I think this is the beginnings of an economy based on perpetual growth and fossil fuel energy running headlong into geological energy constraints. Basically I see an undulatory downward path for the rest of my life. From here out, I think any rallies in our economic condition are going to be met with spiking commodity prices that knock us right back down.
Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 7:12 pm Post subject: Re: NBC is refusing to run one of Picken's strongest ads
Frank wrote:
...so - we should do nothing?
On an *individual* level there are things you can do to help yourself.
but....
On a *government* level you can pretty much forget about anything resembling a rational proposal being put forward.
//
I certainly do NOT expect the government to send in the calvary on the 11th hour to save my ass.
ANYBODY who thinks gov. is going to save them; well then you just go ahead and sit tight there Mr.
That's right.
Just sit there and keep on waiting. That's perfectly fine with me. _________________ joeltrout Oct-2008: Dow 13,000 in three years
Joined: Nov 06, 2007 Posts: 738 Location: Illinois
Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2008 3:22 pm Post subject: Re: NBC is refusing to run one of Picken's strongest ads
ki11ercane wrote:
It's not the # of windmills. It's the people, money, TIME, and especially natural resources needed to make this happen. Where are we supposed to get all the metals, plastics, concrete, etc., and especially all the oil and energy to harvest and then refine AND THEN construct 48,000 windmills? If someone has all the numbers PLEASE post them here I'd like to see how society is going to be able to handle annual growth and increase in consumption of oil, coal, and NG consumption AND have the side project of electrifying society with 48,000 windmills and all the infastructure needed to make this happen without society AS WE KNOW IT now remain the same. PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG BECAUSE YOU'D SOLVE THE PEAK OIL DELIMA WITH YOUR MAGIC BULLET!
First off, I would suggest you ease off on the use of caps. It makes it seem like you are a screaming lunatic. Second, I would ease off on the confrontational tone. Just because you don't believe 50k wind turbines could be built, doesn't mean it can't be done. Now, I believe you asked from some numbers. I believe this link will provide all of the numbers you are looking for. It breaks down the materials and money we would need each year to get 20% of US electrical power generated from wind by 2030. There's lots of numbers given, but they are not a problem given the US's current production. For example, the maximum amount of steel called for in a year is 2,644,000 tons. 2004-2005 US production of steel was 93,900,000 tons of steel.
Quote:
20% scenario is not constrained by the amount of raw materials available . . .
At $1000/kW (REPP), investment required is about $21B/year
Based on the construction details presented for the Vestas V-90 turbine and associated tower and components, it is assumed that both the tower and nacelle will yield approximately 80% salvageable materials. Since the hub assembly is a steel
manufactured unit, it is anticipated that the hub assembly will yield 100% salvageable metallic materials.
There is no mention of:
1) upgrades to electric transmission lines
2) load balancing
The reason why wind advocates rarely mention those points (and never in detail) is because that is essentially the "brick wall" that will prevent wind power from ever being ramped up to any significant level.
If the only technical requirement of wind power was simply propping up a windmill, well then by gosh we'd probably have the 20% number right now.
My intuition tells me those 2 points are at least equal if not more costly then the windmills themselves. _________________ joeltrout Oct-2008: Dow 13,000 in three years
There is no mention of:
1) upgrades to electric transmission lines
2) load balancing
The reason why wind advocates rarely mention those points (and never in detail) is because that is essentially the "brick wall" that will prevent wind power from ever being ramped up to any significant level.
If the only technical requirement of wind power was simply propping up a windmill, well then by gosh we'd probably have the 20% number right now.
My intuition tells me those 2 points are at least equal if not more costly then the windmills themselves.
For some applications Wind is a great addition, but due to variabillity the load ballancing part is a real PITA. Also if you look at all those tons of concrete etc etc to build 48,000 wind turbine bases and accessibility infrastructure you could have 142,000 MWe or 142 GWe when the wind is blowing at the right speeds. By the same token how many 1,850 MWe fission plants can you build with that much steel and concrete, that you can run 24/7 for 600+ days consecutively at a run? It takes 617 wind turbines at 3 MWe each under ideal conditions to replace one modern fission plant. I hope its not a secret to anyone by now that I am a fission advocate? Anyhow, I say yes, build the wind turbines! Build build build! I also say Build Fission, and Geothermal, and Solar! Build build build! Use the power from Solar to offset daytime peaking, that would be a very good role for Solar, almost ideal in fact! Geothermal/Fission take over baseload 24/7 power production. Hydro takes over whatever peaking there is unfullfilled by Solar, and Wind is used to pump water up to the Hydro resevoirs any time the wind is blowing and the resevoir is not full to the top.
That plan allows you to eliminate NatGas as an electric source and also allows you to start reducing and eliminating the Coal electric supply that currently makes up 50% of the grid in the USA. It won't be instant, but it sure would be smart! _________________ Always appeal to a man's enlightened self interest, you can trust him to look out for himself honestly, It's when you appeal to his Honor or the Common Good that he stops paying attention.
Joined: Nov 06, 2007 Posts: 738 Location: Illinois
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 12:54 am Post subject: Re: NBC is refusing to run one of Picken's strongest ads
cube wrote:
There is no mention of:
1) upgrades to electric transmission lines
2) load balancing
The reason why wind advocates rarely mention those points (and never in detail) is because that is essentially the "brick wall" that will prevent wind power from ever being ramped up to any significant level.
If the only technical requirement of wind power was simply propping up a windmill, well then by gosh we'd probably have the 20% number right now.
My intuition tells me those 2 points are at least equal if not more costly then the windmills themselves.
That cost might be buried in one of the many cost line items such as local spending, other costs, etc. But one of the studies I linked to above does separate out the cost:
Quote:
It would take another $200 billion to build the capacity to transmit that energy to cities and towns.
Building wind facilities in the corridor that stretches from the Texas panhandle to North Dakota could produce 20% of the electricity for the United States at a cost of $1 trillion. It would take another $200 billion to build the capacity to transmit that energy to cities and towns.
That's a lot of money, but it's a one-time cost. And compared to the $700 billion we spend on foreign oil every year, it's a bargain.
The argument, "Lets take X amount of dollars we spend on oil and throw it into alternative energy makes no damn sense."
What would we run our economy on if we didn't spend it on oil, donkey carts?
Every dollar we spend on oil creates many times more dollars in GDP. _________________ joeltrout Oct-2008: Dow 13,000 in three years
Joined: Nov 06, 2007 Posts: 738 Location: Illinois
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 2:32 am Post subject: Re: NBC is refusing to run one of Picken's strongest ads
cube wrote:
The argument, "Lets take X amount of dollars we spend on oil and throw it into alternative energy makes no damn sense."
What would we run our economy on if we didn't spend it on oil, donkey carts?
He didn't say stop importing oil for 2 years and boom, you have your money. He was comparing the projected 1.2 trillion cost for 20 years worth of construction(or however long it will take) of windmills and showing that we burn through that much money in less than 2 years importing oil. IE, 1.2 trillion dollars is a lot of money. But we burn through 1.4 trillion dollars just by importing oil for 2 years. _________________ The oil barrel is half-full.
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:05 am Post subject: Re: NBC is refusing to run one of Picken's strongest ads
kublikhan wrote:
cube wrote:
The argument, "Lets take X amount of dollars we spend on oil and throw it into alternative energy makes no damn sense."
What would we run our economy on if we didn't spend it on oil, donkey carts?
He didn't say stop importing oil for 2 years and boom, you have your money. He was comparing the projected 1.2 trillion cost for 20 years worth of construction(or however long it will take) of windmills and showing that we burn through that much money in less than 2 years importing oil. IE, 1.2 trillion dollars is a lot of money. But we burn through 1.4 trillion dollars just by importing oil for 2 years.
Yes, we spend a lot of money on oil.
But oil = the economy.
There's a saying:
Energy is the 10% of the economy that makes the other 90% work.
If you cut x% of oil then you cut x% of the economy.
You cannot save money by cutting back on oil, that would only starve the economy and make it contract. _________________ joeltrout Oct-2008: Dow 13,000 in three years
Joined: Nov 06, 2007 Posts: 738 Location: Illinois
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 11:32 am Post subject: Re: NBC is refusing to run one of Picken's strongest ads
cube wrote:
Yes, we spend a lot of money on oil.
But oil = the economy.
There's a saying:
Energy is the 10% of the economy that makes the other 90% work.
If you cut x% of oil then you cut x% of the economy.
You cannot save money by cutting back on oil, that would only starve the economy and make it contract.
Again, no one is saying "lets stop importing oil today and spend the money on AE." He is arguing for building up an AE infrastructure using today's money, so we will have that 10% of energy tomorrow. _________________ The oil barrel is half-full.
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 2:50 pm Post subject: Re: NBC is refusing to run one of Picken's strongest ads
kublikhan wrote:
...Again, no one is saying "lets stop importing oil today and spend the money on AE." He is arguing for building up an AE infrastructure using today's money, so we will have that 10% of energy tomorrow.
okay fair enough but that still wouldn't work.
We do not have surplus money sitting around.
Remember we have a negative savings rate.
Either we get deeper into debt to build these windmills or cut back on spending elsewhere like no more Starbucks coffee and HDTV.
Who's going to support that? _________________ joeltrout Oct-2008: Dow 13,000 in three years
Joined: Nov 06, 2007 Posts: 738 Location: Illinois
Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:25 am Post subject: Re: NBC is refusing to run one of Picken's strongest ads
cube wrote:
okay fair enough but that still wouldn't work.
We do not have surplus money sitting around.
Remember we have a negative savings rate.
Either we get deeper into debt to build these windmills or cut back on spending elsewhere like no more Starbucks coffee and HDTV.
Who's going to support that?
Riiiiiiight. We can drop 5 trillion bailing out Fannie and Freddie, but can't afford 1.2 trillion to ensure our energy future? _________________ The oil barrel is half-full.
Everything's bigger in Texas, including the claims of Texans.
The quoted statement is probably 3+ times greater than reality.
I say probably because it will be pretty hard to find more than
a few examples(if any) of 3MW turbines that have operated in
the US for at least a year.
There is no mention of:
1) upgrades to electric transmission lines
2) load balancing
The reason why wind advocates rarely mention those points (and never in detail) is because that is essentially the "brick wall" that will prevent wind power from ever being ramped up to any significant level.
If the only technical requirement of wind power was simply propping up a windmill, well then by gosh we'd probably have the 20% number right now.
My intuition tells me those 2 points are at least equal if not more costly then the windmills themselves.
For some applications Wind is a great addition, but due to variabillity the load ballancing part is a real PITA. Also if you look at all those tons of concrete etc etc to build 48,000 wind turbine bases and accessibility infrastructure you could have 142,000 MWe or 142 GWe when the wind is blowing at the right speeds. By the same token how many 1,850 MWe fission plants can you build with that much steel and concrete, that you can run 24/7 for 600+ days consecutively at a run? It takes 617 wind turbines at 3 MWe each under ideal conditions to replace one modern fission plant. I hope its not a secret to anyone by now that I am a fission advocate? Anyhow, I say yes, build the wind turbines! Build build build! I also say Build Fission, and Geothermal, and Solar! Build build build! Use the power from Solar to offset daytime peaking, that would be a very good role for Solar, almost ideal in fact! Geothermal/Fission take over baseload 24/7 power production. Hydro takes over whatever peaking there is unfullfilled by Solar, and Wind is used to pump water up to the Hydro resevoirs any time the wind is blowing and the resevoir is not full to the top.
That plan allows you to eliminate NatGas as an electric source and also allows you to start reducing and eliminating the Coal electric supply that currently makes up 50% of the grid in the USA. It won't be instant, but it sure would be smart!
+1.
Even though I'm not Mc cains biggest fan...when he said we will need to do everything to keep us afloat.... (wind, solar , coal , nuclear AND drill for petrol)... he was making sense for once. _________________ With Love to all, and Malice to none.
"A people is conquered not when they lose a war, but when they adopt the song and customs of the enemy"
-Chacham S
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4Next
Page 3 of 4
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
