THE Wind Power Thread pt 2 (merged)

[Doly]

This is where you will have a problem, electricity doesn't just magically travel through the grid. It has to be pushed by voltage and it can only be pushed so far.

Yes, but I've heard that there are ways to transport electricity through long distances. Anybody knows more about this?

[WisJim]

Part of the solution could be to encourage business and industries to move to where the power is, like they did in days of old, when power came directly from water wheels etc. Perhaps the next generation of population centers will be where wind and solar resources are strongest--makes more sense than me sending power all over, although that is what they are doing with electricity generated by other means, such as hydro from Canada used in the midwestern states.

My opinion--PVs on every roof where the solar exposure is good, and use the power close to where it is generated.

[jbeckton]

hydro from Canada used in the midwestern states.

Got a reference on that? I seriously doubt that they are sending power all the way to St. Louis, maybe Detroit but thats insignificant.

[WisJim]

They are sending power to Minnesota and Wisconsin, specifically the Milwaukee area. The building of new transmission lines across Wisconsin has been highly publicized in the state, and the subject of protests and demonstrations.

We consider St Louis to be in the south, and Detroit s out east to those of us here in the mid-midwest <G>

[kaktus]

Thats not much power, wind energy will never be a significant source.

Well that depends on the total, doesnt it? Peak oil is about the access to cheap oil and energy is going down. If you believe that then wind will not be insignificant of the total.

Hydro in Norway accounts for something like 95% of electricity. In sweden 45%. not really insignificant.

The second question is: What is it about American business practices that allows foreign companies to be aggressive about this kind of investment, while US businesses are busy closing down plants, etc. One possible explanation: US managers are idiots.

I dont think you need be that pesimistic. Lots of idiots in Europe:). the truth it seems is that now everyone in the wind business is working at full speed. it is currently difficult to by a wind mill. Vestas tried to speed up capacity and got into trouble. So if you have access to production you invest in wind parks.

[jbeckton]

Thats not much power, wind energy will never be a significant source.

Well that depends on the total, doesnt it? Peak oil is about the access to cheap oil and energy is going down. If you believe that then wind will not be insignificant of the total.

Hydro in Norway accounts for something like 95% of electricity. In sweden 45%. not really insignificant.

The second question is: What is it about American business practices that allows foreign companies to be aggressive about this kind of investment, while US businesses are busy closing down plants, etc. One possible explanation: US managers are idiots.

I dont think you need be that pesimistic. Lots of idiots in Europe:). the truth it seems is that now everyone in the wind business is working at full speed. it is currently difficult to by a wind mill. Vestas tried to speed up capacity and got into trouble. So if you have access to production you invest in wind parks.

I said nothing about hydro, its great if you happen to be in the right location (like geothermal) but its useless to people living in the plains. You can hardly use Norway as a model for the world, its the perfect place to use Hydro.

[jbeckton]

They are sending power to Minnesota and Wisconsin, specifically the Milwaukee area. The building of new transmission lines across Wisconsin has been highly publicized in the state, and the subject of protests and demonstrations.

We consider St Louis to be in the south, and Detroit s out east to those of us here in the mid-midwest <G>

Again, do you have a reference? I can't find anything on Canada sending power to Milwaukee. Even if true, which I would question because its not too close, but you still can't send power from Canada to Nebraska. And you are not going to get anyone to move closer to wind power. Its not a long term solution, its part of the short term solution.

[Denny]

Check this out, New York City gets electric power from Labrador and James Bay, about a 1,500 km trip.

Hydro Quebec

Hydro-Quebec is a world leader in long distance power transmission. It has the largest electric power distribution network in North America.

I believe about 85% of Quebec's power supply comes from hydroelectric sources.

[Kez]

Its wasting valuable time and money that could be spent exploring other options that could play a significant role.

Let's say that we throw 100% of all our research into fusion, and it doesn't work. I'm not for doing that. It's like fighting diseases; I'd prefer to research heart disease, cancer, AIDS, ALCS, leukemia, etc. all at the same time, instead of throwing 100% of every researcher to solve cancer, only to find out 100 years from now there is no way to cure it at all.

From what I am seeing, there is only one option that will be here for millions of years, and that is fusion. Money needs to be spread around between both types of fusion potentialities - a man-made fusion reactor, and the sun's fusion reactor, by capturing wind, solar, photosynthesis, and hyrdo energy which all are a result of the sun's radiation.

Just because photosynthesis, wind, and solar power currently suck badly doesn't mean we should just dump all that money on a man-made fusion reactor, or some "other option" that you have in mind. If the world was run by just one type of power then the terrorists of the future would just blow it up ten times a year.

[jbeckton]

Its wasting valuable time and money that could be spent exploring other options that could play a significant role.

Let's say that we throw 100% of all our research into fusion, and it doesn't work. I'm not for doing that. It's like fighting diseases; I'd prefer to research heart disease, cancer, AIDS, ALCS, leukemia, etc. all at the same time, instead of throwing 100% of every researcher to solve cancer, only to find out 100 years from now there is no way to cure it at all.

From what I am seeing, there is only one option that will be here for millions of years, and that is fusion. Money needs to be spread around between both types of fusion potentialities - a man-made fusion reactor, and the sun's fusion reactor, by capturing wind, solar, photosynthesis, and hyrdo energy which all are a result of the sun's radiation.

Just because photosynthesis, wind, and solar power currently suck badly doesn't mean we should just dump all that money on a man-made fusion reactor, or some "other option" that you have in mind. If the world was run by just one type of power then the terrorists of the future would just blow it up ten times a year.

The problem is that even if wind is perfected it will never be sufficient. Solor power could be, fusion could be. We also do not have enough Uranium for millions of years.

[jbeckton]

Check this out, New York City gets electric power from Labrador and James Bay, about a 1,500 km trip.

Hydro Quebec

Hydro-Quebec is a world leader in long distance power transmission. It has the largest electric power distribution network in North America.

I believe about 85% of Quebec's power supply comes from hydroelectric sources.

Wow, you do understand the difference between New York City and New Your State right? The only exchange is near the boarder, not New York City, not far, not uncommon.

[Denny]

Wow, you do understand the difference between New York City and New Your State right? The only exchange is near the boarder, not New York City, not far, not uncommon.

Yes, I do, I live just an hour from the border myself. The reality is that its greater New York city that has the big power demand. Upstate New York can take care of itself from thermal generated power and power dams on the Niagara and the St. Lawrence. So the purpose oof the imported power is to feed NYC. The whole power distribtuion is networked on a grid, so you can't trace the flow of electrons through it.

The reality is that on a hot summer's day, if Hydro-Quebec pulled the plug on its James Bay dams and Newfoundland did likewise at Churchill Falls in Labrador, I'm betting many New Yorkers would find themselves blacked out.

Besides that, even if you only consider the border crossing of interest, that is about 75% of the distance. Look at the location of James Bay on a globe. Its real far from the NY state border too. Same for Churchill Falls, Its 1,200 miles according to Mapquest, of which just the last 300 miles is in the U.S.A.

[skyemoor]

The problem is that even if wind is perfected it will never be sufficient. Solor power could be, fusion could be.

This is not easy to parse, but suffice it to say that the total amount of electricity that could potentially be generated from wind in the United States has been estimated at 10,777 billion kWh annually — three times the electricity generated in the U.S. today.

I believe that a diverse mix of power is preferable, because of different intermittency and storage profiles. Yes, solar can be a major part of this mix. Fusion is a dream in an opium den.

Coal is indeed cheap, but ultimately too dirty in too many ways, so watch the external costs become internalized.

[jbeckton]

Wow, you do understand the difference between New York City and New Your State right? The only exchange is near the boarder, not New York City, not far, not uncommon.

Yes, I do, I live just an hour from the border myself. The reality is that its greater New York city that has the big power demand. Upstate New York can take care of itself from thermal generated power and power dams on the Niagara and the St. Lawrence. So the purpose oof the imported power is to feed NYC. The whole power distribtuion is networked on a grid, so you can't trace the flow of electrons through it.

The reality is that on a hot summer's day, if Hydro-Quebec pulled the plug on its James Bay dams and Newfoundland did likewise at Churchill Falls in Labrador, I'm betting many New Yorkers would find themselves blacked out.

Besides that, even if you only consider the border crossing of interest, that is about 75% of the distance. Look at the location of James Bay on a globe. Its real far from the NY state border too. Same for Churchill Falls, Its 1,200 miles according to Mapquest, of which just the last 300 miles is in the U.S.A.

You are talking about a grid with several sources at varving points all around the grid. Just because a grid can streach 1200 miles doesn't mean that you could take all of the plants in the middle out and just ramp up the Canadian ones and supply New Your City.

Think about the Blackout of a ferw years ago, it effected much more than the local area where the shortage occured, the effects of the grid can travel very far, but that doesn't mean that electricity from one plant can travel that whole distance.

[Doly]

Think about the Blackout of a ferw years ago, it effected much more than the local area where the shortage occured, the effects of the grid can travel very far, but that doesn't mean that electricity from one plant can travel that whole distance.

OK. But let's suppose that there were windmills all over America, on the places with good wind, of course. Let's assume that the total electricity provided was enough for people's needs (possibly a lot less than is provided nowadays, I'm talking about a powerdown scenario). The question is, if one day there is little wind in one area, could the windmills in other areas compensate for it or not?

[jbeckton]

The problem is that even if wind is perfected it will never be sufficient. Solor power could be, fusion could be.

This is not easy to parse, but suffice it to say that the total amount of electricity that could potentially be generated from wind in the United States has been estimated at 10,777 billion kWh annually — three times the electricity generated in the U.S. today.

I believe that a diverse mix of power is preferable, because of different intermittency and storage profiles. Yes, solar can be a major part of this mix. Fusion is a dream in an opium den.

Coal is indeed cheap, but ultimately too dirty in too many ways, so watch the external costs become internalized.

Do you happen to know just how many turbines that would require? The cost of building and maintainig then would be monumental.

I understand that wind will be used where it is fiesable. My whole point here is that the base load of electricity in the US will never be sustained with wind power. It will always play a supplemental role and is therefore in my opinion insignificant. By insignifican't I mean less than 5% of the toatal production.

To me this is like spending more money on treating cancer than finding the cure. Sure we need to treat people inflicted but we must realize that we are not concentrating our efforts on solving the broblem at hand.

I gaurentee that while coal is available (at least another 150 years), no company is going to build that many turbines, they will not survive. Coal is cheap, this is a capitalist society, what can you do about it? Continue to increace the regulations and taxes? If you are convinced that the coal plants are the most to balme, I disagree. The automotive industry has the furthest to go.

If I were a dictator, I would say that we need to sustain ourselves another 30-40 years at most before renewable energy is sufficient. My plan would involve updating current coal plants with scrubbers while building nuclear plants all over the country. Withing 20 years we would be 70% nuclear and near the end of the life of those plants we would be ready to convert to renewable energy.

We would generate much radioactive waste but I beleive that it offsets the coal pollution.

This will never happen because people are unwilling to accept nuclear plants here, the same people who complain about smog and everything else. The usually have very little to offer as a solution but instead point out successful countries who are in great loactions to use renewable energy and don't have the energy needs of the US.

[jbeckton]

Think about the Blackout of a ferw years ago, it effected much more than the local area where the shortage occured, the effects of the grid can travel very far, but that doesn't mean that electricity from one plant can travel that whole distance.

OK. But let's suppose that there were windmills all over America, on the places with good wind, of course. Let's assume that the total electricity provided was enough for people's needs (possibly a lot less than is provided nowadays, I'm talking about a powerdown scenario). The question is, if one day there is little wind in one area, could the windmills in other areas compensate for it or not?

Maybe, but probablay not.

That would only be the case if the windy areas could generate more than they need. You can't predict where the wind will be so you would have to build extra turbines all across the country that would cost too much money.

[Cabrone]

I suggest you read a report prepared by Eon, one of the largest wind operators on the planet. They own over 7GW capacity in Germany.

Wind has issues, no doubt. The need to have spare spinning capacity, weather forecasting, grid strengthening, load balancing and paradoxically issues when there is too much wind.

However German wind farms generated 26 billion KWh in 2004 and that is serious energy.

It's not a panacea, no-one who knows anything about renewables would think that it is but as part of a diversified 'energy basket' it has serious claims.

http://www.glassclash.info/pdfs/ENE_Windreport2005_e_eng.pdf

[kaktus]

jbeckton wrote

I said nothing about hydro, its great if you happen to be in the right location (like geothermal) but its useless to people living in the plains. You can hardly use Norway as a model for the world, its the perfect place to use Hydro.

You said hydro cannot be " a significan part of the solution" . Thats what I reacted upon and I specified a region as example so you wouldnt get it wrong.

I agree, and I think everyone does and will and always have , that windpower will never be the Answer. Its not even an issue so you can stop argue about that. the developed econmies have a base of nuclear/coal/hydro/gas produced electricity. This means that every kWh of fe wind generated electricity on top of that means a saving of these fuels to lessen the burden on environment or for use tomorrow.
Also, clearly, when seen as a strict management cost-revenue budget it is great with coal powered plants. everyone realizes that as well. the problem is the environmental costs (which are not charged the power industry). Reading about the enormous environmental costs from coal it is really strange that you pity the migrating birds that will be slaughtered by the wind mills.
I too expect a lot of coal powerd electricity the coming 50 years. especially since and it takes around 10-20 years to get a nuclear plant going. people will prefer a warm and nice house today compared to a good environment for the coming genereations. but I dont see it as black or white, we can make a slight change in putting resources in renewables. and oil depletion will mean a growing need for electricity.
then 50 years on we will hope for the results of ITER and others in fusion, or I suppose we will have the horse and wagon economy, with some rusty wind mills:), that James Kunstler predicts.

[skyemoor]

I understand that wind will be used where it is fiesable.

For you, that's a shift from prior posts. We note and appreciate your open-mindedness.

My whole point here is that the base load of electricity in the US will never be sustained with wind power. It will always play a supplemental role and is therefore in my opinion insignificant. By insignifican't I mean less than 5% of the toatal production.

Do you have an analysis to back up that number? Otherwise, Denmark has proved you wrong already by deriving at least 20% of it's electrical energy needs from wind. Yes, they have more access to hydro than do the Plains states, but energy storage can be accomplished many different ways. And I happen to support some nuclear for baseload, though there are many renewable sources that can balance each other out, especially when combined with Demand Response (sometimes call Demand Side Management). I invite you to examine the above links thoughtfully and provide comment.

Coal is cheap, this is a capitalist society, what can you do about it? Continue to increace the regulations and taxes? If you are convinced that the coal plants are the most to balme, I disagree. The automotive industry has the furthest to go.

References?

The usually have very little to offer as a solution but instead point out successful countries who are in great loactions to use renewable energy and don't have the energy needs of the US.

Energy needs?? Do you mean monster cars, distant commutes, huge homes with excessive building climate controls, and hours of watching giant screen TVs? Or do you mean "current levels of per capita consumption"? There's a tremendous difference.