Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

BPA Decision To Curtail Wind Power Sends 'Chilling Signal' To Industry

By Jennifer Runyon, Managing Editor
May 23, 2011   |   140 Comments
The decision discriminates against wind power, violates contracts and favors its own narrow interests, according to AWEA reps and other wind industry insiders.

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 

Anaheim, CA, USA -- Wind power generators in the Pacific Northwest this week began seeing the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) break its contracts with them, thanks to what AWEA and the wind industry called a wrongheaded decision that BPA announced May 13.

140 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 140
May 24, 2011
Jennifer, interesting article. Thank you for bringing this issue to public attention.

While it might be "official" now, I can tell you from my time in The Dalles Oregon (where I went to school for renewable energy technology and BPA operates a hydro electric dam), this has been the policy for a while now.

The problem comes down to the fact that there isn't enough transmission capacity to accommodate both the dams production AND the wind power that is being produced.

As with other areas that have high potential for wind power generation, but lack of transmission capacity, the answer is to build more transmission lines. By doing so, you can help alleviate some of the problems with the "intermittent" nature of wind by spreading out the effective area that the power can be sold to.

In this case, there are a lot of places that would buy the power generated by both wind and hydro...even during periods of low demand, if the ability to deliver the power was improved.

Bob "Free As The Wind" Mitchell
Comment
2 of 140
May 24, 2011
One Columbia river fish that does not need protection is the Red Herring of transmission deficiencies in the NW. With the Pacific AC Intertie(2X 500KV AC lines) and the Pacific HVDC intertie(upgraded from 1100MW to 3100MW in 2004) extending from Celilo to southern California(and rarely at full capacity) it seems that significant effort has been made to connect northwest power to SoCal load demand. The problem in the spring seems to be inadequate demand in the NW and California and huge oversupply in the BPA system; not inadequate transmission capacity. You can not put more power on the system than demand consumes without voltage regulation and other balancing problems. Our local NW nuke plant will be offline for 2 more months for a planned outage. The coal plants are cycled back as ready reserve to meet transient demands. We have too much of a good thing.

Perhaps it is time for industry to locate within the existing transmission area rather than ask for new transmission lines to where it is cheap to build a facility or wages are low. New transmission lines(particulary interstate) are harder to permit, finance and build than new generating systems.
Comment
3 of 140
May 25, 2011
All to the good -- wind is wasteful of land, wildlife, transmission, management & resources critical to other more important uses. At less than 1/2 MW/acre max, windmills are simply subsidized by ratepayers to fill investor pockets. Even common, 20%-efficient solar arrays beat wind, especially when installed locally, avoiding transmission losses & environmental damage.

I'm awaiting the wind investor who has indeed paid for a de-commissioning bond that will see to it the 400 tons of steel and 1000 cubic yards of concrete per wind machine are removed and recycled years from now, when obsolete.
Comment
4 of 140
May 25, 2011
BPA and the Developer/Contractor are cordially invited to submit a detailed technical justification why the decision was made.
The following statements were taken from the article. These statements do not provide any support for the decision. It seems the matter is politicized and these comment lead to nowhere.
• "Anti-Environmental Redispatch,"
• "discriminates against wind energy "
• "Federal Power Act's anti-discrimination provisions"
• "anti-competitive and discriminatory behavior"
• "protecting fish in the Northwest"
• "spilling even a bit more water over the dams will create dissolved nitrogen levels that harm the region's salmon population."
Comment
5 of 140
May 25, 2011
BPA and the Developer/Contractor are cordially invited to submit a detailed technical justification why the decision was made.
The following statements were taken from the article. These statements do not provide any support for the decision. It seems the matter is politicized and these comment lead to nowhere.
• "Anti-Environmental Redispatch,"
• "discriminates against wind energy "
• "Federal Power Act's anti-discrimination provisions"
• "anti-competitive and discriminatory behavior"
• "protecting fish in the Northwest"
• "spilling even a bit more water over the dams will create dissolved nitrogen levels that harm the region's salmon population."

Offshore Wind Turbines coordinated with Ebb/Tide turbines and with Wave Energy remains the best bet WGD system as detailed at www.renewableenergypumps.com .
Comment
6 of 140
May 25, 2011
Once again, readers are left wondering what the truth is. My guess is quite simply that wind is less economical. Pursuing economic interest is what markets are all about. We all do it. That is what drives an economy. Ironically, in this case it is competition between two low carbon renewable sources, both of which are at the whim of local weather patterns which can result in a feast or famine scenario like this.

Biodiversivist
Comment
7 of 140
May 25, 2011
Hi:

For many years now, investigative journalism has been relegated to a very, very small minority. The whole of media has adopted 'balanced journalism' instead. This change was made to reduce time invested in any given story and eliminate, most importantly, pissing off any particular business interest, especially the one that owns you or has advertising contracts with you. By presenting both sides of an issue, you maintain neutrality. This gives the appearance of providing the news function. The problem is that the average person does not have the resources, time or often needed skill do go find out what the truth really is. This is what real journalism is suppose to do. Find the truth and present it to the population and let the chips fall where they may. As has been said a few million times, in order to have a functioning democracy, you need a population that has access to the truth so they can have at least a chance at making a correct decision.
So Russ, being left not knowing the truth should feel like business as usual rather than a surprise....
If you like documentaries, try and get your hands on, 'Orwell rolls in his grave'. It is one of many that shines a light into the dark areas of our current reality....

.....Bill
Comment
8 of 140
May 25, 2011
I would think that legally they need to honor their contract.
I see the hydroelectric generation as a renewable resource, so some of the pro-wind arguments about renewable energy are spurious. That said, BPA still need to honor their contracts.
To william fitch above, I agree with your premise of journalism's purpose except I would say that journalists can present the Facts, but the Truth often comes down to interpreting the Facts of an issue.
But without the Facts being known (which is often resisted by corporations, governments, and otherwise powerful people) We the People can easily be duped into following their leads.
No image available
Comment
9 of 140
Anonymous
May 25, 2011
I'm a bit confused about a few things:
1. Why should the BPA be forced to buy power from these wind producers at a premium price (or at all) if they don't need or want the power? Wind turbine owners took a known financial risk in a capitalistic environment.
2. What is the BPA's full portfolio of power generation sources by percentage? Do they use natural gas fired turbines, significant coal or other heat sources to produce power that could also be turned off during times of excess?
3. What are the actual costs to BPA to produce a kWh from each of these sources?
4. Doesn't spilled water and the water used for making hydro power end up in the same place downstream of the dam? If the resulting volume of water is the same downstream, why would the salmon care?
5. Why is this article incomplete? Did Ms Runyon mean for this to be sensationalistic faux journalism (like Fox News or E!), or are we going to get some real investigative data to consider?
Comment
10 of 140
May 25, 2011
BPA was offered solutions during their draft comment period but has yet contacted us; a proposed bulk storage project in BPA's balancing area is undergoing licensing at this time but will no be online for a least 5 years. However a recent transmission interconnect study shows the storage facility would cost generators in the region 23 million dollars a year from lost generating revenues; these generators would be gas fired peaking plants. The large utilities are fighting bulk grid storage simply because it negates the need for combustion generated capacity to integrate wind. These assets are their bread and butter and they don't want to lose them. Bulk storage (1000+mws) would go a long way to solving the curtailment issue; wind needs to partner up with storage, they go hand in hand and produce a dispatchable time shifted product.
Comment
11 of 140
May 25, 2011
AWEA calls the BPA decision unfair, and this may be the case if BPA has violated contractual commitments. But we should also take note of the economic lesson here. Hydropower is less expensive to produce than wind power, and every bit as "green."

Currently, our supply of electricity in the Northwest is much higher than demand, so something has to give. As a consumer and taxpayer, I think it would be senseless to pay hefty premiums for windpower when a cheaper source of green power is readily available.

Previous commitments aside, we must be careful what we promise in subsidies for emerging technologies. Fact is, we're rather short of money these days, and our national debt has reached dangerous levels. Perhaps it's time to rethink our system of subsidies (including you, Big Oil) and get back to the fundamentals of risk versus reward. It's an economic model that has worked for centuries.
Comment
12 of 140
May 25, 2011
Reality is always tough for scammers. Wind is a 2nd-order derivation of power from solar energy. This guarantees variability & low power density.

The resource side is equally damning - 400 tons of steel, made using 2000 tons of coal (yes, coal), plus 1000 cubic yards of kilned cement & mined aggregate, to make 1 concrete foundation for 1 tower. Add in the metals & rare-earths needed for the generator, and we find another resource hole -- added debt to China.

The fact that our politicians have allowed taxpayers to subsidize wind just underscores the points above that media and voters do a poor job of honestly assessing reality. Yet, reality is now what we're all faced with having ti understand. Our descendents are looking back at us from the future. What are they thinking about us?
Comment
13 of 140
May 25, 2011
The BPA decision seems straightforward enough. They are curtailing power generation from all non-hydro sources, including coal. I can understand why renewable energy producers might be jumpy, given the uncertain policy climate, but they will have to take these things in stride as we transition to renewable power in the coming decades. Here's a quote from the BPA website; it would appear to clarify the situation:

"The interim policy, which will remain in place until March 30, 2012, first limits generation at coal, natural gas and other thermal power plants to keep the supply of power from exceeding demand. As a last resort, BPA's policy could temporarily limit wind energy generation connected to its power transmission system. Under the policy, BPA will replace any reduced thermal and wind generation with free hydropower from federal dams on the Columbia River system."
Comment
14 of 140
May 25, 2011
Dennis: While I'm not an expert by any means in regard to transmission capability, I can report first hand what the operators at The Dalles Dam told me (making it second hard for those of you reading this)and that was that when they needed to spill water in order to manage water levels (for fish and other reasons) that the transmission lines going to Portland would fill up and at that point they would curtail wind production.

Also, the operators at the Celilo intertie told me that they also bounced against their limits during peak times.

Regarding building additional transmission capability, from what I've read on the topic, this is something that we need to do all across the country, in part to help compensate for the intermittent nature of wind and the fact that many places with good wind resources are located in less densely populated areas that don't have much transmission capacity.

A last point that I would like to make is to the folks who are slamming wind in general. I'm in the solar business, so I think that I can be pretty objective when I say that most of the complaints aired above are tripe!

In the right location, large scale wind is very viable, as well as economical. True, it takes materials and resources to build a wind farm, but it doesn't take long for these wind farms to "pay off" their carbon debts once they start producing clean energy. No form of energy is without costs!

I look forward to reading the rest of this dialog!

Bob "Free As The Wind" Mitchell
Comment
15 of 140
May 25, 2011
DrAlexC:

Cut me a break... resource hole....

That infrastructure of concrete will be there a thousand years from now!!
If you were to operate a 3.5 MegaWatt turbine there for 100 years with whatever maintenance was needed, forgetting about efficiency improvements for the moment, at an efficiency of 25% rated plate value that is 3.5 x .25 x 24 x 365 x 100 = 766 GiGa watts (Billion watts) over that period. The energy you quote in the mfg stage when compared against that amount of totally CLEAN energy is not even on the RADAR!!!

Get real.....

.....Bill
Comment
16 of 140
May 25, 2011
For starters it sounds to me as if BPA are 'clutching at straws' to justify their decision - extra water over the dam will increase oxygenation of the waters downstream and benefit the river and those that depend on it, or did until the dam was erected! I have yet to see an HEP dam that did not lower the water in the river below the dam, thus restricting it's biodiversity and suitability for aquatic life.

However, the daftest thing of all for an outsider to understand is this. The Wind Turbines were presumably erected in the area specifically because the wind flow was good and therefore the electrical yield of the turbines was high - there would be no point in erecting them there otherwise. So, since most of the people on the planet have decided that we have to make a concious decision to go for renewable energy generation, why is it that the surplus electricity is not being fed into a country/continent-wide grid? We are going to have to do it sooner or later, so why not just put the system in place from the beginning. I am told, and agree, that the best solution for the stop-go renewables, is to feed their current into a Direct Current (DC) Grid; this would download to the AC as and when and where required, and when not would simply continue around the circuits. Sure it is going to cost; but then what we have set up already (hydrocarbon and nuclear power), certainly did not come for free! If it is essential to 'store' the electricity locally, then how about pump storage systems. To my certain knowledge, both Ireland and Wales have gone down this route 3+ decades ago i.e. when demand for electric is low (night . . .), then water is pumped back up to a holding lake and let down when the demand rises once again (working day).
Comment
17 of 140
May 25, 2011
Well, the reason why the surplus electricity is not being fed into a continent-wide DC grid is, well, like, you know, there ISN'T a continent-wide DC grid to feed the excess energy into. Nor are there any storage systems built yet.

Great idea, tho. And that's why the grid people are talking about upgrading the ancient North American grids to handle a completely new -- and variable -- energy system, and why the storage people are talking about molten salt, compressed air, flywheels and all that.

When people say things are getting interesting, they mean now.
Comment
18 of 140
May 25, 2011
A few notes.

1-Social networking is exploding. The data needed for the apps is cranking up every day. This is power that needs to be produced by our data centers. The explosion will not end anytime soon. Educators across the country are considering on line multimedia presentations using only our best teachers. Digitized books are becoming less expensive and should cost our students a small price in the near future, with hundreds of thousands of titles available. Inexpensive streaming TV in 2D and 3, seems to be catching on quickly - also 2 way videophone, more data transmission costs (via cell or wire). Point being, our data transmission power consumption will be increasing dramatically.



2- Electric cars are coming to market in droves. The US has neglected a rooftop/canopytop solar trickle charging infrastructure, so these cars will (at least temporarily) have to use existing power sources. Germany seems to be falling into technological step with both of these items. Having some of the worlds best automotive engineers and designers can only help their cause.

http://www.thelocal.de/sci-tech/20110515-35039.html

Also, several companies are working on "Plug and Play" rooftop units. We will many of these coming to market shortly. The Voltage drop and the transmission losses are eliminated with these Plug and Plays. Numerous programs are springing up to help low income, senior and disabled individuals partake in this energy redistribution. New home construction around the country is starting to mandate that solar be built. All building departments should be doing this.

Houses and cars will have "excess" energy that can be fed back into the grid at some point. The electric lines are already in place. We just need to use them.
Comment
19 of 140
May 25, 2011
Getting "real" with William -- the concrete indeed will be there about forever, since no remediation is paid for by the wind investors -- just look at our Tehachapi wind junk from the '70s. Calif. has long been ahead of anyone else in naive belief in wind as "renewable". So, when the wind dies in a region, as China is now experiencing, due to climate change, who pays to recycle the wind junk, dig out the concrete and convert the land back to farming or whatever? The windies will be long gone, subsidies banked.

Also happening already is a multi-billion $ threat to midwestern farmers because of rising crop losses -- wind machines killing bats that eat bugs (AAAS Science 4/1/11, Policy Forum).

Then too, in Calif. we're back to killing eagles as well as bats. Hey, if the chemical industry almost knocked off our national emblem while making an insecticide $, why not let wind speculatorrs pick up where they left off, eh?

Wind is unfortunately among the lowest power density, most wasteful sources, because it's 2 orders of magnitude divorced from the source -- solar.

Yes indeed, William, get real.
Comment
20 of 140
May 25, 2011
Damn, it takes an iphone a long time to back up....but while I'm waiting I wanted to address Dr. Alex's points...

First of all, except in really rare exceptions, the proper term is "wind turbine" not "windmill". Windmills were used to grind grains, Wind turbines are used to generate electricity.

Second, very few solar arrays reach 20% efficiency, the average is more like 12 - 14%.

Third, while it's true that wind is in fact created via the uneven solar heating of the earth's surface, that in no way makes it any less useful for generating electricity!

If you think about it, even fossil fuels are derivatives of solar in that they are made up of long deceased biomass that was only made possible by the sun. That doesn't mean that they weren't useful as an energy source! Dirty, but useful!

Regarding the decommissioning of the turbines when they have served their useful purpose, my guess is that they will simply be replaced by more efficient wind turbines at that time because by ALL practical measures, there is no reason to suspect that the winds aren't going to be blowing 25 or 50 years from now and I will bet you that we will need the energy then as much as we need it now, if not more so.

Lastly, bird kills. A big NON issue! If you're concerned about birds, lobby for a law to keep house cats inside because they kill far more birds than do wind turbines!

And while all steps to reduce or eliminate bird kills should be taken, wind turbines in comparison to just about all other forms of power generation is pretty benign. How many creatures are killed due to mercury from coal or from radiation contamination or from oil spills, etc.

Time to update my firmware...

Bob "Free As The Wind" Mitchell
Comment
21 of 140
May 25, 2011
While Free is backing his/her iToy,, let's review the 'facts' presented...

A "turbine" is a marketing term for a windmill,. You can see this by looking into a real turbine the next time you board an airplane from the pavement. The only thing a windmill has in common with a turbine is a single set of blades -- only one rotor and no stators.

All crystalline cells from Sunpower, Kyocera, Hitachi, etc. are at least 20% efficient, which in itself makes them more productive per acre than the best Siemens, 5MW windmill. And, design improvements for solar have great room to grow, which is why military & space cells are already above 40%.

Glad you've discovered that fossil fuels are stored solar energy (when Oxygen is available). So now add up all the fossil fuels needed to be burned to make one windmill and you'll see how many thousands of hours of continuous, peak operation that windmill will have to deliver, just to get even with all the fuels burned to make it. Wind is a poor competitor on this score as well, so why bother?

As to stationary windmills forever getting wind, just check out what the Chinese are now experiencing in their massive systems. Facts aren't full of wind. Here's one to get you started looking at reality,...
http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/wind/a-less-mighty-wind

Your birds & cats excuse is however, a smiley moment. Indeed playing the straw man of coal gets you nowhere, because the alternatives are very simple, and don't involve wind, except as farmers have always used it to pump water into a tank, whenever the wind happens to blow.

Indeed, get your firmware updated with facts.
Comment
22 of 140
May 26, 2011
Wind energy is not 'discriminated against' as if it were a race of humans. It has been made a 'part time employee' commensurate with its reliability performance.

This argument could (and should) have been avoided had BPA held firm on non performance penalty rules changed to accommodate " short cycle intermittent resources", which would have forced wind energy facilities to provide their own balancing resources behind their interconnection point. This would also have aided a transparent 'all-in' cost and environmental savings model.

It is my hope, and the hope of millions of conservative Americans today, that all subsidies for energy interests of all kinds will be eliminated over the next two years, restoring the efficiencies of a competitive marketplace, and allowing those who perceive value from purchasing wind energy and receiving their electricity on a weather based schedule or paying again a market rate for a balancing resource to make those choices for themselves.

Today 2/3 of capital costs for wind are taxpayer funded. Mark my words, soon the wind industry will come after the tax and rate payer to pay for "higher than expected" operation and maintenance cost - in the name of saving the planet. Disgusting.

The government should not force me to consume coal or wind energy any more than it should force me to eat twigs and bark or Big Macs.
Comment
23 of 140
May 26, 2011
Bob Mitchell is only ignoring real time pricing signals when he says, "..while it's true that wind is in fact created via the uneven solar heating of the earth's surface, that in no way makes it any less useful for generating electricity!" Please ignore pricing signals in the market place. Diurnal and seasonal supply and demand imbalances have no effect on locational marginal pricing (LMP). - - Really, Bob?

Mitchell backs up his specious assertion only by saying that fossil fuels were once plants that were solar fueled. That is certainly true, but he ignores the cost of energy storage, which our planet paid in full for us long before we became an electricity dependent species by turning decayed plant matter into coal and natural gas. The payment was made with time, bacteria, heat and pressure, and the storage vessel is the Earth's crust. The key - it's fully amortized storage. Yippee!

Will coal and gas reserves become depleted some day? No worries according to Mitchell, since supply and demand do not affect price! But seriously, these electricity fuels WILL run short some day, some year, some decade, some century, but that is ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE for foisting market losers on society in the mean time.
Comment
24 of 140
May 26, 2011
OK One more time, Mr. Mitchell. I agree there are places (in the US) where wind energy is viable on its own - especially if you ignore the externalities such as required balancing and time-of-supply issues. Almost all of the rest of the places are not competing with base load coal, nuclear or even natural gas energy because they are in off-grid Alaska, for example.

There diesel fuel is burned in piston engines to turn generators - and consumers pay around $0.50 per kWH. But of course, the "one size fits all" federal subsidy policies allow windmill builders there to collect the same taxpayer funded subsidies enjoyed by windies in the lower forty eight.

All in, and in grid connected USA, wind is not economically viable by any stretch - because of the subsidies and because you are ignoring the bulk of the value proposition when you compare volatile intermittents to base load and load following resources. Selective accounting will not win out here. Trust me.

In my former business (selling injection molding machines) we had an adage: "Price, Acceptable delivery timing, Quality - pick TWO."

Unfortunately, due to the kWH's perishability and high storage and balancing costs, for wind energy we'd have to say "pick zero."
Comment
25 of 140
May 26, 2011
Hi Again:

GOD, endless nonsense...
I feel like I am talking to GD on another thread....

Fact: The available SOLAR, WIND or geothermal total energy at any location is infinite over time. SO, once the land is terraformed for that application, all resources used for that function become infinitely small. But, for purposes of this discussion, I will just say negligible. NO fuel can make that claim simply because by definition a fuel is finite.
And back to 766 GWatts, how much total environmental damage do you think is caused by harvesting and burning any fuel which would yield 766 GWatts of energy!!
Sunpower is the only one at this time with "back contact" tech that can achieve a PANEL (not whole system) eff. of near 20%. You need to check your facts.....
Retired turbines and their neo magnets will be recycled.

I'm bored with this energy 101 discussion... same old, same old misunderstandings...

EOL.......

.....Bill
Comment
26 of 140
May 26, 2011
Relax and learn, Bill. Until and unless you can puppet humanity into using electricity when the wind blows and otherwise get them to "unplug," you are way off base trying to convince anyone with a lick of sense that watt hours (or any metric system multiple thereof) from wind are the same animal as watt hours produced in precise amounts and at precise times and in locations proximate to where they are demanded.

That's why we can't say "wind replaces coal" or "wind energy costs X and natural gas electricity costs Y and nuclear power costs Z" and leave it at that. Such foolery may well suit your ideology, but I am still convinced a filter of reason in Congress will intercept further attempts to get Americans to pay more for less.

When you are ready to grow up and talk about wind energy as just a contributor to a base load hybrid, and admit that heat rate penalties are real, LMPs don't lie, and that it has always been cheaper to move the fuel than move the electricity, then perhaps we can have a meaningful discussion here.

Take off the blinders and your boredom may subside!
Comment
27 of 140
May 26, 2011
Russ Finley:

Actually we can't quantify wind as "less economical" because its output does not fill a role on its own. By that I mean it is not base load or load following, but rather negatively correlated to demand (usually with a correlation coefficient between -0.3 and -0.5).

Once you combine wind energy with a balancing source such as natural gas or storage, now we have an apples to apples comparison to base load generation. No one with the right credentials has done this yet despite the call for less wasteful government spending and market intervention. The iconic value of the towering turbine still has them (meaning voters) all hypnotized, I guess...
Comment
28 of 140
May 26, 2011
To Mr. Russ Finley,
Great! why not consider coordinated marine energy extraction systems: Offshore wind turbines, Ebb/Tide Turbines and wave Energy Extraction and Power Leveling??
Comment
29 of 140
May 26, 2011
Shamil:

I have yet to see a tidal/wave system with a durable design, let alone one passing a market test, but I am technology neutral.

Assuming this wave/tidal idea passes the above challenges in full-time operation mode, why would you then want to "spill" the output of your machine whenever the wind blows? Wouldn't ROI suffer, or is tidal so dependable and affordable that it does not matter your machines' utilization rate?

Put another way, if tidal is an economic winner as a base load resource, why add variability?

By the way, my name is Tom Stacy. I was writing to Russ Finley in the previous post.
Comment
30 of 140
May 26, 2011
"Any of various machines in which the kinetic energy of a moving fluid, such as water, steam, or gas, is converted to rotary motion. Turbines are used in boat propulsion systems, hydroelectric power generators, and jet aircraft engines. See also gas turbine."
The American Heritage® Science Dictionary
Copyright © 2002. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved.

So, a wind turbine is indeed a turbine in that it uses the force of the wind against the blades to create a rotary motion that turns a shaft that in turn spins a generator to create electricity.

Moving on....

Regarding the efficiency of solar panels, while there is some exciting research going on, specifically at my old school, The University of Missouri (MIZ!) that shows promise for a technology that could possibly push the efficency of solar panels as high as 90%, as well as other research that is also promising for technologies that could produce efficiencies in the 40 - 50% range, these technologies are still in the development stage and may or may not make it to being commercially available.

The current leader in commercially available crystalline solar panels is about 21.6% (efficient), with most of the companies that you listed coming in around 15% efficency or so. (I'm in the process of getting ready to buy about 500 panels and have been shopping around, so if you know something that I don't, please enlighten me!)

Regarding your point about "adding up all of the fossil fuels needed to be be burned to make one "windmill", I'm not arguing your point. I agree that wind turbines are large, complex machines that require a lot of materials and labor to design, manufacture, construct and commission. I do disagree with you when you assert that they aren't worth the effort.

As William pointed out above, a wind turbine repays these costs many times over. To argue differently, is ludicrous!

to be continued...
Comment
31 of 140
May 26, 2011
Regarding your point about wind patterns changing...well, you might be on to something there...but then again, you probably aren't (at least in the climatic short run).

I have read research that indicates that wind patterns might indeed be changing due to global climate change and the facts of the matter are that nobody can guarantee that the wind is going to blow tomorrow (or that the sun is going to come up for that matter).

However, the most likely scenario is that the sun is indeed going to come up tomorrow and that the winds are going to blow roughly as they do today for the foreseeable future. Again, the word "ludicrous" comes to mind if you were to not develop our wind resources (as they currently are) because of the remote possibility that wind patterns are going to change within the next 25 years or so. (To not develop these resources for this reason creates a spiral logic that would actually make the likelihood of wind patterns changing MORE likely!)

As I mentioned before, I'm in the solar business (though the company that I work for does indeed develop other renewable energy resources) and I'm a big fan of solar. However, if you examine the sheer magnitude of the energy problems that we're dealing with, it's going to take a mixture of solutions to successfully replace fossil fuels. I honestly don't see how we can succeed without making wind power part of the matrix!

Bob "Free As The Wind" Mitchell
Comment
32 of 140
May 26, 2011
Bob Mitchell:

I apologize for misspeaking about wind energy "changing." What I meant to say is that wind energy output is always changing on minute to hourly frequencies, and that will not ever change. It is this fact, combined with its negative correlation to demand on longer time frames that renders it incomparable to conventional generators which fall into one of two categories: steady producing base load providers, or precise load following types.
Comment
33 of 140
May 26, 2011
Thanks for getting the definition for 'turbines' correct Bob, I hope that some of the others take heed!

As for the wind failure in some of the big wind farms: from what I have heard it is not so much that the wind has disappeared, but rather that it has had some of its energy removed and the rest of the wind has been spilt/churned up so that it continues at different levels and in a 'confused pattern'. If one has a lot of wind turbines at the same height and placed in many ranks of one in front of the other; then those that are in staggered ranks from the front will get full wind. But as one moves back through the ranks, they get more and more second hand wind, much of which comes at the blades from either side.

I suspect that the number of staggered ranks of wind turbines is critical - machines in the lee of those in front have their wind effectively taken in just the same way as a sailing boat to windward takes the wind from the sails of the leeward boat. This is an area that does need looking into, as though it is obvious to a sailing person; it is obviously not obvious, to others.

There is also a scare story doing the rounds at the moment "that the wind turbines will take all the wind"! Obviously as long as the earth continues to turn (not a factor of surface winds), and the sun continues to heat up the surface of the planet as it turns i.e. bit by bit, and our atmosphere retains its density, then there is no danger of the earth's winds dying. They are definitely renewable unless humans do something drastic to the earths orbit/atmosphere.
Comment
34 of 140
May 26, 2011
Thomas, believe it are not, I'm actually a fiscal conservative and am not a big fan of tax subsidies either. That said, I do think that they can be a useful tool in assisting our government is fulfilling it's constitutionally mandated role of, "providing for the general welfare" as stated in the preamble of the Constitution.

In our current energy situation, I feel that the government is fully within it's rights to subsidize the development of wind and other renewable energy sources because if they don't, there is a train wreck coming that could be truly devastating to our economy and to our environment.

I base this opinion on a number of different factors; 1) Fossil fuels are a finite resource that will by definition run out. (2) Petroleum has much higher and better uses than as a fuel including the use as fertilizer that allows us to feed the world's population. (3)Fossil fuels come with a very high environmental and health costs. Amongst these environmental costs that I find of specific concern is "ocean acidification"

So, to your point regarding the elimination of energy subsidies, I totally agree!

As long as we can agree to include ALL of the subsidies that the fossil fuel industry currently enjoys. These would include; (1) the direct subsidies that they receive from the government. (2) Favorable tax treatment (3) The majority of military expenditures in the middle east. (4) The cost of all environmental remediation needed due to pollution caused by fossil fuel consumption, exploration and production. And, (5) reimbursement for medical expenses and premature death for the 10's of thousands of people who are harmed are killed due to the toxins produced by the fossil fuel industry.

Of course, this won't happen, but if it did. Renewable energy would be CHEAP in comparison to fossil fuels!

Cont...
Comment
35 of 140
May 26, 2011
Since I don't think that we could ever get our government to include the costs that I listed, I think that the only way to wean our society off of fossil fuels is to provide incentives for us to adopt this better technology.

As the technology matures, renewable energy will become more and more competitive as the technology itself advances and becomes more efficient, as economies of scale kick in and as the externalities of fossil fuels become more evident and costly.

The trick then will be to get the renewable energy baby to live without the bottle of subsidies to suck on. As we can see from current news reports on the attempt to remove the bottle from the fossil fuel industry (a very mature industry btw), this isn't always the easiest thing to do!

So, as with most things, it's not really that simple as just looking at price signals. The markets are actually much more complicated than conventional neocon doctrine would indicate.

You have to consider the concept of "public goods". Those are goods that the public needs, but that the "free" markets don't provide or at least provide in adequate amounts.

The classic example of public goods are roads and defense, but a strong argument can be made that promoting a change to renewable energy sources is also a "public good" and therefore a legitimate role of government!

So, while I would love to see all energy subsidies done away with, I doubt that it will happen any time soon. That being the case, the best, most efficient course of action for our government to carry out it's constitutionally mandated job, is to promote the adoption of renewable energy!

Bob "Free As The Wind" Mitchell
Comment
36 of 140
May 26, 2011
One last point Thomas, nobody is denying that wind and other renewable energy sources have issues with being intermittent (either because the wind isn't blowing at a particular location or that the sun does indeed go down at night), but these issues are simply a concern to be engineered around.

On site utility scale storage schemes are one possibility, as is the idea of beefing up the grid to a point where if the wind isn't blowing in one location, that power can be readily transferred from another location where it IS blowing.

Our current grid is antiquated and in serious need of updating. By rebuilding it in such a fashion as I described above we can accommodate the intermittent nature of wind power and provide better, more reliable energy for everyone at the lowest cost to society! The issue of base load generation goes away.

Alison: Thank you for the kind words. Also, I think that what Alex was saying was that global warming is changing over-all wind patterns and that could render a wind farm useless or at least less efficient than it was designed to be.

In theory, this is possible, but not very likely inside of the next 100 years or so. To allow this possibility to preclude the development of wind energy is silly at best!

Bob "Free As The Wind" Mitchell
Comment
37 of 140
May 26, 2011
Ok learn something every day! Now we know Bob is "Free" whatever, but that doesn't make statements like: "...power can be readily transferred from another location where it IS blowing" true, since average transmission losses from remote sites are significant, averaging 10% in Calif. So, apart from being very inefficient (<1/2MW/acre peak) and highly variable (check Cal ISO: www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html), windmills are wasteful forever, even when coal, gas & oil are no longer burned (except to make wind machines).
;]
Skipping over the physical reality that wind is far less efficient than local solar, doesn't do anything to support wind power as sensible. It just raises suspicions of the true intent of those choosing to ignore engineering realities about wind's inappropriateness for mass generation. We learned that $ was the driver a year ago, when wind operators in the Columbia Gorge actually tried to get the ISO there to shut down plants, including one nuclear, so they could sell their subsidized burst of juice as a storm moved through -- no concern for the costs to ratepayers of both their subsidy and throttling base load plants. Google the event.

(will continue comments...)
Comment
38 of 140
May 26, 2011
(continued...)
Then comes the evidence that Bob didn't bother to read the report about China's wind systems in their western provinces already sensing climate change via attenuation of regional pressure differentials: "...global warming is changing over-all wind patterns and that could render a wind farm useless or at least less efficient than it was designed to be.
In theory, this is possible, but not very likely inside of the next 100 years." So, the real question for Bob is, do you read evidence that's contrary to your beliefs, before speaking to others you might mislead?

In other words, what we need now are honest brokers of information, not boosters of things they want to make $ on.

One honest broker is David MacKay, in England, where much wind fluff has gotten out of hand, but also lined a few pockets -- "Sustainable Energy – without the hot air". Some more reading, if interested in facts...

http://seekingalpha.com/article/262713-wind-power-investors-get-another-reality-check?source=email_alternative_energy_investing
http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/wind/a-less-mighty-wind
www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/us/21tttransmission.html?_r=1&hpw
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/7996606/An-ill-wind-blows-for-Denmarks-green-energy-revolution.html
http://whitherindustrialwindpower.wordpress.com/
http://webecoist.com/2009/05/04/10-abandoned-renewable-energy-plants/
http://energy.sia-partners.com/?p=149

So, even if wind were somewhat efficient for mass generation, it's negative environmental effects would suggest dismissal.
Comment
39 of 140
May 26, 2011
Forgot to mention agreeing with the rigid definition that allows a windmill or prop-driven generator to be called a "turbine". But that's the point, only recently has it become advantageous to call a windmill a turbine, despite having even fewer blades than a traditional farmer's windmill and having a driving element that in fact is just a propeller. Gotta love marketers.
;]
And, if anyone wants some pictures of our still-standing, but abandoned, windmills from the wind rush of the '70s, just send an email. Maybe some of the wind boosters here would feel responsible enough to clean up the mess Kern County never has?

cannara@sbcglobal.net
Comment
40 of 140
May 26, 2011
DrAlex: Mark Twain is said to have advised;

"not to argue with fools, that onlookers might not be able to tell the difference"

Have a great day!

Bob "Free As The Wind" Mitchel
No image available
Comment
41 of 140
Anonymous
May 26, 2011
DrAlexC:

Is this you...??...
http://www.keenforgreen.com/b/activist-profile-dr-alexander-cannara
If yes, I see you are a big Thorium fan....
Comment
42 of 140
May 26, 2011
Right, Anonymous. And yes, Bob, I agree with Sam Clemens, just adding P.T. Barnum's wisdom: "there's one born every minute". Maybe on the internet it's every 30 seconds now?
Comment
43 of 140
May 26, 2011
How did you know I go for red meat!? Actually, plants are only 7% efficient at converting solar to combustibles -- guess what? They didn't evolve to give us energy!

Animals are even less efficient at converting plant carbs to food energy. So, what's a human to do for cheap, free, endless (well for a few billion years) energy?

Three sources: efficiency (we now waste >50% of generation); local solar PV/heat (on existing structures, since earth's land now is >2% covered by our roofs); and, hold on to your seats, the original source of our existence, supernovae, or rather their ancient heavy products in the Actinide series, particularly Thorium. Yes indeed, we have about infinite energy available, if we're wise and not greedy. Chances of that?
;]
http://tinyurl.com/25mgqkd
http://energyfromthorium.com/pdf/CivilianNuclearPower.pdf
Comment
44 of 140
May 27, 2011
To Mr. Thomastacy
Thanks for your interest and comments

The whole idea is to have:
• Maximum utilization of Offshore surface area
• Maximum Energy Extraction per Offshore surface area
• Reduced construction costs by:
o Introducing the Wave Gear Drive system which leads to
o Using the same offshore WGD supporting structure to support the Ebb/Tide turbo generators
o Using the same offshore WGD supporting structure to support the Wind Turbo generators up to 9-meters above High Sea Level
o Providing an offshore supporting structure as individual 'Construction Units' measuring 15x21 meters to house 40-WGD pumps generators and up to 6-Ebb/Tide turbines and 1-wind turbine (19-m diameter blades)
o Ebb/tide turbines are reversible and provided with conic sections at each end to capture maximum Ebb/Tide Energy
o Providing a dry deck and enclosed housing for the electrical protective, control and monitoring equipment
o Reducing the diameter of the wind turbines to a maximum of 19 meters
o Installing the wind turbines on top of the WGD 'Construction Unit'
• Using direct drive DC generators for the WGD system and for the Ebb/Tide and Wind Turbines would provide easy parallel operation, reduce control equipment and would easily invert to AC, synchronize and feed to the electric network.
• The full output of the system is injected into the electric network. If excess power is available, it can be used to produce hydrogen as a clean fuel.
Details at www.renewableenergypumps.com
Comment
45 of 140
May 27, 2011
Oops, here we go with an even lower power-density 'solution' -- 3rd-order derived solar power from waves! Then there's the transmission loss from the contraption to shore, all the time. Can't wait for the insurers to experience the first shipping collision. Maybe the whales will like this subsidized contraption better?
;]
The NY East River has had 10m dia tidal generators in it for years -- might check the real production vs maintenance costs there.
Comment
46 of 140
May 29, 2011
I am glad that Shamil Ayntrazi agrees with my comment about the value of a DC connection for renewable electricity being fed to the AC grid. Transmission losses with DC are very low and DC undersea connections have been used for some years in Europe.

To Dr. Alex Cannara, I would say that:
. Light reflective roofing merely reflects the heat back to the air, making that hotter; green and dark colours absorb the heat, which can then be released from stone walls well into winter! In tropical regions, it has been found that nice white concrete floored yards cause udder cancers, whereas cattle did not suffer from these on hard baked earth. Sometimes nature knows best.
. Yes of course winds will change with climate change for the very simple reason that the thermals change when the surface of the planet changes e.g. from ice to water, forest to ploughed ground or grass to buildings and roads. However, even if this caused wind speeds to drop, the wind turbines in open or elevated positions would still be in the best sites.
. I see that you are a supporter of the LFTR using the finite but more common Thorium instead of Uranium 235, so you will know that: not even a small pilot reactor has yet been set up; the coolant is highly corrosive and vessels will require to be lined with e.g. Tantalum - a fairly rare element; since Th is barely radioactive, the fission reaction is started by adding U233, the neutrons from this transform the Th atoms into more U233 plus heat and so the reaction proceeds. However, the waste fuel is still radioactive, though a lot less so than the spent fuel rods from our current nuclear power stations. There are a lot of unknowns, not least being the behaviour of the liquid fluoride salts, and to try to rectify these Euratom is funding a 1 million euro study to finish at the end of 2013. Only after this will an LFTR be designed.
Even if we do not need renewable energy, our descendents certainly will. So we had better get it right now.
Comment
47 of 140
May 29, 2011
Alison, "Light reflective roofing merely reflects the heat back to the air, making that hotter" unfortunately misses the basic physics.

The solar input to us runs from infrared through ultraviolet. about 400W/sq meter at the surface is visible. Somewhat more is IR, and much less is UV. The problem, long known in warm climates, is that not only do light-colored surfaces reflect the visible portion well, keeping the interior cool, they prevent down-conversion of visible frequencies to IR. IR is exactly what greenhouse gasses absorb. They absorb little of visible or UV.

So, as LBL, The Heat Island Group, the Calif. Energy Comm.. and worldwide scientific organizations have been explaining for decades, reflective human structures reduce global warming. In fact, the effect is large because over 2% of earth's land is now covered by our structures.

Not even counting the warming added by deforestation, simply improving the reflectivity of roofing around the world by 40% (not even white) would have the same reduction of global warming as if no petrol vehicle on earth were driven for a decade. In Calif. the effect of improving a home's reflectivity is equal to not driving the family car for a year.

This is simply basic physics. And, it's as important to have reflectivity in the arctic as well, since that's how the arctic stays frozen. Current building codes also require such under-roof insulation that the home's interior gets no significant heating from any roof. Thus reflectivity is important always.

Of course, we still have to emit less CO2, no matter what. However, if we did and got CO2 way down, reflectivity will still be important because CO2 is only 16% of global warming, water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, and increasing.
www.thoriumenergyalliance.com/downloads/TEAC3%20presentations/TEAC3_Cannara_Alex.pdf
Comment
48 of 140
May 30, 2011
Alex,thank you for taking the trouble to explain your view as to why one should improve the reflectivity of roofing. As far as the reflectivity of the ice at the poles is concerned, I do take your point; they reflect both light and IR radiations, and should they be melted by warming seas or air off a warmed southern ocean, they would soon disappear. Theoretically therefore, by increasing the reflectivity of our buildings etc. we are mimicing the effects of ice cover. So it is necessary to relate this to the circulation in the atmosphere where air coming off the north pole tends to travel in a SW direction & NW off the south pole, thus taking any heat reflected off and into the Hadley Cell circulation.
Having spent the whole afternoon trying to straighten this out in my mind, I am totally confused by the range of values quoted by different sources as being the global average ann. solar radiation reaching the earth's surface. You say 400W/sq.m of visible light, others quote 180W/sq.m and 800W/sq.m. Of the 5% of UV reaching the top of the earth's atmos, it is said that most is filtered out by the oxygen and ozone in the atmosphere. Infact very little seems to percolate below 120km. IR radiation (780nm - 1mm wavelength)does reach ground level, the GHGs letting the incoming pass through, but blocking the reflected IR in the longer wavelengths,intriguingly! I need another lifetime to study the molecular mechanisms that make this possible.
However, I know that it is much cooler to walk over grass - absorbing the heat into the ground, than rock or concrete; therefore, I am still unconvinced that we need to make our surfaces reflective.
I have only started on the pdf. I know that fire produces CO2 & H2O, by combining the Oxygen from our atmosphere with the C & H from the hydrocarbons. Also plants are ca 1% efficient in utilizing the sun's energy according to most experts: so I will read on with interest. Thank you for your reply.
Comment
49 of 140
May 31, 2011
Alison, glad you're reading the PDF, it was created for average folks so they could get a better understanding of climate/energy than the media choose to spend time on.

For plants, consider the reason their leaves are cool in the hot sun -- transpiration of water from the soil up to the leaf & then to the air. Evaporating 1 lb of water removes about 630Watt-Hours of heat. So as long as a plant has water to pump, it can maintain itself at air temp. A white car & a black car, touched in the sun, show you the difference when such active heat rejection isn't available.

The reflectivity benefit is true in space as well, which is why spacecraft have gold or other reflective foils as shields in strategic places. At the top of the atmosphere, we get 1366 Watts per square meter from the sun (from IR to UV). Our eyes see visible because that comes through the air relatively easily (birds & bugs see UV, which means flowers look very different to them). IR is significantly absorbed by water & other GHGs. That's why we don't want dark surfaces turning visible to heat, making even more IR to worsen warming. The PDF explains this and shows some of the IR 'color' bands GHGs absorb.

Today, earth's overall heat balance is about 1/2 Watt per square meter biased toward warming, as a result of GHGs, deforestation, etc. That's a lot of power, despite sounding small compared to 1366W incoming.
Comment
50 of 140
June 2, 2011
• No green house gasses are added when Hydro Power is replacing Wind Energy on the power grid.
• Seems that the only thing wind producers are complaining about is the loss of corporate revenues. The for profit wind companies would risk harm to fish over loss of corporate income.
• With the estimated value of wind subsidies at $45.00 per each Mega-watt hour (MWh) wind producers have incentive to cause power prices to go close to -45.00 before it becomes not profitable to operate wind.
• BPA and the policy of not paying to sell power keeps wind producers from facing the risk of having to pay up to $45.00 to sell there power saving them from a great loss in energy value.

• Conclusion is that BPA did the right thing for both Fish, Environment and NW rate payers that do not need to keep subsidizing California and corporate for profit wind producers.

Call or write your politicians and be part of the fix.
Comment
51 of 140
June 2, 2011
BPA has the legal right to curtail generation within its balancing authority. This is because BPA is under court order to do everything it can do to reduce TDG levels below 120%. The 120% value is based on NOAA Fisheries recommendation and the Biological Opinion which BPA follows in its hydro operations as prescribed by Judge Redden. If Pat Ford disagrees with the 120% TDG level, he should appeal to the court which directs BPA. BPA simply follows the court order. Environmental Redispatch is a legal tool BPA uses to limit excess spill during times when there is a lack of load.

This is not a transmission problem, it is a lack of market problem or oversupply of generation during off peak hours. If you are skeptical of this compare the enormous difference in system loads between Heavy Load Hours and Light Load Hours. Should rate payers really be encouraging this by incentivizing generation during off-peak hours when it has negative economic benefits to the region??? Wind generation during times of oversupply is worthless (negatively priced!) as well as detrimental to endangered species. AWEAs argument here just doesn't make any economic sense.
Comment
52 of 140
June 2, 2011
BPA does have the right to curtail wind as does other balancing areas; that said, there are solutions and these were offered to BPA during the comment period. The problem is more than just fish issues though that is a serious consideration, transmission is congested in name plate terms, there are market issues because of the cost to integrate wind if hydro can;t be used for integration and idling peakers must be used. If wind comes on strong when there is need to not spill because of TDG there is balancing problems. Forecasting alone will not solve the problem, neither will curtailment; storage is the only answer but the north western natural gas generators are dead set against the inclusion of storage. A recent private interconnect study shows a loss of 24m per year for those ramping natural gas generators, something they will fight to prevent. The rub is the FERC is dragging it's feet on deciding the value of storage benefits. No one (but storage) wants another market which would be a two way market format and no one wants sub-hourly markets either, least of all natural gas fired generators. Storage would create both and it will cost wind some money but far less than curtailment. Storage will be included and things will change, we might even have a well balanced grid with room for variable renewable energy.
Comment
53 of 140
June 2, 2011
FYI...
http://bravenewclimate.com/ (see "CO2 avoidance costs...")
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/7996606/An-ill-wind-blows-for-Denmarks-green-energy-revolution.html
http://whitherindustrialwindpower.wordpress.com/
http://webecoist.com/2009/05/04/10-abandoned-renewable-energy-plants/
and so on. Gotta love those '70s and later abandonments in our Calif, plus the wind garbage left in Hawaii, of all places to pollute.

Time to get real about subsidized, low power density, transmission-loss prone, unpredictable 'renewables'. Especially those that need coal & concrete to install, all at the rate of over 700 tons per MW.
Comment
54 of 140
June 3, 2011
Dr Alex C, I can't resist reminding you that transmission loss is much greater over distance with AC than with DC and DC can be buried - just like a gas pipe line - so does not affect the landscape!

While it is a pity that garbage - in this case apparently wrecked wind turbines - is left anywhere. However, it is worth asking yourself the question, Why? Or to give a possible reason, it is probably because the early wind turbines were very difficult to feather properly in sudden high winds; servicing was not counted into the costing; and the finance is not available or affordable to replace the old with the much more functional new editions. NB old concrete makes a good starter base for marine organisms and even coral reefs. Plus there is a good market for scrap metal.

Again it is worth considering the environmental 'wreckage' that is the result of mining - subsidence, water logging of land and loss of agricultural value for food production; and I am not even going to start into the very real problems of fracking the substratum to get more gas out of Shale. This rather serious little problem is being totally 'swept under the carpet' by the 'money for self and the devil take the rest' attitude of the managers of this industry. So far the Renewable Energies are showing a shining light by comparison, and the energy used to make the turbines/panels could actually come from already established RE generation. But Hey consider: wood/charcoal powered and funded our move to develope coal/oil/gas, so why is it so wrong to expect some of these energy suppliers to fund the move to renewables. I would call this a good example of Progress.
Comment
55 of 140
June 8, 2011
Alison, no one argues for fracking or other fossil combustion. But, those are in fact needed to make each windmill -- 700 tons per MW peak (1/3 or less MW from a real windmill over any day).

As to AC/DC transmission, I can say as an electrical engineer each has losses, especially in the inevitable conversion between them.

My arguments come from engineering & basic science -- wind is low power density, 2 turbulent, thermodynamic steps away from the actual driving power -- solar radiance.

Why waste 10 acres to get an occasional 5MW, when 10 acres can today get 6MW for several continuous hours, and not even be on anything but local structures, including parking lots? No land is wasted. The 700 tons per MW becomes ~20 tons, and so on.

Windmills start with a fossil-fuel consumption burden that will never be made up unless their output specifically displaces coal, oil or gas generation. And, their maintenance/de-commissioning costs are far higher than local solar DG (distributed generation) on structures. This is the reality. Folks making subsidies off us to install wind and try to augur for feed-in tariffs that subsidize their investments aren't doing anything for the environment or our energy needs -- they're doing it for their bank accounts. It was true in the '70s, when Kern County allowed them to leave unmaintained junk lying around, and it's true today, just on a larger scale.

(will continue...)
Comment
56 of 140
June 8, 2011
Continued...

In fact, wind machines put us more at the mercy of Chinese market controls -- rare earths for the electrical components, fabrication of steel & props, etc.

And, the blades kill birds, especially eagles in Calif., bats in the midwest, and are thus beginning to hurt farmers' ability to produce food. That is estimated in the $ billions, if midwestern windmills are built out as the hypers suggest. "We estimate the value of bats to the agricultural
industry is roughly $22.9 billion/year" -- 1 April 2011, Vol 332, AAAS Science, www.sciencemao.org. Will those wind investors pay the farmers $ billions?

Facts aren't on wind's side.
Comment
57 of 140
June 27, 2011
Wind energy is harmful to the environment because the blades and nacelle are made of fibreglass and contain hydraulic oil.When they catch on fire give off toxic fumes. Bats, Birds,and the environment suffer because the environment is damaged when they build the 'environmental vandlas' and the blades suck in the birds and bats. Added to this is 300 tonnes per unit of concrete (worst pollution from concrete) to stick them in the ground and they do not produce sufficient energy to warrant the money they are given in subsidies. Try living near then when they are on and not just for a day or two. They are the worst thing I have come across there are really good forms of renewable energy and wind Is NOT ONE OF THEM.
Comment
58 of 140
June 27, 2011
There you have it, folks; there is opposition to every renewable energy source. people don't want wind farms near them, people don't want solar farms, they don't want hydro, they don't want coal, nuclear or natural gas but they want to wash their clothes and run their computers, and charge their "feel good EV's" but if they have a power line proposed near them they are up in arms to prevent it. Wind turbine kill birds and bats but cats kill more, solar farms harm the desert ecosystem and displace desert tortoises, but very few people would use those areas anyway except a few OHV recreationists; of course people don't want dams, they harm fish, flood acres of trees and are unsightly. They fight power lines every step of the way; but "hey, turn the power back on" my favorite TV show is on". When the NIMBY's start offering solutions to our energy problems rather than rant and rave about what's wrong, then I'll give them some attention - not until.
Comment
59 of 140
June 27, 2011
Should genie81 wish to find out about the advances in wind turbine technology as it affects birds and bats, then I can recommend that (s)he reads the following straight through: http://www.bpa.gov/power/pgc/wind/avian_and_bat_study_12-2002.pdf

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I fail to see how tortoises and PV 'farms' in dessert country, could possibly not mix quite happily once the installation is complete. Afterall, wiring is best buried and if not should be above the reach of a tortoise. If left lying on the ground to trip up the operatives, then of course it might get sampled by an inquisitive tortoise.

As for the renewable energy use of 'rare earths', one should perhaps consider that all our lovely high tech communication gadgets and the 'kindles' are very hard on them; as of course are nuclear power stations - think of the best elements to use for protecting the inside of reaction chambers from corrosion etc.? Just perhaps the alternatives, to Renewable Energy production, are not so squeaky clean as some of the above may choose to think. Since anything that we remove from the earth's crust is finite, then the appropriate reaction needed is to recycle, recover and re-use. We may not be doing this very efficiently at the moment; but Hey! we are humans, and if we want to, we can learn, and improve our techniques until we become very efficient at recovering the finite ingredients. This process will also require energy, but so does everything else that provides our quality of life.

End of Pep Talk! I must change my Top Tip or there will be complaints.
Comment
60 of 140
June 27, 2011
To Dr. AlexC:

Thank you for providing your ideals and views of wind energy efficacy vs. other fuels. Your response is highly problematic on several fronts:
1) Wind energy serves the electricity sector which is predomindantly independent from the transportation sector. The converse holds true for oil.

2) We are not heavily reliant on middle east oil in a global market and military spending there certainly could not be 100% attributable to oil even if we were.

3) You seem to assume that heat rate penalties for balancing or other "engineered solutions" for intermittency are costless or technologically possible or both. The laws which govern how our tax dollars are spent can be changed. The laws of physics cannot. Actual emissions and fuel savings from most wind regimes is on the order of 10 to 20% compared with the emissions savings from equivalent quantities of nuclear energy. So the emission avoidance cost for wind is much higher than the general public is led to believe.

4) The public and some elected officials continue to speak of wind energy as a direct and stand alone substitute for our "real" sources of electric power - nuclear, coal, natural gas, and a little hydro. But wind is only a substitute therefore when paired with 2 to 4 parts natural gas energy for every one part wind energy. Extrapolating double digit percentage inroads for wind, one quickly realizes that wind forces us away from coal and nuclear, and toward natural gas reliance. This is not what the public and Congress is led to believe by the marketing and lobbying contractors for AWEA.

Call me an army of one if you wish, but I will not rest until fiscal decisions are based on measured evidence in the real world - not on "doomsday predictions" or deployment windfalls awarded based on promises of future technological breakthroughs.

See you on the Hill.
Comment
61 of 140
June 27, 2011
Simpsonm: it is a transmission problem because even during low load hours there are plenty of utilities throughout the country that are running fossil fuel plants during these hours to provide for their base load needs. If we had an organized, efficient and robust national transmission grid, the juice provided by these dirty plants could be replaced with clean energy - be it generated in the Northwest or elsewhere.

Mitch: I agree wholeheartedly with you on the need for storage.

Allison: I agree with your comments completely!

DrAlexC: As we've discussed before, I think that you're dead wrong with it comes to the CO2 "debt" and how long it pays a wind "turbine" (we're not milling any grains here!)to pay this debt (known as the "energy balance").

From what I've been able to find, there have been several studies (which I've sited before, but don't have the time to look up again right now) that estimate the CO2 debt of a typical utility scale turbine to be paid back within 6 - 8 months of operation.

I also came across another paper that took into account the loss of the plants that were on the site where the turbine sits. While in most sites this loss is minimal and doesn't really affect the 6 - 8 month "payback" period, there are some sites such as bogs where the CO2 costs are much higher.

Even then, the "payback" period is only a few years. Here is the address of this paper which goes into great detail on how they made their calculations. http://www.viewsofscotland.org/snp_conference/PeatAudit-Guide.pdf

So, from the studies and papers that I could find, they've all said that the payback is minimal. If you disagree with this, maybe you should do a paper on the topic and subject it to scientific peer review?

Bob "Free As The Wind" Mitchell
Comment
62 of 140
June 27, 2011
Thomastacy: Natural gas peaking plants aren't the only solution for the intermittent nature of wind. As I've pointed out, building a more robust, national grid (which would also improve overall electrical reliability for the nation) could go a long way towards doing away for the need for peaking plants.

Also, there are utility scale storage solutions that are coming on line that address this issue and as pointed out above, should be considered as mandatory in the economic analysis of wind energy.

So that people don't think that I'm simply a shrill for big wind, I'm not employed in the industry, nor do I own stock in any wind company (unless it's hidden in my 401K and I don't know about it).

So, I don't have a dog in this fight other than the fact that I've spent the last 2 years or so studying renewable energy as my full-time occupation.

What I've found is that proponents of wind industry do tend to gloss over some 'inconvenient truths' such as the intermittent nature of wind and the fact that the wind tends to blow at night when loads are lower. That said, I've also found that opponents to wind go as far as outright lying and when they aren't lying, they are spewing half truths and nonsense!

Again, I'm in the solar field, so if the balance of what I've come to accept as true regarding wind energy pointed towards it being just a money grab by big corporations or an environmental boondoggle, I'd be the first to jump on it and denounce it.

After thousands of hours of research and study, I've concluded that our society will change (sooner or later) to renewable energy sources and that wind energy deserves a place in the mix.

I've also concluded that we really don't have an energy crises as much as we have a population crises. That said, barring a major paradigm shift in our society, it's probably easier to figure out a way to provide power to the people!

Bob 'Free As The Wind' Mitchell
Comment
63 of 140
July 30, 2011
Free as the Wind: What I am requesting of lawmakers is to PRICE EVERYTHING REQUIRED for wind to substitute for base load generation (since its output is negatively correlated to peaking, base load is its most reasonable application). If that is wind + OC gas + transmission, or wind + CC gas + OC gas + transmission, or wind + hydro pumped storage + transmission(x2), or wind + flow batteries or hydrogen or CAES - you get the picture.

Congress MUST RECOGNIZE that wind is not a complete stand alone solution, and that the studies done so far by DOE, NERC, etc. are laughable and fly in the face of the laws of physics and/or ignore non linear impacts as penetration would increase.

When you price wind+gas+transmission against gas alone as a substitute for base load coal, the incremental cost per unit of avoided emissions from adding wind is >3X the cost of base load gas. It would also be a travesty to use flexible, clean gas for base load since it has such great properties in roles coal and nuclear cannot fill.

Furthermore, wind LOCKS US INTO the use of gas because the storage makes even less economic sense. Wind inEurope helps America compete. Wind in America helps China compete. Let's not do purposely to our electricity cost what cheap transoceanic transportation did to our labor rate competitiveness!
Comment
64 of 140
July 30, 2011
Once an offshore wind farm is planned for construction then it is worth investigating utilization of the offshore area to extract maximum energy. Details at www.renewableenergypumps.com
There is no comparable system on the market as to: Direct Drive energy extraction from Wave, Wind and Ebb/Tide, including Pitch and rotation directional control and Variable Speed Generators, all leading to direct energy conversion to electric power.
The use of "Isosync" VSG generator by VSG-USA that runs at a wide range of speed, will not discard its load, will still continue to generate power of the same frequency and voltage as the utility line it is in parallel with.
The system provides modular "Construction Units", minimum moving parts, and highest efficiency, all leading to minimal construction, operation and maintenance costs.
We have the capacity in collaboration with international firms to undertake Turn-Key, EPC contracts.
For this purpose we propose the following:
1. Install Wave Gear Drive system in "Construction Units".
2. Install the WGD system
3. Use the WGD offshore "Construction Unit" after modification to support the Ebb/Tide turbines.
4. Use the WGD offshore "Construction Unit" after modification to support the Wind turbines.
Comment
65 of 140
July 30, 2011
Wow, lots of comments, but my stance is simply based on sciene & engineering -- wind/wave, etc. are derivative power sources confined to specific locales, seasons, even daytimes, etc. As such, they're lower in power output per invested acre, ton of steel, cubic meter of concrete, mile of transmission line, etc. These are facts, unfortunate for wind devotees though they may be.

This is why, for example, knowledgeable organizations have moved to advocating both efficiency and local solar PV, on existing structures -- both of these tacks address reality. Efficiency is an investment. structural solar PV is sufficient across the US to meet peak demands, without incurring land waste, transmission waste, or exposure to single (or few) points of failure/sabotage.

As a recent LIDAR study of NYC showed, 1/2 of the Big Apple's juice can be supplied simply by rooftop solar PV. This is instructive, since a building in NYC has many more floors (thus people & machines) to feed than do other cities, towns and suburbs. It matches the Calif. study that shows we can more than meet all state peak electricity demands with rooftop solar.

Add in storage and base load (as gas/nuclear/hydro) and there's no need whatsoever for absurd investments in vast, distant wind 'farms'. Much as there was no need to subsidize corn farmers to produce ethanol.

More references for those with a crush on windmills...

http://cleantechnica.com/2011/07/14/caltech-vertical-axis-wind-turbines-boost-wind-farm-power-efficiency-10x/
http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/wind/a-less-mighty-wind
www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/us/21tttransmission.html?_r=1&hpw
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/7996606/An-ill-wind-blows-for-Denmarks-green-energy-revolution.html
http://whitherindustrialwindpower.wordpress.com/
http://energy.sia-partners.com/?p=149

And, so many more, if one's interested in honesty rather than subsidy.
;]
Comment
66 of 140
August 2, 2011
There are some good forms of renewable when you take a country like India they have made power from sewage and this is surely far better than the useless wind turbines which can only survive with subsidies mostly with shelf companies. Secondlly there is methane, wave power, garbage which would do wonders for the environment by getting rid of rubbish etc. Most of the wind developers do not tell the truth about their wind farms and the lack of power they generate not to mention the problems they cause amongst the community which is to divide and conquer so much so that some husband and wives are at logger heads over these stupid environmental vandals. The family in California affected by the smoke from a turbine that caught on fire above their house can tell you what to do with wind and I am sure they would appreciate solar or some other form of renewable.If wind farms were so wonderful how come the hosts are 'gagged' from saying anything negative about them?
Comment
67 of 140
August 2, 2011
To Genie81
That is why we are proposing Coordinted OFFSHORE energy Extraction,Wind, Wave and Ebb/Tide.
Have a look at www.renewableenergypumps.com and kindly provide you expert opinion.
Regards
Comment
68 of 140
August 2, 2011
A mild consulting engineer will comment, Shamil, if no one else does....

Your 'output power' statements are suitably vague, as are your resource-consumption statements. These are the hallmarks of low power-density, costly systems.

For example, the same materials to build the wind power you suggest could easily build multiples of solar PV on existing structures, and with more consistent output with cheaper more efficient interfacing to any grid.

Apart from powering remote, foggy but windy islands, what reasonable engineer would suggest expending vast amounts of design hours, and huge steel & concrete fabrication and deployment on a system that will also be sporadic in operation, high maintenance and incur permanent, 24/7 transmission losses to grid loads?

There is far more existing, sun-exposed, man-made structure on earth than we need to meet all our peak power demands. This is true everywhere in the USA, for instance, so the weak, derivative solar sources like wind & wave are simply wasteful, especially if subsidized. Tidal is more predictable and has been useful, but its environmental impacts are much as for dams, and it too is generally remote from loads, thus lossy.

It's fun to contemplate complex systems like these, but it's not what true engineering delivers to society.

Given that we now waste over 50% of generation, shall we add sources that automatically waste another 10%? When efficiency and local solar PV can meet all our peak loads, and hydro/nuclear can meet all our base loads, why waste time, $, fossil-fuel-processed steel & concrete, control-system deployments and large land & sea areas on such low power-density machinery?

We need to be deploying 1GWe of emissions-free power each week starting 1/1/11 (oops, we're late), just to only drive Bangladeshis, etc. from their lowlands. These fanciful schemes do nothing toward meeting the world's needs, both for power and fresh water. Yes, any new system must save/deliver water too.
Comment
69 of 140
August 3, 2011
Thomas: It looks like we're getting close to being able to agree! I'm 100% for ALL of the costs of our energy sources being factored into the economic considerations before making an investment.

In the case of wind, I think that it's only fair to consider storage and transmission costs into the equation. That said, let's be fair and do the same for ALL energy sources though.

Just yesterday the government of Japan had to step in in order to keep the owners of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant from going bankrupt. While I'm not against nuclear power, the costs of potential disaster should be factored into the cost analyst of nuclear power.

Coal? How about the thousands of premature deaths and the damage to our environment caused by coal? Only fair to consider these costs too, right?

Oil? Gulf of Mexico, Exon Valdez, pipeline ruptures, massive miliatary spending directly attributable to keeping middle eastern oil flowing...fair to be included?

I could go on, but my point is that they all have costs associated with them. When you factor in ALL of the costs, wind is actually a bargain and deserves a place in the mix of renewable energy sources.

DrAlex: You're back to this "low power density, derivative power source argument that from the objective studies that I have been able to find, just doesn't hold water! If you think that wind turbines really have such low power densities, grab a hold of the electrical cable coming out of the bottom of a 3 megawatt turbine (that can power hundreds of homes, btw) and bite into it! Your power density argument is SILLY!

Bob "Free As The Wind" Mitchell
Comment
70 of 140
August 3, 2011
All that I could possibly add to Bob's last comment, is that one should also take into account the global warming emanating from our increased use of the tundra areas for extraction of oil. Both traffic and pipelines cause localized warming over large areas; and as bacteria get going, only small increases in temperature can have large effects on the amount of GHGs released by the biota of the tundra and trapped methane.

The start of all this was that electricity from hydro power was being preferred over wind generated electricity, by the main Grid. Surely the point is that neither wind nor hydro generated electric should have been dumped. Instead their availability should have meant that less coal, oil or gas needed to be burnt. The idea, that is being missed by the authorities, is that use of Renewable Energy means the saving of hydrocarbons until it is imperative to use them at times of high demand. True, nuclear reaction chambers can not be shut down at will just to balance the power on the Grid, but the coal and oil furnaces can be shut down and started relatively quickly. The greater the supply of renewable energy across the country/globe, the more manageable the balancing of the Grid will become.
Comment
71 of 140
August 3, 2011
For "Freeasthe[passing]Wind -- "grab a hold of the electrical cable coming out of the bottom of a 3 megawatt turbine" -- when? You have to say when, so it'll actually have something coming out.
;]
But back to you, grab hold of the cable out of the same acreage covered with present, only 20% efficient solar PV -- that'll pop you up over your 100m windmill that consumed 700 tons of fossil-fuelled materials for each MW just to get set up!

As to nuclear -- when you realize the plants that have run for 40 years or so have aggregate output no wind farm has or will ever meet, in the same number of days, then come back and try to make a different vapid point!

As for storage, yes, all 'renewables' need it, especially wind, which has a broad spectrum of variability not shared by others. That means not only storage but more expensive storage and compensation systems for grid compatibility. It also means wind systems consume grid power when there's not enough wind, and waste it when there's too much. Back atcha -- sorry to use facts.

Since you mention the straw men of combustion sources, don't forget how much combustion each windmill needs just to make its bits, get them up somewhere far away, and to build lines & controls to actually get something to work. also, note some more facts that even the current windmill designs are suboptimal, as well as low power density...

http://cleantechnica.com/2011/07/14/caltech-vertical-axis-wind-turbines-boost-wind-farm-power-efficiency-10x/

Inconvenient truths are hard, aren't they?
;]
Comment
72 of 140
August 3, 2011
For Alison -- 'nuclear reaction chambers can not be shut down at will just to balance the power on the Grid, but the coal and oil furnaces can be shut down and started relatively quickly' -- reactors are 'shut down' in seconds when necessary, as was done at Fukushima. Gas plants here in Calif. get throttled quickly as well.

The issue is the rest of the plant & grid, especially when having to deal with high-frequency power variability, as wind generates.

Yes indeed, hydro, nuclear, geothermal, etc. should not be shut down and should displace as much coal/oil per second as possible. Apart from environmental impacts, wind adds a control burden and a loss expense that simply raise the honest question: 'Why bother?' The capital and ongoing subsidy/waste for wind can be better allocated elsewhere.
Comment
73 of 140
August 4, 2011
To Dr. AlexC
ONCE an offshore wind farm is planned, then it is worth to investigate the Coordinated Offshore Energy Extraction System, Wind, Wave and Ebb/Tide. There is no comparable system on the market as to maximum space utilization, energy extraction and minimum costs. Also modular factory fabricated construction units, offshore dry deck and enclosed housing for equipment and direct drive Wind, Wave and Ebb-Tide/Generators (VSG-USA "Isosync.", leading to high efficiency, low construction, operation, and maintenance costs.
Calculations are basic and simple engineering principles; can be easily checked and are provided at the website for review.
Lot of funds and time are wasted on non-practical systems, reports and feasibility studies. One corporation scrapped a project after 5 million US$, 3-years studies and discovered it costs 60 MUS$ to get power from 5-miles offshore. Another is researching hydrogen production by electrolysis, other big corporations are designing 20 MW wind turbine with no clue as to real estate, access roads, heavy lift, vibration and so on. My views are documented. Just search for Shamil Ayntrazi.
The only reasonable and proven renewable energy system is PV for electric power and hot water for single family houses and medium size apartment buildings, with a breakeven point of 5 plus years.
Collective knowledge dictates detailed review of every system as it may help a remote island to get electric power and desalinated water.
Billions are planned for Offshore Wind farms each year for the coming 20-years. All we ask is to submit the COEE System as an alternate bid.
Let us not act as the blind men and the elephants in a dark room.
Comment
74 of 140
August 4, 2011
Allison, thanks for the back up! Regarding arctic exploration, the other sad truth is that the damage done by man to the environment is extensive and when you factor how much energy goes into producing energy, the returns simply aren't that great. In no way do they justify the damage. All it does it put money in the oil company's pockets!

DrAlex: Investing in wind power is like investing in the stock market. Markets (and wind velocities) go up and down. Using your logic, people would never invest in the stock markets because there are days when you don't make any money and even days when you lose money.

But, when you look at the performance of the stock market over a period of years and decades, the average annual return is over 10%. Even if you had invested your money in 1931 (the worst one year return ever and left your remaining money in the stock market for the next 29 years, you're return over that 30 year period would have exceeded 14%.

Wind power is similar. Yes, it costs money and materials to build a wind TURBINE (mills make flour). From the OBJECTIVE studies that I was able to find, the pay back period required to make up for these expenses is about 8 years (on the conservative side). This analysis included both good production days and bad,

The life expectancy of a wind turbine is in excess of 20 years (and probably longer). So, any power produced after the initial fixed costs are recovered is profit. The same holds true for the time it takes to repay the wind turbine's "carbon debt".

The fact that wind is a derivative of solar power doesn't mean a damn thing! If by building a wind TURBINE, you can power X number of homes and it takes less time to recoup your costs (both financial and carbon related)than the turbine will last, then it's a good thing to do. The longer the turbine lasts after repaying it's debt, the better.

I would hope that an educated person could grasp this concept!

Bob "Free As The Wind" Mitchell
Comment
75 of 140
August 4, 2011
Shamil: I agree with you that if you are building the infrastructure and spending the money required to build an offshore wind farm that you should maximize this investment by all means possible. If wave energy can be harvested and sent over the transmission lines, then I'm all for it.

However, I stand by my position that wind power can stand on it's own merits in the right circumstances. Yes, you have to spend money and resources to build transmission lines and such, but these infrastructure improvements last a long time and when amortized over that lifetime, their costs become very manageable!

When you look at our energy future, it's clear that we have to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels. That means that we no longer have the luxury of high density energy sources that were left to us by mother nature. That said, we have to deal with what we have and make it work.

In order to do such, we have to keep an open mind to ALL renewable energy sources and even, though I hate to say it, (in the short run at least) nuclear power. Wind energy deserves a place in this mix. In essence, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, if that makes sense?

Bob "Free As The Wind" Mitchell
Comment
76 of 140
August 4, 2011
Bob Mitchell Please don't relate "short term" or "short run" with nuclear energy; it just isn't short in ant sense of the word. Expecting our distance relatives to baby sit our mistake is too much to ask. Let's just use what we have in terms of clean energy (not including nuc's) add storage and move forward.
Comment
77 of 140
August 4, 2011
Mitch: I'm not a big fan of nuclear energy. I think that it's very expensive, still has the problem of dealing with a finite energy source (though the potential does exist to deal with this problem.....maybe), has the potential of devastating thousands of square miles with just one accident and then there is the waste issue.

That said, I don't see how we can make the transition to renewable energy sources without it. Especially when you see the misconceptions and the outright lies that are being spread about wind energy.

Our energy needs are vast! Wind, solar and other renewable energy sources are low density (as Dr.Alex loves to point out) to just replace coal is going to be a massive undertaking. To replace coal and nuclear would be doubly as hard and I don't think that the political will exists to take on that massive a project.

Just my opinion....

Bob "Free As The Wind" Mitchell
Comment
78 of 140
August 4, 2011
For Shamir -- "The only reasonable and proven renewable energy system is PV for electric power and hot water."

Exactly. And even at current 20% cell efficiency, wind/wave, whatever can't match that for Watts/sq meter of already-used land/sea areas. That's the point -- we need no sucking up of new land/sea by complex devices that can never produce the same power density, yet have permanent, negative environmental impacts.

If we want to look at the elephant honestly, we look at it all and not simply voice opinions, such as Free..Wind's. The facts have been presented here more than once and apparently gone unread because they may not match biases.

So, just one will be repeated -- NYC has recently been surveywd by airborne LIDAR and the finding is more than enough roof space to deliver fully half of all NYC power from rooftop PV/hot-water systems. A thinking person willrealize this has great significance because NYC buildings have more floors, thus people & machines per roof than most other urban suburban locales.

Thus, here in Calif. we can easily meet all peak demands via solar PV on existing structures. And, it's being done. This plus efficiency is also why forecasted new gas power plants here are being cancelled.

And, this is just with current, 20% efficient PV. Military/space PV is already over 40% (400W/sqm), and commercial designs are following.

Wind/wave, etc. have no such improvements, excepting perhaps the improvement Cal Tech researchers are observing via vertical generator fields. But again, all but solar PV require new land/sea be taken. And, they suffer the same transmission loss. Those engineering weaknesses of wind/wave/tidal, even geothermal, will never be surmounted. They are facts of reality.

And, of course, this doesn't even ding those so-called 'renewables' for their consumption of resources and continued maintenance. But folks in for the subsidy don't care, thus all the upset & angst over BPA's wise decision.
Comment
79 of 140
August 4, 2011
And, for Free Windy -- "The fact that wind is a derivative of solar power doesn't mean a damn thing! If by building a wind TURBINE, you can power X number of homes..." -- this is amazingly self contradictory.

We know the roofs of those homes can fully meet peak power needs for them all and more. So, what you've written shows exactly why wind machines are meaningless.

The statements you've made aren't factual. Just admit you want to promote windmills for personal reasons. That'll clear it all up for the rest of us who want facts.
Comment
80 of 140
August 4, 2011
DrAlex: Why is my statement self contradictory? While I am in favor of distributed generation of electricity, not everybody wants solar panels on their roofs. Not every roof is suitable for solar installations.

The vast majority of people's only concerns about electricity is that it's available when they want it and that it doesn't cost too much.

For these people, centralized sources of electrical generation, such as a wind farm and utility scale solar, are a perfectly acceptable way of producing electricity.

So again, the fact that wind is a derivative of solar doesn't mean a damn thing! It doesn't matter what causes the wind to blow, as long as it blows and can be harnessed to generate electricity in a cost effective manner (which if you include all of the costs of the various energy sources into the equation), wind energy is very cost effective. While not perfect, it's also very environmentally friendly.

The actual footprint of a wind turbine is not that large. The sweep of the blades covers a fairly large area, but the blades are up in the air and they don't preclude the use of the land for other purposes such as farming and raising livestock.

Your so called "facts" are actually incidental details that don't add up to a hill of beans. If I can put up a wind turbine that generates enough electricity to power 300 homes, that's 300 homes worth of electricity that doesn't need to be generated via dirty energy sources such as coal.

Do we need to account for the variability of wind? Yes, but that is something that can be accomplished through existing technology. This isn't an "opinion" it's a fact.

As far as my reasons for promoting wind energy, all I have is that, in the right locations, it is a clean, reasonably priced, currently available technology that can quickly replace dirty sources of energy. Does that clear it up for you?

Bob "Free As The Wind" Mitchell
Comment
81 of 140
August 4, 2011
Again, Free...Wind -- you avoid the reality that just as a very few of us may not want solar panels on our roofs, nearly all of us don't want a noisy windmill wasting land & energy that solar panels don't. And, if NYC can get 1/2 its juice from its building roofs, how do occupants care? This is already being done around the world and especially for industries, which often generate surplus power -- maybe just for folks who don't want roof panels!? That really is a weak argument.

Your line of argument again avoids facts -- that no unused land/sea need be dedicated to structural solar. Wind/wave all consume unused land & sea. And, because they must be remote from loads, they consume energy & more land in transmission.

If you're so very concerned with eliminating coal, etc., then why advocate something that will waste energy and require coal to build? Yes, steel needs coal in5:1 ratio by ton. Concrete needs fossil fuel again by the ton. So every windmill erected represents 700 tons of fossil-fuelled material prep per MW peak. And, that peak isn't even reached most of every day.

So again, tell us why it's better to take land to build a wind 'farm' way out there, when we get what we need and more right here, without transmission loss or vulnerability?

On the details, no one argues that variability can't be compensated for in wind, but it costs $ and energy. Solar is easier, even today. It's interesting you avoid the work Cal Tech has done that shows the current horizontal prop-generator is suboptimal and necessitates even a larger footprint and control effort than necessary. And, for price, wind is only "reasonable" for those gaining the subsidy. But this will be playing out more surely as time advances and wind costs continue to fall much less than solar.

Those pesky facts!
Comment
82 of 140
August 9, 2011
The trouble with turbines are not wind power but industrial vandals.Most people do not research turbines and see the problems they cause with the concrete the special fibreglass, steel, copper, hydraulic oil, the special mineral mined in China which eats the miners clothes and of course the birds and bats they kill along with the infrasound, flicker, noise and the destruction of the environment. With subsidies the developers survive especially the shelf companies withdraw the subsidies and the companies will either promote solar or disappear.Wind is not a constant and there other forms of renewable more efficient and more reliable and will cost less eventually.
Comment
83 of 140
August 10, 2011
Look, genie81, what makes you think the manufacturing of solar panels don't carry a carbon foot print? Also if the subsidies for solar were removed where would that portion of the renewable energy industry be? Get real. We need to use what ever we have to get away from fossil fuel - even if we need some of it for manufacturing renewables. I don't like to see wind farms anymore than those with them next door but I'd rather have them than be baby sitting nuclear waste FOREVER. Solar just isn't the whole answer; we do need hydro, wind and even biofuels. Think about the carbon foot print that is created when building a hybrid EV; the batteries alone reek with environmental damage some where during their creation and life span. Before I'd advocate solar in any given region I would certainly take a hard look at weather patterns and the hard facts about how much solar energy I can expect. I wouldn't waste my dollars putting solar in if the region only produced 30% return. As for the birds and bats, domestic cats kill far more than wind turbines. Again, the NIMBY's and limited thinking environmentalist's need to face reality and stop whining if we're going to address climate change and energy independence in this country.
Comment
84 of 140
August 10, 2011
Genie81: while not perfect, wind energy, in the right circumstance, is a very viable source of energy. The material that goes into the construction does have a cost, but that cost, both in terms of money and carbon, is repaid in a period of 3 to 8 years (depending upon which study you use).

The other "externalities" that you mention, such as noise (both audible and inaudible (infrasound) have been pretty much dealt with as new wind turbines have been developed. I personally have visited a number of wind farms and the "noise" of the turbine from a number of distances was inaudible over the noise of the wind itself.

As Mitch points out, far more birds are killed by house cats than by wind turbines.

That's not to say that wind energy can't be improved, but when you compare all costs of the various sources of energy, wind compares very favorably, especially in instances where large scale production is desired.

Again, as Mitch pointed out, a lot of the issues that you mentioned are put out there by the people who are opposed to wind without putting the costs into context. Do me a favor and objectivally compare each of the costs/issues that you mentioned with oil, coal or even Natural Gas and you'll see that wind is an excellent, clean source of energy!

Bob "Free As The Wind" Mitchell
Comment
85 of 140
August 10, 2011
C'mon, such easy targets? Genie -- "...baby sitting nuclear waste FOREVER". Apparently nukes are a blank in your cortex. There are two kinds of nuclear waste: short-lived fission fragments that are half gone in a few hundred years, and transuranics, heavy ones, that are half gone in thousands to tens of thousands of years. Forever?

Now, sure, no one wants the long babies, so don't make them! Now, if you'd actually read something factual, like the report JFk requested in 1962, you'd know that

That's what the fuel cycles in the Thorium family do. Every 30 years, a full-scale plant using Thorium Fluoride fuel generates under 100lbs of short-lived wastes and a few lbs of transuranics, none of which actually have to come out of the reactor, depending on its design.

Know how nbig 100lbs of Uranium, etc. is? We'll let you figure it out by Googling its specific gravity & knowing water is 64lbs/cubic ft.

Since a reactor is just a hot pot to make hot nitrogen/helium/CO2 gas for a turbine, it's fine that the same radioactive decay of elements keeping our earth's core molten (and us safe) just goes on inside a fluid reactor. No 'spent' fuel to hide away somewhere, because all fuel is consumed.

The problem today is that we use solid-fuel reactors JFK & Congress were told to phase out by 2000.

And, anti-proliferation folks like fluid reactors because we can toss in fluorinated weapons Plutonium and most any other nuclear waste we're trying to find a home for. All produce energy and all go bye bye.

Fortunately, the Chinese & others are now moving ahead with that good advice. So, when we have to buy power & fresh-water nukes back from them, will you blind anti-nukers pay?

Right, you just want your wind subsidies from the rest of us.
;]
Comment
86 of 140
August 10, 2011
There you go again, Free...Wind -- noise, birds... no problemos, eh? Let's see, kill all cats, or just not build expensive windmills that permanently waste power transmission, take 3-8 years to make up for their fossil-fuel burning, give a few folks $, and may need moving as the wind moves -- quite un-free, as the wind, eh?

Here's a reality check on that fantasy...
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/07/14/caltech-vertical-axis-wind-turbines-boost-wind-farm-power-efficiency-10x/

Some noise & wildlife realities...
www.grist.org/list/2011-04-08-wind-turbines-kill-birds-but-they-dont-have-to-heres-how-to-do-b/N10/

A reader's comment from reality...
"How many of you actually live near operational wind turbines? I do and the noise alone from the cumulative (accumulated) number of turbines increase the noise. Depending on the atmospheric conditions and time of year, the air is filled with the sound and pressure of a tsunami coming over the ridge located 1.75 miles away. It is not "green" when birds are
chopped up by them, nor is it green to mine the materials, transport, manufacture the component parts or bulldoze virgin land for roads and pads.

It gets worse. Fish, Wildlife Services has a draft Eagle Take document in process to accommodate wind businesses. It is disturbing down to the soul. Wind Turbines and Whooping Cranes: Going Soft on Soft Energy (politically correct environmental damage).
The Federal agency charged with protecting endangered species under the Endangered Species Act is evaluating a plan to allow a 200-mile wide corridor for wind energy development from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. The draft land-based guidelines–made ostensibly to avoid, minimize, and
compensate for effects to fish, wildlife, and their habitats" —
represent one more example of overt and destructive favoritism for an industry that already benefits from fat tax subsidies and mandated market purchases."

There's much more, just at that article. Pesky facts!
Comment
87 of 140
August 11, 2011
DrAlex: I can agree with the "pesky" part of that comment, but not so much with the "facts" part.

First, anything that is manufactured will have a "carbon debt". In terms of renewable energy, this debt can at least be paid off. You and several others have mentioned the concrete and metal used to manufacture a wind turbine. And you're right, this is a carbon debt that needs to be paid off.

If you google "wind turbine carbon debt" and read the various studies that have been done on this topic, you will see that the carbon debt of a wind turbine is paid off some where between 3 and 8 years (depending upon which study you're looking at). Even if we use the longer period and then double it, wind turbines STILL make sense in terms of reducing carbon.

Second, regarding the noise emitted by wind turbines, I can speak from my own personal experience. I've had the opportunity to visit a number of different wind farms in the northwest US and I can tell you that I was unable to hear the turbines at all over the sound of the wind blowing until I was right up under one. Even then, it wasn't that loud!

Now, regarding bird deaths. It happens, but each of the wind farms that I visited had teams of wildlife biologists who documented these deaths and the wind companies are working on reducing them (as the article that you linked to points out).

Even still, you have to put these bird deaths in perspective. As I mentioned, according to the American Bird Conservancy common house cats kill between 500,000,000 and 1,000,000,000 birds a year! The same organization estimates that wind turbines kill around 440,000 birds per year.

Now, while a bit harder to document, how many birds are killed or not even born due to coal mining and burning? When you consider all of the negative environmental effects such as acid rain, heavy metal pollution, etc. I'm sure that it's more than 440,000. (cont)

Bob "Free As The Wind" Mitchell
Comment
88 of 140
August 11, 2011
Lastly, The EPA isn't in bed with the Wind Industry! That comment that you provided is using the fact that the wind industry has a host of environmental surveys and studies that it needs to complete when siting a wind farm as if it's a bad thing.

The EPA isn't going to give the wind industry a free ride. If they see that a wind farm is going to have a major detrimental effect on an environment, they have to mitigate it before they will be allowed to move forward. Admittedly, the EPA isn't perfect, but don't use the fact that the wind industry is working with them to reduce negative environmental impacts against them!

Bob "Free As The Wind" Mitchell
Comment
89 of 140
August 11, 2011
Wind will never be efficient enough to replace coal or gas. First of all you have to have backup with some other form of power because the wind does not blow all the time and when it blows too hard have to be turned off. It has proven that infrasound does cause people problems with sleeping etc. and as I said before try living near one not just stand around for an hour or so as Free as the wind seems to think that visiting a wind farm will show or let you feel that the sound is not heard. There are so many worldwide reports on the problems with wind power that people should research all the sites that show what is happening with these turbines. Why are setbacks being implemented if they are such great ideas? Why is Japan having a moritorium on them, why was a farmer in the USA compensated for the ruin of his dairy? Why is J. & J. Davis in the UK taking a developer to court for the wind farm built near their home? Why do developers buy out farms or land near them because people cannot live next or near to them? They only survive because of subsidies and if these were taken away there would be very few farms around and they should not be called wind turbines but industrial turbines. There are far more efficient and soon cost-effective forms of renewable energy. There are now reports thatoff=shore wind farms are interfering with the communications between dophins and the same with whales. Also they interfere with television, radio and other forms of communciations and seismic monitoring equipment.
Comment
90 of 140
August 11, 2011
I do not know enough about solar panels to comment as to their manufacture but surely they would be just as bad if they are made like the turbines. I certainly think we need to look at the best possible forms of renewable energy and select the most efficient forms with the least impacts on the planet. We have polluted this planet and we need to clean up our act but not rush headlong into forms which have not been proven to be beneficial. I live in a rural area on a small farm and there are plans to build hundreds of 150m or higher turbines around the area taking away prime agricultural land so where will we have crops growing, raising livestock etc to feed ourselves if land is taken over for these 'environmental vandals'. Someone mentioned that more cats kill birds but what about endangered species on flight paths through areas where turbines exist? We are fast destroying so many species why add to them? I have two cats which wear bells as a warning and are locked up at night and I do not blame the cats for killing but the owners who do not take sufficient precautions to stop cats doing acts of cruelty. I am not a 'greenie' but a person concerned for the welfare of the future of our planet.
Comment
91 of 140
August 11, 2011
Free...Wind -- why the same hackneyed rationalizations? A 1-page email equals driving a car quite a few feet -- yes, the Internet is an emitter.

Let's try to use facts -- 1) birds & bats don't die from solar DG; they do die from windmills. The bat-icide is even being estimated to cost midwest farmers $ billions in crop losses as midwest wind is built out even more (check AAAS Science [earlier above] & remember that 200mi-wide wind swath from Canada to the Gulf being advocated?). So no wind power, no new bird/bat deaths. Irrelevant to solar DG.

2) Present horizontal machines aren't even gathering as much power as available by a large factor (check CalTech, above), & the alternatives consume less land, perhaps even less wildlife impact. Advocate that instead. But, it's still inferior to solar DG on loss, land & grid vulnerability.

3) As for EPA, etc. the "free ride" has been given wind folks already, as idecades ago here. Any de-commissioning bonds in place, for the wind farms you know, that include removal of all machinery, foundations, roads, transmission lines/towers (& crop-loss $Bs)...when wind goes elsewhere, as some places in China? Solar DG has no such problems -- the sun is required by law (Ma Nature's) to be overhead every day (clouds or no).

4) Why again bring up coal, as if anyone here is for it because they're critical of wind power on real engineering/science bases? Is it that you know every wind farm, prior to its 1st kW output, consumes coal at 5 tons for every ton of steel? Or that it creates similar CO2 emissions for the 1000-ton concrete foundation each tower requires? Or that the road, transmission & control requirements add about as much more, making a wind farm's emissions burden equivalent to fossil-fuel processing of 700 tons of material per MW?

For solar DG, environmental cost is IR (1 - efficiency), fabrication of silicon, aluminum & some electronics, all at ~10 processed tons/MW, not 700.
Comment
92 of 140
August 12, 2011
Some of the "facts" being used to discredit wind power may be empirically correct, but they are compartmentalized, without context. Sure, wind is not as efficient as solar, and it may take tons of concrete and steel to make a single 3 million dollar wind turbine, but these kinds of "facts" apply to pretty much anything humans manufacture.

The point of wind power is this: it is clean, available, and there's lots of it. Estimates range from 70 to 170 terawatts worldwide. So let's use it. There is an estimated 370 terawatts of solar available. Let's use that too. The world only needs about 15 terawatts. Renewable energy can be stored to help even out intermittent supply. We don't achieve anything without expending energy.

Yes, a great deal of fossil fuel gets burned to build a turbine, but we are at a stage where old and new ways overlap. Take Portland cement. Its manufacture releases large amounts of CO2. Meanwhile, this firm is developing a way to sequester CO2 in concrete to reverse the equation:

http://www.calera.com/

As for the other energy solutions put forward, let's run with them all until we find what works best. That's how it always happens.
Comment
93 of 140
August 12, 2011
Yes, we know Calera, and its process is being tried at the PG&E Moss Landing plant, but is only partially successful, it's energy intensive, and the concrete is presently substandard.

Also, the nasty secret in "sequestration" is that it sequesters CO2 -- C and O2. Only the C was brought up from mines & wells. The O2 was up here for us to breathe, corrode rocks, Fords, etc. To make it short & sweet, sequestering O2 along with Carbon is a fool's errand, regardless of its costliness.

These are the same sort of facts that make wind irrelevant long term. Reread my last paragraph above, Peter, so you can correct your first.
;]
Comment
94 of 140
August 13, 2011
Sorry Peter. When you call wind 'CLEAN' you must include everything necessary for it to replace something you have decided is 'DIRTY.' I suspect you mean base load coal or nuclear (or both), so wind can only replace these if it is a CONTROLLED SOURCE OF POWER OVER TIME.

To do that with the wind product, you will also burn natural gas inefficiently in plants - eventually ones dedicated to the job (because wind has no guarantee of contribution to peaking capacity). You will have otherwise unnecessary transmission lines, and the losses through them, and O&M on those. So there you are. Now, answer this question:

What is the cost per unit of emissions avoided lifetime to replace a base load coal facility in each of these two ways:

1.) wind+natgas+transmission

2.) natgas combined cycle installed on brown field sites of plants they replace with already transmission in place
Comment
95 of 140
August 13, 2011
IT'S TIME TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE AND STOP TRYING TO FOOL LAWMAKERS AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC INTO THINKING WIND REPLACES COAL. STOP LEAVING OTHERWISE UNNECESSARY TRANSMISSION, GAS EMISSIONS AND HEAT RATE PENALTIES OR THE COST OF STORAGE OUT OF THE DISCUSSION WHEN YOU SAY WIND IS USEFUL.

TO CONTINUE TO GLOSS OVER THESE REALITIES IN MARKETING AND LOBBYING MATERIALS AMOUNTS TO LYING. WHEN PEOPLE LIE TO ACCESS TAXPAYER DOLLARS THEY COMMIT FEDERAL FRAUD.
Comment
96 of 140
August 13, 2011
Dude! Love it Thomas.
Comment
97 of 140
August 17, 2011
Thomas,I think you left your Caps Lock on!!
Comment
98 of 140
August 17, 2011
Hello Peter... Right On!! Don't be disparaged by the boorish nay sayers.
Comment
99 of 140
August 17, 2011
DrAlexC...your back with the birds and the bats. You never did tell me how many birds, bats, nits and nats die in the construction of an equivalent MW PV plant or worse still a 100,000 roof top PV installation senario. Get some balance into it mate!!
Comment
100 of 140
August 17, 2011
Genie81...Stuff grows around a turbine and animals graze there too. Have no fear. despite the fear-mongering I hear here you will not starve to death nor will we sink into oblivion if we build wind farms. We will eventually choke to death however if we don't stop building polluting fossil power plants. And if we wait until all the research and permits are in place before we start building the Thorium Solution (which by the way I agree with) before we do anything well...Oh you fill the blanks!!
Comment
101 of 140
August 17, 2011
FreeAsTheWind...don't worry.DrAlexC has never let the facts get in the way of a good argument!!
Comment
102 of 140
August 17, 2011
"boorish nay sayers", eh John? Say that to your doctor when he or she says you've got something nasty in your colon that needs attention?
;]
But your straw-man arguments do amuse. Like your repeated propping up of windmills because they kill birds, bats, etc. no more than cats, windows, or whatever you dig up. The problem for your argument you & we know well -- no one's suggesting cat 'farms' or window 'farms' (well there's some idiotic ad out here like that, but...) So your point is meaningless. What's that about "never let the facts get in the way of a good argument"?

Now we and you know BS when we see it, so let's just get used to the reality that wind is only extravagant in its subsidies & inefficiencies. Thus it's unnecessary.
Comment
103 of 140
August 17, 2011
Hey! Cut out the snarky talk, eh?

I got the perfect solution to all this.

But keep it to yourselves, OK? I'm still workin' out the details with the Patent Office.

Here's the plan: We get everybody in the world to buy ELECTRIC CARS!!

Then, we GIVE everybody a little fan to stick on top of their car roofs.

Then we BRAINWASH everyone to drive around really fast in their electric cars so the fans on top generate electricity. Then, at the end of the day, everybody drives home, and plugs their cars into the grid, and using SMART METERS sends all the electricity from their cars into the grid, POWERING THE WORLD!!

Happy now?

I'm calling my company Wind Wind Solutions, LLC.
Comment
104 of 140
August 17, 2011
Genie: We had better hope that renewable energy gets to the point where it can replace fossil fuels as our main energy source! If it doesn't then we're going to be in for a world of hurt as fossil fuel supplies run down and eventually out. We'll also be in a world of hurt from the environmental consequences of continuing to rely upon fossil fuels until they do run out!

That said, your assumption that wind energy needs fossil fuel back up is not correct. As wind energy is adopted (as it will be) over a more widespread area, as the national electric grid is beefed up and expanded and as utility scale storage solutions are brought to market, the variability of wind can more than be compensated for in a cost effective manner.

Regarding my visits to the wind farms, you're right. I've never lived within a mile or even a couple of miles of a wind farm. That said, I do know quite a few folks who do live in close proximity to wind farms and with very few exceptions almost everybody was more excited about the economic opportunities that the wind farms brought than to their communities.

Regarding the setback requirements, these are in place to address the specific issues that you've commented on. Also, occasionally a turbine will fling ice off of a blade or can even lose a blade. For these reasons a set back requirement is a sound idea.

Regarding the other forms of renewable energy, I have to disagree with you...at least in the short run. As Peter says above, 'The point of wind power is this: it is clean, available, and there's lots of it.'

Personally, after studying renewable energy for almost 2 years on a full-time basis, I think that the solution to our energy problems are going to be a mixture of energy sources.

While I can appreciate the changes that siting wind farms in rural areas can have on those areas (both good and bad)you have to balance those costs against the costs to society as a whole!

Bob 'Free As The Wind' Mitchell
Comment
105 of 140
August 17, 2011
Hey Pete. Love it. I'm buying share in your company!!
Comment
106 of 140
August 17, 2011
I like it Peter! It's even better than the 40W light bulb in my kid's old 'turbine' lamp that spins to make patterns on the ceiling (the bulb's 'solar' energy creates wind to do the spinning). Now to connect the blades to a generator and we can charge our EV.
;]
Comment
107 of 140
August 17, 2011
OK, back to some Serious Stuff

With respect to various comments above:

The developed world has the intention and technical capacity to get out of the corner it has painted itself into with fossil fuels. No one is trying to mislead the public in that regard. We may not know all we need to know, however.

Natural gas and coal are just two of several ways to provide electric base load. Hydro, geothermal and tidal can do it quite nicely. The Solar Impulse project shows the viability of electric storage.

Wind alone has not been proposed as a replacement to coal. Rather, we are looking at a complete rethinking of how to generate, transmit and use energy. Current scenarios point to a combination of wind, solar, hydro, geothermal and tidal tied together by a robust "smart grid". Energy storage is an important part of the picture. In the long term, fossil fuels may remain a source of energy if CO2 emissions can be dealt with. Thorium nuclear has real potential.

Yes, wind and solar benefit from feed-in tariffs, and have what appear to be hidden costs. However, the long-standing incentives and tax breaks given to the fossil fuel sector, and the ongoing externalized environmental costs of fossil fuel exploration and combustion amount to the same thing.
Comment
108 of 140
August 17, 2011
More Serious Stuff

I propose defining "clean" and "dirty" energy thusly:
Dirty energy pollutes directly with some side effect of fossil fuel extraction or combustion, and releases anthropogenic CO2 into the atmosphere. Clean energy does not have those problems in terms of energy generation specifically, although impacts from utility scale solar and wind farm installations are issues of concern. That includes the use of concrete and fossil fuel combustion in construction, and dead bats. I believe those issues are manageable (and unavoidable at this stage), whereas climate change and accidents like the Deepwater Horizon disaster are beyond the pale.

Regarding comparisons with base load coal:
We are reinventing the entire energy system. Direct comparisons don't apply. Worldwide, there is recognition that the short term costs of making that transition are insignificant compared to the long term economic and environmental costs of not making it.
Comment
109 of 140
August 17, 2011
The scientific & engineering realities are against wind and any other massed, distant-from-load power sources. So, if one really is concerned to create "Clean energy [that] does not have those problems in terms of energy generation", then we can just follow common sense.

Subsidies now aren't fully justified by the admitted subsidies & special treatment historically given existing "dirty" sources.

A true accounting for each source is not done now due to both past & present subsidies (any favors). Wind doesn't care to account for what emissions are needed to build it and later to tear it down. It's also not honest about 24/7 losses & maintenance & operating expenses, which include environmental effects. It's a product of manipulating governments to provide subsidies, without thorough investigation of realities. This is even evident in China, where they're a bit more careful with govt. investments.

Similar for solar in Germany, defunct Calif. solar & wind from the '70s and many others.

So, now that local solar PV is finding some effective financing, has fair efficiency (better than any wind) and fits directly with improved grid reliability, we simply have no need for new wind. And, it will be interesting to see how many wind investors, after taking their subsidies, will actually belly up to the bar, remove their stuff, including roads & concrete, and move on to something more useful. That would just be good manners.

Hmmm, subsidies & manners. Hmmmm.
;]
Comment
110 of 140
August 17, 2011
Please cite those science and engineering realities that are against massed distance-from-load power sources.
Comment
111 of 140
August 18, 2011
Ok Peter, you can peruse the RETI docs from the Calif. CPUC & Energy Commission, or you can just use your knowledge as an electrical engineer who knows transmission systems.

You can even recall your high-school physics and maybe determine why hooking up a new 'farm' to an existing transmission line is problematic, in proportion to more than the the square of the added current from the 'farm'. That's why new transmission lines are so often necessary adding great expense.
Comment
112 of 140
August 18, 2011
Yes, a transmission line has energy loss. Physics 101.

Distributed solar makes good sense partly because it avoids those costs.

But in many parts of the world, there are obvious instances where transmission is needed. So, if it's not too much trouble, please cite a document from the California PUC, or anywhere for that matter, that says that isn't so.
Comment
113 of 140
August 18, 2011
It is fun to see people who do not have a clue try to explan what they do not understand.
Wind output can not be planed, it it a reaction and it takes other generation to ballance system.
Comment
114 of 140
August 18, 2011
"instances where transmission is needed" -- Calif., foe example, needs no new generation, because we've led the nation in efficiency since 1978. So, "needed" doesn't apply to any massed wind or solar, or anything else new in the Land of Far Far Away. Right, Donkey?!

If you want a windmill in your yard, fine. If it's too ugly or noisy, or messy (dead bats & birds), then have it far away. Then you pay the loss + the new transmission -- Physics 1, actually.
;]
Comment
115 of 140
August 18, 2011
Hey Donkey yourself -

I live in BC, so I have a better chance of keeping myself warm from chopping up millions of dead pine trees from the pine beetle invasion due to climate change. Can't afford a wind TURBINE. Don't need a wind MILL 'cause I can buy flour at the supermarket.

Here's a fact. BC Hydro has recently selected four "bioenergy" projects from private energy firms to supply its grid, which is (here's another fact) over 90 percent supplied by hydro electric power. Huge dams with transmission lines all over the place. But I digress. I'm talkin' chopping wood. And I don't mind choppin wood, as the song goes.

For the nerd in you, bioenergy is a euphemism for carting all that dead wood out of the interior and burning it in a giant cauldon, or something like that. Lot's o' megawatts there! But since nobody wants a giant cauldron in their town, they're gonna hafta burn it somewhere where the smoke doesn't get in peoples eyes or up their noses. Then, they can catch all that heat in balloons or something and sell the heat balloons at Walmart. No unscientific transmission lines needed at all.

Now is that a reality or what?? Or just a fact. Not sure myself.
Comment
116 of 140
August 18, 2011
Peter, you've been inhaling (the wood smoke).
;]

Head over to Grouse Mtn. & up to their windmill -- ask 'em how often they get enough wind to get some juice. Then ask 'em why they're selling tickets for $25 a person to go up into its teeny observation bubble. Guess where they make their $ -- 'green' juice or tourist greenbacks?
Comment
117 of 140
August 18, 2011
DrAlex, could I move your attention to off grid which is predominantly diesel generation. One liter of diesel produces 3.8 kWh. So its not a hard task to calculate the diesel reduction benefits of the introduction of wind to diesel power systems. The elimination of wind deprives us of a useful fossil displacement tool. Its obvious that you can find no role for wind on grid so we will remain apart on that. I just want to point you to the useful benefits of wind in other areas of power generation.
Comment
118 of 140
August 18, 2011
Yes indeed, John. In Canada's eastern Arctic, and in Labrador, the wind can howl unimpeded across the tundra for days during the winter months. Diesel generators have been keeping the lights on in remote communities up there, but wind turbines are increasingly being installed to save fuel. In the west, near Whitehorse, in the Yukon, Vestas installed a 660 kw turbine in 2000. They have been evaluating the machine's ability to withstand -50 degree temperatures. Ice build-up can be a problem, affecting efficiency.
Comment
119 of 140
August 18, 2011
I should add, however, that wind turbines as currently designed, have a lot of difficulty with the extreme conditions up there.
Comment
120 of 140
August 18, 2011
John, you can direct my attention anywhere! And let me direct yours way back up to what I said about farmers & other remote sites can certainly have their own wind/solar/hydro, whatever.

And, as Peter wisely reminds, "Ice build-up can be a problem" in many remote spots -- hurricanes & tornados in others, etc.

The Russians, for example, waste no time on that -- they're deploying ships analogous to their long-reliable nuclear icebreakers, to deliver 300MW of nuclear power all along their Arctic coastline, in support the development now becoming possible due to climate change.

Very wise of them to avoid peanuts, like windmills, that can't hack the weather. This is especially true because we in the US were supposed to have 700GWe of nuclear power by 2000, and the international deficit is now 1GWe/week of clean power, beginning way back around 1970. Wind will do nothing for that. Solar DG will do a little, as will efficiency. Wiser folks, like the Chinese are returning to the safe nuclear power we designed 40 years ago, but didn't deploy per the advice JFK received. Thus everyone has to work harder and hundreds of millions around the world are now destined to suffer more land loss, more water shortages, less food and more disease. Wind does nothing for all that -- it's just the the wrong thing, subsidized at the wrong time.
Comment
121 of 140
August 18, 2011
Every source of power has its advantages and disadvantages. Interpret this as you see fit, but until nuclear power deals with its serious safety problems, by developing Thorium reactors for example, there will be trouble. The Russians may be pragmatic, but they can be slack on safety.

Note that a wind farm in northern Japan survived the earthquake, while the reactors did not. Also, the issue of hurricane force wind is certainly a major concern of the wind industry. Take a look at this short article from NPR:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94568478
Comment
122 of 140
August 18, 2011
Cool DrAlexC...Its taken me a while but I am trying to build a picture in my mind of what you see as the way forward. Not for any particular reason other than I enjoy the banter!!

Nuclear - Good (Thorium Better?)
Rooftop PV - Good
Large Scale PV - Bad
Energy Efficiency - Good
Fossil - ??
Wind - Bad
CSP - Bad
Wave - ??
Biomas - Bad

Hey we don't agree on a lot of things but there stuff we do!
Have a great day
Comment
123 of 140
August 18, 2011
By the way, I wouldn't dismiss off grid. Your comment "And let me direct yours way back up to what I said about farmers & other remote sites can certainly have their own wind/solar/hydro, whatever" seems to suggest (and I could be wrong in this) that you have not considered the environmental impact to the world of all those diesel generators providing power to people living off the grid (as well as mine sites). If your are interested I will post the numbers for you. Wind power on these sites reduced diesel consumption...a lot. It will take a lot of the wind turbines you despise, but the result is a big plus for the environment. Yes some of the blades do ice up in the harsher environments (just like PV is affected when tabby the cat sits on it), you just take that into consideration when assessing the total energy available.
Comment
124 of 140
August 18, 2011
Another by the way...your comment "The scientific & engineering realities are against wind and any other massed, distant-from-load power sources" seems to suggest that the next nuclear reactor will be built in someones back yard...I think not!!
Comment
125 of 140
August 19, 2011
Just a clarifying question, but I didn't quite get what you meant by "Thus everyone has to work harder and hundreds of millions around the world are now destined to suffer more land loss, more water shortages, less food and more disease".
Comment
126 of 140
August 19, 2011
Peter, I'm against current LWRs because we were to be rid of them by 2000 & they're basically Rube Goldberg, as their 1946 inventor said years later when developing better -- molten-salt reactors (that China is now proceeding with -- others too). But, to be fair to LWRs, "wind farm in northern Japan survived the earthquake, while the reactors did not" is not quite right -- operating reactors properly shut down. It was fuel storage & post-shutdown cooling that failed (TEPCO's goofy design). The wind farm wasn't deigned by TEPCO.

John, how many times can I say that remote, per site, off-grid wind can be ok?

Back yard nukes? Likely not, though they're aboard any spacecraft going beyond Mars, & the next Mars lander too. And, the "modular" LWR folks are indeed making 10-100MW units for remote villages. The deal with LWRs is keeping cool when something's wrong, so latest designs are "walk-away safe" -- naturally cooled by convection, ground conduction, etc. Problem is, the solid-fuel cycle remains environmentally expensive, thus the move to reactors where the fuel is fully consumed as liquid & is available without mining/enrichment -- e.g., Thorium molten salt.

My response table...
Nuclear - LWR replace ASAP with MSR (to destroy wastes/weapons) & Th MSR to last us thousands of years -- 1kg = 1 rich American's entire energy life.
Rooftop PV (& hot water) - Good & getting better.
Large Scale PV - Wasteful mistake.
Energy Efficiency - Necessary for 2 reasons.
Fossil - Are you kidding? It or synfuel needed for aircraft.
Wind - Wasteful mistake.
CSP - Wasteful mistake.
Wave - Wasteful mistake.
Hydro - keep as environmentally acceptable, otherwise, tear down -- e.g., Lakes Powell & Meade dropping because climate they were designed to was found to be a fluke.
Geothermal - expensive, somewhat wasteful & polluting.
Biomass - wasteful, environmentally-disastrous mistake.
Thinking carefully -- essential.
Lattes - Eh.
Frappuccinos - nice.
Comment
127 of 140
August 19, 2011
Mine is an espresso...helps me work though the night. Thanks
Comment
128 of 140
August 20, 2011
Well, now that John has finally flushed Dr Alex out of the bushes and got him to make a concise, definitive statement on energy policy, we can all go home and snort a beer. I nominate the Doc for the position of Energy Secretary -- for the 2075 administration, when we have all figured out that Thorium was the Answer All Along (TAAA).

Meanwhile the rest of us can get on with the job of wasting time, energy and resources schlepping toward a possible avoidance of climate catastrophe.

Thanks to all & good night. Or g'day depending on your longitude.
Comment
129 of 140
August 20, 2011
"finally flushed Dr Alex out of the bushes " -- didn't know you were so anxiously waiting Peter! I wouldn't have been so coy to let a grown man suffer.

Yes, we are all working to ameliorate environmental problems -- "ameliorate" because there's so much built it by our past laziness, politics & ignorance that there's no correction within a generation.

Hope you've got you backyard ready for a US refugee tent, or two, Peter.
;]
Comment
130 of 140
August 20, 2011
Great job ignoring my last comment, everyone! Now why wouldn't you want to talk more about being honest?... LOL!
Comment
131 of 140
August 20, 2011
Honest is the only way to be, (doubting) Thomas.
Comment
132 of 140
August 21, 2011
Thomas - I don't think anyone, anywhere, has suggested wind alone as an alternative to coal. The most radical scenarios present wind, solar, hydro, geothermal and storage as the collective alternative. A different power paradigm.

Not sure why the hidden costs of wind seem like a lie. I'm sure you're aware of the externalized costs of coal, oil and natural gas. Maybe they're difficult to hide, but certainly not factored into the "true" cost. Then there are the tax breaks...

Proponents of various energy scenarios seem to overlook the downside of their favorite idea. N'est-ce pas?
Comment
133 of 140
August 21, 2011
Peter I agree. If you don't want or like something there is always a reason you can find to justify your position. You put it well when you said 'Proponents of various energy scenarios seem to overlook the downside of their favorite idea'. This forum at times promotes views that are not balanced.
I don't know of any generation form that does not have a negative effect. None. The matter for us to concern ourselves I would have thought is wether the effect of the particular renewable energy alternative we are proposing is worse than the non renewable alternatives (given that this forum is Renewable Energy World). Our next effort would be then to increase the penetration of renewables all the while looking for better and better alternatives. The task I think is not to stop until we have reached a world wide consensus on the best renewable energy form, because this consensus will never happen, but rather that we push on and use our resources to develop a variety of viable renewable power sources. I have said it before that I believe that the dissensions in the renewable community is just what the proponents of fossil power want. While ever we bicker and find ourselves unable to agree, we give then the ammunition to campaign against us.
Comment
134 of 140
August 22, 2011
"If you don't want or like something there is always a reason you can find to justify your position." -- only if one's dishonest with oneself & others.
;]
Comment
135 of 140
August 22, 2011
True, but it does happen unfortunately.
Comment
136 of 140
August 23, 2011
Hmm, darn it, even with your last comment DrAlex, I can't bring myself to agree with you! The word, "dishonest" brings with it a certain amount of intent and I don't think that most folks are bringing to these discussions.

Sometimes, it's a matter of who are going to be paying a cost as opposed to the fact that there will be a cost to be paid for just about any energy source.

For example, I'm a big proponent of beefing up the grid. Living in a big city and being concerned with renewable energy and lessening our dependence upon fossil fuels this seems like a reasonable thing to do.

However, I might feel different or at least being willing to discount the importance of beefing up the grid if I lived in a beautiful little valley that was slated to have massive high voltage lines strung down it.

Does my desire to keep my valley as scenic as it can be make me dishonest? No, it means that I have a different perspective. That's all.

In terms of wind development, I think that many people lose a sense of perspective. Be it the project developer who is sitting in an office in a high rise tower thousands of miles away or the little old lady who goes to a public hearing on the siting of a wind farm and throws a tantrum because that wind farm is going to sit where her family's apple orchard used to be, both parties can lose sight of the other party's concerns.

This said, I think that it's important that all parties in these discussions keep an open mind and do their best to accommodate the needs of the other parties involved. I also think that it's important that people not forget that just because they think something, doesn't necessarily mean that they are going to be right 100% of the time.

Did I just piss a bunch of engineers off?;-)

Bob "Free As The Wind" Mitchell
Comment
137 of 140
August 24, 2011
Semantics there Free...Wind -- "dishonest" implies knowledge of truth and its willful distortion. That's why we swear to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". For the rest, we have politicians.

The alternative to being dishonest on a topic is just to be ignorant. Nothing wrong with that, unless you want to progress. Being willfully ignorant, however, is dishonest, even when just looking in the mirror.

Dishonesty is very expensive to us all. We should tax dishonesty.
;]
Comment
138 of 140
August 24, 2011
Doc... Both Lake Powell and Mead are rising this year; probably due to climate change weather patterns.(a strong La Nina) As for dams, most were built for flood control, irrigation, or water storage for community water supply. Most of the effects were - or in the case of a hydro retrofit, the environmental issues were or will be mitigated; fish passage, etc. Dams are a necessity even though some are slated to be removed, but let's not be stupid and cut our own head off.
Comment
139 of 140
August 24, 2011
Mitch, did I say tear down all dams?

As for our US West, we in Calif. got 140% of normal precip in our Sierra Nevada this past season, due, as you say, to the El Nino Pacific cycle. The large dams on the Colorado may have had water rise behind them too, but the forecast by experts is not good, for more than just climate reasons -- all dams build sediment behind them which seriously diminishes their capacities. Evaporative losses in dry climates are also serious, as are percolation losses into porous sandstones behind the Colorado dams.

So, Hoover was a good thing for powering Las Vegas and providing jobs. Powell was basically a boondoggle. And, fortunately, others planned for the Colorado were nixed. Despite that, we successfully cheated Mexico out of their natural Colorado water flow.

Lakes Meade & Powell will never be what they were forecast to be when planned. Geologic and paleo-climate studies have consistently confirmed the mistaken forecasting that supported their construction.

As for fish impacts, most dams are very badly provisioned for aiding migratory species, like Salmon. So tearing down non-essential dams benefits both fish and downstream environments that can now receive seasonal silting again.

Native Americans are owed quite a debt for preserving, for many thousands of years, the resources we now naively or crassly exploit. Ever, wonder what our grandkids are thinking as they look back from the future at us?
Comment
140 of 140
September 11, 2011
Soomeone has sense to see that wind turbines are not efficient. Why not use waste to energy which is happening in Europe and the Middle East. Wind turbines are not windmills which a lot of people seem to think they are when actuallym they are environmental vandals through 300 tonnes or more of concrete (world's worst pollutant) with form of fibreglass in construction along with copper, steel, hydraulic oil and a rare Chinese mineral. They take away the habitat of native species, kill birdlife and affect humans as studies have shown that infrasound does cause problems. Japan is having a moritorium on them and Spain has lost jobs to their construction. They are a complete waste of money as one developer said they only build them because of subsidies.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
Sign Up

Jennifer Runyon

View Jennifer Runyon's Profile
About: Jennifer Runyon is managing editor of RenewableEnergyWorld.com and Renewable Energy World North America magazine, coordinating, writing and/or editing columns, ... more »

Jennifer's Articles

Foreign Dominance of U.S. Clean Energy Market Spells Trouble for America
Saving Money, Gaining Energy Independence: ESPCs with the U.S. Government
Applied Materials Restructuring Solar Business
More »

Recent News

UK Again Cuts Solar Feed-in Tariffs
Gamesa Ousts Chief Executive
Report: Two Solar Technologies That Will Thrive; Two On the Demise
China EXIM Bank Approves Loan for Pakistan's 969-MW Neelum-Jhelum Hydropower Plant
Solar Manufacturing's New Strategy: "Co-opetition"

Advertise With Us

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access Featured Total Access Partners
 
Blue Sky Energy, Inc. Latin American Wind Energy Association (LAWEA) RevoluSun Met Office Enphase Energy HUBER+SUHNER AG US Solar Institute
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters