1. Home
  2. Home Repair
  3. OT T Boone Pickens
  4. Page 3

OT T Boone Pickens

RickH wrote: ...

Give the man a prize... :)

But that's simply a silly waste. Reprocess to close the fuel cycle.

Reply to
dpb
Loading thread data ...

Bullshit. There are plenty of printine views, but few places windmills are practical.

Trust me. There are NO pristine views in New Jersey.

Without the energy-producing apparatus, for twelve hours a day you won't be able to see ANYTHING.

You may be sensible. Others will be upset. Just knowing they are out there (somewhere) gets some folks all exercised.

That's a good point. Windmills are horribly expensive when compared to hydrocarbon-based energy.

Reply to
HeyBub

HeyBub wrote: ...

Not so much, really. The initial cost is somewhat higher per MW generated, true (but far less a penalty than solar), but it does get amortized out by the lack of continuing fuel cost w/ time. And, costs are coming down as the volume of installed units continues to rise.

The problem w/ the cost isn't the cost of the wind generation itself some much , it's (as previously noted) the need to have the reserve for when the wind isn't that is a sunk cost that much of the wind can't overcome. If it's that secondary cost you're complaining of, then I'm in full agreement.

--

Reply to
dpb

Meaning, exactly what? That the locations suitable for windmilss are so extremely limited that offshore Cape Cod, which most people would agree is a pristine view, is on the short list? According to Pickens, the whole midwest of the USA is highly suitable for wind power.

Thanks for the ignorant slam. Perhaps you can share with us where you superior folks live so we can return the favor.

Last time I checked there are many viable and more practical ways to produce electricity besides windmills. We get an insignificant amount of power from them today and could easily continue to do so in the future without any great calamity.

Reply to
trader4

snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote: ...

No, meaning it has one of the best energy potential sites in the NE where there is the need for power...

And you're perfectly content that as long as _your_ sightlines aren't compromised its ok if ours are, I take it??? :(

--

Reply to
dpb

IIRC, the voters (NE) didn't even want windmills off shore, so far they were _out_of_site_out_of_mind_. You know, past the curve of the Earth.

I say we put up thousand of fans off Cape Cod.

Reply to
Oren

nuke plants have that little problem with waste hazardous for a million years, and make excellent terrorists targets.

the used fuel pools are in unhardened steel buildings, a airliner, or small plane into one of those buildings would make thousands of miles of land unihabitabe.

i am all for nuke power once they solve the waste problem.

Reply to
hallerb

Only if most people there are OK with having windmills there. There could be benefits that make them attractive as well. Some areas have clearly agreed to have them. Palm Springs, CA is one example. If the tax revenue base, jobs, etc makes them worthwhile and the locals are OK with it, then it's fine with me. On the other hand, if some other areas don't want them because they ruin our view of the ocean and choose nuclear power, do you have a problem with that?

Reply to
trader4

snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote: ...

If you'll actually choose and do, no; I'd far prefer it over wind as being the most reliable, cost-effective solution for central generation even here. OTOH, it's that area of the country that has also shut down at least one and forced another to never start up over nothing but populist politics and NIMBY-ism.

The problem I have is that most who don't want option a, b, c, ... want the benefits but none of the requirements to help with any alternative option and are more than glad to let somebody else take their garbage (so to speak). CA building in AZ comes to mind as does their incessant water grab...

Reply to
dpb

We've been thru this before -- the waste problem is solved if the obstructionists such as you would simply allow it. Recycle--the fuel portion (including the fissile transuranics) goes back in the reactor and the waste is physically reduced drastically in size and dealt with.

Much of the rest of the world has been doing so for 40 years or so now.

--

Reply to
dpb

I wouldn't mind having a windmill in my back yard.

Reply to
Ray

I have made a point of going to see wind plants whenever I was near one. From watching them I am guessing they use the wind plant as a load leveling source. When you witch them for a while you will see them get feathered and speeded back up when there was no apparent change in the wind. Usually it is only a few that get feathered. I bet they do it because it is easier to adjust the output of these wind generators than the bigger plants. They can keep the fossil plants tuned for maximum efficiency (not a bad idea) and "waste" the free wind. These new ones are centrally controlled from miles away. The ones I saw in Ontario were scattered all over, a couple here, couple there with no apparent local supervision.

Reply to
gfretwell

The problem is a power plant in Iowa is not much help for the power hungry area of East Massachusetts. You are also not likely to ever get any other kind of power plant there either without a fight from somebody

Reply to
gfretwell

If they chose a viable alternative, then no. However I don't think those same people would be willing to have a nuclear power plant with

100 miles, must less 50 miles.
Reply to
Jim Rusling

Well, sure. People in Oklahoma are used to windmills, albeit much smaller ones. Windmills are everywhere.

People in Oklahoma are also used to oil wells. And Indians.

Oklahoma is Texas' attic; the place where we store all our crazy aunts.

Reply to
HeyBub

So, how are things in Baja Oklahoma??? (G&D&R)

Reply to
Kurt Ullman

It's possible but afaik not a normal operation in most of the larger wind farms. There's enough variability in the wind to effect their output w/o it being apparent on the ground w/o actual instrumentation (and, of course, the business end is 200-ft in the air, not at ground level). There's more difficulty here when the full complement is generating that the output variability causes voltage fluctuations on the grid.

In the TX panhandle last summer they nearly had a grid loss incident when generating at full capacity on a 100+F day and an unforecasted wind shift line passed across one of the wind farms and caused it to go to near zero output almost instantly. W/O it being planned they nearly lost the whole system before reserve could catch up.

Reply to
dpb

HeyBub wrote: ...

...

A windmill here and there is a far cry from several hundred wind generating turbines.

And, altho beside the point, the number of windmills is rapidly dwindling as there is a use for solar that is catching on pretty quickly where they haven't gone to submersible grid power (or in many places they're making the move to solar from the grid). Water tables are lower and windmills require a lot of maintenance.

--

Reply to
dpb

Watch it there. Texas is Oklahoma's basement where we store all the junk. :)

Originally from Texas.

Reply to
Jim Rusling

If it was a wind change they would all act in a similar way. I am talking about 3 windmills and one or two just stop. You can see the blades pitch to feather. I bet that once they have a lot of these scattered around and sending data to the central site they can do a better job of seeing wind changes. Couple that with doppler radars and you can do a great job of tracking the wind.

I do agree with the critics who say all of these wind and solar plants need to be backed up at nearly 100% so the only real saving is fuel.

Reply to
gfretwell

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.