Notices

Wind Power

Old 06-17-2013, 06:48 AM
  #1  
Senior Member
THT sponsor
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,416
Default Wind Power

I generally favor any type of green initiative when it comes to energy-
without going to extremes, it's self-evident we should protect our resources.

Anyone who owns a boat or loves the water can relate to this mindset...
While drifting around in my own cloud of self-awareness on the subject
this graphic brought me up short.



Don't need no flyin' carz...
gimme a boat that runs on hydrogen fuel cells converting sea water.
or something.
NaplesImage is offline  
Old 06-17-2013, 07:57 AM
  #2  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 1,026
Default

"Denmark (population 5.3 million) has over 6,000 turbines that produced electricity equal to 19% of what the country used in 2002. Yet no conventional power plant has been shut down. Because of the intermittency and variability of the wind, conventional power plants must be kept running at full capacity to meet the actual demand for electricity. Most cannot simply be turned on and off as the wind dies and rises, and the quick ramping up and down of those that can be would actually increase their output of pollution and carbon dioxide (the primary "greenhouse" gas). So when the wind is blowing just right for the turbines, the power they generate is usually a surplus and sold to other countries at an extremely discounted price, or the turbines are simply shut off. "


What greenpeace isnt saying in this graphic is that the windpower has increased your utility bills, and not led to hardly any power plant shut downs. Its feel good emotionalism, using taxpayer money.....

Love your pics!!!
CharlieFoxtrot is offline  
Old 06-17-2013, 08:15 AM
  #3  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,479
Default

We have the wind turbines and solar farms going up all over Ontario. Only problem if no wind or sun then no power. They just cannot shut down a power plant with a switch, so they have to still keep running. Our hydro rates are out to lunch here. Government is subsidizing these farms with taxpayer money. What else is new?
Dwain is offline  
Old 06-17-2013, 08:33 AM
  #4  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 792
Default

The issue is that adding one unit of solar or wind production capacity can not lead to mothballing one unit of conventional production capacity. For every unit of solar of wind capacity, only 0,05 - 0,1 unit of fossil/nucleair capacity can be closed.
Wind/solar plants can be used to produce the majority of the commodity and that is great from a CO2 perspective but for security of supply you'll need back up and that gives a challenge from an economics perspective. I you can do that by keeping old units of fossil power operational that have been written off, it could work.
Fiesta is offline  
Old 06-17-2013, 09:26 AM
  #5  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Goodland, Florida
Posts: 3,975
Default

Originally Posted by CharlieFoxtrot View Post
"Denmark (population 5.3 million) has over 6,000 turbines that produced electricity equal to 19% of what the country used in 2002. Yet no conventional power plant has been shut down. Because of the intermittency and variability of the wind, conventional power plants must be kept running at full capacity to meet the actual demand for electricity. Most cannot simply be turned on and off as the wind dies and rises, and the quick ramping up and down of those that can be would actually increase their output of pollution and carbon dioxide (the primary "greenhouse" gas). So when the wind is blowing just right for the turbines, the power they generate is usually a surplus and sold to other countries at an extremely discounted price, or the turbines are simply shut off. "


What greenpeace isnt saying in this graphic is that the windpower has increased your utility bills, and not led to hardly any power plant shut downs. Its feel good emotionalism, using taxpayer money.....

Love your pics!!!

Green energy in any current form simply cannot maintain the baseload and it is much more expensive than carbon based energy. We would be better off both economically and environmentally if we learn how to achieve co2 sequestration and continue burning the abundant fuels currently in use, coal and natural gas.
Cat-a-holic is offline  
Old 06-17-2013, 09:30 AM
  #6  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Satellite Beach, FL
Posts: 10,576
Default

Nuclear is the real green energy
Danny33486 is offline  
Old 06-17-2013, 09:31 AM
  #7  
KJS
Senior MemberCaptains Club MemberPLEDGER
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Where I go, there I am
Posts: 16,760
Default

Originally Posted by Danny33486 View Post
Nuclear is the real green energy
I was just getting ready to type the same thing.
KJS is offline  
Old 06-17-2013, 09:33 AM
  #8  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 9,755
Default

Nipples you can direct your billions to the USC they have a big time Hydrogen program which hasn't produced shit. O wait they have a unit that runs the score board at the Gamecock home baseball games.
hhi angler is offline  
Old 06-17-2013, 09:35 AM
  #9  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Satellite Beach, FL
Posts: 10,576
Default

Originally Posted by KJS View Post
I was just getting ready to type the same thing.
No carbon emission (not that I think that matters) - by far the most efficient and while an accident can be a royal phuck up, it is safe...and in modern times there are risks that we have to accept. Just that pesky waste to worry about, but there is a lot of dessert!
Danny33486 is offline  
Old 06-17-2013, 09:35 AM
  #10  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 9,755
Default

We have the worlds largest nuclear fuel plant just a few miles from the POS Hydrogen project.
hhi angler is offline  
Old 06-17-2013, 10:04 AM
  #11  
Senior Member
THT sponsor
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,416
Default

Originally Posted by hhi angler View Post
Nipples you can direct your billions to the USC they have a big time Hydrogen program which hasn't produced shit. O wait they have a unit that runs the score board at the Gamecock home baseball games.
You can call me Jay.

Yeah, I know about the expense, isn't all new tech?
If it is soooo expensive, though- how come the graphic?

and I'd like to see some links Charlie, about how it 'increases your electric bills'.

My point was baby steps. It's an encouraging start.

eta- I would be onboard with newquelar if we could figure out clean fusion, or something.
anything but toxic waste that doesn't go away. ever.
NaplesImage is offline  
Old 06-17-2013, 10:10 AM
  #12  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: RI
Posts: 6,403
Default

Originally Posted by NaplesImage View Post
You can call me Jay.

and I'd like to see some links Charlie, about how it 'increases your electric bills'.
I have a separate itemized charge in my E-bill for green energy. $8 last monthly bill.
BACKTOTHESEA is offline  
Old 06-17-2013, 10:18 AM
  #13  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
37IslandHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,175
Default

Originally Posted by Danny33486 View Post
Nuclear is the real green energy


^^^This
37IslandHopper is online now  
Old 06-17-2013, 10:31 AM
  #14  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Saugus, Ma. USA
Posts: 11,105
Default

Originally Posted by NaplesImage View Post
You can call me Jay.

Yeah, I know about the expense, isn't all new tech?
If it is soooo expensive, though- how come the graphic?

and I'd like to see some links Charlie, about how it 'increases your electric bills'.

My point was baby steps. It's an encouraging start.

eta- I would be onboard with newquelar if we could figure out clean fusion, or something.
anything but toxic waste that doesn't go away. ever.
The graphic really doesn't tell you anything. It doesn't mention what % of the wind produced power actually offsets anything produced by fossil fueled plants. In other words, although 303 gigawatts were produced (much more than the 1.21 gigawatts needed for time travel ) it doesn't mean that coal burning plants were able to reduce their consumption by 303 gw.

In terms of increasing your electric bill, we get a separate charge on our electric bill which goes towards subsidizing green power. We can also opt to purchase electricity from a green supplier, at a much higher cost.

Nuclear power right now is fission, not fusion. It's much easier to split an atom than to put it back together again.

For me, it's not an encouraging start. The little bit we do have is based on deceit. I like the idea of an electric car. However, my gas burning pzev car can drive all the way across the united states emitting less pollutants than my lawnmower does in mowing the lawn once. Replacing that car with an electric car which uses electricity from a coal burning plant may make me feel good about myself, the the truth is my car produces energy far more cleanly than the coal burning plant does.

To me, a good start would be to find commercially viable solutions that don't require government subsidies.
jobowker is offline  
Old 06-17-2013, 10:41 AM
  #15  
aln
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: West America
Posts: 3,642
Default

You can't justify the switch to alternative power based on cost. People who elect to install generating capacity, do so not because they will save money, although some might but because it is something they want to do.

Just like buying an RV or boat or whatever people want to spend their money on, alternative power is a personal choice. Power will never be cheap or free. Ever. No matter what the current mode of operation is. It can be cleaner and less resource intensive though.

Debating alternative power feaseability ended back in around 2006. It has been balls to the wall worldwide ever since.

Installed capacity in the Hawaiian islands is a good model for other areas of the world. In some cases Maui has too much power during the day and so must idle down some wind capacity. The next step is a cable to Oahu who could use some power. People are smart they will figure how to manage a resource that is intermittent. When electric cars are in wide use, the batteries will be utilized for evening power for homes and charge during the day, either at home or work or shopping. At night they get plugged in and provide power for the neighborhood and recharge in the wee hours. Install solar on your roof and the bill goes down, relative to the neighborhood. Keep power local and it becomes much less prone to terrorism. It may make one less fossil fuel power plant necessary.

Also fossil fuel power is dead. It takes far too much money to dig,drill, haul, refine, utilize and distribute fossil fuel power to make it a future power source. Energy producers who tell you differently are lying to protect their investors and investments who will ultimately get dumped on their heads. Look at the US Dept of Energy projections for the next 10 years. NO new nuclear licenses no new FF power plants, no new refining capabilities planned. It's all going to alternative.

BTW, nuclear is awesome. The new reactor technology already developed is mindblowing. Intrinsically safe IFR reactors are already developed and being rolled out in countries other than the US. They consume fission nuclear waste. Thet can digest Yucca flats and produce a residue with virtually no residual radioactivity. They shut down automatically, no human interaction. Google Argonne National Laboratory and Intergrated Fast Reactors.

Last edited by aln; 06-17-2013 at 10:58 AM.
aln is offline  
Old 06-17-2013, 11:44 AM
  #16  
Senior Member
THT sponsor
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,416
Default

Originally Posted by jobowker View Post
The graphic really doesn't tell you anything. It doesn't mention what % of the wind produced power actually offsets anything produced by fossil fueled plants. In other words, although 303 gigawatts were produced (much more than the 1.21 gigawatts needed for time travel ) it doesn't mean that coal burning plants were able to reduce their consumption by 303 gw.
It tells me a lot. If you choose not to see progress there, that's your choice.
I'm sure the % is easily googled, and nobody said anything, yet, about reducing coal consumption, although that is the overarcing goal.



Originally Posted by aln View Post
You can't justify the switch to alternative power based on cost. People who elect to install generating capacity, do so not because they will save money, although some might but because it is something they want to do.

Just like buying an RV or boat or whatever people want to spend their money on, alternative power is a personal choice. Power will never be cheap or free. Ever. No matter what the current mode of operation is. It can be cleaner and less resource intensive though.

Debating alternative power feaseability ended back in around 2006. It has been balls to the wall worldwide ever since.

Installed capacity in the Hawaiian islands is a good model for other areas of the world. In some cases Maui has too much power during the day and so must idle down some wind capacity. The next step is a cable to Oahu who could use some power. People are smart they will figure how to manage a resource that is intermittent. When electric cars are in wide use, the batteries will be utilized for evening power for homes and charge during the day, either at home or work or shopping. At night they get plugged in and provide power for the neighborhood and recharge in the wee hours. Install solar on your roof and the bill goes down, relative to the neighborhood. Keep power local and it becomes much less prone to terrorism. It may make one less fossil fuel power plant necessary.

Also fossil fuel power is dead. It takes far too much money to dig,drill, haul, refine, utilize and distribute fossil fuel power to make it a future power source. Energy producers who tell you differently are lying to protect their investors and investments who will ultimately get dumped on their heads. Look at the US Dept of Energy projections for the next 10 years. NO new nuclear licenses no new FF power plants, no new refining capabilities planned. It's all going to alternative.

BTW, nuclear is awesome. The new reactor technology already developed is mindblowing. Intrinsically safe IFR reactors are already developed and being rolled out in countries other than the US. They consume fission nuclear waste. Thet can digest Yucca flats and produce a residue with virtually no residual radioactivity. They shut down automatically, no human interaction. Google Argonne National Laboratory and Intergrated Fast Reactors.
Thanks for that- I admit I haven't followed nuclear much lately... but that is encouraging.
our current political climate is so toxic that I don't have much hope of any movement on it here for a loong time.
NaplesImage is offline  
Old 06-17-2013, 11:46 AM
  #17  
Senior Member
THT sponsor
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,416
Default

I read recently that wind is responsible for 17% of power production in Iowa.
That is a considerable number in my opinion.

extrapolate that a hundred, five hundred years into the future.
NaplesImage is offline  
Old 06-17-2013, 06:03 PM
  #18  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 5,025
Default

As the other guys stated, Nuclear is the greenest energy but the enviros don't like nuclear power.

SCE recently announced they are not going to restart the San Onofre Generating Station in Ca. They didn't state a reason but my theory is, protests by the enviros was the reason.

The problem I have is, where are we going to get the lost production capacity? The enviros block every attempt to build or expand new power plants in Ca and are actually lobbying to get some of the hydroelectric plants shut down in NoCal. They do the same across the country.

Here is my solution. Since the enviros are the ones who get the plants shut down and block plant expansion, let them pay the higher costs of electricity when we have to go to the open market to buy more capacity. All it takes is a little survey and a change to the monthly bill.

I say, Let the enviros pay the 4.1 billion it will cost to shut down San Onofre Generating Station and every other plant across the country that is shut down.

In short, it's time the enviros put their money where their big mouths are.

For naples and the rest to the resident THT enviros.

Are you ready to take money out of your pocket to pay for this dream you have about saving the environment?

Are you ready to take personal responsibility for your own carbon footprint by ending all use of products made from oil?
saltwaters is offline  
Old 06-17-2013, 06:38 PM
  #19  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,691
Default

Not too long ago they were looking to build a coal fired power plant in St Lucie County Florida and it was shot down by the environmental naysayers. They also have a nuke plant that no one seems to mind (I don't mind as I get my power from there as well). When someone from the audience asked why they don't put wind turbines up along the beaches, FPL countered that while they were clean, it would take one turbine each mile of beach from the GA / FL border north of Jacksonville, south around Miami, all the way up the west coast to the panhandle to make up for one coal plant. It was killed and never built.

Fast forward a couple years and when FPL wanted to build a proto windmill farm in the county, the "not in my backyard" group screamed bloody murder and this was never launched. Sigh, can't win...
louiefl is offline  
Old 06-17-2013, 06:50 PM
  #20  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: South of the North Pole
Posts: 695
Default

You can have all the wind turbines you want. But when there is a stationary high pressure dome sitting above you for 5 days, meaning, hotter then all hell and NO wind, what's going to power the A/C, the fridge, where you work, where everybody else works, the traffic lights, the internet and on and on?
waybomb is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread