What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Good article on where we stand with wind power (1 Viewer)

:goodposting:

Very cool article. This past summer, the family and I drove through Amarillo Texas on our way to Albequerque. Just west of Amarillo there are hundreds upon hundreds of wind turbines visible from the highway. I know not everyone would agree, but I thought it was a really magnificent sight.

 
:goodposting: Very cool article. This past summer, the family and I drove through Amarillo Texas on our way to Albequerque. Just west of Amarillo there are hundreds upon hundreds of wind turbines visible from the highway. I know not everyone would agree, but I thought it was a really magnificent sight.
Yes, it is. We just have to get used to it. When they put up the Eiffel Tower in Paris, it was derided for being an eyesore, a monstrous metallic contraption, etc. Now it is the icon which identifies the city. We think the windmills in Holland are charming. Probably the locals at the time, objected to them as being unnatural.
 
:thumbup:

Very cool article. This past summer, the family and I drove through Amarillo Texas on our way to Albequerque. Just west of Amarillo there are hundreds upon hundreds of wind turbines visible from the highway. I know not everyone would agree, but I thought it was a really magnificent sight.
Yeah, I don't get the people that complain about these...I think they're spectacular.
 
:shrug:

Very cool article. This past summer, the family and I drove through Amarillo Texas on our way to Albequerque. Just west of Amarillo there are hundreds upon hundreds of wind turbines visible from the highway. I know not everyone would agree, but I thought it was a really magnificent sight.
Yeah, I don't get the people that complain about these...I think they're spectacular.
NIMBY
 
:goodposting:

Very cool article. This past summer, the family and I drove through Amarillo Texas on our way to Albequerque. Just west of Amarillo there are hundreds upon hundreds of wind turbines visible from the highway. I know not everyone would agree, but I thought it was a really magnificent sight.
Yeah, I don't get the people that complain about these...I think they're spectacular.
NIMBY
I hate those ####ers.
 
Wind power is good stuff, however storage technology needs to continue to advance a lot to really make a real dent. You get power not when you necessarily need it ...you get it when the wind blows. Wanna plan your day or your factory production around that?

 
:thumbup: Very cool article. This past summer, the family and I drove through Amarillo Texas on our way to Albequerque. Just west of Amarillo there are hundreds upon hundreds of wind turbines visible from the highway. I know not everyone would agree, but I thought it was a really magnificent sight.
Yes, it is. We just have to get used to it. When they put up the Eiffel Tower in Paris, it was derided for being an eyesore, a monstrous metallic contraption, etc. Now it is the icon which identifies the city. We think the windmills in Holland are charming. Probably the locals at the time, objected to them as being unnatural.
They really pissed off a crazy Spanish guy, I think.
 
Wind power is good stuff, however storage technology needs to continue to advance a lot to really make a real dent. You get power not when you necessarily need it ...you get it when the wind blows. Wanna plan your day or your factory production around that?
It seems to me they're kind of going about it the wrong way a little bit. The goal here isn't to entirely eliminate carbon emissions, they simply need to be reduced. If houses/buildings had solar panels and wind turbines on them, they fed the access back into the grid when they were generating stuff they didn't need, and used stuff from coal/nuclear whatever to supplement it when needed it could actually work. Plus there wouldn't be any more of a footprint for the stuff than our existing structures.I was looking into a wind turbine for my roof semi jokingly. It seems like there's going to be a point where it's truly beneficial in places like California and stuff where energy costs are really high, but here in the Midwest where we have a pretty good amount of wind it seems like it would take about forever in evergy savings to justify it. You'd need some really crazy tax credits to make it worthwhile. There's a Chipotle down the street from me that put one up for whatever unknown reason though - maybe it's a good marketing tool so it pays off sooner that way.If they could improve the personal technology and make it cheap, I don't even think you need to worry much about storage of it. It's at the point where it needs to be delivered already. People's energy costs would go way down/have more money to spend on other stuff. Jobs created to maintain the stuff. But then rich dudes wouldn't be able to jack us for energy as much.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Small wind turbines don't make a lot of sense. One of the points of the article is talking about longer blades sweeping out more area for more energy collection for a single rotor. Since the blades themselves aren't the most costly portion (the turbine + gearbox + base are more expensive) it makes sense to have the biggest/tallest one possible.

Solar power (photovoltaic) on the other hand does lend itself well to smaller units such as rooftop collection panels. In both cases the current price of capital investment means that it would take a long time to pay off the initial costs + upkeep on the installations (without subsidies). But that's just comparing power on a kilowatt-hour basis for generation and transmission, and doesn't include the cost of securing access to fossil fuel reserves, which as we have seen over the last few years can be quite expensive. Couple that with the (probable) environmental damage that burning those fossil fules causes, and that's a better estimate to the true cost of energy consumption.

It behooves the government to reduce the levels of fossil fuel imports for many reasons, many of which are long-term problems that market forces alone cannot solve. Therefore, some level of subsidies should be provided by the government to increase renewable energy usage.

 
Small wind turbines don't make a lot of sense. One of the points of the article is talking about longer blades sweeping out more area for more energy collection for a single rotor. Since the blades themselves aren't the most costly portion (the turbine + gearbox + base are more expensive) it makes sense to have the biggest/tallest one possible.Solar power (photovoltaic) on the other hand does lend itself well to smaller units such as rooftop collection panels. In both cases the current price of capital investment means that it would take a long time to pay off the initial costs + upkeep on the installations (without subsidies). But that's just comparing power on a kilowatt-hour basis for generation and transmission, and doesn't include the cost of securing access to fossil fuel reserves, which as we have seen over the last few years can be quite expensive. Couple that with the (probable) environmental damage that burning those fossil fules causes, and that's a better estimate to the true cost of energy consumption. It behooves the government to reduce the levels of fossil fuel imports for many reasons, many of which are long-term problems that market forces alone cannot solve. Therefore, some level of subsidies should be provided by the government to increase renewable energy usage.
That only addresses the costs of the windmills itself though. There are other costs - the land that they place these windmills on, delivery charges. Put them on houses and buildings, and there's no additional footprint whatsoever. Obviously there's more to what the electric company is charging you than just the cost to them to generate the electricity, otherwise it would take almost forever to justify some of this personal technology. I looked at wind reports for my area, costs of these things - I'm thinking it would take maybe a decade for it to pay off and our energy costs aren't that high compared to some areas of the country. The Chipotle down the street from me put one up like I said, so it can't take all that long to pay off. It really isn't all too noisy, I've stood next to pole it's mounted on and it isn't too bad. I don't even think I'm going to live in this house for a decade though, and who knows what the resale value on that upgrade would be - it could actually limit my market, so that killed the idea right there. If energy costs continue to rise it could pay itself off in short order.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
But perhaps the greatest obstacle to the wider adoption of wind power is the need to overhaul the power grid to accommodate it. Transmitting wind power from rural areas with strong winds to populated areas with high demand will require expensive new transmission lines. In addition, the power grid must become more flexible, though some progress has already been made. “Although wind is variable, it is also very predictable,” explains Andrew Garrad, the boss of Garrad Hassan, a consultancy in Bristol, England. Wind availability can now be forecast over a 24-hour period with a reasonable degree of accuracy, making it possible to schedule wind power, much like conventional power sources.Still, unlike electricity from traditional sources, wind power is not always available on demand. As a result, grid operators must ensure that reserve sources are available in case the wind refuses to blow. But because wind-power generation and electricity demand both vary, the extra power reserves needed for a 20% share of wind are actually fairly small—and would equal only a few percent of the installed wind capacity, says Edgar DeMeo, co-chair of the 20% wind advisory group for America’s Department of Energy.
I've seen this same point raised a bunch of times in discussions of renewable energy. Wind power is nice, and I have no objections to wind farms on an aesthetic level, but the power grid apparently just isn't capable of relying on wind energy for more than 20% or so of our needs. That seems to be a widely agreed-upon upper bound. I'm surprised we've gotten this far into the thread without somebody mentioning our scandalous abandonment of nuclear power.
 
I'm surprised we've gotten this far into the thread without somebody mentioning our scandalous abandonment of nuclear power.
This I agree with, why it is all of a sudden off the table, I have no idea.This is one of my largest differences with Obama...
 
But perhaps the greatest obstacle to the wider adoption of wind power is the need to overhaul the power grid to accommodate it. Transmitting wind power from rural areas with strong winds to populated areas with high demand will require expensive new transmission lines. In addition, the power grid must become more flexible, though some progress has already been made. “Although wind is variable, it is also very predictable,” explains Andrew Garrad, the boss of Garrad Hassan, a consultancy in Bristol, England. Wind availability can now be forecast over a 24-hour period with a reasonable degree of accuracy, making it possible to schedule wind power, much like conventional power sources.Still, unlike electricity from traditional sources, wind power is not always available on demand. As a result, grid operators must ensure that reserve sources are available in case the wind refuses to blow. But because wind-power generation and electricity demand both vary, the extra power reserves needed for a 20% share of wind are actually fairly small—and would equal only a few percent of the installed wind capacity, says Edgar DeMeo, co-chair of the 20% wind advisory group for America’s Department of Energy.
I've seen this same point raised a bunch of times in discussions of renewable energy. Wind power is nice, and I have no objections to wind farms on an aesthetic level, but the power grid apparently just isn't capable of relying on wind energy for more than 20% or so of our needs. That seems to be a widely agreed-upon upper bound. I'm surprised we've gotten this far into the thread without somebody mentioning our scandalous abandonment of nuclear power.
Let the low wind areas use their coal/nuclear - give us high wind areas credits to put them on our roofs - no delivery issues, and no doubt it would put a 20% dent or more into my usage. Win/win. Long term, it would be great for the consumer because after the initial investment pays off your energy costs go down a good bit.
 
The land cost isn't very high in most areas. Most of the land is grazing or farm land, some of the cheapest around. The construction of high voltage transmission lines is another story, and no, I didn't discuss this aspect, but that by no means indicates that personal use windmills are anywhere near as efficient (and hence profitable) as large (100'+ blade length) wind turbines.

In this case, bigger = better.

 
The land cost isn't very high in most areas. Most of the land is grazing or farm land, some of the cheapest around. The construction of high voltage transmission lines is another story, and no, I didn't discuss this aspect, but that by no means indicates that personal use windmills are anywhere near as efficient (and hence profitable) as large (100'+ blade length) wind turbines.In this case, bigger = better.
You also have to discuss the salary of the CEO running the electric company, who you are also paying. You have to discuss the money they are sending to Washington to keep energy costs high and rob us. I don't want the electric company to put one on my roof, I want them to make them better so we can all own them and put our money into other things.Would be a lot harder for terrorists/war whatever to disrupt our power as well. Every house is producing at least part of their own supply, good luck with that one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
anyone think vestas might be worth investing in?
Not until there's an actual reason that energy prices will rise again (confidence in the market + rising demand). The current situation has killed demand and growth worldwide. I think nearly all companies will be in hurt mode for another 2-3 quarters minimum. Until then, it's mattress stuffing time.
 
Another thread where I can tell the story of my cousin who worked as an engineer at the turbine 'farm' in the Tehachapi mountains.

This lawyer showed up at the plant one day and wanted to speak to a supervisor. A few months before his client had been in a accident on the nearby highway. The lawyer wanted to know if the 'fans' had been on that day and if the wind they produced could have been a factor in the crash.

 
:sadbanana:

Very cool article. This past summer, the family and I drove through Amarillo Texas on our way to Albequerque. Just west of Amarillo there are hundreds upon hundreds of wind turbines visible from the highway. I know not everyone would agree, but I thought it was a really magnificent sight.
Yeah, I don't get the people that complain about these...I think they're spectacular.
NIMBY
I hate those ####ers.
:lmao: This didn't get enough love.

 
I'm surprised we've gotten this far into the thread without somebody mentioning our scandalous abandonment of nuclear power.
This I agree with, why it is all of a sudden off the table, I have no idea.This is one of my largest differences with Obama...
For whatever reason the Left has a visceral, negative reaction to nuclear power. It's been that way for decades. I guess it dates back to defense policy and nuclear weapons proliferation and the greens, but I really don't understand it. Each side of the spectrum has their pet peeves, and this is one.
 
I'm surprised we've gotten this far into the thread without somebody mentioning our scandalous abandonment of nuclear power.
This I agree with, why it is all of a sudden off the table, I have no idea.This is one of my largest differences with Obama...
Nuclear was abandoned because our energy needs plateaued in the '70s and the demand for energy no longer supported the price required to gamble that the upfront upfront cost to build the plants and the upfront costs to shut them down could be made up. Add to that absurd cost overruns to '70's era construction costs, several high profile plants that needed to be shut down decades prematurely, the Reagan era of policies to promote cheap oil, and last certainly least of all the aftermath of Three Mile Island and to a lesser extent Chernobyl. That is contrary to the great myth that anti-nuke nut cases and other environmentalists killed off nuclear in the US it was purely a market decision.Now in the last decade or so we have seen our existing energy infrastructure is lacking, we have seen old nuclear power plants that have paid off their original costs be recertified to run for another 20 years as almost pure profit, instability in the cost of oil, and other factors which was causing the market to take a second look. (I used "was" because I'm not up to date on how much of those plans have changed in this economic climate.)

As far as Obama is concerned if the cost of solar and wind are in the same ballpark as nuclear (as I've seen claimed), with all of these forms requiring government subsidies - has a nuclear plant ever been built without government subsidies? - why would you invest in the old, mature technology? There is no reason to expect much in the way of advances in nuclear and there is not really any extra risk for the newer technologies and far less baggage.

ETA: Liberal view on nuclear

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Another thread where I can tell the story of my cousin who worked as an engineer at the turbine 'farm' in the Tehachapi mountains.This lawyer showed up at the plant one day and wanted to speak to a supervisor. A few months before his client had been in a accident on the nearby highway. The lawyer wanted to know if the 'fans' had been on that day and if the wind they produced could have been a factor in the crash.
Seriously?
 
As far as Obama is concerned if the cost of solar and wind are in the same ballpark as nuclear (as I've seen claimed), with all of these forms requiring government subsidies - has a nuclear plant ever been built without government subsidies? - why would you invest in the old, mature technology? There is no reason to expect much in the way of advances in nuclear and there is not really any extra risk for the newer technologies and far less baggage.
Wat? You're advocating - assuming equivalent costs - going with a new unproven technology that still needs research over a proven technology that we know ahead of time exactly what it gives us? How the hell is that sound decision-making?

 
Another thread where I can tell the story of my cousin who worked as an engineer at the turbine 'farm' in the Tehachapi mountains.This lawyer showed up at the plant one day and wanted to speak to a supervisor. A few months before his client had been in a accident on the nearby highway. The lawyer wanted to know if the 'fans' had been on that day and if the wind they produced could have been a factor in the crash.
Seriously?
In fairness Christo has learned a lot since then.
 
As far as Obama is concerned if the cost of solar and wind are in the same ballpark as nuclear (as I've seen claimed), with all of these forms requiring government subsidies - has a nuclear plant ever been built without government subsidies? - why would you invest in the old, mature technology? There is no reason to expect much in the way of advances in nuclear and there is not really any extra risk for the newer technologies and far less baggage.
Wat? You're advocating - assuming equivalent costs - going with a new unproven technology that still needs research over a proven technology that we know ahead of time exactly what it gives us? How the hell is that sound decision-making?
1. At the rate we're going, every industry will need subsidies to stay alive.2. Actually investing in old mature technologies is usually extremely productive. Because costs are driven down over time, as more efficiencies are found.

3. This might make Bottomdweller feel like the head of the US Patent Office at the end of the 19th century, who suggested it be closed down because everything worthwhile had been invented: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=459207

 
:popcorn:

Very cool article. This past summer, the family and I drove through Amarillo Texas on our way to Albequerque. Just west of Amarillo there are hundreds upon hundreds of wind turbines visible from the highway. I know not everyone would agree, but I thought it was a really magnificent sight.
Yeah, I don't get the people that complain about these...I think they're spectacular.
NIMBY
I hate those ####ers.
Welcome to this nation.
 
Another thread where I can tell the story of my cousin who worked as an engineer at the turbine 'farm' in the Tehachapi mountains.This lawyer showed up at the plant one day and wanted to speak to a supervisor. A few months before his client had been in a accident on the nearby highway. The lawyer wanted to know if the 'fans' had been on that day and if the wind they produced could have been a factor in the crash.
Seriously?
That's the story. I can't vouch for it being 100% accurate but who knows.
 
As far as Obama is concerned if the cost of solar and wind are in the same ballpark as nuclear (as I've seen claimed), with all of these forms requiring government subsidies - has a nuclear plant ever been built without government subsidies? - why would you invest in the old, mature technology? There is no reason to expect much in the way of advances in nuclear and there is not really any extra risk for the newer technologies and far less baggage.
Wat? You're advocating - assuming equivalent costs - going with a new unproven technology that still needs research over a proven technology that we know ahead of time exactly what it gives us? How the hell is that sound decision-making?
From what I understand wind is already cheaper than nuclear, but that the real costs when you factor in nuclear reliability versus depending on the wind evens them out or puts nuclear sightlier ahead (ignoring the built in governmental costs of nuclear). So yes I'd advocate going with the technology with upside rather than the technology that we know exactly what we can get when the too already project out to similar costs structures.
 
As far as Obama is concerned if the cost of solar and wind are in the same ballpark as nuclear (as I've seen claimed), with all of these forms requiring government subsidies - has a nuclear plant ever been built without government subsidies? - why would you invest in the old, mature technology? There is no reason to expect much in the way of advances in nuclear and there is not really any extra risk for the newer technologies and far less baggage.
Wat? You're advocating - assuming equivalent costs - going with a new unproven technology that still needs research over a proven technology that we know ahead of time exactly what it gives us? How the hell is that sound decision-making?
1. At the rate we're going, every industry will need subsidies to stay alive.2. Actually investing in old mature technologies is usually extremely productive. Because costs are driven down over time, as more efficiencies are found.

3. This might make Bottomdweller feel like the head of the US Patent Office at the end of the 19th century, who suggested it be closed down because everything worthwhile had been invented: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=459207
Yes modern nuclear plants elsewhere in the world will advances that the current mid '60's designs in the US won't have, but we still pretty much know what we can get from nuclear. And I don't see your patent office comment applies when I'm suggesting we go with the newer technology (although I feel a bit funny calling wind power "new".)
 
Another thread where I can tell the story of my cousin who worked as an engineer at the turbine 'farm' in the Tehachapi mountains.This lawyer showed up at the plant one day and wanted to speak to a supervisor. A few months before his client had been in a accident on the nearby highway. The lawyer wanted to know if the 'fans' had been on that day and if the wind they produced could have been a factor in the crash.
So were they on?
 
Here's some other decent articles:

U.S. Leads World in Wind-Power Growth

U.S. Edges Out Germany as World Wind Power Leader

We actually have about tripled our Wind Power output since 2005 and currently generate more than anyone in the world. It still needs some work to catch up to Germany in percentage of our usage, but they are already leveling out and declining because you can't really use more of a percentage than they are while we are growing faster than anyone right now.

 
Another thread where I can tell the story of my cousin who worked as an engineer at the turbine 'farm' in the Tehachapi mountains.This lawyer showed up at the plant one day and wanted to speak to a supervisor. A few months before his client had been in a accident on the nearby highway. The lawyer wanted to know if the 'fans' had been on that day and if the wind they produced could have been a factor in the crash.
So were they on?
I wasn't there.
 
Another thread where I can tell the story of my cousin who worked as an engineer at the turbine 'farm' in the Tehachapi mountains.This lawyer showed up at the plant one day and wanted to speak to a supervisor. A few months before his client had been in a accident on the nearby highway. The lawyer wanted to know if the 'fans' had been on that day and if the wind they produced could have been a factor in the crash.
So were they on?
I wasn't there.
Covering for your cousin. Got it.
 
jon's bat signal is working perfectly
Why not mention the actual costs? If you are going to throw in pulled-out-of-the-a$$ costs from health, environment, climate change, why not mention your assumptions for those costs. It is complete crapola. They had to make some ridiculous assumptions to come up with those numbers.

 
jon's bat signal is working perfectly
Why not mention the actual costs? If you are going to throw in pulled-out-of-the-### costs from health, environment, climate change, why not mention your assumptions for those costs. It is complete crapola. They had to make some ridiculous assumptions to come up with those numbers.
:goodposting:

Wind is just another boutique energy source.

 
Wind is the cheapest form of power.

“Over the last five years, wind and solar PV have become increasingly cost-competitive with conventional generation technologies, on an unsubsidized basis,” concludes Lazard.
"Onshore wind is cheaper than coal, gas or nuclear energy when the costs of ‘external’ factors like air quality, human toxicity and climate change are taken into account..."

:lol: Yeah, right.
Ignore climate change - you seriously don't believe coal is more damaging to the environment than wind power?

 
Wind is the cheapest form of power.

“Over the last five years, wind and solar PV have become increasingly cost-competitive with conventional generation technologies, on an unsubsidized basis,” concludes Lazard.
"Onshore wind is cheaper than coal, gas or nuclear energy when the costs of ‘external’ factors like air quality, human toxicity and climate change are taken into account..."

:lol: Yeah, right.
Ignore climate change - you seriously don't believe coal is more damaging to the environment than wind power?
Sure, Sulphur dioxides and Nitrogen oxides are bad for the environment. But the clean coal technology has reduced the pollutants by about 80 percent. There is definitely benefits, but break down those benefits and itemize them so we can make an intelligent decision based on the facts. Don't give us some misleading headline to try to sell the product.

 
Wind is the cheapest form of power.

“Over the last five years, wind and solar PV have become increasingly cost-competitive with conventional generation technologies, on an unsubsidized basis,” concludes Lazard.
"Onshore wind is cheaper than coal, gas or nuclear energy when the costs of ‘external’ factors like air quality, human toxicity and climate change are taken into account..."

:lol: Yeah, right.
Ignore climate change - you seriously don't believe coal is more damaging to the environment than wind power?
Sure, Sulphur dioxides and Nitrogen oxides are bad for the environment. But the clean coal technology has reduced the pollutants by about 80 percent. There is definitely benefits, but break down those benefits and itemize them so we can make an intelligent decision based on the facts. Don't give us some misleading headline to try to sell the product.
It's not misleading - wind is the cheapest form of energy even without subsidies:

PDF Link to the study.

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents.

In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.
Even at the high end of wind cost (8.1 cents) it's competitive with gas and coal and it's not subject to price fluctuations.

 
Wind is the cheapest form of power.

Over the last five years, wind and solar PV have become increasingly cost-competitive with conventional generation technologies, on an unsubsidized basis, concludes Lazard.
"Onshore wind is cheaper than coal, gas or nuclear energy when the costs of external factors like air quality, human toxicity and climate change are taken into account..."

:lol: Yeah, right.
Ignore climate change - you seriously don't believe coal is more damaging to the environment than wind power?
Sure, Sulphur dioxides and Nitrogen oxides are bad for the environment. But the clean coal technology has reduced the pollutants by about 80 percent. There is definitely benefits, but break down those benefits and itemize them so we can make an intelligent decision based on the facts. Don't give us some misleading headline to try to sell the product.
It's not misleading - wind is the cheapest form of energy even without subsidies:

PDF Link to the study.

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents.

In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firms analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.
Even at the high end of wind cost (8.1 cents) it's competitive with gas and coal and it's not subject to price fluctuations.
Then why did they not say the prices they found instead of saying it with several big huge caveats?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top