# Wind energy within the United states updates



## ScienceRocks (Aug 10, 2012)

This thread will be for all updates on the expansion of wind power within the United states. I'm going to work to combine some of the threads this way to not clutter the forum. 
-Updates on percentage of electric is done by wind power
-Updates on the construction of new wind power sites
-Reports on the super big wind farms...

*
US Reaches 50 GW of Wind Energy Capacity in Q2 of 2012*




> US Reaches 50GW of Wind Energy Capacity in Q2 of 2012 - CleanTechnica
> Wind energy in the United States hit a new benchmark, reaching 50 gigawatts (GW) of electric capacity in the second quarter of 2012.
> 
> The announcement was made by Denise Bode, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) at the National Clean Energy Summit in Los Vegas, Nevada.
> ...


 
Pic of how many homes it can power at different MW level
http://c1cleantechnicacom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2012/08/INFOGRAPHIC_AWEA.jpg


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 10, 2012)

> Politicians were pleased with the US wind energy&#8217;s latest milestone. &#8220;This milestone for wind-energy production marks continued success for this clean, renewable and domestically produced energy source,&#8221; said Republican Senator Chuck Grassley in a statement. &#8220;Wind energy has exceeded expectations since I first authored the tax incentive, in 1992, and offers an ideal for expanded production and use of alternative energy sources in the future.&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;It is amazing that 50,000 megawatts of our nation&#8217;s power is generated from clean and affordable wind energy,&#8221; Oklahoma Republican Frank Lucas Said.
> 
> Clean Technica (US Reaches 50GW of Wind Energy Capacity in Q2 of 2012 - CleanTechnica)



Look who's becoming supportive of it...In the future this isn't going to be a democrat and republican issue. I've come to the conclusion that wind deserves the same tax credit as coal.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 10, 2012)

Capacity is not the same as output now is it?

Wind power will never reach its nominal output for the simple reason that the wind doesn't blow all the time.

Not to mention the fact that windmills uglify the landscape.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 10, 2012)

SkullPilot is ENTIRELY correct. If you're impressed by INSTALLED capacity, you're not living in reality. The best sited wind farms in America produce 30% of their INSTALLED capacity. So your 50 GW is really more like 15GW. Take the fact that 50% of that is generated in only about 100 days a year and you get an 8 month period of under 7.5GW. 

Then if you're still not depressed, you need to add in the dumped or redundant power generated by the Nat Gas or Coal Plant that is the PRIMARY source of power. Always sitting there idling in the background while wind gets it's 40 minutes of fame on the grid.. 

Too much hype -- not enough reality... Sorry man --- I'm NOT a fan.. 

Get it ?? A fan???


----------



## whitehall (Aug 10, 2012)

US energy consumption approaches 450,000 megawatts. The incredible investment of windmills that boasts of a disputed figure of 50,000 megawatts is like pissing on the 3rd rail.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 11, 2012)

Really bugs you fellows, doesn't it. You are standing out in left field doing the neener-neener act, and wind and solar just keep growing at double digit compound rates.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 11, 2012)

As if the present use of energy in the US could serve as a standard!

Use has nothing to do with need.

Wind is one element that can be used in the total mix.

Alternative energies are the future. Maintaining present energy policies and consumption is suicide.

Like pissing on the third rail.


----------



## editec (Aug 11, 2012)

The argument that wind and solar aren't as efficient as hydrocarbons is certainly valid.

They aren't.

But efficiency isn't the only variable that one ought to take into account.  

Consider the fact that wind and solar pollute much less and that they are not diminishing assets.

Failure to consider all the factors involving the true cost of energy, and the availability of that energy source in the future is rather stupid, don't you think?

Well, of course, I am realy only asking those of us who DO think, of course.

Naturally none of us really  expect the boards sophists for the oil companies to actually do any real thinking.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 11, 2012)

"The argument that wind and solar aren't as efficient as hydrocarbons is certainly valid.

They aren't."

I only take exception to the word 'efficient'. They are, however, certainly less efficient at furnishing astronomical profits to a few self-centered, bloated corporations.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 11, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Really bugs you fellows, doesn't it. You are standing out in left field doing the neener-neener act, and wind and solar just keep growing at double digit compound rates.



Wind isn't worth the investment.

Solar is more viable because we don't have to clutter up our wild empty spaces to do it.

But really nuclear is the best option for reliable emission free power.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 11, 2012)

"But really nuclear is the best option for reliable emission free power."

If it were 'emission' free. What could you possibly mean? Of course there are 'emissions'! That's why nukes have to be replaced after a certain time; there is no such thing as containment, just slowing down the nuclear rot!

Nukes are bogus and merely a part of the real plot to keep power, in all its forms, centralized!

If we keep up with that technology, all we can look forward to is a landscape of bleached bones and skulls.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 11, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> "But really nuclear is the best option for reliable emission free power."
> 
> If it were 'emission' free. What could you possibly mean? Of course there are 'emissions'! That's why nukes have to be replaced after a certain time; there is no such thing as containment, just slowing down the nuclear rot!
> 
> ...



Yeah France is just littered with bones and skulls.

More doomsday hyperbole from the idiots.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 11, 2012)

When those who love the control mega-business exerts want to criticize 'socialism', France is the target. When they want to promote that dictatorship, they use - France?


----------



## whitehall (Aug 11, 2012)

What do you expect to see from an association of windbags meeting in Vegas to promote wind energy? The truth? They will cobble figures, eliminate pertinent data and exaggerate production. That's what they have to do to keep getting the grant money. Even if you accept the skewed figures it is still a drop in the bucket and the the cost of building and maintenance does not equal the output for decades.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 11, 2012)

Windbags promoting wind energy! Good one!

What I expect is an intelligent mix, not a monolithic method.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 11, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> When those who love the control mega-business exerts want to criticize 'socialism', France is the target. When they want to promote that dictatorship, they use - France?



I don't give a flying fuck about France's government because I will never live there 

But when it comes to nuclear power they know their shit


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 11, 2012)

And we know nukes are shit, too.

Be sure to hold onto those aeronautical sexual encounters!


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 11, 2012)

editec said:


> The argument that wind and solar aren't as efficient as hydrocarbons is certainly valid.
> 
> They aren't.
> 
> ...



What EFFICIENCY is there to wind if you need a fully capable PRIMARY energy plant sitting there idling in the background just so that you can take 40 minutes of wind energy onto the grid?? Do YOU want to invest in a Nat Gas plant that's guaranteed 24/7/365 power to the people, when Federal law says you have to dump your load into the ground whenever the wind blows??? Of course not.. Folks are paying for TWO power sources everytime you plant a windmill... WHOOPEE let''s celebrate and leave the problems of how you INTEGRATE this sketchy power onto a GRID that keeps people ALIVE and WELL because it never goes out. 

There ARE NO ALTERNATIVES that provide reliable power in general when you consider their enviromental impacts  -- their siting requirements, their integration onto the grid and their daily and HOURLY production variations.. 20% is about ALL these supplements will supply.. Why?

Because Solar can reduce PEAK afternoon loads (south of Mason Dixon) and the load at night (10PM)  in the summer is about 80% of daytime peak.. So you could defer 20% of your primary generation capability with solar IN THOSE REGIONS.. IF everything works -- which it won't -- so the number is somewhat less than that. And WIND probably SAPS energy from the grid when you consider the grid integration problems and the stress on idling primary generators. 

If you want EVs and economic growth -- we're looking for A LOT more electricity. NOT unreliable, trickling Rube Goldberg fixes...


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 11, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> And we know nukes are shit, too.
> 
> Be sure to hold onto those aeronautical sexual encounters!



Are you more afraid of nuclear power plants than Global Warming? Because 240 nuclear plants is the ANSWER to CO2 (if that indeed is the question)..


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 11, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> As if the present use of energy in the US could serve as a standard!
> 
> Use has nothing to do with need.
> 
> ...



We need to move this conversion from pissing and hand-waving to REALITY and life and death.. So I'm gonna let YOU make the decisions. I'm putting you in the Managers seat at the Regional Utility Operating Center and you will make the calls.. 

Here's the real world.. You have a 200MW wind operation at your call that produces an annual average output at 50MW. You are juggling 1.5GW of power at your command and that's the current grid load. 

You haven't seen SHIT in terms of production from the wind farm for 36 hours, but right now they're building to 12 MW because the wind is picking up.. 

You've got 18 hospitals, one 24 hr semiconductor fab plant, and nighttime Nascar race with 130,000 fans packed in out in the darkened sticks. Your friend is scheduled for surgery tonight. 
You've got 280,000 customers depending on your decision.. 

1) When do make the call to the Nat Gas plant and tell the dude to idle his plant so that you take that wind energy onto the grid? (((Remember he's under contract for RELIABLE POWER so he gets paid whether or not you take it)))

It will take 10 minutes to idle and 30 minutes to come back up. ((You didn't think these things happened INSTANTANEOUSLY like way wind appears and dissappears didya?))

2) The FED govt tells you that have to TAKE that wind energy even if youre dumping perfectly good Primary power into the ground. You know that this wind spike will probably pass in 20 to 40 minutes because a front is moving thru.. Do you DUMP the nat gas plant energy into the ground because you're (the rate payers) paying for it either way, or WAIT 40 minutes and see if the wind is still there? 

3) Do you wonder why anyone would RESENT being put into a position to make those life and death choices?? You should -- You're INSISTING on it....

EDIT -- Look I don't want to ruin this thread for Matthew.. He LIKES tallying up these things... He should have his fun... 

But don't try and tell me that the MASSIVE investment in large scale wind BELONGS on a grid that has to operate 24/7/365.25.

I'd favor ANY USES off-grid for wind and solar. And there are MANY places where this would be perfect. Like desalinization or hydrogen, biofuel or chem production. I'd be a BIG fan of that...


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 11, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> And we know nukes are shit, too.
> 
> Be sure to hold onto those aeronautical sexual encounters!



Nuclear power has a great safety record as compared to any other cirrent means of large scale power generation.

It also has a better safety record than driving or flying.

And before you start whining about nuclear waste read this.

There Is No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste - WSJ.com


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 11, 2012)

Skull Pilot said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > And we know nukes are shit, too.
> ...



Nuclear and renewables could be a winning ticket. We can't have one without the other.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 11, 2012)

Have the Nascar race (a totally absurd event) in the daytime for one.

Thanks for such an easy target.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 11, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> Have the Nascar race (a totally absurd event) in the daytime for one.
> 
> Thanks for such an easy target.



You're such a practical dweeb.. 

But I don't think you're gonna make it as mgr of Utility's Operation Center if you can't make those calls and answer those easy questions about utilizing wind on a grid that's supposed to be UP and READY every minute of the day.. 

BTW: Since NASCAR is a Southern thing and things get pretty damn hot in the daytime, we move stuff to nighttime so that we have less injuries from heat stroke and sun exposure.  We'll certainly look into the energy savings that could make NASCAR Greener and more appealing just for you..


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 11, 2012)

That would be a start.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 11, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> Have the Nascar race (a totally absurd event) in the daytime for one.
> 
> Thanks for such an easy target.



How about putting up more renewable or nuclear energy, and having it anytime you damn well please? Unless you're for restricting peoples freedoms that is.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 12, 2012)

Freedom to commit suicide? Go ahead, but don't take everyone else with you.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 12, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> Freedom to commit suicide? Go ahead, but don't take everyone else with you.



Yeah we all know you think everyone will die if we use nuclear power.

Go to bed now Chicken Little.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 14, 2012)

Michigan 25 by 25 Ballot Initiative Would Double State&#8217;s Green Jobs

August 14, 2012 By Silvio Marcacci Leave a Comment 

Michigan 25 by 25 Ballot Initiative Would Double State's Green Jobs


> Increasing Michigan&#8217;s renewable energy standard (RES) to 25 percent by 2025 would be a &#8220;job-creating machine&#8221; that doubles the number of green jobs in the state, according to a new Michigan State University (MSU) study. The 25 by 25 RES proposal, just certified by the state&#8217;s Bureau of Elections to appear on this year&#8217;s ballot, would more than double Michigan&#8217;s renewable electricity target from the current 10 percent by 2015 goal.
> 
> The MSU study, &#8220;Projected Job and Investment Impacts of Policy Requiring 25% Renewable Energy by 2025 in Michigan,&#8221; found that increasing the state RES would create at least 74,500 new green collar jobs, and potentially up to 113,850 jobs. Specifically, the RES would create 31,500 construction jobs, 43,000 operations and maintenance jobs, and around 4,200 manufacturing jobs.
> 
> ...


----------



## Saigon (Aug 14, 2012)

I think the debate on energy has actually started to reach the stage where most people are in broad agreement - but a few posters on this board are well behind on their news reading. 

Countries need to choose the most sustainable and cost-effective methods for their environment, and that means different solutions will work best in different locations. There is no single catch-all solution. 

Nuclear is essential in Finland, but not viable in Japan or New Zealand. 
Scotland, Norway and Korea need little else than tidal, which may not work in Germany or France. 
Wind is a great option in Spain and Denmark, but is probably not going to be a silver bullet anywhere else.
Solar is magnificant in Cyprus, Turkey and Israel - less so in Alaska or Vermont. 

Any sane government will consider the entire menu, and choose a mix of nuclear, tidal, hydro, wind and solar accordingly.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 15, 2012)

Nuclear is a good option, but very expensive. And there is always wind blowing in several somewheres in a nation as big as the US. However, we need a national grid to efectively take advantage of that. Solar will do very well as the price has come down to one dollar a watt or less for panels in bulk. Watch for sales, and even a homeowner can get that price. Solar also has the advantage that it is produced at the time of greatest use of electricity. Also, in concert with EV's, could make homeowners financially more independent.

There is no one right way. It depends on where you are at, and what kind of power is available.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 15, 2012)

Saigon said:


> I think the debate on energy has actually started to reach the stage where most people are in broad agreement - but a few posters on this board are well behind on their news reading.
> 
> Countries need to choose the most sustainable and cost-effective methods for their environment, and that means different solutions will work best in different locations. There is no single catch-all solution.
> 
> ...



I really don't care about energy production in any other country but ours.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 15, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Nuclear is a good option, but very expensive. And there is always wind blowing in several somewheres in a nation as big as the US. However, we need a national grid to efectively take advantage of that. Solar will do very well as the price has come down to one dollar a watt or less for panels in bulk. Watch for sales, and even a homeowner can get that price. Solar also has the advantage that it is produced at the time of greatest use of electricity. Also, in concert with EV's, could make homeowners financially more independent.
> 
> There is no one right way. It depends on where you are at, and what kind of power is available.



Nuclear is not that expensive.

UK offshore wind costs at least twice nuclear: study | Reuters

Even if wind can generate power for the same price as nuclear the wind does not blow all the time.

And do you really want to see a fucking ugly windmill everywhere you look?

I sure as hell don't.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 15, 2012)

Skull Pilot said:


> I really don't care about energy production in any other country but ours.



Then look forward to making the same mistakes other countries have already made. 

btw. Windmills are ugly - but if you look at how the UK is placing them 100kms out to sea, that needn't be a problem. Which is exactly what I mean by learning from other countries.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 15, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > I really don't care about energy production in any other country but ours.
> ...



Yeah off shore wind is only twice as expensive as nuclear.

Good deal that.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 15, 2012)

Skull - 

I'm not a massive fan of wind energy myself. It has its uses, but those uses are limited because it simply doen't generate enough energy when compared to tidal or nuclear. 

Offshore wind also has its uses, because it does allow for a massive amont of turbines to be installed without any visual pollution. I do agree that it is expensive, though.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 15, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > I really don't care about energy production in any other country but ours.
> ...



That's a good idea. Over the ocean has more reliable constant winds too.


----------



## westwall (Aug 15, 2012)

Matthew said:


> This thread will be for all updates on the expansion of wind power within the United states. I'm going to work to combine some of the threads this way to not clutter the forum.
> -Updates on percentage of electric is done by wind power
> -Updates on the construction of new wind power sites
> -Reports on the super big wind farms...
> ...







You might want to take Spring Valley off of the list.  Lawsuits will keep it from starting for years to come...if ever.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 15, 2012)

Pattern Energy's Spring Valley Wind project has been completed and is fully operation. The 151.8 MW wind farm is the largest in Nevada. The project utilizes 66 Siemens 2.3 MW wind turbines and is connected to an existing 230 kilovolt transmission line for electricity distribution.

As part of the project, Pattern provided mitigation measures to minimize environmental impacts, including the preservation of cultural resources, funding for sage grouse, curtailment standards, modified electrical lines to reduce risks to birds, and an advanced radar system designed to protect birds and bats.

Key industry players in Nevada believe that renewable energy is the way of the future and that if they tap into all the renewable energy sources available in Nevada, the state should be easily energy independent.


Read more: Pattern Energy wind project features advanced mitigation - FierceEnergy Pattern Energy wind project features advanced mitigation - FierceEnergy
 Subscribe: Energy Industry Newsletter - FierceEnergy


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 15, 2012)

Pattern completes Nevada's first wind project | Windpower Monthly


Last year, a coalition of environmental and tribal groups, including the Centre for Biological Diversity and Western Watersheds Project, filed a lawsuit against the project over its potential environmental and cultural impacts.

Speaking about the completion of the project, interior secretary Ken Salazar said: "Advancing smart renewable energy development on our nation&#8217;s public lands is a key component to President Obama&#8217;s all-of-the-above energy strategy.

"Starting today, Nevada&#8217;s first wind energy project on public lands will begin powering the grid.  This is a great milestone in the collaborative public-private partnership on clean energy that is creating jobs, generating power, strengthening our economy and making us more competitive globally."

Yesterday, the US government announced plans to create a fast-track permitting process for important renewable energy projects.


*As usual, Walleyes, you are a dollar short and a day late. Spring Valley is up and running.*


----------



## antagon (Aug 15, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Really bugs you fellows, doesn't it. You are standing out in left field doing the neener-neener act, and wind and solar just keep growing at double digit compound rates.



I have never seen a projection where wind or solar have ever grown by a significant share of electrical demand... Like 70+ years more fossil fuel domination.  

I think that a battery-based economy or high-efficiency grid and transmission system would have to precede their growth.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 15, 2012)

antagon said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Really bugs you fellows, doesn't it. You are standing out in left field doing the neener-neener act, and wind and solar just keep growing at double digit compound rates.
> ...



I think that the batteries and alternatives will develop synergically with a distributed grid.


----------



## antagon (Aug 16, 2012)

I like the battery - based system because it brings off-shore or remote power production into play.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 16, 2012)

What "Battery based" wind power systems are you talking about? Especially offshore where space and maintenance are at a premium.. Batteries are sometimes used to SMOOTH the wind output, but the capacity extends for a couple hours when running at about 1/3 peak. 

A MW-hr battery is as large as 1/2 a semi-trailer at best and would double the cost of a turbine.


----------



## antagon (Aug 16, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> What "Battery based" wind power systems are you talking about? Especially offshore where space and maintenance are at a premium.. Batteries are sometimes used to SMOOTH the wind output, but the capacity extends for a couple hours when running at about 1/3 peak.
> 
> A MW-hr battery is as large as 1/2 a semi-trailer at best and would double the cost of a turbine.



Yeah.. semi-trailer sized.  Picture a cordless phone or battery operated device... but rather a cordless energy economy with battery-powered infrastructure.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 16, 2012)

antagon said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Really bugs you fellows, doesn't it. You are standing out in left field doing the neener-neener act, and wind and solar just keep growing at double digit compound rates.
> ...



Iowa #1 in Nation in Wind Energy Production 
Iowa produces 20% of all the electricity generated in the state from wind turbines ranking it first in the nation and second in the world!

Iowa Wind Energy Association


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 16, 2012)

The question that should be asked is why shouldn't we use the power of the wind? At least as a secondary part of our grid????


----------



## whitehall (Aug 16, 2012)

If the windbags would get off the government teat for a while and try to make it on their own they would be hung out to dry with little support. The point is that the US is pissing against the wind with political funding of projects designed to get votes from the radical base and mired in junk science and faulty claims that the world is ending because of man made global warming. How many examples of hypocrisy do you need? Al Gore's little compound using more energy per person than most towns? The grant people admitting that they fudged details and lied to keep the grant money flowing? Notice how the Hussein administration has downplayed the global warming "crisis" since the republican congressional landslide? Democrats know that people want cheap energy and jobs, not ludicrous windbag claims of "alternate energy" that doesn't exist.


----------



## Papageorgio (Aug 16, 2012)

If windmills are such a great alternative, why at liberals protesting them all over the country to prevent them?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 16, 2012)

Papageorgio said:


> If windmills are such a great alternative, why at liberals protesting them all over the country to prevent them?



The Bambie fuckers? They want to destroy industrial civilization...They're against all forms of energy.


----------



## antagon (Aug 16, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Iowa is not an energy consumption market of note.  Whether Iowa or the Pacific, This energy has to go somewhere that it is needed to make an impact... Hence grids and batteries.

For all the accolades wind boasts, collocation with urban centers is not a high-point.


----------



## Papageorgio (Aug 16, 2012)

Matthew said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > If windmills are such a great alternative, why at liberals protesting them all over the country to prevent them?
> ...



Sorry don't know anything about a Bambie anything.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 16, 2012)

Matthew said:


> The Bambie fuckers? They want to destroy industrial civilization...They're against all forms of energy.



Really, dude, why do you post this kind of children's thinking? Are you five?

When I see statements like this I really wonder what kind of reaction the poster expects - laughter and ridicule? Do you need someone to come and give you a hug? 

I hope you will come back and post something adult and coherent that we can then discuss.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 16, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > The Bambie fuckers? They want to destroy industrial civilization...They're against all forms of energy.
> ...



Well, it's true. There's people that hate industrial civilization. If you don't like something don't read it.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 16, 2012)

Matthew - 

Who hates industrial civilisation?

Who is against all forms of energy, and why are they against tidal, wind, solar etc?

You are making absolutely no sense at all.


----------



## antagon (Aug 17, 2012)

whitehall said:


> If the windbags would get off the government teat for a while and try to make it on their own they would be hung out to dry with little support. The point is that the US is pissing against the wind with political funding of projects designed to get votes from the radical base and mired in junk science and faulty claims that the world is ending because of man made global warming. How many examples of hypocrisy do you need? Al Gore's little compound using more energy per person than most towns? The grant people admitting that they fudged details and lied to keep the grant money flowing? Notice how the Hussein administration has downplayed the global warming "crisis" since the republican congressional landslide? Democrats know that people want cheap energy and jobs, not ludicrous windbag claims of "alternate energy" that doesn't exist.



Nobody cares about the far left or right.  You guys make lots of noise without getting any ink on anything you'd blab about.

I am impressed w/ Brazil's ethanol economy and how it was built from choices which markets could not sort out on their own.


----------



## tjvh (Aug 17, 2012)

Matthew said:


> > Politicians were pleased with the US wind energys latest milestone. This milestone for wind-energy production marks continued success for this clean, renewable and domestically produced energy source, said Republican Senator Chuck Grassley in a statement. Wind energy has exceeded expectations since I first authored the tax incentive, in 1992, and offers an ideal for expanded production and use of alternative energy sources in the future.
> >
> > It is amazing that 50,000 megawatts of our nations power is generated from clean and affordable wind energy, Oklahoma Republican Frank Lucas Said.
> >
> ...



Really? You think China should be subsidized by Tax credits?[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YabnLHPYDW4&feature=player_detailpage]80% Of Green Jobs Stimulus Money Going Overseas - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 17, 2012)

antagon said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > What "Battery based" wind power systems are you talking about? Especially offshore where space and maintenance are at a premium.. Batteries are sometimes used to SMOOTH the wind output, but the capacity extends for a couple hours when running at about 1/3 peak.
> ...



That my bud is an enviro nightmare.. You still need the semi - sized trailer for every grocery store to make it thru the night. IF the goal is to push sketchy performing "renewables" BEYOND what can realistically lower peak grid loads..


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 17, 2012)

Matthew said:


> The question that should be asked is why shouldn't we use the power of the wind? At least as a secondary part of our grid????



As soon as you put yourself in the seat of that Regional Power System Operator and answer the questions I put to There4IAM --- we can address the REAL costs of taking spikey unreliable power onto a grid that has to function ALL THE TIME.

Page 2 -- Post #20...


----------



## antagon (Aug 17, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



The goal there is to relinquish growth from infrastructure.  There's no direct connection between a battery-based system and renewables per sa.  Renewable energy sources simply collocate/coexist poorly with demand, whereas batteries are used to store energy until demanded and nearby (at a grid-insertion point or at the grocery store itself) to the source in demand.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 17, 2012)

Eos Energy Storage Looking to Disrupt Grid-Scale Batteries With Zinc-Air : Greentech Media


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 17, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Eos Energy Storage Looking to Disrupt Grid-Scale Batteries With Zinc-Air : Greentech Media



The only valuable factoid given in that article is hinted at and not even revealed. And that is that JAPAN will not even TAKE wind onto it's grid without interim battery SMOOTHING. That's why they are ahead of us in trying to integrate wind and why they are making the big mistakes (like fires) for us.. Evidently -- they have REAL POWER engineers making rational demands on their renewable whackjobs -- and we just smile and placate them.. 

NOTHING in that article talks about a technology that can be deployed in a distributed load situation.. These "dreams" about storage being an integral part of the grid assume that EVERY load will be protected by battery backup.. OR -- is Atagon and OldieRocks suggesting we turn it into anarchy and leave large consumers unprotected from vagarities of a flaky grid?

The goal of 6MW-hr zinc air battery IS NOT "grid scale".. It's barely enough to SMOOTH 5 or 6 large windmills. And that -- by doubling the cost of each generator and adding a 40 foot trailer with a battery tech that right now is good for a couple thousand cycles.. (not to mention the inefficiencies of inverting and re-inverting the DC required in and out of the battery -- plus charge/discharge inefficiencies)  !!!!

Obviously to save this concept of making sketchy wind useful -- enviros will completely ignore the environmental wreckage of such a large waste/recycling stream to justify their Rube Goldberg plans..


----------



## antagon (Aug 17, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Eos Energy Storage Looking to Disrupt Grid-Scale Batteries With Zinc-Air : Greentech Media
> ...


Yeah.  The anarchy. 

What do you find negative about this article? ..or did you deliver all the negativity?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 17, 2012)

Sorry to be the pessimist here. I'd prefer another role. LOVE to be optimistic as an engineer.. 

Unfortunately we've have 25 years or more of "playing" with these problems and have no solutions to taking an energy source onto a grid that puts out 40 minutes BURSTS of energy.

Maybe you'd like to take a whack in the seat of the Utilities Command Center that I put another poster in. Tell me how what switches you would pull and when... *Page 2 -- Post #20*...

I'm in a related field and don't really have much faith in blind faith...


----------



## antagon (Aug 17, 2012)

25 years is infantile in terms of infrastructure tech... especially to affect implementation.

I don't see what's so dire about your challenge.  Our existing infrastructure can handle concentrated loads and only yourself and your counterparts on the distant left entertain the idea of a wind-only grid.

Whether or not RE is involved, there are many dividends to batteries for the efficiency they could add to a grid.. they would add some more of your switches for pulling.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 17, 2012)

antagon said:


> 25 years is infantile in terms of infrastructure tech... especially to affect implementation.
> 
> I don't see what's so dire about your challenge.  Our existing infrastructure can handle concentrated loads and only yourself and your counterparts on the distant left entertain the idea of a wind-only grid.
> 
> Whether or not RE is involved, there are many dividends to batteries for the efficiency they could add to a grid.. they would add some more of your switches for pulling.



The grid currently has NO need for batteries to store massive amounts of power. And I don't think you understand the implications of making that addition just so that the demand/load curves can go haywire.. 

You don't want to play the role of grid operator or to put yourself in the position of the Nat Gas plant operator that's forced to idle his perfectly good plant by govt edict everytime the wind blows. There is NO CHOICE to stranding 130,000 spectators at a night game, race or attraction -- you can't do that. And the batteries to back up a NASCAR event (e.g.) would be larger than the 43 vans that brought the race teams. IF -- that facility was isolated from the grid and could even INVOKE a battery backed local grid. Then those batteries would sit mostly idle for 4 months til the next event. 

*The SCALE of buffering and storing the grid is out reach as soon as you allow more than perhaps a few percent "ripple" on the PRIMARY generation output. * 

It's out of reach now and probably out of reach by reasonable measure of physics and economy. Why do you think Germany is tearing up its mountainsides and putting in miles of water storage and piping to attempt to use their measly wind resource? Is THAT the enviromental dream? Or is it just spiteful desperation?? I OPPOSE that kind of sledge hammer approach as a person that actually CARES about the environment and I OPPOSE massive waste/recycling from a battery crazy attempt to fix reality.

At least SOLAR is a tad more predictable by season and time of day.. AND it can SOMEWHAT be relied on to reduce daytime peaks.  But there is a need to have 100% LOAD GENERATION 24/7/365.25 so that wind and solar WILL ALWAYS be a redundant source, NOT "an alternative". 

I've posted this many times, but perhaps you've never seen the production output from a wind farm.. Trust me -- this is considered GOOD... 






That was done before they took the governors off and let the turbines approach their best. BUT -- it's typical of the variability in wind farm production. You want to battery smooth THAT? At 10Megwatt-hrs per farm? Not gonna happen. The switches will STILL have to be pulled and power and equipment will be wasted..


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 18, 2012)

Other thinking, folksicules! Present energy solutions are not something that can continue. It was not always that way. People have existed for hundreds of thousands of years. Current energy consumption rates are very, very recent and cannot serve as a standard!


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 18, 2012)

Matthew said:


> This thread will be for all updates on the expansion of wind power within the United states. I'm going to work to combine some of the threads this way to not clutter the forum.
> -Updates on percentage of electric is done by wind power
> -Updates on the construction of new wind power sites
> -Reports on the super big wind farms...
> ...



50 GW is the rated power.  The actual power delivered probably averages less than 20% of that figure, or about 10 GW.  On the other hand, a coal plant delivers on average 95% of the rated power.

Colossal fail.


----------



## antagon (Aug 18, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > 25 years is infantile in terms of infrastructure tech... especially to affect implementation.
> ...


Adding storage capacity to a grid is meant to smooth out your little curves so that plants always run at a sustainable duty where they're most efficient at creating energy.


> You don't want to play the role of grid operator or to put yourself in the position of the Nat Gas plant operator ...


You're right.  That's probably a better position for yourself.  I am moonlighting in the forward-looking, policy-level public infrastructure seat trying to incorporate batteries into grids and fire some of your switch flippers.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 18, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> Other thinking, folksicules! Present energy solutions are not something that can continue. It was not always that way. People have existed for hundreds of thousands of years. Current energy consumption rates are very, very recent and cannot serve as a standard!



Obviously you believe we should all go back to living a stone-age existence.  Our current energy consumption levels are what make modern living possible.   You want to go back to abject poverty, starvation and death?  Go find a cave to live in.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 18, 2012)

antagon said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > antagon said:
> ...



Well good luck from public policy angle if you don't understand the SCALE of what you're proposing. I gave you that the grid could THEORETICALLY run a few percent above and below the demand IF -- you spent mountains of money and material on buffering and storage. But the cost analysis for that is extremely disheartening if you're goal is to add perhaps 15% wind power to the grid 5 days a week for an hour at a time.. 

With daily production charts like I showed you above (and worse) -- it's not EVEN an issue of smoothing. It's an issue of the public paying for contracted RELIABLE energy in parallel with the costly wind investment and then DUMPING one or the other into the ground when you have too much.. The public is gonna pay TWICE for that "alternative" and THAT costing is not factored in.. That's the public policy angle that will eventually sober up the fan-atics.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 18, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > Other thinking, folksicules! Present energy solutions are not something that can continue. It was not always that way. People have existed for hundreds of thousands of years. Current energy consumption rates are very, very recent and cannot serve as a standard!
> ...



The typical response; if it doesn't correspond exactly to what Americans are doing today, it is a return to the stone age. For thinkers like this, 'progress' is a bigger car. There is no possibility of progress in another direction. In fact, 'progress' has become a dirty word.

The fact is, our current energy consumption levels condemn us to war, death and an end to the 'modern world'.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 18, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...



Hey -- Has it ever occurred to you that *America IS energy independent RIGHT NOW for all of it's electrical energy?* 

True Fact dat.. And wind, solar, and the other more weiney progressive ideas you might have floating around -- don't add much to getting us INDEPENDENT of the transportation sector fuels that we need? 

If you're gonna invoke PROGRESS and try to appear more NOBLE than me, then at least focus on smoke and mirrors that APPEAR to make progress in the right areas.. You got 20 minutes to save me from myself.. Go!!!!!


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 18, 2012)

Too late.. I've gone over the precipice. Donated more money to the CATO institute and scheduled lunch with the Koch Bros to plan your imminent destruction.. You COULD have saved me..


----------



## antagon (Aug 18, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Don't worry about it.  If it were solely up to people who just complain and supply the negatives about challenges, they'll never be surmounted. This country wouldn't be as far ahead as we even are today.  

This century, our electrical infrastructure will have multifunctional grids with capacitive features.  They'd allow for emerging energy sources and the challenges they present because these sources are expected to continue to play their marginal role well into the future.  The mostly flat qualitative share in demand which I've seen proposed for wind or ethanol or solar means considerable quantitative growth and integration of alt/renewable energy in the market.  Doubtful that can come about without more attention to the infrastructure which ties them in.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 18, 2012)

antagon said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > antagon said:
> ...



Funny thing about infrastructure -- it gets created magically for GREAT ideas like television, cell phones and internet. When you FORCE infrastructure changes to conform to policy -- you're gonna waste a lot of time and effort and money and get little help from the private sector. 

Wind is better used OFF GRID -- to make fuels like hydrogen, chemicals, and desalinized water. All products that are NOT time critical and serve to STORE the product made from that energy.. And VOILA -- no wasted demands or capacity on infrastructure..


----------



## antagon (Aug 18, 2012)

no magic.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 18, 2012)

antagon said:


> no magic.



OK boss -- your rules.. No magic..


----------



## Wolfmann (Sep 6, 2012)

matthew said:


> this thread will be for all updates on the expansion of wind power within the united states. I'm going to work to combine some of the threads this way to not clutter the forum.
> -updates on percentage of electric is done by wind power
> -updates on the construction of new wind power sites
> -reports on the super big wind farms...
> ...




cool


----------



## tjvh (Sep 6, 2012)

antagon said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > antagon said:
> ...



Great... Not only do we have Ethanol *requirements* in our fuels at the pump (which is conveniently starving people in poor countries, and making our grocery bills horrendous) you propose using our food sources to also generate electricity? Some of you have lost your minds.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 6, 2012)

Capacitive grids eh?? Grid scale storage? "emerging energy sources"?

Whatever fantasy that public planners can conjure up SURELY will be a raving success. Because we all know how many skilled engineers are working for City/County/State Planning Commissions.. 

If there WERE promising new "emerging energy sources" --- the infrastructure would appear without tapping the taxpayers or ratepayers. But I'm afraid we're stuck with inventing stuff the hard way. Where "conjuring" is generally a waste of time and money...


----------

