wind power

/ wind power #21  
Turbo36,

The reason I am skeptical of the 1.5 year energy payback claim is that, if it were true, they would be installed. Everywhere. The basic raw materials are quite cheap.

The total energy required is not the energy to run the machine that makes the substrate, and subsequent chip. The true energy hogs are the feedstock processing, along with the astoundingly low yield associated with effort to make the feedstocks. I suspect that someone used the heat of melting of silicon as a basis for that claim, and it has been propogated as an urban myth.

Again, I would like a reference to the specific article that supports the claim, if you have one, as I would like to study it. I may get my eyes opened. It would help me out a bunch.

Thanks for you help.
Chris

Research these articles to see the real and potential solar payback periods. Most of the studies showing long paybacks are 5-15 years old so they are not relevant when comparing today's technology.

According to Wikipedia:

Solar cell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Energy payback is the recovery (period) of the energy spent for manufacturing of the respective technical energy systems, also called harvesting ratio (ISO 13602).
In the 1990s, when silicon cells were twice as thick, efficiencies were 30% lower than today and lifetimes were shorter, it may well have cost more energy to make a cell than it could generate in a lifetime. In the meantime, the technology has progressed significantly, and the energy payback time of a modern photovoltaic module is typically from 1 to 4 years[8][31] depending on the type and where it is used (see net energy gain). Generally, thin film technologies - despite having comparatively low conversion efficiencies - achieve significantly shorter energy payback times than conventional systems (often < 1 year).[32] With a typical lifetime of 20 to 30 years, this means that modern solar cells are net energy producers, i.e. they generate significantly more energy over their lifetime than the energy expended in producing them.[33][8][34]

Other sources:


http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

Entropy Production: Solar Payback Period

Solar Urban Legends - greentechZONE

Alternative generation and storage methods
Technology Review: Solar without the Panels


China has more coal then we do but they are moving fast into renewable energy sources

China links coal use and birth defects - 02 Feb 2009 - BusinessGreen

Updated: China overtakes UK as top location for renewables investment - 19 Aug 2008 - BusinessGreen

China's rise in solar energy centered around polysilicon; LDK signs contract with Italy's Helios

Even the utilities are embracing solar

Duke Energy pushes for rooftop solar distributed power program
 
/ wind power #22  
I don't think you are comparing apples to apples here. While government grants have led to all sorts of discoveries and inventions that have changed our lives for the better, government subsidized industries have not.

Eddie

Eddie, almost everything in our lives has some sort of "Government Subsidy" think about our roads, Hospitals, firefighters, Sea Ports, Schools etc. etc. Their funding (all or some) come from the Government through collecting tax and redistributing it.

The real argument here is really about Co2 emission and the effect on our world, I know you do not believe in "Global warming" and so you just look at the immediate cost of coal fired energy generation. From my view point I look at the total cost including damage to the environment, whether it is Co2 emissions , mountain top mining, water pollution due to the spoils of mining and burning the coal, acid rain and all the other negative costs. I'm willing to pay 10-20% more for my energy in the short term to allow the technologies to advance quickly and reduce my cost over the long term.
 
/ wind power #23  
Instead of debating without facts why does someone with interest not compile some hard dollar economic facts and post those.:D
 
/ wind power #25  
Instead of debating without facts why does someone with interest not compile some hard dollar economic facts and post those.:D

Did you read any of the links? :confused: There are hundreds of studies done worldwide.
 
/ wind power #26  
Actually Government money financed most of the basic research of the first computer systems and microprocessor ( Military applications) The firms you mentioned where just very bad at applying that technology in the private sector and that is why they failed (except for Apple).

IBM financed the PC using profits earned through many private and government contracts so yes some government money went into the development of the PC.

But that is not the same thing as direct and large tax credits to companies and individuals to promote a technology.

The ESD division that created PC was a huge money maker for IBM. It did not cost much money to start up and I have never heard that Feds gave money to IBM to go create a PC business.

The point of mentioning the companies was not that they failed but that they started up with their own capital. Woz or Jobs sold their HP calculator to help fund Apple. And they worked out of a garage. Never did I hear that Uncle Sam gave them any money to start a PC company.

PCs happened because people saw a need and a way to make money by providing a product that would sell. PC companies did not take tax credits and grants year after year to be successful like the solar power companies. Not even close.

To compare the PC business to the solar power business just does not wash.

Later,
Dan
 
/ wind power #27  
You are making the assumption that the only way to apply Solar power is through stand alone home owner units, I'm talking about large scale commercial units that feed the power grid. Much better efficiency.

Then you should say as much.

So you are talking about the commercial units that can take up many square miles of land? There was an article I think in WSJ about one such facility. Cant remember if it was built or planned but it would take up many square miles of land to create about 50% of what large Nuke and coal fire plants produced.

Now maybe land costs are cheap in the desert but it sure is not cheap in my area of the NC. What is the environmental cost of of putting in large solar arrays vs forest?

Putting solar arrays on roof tops is a better solution if the price ever gets affordable.

Later,
Dan
 
/ wind power #28  
Eddie, almost everything in our lives has some sort of "Government Subsidy" think about our roads, Hospitals, firefighters, Sea Ports, Schools etc. etc. Their funding (all or some) come from the Government through collecting tax and redistributing it.

The real argument here is really about Co2 emission and the effect on our world, I know you do not believe in "Global warming" and so you just look at the immediate cost of coal fired energy generation. From my view point I look at the total cost including damage to the environment, whether it is Co2 emissions , mountain top mining, water pollution due to the spoils of mining and burning the coal, acid rain and all the other negative costs. I'm willing to pay 10-20% more for my energy in the short term to allow the technologies to advance quickly and reduce my cost over the long term.

I agree that government does spend money on our every day lives. Things like roads, and infrastructure are very good examples of government doing what they are supposed to do. I'm also in support of government grants to Universities and private industry to do research on new technology. These are what taxes are for and I support these things.

My point that you didn't respond to was the use of money to force technology on us that does not work, but it politically correct. Sort of like the ethanol disaster that we just went through. When government forces these things on us, it just delays the real research on developing that technology by removing the incentive to do so. Why make it work when you are making money on it anyway?

As for assuming that I'm for destroying the landscape or increasing pollution because I have never seen any evidence that humans are increasing the overall temperature of the planet, is just silly. You invented that position when I've never said anything like that. Nor do others who don't believe that the planet is getting warmer. Instead, we believe that NASA has demonstrated that the temperature of the planet has been decreasing for the last decade, that the polar ice caps are at 1970's levels and increasing.

Those who believe in global warming have to rely in distortions and bad science. Both are proven wrong over and over again, but with all the money involved, those so called scientist keep pushing the doom and gloom regardless of how ofter they are proven wrong.

Two questions for those who believe in global warming. Why was the planet warmer in the past? One example is that the Romans grew grapes for wine in England, which is still too cold today for natural grapes to grow. You have to use genetically altered grapes to grow there because it's still too cold.

The other question is what benefits would we see from global warming? All they tell us is how bad it "might" be if the planet warms up. They ignore the fact that the planet has been warmer then it is now many times in the past and none of those things they predict ever happened, but what are the benefits? Will frozen area be able to grow crops? Will it rain more often because of increased evaporation in the oceans? Will the polar bears be able to eat more seals with less ice for them to hide in? hahaha

I'm all for a clean environment. As a hunter, I believe strongly that improving the habitat of our wildlife is VERY IMPORTANT!! I think that allot of these so called green alternatives actually do more harm then good. Saying that it's worth the sacrifice because in the long run, technology will make it better might work, but then again, it might not. It's wishful thinking at it's best.

How much damage and pollution to the planet are those pigtail light bulbs causing when they break? In some states, it's considered too hazardous to live in your home if one breaks. They are full of mercury. What is the long term damage of disposing of them? There is no energy shortage except what the government creates. There is plenty of known coal and oil to last us for centuries, yet we're not allowed to use it and have to use technology that uses MORE energy to create and operate then it generates. The stupidity is mind boggling yet that's what we're getting.

For what little energy we get from windmills, which is the topic of this post, what are we left with when those windmills fall apart? Altemont Pass in California has thousands of windmills. The owners of that windmill farm have changed hand numerous times. They all go bankrupt and now those windmills are falling apart. Some have even fallen over. What will it cost to clean up that mess? Who will pay for it? What was the cost to get the land, but the windmills, install them, maintain them and now dispose of them? Compare that to what they generated in electricity and I think you'll find it's not even close to breaking even. The proof is in the bankruptcy of the owners of those windmills and the fact that they are abandoned and left to fall apart.

Maybe being from California and going for excitement over the creation of the windmill farm where I lived, to hearing about the problems it was having and knowing those involved, to finally seeing it fail gives me a perspective that those who haven't seen it don't have. In time, you will.

Eddie
 
/ wind power #29  
Turbo36,

I read through the several of the articles(pro and con, but mostly pro) last night, and this morning, and have come to the conclusion that the claim of 1.5-2 year energy payback is unsupportable, even with the most optimistic of assumptions.

I would suggest reading the articles thoroughly, and evaluating their methodology. They are quite eye opening, results based analysis.(I know the results I want, how do I calculate them).

If you would like to discuss this off of this forum(as it is off-topic), I would love to. My conclusions may be wrong.

Thanks for your response.

Chris
 
/ wind power #30  
As for assuming that I'm for destroying the landscape or increasing pollution because I have never seen any evidence that humans are increasing the overall temperature of the planet, is just silly. You invented that position when I've never said anything like that. Nor do others who don't believe that the planet is getting warmer. Instead, we believe that NASA has demonstrated that the temperature of the planet has been decreasing for the last decade, that the polar ice caps are at 1970's levels and increasing.

Those who believe in global warming have to rely in distortions and bad science. Both are proven wrong over and over again, but with all the money involved, those so called scientist keep pushing the doom and gloom regardless of how ofter they are proven wrong.

Eddie


Eddie,

You've cited this NASA data more than once in this and other threads. I'd like to read the original where some NASA person says that the "polar ice caps are at 1970's levels and increasing", but all I come up with from NASA sites say the opposite, The only thing I found about increasing ice was about how there is of course new ice during the winter months, but that it is thinner and "saltier" than the previously lost long term ice. The second paragraph seems to be based on a really remarkable type of conspiracy theory, since my reading on the topic suggests that the great majority of scientists in fields concerned with the subject believe the data supports global warming, and the majority of those scientists also believe Man's activities are involved. These scientists are from countries around the world, and believing that somehow it is in their economic interest to lie suggests ..... I don't know....some kind of huge international conspiracy? They may be wrong, scientific knowledge increases in a rather jerky, sporadic manner, and there are numerous past errors that can be cited, but suggesting that all the evidence in support of their opinion is distortions and bad science is basically ridiculous.

Chuck
 
/ wind power #31  
The Wall Street Journal had an article this week about the cost of generating 20% of the US power from wind.

The cost to build the generators was over $700 billion with another $100 billion need to build transmission lines. The transmission lines might have to be built any regardless of how the power is generated.

Later,
Dan
 
/ wind power #32  
Eddie,

You've cited this NASA data more than once in this and other threads. I'd like to read the original where some NASA person says that the "polar ice caps are at 1970's levels and increasing", but all I come up with from NASA sites say the opposite, The only thing I found about increasing ice was about how there is of course new ice during the winter months, but that it is thinner and "saltier" than the previously lost long term ice. The second paragraph seems to be based on a really remarkable type of conspiracy theory, since my reading on the topic suggests that the great majority of scientists in fields concerned with the subject believe the data supports global warming, and the majority of those scientists also believe Man's activities are involved. These scientists are from countries around the world, and believing that somehow it is in their economic interest to lie suggests ..... I don't know....some kind of huge international conspiracy? They may be wrong, scientific knowledge increases in a rather jerky, sporadic manner, and there are numerous past errors that can be cited, but suggesting that all the evidence in support of their opinion is distortions and bad science is basically ridiculous.

Chuck

Chuck,

I'm unable to find anything that supports the ice caps being at or above the levels of the 1970's in a few google searches. I read the articles a short time ago, and it was all over the news for awhile. What happened to that information is beyond me to figure out. I was surprised at all the links that I found relating to the decrease in the ice caps.

If I come across it again, or something new comes up, I'll post it here. That is if the thread hasn't been closed by then. LOL

I consider myself a global warming skeptic. While I wont' argue that the planet has been warming up recently, it's also cooled. Every model and prediction by the alarmist has failed to predict the cooling or anything else. To assume that all the terrible things will happen because of these predictions is where I have my biggest complaint. I feel that those who are making the most noise about global warming and that we're doomed if we don't do something about it are the ones making the most money off of it. Al Gore is one of the planets biggest polluters, yet he's made over $100,000,000 personally from it since leaving office. Does he believe in what he says? I don't think so. He's done nothing personally in his life to cut down on energy use.

In citing scientist from around the world, you're really only talking about a few countries here. While NATO has a large list of those who signed on to the global warming threat, most are not in this field. There are also quite a few who have sued to have their names removed because they did not actually put them on the list. Others have since changed their minds and have asked to have their names removed. The list is constantly changing.

There is just as big a group of scientist who claim that the planet warms and cools because of the sun and not because of what man is doing on the planet. They don't get the publicity of the global warming scientists, but they have their meetings, write their papers and do a few interviews. You can choose to believe whatever side you want, but remember that those who claim man made global warming are getting all the funding, while those who do not support this are not getting anywhere near that kind of money.

I don't think it's a global conspiracy, but it is a global scam. I've read that it might be the biggest hoax of all time. I tend to believe this, but I don't know of all the hoaxes to compare to. This one is pretty big.

Since there is now so much evidence coming out against global warming, they are working on changing the name to climate change. Same people, same warnings, just a new name.

What is the ideal temperature of the planet that we want it to be? If they are to be believed, then what do we want to lower the planets temperature down to?

They tell us how bad the world will be when the planet warms just a few degrees on average. How the oceans will rise, the crops will fail and we'll run out of oil. Then ignore any possibility that there might be good things that happen with a warmer planet. This is scare mongering and another good example that proves they are in it just for the money. Nothing is absolute, and nothing is all bad. With bad weather, we get benefits too.

They have to lie and exaggerate to prove their point. In science, you don't change the facts to fit your view. You observe the facts and then make an opinion on what you have observed. Two recent lies that came out recently were the Siberia temperature readings. It came out that the readings for the fall were not being used, but instead, they were entering the summer readings. This of course raises the overall temperature, but with a lie. They claim that the polar bears are declining in numbers, yet of the 14 separate herds of polar bears in the world, only one has shown any decline at all, and the overall population has almost doubled in the last 30 years.

We could go on about the reliability of their readings and how those readings come from airports and how hundreds of stations have their equipment right next to their buildings or other sources of heat, but it really doesn't matter. The planet will heat and cool because of the sun. Nothing else matters or will make a difference. Global warming or climate change is just a way to make money for those in charge of it.

The planet has been allot warmer in the past and it wasn't caused by anything man did, so why believe that it's mans fault this time? The planet will get warmer and it will get colder. In time, we'll look back at this and either realize that we've been conned, or we'll get caught up in the next silly trend that the media latches onto. It's always something, and when it dies, it just sort of disappears and we move on to the next thing. The younger generations latch onto it and it becomes the big thing of their generation. At 43, I've seen it a happen a few times and now expect to see it happen a few more times.

Please keep in mind that global warming and climate change have nothing to do with a clean environment. The green movement is a disaster in what it's doing to the environment. Batteries, light bulbs, land development, throwing away stuff that works to manufacture replacements are causing more pollution then if this hoax never existed.

Eddie



If
 
/ wind power #33  
Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age - Pravda.Ru

I've discovered in my short time on planet earth Eddie, that it's futal to argue with people.

Most Global Warming studies are all about continueing funding.

Why has the founder of the weather channel made it his duty to dispute the global warming hoax with his last good years of life? He is a climate scientist.

Why won't Al Gore debate any of the global warming skeptics?

Could it be that he is making millions of dollars in carbon credit trading?

Why is Mars heating up also Turbo? Did our rover expell too much CO2 there?

Good for you Eddie. Hooya!
 
/ wind power #35  
just found information where they are going to try a large scale wind farm storage method in the Bakken fringes of ND
they are mining salt and I think some other mineral with if I remember right a drilling and fluid system
then fill the cavern voids with compressed air powered by the wind generated electricity and use the compresssed air to spin a turbine when there is a lack of wind
I guess this is going on now in parts of Germany and Norway
having lived in ND for 50 yrs the wind here does blow all but a few day of the year
problem being the days it does not blow are the coldest and the hottest also the days when we need the most electricity.
Having been inside a power station working I have seen how much power comes from a big commercial wind farm on a hot still summer day that day alone proves wind power does not work in one of the windyst parts of the world.
jury is out on weather or not its possible to store enough to make it worth while.
Till then coal is king here
 
/ wind power #36  
I always think of the Wind ships sailing the seven seas, or the Windmills of you're pumping water, making grist and carding wool.:D:D
 
/ wind power #37  
Our utility has been mandated to produce alternative energy somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 - 15% by the year 2015 or something like that whether it be solar, wind, tidal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annapolis_Royal_Generating_Station). In our neck of the woods, solar is somewhat useless as the peak demands are early in the morning and after supper til bedtime. Wind is usually the same, it will pick up throughout the day and generally die down at night with exceptions. Tidal is very reliable but costly and very sensitive to the environment from what you can read. The whole idea of using alternative power was to cut down on the use of fossil fuel which I am all for, but at what cost do you do these things? If you use solar or wind, you still need to be able to generate the required power to meet the customers needs, so in effect if you use solar or wind or both you still have to have a guaranteed backup unless your going to have rolling blackouts which no one wants which leads me to the point that someone already mentioned is that on top of funding the solar and wind plants you also have to fund the backup source so in essence you've built two power plants to produce your power. If one can't the other will when demand calls. The other thing about wind is that (up here in Nova Scotia) in the dead of winter when the demand is the highest, usually the coldest days of the winter are the ones that are dead calm. Another thing I've learned from my correspondence with our utility is that wind is very hard to control on our grid (maximum capacity of generation is somewhere around 2200 megawatts). You can't just dump power into a grid if it is not needed and you can't just shut down a coal fired boiler it has to be managed to be efficient or you create all kinds of problems. There is no simple solution to the problem, it will be an evolution as we go forward.

Steve
 
Last edited:
/ wind power #38  
... Another thing I've learned from my correspondence with our utility is that wind is very hard to control on our grid (maximum capacity of generation is somewhere around 2200 megawatts). You can't just dump power into a grid if it is not needed and you can't just shut down a coal fired boiler it has to be managed to be efficient or you create all kinds of problems. There is no simple solution to the problem, it will be an evolution as we go forward.

Steve

Steve, the problems with the power supply and demand for the power generation was mentioned in the WSJ article. The only thing I can think of to solve the problem is to transmit the power long distances to where the power was needed and have power plants at the other end reverse the flow in the other direction when the wind died. Sounds very inefficient to me.

My area has very unreliable wind. Sometime we have it sometimes we don't and its not very strong for very long.

Later,
Dan
 
/ wind power #39  
The stories about the ice cap being back to 1970ish levels was out over the last few weeks.

Here is one article, DailyTech - Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979

Later,
Dan

And for another view:

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/twits-and-***-at-the-daily-dreckdaily-dreck/

We'd probably better not keep going on this. It amounts to either religion or politics, in the way folks react to it. Since I fall into the general category of "scientist", I tend to believe the kind of data I read from other "scientists" when it seems to be generally accepted by the majority of researchers in that area. Most of the folks who work in my area of science are intellectually honest and I expect that is true of the atmospheric sciences. But then I also believe in the basic honesty and decency of the great majority of people, even politicians!

Chuck
 
/ wind power #40  
Could really use some wind power here... wind is howling for the next day! Read a story a few months ago about T. Boone Pickens building wind power farms... seems the real reason was for below ground rites and govt money!

mark
 

Marketplace Items

2016 Ford Escape SUV (A61569)
2016 Ford Escape...
2005 John Deere 7320 (A60462)
2005 John Deere...
UNUSED INDUSTRIAS AMERICA R2424 OFFSET DISC HARROW (A62130)
UNUSED INDUSTRIAS...
UNUSED KJ 12'X20' SINGLE GARAGE METAL SHED (A62131)
UNUSED KJ 12'X20'...
HYUNDAI HL955 WHEEL LOADER (A62129)
HYUNDAI HL955...
2008 Chevrolet C4500 Truck, VIN # 1GBE4V1998F404142 (A61165)
2008 Chevrolet...
 
Top