Big Wind

Following up on my last blog there has been some massive developments in renewable energy in recent years working toward a scalability where wind energy and others could produce serious amounts of energy.

This a new floating platform for wind turbines in deep seas it is designed to support wind turbines 70 meters tall with blades the length of football field. With a 5 megawatt capability finally we would have wind turbines that could really produce large quantities of energy and the fact that they can be built way out to sea removes the visibility as well.

This is a like it has some great pic’s and also all the further information you might want on the project

Not a great video but shows the concept

Advertisements
Tagged with: , , , ,
Posted in climate change, corporate sustainability, ecological footprint, economic development, energy, government policy, sustainable buildings, sustainable development, sustainable living, water
4 comments on “Big Wind
  1. karelca says:

    Wind energy is a great step towards a more sustainable society and should certainly be encouraged. But, wind energy alone cannot replace fossil fuels.

    The problem is: the wind doesn’t blow the whole time at a same speed and stops blowing regulary. It is not a continuous source of electricity, so you can’t rely on the wind alone to provide electricity for an industry…

  2. sovington says:

    I completely agree that wind energy is by no means the solution to all our problems. This blog was more to highlight the technological advances that are taking place in the sector.

    A more realistic future would be wind energy working with a host of other sources of power eg. solar, tidal. i would also think they could develop some sort of tidal energy to the bottom of these platforms .

  3. jeremy says:

    And what about nuclear Stephen? I heard you were speaking in favour the other day 😉

    Please read what James Lovelock has to say on this (see, for example, The Revenge of Gaia) and let me know your thoughts. I have always been an active campaigner against nuclear power, but — if you listen to Lovelock — we have no choice now.

  4. Lovelock’s view (2006)(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article718922.ece) seems quite interesting. Renewable energy sources can be considered as “false gods” – attractive but currently useless since they lack cost-competitiveness and are too capital and land intensive. Therefore, solar, wind, tidal power etc. are currently (and in the near future) not able to deliver the globally required amount of energy. Worldwide demand could triple by 2050 according to MIT study forecasts. By building a Three Gorges Dam every year, China would still not meet its growing electricity demand, whereas nuclear energy would be able to provide the population with clean and safe energy.

    Consequently, it is too late for sustainable development, and we have already come to a time when development is no longer sustainable (Lovelock, 2006). According to Lovelock, sustainable retreat is necessary which can be initiated by predominantly nuclear power in terms of energy and the use of synthetic foods in food supply to give the planet a chance to recover.
    The question of viable solutions for nuclear waste is always critical, anyhow as a technological optimist, as whom I consider myself after this class, I am convinced that this problem can be solved in the near future through R&D. Alternatively, I see a more pragmatic solution in Novaya Zemlya, a large and remote island in the Arctic Sea, where the Soviets used to test their nuclear weapons. This island is contaminated for the next centuries anyway, and is far distant from any considerable population.
    Although there is no overarching solution, I basically agree with Lovelock:
    ‘We have no time to experiment with visionary energy sources: civilisation is in imminent danger and has to use nuclear energy now, or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet.’
    Renewable energies are the future, but they seem to be unable to supply the energy demand by themselves. To tackle the demand in the near future, sparing nuclear power does not seem possible – an impact has to be done now! Coal energy is used a lot in Germany which embarrasses me due to its really bad carbon dioxide compliance. This is the main reason why I personally choose nuclear power, where my optimism let me estimate the (unsolved) question of nuclear waste not too dramatically, over coal energy which is even subsidised in Germany to avoid social unrest as coal digging was one of the biggest employment sectors and is coming to an end soon.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog Stats
  • 101,524 hits
%d bloggers like this: