Wind Power Grid

No they don't have grid level storage anywhere, that would take many square miles of batteries and cost trillions of dollars....

..."Today’s battery storage technology works best in a limited role, as a substitute for “peaking” power plants, according to a 2016 analysis by researchers at MIT and Argonne National Lab. These are smaller facilities, frequently fueled by natural gas today, that can afford to operate infrequently, firing up quickly when prices and demand are high.

Lithium-ion batteries could compete economically with these natural-gas peakers within the next five years, says Marco Ferrara, a cofounder of Form Energy, an MIT spinout developing grid storage batteries.

“The gas peaker business is pretty close to ending, and lithium-ion is a great replacement,” he says.

This peaker role is precisely the one that most of the new and forthcoming lithium-ion battery projects are designed to fill. Indeed, the California storage projects could eventually replace three natural-gas facilities in the region, two of which are peaker plants.

But much beyond this role, batteries run into real problems. The authors of the 2016 study found steeply diminishing returns when a lot of battery storage is added to the grid. They concluded that coupling battery storage with renewable plants is a “weak substitute” for large, flexible coal or natural-gas combined-cycle plants, the type that can be tapped at any time, run continuously, and vary output levels to meet shifting demand throughout the day.

Not only is lithium-ion technology too expensive for this role, but limited battery life means it’s not well suited to filling gaps during the days, weeks, and even months when wind and solar generation flags.

This problem is particularly acute in California, where both wind and solar fall off precipitously during the fall and winter months.

This leads to a critical problem: when renewables reach high levels on the grid, you need far, far more wind and solar plants to crank out enough excess power during peak times to keep the grid operating through those long seasonal dips, says Jesse Jenkins, a coauthor of the study and an energy systems researcher. That, in turn, requires banks upon banks of batteries that can store it all away until it’s needed.

And that ends up being astronomically expensive."....

https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/07/27/141282/the-25-trillion-reason-we-cant-rely-on-batteries-to-clean-up-the-grid/

Edison Iron batteries can last up to 20+years.Not as economical space wise,but they are super durable.Can tolerated cold,heat,deep discharge with no damage.Good for isolated off grid areas where small supply and demands exist,like the Alaska outback,for instance.

I was referring to batteries to level out demand peaks,not whole-grid system.

Huge cells are sometimes sold as individual cells,allowing for more efficient charging and maintenance.

Flow batteries are also sometimes used,with the Redox type being more popular.

The capacity of these batteries is only limited by the storage capacity of the electrolyte tanks.

https://mpoweruk.com/flow.htm

No storage systems on wind farm. It turns, it makes electric, it does not turn, its idle. Solar is a different baby as the slightest shade on panels reduces the charge and batteries make up for the lack of sunshine by basically sustaining the voltage at its peak output. Turbines; no wind, no electric.

Before wind power and solar power, no battery was required. There was enough power from areas that weren't using their max to send to areas that needed more. This could be the same with wind power if there was enough of them.

Poor "we". Ah - didums.

Having worked in several areas in the energy industry for the last 40 years, I find this discussion interesting.

Some thoughts: one of the first things I was taught in engineering school was that before you could solve a problem, you had to define it. In the case of wind energy, this has not been done.

Wind turbines convert wind energy into another form of energy--these days, electricity. Storing electricity is a problem. We should be looking at ways to store ENERGY. I would propose using the turbines to drive air compressors. The compressed air could be pumped underground for storage. This is how natural gas is stored. The turbines pump air when the wind blows, compressed air is extracted when needed to drive electric generators. Each site could have a bank of air-driven generators instead of the complexity of having a generator on each turbine.

I also like nuclear power. Never worked at a nuke plant, but I worked with radioactive materials daily in the oilfield for years. Radiation needs to be respected, but there is no reason to fear it, just like electricity. We know how to deal with it safely.

As far as disposing of spent fuel rods, etc. I think the best thing to do is encapsulate them in casks and put them deep in the ocean, like the Mariana Trench. At 36,000 feet below sea level, it's not going to bother anything. The material is very dense--it's not going to float. It will eventually be covered by silt & sand, it's not going anywhere.

SUMMARY OF WIND POWER GRID DISCUSSION

I believe wind power is the way to go right now. It can be recycled and has no adverse effect on the environment (except for ugliness). All parts can be recycled including the blades and the concrete foundation (the concrete can be ground up and used as asphalt aggregate as is being done already).

Solar power creates too much nonbiodegradable waste.

Nuclear power is too hazardous. Using nuclear power with the expectation of a future method of neutralizing it is irresponsible. Nuclear power is too dangerous to be used today. And, do you want to live over or close to a nuclear storage cave that the material stored has a 50000 year half-life?

Of course, fossil fuel power plants put out too many pollutants.

Geothermal power is great, but we don’t have enough sources.

Pumped storage projects are good for use as a “battery”.

Hydro power is great except during droughts it doesn’t produce much power. It can be used to supplement the power grid and the lakes are wonderful for recreation.

Wave power can supplement the power grid near the coast.

Wind power and other suitable power sources should be tied together in a worldwide grid. DC current can now travel great distances that just a few years ago it couldn’t. The worldwide grid would have it’s political risks. They would be greater than the technological risks. But it can be done and needs to be done right away! As Jimmy Buffet would say, “there’s gotta be wind somewhere”. So, no battery needed-just more wind turbines.

YOUR GUIDE TO RENEWABLE ENERGY

http://www.renewable-energysources.com/

US DOE Annual Energy Outlook 2019.
This table compares the US average levelized electricity cost in dollars per kilowatt-hour for both non-renewable and alternative fuels in new power plants, based on US EIA statistics and analysis from Annual Energy Outlook 2019 (data for coal and combined-cycle (CC) with CCS are taken from 2018 report). I just converted megawatt-hour to kilowatt-hour (which I think is more convenient to use) and rounded the numbers. Note, that the numbers for each source are given for a different capacity factor (so-called unweighted average), which somewhat complicates direct comparison. Notwithstanding, I believe these figures are useful in comparing different power generation methods. Also note that the values shown in the table do not include any government or state incentives. In other words, they represent the actual cost to the society. We can see that at present natural gas, geothermal and coal are the most economic fuels. Photovoltaic systems are still more expensive than fossil-based ones, although PV cost keeps falling every year. The values in the chart represent just the expenses of electricity production- the retail prices of course are always higher.

Disclaimer and T.O.S | Privacy
©2010-2019 Lazar Rozenblat

The figures are biased towards wind turbine generation because they are based on projections that turned out not to be accurate and are based on those figures....I have shown that a few times here, but you seem to ignore that fact...therefore it can only be that you have an agenda and everything you say is biased...add to that that installed cost is based on figures that fail to recognize that wind availability is averaged at ~35% not 99.9% like other forms of generation, and we can see this is pure fiction and assumes we can't do arithmetic, or read....not to mention the recyclability of the wind turbine blades issue, which is still an issue due to cost....Taking all this into account we can see that these ugly landscape ruining bird choppers cost over 10 times as much as traditional sources...

We have a current energy crisis in the UK, several reasons but amongst them is that wind & solar power have failed to meet predicted targets.

I'm surprised Boris the Morris and his UK Gov did not say that "the weather failed to comply with our requirements". Nature is just not playing ball for many. Now how can we master and control nature, our final frontier!

I have often thought of a planet wide energy system,but the logistics of implementing

it are beyond our present technology.

The Earth rotates at approximately 1000 MPH,so the peak solar times change at the

same rate.

One half of the planet is dark,the other is light.

It would be nice to distribute the power evenly as needed.

The political difficulties will exceed the technical possibilities.

Technology advances,but Earthlings will always be Earthlings,which will prevent

cooperation;(Until they become the Borg,that is).

I have often contemplated universal minimum wage,but how difficult do you think

that would be to implement?

The same type difficulties would exist with a global power network.

"Too bad,too sad,your dad."

I believe wind power is the way to go

No. Averaged over a year, the capacity factor for wind power is about 20% of the label, or installed, capacity. This means a backup will be required, and that may be a gas turbine--a combustion process. It can't even run at its optimum efficiency, because it has to run at a variable output to compensate for the power the wind turbine is not putting out when the wind isn't cooperating. The overall CO2 output of the wind turbine plus the backup is similar to the backup alone without the wind turbine. So why go to the expense and bother of having the wind turbine?

Remember that the wind turbines are subsidized, so we have to be quite careful to compare the actual costs. You claimed that this had been accounted for.

You said the parts are recyclable but are the installation and recycling costs included in your cost per kwh? With an estimated lifetime, the "real" cost can be determined. Do this with all the systems for a proper comparison. Did you?

There is some question about whether the blades can be recycled. The guy who wrote the last article that I'm not even through with yet said they were cut into thirds and buried. Many plastics cannot be recycled with current technology, so what method is used to recycle the blades?

The article referenced just above is Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Economics of Varying Renewable Energy as a Means for Abating Global Warming by Dr. Barry Brook and 6 others. I hope I have interpreted what I read correctly!

There is another titled Why I Changed My Mind by Dr. Ron Gester, who is a retired geologist and physician. And another, Sustainable Energy--Without the Hot Air by David MacKay, which I don't even have yet. All should be good reading.

How about dumping the blades into a constantly erupting volcano,like in Hawaii?

It would melt them into obsidian glass lava.

No man made energy required,except transportation.

I realize this is not the total answer,but for some places,like islands with limited space

it may be viable.

Same with solar panels.

The cold lava could be mined for valuable elements.

"How about dumping the blades into a constantly erupting volcano,like in Hawaii?"

Because this is what happens. Feed me Seymour.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=what+happens+when+you+throw+something+into+a+volcanoe&&view=detail&mid=0B6D6CF4F3F31C3F14530B6D6CF4F3F31C3F1453&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dwhat%2Bhappens%2Bwhen%2Byou%2Bthrow%2Bsomething%2Binto%2Ba%2Bvolcanoe%26FORM%3DHDRSC3

Obviously,I did not mean for a human to stand on the side and throw trash in.

I was thinking of a cargo helicopter dropping tons of fiberglass in.

I do not think it would trigger a major eruption,just localized activity where it was

dumped,and no harm done to surroundings.The craters are deep and wide.

Of course,I could be wrong and the opinion of a qualified volcanologist would be

highly valued.

Am I to presume you are one?

With your propensity for deduction Sherlock, how did you manage to know that? Was it something I said or is it something obviously you missed.

I'm surprised you did not consider launching a couple of nuclear bombs into a cyclone or tornado to quench its destructive power, or have our trash as well as nuclear trash sent off the the sun to be gobbled up in a safer and more efficient manner.

NS Sherlock, your power of deduction stuns me at times.

I will not argue with you.(Think about it).

https://www.offshorewind.biz/news/

• "SSE’s renewable assets produced 32% less power than expected between April and September as low speeds and dry conditions hit wind and hydro output.
• The summer was “one of the least windy across most of the UK and Ireland and one of the driest in SSE’s Hydro catchment areas in the last seventy years,” the company said Wednesday.
• German utility RWE and Denmark’s Orsted also warned about the impacts from low wind speeds."

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/29/sse-says-low-wind-dry-conditions-hit-renewable-energy-generation.html

https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/New-Brunswick-fast-reactor-operational-within-the

As usual, it didn't mention anything about the waste. So far, there's not one nuclear power process that doesn't have some (how many tons is "some"?) highly radioactive, long half-life, waste. If there was one, it would surely get lots of publicity! Nuclear power plants are too dangerous. When the waste can be reduced to a level that the half-life is only 25, or even, 50 years, then build. The cheap nuclear power isn't worth the risk when other sources of of power are available even if the other power costs more. If one had to choose to live over a nuclear waste depository or pay higher power costs, they would choose higher power costs.

I say again, nuclear power is the biggest engineering failure of all time.

I think your obsession over this is complete chicken-little nonsense. For one thing, "highly radioactive" and "long half-life" are rather contrary to each other.

How are they different? Doesn't highly radioactive and long half-life go together? Can't humans wait until the waste can be disposed of safely to use nuclear energy? Is the risk of nuclear energy worth it when there are alternates? Will the advocates of nuclear energy be willing to live above a nuclear spent rod depository?

I know arguing with questions is not the best way to discuss an issue. But, the above questions need to be answered. They are normally slid over. Like most issues today, the downside is slid over.

That is one of the most infinitely and offensively stupid questions that has ever been asked. Highly radioactive correlates with short half life; long half life correlates with slow radioactive decay. These two situations require different regimes to be handled safely.

What's the proper term to be used for the radioactivity of the spent rods?

it didn't mention anything about the waste

There is no need to mention the waste, because we all know it is there. If you are thinking of thermal reactors, which are most of what we are running today, their "waste" could actually be called "used fuel," because it can be used again in Generation IV, fast, reactors. Fast reactors have a much improved waste situation compared to thermal reactors, because the most radioactive components are burned to produce additional energy. Fuel usage efficiency is thus greatly improved. How can nuclear power plants be called "too dangerous?" Remember that EBR-II ran safely for 30 years, and it is a research reactor with many tests performed with it. Also, remember that France has been running nuclear reactors for many years.

You, too, slid over the waste. Quantity? Length of storage? etc?

Even after reusing the spent rods, there's still waste.

Name a perfect solution....you can't it doesn't exist, but nuclear out of all the power sources in use or were ever used, is the safest, has caused the least damage to the environment, has taken the fewest lives, caused the least injuries...nuclear is in fact the safest source of energy ever, period! We have gone over this several times in detail here, yet you refuse to accept reality, surely you can see that you have an irrational fear of nuclear waste for whatever reason, so why do you keep posting this misleading information?

It's not misleading to state that nuclear energy creates a highly radioactive waste that must be stored for thousands of years. While it is being stored, more of it is generated to be stored. Nuclear advocates state that there will be a way in the future to neutralize it. If and when that method comes, then, use nuclear energy. The nuclear advocates realize the problem of the storage and therefore, slide over the issue when discussing nuclear power.

If one looks at BIG Picture, we have stored total rubbish with far greater toxic waste than nuclear. If you look back just a few years, look at all the nuclear explosions that took place with the US, UK, France et al. They polluted the air, water, soil with there tests and decimated islands where people once lived and called home.

You have been living with this waste without knowing it and it was not controlled at all. Left to dissipate into the jet streams to quietly pollute other countries. I am sure this has not bothered you at all. So why trouble over storing some nuclear waste for a few years. It wont bother you or any of us at all. And nuclear is far more reliable and efficient than all this crap of CO2 and green power that is going on, and pollution of the landscape.

I hear the greenies have a new global language we all need to learn, its called Idiot!

Nuclear waste must be stored thousands of years and with a continuous build up. Few years?

Reality check. You may live more or less three score years and ten. That was the terms and conditions you signed to be here. You will never see 50000 years. You wont be around to worry about nuclear waste.

This is 714.285 generations from now. Earth will be gone along with the idiots who inhabited this planet and nuclear will be nonexistent.

When the greenies/governments set out to brain wash us, they used far to much stay soft.

Hey hey. You've got it figured out. Just die and let future generations, if any, tend to it.

Smack on the button sir. To save the world, one must first save oneself.

There have been 2,121 tests done since the first in July 1945, involving 2,476 nuclear devices. As of 1993, worldwide, 520 atmospheric nuclear explosions (including 8 underwater) have been conducted with a total yield of 545 megaton (Mt): 217 Mt from pure fission and 328 Mt from bombs using fusion, while the estimated number of underground nuclear tests conducted in the period from 1957 to 1992 is 1,352 explosions with a total yield of 90 Mt.

This seems to outweigh the dangers of nuclear power stations causing damage. I guess we have done enough in 76 years to last a million years.

Just think of all the marine life that has been annihilated and bird and wild life that has been annihilated and people who have been maimed with fallout and food resources that carry radiation even up until today.

Doubtful that we should worry now, now that the damage has been done by those who have gone to ground. They did not think about us. Just about themselves.

History is there to help us, but we just ignore it. Based on the above data, burying some more nuclear waste is not going to make much of a difference, but it will give you a cheaper power source and a sustainable power source that is reliable. Wind power, farting against a thunderstorm. Electric vehicles, pissing in another's back yard and telling the world how clean you are.

They've been storing toxic waste via injection wells as long as I can remember...just as deadly as nuclear waste and not contained....This is the accepted standard of disposal...

"Use of Class I wells

Class I wells are used to inject hazardous and non-hazardous wastes into deep, confined rock formations. Class I wells are typically drilled thousands of feet below the lowermost underground source of drinking water (USDW). Approximately 800 operational Class I wells exist in the United States. Mar 4, 2021

Class I wells are typically drilled thousands of feet below the lowermost underground source of drinking water (USDW). Approximately 800 operational Class I wells exist in the United States. The geologies of the Gulf Coast and the Great Lakes areas are best suited for these types of wells. Most Class I wells are found in there.

Examples of industries that use Class I wells include:

• Petroleum refining
• Metal production
• Chemical production
• Pharmaceutical production
• Commercial disposal
• Food production
• Municipal wastewater treatment

Based upon the characteristics of the fluids injected, Class I wells fall into one of four subcategories.

• Hazardous waste disposal wells
• Non-hazardous industrial waste disposal wells
• Municipal wastewater disposal wells
• Radioactive waste disposal wells

https://www.epa.gov/uic/class-i-industrial-and-municipal-waste-disposal-wells#rad_well

https://www.epa.gov/uic/general-information-about-injection-wells

Yucca mountain is an even safer disposal method because the waste is encapsulated and monitored....I mean it's being stored above ground now and that's deemed safe....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository

If it can't go back to the earth safely, it shouldn't be produced or develop a way for it to return to the earth safely.

I just had a thought on your post, dreary it may be but real it is. If we all agree with CO2 emissions then all crematoriums will close. We will run out of burial space quickly. We had better stop producing people as we cannot safely dispose of people now.

OK, I now agree with robotics, they are at least recyclable and are usable for longer and cheaper to operate, and have more recyclable value. The human race is redundant.

A lot of space could be saved if they would give all of the politicians an enema before disposal.

Disposal of the politicians?

Shark food ;Of course,the sharks may get sick...there is that problem...maybe just inject the by products of the enemas down a depleted oil well,or ship them off to a salt mine where they store radio active waste.

The Earth itself contains naturally occurring toxic and hazardous materials...

..."Toxic chemicals can occur naturally. For example, rattlesnake poison and botulin are both naturally occurring chemicals that harm humans. Botulin is the toxin which causes food poisoning and is produced by bacteria. Another example of a naturally occuring chemical that is dangerous to humans is radon. Radon is a naturally occurring radioactive gas that enters homes and buildings from the rocks and soil beneath them."...

Whether a chemical is harmful or beneficial depends largely on the dose. Paracelsus, a Swiss physician, wrote in 1567 that:

All substances are poisonous.

There is nothing which isn't poisonous.

The right dose differentiates a poison from a remedy.

http://www.biology.arizona.edu/chh/problem_sets/toxicology/01t.html

https://www.irmi.com/articles/expert-commentary/naturally-occurring-hazards-they-can-be-hazardous-to-your-contractors-pollution-liability-coverage

Naturally occurring toxic radiation...

https://www.ohiorm.com/common-questions-about-radon-and-radon-mitigation/understanding-radon-levels/

The radioactive materials used in nuclear reactors is gathered from the Earth...If anything by concentrating the radioactive materials and secreting them away, we are detoxifying the Earth....

All these poisons dissipate or can be controlled very easily and or not man made. Spent rods are man made. Nuclear spent rods will keep building up until they are released into the atmosphere. How much storage do you need for 50000 years of spent rods? Please answer that.

We only have enough uranium that if we got all our energy from just nuclear it would last around 3000 years....I think we can develop fusion energy faster than that...If we don't stop producing CO2 as fast as we are, there won't be anything left in 3000 years...So you don't have any choice....

The NIF facility in the US have recently managed the first over unity fusion reaction in which the 1.3MJ output was higher than the power input. A big step forward towards fusion power.

"For years, the proponents of wind and solar energy have promised us a green future with electricity too cheap to meter, new energy infrastructure with little environmental impact on the land, and deep cuts in carbon emissions. But despite the rapid growth of renewable energy, that future has yet to materialize. Instead, many of the places that are furthest along in transitioning to renewable energy are today facing a crisis of power shortages, sky-high electricity prices, and flat or rising carbon emissions.

In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom has ordered companies owning backup diesel generators to operate them nonstop when electricity demand is high in order to avoid rolling blackouts. In Britain, exploding natural gas prices have shuttered factories, bankrupted power companies, and threaten to cause food shortages. Germany, meanwhile, is set for the biggest jump in greenhouse emissions in 30 years due to surging use of coal for power generation, which the country depends on to back up weather-dependent wind and solar energy and fill the hole left by its shuttered nuclear plants.

The proximate cause of all these crises has been surging natural gas prices as the world recovers from the COVID-19 pandemic. But the underlying problem is that despite huge bets on renewable energy over the last several decades, California, Britain, and Germany have chosen fossil fuels over carbon-free nuclear energy to backstop their electrical systems.

Germany and California have prioritized closing nuclear plants over decommissioning coal and gas plants. But with so much power still generated from fossil fuels, rapid declines in the cost of wind and solar have not translated into cheap electricity. Electricity prices, in fact, have tended to be highest in places with the greatest share of renewable energy. Public resistance to the growing land use impacts of renewable energy has further hobbled efforts to build out renewables and the infrastructure necessary to support them.

One might dismiss these inconvenient developments as hiccups in the early phases of a global energy transition. But in many ways, the early phases are the easiest: Wind and solar developers can cherry-pick the best locations with good access to existing transmission lines. There is a huge reservoir of existing, on-demand, fossil fuel power generation that can supply the lion’s share of electricity demand while also filling in for renewable energy sources when the sun doesn’t shine and wind doesn’t blow. Subsidies for renewable energy are manageable for taxpayers and electricity consumers as long as the share of wind and solar supplying the grid isn’t very high.

But as the share of renewable energy grows in places like California and Germany, the technical challenges associated with scaling up renewables become more difficult. Once the share of variable renewable energy (i.e., solar and wind) begins to approach 20 percent or so, it swamps the electrical grid whenever the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. Surges of wind and solar power at particular times of the day not only undermine the economics of other power sources on the grid but also undermine the economics of adding additional wind and solar. This phenomenon, called value deflation, is already eroding the economics of wind and solar in California and elsewhere—even at relatively low shares of grid penetration.

Sustained phases of low wind and overcast skies, as much of Europe saw this summer, create the opposite problem, with wind and solar generating far less electricity than normal. During those periods, grid operators need to have enormous amounts of backup generation standing by—essentially an entire second grid of capital-intensive fossil fuel plants that, under the best of circumstances, rarely need to operate but must still be built and maintained. Then there are seasonal variations in wind and solar that are larger still, requiring a vast overbuilding of wind and solar generation capacity in order to produce enough electricity during those times of the year when wind or sun is scarce. This, in turn, requires idling much of that overbuilt wind and solar generation when wind and sun are abundant."

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/10/08/energy-crisis-nuclear-natural-gas-renewable-climate/

Looks like we should ignore PAPADOC since he refuses to understand what is happening.

And so is the accumulation of spent rods.

The Garfield comic strip for 10-9-2021 had a neat reply in the last panel. Jon had been thinking "about things." Garfield replied: "Shouldn't you leave heavy stuff like that to someone better qualified?"

You can't fix crazy....

When one resorts to name calling, it means they have no reasons to justify their position.

Perhaps one needs to re-evaluate that neat tidy package of information provided by new channels, who promote the fear factor for profits.

Every river has two sides and one cannot sit on one side of the river and decide you are correct in your idea of the world, if you have never crossed the river to see the other side and compared.

It's not name calling to call a spade a spade....it is, what it is...your logic is not rational...

Is storing spent rods year after year without a way to neutralize them a spade? Is the date technology will be able to neutralize them a reasonable date to estimate? Of course not. We may get so many spent rods that an accident can destroy the entire world! And, there's other ways to get energy without storing spent rods. Of course, some believe that the continuous storage of spent nuclear rods is just a minor problem and anyone who questions it is crazy.

Ah, so we get to the heart of the matter, you think the entire world is in danger of being destroyed by nuclear waste...You don't seem to grasp the concept of 'secure underground facility' in a 'geologically stable' area...and you think that this fear is rational? ie: based on science and research ? Show me that research....

Show me the date they can be neutralized.

You know that is not possible, so now the conversation becomes senseless. So in your mind, what would be the ideal situation to have to power up the greedy people of the western hemisphere?

The reality of the matter at hand is a western issue. Not a world wide matter. And that is fact. So what would you suggest as the solution to the western hemispheres problem? Wind power we know is incapable of delivering on a windless day. We also know that wind power is useless in delivering on a very windy day. We know wind power has a short life span of operation.

We know solar is a temporary solution with a short life span of operation.

And both produce ugly scars on every landscape, solar reflects heat back into the atmosphere, wind interferes with wind patterns and loves to kill off bird life. They both produce future waste that does not degrade.

Without nuclear, which we know is a life span of 45-80 years of a stable power supply, what have we currently at hand? Not much. Only temporary fixes with future problems. The rock and a hard place scenario.

So what would you suggest as the fix that is needed for the west to carry on having their insatiable need for electricity. And the west I mean USA, Canada, Europe.

India, Africa, they just get on with life without electricity and use solar cookers, solar panels, fire, candles when required. Their 'essentials' are not the same as your essentials to live.

Like it!

I would hardly call it greedy to want to survive....so the East doesn't use any electric?

...."During the fiscal year (FY) 2019-20, the gross electricity generated by utilities in India was 1,383.5 TWh and the total electricity generation (utilities and non utilities) in the country was 1,598 TWh. "...

How many TWh does the US use per year? Residential customers directly consumed 1,469.09 TWh

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_India

Actually, it is greed. People have become accustomed to not switching anything off, but leaving everything on Stand-by, which still consumes electricity. If we all switched off items on standby that is a big reduction on load and wasted electric.

The population of the USA is approximately 331,883,986. The population of India is approximately 1,352,642,280 and many do not use electricity as they do not have fancy gadgets that consume power, (besides cell phones that is). Very few use or own a vacuum cleaner, not a great seller in India. Cooking is almost 100% gas, fire or solar cooking. Not electric. And almost everyone learns to save resources at an early age to keep costs down and savings in the bank high. Industry in India is the biggest consumer. Africa is the same. IN Sweden you will never/rarely see a window in a house that does not have a light burning in it. And I mean all the windows, not just one or two. Denmark, Norway, Finland are the same, and they never turn them off. Its a tradition, they will tell you, but one that needs revising to reduce loads.

The west is the total opposite and we squander resources easily. We have developed a lifestyle of wasting rather than conserving, or thinking first, and it is always someone else's problem to fix. But hell, who cares, I turn things off and do my bit to save resources, for another to gain the saving and waste it. That's life!

India doesn't use a lot of electric because they are a poor country, but that is changing and so will electric consumption, so get off your high horse about them being conservative consumers by choice...they are not...how do I know?... we have a lot of people from India living in the US...The fact is anybody given the choice will seek a higher quality of life...

"As of 2019, about 2.7 million Indian immigrants resided in the United States. Today, Indian immigrants account for approximately 6 percent of the U.S. foreign-born population, making them the second-largest immigrant group in the country, after Mexicans and ahead of immigrants from China and the Philippines."Oct 16, 2020

'I turn things off and do my bit to save resources, for another to gain the saving and waste it. That's life!'; highly appreciate the first part,hope & wish everyone of us do our bit to save resources. As for later part of your lament, don't get disheartened because while one wasted what you saved, another might have benefited because you saved; read Rudyard Kipling's "If" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If—]). In India, ~60% of electricity produced is through fossil fuels (>80% of it by coal) route[https://powermin.gov.in/en/content/power-sector-glance-all-india], though it is changing fast with Government's push towards renewable sources. Average per capita space for living in India is ~100 sq ft.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_in_India]; this mostly explains low household needs of electricity & low sales of vacuum cleaners.One will find, for the dry climate in most parts of India, sweeping with broom followed by mopping with wet cloth is better way of cleaning one's house than doing so by vacuum cleaner in terms of time consumed, effectiveness of cleaning etc.,As SE pointed out in post 159, availability & affordability may increase per capita consumption of power in India & other developing countries. But it is not straight forward. In early 2000's there were many companies in India based on this theme, which made big plans for 4GW super critical thermal power plants citing low per capita consumption and projected demand. The stock prices of these companies since then fallen drastically, and only few of those mega power plants have been materialized. In general, indigenous communities every where on globe, and communities in East are relatively conservative in the sense that they spurge less (again relative, and exceptions exist, not on high horse, with feet firmly on ground) mainly because their culture (live, thankful & let live) routinely reminds them to notice & acknowledge the sustenance provided by environment (trees, water bodies etc.,) and their dependence on it.I hope availability of technology won't close their eyes.

Dream on....

https://www.scoopwhoop.com/topic/most-expensive-residential-areas-in-india/

Going back to the original post about tying all the wind farms together. Yes, as a whole, it would tend to even out the power available, but it is my estimation that this "aggregation" wouldn't be enough power to quench our thirst for energy. Besides, it would cause an awful lot of NIMBY problems.

This will give you an idea of the scale and cost involved in such a scheme....and why it is impractical....

Grind them up and add them to concrete for extra strength,or add to asphalt highway pavement.

Concrete plants burn lime to make Portland cement,so fiberglass should melt also.They also recycle tires by burning them as fuel in their furnaces,and the molten steel wire (slag)is used in the mix also

All this burning & melting will produce CO2. Will the CO2 produced by making concrete for their foundations be more than is saved by wind farms being installed? I suspect yes, but don't have numbers at hand.