Wow, fantastic talk. The graphics were great snd a had to pause or rewind because they were so relevant. I follow clean tech in detail, but learned a lot in this presentation. So thank you Susan, and bo matter the auditorium crowd, 100x ate viewing and maybe influencing more. Susan, thanks so much for a fantastically educational lecture.
I hope we get some archaeological investigations included in the site investigations. These places were dry land 10-15 000 years ago and someone/something surely lived there.
Much more emphasis should be put on the environmental impact that offshore wind farms have. There are studies that show this impact on birds, fish, and mammals (incl. whales) - and that's just with the quantity that we currently have in the ocean. Imagine the impact with 20X that number. This is why it's so important for ideas to be considered in an interdisciplinary way, and for people with different areas of expertise to be part of the conversation.
Interesting talk. My design brain instantly goes to the thought that small efficient station-keeping thrusters well below the waterline could perhaps be used to minimize the tension on the mooring bases, no matter the method used. I don't know the balance of forces involved, but perhaps a portion of the wind energy captured and stored in batteries could be used to either assist or eliminate some of the need for moorings at all. It would knock off some of the overall efficiency of the turbine, but lessen the overall deployment cost dramatically.
1:09: 💨 Offshore wind can help us reach Net Zero by harnessing the winds that blow far above the seabed. 13:08: 🌊 The challenge of finding space for offshore wind farms in the ocean is explored. 25:55: 🌊 The installation of suction cases for offshore wind turbines has proven to be environmentally friendly and efficient. 37:41: ✨ The speaker discusses the use of traditional design and surrogate models to find optimal solutions for offshore wind systems and reduce tension and foundation footprint. 49:38: 🌊 Characterizing seabed resistance is a challenge for offshore wind due to its variability and vast area. Recap by Tammy AI
Excellent presentation! Please look into engineering concepts embodied by methods such as diamond pin foundations for underwater stability from the U.S., less material with far greater strength.
Thankyou for a very interesting talk. I always have many more questions at the end of a Talk compared to the start. I mentally imagined the how many Wind turbines would be needed ; the service life ; removal and rebuild time on the same space. A comparison with nuclear power stations would be 10s of thousands required ; 40 years service life ; 40 years removal ; 20 years rebuild in another location. I wonder how the :build , service, removal, and rebuild timescale of wind turbines at sea compared to other electrical energy systems.
Wow. Maybe net zero is attainable after all. That pantograph suction device reminds me of a tick. Nature got there first. Thanks for a whole lot of encouraging information. Brava!
Excellent, comprehensive presentation and great questions and answers afterwards. I think this may not be part of the overall ambit of the Royal Institution and not necessarily Susan's expertise (who otherwise is an excellent presenter), but some more analysis on the economic comparison of current and future hydrocarbon vs eco-friendly sources of energy would have been great.
The use of hydrogen for transportation was debunked years ago, and in fact for most uses. Remember hydrogen is not a fuel, it is a storage mechanism, and a dangerous one. Why use electricity to produce hydrogen inefficiently, rather than use the electricity directly at very high efficiency?
Rooftop solar is so great that offshore ways of harnessing renewables really helps us garner a better understanding of the flexibility and wide applicability of renewables.
Rooftop solar is so great that offshore ways of harnessing renewables really helps us garner a better understanding of the flexibility and wide applicability of renewables.
An increasing amount of material used in wind farms is renewable. Already, many turbines are recycled. Ask the same question about coal mines and their equipment, oil rigs, etc.
@@alana8863 You are comparing an inefficient energy source (wind & solar) with an energy source that has brought man to a technological age where we can now access nuclear energy.
Don't put all your eggs in the same basket. Just the carbon footprint in the steel's production required on offshore wind farms eye-watering. Put the bulk of the eggs in torium molten salts nuclear reactor, to achieve the green target, could be more wise.
Silly question maybe, but can we expect any negative effects from bleeding our energy needs out of wind currents? Could it result in additional warming, as the air flow is disrupted on such a large (and growing) scale?
Not a silly question at all, IMO. By installing these things we're increasing the net roughness of the earth's surface, and presumably, 'slowing' wind speeds as a whole. However, by felling the forests, have we (by the same argument) increased average wind speeds by smoothing the surface? I'm sure the earth is a windier place now, but is that because of increased temperatures, or decreased surface roughness, or both? Could we disentangle these effects? Do climate and weather models include a term for surface roughness?
It's a good question. The winds are a global transportation system. It moves moisture, pollen, spores, heat, dust, pollution, etc. When we convert wind to electricity, we remove energy from the transportation system. Keep in mind we humans believe most of our creations are better than sliced bread until they're not.
Always fascinated by humanity's obsession with fixing a "resource" issue by expending more resources. Like turning on air conditioning when the radiators are too hot.
Rooftop solar is so great that offshore ways of harnessing renewables really helps us garner a better understanding of the flexibility and wide applicability of renewables.
Not all of us use energy every day. More than a billion people are affected by energy poverty, and they barely use any energy and do not produce CO2. At the same time the richest 10% of the people use nearly 50% of the energy and produce nearly 50% of the CO2 too. The worse part is that much of this energy consuption by the rich is luxury energy consumption. Big and wastefull cars, frequent flights, wasted food, etc. This is why economic and consumption inequalities are key factores for ecological sustainability and for poverty reduction.
@@acmhfmggru "(mostly socialist governments, btw)" Wrong there! They are mostly dictatorships with right or far right leanings. Also it's wood that's used in the poorest countries as the normal household fuel not coal. Coal would be too expensive.
Consider subsidies and tax breaks fossil fuel industry gets before thinking renewable costs and user more. Consider opportunities for multiple use of land and ocean. Solar panels and wind turbine blades and the rest of them are recyclable.
For the entire hour, the speaker looked like she was holding back from giggling. It's probably because the ROI on windmills is so bad, you can't store the energy, and they have little ability to control production according to demand. I guess I would laugh all the way to the bank as well.
@@lvr8429 Almost 100% recyclable is infinitely better than the result of burning fossil fuels. Why do you believe we need to achieve perfection to get an improvement?
I started with Clipper wind power long ago. I have commissioned and repaired hundreds of turbines from Gamesa and Mitsubishi to Vestas. They are all a sham for profit and only make things worse around the world.
Would you opine on if we had smaller, more locally sourced and controlled wind farms with panels or blades and equipment that sustains better and longer than these giant monstrosities and money sinks? A genuine question from a disillusioned dude.
@@levinb1 Possibly but even the smaller turbines present problems. Strobing shadows, noise, and they rely on made in china throw away components at this time. I love the engineering, hate the reality of wind turbines and renewable in general. Solution is to stop plugging in 500hp teslas until we have a real solution to green energy. Until then, we use as little as possible. Stop manufacturing 1000hp cars and trucks, back off war machine production, throttle back the military industrial complex and more.
I don't care what you've done, these turbines are getting cheaper and cheaper, the energy they produce is getting cheaper and cheaper, and they are getting more efficient all the time. Not sure what you mean by a 'sham for profit' - they are increasingly cheaper, more efficient, and they help reduce pollution and cut our reliance of finite resouces. Sounds pretty good to me.
Pollution... I won't deny that burning fossil fuels contributes to the warming of our planet. I will argue that the benefits of fossil fuels FAR outweigh the downsides. Net zero is a fast track to global poverty, starvation and death
I'm surprised that there isn't more R&D into tidal power. After all, it is far more reliable, predictable and constant than either wind or solar, plus the UK has a lot of coastline. Another benefit is that it wouldn't be a blot on the landscape.
@@ianhamilton3113my understanding is that permanent contact with the sea surface also corrodes components really quickly, so maintenance costs are pretty high too.
@@glenndennis6801 Indeed. They were discussing a Severn River barrage in the 1970s for tidal power, but rightly faced opposition because it would have destroyed large areas of sensitive coastal wetlands, and pushed some bird populations over the edge. Offshore wind is probably the least environmentally damaging source of renewable power after putting solar panels on existing structures.
@@acmhfmggru so you agree we shouldnt build these things in the ocean than? btw theyre working on room temp super conductors... sooo... stop thinking small?
There will be an equation/formula that correlates data from the model/data from the centrifuge model and actual real data from the variety of turbines installed in the seabed/on land to give accurate predictions of performance of the variety of anchors/strata they're imbedded in etc
As ever with green technology promotion, no real carbon cost/playback analysis or data of the environmental cost. It's all profit led not climate saving
I had a warm fuzzy feeling until I realized renewables cost end users more, consume larger footprints and generate landfills of fiberglass blades and solar panels.
The cost per unit of energy for major renewables is dropping all the time and is far cheaper than fossil fuels. Solar is now the cheapest energy ever in about 80% of the world. With the initial costs of renewable generation, and the costs of adapting the transmission systems there is a cost to all this, but with solar and wind now being cheaper than fossil fuels, we soon save money (and your children's future). Consume larger footprints? In English, please? Russian your first language, bot? Windfarm blades amount to a fraction of the waste produced by fossil fuels, and they are increasingly recyclable. Solar panels too are becoming more recyclable. So if you want your kids to have a future, you want energy that is getting cheaper all the time, you want cleaner air and less polution, and you want to cut waste, you want renewables. Google everything I've said.
It’s like this… 156 UNCTAD countries are still developing or have yet to industrial revolutionize. Every drop of oil and lump of coal will be burned as we’re merely cavemen who’ve controlled fire to evolve for the last 2 mya.
@@alana8863 Read a book or an academic research paper some time, is what I suggest. Check your “facts”, you sound ignorant and extremely far removed from current reality. Renewables are costing PROGRESSIVELY MORE EVERY MONTH! Do you live on big rock Candy mountain not to know this?🥴 Another newsflash: manufacturing renewable energy equipment (like wind turbines, solar panels, lithium ion batteries for storage of those energies and electric vehicles) carries a five to six times larger carbon footprint than burning coal, gas and oil. Plus, these renewables have an exorbitant running cost, terrible EFFECTIVITY and weak reliability compared to fossil fuels. Coming back to your cost assumption, you’re 100% incorrect.
I am sure Professor Susan Gourvenec, Royal Academy chair of emerging technologies , would be very grateful if you were to ‘fill in’ or correct her knowledge shortcomings.
Absolute BS she has no clue what so ever. What about the the factors that turbines can’t run in any wind condition some winds are to strong others to weak, the turbines need electricity to power them up, the turbines need electricity to turn them into the wind when wind direction changes, what about the electro hydraulic clutch brakes the turbines use to lock them during in appropriate winds so they don’t run. What about the high maintenance costs of turbines at sea due to erosion. The whole technology is based on inconsistent supply and is extremely difficult to map into national grid baseline supply needs because supply and demand both have constantly moving demand / supply vectors. What if these companies no longer received state grants to help fund themselves, they become non viable businesses, which is why she goes on and on about net zero BS. and carbon targets.
That's enough opinions fact matters most of the wind value is lost between blades by false betz limits, eliminating Einstines' relativity with speeds of light.wobbles, then infinite values threw gearing new frictionless magnetic bearings greased presidents stopped except president kennedy found out in last speech constitution has been compremized.
Wind turbines are just part of the grid system and compliment it. Their high maintenance costs are nothing compared with say nuclear and even gas turbines need down time for servicing. The real advantage is their cheapness with no ongoing fuel costs.
@@ianhamilton3113 but as you say they compliment it and in real terms their contribution is insignificant relative to their cost, a part time energy source is not adequate because it can’t scale or support a baseline energy requirement. Of grid stand alone definitely a consideration, but to power a city or large suburban areas it’s hopeless. We can’t follow other areas of the world who now suffer regular blackouts because they don’t have enough baseline source it’s technically very difficult to integrate these farms into national grid networks because their generation is far to inconsistent.
@@Tracertme You seem to be completely unaware of the major benefit of wind power. You and I run a company which owns a gas power station and a wind farm. The wind is blowing and the grid asks us to cut our power input. We turn off the gas plant and save the gas for later and leave the wind turbines running. Our annual gas bill is reduced and we make more money.
@@ianhamilton3113 The popular idea that we can use mostly or only solar and wind with sufficient battery backup is not being tried anywhere because it’s economically absurd. Batteries are so expensive that just 3 days of global backup using Elon Musk’s Megapacks would cost $590 trillion, about six times global GDP! Fossil fuels make human flourishing possible, without them we would all be living like 7th century peasants most would die of cold, the rest starvation. Good luck. Posted from my mobile (fossil fuels) over the internet (fossil fuels) from the comfort of my home (fossil fuels) I LOVE fossil fuels.
What I wonder about renewable energy like solar panels, hydro and wind energy. If energy is conserved, thus you cannot create, or destroy energy, does this not mean: - that solar energy captures energy which was not meant to stay on the planet? Thus the planet retained more solar energy each year as long as solar panels become more in quantity and more efficient? - hydro energy, does this not take the energy from the natural current and siphons this energy to the electric cars which dissipate the energy in warmth and vibration., Thus slowing down/changing the natural current, since the car does not contribute to the energy necessary to power the natural current and flow. - wind energy. Samen problem as hydro energy. Does it not take the natural energy necessary to maintain the air current and airflow, thus making the atmosphere unstable? The power necessary to create the current and flow is siphoned towards the electric car that produces heat and vibration. Please explain the long term effects of renewable energy engineering. Since it is a form of geo engineering. - wind
All energy used by humans is a relocation in time and place. That always has an impact. Assuming you use a car, the gas is mostly a time move that over cooled the past to over heat now, an EV makes a move mostly in location.
The problem is that we have 'blankets' of CO2, methane, etc that are holding too much radiated heat from the sun. So the goal is to reduce these blankets' thickness, and this will reduce the amount of heat that the earth holds. Most hydro-energy is artificially created - we use energy that is not needed at the time to pump water up into reservoirs and lakes. It then is released when necessary, so nothing has changed. No, the effects of all the world's windfarms on the wind currents is nothing compared to the effects of buildings, trees, bushes, etc. Winds are the products of differences in temperature between areas, and without windfarms the winds would still dissipate anyway. So again, there is no effect. On the other hand, if you don't have renewables, then fossil fuels do have a long-term effect - that's why we need to change over.
@@gordonn4915 yes, that is indeed what I said. But what I don't understand is the environmental change which would occurs if you take the energy of one thing to power something that is unrelated. Like if you create energy transfer from the surface of the planet and transfer large amounts of energy to the moon. Could this affect the electromagnetic waves of the planet or could it cause the turning of the core to slow down. It is difficult for me to understand that if a country does cloudseeding to make a desert turn green, that this would not have a negative impact on the climate. Or when A country diverts water from a river, to create a hydrodam elsewhere. To prevent the sea from creating high waves, we places poles in the water to break these waves, therefore the coasts are save. But now we are not placing poles at the coastal areas, but we are placing poles in the sea. This would affect the current, or am I wrong? The wind current is connected to the deepsea current and both are connected to the rotation of the planet?
I think you severely underestimate the amount of energy in nature, especially the amount of solar energy arriving and leaving earth. The solar, hydro and wind energy captured by humans is nothing.
Estimated bird deaths each year in the US from different sources: Window strikes ... 500 million Domestic and feral cats ... 500 million High tension wires ... 150 million Pesticides ... 75 million Cars ... 60 million Communication towers ... 5 million Wind turbines ... 1.2 million You people have zero sense of perspective. Do you think we should also remove all windows, cats, pesticides, cars, and ... ALL electricity supplied through high tension wires?
If wind is a "sustainable" energy source, how many terawatt/hours over the next century can be harvested before we measurably slow the rotation of the Earth? What are the consequences of fewer days in the year, caused the ever increasing reduction in the rotation of the Earth. Is using wind, the singularly most expensive way of generating electricity, with the attendant ecological damage done to fish, marine mammals, and wild life ,really our best idea?
Why would this slow the earth's rotation ? Winds derive their energy from the influx of solar radiation. We're not sucking out some of the earth's rotational kinetic energy to produce electricity.
"Is using wind, the singularly most expensive way of generating electricity," No, nuclear is the most expensive. Wind is a very cheap way of producing electricity.
"with the attendant ecological damage done to fish, marine mammals, and wild life" Actually the structures create mini reefs that attract fish and marine invertebrates. So all positive.
Fewer anchors. Not less anchors. Less steel, fewer anchors. Is that proper grammar in England? You are the Royal Instituition, not some Tik Tok click bait.
People make grammatical errors. No, it's not 'proper grammar' in England - but people make mistakes. She's not the 'Royal Instituition' - she's a fallible human being. You obviously aren't. You must feel very important now. Oh, and by the way, it's 'Institution' not 'instituition'! That's not a word!
@@alana8863 So a speaking error is forgiveable but not a typo? Sorry if you are having a bad day. I really don't understand the importance comment. Relax, it was just a minor correction. You typed that I am not a fallible human right after you pointed out a typo? I am obviously fallible. You, however, are not at all logical.
@@schmerlski No, since I didn't make such a claim that a typo is not forgivable, then you're using a Straw Man argument. Also, I was pointing out that you too were imperfect as you made a mistake, so your position was not strong! You do not know what sort of day I'm having, so pretending that you do doesn't reflect well on you. It does suggest that anyone who states facts that you don't like justifies your false claim. So, nothing I said was illogical. Another false claim. Let's be a bit more tolerant of each other, eh? None of us is perfect, and minor imperfections don't justify your condemnation. The lady gave a valuable talk, and deserved a better response from you.
@@alana8863read a book some time. Better, read an academic research paper or thirty to educate yourself on the matter of noise pollution causing whale deaths by the droves since these offshore wind farms have been installed. The specific frequency at which the blades and turbines spin emit the most unbearable reverberations and noise for sea life. Especially the whales. The impact on the rest is just as bad. Please do your research, then comment.
@@lizelleswanepoel116 Thanks for your comment. Sadly, as with so many other people, you imply that if there is some drawback in renewables, then a. it cannot be addressed (it is being dealt with, of course), and b. there are not massively greater drawbacks in using fossil fuels (they threaten your kids' future, how much more of a drawback could there be?). I have read a great deal, but you haven't made a comparison - because when you are replacing one thing with something else, ignoring the huge drawbacks of one but pointing out a weakness of the other gets us nowhere. My point was that pollution from fossil fuels and the effects of global warming need to be taken into account with any reference to problems with renewables. No one is suggesting that the drawbacks to renewables don't exist or don't matter, but without comparison to fossil fuels and the unthinkable drawbacks that still haven't been resolved, then we are not making a valid point.
Amazing talk. I wish I heard a talk like this for every thing around me.
Wow, fantastic talk. The graphics were great snd a had to pause or rewind because they were so relevant. I follow clean tech in detail, but learned a lot in this presentation. So thank you Susan, and bo matter the auditorium crowd, 100x ate viewing and maybe influencing more. Susan, thanks so much for a fantastically educational lecture.
I hope we get some archaeological investigations included in the site investigations. These places were dry land 10-15 000 years ago and someone/something surely lived there.
Incredible video, so clearly described that anyone can understand it.
Superb presentation. The production requirement is quite terrifying in scale. Our long dead steel capacity would be very handy now.😢
China makes it cheaper
Great Explanation Susan. Congratulations!!
A request to Royal Institution: can we have a similar presentation on solar energy?
Take a drink every time she says “seabed superpower”.
Much more emphasis should be put on the environmental impact that offshore wind farms have.
There are studies that show this impact on birds, fish, and mammals (incl. whales) - and that's just with the quantity that we currently have in the ocean. Imagine the impact with 20X that number.
This is why it's so important for ideas to be considered in an interdisciplinary way, and for people with different areas of expertise to be part of the conversation.
Interesting talk.
My design brain instantly goes to the thought that small efficient station-keeping thrusters well below the waterline could perhaps be used to minimize the tension on the mooring bases, no matter the method used. I don't know the balance of forces involved, but perhaps a portion of the wind energy captured and stored in batteries could be used to either assist or eliminate some of the need for moorings at all. It would knock off some of the overall efficiency of the turbine, but lessen the overall deployment cost dramatically.
1:09: 💨 Offshore wind can help us reach Net Zero by harnessing the winds that blow far above the seabed.
13:08: 🌊 The challenge of finding space for offshore wind farms in the ocean is explored.
25:55: 🌊 The installation of suction cases for offshore wind turbines has proven to be environmentally friendly and efficient.
37:41: ✨ The speaker discusses the use of traditional design and surrogate models to find optimal solutions for offshore wind systems and reduce tension and foundation footprint.
49:38: 🌊 Characterizing seabed resistance is a challenge for offshore wind due to its variability and vast area.
Recap by Tammy AI
Excellent presentation! Please look into engineering concepts embodied by methods such as diamond pin foundations for underwater stability from the U.S., less material with far greater strength.
Thankyou for a very interesting talk. I always have many more questions at the end of a Talk compared to the start. I mentally imagined the how many Wind turbines would be needed ; the service life ; removal and rebuild time on the same space. A comparison with nuclear power stations would be 10s of thousands required ; 40 years service life ; 40 years removal ; 20 years rebuild in another location. I wonder how the :build , service, removal, and rebuild timescale of wind turbines at sea compared to other electrical energy systems.
Wow. Maybe net zero is attainable after all. That pantograph suction device reminds me of a tick. Nature got there first. Thanks for a whole lot of encouraging information. Brava!
Excellent, comprehensive presentation and great questions and answers afterwards. I think this may not be part of the overall ambit of the Royal Institution and not necessarily Susan's expertise (who otherwise is an excellent presenter), but some more analysis on the economic comparison of current and future hydrocarbon vs eco-friendly sources of energy would have been great.
Probably dwarfed by nuclear depending wheather you define nuclear as eco friendly
The use of hydrogen for transportation was debunked years ago, and in fact for most uses. Remember hydrogen is not a fuel, it is a storage mechanism, and a dangerous one. Why use electricity to produce hydrogen inefficiently, rather than use the electricity directly at very high efficiency?
Rooftop solar is so great that offshore ways of harnessing renewables really helps us garner a better understanding of the flexibility and wide applicability of renewables.
The either astroturfing or just utter stupidity in these comments is quite something this time around.
Very interesting
Rooftop solar is so great that offshore ways of harnessing renewables really helps us garner a better understanding of the flexibility and wide applicability of renewables.
56:56 oh that's clever! :)
terimakasih
How many ethically sourced materials are used in the construction of these wind farms?
7 and a half
An increasing amount of material used in wind farms is renewable. Already, many turbines are recycled.
Ask the same question about coal mines and their equipment, oil rigs, etc.
ZERO
i think you might be off by 7 @@DenkyManner
@@alana8863 You are comparing an inefficient energy source (wind & solar) with an energy source that has brought man to a technological age where we can now access nuclear energy.
Don't put all your eggs in the same basket.
Just the carbon footprint in the steel's production required on offshore wind farms eye-watering.
Put the bulk of the eggs in torium molten salts nuclear reactor, to achieve the green target, could be more wise.
Silly question maybe, but can we expect any negative effects from bleeding our energy needs out of wind currents? Could it result in additional warming, as the air flow is disrupted on such a large (and growing) scale?
Not a silly question at all, IMO. By installing these things we're increasing the net roughness of the earth's surface, and presumably, 'slowing' wind speeds as a whole. However, by felling the forests, have we (by the same argument) increased average wind speeds by smoothing the surface? I'm sure the earth is a windier place now, but is that because of increased temperatures, or decreased surface roughness, or both? Could we disentangle these effects? Do climate and weather models include a term for surface roughness?
@@anotherfreediver3639surely at the scale of wind humans are extracting it's likely to have a minimal impact.
@@rns01111 Minimal yes, but just wondering out of curiosity whether it would be measurable, given that weather systems are fundamentally chaotic.
It's a good question. The winds are a global transportation system.
It moves moisture, pollen, spores, heat, dust, pollution, etc.
When we convert wind to electricity, we remove energy from the transportation system.
Keep in mind we humans believe most of our creations are better than sliced bread until they're not.
@@anotherfreediver3639 inverse butterfly effect
What we doing with the oxygen from electrolysis of h2o for hydrogen? Release to the atmosphere?
There are industrial and medical uses for oxygen.
Nowhere near sufficient to make any difference to the decision on h2 @@zapfanzapfan
Always fascinated by humanity's obsession with fixing a "resource" issue by expending more resources. Like turning on air conditioning when the radiators are too hot.
Rooftop solar is so great that offshore ways of harnessing renewables really helps us garner a better understanding of the flexibility and wide applicability of renewables.
@@yeanswersalso sun sucks for half the year in england. Geothermal seems obviously underdeveloped
Not all of us use energy every day. More than a billion people are affected by energy poverty, and they barely use any energy and do not produce CO2. At the same time the richest 10% of the people use nearly 50% of the energy and produce nearly 50% of the CO2 too. The worse part is that much of this energy consuption by the rich is luxury energy consumption. Big and wastefull cars, frequent flights, wasted food, etc. This is why economic and consumption inequalities are key factores for ecological sustainability and for poverty reduction.
@@acmhfmggru "(mostly socialist governments, btw)" Wrong there! They are mostly dictatorships with right or far right leanings.
Also it's wood that's used in the poorest countries as the normal household fuel not coal. Coal would be too expensive.
@@acmhfmggru Which third world countries are socialist and use mainly coal? And don't say the USA or I'll know you're a right wing nut job.
Your statement is founded on complete BS and lacks any substance whatsoever…
@@Tracertme I asked him which countries but he didn't, or more likely couldn't, answer.
Wow. I'm in an airport and someone just farted. So not cool. I mean, y'know? Not cool.
Consider subsidies and tax breaks fossil fuel industry gets before thinking renewable costs and user more.
Consider opportunities for multiple use of land and ocean.
Solar panels and wind turbine blades and the rest of them are recyclable.
She would be a good ventriloquist. Lol
For the entire hour, the speaker looked like she was holding back from giggling. It's probably because the ROI on windmills is so bad, you can't store the energy, and they have little ability to control production according to demand. I guess I would laugh all the way to the bank as well.
Do you have no idea what happens to the used blades?
Yes, Google it. Already blades are being made that are 100% renewable. Strangely, that's never been true for oil rigs.
@@lvr8429 Almost 100% recyclable is infinitely better than the result of burning fossil fuels. Why do you believe we need to achieve perfection to get an improvement?
I started with Clipper wind power long ago. I have commissioned and repaired hundreds of turbines from Gamesa and Mitsubishi to Vestas. They are all a sham for profit and only make things worse around the world.
Would you opine on if we had smaller, more locally sourced and controlled wind farms with panels or blades and equipment that sustains better and longer than these giant monstrosities and money sinks? A genuine question from a disillusioned dude.
@@levinb1 Possibly but even the smaller turbines present problems. Strobing shadows, noise, and they rely on made in china throw away components at this time. I love the engineering, hate the reality of wind turbines and renewable in general.
Solution is to stop plugging in 500hp teslas until we have a real solution to green energy. Until then, we use as little as possible. Stop manufacturing 1000hp cars and trucks, back off war machine production, throttle back the military industrial complex and more.
I don't care what you've done, these turbines are getting cheaper and cheaper, the energy they produce is getting cheaper and cheaper, and they are getting more efficient all the time. Not sure what you mean by a 'sham for profit' - they are increasingly cheaper, more efficient, and they help reduce pollution and cut our reliance of finite resouces. Sounds pretty good to me.
Pollution... I won't deny that burning fossil fuels contributes to the warming of our planet. I will argue that the benefits of fossil fuels FAR outweigh the downsides. Net zero is a fast track to global poverty, starvation and death
I'm surprised that there isn't more R&D into tidal power. After all, it is far more reliable, predictable and constant than either wind or solar, plus the UK has a lot of coastline. Another benefit is that it wouldn't be a blot on the landscape.
They are coming but like nuclear it is very capital intensive.
@@ianhamilton3113my understanding is that permanent contact with the sea surface also corrodes components really quickly, so maintenance costs are pretty high too.
There are also many environmental concerns with tidal power. Like fish habitat, sea floor erosion, etc.
@@glenndennis6801 Indeed. They were discussing a Severn River barrage in the 1970s for tidal power, but rightly faced opposition because it would have destroyed large areas of sensitive coastal wetlands, and pushed some bird populations over the edge. Offshore wind is probably the least environmentally damaging source of renewable power after putting solar panels on existing structures.
Too long a payback on investment to be off interest to the big money
So you literally ment "harnessing"
BRAZIL IS AMAZING. LOTS OF RENEWABLES. INCREDIBLE. REALLY BRAZIL. CONGRATS
we need silent generators if theyre gonna be in the ocean, marine life is too stressed as it is with the constant fishing, shipping and construction
@@acmhfmggru so you agree we shouldnt build these things in the ocean than? btw theyre working on room temp super conductors... sooo... stop thinking small?
You cannot simply scale up as she stated when talking about the centrifuge testing machine
Has to be tested in the field/sea bed
There will be an equation/formula that correlates data from the model/data from the centrifuge model and actual real data from the variety of turbines installed in the seabed/on land to give accurate predictions of performance of the variety of anchors/strata they're imbedded in etc
She made what is basic civil engineering interesting😁🤙
As ever with green technology promotion, no real carbon cost/playback analysis or data of the environmental cost. It's all profit led not climate saving
I had a warm fuzzy feeling until I realized renewables cost end users more, consume larger footprints and generate landfills of fiberglass blades and solar panels.
I don't believe you. Do you own shares in an oil company?
@@DenkyManner No, they possess a brain and critical thinking skills
The cost per unit of energy for major renewables is dropping all the time and is far cheaper than fossil fuels. Solar is now the cheapest energy ever in about 80% of the world.
With the initial costs of renewable generation, and the costs of adapting the transmission systems there is a cost to all this, but with solar and wind now being cheaper than fossil fuels, we soon save money (and your children's future).
Consume larger footprints? In English, please? Russian your first language, bot?
Windfarm blades amount to a fraction of the waste produced by fossil fuels, and they are increasingly recyclable. Solar panels too are becoming more recyclable.
So if you want your kids to have a future, you want energy that is getting cheaper all the time, you want cleaner air and less polution, and you want to cut waste, you want renewables.
Google everything I've said.
It’s like this… 156 UNCTAD countries are still developing or have yet to industrial revolutionize. Every drop of oil and lump of coal will be burned as we’re merely cavemen who’ve controlled fire to evolve for the last 2 mya.
@@alana8863 Read a book or an academic research paper some time, is what I suggest. Check your “facts”, you sound ignorant and extremely far removed from current reality. Renewables are costing PROGRESSIVELY MORE EVERY MONTH! Do you live on big rock Candy mountain not to know this?🥴 Another newsflash: manufacturing renewable energy equipment (like wind turbines, solar panels, lithium ion batteries for storage of those energies and electric vehicles) carries a five to six times larger carbon footprint than burning coal, gas and oil. Plus, these renewables have an exorbitant running cost, terrible EFFECTIVITY and weak reliability compared to fossil fuels. Coming back to your cost assumption, you’re 100% incorrect.
I am listening to a very romantic story about wind power, clearly the speakers practical knowledge doesn't exist.
Except that's her job.
Engineering is a practical job, ultimately. But a person on RUclips turns out to be the expert!
I am sure Professor Susan Gourvenec, Royal Academy chair of emerging technologies , would be very grateful if you were to ‘fill in’ or correct her knowledge shortcomings.
@@ianmitchell5679 I'm afraid you're fighting a losing battle against the trolls, Ian.
Build nuclear and save the whales and birds
More bill gates/world economic forum funded research. Look where that has gotten us recently.
So where has it got us? And what the hell has it got to do with wind turbines? Are you a weed smoker by any chance?
Are we changing Global weather patterns by removing energy from the wind?
Are you serious? Do Google embarrassing questions like this first.
Please don't have any children.
Can we say ELECTRICITY?!!!
Absolute BS she has no clue what so ever. What about the the factors that turbines can’t run in any wind condition some winds are to strong others to weak, the turbines need electricity to power them up, the turbines need electricity to turn them into the wind when wind direction changes, what about the electro hydraulic clutch brakes the turbines use to lock them during in appropriate winds so they don’t run. What about the high maintenance costs of turbines at sea due to erosion. The whole technology is based on inconsistent supply and is extremely difficult to map into national grid baseline supply needs because supply and demand both have constantly moving demand / supply vectors. What if these companies no longer received state grants to help fund themselves, they become non viable businesses, which is why she goes on and on about net zero BS. and carbon targets.
That's enough opinions fact matters most of the wind value is lost between blades by false betz limits, eliminating Einstines' relativity with speeds of light.wobbles, then infinite values threw gearing new frictionless magnetic bearings greased presidents stopped except president kennedy found out in last speech constitution has been compremized.
Wind turbines are just part of the grid system and compliment it. Their high maintenance costs are nothing compared with say nuclear and even gas turbines need down time for servicing. The real advantage is their cheapness with no ongoing fuel costs.
@@ianhamilton3113 but as you say they compliment it and in real terms their contribution is insignificant relative to their cost, a part time energy source is not adequate because it can’t scale or support a baseline energy requirement. Of grid stand alone definitely a consideration, but to power a city or large suburban areas it’s hopeless. We can’t follow other areas of the world who now suffer regular blackouts because they don’t have enough baseline source it’s technically very difficult to integrate these farms into national grid networks because their generation is far to inconsistent.
@@Tracertme "No, they possess a brain and critical thinking skills" Which countries would these be?
@@Tracertme You seem to be completely unaware of the major benefit of wind power.
You and I run a company which owns a gas power station and a wind farm. The wind is blowing and the grid asks us to cut our power input. We turn off the gas plant and save the gas for later and leave the wind turbines running. Our annual gas bill is reduced and we make more money.
I love fossil fuels.
As an investor in oil stocks I thank you. We need mugs like you to keep shelling out for our oil. Good on ya.
@@ianhamilton3113 The popular idea that we can use mostly or only solar and wind with sufficient battery backup is not being tried anywhere because it’s economically absurd. Batteries are so expensive that just 3 days of global backup using Elon Musk’s Megapacks would cost $590 trillion, about six times global GDP! Fossil fuels make human flourishing possible, without them we would all be living like 7th century peasants most would die of cold, the rest starvation. Good luck. Posted from my mobile (fossil fuels) over the internet (fossil fuels) from the comfort of my home (fossil fuels) I LOVE fossil fuels.
What I wonder about renewable energy like solar panels, hydro and wind energy.
If energy is conserved, thus you cannot create, or destroy energy, does this not mean:
- that solar energy captures energy which was not meant to stay on the planet? Thus the planet retained more solar energy each year as long as solar panels become more in quantity and more efficient?
- hydro energy, does this not take the energy from the natural current and siphons this energy to the electric cars which dissipate the energy in warmth and vibration., Thus slowing down/changing the natural current, since the car does not contribute to the energy necessary to power the natural current and flow.
- wind energy. Samen problem as hydro energy. Does it not take the natural energy necessary to maintain the air current and airflow, thus making the atmosphere unstable? The power necessary to create the current and flow is siphoned towards the electric car that produces heat and vibration.
Please explain the long term effects of renewable energy engineering. Since it is a form of geo engineering.
- wind
All energy used by humans is a relocation in time and place. That always has an impact.
Assuming you use a car, the gas is mostly a time move that over cooled the past to over heat now, an EV makes a move mostly in location.
The problem is that we have 'blankets' of CO2, methane, etc that are holding too much radiated heat from the sun. So the goal is to reduce these blankets' thickness, and this will reduce the amount of heat that the earth holds.
Most hydro-energy is artificially created - we use energy that is not needed at the time to pump water up into reservoirs and lakes. It then is released when necessary, so nothing has changed.
No, the effects of all the world's windfarms on the wind currents is nothing compared to the effects of buildings, trees, bushes, etc. Winds are the products of differences in temperature between areas, and without windfarms the winds would still dissipate anyway. So again, there is no effect.
On the other hand, if you don't have renewables, then fossil fuels do have a long-term effect - that's why we need to change over.
@@gordonn4915 yes, that is indeed what I said. But what I don't understand is the environmental change which would occurs if you take the energy of one thing to power something that is unrelated.
Like if you create energy transfer from the surface of the planet and transfer large amounts of energy to the moon.
Could this affect the electromagnetic waves of the planet or could it cause the turning of the core to slow down.
It is difficult for me to understand that if a country does cloudseeding to make a desert turn green, that this would not have a negative impact on the climate.
Or when A country diverts water from a river, to create a hydrodam elsewhere.
To prevent the sea from creating high waves, we places poles in the water to break these waves, therefore the coasts are save. But now we are not placing poles at the coastal areas, but we are placing poles in the sea. This would affect the current, or am I wrong?
The wind current is connected to the deepsea current and both are connected to the rotation of the planet?
I think you severely underestimate the amount of energy in nature, especially the amount of solar energy arriving and leaving earth. The solar, hydro and wind energy captured by humans is nothing.
@@Chiefelgin You've never undertaken a basic science course have you.
So what to do with all the chopped up seagulls.
Estimated bird deaths each year in the US from different sources:
Window strikes ... 500 million
Domestic and feral cats ... 500 million
High tension wires ... 150 million
Pesticides ... 75 million
Cars ... 60 million
Communication towers ... 5 million
Wind turbines ... 1.2 million
You people have zero sense of perspective. Do you think we should also remove all windows, cats, pesticides, cars, and ... ALL electricity supplied through high tension wires?
@@godfreypigottwind turbines are more of a threat to raptors.
@@stellarwind1946 Really? And what are the figures?
@@stellarwind1946
Whenever you're ready ...
If wind is a "sustainable" energy source, how many terawatt/hours over the next century can be harvested before we measurably slow the rotation of the Earth? What are the consequences of fewer days in the year, caused the ever increasing reduction in the rotation of the Earth. Is using wind, the singularly most expensive way of generating electricity, with the attendant ecological damage done to fish, marine mammals, and wild life ,really our best idea?
Why would this slow the earth's rotation ? Winds derive their energy from the influx of solar radiation. We're not sucking out some of the earth's rotational kinetic energy to produce electricity.
"Is using wind, the singularly most expensive way of generating electricity," No, nuclear is the most expensive. Wind is a very cheap way of producing electricity.
"with the attendant ecological damage done to fish, marine mammals, and wild life" Actually the structures create mini reefs that attract fish and marine invertebrates. So all positive.
if the moon can figure out how to give our Earth free energy, why can't WE figure out how to give ourselves free energy?!
Devon, is this you again? 🤪
Fewer anchors. Not less anchors. Less steel, fewer anchors. Is that proper grammar in England? You are the Royal Instituition, not some Tik Tok click bait.
People make grammatical errors. No, it's not 'proper grammar' in England - but people make mistakes. She's not the 'Royal Instituition' - she's a fallible human being. You obviously aren't.
You must feel very important now.
Oh, and by the way, it's 'Institution' not 'instituition'! That's not a word!
@@alana8863 So a speaking error is forgiveable but not a typo? Sorry if you are having a bad day. I really don't understand the importance comment. Relax, it was just a minor correction. You typed that I am not a fallible human right after you pointed out a typo? I am obviously fallible. You, however, are not at all logical.
@@schmerlski No, since I didn't make such a claim that a typo is not forgivable, then you're using a Straw Man argument. Also, I was pointing out that you too were imperfect as you made a mistake, so your position was not strong!
You do not know what sort of day I'm having, so pretending that you do doesn't reflect well on you. It does suggest that anyone who states facts that you don't like justifies your false claim.
So, nothing I said was illogical. Another false claim.
Let's be a bit more tolerant of each other, eh? None of us is perfect, and minor imperfections don't justify your condemnation. The lady gave a valuable talk, and deserved a better response from you.
I have read what you have done wrote and I asked me a question, does it really matter?
Whales are dying because of you.
Check your facts. Pollution is killing all life-forms, including humans. Google first, comment afterwards.
@@alana8863read a book some time. Better, read an academic research paper or thirty to educate yourself on the matter of noise pollution causing whale deaths by the droves since these offshore wind farms have been installed. The specific frequency at which the blades and turbines spin emit the most unbearable reverberations and noise for sea life. Especially the whales. The impact on the rest is just as bad. Please do your research, then comment.
@@lizelleswanepoel116 Thanks for your comment. Sadly, as with so many other people, you imply that if there is some drawback in renewables, then a. it cannot be addressed (it is being dealt with, of course), and b. there are not massively greater drawbacks in using fossil fuels (they threaten your kids' future, how much more of a drawback could there be?).
I have read a great deal, but you haven't made a comparison - because when you are replacing one thing with something else, ignoring the huge drawbacks of one but pointing out a weakness of the other gets us nowhere.
My point was that pollution from fossil fuels and the effects of global warming need to be taken into account with any reference to problems with renewables.
No one is suggesting that the drawbacks to renewables don't exist or don't matter, but without comparison to fossil fuels and the unthinkable drawbacks that still haven't been resolved, then we are not making a valid point.
Could tidal turbines be used below surface with wind farms?
Tidal is ... Too expensive in that return on investment is decades not the few years as from turbines i
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Oh, dear, bright boy warning!
@@alana8863 I think a two year old got on mums computer.