First day of the new year and somebody alreadys got jokes... Im all for clean energy, but we need to be realistic. This. Isnt. news.discovery/tech/alternative-power-sources/tree-shaped-wind-turbines-blend-into-the-scenery-141230.htm This article is about the only thing I could find that stated its alleged output, which theyre saying is 3.1 kwh. The combined output of the BL England Generating station is roughly 370 MW. To equal that station youd need roughly 1,194 of these trees. At $37,000 each that comes to just over 44 million dollars. Bear in mind, the BL England station would cost nothing to build, as its already built. Some other issues to note here ~ one of the main reason those big giant ugly turbines are the most prominent ones around are the height. Higher altitude, higher wind. Tuck one of these cute little tree turbines between two houses..not so much. No wind, no power. Considering the average home uses about 930 kwh per month, and given that there are 730 hours in said month, the power requirements would be about 1.2 kwh (on average). That means one tree would be enough to power about 2 1/2 average homes, and if that cost is to be shouldered by the consumer, youre paying about 15 grand. For something that will only work when the wind blows below your roof line. Im all for innovation, and particularly green energy. Dont get me wrong, I think this is a neat idea, but Im curious how much grant money this guy received at tax payer expense for a piece of equipment that even Joe Internet can see probably wont be the answer to our problems. Thats like this idea about putting big turbines off the coast of atlantic city...dumb idea. It would take about 250 large turbines to equal BL (They are 1.5 MW each. The 5 at the ACUA building are just enough to power them. They do NOT connect to the grid). Not to mention the cost of 25 miles of heavy duty expensive insulated copper cables to bring that power inland. For. Each. One. Ultimately I think well find the solution to our environmental problems isnt simply relying on a single solution. It will end up needing to be a myriad of systems all working together. Wind, solar, hydro, and yes, likely coal and nuclear. America is addicted to electricity, with their giant tvs, two dozen i-devices, and enough Christmas lights to qualify as an airport landing strip. Until we curb our appetite (im guilty of this too, cant deny it) nothing will be able to support the demand on the grid other than the things we dont want to use. What makes more sense? Cut back on our generation? Or cut back on our usage? You tell me. Though I will ask you this ~ Would you rather use less electricity, or have a grid as reliable as the one in Afghanistan?
Posted on: Thu, 01 Jan 2015 09:59:17 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015