Wind power, the great boondoggle.

[JayVols]

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

You should be skeptical of people like that. However, he has and will continue to make tons of money off his oil empire. It's a wash to me on that aspect.

 

[PKT_VOL]

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

The sun always shines and the wind always blows. With wind, it just matters where and in which level of atmosphere. Again, because of this caveat, I think geothermal will be utilized over wind.

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

The history of economics would say otherwise.

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.

At the present time, with the current technology? No. In the future, with various innovations in technology and engineering? Highly probable.

 

[PKT_VOL]

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.

Yeah, I agree. I am not a fan of the environmentalists or the crony green capitalist within the Obama administration.

Technological innovations always make things cheaper and more efficient.

 

[PKT_VOL]

You have a 'thing'?

It was an obvious typo smartass.

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 agree. I think the free market should push us in that direction instead of central planning we have now. As you said, especially with our debt and budget situation.

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

Me too. We are not as far off as one would imagine.

 

[WA_Vol]

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.

The technology is improving all the time. Why would you not want to incorporate that with a new design in something as critical as a nuclear reactor?

 

[gsvol]

1. It was an obvious typo smartass.



2. I agree. I think the free market should push us in that direction instead of central planning we have now. As you said, especially with our debt and budget situation.



3. Me too. We are not as far off as one would imagine.

1.

3. I've always believed in keeping every flower polinated, blooming idiots not so much.

2. Here is a prime example:

Obama, if wind works so well why are Scots facing

Scotland, one of Barack Obama’s models for his bogus wind power scam has literally seen the wind go out of her socialist politically correct sails.

Scotland is the poster boy for the failure of wind power as a genuine source of energy. All of the high and mighty talk about wind as a viable alternative source of energy is now gone, not in the strong productive winds of the drawing board, but with the gentle breezes that are Scotland’s reality.

The Scottish government’s ill-advised but politically correct “wind; not fossil fuel” scheme has so devastated the average Scottish household’s economy that many have been confronted with the choice of “heat or eat.”

Scotland’s falling for the global warming hoax is killing people. The problem is so well understood it has a name: “fuel poverty.”

The cost comparison between relying on wind power versus using plentiful and efficient natural gas is stunning. A study by Edinburgh University shows gas costs to by roughly 11% of what wind generated power would costs when projected over the next eight years!

Because of the unreliable nature of wind power systems they REQUIRE the construction and constant maintenance of parallel gas turbine energy generating systems.

Absent political correctness and gullibility a sane administration would reject – out – of –hand building redundant systems as foolishness.

Yeah, I agree. I am not a fan of the environmentalists or the crony green capitalist within the Obama administration.

Technological innovations always make things cheaper and more efficient.

 

[PKT_VOL]

It is scary that we are starting to agree on various things.

I will say that wind energy has got to be utilized at the upper levels of the stratosphere if it is to ever be viable for mass use. The ground level wind power generators are fine for private uses.

 

[Weezy]

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.

I think we are on the right path with our nuclear problems with the exception of waste. That's a political boondoggle now (and partly a scientific one). Both the industry and government have recently placed a lot of emphasis in small modular reactors (cookie cutter, factory made).

And France uses cookie cutter, but I don't think they are small reactors. They still have costly on-site construction. But each design is pretty much the same (even though they are now experiencing problems with their latest generation). The benefit they have is the centrally backed Areva that is competitive in world markets. A private competing business can do a lot when it has the French government's backing.

That being said, the way we did it was great for technology advancement, terrible for industry coordiation and reliability/maintenance efficiency.

 

[MG1968]

NV Energy windmill program generates rebates, little electricity - Friday, March 30, 2012 | 2 a.m. - Las Vegas Sun

As first reported by the Reno Gazette-Journal, one turbine that cost the city $21,000 to install saved the city $4 on its energy bill. Overall, $416,000 worth of turbines have netted the city $2,800 in energy savings. Not all of the city’s turbines performed so poorly. But on average, the small wind turbines installed statewide through NV Energy’s program have yielded disappointing results.

yeah, wind is the future, and to think that there are climate alarmists who think skeptics should be institutionalized

 

[gsvol]

It is scary that we are starting to agree on various things.

I will say that wind energy has got to be utilized at the upper levels of the stratosphere if it is to ever be viable for mass use. The ground level wind power generators are fine for private uses.

Well I admit you can be obtuse at time but nothing to be alarmed about, eventually you'll agree with everything I say.

About twenty years ago a fellow by the name of John Lorenzenzen was the focus of a short TV news feature.

He said that his dad was producing their farm's electricity all the way back to 1917, and John was still using the originaly home made batteries.

John used small tubular windmills similar to those on Cousteau's Caliypso, he said ones made from restaurant sized vegetable cans were the best.

He stored the energy in large home made batteries and then he used the electricity to seperate oxygen and hydrogen from water.

He used hydrogen to heat his home and run all his appliances.

He also used this free hydrogen along with gasoline in his old '49 or '50 model PU and instead of getting a normal 14 mpg, he was getting 40.

Some univ prof was interviewed who had looked over Lorenzen's operation and he said that Fred hadn't invented anything new, he was just using available technology.

Small scale private use can work in some locations, what the current administration is doing is inept, corrupt, wasteful and the need to have it is based on a hoax.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Well I admit you can be obtuse at time but nothing to be alarmed about, eventually you'll agree with everything I say.

About twenty years ago a fellow by the name of John Lorenzenzen was the focus of a short TV news feature.

He said that his dad was producing their farm's electricity all the way back to 1917, and John was still using the originaly home made batteries.

John used small tubular windmills similar to those on Cousteau's Caliypso, he said ones made from restaurant sized vegetable cans were the best.

He stored the energy in large home made batteries and then he used the electricity to seperate oxygen and hydrogen from water.

He used hydrogen to heat his home and run all his appliances.

He also used this free hydrogen along with gasoline in his old '49 or '50 model PU and instead of getting a normal 14 mpg, he was getting 40.

Some univ prof was interviewed who had looked over Lorenzen's operation and he said that Fred hadn't invented anything new, he was just using available technology.

Small scale private use can work in some locations, what the current administration is doing is inept, corrupt, wasteful and the need to have it is based on a hoax.

Great story. I agree. The way the Obama administration has handled alternative energy is frightening.

However, I do not believe it is smart to write off solar power or wind energy due to their participation in misguided energy policies.

 

[WA_Vol]

Why would GE invest 200 million in wind farms if they dont work?

GE Purchases 51 Percent Stake in $375 Million Oklahoma Wind Farm - Bloomberg

 

[KentheOrange]

The technology is improving all the time. Why would you not want to incorporate that with a new design in something as critical as a nuclear reactor?

It's true that technology is improving continuously. However, I don't see that as a valid reason to spend 20 years designing every nuclear reactor.

Why would you not like to build 4 or more smaller reactors in that same time period?

 

[dreVol]

Why would GE invest 200 million in wind farms if they dont work?

GE Purchases 51 Percent Stake in $375 Million Oklahoma Wind Farm - Bloomberg

Good question. It may signal that a private enterprise is investing capital and resources, because it views wind power as a potentially revenue positive venture. Then again, this is GE. The same GE whose CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, is chairman of this administration's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

In a thread about cronyism and boondoggles, GE may not be a great example.

 

[Thrasher865]

Misleading title. Thought it was about my favorite movie, The Boondoggle Saints.

 

[gsvol]

Why would GE invest 200 million in wind farms if they dont work?

GE Purchases 51 Percent Stake in $375 Million Oklahoma Wind Farm - Bloomberg

Government subsidies and a 57,00 page GE IRS filing.

Plus govewrnment mandated wind farm electical use no matter that it will cost 3 or 4 times coal fired electicity.

Those are just some of the reasons.

Great story. I agree. The way the Obama administration has handled alternative energy is frightening.

However, I do not believe it is smart to write off solar power or wind energy due to their participation in misguided energy policies.

The real question is whether or not alternative energy production is immediately needed.

Alternative energy will at some time in come into play in a meaningful way in the next two hundred years, after all that is about when we will run out of fossil fuels.

Two hundred years ago we lit our houses with whale oil.

In the meantime we should NOT be trying to end fossil fuel use immediately, before we have developed reasonably cost effective and efficient alternatives.

The whole corrupt, crony capitalism, bankruptcy of our nation is based on the lie that CO2 is causing runaway global warming and that is a false premise.

 

[MG1968]

Why would GE invest 200 million in wind farms if they dont work?

GE Purchases 51 Percent Stake in $375 Million Oklahoma Wind Farm - Bloomberg

because Jeffery Immelt and Obama are buddies

btw, no one is saying wind farms don't work, it's that they don't work well enough and require massive government subsidization

 

[WA_Vol]

It's true that technology is improving continuously. However, I don't see that as a valid reason to spend 20 years designing every nuclear reactor.

Why would you not like to build 4 or more smaller reactors in that same time period?

I think the new technology, where nuclear plants are built along the coast and the exhaust is used to power a desalination plant and generate clean water is the way to go. It's a great concept and idea.

 

[KentheOrange]

I don't disagree with that, but why not use tidal turbines along the coast? Totally clean, buried electrical lines should not affect sea life, and relatively cheap compared to other means of producing electricity.

 

[PKT_VOL]

The real question is whether or not alternative energy production is immediately needed.

Alternative energy will at some time in come into play in a meaningful way in the next two hundred years, after all that is about when we will run out of fossil fuels.

Two hundred years ago we lit our houses with whale oil.

In the meantime we should NOT be trying to end fossil fuel use immediately, before we have developed reasonably cost effective and efficient alternatives.

The whole corrupt, crony capitalism, bankruptcy of our nation is based on the lie that CO2 is causing runaway global warming and that is a false premise.

Your way off on your time line. It will be way sooner than two hundred years. I would bet everything I own (hardly anything) and all future earning that you are wrong in the biggest way imaginable.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I think the new technology, where nuclear plants are built along the coast and the exhaust is used to power a desalination plant and generate clean water is the way to go. It's a great concept and idea.

That is a great idea. With an exploding world population and pollution constantly getting worse, we have no choice but to invent cleaver ways to make desalination more feasible.

 

[gsvol]

Your way off on your time line. It will be way sooner than two hundred years. I would bet everything I own (hardly anything) and all future earning that you are wrong in the biggest way imaginable.

I AM NOT saying we should wait 200 years.

I AM saying we don't need to do it in 2 years.

Work on your reading comprehension skills.

I think the new technology, where nuclear plants are built along the coast and the exhaust is used to power a desalination plant and generate clean water is the way to go. It's a great concept and idea.

What exaust are you talking about?

I think nuclear plants built along the coast is a terrible idea.

There is no particular need for delalination on the east coast but on the west coast there is the ever present danger of seismic activity and/or tidal waves.

That is a great idea. With an exploding world population and pollution constantly getting worse, we have no choice but to invent cleaver ways to make desalination more feasible.

The technology is already there, the Israelies have made the desert bloom using desalination.

Desalination makes a hell of a lot more sense that using the rivers to water the cities and shutting off irrigation to some of the most productive agricultural land in America.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I AM NOT saying we should wait 200 years.

I AM saying we don't need to do it in 2 years.

Work on your reading comprehension skills.

My reading comprehension skills are fine. Saying "within the next two hundred years" is superfluous. Alternative energy is already here in a meaningful way. It is only a matter of time (within my lifetime) that it will account for the majority of all energy output.

It is all about technological innovations at this point.

The technology is already there, the Israelies have made the desert bloom using desalination.

Desalination makes a hell of a lot more sense that using the rivers to water the cities and shutting off irrigation to some of the most productive agricultural land in America.

Of course it does, that is why we are not interested.

 

[gsvol]

New source of climate warming: Wind farms « Hot Air

... according to Reuters:

Large wind farms might have a warming effect on the local climate, research in the United States showed on Sunday, casting a shadow over the long-term sustainability of wind power. …

Researchers at the State University of New York at Albany analysed the satellite data of areas around large wind farms in Texas, where four of the world’s largest farms are located, over the period 2003 to 2011.

The results, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, showed a warming trend of up to 0.72 degrees Celsius per decade in areas over the farms, compared with nearby regions without the farms.

“We attribute this warming primarily to wind farms,” the study said. The temperature change could be due to the effects of the energy expelled by farms and the movement and turbulence generated by turbine rotors, it said.

“These changes, if spatially large enough, may have noticeable impacts on local to regional weather and climate,” the authors said.

Wind power is already one of the worst options in the renewables market. Wind is unreliable, and the unreliability of energy production causes numerous problems for distribution. The manufacture and maintenance of the windmills requires a lot of energy, costs a lot of money, and creates a lot of waste, although perhaps not as much as Solyndra left behind.

Now what?

 

[myrobbins7]

I think there is about to be a war on wind farms.

Wind farms can cause climate change, according to new research, that shows for the first time the new technology is already pushing up temperatures.

Wind farms can cause climate change, finds new study - Telegraph