So you think wind power is the answer ...

[catocom]

wind?...
if something was built high enough to catch the jetstreme in some places,
but then you might have planes flying into it, but I've gotten a few kites
up into it, and they don't come back after that.

 

[Gato_Solo]

wind?...
if something was built high enough to catch the jetstreme in some places,
but then you might have planes flying into it, but I've gotten a few kites
up into it, and they don't come back after that.

The places with the most reliable winds are high-mountain passes. Not the most comfortable, or safe, places to build anything. I was talking about anywhere between sea level to 'Denver' in altitude.

 

[catocom]

I'm wondering if SnP could supply his house with just one, since it sounds
like he Lives in the jetstream.

 

[catocom]

I never understood the fin designs in the new windmills.
It seems like they'd need something more like the old Holland ones.

 

[Inkara1]

The problem with the jetstream is that it moves around.

S'n'P probably could set up a small one and cut his comsumption from the grid pretty significantly. The thing is, wind turbines are designed to work in winds up to 30 mph or so and have a brake to keep it from rotating any faster than that. So his 60 mph winds won't give him twice the power or anything.

 

[jimpeel]

The problem with the jetstream is that it moves around.

S'n'P probably could set up a small one and cut his comsumption from the grid pretty significantly. The thing is, wind turbines are designed to work in winds up to 30 mph or so and have a brake to keep it from rotating any faster than that. So his 60 mph winds won't give him twice the power or anything.

Actually, the blades feather above a certain windspeed; but we saw what happens when they don't.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Actually, the blades feather above a certain windspeed; but we saw what happens when they don't.

We also saw what happens at other places that you like to invest in. Nope...that couldn't possibly be a safety concern...this, either. Move along...nothing to see here.

 

[jimpeel]

Wind power does sound great ... until those pesky facts start getting in the way.

They try to make it cute and lovable:

http://www.coateskokes.com/green/?p=65

But then there's this:

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article1416.html

Given that Germany's total installed base of generation capacity is about 125,000 megawatts, wind power plants account for about 16 to 17 percent of total capacity.

At first blush, these facts suggest that the nation's energy policy and wind power industry are a smashing success. But that brings us to the clever marketing trick used by many alternative energy firms; there's a major difference between the terms capacity and generation. Namely, just because a utility may own a plant with 1,000 megawatts of capacity doesn't mean that plant is operating at that capacity at all times.

...

But all the hype surrounding alternative energies obfuscates two other important trends that are facing most of the countries I visited last week. First, when I see all those windmills in Germany or listen to Sweden's plans to build more high-tech wind farms, I don't see countries that are becoming more energy independent or reducing their carbon footprints. Rather, I see a rapid rise in the consumption of natural gas and rising dependence on Russia.

And second, Germany and Sweden both state their goal is to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions. Paradoxically, however, both countries have undertaken the single most destructive policy with regard to that goal--a stated, national policy to phase out nuclear power.

With regard to the first point, natural gas emits roughly 50 percent less carbon dioxide than coal. Gas plants are also a well-known technology that's reliable and can be counted on for always-on power generation. Because alternative energies can't be counted on to meet demand, countries like Germany install what's known as shadow capacity--generally gas (or coal) plants that can meet power demand when wind power output isn't sufficient to do so.

Overall gas demand in Europe is projected to increase by nearly 4 percent annually between now and 2030, a total increase of more than 72 percent between 2003 and 2030. What's interesting is that's more than five times the 0.7 percent annualized growth in US demand; the Energy Information Agency projects that US gas demand will increase by only a total of around 17 percent in the same time frame.

[more]

And this:

http://kirbymtn.blogspot.com/2008/02/less-than-one-fourth-of-projected-fuel.html

Less than one-fourth of projected fuel savings from wind on Falklands #

It is a simple concept that if wind energy is pushed into the electrical grid, then electricity from another source must be reduced. Wind industry promoters ignore the many factors that complicate the concept and claim that wind-generated electricity equals an equivalent reduction of the displaced source's fuel use.

They ignore the fuel used if a source is simply switched to standby, extra fuel used in ramping up and down in response to wind, and extra fuel burned when a plant operates at lower efficiency because of wind.

They also ignore the significant line loss in transporting wind energy from the remote locations where sprawling facilities are possible. And they ignore the likelihood that in large grid systems, the unpredictable and highly variable wind production is small enough to be simply ignored -- tolerated as a slight rise in line voltage -- especially in the remote areas where wind energy facilities are typically sited -- and allowed to dissipate as heat.

...


According to the Falklands government, the wind turbines were officially opened June 29, 2007. On Sept. 20, 2007, they noted that the Sand Bay wind turbines were saving 800-1,000 liters of diesel fuel per day. Wind energy was providing 23% of the electricity at night and 13% during the day (an average of 18%).

But 900 liters is only 8.2% of the previous annual daily fuel use of 11,000 liters. And it is only 4.3% of the daily winter fuel use.

From this admittedly scant information, it appears that although these fast-responding diesel generators may generate 18% less electricity because of wind, they burn only 4-8% less fuel.

Using the winter estimates (the Falklands are in the southern hemisphere), that's a savings of less than one-fourth the amount projected.

And this:

http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/ProblemWithWind.pdf

A little research, however, reveals that wind power does not in fact live up to the claims made by its advocates (see part I), that its impact on the environment and people’s lives is far from benign (see part II), and that with such a poor record and prospect the money spent on it could be much more effectively directed (see part III).

I​

In 1998, Norway commissioned a study of wind power in Denmark and concluded that it has “serious environmental effects, insufficient production, and high production costs.”

Denmark (population 5.3 million) has over 6,000 turbines that produced electricity equal to 19% of what the country used in 2002. Yet no conventional power plant has been shut down. Because of the intermittency and variability of the wind, conventional power plants must be kept running at full capacity to meet the actual demand for electricity. Most cannot simply be turned on and off as the wind dies and rises, and the quick ramping up and down of those that can be would actually increase their output of pollution and carbon dioxide (CO2, the primary “greenhouse” gas). So when the wind is blowing just right for the turbines, the power they generate is usually a surplus and sold to other countries at an extremely discounted price, or the turbines must be shut off.

A writer in The Utilities Journal (David J. White, “Danish Wind: Too Good To Be True?,” July 2004) found that 84% of western Denmark’s wind-generated electricity was exported (at a revenue loss) in 2003, i.e., Denmark's glut of wind towers provided only 3.3% of the nation's electricity. According to The Wall Street Journal Europe, the Copenhagen newspaper Politiken reported that wind actually met only 1.7% of Denmark’s total demand in 1999.

Besides the amount exported, this low figure may also reflect the actual net contribution. The large amount of electricity used by the turbines themselves is typically not accounted for in the usually cited output figures.1 In Weekendavisen (Nov. 4, 2005), Frede Vestergaard reported that Denmark as a whole exported 70.3% of its wind production in 2004.

Denmark is just dependent enough on wind power that when the wind is not blowing right they must import electricity. In 2000 they imported more electricity than they exported. And added to the Danish electric bill are the subsidies that support the private companies building the wind towers. Danish electricity costs for the consumer are the highest in Europe.2

[more]

Reality is a funny thing. It pops up when you least expect it.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Wind power does sound great ... until those pesky facts start getting in the way.

*snip*



Reality is a funny thing. It pops up when you least expect it.

[more]

Once again, what of it? I, personally, never said that wind was the be-all, end-all of power sources. I never mentioned saving diesel. All I mentioned was saving your own cash by using less of whats on the grid. I have no idea where you get these specific crusades from, either. Guess in your world, anything 'supplemental' is a bad thing.

 

[jimpeel]

Once again, what of it? I, personally, never said that wind was the be-all, end-all of power sources. I never mentioned saving diesel. All I mentioned was saving your own cash by using less of whats on the grid. I have no idea where you get these specific crusades from, either. Guess in your world, anything 'supplemental' is a bad thing.

The fact remains that it is not only more expensive to produce electricity, more environmentally unfriendly, more unsightly, and more noisy; it is downright dangerous to those living under them when they come apart, catch fire, or start slinging ice chunks weighing in the hundreds of pounds. They are also more susceptible to environmental effects such as salt, dirt, and insect buildup on the blades which can have a profound effect on performance.

As alternative power sources go, they are a loser in almost every arena.

 

[Gato_Solo]

The fact remains that it is not only more expensive to produce electricity, more environmentally unfriendly, more unsightly, and more noisy; it is downright dangerous to those living under them when they come apart, catch fire, or start slinging ice chunks weighing in the hundreds of pounds. They are also more susceptible to environmental effects such as salt, dirt, and insect buildup on the blades which can have a profound effect on performance.

Really? You think a few accidents is enough to throw the whole idea away? You think they are more unsightly and environmentally unfriendly than a coal-fired/natural gas fired plant? BTW...even your quoted source mentions a savings in fuel...just not as much as you'd like. What do you recommend, then, since you, obviously, have some other ideas...

As alternative power sources go, they are a loser in almost every arena.

Here's a good one. Human beings are fatally flawed, given that we cannot live in this world forever. By your standards, we'd all be forced to suicide at birth.

 

[jimpeel]

Really? You think a few accidents is enough to throw the whole idea away? You think they are more unsightly and environmentally unfriendly than a coal-fired/natural gas fired plant? BTW...even your quoted source mentions a savings in fuel...just not as much as you'd like. What do you recommend, then, since you, obviously, have some other ideas...

As power producing entities go, oil, gas, nuclear, and coal cannot be beat.

As to the fuel savings, what fuel savings? The petro fueled generators must be kept online 24/7/365 to make up for the shortfalls of wind power. As that same article stated, wind power appears as nothing more than temporary spikes on the grid which causes many problems but does not allow for the elimination of even one petro fueled power plant.

Also, take one more look at that part about rated capacity vs actual generation.

(1 megawatt (MW, 1 million watts) of power output X 24 hours X 365 days = 8,760 megawatt-hours (MW-h) energy per year; if a 1-MW wind turbine actually produces 1,752 MW-h over a year, owing to the variability of the wind and other factors, its capacity factor is 1,752/8,760 = 0.20, or 20%.)

In high winds, ironically, the turbines must be stopped because they are easily damaged. Build-up of dead bugs has been shown to halve the maximum power generated by a wind turbine, reducing the average power generated by 25% and more. Build-up of salt on off-shore turbine blades similarly has been shown to reduce the power generated by 20%–30%.

And then there was this on Denmark's wind power:

Denmark (population 5.3 million) has over 6,000 turbines that produced electricity equal to 19% of what the country used in 2002. Yet no conventional power plant has been shut down. Because of the intermittency and variability of the wind, conventional power plants must be kept running at full capacity to meet the actual demand for electricity. Most cannot simply be turned on and off as the wind dies and rises, and the quick ramping up and down of those that can be would actually increase their output of pollution and carbon dioxide (CO2, the primary “greenhouse” gas). So when the wind is blowing just right for the turbines, the power they generate is usually a surplus and sold to other countries at an extremely discounted price, or the turbines must be shut off.

Denmark is just dependent enough on wind power that when the wind is not blowing right they must import electricity. In 2000 they imported more electricity than they exported. And added to the Danish electric bill are the subsidies that support the private companies building the wind towers. Danish electricity costs for the consumer are the highest in Europe.

So between the subsidies, the failure of wind generation to live up to its expectations, and the inability to reduce costs related to importing power the Danes pay the highest power prices in all of Europe. Now that's one reward I certainly do not want.

Sorry if this rains on your parade.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Once again...I'll point out what you quoted, since you have such a short memory...

According to the Falklands government, the wind turbines were officially opened June 29, 2007. On Sept. 20, 2007, they noted that the Sand Bay wind turbines were saving 800-1,000 liters of diesel fuel per day. Wind energy was providing 23% of the electricity at night and 13% during the day (an average of 18%).

But 900 liters is only 8.2% of the previous annual daily fuel use of 11,000 liters. And it is only 4.3% of the daily winter fuel use.

From this admittedly scant information, it appears that although these fast-responding diesel generators may generate 18% less electricity because of wind, they burn only 4-8% less fuel.

Using the winter estimates (the Falklands are in the southern hemisphere), that's a savings of less than one-fourth the amount projected.

Now...once again...you have only mentioned the status quo. I'm going to have to start calling you "Mr. Negative", as even your source says the info is scant. As for your generators running 24/7, that is not true. They only start up when the grid goes down. We use them here.

Now...once again...besides the status quo, which is a source of pollution, what are the alternatives you suggest?

 

[jimpeel]

Now...once again...you have only mentioned the status quo. I'm going to have to start calling you "Mr. Negative", as even your source says the info is scant. As for your generators running 24/7, that is not true. They only start up when the grid goes down. We use them here.

I am not speaking of standing power plants for home use. I am speaking of those generators in the general grid which produce power 24/7/365 on a municipal basis.

Now...once again...besides the status quo, which is a source of pollution, what are the alternatives you suggest?

There are no better sources of power than oil, gas, nuclear, and coal. Pollution can be controlled; or are you saying that zero pollution is the only acceptable alternative? You can never have zero pollution. It is impossible.