close
Pinkbike is now part of Outside! As of December 3, 2021, please refer to the Outside Terms of Use and Privacy Policy which govern your use of the Pinkbike website and services.

Video: Danny MacAskill Rides Across a Wind Turbine & More for the 'Climate Games'

Oct 24, 2021
by Ed Spratt  

bigquotesHow much of the world’s energy comes from sustainable sources? I’m given free reign at a renewable energy factory to show you exactly how much in the best way I can - with some epic tricks! Danny MacAskill



You can take a behind the scenes look at Danny's latest project below.






361 Comments

  • 224 3
 I dont care if hes attached to that little safety rope, i wouldnt do that for all the tea in china. Fair play Danny!
  • 18 5
 Part of me wanted the turbine to carry on moving
  • 49 8
 Or all the C02 in China, who aren't attending COP 26!
  • 75 6
 Who cares about COP26, or any other COP. It’s just a communication exercise for country leaders. But no real meaningful action is ever decided.
  • 109 2
 @Minikeum: that's why we have people supergluing themselves to motorways. As for China, we all know what we need to do...stop buying cheap sh*te from China.
  • 22 0
 I would do it for exactly half the tea in China. Anyone gonna under bid me or do I have the job?
  • 22 12
 @Minikeum:
That's because most of it is on us...not our so called leaders.
  • 42 6
 @silentbutdeadly: It's on the 100 companies that produce 71% of emissions annually. Individuals can take important steps to reduce their carbon footprint, but the problem lies in corporations and their lack of incentive to change the way they operate.
  • 4 2
 @robw515: Most everyone in China will. That's what they do. In fact, I've already outsourced one to do it for me for just 6 tea leaves. Of course I'll have to mark it back up to 49.9% in the interest of competition.
  • 2 0
 Are those eeWings titanium cranks? Works of art.
  • 1 0
 @Lloydmeister: that is gonna be the next trick...
  • 4 0
 and I'm assuming it's very windy up there.
  • 1 0
 @robw515: it’s all yours buddy.
  • 22 2
 @TheLookingGlass: You might find that those 100 companies produce a lot of things that you choose to purchase. They aren't burning fossil fuels for fun.
  • 5 0
 @Minikeum: then we do it ourselves, no need to play the "leaders" they're mostly useless, take back the climate yourself, push your friends and family to make changes
i know we can do this!!!
  • 1 0
 for all that China Tea you would be wealthy mountain biker...
  • 13 1
 @TheLookingGlass: Aren’t those companies’ products being bought by individuals?

That argument sounds like blaming the biggest 10 airlines for flying the most kilometers in 2021 or something.
  • 3 0
 @ompete: China is attending COP26.
  • 2 0
 My gut flip-flopped just watching that
  • 1 0
 Didn't see the safety rope at first. Thought he'd gone off the deep end, but his whole life is deep end so.....
  • 5 0
 Oh my god Danny, stay on your bike!
  • 2 0
 @ompete: they are attending.
  • 2 0
 @Minikeum: I don't know about that, I've just spent the past 3 years working on Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. We can always do more but there is action happening.
  • 3 0
 No need for the rope - he had a helmet on!!
  • 6 3
 @tremeer023: It honestly blows my mind that UK folks are gluing themselves to highways because the government won't pay to insulate their homes. Their logic is simply beyond comprehension. I'm bringing my 1970's attic insulation up to current code and the cost is equivalent to just under £900.

I'm cheap AF and even I recognize that's a good price for lowering bills and emissions.

Take responsibility for your own assets. Nothing is preventing you from insulating your damn house.
  • 2 0
 @juicebanger: true, although i think the protesters have a bigger agenda than just house insulation.
  • 1 0
 @Minikeum: Gotta have the strategy conversation first before hard and fast actions can be committed too. It's a slow process. It's not like the individual countries come to the COP meeting to say this is what we're going to do. They come to discuss what they need to do to contribute to the solution. We need to manage expectations. The actions will come, but the discussion must occur first. Now, arguably, these could be done more frequently via video chats but perhaps that creates too much opportunity for cyber criminality.
  • 1 0
 @TheLookingGlass: There is definitely a lot of truth to this. There must be an incentive and a penalty for acting and not acting. Although ESG may be tool that creates the incentive since shareholders now care about ESG performance, and corporations exist to keep their shareholders happy. So there again, we need to influence the shareholders to care about this stuff (putting their money where there mouth is so to speak) and then the corporations will listen and act. If anything we should be lobbying corporate investors not the government.
  • 3 0
 @SuperHighBeam: The meetings do happen throughout the year culminating in pre COP a month before COP allowing for negotiators to be fully prepped and ready for COP. It is a very slow process all negotiators have slightly different agendas, hopefully this year will have a positive outcome.
  • 1 0
 @SuperHighBeam: ESG does help but it is more of a risk measurement tool that stops investment in things with a poor ESG score. We need more tools to incentivise investment in things that have a positive impact.
  • 1 0
 @justanothermatt: I'm not sure I fully agree with you there. There are a lot of people choosing to invest in companies that have a really score and that are seeking to improve their score each year because the competitors are doing the same. These days if you're not serious about ESG, you ain't attract'n investment. I would also argue that the ESG frameworks that corporations are reporting against inherently require significant investment on the part of the corporation to be able to attain a higher score. Now, admittedly, some frameworks are more all inclusive than others, and perhaps the discussion is more so one of frameworks needing to be more stringent. I'm not against other tools to incentivize positive change, but I think ESG is going to and is already doing a lot. We just need more corporations to get onto that bandwagon and therefore more investors to require respectable ESG performance, not just have ESG performance reported. I am biased though, I work for an ESG consultancy with a focus on serving real estate corporations.
  • 1 0
 @juicebanger: Clay mud is the answer!
It is a thermal regulator?
  • 1 1
 @juicebanger: also the trustafarians that are gluing themselves to the roads have much larger houses than your average joe, so I think their subsidies are going to be quite a bit higher than £900 - maybe that's why?

In all honesty though - we're talking about the majority of the general population who live in poorly insulated homes are already on the poverty line, and subsidies to insulate do make sense. The government seem fine to hand out money to other initiatives such as heat pumps, community energy etc, but at the end of the day if your house leaks heat then it's always going to take more energy to warm it.
  • 1 0
 @juicebanger: & if you can't afford that?
  • 2 0
 @SuperHighBeam: Yes sorry, it was a bit of a flippant comment! Great to see another environmentalist on Pinkbike! I'm working on SDG impact measurement tools for investment fund reporting so similar datasets really just at a portfolio level.
  • 1 0
 @Zach1977: If you can't afford that then what will you do if your hot water tank needs replacing? Or your furnace? Or your roof starts leaking? I see it as part of the cost of ownership.

Obviously I only see what is reported in the news here so maybe I'm seeing it wrong or missing context. How do you see it?
  • 1 0
 @hambobet: f*ck of with the sweeping statements about people who protest, would be like other people thinking you sound like you live and breathe the daily mail.
  • 2 1
 @tremeer023: Companies first need to stop contracting Chinese companies for manufacturing American goods. Then we the people will stop buying from china.
  • 1 0
 @shltler: Yes but that would also require that American's could produce them at the same cost or be willing to pay more for them to be made domestically. Somehow I don't see either happening. We like to get paid oodles and we like to buy stuff that's cheap.
  • 1 0
 @justanothermatt: Partners is a common interest. Hooraw!
  • 101 1
 holy cow, wondering why the blade didn't bend under the weight of his balls
  • 178 112
 Like it or not nuclear is the answer to clean energy,wind turbines are false economy as is solar,production of a wind turbineproduces more pollutants than than they save in they're usefull life span.bring on nuclear energy!!
  • 68 11
 Agreed. 29% of electricity is from renewable. Good.
But then we need to get rid of fossile fuels in transports, agriculture, heating, heavy industries such as steel and ciment, etc…
If you think renewables alone will be able to power all these industries/activities, you’re either naive or brainwashed. We need both renewables and nuclear, and stop opposing them.
  • 55 11
 The carbon footprint of a wind turbine is 99% lower than coal including construction. It's still higher than nuclear but it is improving.
  • 115 10
 I agree on nuclear. But your claim about turbines is a straight up lie.
  • 63 7
 I am a nuclear engineer, and I approve this message. Though wind isn't as bad as you are saying, it is most definitely not the answer.
  • 20 2
 With renewables like wind and solar, their cost increases very fast when the percentage of our grid that's powered by them is high. This is because their intermittency becomes an expensive problem when there isn't other flexible power sources to compensate for their intermittency. Nuclear power doesn't have this intermittency problem. I think we should be using more nuclear power to reduce our emissions, at least until we figure out how to make solar and wind affordable and reliable at high percentages of grid penetration (in places lacking hydro). Fortunately, China and India are increasing their nuclear capacity even though the rest of the world generally isn't. We really need that because those countries burn a lot of coal.
  • 32 5
 @gline1234: Nobody said it was the answer. That's a strawman. It is PART of the answer, as is nuclear.
  • 8 2
 @cedric-eveleigh: Exactly this. Grid storage is coming online in a big way, mitigating the intermittency issues with wind/solar/and even hydro. Baseload nuclear is a great application.
  • 27 37
flag mtb-scotland (Oct 24, 2021 at 6:27) (Below Threshold)
 Nuclear is not clean lol

Scotland will soon be 100% renewable.
  • 29 6
 @mtb-scotland: Gen4 plants are pretty darn "clean" and they can use up the current load of "waste" from earlier reactors. The enemy of good is the perfect. Broaden your scope, my friend.
  • 39 0
 Next on pinkbike academy; debate the pros and cons of our existing CANDU vs a Thorium MSR.
  • 14 1
 We need a combination of renewables and nuclear. There is no "one size fits all" approach.
  • 17 0
 @gline1234: nothing is THE answer. The future is multidimensional energy, just like the present. We currently have many many forms of energy production, just that a lot of them are fossil fuel burning processes. The future will be diverse as well, but with fewer of those aforementioned fuels.
  • 8 2
 In 2018, the world consumed roughly 10 000 Mtoe of energy, all sources and usage combined. Source: www.iea.org/reports/key-world-energy-statistics-2020/final-consumption

The biggest wind turbine in the world is 16MW. That’s a 250m tall puppy. Assuming 100% load, we would need 830 000 of these turbines to power the world. With a more reasonable - but still optimist - 30% load capacity, we would need close to 2.8 millions of these giant 250m-tall wind turbines. That’s assuming energy storage has a 100% efficiency, which is absurd.

In 2016, the world had 341 000 wind turbines. Source: gwec.net/there-are-over-341000-wind-turbines-on-the-planet-heres-how-much-of-a-difference-theyre-actually-making
  • 16 5
 @Minikeum: Umn... did anyone say the world should be powered by wind alone? I must've missed it. Can you help me out?
  • 9 18
flag Minikeum (Oct 24, 2021 at 7:39) (Below Threshold)
 @Chuckolicious: i didn’t. Just wanted to provide some orders of magnitudes.

The only viable renewables are hydro - but there are only so many dams we can build, and wind turbines.
Solar power is not great, it artificializes way too much land, and most - if not all - production of solar panels is in China
  • 19 4
 What puts me off nuclear energy is the waste that's dangerous for decades or centuries. You need to be able to store it in a safe place for that long and, looking at our history this past century, we aren't particularly good at keeping places safe.
  • 7 20
flag thenotoriousmic (Oct 24, 2021 at 7:53) (Below Threshold)
 If we swapped to completely nuclear we’d run out of nuclear fuel within five years or so I’ve been told, I’ve not done the stock take myself and also don’t forget the fact that nuclear power stations are really irresponsible and nobody really knows how to effectively run one yet. They’re all winging it hoping someone smarter than they are comes up with a solutions before they become a problem which they’ve yet to do.
  • 8 6
 @Minikeum: Hydro is failing miserably in many regions due to drought, so it has its own "intermittency" issues. Solar is perfectly fine with the maturity of the technology and experience that we have. Irresponsible deployment is no more of a ding against it than irresponsible deployment and management, of nuclear. And who exactly cares where the panels, or anything else renewable is manufactured? And one final thing. Look up Agrivoltaics. I too was concerned about land usage. But now there's a whole new sector just coming into being.
  • 8 5
 @thenotoriousmic: Umn... what?? Dunno where you read that claim. Also, Generation 4 reactor fuel options, look 'em up. The last part of your comment is just so much nonsense. Irresponsible deployment and management of nuclear is not acceptable. Nor is it for the current fossil paradigm, which (if you look it up) has resulted in uncountable lives lost. Sheesh!
  • 6 3
 @vinay: Aannnd... as mentioned multiple times here: Generation 4 reactors. I'll leave it to you to find out how these effect the current nuclear waste problem we have.
  • 8 0
 @thenotoriousmic: IAEA reports that - in their high demand scenario - 28% of current known uranium stock (as of 2019) would be used by 2040.
Better than 5 years, but it sure doesn’t look good for long term

Source: www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/worlds-uranium-resources-enough-for-the-foreseeable-future-say-nea-and-iaea-in-new-report
  • 5 3
 @mtb-scotland: Population of Scottland 2020 - 5.47 million Population of New York City 2020 8.3 million.
So what's your point?
  • 12 11
 @Minikeum: I've gotten tired of responding with similar math.
All people have to do is look up the largest solar farm, the amount of land it requires and the tiny number of households it can power.
Take a look at pictures out in 29 palms of the 1000's of wind turbines for mile and miles and the tiny % of power they provide.
It's not happening without nuclear.
People haven't done any reading about the new reactors and fuels being develop. Main Stream media isn't going to cover it.
  • 11 14
 This is not remotely true. Nuclear is not clean, renewable, cheap or fast to build. Wind turbines do not produce more pollutants than they save. The onus is on you to provide proof of these ridiculous claims.
  • 7 16
flag mtb-scotland (Oct 24, 2021 at 8:33) (Below Threshold)
 @TheOriginalTwoTone: I don't give a f*ck about New York.
  • 5 2
 @Minikeum: With some generation 4 reactor technologies and the option of uranium extraction from sea water, I don't think fuel supply will be problem. However, even if we do run out, nuclear would still be a darn good bridge until we can make solar and wind affordable at high grid penetration. We seriously need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and we should use all the tools on the table.
  • 14 5
 @mtb-scotland: Typical, pull some silly stat out and when pushed back, that's the best response you can come up with.
How's this, no one cares about Scotland being 100% renewable. Population wise it's a pimple on the ass of the planet.
  • 4 1
 @vinay: You'll be thanking Bezos and Musk when they're churning out cheap rockets that can send this shit to Pluto.
  • 12 1
 @cedric-eveleigh: In sunny places like southwest US and Australia unsubsidized solar + storage is already cheaper than coal for new installations. It's only a matter of time before it becomes cheaper everywhere, especially as the number of EV batteries we need to recycle increases and plugging them into utility scale storage grids becomes an option.

The main problem with nuclear is that it's extremely expensive, while renewables are getting cheaper every day. There are some startups working on module nuclear that could bring it's price down, but without reducing the costs it doesn't seem feasible.
  • 15 20
flag FuzzyL (Oct 24, 2021 at 9:29) (Below Threshold)
 Nuclear is the answer to exactly nothing. There‘s no viable solution to the problem of nuclear waste, and always the inherent danger of an accident with horrible consequences.
  • 9 5
 Anyway, at current emissions rate, we converge toward a +3.5°C temperature increase. None of the 25 COPs have changed that by the way. And ditching nuclear power plants, like many countries are doing, will only make things worse.

With 3.5°C increase, IPCC projects that many regions in the world won’t be able to be farmed anymore. More fun: some regions won’t be liveable for longer periods (combinaison of high heat and humidity, making it impossible for the body to cool down). All this means high strain on food supplies, and massive immigration. And as a result, a much greater risk of wars.

I stick to my original post: we need all low carbon energy sources, including nuclear, against fossile fuels.
Waiting for the silver bullet energy source, and/or a magical carbon capture technology is pointless in the little time we have to act.
  • 6 9
 @TheOriginalTwoTone: given that Danny is from Scotland - 2020 95.9% of gross electricity consumption came from
renewable source. Didn't pull it out of the hat. Kindly suck one

shorturl.at/evD08
  • 8 2
 @gline1234: neither is nuclear anything the answer.
  • 7 5
 @mtb-scotland: I'm of Scottish descent, and I was born and raised in NYC. So, my brother, I really don't give much of a f*ck about you. Just say'n. :-D
  • 4 4
 @FuzzyL: Yes, there is. As mentioned many times here, lookup Generation 4 reactor design and fuel options. Come on, man, educate yourself before typing.
  • 4 1
 @mtb-scotland: didn't you say "100% renewable", and then switch to "100% renewable electricity"?
  • 2 0
 @Chuckolicious: I’m glad the US is investing in this technology and I wish Europe did too. France had a plan but they ditched it. China also has something in development which, if done properly, is great news since they are the factory of the world.
  • 5 0
 Indeed the video says electricity is produced at 29% with renewables, but it's only electricity, the world energy mix is made of 21% renewable energy (including nuclear), the rest (79%) is fossile.

AFAIK, if we succeed at building fusion reactors (instead of fission) there could be enough uranium for a while (like centuries or millennia) as I've read that currently we only use like 1/10 of the extracted uranium. Fusion could use all of it, and maybe even re-use wastes. And there's supposedly billions of tons of uranium scattered in the oceans, but no one knows if we could retrieve it.

So until we succeed at fusion (supposedly circa 2060 I've read ?) the answer is frugality. Using bike instead of car as much as possible. Buying less stuff, using planes only if really necessary, etc. We're in some serious shit but nobody cares. Everydbody's in denial.

Saudi arabia just announced they would be carbon neutral in 2060, that's not difficult, they'll have ran out of oil by then.
  • 7 8
 @Chuckolicious: LOL - so the idea is that we ditch all current reactors, at twice the cost it took to build them, then build a giant worldwide fleet of gen 4 reactors for the handful of years that nuclear fuels will be available and then start over with - what exactly - ah, sure your answer will be gen 5 reactors… get over it, nuclear solved nothing, it is just the most expensive way to generate electricity.
  • 3 0
 @FuzzyL: If you disregard air quality. No, its not ideal, but unless the same resources that went into fighting covid are pumped into renewables, it's an imperfect but not entirely worthless component of the solution in the medium term.
  • 11 21
flag RedBurn (Oct 24, 2021 at 11:07) (Below Threshold)
 MORE PROPS PLEASE solar and wind have zero future, so has the electric car. CO2 impact of a windturbine, solar farm or electric car is a DISASTER compared to nuclear energy and fossil fuel cars, what the liberal media industrial complex wont tell you. Stop indoctrinating our children!
  • 11 4
 @Minikeum: One solution that nobody is discussing here is a scaling back of energy consumption, resulting in a significant scaling back of lifestyles, by most of the worlds wealthy population. Greed is the issue here, not supply, as is the norm.
  • 1 2
 @mtb-scotland: When the wind blows.....and it can pay its train drivers and garbage collectors. Place is a basket case.
  • 2 1
 @thenotoriousmic: What a load of rubbish. Its formed through the break down of lead metals generally and there is pathway from exploration, potential, resource to reserve. We have mush greater than 5 years of Uranium supply for word power in the world.
  • 1 3
 @FuzzyL: umn what? I never said anything of the sort. You responding to a different person, or having a break with reality?‍♀️
  • 5 14
flag Baller7756 (Oct 24, 2021 at 13:06) (Below Threshold)
 @Minikeum: The time we have? Wow, I must have missed the count down to Armageddon. We will be just fine adapting to the planet’s environmental changes. We will farm the areas that become fertile with the changes… it’s natures own crop rotation. Kinda like it’s all by design…
  • 3 2
 @FoesKnows: train drivers get a shit load of money
  • 2 0
 @mtb-scotland: Point was we are talking about the planet, pulling out that some country with less population then major cities is useless.
  • 3 1
 @Chuckolicious: it was under the assumption we only used nuclear to meet our current demands ether way I’m not seeing anything past 200 years and most are between 50-100 worth of fuel left anywhere on google so it’s still not an long term option.

I don’t know which part is irresponsible but I’ve got two nuclear power stations in my city and they built before learning what to do with all the waste so basically they just bury it and hope the future generations know what to do with it, pretty irresponsible not to mention they’re still dumping nuclear waste into the pacific because someone built a power station they didn’t fully understand.
  • 7 0
 @Minikeum: You keep saying that nuclear waste isnt a problem with new reactors but what you are not talking about is that fact that 90% of the waste from the nuclear industry isnt spent fuel. Its linings, control rods, gloves, overalls, boots, and pretty much anything else used in a reactor complex. I know this because I was involved in the UK's legacy waste disposal conceptual design. There is already a huge volume of this stuff (plus the few thousand tonnes of spent fuel rods) and it all has to be disposed of safely.
  • 2 5
 @thenotoriousmic: All that is exactly why Gen 4 reactors are the shizzy. Burn all that waste before delving into the remaining planetary reserves. What's not to like?
  • 2 1
 @pwadjo: Indeed. But what's the half life of all that stuff compared to spent fuel?
  • 8 5
 @pwadjo: Nuclear waste is a minuscule problem compared to runaway climate change. Deep geologic repositories will hopefully succeed in containing nuclear waste until the radioactivity is gone, but even if they don't, a bit of radioactive leakage is small potatoes compared to our planet ending up like venus. Fear from radioactivity is generally overblown. Guess how many people died from radiation exposure from the Fukushima accident in 2011? One. We'd be better off if the public was less fearful of nuclear power and more fearful of f*cking up our atmosphere.
  • 4 4
 @Minikeum: cheer up! we could always farm in what where once cooler climates, so there's that.... plus the ridding season will be longer. Oh and it states in the Bible that they were always be 4 seasons till the end of time.
  • 1 3
 People that still don't understand that wind turbines are completely catabolic are the same kinds of people that think burning "biomass" is cleaner than petroleum based fuels.
  • 5 0
 @TheOriginalTwoTone: @TheOriginalTwoTone: I'm a solar guy so I'm going to talk solar. How about 21,000 sqmi to power the USA. Or, about half of what oil/gas takes up today [and this data is 3 years old, same principles apply]
www.freeingenergy.com/how-much-solar-would-it-take-to-power-the-u-s

How much of this can we install using roofs instead of land?
[most of it if we try.]
  • 5 0
 @dthomp325: Did you ever hear the old saying that nuclear would be "too cheap to meter"?
HA, solar beats utility nuclear even in New England. Today!
So nuclear compared to alternatives is more expensive. Check.
Then's there this from @Uncled which proves that humans may not be 100% reliable with anything. Because that would be impossible, because we are human. And what does less than 100% look like? Well, so far... en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country
  • 2 1
 @TheOriginalTwoTone: Scotland is a beautiful country...full of grumpy, self-righteous narcissistic nationalists
  • 6 0
 @plaquedepourpre: LOL wait until you meet the English. They’re all that but worse and to make matters worse the country is a shit hole.
  • 1 1
 @BenPea: Yeah just f*ck it off into space.
  • 3 4
 @kevinturner12: Our government has sold out our country to profiteers to score PC points.
Huge areas of untouched nature, absolutely ravaged by huge windfarm projects, all wildlife in the areas touched by it, gone.
And with all that destruction, about the same power production as a single dam.
Windpower can lick my hairy balls, get that shit out of here.
It is not the solution.
Carbon footprint isn't everything, and it's extremely overhyped, yes it matters, no it doesn't matter as much as you're told.
  • 2 1
 @Chuckolicious: "even hydro"...
Dude, you only have to close the gates to store the enegy, with no loss unlike with batteries.
  • 4 0
 @Uncled: That list includes "One of the two safety related component cooling systems of Cooper Nuclear Station was unable to operate, because its service water system, that takes water from the river, was plugged with silt." So a redundant system was able to continue functioning due to a natural occurrence.

Also, if you omit the major nuclear power accidents (which are statistical outliers) there are actually a surprisingly low number of fatalities associated with nuclear power accidents.

Geothermal, wind, and solar aren't going to replace coal, oil, or natural gas any time soon. Nuclear is our best chance to mitigating climate change. Sadly, the general public's opinion of nuclear energy has been tainted by sensationalist media and a few isolated incidents that likely occurred due to design flaws and mismanagement.
  • 1 0
 @plaquedepourpre: that's plenty from you san
  • 3 1
 @snomaster: "solar beats utility nuclear even in New England. Today!" This may be true at low grid penetration of solar (low percentage of the grid powered by solar) but at high grid penetration, like I've been saying, the cost of solar and wind becomes extremely high. It takes a lot of power transmission and storage infrastructure to handle the intermittency of solar and wind at high grid penetration. Nuclear is more affordable as baseload power in the vast majority of places. We need both renewables and nuclear for reducing our emissions. It's not a one or the other kind of thing.
  • 1 0
 @TheOriginalTwoTone: truly. we only need a few thousand of the scots around anyways, to keep producing whisky. lol
  • 2 0
 @TheStabbyCyclist: You say it like there’s just been a few little hick ups not huge parts of Eastern Europe being inhospitable for thousands of years or that they haven’t been poising the pacific on an industrial scale for the last ten years. Hardly a few isolated incidents is it? The general public are correct, nuclear power stations aren’t safe.
  • 1 0
 @Losvar: except in drought situations. Which is happening to hydro projects all over the world now.
  • 3 1
 I've opposed nuclear energy since the 80s, but I'm now willing to concede that nuclear provides a solid baseline of energy generation. Without it you're almost inevitably going to need gas/coal to meet peak demand.
  • 3 1
 Agreed. Its inevitable, particularly if we're going electric; which many seem to think is the future. If electric is the future then one thing is certain....we're going to need more - way wore - electricity. From a climate change standpoint, that means you need MORE power and LESS carbon. There's no way renewables can deliver that on any sort of realistic time frame. Indeed, the entire reason why many support renewables is b/c they prefer a low power future for reasons more philosophical and moral than environmental.

If anyone thinks climate change is an existential threat that needs solutions yesterday, you're not serious if you don't support nuclear power.
  • 3 2
 @mtb-scotland: Renewables are dirtier than nuclear, cradle to grave.
  • 2 1
 @Chuckolicious: Go look up the annual power output of the largest solar farms in the world. No matter which way you slice it, renewables are pretty bad options for the grid. There's promise for renewables in the residential sector however.
  • 1 1
 @no-good-ideas: That's b/c these are just amorphous bromides, not solutions. If you think climate change is a five alarm fire crisis, waiting on some political/social/cultural mass revolution and/or the general unwinding of modernity as we know it is not a serious solution.
  • 1 1
 @Minikeum: and 71% of that 29% is Hydropower. So ~9% is from solar and wind. 9%. think about the tens of thousands of windmills, 1000's of square kilometers of earth covered with solar panels.....9%.

anyone that thinks we can green our way to zero emissions is a so out of touch, it's beyond even attempting to convince. Math doesn't lie.
  • 2 1
 @burnermtb: We’re just dumb bald primates who’s to preoccupied with collecting slave tokens to do anything about the environment. We’ll run out of oil, we’ll squander our resources, we’ll kill each other fighting over the scraps and they’re will be a huge population fall off and we’ll be back on horses.
  • 2 0
 @cedric-eveleigh: you are kidding yourself thinking nuclear might be more affordable. And I cannot trust the human race to handle something like nuclear waste over the long term The risk is always there. Wind and solar become much more predictable and reliable when dispersed over larger areas. And with hydro as a baseload, why do we need nuclear at all? We don't.
  • 3 0
 @snomaster: Hydro power has many, mannnnnnnyyyy drawbacks. Look at the history of the Columbia river basin for a little lesson.
  • 2 0
 @snomaster: In most places in the world, there aren't enough hydro resources to provide all baseload power. You're right that wind and solar become much more predictable when dispersed over larger areas, but these areas need to be continental in size, in which case the transmission and storage infrastructure becomes extremely expensive. It's far wiser to trust the human race to handle nuclear waste than to drastically change our atmosphere and see what happens. I took a graduate course on the topic of nuclear waste so I have some appreciation of the engineering that goes into deep geologic repositories for storing nuclear waste. Nuclear power is an great tool for reducing emissions and we should use it along with wind, solar, and hydro.
  • 2 0
 @snomaster: it's not the human race, it's the section of the species that is good at gaining power and misusing it for the benefit of the few. There are a lot of great brains out there, they're just not hooked up to the political grid, pun intended.
  • 2 1
 @thenotoriousmic: I'm just not this cynical about the "human race" but, I do think your nihilism is, in part, a byproduct of environmental alarmism which, ironically, hurts progress on environmental issues. If humanity is just a bunch corrupt, violent, "bald primates" dead set on destroying the world, what's the point in saving it?
  • 1 2
 @burnermtb: So, you missed the multiple times I've said that renewables are only part of the solution, and nuclear for baseload makes a whole lot of sense? Especially Gen 4 reactors burning our current stockpiles of nuclear waste?
  • 1 3
 Wind turbines require thousands of gallons of non-recyclable lubrications as well as the blades NOT being recyclable. This is not the answer everyone thinks it is.
www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills


Also, Danny is a beast
  • 2 0
 @philneuve: Those issues with wind turbines are insignificant compared to the problem of climate change. Wind power, just like nuclear and the rest, should be used to reduce our emissions.
  • 1 1
 @BenPea: LOL. anyone that whines about all the powerful people taking advantage of the poor little prols, is for sure someone that will never make anything of their lives. Keep being a victim and people will keep victimizing you.
  • 3 0
 @conoat: Don't worry about me, I'm all good. I've no reason to vote for better wealth distribution, but I also think it's important to think about how not to completely f*ck up the places people live in. I refer you to your lovely British beaches on this fine day. Keeping the planet inhabitable is not at the forefront of the concerns of politicians who tend to favour capital over people. I realise a lot of people think that's just fine (enough to put some real f*cking clowns in power on occasion... LOL)
  • 2 1
 @philneuve: That's old news. Blade recycling is a thing. GE just signed a huge contract, and Vattenfall just made a huge announcement.
  • 3 0
 @snomaster: Since you missed the part where the article was about electricity usage, not power. Someone did the math for you in the comments. I'm ok with it since it eliminates CA.


I think that the title may be a bit misleading… there are lots of energy uses which are not included in that 4 petawatt-hours/year figure (which mearly looks at “electricity usage”.

Total U.S. energy consumption (all end-uses, so this includes transportation that Steve was asking about as well) is about 97.3 quadrillion BTU or 28.519 petta-watt hours. www.eia.gov/state/seds/archive/seds2016.pdf

That works out to needing about 151,500 square miles (not including battery area) which is nearly the area of California.

I think this points to the need to pursue a balanced clean-energy portfoilio including solar, wind, batteries, hydro, and nuclear. (it would take around 3,255 square miles of nuclear plants, for example)
  • 1 0
 @Chuckolicious: I'd love to see the math on the energy required to recycle blades over the lifetime of a turbine, vs. how much we get from it.
  • 1 0
 @Chuckolicious: Technology for recycling is one thing, scaling it up is quite another. Consider, for example, that the vast majority of ordinary household items that are far more recyclable than wind turbines, do not get recycled NOT because people fail to properly sort their recyclables (most do and most municipalities have recycling programs and have had them for decades), but because mass recycling programs are notoriously difficult to scale to market. So they end up, sadly, just getting dumped on developing countries - particularly now since China no longer takes our recycling. And it's not just wind turbines, it's these massive batteries and solar panels - each of which are choked full of really toxic stuff, heavy metals, etc. Perhaps the technology can be developed to recycle all of this, but considering that we're already terrible at recycling something as simple as cardboard, the prospect of super high tech, massive recycling facilities to handle an onslaught of material waste from renewables is cause for skepticism, putting it lightly.
  • 1 1
 @Chuckolicious: Sure, but the question really becomes, why even put much effort into something that, as a grid based solution, performs so poorly? The biggest solar farm in the US would barely power a couple 100K homes. Again, we're, ostensibly, dealing with an existential crisis. Do we really think its feasible (much less desirable) to lay down wind and solar on like every square inch of open ground on any sort of realistic time frame? The land use constraints alone are incredible.

It strikes me that if we're supposed to act yesterday, nuclear, natural gas, and carbon capture, are most feasible ways to rapidly de-carbonize a modern economy.
  • 2 0
 @burnermtb: the earth doesn’t need saving, it will be fine no matter what we do to it, it just won’t be habitable for 8 plus billion people and good riddance if you ask me. We’ve had 300 thousand years and this is the best we can do? it’s time for us to stave ourselves off and make room for the next intelligent species to evolve.
  • 4 1
 @TheStabbyCyclist:

"Sadly, the general public's opinion of nuclear energy has been tainted by sensationalist media and a few isolated incidents that likely occurred due to design flaws and mismanagement."

As a fan of nuclear, it's important to steel man the concerns over nuclear. Boomers in particular lived through the worst of the cold war. This had an understandable lasting effect, emotionally, for a lot of boomers. I was barely alive for the tail end of the cold war and, increasingly, most people alive today have little to no understanding of what it was like living under cold war conditions. But, I'm sympathetic to why a lot people are hesitant towards nuclear to this day, given the history.

Of course, ideally, emotions shouldn't drive policy. Most "60's" anti-nuclear views are incredibly outdated. The regulatory reforms instituted in the 70's had the effect of artificially stagnating the industry - which had the effect of SLOWING environmental progress in nuclear. 4th-5th gen nuclear power is a great thing but, it's somewhat bitter sweet when you consider that they could have been online decades ago if not for environmentalists.

Nonetheless, the human condition is what it is. People are emotional. The public's introduction to nuclear power, unfortunately, was as a weapon of potentially planet killing destruction. That potential is still with us. The hypothetical destructive potential of nuclear power is so great that it is unavoidably going to garner resistance.

All that said, I do feel the tide is turning. The truth has a way of being stubborn and I personally think the need for nuclear power is inevitable and desirable really. The more we focus on decarbonizing the developed world, the more likely we'll be heading towards nuclear.

If anyone is looking to get into a good industry for the future, I'd say nuclear is a good bet.
  • 3 1
 @thenotoriousmic: I always find the dynamic of people calling for the "starving off" of massive numbers of people seemingly don't include themselves in that calculation.
  • 2 1
 @burnermtb: How'd you miss offshore? In fact, the biggest projects going in both domestically and internationally are offshore. That's where wind wins on so many levels. It's even an amazing boost for the local oceanic ecosystem and fishing. And just so happens the majority of our populace (US) in on the coasts. Natural gas is an immediate stop-gap but generally awful. Carbon capture? I mean, sure, it's a technology. To deploy on the vast scale necessary to absorb gigatonnes of CO2? Talk about not really feasible.
  • 2 1
 @burnermtb: Umn, you've got it literally backwards. The concentrated and controlled nature of giant blades is what makes it much easier to recycle. The actual tonnage of "blade" material is literally insignificant compared to the tonnage of most other items. But then there's a lovely consumer level outlier: the venerable lead acid car battery. It is the #1 most recycled item on the planet. In excess of 95% of them are recycled.

Your thing about "toxic" this and that regarding batteries and PV, come on, give it a rest. Batteries are virtually 100% recyclable and there's huge money on the table for that. Redwood Technologies is just one company ready to make a mint off this. And you say that while also touting natural gas??? Really? Dude, I'm getting troll vibes now.
  • 1 0
 @burnermtb: Yeah, it's all fun and games until someone eats your children.
  • 1 0
 @burnermtb: well we’ve got about 70-100 years worth of oil left before the downfall of civilisation so I might narrowly avoid it but I’m definitely up for some post apocalyptic zombie slaying so fingers crossed I don’t.
  • 2 0
 @Chuckolicious: Off-shore wind projects in the US are [in]famous for how epic the struggle has been to actually build them. Unlike China, the US is quite developed, with a lot of environmental (ironically), zoning, and private property laws/regs - all of which grants an incredible amount of power to various parties to stall these massive projects. This is precisely what we saw with the off-shore project near MA. Of course, there's a lot of hope that with recent federal approval of that project (after like over a decade of fighting in court and various federal agencies), this will somehow translate into a windfall of projects. But, there's no guarantee that's true. Each wind project is subject to the same basic approval process MA went through and every coast line present the same fundamental challenges as existed in MA. But even setting this aside, Biden has set a goal of 30 GW from off-shore wind by 2030. That, in and of itself, it incredibly optimistic - give the history of off-shore wind projects. But even if achieved, it barely puts a dent in total US energy demands. Again, we're told we're in a "crisis". If that's what a crisis looks like, that's a terrible return on investment.
  • 2 2
 @thenotoriousmic: Yeah, like most "population bomb" types, it appears that "someone else" has to die, not you. It's like when I see people who are like retired, married, had 3 kids, live in the burbs, calling for others not to have kids, strict population restrictions, for humans to "die off". The irony of this seems lost on these types. I mean, not to be dark or anything, but if anyone is really serious about the need for people to just "die", then there's a pretty easy way to get started on that...
  • 2 1
 @Chuckolicious: So, you're comparing small, lead-acid car battery recycling with lithium ion battery (LIB) recycling and just assuming that, once again, we'll just be able to scale up that recycling easily - all the while, in a "carbon free" world. This is, putting it lightly, not at all assured. Best estimates currently are 5% globally of LIB's are recycled and given the EV market, the first mass round of LIB's reaching their of their life cycles are coming up fast. The LIB recycling process is a lot more complex relative to lead-acid batteries, and presents unique challenges - most notably, a much higher tendency to explode. The process itself presents, without the best technology/practices available, much room for environmental harm - as we see in places like China.

This of course, doesn't account for the mining that's involved which, in and of itself, presents a serious environmental hazard. But, once again, reliance on heavy metal mining makes the US that much more reliant on a supply chain which, as we see today, is very vulnerable and frequently outsources to actors that are NOT environmental conscious (namely China).

It's not to say it's impossible. We could gear up massive recycling plants. But on what time frame, and what cost? Again, we're in a "crisis".
  • 2 0
 @winko: You are throwing out a red herring fallacy that you fell for, or you are trying to mislead. Please also talk about the worst part of other energy sources like coal, nat gas, oil and nuclear.

Just a few easy ones for you to start with...coal ash, air pollution, water pollution, oil spills, coal mining impacts, oil drilling/extraction equipment, oil refining sites, (and disposing of them when they are no longer used), transporting of oil/gas across nations and the world (and disposal of the equipment used for transport...i.e. tanker ships, trucks, pipelines, trains, drilling rigs).
  • 3 1
 @burnermtb: "So, you're comparing small, lead-acid car battery recycling with lithium ion battery (LIB) recycling and just assuming that, once again, we'll just be able to scale up that recycling easily "

Umn, what? I didn't say anything of the sort. Please re-read my comment for comprehension.

And yes, mining is factored into any LCA for LIBs. You know what an LCA is, right? And again, you failed to read my comment for comprehension. Seems to be a trend. The private sector is the one leading the LIB recycling charge. Why? Because big big monies!

But virtually everything you're saying is contradictory and inaccurate nonsense. Again, a big trend with you. What I'd love to know, and you'll never cop to, is: to what end?
  • 2 0
 @burnermtb: I definitely don’t exclude myself and I’m not jumping off a bridge, I’m happy to sit out my days being as cancerous and as toxic as everyone else. Like I said in the long term the planet will recover no matter how badly we f*ck it up.
  • 2 0
 I remember a few years ago when the comments were filled with people pretending that climate change didn't exist, or arguing that it wasn't caused by humans. I don't know if you're right about nuclear energy or not. But i'm glad that the conversation has shifted to actual solutions.
  • 3 1
 Eh. Nuclear is part of the answer. We need it for base load generation, but not in the form that we are most accustomed to. We need to phase out the style of fissile nuclear power generation that we've been using since the 1960's and transition to molten salt modular nuclear reactors and fully automated operation. Going that route largely solves the radioactive waste problem, and vastely mitigates the safety hazards. Problem is, $/MW nuclear is just stupid expensive, takes forever to design and construct, is very maintenance intensive, and is equally expensive to decommission. Not the mention all the issues that come from mining and enriching Uranium. Fusion may come about, but it has a long way to go, and as we have already observed just in it's development, it is extemely expensive to produce a tokomak reactor, which ultimately still just boils water. There needs to be vastly more research in thermoelectrics to get around the inefficiencies of mechanical conversion to electrical power and remove precious fresh water from power needs. We also need to grossly increase our reliance on geothermal power.
  • 2 0
 @gline1234: No one thing is the answer. The answer lies is a diverse array of clean solutions.
  • 1 0
 @Minikeum: The great challenge of distributed energy, it take A LOT of smallish generators to equal the output of a centralized fossil fueled generator. Yes there isn't likely to be 2.8 million gigantic wind turbines deployed across the world, but, I fully expect nearly half or more of that needed generation will come from some form of renewable energy eventually. Expect to see a greater interest in tidal, wave, run-of river, and low head hydro as we start to run out of feasible opportunity for wind and solar. Also expect to see growth in the co-location of Solar PV and agriculture. Turns out they coexist quite nicely. Also expect to the growth of liquified hydrogen as an exportable energy good as a replacement to crude oil. That will be the new crude oil/ natural gas of the 21st century and beyond.
  • 1 0
 @vinay: Turns out there are other fissile reactor types that can both use old radioactive waste as fuel and produce no or next to no waste. We can thank the US Military for selecting the style of reactor that is now ubiquitous across much of the world. They could have just as easily pursued one of half a dozen or so other designs that produce far less waste and are much safer to operate. They chose the one they did because well amongst many reasons it was cheap comparatively and environmental preservation and long term implications we not something of concern in the 1960's.
  • 2 0
 @SuperHighBeam: Yep, I already mentioned Agrivoltaics. Expect it to see a boom in the coming decade.
  • 1 0
 @no-good-ideas: Aha that is a solution indeed. It would be great to buy something and use it for several decades and refrain from buying useless garbage before Halloween/Christmas. But don't stop, let us develop your logical chain a bit further. You end consumption economy and then - then what is billion of people in China/Vietnam/South Korea/etc who are occupied by making things which should be changed every couple of years if not months going to do? If we stop eating chocolate and transport fruits from southern hemisphere - what are those people going to do with all the cocoa/bananas/etc which they have in abundance and cannot consume anyways?
  • 1 0
 Double post, somehow. Sorry.
  • 12 0
 I'm not anti-nuclear, but the idea that the production emissions of renewables aren't offset in their lifetime is an unfortunate and persistent myth.

Over their lifetime, the total emissions (including construction and decommissioning) of renewables are at least 10 times lower (in some cases nearer 100 times lower) than those of fossil power plants per unit of electricity produced. The same is true of nuclear. Renewables are getting lower impact all the time as production efficiency, recyclability and longevity improve.

Sources:
www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/post/postpn_383-carbon-footprint-electricity-generation.pdf
twitter.com/hausfath/status/1253173001069068290/photo/1
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364032114005395
  • 1 0
 Ah bummer, it my post appeared double so I edited it above. But the original post is gone now too. In short(ish), back in the days I worked on a project where we had a team advisor called Wubbo Ockels. He was actually a nuclear physicist by trade but like many astronauts (he was on the last successful flight with the Challenger orbiter) he focused on caring for the earth instead. One approach obviously is to cut down on consumption, yet his approach was to find ways to sustain a luxurious lifestyle without depleting earth. And he wasn't interested in the nuclear approach. One project he came up with was the so called laddermill. James May once did this interview with him:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=caNVMCeCoJM
Basically, kites at high altitude catch more wind and drive a dynamo on the ground with a tether. Of course you're creating a bit of a no-fly zone but it shouldn't be too hard to enforce that. I trust fewer people are interested to see what happens when you fly your helicopter into a tether than there are who want to see what happens at Area 51. I thought it was a cool project. After his death in 2014, I went to his memorial and learned how challenging the project actually is and how much spin-off it has generated. Apparently the knowledge of the aerodynamics of kites was limited at the time and the control theory to control several kites on the same tether was a big challenge too. Not sure what stage the project is at now but I do hope it works out eventually.

A middle ground is what Ampyx Power (ampyxpower.com) is doing. I thought it was a crowdfunding campaign I chipped into but apparently I'm an investor now Wink . I just don't understand too much of that kind of stuff. But what Ampyx does is use a single unmanned plane on a tether and fly it at a lower altitude. So you won't be tapping into the full potential that the laddermill has, yet at the same time it is something that is much easier to implement and regulate. From what I understand, they're currently testing the system in Ireland.

So my point is, there are different ways to generate electricity from wind and just because the conventional mills don't deliver doesn't that the concept of wind energy as a whole is flawed.
  • 1 0
 @vinay: Yes there are a multitude of ways to capture the energy in wind, and yes the wind velocity generally increases as you go up in altitude to a point (pretty well diminishes by 50,000ft). I have heard of the kite concept before, but the problem to my recollection, was that yes A) it creates an airborne obstacle that is not stationary in space and B) the energy generated per kite is generally quite low, meaning you'd need big fields of kites to get any meaningful generation happening. Plus there's the added complexity of deploy/ retract to find high velocity, and finding locations where residents would be accepting of the technology. Renewables, in general, but particularly wind, face the ongoing issue of a mentality of "not in my backyard", and yet proximity to developed infrastructure is necessary for grid connection. Quite the catch .22.
  • 2 1
 @SuperHighBeam: Yeah, the question is, how much of a deal should A be at this point? Navigation technology has come some way these past decades so you'd expect aircraft to be able to respect a no fly zone by now. I can't comment on whether or not kites are able to generate a lot of energy, but it seems to me that it largely depends on the kite being used. If it applies a lot of force (which some definitely do) and you allow them to spin a generator then that would result in a good bit of energy, shouldn't it? As for whether it is complex, yeah for sure I get that Smile . Regarding the resistance of resident, from my understanding these are mostly concerned about the low frequency noise regular windturbines generate and possibly also birdstrikes, which I'm curious about too. I understand vultures and other large birds can get hit by turbine blades as apparently these are hard to gauge for a bird, can't tell about the damage if they hit a tether at speed. But tethers for these powerful kites seem scary so yes, I get that may be a concern. As for the noise, can't tell really. I never heard much of a sailplane passing by at 200m or higher and the ground station is probably easier to isolate than a conventional windturbine, but I can imagine a tether in the wind may generate sound.

I did a quick search and indeed couldn't find any actual real life tests with a full laddermill. But as said, there has been a lot of spin-off. One I found is Kitepower (thekitepower.com) who do more or less the same as Ampyx does, just with a kite. But indeed with a single kite and just like Ampyx, below 400m altitude.

The infrastructure issue doesn't just go for kites obviously. Whether it is a conventional windturbine, a coal plant or a nuclear plant, you don't want to have these too close to a residential area. Heck, even oil and gas usually aren't mined close to where it is being consumed. So if this (the logistics challenge) is considered acceptable for one means of power generation then it goes for all of them. What we're seeing is that conventional windturbines in particular are installed offshore. Seems like a big deal to build a construction like that in the sea, but clearly it is doable. However, Ampyx works with a floating base station (arrester, launcer, generator etc) so it faster to deploy and also to move. As for the actual logistics you mention, what I'm hearing is that more installations these days aren't built to pump electricity through a cable, but to generate hydrogen (and oxigen) right away through hydrolysis and transport that. I suppose more than a few realize that fuel cells may be a better solution than lithium batteries for everything. Doesn't necessarily mean that it is less of a bitch to pump energy through a hose than through a cable (though at least you can pump using wave energy/motion), but at least there is less urgency. You can pump it away as it is being generated, you can maybe offload it onto incoming ships (don't know much about that scene, sorry) or if the offshore Ampyx system is temporary anyway, just store the hydrogen locally and bring everything home together.

Oh boy, TL;DR? Yes there are challenges but for many there are more than a few potential solutions that can be thought of that don't necessarily seem more difficult than what we already got ourselves into with our conventional sources of energy. Except for indeed the complete laddermill. That might actually be quite a challenge.
  • 1 1
 @Chuckolicious: Pink Bike just did a pole on sustainable bikes, carbon fiber frames, bars, wheels, etc. and batteries on e-bikes. Carbon fiber part production=CO2 emissions.
Each wind turbine has 3 giant carbon blades. Those blades cost more CO2 emissions than the bike industry in a year. Wind energy is clean, but the equipment to harvest it isn't.
  • 1 1
 @CyclingThe425: As mentioned many times by many people in this comments section, including myself, the LCAs would say otherwise. Those are actual facts, Maybe just take a moment to check that data out, then come back and let me know if you’ve had a change of heart.
  • 1 1
 @Chuckolicious:
Just thought I'd drop this here in case you hadn't see it. Fusion is coming.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KEwkWjADEA
  • 2 0
 @TheOriginalTwoTone: Yep. I called a guy out way down below for claiming research was stalled. The two big breakthroughs in the past year would say otherwise. Still 20-30 years before an operational commercial plant, though. IMO of course.
  • 2 1
 @vinay: I'd argue that power lines kill more birds than Wind Turbines, so the whole bird/bat killing thing is likely an overblown farce. Bottomline "Not in My Backyard" plagues all Power Generation concepts, but things that stand high in the sky are likely to see extra pushback. I can't imagine a single kite generator could produce much power, hence to get any meaningful amount of generation you'd need a large flying array of kites, and that would quickly become quite the spectacle. We'll see where it goes, but honestly I think the wind wobble machines (yes that's a thing) likely have a better chance of seeing the light of day outside of a pilot project.
  • 3 0
 @CyclingThe425: That's true for every form of power generation. In the grand scheme of things though the emissions created to manufacture wind turbines and solar panels is tremendously offset by the emissions they prevent during their operational life. Gotta keep things in perspective.
  • 1 0
 @TheOriginalTwoTone: Sure in like 20-30 years. They have yet to produce a reaction the yields more energy than it takes to start and sustain the reaction. Still waiting for the aha moment. Creating a fusion reaction is not hard (a high school science experiment can do it), creating one with significant energy output is hard.
  • 1 0
 @Chuckolicious: I'm not sure what you are making an argument about. Are you stating that Carbon Fiber bikes have a smaller carbon footprint than their Metallic Counterparts or are you stating that Wind Turbine production has a smaller carbon footprint than Carbon Fiber Bikes? I seriously doubt an LCA exists that compares the latter to things. The former on the other hand probably exists, the level of recursion would be important though as it takes a ton of energy to make metals/alloys. Carbon fiber fabric on the other hand I suspect is less carbon intensive.
  • 2 1
 @SuperHighBeam: What I’m saying is it is a silly and wrong thing for him to have said, seeing as how the carbon payback is literally 6-8 months and then a good 20 years of service thereafter. And yes, that’s factoring in blade replacement, maintenance, decommissioning, the whole LCA enchilada. The anti-wind and solar FUDsters and those who are simply ignorant are legion.
  • 1 0
 @SuperHighBeam: You can argue it, but link an actual source.
  • 2 0
 @TheOriginalTwoTone: yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

You’re the one making claims about something, it’s your responsibility to back them up, not someone else’s to prove your claims false.
  • 1 0
 @no-good-ideas: What claim did I make about Windmills killing birds?
Funny how you don't hold him to the same standard of proving his claim.
  • 1 0
 @TheOriginalTwoTone: you made a claim that something is “coming soon”, without evidence, then demanded a source for someone’s rebuttal.

Wtf you talking about birds for!
  • 1 1
 @no-good-ideas: Try to follow conversations, it's really not difficult.
He said "I'd argue that power lines kill more birds than Wind Turbines, so the whole bird/bat killing thing is likely an overblown farce. "
See the I'd argue part. Pretty obvious when I say you can argue it but link stats it's ties directly back to that comment.
  • 1 0
 @SuperHighBeam: Yeah I haven't done the math but I can go with the reasoning that there are stronger winds at higher altitudes. But as I mentioned the projects I'm seeing now are between 200m and 400m altitude whereas the original plan by Wubbo was in the order of kms altitude. Apparently that's too hard to realize at this point. But I actually do believe that these kites and planes at 300m altitude could be worthwhile. They're still at higher altitudes than these conventional windmills and it is cheaper and more flexible to install a ground station (or offshore floating station) with a plane or kit than mount a rotor to a tall mast on the ground or offshore.
  • 44 1
 Danny mac - the Risk assessment the guys at britwind will have done to allow you in a WTG let alone to ride along the blade pitched in the brake position must have been an interesting one! Props to them.

There are a lot of good comments above, there are a fair few silly ones. As some one who leads on the construction of large scale wind farms offshore i can confirm that an 8.0MW WTG will indeed power an average home for a day easily, in fact it will do a bit more than a days worth of energy, but most people can only deal with round numbers. Considering that these rotors do 13rpm, there is a significant amount of ziggys going in to the grid especially when you have large parks offshore. Balancing the grid is also getting easier and new models of WTG can offer frequency response to help prop the grid up where required, so the comment about additional impact on the grid is also being mitigated.

There is always the comment about carbon payback, truth be told, even after extracting the ore, making the steel, shipping 2/3rds of the way round the planet, believe it or not, the latest wind turbines will pay back all their cabin footprint, plus all the construction vessel impacts in around 4 years, you then get a further 21 years of carbon neutral energy. Note: most wind farms will get lift time extensions also so that number increases.

But...... as an engineer, i can tell you that wind, solar alone is not enough, there will always need to be the ability to instantaneously put base load in to the system at the turn of a dial, and nuclear is one way, some countries are lucky and can have hydro they can turn on and off a peak times, not every countries Power make up will be the same and people need to recognise that.

what i also see is the benefits that key board warriors/ media don't, its the increase in marine life within the wind farms as a result of reduced trailing / fishing. its the fact that children accept them as normal and ask lots of questions about them and how they work..........

biggest question we get though, "what can i do"............ Simple, "Don't just consume"............ turn the lights off, don't leave them on for that 1hr longer than needed. walk, ride don't drive, reuse or buy second hand. sure the new santacruze is nice, but if you buy it, use it every day till there is no more useful life in it before buying a new one........ power is one element of our consumption, our general consumption is also key, don't line Bezios's pockets, line some ones pockets local to you instead.
  • 40 0
 Lots of renewable energy experts on pinkbike
  • 27 1
 First I was amazed to see him ride a blade… so much that can go wrong. Then he rode THAT blade. Epic visuals as usual, but this is next level.

Danny you’re just awesome. And the more attention this gives to renewables, the better
  • 24 2
 The planet is fine,the people are fucked!!
  • 18 2
 An impressive video from Danny! However, I'd like to know whether the figure given contains wind/solar/tidal energy only or biomass as well? In the EU (and in the UK) wood pellet is considered renewable while it's hardly clean to burn 100-year old trees. In addition to this, older blades from windmills are now used as landfill as there is no effective way to recycle them (the material is so hard it's impractical to shred).
  • 4 2
 Plus multi millionaires ( like ex PM David Cameron) father in law getting £1000 a day to have on his land!
  • 16 2
 @ompete: I’d argue it’s better then them putting a coal power plant on their land isn’t it
  • 6 1
 Blade recycling is now a thing.
  • 4 0
 @kmoter Pellets are a good idea in my opinion. I’ve been told by someone in the industry they use the scrap wood from the lumber mills to make the pellets. I’d like to see more wood waste from tree harvest in the bush make it to become pellets. The slash gets burnt anyway
  • 2 1
 @stainerdome: in the UK though, we import our pellets from North America.
  • 2 1
 @stainerdome: Yeah not really true. Pellets use wood chips from a lumber mill. wood chips aren't waste. It's worth big money.

Slash wood gets burned because it would be a transportation nightmare and you would have to process to wash all of it. It's just not worth it
  • 3 0
 @stainerdome: They may use scraps, but there aren't enough scraps to produce it all. They are cutting down tress to do it.
  • 1 0
 @makripper: even with the transport, even if we cut down trees it’s more or less a carbon neutral fuel. I just see a lot of wasted fuel when it sounds like we need a solution
  • 2 2
 @stainerdome: definitely not carbon neutral.. takes alot of energy to produce pellets. The wood industry is all about efficiency and using everything possible. Transporting odd size garbage isn't efficient or worth while or it would already be done.
  • 2 1
 @makripper: I grew up in the PNW and watched slash piles get burned. seemed stupid then, still seems stupid. I get that it's a melange of roots, stumps and branches, and as such cannot economically be utilized. That said, just setting it ablaze seems about the dumbest use. Logging companies should have to mulch/chip it on site and spread it in the forest to slowly decay. Same over all CO2 release of course, but the nutrients go back to the soil in a natural way.

there is almost always a way to do things smartly as well as economically viable.
  • 1 0
 @conoat: yeah you must be right and all the companies involved in this massive industry are wrong. Go complain about burning coal in the states to make electricity instead
  • 12 2
 Or we could all just not all own realy expensive toys, phones, bikes, cars, pickups, chair lifts up mountains,uplift days via Land rovers, flights abroad to bike parks. Naaahh fuck the climate I want a turbo levo unrestricted... Yyeeeehaaa....
  • 14 5
 So, What is Pinkbike doing for the planet? You push "Climate Change on your members, but what are you doing about it? Flying people to events, purchasing vehicles with your logo all over them, promoting consumer culture non stop with your new and improved product reviews and check out articles. How about trying to get everyone to add an e-bike (moped)to their fleet. This video is coming from a guy who's job it is to sell us stuff we don't need just because he uses it. This is seriously asinine.
Shape up and promote biking for the activity and the joy it gives.
Stop promoting senseless consumerism and political issues.
  • 10 0
 All I want to know is did they attach the safety line from a helicopter or did some mad dog walk out there and attach it?
  • 12 0
 They rigged it when the blade was vertical, most linkely with rope access. Then the blade was rotated to horisontal.
  • 4 0
 @haggqvist: Ahhhh, makes sense.
  • 4 0
 I know the guys who rigged it. Yes, rope aVCRA was used, whilst the blade was vertical to rig a set of ‘tensioned lines’ from hub to blade tip. @haggqvist:
  • 1 0
 (Access not aVCRA…!)
  • 1 2
 No edited out the safety leash, would not go down well if Danny the film star fell?
Funny that Danny's old back pack sponsor did not have a parachute, because would have been better base jumpin off
However that has its own risks!
  • 1 0
 @haggqvist: Is the blade vertically up or down? I guess if it's down they could just rappel down, rig the line, and ascend back up? It's a long ways but that'd be pretty straighforward.
  • 9 2
 Pfff... Kyle Straight would huck it. Suicide no hander and all.. Just kidding. Wonderful creative stuff as ever. Love it!
  • 7 0
 Can't wait to have a thoughtful discussion around climate change with insufferable internet enduro bros.
  • 6 1
 #notallendurobros
  • 4 0
 I always come to pinkbike to educate myself on the most complex topics. At least here I can find answers that I can understand.
  • 6 0
 @t1000: yes yes, come to PB for the education. Stay for the sporadic bike content.
  • 4 0
 Danny Mac is becoming a bigger ambassador for bicycle riders, thanks for this Danny, my stomach dropped on that blade riding shot.
  • 6 0
 Awesome! Great topic and well done Danny per usual.
  • 6 1
 Last couple weeks in the news , Europe begging Russia to send more Natural gas. Lol
  • 1 1
 Apparently, wind turbines don't work when there is no wind... Who would have known?
  • 2 0
 Do you actually see any connection between natural gas, which is mainly used in Europe for heating as a more environmentally friendly alternative to oil, and wind turbines?
  • 5 0
 How much more energy does it take to manufacturer and run an e-bike rather than a normal bike?
  • 2 0
 Can't remember the numbers but a partial comparison (I think only form the manufacturing side) was in Trek's report published here on PB a while ago, should be easy to find. I recall it was a pretty big difference.
  • 2 0
 I work at a gas power station so get to see a different side of the energy sector and what is going on behind the scenes. I am all for going green but there are issues which are not talked about to the general public. We don't operate 24/7, in fact we might not operate for 2-3 weeks at a time. Instead we operate when there isn't enough energy being produced by wind or solar but we also operate when there is too much wind and solar energy to control the frequency of the electrically that is being produced. We are also in the process of installing a flywheel off of the generator to us up excess electricality produced by the wind at night when demand is low. The future will be all to do with energy storage so what will eventually happen is wind and solar will be used to product green hydrogen, store and then burnt by us when there is low wind and solar days. Any excess wind and solar produced in good day of production will be used to power carbon capturing plants to offset fossil fuel usage.
  • 4 0
 Danny Mac does it again, blows minds, sends a positive message, and (most amazingly of all) doesn't get hurt in the process.
  • 2 1
 As a person who works in the industry, I can tell you that is a small turbine. Also, yes recyclable turbine parts are a now a thing, but that doesn't help the blades that have been installed over the past 20 years which are not recyclable.
  • 1 0
 But they are via the grind and add to concrete method.
  • 1 0
 @Chuckolicious: I did not think of that, but that is fantastic to know
  • 3 2
 Awesome riding Danny!

As to all the discussion about living sustainably, clearly all you Internet enduro Bros haven’t got out of your basement lately, that phone/computer you’re using, the car you drive to the trailhead, the machines you use to keep your life tidy, it’s all part of the problem.

This discussion has been going on for a long time, I’m nearing sixty, it was already a recognized problem when I was a young lad, but sadly it only seems to have gotten worse.

So yeah, how’s this gonna play out for us?

All I can say is I am so glad I don’t live in a pllace where resources are limited and climate change is already problematic.

We just got an interesting book, The Ministry for the Future, a not so fictional depiction of where we’re going. Honestly, I couldn’t finish it, just too much reality, too close to the truth.

Instead of casting blame, look to yourself first. No one is free of blame.

Ah, to be a cockroach in the year 2300 AD
  • 1 0
 come on Hope Technology - get a shifter and derailleur sorted. Then we can get behind a campaign to stop buying Shimano/Sram - lower you prices a tad and supply to millions of UK/european bikers . Go on you've go the name/brand to do it Smile
  • 1 0
 Nearly 70% of the energy produced in the US is rejected as useless heat largely due to burning fossil fuels. If we had that kind of inefficiency in our bike suspension we'd all be screaming.

insights.globalspec.com/images/assets/389/13389/Energy_2018_United-States.png
  • 2 0
 I'm sure the insurance company were like "if you were a base jumper ALSO we'd let you just wear a parachute but you're not so its safety line or we CGI this".
  • 1 0
 I am glad he was on a line, and glad they didn't digitally remove it. I've seem these guys riding ledges of tall bridges and buildings, and I don't like it - I admire the skills but don't die for our clicks!
  • 1 1
 Wouldn’t it be easier to speed up global warming let mankind die out and let the remaining animals inherit and repopulate the world? Might get some interesting new species come about . . . Maybe Bezos and Branson can revisit to check their progress in the future?
  • 5 2
 plants like co2 btw save the forest, drive a car... to the forest then shred!
  • 1 1
 Very unpopular opinion, however I believe climate change is largely a bunch of baloney. This isn't because I believe it's untrue, it's more because to get to a truly "sustainable" level, it would involve each and every one or us accepting a way of life most of us wouldn't be happy with. Therefore it will never be fixed.
  • 1 0
 Come on you lemmings, climate change is called weather. There is nothing you are going to do about it. Worry about our real existential threat, out of control totalitarian government.
  • 4 2
 And then all the good energy is wasted with junk on social media (i.e. not Danny Mc content).
  • 3 0
 Or mining of crypto currency, using more electricity world wide than what whole of Finland uses.
www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/09/03/climate/bitcoin-carbon-footprint-electricity.html
  • 1 0
 Now power meters are spinning up all over the globe and the internet is stretching thin, all because Danny Mac drops another epic vid...
  • 1 1
 Only one person mentioned the weight of Danny’s balls? HTF the blade did not break under that kind of strain is a mystery to me! Next stunt, Danny riding next to Jesus…..on water!
  • 2 0
 For the sake of being fair and balanced, he should also ride through a coal mine.
  • 3 0
 My butt would have puckered so hard I'd became a singularity. Wow.
  • 1 0
 I laughed out loud. Bravo. Salute Geek
  • 1 0
 Klaus Schwab and the Davis group like this- the year is 2030. You will own nothing and you will be happy. Enjoy your globalist agenda.
  • 2 0
 Danny M got robbed a Rampage.
  • 5 5
 I believe Danny's amygdala in his brain is like's Alex Honnaold's. It just isn't working like the rest of us and they don't experience fear as we do.
  • 1 4
 I disagree, they just have more confidence in their abilities not to make a life ending mistake?
It is all relative, like crossing the road without paying attention to traffic can be more life threatening that what they do?
  • 5 1
 @aljoburr: Yes, that substantiates my point - their confidence is brought on by their lack of fear or rather how they experience/judge it. It is in Alex;s case as his brain scan showed that.
  • 1 1
 @neimbc: So what comes first confidence or fear?
Lack of fear is not a natural experience, just stupid but overcoming fear is!
  • 8 0
 @aljoburr: Just citing a science article on the subject demonstrating a possible biological reason why some people don't experience fear as most of us do. Nothing more. Be well.
  • 1 0
 @neimbc: Totally fine, this stuff really interests me, have done a fair amount of climbing, even though suffer from vertigo & is possible to block out fear, or let it kill you when your life depends on it
That is also very additive & have to keep pushing to get same satisfaction or die trying
But never really felt the need to push thing that far
  • 3 0
 @neimbc; Alex Honnold free climbs (no rope), Danny was connected to a rope. BIG difference!
  • 2 0
 Bruh. Honnolds climb is another level.
  • 1 0
 @PACNW-MTB: I doubt even Alex would walk out on the blade without precaution (smooth surface, nothing to grasp). Climbing is altogether another realm.
  • 1 0
 Doesn’t look like he’s running a tensioner on his bike anymore? Wonder how the chain keeps tight?
  • 2 0
 you only need a tensioner on full suspension bikes, hard tails have sliding dropouts
  • 4 0
 Witchcraft, like everything else he does.
  • 6 0
 @spicysparkes: His doesn't, he has a fixed position bolt through rear hub. He kinda got lucky that his chainstay length and gear ratio happens to be a pretty perfect fit without needing a tensioner, however that's with a new chain, he mentioned copying my tensioner idea if the chain becomes too baggy from stretching after a couple of weeks riding
  • 6 0
 @aliclarkson: Like I said.
  • 1 0
 Just have to make the chainstays the right length for the one gear that you want?
Added benefit is that never have to adjust anything & if your chain gets slack, you know it is time to change your chain!
  • 1 0
 @aljoburr: pretty much, I had input into the geo of the Inspired Hex 26” wheeled street trials bike, I know I use 22-18 gear ratio so I asked for a 380mm rear end as that’s as tight as possible to go with the chain and still get the wheel in the frame
  • 1 0
 @aljoburr: only issue with the chain stretching is that it happens pretty quickly, you’d be replacing chains every two weeks if you went by that rule haha, I ended up making myself a titanium leaf spring tensioner that weighs 16g to just add a little bit of tension to the chain after it’s stretched
  • 1 0
 @aliclarkson: Yes I do agree that tension on the chain changes a small amount on bedding in the chain, but not really stretch of chain, but would be interest to know if Danny used any adjustment or not?
So maybe you could ask him?
  • 3 0
 @aljoburr: you’d be surprised how much they stretch, especially with trials forces!

Danny has added quite a lot of Velcro tape around the chain, combined with an I9 Hydra hub with over 600 eg points the slack in the chain isn’t as noticeable
  • 1 0
 Those front flips he does blows me away, there's no jump or transition, he just bunnyhops really hard.
  • 2 0
 I do like the alloy recyclable bike used in the ad. Good job!
  • 14 14
 Renewable energy sources are not THE solution. Consuming less is the solution, MUCH less. Like it or not.
  • 26 0
 Not sure why you see those two things as mutually exclusive. We need both.
  • 4 0
 @WildboiBen: I don't think we can work our way out of the problem with technology or different energy sources alone. They're not the ultimate solution.
The way we're all wired, the unstoppable machine just keeps on churning out more junk for us to consume and we make ourselves feel better by justifying it with things like solar and wind power.
  • 1 1
 You mean, like bike stuff, technology, snd all that stuff?

Wow dude, you’re gonna be sad when you throw out that phone
  • 2 0
 @joshdodd: Fine point. The real threat that no one talks about is not a few degrees warmer climate… it’s over population. We will be piling up on top of ourselves way before the planets warming cycle becomes a threat to our survival. Food sources will be exhausted, fresh water limited, housing unavailable,, sickness… including regular pandemics… not to mention consumption exponentially climbing with the population.
  • 2 0
 @Baller7756: I think the population is generally in decline isn’t? Unless I’ve misunderstood something I’ve read. Or maybe it was just certain countries of the world.
  • 1 0
 @nurseben: I take your point and don’t disagree entirely. I was careful to include myself in the “the way we’re all wired” comment.
The point I was trying to make is that long term, renewables won’t solve the problem. We’ll still keep polluting and consuming while we all satisfy ourselves that recycling and using wind power makes it ok.
  • 1 0
 consuming less? you mean like maybe not riding a one off carbon trials bike to show off how environmentally concious we are? lol
  • 1 0
 @joshdodd: No and yes. The world population is still growing considerably. Generally 1-2% per year (compounding). In 1950 the population was around 2.5 billion… in 2020 is was around 8.0 billion. That’s a 3x increase in 70 years.

For some reason (lower fertility rates), the population growth is supposed to slow from this point and tapper off in 2100 at 11 billion. But that makes no logical sense… why would people stop making babies, reproduction is the primary purpose of life on this planet?
  • 1 0
 @Baller7756: @Baller7756: Population rates are declining in the developed world (the US is apparently below replacement rate). There's actually some schools of thought emerging that are worried about the reverse problem, underpopulation in the developed world.

It's happening for a multitude of reasons. "Infertility" can be misleading b/c it includes women who are infertile due to age. When thinking of the word "infertile", for many the image of a man or women of child bearing age being unable to have kids b/c of some sort of reproductive problem. This, of course happens (and may be increasing) but, what's happening rapidly is the average age of child birth is getting older and older. But, many people would be surprised by how short the unaided avg. female fertility window is. Starting around 30, the avg. woman experiences a serious drop off in fertility.

Put simply, the more developed nations become, the less kids they appear to have. That's b/c the more developed, the more individual autonomy to pursue your own thing (through birth control, education, jobs, etc.). This then pushes off things like child birth. But, nature doesn't care.

Most global population growth is concentrated in the developing world. The issue there is that they simply do not have the means of widespread reproductive control like we do in the developed world.
  • 1 0
 @Baller7756: We can do something about it or let 1% fix it, their solution is to remove 80% of world population by 2030 it is in the report!
Stop hunger & poverty by 2030
  • 1 0
 @aljoburr: IDK… when I think about it, I’m so thankful to live in the “peak” of human existence… the pinnacle of the society created by those before me.

The future looks bleak for next couple generations and beyond. They lack appreciation for what has been gifted to them.
  • 6 9
 This is very generous in how it speaks of renewables. The VAST majority of renewable energy comes from hydro. Wind turbines and solar panels also add a massive amount of waste to landfills once you're done with them.
www.irena.org/publications/2016/Jun/End-of-life-management-Solar-Photovoltaic-Panels

Yes, there is a place for solar and wind, but current by current world energy use, they don't even break 4%. ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix

Nuclear is the only long-term and real answer to this.
  • 13 2
 Maybe look for more recent info than 2016. Blade recycling is now a thing. Panel recycling is virtually a thing. Nuclear is not the "only" solution. There is no "only" solution. There is an integrated solution, consisting of solar, wind, hydro, tidal, geo-thermal, grid storage, and yes...nuclear. Stop with the binary nonsense.
  • 2 0
 I would much rather have some steel and composite materials sitting in a landfill than my house underwater after antartica melts. There is no 100% good. We are working towards the best compromise for waste -> energy.
  • 1 0
 *free rein (like a horse on the loose)
  • 6 4
 lets go brandon
  • 1 0
 i hope he wear his safety shoes!
  • 1 0
 Great song choice. Good to hear some love for the Joy Formidable.
  • 1 0
 INSPIRUARTIONAL!!!! THIS REMINDS ME OF WHEN 11-SPEED CAME OUT
  • 4 5
 Not a fan of renewable energy at its current state, but I do like the sick riding that Danny pulls off in every edit.
  • 9 10
 Maybe Danny should do a video of all the wind turbine blades being buried in Wyoming!!! CLown!
  • 4 3
 It’s WY, who cares?
  • 11 13
 Wind turbine probably the worst in terms of renewable energy;
Cost of building vs ougput, plus impact to the surrounding
  • 7 7
 @nickmalysh Nope, totally and completely wrong. Easy enough to find the analysis online, so what's your explanation?
  • 6 7
 @Chuckolicious: Chill with the complete denial of someone’s point. This person is not “complete and totally wrong”. What is suppressed and hidden from you “on the internet” is the fact that all of these new energy technologies are destructive in their own right. It’s just a rule of nature… matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. All you can do is convert it… and conversion has a negative impact on the environment any way you slice it… you gotta choose your poison so to speak.
  • 6 5
 @Baller7756: It's not denial, it's empirical fact. Wind is not the worst in terms of renewable energy. So if someone declares that 1+1=3, I'm going to tell them: "Nope, totally and completely wrong.". Hopefully that clears things up for you? As the the rest of your comment, I like apples.
  • 3 3
 @Chuckolicious: His/her point was about the cost. You couldnt wait to jump and claim your knowledge of the force superior, but you have no idea what they are referring to… but you know for certain that they are wrong. Could be talking about offshore turbines, could the talking about mega sized turbines, could be talking about land cost and land opportunity cost, could be talking about maintenance cost, raw materials cost… on and on.

What did you think about the 2+2=5 movement?
  • 2 6
flag Chuckolicious (Oct 24, 2021 at 16:35) (Below Threshold)
 @Baller7756: Dang, you with the declaring what my motivations are. You actually come across as triggered. Calm down. His point was two fold, which you seem to have missed. One was about cost. Which is empirically wrong. The other was some kind of reference to environmental impact. Which is empirically wrong. You picked the wrong horse.
  • 4 4
 @Chuckolicious: Your comment reasoning is a straw man fallacy. Wind power is not an efficient source of power. Takes up way too much land and doesn't produce enough energy. For example, I live near Altamont Pass wind farm which at one time was the largest wind farm in the world. It only produces 1.1 terawatt hours of yearly, yet takes up 37,000 acres of land. For reference, nearby city of SF is only 5384 acres. The nearby city of SF uses 5.8 terawatt hours yearly. Google uses 5.7 terawatt hours yearly. You do the arithmetic. If wind and solar were viable options, they would have already taken over the majority of the US and world's energy production in the last couple of decades.
  • 1 5
flag Chuckolicious (Oct 24, 2021 at 20:34) (Below Threshold)
 @tacklingdummy: oh vey. Such unabashed nonsense.
  • 2 1
 @Chuckolicious: it is expensive for residential comparing to solar/geothermal(depending on region)/ non renewable source ;

For commercial none disassemble old turbines, just build new ones and take shit ton of land , also require a lot of personal for maintenance which is typically not account in to kw cost
  • 1 2
 @nickmalysh: Depending on region. Any of them can be the most expensive if deployed in a sub optimum way. And of course upkeep and personnel are accounted for. What would you say it isn’t? And land? Come on. The other guy is a silly troll. But are you too? How about all those farmers making bank because of the turbines they allowed to go up on their land. Land they still farm, because, you know, growing stuff UNDER. the turbines? Sheesh!
  • 2 0
 @Baller7756: Agreed. And this maxim is precisely why the key factor with mitigating the inevitable "poison" emitted in creating energy is energy density. What you want is to produce the most energy with the least amount of fuel. In terms of energy density, nuclear wins hands down. Something like a coke can bottle of uranium can provide the energy needs of a typical person for a lifetime. Renewables, by contrast, are wildly energy diffuse. There may come a day where that changes, but not on any time scale that can rapidly decarbonize the economy, as we are told we must do like now.
  • 1 2
 @burnermtb: Wow, you really seem to live in a binary world. Weird, that, since the actual universe doesn't operate like that. Here's a thought: how about both? You can feel free to respond #mindblown.

Oh, as for your hand wringing about permitting for offshore US wind installations, this literally, and I do mean literally, hit my news feed just before I typed this. Seems like a good omen, no? electrek.co/2021/10/25/siemens-gamesa-us-first-offshore-wind-blade-factory

#sillytroll
  • 1 1
 @Chuckolicious: thnx for insight, is in they being subsidized by government? Wind plants decreased cost of kw for last decade sufficiently, however they are still are not nice part of landscape, and unfortunately for majority of time half destroyed turbines none remove, just build new, for example south from LA huge region dedicated to the wind farm, there just plenty of old (waste) turbines left here and there
  • 1 1
 @nickmalysh: Are there decommissioned turbines that have yet to be replaced? Sure. But they account for a tiny, tiny, TINY, fraction of installed turbines globally. Does this really concern you? As for aesthetics, whatever. Coal and Gas plants and their accompanying smoke stacks look good to you? Entire mountain tops being removed and the landscape turned into a dystopian hellscape to mine coal looks good to you? Polluted ground water from fracking, along with actual earthquakes, look good to you? Jeez!
  • 1 0
 The US federal government expected to lose 23.7 billion of taxpayer dollars in wind credits from 2016-2020. Countless examples of governments losing massive amounts of taxpayer dollars on solar and wind. Cuomo of New York has wasted an estimated 47 billion of taxpayer money on solar and wind projects.
  • 1 1
 @burnermtb: Hey man. Now this just hit my feed. I think your concern that offshore wind won't happen should be alleviated now, what with this and the other link I gave you a couple weeks ago. Right? electrek.co/2021/11/10/the-first-us-subsea-cable-plant-for-offshore-wind-farms-opens-in-charleston
  • 1 0
 @burnermtb: Hey homie. All good?
  • 2 0
 @Chuckolicious: Chuck my friend, I think it's cute, and I'm flattered, that you obviously feel like you "pwned" me. Because I'm a nice guy, I will indulge you.

Look, my point about off-shore wind was that's its regulatory approval history in the US is god awful. And it, undeniably, is. I also acknowledged the recent excitement in the industry about recent approvals. So, you pointing out a bunch of articles about big wind getting all excited about this recent approval is redundant. Of course big wind is excited about this and signing up contracts left and right. Victory, right? You got me.

Well, let's calm down a bit. It's certainly a positive step, this regulatory approval, but way too premature to declare victory. The big challenge, once again, is how diffuse this stuff is. Your own series of articles spells it out - 176 massive wind turbines generating, hopefully (which is a big hope, considering the inherent intermittence of renewables), 2.6 gw of power (yawn). Even if off-shore, that's a lot of real estate, materials, etc. to generate 2.6 gw of power compared to other, much more efficient, higher producing, and with less land/water use, methods. That alone is a problem. But, the bigger issue, for approval purposes, is that the more spread out your project, the more opportunity for all those pesky and varying interests to start objecting. Sure, 176 wind turbines sounds great on paper, but wait until that, along with a bunch of other massive off-shore wind farms start popping up all along the coast line. This is, as its sits, an inherent disadvantage....the more space you obstruct, the more likely you invite problems down the road. Everyone from coastal property owners, to fishing lobbies, to maritime groups, environmental groups, marine life groups, and on and on and on, have more opportunities to oppose and object given the gargantuan presence of wind turbines being envisioned off our coasts.

Energy production is a burden, no matter what we do. The goal, once again, is density. Confine the impact to the smallest space possible. The bigger the space, the more problems. It's inevitable.
  • 1 1
 @burnermtb: Oh man, wasn't meant as anything of the sort! And here I thought we were engaging in reasonable discourse. Sorry to have bothered you, apologies!
  • 7 10
 Climate crap, they keep feeding us this garbage .Antarctica’s coldest winter since they’ve been keeping records.
  • 3 2
 Please tell us what's buried under the ice. You've gotta be itching to.
  • 2 1
 Coldest winter ever on record, and you think you've got your proof that climate change isnt real. Alrighty then.
  • 3 0
 @BenPea: A slight uptick in volcanic tectonic activity metling ice as more deep mantle water is derived to surface and increasing CO2 composition. If you think mans impacts are changing climate in the face of being and across but 2% of the global energy systems you have such a poor appreciation of the world on which we live. But by all mean (no not really) turn us into an intermittent and unreliable basket case of energy supply as recently experienced across Europe.

Hey look over here, I can burn green forest pulp and its RENEWABLE. Facade and false. And just in time the Chinese leader while importing record Russian Gas and building massive Nuclear and Going HARD ON COAL calls the western world and says its imperative that we (you) destroy your economy and self sufficiency on unproven and un-scalable and land destroying dissipated energy sourcing.

The West is a dead, a conga line of suck holes all fighting over the new energy "gold rush" for financiers and bankers and the elite to further control society, and the institutions have been permeated with this BS for decades.
  • 1 1
 @FoesKnows: I have to admit I struggled to read that, which kind of undermines whatever general point you're trying to make. Tldr : "duh, the elite"?
  • 2 0
 @rallyimprezive: I see, but when we have a hot one, you use that to push climate change/global warming. Hypocrite!
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2021. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.030462
Mobile Version of Website