wind power???

[sseelhoff]

I'm kind of on both sides of the fence here as I have both a PV system and a solar water heating system and they work for us in our particular situation. However I don't think they will work for everyone and I'm sure that in the current form will never come close to replacing fossil fuels. What bothers me is regardless where you sit you are expected to be radically one or the other when it seems real obvious that there is a middle ground that can work if given a chance.I believe that at some time we have to decide how much of a socialist society we want to become as far as putting the government in control of energy. I personally am against it because in my view our govt. has proven time and again they can't manage anything. Roof top solar works real well for many if not most but is just not practical on a large scale. The problem is who decides. If every one goes with roof top solar it will send the power companies the way of the buggy whip builders but there is a definite gap that has to be filled at night or on calm days so the obvious answer is fossil fuels.The modern coal fired power generating plants are very clean and efficient but the "greenies" will deny that till hades freezes over and show 50 year old photos or Chinese plants to make their point.
In the end we need to agree that both sides have their place and compromise but there isn't much appetite for that at least in our country right now.

Right there with you, JN. Alternate works for some, but not for all. I don't understand why PV or Wind not working on one person's application means that they have to be hostile to the technology in all circumstances. (See i.e. Nissan Leaf thread).

 

[Redneck in training]

Redneck, I like your posts and those are great links to your personal weather and PV. Thanks. Are you interested/involved in Astronomy? Just idle curiosity really, because my son is with the Jodrell Bank people at Manchester University.

Axe Man, Are you opposed to all forms of renewable power? Or just wind and solar? It would also help us to understand your objections to wind and solar if we know whether you have some involvement with any part of the fossil fuel industries.

I am intersted in astronomy to only small degree. My place is 20 km from closet town so the the night are dark enough to see milky way being milky and the sky is full of stars. I have small telescope to see the Jupiter moons and Saturn rings and that is about as far as would go. I remeber your posts about chickens. Learned something from them.

 

[Redneck in training]

Thanks for asking Mr. O:
Let me be very clear, I do not work for any oil company nor have I ever done a contract job for any oil company. In fact I hate the b***ards as much as anyone. I think they're ripping off consumers big time.
I seem to be the only person I know that can remember oil was $135 a barrel before the economy crashed in 08 and in Canada gas was at an all time high of $1.35 a liter. Today oil is $98 a barrel and gas is still $1.35 a liter, so No, I have no involvement with " BIG OIL "
I'm against solar and wind, for one simple reason. THEY DON'T WORK.
In order for solar and wind to work you need a viable storage system. All governments are getting into wind and solar for 1 reason and that's so they can " out green" each other and get votes. Installing wind turbines and solar panels before there are viable storage methods is like Henry Ford introducing cars into the market before the internal combustion engine was ready. ( No problem......just hook the car up to a horse and watch it go. We still have the same problem with manure in the streets but it looks good to the public and is a good photo-op. ).
To the people that say Big Oil is only after 1 thing, and that's profit. Big Oil is only after a fatter bottom line and don't care about anything or anybody. I say......you're right.
These same people also say there's big money and lot's of jobs in going green. Build wind farms and solar farms put people to work ( can you say solyndra ) and make big money. If that's the case why isn't Big Oil falling over themselves getting into renewables?
There's many other reasons for not getting into wind eg: Denmark has been installing IWT for 30 years and still hasn't shut down 1 fossil fuel plant. In my opinion wind and solar are just a way for governments to do social engineering, raise prices for energy and make us more dependant on them.
Hope this answers your question.

I do lot of work for oil and gas. They are ripping consumers off because they can. There is no competition to speak of. Producers of oil keep price high and refiners (unless they also own oil source) are on a verge of bankruptcy anytime cost of crude goes up because it is difficult to pass the expense on the customer. That is why the fuel doesn稚 decrease because the refiners are saving reserves for rainy days. I think.
Government goes into many things that will not happen without its involvement. Our country has significant wind and solar resources so why not use them. There are more people employed by alternative energy sector that in coal mines. Those are better jobs that in coal mine. No black lungs either.
If the cost of solar system stays where it is or even decreases I don't see why it will not work for anybody who has reasonable natural condition. And I mean anybody. We installed our system despite the hostility of our local utility. We did that because I wanted one the same way people buy large trucks to get groceries. It makes no sense and it still happens every day. I keep my old junker and have a system that brings about 200 a month in my pocket.
Once the alternative energy reaches significant level it will force utilities or government to act and build long distance transmission lines (DC lines) and develop viable energy storage systems. In fact I think we are already on tipping point. One of the IA utilities wants to build DC transmission line to east coast to sell excess generation from wind farms. IA produces more than 30% of energy from wind. Since East coast is two hours ahead of Midwest IA could send energy to the east when people in IA are still sleeping. And get energy back when the East is already sleeping.
Energy from Wind is already cheaper than from coal.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Source

 

[jimpen]

Another option for windmills I would see about vertical wind turbines instead. Less likely to kill birds and apparently easier to install and maintain.

Another thought I've had is once the batteries are charged maybe dump the power into water to split it to hydrogen and oxygen and then use that to power a generator. I wonder if it would work?

 

[dave1949]

I'm kind of on both sides of the fence here as I have both a PV system and a solar water heating system and they work for us in our particular situation. However I don't think they will work for everyone and I'm sure that in the current form will never come close to replacing fossil fuels. What bothers me is regardless where you sit you are expected to be radically one or the other when it seems real obvious that there is a middle ground that can work if given a chance.I believe that at some time we have to decide how much of a socialist society we want to become as far as putting the government in control of energy. I personally am against it because in my view our govt. has proven time and again they can't manage anything. Roof top solar works real well for many if not most but is just not practical on a large scale. The problem is who decides. If every one goes with roof top solar it will send the power companies the way of the buggy whip builders but there is a definite gap that has to be filled at night or on calm days so the obvious answer is fossil fuels.The modern coal fired power generating plants are very clean and efficient but the "greenies" will deny that till hades freezes over and show 50 year old photos or Chinese plants to make their point.
In the end we need to agree that both sides have their place and compromise but there isn't much appetite for that at least in our country right now.

We have a long history of government taking action for the "common good." Railroad land grants, the power to use eminent domain for pipelines, power transmission lines, roads, and more recently for commercial development. Were there abuses, backroom deals, and chicanery? Yes. Was there an overall benefit derived? Yes again.

It is necessary to separate the "good" achieved from how efficiently it was accomplished. Ignoring the achievement while criticizing how it was done, or saying it could have been done better, is easy for anything. There are very few things that could not have been done better by the government, business or private individuals. Take all of those imperfect achievements off the earth and we would be living in caves.

It doesn't matter how "clean" coal or other fossil fuels are. They still take carbon that is sequestered in the earth and free it within the atmosphere adding greenhouse gases in the process along with other nasty things. The extraction, mining and transport of fossil fuels is damaging in itself before they are burned. Coal ash ponds draining into rivers and oil well blowouts are not good things either.

It is in the interest of the "common good" to severely reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Government is the vehicle through which that common good can be achieved--it is not different from our past history that got us to where we are today.

Railroad Land Grants

Railroad Land Grants - American Memory Timeline- Classroom Presentation | Teacher Resources - Library of Congress
Without the assistance of the U.S. government, railroad construction between 1860 and 1900 would have been greatly curtailed. Building a railroad was an expensive venture. Private banks, fearing the railroad companies would need a long time to pay off their debts, were reluctant to loan money to the companies. To remedy the situation, Congress provided assistance to the railroad companies in the form of land grants. The land grant railroads, receiving millions of acres of public land, sold the land to make money, built their railroads, and contributed to a more rapid settlement of the West. In the end, four out of the five transcontinental railroads were built with help from the federal government.

 

[OldMcDonald]

A lot of good posts in the last 12 hours.

Axe Man, Thank you for taking the time to reply. I take that you have no objection to the other renewables since you did not include them in your condemnation of wind and solar. I have to disagree about them not working though. You must have missed my earlier post that two-thirds of all electricity generation here in 2013 was from renewables and 49.6% of the total was from wind. With proper management, storage needs can be minimised, eg wind power during the night used to pump reservoir water back uphill into the original reservoir and run the water through the turbines during the day. Even before windmills this was being done in Scotland with surplus night-time power.

Loren, Jim Nelson, Redneck. In agreement. I too have only passing interest in astronomy, derived from my son.

jimpen, I am fairly sure your idea is being pursued. I might have a little info and if so will let you know, either later today or tomorrow.

Dave, Your third paragraph opens up a completely new thread. Care to make it one? My father worked all his adult life in the pits - permanent nightshift so he could run his small farm during the day It killed him of course, a week after his 66th Birthday. Coal dust in the body is not good. I do think some things have to be done at countrywide level and by the government. I am not a Socialist, but private control of essential services should be government controlled. It is all privatised in Britain now, and most of the companies are in foreign ownership. Definitely not a good thing for theconsumer.

 

[dave1949]

<snip>

Dave, Your third paragraph opens up a completely new thread. Care to make it one? My father worked all his adult life in the pits - permanent nightshift so he could run his small farm during the day It killed him of course, a week after his 66th Birthday. Coal dust in the body is not good. I do think some things have to be done at countrywide level and by the government. I am not a Socialist, but private control of essential services should be government controlled. It is all privatised in Britain now, and most of the companies are in foreign ownership. Definitely not a good thing for the consumer.

The motivations are part and parcel of most alternative energy discussions, beginning with how and why a salesman can knock on your door with a potentially viable wind turbine proposal. Alternative energy unavoidably also leads directly to climate and environmental issues in general along with a true understanding of the total costs of energy choices.

When "government control" and "socialism" enter the conversation, surely a little historical perspective is useful. When fossil fuels are presented as harmless defaults, then surely pointing out their environmental impact is also useful.

There is no point in tiptoeing around these core alternative energy issues. If 100% and uncapped reliance on fossil fuels were actually harmless there would be no alternative energy technology.

 

[OldMcDonald]

Dave, I was not knocking your post, I totally agree with it. I just felt that bringing in the greenhouse gases was likely to have deniers of the problem take the thread completely away from what I find to be a most enjoyable thread on wind (and solar) power. I hope I am wrong.

 

[BobRip]

Just a few points.
Energy and specifically electrical energy is extremely vital to our society. Just watch what happens during power outages.

As such, I am happy for every energy option. Rest assured that some will be a failure and money will be wasted. Don't stop the efforts or potential because of this. It is too important to not try.

 

[OldMcDonald]

jimpen, I have had a look at my info, and there is very little. I mentioned my miniscule involvement in a report called Zero Carbon Britian, 2030 in an earlier post. For my input I was given a paper copy of the report. It appears to be no longer available online. The only reference to hydrogen I can find (the report has no index!!) is in relation to limited use for transport vehicles.

The report has been superseded by a new one ZCB - rethinking the future (online viewing via ZeroCarbonBritain - Home - 2014) at page 50 there is the same very brief mention of hydrogen vehicles. The new report does have an index, but hydrogen is not included in the index, so I assume there is nothing about using it to power anything other than vehicles. I see no reason why it cannot work if transport can use it.

I was super critical in my review of the original Land Use chapter because they were making all sorts of prgnostications about what the land would be used for (after killing off 90% of grazing livestock) without identifying whether there was sufficient land "fit for purpose". I contended there was not. If you do access the report have a look at the box on the top right of page 83. You will see that they still have not identified the land that will be used for each purpose - I think they cannot. I am not qualified to comment on the remainder of the report, and I mention it as a warning that the same problems may well exist in other areas in which I have no knowledge.