OT: Wind Generation Follow-up

Page 2 of 5  
On Feb 18, 6:56pm, snipped-for-privacy@rochester.rr.com wrote:

Yeah, it's a big coordinated worldwide conspiracy to keep the number set at a constant 100 year supply. They meet once a year in secret under the guidance of Dick Cheney. Participants include everyone from the Queen of England, to President I'manutjob of Iran, to Prime Minister Putin and all the OPEC producers, every country that's a developer of oil resources or a consumer. It's obviously easy to keep all those folks on the same page. When they get done with that meeting, they move on to discussing how to continue covering up the fact they they planned and committed the 911 attacks.

So, it's better to hide the fact until there is only 5 years of oil left? Geez... With 50 years there would be time to plan and no panic in the streets.

No, the bottom would not fall out because we couldn't get to all that oil in the next year or 5 years or 50 years. It would still take a lot of money and time to extract it. We know there is a huge supply of coal availabe worldwide for hundreds of years and that market hasn't collapsed, has it?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/17/2011 7:49 AM, jamesgangnc wrote:

I have no problem doing stuff sensibly. Handing out tax credits and grants to install or do stuff "just because" makes no sense.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/17/2011 7:49 AM, jamesgangnc wrote: (snip)exactly how long do you think we will

Well, yeah, it is, actually. But it's not like any of us, or anybody we would recognize as the same species, will be around to harvest it. In 500? years, we have used up what it took ma nature millions of years to lay down. Same thing as for aquifers and forests, just over a much longer time span.
--
aem sends...


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Analysis of some of the moons of Saturn and Jupiter has resparked interest in the theory that oil is not really a fossil fuel but a substance that is created out of geological and not biological processes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
I think it's not likely, though, because the microdiamonds typically found in oil deposits are from biological carbon sources. That wouldn't be true of geologically created oil.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/17/2011 11:54 PM, Robert Green wrote:

Nature is always surprising that pesky little biological infestation know as Homo sapiens. Wouldn't it be interesting if oil is a product of both sources? Science is all about theory because a scientist may not have a few million or billion years to carry out a practical experiment then publish a paper. I've always wondered what could happen if methane was trapped under the crust of the Earth as it formed so many billions of years ago and the trapped gas was subject to intense heat and pressure in the extreme depths at or near the Earth's core. Scientists are always stumbling upon mysteries from our planet that often defy explanation. One of my favorites is the existence of the crystal caves in Mexico. :-)
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

For purposes of this dicussion that doesn't really matter. Whatever produced it is not continuing to produce at a rate equal to our consumption of it. For the near term I think we can discount econmically getting from other solar bodies.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/18/2011 8:00 AM, jamesgangnc wrote:

Oh yea, you never did cite your 5% assertion about crude oil utilization. A little thing like that makes it difficult to consider you to be a knowledgeable person who has any ability to determine whether or not anything is germane to any discussion. I have trouble spelling sometimes too so I would suggest you take a look at the free version of WordWeb and folks might take you a bit more seriously if you could spell. Be well. ^_^
http://wordweb.info /
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jamesgangnc wrote:

If history is any guide, so what?
Europe and North Africa ran out of trees to make charcoal. Then coal was used to power the industrial revolution until coal became too expensive (in North Africa, the British used mummies to fuel their train engines). Europe turned to petroleum and nuclear power.
When the oil runs out, or more likely when it becomes too expensive, we'll find something else.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/16/2011 11:54 PM, The Daring Dufas wrote:

Which people are those? I know of no one.
The first great energy driven economy came out of Holland with wind power. We currently use water power extensively, but not exclusively. Why not wind also?
Reduce the demand, by using some supply from renewables and you lower costs for other fuels as well.
Jeff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The fact that water used for hydro power runs 24/7 while the wind does not would be one key reason......
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Well, no, it sometimes doesn't.
During the California power debacle a few years back, they closed the spillways on a few dams during the off-peak hours and used power from gas-fired power plants to PUMP WATER BACK UP into the reservoir!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jeff Thies wrote: ...

I don't agree; the problem is w/ any non-reliable power source one must maintain the reliable reserve in place for when the unreliable source isn't there. That cost has to be subsidized by either higher rates on the conventional to account for the down time or passed on to the non-reliable source as a cost of their business model of only generating when they can, not necessarily when they're needed.
Not to mention that the annual average output for wind is only 40% of installed capacity; that drives that cost up by 2.5X for the generation construction even w/ the zero-cost fuel. It's equivalent of building a 1000 MWe coal unit but only operating it at 400 MWe--that's obviously not an efficient use of the other 600 MWe capacity.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/17/2011 7:50 PM, dpb wrote:

This is true if you consider wind as a replacement for coal, but if you consider this as an alternative to peaked electricity particularly with some kind of pumped storage, it's a different ballgame.

It's a big grid. Wind and solar isn't going to replace coal and nuclear. It has it's place.
No new coal under construction:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/31/AR2010123104110.html
Relative cost of generation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_cost_of_electricity_generated_by_different_sources
Wind turbine technology is advancing rapidly.In particular with regard to maintenance. I can't say the same for clean coal. And new nuclear plants are ungodly expensive, where I live that is dramatically driving up the costs.
My thoughts are that the grid will have to change.
Jeff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jeff Thies wrote:

No, it's diametrically opposed to peaking in that it is the most unreliable source when it may be needed. Peaking capacity is that which has to be there when there isn't enough baseload; you can't rely on wind for it. Plus, there's no way to ramp it up on demand; either the wind is blowing or it isn't. (In fact, summer a couple years ago in TX Panhandle a wind shift line went thru a large facility and winds went from 20 mph steady to near zero in 30 secs or so...that unexpected drop on a 100+F day nearly brought the local grid completely down).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/31/AR2010123104110.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_cost_of_electricity_generated_by_different_sources

The problem I still see is that while wind/solar/etc. can provide some replacement energy when they have a fuel source, they're going to remain as "replacement while there" and no matter how cheap it is, there's no getting around there somewhere has to be a reserve source for grid reliability. No matter how cheap you make those, they have the concomitant cost of that reserve. When you can resolve that question/problem, _then_ you'll have something that could make a major difference.
Wolf Creek Nuclear here is the cheapest power on the grid by a significant factor. Owing to 18-mo fuel cycle, it has alternate years where capacity factor is 95% or greater for the entire year, outputting in one day the installed capacity of 10 Gray County farms if they could manage full installed output. But, since they can only run at 40% capacity over the long haul, it's 25 of 'em they need. Since Gray County covers up an are that is roughly 20x80 miles already, one runs out of real estate real quick.
There is some replacement/substitution ability there, granted, but it just ain't the panacea hoped for by many unless the change in the grid you're looking for is to go to the wall switch and hope the light's come on when you want.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Taken individually few of the alternative sources are a solution. But all of them in combination with a more intelligent national grid and more efficient consumption, it can all add up to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jamesgangnc wrote: ...

"Few" as in "none"... :)
As I have said, there are uses (not particularly economic in comparison, but we'll give that the benefit of whether may come w/ time).
But which of the alternative(s) has the reliability factor? You're proposing building 3-4-5X the required capacity from diverse sources on the hope that out of that one _might_ have what's needed at any time? That seems to be the argument. Might work, but has to be terribly inefficient use of capital hence is going to be quite expensive in comparison.
All the intelligence in the grid you want can't make up for no wind or a cloudy day and afaik the sun still sets in the evenings...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/18/2011 9:50 AM, dpb wrote:

And to repeat my standard soap box when this subject comes up, solar/wind/whatever doesn't HAVE to be thought of in terms of electricity, especially electricity transported over long distances. Electricity is very convenient, but it is not the only way to make use of alternative energy. On a micro scale, you can use it to move water from someplace low to someplace high, thereby storing up potential energy. Gravity can power your water taps. Passive solar should speak for itself by now, but everyone wants those damn Mcmansions of many gables. Skylights, sola tubes, and sunwalls (with appropriate shutters) can eliminate a lot of interior lighting requirements. Lots and lots of ways to cut down how many flowing electrons you need, many with what is now considered stone age tech. Those tall things on old religious and government buildings weren't just feeding an edifice complex- open the door in the top, and crack the windows or doors at the other end of the bottom, and flow-through ventilation for free.
--
aem sends...


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The "ungodly expensive" of nuclear is due to excessive gov't red tape and over-regulation.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Yanik wrote:

The "ungodly expensive" of nuclear is largely the problem of design to containing radiation including separation of contaminated systems, and necessity of multiple layers of redundancy to keep the plant safe in fairy improbably scenarios. There are lots of improbably scenarios; some of them happen. There have been some potential disasters in the US; TMI is only one. The cost of mishap is high, as Chernobyl demonstrates. I really don't think "let the marketplace decide" is safe for nuclear.
Also contributing to "ungodly expensive" is the cost of dismantling a radioactive plant at end of life cycle. Also, now, defense against terrorists both in design and operation.
--
bud--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Much of the cost is paying interest on bonds while plants are arbitrarily and unjustly delayed. Most of the problem with waste disposal is not technical but political - the antinukers want lack of finding a solution.
What's so bad about vitrifying waste and dumping it into a salt dome? The antinukers like the roadblock that the waste must be retrievable!
--
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.