Wind Turbine

[DonziJon]

We're getting a Wind Turbine in Portsmouth, RI. The town will own it. Being a Conservative....I voted against it because ..it's borrowed money. $3M ..and at the time, we had a $1M deficit. I've been watching it go up the past couple of weeks. I LIKE engineering stuff..so I've warmed up to it. Had a lot of wind the last few days so things are slow right now. It may be on line in the next few days if the wind dies down.

It's a pretty BIG unit. 1.5 MegaWatts. They need to add the third section to the mast and then the Nacelle with the generator inside it on the same day. If they only put up the third mast section...without the Nacelle...and it gets windy..certain frequency's can be generated that could bring down the whole thing. Kinda like blowing across the top of a Coke bottle. They may do the "Pic" tomorrow....John

EDIT: Push the button on the front page that says "Wind Energy".


http://www.portsmouthri.com/frames.htm

[CHACHI]

You did the right thing John.

Wolfe Island, (Canadian) up at the Thousand Islands HAS them. Cape Vincent NY, across the river from Wolfe Island wants them BUT the land owners who have signed contracts with the wind farm companies are the same people running the town and may have a slight "conflict of interest." The local State Representative for Cape Vincent, who also has a contract for wind turbines on his land, sent the Cape Vincent contract holders/town officals a letter basically saying, the hell with confict of interest, move to pass the law for turbines.

It is going to be a great summer.

Ken

[DonziJon]

Been spending a lot of time at the Wind Turbine building site in Portsmouth..Weather has NOT been co-operating. Mostly too much wind.

Yesterday the weather was good and they got the third (last) secion of the mast up.(40 metric tons) Then there was a glitch with the Nacelle Pick...(67 metric Tons) one of the "Tag" lines parted on the first accent, and the Nacelle had to come down again. Late in the day they got it up with weather going sour.

Today it was spitting snow, sleet and rain. They were trying to change out the jib on the crane (We're talking Sunday) they got it done,,but the sleet was starting to freeze so they finally aborted around 4PM.. Todays objective was to raize the hub with the turbine blades installed. Didn't happen. The next few days (weather wise) are supposed to be worse. The crane costs $10K per day. The contract is capped at $3M. The Wind Turbine Company is trying to make a debut in the US. They are Canadian. John

EDIT: Tried to post some pictures but I didn't get it right so..No stinkin pictures.

[DonziJon]

I resized the pictures: (Take 4) Old Fart finally gets it right. John

PS: I really like that crane.

[DonziJon]

The turbine blades and hub went up yesterday.

[John W]

Nice pics!! Who gets the money from the power. I live in Annapolis, MD and tried to get a cell phone tower, but the Mayor said "over her dead body", however Pat Sayjack, yes wheel of Fortune guy, has a cell tower on his property, he owns the local radio staion. I think I want one of those, its green and a re-newable power source, the Peoples Republic of MD should be proud I want to put one of those babies in, perhaps I could qualify for some of the stimulus money.
Somebody pinch me I think I am dreaming out loud.
JW

[Lenny]

John, I really want one. Seriously, c/w a weather station on the top. I live at the top of an 1100' Mountain. It is windier than $ u c k . I would love one of the ones, (but more affordable) that you see in Cali all the time in the hills south of San Fran.

I have no idea the cost, hard to research from a layman budget and insight, but I thin kthey are COOL :yes:

Free money.

Here, we have a group FIGHTING against a tidal turbine in the Georgia Strait. We move about 12' of water about 3 times a calender day. It is a natural. We also already have one but it is for "Research" . :rolleys:

Basically, the Power Grid here, (monopoly, Govt' owned) does NOT want any additions to supply and availability to the grid. :rolleyes: In other words, Government did not think this up, hence won't allow it to tie in.

By the way, we pay .07$ a killowatt here. California owes us 800 million for power conumed and diverted 4 years ago. The US Courts ruled in favour of the Cali power Company and they do not have to pay us for the power :rolleyes: About 2 months ago the ruling came out.

[Ghost]

I'll start by saying I don't know whether either of the initiatives mentioned make economic sense, maybe they do. I mention a few things in the abstract. My understanding is that there is no way in most (if not all) of the power grid to store energy. It must be generated in real time to satisfy the demand at that time

What this means is that wind power is pretty hopeless, in that it does not furnish power when needed, and peak power demands often happen when wind is at its lowest. The result is that it cannot be counted on for increasing the generative ability of the overall grid. We can't get rid of any coal or nuclear or natural gas in the grid supply by adding wind power. Further, I *think* it is very inefficient and expensive relative to existing sources, and thus looks "green" but functionally it is not. By the time you pay for the energy to build and install the windmills, does this approach really make sense?

Again, I openly admit I don't know the answers, but as I understand it, these are some of the questions. If anyone does know, I'm all ears.

Regards,

Mike

[gcarter]

Mike I think it depends on where it is to an extent. Some things in wind's favor is;
1) it's a packaged unit that requires little site work compared to a steam plant.
2) you don't have to feed it fuel like a trainload of coal or oil, store it, and transport it to a boiler.
3) I imagine they require little maintenance. Not like rebuilding boilers on a regular basis and scrubbing combustion gasses.

Then if the geographical area is correct, I suppose it could be counted on in the "base" as probably an 80% reliable solution and use more conventional sources for peaking.

I don't believe we can accomplish a total "green" power grid as long as nuclear is frowned upon.

[DonziJon]

We are an Upper Scale ..not exactly rural but certainly not packed together community of about 18,000 on an island connected to the mainland by three bridges.

We already have a 660 KW Wind Turbine in town that supply's an exclusive Prep School and a VERY VERY exclusive gated community. It's fairly unusual to see it NOT making power. We are the Sailing Capital of the world because we almost always have wind.

The Town owns the Wind Turbine. HOWEVER: The Turbine is on School Property so the School Committee "has the last word" on what goes on. They must be consulted on Everything that goes on on THEIR property. Actually, I think the School Committee RUNS the Town.

STIMULUS: Last year the school budget was $1.1M in the hole and they would NOT make any concessions so we had a Special Town Meeting under a big tent and voted NO to the overrun. SO: The town instituted a $100 annual fee for a Dump Sticker, to use the Transfer Station. It was previously FREE. VoilÃ*: Adds up to about a million bucks a year. :banghead:

BTW: The crane Lift for the Turbine Blades was 37 tons. The rental for the crane was alleged to be $10k per day with an $18K charge to assemble it and another $18K to Dis-Assemble it. They packed up and left yesterday. I can't recall how many trucks it takes to move all the parts. John

[chappy]

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.pawindenergynow.org/pa/waymart.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.pawindenergynow.org/pa/farms.html&h=532&w=400&sz=18&tbnid=A9c7IrbP9Zp6oM::&tbnh=132&tbnw=99&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dwaymart%2Bpa%2Bwind%2Bfarm%2Bpictures&usg=__7rBGv9WZk594CB35A7YvLQo7w9Y=&ei=YASwSarCHpaitge5nNngBQ&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=2&ct=image&cd=1

I don't know anything about the topic, but I've got two rather large wind farms within 40 miles of me. The Waymart farm I can see clearly from my house.

There is more information and pictures in the above google link.

[Rootsy]

3 letters... ROI....

[Ghost]

Mike I think it depends on where it is to an extent. Some things in wind's favor is;
1) it's a packaged unit that requires little site work compared to a steam plant.
2) you don't have to feed it fuel like a trainload of coal or oil, store it, and transport it to a boiler.
3) I imagine they require little maintenance. Not like rebuilding boilers on a regular basis and scrubbing combustion gasses.

Then if the geographical area is correct, I suppose it could be counted on in the "base" as probably an 80% reliable solution and use more conventional sources for peaking.

I don't believe we can accomplish a total "green" power grid as long as nuclear is frowned upon.

I see what you mean, and BTW, I COMPLETELY agree on nuclear. If you want energy independence without burning coal, nuclear IS the answer.

One thing I didn't understand (possibly from the wording, possibly not) from your note: if you do the math on the requirements for power service uptime, you have to take into account times when the wind isn't blowing appreciably, right? When it is out, it can be REALLY out. So you have to have a generation capability that deals with the probability distribution of low-wind events. Even places that see 80% useful wind see 20% unuseful wind.

I have not crunched the numbers on the places that see a lot of wind, and the extent to which their slack times correspond, but it feels like you'd have to build a LOT of wind-generation gear to offset a very small amount of on-demand generation gear, like coal, gas, nuclear, etc. Meaning, peak production capacity of all your generation gear would be HUGE compared to your peak demand. When production gear is on-demand, you need only have as much production gear as will cover your peak demand, with whatever margin for uptime of that production gear.

When you start adding windmills to your production gear, it may eliminate almost no requirement for your on-demand gear. You still need nearly all of it, you just have more time when you need not run it. So, the costs of adding a windmill might barely offset ANY other infrastructure costs. So pretty much all the capital you put into windmills is just added cost. The only savings is in the reduction of fuel costs fed into the on-demand systems, like the gas, coal, or nuclear fuel.

So, to me, that seems like the basic qualitative analysis of windpower versus other methods. What I don't know is the quantitative side: how much a windmill really costs, and how much marginal on-demand fuel cost it offsets.

My gut is that windpower is FAR more expensive than on-demand power, if done on a massive scale. (For instance, if you build enough windmills to satisfy peak demand, you'd probably need to maintain almost all of your existing on-demand plants, or accepts LOTS of brownout time.) Meaning, it cannot economically replace much of the existing production capacity.

But perhaps if it is done on a relatively small scale, the overhead of the wind-generating equipment relative to the on-demand equipment doesn't really matter, and it can provide a small fraction of clean, cheap power. But by definition, it only CAN be a small help. Try to make it a big help and it by definition BECOMES expensive.

So, going back to your post, to me, that suggests that items 1 and 3 don't matter at all. It's can't really replace steam plants, so 1 is out. #3 is built into the marginal cost per kilowatt of those plants, so that is out. Your item #2 is the real question, that determines whether it makes economic sense to build enough windmills that they would average .001% or .01% or .1% or 1% or 10% of the production grid. But somewhere, I'm not sure exactly where, I'd think it makes virtually zero economic sense to build any more windmills. And I expect that that number is below 10% of the overall production capacity, making wind a noise-level, not signal level answer to our overall energy plan. Useful, maybe, but something that CANNOT ever be the big answer. The only way to make it competitive will be to subsidize it (ha-ha), and of course, that math doesn't work...

Do you see what I mean? Do you know anything about the real math of this? I'm basing this on thinking through the concepts as best I can, and some gut estimation of the underlying math.

If that seems long-winded, I'm just trying to make the turbines more economical. ;)

Mike

[gcarter]

I agree w/everything you said. My point is, a few windmills don't hurt anything. If a town wants to add a few windmills to the grid, it's OK w/me. Like I mentioned, they don't have many requirements for operation.
Years ago, I was part of a team that investigated a new oil fired plant for the Airforce @ Tullahoma TN. One of the things that impressed me was the efficiency (or lack thereof) of a large plant that was only 27%!!!!!
It required a 100 car trainload of oil every three days. I can understand the problems associated w/generating power, but probably not like Tidbart can.
The biggest problem of the Pickens Plan was 3500 new windmills every year didn't increase any significant excess power to free up any natural gas.....it barely would keep up w/demand.
I know projects like this are designed to make Greens and Liberals feel good, nothing more. What we need are real plans and incentives that would actually work.
Like nuclear, or nuclear, or maybe nuclear.

[Ghost]

Ahh, now I got it George--thanks for reading and clarifying. -Mike

[DonziJon]

Excellent day today weatherwise. Bright blue skys, snow covered fields, (+/- 40*) and NO wind. The cranes are gone. The Company is tuning up and getting the computers keyed in to the Turbine. Maybe tomorrow.........;) John

[zelatore]

Mike- I'm trapped using my phone for a connection until I finish this job in Portland so I'm not going to expand on this much or dig up the research but you might look into what percintage of there power CA gets from wind. We have several large wind farms and I think we may be the (or at least on of the) largest producer of wind power. Might give some idea of what can/is done on a larger scale.

[Ghost]

Mike- I'm trapped using my phone for a connection until I finish this job in Portland so I'm not going to expand on this much or dig up the research but you might look into what percintage of there power CA gets from wind. We have several large wind farms and I think we may be the (or at least on of the) largest producer of wind power. Might give some idea of what can/is done on a larger scale.

Thanks. A cursory check showed in 2004 (all I found right off the bat), 1.5% of California's electricity came from wind power.

[DonziJon]

Went up to the site again today. I talked with a NationalGrid guy (Tech) at the site. He is NOT affiliated with the builders. He was there to connect/dis-connect the turbine with the "Grid" while the electrical contractors where trying to work out some problems. He indicated the Turbine will not likely produce power until next week. The Turbine itself seems to be functional.

Here's how the distribution of power will be billed....The Turbine is connected directly to the "Grid". There is no direct connection to the "High School" or other "Town" buildings... There is a Meter between the Turbine and the "Grid" connection. As the Turbine produces power..the Meter will record the output into the "Grid". The Town buildings have their own existing meters. They will function as usual...recording power use. The KW used by the various town entities will be Deducted from the output from whatever the (Town Owned) Turbine adds to the "Grid".

What I don't know yet is whether an entity that supplys power to the "Grid" from a Wind Turbine is supplying the power to the "Grid" at Wholsale......And does the Town have to continue to pay for power at Retail. :banghead:

The "Grid" is Required (By Law) to Accept power from entities who wish to contribute power to the "Grid". However: An entity that has a Wind Turbine is NOT Required to contribute power to the Grid" if it does not want to do so. OUR other Wind Turbine in Portsmouth (The Prep School) has elected to NOT sell power to the "Grid". John

[Ed Donnelly]

The blades look real close to the ground. How close are they really??
Toronto's look to be at least 60' off the ground............Ed

[DonziJon]

The blades look real close to the ground. How close are they really??
Toronto's look to be at least 60' off the ground............Ed

Clearence between the blade tip and the ground is 82.5 feet. Check out the link in post #1 and click the left large button of two, on the front page of the Portsmouth web page IF, it comes up. Sometimes the link in the post will take you direct to the Windpower Page..sometimes the town web page. There is some technical info on the Wind Power site.

I did some math just out of couriosity. !.5 Mega Watts is equivilent to 2011.53 HP. :yes: John

[Ed Donnelly]

John; Followed your directions and now I see how high off the ground they really are.. Your post#5 pic.4 was where I ASSUMED they were low........

Thats a lot of pony power..................Ed

[DonziJon]

Today the Wind Turbine came to life On Line after a few "Fits and Starts" over the past three weeks since the major installation was complete. I voted against this thing (Town referendum) but now I REALLY have become attached to this machine.

You have to stand under/near this thing when the wind is blowing 20 and this "Machine" is in Full Tilt at 19 RPM. (Max speed). It was at Max today. MAGNIFICENT. The nacelle is 188 feet above ground.

A BIG Radial Aircraft Engine is Awesome.........But this Machine is pretty impressive as well. The Whoosh Whoosh Whoosh of the blades when they comes down..Doppler Effect... can't be ignored. The turbine blades are Each 123 feet long..for a disc diameter of about 261 feet making 2011 HP at 1.5 Mega Watts. There is a slight background gear noise from the machinery up in the nacelle making the power but it is not so noticable with the whoosh of the blades. :beer: John

[gcarter]

Well, I tried to call you this morning.
Now I know where you were.:biggrin.::rlol:

[rustnrot]

Many (most?) times the user and the generator share the same meter and it simply runs "backwards" so the billing and the selling price should be the same. It is probably a special meter but that is the idea.

If, in the case above, the billing and selling prices are the same it would be preferred to stay hooked to the grid. For one thing, it keeps the wind generator perfectly synchronized to the national power grid's 60 Hz. For another, it allows excess power to be used by somebody. Otherwise, if the prime users are utilizing less than it is capable of generating at that moment, there is no way to utilize that potential.

[zelatore]

Many (most?) times the user and the generator share the same meter and it simply runs "backwards" so the billing and the selling price should be the same. It is probably a special meter but that is the idea.

If, in the case above, the billing and selling prices are the same it would be preferred to stay hooked to the grid. For one thing, it keeps the wind generator perfectly synchronized to the national power grid's 60 Hz. For another, it allows excess power to be used by somebody. Otherwise, if the prime users are utilizing less than it is capable of generating at that moment, there is no way to utilize that potential.

This is how I've always understood these systems to work.

[DonziJon]

Actually it's simpler than that with Our (Portsmouth) Wind Turbine:

Reprinted from post #19 above.

"Here's how the distribution of power will be billed....The Turbine is connected directly to the "Grid". There is no direct connection to the "High School" or other "Town" buildings... There is a Meter between the Turbine and the "Grid" connection. As the Turbine produces power..the Meter will record the output into the "Grid". The Town buildings have their own existing meters. They will function as usual...recording power use. The KW used by the various town entities will be Deducted from the output from whatever the (Town Owned) Turbine adds to the "Grid"."

The power generated will be Sold to the Grid AT RETAIL based on a recent RI law which applys to THIS, and subsiquent Wind Turbines built. This may NOT apply to Privately owned Turbines. I don't know the details. John

[DonziJon]

It's been running almost contuously for a couple of weeks now and according to the Stats, as of today it has produced over 200 MW-HRS of power for a value to the town of $30,000. Around here in the spring the wind never stops blowing. John

[DonziJon]

OK: So the wind turbine has been online for awhile. Well NOT quite. The turbine company that put up the turbine has gone Bankrupt. Part of the "Deal" was ..if the turbine went down..and didn't produce power..when there was Wind to produce power..the company would make up the difference for loss of revenue to the town.

The turbine has been DOWN, for probably two months. There's no way to tell. The Town..Polititians..who bought this thing is not talking. The word is the "Slip Rings" are worn out. Slip Rings are mechanical elements that allow power to be conducted to the ground even though the Turret/Nacell rotates 360+ degrees. They are on order from Germany.

Can't get blood from a stone. The town Now OWNS IT. The maintenance contract was part of the original (5 year) $3M contract. Company Bankrupt..No Maintenance. So the town has to find a new maintenance contractor..at the towns NEW expense.

BUT: We have to look at the Positive Side: This Wind Turbine is an Engineering Marvel AND an Modern Skulpture....a Landmark on the skyline. :) :) :)

WTF: I'm Cool, I'm Cool... :bonk: DJ

[CHACHI]

John, sorry to hear, but very typical of wind power.

With out government subsidy, the turbine cannot support it self.

Ken

[gcarter]

Someone may know better, but according to the reading I've done, wind turbines, and particularly wind farms have less than 30% utilization world wide. At those levels, they do very little and require 100% steam generating backup. A big chunk of Texas had a brownout several years ago due to the wind stopping....:nilly:
And Spain has gone bankrupt because of huge investments in wind and other"green" technologies.
So, where's this huge payback in jobs, etc.?

I'm waiting........

Seriously, the day may come when technologies like these work, but today isn't it. I've been reading alot about new generation electric cars. On closer inspection, there's only a small niche market for them as they are today. They couldn't be used in the South at all, as far as I know, they aren't air conditioned. Any die hard Greenie that wants me to drive 500-800 miles/week w/all the junk I carry in a Nissan Leaf or a Chevy Volt can stick it. But better (and I mean generations of development better) hybrids are a possibility. And not to mention Hydrogen from Nuclear electrical generation is a good possibility.
I really do think great strides can be made in power generation, but we shouldn't be rushing w/Billions of investment into technologies that can't be put into large scale production for years. We can't afford it.
Also, things should be done so that the Government isn't involved. We shouldn't be subsidizing development, and purchases of Green products and technologies. They should sit on their own bottoms.

John, sorry for the rant.

[CHACHI]

Someone may know better, but according to the reading I've done, wind turbines, and particularly wind farms have less than 30% utilization world wide. At those levels, they do very little and require 100% steam generating backup. A big chunk of Texas had a brownout several years ago due to the wind stopping....:nilly:
And Spain has gone bankrupt because of huge investments in wind and other"green" technologies.
So, where's this huge payback in jobs, etc.?

I'm waiting........


Can you imagine being a private business man and investing your own dollars to hire a person 40 hours a week and paying him for 40 hours when in fact he only works 12 hours. How long would he last?

I have to keep telling myself that this is the government and an ROI like this is OK.

But George, you also have to take into consideration the monies the land owners receive (for turbine siting) from the wind companies for signing their land away for decades and the monies the wind companies use to "buy out" any neighbors who may complain of the noise, blade flicker, or the change in view shed.

There is also the big subsidies to the wind companies from our tax dollars,
without this "greed", none of this would ever be possible.

Ken

[zelatore]

Seriously, the day may come when technologies like these work, but today isn't it. I've been reading alot about new generation electric cars. On closer inspection, there's only a small niche market for them as they are today. They couldn't be used in the South at all, as far as I know, they aren't air conditioned. Any die hard Greenie that wants me to drive 500-800 miles/week w/all the junk I carry in a Nissan Leaf or a Chevy Volt can stick it. But better (and I mean generations of development better) hybrids are a possibility. And not to mention Hydrogen from Nuclear electrical generation is a good possibility.
I really do think great strides can be made in power generation, but we shouldn't be rushing w/Billions of investment into technologies that can't be put into large scale production for years. We can't afford it.
Also, things should be done so that the Government isn't involved. We shouldn't be subsidizing development, and purchases of Green products and technologies. They should sit on their own bottoms.

John, sorry for the rant.


I haven't studied the spec sheets, but I'm pretty sure the Leaf and Volt both have air conditioning. Oddly enough, I'm pretty sure the Leaf has heated seats as it's more energy efficient (electrically) to heat the seats and use less of the limited on board battery power to heat the air.

That aside, I think the Leaf is a huge joke. Per Nissan, the range should be from a low of 60 to a high of 130 miles "under optimal conditions". Since "optimal conditions" are pretty hard to come by and you can't just stop anywhere and recharge the thing, you'd have to consider it as only having a 60 mile range unless you knew for certain you'd have the ability to recharge it somewhere if needed. That's pretty much useless for anybody who lives or drives outside a major city. At 60 miles, it wouldn't even get from my house to my office. (Of course, I'm sure the greenies think I should move to an apartment in the city too. Over my dead body!)

We won't bother getting into the 'remote pollution' argument now. I'm sure you all know it anyway.

The Volt on the other hand looks like a legitimate car. The idea that it can run on purely electric until the battery goes flat then continue on gas alone means you don't have to worry about range anxiety. Granted, it's not going to be the Saviour GM has been talking about for the last 3 or 4 years (any car you have to hype years in advance is automatically suspect), but I think it's a genuinely useful vehicle; one you could own as your only car unlike the Leaf which will be a 2nd or 3rd car and only bought so you can give the finger to the guy in the next lane in a Prius.

Oh wait, I already give Prius drivers the finger. When I lane split past them on my Triumph :wink:

Aside from that though, neither car is a financially viable option. $30-$40K for an econobox doesn't fly. The only way they can sell these things is with the huge government subsidies. Gee, why don't they give me $7500 toward buying another bike? I'd be out buying a new one every year!

[DonziJon]

Here's a picture of the Turbine in the Feathered Condition. This means the blades are twisted so as to present NO aerodynamic surface to the wind. NO Power. That's the way it's been for,,,maybe two months...no way to know.. :) I DO Love this Machine...I just wish it would get back on the job...

[gcarter]

I haven't studied the spec sheets, but I'm pretty sure the Leaf and Volt both have air conditioning. Oddly enough, I'm pretty sure the Leaf has heated seats as it's more energy efficient (electrically) to heat the seats and use less of the limited on board battery power to heat the air.

That aside, I think the Leaf is a huge joke. Per Nissan, the range should be from a low of 60 to a high of 130 miles "under optimal conditions". Since "optimal conditions" are pretty hard to come by and you can't just stop anywhere and recharge the thing, you'd have to consider it as only having a 60 mile range unless you knew for certain you'd have the ability to recharge it somewhere if needed. That's pretty much useless for anybody who lives or drives outside a major city. At 60 miles, it wouldn't even get from my house to my office. (Of course, I'm sure the greenies think I should move to an apartment in the city too. Over my dead body!)

We won't bother getting into the 'remote pollution' argument now. I'm sure you all know it anyway.

The Volt on the other hand looks like a legitimate car. The idea that it can run on purely electric until the battery goes flat then continue on gas alone means you don't have to worry about range anxiety. Granted, it's not going to be the Saviour GM has been talking about for the last 3 or 4 years (any car you have to hype years in advance is automatically suspect), but I think it's a genuinely useful vehicle; one you could own as your only car unlike the Leaf which will be a 2nd or 3rd car and only bought so you can give the finger to the guy in the next lane in a Prius.

Oh wait, I already give Prius drivers the finger. When I lane split past them on my Triumph :wink:

Aside from that though, neither car is a financially viable option. $30-$40K for an econobox doesn't fly. The only way they can sell these things is with the huge government subsidies. Gee, why don't they give me $7500 toward buying another bike? I'd be out buying a new one every year!

Don, I read about the heated seats as being more efficient than heating the entire interion, but while the Volt probably has AC as it does have an engine, I looked at the Leaf's specs carefully and didn't see it. I used the AC in my truck today because it was 80*, and I certainly wouldn't buy anything w/o AC.
The problem w/the Volt is the battery box highly restricts the enterior volume and the seats are small and outboard of where you'd want them.
Also, I imagine w/the AC on, the engine runs all the time as it takes a lot of power to run a compressor.
Overall, I believe we need a few generations of these things. Maybe by that time, some other technology will emerge. A battery pack is somewhere between $8K and $15K, depending on who you believe.

[gcarter]

Here's a picture of the Turbine in the Feathered Condition. This means the blades are twisted so as to present NO aerodynamic surface to the wind. NO Power. That's the way it's been for,,,maybe two months...no way to know.. :) I DO Love this Machine...I just wish it would get back on the job...

John, when the blades are feathered, does the turning mechanism keep the machine turned into the wind?

[Bamboo Loui]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOfHxINzGeo

I'm a little surprised more have not chimed in on this--specially our good friends from Canada. driving to my plant in Canada from Detroit, you can now see literally hundreds of these giants in various stages of construction and hundreds under power.
The big joke on "somebody" is that the government is offering huge deals for these to be constructed. Super rich farmers and a few companies are taking the tax payers and any user of electricity for a real ride.
At our plant we pay .11 cents per KWhr. The "Hydro" company is paying these farmers and companies .53 cents per KWhr for the electricity generated by these wind mills. I think the average homeowner has been paying .08 cents per KWhr-- not for long though as more and more of these monsters are brought on to the grid.
The link above although in the US was sent to me from a real greenie that works for my company-- He may be green, but at least he has a sense of humor-- I laughed my butt off! Germany has been underwater with the cost of this technology for years!

[DonziJon]

John, when the blades are feathered, does the turning mechanism keep the machine turned into the wind?

YES: I believe it does. George..do you have any Books on Wind Turbines..? I'm going to take a ride up to the turbine site today to see what's up.. :)

[gcarter]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOfHxINzGeo

I'm a little surprised more have not chimed in on this--specially our good friends from Canada. driving to my plant in Canada from Detroit, you can now see literally hundreds of these giants in various stages of construction and hundreds under power.
The big joke on "somebody" is that the government is offering huge deals for these to be constructed. Super rich farmers and a few companies are taking the tax payers and any user of electricity for a real ride.
At our plant we pay .11 cents per KWhr. The "Hydro" company is paying these farmers and companies .53 cents per KWhr for the electricity generated by these wind mills. I think the average homeowner has been paying .08 cents per KWhr-- not for long though as more and more of these monsters are brought on to the grid.
The link above although in the US was sent to me from a real greenie that works for my company-- He may be green, but at least he has a sense of humor-- I laughed my butt off! Germany has been underwater with the cost of this technology for years!

They should know that fiberglass burns really good!

[joseph m. hahnl]

This is the future of fuel. It is also being used to remove carbon emissions from coal plants.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hioZ7C6HLs&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r24g44JnYdc

[HIGH LIFE]

DonziJon, I have two big windmills in the town next to me, Hull,Ma. Both are owned by the town. They supply elec to street light and traffic signals. also to municipal buildings. The town is a peninsula ocean on one side bay on the other... perfect. Other town in the area now getting started to do the same. "HIGH LIFE"

[CHACHI]

DonziJon, I have two big windmills in the town next to me, Hull,Ma. Both are owned by the town. They supply elec to street light and traffic signals. also to municipal buildings. The town is a peninsula ocean on one side bay on the other... perfect. Other town in the area now getting started to do the same. "HIGH LIFE"

HF, just wondering, where does the municiple buildings and traffic lights get their power when the wind stops?

Ken

[DonziJon]

DonziJon, I have two big windmills in the town next to me, Hull,Ma. Both are owned by the town. They supply elec to street light and traffic signals. also to municipal buildings. The town is a peninsula ocean on one side bay on the other... perfect. Other town in the area now getting started to do the same. "HIGH LIFE"

YUP: Been there a few times. The one out by the (Hull) high school is, I think, the same size as our little one on private school property in town. Your BIG one at the town dump @ 1.8 mW is bigger than our big one @ 1.5 mW. As far as I know, 1.8 mW is the biggest in New England.

Whenever we have been to Hull, it's Sunday and the "dump" is closed so you can't get close to the turbine at all. Our turbine is accessable all the time. You can walk right up to the tower when it's running... OH Wait..it hasn't been running..:nilly: Once it's back on line I will post. DJ

[CHACHI]

http://lifewithdekalbturbines.blogspot.com/


A wonderful read.

Ken

[DonziJon]

Interesting read Ken. I just went to google Earth to "measure" the distance from our big turbine to the nearest house. The nearest house marks the corner of a neighborhood and is 576 Feet away... and pretty much directly downwind (SW summer) from the turbine. In the winter the wind is from the north and northwest so I would expect the noise to be irrelivant to "that" neiborhood. Shadow flicker might be a factor all the time except there are many trees between the houses and the turbine. DJ

EDIT: See Google Earth: 41*36'51.47" N, 71*15'04.97" W

[DonziJon]

Went up to the site today. Spent an hour with my binoculars: :yes: Men were accessing the turbine today. What was interesting.. The Nacell was directed Down Wind...Backwards..with the trailing edges of the feathered blades presented to the wind. NOT the normal. I also noticed the disc turning ever so slightly. I think the people working inside the Nacell can rotate the ...Fan Disc incrimentally (like a starter moter) while they are installing the new Slip Rings.

Maybe tomorrow the turbine will be UP. :nilly: DJ

[DonziJon]

I wandered up to the Turbine site late today ..SUNDAY..They were working. I was about to leave... and then the turbine started to move. There was certainly a good breeze. The same pickup truck was there.

A guy was walking around..I thought he was a local just taking a walk. I approached him and asked him if he lived around here..he said..NO..I'm from Wisconsin (He had a Canadian Accent). He works for the company that "Designed" the unit...NOT the builder. He flew in yesterday to "help out".

A few of my speculations turned out to be ...incorrect.

The turbine will be UP tomorrow.

The slip rings have a life expectancy of ten years. They wore out in a year and a half. It seems that the maintence on this turbine has been LAX. The guy was being careful what he said..but not...like a politition. The guy was NOT an engineer...he was honest. I asked him technical questions about what material the slip rings were made of..Carbon/Graphite. He didn't know..but mentioned gold.

From the conversation..he was really quite candid..the unit should have been "looked at" every year (It's been on line for a year and a half) but was running so well the machine was "left to it's own". (It's computer controlled).

Maybe Carbon/Graphite DUST from the slip rings had set up an Arcing situation which destroyed the rings. Carbon dust is conductive.

I also learned that there are a PAIR of 1.65 mW turbines at Falmouth, MA. Google it. It is very much like the post CHACHI linked to. People are not happy. There are even some "Greenies" who are not happy with the Falmouth turbines.

BTW: These two turbines were "STIMULUS". 5-6 Million...

[Ed Donnelly]

(He had a Canadian Accent) LOL...Ed who doesn't have a Canadian accent it is more Torontonian

[gcarter]

(He had a Canadian Accent) LOL...Ed who doesn't have a Canadian accent it is more Torontonian

Eh? :wavey:

[zelatore]

(He had a Canadian Accent) LOL...Ed who doesn't have a Canadian accent it is more Torontonian


We once convinced some folks at a local bar (California) that Jon Vistons, our Cruisers rep from WI, was a famous Canadian hockey player...

It's all in the accent. And the fact that Californians don't know much about hockey, even if the Sharks do fairly well.

[CHACHI]

This email came yesterday. It is from Falmouth, Ma.



Hi Everyone,




Just wanting to pump people up a bit.




With the erection of Wind II nauseating me terribly, I imagine it is doing the same for many of you. Seeing another monster placed so close to peoples homes, it is inconceivable to me how anyone (e.i. town officials) could be so callused as to conceive of this plan for our town. I am outright sickened.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_JIYfpVgsTY4/TSh9-PRD_PI/AAAAAAAAE9k/1OwglQk8pr8/s1600/save.jpg)


But on that POSITIVE note. I certainly believe we can and will do something to remedy our own plight as we have done to help many others. Prospect, Ct., New Richmond, Ill., Cape Vincent, N.Y., Bourne, Plymouth, Brewster, Wareham, plus others.


I am currently contacting all town meeting members. Those who so far have responded have been 100% for our human rights, that these industrial power plants are wrong for Falmouth when so many citizens or even just one are disturbed.


Two days ago my retired teacher wife Diane at one of their get-togethers was overwhelmed by the outpouring of all the "REMOVE THE WINDMILLS"talk that went on. This is picking up around our town. More and more caring human beings are voicing their displeasure over the disservice the town has heaped upon we abutters.




So please hang in there.




http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JIYfpVgsTY4/TSov-eQtjWI/AAAAAAAAE94/SEZhGZbqjfA/s1600/images.jpeg (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JIYfpVgsTY4/TSov-eQtjWI/AAAAAAAAE94/SEZhGZbqjfA/s1600/images.jpeg)I know many of you have wanted the town to be able to keep their turbines, but to turn them down to alleviate the noise. Frankly, I do not think that is possible. Many are bothered at night, their sleep disturbed, so a shut down at night would solve their problem. I, for one, am only bothered during the day. I sleep with both a sound and a c-pap machine. Our bedroom is on the opposite side of the house. But, I cannot work in my garden during the daytime because of the noise. It drives me to depression.




Some of you know the feeling and can understand this. Ask Neil & Betsy Andersen if you don't.




The town can only solve the problem by shutting these 1.65MWatt monsters down 24 hours a day. So they made a mistake. Why should we be made to pay for it with severely reduced quality of life, rights, health, and property values.....................




TAKING THEM DOWN IS THE ONLY ANSWER TO ALL OF OUR PROBLEMS.




THEY ARE NOT WORTHLESS. THEY CAN BE RECONSTRUCTED AT SOME APPROPRIATE SITE. THAT MOST LIKELY WILL NOT BE IN FALMOUTH. THE TOWN CAN REPLACE THEM WITH 660kWatt units IF even those smaller machines will meet the newly proposed siting regulations in Falmouth.




Thank you. I needed this to start my day!

Sincerely,

Barry Funfar






Ken

[Tidbart]

The guy was NOT an engineer...he was honest.

Really? :confused:

B

[DonziJon]

Really? :confused:

B

I guess what I was saying was, he was not trying to Tapdance or BS his way around a question he either couldn't answer, or didn't feel comfortable answering. So I guess I am the one confused. :)

[Tidbart]

Guess it depends on how you read it. I read...Engineer=dishonest.:biggrin.:

[DonziJon]

Guess it depends on how you read it. I read...Engineer=dishonest.:biggrin.:

I often ask technical questions when I find someone who might actually know the answers. My attitude has always been..if you don't ask a question, you probably won't learn anything. My wife sometimes compares my questioning to an Interrogation. :biggrin.:


BTW: If you are an engineer..and was insulted, I apologize for the way I worded my comment. I guess the word Candid would have been a better choice than the word Honest. DJ

[Tidbart]

I often ask technical questions when I find someone who might actually know the answers. My attitude has always been..if you don't ask a question, you probably won't learn anything. My wife sometimes compares my questioning to an Interrogation. :biggrin.:


BTW: If you are an engineer..and was insulted, I apologize for the way I worded my comment. I guess the word Candid would have been a better choice than the word Honest. DJ

No offense take, just was amused.:yes:

Bob

[DonziJon]

For those interested in technical stuff, there's a world of info on Wind Turbines by Googling Vestas v100. They seem to be really big in the Wind Turbine business.

Something else I stumbled across; Used Wind Turbines FOR SALE....WHAT..? Buyers remorse..? :biggrin.: DJ


http://www.mywindpowersystem.com/marketplace/11-x-vestas-v80-used-wind-turbines-for-sale/

[gcarter]

Something else I stumbled across; Used Wind Turbines FOR SALE....WHAT..? Buyers remorse..? :biggrin.: DJ


http://www.mywindpowersystem.com/marketplace/11-x-vestas-v80-used-wind-turbines-for-sale/

50 Hz.....no good to us.

Guess they oughta stay in Germany.

[DonziJon]

Something else I learned talking with this guy ..I asked him what the gear ratio was between the fan disc and the alternator...(In OUR Turbine) he wasn't sure but guessed it was maybe 1:100. The fan runs at 19 rpm max..so the alternator runs at 1900 rpm. I have no knowledge in this area so I was suprised..I would have thought the alternator would have to run much faster.

SO: How fast does an alternator in your Donzi run (rpm) compared to the crankshaft. :) DJ

[gcarter]

Most large gen sets run at 1,800 RPM.
Even when turbine powered.
In what seems, now, to be a former life, I packaged emergency gas turbine powered gen seets for hospitals, etc.
The output quil shaft out of our more popular 1,400 HP turbine was about 1/4" in diameter. The reduction gear box 10:1 ratio, was about 4" in diameter.
Also, it's easier to arrive at 60 Hz.

[gcarter]

SO: How fast does an alternator in your Donzi run (rpm) compared to the crankshaft. :) DJ

Ah, but it's rectified to DC, so frequency isn't important.
I think some large city busses, etc, run some pretty large alternators and at some pretty steep gear up ratios, to run AC systems, fans, etc.

[DonziJon]

The Turbine was UP today. My access, without getting out of the truck (It was cold and windy) is about 500 feet away from the turbine. Based on what I have read about noise from residents in OTHER locales, I am going to monitor Noise at our turbine for awhile. No instruments, just my ears.

Today I was directly downwind and I could hear the turbine (Whup Whup..and the machine noise..a gearbox..but you had to Listen...the noise from the wind itself was noticaeble. It was a windy day.

BTW: Vestas has a 1.5 mW turbine model called "Quiet".

My wife (of 44 years) calls it .."Vestas For The Restofus"..:outtahere:

[CHACHI]

Less dependent on...............



Ken

[DonziJon]

After I got dug out from our last snow storm (Wednesday..12 January..12"), I went up to the turbine: It was still snowing and blowing and continued for another 6 hours.. The Turbine was running.

I listened for maybe twenty minutes. I could hear it...wasn't all that bad... The problem is..I am only listenig to it for twenty minutes. I can Go Away. Everyone who lives nearby has to hear it 24/7. :lookaroun: I would think you could tune it out..IF you wanted to. DJ

[gcarter]

I saw this yesterday and thought about this thread.
Of course it won't work everywhere, but in this location, it produces 1 Megawatt on a pretty continuous basis....at least during daylight hours.
I would guess this covers about 3-4 acres.
Also, like any "renewable" source, it requires 100% backup.
Another thing you dan't see here is the storage batteries that are required for control purposes and for 24 hour accessability.

http://www.donzi.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=60922&stc=1&d=1295189302

http://www.donzi.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=60923&stc=1&d=1295189302

http://www.donzi.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=60924&stc=1&d=1295189302

http://www.donzi.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=60925&stc=1&d=1295189302

[DonziJon]

Took a ride out to Falmouth, Mass today (Cape Cod)....beautiful day.. to look at a pair of 1.65 mW turbines mentioned earlier in this thread. It took awhile to find them..my other half.. My Navigator..is NOT as good as I would like, when it comes to map reading. :bonk:

Because of my superior sense of direction and intuition..we found the site. :yes: It's really out in the freakin woods. I mean ..OUT in the freakin woods. Miles. There is a sign that verifies "Stimulous" was the money supply...but that word is not used. There are no houses nearby that we could see. We drove in a circle, as best we could, around the site but a circle was not possible. Nearby ANG Air Base property.

There is another Big Turbine. It seemed to be situated ON the Otis ANG reservation..Ex Air Force Base which takes up a lot of space on the Cape. We didn't drive on to the Base..even though we have a DoD sticker. You can't get close to the (Civilian) turbines. If you hike over to them from where we parked..they are still enclosed inside a big perimeter chain link fence.

There are NO houses close to this site. NONE.

[gcarter]

I suppose if they ever build that farm out in the water, they won't be close to any houses either.

[zelatore]

George, I've wondered about the merits of a traditional solar array like you posted and the solar/thermal mirror farms like they have in the south west (somewhere). They have a central water tower and a field of movable mirrors that track the sun to always focus light on the top of the tower, thus boiling the water for steam power.

Any ideas how they measure up? cost per megawatt for construction/power per acre/maintenance costs/etc?

[gcarter]

George, I've wondered about the merits of a traditional solar array like you posted and the solar/thermal mirror farms like they have in the south west (somewhere). They have a central water tower and a field of movable mirrors that track the sun to always focus light on the top of the tower, thus boiling the water for steam power.

Any ideas how they measure up? cost per megawatt for construction/power per acre/maintenance costs/etc?

I don't know the answer to any of those questions. I would suppose the typical solar electrical farm is, at worst, succeptable to sand storms and the like. I imagine there is a replacable coating to protect them. The steam generation idea is good, I suppose, but quite a bit more complicated.
But as opposed to turbines, this thing just sits there like a lump on a log. In fact, it was shoe horned in between the golf course and the tennis courts.
Anyone care to guess where it is?

[DonziJon]

Three minutes ago I was Googling Otis ANG Wind Turbine and..guess what: Google linked to THIS Site and this thread....on Georges post near the end. Scary :nilly: DJ

[Tony]

Less dependent on...............

http://www.donzi.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=60865&d=1294921294

Ken


Good read, Ken.
Kind of reminds me of ethanol...

[DonziJon]

Remember that movie: "Close Encounters of the Third Kind"...? That's the way it is with me. I NEED to Get Close to Wind Turbines. Really close. I want to Feel It when that big blade comes down Close to My Nose. I can't explain it.....:nilly: :nilly: :nilly: DJ

[DonziJon]

George, I've wondered about the merits of a traditional solar array like you posted and the solar/thermal mirror farms like they have in the south west (somewhere). They have a central water tower and a field of movable mirrors that track the sun to always focus light on the top of the tower, thus boiling the water for steam power.

Any ideas how they measure up? cost per megawatt for construction/power per acre/maintenance costs/etc?

Google: "Heliostats".

[Tidbart]

George, I've wondered about the merits of a traditional solar array like you posted and the solar/thermal mirror farms like they have in the south west (somewhere). They have a central water tower and a field of movable mirrors that track the sun to always focus light on the top of the tower, thus boiling the water for steam power.

Any ideas how they measure up? cost per megawatt for construction/power per acre/maintenance costs/etc?

Some 2008 data, but you get the idea. I believe this info is without any tax incentives, rebates, etc., which just masks the actual costs.

[CHACHI]

http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/siteshared/windtracker.asp



Paragraph is from the web site.

Ken

[zelatore]

Some 2008 data, but you get the idea. I believe this info is without any tax incentives, rebates, etc., which just masks the actual costs.

Interesting. I'd like to see more information behind those numbers. There are many variables of course so I'm sure you could skew them one way or the other if you wanted. For example, over what lifespan did they make these calculations and at what cost for the energy supply for the fossil fuel burners?

I'd also like to see some of the other sources included, such as nuke, hydro, and wind.

I have no doubt solar is expensive per megawatt. I further see no realistic way it will ever carry the majority of our power needs. I do however believe there's a place for these alternative power sources. And although I hate to get all green on you, you do have to admit solar has almost no drawbacks in environmental terms compared to other options.

[Tidbart]

Here is the whole article.

http://greenecon.net/understanding-the-cost-of-solar-energy/energy_economics.html

Very hard to get a grasp on a firm number. Seems everyone has there own agenda and manipulates the data accordingly.

Here is a pretty good article with some good international cost comparisons.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

Appears wind can be cost competitive, main problem with wind is reliability.

[Ghost]

...solar has almost no drawbacks in environmental terms compared to other options.

I suspect this is largely true, but does anyone know the environmental impact of making solar panels? (Energy used, hazardous waste produced, etc.)

[CHACHI]

Just a thought, there is a certain amount of energy that "reflects" back into the atmosphere, what would the consequences be if there was less of this energy going back into space due to absorption of solar panels?

Of course there probably would need to be 1000's of square miles of solar panels, but given our government and the green energy movement....


Ken

[Ghost]

Just a thought, there is a certain amount of energy that "reflects" back into the atmosphere, what would the consequences be if there was less of this energy going back into space due to absorption of solar panels?

Of course there probably would need to be 1000's of square miles of solar panels, but given our government and the green energy movement....


Ken

I suspect your point about the 1000s of square miles has it right.

Given the awesome amount of energy that the Sun rains on the planet each day, I would think among the biggest drivers of energy reflection vs retention would be cloud patterns and ice formations (consider what we have today vs glaciers all the way down through the latitude of New York State). Also, with so much of the planet's surface being ocean, that probably mitigates a lot what we could change if we tried. The ice core record shows a pretty clear and regular cycle of ice ages (2/3 of the time) versus warm periods like today (1/3 of the time), with a period of about 125,000 years. There is another warm/cold cycle layered on that larger one, with about an 1100-1500 year period I think. It's pretty fascinating to think about what has driven the fairly regular periods of both those cycles.

I'm curious what percentage of the solar energy that falls on the oceans is absorbed vs reflected. People used to teach that rotting leaves and other things were the origin of most of our oil, but the dead, sinking pytoplankton explanation makes more sense to me for the bulk of it. Funny to think of oil as concentrated solar energy. (Obviously with a different mechanism for converting it to useful energy than real-time solar conversion to electricity.)

[gcarter]

As many of you know, Europe has been making huge investments into this stuff for the last decade or so, much to their humiliation lately. Also, there's a large concentratioon of wind investment in Scotland on the North Sea, again, to much consternation. Now, you would think the North Sea would provide the most fertile area for wind generation.
Right?
I recently forwarded an artical about this subject to Chachi, mainly because of a situation Ken and Terri have found themselves in.
It seems wind farm generation in Northern Scotland is pretty expensive, but that utilization is only 25%!!!!!!!:nilly:
In W. Texas, it seems I've read utilization is about 30-35%.
Guys, that's some pretty expensive energy!
And it requires 100% backup!
Tell me where the benifits are?
I would guess published wind generation costs supporting wind generation would be based on close to 100% and not 30%.

[CHACHI]

As many of you know, Europe has been making huge investments into this stuff for the last decade or so, much to their humiliation lately. Also, there's a large concentratioon of wind investment in Scotland on the North Sea, again, to much consternation. Now, you would think the North Sea would provide the most fertile area for wind generation.
Right?
I recently forwarded an artical about this subject to Chachi, mainly because of a situation Ken and Terri have found themselves in.
It seems wind farm generation in Northern Scotland is pretty expensive, but that utilization is only 25%!!!!!!!:nilly:
In W. Texas, it seems I've read utilization is about 30-35%.
Guys, that's some pretty expensive energy!
And it requires 100% backup!
Tell me where the benifits are?
I would guess published wind generation costs supporting wind generation would be based on close to 100% and not 30%.


http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/siteshared/windtracker.asp


If you care to take a look, the total production of the 8 "wind installations" in Ontario is 1,085 MW.

Ken

[zelatore]

I suspect this is largely true, but does anyone know the environmental impact of making solar panels? (Energy used, hazardous waste produced, etc.)

I don't know any specifics but I understand there is a not insignificant impact in the manufacture and disposal of the panels. (of course, you have to measure that against the impact of construction for other sources as well.) Not sure on the life expectancy, but around 20 yrs maybe? I was thinking that sort of data would be best rolled into a summery as mentioned above; sort of a 'cradle to grave' review of total cost involved, both financial and environmental.

Given that I've used that same argument against hybrid cars (batteries are really dirty to build/dispose of) I pretty much have to address it here as well.

But then again we can't even agree on what's good and bad for the environment, so getting hard data might be a little tough.

[gcarter]

Here's an editorial I read this morning;.........

http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/257642/can-green-energy-scale-us-greg-pollowitz

Can Green Energy Scale Up in the U.S.? (http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/257642/can-green-energy-scale-us-greg-pollowitz)

January 21, 2011 1:20 P.M. (http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/257642/can-green-energy-scale-us-greg-pollowitz)
By Greg Pollowitz (http://www.nationalreview.com/author/13273)

This is a pretty balanced report from Environment 360 on the hurdles in front of a green-energy future. Some key excerpts . . .
First up, for those in the “China is kicking our butt� camp:

From the dust-blown steppes of Inner Mongolia to the waters off Shanghai, China installed more wind turbines in the first half of 2010 than any other country — 7,800 megawatts of potential power production, or more than the United States, the European Union, and India combined. In fact, in northeast China alone, autumn and winter winds now produce some 17 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity, roughly 5.5 percent of the total power generation in the region. That’s up from 534 million kilowatt hours just five years ago.But despite this rapid progress, wind energy still only generates a tiny fraction of China’s electricity. Indeed, even with aggressive government backing and green energy mandates, such “new energy� — including wind, solar, nuclear power plants, and biomass — accounts for less than 3 percent of China’s electricity production, compared to more than 70 percent provided by coal, which produces roughly 3 metric tons of carbon dioxide for every metric ton of the dirty, black rock burned. And as China’s economy continues to expand at a dizzying rate for the foreseeable future, wind and other renewable sources of energy will not even be able to keep pace with new demand, meaning fossil fuel burning will continue unabated.
And are you ready for some NIMBY here in the U.S.?

Assuming the U.S. will require roughly 4 terrawatts of power by 2050 (a conservative estimate, given that we already use more than three), replacing all that fossil fuel would require at least 4 million wind turbines — necessitating building 12, three-megawatt wind turbines every hour for the next 30 years, according to Griffiths. The numbers are similar for solar — 160 billion square meters of photovoltaic cells or concentrating mirrors. “We need to be making a square yard of solar cells or mirrors every second for the next 40 years to install that much in North America,� Griffiths calculates.It’s not just a matter of making the necessary equipment, it’s also a question of finding the space for it. A coal-fired power plant produces 100 to 1,000 watts per square meter, depending on the type of coal it burns and how that coal is mined. A typical photovoltaic system for turning sunlight into electricity produces just 9 watts per square meter, and wind provides only 1.5 watts per square meter.
Is nuclear the answer? If so, we better start building:

Just to supply one-quarter of its current energy mix from a resource that emits far fewer greenhouse gases — nuclear power — the U.S. would need to build 1,000 one-gigawatt nuclear reactors by 2050. Yet construction has begun on only two nuclear reactors in the U.S. since 1974. And just to power an electric car and truck fleet to replace the U.S.’s current gas and ethanol-fueled one would require 500 new nuclear power plants. There are currently 442 reactors in the entire world, of which the U.S. has 104 — the most of any nation.
This reminds me of an op-ed I read in the WSJ a few months before the tech-bubble burst. The op-ed basically argued that if you tally up all of the projections from the tech sector and take them even at a discounted value, there was not enough electricity in the U.S. to meet the demand for the projected sales. Either power plants needed to be built, or the numbers from the tech sector would prove bogus. And since no construction of the scale needed to meet the tech industry projections was underway, said projections would fail. And pop went the bubble.
Anybody see 12 wind turbines getting built per hour? Yeah, me neither. Which means all of the construction and money we’re spending won’t dent what the policymakers say is the problem of carbon emissions.

[DonziJon]

....."coal, which produces roughly 3 metric tons of carbon dioxide for every metric ton of the dirty, black rock burned."

I've always been curious HOW it's possible to take something which weighs one ton and Squeeze 3 tons of something out of it. This sounds like a "Perpetual Motion Machine" which needs to be harnessed for the good of man kind. Maybe we can drive some kind of turbine with Carbon Dioxide. :nilly: DJ

[Ghost]

....."coal, which produces roughly 3 metric tons of carbon dioxide for every metric ton of the dirty, black rock burned."

I've always been curious HOW it's possible to take something which weighs one ton and Squeeze 3 tons of something out of it. This sounds like a "Perpetual Motion Machine" which needs to be harnessed for the good of man kind. Maybe we can drive some kind of turbine with Carbon Dioxide. :nilly: DJ

If I read it right, didn't the quote say "produces" where you said "squeeze" instead? Without even pulling up a periodic table, oxygen and carbon are VERY close together, and are of comparable mass per atom. So, using that as a rough basis, and assuming the coal is a source of the carbon (but NOT the oxygen) in the CO2, each carbon atom will be combined with two oxygen atoms. That's approximately a three to one mass ratio of CO2 to the original carbon atoms before combustion.

Getting into the weeds further, coal is not 100% pure carbon. And since combustion won't be ideal, there will be less than 100% conversion of carbon to CO2. However, since an oxygen atom is a little more massive than a carbon atom, the ratio of increase will be north of 3:1 for the carbon that is converted to CO2. (Not sure what other trace materials are produced and how they shake out in the math.) Still we're in the weeds now. So, regardless of the exact math, 3 tons of CO2 per ton of coal sounds like it should at least be in the ballpark, no?

Again, I am doing this off the cuff, but it seems to make sense. Apologies if I totally botched any of the chemistry or the logic.

[zelatore]

Here's an editorial I read this morning;.........



I won't re-quote the whole thing since it's only a couple posts above this.

One thing I didn't like about the way the story was written was the implication that we would want to replace ALL our infrastructure with wind/solar/nuclear/etc. The whole thing about how we would have to produce xxx number of wind turbines or xxx sq meters of solar cells per hour.

Who said we want to go TOTALLY solar/wind/nuclear?

What I do wonder though, is if you (not just George, but anybody) see usefulness in these technologies at all, or if they should just be thrown on the scrap pile?

My thought is that they ALL have merit, though ALL of them don't have the same merits. None of them alone has the capability to carry the entire load. Well, nuclear could but as pointed out it would take decades to build that many plants.

Is it pure folly to pursue solar or wind just because they can't replace all coal fired plants? Not from where I stand, but I'm certainly not highly knowledgeable in this field. But where they can pick up a little of the load, what's wrong with that?

And even if you can't make a solid argument for them on a cost per Kw produced, how much premium (in the form of government incentives most commonly) would you be willing to pay for the reduction in our dependence on foreign oil that they offer?

[gcarter]

Don, I believe there's a significant number of influential folks that WOULD like to go 100% green. How else does anyone justify not allowing a new large super clean coal fired plant going on line even though it would have replaced four old dirty power plants, like happened last year???
This administration has stated on many occasions that clean coal didn't stand a chance, or have a place in power generation.
Obviously, from the numbers in the article, that'd be hard to do, but I believe this group would like to try.
When you think about the pressure to NOT produce domestic oil and gas, the dis-encentives to produce clean coal technology, and the huge incentives to install wind farms and other green technologies, what other conclusion can we come to?

Take a look at the entire article from the Yale Environment 360...
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/green_energys_big_challenge__the_daunting_task_of_ scaling_up_/2362/

[zelatore]

I don't know how anybody would think we could go 100% solar or wind. I think the argument can be made about percintages but that's about as far as it can be taken. I also suspect solar technologies have more to gain than most of the competitors as I suspect the traditional tech has already been more highly refined, thus making gains harder to come by.

Clean coal is, I suspect, relative. Clean compared to traditional coal I'm sure, but how does it stack up against competitors both in cost and impact?

[DonziJon]

If I read it right, didn't the quote say "produces" where you said "squeeze" instead? Without even pulling up a periodic table, oxygen and carbon are VERY close together, and are of comparable mass per atom. So, using that as a rough basis, and assuming the coal is a source of the carbon (but NOT the oxygen) in the CO2, each carbon atom will be combined with two oxygen atoms. That's approximately a three to one mass ratio of CO2 to the original carbon atoms before combustion.

Getting into the weeds further, coal is not 100% pure carbon. And since combustion won't be ideal, there will be less than 100% conversion of carbon to CO2. However, since an oxygen atom is a little more massive than a carbon atom, the ratio of increase will be north of 3:1 for the carbon that is converted to CO2. (Not sure what other trace materials are produced and how they shake out in the math.) Still we're in the weeds now. So, regardless of the exact math, 3 tons of CO2 per ton of coal sounds like it should at least be in the ballpark, no?

Again, I am doing this off the cuff, but it seems to make sense. Apologies if I totally botched any of the chemistry or the logic.

"Squeeze".."Produce".. Semantics..??......... I'm taking a great risk here because it's been over 40 years since I took Chemistry ..and Physics in college. Without all the Atoms mumbo jumbo..etc..and whatnot.. Can you explain HOW you get 3 pounds of weight out of One pound of weight....OH wait..I just remembered ..there's "weight" and then there's "Mass". It's got something to do with the "acceleration of gravity".or something..I can't remember. :lookaroun: Please forgive me.

Not trying to be funny..I just ask my original question AGAIN....for us regular people. :nilly:

[Ghost]

"Squeeze".."Produce".. Semantics..??......... I'm taking a great risk here because it's been over 40 years since I took Chemistry ..and Physics in college. Without all the Atoms mumbo jumbo..etc..and whatnot.. Can you explain HOW you get 3 pounds of weight out of One pound of weight....OH wait..I just remembered ..there's "weight" and then there's "Mass". It's got something to do with the "acceleration of gravity".or something..I can't remember. :lookaroun: Please forgive me.

Not trying to be funny..I just ask my original question AGAIN....for us regular people. :nilly:

No trick in this example about mass vs weight.

The reason I made the distinction between 'squeeze' and 'produce' is analagous to how much Kool-Aid is 'produced' from two scoops of powder: way more than the two scoops is produced--maybe a quart. There's no magic defiance of conservation of matter because you are adding the water to the powder.

But you would never say you 'squeezed' the drinkable kool aid from the powder because not all of the STUFF in liquid Kool Aid was in the powder to begin with. Not even close. Adding all the water was key.

Likewise, to burn coal, you must add oxygen. Assume the coal is just carbon. In combustion, two parts oxygen are added to each part carbon.

To keep it simple, since carbon atoms and oxygen atoms weigh about the same, imagine a ton of carbon atoms are in the coal. So you'll need to add two tons of oxygen atoms to burn it. That produces about three tons of carbon DI-oxide. (DI meaning two, and thus two parts to one.)

That help?

[DonziJon]

Okey Dokey; So lets put all that Carbon Dioxide to work...:yes: :yes: DJ

[DonziJon]

I mentioned this concept a couple of posts earlier. It essentially says You Can't get more out of something than you put into it. ie: (Work= Force multiplied by Distance. ) :lookaroun:

The winch on your boat trailer is a machine that multiplys distance...to make power...how many Cranks you have to make to draw the boat up the trailer incline.. say ONE inch. If you need More force to get the boat up...a new lower gear ratio will Give you this force....BUT you have to put many more "cranks' into the effort. Just sayin. DJ

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

[zelatore]

I really don't see the Prepetual Motion Machine here.

Pretty simple really. Take one ton of cabon (from coal in this case) and combine it with 2 tons of oxygen (from the atmosphere) and you get 3 tons of CO2.

Where's the problem? :confused:

[DonziJon]

I really don't see the Prepetual Motion Machine here.

Pretty simple really. Take one ton of cabon (from coal in this case) and combine it with 2 tons of oxygen (from the atmosphere) and you get 3 tons of CO2.

Where's the problem? :confused:

1+2=3. Works for me. :yes: Whatever it takes to recharge my Electric Car, I'm all for it. :nilly: DJ