|
Post by curiousgeorge on Feb 15, 2010 11:20:42 GMT
A great piece about Wind Energy and just how bad an investment it really is. www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/wind_energys_ghosts_1.htmlWind Energy's Ghosts
Bankrupt Europe has a lesson for Congress about wind power.
Wiwo...wiwo...wiwo.
The sound floats on the winds of Ka Le, this southernmost tip of Hawaii's Big Island, where Polynesian colonists first landed some 1,500 years ago.
Some say that Ka Le is haunted -- and it is. But it's haunted not by Hawaii's legendary night marchers. The mysterious sounds are "Na leo o Kamaoa"-- the disembodied voices of 37 skeletal wind turbines abandoned to rust on the hundred-acre site of the former Kamaoa Wind Farm.
.......................Waxman-Markey seems dead, and Europe's southern periphery is bankrupt. But the wind-subsidy proposals being floated in Congress suggest that American political leaders have yet to understand that "green power" means generating electricity by burning dollars.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 15, 2010 13:46:36 GMT
This is what happens when theoretical science based optimism meets engineering truth. There are a lot of really good sounding ideas that cannot and will not work in the real world. Unfortunately, the way our system works is that researchers and developers have to continually sell their ideas to obtain funds. Some researchers are better at selling the ideas than in actually implementing them, but by then they have over-sold their idea to the gullible politicians to obtain lots of funding. Both the funders and the researcher are now in an alliance where neither can admit they are wrong and in some cases technology based on these new or recycled ideas is implemented despite the fact that it can never work.
I am reminded of two quotes:
"We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that works." -- Douglas Adams
"A good scientist is a person with original ideas. A good engineer is a person who makes a design that works with as few original ideas as possible. There are no prima donnas in engineering." -- Freeman Dyson
From these we get that an engineer creates something to fulfill a requirement and will ensure that the requirement is feasible by assessing and validating the concepts involved as they would work in the real world. If the concept is infeasible the engineer will say so: - Can't be done. However, the researcher who came up with the bright idea and has spent much of her/his adult life 'selling it' to funding agencies cannot accept that from a real world engineering standpoint it is infeasible - and this leads to the Prima Donna syndrome ably assisted by the funding politicians whose one nightmare is to be shown to have made a wrong decision.
Windfarms are just such a technology. For modern heavy industry to operate requires the stable supply of gigawatts of power.
So an engineer would look at the requirement and do an initial feasibility check 'on the back of an envelope'
Amount of power needed / Amount of power available from windmills = lots of windmills
Number and location of windmills to ensure stable power = lots more windmills in widely dispersed locations AND clever power distribution grid
Then have some thoughts about limitations - * do windmills work in very high winds * do windmills work in very low/calm winds * do windmills work in freezing rain / heavy snow * do windmills work in extreme temperatures * what maintenance is required * Health and safety issues e.g. ice throw, workers on 400' windmill in severe weather * Area of land and access rights * what is the expected productive lifetime of a windmill * what end-of-life issues are there
Carry out a quick cost benefit analysis comparing whole life costs and benefits of windmills with other power sources.
Screw up envelope and discard idea
A politician will look at the idea and compare the idea with 'focus group' responses on green power. Envisage a picture in a glossy brochure of said politician standing in front of windmill in rural location with hard hat and determined expression; then fund the research group to continue with windmills. Given a funding source companies will build just what they are asked to build -no questions asked- and windmills pop up all over the country. They end up occasionally operating in California, rusting and unused in Hawaii, freezing to a halt in Minnesota - intermittently producing occasional power a few percent of what was claimed in the glossy brochures.
"Technology is a word that describes something that doesn't work yet." — Douglas Adams
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Feb 15, 2010 14:49:09 GMT
Not much I can add to what you said, Nautonnier. And as you imply, the same issues of systems integration, reliability, maintainability, scalability, etc. apply to many of the other related bright ideas. Eventually there may be one or 2 that mature, but I think not for many years. There seems to be an expectation that these experimental technologies will follow the same developmental path as computing ( Moore's Law ) - a false hope in my view, and bound to disappoint.
PS: I'm also a Douglas Adams fan. ;D
|
|
|
Post by msphar on Feb 18, 2010 21:05:34 GMT
Windmills are cool. I have one, on a boat, where it provides power augmentation to the power system. When the wind doesn't blow, or the batteries are getting low, its time to fire up the diesel and crank the high cap alternator. In betwixt diesel runs, the wind generator will stretch the length of time before needing another recharge cycle. I have found that 6 bladed wind generators operate better in high wind conditions. Mine was rated to operate right up to and into Force 10 conditions (hurricane wind speeds!) Never hope to experience that though.
|
|
|
Post by nemesis on Feb 18, 2010 22:36:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Feb 19, 2010 0:11:04 GMT
That was priceless!
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Feb 19, 2010 0:26:55 GMT
They're certainly good for one thing: www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe85OaacwB8I've seen it noted that Hawaii and California have the best wind in the world for electricity generation. They also say this about my country. Is there anywhere they don't think is among the best in the world for it? FWIW, some days it's okay (max is about 1,300MW I believe) www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/windgeneration/Cheesus Crisp, I've just realised that my government guarantees to pay 66c per kWh from windmills, while I pay 18c per kWh on my bill. Why do I get the feeling that I'm paying the rest through taxes :/
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Feb 19, 2010 1:34:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Feb 19, 2010 2:27:11 GMT
................. Cheesus Crisp, I've just realised that my government guarantees to pay 66c per kWh from windmills, while I pay 18c per kWh on my bill. Why do I get the feeling that I'm paying the rest through taxes :/ Because we are. Same goes for every other alternative energy. $1/gal for biodiesel for example www.dtnprogressivefarmer.com/dtnag/common/link.do?symbolicName=/free/news/template1&paneContentId=5&paneParentId=70104&product=/ag/news/topstories&vendorReference=03c04f6a-bd64-4713-ac52-9066f87bb730 , although that ran out a month ago resulting in virtually all production of biodiesel stopping when the incentive ended. Ethanol is the same thing; 45-cent blenders tax credit for ethanol that is set to expire Dec. 31, 2010 www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-16/ethanol-faces-challenge-in-keeping-tax-support-group-says.html . We all pay for our neighbors energy. Hell of a way to run a country, isn't it. If you're a producer, or investor in this kind of thing, and you depend on federal subsidies to stay in business, or get a return on your investment, then you will raise holy hell with Congress if those subsidies disappear. The thing is that if x number of gallons or kwhrs were not mandated by Congress, then you'd have to actually be competitive with the traditional energy industry; and god forbid that should come to pass!
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Feb 19, 2010 4:55:52 GMT
Cheesus Crisp, I've just realised that my government guarantees to pay 66c per kWh from windmills, while I pay 18c per kWh on my bill. Why do I get the feeling that I'm paying the rest through taxes :/ What's REALLY sad is that many times the large wind energy producers are forced to sell their super-expensive wind power at BELOW market prices (less than coal) to neighboring regions and then buy it back at premium rates when the wind dies.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Feb 19, 2010 19:06:25 GMT
Here's a little more info on the Ethanol Blenders Credit from Forbes. blogs.forbes.com/energysource/2010/02/16/washingtons-foolish-fuel-policy/ . They are advocating letting it expire this coming Dec. and make a good argument for it, although they say it would hike the price of gas at the pump by about 6 cents. The core of the issue is the federal mandated requirement that oil companies must use ethanol regardless of any tax credit or subsidy, or be penalized for not blending. What needs to be canceled is the federal mandate, but if that happened then every ethanol plant in the country would be out of business, because no oil company would buy it. And that, of course, impacts the growers (farmers). It's another case of the govt forcing taxpayers to buy something that can't compete on it's own merits and that nobody wants or needs.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 19, 2010 19:30:43 GMT
Here's a little more info on the Ethanol Blenders Credit from Forbes. blogs.forbes.com/energysource/2010/02/16/washingtons-foolish-fuel-policy/ . They are advocating letting it expire this coming Dec. and make a good argument for it, although they say it would hike the price of gas at the pump by about 6 cents. The core of the issue is the federal mandated requirement that oil companies must use ethanol regardless of any tax credit or subsidy, or be penalized for not blending. What needs to be canceled is the federal mandate, but if that happened then every ethanol plant in the country would be out of business, because no oil company would buy it. And that, of course, impacts the growers (farmers). It's another case of the govt forcing taxpayers to buy something that can't compete on it's own merits and that nobody wants or needs. " It's another case of the govt forcing taxpayers to buy something that can't compete on it's own merits and that nobody wants or needs."And also forcing food prices higher and availability lower. This will become increasingly important.
|
|
N9AAT
Level 3 Rank
DON'T PANIC
Posts: 153
|
Post by N9AAT on Feb 19, 2010 20:25:29 GMT
Methinks home wind power will eventually go the way of the home generator. It may yet flare for awhile, and some people will indeed use 'em to "bank" power back onto the grid and reduce electric bills, that is, until GE gets their 'Mart Grid running. In states where meters have to run backwards, there's some neat success stories like a truck driver in Okla who makes $350 a month at home when he's on the road and everything's off. The problem for consumer is that the smart grid will put an end to that. They'll sell to us at $0.10 per kilowatt-hour and buy back at $0.005. That ... will be the end of home wind power.
If anyone wants to seriously compete with oil, find a way to make more investors more cash. Windmills and solar cells, private AND commercial, will ONLY become practical when speculators can make buckets of money by shipping them through the Straits of Hormuz!
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Feb 19, 2010 21:01:05 GMT
Here's a little more info on the Ethanol Blenders Credit from Forbes. blogs.forbes.com/energysource/2010/02/16/washingtons-foolish-fuel-policy/ . They are advocating letting it expire this coming Dec. and make a good argument for it, although they say it would hike the price of gas at the pump by about 6 cents. The core of the issue is the federal mandated requirement that oil companies must use ethanol regardless of any tax credit or subsidy, or be penalized for not blending. What needs to be canceled is the federal mandate, but if that happened then every ethanol plant in the country would be out of business, because no oil company would buy it. And that, of course, impacts the growers (farmers). It's another case of the govt forcing taxpayers to buy something that can't compete on it's own merits and that nobody wants or needs. " It's another case of the govt forcing taxpayers to buy something that can't compete on it's own merits and that nobody wants or needs."And also forcing food prices higher and availability lower. This will become increasingly important. There's an ongoing debate in the farming community about that issue of food vs fuel, and prices. There have been some experimental plots that have yielded 300 bu/acre (corn ) lately, but that's been done on prime land with specific varieties of GM corn and a lot of tlc. The avg. is around 160 or so. There is a big push to get yields up for cash crops like corn and soy, but a lot of folks figure we're pretty close to the limit already. Rice, wheat, etc. also are in that category. Fruits & Veggies are not a big issue, since there's plenty of land, etc. and lot's of people grow their own - I do. It's not unusual for a veggie crop to be plowed under due to market saturation. It's a real balancing act for farmers. Yield increases don't always pay off, because of increased inputs for fertilizer, water, fuel, etc. Corn, wheat, and soy need to be dryed (natural gas), stored, transported, etc. It's one of the most complicated businesses going, and the competition is international, which means tariffs and subsidies in some cases. Feeding an ever growing global population, that is expanding their diets into new areas ( more meat, greater variety, etc. ) is a significant challenge.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 20, 2010 3:51:58 GMT
" It's another case of the govt forcing taxpayers to buy something that can't compete on it's own merits and that nobody wants or needs."And also forcing food prices higher and availability lower. This will become increasingly important. There's an ongoing debate in the farming community about that issue of food vs fuel, and prices. There have been some experimental plots that have yielded 300 bu/acre (corn ) lately, but that's been done on prime land with specific varieties of GM corn and a lot of tlc. The avg. is around 160 or so. There is a big push to get yields up for cash crops like corn and soy, but a lot of folks figure we're pretty close to the limit already. Rice, wheat, etc. also are in that category. Fruits & Veggies are not a big issue, since there's plenty of land, etc. and lot's of people grow their own - I do. It's not unusual for a veggie crop to be plowed under due to market saturation. It's a real balancing act for farmers. Yield increases don't always pay off, because of increased inputs for fertilizer, water, fuel, etc. Corn, wheat, and soy need to be dryed (natural gas), stored, transported, etc. It's one of the most complicated businesses going, and the competition is international, which means tariffs and subsidies in some cases. Feeding an ever growing global population, that is expanding their diets into new areas ( more meat, greater variety, etc. ) is a significant challenge. "Fruits & Veggies are not a big issue, since there's plenty of land, etc. and lot's of people grow their own - I do. It's not unusual for a veggie crop to be plowed under due to market saturation. "This is a common sight in Europe where subsidies unbalance the market even more than in the US. But much of the 'saturation' is also due to the consumer moving to a domestic version of 'just in time' food stocking. Consumers have got so used to the local supermarket having fresh fruit and vegetables at all times regardless of the season, that the old practices during a glut of bottling, drying, pickling and other long-term food storage methods have become lost skills. If the second dip of the depression we are in goes as deep as it appears it will do - I think these skills will need to be relearned. Those with land may also need to think hard about what crops to keep for themselves and how to keep them safe from hungry townies. (For those who want simple fruit pickling - I recommend making rumtopf )
|
|