Pickens' wind plan hits a snag

[CLite]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
You might check out KiteGen. It's a very creative idea for wind power, using kites attached to a generator on the ground. Theoretically they claim the design can scale up to 60GW (requiring a massive, 25km wide carousel, and using probably hundreds or thousands of kites), although facilities in the 1GW range, which is equivalent to a nuclear fission plant, would probably be most economical.

Also it would rely on high altitude winds, which are high speed and relatively constant.

Unfortunately, commercial fusion is probably at least a few decades away, maybe closer to five.

Interesting concept, it took me a moment to envision it. They basically would inflate the kites on one side, and relax one of the rope to turn the kites into flags on the other side. As the structure rotated the kites crossing the center line would either turn into flags on the leeward side or re-inflate on the windward side. To produce 1 GW off this structure though..... the scale of it would be intense and it would have to be extremely strong structurally. The center bearing would have to be a work of art to take the unbalanced forces because only one side would get loaded.

I highly doubt they could occupy the area of a nuclear plant's no fly zone and produce 1 GW of energy. Indian point's nuclear plant is right around Newark/Laguardia/JFK, I don't think the no fly zone is very large.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

No where was I suggesting that a windfarm here was close to the capacity of a generation plant - which is exactly the point. Individual farms are place in areas that have potential thus would not need massive transmssion as they are usually less than 300MW. They'd simply be supplemental. Here in Iowa(as of spring of '08) we produced 5.5% of our electricity via wind. We will likely be closer to 7% when the current farms are completed before the next report. Anyway, the point here is that transmission capacity has to be greater than potential load - no matter what the actual production is. So if you are adding/upgrading a power plant - you likely have a load issue which demands you upgrade transmission to supply additional production(no matter what the source).

I think we are in basic agreement here. Small scale stuff generally will be fine. Mainline power plants would need in some cases infrastructure upgrade. Places where there is great wind/solar power potential such as NM,AZ (solar) and ND/SD (wind) would need to make large investments in infrastructure to support commercial size power plants.

This Wind power source is an excellent source of info on wond power.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: ayabe
There's a huge problem with the gigantic wind and solar farms he and others are proposing.

There's is no f'ing way to move the power from the sticks to the cities where it's needed. Our grid cannot handle it. It will take billions to upgrade the power grid to make this a reality.

QFT. What so many don't really understand is our power grid is not in the places where there is lots of solar and wind power. So if a multi-gigawatt wind farm is placed in ND, then we also have to build infrastructure so the power can be moved to where it is needed.

Doable, but it takes time and money.

They don't have transmission lines in ND?

Here in Iowa, they have put up many wind farms and most aren't "near" the cities - they are in the "stalks"(not "sticks" )

not enough to move that sort of power, or anything near it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

No where was I suggesting that a windfarm here was close to the capacity of a generation plant - which is exactly the point. Individual farms are place in areas that have potential thus would not need massive transmssion as they are usually less than 300MW. They'd simply be supplemental. Here in Iowa(as of spring of '08) we produced 5.5% of our electricity via wind. We will likely be closer to 7% when the current farms are completed before the next report. Anyway, the point here is that transmission capacity has to be greater than potential load - no matter what the actual production is. So if you are adding/upgrading a power plant - you likely have a load issue which demands you upgrade transmission to supply additional production(no matter what the source).

I think we are in basic agreement here. Small scale stuff generally will be fine. Mainline power plants would need in some cases infrastructure upgrade. Places where there is great wind/solar power potential such as NM,AZ (solar) and ND/SD (wind) would need to make large investments in infrastructure to support commercial size power plants.

This Wind power source is an excellent source of info on wond power.

That's exactly the site I use as my main source for figures.

I guess the point of contention is "commercial size power plants". Wind farms likely won't come close to typical coal/nuclear output due to geographic size restrictions. Solar would likely be the same thing. It'd likely be clusters of generation for both solar and wind which would mainly be supplemental sources to traditional generation. So your transmission would still be in need of upgrade if your demand(load) was more than can be currently handled. So just because your potential supply is greater doesn't mean much(save a few exceptions) as far as transmission - it's mainly about load.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

No where was I suggesting that a windfarm here was close to the capacity of a generation plant - which is exactly the point. Individual farms are place in areas that have potential thus would not need massive transmssion as they are usually less than 300MW. They'd simply be supplemental. Here in Iowa(as of spring of '08) we produced 5.5% of our electricity via wind. We will likely be closer to 7% when the current farms are completed before the next report. Anyway, the point here is that transmission capacity has to be greater than potential load - no matter what the actual production is. So if you are adding/upgrading a power plant - you likely have a load issue which demands you upgrade transmission to supply additional production(no matter what the source).

I think we are in basic agreement here. Small scale stuff generally will be fine. Mainline power plants would need in some cases infrastructure upgrade. Places where there is great wind/solar power potential such as NM,AZ (solar) and ND/SD (wind) would need to make large investments in infrastructure to support commercial size power plants.

This Wind power source is an excellent source of info on wond power.

That's exactly the site I use as my main source for figures.

I guess the point of contention is "commercial size power plants". Wind farms likely won't come close to typical coal/nuclear output due to geographic size restrictions. Solar would likely be the same thing. It'd likely be clusters of generation for both solar and wind which would mainly be supplemental sources to traditional generation. So your transmission would still be in need of upgrade if your demand(load) was more than can be currently handled. So just because your potential supply is greater doesn't mean much(save a few exceptions) as far as transmission - it's mainly about load.

There has been some talk of GW size "alternate" energy plants and that is really what I was referring to. And I certainly did not mean to be disparaging referring to small wind or any other power plants as "toys". More illustrative of what I was trying to get at and obviously wasn't clear.

I think there are some possibilities in the Dakotas, Texas, CA for "commercial-size" plants. I think the more likely course are multiple smaller plants in the 150-300MW range along with "home" use. Seems more practical tome for these types of power generation facilities. Leave the big stuff to nukes and coal.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

No where was I suggesting that a windfarm here was close to the capacity of a generation plant - which is exactly the point. Individual farms are place in areas that have potential thus would not need massive transmssion as they are usually less than 300MW. They'd simply be supplemental. Here in Iowa(as of spring of '08) we produced 5.5% of our electricity via wind. We will likely be closer to 7% when the current farms are completed before the next report. Anyway, the point here is that transmission capacity has to be greater than potential load - no matter what the actual production is. So if you are adding/upgrading a power plant - you likely have a load issue which demands you upgrade transmission to supply additional production(no matter what the source).

I think we are in basic agreement here. Small scale stuff generally will be fine. Mainline power plants would need in some cases infrastructure upgrade. Places where there is great wind/solar power potential such as NM,AZ (solar) and ND/SD (wind) would need to make large investments in infrastructure to support commercial size power plants.

This Wind power source is an excellent source of info on wond power.

That's exactly the site I use as my main source for figures.

I guess the point of contention is "commercial size power plants". Wind farms likely won't come close to typical coal/nuclear output due to geographic size restrictions. Solar would likely be the same thing. It'd likely be clusters of generation for both solar and wind which would mainly be supplemental sources to traditional generation. So your transmission would still be in need of upgrade if your demand(load) was more than can be currently handled. So just because your potential supply is greater doesn't mean much(save a few exceptions) as far as transmission - it's mainly about load.

There has been some talk of GW size "alternate" energy plants and that is really what I was referring to. And I certainly did not mean to be disparaging referring to small wind or any other power plants as "toys". More illustrative of what I was trying to get at and obviously wasn't clear.

I think there are some possibilities in the Dakotas, Texas, CA for "commercial-size" plants. I think the more likely course are multiple smaller plants in the 150-300MW range along with "home" use. Seems more practical tome for these types of power generation facilities. Leave the big stuff to nukes and coal.

Exactly - the point of contention is the size. I have not seen serious plans for this "commercial-size" "plants" regarding windfarms. Can I ask where you have seen info on this?

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
He can't make any profit it from it now.

I guess he doesn't want to subsidize the electricity costs for people.

 

[conehead433]

Pickens just wants us all to go nuts for natural gas. Then he can make billions more after the demand for it sends its price skyrocketing, BTW- My nearest natural gas refueling station is 200 miles away. So go fuck yourself, asshole. And way to drop the ball on clean renewable energy.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

No where was I suggesting that a windfarm here was close to the capacity of a generation plant - which is exactly the point. Individual farms are place in areas that have potential thus would not need massive transmssion as they are usually less than 300MW. They'd simply be supplemental. Here in Iowa(as of spring of '08) we produced 5.5% of our electricity via wind. We will likely be closer to 7% when the current farms are completed before the next report. Anyway, the point here is that transmission capacity has to be greater than potential load - no matter what the actual production is. So if you are adding/upgrading a power plant - you likely have a load issue which demands you upgrade transmission to supply additional production(no matter what the source).

I think we are in basic agreement here. Small scale stuff generally will be fine. Mainline power plants would need in some cases infrastructure upgrade. Places where there is great wind/solar power potential such as NM,AZ (solar) and ND/SD (wind) would need to make large investments in infrastructure to support commercial size power plants.

This Wind power source is an excellent source of info on wond power.

That's exactly the site I use as my main source for figures.

I guess the point of contention is "commercial size power plants". Wind farms likely won't come close to typical coal/nuclear output due to geographic size restrictions. Solar would likely be the same thing. It'd likely be clusters of generation for both solar and wind which would mainly be supplemental sources to traditional generation. So your transmission would still be in need of upgrade if your demand(load) was more than can be currently handled. So just because your potential supply is greater doesn't mean much(save a few exceptions) as far as transmission - it's mainly about load.

There has been some talk of GW size "alternate" energy plants and that is really what I was referring to. And I certainly did not mean to be disparaging referring to small wind or any other power plants as "toys". More illustrative of what I was trying to get at and obviously wasn't clear.

I think there are some possibilities in the Dakotas, Texas, CA for "commercial-size" plants. I think the more likely course are multiple smaller plants in the 150-300MW range along with "home" use. Seems more practical tome for these types of power generation facilities. Leave the big stuff to nukes and coal.

Exactly - the point of contention is the size. I have not seen serious plans for this "commercial-size" "plants" regarding windfarms. Can I ask where you have seen info on this?

Below is a link to one and there has been talk in my state of a several thousand acre wind farm as well. But all in very preliminary discussion/planning. Nothing in actual development yet.

Commercial Wind Farm

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

No where was I suggesting that a windfarm here was close to the capacity of a generation plant - which is exactly the point. Individual farms are place in areas that have potential thus would not need massive transmssion as they are usually less than 300MW. They'd simply be supplemental. Here in Iowa(as of spring of '08) we produced 5.5% of our electricity via wind. We will likely be closer to 7% when the current farms are completed before the next report. Anyway, the point here is that transmission capacity has to be greater than potential load - no matter what the actual production is. So if you are adding/upgrading a power plant - you likely have a load issue which demands you upgrade transmission to supply additional production(no matter what the source).

I think we are in basic agreement here. Small scale stuff generally will be fine. Mainline power plants would need in some cases infrastructure upgrade. Places where there is great wind/solar power potential such as NM,AZ (solar) and ND/SD (wind) would need to make large investments in infrastructure to support commercial size power plants.

This Wind power source is an excellent source of info on wond power.

That's exactly the site I use as my main source for figures.

I guess the point of contention is "commercial size power plants". Wind farms likely won't come close to typical coal/nuclear output due to geographic size restrictions. Solar would likely be the same thing. It'd likely be clusters of generation for both solar and wind which would mainly be supplemental sources to traditional generation. So your transmission would still be in need of upgrade if your demand(load) was more than can be currently handled. So just because your potential supply is greater doesn't mean much(save a few exceptions) as far as transmission - it's mainly about load.

There has been some talk of GW size "alternate" energy plants and that is really what I was referring to. And I certainly did not mean to be disparaging referring to small wind or any other power plants as "toys". More illustrative of what I was trying to get at and obviously wasn't clear.

I think there are some possibilities in the Dakotas, Texas, CA for "commercial-size" plants. I think the more likely course are multiple smaller plants in the 150-300MW range along with "home" use. Seems more practical tome for these types of power generation facilities. Leave the big stuff to nukes and coal.

Exactly - the point of contention is the size. I have not seen serious plans for this "commercial-size" "plants" regarding windfarms. Can I ask where you have seen info on this?

Below is a link to one and there has been talk in my state of a several thousand acre wind farm as well. But all in very preliminary discussion/planning. Nothing in actual development yet.

Commercial Wind Farm

So really "commercial" is really just a private group putting up a farm which then sells it to the utilities - not necessarily a description of size.

 

[Throckmorton]

I wish that jackass would shut up already.

The most dispicable thing was seeing him on Daily Show, with Jon Stewart fauning over the funder of the 2004 swiftboat ads.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: conehead433
Pickens just wants us all to go nuts for natural gas. Then he can make billions more after the demand for it sends its price skyrocketing, BTW- My nearest natural gas refueling station is 200 miles away. So go fuck yourself, asshole. And way to drop the ball on clean renewable energy.

Yes, because if natural gas become a larger provider of fuel for vehicles, there will *never* be new refueling centers built.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: ayabe
There's a huge problem with the gigantic wind and solar farms he and others are proposing.

There's is no f'ing way to move the power from the sticks to the cities where it's needed. Our grid cannot handle it. It will take billions to upgrade the power grid to make this a reality.

QFT. What so many don't really understand is our power grid is not in the places where there is lots of solar and wind power. So if a multi-gigawatt wind farm is placed in ND, then we also have to build infrastructure so the power can be moved to where it is needed.

Doable, but it takes time and money.

They don't have transmission lines in ND?

Here in Iowa, they have put up many wind farms and most aren't "near" the cities - they are in the "stalks"(not "sticks" )

I recently made the trip past Adair on I-80 and there looks to be more wind turbines than people.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
I wish that jackass would shut up already.

The most dispicable thing was seeing him on Daily Show, with Jon Stewart fauning over the funder of the 2004 swiftboat ads.

I watched that last night. Was that an old show or something? Picken's seemed all gung-ho on getting off oil and now it's not economically feasible?

 

[Darwin333]

So... No coal, no nukes, no wind, no drilling for more oil/nat gas, solar isn't affordable....

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Darwin333
So... No coal, no nukes, no wind, no drilling for more oil/nat gas, solar isn't affordable....

Maybe I can fill up my car with with Hope & Change?

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Darwin333
So... No coal, no nukes, no wind, no drilling for more oil/nat gas, solar isn't affordable....

Maybe I can fill up my car with with Hope & Change?

WTF does 'Hope & Change' have to do with this thread? Oh wait, you're just a troll. Welcome to AT troll. Now go back under your bridge. Oh, while you're at it take Palin with you.