Wind Power...Some News

Wind Power

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8799e1eaa3e2.jpg[/atsimg]
France to invest $14 billion in offshore wind projects

The project -- one of the world's largest with a power production capacity equivalent to that of three small nuclear reactors -- will create 10,000 jobs, said Sarkozy, adding candidates would be picked at the start of 2012.

Keep that oil monkey off our backs!. Wish we were doing more of this in the U.S. faster, but at least we, like France are getting there.

U.S. Offshore Wind Collaborative

Some interesting information about the efforts underway in the U.S., including milestones, Webinars, and activity by state, Also a draft of here of the U.S. DOE's draft of the strategic workplan.

Offshore wind energy has great potential to address the United States’ urgent energy and environmental challenges. While this abundant domestic renewable energy source is currently untapped, there is growing political and market momentum to develop the vast offshore wind energy resources on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf and the Great Lakes.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c6f91e62eda5.png[/atsimg]

And of course, wind energy has it's drawbacks and opponents. Studies to the left of me...studies to the right...

Wind turbines would need to cover Wales to supply a sixth of country's energy needs

I guess what we need to remember is that to kick the oil habit it's going to take not just one magic solution, but combinations of solutions that makes sense by region. Wind, water, sun power. I'm sure all of them will become more efficient and less costly in time, as we perfect the technology and get people to let go of their old habits and paradigms. And of course keep standing up to the oil lobbyists and the governments they so influence, worldwide.

Wind Plan Makes Waves

One of the first sites in the U.S., near Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket, has been in the works for years and has been the object of much opposition and debate, but it looks like it's going forward too.

Working closely with Gov. Deval Patrick’s administration, the U.S. Interior Department yesterday announced the launch of a regulatory process intended to eventually site enough offshore wind turbines to produce up to 4,000 megawatts of electricity, or enough to power 1.7 million homes in Massachusetts.

Positive offshore wind power statistics prompts media interest

“European installations of offshore wind power may surge 70 percent this year, topping 2010’s record 51 percent gain,” Bloomberg noted. “This year is likely to have 1 gigawatt to 1.5 gigawatts of sea-based windmills connected to region’s electricity grid.”

Investors, take note!





Pros and cons? Sure. What do you think? A step in the right direction?

Good for France. Definatley a step in the right direction.

However, when the wind drops there will be less power to supply demand.

nuclear reactors seem to be the best way to go at the moment to get a more stable supply.

reply to post by JonoEnglish

True that it can't be the only source we rely it...it's going to take combinations of sources.

What happens when the wind stops blowing?

When the wind stops blowing, electricity continues to be provided by other forms of generation in an isolated system (e.g. batteries, diesel generator), and by the grid in a grid-connected system. UK electricity generation is now overwhelmingly from large power stations, and so the system has to cope when one of these large plants goes out of action. Consequently, it is possible to have at least 10% to 20% of the country's electrical demand met by intermittent energy sources such as wind energy, without having to make any significant changes to the way the system operates.
www.fortiswindenergy.com...

Between existing technologies in geothermal, solar, wind, and hydro (ocean tides) power generation it may be possible to replace petroleum-based products and other non-renewable resource based approaches. However, given the time to convert existing systems, the efficiency of the new operations- it seems far more likely that in the short term, renewable consumable resources like biodiesel will bridge the gap until some technological breakthrough can be achieved.

ganjoa

reply to post by ganjoa

True about there being a way to go until we work out the kinks. Do you have a perspective on say the "politics" of all this? Who might be investing in or supporting biodiesel solutions over say wind, water, and solar?

On the one hand, it seems to me that if we concentrated our efforts, we'd get further faster. On the other hand, as we've already said, it's probably going to have to be a multipronged solution, so the efforts really do have to be spread out as we search for innovations, inventions, and solutions. It's a fine balance, but it still seems to me we're not focused enough.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


I don't understand why France is doing this - other than as a sop to the EU. France has a huge number of nukes, I believe 60 or so which supply 80% of their requirement.

There are so many arguments against wind power that I am not going to go into them all in detail as it would take several pages and I mean that literally, to lay out properly why wind power is a total disaster that saves about 1.3% CO2 and is the most expensive electricity to the consumer, whereas nuclear power is the cheapest.

Having spent 5 years programming electricity supply and demand figures, power station technical data - start-ups, shut-downs etc, and wind data I can tell you that positively the last thing anyone should consider is wind power.

If you want to build offshore then go for tidal power - not wave power as that is wind dependent. Tidal power is the supreme renewable energy - but be aware that even that has ecological consequences.

Wind turbines have to have their blades replaced every 15 years or so. These are very expensive. The neodymium magnets will not last forever and additionally are rare earth metal that pretty much has to come from China. Not exactly independent then. Aside from the cost there is much more importantly the availability.

There is little point is having an expensive renewable made even more expensive by having to have conventional power stations on standby to take over. Wind cannot be considered as base generation as it is not constant, it cannot be considered mid-merit as it is unreliable and it cannot ever be considered as peak because it cannot be controlled, i.e. brought on tap at peak times.

Combined cycle gas turbine generation is low CO2, you have stacks of gas in the US and it can be base and mid merit generation and even peak in some circumstances.

Years ago Denmark pioneered the wind route - and failed as it put the cost of electricity up so much they could not afford it. To go down the route of wind power is an ecological disaster, an economic madness and the route to collapse and unreliable power supplies for key installations and homes. It saves nothing in terms of CO2 - all it does is line the pockets of the producers with subsidies and this money comes from you.

If you want to have unreliable supplies, long power outages, immense costs please carry on. When China refuses the sell you the Neodymium and the turbines need replacing just wait in darkness while you build CCGT stations - which is what you should be doing. Wind power is an unreliable expensive scam.



Take a look at this environmental activists site. You might be a bit surprised.

By the way the second video - the wind is always blowing somewhere in the world? Oh please. That takes no account of transmission costs. That is a blatant con designed to fool the sheeple. The inference is that there will always be wind power. Ask the Australians just how accurate that is.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


Anybody who has traveled the Gorge here in Oregon will have noticed a huge increase in wind power being used.

I say anything that is not fossil fuel based is a plus......




Wind-generated electricity powers up BPA's grid

Wind-powered electricity traveling over Bonneville Power Administration transmission lines has cracked the 1,000-megawatt mark, "a major milestone in the effort to include more clean, emission free energy" in the region's power supply, the federal agency reported Friday.
OLIVIA BUCKS/THE OREGONIANWind turbines dot fields at the Leaning Jupiter Wind Farm, just south of Arlington.

The wind energy comes from projects in the Columbia River Gorge in Oregon and Washington, where utilities and private developers have been on a multiyear push to increase supplies of renewable energy.

The wind power hooks into BPA's main transmission grid where it's then delivered to electricity users in the West, primarily in Oregon, Washington and California. The Portland-based federal agency markets more than one-third of the electricity consumed in the Northwest.

reply to post by PuterMan


I love that argument.

What they leave out about Nuclear is the overall long term cost of nuclear waste storage and or long term environmental issues with nuclear waste. The point is NOT to "Save Money" with costs. It's keeping the environment clean.

reply to post by SLAYER69


I am not supporting nuclear power. I cannot believe that you just fell into the sheeple trap. "the point is not to save costs it is to keep the environment clean"

I am surprised at you actually. I would have thought you would have a better handle on something like this. Wind power does NOT keep the environment clean.

Masses of concrete
Environments destroyed - animals and boglands, birds and bats
No saving in CO2
Immense costs compared to other generation. Gas is clean and much cheaper.
Only 5% at the very best will come from wind power so to add to the 'dirt' of windpower is all the associated bad elements of the conventional stations on standby.
Rare earth metals and all the associated costs and CO2 and pollution of mining it transporting it.
All the costs and CO2 and pollution of transporting these wind mills.
All the loss of food producing land

The list goes on. Study the economics.

The powers that be are busily trying to persuade us that we need to pay more taxes to get less. Wind power is one of those devices. There is no argument economic or otherwise than can reasonably be put forward in its favour either to save the planet - it will not, or to produce clean power - it does not.

Try reading this blog

reply to post by PuterMan


Hey thanks for your input.


Still cleaner than burning oil or coal and doesn't stick around for thousands of years like nuclear waste and is renewable unlike natural gas. It's an investment. Every power source requires maintenance and upkeep.

reply to post by SLAYER69


You think natural gas is not renewable?

Try researching abiotic oil and gas.

I will make a prediction. In 20 years time little or no power in the world will be generated by wind.

Every power source requires maintenance and upkeep

I don't call complete replacement of blades every 15 years maintenance and upkeep that is reasonable. If the upkeep doubles the capital cost over the short term it is not viable. Take a look at maintenance costs of the various methods of generation and wind is one of the worst.

You would be better of running generators on hydroxy gas.

I am 100% with Puter on this.

What a terrible idea.

As for the "ecological" cost of wind vs nuclear....exactly how much toxic waste is created to get those rare earth minerals? Ah...we don't really know, China doesn't really care to keep track of that. And how much CO2 is generated transporting that material here? How much to process and manufacture? Etc, etc...

Between availability of parts, location of resources, and overall cost of storage/disposal...I would say "don't go there" if you are arguing wind...it will just skew the figures even further in favour of nuclear.

What do you need for a nuclear plant?...Water, concrete, fissionable material...ultra simplified? Yes. Relevant? Absolutely.

Also, the are making some ground in throium reactors vs uranium reactors. If the current advertising is correct, it will eliminate the waste/disposal issue. For extra bonus....there is lots of thorium.

How about instead they gather up all the mad students, and have them pedal bike more energy.
Helps them let off some steam, and gets more power out to homes.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by PuterMan

 

Hey thanks for your input.

Still cleaner than burning oil or coal and doesn't stick around for thousands of years like nuclear waste and is renewable unlike natural gas. It's an investment. Every power source requires maintenance and upkeep.

Wouldn't they have to stick around for years on end, in order to generate power?

Well the argument is kind of moot.
More and more of them are going up everyday. Many are not publicly funded.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Just because more of them are going up each day does not make them right, and does not make them good for the economy, and does not make them viable.

This is a big read but very enlightening - and correct.
www.slideshare.net...

Enjoy! Especially from about 2 minutes in. Part of being environmentally clean is noise pollution reduction.

reply to post by PuterMan


So whats it to you if people choose to invest in them?

Why so against it?

They aren't spending your money...

We disagree on the topic.

reply to post by SLAYER69

So whats it to you if people choose to invest in them?

I don't care if people want to invest in them. I do care that people are being forced to invest in them.

Why so against it?

Because they are inefficient and expensive and dangerous

They aren't spending your money...

Read the 4th paragraph of page 277 in the book "The real global warming disaster". This deals specifically with your President and a visit to an Ohio factory making wind turbines. At the end of that and the next paragraph, where it deals with Spain's foray into wind power it states:

All this was to provide Spain with well under 10 percent of its electricity, unreliably, inefficiently and very expensively, at a subsidy cost alone eqwuivalent to 5.6% of Spain's corporate taxes.

So, Yes they are. Are you blind? In every country in the western world wind power is being subsidised by government. Why else do you think the companies put them up? If there was no subsidy there would be no wind farms, and if there was no enforced utilisation of their energy there would be no market for such an unreliable and expensive source of energy.

We disagree on the topic.

Indeed we do!

Danger
www.wind-watch.org...
Pollution
www.wind-watch.org...
Bird deaths
www.wind-watch.org...
Destruction of environment
www.wind-watch.org...

reply to post by PuterMan


Dangerous?

To whom?

Also, Here in the states for example the location of the Gorge I mentioned previously is located on some of the poorest land we have there are No trees, No Forrest, No usable Farm land just wide open desert where the wind blows non stop pretty much year round.


As far as reliability.
As more and more money is invested technologies will move to keep up with demand. I'm sorry but I'm starting to get the feeling that you have an Agenda and or maybe stock in BP/Big Oil?

reply to post by SLAYER69

As more and more money is invested technologies will move to keep up with demand. I'm sorry but I'm starting to get the feeling that you have an Agenda and or maybe stock in BP/Big Oil?

Well I credited you with better than that Slayer - respected you even. You trot out that tired old argument? Is that the best you can do?

I am unemployed, I have no agenda and certainly have no money for stocks and shares. I am all for ANYTHING that is against pollution, that saves the economy both personal and national, and that preserves the environment. Wind power does NONE of the above.

Further more Slayer I think you need just a tad more education about wind and big oil. They support it big time so your attempted jibe fails.

www.boston.com...

and

www.alternative-energy-news.info...