Wind mill farm ends up as hot air

[billvon 3,120]

>Well they should send of the "people who are good at wind" to Scotland.
>During the last big storm when demand was near an all time high,
>Scotland's wind turbines were operation at less than 3% of capacity.

Wow, wind turbines being shut down during a hurricane! There's a shocker. Next thing you're going to tell me is that trucks are useless because they couldn't get into New Orleans during Katrina.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Wow, wind turbines being shut down during a hurricane! There's a shocker. Next thing you're going to tell me is that trucks are useless because they couldn't get into New Orleans during Katrina.

hummmph - if they'd make the amphibious like they are SUPPOSED to be, that wouldn't be a good argument. It just wouldn't hold water.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Well they should send of the "people who are good at wind" to Scotland.
>During the last big storm when demand was near an all time high,
>Scotland's wind turbines were operation at less than 3% of capacity.

Wow, wind turbines being shut down during a hurricane! There's a shocker. Next thing you're going to tell me is that trucks are useless because they couldn't get into New Orleans during Katrina.

Maybe nothing as extreme as your post here but the fact remains
Today, there needs to be a meg of available power from coal, hydro or nuke standing by for every meg of wind generation out there.

Nice to double the investment per mwh huh.....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[masterrig 1]

This is really, to anyone... I'm curious as to just how many of these 'wind farms' are idle and not producing anything?


Chuck

[wmw999 2,589]

Quote

Well they should send of the "people who are good at wind" to Scotland

the people who are good at wind all seem to jump at Spaceland, after eating beans and eggs for breakfast

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 3,120]

>Today, there needs to be a meg of available power from coal, hydro or
>nuke standing by for every meg of wind generation out there.

Or a meg of pumped storage. Which is cleaner, cheaper and simpler.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Today, there needs to be a meg of available power from coal, hydro or
>nuke standing by for every meg of wind generation out there.

Or a meg of pumped storage. Which is cleaner, cheaper and simpler.

Yep

When we get that we can use it

But for now the tech on a scale that will work does not exist

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Well they should send of the "people who are good at wind" to Scotland

the people who are good at wind all seem to jump at Spaceland, after eating beans and eggs for breakfast

Wendy P.

Whatever - they just end up breaking it!

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 3,120]

>Yep When we get that we can use it

US: 22 GW of pumped storage, 35 GW wind (a typical coal fired power plant is about .5 GW)

EU: 40 GW of pumped storage, 65 GW wind

>But for now the tech on a scale that will work does not exist

We have it and we are using it.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Yep When we get that we can use it

US: 22 GW of pumped storage, 35 GW wind (a typical coal fired power plant is about .5 GW)

EU: 40 GW of pumped storage, 65 GW wind

>But for now the tech on a scale that will work does not exist

We have it and we are using it.

Great
so we dont need coal, gas, nuke or hydo anymore ( cause this tech can replace it all economically very soon)
Right?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[againsthumanity 0]

I just love jumping off of them.... is that a green job?

I love BASE because cliffs don't crash
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

I just love jumping off of them.... is that a green job?

No - but it puts you in the red if something goes wrong.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[againsthumanity 0]

perhaps... but it's a wonderful green hobby

I love BASE because cliffs don't crash
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves

[billvon 3,120]

>so we dont need coal, gas, nuke or hydo anymore ( cause this tech
>can replace it all economically very soon)

"Very soon?" No, it will take many years. Fortunately we're well on our way. We had 2GW of wind power in 1999; 35GW of wind power in 2009. At this rate we will generate 20% of our power from wind in 2030.

"Replace it all?" Again, no; there's no reason to replace most nuclear or hydro plants with wind power only. Natural gas "peaker" plants will continue to be a good insurance policy against very high demand days, and natural gas cogeneration plants are a very efficient way to heat, cool and power buildings and small towns.

"don't need coal, gas or nuke?" We'll need them for some time, but we will be using them differently. Coal will gradually be phased out as older plants retire. Gas will be used more for peaker plants than for baseline generation plants; it's too useful as a transportation fuel and industrial feedstock to burn as a power fuel. Nuclear power will continue to be a part of our power solution, and new types of plants will both provide cheaper, safer power sources and power sources for places that right now have no good alternative options for baseline generation (like remote towns in Alaska.)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

"Very soon?" No, it will take many years. Fortunately we're well on our way. We had 2GW of wind power in 1999; 35GW of wind power in 2009. At this rate we will generate 20% of our power from wind in 2030.

According to Wiki, the 25GW of installed wind power in 2008 produced 1.3% of the electricity used. Looks like we've got a bit longer to go than you make it sound.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,120]

>According to Wiki, the 25GW of installed wind power in 2008 produced
>1.3% of the electricity used.

Yep. And the 35GW of installed wind power in 2009 produced 2% of our electricity. That's a growth of 40% a year. Growth has been between 6% and 67% over the past 10 years; average is about 30%.

But let's be conservative and assume it grows by only 15% a year on average. That means that by 2030 wind will be producing 33% of our _current_ power needs. Since our needs are growing as well, that will equate to about 20% of our 2030 power needs.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

>According to Wiki, the 25GW of installed wind power in 2008 produced
>1.3% of the electricity used.

Yep. And the 35GW of installed wind power in 2009 produced 2% of our electricity. That's a growth of 40% a year. Growth has been between 6% and 67% over the past 10 years; average is about 30%.

But let's be conservative and assume it grows by only 15% a year on average. That means that by 2030 wind will be producing 33% of our _current_ power needs. Since our needs are growing as well, that will equate to about 20% of our 2030 power needs.

i thought we were supposed to be cutting back on power consumption - it seems like you are for expanding our needs.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 3,120]

>i thought we were supposed to be cutting back on power consumption . . .

We should be cutting back on nonrenewable _energy_ consumption.

But that's not the same as power consumption. If you want to put in a 20kW solar power system, use all the electric power you want. Leave the lights on all day and play the TV all night. You're making your own power and you're not harming anyone else in the process.

>it seems like you are for expanding our needs.

As we transition away from fossil fuels, one of the things we'll need electric power for is transportation. Thus electricity demand will grow as oil consumption declines.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>According to Wiki, the 25GW of installed wind power in 2008 produced
>1.3% of the electricity used.

Yep. And the 35GW of installed wind power in 2009 produced 2% of our electricity. That's a growth of 40% a year. Growth has been between 6% and 67% over the past 10 years; average is about 30%.

But let's be conservative and assume it grows by only 15% a year on average. That means that by 2030 wind will be producing 33% of our _current_ power needs. Since our needs are growing as well, that will equate to about 20% of our 2030 power needs.

Assuming your numbers, that comes out to just shy of 660 GW of wind by 2030 - 38% of current usage.

The Roscoe Wind Farm in Texas (780 MW) is roughly the size of Manhatten - do we *have* 20 thousand square miles of open land in 'good wind' areas to install it?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,120]

>The Roscoe Wind Farm in Texas (780 MW) is roughly the size of
>Manhatten - do we *have* 20 thousand square miles of open land in
>'good wind' areas to install it?

Easily. That Roscoe Wind Farm is perched atop a lot of farm land. We have 1.5 million square miles of farmland; more than 75 times the amount we need. (And it makes farmers some extra money.)

Of course, it will make a lot more sense to put turbines on mountain ridges when it comes to footprint; one turbine on a 2000 foot ridge generates 10-20 times more than the same turbine in the valley below. However, power line access often restricts where turbines are installed. As more power lines are run, more ridge areas will become available.

From a recent 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."

[mnealtx 0]

Interesting stuff - as long as the wind is blowing!!

I was looking at the footprint for the 2030 amount of wind - that's almost the size of West Virginia, taken as a chunk.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Interesting stuff - as long as the wind is blowing!!

I was looking at the footprint for the 2030 amount of wind - that's almost the size of West Virginia, taken as a chunk.

then the transmision lines to move power to where the wind is not blowing ect

Point is wind would not be being built if not for gov tax credits because at current prices wind gen can not be profitable. At least today

The Iowa utilities board just put a big hit on a wind gen project here in Iowa (Written ruling to come this month yet) I can bet the compaines who are thinking of building more here are examining that ruling very closely

Wind is not profitable
But to corp haters I guess they are to work like the gov does and provide a service at a loss

Guess that gives us an idea of why some things today are happening as they are

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

>then the transmision lines to move power to where the wind is not
>blowing ect

Right; modernization/expansion of the grid will definitely be an important part of this. (And needed for reasons other than just wind power.)

>Wind is not profitable

And coal is not profitable without the billions in government incentives. And nuclear is not profitable without the government providing insurance coverage.

Sure, you could cut all those subsidies. I suspect you'd oppose cutting the coal subsidies/benefits since you profit from them. (Which is fine; everyone has their own government program they want.) But if not, then we have a responsibility to decide which sort of power is better for the people of the US (since they are the people paying both taxes to support subsidies, and are paying the costs in mortality from the current sources of power.)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>then the transmision lines to move power to where the wind is not
>blowing ect

Right; modernization/expansion of the grid will definitely be an important part of this. (And needed for reasons other than just wind power.)

>Wind is not profitable

And coal is not profitable without the billions in government incentives. And nuclear is not profitable without the government providing insurance coverage.

Sure, you could cut all those subsidies. I suspect you'd oppose cutting the coal subsidies/benefits since you profit from them. (Which is fine; everyone has their own government program they want.) But if not, then we have a responsibility to decide which sort of power is better for the people of the US (since they are the people paying both taxes to support subsidies, and are paying the costs in mortality from the current sources of power.)

all things being equal wind can not come close to the margins of coal
Wind is not better
Simply it is a dream of the warmists

The fact is Bill
if not for the tax benifits AND the current political climate forced on us by those like you, wind generation simply would not be built. (at anything near the current scale) It can not pay pack its investment costs. Coal can

So, since the Bush tax cut agreement was made, we will see another couple of years of wind generation build out. Sad to see capital dollars wasted so badly

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Your post about tax incentives and subs lead to me finding the following

Quote

Puzzling out the subsidies to the coal business is as unnerving as edging through a dark mineshaft swarming with Velcro-winged bats. This is because a big chunk of the subsidies are not direct handouts, but packaged as tax credits, tax breaks, and other goodies too numerous to itemize here. The U.S. coal industry enjoyed subsidies of around $17 billion between 2002 and 2008, including tax credits for production of "nonconventional" fuels ($14.1 billion), tax breaks on coal royalties ($986 million), exploration, and development breaks ($342 million), according to a study by the Environmental Law Institute.

http://www.elistore.org/Data/products/d19_07.pdf

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln