Do you think the US and other countries should replicate what China is doing? Secure your privacy with Surfshark! Enter coupon code UNDECIDED for an extra 4 months free at surfshark.deals/undecided If you liked this, check out 5 Years with Solar Panels - Is It Still Worth It? th-cam.com/video/hxj8mNzv8PI/w-d-xo.html
Surfshark VPN doesn't work in Mainland China!! I used Express VPN. It works great and all of the Google services which are blocked by the CCP worked in my summer trip to China.
Would like a video about how long windmills investments works compared to how much watt they produce. Does strong winds and large gears reduce the investments lifespan? Does mild wind prolong?
I have solar/batteries in Southern CA. I produce a large fraction of my energy and when I consume it's most often after midnight. I would think this is something the government should encourage. It will distribute the energy storage and encourage consumption off peak in the evening. I also have the option of joining a virtual power plant. I have not done that because I'm concerned with not having energy in a blackout.
Their economic and political models are not much compatible. The US tends to be more profit and market driven. Some problems arised when there's gov control, and other issues when there's total free market. (California energy crisis of 2000 for failed gov control) vs (Texas power grid failure could have been lessened if it wasn't deregulated ) The Chinese were able to put forward some amazing infrastructure projects because they can cheat beyond free market interests, whether they're financially paying off now or not. The con is whether their long term plans are smart. Not all would be but time would tell. It feels like the Chinese are playing sim city at times.
They have no choice but conflate to make this energy source even remotely appealing. Average loads produced by US wind farms are usually below 45% of stated capacity, and often much less.
@@LordFalconsword Yup and the wind turbines in Ontario Canada operate at less than 5% capacity factor for many days in a row during the summer. Last month the average capacity factor was ~15% when we needed it the most for air conditioning.
As a native of China, please allow me to introduce that desertification is very serious in the western part of China because of its small population. So few people generally live there? Different from the western imagination that China is full of people, the population of China actually gathers in coastal areas. In the western part of China, there are actually not many people living because of population loss and inconvenient transportation, and most of them are resource-based cities and agricultural areas. However, resource cities can't avoid the fate of resource exhaustion, so from the very beginning, the western part of China was defined as an energy center, with solar energy, wind energy and nuclear energy as the main power stations, assisting traditional energy sources to transport energy to all China. This is a strategy to ensure energy security, because China's energy is actually very dependent on the outside world. If the energy supply is unstable, the risk to China is very great. Therefore, even if the power generation price of new energy is more expensive than that of traditional energy, it is necessary to develop new energy industry, because China should be prepared for the risk that traditional energy will be cut off due to various geopolitics, and the energy diversification strategy is very important, which cannot be calculated simply from the power generation cost.
It makes a lot of sense. Energy security for China is way more important than the technical difficulties of transporting the wind power over long distances or disparities in the cost of wind generated electricity vs coal.
@@dondomingo6578 BTW transporting electricity over long distances is something in which China excels at, having pioneered the Ultra-high-voltage electricity transmission technology in DC mode (UHV electricity transmission). This basically assures minimal loss of electricity throughout the transport.
@@manfredhauptreif7285 As far as I know, cleaning robots, ai and large-scale water conservancy projects are being used to solve this problem, but it has also brought new problems. The water spilled on the ground to clean dust has spawned weeds, which will lead to short circuit of photovoltaic circuits and fire when they grow up.
4:26 For Americans who understand that it's stupid to compare to a number of football fields that you have no way of visualizing, this wind farm would be the 42nd-largest US state. It's a chunk bigger than Maryland, and about half the size of South Carolina. You're welcome.
how many football stadia are funded by taxpayers? economists claimed football stadium generates economic benefits for the community. corporate welfare at its best.
@@willengel2458 Completely irrelevant to my comment. All I'm saying is that nobody can visualize X-hundred-thousand football fields, so that's a pointless way to help people visualize the area of this wind farm.
The "50% of installed capacity is renewable" is a metric to make reports look good. "Produced electricity" is closer to the truth. "Produced and used electricity" is where it paints the real picture.
@@appa609 If you can transmit the power to the ocean you can transmit that power to where it is actually needed. Transmission capability is the bottleneck.
3 หลายเดือนก่อน +5
They obviously have extra capacity and may need it in the future. That's closer to the truth.
@@user-tz9jh6pv2j sand usually doesn’t get blown that high. Of course it happens sometimes. But it’s usually within a couple of meters. But your point is valid that there will be sand damage.
As the WSJ pointed out one of the problems in the US with wind farms is that the cost of maintenance has been at least 30% more than anticipated and turbines aren’t lasting as long as they are supposed to. Sand or no sand the Chinese aren’t exempt from these issues either.
1GW for 750,000 homes is only 1.33kW per home. Given that the peak power usage of most homes is considerably higher than this, and most homes have their peak power usage at around the same times of day, it's a misnomer to say that 1GW can power 750,000 to 1M homes. In actuality, it's nowhere near capable of providing the power required. 3-5GW is getting closer, but that doesn't take into account downtime for maintenance and when the wind isn't fast enough to drive the turbines. And all of that is ignoring commercial/industrial usage, which dwarfs residential usage.
You're thinking American homes with AC. In UK 1500Kw is adequate peak (its the kettle and tumble drier). Much of northern China is the same and don't all have the domestic devices in USA
@@AndrewN75 I'm not thinking anything about America. Never been there. Probably never will. You've made an incorrect assumption in thinking I would base my calculations on the USA. By the way, 1500kW is 1.5MW, which is far too much for any home that I've heard of. I assume you mean 1500W, or 1.5kW. However that's not enough to cover peak usage for a house (nowhere near it). Below are some power usages for some common household items. I realise that some items in some households would use natural gas instead, but it will still give a good idea of just how much power draw houses take during the morning and evening peaks. Oven: 2kW to 5kW Stovetop: 1kW to 3kW Portable electric fan heater: 1kW to 2.4kW depending on its specs and setting used Toaster: 0.8kW to 1.5kW Microwave: 0.8kW to 1.2kW Fridge/freezer: 0.15kW to 0.5kW Electric kettle: 2kW to 2.4kW So... let's say someone comes home with some groceries that need to be put away, throws a few things together into a single pot to heat up, puts a couple of slices of bread into the toaster, and makes a cup of tea to drink with dinner. Here's their peak power usage, assuming it's a one-person dinner and the appliances are about average sized: Fridge (bringing the temperature back down again after having food put in - some of which wasn't refrigerated at the shop): 0.25kW Stove (1x medium sized hotplate on a 4-hotplate 1.6kW stovetop): 0.4kW Toaster (basic 2 slice toaster): 0.8kW Kettle: 2kW Total: 0.25kW + 0.4kW + 0.8kW + 2kW = 3.45kW peak power usage, excluding all other devices, lights, etc. When you multiply this by all the other people who are doing the same thing at the same time when they get home from work, you'll find that I was quite correct in what I said about 1GW not being enough to power 750,000 to 1,000,000 homes during peak power usage periods. And that's ignoring those who are cooking for multiple people in a family, using two, three or even four hotplates, or using the oven, turning on a heater because the house is cold in the middle of winter, etc. 1GW might well be enough for that number of households for their daily average consumption, but certainly not their peak consumption, which is why I said what I said.
You must realize that the average Chinese home uses far less energy than a developed country. So the figures they use are closer than you imagine. Poor farming communities have little more than a lightbulb or two and a radio to listen to the government approved radio station
@@kevinberger9854 did the line I commented on in the video say it was specifically talking about China for that statistic? Or was it in the context of asking whether the west should do the same as China has done? While I can't specifically remember off the top of my head well enough to be absolutely certain, the context of the video was around the idea of the west replicating what China has done, so it isn't unreasonable to comment about the peak power usage with western figures. However, even in China, wherever they use electric cooking appliances, they'll still use a certain amount of power during the peak period, and those who live in apartments in the city will often still use more than 1000W to 1300W in the peak, while cooking their food. My point is still valid.
39000 Squarekilometers for 7000 turbines??? Belgium? An average area of more than 5.5 km² for a single turbine? I think someone has to do the maths again.
t's not a single contiguous wind farm the size of Belgium. It's *sixty* separate (very large) wind farms, with plenty of separation between some of them, and altogether they are spread across approximately one standard Belgium's worth of Gansu. "The project is divided into multiple phases. The first 3,800 MW phase consisted of eighteen 200 MW wind farms and two 100 MW wind farms. The second 8,000 MW phase consists of forty 200 MW wind farms. "
There are windmills near my house, and I recently drove by them. Out of nine windmills, none were spinning even though windmills nearby were. Windmills are an inefficient, intermittent, expensive energy source that consume massive amounts of land, steel, copper, concrete and composite material for the blades. Nuclear power is vastly more efficient.
@@anachronisticon True. Also, not enough water means we die of thirst. That means we need to know the actual numbers. At what percentage does CO2 start to be harmful to plant life? and to harm animal life? Greenhouse nurseries often pump additional CO2 into their greenhouses to boost plant growth.
@@stephenfennell Your premise would be useful if C02 did nothing but provide more carbon for plants to respire. But the problem with any climate debate for me people, is the problem is statistical to most people: its real damage won't be seen till it's too late to prevent it. Our generation has a unique opportunity. But most are too blinded by greed or indifference, but our descendants will find it baffling all the same.
Hey Chris it's easy to visualize the amount of energy it makes. Same as two modest nuclear reactors. Which would work 24x7 and make far less pollution than building all those turbines pollution free.
@@hifinsword France does not and never has sent nuclear waste into space. No nation will just bury its nuclear waste because it isn't considered totally safe. Some countries have created underground storage facilities, but it is expensive. So waste is still considered a problem.
And the argument for nuclear gets better when thorium reactors come online. It's not if, it's when the reactors are out of prototype and greenlit for production.
@@shorewall from ecological perspective it’s true but we still have to pave roads and build things and because we already use most of the flattened lands we have to use the desert also
Deserts aren't even ecosystems, it just means a very low density of population or animal/plant species. There are multiple types of deserts. I don't even know if "wastelands" is a term than actual professional uses. It's evocative but it's just a landscape. Both terms seem inappropriate in a scientific/engineering context.
China currently has 243 GW of new coal power plants permitted or under construction. Another 149 GW are planned, for a grand total of 392 GW at 306 separate power plants. Gansu is a drop in the energy bucket. Despite all the talk about wind and solar, they still produce less than 3% of the world's energy. We must reduce greenhouse gases, but wind and solar aren't going to do it.
@@fr57ujf 60% of Danish electricity in 2024 came from wind and solar. Up from 54% in 2023. Other countries should be able to get close to that. And it’s not like the development has stopped in Denmark. Stop being such naysayers who think that change isn’t possible…
@@PixelViking I didn't say anything about Denmark. You can call me names, but the fact remains that, despite all the hype, wind and solar still only account for less than 3% of global energy consumption. I'm not against renewable energy, but I am against overstating what it has accomplished and how much more needs to be done. The idea that it will replace fossil fuels, as desirable as that is, is nonsense.
You say "we" but I don't know where you are...here in the UK tonight (29 Dec 24) the national grid reported: gas 13%, wind 53%, hydro 2.4%, nuclear 15.6%, biomass 5.6%, import from Denmark (probably mostly wind) 4.5%, Norway (probably all hydro) 4.4%, total consumption 31.5GW. I would say those are pretty impressive figures! Of course no solar because it is nighttime. And we also have pumped storage which can ramp up in seconds, unlike steam turbines, to meet peak demands. Compare that to, say, America, where the generating mix varies widely across the states, but they are mostly burning one hell of a lot of coal, as does China. Here in the UK we stopped using coal entirely earlier this year
@@rogerfurneaux1529 By "we" I mean the whole world. Kudos to the UK for its progress but it is misleading to talk about clean energy production as a percentage of electrical power as you do here and as advocates of renewable energy always do. Electricity is roughly 20% of total energy demand, so 53%, for example, becomes 10.6% of total energy consumed. The job is much bigger than converting current electricity production to renewable sources. All non-electrical industrial, transportation, and heating applications must be converted to electricity which will require a vast retooling of our infrastructure. The challenges we see with the transportation sector in this regard provide a glimpse of how difficult this will be. I'm an avid proponent of clean energy, but it is counterproductive to overstate our achievements. By 2050 the world may be producing a large percentage of its electricity from renewables and nuclear, but that still leaves the other 80% of the problem to be addressed. It's great to be enthusiastic about renewables, but it is counterproductive to overstate its achievements and understate the enormous amount of work left to do to realize a world in which we no longer use fossil fuels.
@@rogerfurneaux1529 Kudos to the UK for its progress. It is impressive. By "we," I mean the whole world. This is a global problem and we will fail unless everyone is on board. You are focused only on the generation of electricity. To phase out fossil fuels we must address total energy. Electricity is only 20% of total energy so, for example, if wind generates 53% of electricity it generates only 10.6% of total energy. Quoting clean energy production as a percentage of electricity overstates our progress. Significantly, it overlooks our biggest task - converting the transportation, industrial, and heating sectors to electricity. Except for the few applications that are already electric, it will require replacing the entire global infrastructure in these sectors. One estimate for this was $110 trillion but no one actually knows. Upgrading the global grid to handle the increased demand will require trillions more. Furthermore, despite the increase in clean energy production, greenhouse gas emissions are still rising because the increase in clean energy production is not keeping up with increasing energy demand. We are not winning this battle.
Considering China locked down their entire country for COVID for longest of times, they care more about the health of their now decreasing in numbers citizens than the West.
with their massive coal supply in country coal energy gives them all the independance they would need, but even china acknowledges the massive air pollution problem in their major cities so they arent really happy wit coal as its such a big polluter. but switching away is challenging as alternatives are more expensive and a lot of people depend on coal industry.
China has a massive problem with misallocated capital. Because the CCP is in a central planning role, all the subsidies tend to result in “subsidy farming.” Massive over production that isn’t linked to market demand. Things are produced to cash in the subsidy, not to produce a useful outcome… like long term power generation at a price and output level that matches demand.
The other part this wasn't mentioned is that the water supply and availability wouldn't support any type of large increase in population. you can't just move 100,000s of thousands of tech workers into the desert. You would have water and food issues.
And they would have to install high-speed fibre lines to connect to the rest of the world. Having a date centre in the middle of nowhere is not much use if it can't communicate.
As others have said, it's not that many tech workers needed. But datacenters are *very* thirsty - they use an awful lot of water for cooling, comparable to a city. IMO that province should focus on other power-hungry industries that don't require as much water - for example, ore processing. It has the added benefit that those industries sign long power contracts, which guarantee stable income for the developers of the wind farms.
In the 70s, during the oil embargo, when we had long gas lines, etc., we took measures to conserve energy. Government PR campaigns, speed limit changes…. No one now says, ‘maybe we should use less’. They say things like, ‘we should have these mega projects in the U. S.’ As someone from Kansas who is dealing with our land being taken, I would argue that this is so misguided.
Agreed I am in the Texas panhandle. To the north of me there are hundreds of wind turbines 3/4 of them sit idle and according to people that work on the so called wind farm only 3-4 of 20 in a grid are actually producing any electricity not to mention the dead migrating birds that litter the area around the turbine. A mile south of my back door is a 2000 acre solar farm being constructed with another 2000 acres set to begin being constructed next year or so if and when it happens. So just out my back door thats 2000 acres of land that as of last year was producing crops such as wheat and cotton that are now covered up with solar panels. Gone to are the herds of Mule deer Coyotes rabbits Pheasants doves quail and other animals that once called this area home. Friends of mine all over the state who have been duped into this so called green energy scam are now stuck with wind and solar projects sitting on there land un used un recyclable rendering the land unfit for use for anything productive. All because a government subsidy ran out and because the companies who promised to take it all away filed bankruptcy so they did not have to live up to there contract.
While it seems like a great idea to duplicate these Chinese mega projects there is one factor which China doesn't have to deal, NIMBY. Being a totalitarian government the people on the ground have virtually no say in such matters.
@@bryansharp6166 'their' is also a word you need to learn to use correctly. (t)here are places. 'Their' is 'belongs to' . I mean, if you don't understand your own language how can we believe you understand anything on any subject?
@@AndrewN75 I understood it. the irony is, messing up the grammar vs an annoying, nitpicking person, who doesn't even comment on the topic at hand, but something completely different. You do realise that what you say is less expected than what I say to you. When someone isn't an English native for instance, what do you expect? One wrong word here and there doesn't matter, the point, the meaning that those words are used to put forth, is the important thing. What anyone expect though, no matter the language, is for ppl to have both common sense and decency. Btw, yo are also wrong. Cause you couldn't have said it was wrong if you didn't understand it. Maybe you should think more abt the words you use too? To not look like you do now :))
The US actually has been dropping it's per capita energy for quite some time. As much as boomers complain about Lightbulbs and fuel efficiency requirements, they really have led to huge improvements.
wait til all those wind blades need to be replaced. Blades last about 10 years so it won't be long now. In Texas we have several land fills full of turbine blades.
@@JimQuinn-tb3uq 10 years is in good conditions. The desert ist far from that. the fine sand creeps into every space of the motors degrading them, the more corse sand blasts the blades to bits. That is why offshore installations need to be repaired so often, water droplets carrying fine sand rip the blades appart.
@@robertmontgomery7158 They can and are being recycled. There are now multipel plants processing them into concrete reducing the ecological impact of concrete production. It is not really renewable, but its keeping stuff out of landfills, other methods are also being tested.
The siting of a long-distance (~1000km) transmission line takes about 3 months in China. In US, it takes 10 to 20 years. That is why such large projects are not possible in the US.
So true! The other problem may be logistics of getting enough labor for such large projects. Same problem would happen with Canada. Europe is different as many European countries don't even have 1000km of distance to span.
Can you imagine the US building the Interstate Highway system today? There would be zero chance. The same is true for major oil pipelines, dams, and - as you say - any major project.
Good effort with those Chinese geography names. Gansu is my home province and I had no idea they also have the biggest windfarm in the world, though to be fair, I have been gone almost thirty years.
@@remix-yy1hs Canada. We also have the windfarms in the flat lands of southwestern Ontario, but nowhere near the density. Also, there are complaints about the windmills affecting migratory birds and bats. China does not worry about such issues.
20 GW is only 20 AP 1000 nuclear plants which take up less space, produce the power 24/7/365 except for approximately 30 days once every two years for refueling and maintenance and last sixty to eighty years. Wind and solar cannot compete on generation density.
I'm not sure about AP1000 specifically, but nuclear plants are either on an 18 or 24 month refuel cycle, and I think Exelon was able to get their refueling shutdowns down to near 21 days. The two biggest "problems" with nuclear are the cost to build and the negative perception. I am looking forward to how SMRs will change the nuclear landscape though.
10 miles by 11 miles of basically wasteland, isn't actually a lot of land. In a country the size of China, it's about 3 ten thousandths of one percent of the country. It would be better if it worked, though. I am confused by the conflicting sizes mentioned. First, figure of 70000 acres is about 10 miles by 11 miles. But the later a figure of 139000 Square kilometers is then given. Thats like 125 x 120 miles. 50 times bigger? So now Im just confused.
All these videos are just repeating claims made on various websites…there’s never any original research or fact checking. The numbers claimed depend on which website they looked at last.
Now they are going to say the reason these wind farms are not producing electricity is because these wind turbines are in fact disguised nuke silos. May be the blade will fall off and these support columns will take off😂
Hey, Matt, there is a growing interest in the impact of wind Farms in certain areas particularly in Mediterranean climates. They appear to raise local ground temperatures by 2 to 3 degrees C in the wakes. This changes the pattern of rainfall increasing in some areas and decreasing it further away. Air is quite laminator, and the turbines create turbulence which mixes it up and slows the wind down. Its what is called a porous windbreak. the atmosphere above it "bounce" over this turbulence causing "Orographic" rainfall and hence a nasty rain shadow further away just like any other windbreak like a range of mountains or hills.
Yeah, green energy is not the utopia that people want to pretend it is. As we use it more, we will find out all the problems that make it as bad or worse than fossil fuels. People fear the unknown future more than the known consequences.
Wow wow carful you can't go against the climate evengelists and say things or challenge the ideology. I've noticed every day in the UK all the new so called straight line grid pattern cloud formations that has made the blue sky that bit more hazy and the fact it's been the coldest crappyist summer for 13 years and they still say we need to get to net zero even quicker because were boiling. With all this investment in wind like you said it alters the air flow and wind patterns we don't know if we are causing more problems just like sky seeding. I'm probably going to hell now for speaking my mind.
Not going to believe you without a comparison to fossil fuel plant cooling tower effects. Your word "local" is also doing a lot of work. How about some citations; as your claims don't show up in paper searches? You appear to work in the fossil fuel industry.
I just BaiDu. According to the Chinese reports: High Voltage DC cables was connected, and a gigantic energy storages were installed, so GanSu get green light to run full speed on it wind and solar energy in 2020. "Starting from 2021, we will introduce full industrial chain projects with investments of over 10 billion yuan, such as Baofeng Silicon Materials, Huantai All-vanadium Liquid Flow Energy Storage, and Zhihui Green Coal Chemical." -- translated by Google BTW, I just checked 2023 figures, wind power is still larger than solar in China. But it seems solar will soon surpass winds.
Thank you for the update. I am an Environmental engineer in America. These projects are what I have been dreaming about for many years. I would like to stay in touch as the project moves forward. Thank you and I hope to hear from you again.
@@CSBastianyGaumnitz The american midwest is an old danish dream. Ideal place for Windmills, hydrogen and biofuels. Connected to 'the midwestern corn lobby!"
@@CSBastianyGaumnitz Yeah I know! I ain't no engineer, but a wind farm the size of Belgium is simply mind boggling! Also, the efforts of de-desertification is so impressive! China has killed off one whole "desert" called Maowusu. It is not a true desert. It was a rich grassland one thousand years ago but due to over-grazing and over-farming, it turned into desert and it kept expanding... It is done by sweat-and-blood of many generations, and also a lot of innovation. What I learnt was that the scientists teach local people to grow a Chinese herb Licorice. This plant can grow horizontally and was patterned into grid to grab the top soil. And licorice is in high demand in China and the local people could sell them at good price! You can imagine how much it improves the life of local farmers (and herders). If you have time, maybe just go there to take a look yourself? And, my understanding is that the central America is a piece of big, baren, sunny, windy, dry and cheap land. Definitely infinite chance for innovation to do something seriously good for the Earth and local farmers back home!
@@_anyone5962 There is already a considerable amount of wind and solar installed in some of the more barren areas; especially in Texas where there are population centers relatively nearby. I imagine that one of the challenges we'd have with drawing a circle around the best spot and building out that whole area is that a lot of that land is owned by the US government, is protected as some kind of park/monument/wildlife refuge/etc., or belongs by treaty to a Native American tribe. There's also the fact that the people who live there generally hate the government and don't trust it to do anything and/or hate it when publicly owned land is used by industry for anything. Add to that the environmental impact of building in sensitive areas that don't regenerate quickly and the expensive studies and legal battles that would ensue. Democracy is slow and messy. It misses some opportunities but usually gets things right, eventually. The other challenge is that of population density. Though I was listening to a podcast about AI companies and their plans for new models that would require multiple gigawatts of power to build so it seems possible that one of them will get the great idea of building an AI datacenter in the middle of nowhere surrounded by renewables. Those seem like the perfect fit as they require minimal staff and the harder to find people can do their part remotely.
@@_anyone5962 It's not a single contiguous wind farm the size of Belgium. It's *sixty* separate (very large) wind farms, with plenty of separation between some of them, and altogether they are spread across approximately one standard Belgium's worth of Gansu. "The project is divided into multiple phases. The first 3,800 MW phase consisted of eighteen 200 MW wind farms and two 100 MW wind farms. The second 8,000 MW phase consists of forty 200 MW wind farms. "
Transmission is not the limiting factor here. In Australia, we are working on sending power from the middle of the country to Singapore, with negligible loss. 950 miles, even across mountains, is inconsequential for China. It's that No one wants more expensive power.
Australia is no longer working on transmitting solar to Singapore that pipe dream has ended just as most of this net zero nonsense will collapse eventually.
@@personmcperson5740 negligible loss??? Unfortunately, that's a fairytale. There are always losses in power lines, and the longer they are, the higher the losses. Sure, the higher the voltage, the lower the current and the higher the efficiency (lower losses), but there are practical limits on how high the voltage can go before you get ionic current losses between the lines. This means that the higher the voltage, the further apart the lines need to be, which means the bigger (and more susceptible to the wind) the towers need to be, or the deeper the cables need to be buried. Transmission losses are far from negligible.
i work in a grid protection department for regenerative energies. wind turbines usually only have definite time and time depentend overcurrent protection in their transformer stations and i have to test them in a four year interval. 7000 wind turbines would mean i would have to test 4 to 5 wind turbines per day 7 days per week. they could hire me and a colleague to work only for this park full time and we would be fully occupied. thats crazy!
At the Forth bridge in Scotland, they have a team of painters. When they finish at one end of the bridge, they go to the other end and start again. A complete repaint, take them around 5 years. The bridge is 4 lanes and 2.5 kilometers long.
@@wilsjane Similar for the Sydney Harbour Bridge, although I think I heard somewhere that it took 10 years per loop. Pretty crazy stuff isn't it - spending everyday of your career continually painting the same bridge. A bit like Sisyphus lol!
Wind Baseplate Power Produced Power. These things are not efficient and MUST rely on hot-standby power. Every wind turbine has an actual lifespan of 15 years before the cost of maintenance exceeds the power output. Those at sea wear out more quickly and the cost of the undersea cables is greater than that of the structures. These things cannot be recycled. They are cut down like trees, chopped to pieces and placed into landfills. They consume 100++ more area per watt generated compared to nuclear. Hydro is truly clean, green, sustainable. However, proposals are underway in the PNW (Pacific NW of the USA) to tear down hydro dams and replace them with wind turbines. That would be economic and environmental insanity.
How much space does the uranium mine take up? But the bigger problem with nuclear is that it is not renewable. China has about 230,000t but in the last 70 years they dug up only 55,000. Sounds great. However, as more power stations are built, consumption has increased. They are now using around 7000t a year. That's enough for 33 years, but you see the problem don't you? Because 33 years is not a very long time, and it will go down as consumption rates go even higher of they build more power stations. If they double the number of nuclear power stations, the 33 years halves to just 17. Their temporary workaround is just to rely on imports. China has uranium, but local production only meets ¼ of their usage. They import the rest. But if western countries also build a lot of nuclear power stations, there might be a scramble for it, it gets declared a national security essential resource, and China finds itself cut off from their suppliers. They need renewables in a way that we do not.
@danielch6662 Hey, if you want to play that game, the uranium mines take up less space than the copper, nickel, iron, and rare earth mines required to build wind turbines. I suspect you don't understand how incredibly energy dense nuclear power plants are. You can store 100 years' worth of fuel in a parking lot. Kilowatt/hour for killowatt/hour nuclear is far less impactful than so called "renewables" which is a marketing term that is meaningless as nothing is truly "renewable" because the sun has a finite life span. We will never truly run out of uranium because the oceans contain enough for 1000's of years' worth of consumption, which will give us plenty of time to harness new energy sources.
The issue is not "power" (GW), it's about delivering "energy" (GWh). Nuclear reactors still require fuel that needs replacing, and disposal. Reactors also take significant time to build, and power from nuclear is generally more expensive. China has been building one for UK the last 15 years, and it may not come online for another 5 years.
In 20 years from construction, all the turbines will have to be replaced. The materials and maintenance requirements are enormous. Despite its huge capacity, China generates only 10 % of its electricity from wind: coal generates 56 % of the electricity and natural gas 9 % (rising). If they want to store energy in batteries, the cost and materials requirement will also be huge. The problem is that wind is power dilute and batteries are energy dilute: both are materials and land intense. Emissions from China will continue to grow--I suspect the turbines will quickly become a relic in the desert.
They will wear out in 5-10 years from now -> replace or rot in place/move to landfill. The desert air is full off fine sand, which act as an abrasive. The wing tip move so fast even water droplets is will degrade the wings, sand is much worse - not immediately but in time. It's a pity that wind in a desert pick up sand...
In fact, wind turbines are not land intense at all. While spread over a wide area, they do not occupy this area. Also if the blades are replaced at the end of life, the wind turbines are not that materials intense as well, because foundation and tower may be reused. In today repowering projects, such benefit is often let aside for the fortunate option to do a repowering using larger turbines but less of them. This trend will reverse once the size and power of the turbines will no longer incentive making larger ones.
@@likeAG6likeAG6 Portion of the electric energy produced by nuclear plants in China is shrinking in spite of the new reactors built. SOlar and wind combined are growing much faster when nuclear power generation is more or less stable with approximately as many reactors decomissioned as comissioned.
@@beatreuteler Wind farms have a power-density of 1 W/M2--that's it. The video explains that the Gansu farm occupies 420,000 km2 and has a capacity of 20 GW. Peak power demand for Beijing is about 27 GW. A farm the size of Belgium cannot even supply one city. They put it in the desert because they consider this wasted space and would not have to cut down forests or use farmland. And even at that massive scale, the farm needs to be 100 % backed up by reliable like coal or nuclear, that have to ramp up and down to match wind variability. If we were to foolishly attempt to replace all fossil-fuel energy-generating units with wind warms, it would take 150 years of exploration, planning, regulatory review, mining, processing and production of just the copper required, let alone lithium for the batteries to store the energy. It is not going to happen. Wind energy will be a relic in a few decades. In the meantime, it is a nuance, with many rural communities rejecting the projects. Off-shore wind projects are also getting major pushback--they are even more materials intense and difficult to maintain. Any recucling that does occur---not much at the moment, will be energy intense and powered by coal in China and natural gas elsewhere.
It's the myth of the Chinese efficency. If you build a 100 times of "X" the of course you're gonna be more efficent. Even if said "X" was built for no reason. Just like thousands of miles of high speed rail that China built to middle of nowhere.
The power that is wasted is peak power, in times when there is low demand. So this would be the times of the lower maket value for the power than the times when the power is actually ued. So in may be 39% of the possibler energy not used, but this would be more like 20% of the energy value lost even if there where more power lines. Which price actually is paid can be different for political decisions, but there is still a true value for the economy as a whole, without the political interference with the markets. The power lines where a bit behind (depite of fast planing and permits in China). With the new line things should be better now. As another point wind turbines also have wear - so stopping them for some time also reduces the costs.
One thing I noticed about the big wind farm and the big solar panel farm is that it would be fairly easy to build both on the same plot of land. Wind turbines don't make large shadows, and while wind farms aren't always sited in the sunniest areas, there seems to be plenty of overlap where both could be combined. But I don't see that, and I'm curious as to why. Southern California have both types of energy farms, but they aren't co-sited. So to me, that seems like a waste. There is a lot of land around the wind farms that could benefit from solar panels. Obviously, lack of space isn't a problem in the Gobi desert, but real estate in the US is expensive. So optimizing the energy generation per acre seems like it might be a good idea. (Although I really liked the way that western Germany does wind power: they just plop the turbines down all across the countryside, instead of bunching them up on wind farms.)
I think that there may be an issue with the shadow of the rotating blades passing over the panels. As I understand it the rapid movement of shadows across a PV array causes the inverters to flip out due to rapid fluctuations in the DC power.
Go for it. Watch a wind turbine loose a blade and take out a large nuber of solar panels. Turbine tip speeds run 180-200mph with a several ton blade. Wow, can't fix stupid. This doesn't factor in the ability for a wind turbine in cold climates from throwing ice chunks at high velocities.
@@davepfanner2902 "Wow, can't fix stupid". Classy, really adds to your point. Which would be a good point if it were something that happened often, oh, wait, it's a very rare failure mode. Maybe, I dunno, look at the examples of places that actually do it before commenting.
If you've got megawatts of power going to waste - why not use that energey to pull water from the atmosphere to irrigate the desert - and make green hyrdrogen - or pull carbon from the atmosphere to make fuel. All these things are only cost effective when the alternative is throwing the energy away.
Bit of a classic catch-22. The places that would most benefit from wind and solar farms tend to be heavily populated, leading to high land prices (and concerns about aesthetic and side effects), which makes building these green energy farms much less appealing, and the places without those concerns tend to be too unpopulated to make the benefit practical.
Fortunately transmission of Electric is pretty efficient and not stupidly expensive to build so in most cases you can put the renewables where they will work best and get past the NIMBY's so it can actually get built and still have the benefits where the power is needed.
On the other hand, heavily populated areas have a lot of roof space, industry and parking lots that can be covered with solar. Not as cheaply as the desert, but still.
Most of those empty apartments and ghost cities have eventually filled up with people. It's quite interesting how they build their infrastructure based on demand decades into the future.
@QH96 uh no, they build those condominiums because they are subsudized, they get money for building. A lost of those condos and skyscrapers never get filled and they just demolish them afterwards. Just waste of resources.
There has been an energy breakthrough called enhanced geothermal. It uses advanced fracking techniques to drill geothermal wells that can be used to create steam power, almost anywhere on the planet. This is different from traditional geothermal, which is site-specific. Enhanced geothermal can replace nuclear, and even wind and solar over time. It can produce clean energy 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, with no intermittency issues, or need for extra battery storage systems. Check out the U.S. Dept. of Energy’s Forge project in Milford, Utah. The future is geothermal!
40.2°N 96.9°E Look at the blob in the northwest. It is near the center of that, offset a bit to the east north east. Put the coordinates into a map and you will find it.
Nuclear #1! Small modular reactors are the future. They can be retrofitted to existing Coal power plants. Seems to be the size of a large shipping container. Very nice and contained reactor. Very powerful source of clean base-load energy required for the electrification movement (e.g., electric vehicle proliferation).
People who go on about energy storage being the answer must not be good with math. There has never been a storage scheme that is sufficiently practical and affordable to be the answer to an energy scheme at a national or global level. One physicist on YT calculated sufficient batteries would take 300 years to build if enough material was available...which it isn't. And the emissions from that build project would dwarf current global emissions.
That's a very narrow view. Storage isn't the only solution and there are loads of orgs exploring other options. Look at the UK that makes heavy use of underwater transmission lines to balance the grid during over supply and under supply. These cables have lifetimes way longer than batteries. You can also over supply renewable since it's so cheap per kWh. You can also manipulate demand side. Having heat pumps fill their tanks over night during high levels of cheap power. Or charging your EV and then feeding it back in during a shortage. Domestic generation and storage will also give individuals more control over their use and make consumers more conscious. There also very cheap grid scale storage options coming this decade. Sodium batteries when built at scale will be stupidly cheap due to abundant raw materials. The reality is with the systems described above you may only need 5 percent storage capacity optimistically and 40 percent pessimistically. And no it would not dwarf current emissions
I read that servers in the US already use more energy than the automobile industry. The Chinese government has asked companies to set up data centers for AI and data storage and processing in these desert states that lie in China's interior.
It's amusing to think of all the renewable energy cynics who spent their finite life on this planet to watch videos about renewable energy and write cynical comments. What a way to live.
the excess power produced in this province could be used to process the coal into feed stock chemicals eg to make plastics, instead of burning the coal. This retains jobs in the area and solves the transmission problems. This technology was developed in South Africa during the aparthied oil export ban into that country so they developed coal processed alternatives.
That 70,000 acre number must be missing a couple digits. 70,000 acres is only a 10.5 mile x 10.5 mile area and that would be a small windfarm. Seven million acres would be 105 mi x 105 mi and that would actually be a large wind farm.
10.5 x 10.5 mile sounds more realistic than 105 x 105 miles. Here's why. Warning. Maths. But only very simple arithmetic. 😊 10.5 miles is 16.9km. Metric is easier for calculations. They have 7000 tower/turbines. Put them on a grid, sq rt of 7000 = 83.7 16.9km / 83.7 = 200m Turbine tower + blade = 120m Look at the video. Does the distance between the towers look like about 2x the height of the tower+blade or about 20x that distance?
PS: I don't know how tall the towers are in Gansu. Google says average height today is about 60-120m, but the average height in the US is 80m. And the Gansu project isn't new, so their towers are also not the latest designs, which trend bigger. The Gansu project started 15y ago.
@@danielch6662 Yeah, but my point was that a windfarm that's only 10 miles square is just a small wind farm. Once he said 70,000 acres in the video, I quit watching because there's little point to wasting time on BS green energy videos.
My sister has a windmill on her farm, as part of a windmill farm. The windmills lease the acre of land they set on. At the end of 20 years, the company walks away from the project, and the farmers can do what they want with the windmills.
Wait a second.... High Voltage DC power lines? That made me research and question what I know about power lines. Can you do a video on why all of sudden DC is back in favor? I thought the whole reason AC was invented (discovered) was to solve current loss of DC voltage over long distances.
DC is and always was better if you look purely at the losses of the transmission line itself, but stepping the voltage up and back down can only really be done in AC. As converting between AC and DC also has losses converting your electricity to DC only makes sense if the power line is a very high voltage connection over a long distance. And those really only started making sense when intermittend renweables became widespread.
HVDC never realy went out of favour, there's been series of projects since the 1970s (when electronics started to make higher power AC-DC and DC-DC conversion possible). The uptick from the 00's onwards has largely been driven by renewables and a desire to connect remote locations and improve interconnection between countries. Example of large scale HVDC initiatives are: - the European Super Grid intiative seeking to link Europe and North Africa into one big interlinked grid, with plans to extend this to the Middle East and Central Asia; - the ambitious One Sun, One World, One Grid that is seeking to connect all the central 1/3 sun belt countries around the globe; and, - the 2,500mile long 3.6GW HVDC line private enterprise connection between the UK and Morocco (which includes 11GW of generation and 22GW of batteries).
Transmission losses are the same with AC (RMS) as DC, but it's far simpler to change voltage in AC, all you need is two coils of wire and some iron-ish material in the middle. It's only since the 90s that DC-DC converters (SMPSs) are commercially viable and well performing/behaving, and innovation in that space continues with tech like synchronous switching, GaN, etc achieving
High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) systems offer several advantages, including: Reduced Transmission Losses: HVDC systems can transmit power over long distances with lower losses compared to AC systems, especially in high-capacity applications. Higher Transmission Capacity: HVDC can carry more power over a single conductor compared to AC, making it efficient for long-distance transmission. Stability and Control: HVDC allows for better control of power flow and enhances grid stability, especially in interconnected systems. Interconnection of Different Grids: HVDC can connect asynchronous power systems (grids that operate at different frequencies), facilitating the exchange of electricity. Lower Environmental Impact: HVDC lines can be built with fewer conductors and smaller right-of-way requirements, reducing their visual and land impact. Reduced Short-Circuit Currents: HVDC systems can help limit fault currents in the system, improving the overall safety and reliability of the grid. Integration of Renewable Energy: HVDC technology is well-suited for integrating renewable energy sources, especially offshore wind farms and solar power, into the existing grid. Cost-Effectiveness for Long Distances: While the initial investment may be higher, HVDC can be more cost-effective over long distances due to lower operational and maintenance costs. Flexibility in Grid Design: HVDC systems can be more easily integrated into existing infrastructures, allowing for flexible and adaptable grid designs. Improved Reliability: HVDC systems tend to be more reliable and can operate more effectively under varying load conditions.
You didn't discuss maintenance. What happens with blades and panels when they reach the end of life? What has been the environmental impact of these projects?
I really hate wind power. Im on the east coast of Canada and we have near permanent wind. On the ocean we see storms that have taken homes off cliffs more then i can count. Our government decided the mountains behind our rural communities were perfect. Here are my problems. Birds, if you tresspass and go beneath these things there is a perpetual corpse pile of birds. Mostly larger rapters. Noise, jesus these things hum and it drives you nuts. And if they dont shut it down before a storm they make a scary ass thumping deep booming sound as they spin like mad. Looks, they look like shit on our gorgeous landskapes. We are famous for our maple tree forests turning color. And lastly we didnt get anything for this. Our power bills are still absolutely insane.
I mean, the power bill is a product of capitalism... Those savings were NEVER going to see YOUR pocket. Thank corporations who think everything they touch is theirs, and theirs alone. You are a mere plebian paying for their service.
Having spent decades in US infrastructure- “replication” of Gansu here is a completely unreasonable expectation. Gansu is built in a desert where there are no NIMBY forces to object. Even if there were objections- it’s China so we’re not going to hear about local objections since they’d be overruled before they could be registered. In the US power storage is a huge issue - no one presently wants battery storage facilities in their backyard. A change in battery tech to a more dense less volatile medium might go a long way to changing that. Mentioning 3 Gorges is a bit ironic when speaking of US comparisons because it was built with people living in the “way” who were ordered out on little to no notice. Such “agility” in constructing public works here is impossible. In the US public hearings, redesigns, community objections and just compensation (under Federal and State constitutional mandates)are all lengthy processes that make “replication” of Gansu style projects in the US extremely unlikely. Certainly the timetables are not comparable- widening an existing highway here can take decades, Gansu seems to have gone from dusty desert to completion in only about 1 decade. Ponder high speed trains in Europe, Japan and China - then look at them here ( only in FL) for another glimpse at the problem. Curious as to whether the per kWh cost of coal remains cheaper than the Gansu cost.
@@gund89123 I've been running O&G / Energy companies for a long time and in the industry for 30 years. Flare gas is a part of the process, and due to their typically remote locations - end up being easier to simply burn vs recover electricity (via using a turbine gen set / recip gen set, etc). There's some cool websites that show global flares via satellite as well. Cheers. www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=62383
@@parttimethinker7611 well, not really. It’s over-production and technically difficult to do the right thing. However, it is true and an issue….and opportunity.
And, in less than 20 years there will be 21,000 windmill blades in need of replacement. And, each of those turbines needs 80 gallons of synthetic oil. It takes 12,000 gallons of crude to produce it. And, it has to be replaced once a year.
Still less crude than oil powered generation and the blade problem means jobs ! And how long do you think power generating turbines go without maitenance! Here in UK we have just turned of our last coal powered power plant.And we currently have one of the biggest offshore wind farms in the world and we have more than one and we even export electricity to europe!
It is the load factor to understand how productive these wind farms really are during the year so multiply by peak capacity gives average amount they truly generate. Most have a load factor of about 25-33%
You can turn it into heat. But more realistically, "discarding" electricity in this case likely means adjusting the turbines so less energy was captured in the first place.
Usually by just reducing generation. Though there are dump loads connected to electricity grids - basically just giant resistor banks - they are intended only for emergency use. to buy time for turbines to torque down.
@@vylbird8014 Well, that all makes total sense, including the part about the torque-down resistors, but I wouldn't describe it as "discarding". It's most like... just not making it.
Matt Ferrell only briefly mentioned the missing part of the jig-saw which is energy storage. Using surplus windpower to produce green hydrogen looks like the most likely longer-term solution. But the electrolyser developers are running to catch up and issues with hydrogen, like storing the stuff, are also still remaining to be effectively resolved. Hydrogen will be needed to replace natural gas in the long-run and clearly the use of electricity that would otherwise be wasted from large wind and solar farms is the obvious carbon-free way to produce it. Give it another ten years and the hydrogen economy will ride in on the back of wind and solar. I'm one of many working on the development of safe, lower-cost hydrogen storage.
@@PeterFraenkel Please give us a hint about how to store / transport hydrogen cost effectively. Not trying to be critical at all but these are some of the issues with hydrogen. Personally it seems that ammonia might be a big player in this area, especially for countries like Japan.
forgot to mention in my earlier response below that our underground pressure vessels could also contain ammonia which like you say is a potentially important alternative form of energy storage@@Mentaculus42
JCB here in the UK certainly think so, and have developed not only the engines but the production, storage and transport of the H2 - they have tried battery power but for large machines which have to run all day, they take too long to recharge. The H2 is taken to the farm or construction site so refilling is a very small downtime. Installing a national network of H2 storage is another matter though...
39% unused does not mean this is actually waste. This enables saving on the typically much more expensive storage: you still get enough power if the wind has only half its usual strength. So it reduces the times when you would otherwise already be depleting your storage.
Coal plants can be turned to idle state generation only power for itself. But the investment cost still runs. Thus no income and only coal price saved. Nuclear plants are also able to turn to idle but much much slowerly, in 6..12 hours. Cost problem is the same in nuclear plants.
Smarter people with more foresight (by which I mean: NOT ME!) have understood for a while that grid-scale energy storage is required if renewables are going to succeed in the long term. Governments curtailing solar production to appease coal power plant operators is a great example of exactly why storage is such a critical piece of a renewable energy powered electrical grid.
@@SaltyPuglord It has nothing to do with appeasement. Coal plants physically cannot turn off and on. If you don't curtail the solar then you have too much power which can damage equipment. If you just permanently turn the coal plants off then you don't have enough power at night.
That's true. Coal boils water to make steam to turn generators. Takes time to heat those boilers from scratch. An alternative is to run the generators from gas turbine engines like jets use. Easy, fast on/off. But the efficiency of gas turbine generation is much less than coal/oil/natural gas boiler plants.
@@wam7484 "efficiency of gas turbine generation is much less than coal/oil/natural gas boiler plants" .. Really? I had understood the opposite, like 35% vv 60%. I may be wrong.
The UK already has 30GW of wind power and 10GW of Solar, yet on average over a year, wind only produces 9.59GW and wind only 1.52GW. When the UK has high pressure over it, (sometimes for over a week like it was this month of November), we get NO WIND OR SUN. I record the energy sources and volumes every day and one day last week the total renewables generated just 1.22GW against a demand of 30GW. This is not unusual and at times, I have reported that we would need 30 times the amount of renewables to cover the demand, (which can be as high as 49GW), but we only have enough land and sea area to triple the existing capacity. Thank goodness we have GAS generation which at times it has produced up to 70% of demand. Our 40GW capacity is actually more than enough to cover the 30GW average demand, yet most of the time it is not enough, because of a lack of wind and sun. When the wind is blowing and the sun is shining, our Grid cannot cope with the output, so the energy companies have to feather the turbines and then claim compensation for the energy that they could have produced. On average we pay the energy companies £2.2 billion per year in compensation, which will increase as our renewable capacity increases. There is no way that the UK will cover all demands without a source which can be turned on and off at will, such as Gas.
Yes. I strongly support this use of hydrogen fuel. Hydrogen fuel cells are not at the point where they are better than LiOn batteries but the potential is there. This can be used for powering vehicles and even ships.
The first flaw in that cunning plan is sourcing the fresh water required to supply an industrial hydrolysis plant in the Gobi desert. The next (seldom mentioned by cheerleaders) is to transport the resulting hydrogen (which is a quite weak energy carrier) over vast distances at tolerable cost/benefit without losing it. Pipelines are a poor start since to H2 molecules the valves and joints in the pipeline are an easy leak path and the steel is subject to embrittlement after exposure to hydrogen, and hydrogen enduced cracking becomes more liekly as the strength of the steel in question increases. Liquifying hydrogen means cooling it to within 20-30 degrees of absolute zero at ambient pressure and the energy required to do so amounts to around half the energy value of the hydrogen being compressed. Alternatively, the hydrogen gas can be compressed to high pressures (350-700 bar is typical for transport, compared to around 200Bar for compressed natural gas, or 20 Bar for LPG/Autogas). For these practical reasons, it is more sensible to produce the hydrogen where it is required on-site by electrolysis, provided one has water and electricity available. An alternative is to use the hydrogen to produce ammonia for transport, but adding two extra steps (producing ammonia and then extracting the hydrogen at the destination) results in additional losses of the energy one was attempting to store in the first place, ammonia poses a risk of caustic burns and if used as a direct subsititute for diesel, has only about a third the energy density. If using excess wind generation to produce hydrogen as a precursor to ammonia, the ammonia is better used to produce fertilizer or chemical feedstock, which leads one to conclude that the best way to salvage some of the (heavily subsidized) malinvetment sunk into wind or solar energy boondoggles is to site industries nearby that require abundant energy but can tolerate that energy being delivered chaotically.
Here in Australia........wind farms have proven themselves, in most locations to be highly variable and unreliable. There are wind droughts that last for weeks, and if that coincides with very overcast weather, that knocks out most of the solar, then chaos ensues. Its necessary to switch on lots of gas turbines to try and fill the gap, and natural gas is 3 times the cost per thermal unit of coal......so its sending power bills up, and up and up. Many wind turbines in Australia are made in China, and within 5 years of installation problems surfaced with cracked blades, and generators already needing overhaul. Its not delivering on what was promised.
Flying over it does not tell you anything. It just shows you the instant moment. Annual power generation is the only measure that counts (if 95% or more is being transmitted to where it may be used).
And yet if they did not ban CRYPTO mining in 2021 some investor would definitelly use that power for a crypto farm. I just dont understand how the power cost can be so high 7.5cents what is in that cost? I mean like once it is standing there is only the mainteinance cost or am I wrong (maybe the upfront cost of the turbine repplacement, but still) ?
A guy down in Mexico lives in the middle of a wind farm and he complains about the awful noise and finds pieces of the blades in his fields, fluids from lubricants get into his crops. It's an environmental and human disaster.
I'm surprised that when they were designing these wind farms that they didn't have a plan on who would use the energy and how they would get the energy to its use location. Much of what they are doing now seems like an afterthought which is usually more expensive and more time consuming. The other concerning aspect of this project is that the wind power is significantly more expensive than coal. You can't guilt people into using clean energy and when you try to regulate to force people the result is out of control energy costs. Make clean energy more cost effective (or at least the same) and make it convenient then the problem solves itself.
Ok, so the electricity from wind is already almost twice the cost of that of coal and now you want to add batteries for storage. Right, sounds like a case of: "How much money do you want to waste?" - "YES"
even if renewables cost more, it is a better alternate to coal and oil as the environmental damage they do cannot be properly measured and assigned a cost.
@@johnbenoy7532 A statement of faith like that only begins to sound credible if you're committed to the religion of gullible warming. Electrcial generation by coal fired thermal power plants hasn't been dirty in any sense, unless one insists that emitting free plant food is 'dirty', since the 1950s. Additionally coal fired thermal generation technology is still not at the end of it's development potential (as proposed HELE developments indicate). As far as the solid waste stream, fly ash can be used as an ingredient in concrete, bottom ash as aggregate and gypsum from flue gas desulphurization can be used in plasterboard/drywall panels. Which is to say coal is part of the 'circular economy'. As for oil, well, once you burn it, aside from the free plant food, it's gone. So what is this claimed environmental damage that's so much worse than laying waste to great tracts of land to erect unrecyclable wind and solar subsidy mining boondoggles?
Coal and natural gas are more expensive in the end. It's just that the cost is an externality. We don't pay for it. The next generation will, in the form of more intense natural disasters and unwanted population migration.
This is the problem with a government-controlled dictated economy versus the government-controlled free market one. Forcing where and what the supply (energy or housing) is, and ignoring the demand for it, leads to catastrophic results, hence the banking and financial crisis China currently faces. They will have the same result with energy. They will make it work, but the costs will be great and result in an inefficient use of resources in the long run.
7000 wind turbines equals how many personnel to maintain it? They would have been better off building a few nuclear power plants in the areas they need the energy.
@@Foquro You're right, governments, especially the CCP look at the greater picture making sound decisions based on logic and not looking good in front of the world in regards to their Green Energy achievements.
@@5353Jumper obviously you didn’t read my post. I said building a few nuclear power plants in the areas they need. The energy is what’s needed. That’s not exactly in the desert where the wind farm is.
@shumann1605 you also may not know that China is currently building more nuclear power plants than the rest of the world combined...in areas with water closer to major population centers. AND they also need to supplement that with wind and solar in their move toward a low emissions national energy system.
China has the most fossil fuel power plants to replace. That being said 1/3 of their current supply is renewables. They are the global leader in installed Solar, Wind and Backup Energy Storage Systems. Their adoption of EVs has reduced China's demand for petroleum for the last 2 quarters. The result even with recent OPEC production cuts has been a lowering of global oil prices. Does China still have a long way to go? Absolutely. Even though they have a longer race to run given the size of their population. They are still in first place and accelerating.
@@Xi_Jinping_is_Pooh the big projects aren't like that. It's not that they don't know how to do it properly. It's that their country has not been industrialised for as long, so there is not that much red tape. Because of the looser regulatory framework, there are a lot more greedy capitalists who takes shortcuts. Smaller projects are not managed as tightly. The US had the same problem in the 19th century. The mass of red tape that has accumulated since then has curtailed that sort of thing. But it is still a huge problem in developing countries. And half of China is still a developing country, where all these problems tend to occur. People like to talk about tofu projects, but none of their truly big projects has suffered from quality problem any more than similar sized projects in other countries, even developed ones. The fact of it is, today they are more experienced at mega project construction, if only through sheer practice. Our own skilled workforce has largely retired/retiring/died through old age. Just look at how Boeing and the military shipyards keep screwing up.
@@danielch6662 I did not say they don't know how to do it properly, but "rather "if they do it properly". It is a choice. They can also employ foreign experts. Corruption is rampant in china, from raw materials factory down to the guy finishing the paint. Massive projects like apartment blocks some still have tofu quality.
As a rapidly developing nation China is pushing wind as a quick way to meet energy requirements as they bring forward coal and gas capacity later. In a developed country such as the US they should skip over wind as mostly pointless and go with gas & coal until more nuclear stations can be built.
@@falsemcnuggethope no, but newer wind turbines can produce more power with the same amount of space and resources. the old ones will still work perfectly fine, but at a lower efficiency.
No they really aren't. I predicted years ago they would be a damp squib. Just another way for nuke shills to claim nuclear is cheap and or will get cheaper. Smr companies are folding now and where they are not they are now claiming higher prices than traditional reactors. We just need to mass produce large scalable reactors to keep costs manageable. Like France did, but then they let the skill base go and it's back to being expensive. Even historically strong nuclear countries are going renewable. Nuclear is not a golden bullet
@@beatreuteler The idea with SMRs is that they can be completely sealed and automated and designed for automatic shutdown if they overheat. And if they use Thorium instead of Uranium then we can source it fuel from the U.S. instead of Russia.
@@mikeearussi SMR and thorium don't work well together. Thorium needs a breader reactor and these don't scale well to small size. Even for larger ones it is unclear if thermal spectrum thorium breeders are practical / feasible. Thorium reactor would need way more (e.g. 100 x) chemical reprocessing than current uranium reactors. Its like dicussing electric vehicles and ignoring the need for batteries.
@@mikeearussi OK. but that product is not ready. Let's see. For the time being (approx. next 30 years) this is a nogo in our country. This said for what we need today it comes too late anyways.
Humans have an odd habit of resolving problems. The dams on the Elwa River in southern Oregon/northern California were removed because they were too expensive to upgrade for the benefits they provided for white people. Removal is, and will be beneficial to the salmon and overall habitat and the remaining indigenous peoples. As presented in the video, the costs of burning a fossil fuel is less expensive when it's reduced to money and jobs and yet clearly unhealthy for the planet, not to mention the workforce tasked to remove the raw product. Would you prefer to drink free water from a contaminated source or pay $5.00 for a bottle of triple filtered water?
thanks for posting this Matt. I retired in the US in 2011 and moved to China...a move that lasted nearly 10 years. Before all this I lived most of my life in the Boston area and at that time there was plenty of news about Green Energy production off Cape Cod...at last they tried because the CLU and others cried over how the Cape would be ruined by all the Windmills the Energy Department was planning on building there. When I moved to China I was immediately overwhelmed at the amount of Green Energy thinking the Chinese had in 2011. I mean there were Wind farms everywhere. One of my travel destinations was to a city called Erlian...a city north of Beijing in what's called Inner Mongolia. It also was on the edge of the Gobi. As I traveled the city, I could walk to the edge of the Gobi and could see how China was building more Wind Farms there...I was nothing more than totally amazed at what China was doing...that was putting the US to shame in Energy production
Don't the utilities have to then transmit the electricity over power lines vast distances to the end users? Isn't that inefficient? Lot of wasted energy lost moving electrons through hundreds of kilometers of high tension transmission linesw?
Yeah, just NIMBY crap again. Move the problem somewhere else. We are talking about global pollution, but their answers don't take the holistic global consequences into account. Green Energy is turning into a get rich quick scam for corrupt corpos.
wind power is not a solution, especially since it needs to be transported over long distances. Currently, nuclear is the only real solution to non fossil fuel power needs.
Well, in oh-so-green Germany the electricity prizes have doubled after they shut down their nuclear power plants and tried to make do with large wind farms. Wind-produced electricity is just a very expensive (as well as noisy and bird-killing) hobby.
If your wind farm is consistently producing more energy than can be used or exported, energy storage doesn't help. The energy storage fills up and then what? Build even more energy storage? That's like trying to solve a leaking pipe with buckets, only there's nowhere to empty the buckets so your house fills up with buckets of water. If they cannot use or export the energy, the only solution is to dismantle some of the windmills and erect them somewhere they can actually be useful.
Fossil fuels are the combined storage of solar and gravitational energy, in a very transportable form. The machinery used to convert the solar energy (plant life) is also a necessary machine to convert co2 into o2. The hard work has already been done and the energy to produce the converted energy has been spent. Plant life is the machine and instead of creating pollution it creates more life. The manufacture of new machines to convert solar energy is a waste of energy, causes pollution and strips the environment. A more proper path in my opinion is to spend all of that money on a clean conversion of the fossil fuels back into usable energy. Even if you were to use a nuclear reactor to produce the energy to extract the energy from fossil fuels cleanly, we would be better off.
Here's some food for thought, why do they have to be wind turbines? based on info given to me by a guy who worked on wind turbines, the input shaft can be turned by hand by the average male. That means there is not a lot of force needed to turn it. So with that in mind, why do they have to be so far in the air and driven by unreliable wind. Why not take a simple 3 phase motor using gear reduction to make it so the motor can turn at say 500rpms and the output shaft of the reduction turn at say 10rpms. A small 3 phase motor will use much less power than the turbine puts out. Using that motor setup with say a ribbed belt that fits into grooves on pulley, like a timing belt, you could then control the motor to speed up or slow down and make as much or little power as needed. Also using that would allow you to put them right next to each other and even stack them like you do levels in a parking garage. You could literally put 50 of them in a one acre plot and still not be near as tall as one of the shortest towers now. I know there it the old saying you can't make electricity using electricity, but in this scenario, I don't see how it can't work.
China is a very special case for big infrastructure projects. If the government in Beijing decides to do it - it gets done! Any objections, including historical sites, environmental or endangered wildlife concerns, are ignored - even if the locals are brave enough to raise them. That's the BIG advantage of a 1 Party State and totally different to the legal processes required in Europe or the US.
But for fossil fuel lobby renewable energy with storage is the least controversial thing we can do. Plants have been doing it for millions of years and I don't see trees die when the sun goes down. The on'y question is if there is not enough storage what can bridge the demand gap? I am pro nuclear power but I feel that will open up a different set of controversy because of past meltdowns.
Wind and solar produce a fraction of what a natural gas or coal plant can produce and at a lower cost. No amount of storage will be enough, the output from renewables just isn't there.
The promising thing about all these renewable energy projects is that the Chinese government is always doing something to make sure it’s reasonably viable. The issues mention in the video was due to a combination of limitations, i.e. energy storage technologies at the time (nearly 20 years ago), limited demand for energy in close proximity to Gansu province, and the imbalance of the levels of development between northwestern inner land and the southeastern parts of China (in part due to the lack of incentives to move there and inconvenience in terms of transportation within china and globally). But nothing sits still. Things change and develop. Plus with the US keeps posing more threats to southeastern China by the day by firing up the Philippines and turning Taiwan into Ukraine the second, China will only have more incentive (and perhaps eventually no choice but) to move more population, businesses, industry etc inland
*They can just turn Sand into Low grade Silicon locally which is VERY energy intensive. Then sell the rough Silicon to global to refiners to make solar panels. This would save the local refiners 90% in energy costs since removing the Oxygen atoms from the Silicon is highly energy intensive.*
And NO WIND is a little, erm, embarrassing. 🇬🇧Scotland has the same problem of over production but the massive government subsidies still have to be paid to every supplier even when the wind don't blow. And when the wind don't blow and the batteries are dead the backup gas, highly polluting biomass and nuclear come in to their own again; an essential multi-tier power producing system to ensure continuous production. Expensive power is the outcome.
I don´t see as much of an issue. Having the wind power in the province will enable that province to phase out coal, the transmission lines to the coast and the offshore windfarms in construction there will help, whenever the wind is not blowing in one of the locations. The people in the province will eventually move on to more usefull jobs than digging coal out of the ground and burn it - as long as the planners keep working on that. In order to be successful, there does not need to be a short term profit. You want really expensive and inefficient? Then look, how it worked in Germany for example: In order to make people install solar panels on there own roofs, you offer enough subsidies. But most private people don´t have the capital to just do that, so they need to ask a bank for a credit. But that credit cannot be given by the state - no, it has to be given by a bank, which does it for a profit. And in order to still make the whole thing worthwile for the private person, the subsidies also have to pay for those profits. And that is paid for by taxes and energy end prizes. And of cause, the grids are not any more ready for all of that, then they are in China. Even roofs of public buildings were rented out to private investors for solar instead of just installing that solar and selling/using it. Financed mostly by bank loans again, profits for the person who rented the roof and the bank - again. Paid for by subsidies and energy end prices by the public - again. And still, no sufficient energy storage, no sufficient total renewable production, no grid to handle it. Still new coal extraction project and at the same time, newer coal power plants are still built - and not the kind with highly flexible power output which could complement renewables as a bridge technology. And that´s a western country which at least gets some green energy transition done.
Do you think the US and other countries should replicate what China is doing? Secure your privacy with Surfshark! Enter coupon code UNDECIDED for an extra 4 months free at surfshark.deals/undecided
If you liked this, check out 5 Years with Solar Panels - Is It Still Worth It? th-cam.com/video/hxj8mNzv8PI/w-d-xo.html
I'm sure the commies do
Surfshark VPN doesn't work in Mainland China!!
I used Express VPN. It works great and all of the Google services which are blocked by the CCP worked in my summer trip to China.
Would like a video about how long windmills investments works compared to how much watt they produce.
Does strong winds and large gears reduce the investments lifespan?
Does mild wind prolong?
I have solar/batteries in Southern CA. I produce a large fraction of my energy and when I consume it's most often after midnight. I would think this is something the government should encourage. It will distribute the energy storage and encourage consumption off peak in the evening. I also have the option of joining a virtual power plant. I have not done that because I'm concerned with not having energy in a blackout.
Their economic and political models are not much compatible. The US tends to be more profit and market driven. Some problems arised when there's gov control, and other issues when there's total free market. (California energy crisis of 2000 for failed gov control) vs (Texas power grid failure could have been lessened if it wasn't deregulated )
The Chinese were able to put forward some amazing infrastructure projects because they can cheat beyond free market interests, whether they're financially paying off now or not. The con is whether their long term plans are smart. Not all would be but time would tell. It feels like the Chinese are playing sim city at times.
Peak power output is not average power output, let alone minimum power output. Repeatedly stating only the peak output is misleading.
They have no choice but conflate to make this energy source even remotely appealing. Average loads produced by US wind farms are usually below 45% of stated capacity, and often much less.
@@LordFalconsword Yup and the wind turbines in Ontario Canada operate at less than 5% capacity factor for many days in a row during the summer. Last month the average capacity factor was ~15% when we needed it the most for air conditioning.
@@LordFalconswordOnly if you're a child.
Meanwhile adults that matter are so aware of the actual output, these "conflated" figures aren't relevant.
@@LordFalconswordexactly! We have two " wind farms" where I live that on any given day have at least one third of the turbines shut down!
@@LordFalconsword that's why you need storage. It's intermittent energy.
As a native of China, please allow me to introduce that desertification is very serious in the western part of China because of its small population. So few people generally live there? Different from the western imagination that China is full of people, the population of China actually gathers in coastal areas. In the western part of China, there are actually not many people living because of population loss and inconvenient transportation, and most of them are resource-based cities and agricultural areas. However, resource cities can't avoid the fate of resource exhaustion, so from the very beginning, the western part of China was defined as an energy center, with solar energy, wind energy and nuclear energy as the main power stations, assisting traditional energy sources to transport energy to all China. This is a strategy to ensure energy security, because China's energy is actually very dependent on the outside world. If the energy supply is unstable, the risk to China is very great. Therefore, even if the power generation price of new energy is more expensive than that of traditional energy, it is necessary to develop new energy industry, because China should be prepared for the risk that traditional energy will be cut off due to various geopolitics, and the energy diversification strategy is very important, which cannot be calculated simply from the power generation cost.
It makes a lot of sense. Energy security for China is way more important than the technical difficulties of transporting the wind power over long distances or disparities in the cost of wind generated electricity vs coal.
@@dondomingo6578 BTW transporting electricity over long distances is something in which China excels at, having pioneered the Ultra-high-voltage electricity transmission technology in DC mode (UHV electricity transmission). This basically assures minimal loss of electricity throughout the transport.
Photovoltaic near sandy and windy deserts have a big problem. Sand destroyes photovoltaic.
@@manfredhauptreif7285 As far as I know, cleaning robots, ai and large-scale water conservancy projects are being used to solve this problem, but it has also brought new problems. The water spilled on the ground to clean dust has spawned weeds, which will lead to short circuit of photovoltaic circuits and fire when they grow up.
@@byakuya3603 可以饲养羊
4:26 For Americans who understand that it's stupid to compare to a number of football fields that you have no way of visualizing, this wind farm would be the 42nd-largest US state. It's a chunk bigger than Maryland, and about half the size of South Carolina. You're welcome.
@@beeble2003 So a small portion of Alaska?
@@hopelessdecoy Alaska is not connected to the mainland directly. Whilst Canada is friendly to the US now, we don't know the future.
how many football stadia are funded by taxpayers? economists claimed football stadium generates economic benefits for the community. corporate welfare at its best.
@@willengel2458 Completely irrelevant to my comment. All I'm saying is that nobody can visualize X-hundred-thousand football fields, so that's a pointless way to help people visualize the area of this wind farm.
@@alt_zaq1_esc If you're implying that Canada would or could take Alaska, you are delusional.
The "50% of installed capacity is renewable" is a metric to make reports look good.
"Produced electricity" is closer to the truth.
"Produced and used electricity" is where it paints the real picture.
Use excess electrical power to desalinate fresh water.
@@appa609 If you can transmit the power to the ocean you can transmit that power to where it is actually needed. Transmission capability is the bottleneck.
They obviously have extra capacity and may need it in the future. That's closer to the truth.
@@appa609easy done near the sea, hard in the dessert 900miles from the sea.
Produced = consumed
Putting wind turbines in a sea of abrasive sand is going to be very expensive on replacing blades and machinery.
There are thousands of them just outside of Palm Springs where it’s windy just about all the time and really sandy. Doesn’t seem to have stopped them
Yes, the Chinese definitely didn't think about SAND when building this next to a desert. Better go earn that consultant fee
@@user-tz9jh6pv2j sand usually doesn’t get blown that high. Of course it happens sometimes. But it’s usually within a couple of meters.
But your point is valid that there will be sand damage.
As the WSJ pointed out one of the problems in the US with wind farms is that the cost of maintenance has been at least 30% more than anticipated and turbines aren’t lasting as long as they are supposed to.
Sand or no sand the Chinese aren’t exempt from these issues either.
Equating "desert" with "sand" is misleading. Only 5% of the Gobi Desert is sand dunes.
1GW for 750,000 homes is only 1.33kW per home. Given that the peak power usage of most homes is considerably higher than this, and most homes have their peak power usage at around the same times of day, it's a misnomer to say that 1GW can power 750,000 to 1M homes. In actuality, it's nowhere near capable of providing the power required. 3-5GW is getting closer, but that doesn't take into account downtime for maintenance and when the wind isn't fast enough to drive the turbines. And all of that is ignoring commercial/industrial usage, which dwarfs residential usage.
You're thinking American homes with AC. In UK 1500Kw is adequate peak (its the kettle and tumble drier). Much of northern China is the same and don't all have the domestic devices in USA
CCP controls every aspect of life. They will tell you how much electricity you are allowed to use 🇨🇳
@@AndrewN75 I'm not thinking anything about America. Never been there. Probably never will. You've made an incorrect assumption in thinking I would base my calculations on the USA. By the way, 1500kW is 1.5MW, which is far too much for any home that I've heard of. I assume you mean 1500W, or 1.5kW. However that's not enough to cover peak usage for a house (nowhere near it). Below are some power usages for some common household items. I realise that some items in some households would use natural gas instead, but it will still give a good idea of just how much power draw houses take during the morning and evening peaks.
Oven: 2kW to 5kW
Stovetop: 1kW to 3kW
Portable electric fan heater: 1kW to 2.4kW depending on its specs and setting used
Toaster: 0.8kW to 1.5kW
Microwave: 0.8kW to 1.2kW
Fridge/freezer: 0.15kW to 0.5kW
Electric kettle: 2kW to 2.4kW
So... let's say someone comes home with some groceries that need to be put away, throws a few things together into a single pot to heat up, puts a couple of slices of bread into the toaster, and makes a cup of tea to drink with dinner. Here's their peak power usage, assuming it's a one-person dinner and the appliances are about average sized:
Fridge (bringing the temperature back down again after having food put in - some of which wasn't refrigerated at the shop): 0.25kW
Stove (1x medium sized hotplate on a 4-hotplate 1.6kW stovetop): 0.4kW
Toaster (basic 2 slice toaster): 0.8kW
Kettle: 2kW
Total: 0.25kW + 0.4kW + 0.8kW + 2kW = 3.45kW peak power usage, excluding all other devices, lights, etc.
When you multiply this by all the other people who are doing the same thing at the same time when they get home from work, you'll find that I was quite correct in what I said about 1GW not being enough to power 750,000 to 1,000,000 homes during peak power usage periods. And that's ignoring those who are cooking for multiple people in a family, using two, three or even four hotplates, or using the oven, turning on a heater because the house is cold in the middle of winter, etc. 1GW might well be enough for that number of households for their daily average consumption, but certainly not their peak consumption, which is why I said what I said.
You must realize that the average Chinese home uses far less energy than a developed country. So the figures they use are closer than you imagine. Poor farming communities have little more than a lightbulb or two and a radio to listen to the government approved radio station
@@kevinberger9854 did the line I commented on in the video say it was specifically talking about China for that statistic? Or was it in the context of asking whether the west should do the same as China has done? While I can't specifically remember off the top of my head well enough to be absolutely certain, the context of the video was around the idea of the west replicating what China has done, so it isn't unreasonable to comment about the peak power usage with western figures. However, even in China, wherever they use electric cooking appliances, they'll still use a certain amount of power during the peak period, and those who live in apartments in the city will often still use more than 1000W to 1300W in the peak, while cooking their food. My point is still valid.
39000 Squarekilometers for 7000 turbines??? Belgium?
An average area of more than 5.5 km² for a single turbine?
I think someone has to do the maths again.
I'm sure some areas are not used, and some are more dense.
you have to think about the turbulence created by the turbines, you have to space them out to make efficient
t's not a single contiguous wind farm the size of Belgium. It's *sixty* separate (very large) wind farms, with plenty of separation between some of them, and altogether they are spread across approximately one standard Belgium's worth of Gansu.
"The project is divided into multiple phases. The first 3,800 MW phase consisted of eighteen 200 MW wind farms and two 100 MW wind farms. The second 8,000 MW phase consists of forty 200 MW wind farms. "
@@Th3Mast3rL0ck I don't think you realize how big 5.5 km² is
@@JonathanMaddox So 39.000 km² is just a misleading figure. Most wind farms aren't contiguous, also in western Europe (unless they are offshore).
There are windmills near my house, and I recently drove by them. Out of nine windmills, none were spinning even though windmills nearby were. Windmills are an inefficient, intermittent, expensive energy source that consume massive amounts of land, steel, copper, concrete and composite material for the blades. Nuclear power is vastly more efficient.
And they're only viable with massive subsidies from the beleaguered taxpayers.
@@rickschritt1616 Correct but taxes don't fund government. See Grace Commission.
Minute 2:42: CO2 IS NOT A POLLUTANT gas. CO2 is a colorless, odorless, innocuous, non-pollutant gas and vital for plant and animal life on Earth.
So is water. But you can still drown in it.
@@anachronisticon True. Also, not enough water means we die of thirst. That means we need to know the actual numbers. At what percentage does CO2 start to be harmful to plant life? and to harm animal life? Greenhouse nurseries often pump additional CO2 into their greenhouses to boost plant growth.
@@stephenfennell Your premise would be useful if C02 did nothing but provide more carbon for plants to respire. But the problem with any climate debate for me people, is the problem is statistical to most people: its real damage won't be
seen till it's too late to prevent it. Our generation has a unique opportunity. But most are too blinded by greed or indifference, but our descendants will find it baffling all the same.
Hardly innocuous: it is one of the major reasons for global warming...
many eminent scientists dispute the theory that CO2 is a problem. most people probably would not know that it is only 4 percent of the atmosphere.
Hey Chris it's easy to visualize the amount of energy it makes. Same as two modest nuclear reactors. Which would work 24x7 and make far less pollution than building all those turbines pollution free.
But there's the nuclear waste.
@@hifinsword France does not and never has sent nuclear waste into space. No nation will just bury its nuclear waste because it isn't considered totally safe. Some countries have created underground storage facilities, but it is expensive. So waste is still considered a problem.
Also there is a problem in where to put them after their replaced.
And the argument for nuclear gets better when thorium reactors come online. It's not if, it's when the reactors are out of prototype and greenlit for production.
@@gdragonlord749 AFAIK there are none even in prototype yet, except the one in China.
I'd just like to say that a desert is not a wasteland, it's just a different kind of ecosystem.
For human use it’s practically a wasteland
@@IlayShriki Yeah, but if you pave over a desert, you are destroying an ecosystem, same as if you pollute a wetland or cut down a forest.
@@shorewall from ecological perspective it’s true but we still have to pave roads and build things and because we already use most of the flattened lands we have to use the desert also
Deserts aren't even ecosystems, it just means a very low density of population or animal/plant species. There are multiple types of deserts.
I don't even know if "wastelands" is a term than actual professional uses. It's evocative but it's just a landscape.
Both terms seem inappropriate in a scientific/engineering context.
Deserts show interesting life that has adapted to survival in the harsh environment. Sometimes even big cats and foxes are found in desert.
China currently has 243 GW of new coal power plants permitted or under construction. Another 149 GW are planned, for a grand total of 392 GW at 306 separate power plants. Gansu is a drop in the energy bucket. Despite all the talk about wind and solar, they still produce less than 3% of the world's energy. We must reduce greenhouse gases, but wind and solar aren't going to do it.
@@fr57ujf 60% of Danish electricity in 2024 came from wind and solar. Up from 54% in 2023.
Other countries should be able to get close to that.
And it’s not like the development has stopped in Denmark.
Stop being such naysayers who think that change isn’t possible…
@@PixelViking I didn't say anything about Denmark. You can call me names, but the fact remains that, despite all the hype, wind and solar still only account for less than 3% of global energy consumption. I'm not against renewable energy, but I am against overstating what it has accomplished and how much more needs to be done. The idea that it will replace fossil fuels, as desirable as that is, is nonsense.
You say "we" but I don't know where you are...here in the UK tonight (29 Dec 24) the national grid reported: gas 13%, wind 53%, hydro 2.4%, nuclear 15.6%, biomass 5.6%, import from Denmark (probably mostly wind) 4.5%, Norway (probably all hydro) 4.4%, total consumption 31.5GW. I would say those are pretty impressive figures! Of course no solar because it is nighttime. And we also have pumped storage which can ramp up in seconds, unlike steam turbines, to meet peak demands. Compare that to, say, America, where the generating mix varies widely across the states, but they are mostly burning one hell of a lot of coal, as does China. Here in the UK we stopped using coal entirely earlier this year
@@rogerfurneaux1529 By "we" I mean the whole world. Kudos to the UK for its progress but it is misleading to talk about clean energy production as a percentage of electrical power as you do here and as advocates of renewable energy always do. Electricity is roughly 20% of total energy demand, so 53%, for example, becomes 10.6% of total energy consumed. The job is much bigger than converting current electricity production to renewable sources. All non-electrical industrial, transportation, and heating applications must be converted to electricity which will require a vast retooling of our infrastructure. The challenges we see with the transportation sector in this regard provide a glimpse of how difficult this will be. I'm an avid proponent of clean energy, but it is counterproductive to overstate our achievements. By 2050 the world may be producing a large percentage of its electricity from renewables and nuclear, but that still leaves the other 80% of the problem to be addressed. It's great to be enthusiastic about renewables, but it is counterproductive to overstate its achievements and understate the enormous amount of work left to do to realize a world in which we no longer use fossil fuels.
@@rogerfurneaux1529 Kudos to the UK for its progress. It is impressive.
By "we," I mean the whole world. This is a global problem and we will fail unless everyone is on board.
You are focused only on the generation of electricity. To phase out fossil fuels we must address total energy. Electricity is only 20% of total energy so, for example, if wind generates 53% of electricity it generates only 10.6% of total energy. Quoting clean energy production as a percentage of electricity overstates our progress. Significantly, it overlooks our biggest task - converting the transportation, industrial, and heating sectors to electricity. Except for the few applications that are already electric, it will require replacing the entire global infrastructure in these sectors. One estimate for this was $110 trillion but no one actually knows. Upgrading the global grid to handle the increased demand will require trillions more. Furthermore, despite the increase in clean energy production, greenhouse gas emissions are still rising because the increase in clean energy production is not keeping up with increasing energy demand. We are not winning this battle.
I firmly believe Chinese renewables is about energy independence and not environmental concerns as its primary purpose.
So what? Remediation of environmental concerns is still an outcome of the project
Considering China locked down their entire country for COVID for longest of times, they care more about the health of their now decreasing in numbers citizens than the West.
with their massive coal supply in country coal energy gives them all the independance they would need, but even china acknowledges the massive air pollution problem in their major cities so they arent really happy wit coal as its such a big polluter. but switching away is challenging as alternatives are more expensive and a lot of people depend on coal industry.
Is it so hard to believe that non-white people can have ideals such as protecting the environment?
为何两者不可兼得？
"Gansu's green energy is now 95% efficient" What does that even mean?
it means they only discard 5%
95 % of the input energy comes out as electricity
Only 5% loss due to heat, etc.
So let me ask a question. Does this mean that wind farms in cold climates require heat and therefore they will not be as "efficient"?
@@Mr3CharlieThe generators inside make heat as they turn
China has a massive problem with misallocated capital. Because the CCP is in a central planning role, all the subsidies tend to result in “subsidy farming.” Massive over production that isn’t linked to market demand. Things are produced to cash in the subsidy, not to produce a useful outcome… like long term power generation at a price and output level that matches demand.
The other part this wasn't mentioned is that the water supply and availability wouldn't support any type of large increase in population. you can't just move 100,000s of thousands of tech workers into the desert. You would have water and food issues.
And they would have to install high-speed fibre lines to connect to the rest of the world. Having a date centre in the middle of nowhere is not much use if it can't communicate.
Data centres do not require thousands of tech workers.
Tell that Phoenix :)
The place is moon like. They developed nuclear weapons there. The university lost 19 out of 20 professors to east coast cities.
As others have said, it's not that many tech workers needed. But datacenters are *very* thirsty - they use an awful lot of water for cooling, comparable to a city.
IMO that province should focus on other power-hungry industries that don't require as much water - for example, ore processing. It has the added benefit that those industries sign long power contracts, which guarantee stable income for the developers of the wind farms.
In the 70s, during the oil embargo, when we had long gas lines, etc., we took measures to conserve energy. Government PR campaigns, speed limit changes…. No one now says, ‘maybe we should use less’. They say things like, ‘we should have these mega projects in the U. S.’ As someone from Kansas who is dealing with our land being taken, I would argue that this is so misguided.
Agreed I am in the Texas panhandle. To the north of me there are hundreds of wind turbines 3/4 of them sit idle and according to people that work on the so called wind farm only 3-4 of 20 in a grid are actually producing any electricity not to mention the dead migrating birds that litter the area around the turbine. A mile south of my back door is a 2000 acre solar farm being constructed with another 2000 acres set to begin being constructed next year or so if and when it happens. So just out my back door thats 2000 acres of land that as of last year was producing crops such as wheat and cotton that are now covered up with solar panels. Gone to are the herds of Mule deer Coyotes rabbits Pheasants doves quail and other animals that once called this area home. Friends of mine all over the state who have been duped into this so called green energy scam are now stuck with wind and solar projects sitting on there land un used un recyclable rendering the land unfit for use for anything productive. All because a government subsidy ran out and because the companies who promised to take it all away filed bankruptcy so they did not have to live up to there contract.
While it seems like a great idea to duplicate these Chinese mega projects there is one factor which China doesn't have to deal, NIMBY. Being a totalitarian government the people on the ground have virtually no say in such matters.
@@bryansharp6166 'their' is also a word you need to learn to use correctly. (t)here are places. 'Their' is 'belongs to' . I mean, if you don't understand your own language how can we believe you understand anything on any subject?
@@AndrewN75 I understood it. the irony is, messing up the grammar vs an annoying, nitpicking person, who doesn't even comment on the topic at hand, but something completely different. You do realise that what you say is less expected than what I say to you. When someone isn't an English native for instance, what do you expect? One wrong word here and there doesn't matter, the point, the meaning that those words are used to put forth, is the important thing. What anyone expect though, no matter the language, is for ppl to have both common sense and decency. Btw, yo are also wrong. Cause you couldn't have said it was wrong if you didn't understand it. Maybe you should think more abt the words you use too? To not look like you do now :))
The US actually has been dropping it's per capita energy for quite some time. As much as boomers complain about Lightbulbs and fuel efficiency requirements, they really have led to huge improvements.
wait til all those wind blades need to be replaced. Blades last about 10 years so it won't be long now. In Texas we have several land fills full of turbine blades.
@@JimQuinn-tb3uq 10 years is in good conditions. The desert ist far from that. the fine sand creeps into every space of the motors degrading them, the more corse sand blasts the blades to bits. That is why offshore installations need to be repaired so often, water droplets carrying fine sand rip the blades appart.
Typical lifetime is 20 years. So even in harsh environment they should do 10+ years easily.
@JimQuinn-tb3uq and solar panels, they're an environmental disaster waiting to happen.
The blade’s cannot be recycled
@@robertmontgomery7158 They can and are being recycled. There are now multipel plants processing them into concrete reducing the ecological impact of concrete production. It is not really renewable, but its keeping stuff out of landfills, other methods are also being tested.
The siting of a long-distance (~1000km) transmission line takes about 3 months in China. In US, it takes 10 to 20 years. That is why such large projects are not possible in the US.
People laugh at Trump for wanting to tear down bureaucracy, but it's a real tangible issue in this country. It stifles innovation and progress.
So true! The other problem may be logistics of getting enough labor for such large projects.
Same problem would happen with Canada. Europe is different as many European countries don't even have 1000km of distance to span.
Can you imagine the US building the Interstate Highway system today? There would be zero chance. The same is true for major oil pipelines, dams, and - as you say - any major project.
Its also because people in the US have rights, and you cant just plow through their farms without due process.
@@jdbrinton thats the real reason lol getting land for these projects isnt simple or fast here
Good effort with those Chinese geography names. Gansu is my home province and I had no idea they also have the biggest windfarm in the world, though to be fair, I have been gone almost thirty years.
Where do you live now bro?
我暑假刚刚去了甘肃，在高铁上你能看到在酒泉，玉门那边有一望无际的风力发电机。还有在青海西宁去茶卡盐湖的路上，有整整近百公里的路都能看到边上竖着风车。
Do you think that China and the US can ever have real peace and cooperation? What are the biggest changes needed in your opinion?
@@york163 我也是几年前自驾去茶卡的时候走的这条路，那时已经是不见边际的风机了。
@@remix-yy1hs Canada. We also have the windfarms in the flat lands of southwestern Ontario, but nowhere near the density. Also, there are complaints about the windmills affecting migratory birds and bats. China does not worry about such issues.
20 GW is only 20 AP 1000 nuclear plants which take up less space, produce the power 24/7/365 except for approximately 30 days once every two years for refueling and maintenance and last sixty to eighty years. Wind and solar cannot compete on generation density.
I'm not sure about AP1000 specifically, but nuclear plants are either on an 18 or 24 month refuel cycle, and I think Exelon was able to get their refueling shutdowns down to near 21 days. The two biggest "problems" with nuclear are the cost to build and the negative perception. I am looking forward to how SMRs will change the nuclear landscape though.
Your 20 nukes produce about 2.6x as much energy b/c their capacity factor is 2.6x higher.
10 miles by 11 miles of basically wasteland, isn't actually a lot of land. In a country the size of China, it's about 3 ten thousandths of one percent of the country. It would be better if it worked, though.
I am confused by the conflicting sizes mentioned. First, figure of 70000 acres is about 10 miles by 11 miles. But the later a figure of 139000 Square kilometers is then given. Thats like 125 x 120 miles. 50 times bigger? So now Im just confused.
Or 3049200000 square feet😁
@@metricstormtrooper OHHH,... that helps,....thanks!
He said Belgium and I’m like no fucking way
Belgium is about 31'000 square kilometers. That's about 103 Km x 300 Km.
All these videos are just repeating claims made on various websites…there’s never any original research or fact checking. The numbers claimed depend on which website they looked at last.
"the surface area of one belgium"
b r o
And more windy and sunny
I always knew we were a small country but that hurt lol
Sorry my Belgium friends, love and respect from China.
"one standard Belgium"
Wait, does that mean there's also a non-standard version of Belgium ?
Only an American would say that. In the uk our standard measures are "Double decker buses", "Albert Halls" and "Wales"😁
This is what the "Second Gansu Missile Silo field" disinformation from 2021 actually was
Now they are going to say the reason these wind farms are not producing electricity is because these wind turbines are in fact disguised nuke silos. May be the blade will fall off and these support columns will take off😂
Hey, Matt, there is a growing interest in the impact of wind Farms in certain areas particularly in Mediterranean climates. They appear to raise local ground temperatures by 2 to 3 degrees C in the wakes. This changes the pattern of rainfall increasing in some areas and decreasing it further away. Air is quite laminator, and the turbines create turbulence which mixes it up and slows the wind down. Its what is called a porous windbreak. the atmosphere above it "bounce" over this turbulence causing "Orographic" rainfall and hence a nasty rain shadow further away just like any other windbreak like a range of mountains or hills.
Yeah, green energy is not the utopia that people want to pretend it is. As we use it more, we will find out all the problems that make it as bad or worse than fossil fuels. People fear the unknown future more than the known consequences.
Wow wow carful you can't go against the climate evengelists and say things or challenge the ideology. I've noticed every day in the UK all the new so called straight line grid pattern cloud formations that has made the blue sky that bit more hazy and the fact it's been the coldest crappyist summer for 13 years and they still say we need to get to net zero even quicker because were boiling. With all this investment in wind like you said it alters the air flow and wind patterns we don't know if we are causing more problems just like sky seeding. I'm probably going to hell now for speaking my mind.
Gee your not confusing liberals with facts now are you ?
@@banjobenson9348 We pay attention to facts. Unlike the great swath of shills who ignore anthropogenic climate chance.
Not going to believe you without a comparison to fossil fuel plant cooling tower effects. Your word "local" is also doing a lot of work. How about some citations; as your claims don't show up in paper searches? You appear to work in the fossil fuel industry.
I just BaiDu. According to the Chinese reports: High Voltage DC cables was connected, and a gigantic energy storages were installed, so GanSu get green light to run full speed on it wind and solar energy in 2020.
"Starting from 2021, we will introduce full industrial chain projects with investments of over 10 billion yuan, such as Baofeng Silicon Materials, Huantai All-vanadium Liquid Flow Energy Storage, and Zhihui Green Coal Chemical." -- translated by Google
BTW, I just checked 2023 figures, wind power is still larger than solar in China. But it seems solar will soon surpass winds.
Thank you for the update. I am an Environmental engineer in America. These projects are what I have been dreaming about for many years. I would like to stay in touch as the project moves forward. Thank you and I hope to hear from you again.
@@CSBastianyGaumnitz The american midwest is an old danish dream. Ideal place for Windmills, hydrogen and biofuels. Connected to 'the midwestern corn lobby!"
@@CSBastianyGaumnitz Yeah I know! I ain't no engineer, but a wind farm the size of Belgium is simply mind boggling! Also, the efforts of de-desertification is so impressive! China has killed off one whole "desert" called Maowusu. It is not a true desert. It was a rich grassland one thousand years ago but due to over-grazing and over-farming, it turned into desert and it kept expanding... It is done by sweat-and-blood of many generations, and also a lot of innovation. What I learnt was that the scientists teach local people to grow a Chinese herb Licorice. This plant can grow horizontally and was patterned into grid to grab the top soil. And licorice is in high demand in China and the local people could sell them at good price! You can imagine how much it improves the life of local farmers (and herders).
If you have time, maybe just go there to take a look yourself? And, my understanding is that the central America is a piece of big, baren, sunny, windy, dry and cheap land. Definitely infinite chance for innovation to do something seriously good for the Earth and local farmers back home!
@@_anyone5962 There is already a considerable amount of wind and solar installed in some of the more barren areas; especially in Texas where there are population centers relatively nearby. I imagine that one of the challenges we'd have with drawing a circle around the best spot and building out that whole area is that a lot of that land is owned by the US government, is protected as some kind of park/monument/wildlife refuge/etc., or belongs by treaty to a Native American tribe. There's also the fact that the people who live there generally hate the government and don't trust it to do anything and/or hate it when publicly owned land is used by industry for anything. Add to that the environmental impact of building in sensitive areas that don't regenerate quickly and the expensive studies and legal battles that would ensue. Democracy is slow and messy. It misses some opportunities but usually gets things right, eventually.
The other challenge is that of population density. Though I was listening to a podcast about AI companies and their plans for new models that would require multiple gigawatts of power to build so it seems possible that one of them will get the great idea of building an AI datacenter in the middle of nowhere surrounded by renewables. Those seem like the perfect fit as they require minimal staff and the harder to find people can do their part remotely.
@@_anyone5962 It's not a single contiguous wind farm the size of Belgium. It's *sixty* separate (very large) wind farms, with plenty of separation between some of them, and altogether they are spread across approximately one standard Belgium's worth of Gansu.
"The project is divided into multiple phases. The first 3,800 MW phase consisted of eighteen 200 MW wind farms and two 100 MW wind farms. The second 8,000 MW phase consists of forty 200 MW wind farms. "
Transmission is not the limiting factor here. In Australia, we are working on sending power from the middle of the country to Singapore, with negligible loss. 950 miles, even across mountains, is inconsequential for China. It's that No one wants more expensive power.
Intermittent renewables require a backup source of power to supply the grid. Hence more redundancies and more costs.
Australia is no longer working on transmitting solar to Singapore that pipe dream has ended just as most of this net zero nonsense will collapse eventually.
@@dougpatterson7494 That's why they're also the biggest builders of nuclear power as well.
Is suncable really still going to happen?
@@personmcperson5740 negligible loss??? Unfortunately, that's a fairytale. There are always losses in power lines, and the longer they are, the higher the losses. Sure, the higher the voltage, the lower the current and the higher the efficiency (lower losses), but there are practical limits on how high the voltage can go before you get ionic current losses between the lines. This means that the higher the voltage, the further apart the lines need to be, which means the bigger (and more susceptible to the wind) the towers need to be, or the deeper the cables need to be buried. Transmission losses are far from negligible.
i work in a grid protection department for regenerative energies. wind turbines usually only have definite time and time depentend overcurrent protection in their transformer stations and i have to test them in a four year interval. 7000 wind turbines would mean i would have to test 4 to 5 wind turbines per day 7 days per week. they could hire me and a colleague to work only for this park full time and we would be fully occupied. thats crazy!
At the Forth bridge in Scotland, they have a team of painters. When they finish at one end of the bridge, they go to the other end and start again. A complete repaint, take them around 5 years. The bridge is 4 lanes and 2.5 kilometers long.
@@wilsjane Similar for the Sydney Harbour Bridge, although I think I heard somewhere that it took 10 years per loop. Pretty crazy stuff isn't it - spending everyday of your career continually painting the same bridge. A bit like Sisyphus lol!
@@aussiepyro What did you do at work today dad. LOL
Like painting the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco. Once you and your crew finish painting it, you need to start again.
It's not a win-win, it's a wind-wind!
Unless you’re a bird.
Missed opportunity 😂
I thought Isofunny. Usofunny!
I heard wind-wind. 1:48 🧐
Officials get a kickback, a vanity project to show off to the world and their contactor buddies make tons of money.
Wind Baseplate Power Produced Power. These things are not efficient and MUST rely on hot-standby power. Every wind turbine has an actual lifespan of 15 years before the cost of maintenance exceeds the power output. Those at sea wear out more quickly and the cost of the undersea cables is greater than that of the structures. These things cannot be recycled. They are cut down like trees, chopped to pieces and placed into landfills. They consume 100++ more area per watt generated compared to nuclear. Hydro is truly clean, green, sustainable. However, proposals are underway in the PNW (Pacific NW of the USA) to tear down hydro dams and replace them with wind turbines. That would be economic and environmental insanity.
A 1.5GW nuclear reactor takes up less than an acre. The reactor vessel is only 20 feet across.
How much space does the uranium mine take up?
But the bigger problem with nuclear is that it is not renewable. China has about 230,000t but in the last 70 years they dug up only 55,000. Sounds great. However, as more power stations are built, consumption has increased. They are now using around 7000t a year. That's enough for 33 years, but you see the problem don't you? Because 33 years is not a very long time, and it will go down as consumption rates go even higher of they build more power stations. If they double the number of nuclear power stations, the 33 years halves to just 17.
Their temporary workaround is just to rely on imports. China has uranium, but local production only meets ¼ of their usage. They import the rest.
But if western countries also build a lot of nuclear power stations, there might be a scramble for it, it gets declared a national security essential resource, and China finds itself cut off from their suppliers. They need renewables in a way that we do not.
And China's building them too. But in both US and UK they're 30 Billion apiece.
@danielch6662 Hey, if you want to play that game, the uranium mines take up less space than the copper, nickel, iron, and rare earth mines required to build wind turbines. I suspect you don't understand how incredibly energy dense nuclear power plants are. You can store 100 years' worth of fuel in a parking lot. Kilowatt/hour for killowatt/hour nuclear is far less impactful than so called "renewables" which is a marketing term that is meaningless as nothing is truly "renewable" because the sun has a finite life span. We will never truly run out of uranium because the oceans contain enough for 1000's of years' worth of consumption, which will give us plenty of time to harness new energy sources.
The issue is not "power" (GW), it's about delivering "energy" (GWh).
Nuclear reactors still require fuel that needs replacing, and disposal.
Reactors also take significant time to build, and power from nuclear is generally more expensive. China has been building one for UK the last 15 years, and it may not come online for another 5 years.
Nuclear waste vs old turbine blades - which are easier to deal with at the end of their life?
I think the phrase, “no pain, no gain” can be applied here
no plain, no grain
In 20 years from construction, all the turbines will have to be replaced. The materials and maintenance requirements are enormous. Despite its huge capacity, China generates only 10 % of its electricity from wind: coal generates 56 % of the electricity and natural gas 9 % (rising). If they want to store energy in batteries, the cost and materials requirement will also be huge. The problem is that wind is power dilute and batteries are energy dilute: both are materials and land intense. Emissions from China will continue to grow--I suspect the turbines will quickly become a relic in the desert.
True, there are no alternatives to nuclear. Good thing is that they also build most reactors in the world, so they'll figure that out.
They will wear out in 5-10 years from now -> replace or rot in place/move to landfill. The desert air is full off fine sand, which act as an abrasive. The wing tip move so fast even water droplets is will degrade the wings, sand is much worse - not immediately but in time.
It's a pity that wind in a desert pick up sand...
In fact, wind turbines are not land intense at all. While spread over a wide area, they do not occupy this area. Also if the blades are replaced at the end of life, the wind turbines are not that materials intense as well, because foundation and tower may be reused.
In today repowering projects, such benefit is often let aside for the fortunate option to do a repowering using larger turbines but less of them.
This trend will reverse once the size and power of the turbines will no longer incentive making larger ones.
@@likeAG6likeAG6 Portion of the electric energy produced by nuclear plants in China is shrinking in spite of the new reactors built.
SOlar and wind combined are growing much faster when nuclear power generation is more or less stable with approximately as many reactors decomissioned as comissioned.
@@beatreuteler Wind farms have a power-density of 1 W/M2--that's it. The video explains that the Gansu farm occupies 420,000 km2 and has a capacity of 20 GW. Peak power demand for Beijing is about 27 GW. A farm the size of Belgium cannot even supply one city.
They put it in the desert because they consider this wasted space and would not have to cut down forests or use farmland.
And even at that massive scale, the farm needs to be 100 % backed up by reliable like coal or nuclear, that have to ramp up and down to match wind variability.
If we were to foolishly attempt to replace all fossil-fuel energy-generating units with wind warms, it would take 150 years of exploration, planning, regulatory review, mining, processing and production of just the copper required, let alone lithium for the batteries to store the energy. It is not going to happen. Wind energy will be a relic in a few decades. In the meantime, it is a nuance, with many rural communities rejecting the projects. Off-shore wind projects are also getting major pushback--they are even more materials intense and difficult to maintain.
Any recucling that does occur---not much at the moment, will be energy intense and powered by coal in China and natural gas elsewhere.
39% of your product wasted at double the price is a stretch to call a "success".
@@donaldkenne3776 Or the other way round: because so much power can't be used the used power is so expensive.
It's the myth of the Chinese efficency. If you build a 100 times of "X" the of course you're gonna be more efficent. Even if said "X" was built for no reason. Just like thousands of miles of high speed rail that China built to middle of nowhere.
Meanwhile AI devs in the US are considering building nuclear reactors to power 100 billion dollar data centers
The power that is wasted is peak power, in times when there is low demand. So this would be the times of the lower maket value for the power than the times when the power is actually ued. So in may be 39% of the possibler energy not used, but this would be more like 20% of the energy value lost even if there where more power lines. Which price actually is paid can be different for political decisions, but there is still a true value for the economy as a whole, without the political interference with the markets.
The power lines where a bit behind (depite of fast planing and permits in China). With the new line things should be better now.
As another point wind turbines also have wear - so stopping them for some time also reduces the costs.
@@donaldkenne3776 aaaand now I'm a libertarian.
One thing I noticed about the big wind farm and the big solar panel farm is that it would be fairly easy to build both on the same plot of land. Wind turbines don't make large shadows, and while wind farms aren't always sited in the sunniest areas, there seems to be plenty of overlap where both could be combined. But I don't see that, and I'm curious as to why. Southern California have both types of energy farms, but they aren't co-sited. So to me, that seems like a waste. There is a lot of land around the wind farms that could benefit from solar panels. Obviously, lack of space isn't a problem in the Gobi desert, but real estate in the US is expensive. So optimizing the energy generation per acre seems like it might be a good idea. (Although I really liked the way that western Germany does wind power: they just plop the turbines down all across the countryside, instead of bunching them up on wind farms.)
Good idea, but there are many large wind solar hybrid power projects across the world. Maybe you take the lead of getting them to the US!
Ease of maintenance.
Much easier to replace blades when the ground isn't covered by solar panels.
I think that there may be an issue with the shadow of the rotating blades passing over the panels. As I understand it the rapid movement of shadows across a PV array causes the inverters to flip out due to rapid fluctuations in the DC power.
Go for it. Watch a wind turbine loose a blade and take out a large nuber of solar panels. Turbine tip speeds run 180-200mph with a several ton blade. Wow, can't fix stupid. This doesn't factor in the ability for a wind turbine in cold climates from throwing ice chunks at high velocities.
@@davepfanner2902 "Wow, can't fix stupid". Classy, really adds to your point. Which would be a good point if it were something that happened often, oh, wait, it's a very rare failure mode. Maybe, I dunno, look at the examples of places that actually do it before commenting.
If you've got megawatts of power going to waste - why not use that energey to pull water from the atmosphere to irrigate the desert - and make green hyrdrogen - or pull carbon from the atmosphere to make fuel. All these things are only cost effective when the alternative is throwing the energy away.
Because technical problems can't be done, these are legendary technologies, and the actual new energy technology is not so advanced.
Bit of a classic catch-22. The places that would most benefit from wind and solar farms tend to be heavily populated, leading to high land prices (and concerns about aesthetic and side effects), which makes building these green energy farms much less appealing, and the places without those concerns tend to be too unpopulated to make the benefit practical.
Fortunately transmission of Electric is pretty efficient and not stupidly expensive to build so in most cases you can put the renewables where they will work best and get past the NIMBY's so it can actually get built and still have the benefits where the power is needed.
On the other hand, heavily populated areas have a lot of roof space, industry and parking lots that can be covered with solar. Not as cheaply as the desert, but still.
@@foldionepapyrus3441 I think current transmission technology is about 45% losses, actually. That's not terribly efficient.
@@kentalanlee I'm not sure where you get that number. Losses in transmission and distribution in the US average about 10% to 12%.
@@kentalanlee 5%, not 45%.
China does a lot of cart before the horse things. Building skyscaper apartments that sit empty...
Sry to burst your western bubble but many of those now have over a million people living in them. bought and paid for.
Most of those empty apartments and ghost cities have eventually filled up with people. It's quite interesting how they build their infrastructure based on demand decades into the future.
Yes... Just like in Pudong, the original ghost city, now has GDP the size of NYC
@QH96 uh no, they build those condominiums because they are subsudized, they get money for building. A lost of those condos and skyscrapers never get filled and they just demolish them afterwards. Just waste of resources.
Do you live in a tent? Do you need a tent?
There has been an energy breakthrough called enhanced geothermal. It uses advanced fracking techniques to drill geothermal wells that can be used to create steam power, almost anywhere on the planet. This is different from traditional geothermal, which is site-specific. Enhanced geothermal can replace nuclear, and even wind and solar over time. It can produce clean energy 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, with no intermittency issues, or need for extra battery storage systems. Check out the U.S. Dept. of Energy’s Forge project in Milford, Utah. The future is geothermal!
@UndecidedMF-01 Why not make a video about it so everyone can join in on the conversation?
You can't even tell power [GW] from energy [GWh]
Where is the Gansu wind farm?
Shows a 1,000 mile long province
That narrows it down
lol, good morning
40.2°N 96.9°E
Look at the blob in the northwest. It is near the center of that, offset a bit to the east north east. Put the coordinates into a map and you will find it.
Nuclear #1! Small modular reactors are the future. They can be retrofitted to existing Coal power plants. Seems to be the size of a large shipping container. Very nice and contained reactor. Very powerful source of clean base-load energy required for the electrification movement (e.g., electric vehicle proliferation).
@grahambennett8151 What is your recommendation?
People who go on about energy storage being the answer must not be good with math. There has never been a storage scheme that is sufficiently practical and affordable to be the answer to an energy scheme at a national or global level. One physicist on YT calculated sufficient batteries would take 300 years to build if enough material was available...which it isn't. And the emissions from that build project would dwarf current global emissions.
Wrong, but I can't be bothered to do the arithmetic for you. Get back to your sums.
@@jonb5493 It's easy to post a comment, but hard to show your work.
@@shorewall When I get 15 minutes free, I might dump it here. Or, you could just use a search engine and do it yourself.
That's a very narrow view. Storage isn't the only solution and there are loads of orgs exploring other options. Look at the UK that makes heavy use of underwater transmission lines to balance the grid during over supply and under supply. These cables have lifetimes way longer than batteries. You can also over supply renewable since it's so cheap per kWh.
You can also manipulate demand side. Having heat pumps fill their tanks over night during high levels of cheap power. Or charging your EV and then feeding it back in during a shortage.
Domestic generation and storage will also give individuals more control over their use and make consumers more conscious.
There also very cheap grid scale storage options coming this decade. Sodium batteries when built at scale will be stupidly cheap due to abundant raw materials.
The reality is with the systems described above you may only need 5 percent storage capacity optimistically and 40 percent pessimistically.
And no it would not dwarf current emissions
Actually we need 10million African kids to mine the resources which is easy to do and cheap. Let's gooooo
I read that servers in the US already use more energy than the automobile industry. The Chinese government has asked companies to set up data centers for AI and data storage and processing in these desert states that lie in China's interior.
It's amusing to think of all the renewable energy cynics who spent their finite life on this planet to watch videos about renewable energy and write cynical comments. What a way to live.
And it’s amazing how much they care for birds, bats and whales.
Never did I meet a more ‘caring’ bunch of trolls… 😂
the excess power produced in this province could be used to process the coal into feed stock chemicals eg to make plastics, instead of burning the coal. This retains jobs in the area and solves the transmission problems. This technology was developed in South Africa during the aparthied oil export ban into that country so they developed coal processed alternatives.
That 70,000 acre number must be missing a couple digits. 70,000 acres is only a 10.5 mile x 10.5 mile area and that would be a small windfarm. Seven million acres would be 105 mi x 105 mi and that would actually be a large wind farm.
10.5 x 10.5 mile sounds more realistic than 105 x 105 miles. Here's why. Warning. Maths. But only very simple arithmetic. 😊
10.5 miles is 16.9km. Metric is easier for calculations.
They have 7000 tower/turbines. Put them on a grid, sq rt of 7000 = 83.7
16.9km / 83.7 = 200m
Turbine tower + blade = 120m
Look at the video. Does the distance between the towers look like about 2x the height of the tower+blade or about 20x that distance?
PS: I don't know how tall the towers are in Gansu. Google says average height today is about 60-120m, but the average height in the US is 80m. And the Gansu project isn't new, so their towers are also not the latest designs, which trend bigger. The Gansu project started 15y ago.
Area of Belgium is 7.5 million acres.
@@danielch6662 Yeah, but my point was that a windfarm that's only 10 miles square is just a small wind farm. Once he said 70,000 acres in the video, I quit watching because there's little point to wasting time on BS green energy videos.
yeah there is a 15 x 15 sq mile wind farm in Texas that was easy to find with minimal research.
My sister has a windmill on her farm, as part of a windmill farm. The windmills lease the acre of land they set on. At the end of 20 years, the company walks away from the project, and the farmers can do what they want with the windmills.
Wait a second.... High Voltage DC power lines? That made me research and question what I know about power lines. Can you do a video on why all of sudden DC is back in favor? I thought the whole reason AC was invented (discovered) was to solve current loss of DC voltage over long distances.
DC is and always was better if you look purely at the losses of the transmission line itself, but stepping the voltage up and back down can only really be done in AC. As converting between AC and DC also has losses converting your electricity to DC only makes sense if the power line is a very high voltage connection over a long distance. And those really only started making sense when intermittend renweables became widespread.
HVDC never realy went out of favour, there's been series of projects since the 1970s (when electronics started to make higher power AC-DC and DC-DC conversion possible). The uptick from the 00's onwards has largely been driven by renewables and a desire to connect remote locations and improve interconnection between countries.
Example of large scale HVDC initiatives are:
- the European Super Grid intiative seeking to link Europe and North Africa into one big interlinked grid, with plans to extend this to the Middle East and Central Asia;
- the ambitious One Sun, One World, One Grid that is seeking to connect all the central 1/3 sun belt countries around the globe; and,
- the 2,500mile long 3.6GW HVDC line private enterprise connection between the UK and Morocco (which includes 11GW of generation and 22GW of batteries).
Transmission losses are the same with AC (RMS) as DC, but it's far simpler to change voltage in AC, all you need is two coils of wire and some iron-ish material in the middle. It's only since the 90s that DC-DC converters (SMPSs) are commercially viable and well performing/behaving, and innovation in that space continues with tech like synchronous switching, GaN, etc achieving
High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) systems offer several advantages, including:
Reduced Transmission Losses: HVDC systems can transmit power over long distances with lower losses compared to AC systems, especially in high-capacity applications.
Higher Transmission Capacity: HVDC can carry more power over a single conductor compared to AC, making it efficient for long-distance transmission.
Stability and Control: HVDC allows for better control of power flow and enhances grid stability, especially in interconnected systems.
Interconnection of Different Grids: HVDC can connect asynchronous power systems (grids that operate at different frequencies), facilitating the exchange of electricity.
Lower Environmental Impact: HVDC lines can be built with fewer conductors and smaller right-of-way requirements, reducing their visual and land impact.
Reduced Short-Circuit Currents: HVDC systems can help limit fault currents in the system, improving the overall safety and reliability of the grid.
Integration of Renewable Energy: HVDC technology is well-suited for integrating renewable energy sources, especially offshore wind farms and solar power, into the existing grid.
Cost-Effectiveness for Long Distances: While the initial investment may be higher, HVDC can be more cost-effective over long distances due to lower operational and maintenance costs.
Flexibility in Grid Design: HVDC systems can be more easily integrated into existing infrastructures, allowing for flexible and adaptable grid designs.
Improved Reliability: HVDC systems tend to be more reliable and can operate more effectively under varying load conditions.
You didn't discuss maintenance. What happens with blades and panels when they reach the end of life? What has been the environmental impact of these projects?
I really hate wind power.
Im on the east coast of Canada and we have near permanent wind. On the ocean we see storms that have taken homes off cliffs more then i can count.
Our government decided the mountains behind our rural communities were perfect.
Here are my problems.
Birds, if you tresspass and go beneath these things there is a perpetual corpse pile of birds. Mostly larger rapters.
Noise, jesus these things hum and it drives you nuts. And if they dont shut it down before a storm they make a scary ass thumping deep booming sound as they spin like mad.
Looks, they look like shit on our gorgeous landskapes. We are famous for our maple tree forests turning color.
And lastly we didnt get anything for this. Our power bills are still absolutely insane.
Noise, looks.... That's why Gansu Desert is perfect for this project. Hardly any life-form can survive in the desert, be it human or birds...
I mean, the power bill is a product of capitalism... Those savings were NEVER going to see YOUR pocket. Thank corporations who think everything they touch is theirs, and theirs alone. You are a mere plebian paying for their service.
Birds are not killed by wind turbines in vast numbers. Thats where the lies start. And they end with noise.
@@beatreuteler Says someone who DOESN'T live near a windmill to one who actually does: "Don't believe your lying eyes and ears; listen to me."
yea ill take Wind farm every time over coal. I used to have to clean black dust crud off everything i left outside.
Having spent decades in US infrastructure- “replication” of Gansu here is a completely unreasonable expectation. Gansu is built in a desert where there are no NIMBY forces to object. Even if there were objections- it’s China so we’re not going to hear about local objections since they’d be overruled before they could be registered.
In the US power storage is a huge issue - no one presently wants battery storage facilities in their backyard. A change in battery tech to a more dense less volatile medium might go a long way to changing that.
Mentioning 3 Gorges is a bit ironic when speaking of US comparisons because it was built with people living in the “way” who were ordered out on little to no notice. Such “agility” in constructing public works here is impossible. In the US public hearings, redesigns, community objections and just compensation (under Federal and State constitutional mandates)are all lengthy processes that make “replication” of Gansu style projects in the US extremely unlikely. Certainly the timetables are not comparable- widening an existing highway here can take decades, Gansu seems to have gone from dusty desert to completion in only about 1 decade. Ponder high speed trains in Europe, Japan and China - then look at them here ( only in FL) for another glimpse at the problem. Curious as to whether the per kWh cost of coal remains cheaper than the Gansu cost.
185 GWh of "free" electricity in the US just from Flare Gas, literally going up in smoke today....
Not only that, but the natural gas wells are the only source of helium, and were just throwing it away along with the energy.
US is the largest exporter of natural gas today.
US is producing more oil than ever before.
Where is this waste happening, any source?
@@gund89123 I've been running O&G / Energy companies for a long time and in the industry for 30 years. Flare gas is a part of the process, and due to their typically remote locations - end up being easier to simply burn vs recover electricity (via using a turbine gen set / recip gen set, etc). There's some cool websites that show global flares via satellite as well. Cheers.
www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=62383
That’s pollution without a cause.
@@parttimethinker7611 well, not really. It’s over-production and technically difficult to do the right thing. However, it is true and an issue….and opportunity.
And, in less than 20 years there will be 21,000 windmill blades in need of replacement. And, each of those turbines needs 80 gallons of synthetic oil. It takes 12,000 gallons of crude to produce it. And, it has to be replaced once a year.
It's not like the other 11980 gallons of crude go down the drain, so that's not really a useful figure to be quoting.
@beeble2003 lmao 🤣
Still less crude than oil powered generation and the blade problem means jobs !
And how long do you think power generating turbines go without maitenance!
Here in UK we have just turned of our last coal powered power plant.And we currently have one of the biggest offshore wind farms in the world and we have more than one and we even export electricity to europe!
@@jeremywilson2022 You’re going to regret that move…. Learn how power grids work…
Thank ya
It is the load factor to understand how productive these wind farms really are during the year so multiply by peak capacity gives average amount they truly generate. Most have a load factor of about 25-33%
8:29 How the heck to you "discard" electricity?
When a user charges their electronic device to display tiktok on it, they discard electricity. Lot of tiktok in china.
You can turn it into heat. But more realistically, "discarding" electricity in this case likely means adjusting the turbines so less energy was captured in the first place.
Usually by just reducing generation. Though there are dump loads connected to electricity grids - basically just giant resistor banks - they are intended only for emergency use. to buy time for turbines to torque down.
@@vylbird8014 Well, that all makes total sense, including the part about the torque-down resistors, but I wouldn't describe it as "discarding". It's most like... just not making it.
Matt Ferrell only briefly mentioned the missing part of the jig-saw which is energy storage. Using surplus windpower to produce green hydrogen looks like the most likely longer-term solution. But the electrolyser developers are running to catch up and issues with hydrogen, like storing the stuff, are also still remaining to be effectively resolved.
Hydrogen will be needed to replace natural gas in the long-run and clearly the use of electricity that would otherwise be wasted from large wind and solar farms is the obvious carbon-free way to produce it. Give it another ten years and the hydrogen economy will ride in on the back of wind and solar. I'm one of many working on the development of safe, lower-cost hydrogen storage.
@@PeterFraenkel
Please give us a hint about how to store / transport hydrogen cost effectively. Not trying to be critical at all but these are some of the issues with hydrogen. Personally it seems that ammonia might be a big player in this area, especially for countries like Japan.
forgot to mention in my earlier response below that our underground pressure vessels could also contain ammonia which like you say is a potentially important alternative form of energy storage@@Mentaculus42
JCB here in the UK certainly think so, and have developed not only the engines but the production, storage and transport of the H2 - they have tried battery power but for large machines which have to run all day, they take too long to recharge. The H2 is taken to the farm or construction site so refilling is a very small downtime. Installing a national network of H2 storage is another matter though...
39% unused does not mean this is actually waste. This enables saving on the typically much more expensive storage: you still get enough power if the wind has only half its usual strength. So it reduces the times when you would otherwise already be depleting your storage.
Funny, we have the opposite problem in Australia. Solar gets curtailed in the middle of the day because the coal plants cannot be turned off.
Coal plants can be turned to idle state generation only power for itself. But the investment cost still runs. Thus no income and only coal price saved. Nuclear plants are also able to turn to idle but much much slowerly, in 6..12 hours. Cost problem is the same in nuclear plants.
Smarter people with more foresight (by which I mean: NOT ME!) have understood for a while that grid-scale energy storage is required if renewables are going to succeed in the long term. Governments curtailing solar production to appease coal power plant operators is a great example of exactly why storage is such a critical piece of a renewable energy powered electrical grid.
@@SaltyPuglord It has nothing to do with appeasement. Coal plants physically cannot turn off and on. If you don't curtail the solar then you have too much power which can damage equipment. If you just permanently turn the coal plants off then you don't have enough power at night.
That's true. Coal boils water to make steam to turn generators. Takes time to heat those boilers from scratch. An alternative is to run the generators from gas turbine engines like jets use. Easy, fast on/off. But the efficiency of gas turbine generation is much less than coal/oil/natural gas boiler plants.
@@wam7484 "efficiency of gas turbine generation is much less than coal/oil/natural gas boiler plants" .. Really? I had understood the opposite, like 35% vv 60%. I may be wrong.
Yup, more Wind farms with transmission and storage consideration part of planning at the very beginning.
Those years local government try to create GDP.
The UK already has 30GW of wind power and 10GW of Solar, yet on average over a year, wind only produces 9.59GW and wind only 1.52GW. When the UK has high pressure over it, (sometimes for over a week like it was this month of November), we get NO WIND OR SUN. I record the energy sources and volumes every day and one day last week the total renewables generated just 1.22GW against a demand of 30GW. This is not unusual and at times, I have reported that we would need 30 times the amount of renewables to cover the demand, (which can be as high as 49GW), but we only have enough land and sea area to triple the existing capacity. Thank goodness we have GAS generation which at times it has produced up to 70% of demand. Our 40GW capacity is actually more than enough to cover the 30GW average demand, yet most of the time it is not enough, because of a lack of wind and sun. When the wind is blowing and the sun is shining, our Grid cannot cope with the output, so the energy companies have to feather the turbines and then claim compensation for the energy that they could have produced. On average we pay the energy companies £2.2 billion per year in compensation, which will increase as our renewable capacity increases. There is no way that the UK will cover all demands without a source which can be turned on and off at will, such as Gas.
They could turn it into Hydrogen using Hydrolasis. Especially if they have 30% of free energy.
Yes. I strongly support this use of hydrogen fuel. Hydrogen fuel cells are not at the point where they are better than LiOn batteries but the potential is there.
This can be used for powering vehicles and even ships.
These wind farms are in the desert so there's not much water on site. The power needs to be transmitted first.
The first flaw in that cunning plan is sourcing the fresh water required to supply an industrial hydrolysis plant in the Gobi desert. The next (seldom mentioned by cheerleaders) is to transport the resulting hydrogen (which is a quite weak energy carrier) over vast distances at tolerable cost/benefit without losing it. Pipelines are a poor start since to H2 molecules the valves and joints in the pipeline are an easy leak path and the steel is subject to embrittlement after exposure to hydrogen, and hydrogen enduced cracking becomes more liekly as the strength of the steel in question increases.
Liquifying hydrogen means cooling it to within 20-30 degrees of absolute zero at ambient pressure and the energy required to do so amounts to around half the energy value of the hydrogen being compressed. Alternatively, the hydrogen gas can be compressed to high pressures (350-700 bar is typical for transport, compared to around 200Bar for compressed natural gas, or 20 Bar for LPG/Autogas). For these practical reasons, it is more sensible to produce the hydrogen where it is required on-site by electrolysis, provided one has water and electricity available.
An alternative is to use the hydrogen to produce ammonia for transport, but adding two extra steps (producing ammonia and then extracting the hydrogen at the destination) results in additional losses of the energy one was attempting to store in the first place, ammonia poses a risk of caustic burns and if used as a direct subsititute for diesel, has only about a third the energy density. If using excess wind generation to produce hydrogen as a precursor to ammonia, the ammonia is better used to produce fertilizer or chemical feedstock, which leads one to conclude that the best way to salvage some of the (heavily subsidized) malinvetment sunk into wind or solar energy boondoggles is to site industries nearby that require abundant energy but can tolerate that energy being delivered chaotically.
No way to recycle the blades. They are dumped into garbage dumps
Recycling is already being introduced. As will anything a solution appears when there is volume to support it
Here in Australia........wind farms have proven themselves, in most locations to be highly variable and unreliable. There are wind droughts that last for weeks, and if that coincides with very overcast weather, that knocks out most of the solar, then chaos ensues. Its necessary to switch on lots of gas turbines to try and fill the gap, and natural gas is 3 times the cost per thermal unit of coal......so its sending power bills up, and up and up. Many wind turbines in Australia are made in China, and within 5 years of installation problems surfaced with cracked blades, and generators already needing overhaul. Its not delivering on what was promised.
Green energy comedy.
Combined with communists decisions
You miss the part where it is super effective and successful?
i flew over this wind farm Not one was turning Thousands still as death
renewables in a nutshell lmao
Flying over it does not tell you anything. It just shows you the instant moment. Annual power generation is the only measure that counts (if 95% or more is being transmitted to where it may be used).
Did you do this fly over in Microsoft Flight Simulator?
@@beatreutelerYeah, you're right. People don't need electricity in their homes a hundred percent of the time.
And yet if they did not ban CRYPTO mining in 2021 some investor would definitelly use that power for a crypto farm.
I just dont understand how the power cost can be so high 7.5cents what is in that cost? I mean like once it is standing there is only the mainteinance cost or am I wrong (maybe the upfront cost of the turbine repplacement, but still) ?
Life expectancy of carbon zero nuclear reactor 50+ years, a windmill 15 years then they become landfill.
Current blades are often landfilled. The rest gets reused or recycled.
Having said that, nuclear is also good compared to fossil fuels.
A guy down in Mexico lives in the middle of a wind farm and he complains about the awful noise and finds pieces of the blades in his fields, fluids from lubricants get into his crops. It's an environmental and human disaster.
doesn't really matter in a desert
@@unbreakable7633 A guy down in Mexico? Lol! 🤣
Sure buddy 😂
Making aluminum with left over power is a fast way to make use of it.
I'm surprised that when they were designing these wind farms that they didn't have a plan on who would use the energy and how they would get the energy to its use location. Much of what they are doing now seems like an afterthought which is usually more expensive and more time consuming. The other concerning aspect of this project is that the wind power is significantly more expensive than coal. You can't guilt people into using clean energy and when you try to regulate to force people the result is out of control energy costs. Make clean energy more cost effective (or at least the same) and make it convenient then the problem solves itself.
But remember, in China plannings is made not for 5-10 years ahead (like in the west) but for 20-50 years.
@@ThEvilsTeam Seems they didn't properly plan for even 1 year. 🤷♂
Political projects seldom work.
They did, but the transmission lines took much longer to install than the Ramp up on the installation.
This is typical of Communist planning. The people who plan this aren't paying for it, so they have no incentive to consider where it can be used.
Ok, so the electricity from wind is already almost twice the cost of that of coal and now you want to add batteries for storage. Right, sounds like a case of:
"How much money do you want to waste?" - "YES"
even if renewables cost more, it is a better alternate to coal and oil as the environmental damage they do cannot be properly measured and assigned a cost.
@@johnbenoy7532 A statement of faith like that only begins to sound credible if you're committed to the religion of gullible warming. Electrcial generation by coal fired thermal power plants hasn't been dirty in any sense, unless one insists that emitting free plant food is 'dirty', since the 1950s. Additionally coal fired thermal generation technology is still not at the end of it's development potential (as proposed HELE developments indicate). As far as the solid waste stream, fly ash can be used as an ingredient in concrete, bottom ash as aggregate and gypsum from flue gas desulphurization can be used in plasterboard/drywall panels. Which is to say coal is part of the 'circular economy'.
As for oil, well, once you burn it, aside from the free plant food, it's gone.
So what is this claimed environmental damage that's so much worse than laying waste to great tracts of land to erect unrecyclable wind and solar subsidy mining boondoggles?
Coal and natural gas are more expensive in the end. It's just that the cost is an externality. We don't pay for it. The next generation will, in the form of more intense natural disasters and unwanted population migration.
This is the problem with a government-controlled dictated economy versus the government-controlled free market one. Forcing where and what the supply (energy or housing) is, and ignoring the demand for it, leads to catastrophic results, hence the banking and financial crisis China currently faces. They will have the same result with energy. They will make it work, but the costs will be great and result in an inefficient use of resources in the long run.
7000 wind turbines equals how many personnel to maintain it? They would have been better off building a few nuclear power plants in the areas they need the energy.
I'm sure you've done more research on this than the people who built it...
@@Foquro You're right, governments, especially the CCP look at the greater picture making sound decisions based on logic and not looking good in front of the world in regards to their Green Energy achievements.
Nuclear needs water. Not much of that in the middle of the desert.
@@5353Jumper obviously you didn’t read my post. I said building a few nuclear power plants in the areas they need. The energy is what’s needed. That’s not exactly in the desert where the wind farm is.
@shumann1605 you also may not know that China is currently building more nuclear power plants than the rest of the world combined...in areas with water closer to major population centers. AND they also need to supplement that with wind and solar in their move toward a low emissions national energy system.
China has the most fossil fuel power plants to replace.
That being said 1/3 of their current supply is renewables.
They are the global leader in installed Solar, Wind and Backup Energy Storage Systems.
Their adoption of EVs has reduced China's demand for petroleum for the last 2 quarters.
The result even with recent OPEC production cuts has been a lowering of global oil prices.
Does China still have a long way to go?
Absolutely.
Even though they have a longer race to run given the size of their population.
They are still in first place and accelerating.
If, they properly built these infrastructures. Remember, "tofu" construction and "chabaduo" is rampant in China.
@@Xi_Jinping_is_Pooh the big projects aren't like that. It's not that they don't know how to do it properly. It's that their country has not been industrialised for as long, so there is not that much red tape.
Because of the looser regulatory framework, there are a lot more greedy capitalists who takes shortcuts. Smaller projects are not managed as tightly. The US had the same problem in the 19th century. The mass of red tape that has accumulated since then has curtailed that sort of thing. But it is still a huge problem in developing countries. And half of China is still a developing country, where all these problems tend to occur.
People like to talk about tofu projects, but none of their truly big projects has suffered from quality problem any more than similar sized projects in other countries, even developed ones. The fact of it is, today they are more experienced at mega project construction, if only through sheer practice. Our own skilled workforce has largely retired/retiring/died through old age. Just look at how Boeing and the military shipyards keep screwing up.
@@danielch6662 I did not say they don't know how to do it properly, but "rather "if they do it properly". It is a choice. They can also employ foreign experts. Corruption is rampant in china, from raw materials factory down to the guy finishing the paint. Massive projects like apartment blocks some still have tofu quality.
As a rapidly developing nation China is pushing wind as a quick way to meet energy requirements as they bring forward coal and gas capacity later. In a developed country such as the US they should skip over wind as mostly pointless and go with gas & coal until more nuclear stations can be built.
another problem with wind is the technology is improving faster than they can install them. so the turbines we have in use are probably obsolete
what, the electricity will have old version number?
@@falsemcnuggethope no, but newer wind turbines can produce more power with the same amount of space and resources. the old ones will still work perfectly fine, but at a lower efficiency.
This is why SMRs are the way to go as they can be put close to a population center and have a small footprint.
No they really aren't. I predicted years ago they would be a damp squib. Just another way for nuke shills to claim nuclear is cheap and or will get cheaper.
Smr companies are folding now and where they are not they are now claiming higher prices than traditional reactors.
We just need to mass produce large scalable reactors to keep costs manageable. Like France did, but then they let the skill base go and it's back to being expensive.
Even historically strong nuclear countries are going renewable. Nuclear is not a golden bullet
That doesn't solve the fundamental problems of nuclear energy. Basically you shouldn't place them close to populated areas.
@@beatreuteler The idea with SMRs is that they can be completely sealed and automated and designed for automatic shutdown if they overheat. And if they use Thorium instead of Uranium then we can source it fuel from the U.S. instead of Russia.
@@mikeearussi SMR and thorium don't work well together. Thorium needs a breader reactor and these don't scale well to small size. Even for larger ones it is unclear if thermal spectrum thorium breeders are practical / feasible. Thorium reactor would need way more (e.g. 100 x) chemical reprocessing than current uranium reactors. Its like dicussing electric vehicles and ignoring the need for batteries.
@@mikeearussi OK. but that product is not ready. Let's see. For the time being (approx. next 30 years) this is a nogo in our country.
This said for what we need today it comes too late anyways.
Humans have an odd habit of resolving problems. The dams on the Elwa River in southern Oregon/northern California were removed because they were too expensive to upgrade for the benefits they provided for white people. Removal is, and will be beneficial to the salmon and overall habitat and the remaining indigenous peoples. As presented in the video, the costs of burning a fossil fuel is less expensive when it's reduced to money and jobs and yet clearly unhealthy for the planet, not to mention the workforce tasked to remove the raw product.
Would you prefer to drink free water from a contaminated source or pay $5.00 for a bottle of triple filtered water?
I’m confident sufficient environmental reviews were completed prior to the buildout of that wind farm and transmission lines. 😉
thanks for posting this Matt. I retired in the US in 2011 and moved to China...a move that lasted nearly 10 years. Before all this I lived most of my life in the Boston area and at that time there was plenty of news about Green Energy production off Cape Cod...at last they tried because the CLU and others cried over how the Cape would be ruined by all the Windmills the Energy Department was planning on building there. When I moved to China I was immediately overwhelmed at the amount of Green Energy thinking the Chinese had in 2011. I mean there were Wind farms everywhere. One of my travel destinations was to a city called Erlian...a city north of Beijing in what's called Inner Mongolia. It also was on the edge of the Gobi. As I traveled the city, I could walk to the edge of the Gobi and could see how China was building more Wind Farms there...I was nothing more than totally amazed at what China was doing...that was putting the US to shame in Energy production
Don't the utilities have to then transmit the electricity over power lines vast distances to the end users?
Isn't that inefficient? Lot of wasted energy lost moving electrons through hundreds of kilometers of high tension transmission linesw?
Battery's are a environmental nightmare. It's a pity there's not a better solution.
Yeah, just NIMBY crap again. Move the problem somewhere else. We are talking about global pollution, but their answers don't take the holistic global consequences into account. Green Energy is turning into a get rich quick scam for corrupt corpos.
wind power is not a solution, especially since it needs to be transported over long distances. Currently, nuclear is the only real solution to non fossil fuel power needs.
It is in those few places where it's politically viable.
Nuclear energy all the way!
Well, in oh-so-green Germany the electricity prizes have doubled after they shut down their nuclear power plants and tried to make do with large wind farms. Wind-produced electricity is just a very expensive (as well as noisy and bird-killing) hobby.
If your wind farm is consistently producing more energy than can be used or exported, energy storage doesn't help. The energy storage fills up and then what? Build even more energy storage? That's like trying to solve a leaking pipe with buckets, only there's nowhere to empty the buckets so your house fills up with buckets of water. If they cannot use or export the energy, the only solution is to dismantle some of the windmills and erect them somewhere they can actually be useful.
CO2 isn’t pollution, it’s plant food.
It's pollution to humans.
@@trwsandford and humans need water to survive... but it turns out they drown if there's no air at all. Fight ignorance.
Anything in excess amount is harmful
@@trwsandford a life sustaining water can drown you as well
No, it isn't. It's a byproduct. You exhale it.
What a colossal waste of capital.
Fossil fuels are the combined storage of solar and gravitational energy, in a very transportable form. The machinery used to convert the solar energy (plant life) is also a necessary machine to convert co2 into o2. The hard work has already been done and the energy to produce the converted energy has been spent. Plant life is the machine and instead of creating pollution it creates more life. The manufacture of new machines to convert solar energy is a waste of energy, causes pollution and strips the environment. A more proper path in my opinion is to spend all of that money on a clean conversion of the fossil fuels back into usable energy. Even if you were to use a nuclear reactor to produce the energy to extract the energy from fossil fuels cleanly, we would be better off.
Had to check if the video was sped up...
It isn't...
Here's some food for thought, why do they have to be wind turbines? based on info given to me by a guy who worked on wind turbines, the input shaft can be turned by hand by the average male. That means there is not a lot of force needed to turn it. So with that in mind, why do they have to be so far in the air and driven by unreliable wind. Why not take a simple 3 phase motor using gear reduction to make it so the motor can turn at say 500rpms and the output shaft of the reduction turn at say 10rpms. A small 3 phase motor will use much less power than the turbine puts out. Using that motor setup with say a ribbed belt that fits into grooves on pulley, like a timing belt, you could then control the motor to speed up or slow down and make as much or little power as needed. Also using that would allow you to put them right next to each other and even stack them like you do levels in a parking garage. You could literally put 50 of them in a one acre plot and still not be near as tall as one of the shortest towers now. I know there it the old saying you can't make electricity using electricity, but in this scenario, I don't see how it can't work.
China is a very special case for big infrastructure projects. If the government in Beijing decides to do it - it gets done! Any objections, including historical sites, environmental or endangered wildlife concerns, are ignored - even if the locals are brave enough to raise them. That's the BIG advantage of a 1 Party State and totally different to the legal processes required in Europe or the US.
Can you give a concrete evidence that a historical site is torn down or an animal is push to extinction due to government projects?
But for fossil fuel lobby renewable energy with storage is the least controversial thing we can do. Plants have been doing it for millions of years and I don't see trees die when the sun goes down. The on'y question is if there is not enough storage what can bridge the demand gap? I am pro nuclear power but I feel that will open up a different set of controversy because of past meltdowns.
Wind and solar produce a fraction of what a natural gas or coal plant can produce and at a lower cost. No amount of storage will be enough, the output from renewables just isn't there.
The promising thing about all these renewable energy projects is that the Chinese government is always doing something to make sure it’s reasonably viable. The issues mention in the video was due to a combination of limitations, i.e. energy storage technologies at the time (nearly 20 years ago), limited demand for energy in close proximity to Gansu province, and the imbalance of the levels of development between northwestern inner land and the southeastern parts of China (in part due to the lack of incentives to move there and inconvenience in terms of transportation within china and globally).
But nothing sits still. Things change and develop. Plus with the US keeps posing more threats to southeastern China by the day by firing up the Philippines and turning Taiwan into Ukraine the second, China will only have more incentive (and perhaps eventually no choice but) to move more population, businesses, industry etc inland
The cost difference between wind and coal should be examined as the cost to clear the atmosphere in both China and the world.
*They can just turn Sand into Low grade Silicon locally which is VERY energy intensive. Then sell the rough Silicon to global to refiners to make solar panels. This would save the local refiners 90% in energy costs since removing the Oxygen atoms from the Silicon is highly energy intensive.*
And NO WIND is a little, erm, embarrassing.
🇬🇧Scotland has the same problem of over production but the massive government subsidies still have to be paid to every supplier even when the wind don't blow.
And when the wind don't blow and the batteries are dead the backup gas, highly polluting biomass and nuclear come in to their own again; an essential multi-tier power producing system to ensure continuous production. Expensive power is the outcome.
Nuclear Power is zero when a plant is shut down for years for maintenance, costs 10s of billions. Polluting for centuries.
Thanks!
I don´t see as much of an issue. Having the wind power in the province will enable that province to phase out coal, the transmission lines to the coast and the offshore windfarms in construction there will help, whenever the wind is not blowing in one of the locations. The people in the province will eventually move on to more usefull jobs than digging coal out of the ground and burn it - as long as the planners keep working on that. In order to be successful, there does not need to be a short term profit.
You want really expensive and inefficient? Then look, how it worked in Germany for example: In order to make people install solar panels on there own roofs, you offer enough subsidies. But most private people don´t have the capital to just do that, so they need to ask a bank for a credit. But that credit cannot be given by the state - no, it has to be given by a bank, which does it for a profit. And in order to still make the whole thing worthwile for the private person, the subsidies also have to pay for those profits. And that is paid for by taxes and energy end prizes. And of cause, the grids are not any more ready for all of that, then they are in China. Even roofs of public buildings were rented out to private investors for solar instead of just installing that solar and selling/using it. Financed mostly by bank loans again, profits for the person who rented the roof and the bank - again. Paid for by subsidies and energy end prices by the public - again. And still, no sufficient energy storage, no sufficient total renewable production, no grid to handle it. Still new coal extraction project and at the same time, newer coal power plants are still built - and not the kind with highly flexible power output which could complement renewables as a bridge technology. And that´s a western country which at least gets some green energy transition done.