Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Wind turbine marketers are full of hot air
Globe and Mail Update ^ | July 11, 2008 | Neil Reynolds

Posted on 07/25/2008 8:23:14 AM PDT by twistedwrench

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next last
To: stevio

The article points out that the wind generated power is sold abroad at a loss. Wind turbines are a subsidized industry in Demark


21 posted on 07/25/2008 9:27:38 AM PDT by Pontiac (Your message here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: jpsb
I like nukes, but I've heard that it costs more to decommission a nuke plant then it cost to build and operate it. Not sure if this is true, but if it is then nukes might not be all that great of an idea either.

Nukes are required by law to bank money during their life time for decommissioning. If the plant is sold the money for decommissioning goes with the plant.

22 posted on 07/25/2008 9:32:29 AM PDT by Pontiac (Your message here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: twistedwrench
Messrs. McCain, Dion and Pickens notwithstanding, winds do not blow predictably. Without an energy storage battery the size of Mount Everest, most wind-powered electricity will be wasted and will almost certainly increase a country's carbon emissions – albeit inadvertently. When your power plant operates at only 20 per cent capacity (or less), you have to build four or five times as many plants as you need. For reliable backup, you still need either coal, gas or nuclear power – all of which are cheaper than wind.

Power control, power distribution and energy storage will be the primary drivers in any alternative energy scheme.

combined power plant

23 posted on 07/25/2008 9:33:12 AM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan ("Sincerity is everything. If you can fake that, youÂ’ve got it made." Groucho Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stevio
"If we learn to curb our electrically needs to when the winds blows we’d be fine. Ain’t gonna happen. Power plants produce energy whether it’s used or not."

Actually, there "is" a way to solve the problem. It's called the "hydrogen economy" and it is the answer to using energy sources with inherent variability. It is also a pretty good way to handle the long distance transmission problem as well.

24 posted on 07/25/2008 9:34:38 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel-NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Donald Rumsfeld Fan

The Danish wind turbines only output 600kW at optimum wind speeds. It would take one thousand of these to offset a single 600MW plant, and only when the wind is blowing optimally.


25 posted on 07/25/2008 9:42:48 AM PDT by MtnClimber (http://www.jeffhead.com/obama/nobamanation-sticker.jpg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: 109ACS
You would also not need the sophisticated electronics to synchronize the wind generators with the grid.

Actually that is not a problem because of digital controls on the generators and the wind turbine generators are not tied directly to the grid but are passed through an inverter.

Hydrolysis is pretty inefficient and Hydrogen is dangerous to work with (and what do you do with the oxygen which is also dangerous.). On the other hand if your turbines are very far from the grid it may be a feasible storage medium. But I think batteries are probably more efficient and safer.

26 posted on 07/25/2008 9:43:14 AM PDT by Pontiac (Your message here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: stevio
If we learn to curb our electrically needs to when the winds blows we’d be fine. Ain’t gonna happen. Power plants produce energy whether it’s used or not.

When I lived in Alabama the biggest power demand was on hot humid days.....when all the air conditioners were operating. And that was when the wind wasn't blowing.

27 posted on 07/25/2008 9:43:39 AM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan ("Sincerity is everything. If you can fake that, youÂ’ve got it made." Groucho Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: stevio
Power plants produce energy whether it’s used or not.

No, that is not the way it works. Keeping nuclear reaction and quantum physics for another discussion, energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. Chemical energy (fuels) can be burned to make heat to turn turbines to turn generators to make electricity. But the electricity does just pour out and get stored on the lines or vanish if not used. In electrical grids, generation will equal loads plus loss, always. When more power is delivered to the shaft than electrical demand exists on the system, very undesirable things happen in the electromagnetic fields in the generator and voltage levels. You won't generate surplus energy, but you can damage equipment.

28 posted on 07/25/2008 9:48:47 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$
Wind Turbines backed up by batteries and solar with emergency tap to the gird

Do you have any idea what his expected pay back period might be. That sounds like a huge investment.

29 posted on 07/25/2008 9:50:16 AM PDT by Pontiac (Your message here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: J Aguilar
.."...and the only power stations that can vary their production so rapidly are gas powered ones."

Gas is quite able to go from off line to full load in a few minutes, but don't discount coal-fired plants. For decades, utilities have regulated their output to match demand by varying the output of coal-fired power plants. While they cannot change as rapidly as gas turbine, they can move quite freely over a band from about 1/2 load to full load. Most of the older, smaller units can move very quickly, while the very large base-load units take a bit more time to cover a large range. They all can vary 5-10% quickly and with ease.

30 posted on 07/25/2008 9:54:50 AM PDT by meyer (...by any means necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: stevio
Whoops, make that:

But the electricity does NOT just pour out and get stored on the lines or vanish if not used.

31 posted on 07/25/2008 9:57:22 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

One of the things that’s been discussed with Electric cars is that having a bunch of them plugged into the grid could be, in effect, a large battery bank. If you charged yours overnite you could provide power to the grid during the day. If there were proper meters on the car and places to plug them in everywhere we would have a place to store any excess energy that is produced.


32 posted on 07/25/2008 10:00:29 AM PDT by BlueMondaySkipper (Involuntarily subsidizing the parasite class since 1981)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Donald Rumsfeld Fan

Enough turbines spread over a large enough geographic area should, conceivably, increase the total amount of dependable electrical power on the grid. After all, while the wind may not be blowing in any given area at any given time, it surely is blowing in other places. The real question is whether the amount of conventional generation capacity they can displace is enough to offset their expense. I suspect the answer is no. Even leaving aside the need for convential plants to back them up, their total cost of generation per KWh is pretty high.


33 posted on 07/25/2008 10:02:14 AM PDT by -YYZ- (Strong like bull, smart like ox.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac; stevio

Electrical utilities can also buy electricity from other suppliers on the grid, but that is usually an even more expensive proposition.


34 posted on 07/25/2008 10:07:44 AM PDT by F-117A (Mr. Bush, Condi, have someone read UN Resolution 1244 to you!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: thackney

It is my understanding that, if there is a bank of wind turbines creating electric that is pumped back on the grid, the power plant does not use less fuel because of it. Nuclear power aside.


35 posted on 07/25/2008 10:12:49 AM PDT by stevio (Crunchy Con - God, guns, guts, and organically grown crunchy nuts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BlueMondaySkipper

And on a hot, windless cloudy day you come out of your air conditioned office get into your electric car and find out the battery is dead because it has been running your air conditioner all day. Yeh that’s the ticket.

An what if the wind doesn’t blow that night after the sun goes down, how do you recharge your car battery without pulling power from the grid, which is hopefully backed up by a reliable conventional power source.

Mr. Gore notwithstanding we do not live in OZ or some other fantasy land. We live in the real world with real laws of physics that need to be considered.


36 posted on 07/25/2008 10:18:08 AM PDT by redangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: twistedwrench

Wind in the CA Bay Area was run by a company call US Windpower, in the early 90’s. I did some business with them, toured their facility and met their senior officers. They were a very slick group and spent money very freely. I couldn’t believe there was that much money in power generation, but there were subsidies at the time for wind, so I figured they must be pretty generous.

Later, the founders I met all were busted in a stock fraud case. Something about concealing major problems with new, x-tra large windmill design they were marketing. The company went into receivership and I’m not sure who owns the mills and property now.

There is long history of hype in power generation overall.


37 posted on 07/25/2008 10:18:45 AM PDT by Wiseghy ("You want to break this army? Then break your word to it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: F-117A
I also remember reading of a utility in Germany that would pump water up a hill (to a storage area) during low energy demand periods so it could be released during peak demand periods.

Goldisthal

38 posted on 07/25/2008 10:19:39 AM PDT by F-117A (Mr. Bush, Condi, have someone read UN Resolution 1244 to you!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: STONEWALLS
Same thing happened in CA a few years ago when they were having their killer heat waves. The capacity factor of wind-generated electricity during those was on the order of 5%. IOW, it couldn't carry the load. But what didn't make the news (naturally) was that the nuclear generation from places like Diablo Canyon and San Onfre was tooling along at about 100% capacity factor. Those plants didn't care if the wind was blowing or not, and people using electricity from them had it when they needed it.

Now, any utility executive who proposes generating facilities with a capacity factor in the 5% range would be stood up against a wall and shot for incompetence. But since it's the "green", politically-correct wind power, they'll get a pass.

39 posted on 07/25/2008 10:26:58 AM PDT by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

If wind was somewhat predictable near hydroelectric plants, they could use the pumps to move water back into the lake when the wind is kicking up — it’s a pretty cheap storage solution.


40 posted on 07/25/2008 10:27:01 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson