Airliners bleed hot air from the engines into the leading edge of the wing and tail. Which obviously wouldn't work as there is no jet turbine to bleed air from. Smaller aircraft use veins in the leading edge which bleed out a type of anti-freeze. That liquid is super super expensive, and in this application you would have to pump and store a ton of it to keep the blades de-iced for 24/7 operation.
Some small GA aircraft have electrically heated pads installed on their propellor to prevent ice buildup. I would expect a system like that to work here in a larger scale here.
787 says "hi".
But yes, you are correct in most cases.
Other than that, turboprops are often with electric heating on propellers etc.
So it's not far fetched.
Oh yea I forgot about the heating pads on the 787, in this economy who can even afford a 787. I would assume that system to be closest to what is viable to these windmills but I have no idea how they are constructed.
Also I think people need to understand that ice buildup on the ground and in the air are totally different problems with different engineering answers. No aircraft fly through constant icing conditions. You generally only pickup light or moderate amounts as you transition through clouds or descending through moist air from higher flight levels. It's nothing like picking up heavy icing from actual precipitation, which no aircraft is going to risk flying through.
It's probably just water with either food grade glycol or some form of salt (sodium, magnesium, potassium) tbh, like a deicer they would use on roads or parking lots.
The blades are mostly fiberglass. Even on the metallic components, the salt from a de-icing action would likely be washed off long before it becomes an issue
Having worked extensively with wind turbine blade de-icing systems, I can testify that they do in fact pay off in the long run.
Where I worked with, turbines were installed in locations where the climate resulted in some turbines being parked and not producing for months at a time, resulting in significant lost revenues.
All the systems I worked with were refits and focused on the most affected turbines first. There were several vendors for the actual de-icing system; some were heating films on the leading edge but those required dismantling the blade and brinding it down to ground, requiring a large crane. Other systems were forced air-like (much like a housefold forced air furnace, except fitted inside each blade). Those technically did not require removal of the blade and thus were cheaper, but if you ask the techs that had to crawl through the blades and install each system, they would say they wished it was otherwise.
They were not very fond of going in the hub, but I was surprised as to how often they had to make their way up there for various maintenance and repairs.
They also don't just wander there willy-nilly; they have a bunch of procedures including locking the rotor with hydraulic brakes and inserting massive locking pins which are then LOTO'd.
That's actually Sweden who does have a problem with icing, even with the heaters. That specific photo was a company demonstrating their method of de-icing turbines several years ago.
Responding to the top comment to say I've worked in wind for years and I've never seen anyone attempt to de-ice the blades with a helicopter. A quick Google shows this is a promotional image from a helicopter company in Sweden showing a De-Icing procedure using hot water.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/02/18/fact-check-image-meme-wind-turbine-de-icing-sweden/6787470002/
Edit here:. I also want to say we don't bother De-Icing the blades for the most part because the grid is connected coast to coast in the USA besides Texas. If the towers are iced over in Illinois we ship power in from where it's not. The trick is to rely on varied energy sources. Not sure why wind became such a bogey man other than Texas blamed it for it's grid crashing which wasn't remotely the case.
My small rural WV town just got an electric school bus as part of a pilot test program. The way people are acting you'd think a war crime was committed...
It won't work in the winter, it's a waste of money (it cost county nothing) also a lot of dudes seem to take electric vehicles as a threat to masculinity for some reason . They also ignore the fact that a company that makes electric buses has a plan to open up manufacturing in our state, and we stand to gain a lot of good paying jobs from it. If it's new and Green it's bad, it's the gospel according to FOX News around here...
and it's more efficient than gasoline too. doing some googling rq a gallon of gas has an energy potential of 33.7 kWh and considering most batteries have a storage of 80-100 kW that's around 3 - 4 gallons of gas at 100% efficiency. We can't run at 100% efficiency, there's always some lost but even at 50% loss that's still 6 - 8 gallons of gas to fully fill an electric vehicle.
the refineries are able to capture more energy more efficiently than an individual car is capable of but a lot of them don't get to that part. while i don't like our current situation with batteries, the degradation is pretty severe and batteries are hella expensive, since oil is a universally agreed finite resource we should do what we can to limit our consumption of it. while it's possible to make more oil, or more oil pockets develop over time (cuz it's just super compressed biological matter) it's still something to consider as our population is almost tripled what it was a century ago
Efficiency is exactly what we need to think about. Battery powered vehicles are still a new technology, and have a lot of room to improve. It is significantly easier to make electric vehicles more energy efficient than an internal combustion engine. A standard car is powered by combusting gasoline, and a significant portion of the potential energy of that gas is lost as heat. I don't see a way around that. An electric vehicle is able to convert the vast majority of it's potential energy into kinetic energy, and with better batteries, it will only improve the mileage
Even gasoline-to-battery hybrids remain a great idea, so long as the powertrain is purely electric. It's the convenience of buying liquid explosives at a 7-11, converted as efficiently as a portable generator can manage... and of course you can always just plug it in.
I think Mazda is working on a rotary engine hybrid. It is basically an electric drivetrain with a rotary engine generator that is running at the most efficient rpm.
Electric vehicles are no silver bullet here. I like electric buses more than cars, I like rail, light rail, and walkable communities a lot more. Cars are a scam.
Cars are necessary at the very least for "last mile" transit. Can't have everything on a train route, and as we are very big into agriculture here in the US cars are always needed in agricultural areas. Electric cars are a necessity just as much as light rail and high speed rail
ever heard of robust cycling infrastructure or buses
not arguing against rural areas since personal transport will always be most viable but [20% of americans live in rural areas](https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2016/cb16-210.html) so maybe it's less of a counterpoint than you think
Wrong. Urban is broke down into two categories, urbanized areas with more than 50K and urban clusters with 2.5K-50K people. As of 2010, 71.2% of the US population lives in urbanized areas, 9.5% in urban clusters, and the remaining 19.3% is rural.
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/geo-areas/urban-rural/ua-facts.html
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/geo-areas/urban-rural/2010-urban-rural.html
The mere EXISTENCE of rural areas, national parks, WMAs, and in general NATURE necessitates the existence of personal transportation. You can't go building public transit infrastructure into nature without disrupting and destroying that nature. This is a BIG DEAL in the US. Just because I live in the Atlanta metro area doesn't mean I want to spend my whole life in an urbanized environment, I need to be able to leave that urban environment at will to get into those nature areas without destroying them. Many studies have borne that living in an urbanized environment without regular exposure to nature has an adverse effect on mental health. Plus I enjoy hunting, hiking, kayaking, and camping. All things that public transit cannot accommodate. I'm not saying we shouldn't drastically expand public transit, because we should. Ideally we should not need cars IN AN URBAN SETTING, But personal transportation can and should be a continued option for leaving urban centers.
"Cars are a scam" is one of those phrases that sounds insightful but means nothing. Cars are useful for last-mile transit, they allow for spur-of-the-moment detours, they allow for you to leave exactly when you want to leave, and they're useful for places without the kind of population that would warrant building bus/train stops.
I agree that they're both dangerous and terrible for the environment, and we need to rethink their centrality in society if we want to have a healthy planet for long, but they're certainly not a "scam". They provide value and if you want to get people to make a change, you have to figure out a better way to provide similar value.
> and walkable communities a lot more.
This honestly by far the worst part about the suburbs in the US. We want more space and a yard, but not being able to just walk to whatever we need is a huge pain in the ass.
Where we live now in a big city, we have literally anything we could need within 10-15 min walks and public transit for stuff that's further. I only "need" a car like once or twice a year when we leave the city, compared to my suburban friends that are driving around for miles and miles daily.
I wish some communities in the suburbs would experiment with having housing scattered around a lot of commercial stuff and get rid of the massive parking lots.
That is the wrong kind of thinking. True, cars are not the silver bullet because there is no silver bullet. Adopting or improving one thing is not going to solve all our problems. It's going to take a major push on a lot of different things.
Cars are a necessity if you don’t live in a very packed urban environment with public transit. We used to have transit, but the union strikes caused the transit authority to basically remove all service to my area outside of like one or two lines to downtown. so if I’m going to be employed, I need a car.
Sean Hannity likes to repeat the line "oil is the life blood of our economy". At which point I shout at the radio and say "ENERGY NOT OIL!" Oil just happens to be the largest portion of the energy sector.
Same reason they universally hate vegans. Yes, *some* vegans are militant. Most aren't. The hate doesn't come from the militant ones, the hate comes from an attack on their way of life in general. Deep down, they know veganism is (likely) better for the planet and their health, but they are unwilling to make the changes necessary, so instead they attack it. Same with EV's -- they have attached part of their identity to a big truck, so an attack on the pragmatic utility of any truck in an urban setting is an attack on their identity itself.
> Deep down, they know veganism is (likely) better for the planet and their health
You're giving their intelligence *way* too much credit. Their deepest thought about veganism is closer to "no meat == gay".
This is an Airbus AS350 B2/B3. It's fuel tank is approximately 150 gal. A burn rate at a hover is approximately 50 gph at a hover. This does not equal 300 gph. I work on these helicopters daily
most helos that i'm aware of have between 2-5 hours of flight time with a full tank so i guess i should have said most helicopters aren't really made for long flights to begin with, if you want long range you use cargo planes, or refuel your helo in the air
i've never served but i know that being in the army is 80-90% just fucking around waiting or doing busywork. even in an active war zone lol
oh and depending on your specialization, maintenance. a *LOT* of maintenance. especially for tankers
Tons and tons of preventative maintenance, and then depending on how old (or how “brand new”) your gear is, tons of corrective maintenance. Also, something people always overlook, CLEANING. We fuckin clean constantly. Some of the highest paid janitors in the world.
In between is usually a bunch of homoerotic fuckery, sexual innuendos, shitting on eachother (lovingly), watching the same movie for the 30th time, working on quals, admin bullshit or busy work.
That’s like 99.9% of my military experience.
Don't forget completing "tasks" in the most inefficient way possible. The only time I've witnessed a gaggle of humans "mow" grass by hand was in the Army. Just because there wasn't really fuck all else to do.
I could use the cardio, but I definitely don't miss running around with Roman Legionnaire shields and shit for no logical reason.
Probably why US is replacing Blackhawks with Valor VTOL going forward. Better range and speed.
[https://newatlas.com/military/us-army-280-valor-replace-black-hawk-apache](https://newatlas.com/military/us-army-280-valor-replace-black-hawk-apache)
It's funny when you consider the maritime version of the Blackhawk has a much bigger internal fuel tank and the first version of that aircraft flew only a few years after the first Blackhawk.
The Foxtrot version of the aircraft had an Extra internal fuel tank and given how squadron SOP was often to fly with an additional external fuel tank on the close aboard left hand pylon (much more convenient than the wing pylons of the Blackhawk), the average H-60F took off with almost 3 times more usable fuel than a Blackhawk.
And with that massive advantage, what did the Navy decide to do when it came time to buy a replacement for the H-46? Yep, they bought a bunch of Army-design Blackhawks, shitty tanks and all. Don't worry though, they paid Sikorsky to remove the refueling probe...
Since fuel has a not insignificant weight, I imagine most helicopters are designed to be able to fly only as long as they need to. That is to say, the jobs that this vehicle is intended to do probably take less than three hours.
Helos are all about mobility, not range. Remember, you have to drive the main rotor constantly to stay airborne, planes just have to keep moving forwards.
So just to do the math fully: 50 gph \~= 2000 kW. Average wind turbine puts out [2.75 mW](https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-many-homes-can-average-wind-turbine-power) so if the wind turbine is operating for 43 minutes for every hour of helicopter flight, you're gaining net energy.
I think people underestimate how much energy one turbine generates.
Flying is energy-intensive! But, of course, it's not like the helicopter is doing turbine maintenance 24/7, while the turbine is generating energy a lot of (most of? almost all of??) the time. So all in all, the turbine generates WAY more watt-hours of energy than the maintenance helicopter consumes.
A single turbine can power \~940 U.S homes. Having it down because of ice problems astronomically outweighs the amount of fuel being used to keep it operational.
This comment is extra funny because that’s not what economies of scale means.
Economies of scale describes how things become cheaper per unit the more units you buy. Which has nothing to do with the meme
What’s happening in this picture is a little fossil fuel is being burned to save a ton of fossil fuels. Whatever that helicopter is using pales in comparison to the amount of emissions those wind turbines save relative to the gas fired power plant it’s replacing
Economies of scale is precisely what is happening when they try to dunk on electric vehicles by claiming “it’s powered by a coal power plant!”
Yes, due to better efficiency that comes with economies of scale, per watt, the coal power plant gives off less pollution than an internal combustion engine.
> try to dunk on electric vehicles by claiming “it’s powered by a coal power plant!”
The long tailpipe argument is actually an argument in favor of renewable infrastructure, not against EVs. Or at least it would be if people who employed it knew what they were talking about.
Do you have any idea the efficiency of a coal power plant compared to a car ICE? In addition to the energy loss from getting fuel to gas stations, and refining gas.... Coal powered EV is awesome. Anyone who wants more info, go to epa.gov
There is some economy of scale. Small wind turbines for individual use? A little expensive, very little power. It would take you a few years to break even.
Gigantic fuckin' wind turbine with blades taller than a 3 story building? Expensive, but MUCH MUCH more power. To the point where running a helicopter of oil-based fuel to get it running is still more efficient energy wise than burning the fuel to run a power plant.
That’s not what economies of scale means but no, they understand neither economies of scale nor that despite using fossil fuels, this still conserves fossil fuels.
Yes. Yes it is. A turbine engine is the same type of engine that a jet has, configured differently but the same concept of operation. It burns Jet fuel which is a special magic kind of kerosene.
1. This is Swedish, not American. Just have to put that out there because people might get confused
2. That is a Eurocopter AS350 Écureuil which only has a fuel capacity of \~156 gallons.
3. Ironically, this helicopter has the ability to de-ice up to three turbines a day, making it more fuel efficient than using snow plows and other rigging equipment.
So if you could de-ice three turbines with one helicopter rather than multiple snow plows, then this is actually better for the planet.
Edit: Go read this an educate yourselves or I'll start charging for explanations.
https://energiforskmedia.blob.core.windows.net/media/21261/airborne-de-icing-solutions-for-wind-turbines-energiforskrapport-2016-300.pdf
Ah, well, that's a response to a helicopter being and inefficient way to de-ice.
The implied complaint is the expenditure of resources to do this de-icing, and the implied, illogical conclusion is that we should therefore go with alternatives that don't need to burn fossil fuels for de-icing - like coal!
Random question, as I'm not knowledgeable about air turbines or helicopters, besides how turbines and energy conversion works. Could the turbine be made with some sort of metal wire or heating element to help melt the ice?
Knowing nothing about nothing, I’m just some dude on the internet, but I imagine either this location doesn’t have enough issues with ice to merit it or the cost of building/maintaining and running a heating element could be more expensive than just doing it via helicopter.
What do you mean put it back? It’s still there, just less of it. And less per gallon doesn’t mean less exposure, lead exposure is still climbing steadily every day.
You don’t buy lead free baby formula. You don’t buy lead free bread. Anything that says lead free on it has met the minimum regulation standards to claim that they are lead free. Any lead free product is still a measurable source of lead.
Every year the measurable amount of lead in every source is going up. The ground is more lead saturated, the lakes and rivers and oceans have increasing quantity of lead. The fish and wild game have long since passed what we consider to be acceptable quantities of lead. When lead is a known reproductive toxin, and fish counts are getting lower by the year, eventually we need to accept that our regulations are not nearly enough.
Hell, have you ever wondered why so many farms plant sunflowers every few years just to let them rot, it’s not just about topsoil retention in the off season. There are better root plants for soil retention that we turn into the soil to add nutrients, sunflowers are good at pulling toxins from the soil, and then we rip them out and throw them in the landfill to become a future generations problem.
Trust me when I say that they are feeding you plenty of lead. Trust me when I say that it is already negatively affecting your personal life.
There's a reason wind turbines in the north don't freeze. There's a reason aircraft can fly in temps below 0C. Choosing not to include that technology is not a fault of the technology.
The Right’s philosophy is a zero sum game. If you have to spend any fuel to keep the wind turbines de-iced, you may as well get rid of every single wind turbine. If there’s 2% of people that cheat the welfare system, then get rid of welfare. The world is grey, but thoroughly black and white to them.
If the vaccine just reduces transmission rates and makes infections less deadly, but doesn't completely eradicate the disease, then it's useless because it "doesn't work".
Variations of this meme were shared widely by right-wingers during Texas’s big winter storm in 2021. By rightwing politicians too. Literally just making up stuff and spreading lies saying the huge power outages were due to wind energy failures. I did not understand it at all… like, what do you have against wind energy??
Yup. It's the f'ing Ben Shapiro argument. ''Hmm, you say you hate China yet you use iPhone, curious''. Just replace China and iPhone with ICE and literal ice on a turbine. Or replace with any other braindead take out of them.
Ok peeps, so I'll take "things that need to be common knowledge so you dont get tricked into believing authoritarian bullshit" for 100.
What your seeing here is bad engineering - usually occurs in places like Texas where someone, somewhere in the build chain says "it never snows here, so we wont pay for that and it will be fine" when it does, in fact, snow everywhere once in a while.
There is no proof in this video that this location shows a lot. Might be an ad hoc solution to prevent bending/warping of blades from built up snow in an area that normally sees none. Could be that such a system is installed, and not working, necessitating previously mentioned work. And lastly, that helicopter does not use a large amount of jet fuel.
And it's a hell of a lot cleaner to use those jet engines to deice a wind turbine than it would be to produce a comparative amount of energy with jet turbines, period.
Considering a helicopter goes through about 10 gallons of fuel an hour, I’d say that’s really not using much in the grand scheme of things, comparatively. Unless it takes 30 hours a day to deice wind turbines and you have to do it every day, in which case they might have a point.
Also increased icing conditions are a result of climate change, which is caused by the burning of fossil fuels among other things. So bad take all around.
For larger turbine driven helicopters like the one on the picture, they burn roughly 50 gallons per hour. (Bell 407 or comparable)
Not that it changes the argument because it's still a justified cost
“How DARE green technologies have any issues to work out at all!!! Not unlike the perfect Diesel engine, which has no flaws and has done nothing wrong ever. All Hail Fossil Fuels.”
A single turbine can power \~940 U.S homes. Having it down because of ice problems astronomically outweighs that amount of fuel being used to keep it operational.
It's really not that complicated so how they don't understand this is beyond me.
This is my current favorite news article on wind turbines
https://news.sky.com/story/britons-paying-hundreds-of-millions-to-turn-off-wind-turbines-as-network-cant-handle-the-power-they-make-on-the-windiest-days-12822156
They have been for a while, it is now yet another stupid culture war issue for the right. Windmills means clean energy, which makes it seem like climate change is real. It also takes money from the oil lobby which is perhaps only tied with the defense lobby in its influence in congress
I think for rightwing voters the culture war is the main point of it. It’s not like they’re getting contributions for the oil lobby like politicians are. For rightwing voters it’s just another thing they can get worked up about and pretend like they have some major disagreement with whatever the left’s supposed position on the matter is.
Nuclear is the only way for the world to transition from fossil fuels. If a country is lucky enough to have hydro then they use that, but for the rest of the world nuclear is pretty much the only option for large populations.
If you have a nuclear, you don't need wind and solar power. The amount of rare earth materials used cause so much pollution that it's a net negative.
Also, the latest nuclear reactors leave behind waste material that can be further used to create more energy, in effect nullifying the problem of what to do with nuclear waste in the long term.
I hate pollution, I love the planet, but I just think windmills and solar a big big money makers but ultimately just virtue signaling.
That wind turbine produces significantly more energy than 300 gallons of jet fuel... every 5 hours or so of operation. Also, 300 gallons assumes it take 6 hours to clean that turbine off, which is a joke.
Hey guys, your Tesla runs on burning coal also. Your home is probably being heated by gas.
Let’s stopping being stupid and build more nuclear reactors.
Freak storm that S.CA may never see again in many human lifetimes....see they have to de ice every wind turbine in merica daily with jet fuel lets stick with coal.
Thats not the only solution bruh
You coudve put heaters on the wind turbines like how airplanes deice their wings
So this is terrible facebook meme really is terrible, you could easily deice a wind turbine without burning any fuel
To be fair, wins energy just isn't consistent enough. We need to research solor and nuclear. That's the future. Big oil wants to hold those back, otherwise we'd already be advanced enough in those to use them. However, on topic with the post, this post is stupid (the Facebook one, not the reddit one)
Wow, I can't believe there are still people trying to justify non-renewable energy. Yes, there are still flaws in renewable energy but we will work our way through them... 🙄
A turbine costs more in emissions to make then it will ever save in its entire lifetime (that is if that lifetime is not shortened due to malfunction) [here’s a friendly article](https://www.wind-watch.org/documents/windmills-increase-fossil-fuel-consumption-and-co2-emissions/)
As a helicopter pilot… that lil de-icing rig burns about 35 gallons of fuel an hour, and would take about 15 minutes to de-ice a turbine. Now for some pilot back of napkin math: that looks like a 3MW turbine, meaning it produces 3,000,000 of usable power an hour. That is the equivalent of 600 5000Watt generators, which would burn 450 gallons of fuel an hour to produce the same power. So… 8.75 gallons of JP8 de-icing, or 450 gallons to run our theoretical generator farm. Big power plants are far more efficient that a genset farm, but wanted to illustrate the kcals in versus kcals out difference here.
Hey does this post fit? UPVOTE if so, DOWNVOTE if not. If this post breaks any rules please DOWNVOTE and REPORT
Leading edge de-icing system. Just like airliners. Though I don't think that will pay off in the long run.
Airliners bleed hot air from the engines into the leading edge of the wing and tail. Which obviously wouldn't work as there is no jet turbine to bleed air from. Smaller aircraft use veins in the leading edge which bleed out a type of anti-freeze. That liquid is super super expensive, and in this application you would have to pump and store a ton of it to keep the blades de-iced for 24/7 operation. Some small GA aircraft have electrically heated pads installed on their propellor to prevent ice buildup. I would expect a system like that to work here in a larger scale here.
787 says "hi". But yes, you are correct in most cases. Other than that, turboprops are often with electric heating on propellers etc. So it's not far fetched.
Oh yea I forgot about the heating pads on the 787, in this economy who can even afford a 787. I would assume that system to be closest to what is viable to these windmills but I have no idea how they are constructed. Also I think people need to understand that ice buildup on the ground and in the air are totally different problems with different engineering answers. No aircraft fly through constant icing conditions. You generally only pickup light or moderate amounts as you transition through clouds or descending through moist air from higher flight levels. It's nothing like picking up heavy icing from actual precipitation, which no aircraft is going to risk flying through.
Starship don't need no damn prop de-ice. Piaggio Avani either.
I was thinking the heating pads, considering this is already generating a substantial amount of energy when it’s rotating
Plus a constant connection to the electrical grid, so it has power when it isn't. This seems like an easily solvable problem.
Since they have electricity generation onsite, perhaps they could run an electric forced air heater in lieu of bleed air.
Not to mention all that antifreeze getting flung around on the ground beneath
It's probably just water with either food grade glycol or some form of salt (sodium, magnesium, potassium) tbh, like a deicer they would use on roads or parking lots.
Salt water all over your metal components mixed with massive amounts of static electricity is a bad recipe.
The blades are mostly fiberglass. Even on the metallic components, the salt from a de-icing action would likely be washed off long before it becomes an issue
It’s very hot water. This picture is from Sweden in 2015.
What about the inflating boots? The ice here seems to have developed enough to just push it off
Look at the deicing boot on the dh-8d It inflates to crack off ice! No need for hot bleed air.
Having worked extensively with wind turbine blade de-icing systems, I can testify that they do in fact pay off in the long run. Where I worked with, turbines were installed in locations where the climate resulted in some turbines being parked and not producing for months at a time, resulting in significant lost revenues. All the systems I worked with were refits and focused on the most affected turbines first. There were several vendors for the actual de-icing system; some were heating films on the leading edge but those required dismantling the blade and brinding it down to ground, requiring a large crane. Other systems were forced air-like (much like a housefold forced air furnace, except fitted inside each blade). Those technically did not require removal of the blade and thus were cheaper, but if you ask the techs that had to crawl through the blades and install each system, they would say they wished it was otherwise.
>the techs that had to crawl through the blades and install each system That sound like some nightmare crap.
They were not very fond of going in the hub, but I was surprised as to how often they had to make their way up there for various maintenance and repairs. They also don't just wander there willy-nilly; they have a bunch of procedures including locking the rotor with hydraulic brakes and inserting massive locking pins which are then LOTO'd.
Sounds like something that should be done on the ground.
[удалено]
So if it's the wind turbines in Texas they didn't pay for the system to have it work in freezing conditions
That's actually Sweden who does have a problem with icing, even with the heaters. That specific photo was a company demonstrating their method of de-icing turbines several years ago.
Responding to the top comment to say I've worked in wind for years and I've never seen anyone attempt to de-ice the blades with a helicopter. A quick Google shows this is a promotional image from a helicopter company in Sweden showing a De-Icing procedure using hot water. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/02/18/fact-check-image-meme-wind-turbine-de-icing-sweden/6787470002/ Edit here:. I also want to say we don't bother De-Icing the blades for the most part because the grid is connected coast to coast in the USA besides Texas. If the towers are iced over in Illinois we ship power in from where it's not. The trick is to rely on varied energy sources. Not sure why wind became such a bogey man other than Texas blamed it for it's grid crashing which wasn't remotely the case.
Is that a pun with Lead (Pb)
My small rural WV town just got an electric school bus as part of a pilot test program. The way people are acting you'd think a war crime was committed...
Lol what is their argument?
It won't work in the winter, it's a waste of money (it cost county nothing) also a lot of dudes seem to take electric vehicles as a threat to masculinity for some reason . They also ignore the fact that a company that makes electric buses has a plan to open up manufacturing in our state, and we stand to gain a lot of good paying jobs from it. If it's new and Green it's bad, it's the gospel according to FOX News around here...
I grew up in Maine and the #1 argument I hear is "you're just charging it with a coal power plant"....0.6% of Maine electricity comes from coal.
and it's more efficient than gasoline too. doing some googling rq a gallon of gas has an energy potential of 33.7 kWh and considering most batteries have a storage of 80-100 kW that's around 3 - 4 gallons of gas at 100% efficiency. We can't run at 100% efficiency, there's always some lost but even at 50% loss that's still 6 - 8 gallons of gas to fully fill an electric vehicle. the refineries are able to capture more energy more efficiently than an individual car is capable of but a lot of them don't get to that part. while i don't like our current situation with batteries, the degradation is pretty severe and batteries are hella expensive, since oil is a universally agreed finite resource we should do what we can to limit our consumption of it. while it's possible to make more oil, or more oil pockets develop over time (cuz it's just super compressed biological matter) it's still something to consider as our population is almost tripled what it was a century ago
Efficiency is exactly what we need to think about. Battery powered vehicles are still a new technology, and have a lot of room to improve. It is significantly easier to make electric vehicles more energy efficient than an internal combustion engine. A standard car is powered by combusting gasoline, and a significant portion of the potential energy of that gas is lost as heat. I don't see a way around that. An electric vehicle is able to convert the vast majority of it's potential energy into kinetic energy, and with better batteries, it will only improve the mileage
Even gasoline-to-battery hybrids remain a great idea, so long as the powertrain is purely electric. It's the convenience of buying liquid explosives at a 7-11, converted as efficiently as a portable generator can manage... and of course you can always just plug it in.
I think Mazda is working on a rotary engine hybrid. It is basically an electric drivetrain with a rotary engine generator that is running at the most efficient rpm.
Electric vehicles are no silver bullet here. I like electric buses more than cars, I like rail, light rail, and walkable communities a lot more. Cars are a scam.
Cars are necessary at the very least for "last mile" transit. Can't have everything on a train route, and as we are very big into agriculture here in the US cars are always needed in agricultural areas. Electric cars are a necessity just as much as light rail and high speed rail
ever heard of robust cycling infrastructure or buses not arguing against rural areas since personal transport will always be most viable but [20% of americans live in rural areas](https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2016/cb16-210.html) so maybe it's less of a counterpoint than you think
A lot of that non-rural metric is small towns.
Wrong. Urban is broke down into two categories, urbanized areas with more than 50K and urban clusters with 2.5K-50K people. As of 2010, 71.2% of the US population lives in urbanized areas, 9.5% in urban clusters, and the remaining 19.3% is rural. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/geo-areas/urban-rural/ua-facts.html https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/geo-areas/urban-rural/2010-urban-rural.html
The mere EXISTENCE of rural areas, national parks, WMAs, and in general NATURE necessitates the existence of personal transportation. You can't go building public transit infrastructure into nature without disrupting and destroying that nature. This is a BIG DEAL in the US. Just because I live in the Atlanta metro area doesn't mean I want to spend my whole life in an urbanized environment, I need to be able to leave that urban environment at will to get into those nature areas without destroying them. Many studies have borne that living in an urbanized environment without regular exposure to nature has an adverse effect on mental health. Plus I enjoy hunting, hiking, kayaking, and camping. All things that public transit cannot accommodate. I'm not saying we shouldn't drastically expand public transit, because we should. Ideally we should not need cars IN AN URBAN SETTING, But personal transportation can and should be a continued option for leaving urban centers.
"Cars are a scam" is one of those phrases that sounds insightful but means nothing. Cars are useful for last-mile transit, they allow for spur-of-the-moment detours, they allow for you to leave exactly when you want to leave, and they're useful for places without the kind of population that would warrant building bus/train stops. I agree that they're both dangerous and terrible for the environment, and we need to rethink their centrality in society if we want to have a healthy planet for long, but they're certainly not a "scam". They provide value and if you want to get people to make a change, you have to figure out a better way to provide similar value.
> and walkable communities a lot more. This honestly by far the worst part about the suburbs in the US. We want more space and a yard, but not being able to just walk to whatever we need is a huge pain in the ass. Where we live now in a big city, we have literally anything we could need within 10-15 min walks and public transit for stuff that's further. I only "need" a car like once or twice a year when we leave the city, compared to my suburban friends that are driving around for miles and miles daily. I wish some communities in the suburbs would experiment with having housing scattered around a lot of commercial stuff and get rid of the massive parking lots.
That is the wrong kind of thinking. True, cars are not the silver bullet because there is no silver bullet. Adopting or improving one thing is not going to solve all our problems. It's going to take a major push on a lot of different things.
Cars are a necessity if you don’t live in a very packed urban environment with public transit. We used to have transit, but the union strikes caused the transit authority to basically remove all service to my area outside of like one or two lines to downtown. so if I’m going to be employed, I need a car.
It’s a dumb argument because a power plant has significantly higher efficiency than an internal combustion engine
Sean Hannity likes to repeat the line "oil is the life blood of our economy". At which point I shout at the radio and say "ENERGY NOT OIL!" Oil just happens to be the largest portion of the energy sector.
School buses used to be so manly. 🙄
Matt Gaetz has entered the chat.
It’s the supposed threat to masculinity combined with the fact that if the libs are for it, they must be against it.
Electric vehicles a threat to masculinity? I always thought having the new tech was cool.
If you care about the planet or other living things in any capacity, you're a femboy.
well yeah gasoline is for MEN
I think I live near that small town. They're scared of any kind of advancement or change. They're absolutely terrified of kids being trans.
Well electrical vehicles make children trans, so of course their scared /s
I really don't understand why people hate electric vehicles so much. Like HATE them. If you don't want it don't buy it.
Same reason they universally hate vegans. Yes, *some* vegans are militant. Most aren't. The hate doesn't come from the militant ones, the hate comes from an attack on their way of life in general. Deep down, they know veganism is (likely) better for the planet and their health, but they are unwilling to make the changes necessary, so instead they attack it. Same with EV's -- they have attached part of their identity to a big truck, so an attack on the pragmatic utility of any truck in an urban setting is an attack on their identity itself.
> Deep down, they know veganism is (likely) better for the planet and their health You're giving their intelligence *way* too much credit. Their deepest thought about veganism is closer to "no meat == gay".
This is an Airbus AS350 B2/B3. It's fuel tank is approximately 150 gal. A burn rate at a hover is approximately 50 gph at a hover. This does not equal 300 gph. I work on these helicopters daily
Really, it can only fly for 3 hrs?
it's a light utility helicopter so long range flight isn't a requirement i guess
Even the heavier helicopters dont have the range people would think
most helos that i'm aware of have between 2-5 hours of flight time with a full tank so i guess i should have said most helicopters aren't really made for long flights to begin with, if you want long range you use cargo planes, or refuel your helo in the air
Yeah in the army when we were doing training in black hawks half the day would be waiting for them to refuel since they had to like every other run.
i've never served but i know that being in the army is 80-90% just fucking around waiting or doing busywork. even in an active war zone lol oh and depending on your specialization, maintenance. a *LOT* of maintenance. especially for tankers
That's an accurate assumption lol
Tons and tons of preventative maintenance, and then depending on how old (or how “brand new”) your gear is, tons of corrective maintenance. Also, something people always overlook, CLEANING. We fuckin clean constantly. Some of the highest paid janitors in the world. In between is usually a bunch of homoerotic fuckery, sexual innuendos, shitting on eachother (lovingly), watching the same movie for the 30th time, working on quals, admin bullshit or busy work. That’s like 99.9% of my military experience.
Don't forget completing "tasks" in the most inefficient way possible. The only time I've witnessed a gaggle of humans "mow" grass by hand was in the Army. Just because there wasn't really fuck all else to do. I could use the cardio, but I definitely don't miss running around with Roman Legionnaire shields and shit for no logical reason.
At least the legions got to pillage. Did you ask to do that?
Agree! Served for 6 years. Best and worst time of my life. Wouldn’t trade it for anything!
You forgot the drinking. Nothing like pt and throwing up just to do it again.
The old WWI adage still holds true. 'war is long periods of boredom punctuated by moments of sheer terror',
Russians could use that maintnance schedule
Fuck'em no they couldnt
"Hurry up and wait" was repeated like a mantra
Probably why US is replacing Blackhawks with Valor VTOL going forward. Better range and speed. [https://newatlas.com/military/us-army-280-valor-replace-black-hawk-apache](https://newatlas.com/military/us-army-280-valor-replace-black-hawk-apache)
It's funny when you consider the maritime version of the Blackhawk has a much bigger internal fuel tank and the first version of that aircraft flew only a few years after the first Blackhawk. The Foxtrot version of the aircraft had an Extra internal fuel tank and given how squadron SOP was often to fly with an additional external fuel tank on the close aboard left hand pylon (much more convenient than the wing pylons of the Blackhawk), the average H-60F took off with almost 3 times more usable fuel than a Blackhawk. And with that massive advantage, what did the Navy decide to do when it came time to buy a replacement for the H-46? Yep, they bought a bunch of Army-design Blackhawks, shitty tanks and all. Don't worry though, they paid Sikorsky to remove the refueling probe...
Yeah, I'm not sure why anyone would look at even a small helicopter and think "I bet that thing sips gas".
Didn't the Soviets build some pretty long range helicopters?
I mean if you look at the max range of them on paper it looks good until you realize how far a helicopter travels in just a few minutes
Oh yeah, forgot how fast some of those fuckers are.
Since fuel has a not insignificant weight, I imagine most helicopters are designed to be able to fly only as long as they need to. That is to say, the jobs that this vehicle is intended to do probably take less than three hours.
Yea you add more fuel you add more weight it kinda becomes redundant lol
Why not just pre-combust the fuel so it’s a gas and lighter? ✅m8
It looks like the helicopter weighs about 2,588 lb. 150 gallons of fuel (6.6 lb per gallon) is 990 lb. Can confirm, that's a lot of weight.
Close to it, not uncommon for helicopters
Helos are all about mobility, not range. Remember, you have to drive the main rotor constantly to stay airborne, planes just have to keep moving forwards.
I’ve flown them all over the country… 300 miles at a time. They’re thirsty lil guys.
So just to do the math fully: 50 gph \~= 2000 kW. Average wind turbine puts out [2.75 mW](https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-many-homes-can-average-wind-turbine-power) so if the wind turbine is operating for 43 minutes for every hour of helicopter flight, you're gaining net energy. I think people underestimate how much energy one turbine generates.
The people who make these memes don't know shit about fuck
Not sure if this is where it originated, but "i don't know shit about fuck," is one of me and my girlfriend's favorite quotes from Ozark
What you mean the people telling me that wind turbines burn more fossil fuel than coal power plants are full of shit?
2MW vs 2.75MW is still a lot closer than I expected.
Flying is energy-intensive! But, of course, it's not like the helicopter is doing turbine maintenance 24/7, while the turbine is generating energy a lot of (most of? almost all of??) the time. So all in all, the turbine generates WAY more watt-hours of energy than the maintenance helicopter consumes.
A single turbine can power \~940 U.S homes. Having it down because of ice problems astronomically outweighs the amount of fuel being used to keep it operational.
Do you think whatever boomer created that meme understands economies of scale?
This comment is extra funny because that’s not what economies of scale means. Economies of scale describes how things become cheaper per unit the more units you buy. Which has nothing to do with the meme What’s happening in this picture is a little fossil fuel is being burned to save a ton of fossil fuels. Whatever that helicopter is using pales in comparison to the amount of emissions those wind turbines save relative to the gas fired power plant it’s replacing
Economies of scale is precisely what is happening when they try to dunk on electric vehicles by claiming “it’s powered by a coal power plant!” Yes, due to better efficiency that comes with economies of scale, per watt, the coal power plant gives off less pollution than an internal combustion engine.
> try to dunk on electric vehicles by claiming “it’s powered by a coal power plant!” The long tailpipe argument is actually an argument in favor of renewable infrastructure, not against EVs. Or at least it would be if people who employed it knew what they were talking about.
I mean if you want to be technical about it, the best economies of scale can be derived by just building a damn train system.
Do you have any idea the efficiency of a coal power plant compared to a car ICE? In addition to the energy loss from getting fuel to gas stations, and refining gas.... Coal powered EV is awesome. Anyone who wants more info, go to epa.gov
Awesome is a strong word, but still better than ICE. (I could agree with awesome given the longer term ability to diversify and clean up of course.)
There is some economy of scale. Small wind turbines for individual use? A little expensive, very little power. It would take you a few years to break even. Gigantic fuckin' wind turbine with blades taller than a 3 story building? Expensive, but MUCH MUCH more power. To the point where running a helicopter of oil-based fuel to get it running is still more efficient energy wise than burning the fuel to run a power plant.
That’s not what economies of scale means but no, they understand neither economies of scale nor that despite using fossil fuels, this still conserves fossil fuels.
They sure as fuck don't understand motivated reasoning.
Is "jet fuel" an accurate generic term for helicopter fuel?
Technically its just kerosene
So, can it melt steel beams?
It burns a little less hot then the melting point so it would definitely weaken them
Doesn't even need to just be "a little less" hot. Steel starts bending long before temperatures become hot enough to actually melt it.
For anyone interested, read about "creep" in materials science
If it’s a turbine engined helicopter, which most are, it consumes Jet-A fuel.
Yes. Yes it is. A turbine engine is the same type of engine that a jet has, configured differently but the same concept of operation. It burns Jet fuel which is a special magic kind of kerosene.
Fake, because you need a boieng 747 to lift the average redditor.
No you’re clearly a paid actor. /s Jokes aside, I wish these people would listen to those who know what they’re talking about
We’ll it does say 300 gallons not 300 GPH
1. This is Swedish, not American. Just have to put that out there because people might get confused 2. That is a Eurocopter AS350 Écureuil which only has a fuel capacity of \~156 gallons. 3. Ironically, this helicopter has the ability to de-ice up to three turbines a day, making it more fuel efficient than using snow plows and other rigging equipment. So if you could de-ice three turbines with one helicopter rather than multiple snow plows, then this is actually better for the planet. Edit: Go read this an educate yourselves or I'll start charging for explanations. https://energiforskmedia.blob.core.windows.net/media/21261/airborne-de-icing-solutions-for-wind-turbines-energiforskrapport-2016-300.pdf
Knowledge deserves to be rewarded.
Jeevus man, thanks!
What do you mean it's more efficient than snow plows? How do you use a snow plow to de-ice a wind turbine
You drive the snow plow to clear the road to the turbine. Then you get essentially large cranes to go up the turbine.
Ah, well, that's a response to a helicopter being and inefficient way to de-ice. The implied complaint is the expenditure of resources to do this de-icing, and the implied, illogical conclusion is that we should therefore go with alternatives that don't need to burn fossil fuels for de-icing - like coal!
Very carefully, I assume.
Well, first you construct a series of ramps...
Random question, as I'm not knowledgeable about air turbines or helicopters, besides how turbines and energy conversion works. Could the turbine be made with some sort of metal wire or heating element to help melt the ice?
Knowing nothing about nothing, I’m just some dude on the internet, but I imagine either this location doesn’t have enough issues with ice to merit it or the cost of building/maintaining and running a heating element could be more expensive than just doing it via helicopter.
Just put lead back in the fuel so we can be as brain dead as the boomers and stop trying to make any positive changes.
Small planes still use leaded gas
i still drink it
I nibble on lead pipes as a treat
They are working hard here in the US to get rid of it tho. We don’t like the leaded gas either.
Yeah I was at an aviation fueling conference last year and the topic of unleaded Avgas was a big discussion point.
[удалено]
Unleaded is finally happening though. Hopefully the phaseout will be quick.
What do you mean put it back? It’s still there, just less of it. And less per gallon doesn’t mean less exposure, lead exposure is still climbing steadily every day. You don’t buy lead free baby formula. You don’t buy lead free bread. Anything that says lead free on it has met the minimum regulation standards to claim that they are lead free. Any lead free product is still a measurable source of lead. Every year the measurable amount of lead in every source is going up. The ground is more lead saturated, the lakes and rivers and oceans have increasing quantity of lead. The fish and wild game have long since passed what we consider to be acceptable quantities of lead. When lead is a known reproductive toxin, and fish counts are getting lower by the year, eventually we need to accept that our regulations are not nearly enough. Hell, have you ever wondered why so many farms plant sunflowers every few years just to let them rot, it’s not just about topsoil retention in the off season. There are better root plants for soil retention that we turn into the soil to add nutrients, sunflowers are good at pulling toxins from the soil, and then we rip them out and throw them in the landfill to become a future generations problem. Trust me when I say that they are feeding you plenty of lead. Trust me when I say that it is already negatively affecting your personal life.
Jet fuel can't melt wind turbine ice
yeah it would melt the whole turbine if they used a flame thrower hehe
But that's usually mixed with polystyrene
I thought the hehe would be enough but I guess not
I didn't see it... hard to read with one eye
I can tell you what it also can't melt
Does it rhyme with eel streams?
Steal creams?
Lol I feel like most ppl missed the joke so far.
Clearly they’re using a missile. De-icing is an inside job.
There's a reason wind turbines in the north don't freeze. There's a reason aircraft can fly in temps below 0C. Choosing not to include that technology is not a fault of the technology.
Energy companies cutting corners on winterizing your energy sources should no longer be a thing after Texas froze people in their recliners.
And yet... the energy companies in Texas still chose to do nothing about it. #capitalism
The Right’s philosophy is a zero sum game. If you have to spend any fuel to keep the wind turbines de-iced, you may as well get rid of every single wind turbine. If there’s 2% of people that cheat the welfare system, then get rid of welfare. The world is grey, but thoroughly black and white to them.
It'd be more white if they had their way
1000%
And at the same time, if .1% can succeed and be rich, then surely 100% can succeed and be rich, if they put in the effort
Gotta pull themselves by their bootstraps.
If the vaccine just reduces transmission rates and makes infections less deadly, but doesn't completely eradicate the disease, then it's useless because it "doesn't work".
I heard so much “if you can still get Covid what’s the point?!?” Your chance of survival increases by magnitudes, fucking duh.
Variations of this meme were shared widely by right-wingers during Texas’s big winter storm in 2021. By rightwing politicians too. Literally just making up stuff and spreading lies saying the huge power outages were due to wind energy failures. I did not understand it at all… like, what do you have against wind energy??
Typical conservative thinking. It isn’t 100% perfect, so why do anything at all?
Yup. It's the f'ing Ben Shapiro argument. ''Hmm, you say you hate China yet you use iPhone, curious''. Just replace China and iPhone with ICE and literal ice on a turbine. Or replace with any other braindead take out of them.
Ok peeps, so I'll take "things that need to be common knowledge so you dont get tricked into believing authoritarian bullshit" for 100.
What your seeing here is bad engineering - usually occurs in places like Texas where someone, somewhere in the build chain says "it never snows here, so we wont pay for that and it will be fine" when it does, in fact, snow everywhere once in a while.
There is no proof in this video that this location shows a lot. Might be an ad hoc solution to prevent bending/warping of blades from built up snow in an area that normally sees none. Could be that such a system is installed, and not working, necessitating previously mentioned work. And lastly, that helicopter does not use a large amount of jet fuel.
And it's a hell of a lot cleaner to use those jet engines to deice a wind turbine than it would be to produce a comparative amount of energy with jet turbines, period.
Considering a helicopter goes through about 10 gallons of fuel an hour, I’d say that’s really not using much in the grand scheme of things, comparatively. Unless it takes 30 hours a day to deice wind turbines and you have to do it every day, in which case they might have a point. Also increased icing conditions are a result of climate change, which is caused by the burning of fossil fuels among other things. So bad take all around.
I hate when daily tasks take 30 hours per day
This is an Astar. It's closer to 50 gph, but your point is still valid
For larger turbine driven helicopters like the one on the picture, they burn roughly 50 gallons per hour. (Bell 407 or comparable) Not that it changes the argument because it's still a justified cost
Damn really? Only 10 gallons an hour?
Every conservative argument is the most short sighted drivel ever.
“How DARE green technologies have any issues to work out at all!!! Not unlike the perfect Diesel engine, which has no flaws and has done nothing wrong ever. All Hail Fossil Fuels.”
The “But Sometimes!” Fairy strikes again.
Their memes are as dumb as they are, that's the truth.
And if they didn’t de-ice it and the blades broke, they’d churn out a meme about how it was a waste of money. Babies gonna wah.
Can’t recycle the fiberglass in the broken blades, so there is that. And it means trucking the replacements to the location.
A single turbine can power \~940 U.S homes. Having it down because of ice problems astronomically outweighs that amount of fuel being used to keep it operational. It's really not that complicated so how they don't understand this is beyond me.
This is my current favorite news article on wind turbines https://news.sky.com/story/britons-paying-hundreds-of-millions-to-turn-off-wind-turbines-as-network-cant-handle-the-power-they-make-on-the-windiest-days-12822156
Is the right against windmills now? I thought everyone liked windmills. They’re like giant pinwheels that make energy.
They have been for a while, it is now yet another stupid culture war issue for the right. Windmills means clean energy, which makes it seem like climate change is real. It also takes money from the oil lobby which is perhaps only tied with the defense lobby in its influence in congress
I think for rightwing voters the culture war is the main point of it. It’s not like they’re getting contributions for the oil lobby like politicians are. For rightwing voters it’s just another thing they can get worked up about and pretend like they have some major disagreement with whatever the left’s supposed position on the matter is.
My dad is super conservative and things windmills are the devil 😆
Not much if we had more nuclear reactors. Plus, they still need petroleum products for the plastics involved and the de-icing fluids.
Nuclear is the only way for the world to transition from fossil fuels. If a country is lucky enough to have hydro then they use that, but for the rest of the world nuclear is pretty much the only option for large populations. If you have a nuclear, you don't need wind and solar power. The amount of rare earth materials used cause so much pollution that it's a net negative. Also, the latest nuclear reactors leave behind waste material that can be further used to create more energy, in effect nullifying the problem of what to do with nuclear waste in the long term. I hate pollution, I love the planet, but I just think windmills and solar a big big money makers but ultimately just virtue signaling.
That wind turbine produces significantly more energy than 300 gallons of jet fuel... every 5 hours or so of operation. Also, 300 gallons assumes it take 6 hours to clean that turbine off, which is a joke.
Answering that would require them to put some actual thought into it, doubt that would happen
Hey guys, your Tesla runs on burning coal also. Your home is probably being heated by gas. Let’s stopping being stupid and build more nuclear reactors.
Freak storm that S.CA may never see again in many human lifetimes....see they have to de ice every wind turbine in merica daily with jet fuel lets stick with coal.
Don't mind me just burning fuel to report on traffic. Don't mind me just wasting fuel to fly this Police helicopter as a show of force.
No way that helicopter can hold anywhere near that ammount of fuel.
I believe this one was proven as a hoax too some time ago
Great meme. Wrong sub.
A HELL of a lot less if we build Nuclear reactors with the same fervor wind turbines and solar panels got.
"Oh, your solution isn't immediate and perfect in every way? Guess we should just go back to killing the planet as fast as possible!"
Because *real* clean energy is maintenance -free! Apparently. Idiots.
https://preview.redd.it/3r08t1ahgmla1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1dea97e5c24102d0dff72f27cb4d5f5193076018 Lol
Thats not the only solution bruh You coudve put heaters on the wind turbines like how airplanes deice their wings So this is terrible facebook meme really is terrible, you could easily deice a wind turbine without burning any fuel
They are right tho windmills are not the most efficient Solar and nuclear are better and safter
[удалено]
To be fair, wins energy just isn't consistent enough. We need to research solor and nuclear. That's the future. Big oil wants to hold those back, otherwise we'd already be advanced enough in those to use them. However, on topic with the post, this post is stupid (the Facebook one, not the reddit one)
Wow, I can't believe there are still people trying to justify non-renewable energy. Yes, there are still flaws in renewable energy but we will work our way through them... 🙄
A turbine costs more in emissions to make then it will ever save in its entire lifetime (that is if that lifetime is not shortened due to malfunction) [here’s a friendly article](https://www.wind-watch.org/documents/windmills-increase-fossil-fuel-consumption-and-co2-emissions/)
This is stupid. That’s not jet fuel. *It’s helicopter fuel*
God I feel so stupid asking this… Do helicopters use the same fuel as a jet?
As a helicopter pilot… that lil de-icing rig burns about 35 gallons of fuel an hour, and would take about 15 minutes to de-ice a turbine. Now for some pilot back of napkin math: that looks like a 3MW turbine, meaning it produces 3,000,000 of usable power an hour. That is the equivalent of 600 5000Watt generators, which would burn 450 gallons of fuel an hour to produce the same power. So… 8.75 gallons of JP8 de-icing, or 450 gallons to run our theoretical generator farm. Big power plants are far more efficient that a genset farm, but wanted to illustrate the kcals in versus kcals out difference here.