wind power

[deereman64]

This article starts to change my skeptical view on wind power.

Bloomberg.com: Exclusive

Its beginning to make a difference

 

[czechsonofagun]

There is no question, that wind can and will generate power. The problem is to manage the power. For instance, in the peak hours Germany buys electricity from Czech Republic, there are contracts, penalties for not supplying etc. Germany got hit with a storm and for some reason they could not stop producing, so they sent it to the Czech Republic. That's a nightmare for any power company, it's like a flood.
Besides, the wind mill can be competitively priced only when heavily subsidized by the government. I firmly believe, nuclear power is the only way.

 

[scott_vt]

Good Afternoon Deereman,
That is indeed an interesting article ! I have seen a few windmills spring up in upstate Ny. Im think that anyway that we can wean ourself away from foreign oil can only be looked at in a positive light ! Hopefully we will see more of these and also other alternate energy sources !

 

[wjoerob]

It's not a matter of whether or not it is POSSIBLE to generate power with wind. The issue is, when will it become affordable for the average homeowner or new house builder. So far the counter-culture "elites" have kept that from happening by charging way more for the equipment and installation than most people can afford. Now, take a look at geothermal heat and air -- that's something the average new home builder can afford, and repays itself fairly quickly. I have been keeping track of these alternative energy trends for several years, and it's still for the elites.

 

[turbo36]

Tax rebates for solar panels are a joke, a political mess. No solar panel will ever generate any where near the amount of energy used to create it. They exist because idiot governments. . . . . unless you need power where you can't buy it.

This is simply not true. The best current commercially available technology is around 1 to 1 1/2 years energy payback. The next generation technology is almost twice as efficient, 42% energy capture vs 24%, so that payback period will shrink to as little as 8 months.

In Hawaii the cost of solar is already on par with conventional power generation/distribution costs due to the higher cost of fossil fuel delivery.

No one is saying that solar is the "only" answer rather it is "one" of the answers to the elimination of fossil fuels as a source of electrical energy generation.

The power plants in Niagara falls can't economically provide power to California but they do a pretty good job in the region. The same will be true for solar, wind, wave and geothermal and all the other alternatives, they will provide power in a local region.

 

[dynasim]

Turbo36,

I have seen the "1.5 year payback on solar" statement several times, and I am a bit skeptical. Do you happen to have the source of that number? I am not criticizing, I just want to do a reality check on their assumptions.

The interesting thing about wind turbines(and solar), is that you have to have a storage mechanism, or a backup supply as big as the turbine that normally sits idle, unused. This is because the grid has to have spare adsorption capacity for the electricity that is produced from the devices that can instantly be turned on when they aren't working(or you will get a brown out).

In essence, you are forcing the electric company to build infrastructure it can't utilize effectively(even worse, its use can't be predicted). They have to build two power plants to produce the same unit of elecricity.

Chris

 

[Scooby074]

We need a mix of energy sources. Nuclear for the base load so we can move away from coal and oil. Wind and solar for additional "green" capacity that is accessible for the general public.

Nuclear is a waste without reprocessing. Why were not using this resource to its fullest is beyond me. Countries that want weapons will get them whether or not we are reprocessing our waste. Sticking to the ideal that if we dont reprocess, others wont as well, is outdated as we've seen.

There are technologies coming that will increase the cost effectiveness and output of both solar and wind. 3RD gen solar really looks promising. Drastically lower prices and much easier on the environment during production with excellent output from the cells. Theoretically, these thin film type technologies could be built right into your building materials for your house, so no more unsightly solar panels.

There has also been major improvements in vertical wind turbines. This opens up many more places to having turbines installed (ie: in suburban back yards and on buildings within city limits). Vertical turbines can also be more quiet than traditional turbines.

A mix of "free" green energy installed by both individuals and utilities, combined with nuclear is the ideal energy solution.

 

[EddieWalker]

The problem with windpower is two fold. The inital expense and maintenance does not justify the return. If you take government money out of it, they would not exist. Those who put them up are getting tax dollars to do so. Then when they are built, they sell the windmills to other companies who have a bad track record of going out of business.

They do not generate enough electricity to pay for themselves or for those who own them to make money. It's big appeal is the "Green" aspect that seems to be everywhere nowadays. Call it green and eveybody is for it. Don't look at the cost or damage it might cause long term, just highlight the good, or supposed good that it causes.

The second problem with wind energy is that it's only effective at certain times. Too much wind is just as bad as too little. Your window of use is usually fairly limited. The problem then comes into play of what to do with that energy. You cannot store it, it has to be used. So when the wind isn't ideal, you still need a reliable source of power to supply the demand. Wind energy is an excess supply that works in theory, but since it's not constant and reliable, it's not able to meet any measurable need because you have to have the backup, reliable power available 24/7. You cannot turn on and off that kind of power when the wind power isn't available. So while the wind power is being generated, the other power still has to be there. Now you have two sources of power to do the same as the one. The waste and hype is amazing, but because it's "Green Energy" we all have to pay for this "free" energy out of our tax dollars.

Eddie

 

[pappy19]

Eddie Walker is correct. I am in the land leasing, oil and gas leasing, pipeline and powerline right of way purchasing business for all types of utility projects, all over the US. IMHO windpower is the ugliest of all the energy options and is the least reliable. It kills my soul to drive from Laramie to Salt Lake City and see all those while wind towers on the mountain tops. Like what was already said, without alot of incentives and price guarantees, wind power would alot less popular. If you ever drive from Arizona on I-10 to San Bernadino, California; you tell me that it's a pretty site to see about 10,000 wind towers all stacked nice and pretty across the desert. Sorry, I'd rather see a new coal fired plant in the middle of no-where using our known coal reserves of 600 years.

 

[turbo36]

Turbo36,

I have seen the "1.5 year payback on solar" statement several times, and I am a bit skeptical. Do you happen to have the source of that number? I am not criticizing, I just want to do a reality check on their assumptions.

The interesting thing about wind turbines(and solar), is that you have to have a storage mechanism, or a backup supply as big as the turbine that normally sits idle, unused. This is because the grid has to have spare adsorption capacity for the electricity that is produced from the devices that can instantly be turned on when they aren't working(or you will get a brown out).

In essence, you are forcing the electric company to build infrastructure it can't utilize effectively(even worse, its use can't be predicted). They have to build two power plants to produce the same unit of elecricity.

Chris

Do a Google search and you will find many studies referenced. Keep in mind if people had done a cost analysis on the personal computer when it first came out nobody would have bought them and the microprocessor would have never got the development money it needed to become viable for every day life. Look how the cost went down while the computing power went up when the economies of scale took over.

Some type of storage would be need but nearly as much as you think. The highest power needs are during the day, such as air conditioning and industrial needs, this is perfect for solar. Do you think the run power plants at full power 24/7? Some are designed to vary the power output to meet demand.
In Michigan we have a pumped water storage system that gets filled during the night when demand is low and then the water is released through the turbines during the day to meet the peak needs.

We have to quit thinking that conventional electrical energy generation is the only way we can do this.

 

[dmccarty]

Every article I see about solar power usage, and I have been reading them for decades, is that a house is going to need $20-30K to supply a good part of its power needs. And that $20-30K is does not always include batteries which add up.

My power bill averages $112 a month which is $1,344 a year. $20K would take over 14 years to payoff. $30K would be over 22 years. Unless the government picks up a big part of the prices tag.

There has been some talk about PV's getting down to a price of $1 per watt and if that happens the economics will change. Maybe. I would like to see it happen but I have been hearing this song for a few decades. I would love to put some power generation on my roof. Our roof is designed to maximize solar power and heat production. If the it ever makes money sense we will do it.

Later,
Dan

 

[dmccarty]

Do a Google search and you will find many studies referenced. Keep in mind if people had done a cost analysis on the personal computer when it first came out nobody would have bought them and the microprocessor would have never got the development money it needed to become viable for every day life. Look how the cost went down while the computing power went up when the economies of scale took over.

So you are saying that ALTAIR, Sinclair, Atari, TI, Commodore, and Apple needed and used government seed money to start their micro computer business? Or that IBM took government development dollars to create the PC?

Later,
Dan

 

[turbo36]

So you are saying that ALTAIR, Sinclair, Atari, TI, Commodore, and Apple needed and used government seed money to start their micro computer business? Or that IBM took government development dollars to create the PC?

Later,
Dan

Actually Government money financed most of the basic research of the first computer systems and microprocessor ( Military applications) The firms you mentioned where just very bad at applying that technology in the private sector and that is why they failed (except for Apple).

IBM financed the PC using profits earned through many private and government contracts so yes some government money went into the development of the PC.

 

[turbo36]

Every article I see about solar power usage, and I have been reading them for decades, is that a house is going to need $20-30K to supply a good part of its power needs. And that $20-30K is does not always include batteries which add up.

My power bill averages $112 a month which is $1,344 a year. $20K would take over 14 years to payoff. $30K would be over 22 years. Unless the government picks up a big part of the prices tag.

There has been some talk about PV's getting down to a price of $1 per watt and if that happens the economics will change. Maybe. I would like to see it happen but I have been hearing this song for a few decades. I would love to put some power generation on my roof. Our roof is designed to maximize solar power and heat production. If the it ever makes money sense we will do it.

Later,
Dan

You are making the assumption that the only way to apply Solar power is through stand alone home owner units, I'm talking about large scale commercial units that feed the power grid. Much better efficiency.

 

[turbo36]

There is no question, that wind can and will generate power. The problem is to manage the power. For instance, in the peak hours Germany buys electricity from Czech Republic, there are contracts, penalties for not supplying etc. Germany got hit with a storm and for some reason they could not stop producing, so they sent it to the Czech Republic. That's a nightmare for any power company, it's like a flood.
Besides, the wind mill can be competitively priced only when heavily subsidized by the government. I firmly believe, nuclear power is the only way.

Do some reading on Enron and the energy market manipulation they orchestrated and the Germany problem seems small by comparison.

 

[EddieWalker]

Actually Government money financed most of the basic research of the first computer systems and microprocessor ( Military applications) The firms you mentioned where just very bad at applying that technology in the private sector and that is why they failed (except for Apple).

IBM financed the PC using profits earned through many private and government contracts so yes some government money went into the development of the PC.

I don't think you are comparing apples to apples here. While government grants have led to all sorts of discoveries and inventions that have changed our lives for the better, government subsidized industries have not.

If the government was to put the same money in research and development of a solar, or any alternative energy and let those who invent, market it, then I'd be all for it.

Forcing wind energy on us because it's the latest fashion when it doesn't work and loses money, is not the same as spending money on developing computers. At no time did the government force anybody to use computers, have computers or change over to computers. When the technology reached a point that it worked, private industry sold it to the population and we started buying it. Since they didn't work very good at first, they didn't sell very many. Because there was no government money assisting the private industry, they were forced to either improve the computers or go out of business. After a fairly short time, we now take for granted technology that we didn't think was possible ten years ago.

If wind energy is to succeed, and I'd like to see it happen, then it will have to do it on it's own merits. Take the tax dollars out of selling it, put it into some research, but let those who think they can do this, do it. In time, I'm sure they will figure it out, but for now, there is no real incentive because they are able to sell garbage and make a profit at it.

Eddie

 

[dynasim]

Turbo36,

The reason I am skeptical of the 1.5 year energy payback claim is that, if it were true, they would be installed. Everywhere. The basic raw materials are quite cheap.

The total energy required is not the energy to run the machine that makes the substrate, and subsequent chip. The true energy hogs are the feedstock processing, along with the astoundingly low yield associated with effort to make the feedstocks. I suspect that someone used the heat of melting of silicon as a basis for that claim, and it has been propogated as an urban myth.

Again, I would like a reference to the specific article that supports the claim, if you have one, as I would like to study it. I may get my eyes opened. It would help me out a bunch.

Thanks for you help.
Chris

 

[dynasim]

OK, I googled, and got this

Is today's solar cell environmentally friendly? | Roger Lee Commentaries

This is just a segment of the article:

Based on known data, for a solar cell of 1W of electrical output, it will take 20 KWh of energy to produce. If one considers other necessary accessories associated with solar panel assembly (metal frame, battery, diodes, capacitor, D/A converter, wiring etc), a few more KWh of energy should be added into the equation. Majority of the energy consumed comes from transforming SiO2 quartz to silicon (mono or poly silicon crystals) wafers of solar grade. Usually the definition of 1W output is based on the maximum sunshine condition (without cloud and directly under sunshine during the Summer time). Any factors such as clouds, dust on the panel, angle of the sun ray will degrade the efficiency of the solar cells. Assume we are lucky enough to have an average of 5 hours of maximum sunshine (Summer intensity) condition per day, day after day, one season after another, and the D/A conversion efficiency of 90% (D/A conversion is necessary for transmitting solar electricity to the net), we can conclude that it will take more than 15 years (not even consider the solar cell quantum efficiency degradation over time or dust-on-panel effect etc) of non-stop usage of this solar cell panel to generate equal amount of energy that had been consumed during the manufacturing of this solar panel in the first place.

Chris

 

[dynasim]

Turbo36,

A quote from another reference:

Note that the base assumption is that they use scrap silicon from chip manufacturing, which is unlikely to provide a substantial basis for a significant manufacturing process. That is not a valid assumption for the analysis of go-forward cost of making solar cells.

The Oil Drum | The Energy Return of (Industrial) Solar - Passive Solar, PV, Wind and Hydro (#5 of 6)

However, these values are not static. As research and development continues, it is likely that the EROI for some of the systems mentioned above will change. Another factor affecting EROI trends is material flow into the industry. PV production employs the use of many metals attractive to a number of high-tech industries. For example, some 76 percent of the energy required to generate the silicon module is that which is required to make the raw silicon. These and other authors indicate that at this time the principle source of silicon for the photovoltaic industry is scraps from the computer chip industry. If the industry is to expand greatly other dedicated sources of silicon must be generated, with presently unknown effects on the energy cost.

Chris