Wind power, the great boondoggle.

[gsvol]

 

[gsvol]

 

[JayVols]

Climate change aside, we know fossil fuels have a finite supply that will run out within the next few generations. So, my question, at great psychotic risk, if we found viable alternatives wouldn't we want to develop them?

His bunker is well stocked for the impending apocalypse that will be caused by the Nazi Commies of the world. He ain't skeered.

Wonder when the episode of Doomsday Bunkers featuring gs' bunker is going to air?

 

[JayVols]

Boon Pickens invested millions into wind power at one time.
There are quite a few wind farms in the USA already.
I've seen them in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas.

T. Boone is a crony capitalist commie! He's been in the energy business his entire life; thus, he knows nothing about the matter.

 

[theFallGuy]

If it is such a farce why have so many European nations invested heavily in wind power?

I wouldn't use Europe for any type of economic model about anything. They are basically broke. Also, no one in Europe drives anyways.

 

[MG1968]

T. Boone is a crony capitalist commie! He's been in the energy business his entire life; thus, he knows nothing about the matter.

Pickens was wrong on wind power, as is anybody else who thinks wind and solar are viable alternatives to fossil fuels.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Pickens was wrong on wind power, as is anybody else who thinks wind and solar are viable alternatives to fossil fuels.

Not at the present time. That has no bearing on the future though.

 

[dreVol]

Not at the present time. That has no bearing on the future though.

as nuclear reactors become smaller and safer, wind and solar will become novelties. until the energy they produce can be harnessed and stored, they're not reliable enough to be primary energy sources.

high transmission costs for both.
unreliability for both.
wind turbines are powered by jet engines when theres no wind.
solar and wind farms take up enormous amounts of land -most of which is far from urban areas, contributing to high transmission costs.
rampant nimbyism prevents the development of more cost effective solar and wind projects - also true for nuclear.

maybe it's the future, but I'm not convinced its the most viable alternative to Dino fuel. I also don't think it's an either/or proposition. ie we replace fossil fuels with solar and wind overnight.

 

[KentheOrange]

Each of our nuclear reactors are designed from the ground up which greatly increases time to operation and cost. The French use smaller, cookie cutter designs that are cheaper and quicker to build. Maybe one day we will learn that NIH (not invented here) is not the worst thing in the world.

 

[MG1968]

Not at the present time. That has no bearing on the future though.

in the future, wind and solar aren't going to be viable alternatives either

 

[PKT_VOL]

as nuclear reactors become smaller and safer, wind and solar will become novelties. until the energy they produce can be harnessed and stored, they're not reliable enough to be primary energy sources.

high transmission costs for both.
unreliability for both.
wind turbines are powered by jet engines when theres no wind.
solar and wind farms take up enormous amounts of land -most of which is far from urban areas, contributing to high transmission costs.
rampant nimbyism prevents the development of more cost effective solar and wind projects - also true for nuclear.

maybe it's the future, but I'm not convinced its the most viable alternative to Dino fuel. I also don't think it's an either/or proposition. ie we replace fossil fuels with solar and wind overnight.

in the future, wind and solar aren't going to be viable alternatives either

It amazes me that people still think this way. Ask yourself, what are the only forms of energy that are infinite?

The short answer is solar and geothermal. Wind and currents are theoretically, but not on the same scale as solar or geothermal. You guys keep thinking about solar and wind technology NOW. I am thing of solar and geothermal (to a lesser extent wind) in the future. We are already developing exploratory vehicles for space travel to other plants that operate off solar energy. They are designed to go hundreds of thousands of miles an hour instead of roughly 17,500 mph that our chemical rocket engines currently go. Although, the technology and engineering being utilized are completely different than making electricity, the fundamental concept is the same. Technology is closing the gap.

 

[MG1968]

the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow

it doesn't matter how far wind and solar technology advances, their limitations will never make them a cost effective alternative to fossil fuel/nuclear power generation

they might make a difference on a micro scale, like individual homes and some agricultural applications, but if your goal is to provide power on a national scale, it just can't be done.

 

[JayVols]

Pickens was wrong on wind power, as is anybody else who thinks wind and solar are viable alternatives to fossil fuels.

No offense, but I value the opinion of a man who has made energy his lifelong career (successfully I might add) more than yours.

I don't think anyone is saying wind is the lone solution. It is merely a piece of the total solution. We may not be able to harness solar power very efficiently now, but that's why we have research and development. We didn't know how to go to the moon and back until we worked toward a solution. It's beyond my comprehension why folks just want to discount the single largest source of energy in the solar system for a finite dwindling resource such as fossil fuels. Makes absolutely no sense to me. If we just said " Well, we can't do that very well now. We should just quit." about problems, we wouldn't have made it very far as a civilization.

 

[MG1968]

No offense, but I value the opinion of a man who has made energy his lifelong career (successfully I might add) more than yours.

I don't think anyone is saying wind is the lone solution. It is merely a piece of the total solution. We may not be able to harness solar power very efficiently now, but that's why we have research and development. We didn't know how to go to the moon and back until we worked toward a solution. It's beyond my comprehension why folks just want to discount the single largest source of energy in the solar system for a finite dwindling resource such as fossil fuels. Makes absolutely no sense to me. If we just said " Well, we can't do that very well now. We should just quit." about problems, we wouldn't have made it very far as a civilization.

I don't really care whose opinion you value more. Pickens has all but abandoned wind power in favor of natural gas. That should tell you something.

I'm all for alternative forms of energy, but what I don't like to see is the federal government subsidizing it to the tune of billions and billions of taxpayer dollars and ending up with Solyndra-style boondoggles.

 

[dreVol]

It amazes me that people still think this way. Ask yourself, what are the only forms of energy that are infinite?

The short answer is solar and geothermal. Wind and currents are theoretically, but not on the same scale as solar or geothermal. You guys keep thinking about solar and wind technology NOW. I am thing of solar and geothermal (to a lesser extent wind) in the future. We are already developing exploratory vehicles for space travel to other plants that operate off solar energy. They are designed to go hundreds of thousands of miles an hour instead of roughly 17,500 mph that our chemical rocket engines currently go. Although, the technology and engineering being utilized are completely different than making electricity, the fundamental concept is the same. Technology is closing the gap.

the alleged supporters of this technology (solar and wind specifically) hurt the argument that they can become viable sources of reliable energy. the anti-fossil fuel environmentalist movement really hurts the cause when they go out of their way to prevent the transmission of these alternative forms of energy.

will it become cheaper and more efficient? remains to be seen.

 

[knucklehead_vol]

Apparently this happens more frequently than we are told...


Wind turbine crashing in storm - YouTube

 

[JayVols]

I don't really care whose opinion you value more. Pickens has all but abandoned wind power in favor of natural gas. That should tell you something.

I'm all for alternative forms of energy, but what I don't like to see is the federal government subsidizing it to the tune of billions and billions of taxpayer dollars and ending up with Solyndra-style boondoggles.

I didn't expect you to care- that's irrelevant. If you had more qualifications in the matter than Pickens, I would believe you. Such as: if we were talking logistical transportation, I would be inclined to go with you. That's common sense.

I didn't see any mention govt subsidies before this post. If there were, I would have agreed that the subsidies along with ethanol subsidies need to stop. I have stated that I think Pickens' natural gas plan is a great idea, but you are leaving something out of Pickens' plan. He has clearly stated that natural gas wasn't the end solution. He said it would be a bridge fuel that bought us time to further develop renewable technologies.

 

[JayVols]

Apparently this happens more frequently than we are told...


Wind turbine crashing in storm - YouTube

I see the point you are trying to make. However, that argument could be countered by accidents in the oil industry (spills, refinery explosions, etc), mining accidents, and natural gas accidents.

To be clear I am not arguing that wind is THE answer. All I am saying is that I don't think that it should be completely discounted as a bad idea in every situation. It could be a part of the solution. That part may be small, but it still is a part. It wouldn't work at all in East TN. Wind is too unreliable here. It would be more of an option around coastal regions where wind is more prevalent.

I agree with the poster that the only sources of energy that are pretty much constant are solar, geo-thermal, and I might even add that tidal flow is reliable. Not sure how practical tidal generation would be at this time, but then we get back to the R&D aspect of energy production. I guess my main point is that I don't feel we have the luxury of summarily eliminating anything at this point.

 

[dreVol]

I see the point you are trying to make. However, that argument could be countered by accidents in the oil industry (spills, refinery explosions, etc), mining accidents, and natural gas accidents.

To be clear I am not arguing that wind is THE answer. All I am saying is that I don't think that it should be completely discounted as a bad idea in every situation. It could be a part of the solution. That part may be small, but it still is a part. It wouldn't work at all in East TN. Wind is too unreliable here. It would be more of an option around coastal regions where wind is more prevalent.

I agree with the poster that the only sources of energy that are pretty much constant are solar, geo-thermal, and I might even add that tidal flow is reliable. Not sure how practical tidal generation would be at this time, but then we get back to the R&D aspect of energy production. I guess my main point is that I don't feel we have the luxury of summarily eliminating anything at this point.

solar is unreliable for the same reason that wind is unreliable. add to that the fantastically high transmission costs, b/c solar and wind farms require so much land they aren't located near urban areas.

adding wind farms off of the coast would be a great idea, if hypocrites like Ted Kennedy didn't proactively block their construction in places like Martha's vineyard b/c they detract from the coastal views.

 

[knucklehead_vol]

I see the point you are trying to make. However, that argument could be countered by accidents in the oil industry (spills, refinery explosions, etc), mining accidents, and natural gas accidents.

To be clear I am not arguing that wind is THE answer. All I am saying is that I don't think that it should be completely discounted as a bad idea in every situation. It could be a part of the solution. That part may be small, but it still is a part. It wouldn't work at all in East TN. Wind is too unreliable here. It would be more of an option around coastal regions where wind is more prevalent.

I agree with the poster that the only sources of energy that are pretty much constant are solar, geo-thermal, and I might even add that tidal flow is reliable. Not sure how practical tidal generation would be at this time, but then we get back to the R&D aspect of energy production. I guess my main point is that I don't feel we have the luxury of summarily eliminating anything at this point.

No, quite the contrary. I was just pointing out that rarely do you hear of these but they do happen, and frequently.

I honestly do not know a lot about this subject, I wish I did, but I don't.

As of right now, I do believe wind and solar should be more supplemental rather than totally relied upon. There are better options and mentioned here in this thread alone, and you brought up the possibilities of tidal generated power. Interesting.

 

[JayVols]

solar is unreliable for the same reason that wind is unreliable. add to that the fantastically high transmission costs, b/c solar and wind farms require so much land they aren't located near urban areas.

adding wind farms off of the coast would be a great idea, if hypocrites like Ted Kennedy didn't proactively block their construction in places like Martha's vineyard b/c they detract from the coastal views.

Solar is not very reliable at this time, I agree. You get more production during the summer than the winter. Same can be said for cloudy days, but you still get production from cloudy days. With advances in technology many of the legitimate concerns that you stated may be alleviated or possibly eliminated.

I don't see a single solution to our energy issues. We need to utilize all the bullets that we have though. Honestly, I am for anything that gets us off oil from the Middle East. That's the key. We can bring our troops home out of harms way and pretty much let them have at it.

I am finalizing research on installing a solar array at my home. I am not going off the grid completely, but I will be selling power back to the utilities. I have plenty of land and great sun exposure that makes my place a near perfect location for an array. I am more than likely going to pull the trigger on this. We'll see how it goes.

 

[JayVols]

No, quite the contrary. I was just pointing out that rarely do you hear of these but they do happen, and frequently.

I honestly do not know a lot about this subject, I wish I did, but I don't.

As of right now, I do believe wind and solar should be more supplemental rather than totally relied upon. There are better options and mentioned here in this thread alone, and you brought up the possibilities of tidal generated power. Interesting.

With current technology, I totally agree.

 

[gsvol]

His bunker is well stocked for the impending apocalypse that will be caused by the Nazi Commies of the world. He ain't skeered.

Wonder when the episode of Doomsday Bunkers featuring gs' bunker is going to air?

What is your (pre)teen rant all about?

We have enough oil and gas reserves to last this country hundreds of years.

We have no evidence that we need to quit using those sources immediately.

We only have well reputed pseudoscientific propaganda that says otherwise.

We also have an overabundance of ignorant usful idiots who would atempt to ridicule those who speak the truth on such matters.

Where do you count yourself?

It amazes me that people still think this way. Ask yourself, what are the only forms of energy that are infinite?

The short answer is solar and geothermal. Wind and currents are theoretically, but not on the same scale as solar or geothermal. You guys keep thinking about solar and wind technology NOW. We are already developing exploratory vehicles for space travel to other plants that operate off solar energy. They are designed to go hundreds of thousands of miles an hour instead of roughly 17,500 mph that our chemical rocket engines currently go. Although, the technology and engineering being utilized are completely different than making electricity, the fundamental concept is the same. Technology is closing the gap.

You have a 'thing'?

I am thing of solar and geothermal (to a lesser extent wind) in the future.

The reason we are thinking of wind and solar now is the national debt we are piling up to try to put into practice technology that isn't up to the task, that's one thing.

I can't wait until we actually develope the technology t be able to travel to other plants.

We are already developing exploratory vehicles for space travel to other plants that operate off solar energy.

No doubt we can help them polinate.

No offense, but I value the opinion of a man who has made energy his lifelong career (successfully I might add) more than yours.

I don't think anyone is saying wind is the lone solution. It is merely a piece of the total solution. We may not be able to harness solar power very efficiently now, but that's why we have research and development. We didn't know how to go to the moon and back until we worked toward a solution. It's beyond my comprehension why folks just want to discount the single largest source of energy in the solar system for a finite dwindling resource such as fossil fuels. Makes absolutely no sense to me. If we just said " Well, we can't do that very well now. We should just quit." about problems, we wouldn't have made it very far as a civilization.

It is beyone my comprehension why so many people think CO2 causes global warming when it is obviously solar activity.

What makes no sense to me is how the average intelligence is so freaking stupid.

You don't shut down over a hundred coal fired electrical producing plants in one year with nothing to replace them unless you have something else in mind and those who support such a policy don't have two functional brain cells they could rub together to produce an intelligent thought on their own imo.

Such a policy is not only idiotic, it's just plain stupid and so is anyone who supports that sort of crap!

the alleged supporters of this technology (solar and wind specifically) hurt the argument that they can become viable sources of reliable energy. the anti-fossil fuel environmentalist movement really hurts the cause when they go out of their way to prevent the transmission of these alternative forms of energy.

will it become cheaper and more efficient? remains to be seen.

Here, here. :salute:

 

[utvolpj]

No offense, but I value the opinion of a man who has made energy his lifelong career (successfully I might add) more than yours.

he's also a guy who stands to make quite a large sum of money if they go that direction. I tend to be very skeptical in situations like this

 

[JayVols]

What is your (pre)teen rant all about?

We have enough oil and gas reserves to last this country hundreds of years.

We have no evidence that we need to quit using those sources immediately.

We only have well reputed pseudoscientific propaganda that says otherwise.

We also have an overabundance of ignorant usful idiots who would atempt to ridicule those who speak the truth on such matters.

Where do you count yourself?










You have a 'thing'?



The reason we are thinking of wind and solar now is the national debt we are piling up to try to put into practice technology that isn't up to the task, that's one thing.

I can't wait until we actually develope the technology t be able to travel to other plants.



No doubt we can help them polinate.








It is beyone my comprehension why so many people think CO2 causes global warming when it is obviously solar activity.

What makes no sense to me is how the average intelligence is so freaking stupid.

You don't shut down over a hundred coal fired electrical producing plants in one year with nothing to replace them unless you have something else in mind and those who support such a policy don't have two functional brain cells they could rub together to produce an intelligent thought on their own imo.

Such a policy is not only idiotic, it's just plain stupid and so is anyone who supports that sort of crap!








Here, here. :salute:

I was just joking around. Remember the the advice about taking yourself too seriously that you gave me?

I was not supporting alternative energy because of CO2 emissions. I support it because we will eventually run out, and more importantly, to be free of our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Renewable energy is good for the nation's security.