U.S. says wind could power 20 percent of eastern grid

Originally posted by franspeakfree
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

He said plutonium not platinum

the hip hop gangsters wouldn't go for it, they like their hair too much

And then there is the whole "Critical Mass" thing. A guy and a girl both with big grills start kissing and there goes the neighborhood. Mushroom cloud time.

From article

The private sector cannot fund all the needed spending, so a big chunk would have to come from the federal government through programs such as loan guarantees, Corbus said.

Why can't private sector afford it?

Originally posted by jam321
From article

The private sector cannot fund all the needed spending, so a big chunk would have to come from the federal government through programs such as loan guarantees, Corbus said.Why can't private sector afford it?

Who authored this article--- The Three Stooges, that just asked for $10 bucks a piece from the private sector?
Does not the Federal Government get it's capital from the private sector???
Oh yeah that's all been pissed away for perpetuity.
They better pass a citizen print your own money bill.LOL

reply to post by Bobbox1980

I like your ideas.
What about outfitting the already installed offshore gas and oil rigs with tidal and wind apparatus? They are already fairly foul weather proof.

Too many problems with wind turbines to be used in the North East. I'm from NY where one problem we run into is bats fly into the things and we already have a problem with our bats dying off. Most of this so called green energy jazz is not really researched to determine ecological impact. Mark my words in a few years we are going to hear about all the mercury polluting water tables from the light bulbs they pawned off as being eco-friendly!

reply to post by Bobbox1980

I looked at a map of New England in the past, I forget the exact distances but I think it was only a couple miles offshore that the wind blew quite steadily and strongly all along the East Coast. If we really planted wind farms in all those areas it would likely provide a lot more than just 20% of our electricity needs.

You would inadvertently be providing a very rich group of targets for all marine and low flying aircraft to impact at night or in fog!

reply to post by hangedman13


Just a thought. Most NY state ecological problems have been caused by acid rain. You have to know where that comes from. Now fix that and you will have enough bats to sacrifice for people.

reply to post by plumranch


So then you are jumping up and down yelling--"Remove all off shore gas and oil platforms and cell towers."
Yeee ha me too! Let's get em down. Now! lol
Get rid of the bird and bat sucking jet engines also.
Man when we take down those tall ugly nuke and coal stacks it will be like takin down the Berlin wall. Where is my sledge hammer. Yeee ha!!

reply to post by Donny 4 million


Sacrifice for wind turbines? Not very eco friendly Disrupting the natural order for our needs seems assinine. Anyway its not acid rain causing it.
www.nj.com...

So now what?

Originally posted by hangedman13
Too many problems with wind turbines to be used in the North East. I'm from NY where one problem we run into is bats fly into the things and we already have a problem with our bats dying off. Most of this so called green energy jazz is not really researched to determine ecological impact. Mark my words in a few years we are going to hear about all the mercury polluting water tables from the light bulbs they pawned off as being eco-friendly!

The not in your backyard syndrome again.

There are bats across the US we have bats in Calif but we have built wind turbines for 40 years.
We already have problems with mercury to the point the tree huggers used it to shut down gold dredging in Calif even though no one that gold dredges uses mercury. This cost a lot of people there summer incomes.

We are working on taxing wind and solar power that is generated in Calif but used in other states. Power export tax.

Great, I hope that they go for it.

The more alternative systems that we put in place, the better.

reply to post by jam321

Why can't private sector afford it?

If someone in the private sector could prove to their lender that they can make money building and operating windmills, banks would lend the money and windmills would be built. No one can demonstrate that they can make good money, that there is good profit, that they won't loose money. So the OPPORTUNITY then goes back to the government. Only the government enters into businesses that loose money.

From what I have read these windmills are only marginally profitable at best and that's with a government kickback. And that subsidy has to be approved by the legislature every year.

The other factor is liability. All the problems associated with these things may keep banks from lending. Read that article I posted about Ireland. What a nightmare they ran into!

reply to post by ANNED


You seem to miss the forest for all the trees Read the article I linked on my last post, before you assume anything. I'm tired of so called environmentalists jumping half-cocked on some new fad to "save" the environment. Look at the ramifications of your actions before you put it into place Good intentions do not guarantee good results!

I am not referring to you by the way, but people who because they feel guilt for how they live jump on any "solution" thrown to them.

[edit on 21-1-2010 by hangedman13]

Read the following review to understand the many and complicated problems with wind power:

A Problem With Wind Power

Denmark (population 5.3 million) has over 6,000 turbines that produced electricity equal to 19% of what the country used in 2002. Yet no conventional power plant has been shut down. Because of the intermittency and variability of the wind, conventional power plants must be kept running at full capacity to meet the actual demand for electricity. Most cannot simply be turned on and off as the wind dies and rises,

In high winds, ironically, the turbines must be stopped because they are easily damaged. Build-up of dead bugs has been shown to halve the maximum power generated by a wind turbine, reducing the average power generated by 25% and more. Build-up of salt on off-shore turbine blades similarly has been shown to reduce the power generated by 20%-30%.

The DOE says there are 18,000 square miles of good wind sites in the U.S., which with current technology could produce 20% of the country's electricity. This rosy plan, based on the wind industry's sales brochures, as well as on a claim of electricity use that is only three-quarters of the actual use in 2002, would require "only" 142,060 1.5-MW towers. They also explain, "If the wind resource is well matched to peak loads, wind energy can effectively contribute to system capacity." That's a big if -- counting on the wind to blow exactly when demand rises -- especially if you expect the wind to cover 20% (or even 5%) of that demand.

The penetrating low-frequency aspect to the noise, a thudding vibration, much like the throbbing bass of a neighboring disco, travels much farther than the usually measured "audible" noise. It may be why horses who are completely calm around traffic and heavy construction are known to become very upset when they approach wind turbines

The industry recognizes that the flicker of reflected light on one side and shadow on the other drives people and animals crazy. And at night, the towers must be lighted, which the AWEA describes as a serious nuisance, destroying the dark skies that many people in rural areas cherish

Ice is another problem. It builds up when the blades are still and gets flung off -- as far as 1,500 feet -- when they start spinning. Accumulated ice on the nacelle and tower also falls off. John Zimmerman, the developer of Vermont's Searsburg facility, wrote the following to an AWEA discussion list in 2000. "When there is heavy rime ice build up on the blades and the machines are running you instinctually want to stay away. ... They roar and sound scarey. One time we found a piece near the base of the turbines that was pretty impressive. Three adults jumping on it couldn't break. It looked to be 5 or 6 inches thick, 3 feet wide and about 5 feet long. Probably weighed several hundred pounds. We couldn't lift it.

Originally posted by hangedman13
reply to post by Donny 4 million

 

Sacrifice for wind turbines? Not very eco friendly

Disrupting the natural order for our needs seems assinine. Anyway its not acid rain causing it.
www.nj.com...

So now what?

First fix the bat problem. Not a bad idea for a thread.
Outfit the turbines with a bat repelent noise, such as an owl or the like.

reply to post by plumranch

If someone in the private sector could prove to their lender that they can make money building and operating windmills, banks would lend the money and windmills would be built. No one can demonstrate that they can make good money, that there is good profit, that they won't loose money. So the OPPORTUNITY then goes back to the government. Only the government enters into businesses that loose money.

My thought too. If private sector can make money off this, windmills would have already been up all over the place.

reply to post by jam321


Imagine trying to explain this to your banker!

Can you imagine a chunk of ice flying off and landing a quarter mile away weighing several hundred pounds? That would dampen anyone's enthusiasm for big wind machines!

Ice is another problem. It builds up when the blades are still and gets flung off -- as far as 1,500 feet -- when they start spinning. Accumulated ice on the nacelle and tower also falls off. John Zimmerman, the developer of Vermont's Searsburg facility, wrote the following to an AWEA discussion list in 2000. "When there is heavy rime ice build up on the blades and the machines are running you instinctually want to stay away. ... They roar and sound scarey. One time we found a piece near the base of the turbines that was pretty impressive. Three adults jumping on it couldn't break. It looked to be 5 or 6 inches thick, 3 feet wide and about 5 feet long. Probably weighed several hundred pounds. We couldn't lift it.

I think green renewables such as wind and solar would of been the way to go had we of started about 200 years ago. We didn't. Instead we built our society on fossil fuels, which many liken to 'stored sunlight'. Realistically if we want an alternative to them, I don't think we can count on idealogical dreams that are expensive, and unreliable, but instead we need to count on existing reliable, proven, dense, efficient, and relatively cheap, sources of power. I don't see any other option to Nuclear. Natural Gas is half decent, although it still comes from places like Russia, emits 1/4 the CO2 of coal, and is a fossil fuel.

According to the Energy Information Administration, wind power capital cost is $1,923 per kilowatt for onshore wind, and $3,851 for offshore wind. These cost projections are extremely similar to the National Association of Manufacturers, and the American Council for Capital Formation. In 2008, wind generating capacity in the U.S. totaled 25,170 megawatts and generated 52.0 million megawatt hours. That's a capacity factor of 23.5% (abysmal - unreliable). Therefore, as the wind does not blow at maximum speed all the time, each kilowatt of actual average output is likely to be closer to be $8,174 a kilowatt (2007 dollars) for onshore wind. Offshore wind costs more per unit of capacity, yet has a much higher capacity factor therefore I suspect its economics are similar. None of this includes storage which is an attempt to make wind more reliable, nor does it include fossil fuel backups that are required with any form of wind. Also, remember the windmills take up room. So although the technology progresses we may have to site them at unideal locations which drives up the costs (e.g. transmission, low wind, offshore).

By comparison, Italy just ordered four Nuclear Reactors from AREVA. Each at 1650 megawatt at a cost of $6.45 billion dollars each, designed to last 60 years (possibly more). These four reactors will generate as much power as every single windmill in the United States in 2008. The reactors are designed to run at 92% capacity factor, therefore the actual cost per kilowatt of capacity is about $4300. That's not to say the reactors are perfect, however. The type (EPR), had to have expensive modifications on the first two reactors getting built in France and Finland to ensure containment vessel integrity in the case of a widebody airliner crash directly into the reactor (airliner full of fuel, also), and also to ensure the reactor backup instrumentation was completely independent from the normal instrumentation. One of the two first reactors is now over 50% over budget and many, many years behind schedule. This is one of the dangers of building a very very expensive, very very large, and very very high output reactor before it is certified by regulatory authorities, and it is also one of the dangers in building a brand new type of reactor. I suspect that after the first four reactors a built (1 in France, 1 in Finland, 2 in China), most of the bugs, teething problems if you will, will be worked out, hopefully allowing later projects like the ones in the UK, USA, & Italy to proceed on schedule and on cost. Areva expects to deliver 60 reactors of this type, or about 30% of the market till 2030.

By far the most successful of the generation 3+ reactor designs is the Westinghouse Electric ( 80% owned by Toshiba, 20% SHAW ) AP1000. China is currently building about four of them at $2,000 per kilowatt hour, and wants to have 100 of these reactors operating (or under construction) by 2020. At about 1250 megawatt of capacity each, you could probably run the entire nation of France on 100 of them with capacity to spare. The design is not some cheap "Chinese" knockoff, but a state of the art design already certified by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. About twelve of them are planned for the United States (so far), two at a proposed Nuclear plant in Levy County, Florida at a cost of 14 billion dollars ($6000 a kilowatt) (will open in mid-late next decade, closing down a coal plant nearby). As the US has not built a new Nuclear Plant in 20 years, it remains to be seen if it will conform to budget expectations, although the reactor type is already licensed AND it is not a first of a kind so it will likely not be as big of a disaster as the early EPR units.

Per unit of average /actual generating capacity Nuclear power will generally be cheaper than pretty much all forms of renewables, without any of its problems. Nuclear also has extremely low running costs as the majority of costs go to maintenance, rather than maintenance and fuel. i.e. A 10% increase in the price of Uranium will only increase the cost of electricity by 0.5%. However, Nuclear has some problems of its own, at the moment at least Nuclear Plants have not been constructed in the US in over a decade so there is some uncertainty, and Nuclear plants are usually only available in very large sizes. E.G. It is much harder for a utility to put down $14 billion dollars on an absolutely massive two gigawatt Nuclear plant, compared to a few windmills that are subsidized hugely, or some small natural gas plant for example. This is set to change with smaller, modular, massed produced units like the B&W mPOWER, & Hyperion Power Module, and also greater loan guarantees (think student loans). Other smaller problems include the incompetent NRC taking 4 -5 years to certify a new reactor design.

Spain have had wind turbines for years and only now the USA decides to 'give it go' of course there has to be a profit in it or it simply won't work.

In 2008 wind generating capacity in the United States totaled 25,170 megawatts (average of 23.5% capacity factor). Spain had 16,740 megawatts of capacity. So while Spain may get a higher proportion of its energy from wind, what you are saying is technically incorrect. Furthermore, it would also be wise to pay attention to the prices of electricity in both of these countries. If I am not mistaken energy in the US is a few cents cheaper than Spain...

Sure. Use it to run a couple of breeder reactors and regenerate about 45% of your used fuel. The rest is low level isotopes that can be used for things like X-ray machines . You can cut the waste by over 85% The drawback is that the left over 15% is mostly Plutonium.

I am most familiar with the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor.. aka Molten Salt Reactor. The LFTR will practically eliminate all plutonium and most of the waste will last for only 400 years. From what I understand, another reactor known as the Integral Fast Reactor will eliminate the majority of the waste that is fed into it, however it still has plutonium in the waste. The main issue with these reactors is simply a lack of experience with them (Russians excluded, they have BN800 reactor), although they are extremely promising.

Thanks.

More information on the limitations of renewables in my thread, here.

On particular windy days, wind power generation has surpassed all other electricity sources in Spain, including nuclear.[5] On November 8th 2009 wind power production reached its all-time maximum of 11,564 MW; a few hours earlier it had reached the highest percentage of electricity production, with wind farms covering 53% of the total demand.

At times, wind will generate lots of power. At other times it will not. In Spain, on average all the wind turbines combined ran at a power level of 4000 megawatts in 2009, providing about 13% of total power. It certainly is a big achievement, but am I impressed or surprised? No, it would take about two and a half EPR reactors to generate as much power as every single wind turbine in Spain.

You can view the power generation statistics and graphs in the Bonneville Power Administration website, here. At the time of posting, wind had been doing quiet well (for once).

[edit on 22/1/2010 by C0bzz]

Big Boost in Wind Power Doable but Complicated in Eastern U.S. -- Study

The eastern United States could get 20 or even 30 percent of its electricity from wind by 2024, but it would cost up to $175 billion and wouldn't take a big bite out of greenhouse gas emissions without a price on carbon, according to a study by released today by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

nytimes.com/...

U.S. says wind could power 20 percent of eastern grid

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Wind energy could generate 20 percent of the electricity needed by households and businesses in the eastern half of the United States by 2024, but it would require up to $90 billion in investment, according to a government report released on Wednesday.

Reuters.

Note how one source says one thing and the other says something else? And if you actually read the actual report, both of them are wrong.

You can read the actual report here. The ACTUAL findings were that increasing wind penetration from 6% (referance) to 20% would at minimum cost an extra 15 billion dollars each year till 2024. Or a total cost of about a quarter of a trillion dollars. At maximum, it was closer to 50 billion dollars per year, or 700 billion dollars till 2024 with 30% wind penetration.



The 90 billion dollar figure was costs for ONLY the transmission system for a mix of 20% wind and 80% conventional.

[edit on 22/1/2010 by C0bzz]

There can be only one reason that folks are not demanding clean energy.
FILTH
They either like smoggy filth or they are filthy rich and greasy with oil.