Those cluster turbines look really silly, but if they're as effective as 5 huge turbines and they don't have the same wing tip speed limitations (what with them being so much smaller) then probably more focus should be put on those.
@@IrrationalThings Aside from being a more general point regarding wind turbines, not just offshore turbines, there's also the effect of noise on sealife to consider.
3:10 stop blaming renewables to be only for climate change, they are cheaper and generally more available than fossil fuels too. It's not a charity anymore, it's simple economics.
Vestas V236-15.0 MW was only the world's tallest wind turbine for less than a week. 6 days after it was completed, CSSC Haizhuang's new H260-18MW overtook it as the tallest and biggest wind turbine
Imagine that they would have had a week of bad weather and delay the completion. It would have been tallest for minus one day :)) Anyway, how many days H260 kept the crown?
@@bullbandit2799 Because China is building more capacity faster than even China can produce turbines. Europe and US are dragging their feet on green energy
A roundabout in my city had to be reprofiled to make space for the transport of the blades of the Danish windmill. Absolutely massive pieces of technology.
@@eligebrown8998 It's no different from merging into a highway: scary the first 20 times and then routine. You can stop completely and orient yourself like at a silly old cross road if you like, but after a while you learn to time the entry so you rarely have to brake below 40 km/h 🚀 The saved time, energy and accidents are more than worth the initial discomfort.
It doesn't help that the UK banned onshore wind farms in 2015. Now the current PM has a family business doing billion pound deals with fossil fuel companies, BP & Shell, "coincidently" 2 weeks before announcing 100 new oil and gas licenses in the North Sea.
Nuances, nuances! Maybe you'd like a wind farm to look at from the sofa and have to listen to in bed. Why not put them offshore? We have the biggest in the world - half the size of New York - off the Yorkshire coast and another off Essex which was the biggest in Europe before that. The Swedish idea seems to have the capability to be able to soak up more of the wind energy than the mega ones, but we also have one of those onland near the oil, gas and chemical refineries of Avonmouth in Bristol - because it pays the local community who actually built it. As I say, nuances, nuances.
@@JP_TaVeryMuch I am a member of a Coop that built and operates a wind turbine in south Wales. Objections can be overcome when local people see the benefit of these projects. Although to be fair I live in Essex, the local council in Wales is also a member and the scheme benefits council run social housing. My membership share cost me £3,200, I'm currently receiving £85pm credit on my electricity bill and the scheme runs for 25 years. I've only got 6 O levels and CSE Maths, but I reckon that's not a bad ROI :)
as a dane growing up and still living in the rural west (very close to HQ of Vestas and almost as close to Siemens Gemesa) as the turbine has grown so has my fasination of them. close to where i live 2 210 meters windmills has been erected as test windmills. and must say i do sometimes stop just outside just to look up and reflect a little.
I am not convinced that the reason UK targets are not being met is because the turbines cannot be built fast enough. The UK government makes it very difficult to get permission for onshore turbines. Investors are also frustrated by waiting times and enormous fees to connect to the grid. It is always possible to build more turbines faster if the demand for them is there. Throttling the rate at which they can be installed is what limits the rate at which they can be built.
I was a little surprised to learn that my city is thinking about installing 2 150 metre high wind turbines but i suppose we do have a Siemens factory here that makes them. It would appear they are working on 108 metre long blades now
@@irenekronk1961 you have been misinformed, they are recyclable. Also they are a small fraction of the total of composite materials used for other purposes e.g. boats
In Denmark at "Vadehavet" there is a proposal to erect a new testcenter for windturbines up to 450 meters hight.. Its now on hold, but thats the size of windturbines for the future..
@@TomorrowsBuild Hi. Enjoyed the video... Quick question though; I read an article just a couple weeks ago stating that the "largest" turbine had just been built in China. Now two weeks later I'm watching this video about the "tallest" turbine in Europe. Is that in fact a thing, where they're making a distinction between "largest" and "tallest"? If so, it reminds me of the example of comparing dinosaurs, where the Diplodocus was one of the "largest," and the Brachiosaur was one of the "tallest". And if this is indeed the case, which turbine is the actual "biggest" (mass/weight-wise)? Just trying to get my facts straight. Thanks
@@bastiankruse4312 Not sure who's building the 450m, but Siemens have already built a 271m high windmill at the Østerild klitplantage test site near Thisted.
@@_starfiend there are many companies that recycle turbnie blades, usually into resin pellets and fibre strands used to reinforce cement. And the average lifespan is 20-25 years, not 10.
@@licencetoswill 20 to 25 is a theoretical limit, few, if any, have actually reached that age as most are replaced, along with the gearboxes, at about 10 years. The hope/expectation is that they will eventually last as long as 25 years. Recycling the blades into cement reinforcements, and similar, is recycling after a fashion, but when the concrete itself is broken up the glass fibre will escape into the environment. This would very bad for the environment. I'm hoping better materials will come along soon, but glass-fibre is not a good material for recycling. My sister and her husband both work in this area.
I think they're still using glass fibre for the blades even on the V236 turbine shown in this video. Presumably there will come a blade length that will require switching to carbon fibre in order to withstand the loads.
@@ch4.hayabusa its worse considering the original big ben broke during construction of the tower, so the bell had to be replaced by a smaller one. got its name stolen twice
The energy used for building, maintaining and dismantling of the turbine is generated in 6 to 14 months. If one uses only fossil fuels for the windturbine, she saves 16 to 39 as much CO2, if the turbines runs only 20 years. Modern ones can easily run 25, some even 30 years.
Unbelievable how big they become. Near my city is 1 of the biggest I've seen in real life, the mast is 100m and the blades 40m, which stands there already many years. I thought that was huge, until I saw this video! Dang!
Weird how that's suddenly such a concern for wind turbines, but nobody ever cared about the millions of birds killed with cars. Time to tear down all our motorways.
*GREAT VIDEO FRED & TEAM ! 😎👍👍 Q: (ANYBODY?) DO YOU KNOW THE ("scientific"?) SOURCE THAT PROVES THIS (**3:50**) STATEMENT ?* *(I'd think a turbine spinning is a turbine spinning - - regardless of the size of the blades - - plus - - those blades seem to be moving pretty slow)* 🤔 *Wouldn't smaller blades move a smaller turbine A LOT FASTER ???* Context: 3:45 - - 3:50 - - 3:56
@@old-pete Thanks for that -please explain. So - how does one recycle fibreglass? Are you willing to glowingly talk about how this can be recycled into concrete? I'll leave it to you to to sort out the carbon footprint of that. But perhaps you have bought into the idea that these can be made into "bike sheds"... ummm lucky us. Do YOU want to do the math???? I think not. Tell me more about recycling - I'm all ears - BUT - I don't want "this might work!" I want solutions. Solutions. I know - you don't have any. :-)
@@brucethomson9923 Cement production is one solution. It saves energy and material. The new process is to diassrmble the blades into its components, which can be reused or recycled.
I wonder if big and small turbines have the same kg/kw ratio. For example, if 1 big turbine produces as much power as 5 smaller turbines, but overall uses more material (steel, aluminum, etc) is it worth it? Assuming space is not an issue
The main complexity of wind turbines comes from their gearbox (relatively slow rotation of the blades is converted to something conductive to producing electricity). All other things being relatively proportional you'd rather have 1 gearbox for a big windturbine than multiple gearboxes for multiple smaller windturbines. However, there's also direct drive solutions and so on and so forth. In the end, this is a relatively immature technology. Windturbines in fifty years will look very different from what we do today.
A wind turbine twice as big has 4 times the area to collect wind energy from, not to mention that winds are faster and more stable a few hundred metres from the ground.
As someone living in a town in northern Norway with just 7000 people. We recently rejected a new industry to start up on our dying town because of lack of power. I'm just thinking, we should put up one of these next to our town and we'll be set 😮 How much does it cost?
I love wind turbines; they are beautiful and graceful and I enjoy being able to see them from my home. But if the problem of the degradation of the leading edges can't be solved, they'll never be a permanent part of the solution.
Great video as usual. However, we need to change policies. Most places in Bavaria now require a minimum distance of 4 ( I believe ) kilometers of distance to the closest settlement ( read: house) thus effectively prohibiting any new builds.
Not anymore. Our government enacted a new law last year forcing every state to provide 2% of their area for wind. Starting 2027 if they haven't provided 1.1% every other law that prohibits the building of a Windturbine doesn't count anymore. So if Bavaria doesn't provide those wind areas you can build where every you want. We have a good ministry of economics and they have done plenty of such laws forcing the transition no matter what the state wants. They also changed the legal status of renewables so now the public interest of renewables weights more legally than any other concern
@@lorissupportguidesthat’s not entirely true, you can’t build whether you want, which is why the law in Bavaria was stupid populism to begin with. There is still a permitting process involved that ensures environmental factors such as local wildlife (if there are any protected species that cannot be relocated) or regarding the noise emissions. Those regulations are commonplace and not part of the 10H rule enacted a few years ago. The law from the ministry of economics was still long overdue and will hopefully speed things up a bit
Should be atleast 10 kilometers. Or build it where the people who like it (cities) live. Dont´t destroy the countryside with your absurd "green" stuff.
How much carbon and waste is produced during the mining of the materials, the manufacturing, transport, installation and maintenance ? How many trees are cut to place that turbine there and what carbon sequestration is lost thereby ? How many years does it take before it breaks even and when does it break. How much carbon is emitted during the disassembly and where do the materials end up. Factoring everything what are the actual gains or losses for our biosphere ?
6 to 14 months, depending on type and location. The gains are 1/100 of CO2 emissions and less than 1/10 of the waste of coal power plants per produced kwh.
1:37 you would roughly need a 12 x 12 field of those wind turbines to get to the same average power output of an average sized commercial nuclear reactor (80000 MWh / 8760 h ~ 9,15 MW, 144 • 9,15MW ~ 1300 MW) That’s surprisingly few turbines.
Wind has a low energy density and wind power is centuries out of date. The wind turbines only exist due to massive taxpayer funded subsidies. They make no economic sense. They are a colossal waste of taxpayers money and resources (including coal and oil).
„No one“ as in „companies eagerly want to recycle them to harvest the resources“, right? And anyways, basically every power plant at some stage reaches their end of life. Gas power plants are probably those with the least recycling problems, sure; but then they burn millions of tons of fossil fuels during their life span. Gotta weigh pro and con here.
I love wind power and i think it's the winner over time. Solar is ok but it degrades from the moment it's installed and steadily declines until it needs replacement. In addition the big problem with renewables is largely a NIMBY problem however with Wind you can put them in places where that's not really a problem offshore. Anyways, Kudos on this video, great stuff.
All systems degrade over time. The power output of wind turbines degrade because of increased friction in gears and, more importantly, through blade edge degradation over time.
@@old-pete Well yes of course they do, the turbines and blades need replacement about every 2 decades and they require regular preventive maintenance as well as corrective maintenance when something goes wrong. However as built they largely perform much better and consistently over time than solar cells do for various reasons not the least of which is just the breakdown of solar cells ability to convert the suns energy into electricity which starts and begins to degrade relatively quickly compared to wind turbines. Wind also works better in different types of weather.
Tidal flow will overtake all others. 100% reliable, predictable, and peak output 4 times per day every day. Not only that, but the tide times around fortunate countries like UK and USA mean that there will always be generation somewhere. No need for energy storage is a huge consideration.
@@dougaltolan3017 There will always be a need for energy storage if we go full electric. In addition Tidal flow is 30 years behind Wind and Solar AND it's very corrosive to anything it touches. Anything is possible but it is hard to believe it will outpace anything for decades to come.
There's something calming about wind turbines and stopping the use of fossil fuels is vital. The wind will never stop blowing and it's free. It just makes sense.
Some impressive stats on energy production and carbon savings. Really question is how much energy went into producing one of these wind turbines? Also, how longs does it have to operate before its break even point and we start saving energy?
@@shaneoneil9433 Depends on how you define "good way". Some have a second life as being part of a new structure, the majority is used to make cement, new designs can be taken apart and sorted by material, which then can be reused.
Another perspective is the comparison with a classic boiler powerplant (nuclear, coal, whatever) Usually we are talking 1 GWh up to 2 GWh with a 75% availability (25% for maintenance & stuff) 1 nuclear reactor gives around 10 000 GWh per year (1.5 * 365 * 24 * 0.75 = 9 855) => You would need 100-150 of thoses mega windturbines to match it... assuming strong & regular wind all year round
One nuclear plant can generate as much energy as hundreds of these turbines, but electricity produced by wind is also cheaper, easier to scale and less controversial. So it makes sense for such a windy country to use it (as long as it has enough alternative sources or neighbours able to supply when wind is not blowing as much)
80 GWh per year for the large turbine was not calculated assuming 100% duty cycle but a realistic yearly average. A reactor lately seems to cost 10 billion to build and take 10+ years. I doubt the turbines cost 100 million each so they seem like the cheaper option. I like nuclear but it has to be competitive, no 110 pound/MWh price guaranties...
Is there a reason why the wind turbines are coloured white? Be cool to see some fancy coloured ones or even like say green ones to blend in with the forests etc.
I think the idea is to make them less visible against the sky. If the turbine is at a similar height to the trees then it's not tall enough as the trees slow down the wind. The main thing is that they all need to be the same, as different colours will absorb light differently and therefore be at a different temperature and cause imbalance. When the blades are made they all come out at slightly different weights so they try to match up the weights as close as possible for each set. Point being you don't know which blades will be together until after they are made. The colour would have to be introduced before that point because if you just painted it on at the end it would wear off too quickly. Having them all be the same colour makes it much easier. You could make them all a different colour but it would have to be a large batch to make it economical.
I believe the reason why wind turbines have not been made brown or green is because in doing so, it would make the turbines look like trees to birds who would fly into the turbines and die. This may or may not be a reason why some countries make red stripes on their turbines, so that birds recognize the structures spinning and fly elsewhere. Hope this helps.
White reflect the sun better, helping to keep the turbines cool, and prolonging their life.. white stands out more from an aerial perspective helping birds and pilots, but stands out less from ground perspective, and lastly for aesthetic reasons, it just looks better ;)
@@ulven6668 True. They’d probably wear out quicker and need expensive maintenance otherwise. I believe people overestimate the amount of birds killed by turbines compared to other reasons such as windows or air pollution.
@@RailFireProductions yes and as you stated, the red stripes they put on the blades, are not only for the birds, but also signifies how far an airport is away, 1 stripe tells them that an airport/airstrip is less than 5 km away, if there are 2 stripes it means no airport/airstrip is within 5 km...
I notice several commenters lamenting that blades are made of resin, glass fiber and carbon fiber, and therefore not recyclable. This is a problem that needs to be solved, but where were all those critics when the conversation was about carbon fiber bicycles, sports cars, tennis rackets, helmets and a ton of other products? And where were they when the conversation was about small glass fiber boats and canoes, of which there are millions around the world? It's almost as if these critics don't like wind energy to begin with and are just looking for points of criticism. There are a multitude of products in use every day that contain materials that can't be recycled.
It's like how cobalt mining has suddenly become an issue because of electric car batteries. But when it was being mined for the oil industry there was never an issue. I do wonder who could be paying these people.
5:50 As much as I abhor their purpose, I’ve always loved the aesthetics of oil rigs. Something about their size and exposed structure speaks as a symbol of human will and ingenuity. We can’t survive out in the ocean - we’d die of thirst if we didn’t drown or get eaten first - yet there’s something we need there. So we’ll build an island of steel close to land and then ship it out to where it’s needed! I’m so glad they have a purpose other than poisoning our planet now!
If you truly believe climate change is an existential threat how can this possibly win over nuclear? Keep in mind that these giant wind turbines have a name plate capacity of 15MW where as a nuclear plant has an average of 1GW meaning you'd need 67 of these to match in name plate capacity alone. These have a surprisingly high capacity factor of about 60% vs nuclears 93% meaning you'd need a total of 104 of those wind turbines out in the north sea to match a average sized nuclear plant. Then you have to think about the life times of these systems. The average age of an operating nuclear plant in the US is just above 40 years compared to the 20-30 life time of wind turbines. Then on top of that you need a giant energy storage method to even things Nuclear is the obvious solution and pursuing wind and solar will cause us emit far more carbon than if we're just to have gone nuclear
Then you invest your hard earned savings in a fund for nuclear... the most expensive, most delayed type of energy production on the planet. There is a reason why even the USA has been shutting down these plants well before they have to... and investing their money in windfarms and solar.
Maybe cus nuclear currently relies on uranium and plutonium and both are finite resources. Unless we pray that some scientist figure out a way to create a renewable nuclear grade material. The earth could definitively use a couple hundred more reactors, but like solar and wind its not a perfect solution to man made climate change.
Looking at vertical wind turnines could be better. They are less limited by wind speed or direction, they take up less space so can be packed closer together, and all the electrical turbine machinery is at the base so safer and cheaper for ongoing maintenance and repairs as well as cheaper to build. Individually they generate slightly less electricity though, but as they can be packed a lot closer together that limitation is negated.
Given that manufacturering speed seems to be the bottle neck, you can't really swap to that, but building both could help. There is likely plenty of places where they would be a better fit.
The limitation isn't negated; they are a lot less efficient than horizontal turbines and don't make sense for grid scale. They do have a place though; their characteristics that you mentioned make them more suitable for things like remote locations, rooftop wind, mobile generator, etc. There is a lot of focus on vertical technology for these purposes but vertical will never compete at the same scale as these large horizontal turbines.
They can't achieve the same power rating as a HAWT and result in significant torsional loads and vibration modes on the substructure, meaning the overall cost of the turbine + foundation would be more (more steel in substructure). More units also = more offshore construction cost, subsea cables, maintenance, etc. If they were better, we would be using the already!
@@muliusjalema No, the torsional loads and vibrations are actually less than on standard turbines. I already stated they don't produce quite as much power, but that is more than countered by the fact that you can pack them closer. The most modern ones produce about 10 to 15% less power per turbine, but you can get nearly 30% more turbines in the same space. ATM they are not intended for use at sea, but my sister and her husband, who both work in this technology, believe it's only a matter of time.
Of course you didn't. "Mainstream" industries will let people believe that wind energy is just some failed low tech, and than burning the Earth's crust is the peak of technology.
@@johngeier8692 Wind mills were not producing electricity dummy. Also, we are talking about intense research to build the newer turbines with lighter and more efficient materials, but who cares? Let's just pretend it's a low tech steel mill. Cause using the planet's thermodynamic processes is much more low tech than burning its fucking crust in the stake.
@@johngeier8692 The technology of windmills and winturbines are on different levels. And the energy output is quite high, considering that one does not need to burn fuel.
Does anyone else find it anxiety inducing that part of what's keeping those floating wind turbines from falling over is sensors and computers? I know they're in the middle of nowhere in the ocean... but still.
You're not supposed to enter the areas of these offshore wind turbine farms. As a matter of fact, there are probably countries, that will fine you, if you enter these areas, as they are critical to their energy supply. It's like if you entered a power plant unattended. There are even stories, about Russian submarines diving around the North Sea, to map critical offshore infrastructure, both for gas pipes, and offshore wind farms. Danish Minister of Justice Peter Hummelgaard, is concidering banning people from entering these areas.
Ngl as much as it'd be less efficient I wish there was at least one of these behemoths on land, as an attraction & demonstration if nothing else. It'd be incredible to see such monsters in person!
I'm a strong proponent of nuclear, but that just isn't true. You would need about 100 of these turbines to match a nuclear plant (actual, not nameplate).
@@MaurizioDeLeo Appreciate your input but I don't understand how that can be correct. Firstly, they only work when it's windy - apologies for stating to obvious, but any power station is not limited by this constraint. Furthermore, Wind Turbines have a short operating life and frequently fail - again, not a constraint that affects Nuclear.
@@harpersneil these giant turbines have a rating of 15MW or more. A typical nuclear plant is 1GW. So it would take approx 67 turbines to match the nameplate. Due to inconsistent wind or other availability issues, that number goes up to 100.
There IS an absolute size limit. 600m for example... Such extreme heights would pose significant challenges in terms of material strength, transportation, and construction feasibility. Engineers must balance the benefits of larger turbines with the practical challenges they present.
I saw in a documentary in relations about the wind power technology, that because of the type materials that is used to make the blades, it cannot be recycle when it finish it's lifespan. What they do is they chop it up and buried it in a land field or Architects use it in projects. 🤔🤷♂
I've been laughing about this problem for years. The amount of carbon being expelled to produce all of these city sized arrays of windmills is wild. I doubt the offset in carbon and dead birds will be worth it.
@@DS-lk3tx The carbon emissions are small compared to what is saved. Turbines are cabon negative. The blades can be recycled, not all countries require that.
@@DS-lk3txPainting red stripes on the turbines can allow for the blades to be more visible to birds who will see a bright color spinning round and round and will subsequently fly away. Having turbines be plain white may be more dangerous as to birds, the blades may just look like clouds.
I read a study they did here at the Sea Girt Army Base in Sea Girt, New Jersey. It was 11 miles from the windmill. The town voted against it. Now they are building them 10 miles off shore. scum.
@77huss in 1994, i was down in Newbrunswick, and they brought in an expert on low frequency sound, and with his instruments, he found the infrasound 30 miles from the wind farm was above 180 Dessables They shut down the wind farm for 5 years and replaced it. They tried to have the same expert investigate the pollution of the aquifers near Chattom but our federal government will not let him in the country!
@@terenceiutzi4003 180 decibel in 30 miles? Such a BS. 180 decibel would kill you. Considering that sound decreases quadratic with distance, a wind turbine would need to emit hundreds of decibel to reach 180 decibel in 30 miles. The loudest known noises are vulcanic explosions and meteor strikes with around 300 decibel...
Manufacturing isn't 100% efficient. You need to ship more materials to the factory than come out of it as product. Then theres the work force commute to work.... But keep looking. Not every solution has been found.
Wind turbines remove only a very small part from a huge amount of kinetic energy in the air. Remember the air moves much faster at higher altitudes (up to 650 kmh, measured over Japan in 1970). And kinetic energy increases with the 2nd power of the velocity.
@@old-pete @parcesfrancis1565 I was just wondering what the effect is. Like if we had them all across the Atlantic. Would there be a measurable slowdown or would it not be detectable? Obviously it’s not a extreme effect or anything but I still find it interesting. Of course if wind speeds are that much higher at higher altitudes I’d expect more energy. But do you know by how much that is offset due to lower air density? But I guess I’ll try to calculate it. By looking at total wind energy and electrical energy from wind turbines and than look at the inefficiency of them to look at the energy taken out and see at what amount there is any change in at least the first decimal digit.
@@Youcanatme It is doubtful we will ever build so many to cover the atlantic. It has been suggested that windfarms covering the coast at regular intervalls could lessen the effect of storms and floods. Depending on the coast, that would already be a huge undertaking.
Wind turbines only benefit those that build them and maintain them at the cost of the tax payers... It is a very expensive and often useless way to create energy because it is not stable so you always need regular power plants on standby anyway.
The number of incorrect statements in this video about an industry I work in does make me question the accuracy of your videos that I don't know a lot about.
@@LinusSandqvist Strange response, but okay. Here are a few of them: The turbines where he says that we may be wondering how they are standing and how deep they go, he states that those turbines are floating. That's not true, those turbines pictured go all the way down to the seabed on monopiles. There are more turbines in that picture than there are floating turbines in the entire world right now. Currently, 34 floating turbines globally, compared to 13,300 turbines which are not floating and are attached to the sea floor. Gives a false representation of where the floating wind industry is. The turbine he said to be the tallest in the world isn't even the 2nd or 3rd tallest right now. You need to go to China for that, where there is a turbine model past the prototyping stage that is being installed at a commercial project right now. The Goldwind 252-16MW is more powerful, taller, and has longer blades than the Vestas turbine mentioned. Even larger turbines by Goldwind, CSSC, and Mingyang are also at the same development stage as the Vestas one mentioned in the video. I'd say the main error though, because it's the whole point of the video. Near the end he says the UK will need to triple the number of wind turbines to meet its 2030 (which is 50GW capacity). But because turbines are getting larger, which is the whole point of the video, we don't even need to double the number of turbines to reach this goal.
@OutsiderLabs Sure, Here are afew: The turbines where he says that we may be wondering how they are standing and how deep they go, he states that those turbines are floating. That's not true, those turbines pictured go all the way down to the seabed on monopiles. There are more turbines in that picture than there are floating turbines in the entire world right now. Currently, 34 floating turbines globally, compared to 13,300 turbines which are not floating and are attached to the sea floor. Gives a false representation of where the floating wind industry is. The turbine he said to be the tallest in the world isn't even the 2nd or 3rd tallest right now. You need to go to China for that, where there is a turbine model past the prototyping stage that is being installed at a commercial project right now. The Goldwind 252-16MW is more powerful, taller, and has longer blades than the Vestas turbine mentioned. Even larger turbines by Goldwind, CSSC, and Mingyang are also at the same development stage as the Vestas one mentioned in the video. I'd say the main error though, because it's the whole point of the video. Near the end he says the UK will need to triple the number of wind turbines to meet its 2030 (which is 50GW capacity). But because turbines are getting larger, which is the whole point of the video, we don't even need to double the number of turbines to reach this goal.
Imagine a bunch of 300-500m tall skyscrapers randomly paced on a field with wind turbine towers on top, like spires. Every turbine could be able to run the whole building and probably even other nearby lower buildings. Or maybe twin towers with several levels of smaller turbines mounted on bridges between the towers (i've seen a building like that somewhere, like saudi arabia maybe?)
What would be the purpose of these buildings in the middle of nowhere? There's no reason why power generation and power consumption have to be in the same place.
@@old-pete Quite right, what I was talking about. I recall reading about studies in some California valleys had found diminished speeds at the top. What the effect was I don't remember but it had some significance.
@@ohasis8331 The effect is slighty warmer air at night and slightly cooler air during the day. In areas where it frezes during winter, turbines reduce freezing. The mixing of the air by windturbines can lead to dryer soil, depending on vegetation. The area affected is up to around 2km behind the windturbine.
They are shipping wind turbines into Cairns here that are illegally high and couldn't be stood up in this city due to CASA the Australian aviation authority, but they get sent up the mountain lying down and erected. Much taller than our highrises.
Then remove your windows, stop using any fast vehicles, stop eating food made from industrial agriculture or any electricity from fossil fuels, because each of these kill a lot more birds.
TOMORROW's BUID QUESTION: can you do a video on the subject of birds being killed by windmills? i'm sure nowadays they've figured out how to stop the slaughter.
There are multiple ways. Place them at the right position. Avoid hotspots of birds. Change the colour of the blades. Black paint makes the blades more visible to birds. Using UV absorption or reflection, since birds react to that. But one should be aware that windturbines are only the 8th to 9th highest threat for birds after agriculture, global warming, traffic, windows, cats, hunting, powerlines and the Usutu virus.
I wonder if it would be practical to equip tethered airships with wind turbines and position them at altitudes of several thousand meters, where the wind is steadier and more reliable. They could simply be reeled in for maintenance.
Those cluster turbines look really silly, but if they're as effective as 5 huge turbines and they don't have the same wing tip speed limitations (what with them being so much smaller) then probably more focus should be put on those.
Assuming they aren't super noisy. It's not mentioned in the video, but noise pollution also matters...
Also zero recycling
@@Steamrick The image showed them off shore away from anybody
@@Steamrick why do noise pollution matter... in the middle of the ocean?
@@IrrationalThings Aside from being a more general point regarding wind turbines, not just offshore turbines, there's also the effect of noise on sealife to consider.
3:10 stop blaming renewables to be only for climate change, they are cheaper and generally more available than fossil fuels too. It's not a charity anymore, it's simple economics.
Indeed, also good for establishing energy security for countries without fossil fuel resources.
wind power is nowhere near cheaper than fossil fuels. thats total nonsense. what "green" propaganda bs have you been swallowing?
Vestas V236-15.0 MW was only the world's tallest wind turbine for less than a week. 6 days after it was completed, CSSC Haizhuang's new H260-18MW overtook it as the tallest and biggest wind turbine
Imagine that they would have had a week of bad weather and delay the completion. It would have been tallest for minus one day :))
Anyway, how many days H260 kept the crown?
the lack of reliability of the H260 will make it irrelevant
@@johnm948 You have numbers to back that up or is that your imagination?
@@Peizxcv Take a look at how many wind-turbines Vestas is selling in China, and ask yourself why that is? :)
@@bullbandit2799 Because China is building more capacity faster than even China can produce turbines. Europe and US are dragging their feet on green energy
A roundabout in my city had to be reprofiled to make space for the transport of the blades of the Danish windmill. Absolutely massive pieces of technology.
I live in the u.s. you all can have your damn round a bouts!
this gave me idea to put wind turbines in roundabouts
@@altamashparwaiz2097 I hate round a bouts. One idea Europe should have kept as a secret
@@eligebrown8998why tho they massively reduce fatal accidents cost next to nothing to maintain and If properly intruded reduce traffic
@@eligebrown8998
It's no different from merging into a highway: scary the first 20 times and then routine.
You can stop completely and orient yourself like at a silly old cross road if you like, but after a while you learn to time the entry so you rarely have to brake below 40 km/h 🚀
The saved time, energy and accidents are more than worth the initial discomfort.
5:52 I love the animation. They explain a lot in a simple way.
do you mean 5:45?
@@alanhat5252 I mean 6:09 , but the animation needs a bit of context from before.
It doesn't help that the UK banned onshore wind farms in 2015. Now the current PM has a family business doing billion pound deals with fossil fuel companies, BP & Shell, "coincidently" 2 weeks before announcing 100 new oil and gas licenses in the North Sea.
That's so sad to hear :(
Nuances, nuances!
Maybe you'd like a wind farm to look at from the sofa and have to listen to in bed. Why not put them offshore?
We have the biggest in the world - half the size of New York - off the Yorkshire coast and another off Essex which was the biggest in Europe before that.
The Swedish idea seems to have the capability to be able to soak up more of the wind energy than the mega ones, but we also have one of those onland near the oil, gas and chemical refineries of Avonmouth in Bristol - because it pays the local community who actually built it.
As I say, nuances, nuances.
@@JP_TaVeryMuch I'd prefer a wind farm out of my window compared to the exploration for a fracking site happening outside my window right now.
@@tdyerwestfield My sympathies.
@@JP_TaVeryMuch I am a member of a Coop that built and operates a wind turbine in south Wales. Objections can be overcome when local people see the benefit of these projects. Although to be fair I live in Essex, the local council in Wales is also a member and the scheme benefits council run social housing. My membership share cost me £3,200, I'm currently receiving £85pm credit on my electricity bill and the scheme runs for 25 years. I've only got 6 O levels and CSE Maths, but I reckon that's not a bad ROI :)
as a dane growing up and still living in the rural west (very close to HQ of Vestas and almost as close to Siemens Gemesa) as the turbine has grown so has my fasination of them. close to where i live 2 210 meters windmills has been erected as test windmills. and must say i do sometimes stop just outside just to look up and reflect a little.
What a gift this is...
I am not convinced that the reason UK targets are not being met is because the turbines cannot be built fast enough. The UK government makes it very difficult to get permission for onshore turbines. Investors are also frustrated by waiting times and enormous fees to connect to the grid. It is always possible to build more turbines faster if the demand for them is there. Throttling the rate at which they can be installed is what limits the rate at which they can be built.
Seems it‘s everywhere the same (except china)
Greetings from Germany
I really enjoy building those 120m Vestas V150s! They're incredible platforms with a ton of awe inspiring engineering.
I really hate cutting glass fibre for v150. It's like the worst process from vestas
I was a little surprised to learn that my city is thinking about installing 2 150 metre high wind turbines but i suppose we do have a Siemens factory here that makes them. It would appear they are working on 108 metre long blades now
2150 metres??!?!?! That's a quarter of the height of Mt. Everest
@@cucumbalover4569 they is two 150 metre high they is a space between the two and the 1 for a reason
Where do you put the obsolete blades when past their use by date ?????
One can recycle them.
@@old-pete I am told they are not recyclable.
@@irenekronk1961 Blades can be used for cement or ,since recently, be diassembled into their components.
In germany they build a children park with them
@@irenekronk1961 you have been misinformed, they are recyclable. Also they are a small fraction of the total of composite materials used for other purposes e.g. boats
big fans make the earth go brrrr
And people go grrrrr
🤔
@@bryonbradshaw5246 🤔
@@lavkmr1🤔
@@A.Gentlemann they do! Without them, there wouldn't be any wind, and the earth would stop rotating.
Those turbines looks Impressive
In Denmark at "Vadehavet" there is a proposal to erect a new testcenter for windturbines up to 450 meters hight.. Its now on hold, but thats the size of windturbines for the future..
There is a 300m tall testcenter in Germany that started data gathering in May this year.
Very enjoyable as always 👍
Thanks so much!! 🙌
@@TomorrowsBuild you are very welcome. As someone who works alone at home your videos provide a brief companion and educator at the same time 👍
@@TomorrowsBuild Hi. Enjoyed the video... Quick question though; I read an article just a couple weeks ago stating that the "largest" turbine had just been built in China. Now two weeks later I'm watching this video about the "tallest" turbine in Europe. Is that in fact a thing, where they're making a distinction between "largest" and "tallest"? If so, it reminds me of the example of comparing dinosaurs, where the Diplodocus was one of the "largest," and the Brachiosaur was one of the "tallest". And if this is indeed the case, which turbine is the actual "biggest" (mass/weight-wise)? Just trying to get my facts straight. Thanks
learned something new. never know the windmills in the ocean were floating.
Depending on the depth of the water, yes. But fixed-bottom turbines are still more common
In fact most of the offshore windmills in the north and east sea are built on stable platforms
The installation and operation of them is killing whales.
At the Danish test centre in Thisted, North Jutland, a 450 m high windmill will soon go up.
Turbine, not mill...
who is putting it up there?
@@bastiankruse4312 Not sure who's building the 450m, but Siemens have already built a 271m high windmill at the Østerild klitplantage test site near Thisted.
Cutting edge construction used for a good purpose instead of mad billionaires' vanity megaprojects? Yes please!
NO!!! You are confused!
I'm a big fan of these big fans
The breeze they produce cools the land.
Haha, nice!
Future generations will be thankful for these efforts and achievements. 👏👏👏
Could you make a Video about Wind turbines and how they are produced? Maybe even alternative Materials instead of the Carbon fibers for the Blades?
Glass fibre, carbon fibre and resin mix. Very much NOT recyclable, and generally only last up to ten years.
Sweden (again! Bra jobbat Sverige.) are piloting cheaper sustainable laminated wood towers for theirs. Not the blades yet, but they'll come.
@@_starfiend there are many companies that recycle turbnie blades, usually into resin pellets and fibre strands used to reinforce cement. And the average lifespan is 20-25 years, not 10.
@@licencetoswill 20 to 25 is a theoretical limit, few, if any, have actually reached that age as most are replaced, along with the gearboxes, at about 10 years. The hope/expectation is that they will eventually last as long as 25 years. Recycling the blades into cement reinforcements, and similar, is recycling after a fashion, but when the concrete itself is broken up the glass fibre will escape into the environment. This would very bad for the environment. I'm hoping better materials will come along soon, but glass-fibre is not a good material for recycling. My sister and her husband both work in this area.
I think they're still using glass fibre for the blades even on the V236 turbine shown in this video. Presumably there will come a blade length that will require switching to carbon fibre in order to withstand the loads.
1:56 Good old Blyth Offshore Wind Farm. 2 turbines, Commissioned 7th December 2000, Decommissioned in May 2019.
1:25 not really saying much is it, big ben is like what, 2.3m tall?
Pipe down.
Not only the bell inside Elizabeth Tower, but also the whole tower is unofficially called "Big Ben".
@@skyscraperfanimagine making a massive 2m clockwork masterpiece... only to have the brick stand that holds the clock steal all the credit
@@ch4.hayabusa its worse considering the original big ben broke during construction of the tower, so the bell had to be replaced by a smaller one. got its name stolen twice
20,000 homes is incredible! 👍🏼
The saving in co2 is huge by using this turbine, but how much co2 is produced from the concrete during the construction for its foundations??
The energy used for building, maintaining and dismantling of the turbine is generated in 6 to 14 months. If one uses only fossil fuels for the windturbine, she saves 16 to 39 as much CO2, if the turbines runs only 20 years. Modern ones can easily run 25, some even 30 years.
Amazing & Best Of The Education Wind Turbines Of The New Energy In Future
Unbelievable how big they become. Near my city is 1 of the biggest I've seen in real life, the mast is 100m and the blades 40m, which stands there already many years. I thought that was huge, until I saw this video! Dang!
editors killin it with the audio
Tomorrow's Build!!!
*slaps side of world's tallest wind turbine*
"This bad boy can kill so many birds"
Less than glass windows...
Weird how that's suddenly such a concern for wind turbines, but nobody ever cared about the millions of birds killed with cars.
Time to tear down all our motorways.
@@Sp4mMe Don't give politicians ideas
It’s no surprise the blades are bigger than Big Ben, the bells only 7’6” high!
Almost everyone thinks it's the tower, not the clock.
*GREAT VIDEO FRED & TEAM ! 😎👍👍 Q: (ANYBODY?) DO YOU KNOW THE ("scientific"?) SOURCE THAT PROVES THIS (**3:50**) STATEMENT ?*
*(I'd think a turbine spinning is a turbine spinning - - regardless of the size of the blades - - plus - - those blades seem to be moving pretty slow)* 🤔
*Wouldn't smaller blades move a smaller turbine A LOT FASTER ???*
Context: 3:45 - - 3:50 - - 3:56
could you also upload the podcast to youtube please ?
Yes... very important. So it can work 60% of the time and be scrapped and buried in 18 years... mmmm so sensible!
One can run them longer and do not need to bury them...
@@old-pete The fact that they can run them longer is, of course good - have they found an effective way to recycle them?
@@brucethomson9923 80 to 90% of a windturbine can be recycled.
@@old-pete Thanks for that -please explain. So - how does one recycle fibreglass? Are you willing to glowingly talk about how this can be recycled into concrete? I'll leave it to you to to sort out the carbon footprint of that. But perhaps you have bought into the idea that these can be made into "bike sheds"... ummm lucky us. Do YOU want to do the math???? I think not. Tell me more about recycling - I'm all ears - BUT - I don't want "this might work!" I want solutions. Solutions. I know - you don't have any. :-)
@@brucethomson9923 Cement production is one solution. It saves energy and material. The new process is to diassrmble the blades into its components, which can be reused or recycled.
So... what happens to turbine towers and blades after they complete their service life? 🤔
Recycling.
Dig a hole and bury them
You undo the screws at the button so they spin up into space where they burn out in the sun.
This video is a good complement to the one on the "Engineering with Rosie" channel, thank you.
I wonder if big and small turbines have the same kg/kw ratio. For example, if 1 big turbine produces as much power as 5 smaller turbines, but overall uses more material (steel, aluminum, etc) is it worth it? Assuming space is not an issue
Bigger machines are more efficient to a degree. The bigger the towers get, the more materials are needed compared to smaller towers.
The main complexity of wind turbines comes from their gearbox (relatively slow rotation of the blades is converted to something conductive to producing electricity). All other things being relatively proportional you'd rather have 1 gearbox for a big windturbine than multiple gearboxes for multiple smaller windturbines.
However, there's also direct drive solutions and so on and so forth. In the end, this is a relatively immature technology. Windturbines in fifty years will look very different from what we do today.
A wind turbine twice as big has 4 times the area to collect wind energy from, not to mention that winds are faster and more stable a few hundred metres from the ground.
Massive amounts of R&D needs to go into recycling the wind turbine blades ASAP. The same with solar panels.
One can already recycle them.
@@old-pete well basically everything can get recycled but it's just so much cheaper to cut them up and dump them or grind it up and mix with cement
As usual, your video is glorious 🍀
Watching a group of migrating birds fly over or through that would be amazing
Over? Ok.
Through? Strange what people find amazing...
As someone living in a town in northern Norway with just 7000 people.
We recently rejected a new industry to start up on our dying town because of lack of power.
I'm just thinking, we should put up one of these next to our town and we'll be set 😮
How much does it cost?
About to 100k for a large one.
I love wind turbines; they are beautiful and graceful and I enjoy being able to see them from my home. But if the problem of the degradation of the leading edges can't be solved, they'll never be a permanent part of the solution.
Great video as usual. However, we need to change policies. Most places in Bavaria now require a minimum distance of 4 ( I believe ) kilometers of distance to the closest settlement ( read: house) thus effectively prohibiting any new builds.
Not anymore. Our government enacted a new law last year forcing every state to provide 2% of their area for wind. Starting 2027 if they haven't provided 1.1% every other law that prohibits the building of a Windturbine doesn't count anymore.
So if Bavaria doesn't provide those wind areas you can build where every you want.
We have a good ministry of economics and they have done plenty of such laws forcing the transition no matter what the state wants.
They also changed the legal status of renewables so now the public interest of renewables weights more legally than any other concern
@@lorissupportguidesthat’s not entirely true, you can’t build whether you want, which is why the law in Bavaria was stupid populism to begin with.
There is still a permitting process involved that ensures environmental factors such as local wildlife (if there are any protected species that cannot be relocated) or regarding the noise emissions. Those regulations are commonplace and not part of the 10H rule enacted a few years ago.
The law from the ministry of economics was still long overdue and will hopefully speed things up a bit
Should be atleast 10 kilometers. Or build it where the people who like it (cities) live. Dont´t destroy the countryside with your absurd "green" stuff.
@@akatheking82how is it destroying anything? How is it „absurd“? And don’t people in the country need energy?
@@akatheking82 Except wind turbines aren't effective in cities due to all the buildings. But I guess reality doesn't matter to people like you.
How much carbon and waste is produced during the mining of the materials, the manufacturing, transport, installation and maintenance ? How many trees are cut to place that turbine there and what carbon sequestration is lost thereby ? How many years does it take before it breaks even and when does it break. How much carbon is emitted during the disassembly and where do the materials end up. Factoring everything what are the actual gains or losses for our biosphere ?
6 to 14 months, depending on type and location. The gains are 1/100 of CO2 emissions and less than 1/10 of the waste of coal power plants per produced kwh.
It's a really great plus that wind turbines just look beautiful
I agree
1:37 you would roughly need a 12 x 12 field of those wind turbines to get to the same average power output of an average sized commercial nuclear reactor (80000 MWh / 8760 h ~ 9,15 MW, 144 • 9,15MW ~ 1300 MW) That’s surprisingly few turbines.
144 wind turbines that are 280m tall, require servicing every 6 months, and require replacement within 20 years. I’d say that’s a lot.
@@JoelTheGamer The big ones should run longer and the replacement is not an issue.
those old Swedish mills probably last longer.
Gotta adjust the height to kill all sorts of bird species i guess.
The higher, the better the electricity production and the lower the risk for birds.
1 of these could power my entire hometown
every village and small town should have their own turbine
MEGA VIDEO !!! MY FAVOURITE
What happens to all these blades when the life of the turbine ends? Yeah, no one wants to bring that problem to light
Wind has a low energy density and wind power is centuries out of date. The wind turbines only exist due to massive taxpayer funded subsidies. They make no economic sense. They are a colossal waste of taxpayers money and resources (including coal and oil).
„No one“ as in „companies eagerly want to recycle them to harvest the resources“, right?
And anyways, basically every power plant at some stage reaches their end of life. Gas power plants are probably those with the least recycling problems, sure; but then they burn millions of tons of fossil fuels during their life span. Gotta weigh pro and con here.
They're repurposing them. Cutting them down to make public seating among other things. It's called recycling
Reuse them lol
I love wind power and i think it's the winner over time. Solar is ok but it degrades from the moment it's installed and steadily declines until it needs replacement. In addition the big problem with renewables is largely a NIMBY problem however with Wind you can put them in places where that's not really a problem offshore. Anyways, Kudos on this video, great stuff.
All systems degrade over time.
The power output of wind turbines degrade because of increased friction in gears and, more importantly, through blade edge degradation over time.
@@old-pete Well yes of course they do, the turbines and blades need replacement about every 2 decades and they require regular preventive maintenance as well as corrective maintenance when something goes wrong. However as built they largely perform much better and consistently over time than solar cells do for various reasons not the least of which is just the breakdown of solar cells ability to convert the suns energy into electricity which starts and begins to degrade relatively quickly compared to wind turbines. Wind also works better in different types of weather.
Tidal flow will overtake all others.
100% reliable, predictable, and peak output 4 times per day every day.
Not only that, but the tide times around fortunate countries like UK and USA mean that there will always be generation somewhere.
No need for energy storage is a huge consideration.
@@dougaltolan3017 There will always be a need for energy storage if we go full electric. In addition Tidal flow is 30 years behind Wind and Solar AND it's very corrosive to anything it touches. Anything is possible but it is hard to believe it will outpace anything for decades to come.
@@rd9102 we've had ships in the water longer than we've had wind turbines, "wahh it's CoRoSiVe" was fixed before your granddad was born.
There's something calming about wind turbines and stopping the use of fossil fuels is vital. The wind will never stop blowing and it's free. It just makes sense.
What kind of damage occurs to the blade tips at 90 mph?
Catastrophic whiplash like snapping above 100mph apparently.
90 m/s, not mph. I thought the limit was set for noise mitigation but there may be more reasons.
No matter how I look at them, I can't love them. Modern nuclear is so much more effective.
Nice video! Thank you!
Some impressive stats on energy production and carbon savings. Really question is how much energy went into producing one of these wind turbines? Also, how longs does it have to operate before its break even point and we start saving energy?
6 to 14 months, depending on model and location.
Very interesting!
The biggest fans on earth of this channel be like.
So what happens to the blades when they're replaced.? Since it appears they cannot be recycled.
They can be recycled.
Not in a good way though. Unless you can supply a link to how,.
@@shaneoneil9433 Depends on how you define "good way". Some have a second life as being part of a new structure, the majority is used to make cement, new designs can be taken apart and sorted by material, which then can be reused.
It's not a huge quantity of material anyway. So many people turn "perfect" into the enemy of "good".
Another perspective is the comparison with a classic boiler powerplant (nuclear, coal, whatever)
Usually we are talking 1 GWh up to 2 GWh with a 75% availability (25% for maintenance & stuff)
1 nuclear reactor gives around 10 000 GWh per year (1.5 * 365 * 24 * 0.75 = 9 855)
=> You would need 100-150 of thoses mega windturbines to match it... assuming strong & regular wind all year round
only 100-150?
Considering the UK alone has over 11,000, lets get building.
Could not agree more
One nuclear plant can generate as much energy as hundreds of these turbines, but electricity produced by wind is also cheaper, easier to scale and less controversial. So it makes sense for such a windy country to use it (as long as it has enough alternative sources or neighbours able to supply when wind is not blowing as much)
Wow, that few. That’s very impressive
80 GWh per year for the large turbine was not calculated assuming 100% duty cycle but a realistic yearly average.
A reactor lately seems to cost 10 billion to build and take 10+ years. I doubt the turbines cost 100 million each so they seem like the cheaper option. I like nuclear but it has to be competitive, no 110 pound/MWh price guaranties...
I ❤ fred Mills voice 😊
Is there a reason why the wind turbines are coloured white? Be cool to see some fancy coloured ones or even like say green ones to blend in with the forests etc.
I think the idea is to make them less visible against the sky. If the turbine is at a similar height to the trees then it's not tall enough as the trees slow down the wind. The main thing is that they all need to be the same, as different colours will absorb light differently and therefore be at a different temperature and cause imbalance. When the blades are made they all come out at slightly different weights so they try to match up the weights as close as possible for each set. Point being you don't know which blades will be together until after they are made. The colour would have to be introduced before that point because if you just painted it on at the end it would wear off too quickly. Having them all be the same colour makes it much easier. You could make them all a different colour but it would have to be a large batch to make it economical.
I believe the reason why wind turbines have not been made brown or green is because in doing so, it would make the turbines look like trees to birds who would fly into the turbines and die. This may or may not be a reason why some countries make red stripes on their turbines, so that birds recognize the structures spinning and fly elsewhere. Hope this helps.
White reflect the sun better, helping to keep the turbines cool, and prolonging their life.. white stands out more from an aerial perspective helping birds and pilots, but stands out less from ground perspective, and lastly for aesthetic reasons, it just looks better ;)
@@ulven6668 True. They’d probably wear out quicker and need expensive maintenance otherwise. I believe people overestimate the amount of birds killed by turbines compared to other reasons such as windows or air pollution.
@@RailFireProductions yes and as you stated, the red stripes they put on the blades, are not only for the birds, but also signifies how far an airport is away, 1 stripe tells them that an airport/airstrip is less than 5 km away, if there are 2 stripes it means no airport/airstrip is within 5 km...
How much co2 does it take to make and put it into operation? That's never put into the video
1/16th to 1/36th of the CO2 they help to avoid in their lifetime.
china is the biggest producer of wind power
I notice several commenters lamenting that blades are made of resin, glass fiber and carbon fiber, and therefore not recyclable. This is a problem that needs to be solved, but where were all those critics when the conversation was about carbon fiber bicycles, sports cars, tennis rackets, helmets and a ton of other products? And where were they when the conversation was about small glass fiber boats and canoes, of which there are millions around the world? It's almost as if these critics don't like wind energy to begin with and are just looking for points of criticism. There are a multitude of products in use every day that contain materials that can't be recycled.
It's like how cobalt mining has suddenly become an issue because of electric car batteries. But when it was being mined for the oil industry there was never an issue.
I do wonder who could be paying these people.
There are now recycling solutions for wind turbine blades. As you say, the volume is minuscule compared to other uses of composites
What's the co2 payback period for all this material?
6 to 14 months.
5:50 As much as I abhor their purpose, I’ve always loved the aesthetics of oil rigs. Something about their size and exposed structure speaks as a symbol of human will and ingenuity. We can’t survive out in the ocean - we’d die of thirst if we didn’t drown or get eaten first - yet there’s something we need there. So we’ll build an island of steel close to land and then ship it out to where it’s needed! I’m so glad they have a purpose other than poisoning our planet now!
Interesting video as always!
If you truly believe climate change is an existential threat how can this possibly win over nuclear?
Keep in mind that these giant wind turbines have a name plate capacity of 15MW where as a nuclear plant has an average of 1GW meaning you'd need 67 of these to match in name plate capacity alone. These have a surprisingly high capacity factor of about 60% vs nuclears 93% meaning you'd need a total of 104 of those wind turbines out in the north sea to match a average sized nuclear plant.
Then you have to think about the life times of these systems. The average age of an operating nuclear plant in the US is just above 40 years compared to the 20-30 life time of wind turbines.
Then on top of that you need a giant energy storage method to even things
Nuclear is the obvious solution and pursuing wind and solar will cause us emit far more carbon than if we're just to have gone nuclear
Then you invest your hard earned savings in a fund for nuclear... the most expensive, most delayed type of energy production on the planet. There is a reason why even the USA has been shutting down these plants well before they have to... and investing their money in windfarms and solar.
@@1968Christiaanuhhhh corruption and lobbying?
Maybe cus nuclear currently relies on uranium and plutonium and both are finite resources. Unless we pray that some scientist figure out a way to create a renewable nuclear grade material. The earth could definitively use a couple hundred more reactors, but like solar and wind its not a perfect solution to man made climate change.
I love wind turbines there so cool man like giant fan go brrrrrrrr
Looking at vertical wind turnines could be better. They are less limited by wind speed or direction, they take up less space so can be packed closer together, and all the electrical turbine machinery is at the base so safer and cheaper for ongoing maintenance and repairs as well as cheaper to build. Individually they generate slightly less electricity though, but as they can be packed a lot closer together that limitation is negated.
Given that manufacturering speed seems to be the bottle neck, you can't really swap to that, but building both could help. There is likely plenty of places where they would be a better fit.
The limitation isn't negated; they are a lot less efficient than horizontal turbines and don't make sense for grid scale. They do have a place though; their characteristics that you mentioned make them more suitable for things like remote locations, rooftop wind, mobile generator, etc. There is a lot of focus on vertical technology for these purposes but vertical will never compete at the same scale as these large horizontal turbines.
They can't achieve the same power rating as a HAWT and result in significant torsional loads and vibration modes on the substructure, meaning the overall cost of the turbine + foundation would be more (more steel in substructure). More units also = more offshore construction cost, subsea cables, maintenance, etc. If they were better, we would be using the already!
@@muliusjalema No, the torsional loads and vibrations are actually less than on standard turbines. I already stated they don't produce quite as much power, but that is more than countered by the fact that you can pack them closer. The most modern ones produce about 10 to 15% less power per turbine, but you can get nearly 30% more turbines in the same space. ATM they are not intended for use at sea, but my sister and her husband, who both work in this technology, believe it's only a matter of time.
I don't think so. Growing taller being the main struggle is a no-brainer.
At some point in the future people will be surprised that they used to be connected to the ground.
I had no idea there was so much potential but also complexity with wind turbines 😅
Of course you didn't. "Mainstream" industries will let people believe that wind energy is just some failed low tech, and than burning the Earth's crust is the peak of technology.
Wind mills went obsolete for a good reason. Wind has a low energy density and wind power is centuries out of date.
@@johngeier8692 Wind mills were not producing electricity dummy.
Also, we are talking about intense research to build the newer turbines with lighter and more efficient materials, but who cares? Let's just pretend it's a low tech steel mill. Cause using the planet's thermodynamic processes is much more low tech than burning its fucking crust in the stake.
@@johngeier8692 The technology of windmills and winturbines are on different levels. And the energy output is quite high, considering that one does not need to burn fuel.
If this movie is saying Gen Z is now old enough to relate to Rom-Coms, then we really ARE getting old
Does anyone else find it anxiety inducing that part of what's keeping those floating wind turbines from falling over is sensors and computers? I know they're in the middle of nowhere in the ocean... but still.
You're not supposed to enter the areas of these offshore wind turbine farms.
As a matter of fact, there are probably countries, that will fine you, if you enter these areas, as they are critical to their energy supply. It's like if you entered a power plant unattended.
There are even stories, about Russian submarines diving around the North Sea, to map critical offshore infrastructure, both for gas pipes, and offshore wind farms.
Danish Minister of Justice Peter Hummelgaard, is concidering banning people from entering these areas.
Ngl as much as it'd be less efficient I wish there was at least one of these behemoths on land, as an attraction & demonstration if nothing else. It'd be incredible to see such monsters in person!
A thousand of these stupid things absolutely pale into insignificance against one nuclear power station.
I'm a strong proponent of nuclear, but that just isn't true. You would need about 100 of these turbines to match a nuclear plant (actual, not nameplate).
@@MaurizioDeLeo Appreciate your input but I don't understand how that can be correct. Firstly, they only work when it's windy - apologies for stating to obvious, but any power station is not limited by this constraint.
Furthermore, Wind Turbines have a short operating life and frequently fail - again, not a constraint that affects Nuclear.
@@harpersneil these giant turbines have a rating of 15MW or more. A typical nuclear plant is 1GW. So it would take approx 67 turbines to match the nameplate. Due to inconsistent wind or other availability issues, that number goes up to 100.
There IS an absolute size limit.
600m for example...
Such extreme heights would pose significant challenges in terms of material strength, transportation, and construction feasibility. Engineers must balance the benefits of larger turbines with the practical challenges they present.
I saw in a documentary in relations about the wind power technology, that because of the type materials that is used to make the blades, it cannot be recycle when it finish it's lifespan. What they do is they chop it up and buried it in a land field or Architects use it in projects. 🤔🤷♂
I've been laughing about this problem for years. The amount of carbon being expelled to produce all of these city sized arrays of windmills is wild. I doubt the offset in carbon and dead birds will be worth it.
@@DS-lk3tx The carbon emissions are small compared to what is saved. Turbines are cabon negative.
The blades can be recycled, not all countries require that.
@@DS-lk3txyour laughing cuz your uneducated. It takes a windmill 6-12 months to break even on GHG emissions
"Carbon negative." 😆
That's how I know you're full of shit. 😆 🤣
@@DS-lk3txPainting red stripes on the turbines can allow for the blades to be more visible to birds who will see a bright color spinning round and round and will subsequently fly away. Having turbines be plain white may be more dangerous as to birds, the blades may just look like clouds.
I wonder how many miles away will the infrasound be deadly to all life
0 miles
I read a study they did here at the Sea Girt Army Base in Sea Girt, New Jersey. It was 11 miles from the windmill. The town voted against it. Now they are building them 10 miles off shore. scum.
@@77huss In case you did not notice, but windpower technicians stand next to a running windturbine without keeling over dead...
@77huss in 1994, i was down in Newbrunswick, and they brought in an expert on low frequency sound, and with his instruments, he found the infrasound 30 miles from the wind farm was above 180 Dessables They shut down the wind farm for 5 years and replaced it. They tried to have the same expert investigate the pollution of the aquifers near Chattom but our federal government will not let him in the country!
@@terenceiutzi4003 180 decibel in 30 miles? Such a BS. 180 decibel would kill you. Considering that sound decreases quadratic with distance, a wind turbine would need to emit hundreds of decibel to reach 180 decibel in 30 miles. The loudest known noises are vulcanic explosions and meteor strikes with around 300 decibel...
Taller turbines will also require taller cranes...
🤔 there is ocean wildlife, does anyone consider the effects on that ??? Probably not.
Some countries do. There you cannot place them whereever you want.
What a WASTE
Logistically speaking why don’t they build a floating factory to make the blades in? Eliminate the transportation bottleneck completely?
Manufacturing isn't 100% efficient. You need to ship more materials to the factory than come out of it as product.
Then theres the work force commute to work....
But keep looking. Not every solution has been found.
At what point would they impact the weather? Do they lower average wind speed to any significant margin?
i doubt it, wind depends on the the temperature contrast of the sky and ground. also the sky is really big
Wind turbines remove only a very small part from a huge amount of kinetic energy in the air. Remember the air moves much faster at higher altitudes (up to 650 kmh, measured over Japan in 1970). And kinetic energy increases with the 2nd power of the velocity.
@@old-pete @parcesfrancis1565 I was just wondering what the effect is. Like if we had them all across the Atlantic. Would there be a measurable slowdown or would it not be detectable? Obviously it’s not a extreme effect or anything but I still find it interesting.
Of course if wind speeds are that much higher at higher altitudes I’d expect more energy. But do you know by how much that is offset due to lower air density?
But I guess I’ll try to calculate it. By looking at total wind energy and electrical energy from wind turbines and than look at the inefficiency of them to look at the energy taken out and see at what amount there is any change in at least the first decimal digit.
@@Youcanatme It is doubtful we will ever build so many to cover the atlantic. It has been suggested that windfarms covering the coast at regular intervalls could lessen the effect of storms and floods.
Depending on the coast, that would already be a huge undertaking.
@@old-pete It's more of a thought experiment.
Subscribed
Wind turbines only benefit those that build them and maintain them at the cost of the tax payers... It is a very expensive and often useless way to create energy because it is not stable so you always need regular power plants on standby anyway.
They benefit everyone by producing less CO2 and less waste. The new ones produce electricity also much cheaper.
I agree it is about making money
Put a turbine on top of the Burj Khalifa, race won
The number of incorrect statements in this video about an industry I work in does make me question the accuracy of your videos that I don't know a lot about.
And still you can't mention one incorrect statment...
Sounds like you know everyrhing about the industry you work in, especially the part about wind turbines
Give examples mate. No point just saying it's wrong.
@@LinusSandqvist Strange response, but okay.
Here are a few of them:
The turbines where he says that we may be wondering how they are standing and how deep they go, he states that those turbines are floating. That's not true, those turbines pictured go all the way down to the seabed on monopiles. There are more turbines in that picture than there are floating turbines in the entire world right now. Currently, 34 floating turbines globally, compared to 13,300 turbines which are not floating and are attached to the sea floor. Gives a false representation of where the floating wind industry is.
The turbine he said to be the tallest in the world isn't even the 2nd or 3rd tallest right now. You need to go to China for that, where there is a turbine model past the prototyping stage that is being installed at a commercial project right now. The Goldwind 252-16MW is more powerful, taller, and has longer blades than the Vestas turbine mentioned. Even larger turbines by Goldwind, CSSC, and Mingyang are also at the same development stage as the Vestas one mentioned in the video.
I'd say the main error though, because it's the whole point of the video. Near the end he says the UK will need to triple the number of wind turbines to meet its 2030 (which is 50GW capacity). But because turbines are getting larger, which is the whole point of the video, we don't even need to double the number of turbines to reach this goal.
@OutsiderLabs Sure,
Here are afew:
The turbines where he says that we may be wondering how they are standing and how deep they go, he states that those turbines are floating. That's not true, those turbines pictured go all the way down to the seabed on monopiles. There are more turbines in that picture than there are floating turbines in the entire world right now. Currently, 34 floating turbines globally, compared to 13,300 turbines which are not floating and are attached to the sea floor. Gives a false representation of where the floating wind industry is.
The turbine he said to be the tallest in the world isn't even the 2nd or 3rd tallest right now. You need to go to China for that, where there is a turbine model past the prototyping stage that is being installed at a commercial project right now. The Goldwind 252-16MW is more powerful, taller, and has longer blades than the Vestas turbine mentioned. Even larger turbines by Goldwind, CSSC, and Mingyang are also at the same development stage as the Vestas one mentioned in the video.
I'd say the main error though, because it's the whole point of the video. Near the end he says the UK will need to triple the number of wind turbines to meet its 2030 (which is 50GW capacity). But because turbines are getting larger, which is the whole point of the video, we don't even need to double the number of turbines to reach this goal.
The speaker loves his loooonng pronunciation of short words.
Imagine a bunch of 300-500m tall skyscrapers randomly paced on a field with wind turbine towers on top, like spires. Every turbine could be able to run the whole building and probably even other nearby lower buildings. Or maybe twin towers with several levels of smaller turbines mounted on bridges between the towers (i've seen a building like that somewhere, like saudi arabia maybe?)
What would be the purpose of these buildings in the middle of nowhere? There's no reason why power generation and power consumption have to be in the same place.
vibration and noise emitted by these wind turbine is the problem for residents
@@ModernRedneck13he's referring to tall sky scrappers or buildings
The next issue we'll face is disruption of wind patterns - all that energy being pulled out of the air currents . . .
Compared to the energy in our atmosphere, wind turbines are a fart in the wind. The effects are only local.
@@old-pete Quite right, what I was talking about. I recall reading about studies in some California valleys had found diminished speeds at the top. What the effect was I don't remember but it had some significance.
@@ohasis8331 The effect is slighty warmer air at night and slightly cooler air during the day. In areas where it frezes during winter, turbines reduce freezing.
The mixing of the air by windturbines can lead to dryer soil, depending on vegetation.
The area affected is up to around 2km behind the windturbine.
@@old-pete thanks
They are shipping wind turbines into Cairns here that are illegally high and couldn't be stood up in this city due to CASA the Australian aviation authority, but they get sent
up the mountain lying down and erected. Much taller than our highrises.
Good we need more renewable energy in Aus
Think of the birds! 😅😅😅😅
Then remove your windows, stop using any fast vehicles, stop eating food made from industrial agriculture or any electricity from fossil fuels, because each of these kill a lot more birds.
@tomr6955 It does matter. It reduces the number of birds killed by climate change.
The world's stupidest climate boondoggle?
A good way to be less dependent on foreign energy ressources.
How much power with no wind?
I suggest you figure that one out for yourself...
TOMORROW's BUID QUESTION: can you do a video on the subject of birds being killed by windmills? i'm sure nowadays they've figured out how to stop the slaughter.
There are multiple ways.
Place them at the right position. Avoid hotspots of birds.
Change the colour of the blades. Black paint makes the blades more visible to birds.
Using UV absorption or reflection, since birds react to that.
But one should be aware that windturbines are only the 8th to 9th highest threat for birds after agriculture, global warming, traffic, windows, cats, hunting, powerlines and the Usutu virus.
I wonder if it would be practical to equip tethered airships with wind turbines and position them at altitudes of several thousand meters, where the wind is steadier and more reliable. They could simply be reeled in for maintenance.
Meanwhile, in France.
"So, you pack this very heavy lump of naturally shiny magical rocks together. And... that's it. It makes electricity."
If it were that easy...