The Green Energy Problem

a reply to: kelbtalfenek

It wasn't the grid. The grid is the infrastructure that moves power from its point of generation to your home and other places where it's needed.

In this case, there was not enough power being generated to move on that grid. In other words, not enough wind blowing to move the turbines and not enough gas to supply the energy for the grid.

What part -- If there is no wind, there is no power being generated do you not get? If you pair your natural gas with wind generators and part of that process does not supply and the other part only has a limited supply capacity then you are vulnerable to supply shortfalls in cases of extreme need. I don't care how wonderful your technology gets. It cannot make the wind blow, and like or not, you have placed your dependency on a form of energy that is transient no matter how ubiquitous it may seem.

Notice I did not say it was bad, only unreliable. So you best make sure you have traditional sources that will not fail you thanks to the vagueries of mother nature in place; otherwise, your power company becomes a room and board because it can't supply all its customers.

a reply to: ketsuko

Where did I say that it would be enough? I said in due time it would be enough, but that there should always be a backup. As for "the grid" that's a case of semantics, not really worth arguing. I think we're in general agreement over the subject but you're just bitter that there was a brownout. Rightly so, I'd be angry and bitter if there was a brownout in my area. There is no reason to put a system in place without having enough emergency backup to cover serious peak needs. And "green" sources also include hydro-electric dams...so not having wind or sun shouldn't be an issue unless there's no water as well.

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek
a reply to: ketsuko

Where did I say that it would be enough? I said in due time it would be enough, but that there should always be a backup. As for "the grid" that's a case of semantics, not really worth arguing. I think we're in general agreement over the subject but you're just bitter that there was a brownout. Rightly so, I'd be angry and bitter if there was a brownout in my area. There is no reason to put a system in place without having enough emergency backup to cover serious peak needs. And "green" sources also include hydro-electric dams...so not having wind or sun shouldn't be an issue unless there's no water as well.

Deflecting.

Hydro dams have been around for over 100 years because Engineering principles show they are efficient and produce inexpensive power, cost-effectively. Dams are everything wind power is NOT. Efficiency of a turbine is proportional to the density of the fluid, and is maximized when large amounts of fluid are moving at relatively low speeds through the turbine. Can't fight physics -low density air flowing through a wind mill at high speed will never be as efficient as denser water moving through a dam.

Greenies are always proud to push the stupidest solutions.

The summum of irony is that eco freaks seek to have dams removed.

a reply to: crayzeed

Haven't got time to look for a link but I believe there is a similar South Korean example open to tourists that heats a house for a month on one firing. It used to heat the house for three months but was damaged by bombing and no-one had the knowledge to rebuild it correctly. There's a system of flaps that can be used to open one heat storage unit at a time.

a reply to: M5xaz

Greenies are always proud to push the stupidest solutions. The summum of irony is that eco freaks seek to have dams removed.

What utter tripe, as someone who cares about the environment I would consider myself a “greenie” and I haven’t heard anyone who feels the same calling for dams to be removed. Why would we be proud to push the stupidest solutions? Wtf are you talking about?

The stupidest solutions are pushed only when there is money to be made by people who care more about lining their own pockets than anything else.

a reply to: ketsuko

Well, I mean, we could just continue to kill the planet with coal instead.... And all just DIE.

imagine having to turn your thermostat down and put on another sweater or blanket to save the planet.

Are you actually serious?

a reply to: surfer_soul

. . . calling for dams to be removed.

Focussed on dam and weir removal in the urban environment, the event gathered more than one hundred experts and dam removal enthusiasts from all over the world, who are campaigning and actively working to remove dams from rivers and allow them to flow free again .

www.damremoval.eu...

However, a significant element of river restoration – arguably the most important one – has not received any consideration yet: thousands of hydropower plants and weirs in our rivers (Map hydropower plants Alpine Region) are severely impairing life in rivers and are ultimately preventing the recovery of our watercourses. We want to change that!

riverwatch.eu...

This is a huge subject that deserves at least a thread or two.

a reply to: M5xaz

I wasn't deflecting. I was stating that hydro electric is green power too. LOL.... You're angry. Go outside and cool off some.

a reply to: Kester

That’s odd it was my understanding that the weirs were built before steam was used to power mills. I didn’t know there were already thousands of hydropower plants in our rivers and I seriously doubt that claim. There are some yes but thousands? I also doubt the impact on wild life claimed in those articles. The network of roads is far greater are they going to be calling for those to be closed next?


ETA having looked at the second link you posted in more detail I see they are talking about hydroelectric plants in the alps and that this is some EU initiative. They say they want to remove dams regardless of the use, wether irrigation or even storm management. Can you believe how ridiculous that is? There motto is rivers unite dams divide. Sounds like more misguided pc nonsense to me, I think I will actively campaign against them as I know of a few redirected rivers and dams that have proved benificial to wildlife.

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: M5xaz

Greenies are always proud to push the stupidest solutions. The summum of irony is that eco freaks seek to have dams removed.

What utter tripe, as someone who cares about the environment I would consider myself a “greenie” and I haven’t heard anyone who feels the same calling for dams to be removed. Why would we be proud to push the stupidest solutions? Wtf are you talking about?

The stupidest solutions are pushed only when there is money to be made by people who care more about lining their own pockets than anything else.

Greenies ARE pushing for dam demolition, in the spirit of "river restoration/fish population"
news.nationalgeographic.com...

Even in the RARE cases where old hydro dams need to be demolished for structural reasons, for example, NEW hydro dams could be built to replace them on the same spot. That is not happening. Morons are pushing windmills and solar, non-reliable power, NOT 24/7 power.

Eco freaks...

a reply to: surfer_soul

From the linked NatGeo article (yes, I realize you didn’t link it, but suffice to say it’s pertinent):

most of the 865 dams removed in the United States during the past 20 years are small structures originally built for flood control, irrigation, or very local hydropower. The White Clay Creek dam, built to run a long-gone flour mill, was only eight feet tall at its highest point. But small dams can stop fish as effectively as big ones.

Dam removal has numerous stakeholders; a bunch of greenies aren’t gonna chain themselves to the pump house and magically get a hydropower electric dam blown to smithereens. It’s a long process and starts with FERC and those stakeholders who have a vested interest in its continued operation.

Long story, short, short story, sweet: dam removal is more a function of flood control — and lack there of — and poorly delineated water/property rights than the fish in the water.

As the linked article notes, the lion’s share of removals over the last 20 years are small dams (6 - 10ft tall, non-hydroelectric) and large hydroelectric dams aren’t on the chopping block. Yes, some will be demolished just because they’ve outlived their usefulness, but the Army Corps of Engineers makes those calls and then you have FERC to deal with.

Hope that helps.

P.S. The Klamath River dam removal thingy has a little of the fish problem, a little of the flood control problem, and of course, the irrigation farmers down stream problem. Read up/check it out if you’re interested.

a reply to: BeefNoMeat

Kester corrected my ignorance first with his links, I addressed that above in the ETA.
I find it troubling that dam removal is being done in the name of protecting the environment, most artificial dams that I know of divert a section of river to create the dam, they don’t stop fish and other wildlife going up stream as the river goes around the dam. If anything most dams provide an extra habitat for wildlife. Where they don’t they could be made to do so.

I’m all for hydroelectric power as I said on page one and anybody who genuinely cares about the environment should be too.

amazinly - re dam removal :

here [ UK ] - the movement for over 10 years - has been to install " micro hydrolectric " schemes - @ wiers - that are now " defunct "

the instalation is almost always an archemedies screw system - and thier " success " rate is poor

a reply to: surfer_soul

Glad you admitted your ignorance — denying ignorance is the name of the game.

If you don’t want further counsel, don’t respond. Or keep reminding us of your ignorance.

a reply to: BeefNoMeat

Hey I’m not ignorant in most areas, especially electrical engineering and over the years I’ve come to know the general mentality of this site isn’t denying ignorance but pushing opinions over facts.

Like the poster on page one of this thread who claimed oil was green energy. I don’t see ya’ll jumping down his throat to correct him. Why’s that?