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 !

 

[jinjimbob]

I also believe nuclear power is the most environmentally friendly way to generate power, after geothermal, which most countries can not use.

This is what the major environmental groups are saying.

Every other form of power generation kills wildlife, millions of birds die from wind turbines, hydro power kills . . wipes out wildlife in rivers.

BUT nuclear power can not be owned by penny pinching agencies, can not be private. It will cost what it will cost.

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.

 

[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.