I’m happy to be amongst your many subscribers. I really bwant to try out something very much prolific and as such need ideas on how I can make good returns from my $50k sitting in the bank. I hope to get best ideas out here. God bless!
I'll advice you to get a Financial advisor who will offer you best strategies on making great returns and allows you self-manage your money. So far I've acquired over 450k working with Anna Kristine. Give this a try and get into success
I'm danish and i would say not to listen too much to what Dan jørgensen is saying, He is the climate minister in Denmark and has been criticized for several stupid things, for example he presented a "hocky stick" climate plan, which was bascially "do nothing untill 2030, when the technology is better, then do it all at once" as if that would ever work, he then went on and touted this plan as a "the most ambitious climate plan ever in Denmark". He also believes that nuclear energy is not green, that is just factually wrong, nuclear is one of the greenest energies there is.
As a Dane, I'd like to say that there are different opinions about Dan Jørgensen amongst Danes - just like with every politician in every country. Just because he has different visions from someone else - on how to transform Denmark into a carbon neutral country - does not make him stupid. But sure, I can agree that the over-reliance on the idea of 'technology will save the day' is problematic
@@michelleheegaard i fully agree with you, but yea as Mikael Wendt said, the problem is that he is just unwilling to change his opinion based on facts.
Sadly most of these people just don't live in reality. It's great to deeply explore renewable energy sources and I am sure this focus on wind power will be thousands of times better than relying on coal power but I have doubts about exactly how great it'll be in the end. For one the carbon footprint of a GWh of electricity is larger on wind than nuclear power and I fear we'll have a larger issue with discarded turbine blade graveyards than plastic at the pace things are going. That knowing the danes and other countries try their best to recycle the blades too.
An expensive desperation play here. Renewables are intermittent. Hydrogen? Really? Hard to store. How much hydrogen did you need to store again to power your 10 million homes? Oh, wait. You were simply saying that in the best circumstances at a given moment you could power 10 million homes. You didn't really lay out how you would do this for 4 days of calm winds. How would that work? How much hydrogen was this? Renewables are always a sales job about the most perfect sun, the most perfect wind. They never lay out the details of the intermittency. Poor Germany. More than $1 trillion invested in renewables. They are horrible with respect to their carbon footprint. They are crippled by Russia fossil fuel sanctions. My bet is on Bill Gates. Go look at his natrium reactor. It gives "on demand" power that is clean. Waste? He has it solved. Don't ever forget that nuclear fuel was scraped off the surface of the earth. Apparently natural radioactive material doesn't have a storage problem. Bill is burning 95% of that material away - big improvement over nature. Let the engineers do the right thing, get these salesmen off the floor please.
Through a simple chemical process, the hydrogen can be converted into methane gas by carbon dioxide. This is then equivalent to natural gas and can even be stored in the same tanks without any problems. There are enough studies that show that a complete supply of renewable energy is easily possible. Germany has only completed one fifth of the transition to renewables. It is nonsense to make a final assessment while a process is still in full swing. The old government did not really want this and almost brought it to a standstill. With the new government, this will hopefully happen faster. You say not to fall for salesmen, but do exactly that yourself with nuclear power. The reactors you mention are not operational anywhere in the world. In addition, they have their own problems such as highly radiotoxic tritium which easily diffuses through the walls of the reactor vessel. The resulting waste is also far from harmless.
LOL, I would personally live in Nuclear plant. I was in 3 nuclear plants in Czechia and Slovakia, and you can eat from ground there. You have no idea how safe and clean are modern nuclear plants. If you are not idiot like Soviets that build risky cheap unsafe types with high output. Or Japans, that build unsafe type reactor on shore.
40 years building wind turbines in Denmark. And wind generates 40 percent of its power from wind and that is being very generous considering that fossil fuel is there main source of power generation. Stop the madness Dan time to give nuclear it's turn now .. Most countries are landlocked and don't have windy areas like Denmark !!
We need to change the materials that wind turbines are made from, the composites used have a horrendous environmetal impact. There are other designs that have lower env impact, big industry yet again missing the nail on the head.
We need better batteries. Something cheap and easy to produce with no environmental impact. Once we find that and replace all LI-ION batteries from all cars. ICE will be non economical and world will move toward E-Cars much quicker. Wind is nice. But i think Fusion nuclear reactor and Cheaper/new technology in battery is key to solving global warming.
@@natskii7026 a chunk of the video covers this. Battery storage is much improved, but more importantly hydrogen storage is an efficient solution available with current tech.
How did this guy get to present to TED? He is dreaming, not presenting an idea worth sharing. If these people are the face of environmentalism, in 30 years from now we will still have the same problems we have today, but bigger. We need nuclear power, like engineers have been repeating for decades.
I came here to learn how to trade after listening to a guy on radio talk about the importance of investing and how he made $460,000 in 4 months from $160k. Somehow this video has helped shed light on some things, but I'm confused, I'm a newbie and I'm open to ideas.
@@michaelscoffed1524 It is possible to produce superior performance provided you do something different from the majority. However, most of us tend to pay more attention to the shiniest position in the market to the cost of proper diversification.
@Queen David Interesting. I've a lump sum doing absolutely nothing at all in my bank account, i wanna gets something started with it. You seem to be doing excellent for yourself, how do you achieve this?
People in these comments would shut off an elderly person's oxygen generator rather than have a few moron birds not avoid flying into the wind turbine's blade. Smh
I heard the offshore wind farm was a mistake, because building them in the water means they are going to see accumulative damage from weather and need constant maintenance. This guy is just a salesman.
Our Community is embracing solar farms. With that I could make use of some. We have to take this personally and eliminate what isn't working for each individual. Natural gas and petroleum doesn't suit my needs ideally. My goal is to go off grid while making use of what is readily available and has reliable support from various avenues within the natural environment that works with me firstly and later in my life.
And now there are these new SAND BATTERIES that can store this intermittent energy for use when needed. Just a grain silo, some sand and build some stuff with already available things. Check it out. It's brilliant!
lol only 1.4 million... what are we waiting for? Just out of curiosity, how much does each of those 1.4 million 3 mw wind turbines cost to produce? In addition to design and manufacturing, also remember to include permitting, construction, transportation, insurance, installation, and maintenance. If each of those cost $1 million dollars (I am sure each would cost more), then that would be 1.4 trillion dollars just for the up front implementation and maintenance. Does your 1.4 million figure account for future population expansion and increase in demand? (every good engineer knows when to plan for expanding systems which will be likely to change in the future). How do you deal with areas of the country which are less prone to wind than high-wind areas? Some states get far less wind than others, does the 3 MW baseline account for the variability in wind due to geography? Also, is the 3 MW figure the rated output of the plant (at the transmission line?) or is that the ideal / nameplate output of the wind power generator? Lastly, how do you deal with periods of non-wind? We all know that wind turbines are going to use the principle of Faraday's Law, where voltage is generated when there is a conductor situated in a changing magnetic field (the magnetic field is changing due to the motion of the wind turbine blades). However if those blades are not moving (due to no wind), then zero power will be generated from that wind turbine. Does the 1.4 million figure account for this, and if so then how? Regrettably, although I wish these types of technologies were feasible, the more I learn about them the more it seems that the goal of supplanting our current energy system with 100% renewables is naïve and not certain to be possible at best, and at worst may be a strategic blunder which will ruin our energy system, leave everyone with less energy, and make us wish we had seen the bigger picture in continuing to utilize the systems we use today while focusing on a smooth, reasonable transition to these types of green technologies.
There are now offshore wind turbines with 15mw capacity....assuming us demand is 200gw...you would need about 10,000 offshore turbines and some solar, geothermal and nuclear alongside it....
@@monkeyinadrawer give or take, but... why has electricity in Denmark raised the second highest in EU, only beaten by Germany. When we have so many productive wind turbines that should keep the cost down to a low....
@@benjaminhenderson7059 ... but countries that has lower amount of wind turbines suffers less raised power prices than us. Weird, we're still the ones to pay the second highest in EU.
@@boduholm8463 was it feminist? he just made the hypothetical Dane a woman, i don't understand how that is feminist. Maybe it's a Danish thing i am missing?
soprattutto l energia solare cosi come il modello supernova eticamente e socialmente ecco e artistico nessun nucleare solo saggezza e significato non chiedo troppo solamente amore e cmpassione e economie reali famiglie pacifiche e sagge e non carbone e conflitti mondiali spenti e protezione di ecosistemi nel mondo ed economie specifiche che possano poe vivere a cio e aggiungere foreste amore e saggezza per trascendere conflitti mondiali ed altro ancora ed essere sempre piu grati.
plimenti cerchiamo di essere saggi autonomi come Socrate e indipendenti nel pensiero non seguire le masse ma cercare di essere sempre piu amorevoli e autentici e perseveranti ecco verso il noi mondo. Con
What a charming presentation, unique and compact as illustrates how simple renewable energy can be harvested if we implemented strategies as such into our environments professionally and respectfully to local governments and nature.
In my country, Denmark, we have the highest energy prices in the World. We also have the highest share of wind energy. So if you like expensive bills - listen to this guy!
If you do not know I am very happy to inform you that Denmark/Germany/Belgium/Holland just have agreed on the North Sea Summit agreement that are going to be the worlds largest fossil fuel to green energy transition in world history. 230 million high energy using Europeans are going to transition from fossil fuels to off shore wind power. On top of the 230 million people it transition the project also have the worlds largest hydrogen project. Hydrogen can be used as fuel similar to fossil fuels but only emits water when burned. The project have just been signed but already at the end of the decade, in 7 years, 40 % will be operational and rest the following 6 years, so 230 million transitioned in under 15 years. THIS project should immediately be copy/pasted by ALL coastal nations!
Electricity has an awful vice - it need to be consumed as produced and is very costly and difficult to be stored especially in distributed manner. Chemical fuels are unbeatable in this area.
@@hermannkreitmayer > just because wind power is sustainable doesnt mean harvesting it is. The only timetable you need is the lifespan of the equipment youre building. For the case of turbines, thats 30ish years - and they cannot be recycled.
@@hermannkreitmayer please keep personal insults out of the conversation. Thank you. Nuclear fuel turns out to be reusable actually. New generations of nuclear reactors can actually reuse the spent fuel from first generation facilities. Look it up yourself.
Could never understand why innovation in society only seems to go so far then stop or stagnate, or get stuck on repeat. Looking at the infrastructure, the number of gas stations and vehicles. The crops being often just a handful of kinds. There are so many better ideas like these. One of the strangest arguments i've heard of wind turbines is that it kills birds, or there was that video of a bird getting hit by one of the wings. Have they no mind to think about the number of things vehicles hit? Anything that walks and low flying things. Then roads, you have to destroy everything in the path of the road, the whole forest has to be flattened. So many people are braindead.
Greenland has a humongous potential for wind energy, also part of Denmark. No, all we need is a connection.... Perhaps from Europe via Greenland to Canada. Will also allow surplus of solar to be sent tot the other side of the grid where it's still dark.
Do not get too much carried away with this left wing politican - there is a lot of unsolved problems. We need the politicans to understand we urgently need nuclear power. If we used the money for developing thorium nuclear we would get much further and its much cheaper in the long run.
@@hermannkreitmayer I have to imagine you’re not from the US … our former disgrace of a president said that (& continues to say that, he even brought it up out of nowhere recently).
He (trump) continues to be such a national embarrassment! Spewing lies daily! He opens his mouth and lies fall out, everytime! Yet, he continues telling The Big Lie. Truth is, HE LOST.
No, they are thermally recycled, i.e. incinerated. Which is perfectly fine, because it reduces the amount of oil and gas burned that was never a wind turbine. And the German Society is currently researching other ways of recycling.
@@ghostfifth It's not a huge problem though, honestly, even if they do cut them up. There is plenty of landfill space and those situations in fully developed nations are handled really well.
They can be shredded and made in cement. And even if burried... I will always prefer burried turbines over burried radioactive waste which radiates for thousand of years.
Storing electricity in hydrogen is super ineffizient. Use batteries, they have been designed to do. And you are 60% more efficient so you can cut oil production much earlier, because 2050 is just rediclious.
Batteries are not green when you consider what it takes to mine the materials to manufacture them. Hydrogen however is potentially far greener, even though it's less efficient - this is their aim
With batteries, however, you cannot cover the amount of energy that needs to be stored over seasons, for example. Here you need power-to-gas. It is not a problem that the efficiency is not so high because the excess energy used for this would be lost anyway.
@@jim_ginge Batteries are green enough. LiFePo4 batteries have a cycle life of 6000 cycles and do not need any rare earth metals. Storing is hydrogen is also not green as it cannot be stored at room temperature.
@@yasminesteinbauer8565 You can actually store the amount you need. Why should we store energy over a season if you have enough overproduction as you state that we can waste 60% of it? You also cannot store hydrogen as long as you might think. It leaks from any tank because of its atom size if storage as gas and if stored as liquid requires a ton of energy to keep it cool.
@@TschingisTube Through a simple chemical process, the hydrogen can be converted into methane gas by carbon dioxide. This is then equivalent to natural gas and can even be stored in the same tanks.
Also, the conversion efficiency between the storage mediums and handling. Converting into hydrogen costs 30% at the very least, and converting back the same. And it will deteriorate over time. Those 10 GW will effectively be 2-3 actually delivered power once everything is said and done.
Even if windmill turns apparently for free there's no way that the electricity price will go down. Because nothing on this planet becomes cheaper event it's for free. And there's plenty of reason - including cost of investment - to demand even higher prices than in case of coal power generation.
As an engineer, I would be very interested in his quantitative analysis for implementing wind energy on a large scale (as it is already implemented in many places), as well as dealing with periods of having no wind, also how he recommends storing energy for those periods during which no energy can be generated. I know that a typical wind turbine can produce enough energy for about 500 homes, while a liquid natural gas (LNG) power plant could power 5 to 10 times that, though the LNG plant can run continuously and predictably without the need for energy storage, while the wind plant can only work whenever the wind is blowing. To speak only to the wind turbine max capacity and not the intermittent nature and need for storage is to only be looking at a small piece of the total energy picture. Likewise, he doesn't mention any of the issues related to manufacturing and transport of wind turbine components, which is not as standard and simple as components used in more traditional plants. And in fact, if we are looking for energy alternatives to coal and gas, then why are we not talking about nuclear power? You will not find more abundant, consistent, and arguably clean energy than that. And nuclear power plants in 2022 are far more safe than technologies from the 70's and before, which were already quite safe even by today's standards. Is there anywhere in this video that speaks to a comparison of the pros and cons of using wind energy instead of nuclear energy? I am a huge fan of the idea of using things like solar power, geothermal energy, and wind power to generate electricity to replace fossil fuels as the primary source of energy for consumers. But to only address the upside of wind turbine adoption, and to not discuss the drawbacks of such adoption is to commit a major error in assessing what the next best steps are for the energy production systems of our country and around the globe.
Nice presentation and lots of comments and I am all in on innovation. However the one thing he doesn’t mention as far as I understand wind energy is expensive and this could be one of the barriers to mass adoption.
I'm no expert but I thought that wind was the second cheapest energy after solar PV when you measure over the whole lifespan due to the fact that the fuel they run on is free.
Denmark has the highest energy prices in the World. And we are a leader in wind turbines. This guy is a professional hoax. He couldn’t care less about the consumer!
@@iTzKneecap another hard fact is materials mined and formulated to make turbines, right down to those blades that use massive amounts of chemical agents to produce and don't have a long lifespan. Those chemicals are made with petroleum products. Then get into the political side where turbines are often shut off as part of contracting for power grid and their overseeing parties. I've worked next door to a turbine blade manufacturer and pass by these turbines every day. The tech isn't there yet and production / installation of these things has far more negative impact on the environment and wallet. Hydrogen is a thing here iny state along with carbon farming, all of which are in its infancy and not sustainable or good for environment. Just the native animal impact is bad enough from birdstrikes on blades to disruption of insect populations. It simply cannot scale yet and using Denmark as a example of a solution is just dumb.
Why are the single blade wind generators that sway in the wind not more used? From what I have read they can produce a relatively good amount of energy without them being danger to birds. And were easier to set up and keep maintenance on.
I thought the hub height of the Kreigers flak was a 107m with a rotor diameter of 167m. So ruffly giving a height when the rotor is at it's maximum height of 188m. But I'm not not n the industry so probably wrong.
@@tankerbruja libertarians are about as far from liberal as it gets. As for where the word comes from, I believe french revolutionaries, but I could be wrong. It really doesn't matter. What matters is the group the word currently represents. Soulless hypercapitalists.
Nonsense. The cost of producing, installing, maintaining, replacing, these monstrosities (which are never in the back yards of the elites who so ardently advocate them) must be accounted for, as well as the associated expense of the infrastructure required to compensate for their downtime. My first question is, how much will this speaker personally gain from the growth of these eyesores? My second question is how much will he taxpayers have to pay to subsidize this blight on the landscape?
Great presentation! All renewable energy sources need to explored and this may be different in different regions. Denmark is apparently a leader in generating wind power and the process of converting wind energy to stored sources like hydrogen was interesting. Would have been useful to know how Denmark has addressed some of the adverse impact of wind turbines such as 1) impact on avian wildlife of the turbines. Or are current designs not hazardous? Recall that dams built to generate hydel power often have had a major adverse impact on the marine ecosystem. 2) the material used for wind turbines is usually expensive especially for developing countries. Have new materials now available that are more cost-effective? 3) Motion of earlier wind turbines used to generate significant heat. Has this been addressed in newer versions? 4) what are other unintended consequences experienced by the Danish experience? Look forward to Denmark leading the global effort to find the "answers blowing in the wind"!
Birds kill themselves flying into windows too. Are you going to stop having windows? Oh and how does that compare the damage to wildlife from all those oil spills?
@@benjaminhenderson7059 this will make birds species go extinct a bird had never crashed too my window but I never said anything about oil I'm against oil also, people need to think before they do.
I’m a huge advocate for clean energy, My only hope is that there isn’t disastrous unforeseen consequences of stopping/reducing natural wind flows of earth. What we did to the marshlands and rivers by straightening them and adding Dams was supposed to be “good” too, sadly most have no clue the negative impacts that has had on our global ecosystems.
@@carsonhunt4642 Remember wind turbines lives only for 25-30+/- years before they need heavy replacement parts and such, so it's barely better than building a new one. And each counter it's production of co2 of its making by 6-8 months, but currently there are 341.000 turbines in the world making 227.333 years worth of co2. And does so every 25-30+/- years. :)
@@carsonhunt4642 I don't think it works the same way I mean The wind is not absorbed by the turbines, it just make them move and that rotation is actually what produces energy (electricity)
@@mara257 The wind is absorbed, it’s a direct energy transfer from the wind to the turbine. I can’t remember the loss rate, obviously it’s not insanely high. But it’s the same reason putting tons of underwater turbines didn’t work because it was affecting the water currents. Let’s hope wind currents don’t matter as much as water, water eco systems turned out to be more fragile than experts ever thought.
10 GW for 10 million homes. That's 1000 watts or 1KW, per home. The average home is going to require 10 KW, at a minimum. Add on everything like heat, hot water and cooking being converted to electric. You're looking at more like 20 KW per home So the 10 GW would power more like 10,000,000 ÷ 20 or half a million homes. Be careful of the snake oil salesmen!
@@brett4264 what capacity factor are you using in your assumption? The 10GW is the name plate capacity. multiply capacity factor X name plate capacity X 8760. This will give you generation in GWh. That's the number you should be comparing to avg home consumption. Your house consumption figure is in the wrong units and doesn't make sense...
We in the U.S. can't seem to get passed the special interests, rich waterfront homeowners (Cape Cod,) fishermen (Maine). and others, so we can build wind turbines in one of the best locations - the near offshore. All the advantages of offshore wind turbines exist near shore including strong steady wind, shallow water, and most importantly, close proximity to cities that consume the output. It will take federal government intervention to overcome these special interests for the benefit of the greater good.
25 years and produce a lot of C02 to make and assemble.. aka he's telling a false lie and selling fake dreams. Also good luck with calm no-windy days. Sadly I got him as a politician...
@@DMminion101 Dude you are turning the truth pretty badly. Out of all energy sources, wind turbines are creating one of the LEAST amount of emissions for productions. Only nuclear power is a little bit less, but compared to that, wind turbines aren't creating toxic waste which radiates for thousand of years.
@@circleinfo Because you've experienced lots of problems with nuclear waste radiation? No, it's easily stored safely. A real wind power country will need LOTS of batteries and today that's more mining that any nuclear plant would ever need.
Turbines are not without problems. One of them is infrasounds, specially if a lot of them are together the low vibrations can disrupt small animal behaviour and even human sleep that could lead to anxiety, among other problems. I'm not saying they should stop, but they should definitely look into it.
Wind could power everything.. except the amount of cost involved in harnessing that wind, and then the small lifetime of the wind generator, and then the fact that they have to be disposed of and huge pits because they can't be recycled What about what we saw in Texas where their windmills were frozen solid and couldn't move? You do know we have hundreds of years of fossil fuels right? You do know we already have the infrastructure to continue running off of fossil fuels? Wind energy is really only practical, where you can't have fossil fuels large scale Caribbean islands, any place where fuel deliveries are difficult. Farmers used to make a windmill to pump water for their cattle out in the far field where they didn't have electricity It is not practical by any means as a large scale endeavor as in power companies.. it just cost too much money to be practical. Only way it could possibly be practical is if every citizen just invested in a small one for their home and tried to correct the problem that way
Sounds great. BUT... This is nothing new, hydrogen and wind generation have been around for decades. Sounds like another company looking for more tax payer money to fund a dream..... If this worked so well, you wouldn't need such a hard sell and plenty of private ventures would love to invest to make more money. Can't help to think this is another white elephant....
@@benjaminhenderson7059 How is fossil fuels subsidized. Almost half of my fuel cost is taxed. And once electric cars starts impacting fossils fuel tax. It won't be long before some new EV tax will be introduced. The solar panels on my roof was heavily subsidized by tax payers. Not sure what nonsense your talking about... If there are subsidies on fossil fuels it aint going towards the average Joe Blow. Lord knows I can do with some fossil fuels subsidies...
@@johnnyjones5385 did you get paid for the subsidies of tbe panels on your roof? No that went to the company so they could lower your bill (hopefully). Why would you think fossil fuel subsidies would go to you, not the oil companies? The reason you think fossil fuel is cheaper is because those subsidies (your taxes) made it cheaper so fossil fuels could keep an unfair competitive edge.
The danes had the biggest viking empire mate, we took over literally all of england, sweden had to expand eastward because the danes and norwegians pushed them out of the west. Go check your history
@@Linexxlol eh, we didn’t take more of Sweden than Skåne. Though prior to that Norway, Sweden and Denmark kinda living under one rule and we had one king family but Swedes, Norwegian and Danes saw themself being from different kinds of said kingdom. Yes England fell under Danish rule from year 895 for a little lifetime and then the Brit’s slaughtered most of them when it fell apart. But then at year between 1013 and 1042 England, Norway and Denmark became a union(Anglo-Scandinavian Empire) for a few years. But keep in mind, back then England was smaller and the Scottish rule and the Welsh took up about half of the north and west parts of England.
@@PLF... and then we fought 11 wars with Sweden(since 1523) and lost 7 of them. "Even though not all of these wars resulted in territorial changes and some ended in status quo, Sweden is considered victorious in many of these wars because they were triggered by Denmark."
kinda wish there were giant vortex air funnel traps, like water damns but with a retractable shell in case it goes too fast (+ a system or ai that detects when to shut off before the dangerous/degrading speed reaches)
The problem is storage in batteries to use when there is no wind. The other problem is the impact of the turbines on the surrounding ecosystem and the fact that farmland may be the best windy place to set up the turbines.
The problem is the human made climate change. We are already at 1°C+ global warming and the real impact will hit us at 2°C. We just can't burn more öl and gas.
He discussed that with the ability to use excess power to generate hydrogen, which can then be stored and shipped. It's like a battery. I was going to say the same thing, but the ability to generate affordable hydrogen is a game changer. You are completely correct about the second part though. The wildlife impact is huge for windmills. Far bigger than people seem to think it is.
@@BaresarkSlayne "The wildlife impact is huge for windmills. Far bigger than people seem to think it is." - No, it isn't. There are studies made in Germany that disprove this fairy tale. And even if you were right: climate change would kill far more birds.
"impact of the turbines on the surrounding ecosystem" Like literally every energy source. But wind power doesn't create large emissions like coal and isn't creating toxic waste which radiates for thousand of years.
