
which discredited argument is that?
( yes recycled steel doesnt really need coal so thats a step forward)
the question still is what is running the country when the wind is low at night?
Should all the PV and wind have storage added to their lifecycle calculations?
Yes, there is after all no wind at night…let’s take a quick look at the British grid… 2:50am, wind is currently supplying about 30 percent.
If they used it that might be a valid consideration but I’m betting it still comes in lower, maybe some actual research and get some numbers if you think it pushes it over the line, compared to other sources and here again, everything is relative and you still haven’t made any case about the waste streams of hydrocarbon or nuke systems.
Maybe your next question should be about whether the engineers who design and run these are able to telecommute and if they have diesel or gas cars?
so you think a country can run with 100% wind and solar as they are the solution?
What I am getting at is wind and solar is not getting us off fossil fuel.
It certainly ( due to environmental laws) has reduced coal which is being replaced by gas which is certainly better for the environment.
Very hard to get good info as subsidy and rebates all over the world keep getting turned on and off.
( when do you read about the Co2 released when processing LNG?)
Then why was your first post asking about where wind farm blades end up? That’s a waste question not a generation question.
Why are you saying ‘nuke looks good’ if you think fossil fuel forever? And fail to show any concern over that waste stream?
Not yet, but we don’t stop here. More and more of the power in Europe is wind generated and most of that again are from offshore wind farms.
That is why it is important for Mariners to get up to speed on the technology and operation of the vessels that is used to construct and service offshore wind farms. New development is happening all the time, so this is not something you learn once and then you are covered for life. You have to develop your skills with the development in the industry.
BTW; I can think of a few countries that get 100% of their electric power from renewable sources;
Norway has been nearly 100% hydro since early last century and still is. A research nuclear reactor and a gas powered standby plant has been shut down and discontinued.
The exception is a coal fire power station in Longvearbyen, Svalbard and Offshore platform (but that is in the process of changing)
Yet Norwegian firms are leaders in developing new technology for some segments of the offshore wind industry, (marine technology for both wind farms and services)
Even Solar power. Some of the largest Solar panel produces and developers of large solar projects in the world are Norwegian firms.
Iceland has both hydro and thermal in abundance, thus is able to grow bananas and produce Alumina.
Albania and Paraguay are 100% renewable, while a lot of countries are aspiring to become so, or at least nearly so.
Here is 11 countries that is leading the charge towards that goal:
everyone would love to have hydro and geothermal if that was available and if it was I am sure it would have already be in major use which has has in very small countries.
All of us being mariners/sailors also know where the wind blows and where it doesnt.
The USA might have big storms but most of the country is low wind like Asia and the Mediterranean.
Morocco seems to be doing well with thermal solar and apparently has more than 12 hours of full load storage for night time and other dull days.
Thats sounds like a real solution and I can imagine that plant will outlast any other PV or wind equipment?
Sounds like what Australia should be installing
Some countries manage to gain nearly 100% renewable w/o much hydro or geothermal sources available-
Large parts of the energy need in Scotland comes from wind power, while sun rich countries with large areas unsuited for agriculture etc. is going for solar power.
Australia fit the description as “sun rich” and definitely has large areas that could be used for “solar farms”. With a relatively small population and industrial base,
Oz COULD be 100% supplied by renewable energy if they made an effort.
Storage would be key though. One possibility would be hydrogen production from solar energy and fuel cells supplying power at/near the consumption points…(Hydrogen powered Road Trains to transport the hydrogen to where it is needed)
Not sure of any countries that have Zero wind speed. Can you name them?
its not zero it months of low to no wind
Singapore only has reliable wind for the NE monsoon, about 3 months the other 9 months can be still
Yeah, if only electricity could be stored or transmitted over distances by means of conductors or something…
Scotland to Singapore cable, yes I’m all for it
Not sure what the storage will be but the wind blows all the time in Scotland hopefully?