Wind Power Is An Environmental Disaster

The Patriot Room ^ | August 14, 2008 | Bill Dupray

[Bill Dupray]

Usually when you argue with liberals, you can start winning right off the bat by denying the premise of their argument. On energy, their premise is that wind power is pure, clean energy, harnessing mother nature with no downside at all. After all it is just a breeze, which we like on hot summer days, and other than lifting loosely glued toupees and bad comb-overs, it is harmless. Right?

Well we don't get wind power from pin-wheels. We get it from thousands of huge, industrial grade wind turbines, which, for the dim bulbs on the left, are machines.

[WOSG]

“There are several projects already producing over 100 MW across the globe. “

There is over 5,000MW of installed wind power in Texas, we are #1 in the nation in wind power.

It still begs the question - how much should we subsidize wind? Any ‘good’ thing gets ruined by subsidies.

[WOSG]

I dont want to quibble, I was making a point that all real technology can be cast in negative terms, but ...

“PV is SILCON mostly, with Aluminum and Boron dopants- all NON toxic chemicals, along with glass and aluminum”

I am in the semiconductor industry and I can assure you there are multiple toxic chemicals used in manufacture of semiconductors including PVs.

General agreement on what needs to happen ...

(1) DRILL DRILL DRILL our own resources
- AND USE SHALE
(2) BUILD NUKES NOW at least 100 new plants
- MAKE IT 400. STOP NAT GAS FOR POWER.

(3) switch to hythane (hydrogen - natural gas)combustion / electric hybrid vehicles over the next 25 years
- PLUG-IN ELECTRIC HYBRIDS + ALT FUELS = DRAMATIC REDUCTION IN OIL CONSUMPTION

(4) start to convert to liquid H2 for airplanes
- NOT NEEDED IMHO, LIQUID ALT FUELS WORKS

(5) incentivize PV with a SREC program like New Jersey , where you get ca$h for your clean energy, that the utilities must purchase to do business in the state
- WE HAVE BILLIONS IN R&D ALREADY. CONTINUE.
- ADD BACK NUCLEAR POWER R&D IN LEAD_COOLED REACTORS.
(6) put wind in where it makes sense and improve transmission lines to support the sparse areas
- WHERE IT MAKES SENSE = DONT SUBSIDIZE IT
(7) increase energy efficiency and power quality - without FORCING ANYONE TO switch to those stupid CFs
- AGREE
(8) persue ANY other energy technology that makes sense
(9) ELIMINATE EtOH and other STUPID programs
- Ethanol subsidies + ethanol tariffs = bizarroworld
- Eliminate subsidies

“TELL THE DEMOCRATS TO SHUT THE H*LL UP AND GO AWAY”
- WORKS FOR ME!

[bruinbirdman]

"It kills birds. We simply can't do it"

EPA compliance filings indicate, and EPA accepts, 1 to 1.5 bird fatalities/yr/machine.

yitbos

[kauaiboy]

hydrogen is very SIMPLE

I can put a BOX in your house and plug it in, plug it into your car, and you can run your car

hydrogen very clearly works

and please name for me the fuel with the HIGHEST ENERGY DENSITY __________________________

name me the fuel that propels the space shuttle________

name for me some other “alternative” or renewable fuel (ie on the scale that we currently use JP4) with enough ENERGY DESNITY (kJ/ kG) to power JET AIRCRAFT

I am awaiting your answers

_____________________

[FredZarguna]

You’ll get my answer, as soon as you tell me where on earth there is any free hydrogen.

[GRRRRR]

WIND POWER will cause massive climate change.

For every windmill there is an energy trade off. Instead of the wind blowing freely and helping to move the clouds and moisture, the wind energy gets intercepted by the blades.

The wind energy is TAKEN from the environment and converted to electricty. This is not right, since energy can neither be created nor destroyed, the wind energy that is now turning turbines is not available to blow freely in the environment.

Taking the wind away by using windmills means there will be less wind downwind from the stations, so if Texas has a lot of windmills making electricity then Louisiana and Missississippi will not be getting as much wind in their environments.

This will lead to more pollution in the down wind areas!
Less wind means fewer clouds and less rain!

We cannot take the wind from some people just to make electricity, it’s going to ruin the climate!

If there are too many windmills then all the wind will be lost because all of the wind will be turning turbines and no more wind will be free to just blow!!

FREE THE WIND Let it blow!

/s

[kauaiboy]

hydrogen can be obtianed from water and electricity in any home

h2 can be produced from natural gas via reformation

nothing is “free” except primary sources of energy

gasoline is certainly not free, is it?

its all as matter of economics

If I can put in box in my house and make my own gas for less than 4$ / MMBTU equiv , then the game is on

[FredZarguna]

hydrogen can be obtained from water and electricity in any home

If I already have electricity, what am I using the hydrogen to do electrolysis for? Anyway, H2 in H2O is not free hydrogen.

h2 can be produced from natural gas via reformation

That's also not free hydrogen.

nothing is “free” except primary sources of energy

This statement is nonsense.

Hydrogen on earth is not free in the sense that it is already bound to other things, most notably oxygen, but also carbon, and metals. If you must reduce the hydrogen from water, in order to oxidize it in a fuel cell, or combustion, there is a net loss of energy. Oxidizing hydrides in metals has enormous energy costs. Oxidizing hydrogen from water and then burning it in the atmosphere or using it in a hydrogen fuel cell has a theoretical net zero energy yield, but of course because of entropy is a net energy loser in practical applications. Oxidizing hydrogen from hydrocarbons has a net positive energy yield.

gasoline is certainly not free, is it?

Good Lord. This statement is ridiculous. Gasoline is a refined product which has a net positive energy yield. Hydrogen has a net negative energy yield when reduced by electrolysis or recombined into H2 from hydrocarbons. It is NOT a source of energy. It can be used to transport energy, but it CANNOT be used to produce it, and as a transport medium, it SUCKS.

Since you've obviously no knowledge of Physics or even rudimentary Chemistry I hate to pick on you, and you've made at least a mild attempt to answer my question, though you appear to be confused on the distinction between chemically bound states of oxidized elements (free states) and economics "having no cost," which is a unicorn; there is no such thing. I'll try to enlighten you as to your earlier questions.

• Hydrogen is a storage medium, not an energy source (unless we're talking about hydrocarbons, which you aren't).
• To produce hydrogen for fuel cells or combustion, you must consume something else which actually has a net positive energy yield, probably coal or natural gas, but ideally uranium.
• Hydrogen does NOT have the highest energy density of any substance. This preposterous statement is one of the most inane howlers I've ever read on any Internet site. At ordinary temperatures and pressures hydrogen's energy density is absolutely terrible compared with just about any energy source you can name.
• If you are talking about liquefied hydrogen, you must expend additional energy to get liquefaction, you must spend additional energy to manufacture special low temperature handling equipment, and you must account for boil off. ALL of which drastically reduce hydrogens already poor transport efficiency.
• If you are talking about compressed hydrogen, some of the same loss issues still apply.
• In combustion, even compressed or liquefied hydrogen has an energy density far below gasoline. If you're talking about fuel cells, fine, but jet engines do NOT and CANNOT run on fuel cells.
• The material with the highest energy density currently available to our science is uranium. Hydrogen doesn't even come within 5 orders of magnitude.
• Hydrogen is extremely dangerous to store and transport in most forms. Those problems with hydrogen have not been overcome despite almost 100 years of attempts to do so. Hydrogen fuel cells, like solar cells, are toys and researchers' gizmos.
• Because hydrogen is an oxidizer, it destroys metals with which it interacts, unlike petroleum distillates.

As for your hydrogen house, please don't move in anywhere near me.

[tiki]

Is it up in the hills or mountains? On our ranch, which is mostly mountainous there are places where the wind blows 24/7. My MIL lives up on the slope and the wind blows almost constantly there too while there isn’t a wisp of breeze down in the valley.

[kauaiboy]

“Since you’ve obviously no knowledge of Physics or even rudimentary Chemistry I hate to pick on you”

Oh really, my friend?

Umm

Actually I have advanaced degrees MSME and MS ChE in both Chemical and Mechanical Engineering , with theses based on supercritical flow reactors and catalysis

so let me pick apart your answers and lets see whose right

AGAIN , the key here is finding ALTERNATIVE FUELS

WE CANNOT CONTINUE TO DEPEND ON THE SAUDIS AND CHAVEZ, CAN WE? and OIL will not last forever will it? I think gasoline is great - dont get me wrong - but it is problematic now with demand and supply issues

This is factual

nothing is “free” except primary sources of energy

you say its nonsense

well youre wrong

primary sources of energy include anything that takes no initial input to derive- this includes solar, wind, Oil, Uranium ,Coal, Natural Gas and many others

gasoline is certainly not free, is it?

Good Lord. This statement is ridiculous.

Oh really? its 4$ PER GALLON RIGHT NOW- that aint free!

and its like 8-10 $ in Europe

forget the kBTU / gal etc, it COSTS MONEY

“It can be used to transport energy, but it CANNOT be used to produce it, and as a transport medium, it SUCKS.”

Oh really ? what do we use to power the space shuttle ? what is the ONLY fuel with enough MJ/ kG to even make it into space ? huh ? HYDROGEN - Liquid

you said : Hydrogen does NOT have the highest energy density of any substance

youre DEAD WRONG , and it shows you are cockier that you should be and acting like the haughty John Kerry

your statement “ In combustion, even compressed or liquefied hydrogen has an energy density far below gasoline” is DEAD WRONG

lets look at the FACTS

FROM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

energy density (MJ/ kG)

hydrogen 143

gasoline 46.9

rest of propane, butane JP-4 etc 40-45

so youre WRONG. PERIOD

Hydrogen is by FAR the highest energy density fuel by mass

now by VOLUME, your litany of complaints about hydrogen are closer but you still need a spanking by a REAL CHEM E

Here are your false statements

“Hydrogen is extremely dangerous to store and transport in most forms.”

this is total nonsense- hydrogen is completely nontoxic and dissipates instantly ,and generates only steam

gasoline and JP4 are FAR more dangerous and toxic, not only on their own merits (water pollution and air pollution) but also when there is an accident , they pool and burn for hours , giving off noxious gases - see the recent plane wrecks and the one in Tenerife in 1977

look at the Hindenberg- the typical example posed by those who think H2 is dangerous - most people walked away without a scratch and the flames were over in about 5 minutes

“The material with the highest energy density currently available to our science is uranium. “

gee thats great - lets runs cars and planes on U238 !

“Because hydrogen is an oxidizer, it destroys metals with which it interacts, “

This is called embrittlement- it is an issue but not a major problem - you far overstate it

the BOTTOM LINE is that I can produce hydrogen in my house and run my car on it for about 5$ / gal equivalent - with no pollution or gasoline

I can mix in to ANY fuel stream and improve the burn

I can mix H2 with CH4 (nat gas) at ANY stoichiometric ratio

T Boone is right - we DO need to use nat gas for cars and then begin producing H2 with off peak nuclear energy and supplement - its called HYTHANE

you can live in the past with you misconceptions and half truths, but even John McCain gets it and is talking about it

hydrogen can run cars, planes , the space shuttle and pretty much anything else - and can be made from water

that is the facts , please feel free to refute

[FredZarguna]

nothing is “free” except primary sources of energy

Your reply continues to confuse "economic cost" with "already oxidized." Until you get your head around the difference, my PhD in physics trumps your alleged "masters degrees" in engineering.

No source of energy is free in any economic sense; primary or otherwise, but that isn't the point. All of the practically available hydrogen on earth is already oxidized. Therefore, it is not a source of energy in the same sense that hydrocarbon fuels are.

Get it?

Oh really ? what do we use to power the space shuttle ? what is the ONLY fuel with enough MJ/ kG to even make it into space ? huh ? HYDROGEN - Liquid

Had you read my post, instead of responding to nothingness, you would have seen my criticism of liquid and compressed hydrogen. The liquid hydrogen used in the space shuttle takes orders of magnitude more energy to produce than it provides.

FROM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

No one with an advanced degree in anything uses or quotes Wikipedia. But at any rate, energy density by mass is a ridiculous measure used by no one in any terrestrial application.

gee thats great - lets runs cars and planes on U238 !

It would be nice if we could, but anyone with an "advanced degree" would know that U238 is a nearly stable isotope with a half-life roughly 1/3 the age of the universe. It's U235 that is consumed in reactors. Duh.

the BOTTOM LINE is that I can produce hydrogen in my house and run my car on it for about 5$ / gal equivalent - with no pollution or gasoline

The BOTTOM LINE is that you don't have any "advanced degrees" and don't have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about. You can "produce hydrogen" in your home only because somebody else is already burning oil, coal or natural gas at a power plant somewhere else, and creating pollution and burning molecules with a net positive energy yield there. Your hydrogen isn't doing anything but consuming energy in your home.

Your statements betray a pathetic misunderstanding of basic science: You're saying, "What's the problem? I can just plug in a wire and generate all the electricity I need to in my own home." Sure. Good luck getting that one past your high school science teacher.

Learn a little science, and don't bother to post to me again until you do. I'm not having an argument with a twelve year-old with a chemistry set who refuses to learn anything, and I'm certainly not having a discussion with an "engineer" who thinks Wikipedia is anything but crap. All the H2 on earth is already oxidized. It's not a source of energy. Period.

[kauaiboy]

once again, you can try and insult me and change the subject but it doesnt change the fact that Hydrogen WILL be the main fuel used for transport in the near future

of course it must be created and is a carrier - not a primary source of energy.

so is EtOH- the current boondoggle idiot idea from congress, which is not only tripling food prices, but also takes much more energy to produce that it consumes

here is another incorrect quote by you “The liquid hydrogen used in the space shuttle takes orders of magnitude more energy to produce than it provides.”

this is NONSENSE

It takes about 30% of the energy to liquefy hydrogen- and electrolyzers are about 70-75% efficient

and you have no comeback to my point about stoichiometric mixing of Ch4 and H2 - because you are too stuck in your little box to listen

HERE IS THE POINT : WE NEED ALTERNATIVE FUELS

FUELS THAT ARE BOTH PRIMARY AND SECONDARY

ETOH SUCKS AND SO DOES BIODIESEL

the ONLY ONE THAT WILL WORK LONG TERM IS H2

you will be long dead when the pioneers of today, includng myself, revolutionize the energy industry.

have fun trying to pooh pooh progress from your little box, and ignoring arguments and changing the subject to suit your little box, like a liberal

and have fun paying $10 a gallon for gas soon, as the democraps keep preventing us from drilling as well