Wind power generates 140% of Denmark's electricity demand - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Faunze;48201482]Just wait. Just wait before throwing out ridiculous figures from out your ass, why on earth would they want to put a nuclear plant for backup power? Jesus just use coal or something, it would be better for the planet in the longrun as you wouldn't be using it that often and there's not a world destroying time bomb sitting in a field[/QUOTE] You can't just turn off/on a coal power plant, it has to keep running and pollute the air. Also, nuclear reactors don't explode like nuclear bombs.

[QUOTE=Faunze;48201482]Jesus just use coal or something, it would be better for the planet in the longrun as you wouldn't be using it that often and there's not a world destroying time bomb sitting in a field[/QUOTE] Nuclear fuel remains dangerous to humans for a long time, but jeez you vastly overestimate it's destructiveness. Carbon in the atmosphere is worse than plutonium in the ground.

Big. Heavy. Flywheels.

[QUOTE=FalconKrunch;48202146]You can't just turn off/on a coal power plant, it has to keep running and pollute the air. Also, nuclear reactors don't explode like nuclear bombs.[/QUOTE] Takes hours to start up a coal or gas power plant from full shutdown, so they're often left 'idling' (which is probably what you meant. Same deal with nuclear, in the end we need nuclear power plants coupled together with efficient renewable energy sources like windmill parks away from civilization (so they don't cause disturbance) and vastly upgraded electricity network..

[QUOTE=Van-man;48203075]Takes hours to start up a coal or gas power plant from full shutdown, so they're often left 'idling' (which is probably what you meant. Same deal with nuclear, in the end we need nuclear power plants coupled together with efficient renewable energy sources like windmill parks away from civilization (so they don't cause disturbance) and vastly upgraded electricity network..[/QUOTE] The grid is primarily one of the reasons for more power plants in a general area in the first place due to all the line loses/substation losses. More localized power is ideal while still supplementing the larger grid. That's why more scale able power plants (i.e. LFTR and individual solar power) are a desirable complimentary goal so that we can cut out the middleman until room-temperature superconductors come along for transmission lines.

[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;48203253]The grid is primarily one of the reasons for more power plants in a general area in the first place due to all the line loses/substation losses. More localized power is ideal while still supplementing the larger grid. That's why more scale able power plants (i.e. LFTR and individual solar power) are a desirable complimentary goal so that we can cut out the middleman until room-temperature superconductors come along for transmission lines.[/QUOTE] Normal high temp superconductors are plenty good enough, there's a line between baltamor and Washington DC, the refrigeration system uses much less power than what would have been lost through heat and voltage drop, and it has the added benefit of being impervious to storms as its underground Also the grid actually eliminates powerplants as New York can pull power from Ohio. The problem is the west coast isn't connected to the east coast very well, and Texas has their own grid, so you have 3 grids, adding more capacity to transmit from the east coast to west coast would allow renewables like wind in Pennsylvania to power California

[QUOTE=zombini;48201203]Keep in mind that Denmark is a small country with a small population of only 5.7 million people (for reference, you could fit the entire population of Denmark into NYC with room for another 2.3 million people). This really doesn't mean much in determining how good wind energy is/can be.[/QUOTE] Afaik you could fit the entire population of earth into one large city. But you probably shouldn't.

WEll, it is said that with the winds of the Argentine patagonia, which, let's face it: It's mostly barren + The atacama desert + The middle east The world could be powered only via wind and solar means.... Awesome. Let's just hope the Israelis aren't overrun by their lifetime enemies and manage to pull off some crazy solar shit (They are at the top when it comes to solar energy)

[QUOTE=Talishmar;48208217]Afaik you could fit the entire population of earth into one large city. But you probably shouldn't.[/QUOTE] He's saying New York City alone has a larger population than the entire country of Denmark.

[QUOTE=Jojje;48201056]That's pretty damn ingenious actually[/QUOTE] Dams arent exactly clean though.

[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;48210591]Dams arent exactly clean though.[/QUOTE] How so?

[QUOTE=A Noobcake;48211383]How so?[/QUOTE] Huge amounts of concrete need to make them and the flooding of thousands of square kilometres of land.

[QUOTE=Faunze;48201482]Just wait. Just wait before throwing out ridiculous figures from out your ass, why on earth would they want to put a nuclear plant for backup power? Jesus just use coal or something, it would be better for the planet in the longrun as you wouldn't be using it that often and there's not a world destroying time bomb sitting in a field[/QUOTE] a time bomb? Really? People like you who assume nuclear plants are literally just atom bombs with wires coming out are why it's been held back so much. I'll save you some time: Nuclear power has the most abundant fuel of any power source, and is by an EXTREMELY huge margin the safest source of energy. And that's not even counting the theoretical benefits of fusion generators.

[QUOTE=Lijitsu;48208771]He's saying New York City alone has a larger population than the entire country of Denmark.[/QUOTE] New York (the state) is also over three times as big as denmark.

There are still environmental issues that can affect certain animal populations with wind-reliant machines like this, but it's about as clean as you can make power nowadays.

[QUOTE=download;48211514]Huge amounts of concrete need to make them and the flooding of thousands of square kilometres of land.[/QUOTE] That, and pretty sure everyone has seen what happens when dams break.

This should help reduce carbon emission right?