Wind study blows nuke and coal out of the water

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Oil/gas/coal is cheap because we aren't paying for the full price of the goods. If we had to pay for the entire thing, soup to nuts, coal would probably be the most expensive fuel out there. It produces, by far, the most CO2 emissions of any fuel. It produces more radioactivity than a nuclear power plant. It produces more solid waste than any other fuel.

Renewable fuels need to be subsidized to comepte with fossil fuels or fossil fuels need to be priced accordingly to the full damage they wreak on the environment. It's that simple.

Your post is laughable. While fossil fuels do produce large quantities of radioactive waste in the atmosphere, your implication that you can quantify the cost of "damage" to the environment is laughable.

you can certainly adjust for it.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: JKing106

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: misle
As someone who works in the Power industry, a big problem seems to be building transmission lines to the wind farms. It's not that hard to find an isolated area to build the wind farm, but no one wants to have transmission lines running out to the farm.

They need to go under ground both for visual and national security reasons.

If you want to underground transmission lines everywhere, plan for your power bill to go from $200 to $2000. And no, I'm not exaggerating.

It would be helpful if you gave us a reason, and proof, for your assertion.

Because it's not dirt cheap to wire everything underground. Just like subways arent' cheap business ok? Why do you think rails in the middle of nowhere are easy to build, but subways cost billions of $? And yes he's probably exaggerating, but I hope you're not dumb enough to not realize that underground lines everywhere = increased costs.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: JKing106

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: misle
As someone who works in the Power industry, a big problem seems to be building transmission lines to the wind farms. It's not that hard to find an isolated area to build the wind farm, but no one wants to have transmission lines running out to the farm.

They need to go under ground both for visual and national security reasons.

If you want to underground transmission lines everywhere, plan for your power bill to go from $200 to $2000. And no, I'm not exaggerating.

It would be helpful if you gave us a reason, and proof, for your assertion.

The costs of building and maintaining 100% fluid insulated conductor are an order of mignitude greater than simply putting wire up on poles with free, self healing (air) insulator.

 

[So]

http://www.atcllc.com/IT5.shtml

 

[smashp]

Wind Farms supplemented by localized Solar panels should be the the direction we go. Just look at what Germany has done with solar and it all points back to the decision back in 2000 to allow people to feed the grid.

 

[cubeless]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
A study published this week by the National Academy of Sciences says that wind power has a tremendous potential to solve our energy demands now and in the future, many times over, even if the wind turbines operate at just 20% of that capacity.

Link

Here is an abstract of the study:

The analysis indicates that a network of land-based 2.5-megawatt (MW) turbines
restricted to nonforested, ice-free, nonurban areas operating at as little as 20%of their
rated capacity could supply >40 times current worldwide consumption
of electricity, >5 times total global use of energy in all forms.
Resources in the contiguous United States, specifically in the central
plain states, could accommodate as much as 16 times total current
demand for electricity in the United States.

One of the authors of the study talks about it on Science Friday.

If this is true, why wait 8,10,12 years for nuclear power? Or "clean" coal?

The above picked up from NPR's Science Friday and Ira Flatow.

We need to get moving on alternatives.

I'll have to put my NPR Science podcast on and have a listen. All good figures, but as someone pointed out, the execution of all this is going to take money, and it may not be economically palatable.

On the flip side, of the United States' great natural resources, water and wind rank towards the top. We have a natural wind corridor that runs through some of the most sparsely populated land in the country. To not leverage that seems a bit silly.

That being said, I'd rather not make T. Boone Pickens a mega-gajillionaire through gov't. subsidies for a wind power infrastructure. That's not a categorical feeling - just my druthers.

Pickens isnt just wanting to buy land build windfarms. He has other motives. All the land he wants to buy is over one of the largest auqifers in the United States. He buys the land, he owns the water rights, and can tap the fuck out of the auqifer.

buwahahaha... heeee's eeeevil.... oops, sorry, wrong movie... we need to send bond after him...

 

[Falloutboy]

the answer is to stop building any power but nuclear. yeah we might run out of uranium in 50-75 years. but by then fusion will be viable and these energy problems will be a thing of the past.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: SunSamurai
1. Coal sucks and causes alot more deaths than all of the new sources
2. No one wants solor roofing. Give me something practical. You would eed it out of the way, just like...
3. Wind power. Ever lived by one? No? Then shut the hell up. They would need to be far-ass away too. The costs of doing that in a place that wont screw up the weather patters of the nearby region (agriculture anyone?) would mean you put them on some snowy-ass mountain no one goes to. Billions of dollars that would not make its money back before that propellers flew off and hit some poor farmboy 20 miles away.
4. Geothermal could be a practical sourse but the initial costs scare away most.
5. Nuclear. Wont get build because coal/gas is run by pricks that can manipulate sheep into thinking three-eyed fish will start forming in the rivers of their communities within ten light-years and after a few years will systematically explode because that's build into the design. When actually it is far safer than coal even with every disaster and cleaner than solor (do you know what it takes to build/recycle solor panels?).

I think that sums it up.

TLR
Fuck coal/oil monopolies and the media.

#4 at the home-level isn't too bad

Heat pump furnaces are pretty awesome and don't take too long to recoup the investment

 

[wkabel23]

Originally posted by: JKing106

Originally posted by: misle

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: misle
As someone who works in the Power industry, a big problem seems to be building transmission lines to the wind farms. It's not that hard to find an isolated area to build the wind farm, but no one wants to have transmission lines running out to the farm.

They need to go under ground both for visual and national security reasons.

Taking any power line underground is roughly 7 times as costly...

And the power companies can afford it, considering the obscene profits being made. I'm really, really getting sick of these "cost" arguments. The investment will pay for itself.

Are you smoking crack?

We have officially grown up in an age where "cost" no longer means shit if you can just swipe a damn credit card. It's also very easy to spend other people's money, huh?

Fantastic, we have a bunch of pie-in-the sky dreamers with no conception of business, economics, or responsibility running the show. FML.

EDIT: And say what you want about previous administrations, I don't care. That doesn't excuse anything. And it's simply childish to think it does.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: JKing106

Originally posted by: misle

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: misle
As someone who works in the Power industry, a big problem seems to be building transmission lines to the wind farms. It's not that hard to find an isolated area to build the wind farm, but no one wants to have transmission lines running out to the farm.

They need to go under ground both for visual and national security reasons.

Taking any power line underground is roughly 7 times as costly...

And the power companies can afford it, considering the obscene profits being made. I'm really, really getting sick of these "cost" arguments. The investment will pay for itself.

Where are these "obscene" profits?

How long should it take for an investment to pay for itself?
5, 10, 20 years?

 

[wkabel23]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: JKing106

Originally posted by: misle

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: misle
As someone who works in the Power industry, a big problem seems to be building transmission lines to the wind farms. It's not that hard to find an isolated area to build the wind farm, but no one wants to have transmission lines running out to the farm.

They need to go under ground both for visual and national security reasons.

Taking any power line underground is roughly 7 times as costly...

And the power companies can afford it, considering the obscene profits being made. I'm really, really getting sick of these "cost" arguments. The investment will pay for itself.

Where are these "obscene" profits?

How long should it take for an investment to pay for itself?
5, 10, 20 years?

This is what I'm wondering. You just said it more reasonably and less dramatic

 

[imported_Imp]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Solar, geothermal etc all have the same massive potential for gathering energy, but each has problems that make massive adoption undesirable.

For example, wind energy is fine, you can caputure lots of energy -- while the wind is blowing. When it dies down, you get nothing. That means you need to somehow capture and store the energy, which (with present technology) is extremely inefficient.

Nuclear, on the other hand, can produce a constant amount of power, theoretically you should not have to save or store it somewhere.

Plus, do you really think you could just say "yeah, just go ahead and build 50,000 windmills in Nebraska, they won't mind". It just doesn't work that way.

Huh? You can store energy easily and relatively efficiently. All you need to do is convert it to heat.

Wonder why they don't build huge water reservoirs to store excess energy by just powering lift pumps.

 

[dawp]

If they can get something like this into production, it would eliminate a lot of the drawback of ground based wind generators.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/s....wind.power/index.html

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: extra

Originally posted by: spidey07
That's pretty interesting but I always wonder if we're not screwing with weather or the climate by using wind energy. Something of this magnitude/scale would surely disrupt the global climate.

I really really doubt this. The volume of air in the atmosphere is so incredibly massive compared to the amount that would ever pass through these turbines.

At 1500' above ground level the friction between the atmosphere and the ground in neglible. So I also doubt that it would affect global weather patterns.

These things do tend to kill a lot of birds though.

 

[ccbadd]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Solar, geothermal etc all have the same massive potential for gathering energy, but each has problems that make massive adoption undesirable.

For example, wind energy is fine, you can caputure lots of energy -- while the wind is blowing. When it dies down, you get nothing. That means you need to somehow capture and store the energy, which (with present technology) is extremely inefficient.

Nuclear, on the other hand, can produce a constant amount of power, theoretically you should not have to save or store it somewhere.

Plus, do you really think you could just say "yeah, just go ahead and build 50,000 windmills in Nebraska, they won't mind". It just doesn't work that way.

Huh? You can store energy easily and relatively efficiently. All you need to do is convert it to heat.

You're kidding right? If you wanted heat, doesn't "global warming" give you that without anything else to build?

 

[StageLeft]

Those altitude things are neat. I wonder about planes, though. They throw out more silly numbers in that article:

The first rigorous, worldwide study of high-altitude wind power estimates that there is enough wind energy at altitudes of about 1,600 to 40,000 feet to meet global electricity demand a hundred times over.

Ridiculous. In truth if all of it was harnessed I'm sure it would be millions more than the world needs. All the oceans, all the land, grab some of that wind.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: ccbadd

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Solar, geothermal etc all have the same massive potential for gathering energy, but each has problems that make massive adoption undesirable.

For example, wind energy is fine, you can caputure lots of energy -- while the wind is blowing. When it dies down, you get nothing. That means you need to somehow capture and store the energy, which (with present technology) is extremely inefficient.

Nuclear, on the other hand, can produce a constant amount of power, theoretically you should not have to save or store it somewhere.

Plus, do you really think you could just say "yeah, just go ahead and build 50,000 windmills in Nebraska, they won't mind". It just doesn't work that way.

Huh? You can store energy easily and relatively efficiently. All you need to do is convert it to heat.

You're kidding right? If you wanted heat, doesn't "global warming" give you that without anything else to build?

What are you thinking of? Converting excess electricity to heat has nothing to do with global warming. The only point of a nuclear reactor is to generate heat. The same heat can be created by solar mirrors or by electricity from wind or photovoltaics, and there are other storage techniques as well. Water can be pumped up hill to fall through turbines later or the energy can be stored kinetically via gyros, etc.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: ccbadd

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Solar, geothermal etc all have the same massive potential for gathering energy, but each has problems that make massive adoption undesirable.

For example, wind energy is fine, you can caputure lots of energy -- while the wind is blowing. When it dies down, you get nothing. That means you need to somehow capture and store the energy, which (with present technology) is extremely inefficient.

Nuclear, on the other hand, can produce a constant amount of power, theoretically you should not have to save or store it somewhere.

Plus, do you really think you could just say "yeah, just go ahead and build 50,000 windmills in Nebraska, they won't mind". It just doesn't work that way.

Huh? You can store energy easily and relatively efficiently. All you need to do is convert it to heat.

You're kidding right? If you wanted heat, doesn't "global warming" give you that without anything else to build?

Are you serious? You think global temperatures are going to rise ~300 degrees C give or take? Even a rise of 10 degrees will be devastating.

Talk about alarmist.

 

[ccbadd]

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy

Originally posted by: ccbadd

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Solar, geothermal etc all have the same massive potential for gathering energy, but each has problems that make massive adoption undesirable.

For example, wind energy is fine, you can caputure lots of energy -- while the wind is blowing. When it dies down, you get nothing. That means you need to somehow capture and store the energy, which (with present technology) is extremely inefficient.

Nuclear, on the other hand, can produce a constant amount of power, theoretically you should not have to save or store it somewhere.

Plus, do you really think you could just say "yeah, just go ahead and build 50,000 windmills in Nebraska, they won't mind". It just doesn't work that way.

Huh? You can store energy easily and relatively efficiently. All you need to do is convert it to heat.

You're kidding right? If you wanted heat, doesn't "global warming" give you that without anything else to build?

Are you serious? You think global temperatures are going to rise ~300 degrees C give or take? Even a rise of 10 degrees will be devastating.

Talk about alarmist.

No, what I meant was if you wanted to produce heat, take it straight from the atmosphere, don't use wind to generate electricity only to use that energy to heat something, heaters are not efficient. Now storing the energy as kinetic energy is a great idea to me.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: SunSamurai
1. Coal sucks and causes alot more deaths than all of the new sources
2. No one wants solor roofing. Give me something practical. You would eed it out of the way, just like...
3. Wind power. Ever lived by one? No? Then shut the hell up. They would need to be far-ass away too. The costs of doing that in a place that wont screw up the weather patters of the nearby region (agriculture anyone?) would mean you put them on some snowy-ass mountain no one goes to. Billions of dollars that would not make its money back before that propellers flew off and hit some poor farmboy 20 miles away.
4. Geothermal could be a practical sourse but the initial costs scare away most.
5. Nuclear. Wont get build because coal/gas is run by pricks that can manipulate sheep into thinking three-eyed fish will start forming in the rivers of their communities within ten light-years and after a few years will systematically explode because that's build into the design. When actually it is far safer than coal even with every disaster and cleaner than solor (do you know what it takes to build/recycle solor panels?).

I think that sums it up.

TLR
Fuck coal/oil monopolies and the media.

#3 (wind power - the topic at hand) has already been addressed, read the article. Build them in areas that are severely underpopulated like Nebraska or the Dakotas where wind is abundant. From the article:

This record will be used to exclude from
our analysis areas classified as forested, areas occupied by
permanent snow or ice, areas covered by water, and areas
identified as either developed or urban.

As for overall cost, according to a 2006 study by the Energy Information Administration, wind (using 2004 variables) was already cheaper than nuclear and close to coal and natural gas in total life cycle. Text

Today it has to be even more competitive due to 30%+ growth in the sector and mass manufacturing of turbine blades.

For people who are worried about storing the energy, it was briefly addressed in the article:

Very large wind power penetration can produce excess electricity during large parts of
the year. This situation could allow options for the conversion of electricity to other energy forms. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, for example, could take advantage of short-term excesses in electricity system, while energy-rich chemical species such as H2 could provide a means for longer-term storage.

 

[EagleKeeper]

There is a wind farm in Northern CA (I580) right before you get into the central valley area.

Apparently, they have not had problems with the location (on a ridge) w/ respect to agriculture.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: extra

Originally posted by: spidey07
That's pretty interesting but I always wonder if we're not screwing with weather or the climate by using wind energy. Something of this magnitude/scale would surely disrupt the global climate.

I really really doubt this. The volume of air in the atmosphere is so incredibly massive compared to the amount that would ever pass through these turbines.

At 1500' above ground level the friction between the atmosphere and the ground in neglible. So I also doubt that it would affect global weather patterns.

These things do tend to kill a lot of birds though.

Wind turbines are 1500' tall? Wow!

How many birds is 'a lot'? I ask because we didn't auto roadkill stop us from paving roads.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
There is a wind farm in Northern CA (I580) right before you get into the central valley area.

Apparently, they have not had problems with the location (on a ridge) w/ respect to agriculture.

I am not sure, but I think a lot of the wind farms in Ca have not panned out too well. Maybe old technology, or not enough wind. Many of those I see are falling apart.

 

[imported_K3N]

using green technology to power the modern word is like sticking an inline 4 engine in a v12 super car. its illogical and will simply be disastrous in the long run..

 

[cubeless]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
There is a wind farm in Northern CA (I580) right before you get into the central valley area.

Apparently, they have not had problems with the location (on a ridge) w/ respect to agriculture.

I am not sure, but I think a lot of the wind farms in Ca have not panned out too well. Maybe old technology, or not enough wind. Many of those I see are falling apart.

or an earmark to fund but no continuing support? or prophetic of the future of wind power?