|
|
Post by trbixler on Jun 20, 2010 19:42:07 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Sept 3, 2010 23:46:04 GMT
Who would have guessed the solution may increase the problem. assuming there is a problem. "The Costs of Free Energy" "" It takes energy to produce energy, even when the primary source is energetically cost free, such as solar or wind." So writes Goncalves da Silva, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the State University of Campinas (Brazil) in a recent issue of Energy, where he considers the oft-neglected energy expenditures involved in readying so-called renewable or free energy technologies for the magnitude of deployment that would be required to offset a significant portion of the enormous amount of the world's total energy production that is currently provided by fossil fuels. " "So what does the professor finally conclude? He finds that "the new technology may actually be an energy sink, instead of an energy source, relative to the global total primary energy supply for many years or decades, depending on its intrinsic energy costs and deployment path, even though stated aims for its gross energy output are achieved [italics added]." Consequently, he says that "to achieve terawatts output from renewable sources, in order to displace massive quantities of fossil energies, will be a slow process, extending over many decades," and that we should "not place undue hope in new energy technologies to save the world from fossil energies until well after many decades of deployment." Or, we would add, if ever!" www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N35/EDIT.php |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 4, 2010 0:23:19 GMT
Quelle surprise?  You didn't really think that the windfarms were there to save electricity consumers money did you? |
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Sept 4, 2010 5:55:25 GMT
Its also rather difficult to build over a million, 3mw wind turbines to meet world energy needs. To do it within 20 years would take about 5-10% of the earth's steel production every year. The increased energy costs would slow production more and more. The ever-increasing maintenance crew would drain the workforce, one of the hidden costs of wind. Then the poor economic conditions would make the relative costs skyrocket. The increased volatility of the power supply would force a significant drop in production...and adding backup power just drives up the costs of an already overpriced system.
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 4, 2010 12:56:53 GMT
Its also rather difficult to build over a million, 3mw wind turbines to meet world energy needs. To do it within 20 years would take about 5-10% of the earth's steel production every year. The increased energy costs would slow production more and more. The ever-increasing maintenance crew would drain the workforce, one of the hidden costs of wind. Then the poor economic conditions would make the relative costs skyrocket. The increased volatility of the power supply would force a significant drop in production...and adding backup power just drives up the costs of an already overpriced system. Sounds like just the kind of system politicians would support  |
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Sept 4, 2010 15:22:03 GMT
Its also rather difficult to build over a million, 3mw wind turbines to meet world energy needs. To do it within 20 years would take about 5-10% of the earth's steel production every year. The increased energy costs would slow production more and more. The ever-increasing maintenance crew would drain the workforce, one of the hidden costs of wind. Then the poor economic conditions would make the relative costs skyrocket. The increased volatility of the power supply would force a significant drop in production...and adding backup power just drives up the costs of an already overpriced system. Sounds like just the kind of system politicians would support Windmills are generally hideous, unreliable, high maintenance, wildlife killing, habitat destroying and more expensive than nearly any other form of power generation. Of course since they require huge government direct operating subsidies, which means huge 'donations' to politicians to make them even marginally feasible, they are very popular with big business, big enviro and big government.  |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 4, 2010 16:28:14 GMT
This is the thread that touko introduced himself; a typical greenie living in a fantasy world with zero sensibility. Spain's (and Europe as a whole) alternative energy program, Obama's "stimulus" on steroids; a total failure: Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sourcesOptimistically treating European Commission partially funded data1, we find that for every renewable energy job that the State manages to finance, Spain’s experience cited by President Obama as a model reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would
have created. --------------------------------------------------------------- Wind Power Is A Complete Disaster There is no evidence that industrial wind power is likely to have a significant impact on carbon emissions. The European experience is instructive. Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone). ----------------------------------------------------------- Wind Power Is No Solution To AnythingNo wonder the Dutch switched to steam-powered pumping stations as soon as they could, in the late nineteenth century. ----------------------------------------------------------- Wind Energy's Ghosts
 --------------------------------------------------------- Wind-energy companies losing to cheap natural gas, lack of subsidiesThey're betting that the U.S. will pass a law that requires utilities in every state to buy electricity from renewable resources. --------------------------------------------------------- tinyurl.com/2ekkpod |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 4, 2010 17:58:29 GMT
Sounds like just the kind of system politicians would support Windmills are generally hideous, unreliable, high maintenance, wildlife killing, habitat destroying and more expensive than nearly any other form of power generation. Of course since they require huge government direct operating subsidies, which means huge 'donations' to politicians to make them even marginally feasible, they are very popular with big business, big enviro and big government. You could be right thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/116633-reid-put-renewables-mandate-back-in-play-eyes-lame-duck-energy-billCap and Trade will need to have a grave before people can start dancing on it. |
|
|
|
Post by nemesis on Sept 8, 2010 0:08:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Sept 15, 2010 19:49:15 GMT
For those of you with calculators you can check the math! Maybe at the bottom of the Grand Canyon they can get some Venturi effect. "The Power of a Calculator" "BTW, at the realistic (functional) number of 0.087 times nameplate capacity per Texas, we can cover the entire US with windfarm and equal our current generation capacity. The US has 3,539,225 sq mi which is an excellent match to windfarm performance and current generation."  noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/10326/ |
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Sept 16, 2010 0:39:53 GMT
Yeah, I got in a debate over this about power generation in the UK. The guys proudly declared themselves the winners of the debate...and that it would only take a couple thousand square miles per terawatt hour for wind power to work and little else...for a place like the UK.
Its actually much worse than people think because each wind farm really sort of drains the wind. If you cover the countryside with them you can expect enormous drops in wind speed. The first drop (one row to the next) is about 20% of wind speed and then it tapers off. This is why you often see only a few turning...it raises the wind speed threshold necessary to generate power...at all. On larger wind farms of course this figure would increase (since there's then no inertia in wind at the sides to help)...and those drops in wind speed can sometimes extend down-wind for miles.
The US has a big advantage on the rest of the world in this area. We've got LOTS of natural resources including good areas for alternative energy sources...not that it would necessarily be a good place to do it. The best places would be those located next to large hydroelectric plants. We could buffer out the flow by running the hydro plant at maximum capacity (which is often significantly higher than is sustainable over the long term)
|
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Sept 16, 2010 3:09:46 GMT
I have a friend on facebook that not only believes wind power is viable but that CO2 is a major pollutant.
|
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Sept 25, 2010 3:04:53 GMT
Where are Obama and Jackson on this issue other than striking it rich. "“Why They Go Green” (WSJ editorial says much in few words)" "Industrial wind is chock full of environmental negatives and isn’t nearly as effective at reducing air emissions than advertised. Big Wind is corporate welfare with companies like GE and FPL skipping their federal taxes. Wind today is the legacy of Enron, the Ken Lay model of political capitalism. Wind is an assault on lower-income energy users, not only taxpayers. (And Democrats are supposed to be for the little guy….)" "In a free energy market, companies succeed by producing cheaper, better products than competitors. In a “green” energy market, companies succeed by holding Beltway fundraisers. For more on the distinction, ask Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who will benefit today from a tony Washington money-raising breakfast hosted by top “renewable energy” industry groups. " www.masterresource.org/2010/09/why-green-wsj/ |
|
ZL4DH
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 128
|
Post by ZL4DH on Oct 6, 2010 1:50:40 GMT
Wind farms, especially big ones, generate turbulence that can significantly alter air temperatures near the ground, say researchers. www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11470261 The major threats to agriculture in terms of changing the air temperature come directly from the fossil fuel industry and deforestation” End Quote Jonathan Scurlock National Farmers Union |
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Oct 6, 2010 20:38:03 GMT
|
|
