# Study: Offshore wind could generate all U.S. electricity



## loosecannon

> *U.S. offshore winds, abundant off the coasts of 26 states, have the potential to generate four times as much power as the nation's present electric capacity, a new Department of Energy report says.*
> 
> Developing this resource would help the United States reduce air pollution, achieve 20% of its electricity (or about 54 gigawatts) from wind by 2030 and create more than 43,000 permanent, well-paid technical jobs, according to the 240-page study by DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory.


Study: Offshore wind could generate all U.S. electricity - Green House - USATODAY.com

nuf sed


----------



## Old Rocks

Wind, Solar, Geo-thermal, Slow Current, there are many, many alternative energy systems coming on line now that are not only non-poluting, but also cheaper than dirty coal.

In fact, other than political opposition, the primary problem today is the grid. It is not designed for distributed sources. We need to access where our best energy resources are, and put in the grid to access the resources. An example of this that I have personally explored for my own pleasure is the area in Southeastern Oregon. The basalt ridges in this area are prime wind areas, the basins have extensive geo-thermal potential, and there is enough sunlight for both photovoltaic and solar thermal. One grid leg could pick up all of this.


----------



## loosecannon

Old Rocks said:


> Wind, Solar, Geo-thermal, Slow Current, there are many, many alternative energy systems coming on line now that are not only non-poluting, but also cheaper than dirty coal.
> 
> In fact, other than political opposition, the primary problem today is the grid. It is not designed for distributed sources. We need to access where our best energy resources are, and put in the grid to access the resources. An example of this that I have personally explored for my own pleasure is the area in Southeastern Oregon. The basalt ridges in this area are prime wind areas, the basins have extensive geo-thermal potential, and there is enough sunlight for both photovoltaic and solar thermal. One grid leg could pick up all of this.



This summer and fall alone CA will permit enough solar power plants to satisfy 10% of our states energy use. We could produce 4 times as much power as we need. The economics are not as favorable as cheap oil and coal, today, but that is because alternatives require big upfront costs that cheap oil and coal don't feature. 

And investors are wary because they perpetually think something cheaper may arrive and spoil all of their long term plans.


----------



## Mr. H.

Old Rocks said:


> Wind, Solar, Geo-thermal, Slow Current, there are many, many alternative energy systems coming on line now that are not only non-poluting, but also cheaper than dirty coal.
> 
> In fact, other than political opposition, the primary problem today is the grid. It is not designed for distributed sources. We need to access where our best energy resources are, and put in the grid to access the resources. An example of this that I have personally explored for my own pleasure is the area in Southeastern Oregon. The basalt ridges in this area are prime wind areas, the basins have extensive geo-thermal potential, and there is enough sunlight for both photovoltaic and solar thermal. One grid leg could pick up all of this.



"Best energy resources"? That wouldn't include natural gas would it?


----------



## Revere

loosecannon said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wind, Solar, Geo-thermal, Slow Current, there are many, many alternative energy systems coming on line now that are not only non-poluting, but also cheaper than dirty coal.
> 
> In fact, other than political opposition, the primary problem today is the grid. It is not designed for distributed sources. We need to access where our best energy resources are, and put in the grid to access the resources. An example of this that I have personally explored for my own pleasure is the area in Southeastern Oregon. The basalt ridges in this area are prime wind areas, the basins have extensive geo-thermal potential, and there is enough sunlight for both photovoltaic and solar thermal. One grid leg could pick up all of this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This summer and fall alone CA will permit enough solar power plants to satisfy 10% of our states energy use. We could produce 4 times as much power as we need. The economics are not as favorable as cheap oil and coal, today, but that is because alternatives require big upfront costs that cheap oil and coal don't feature.
> 
> And investors are wary because they perpetually think something cheaper may arrive and spoil all of their long term plans.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.  There will be no agreement on placement of those windmills.


----------



## uscitizen

the political wind right now could power the world.


----------



## loosecannon

Revere said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wind, Solar, Geo-thermal, Slow Current, there are many, many alternative energy systems coming on line now that are not only non-poluting, but also cheaper than dirty coal.
> 
> In fact, other than political opposition, the primary problem today is the grid. It is not designed for distributed sources. We need to access where our best energy resources are, and put in the grid to access the resources. An example of this that I have personally explored for my own pleasure is the area in Southeastern Oregon. The basalt ridges in this area are prime wind areas, the basins have extensive geo-thermal potential, and there is enough sunlight for both photovoltaic and solar thermal. One grid leg could pick up all of this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This summer and fall alone CA will permit enough solar power plants to satisfy 10% of our states energy use. We could produce 4 times as much power as we need. The economics are not as favorable as cheap oil and coal, today, but that is because alternatives require big upfront costs that cheap oil and coal don't feature.
> 
> And investors are wary because they perpetually think something cheaper may arrive and spoil all of their long term plans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  There will be no agreement on placement of those windmills.
Click to expand...


Not windmills, solar. And they are already permited, all bureaucratic hurdles already overcome.

Sorry, it's a done deal.


----------



## loosecannon

uscitizen said:


> the political wind right now could power the world.



indeed.


----------



## Old Rocks

Revere said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wind, Solar, Geo-thermal, Slow Current, there are many, many alternative energy systems coming on line now that are not only non-poluting, but also cheaper than dirty coal.
> 
> In fact, other than political opposition, the primary problem today is the grid. It is not designed for distributed sources. We need to access where our best energy resources are, and put in the grid to access the resources. An example of this that I have personally explored for my own pleasure is the area in Southeastern Oregon. The basalt ridges in this area are prime wind areas, the basins have extensive geo-thermal potential, and there is enough sunlight for both photovoltaic and solar thermal. One grid leg could pick up all of this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This summer and fall alone CA will permit enough solar power plants to satisfy 10% of our states energy use. We could produce 4 times as much power as we need. The economics are not as favorable as cheap oil and coal, today, but that is because alternatives require big upfront costs that cheap oil and coal don't feature.
> 
> And investors are wary because they perpetually think something cheaper may arrive and spoil all of their long term plans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  There will be no agreement on placement of those windmills.
Click to expand...


Really? That was what was said when they started putting up mills in Oregon.

Oregon to Build One of World&#039;s Largest Wind Farms by 2012 &#8211; CleanTechnica

Andrew Williams

Oregon to Build One of World's Largest Wind Farms by 2012
2 comments October 29, 2008 in Wind Energy


Utility company Southern California Edison (SCE) has confirmed plans to build a massive 909 MW wind farm in Oregon. When completed, the facility will be one of the largest fully permitted wind power sites anywhere in the world.

The installation will be located in Morrow and Gilliam counties in North-Central Oregon, and will consist of 303 3MW wind turbines spread across a 30-mile radius. The project, called Caithness Shepherds Flat, will generate around two billion kWh of energy, roughly 10 per cent of SCEs total alternative energy portfolio.


----------



## loosecannon

I have no idea what your point is.


----------



## mdn2000

loosecannon said:


> *U.S. offshore winds, abundant off the coasts of 26 states, have the potential to generate four times as much power as the nation's present electric capacity, a new Department of Energy report says.*
> 
> Developing this resource would help the United States reduce air pollution, achieve 20% of its electricity (or about 54 gigawatts) from wind by 2030 and create more than 43,000 permanent, well-paid technical jobs, according to the 240-page study by DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
> 
> 
> 
> Study: Offshore wind could generate all U.S. electricity - Green House - USATODAY.com
> 
> nuf sed
Click to expand...


Only a fool would quote the USA today.

Why did you not go to the original study, this reveals your lack of knowledge on the subject. I see your idea is simply what you read as a headline.

USA Today taught you to believe in "Green Energy"

USA Today is all it takes to convince you this is a good idea.

So if this is a debate I must debate you, that read an article, about a report, which references a study, the article at best is, "assumptions and estimates".

Quote an idea from the study which you believe to be valid and something worthy of debate, if you quote the entire study you still show you know nothing but how to copy and paste.


----------



## loosecannon

sorry chumpo but my own math and my own experience in solar and water current engineering had long ago convinced me that there is far more than enough energy latent in those media to power our consumption.

10 years ago the figure was batted around that solar energy available at the earth's surface was 10,000 times the value of our entire energy consumption. 

Tidal and current power is far more than capable of servicing 80% of our power consumption needs.

The question is about costs, not availability of convertible energy. 

If you really question whether it is possible to generate 4 times as much electrical power as we consume from offshore wind then you are a moron. Or so uneducated as to be a joke.


----------



## Charles_Main

loosecannon said:


> sorry chumpo but my own math and my own experience in solar and water current engineering had long ago convinced me that there is far more than enough energy latent in those media to power our consumption.
> 
> 10 years ago the figure was batted around that solar energy available at the earth's surface was 10,000 times the value of our entire energy consumption.



To bad the cost of capturing all that Energy would be astronomical both in cash cost and the sheer size of space you would need to cover with solar panels eh.

We need to work on solar collection in Orbit IMO.


----------



## mdn2000

loosecannon said:


> sorry chumpo but my own math and my own experience in solar and water current engineering had long ago convinced me that there is far more than enough energy latent in those media to power our consumption.
> 
> 10 years ago the figure was batted around that solar energy available at the earth's surface was 10,000 times the value of our entire energy consumption.
> 
> Tidal and current power is far more than capable of servicing 80% of our power consumption needs.
> 
> The question is about costs, not availability of convertible energy.
> 
> If you really question whether it is possible to generate 4 times as much electrical power as we consume from offshore wind then you are a moron. Or so uneducated as to be a joke.



I see why you choose "loose cannon" as a user name, your post is like a loose cannon.

If you have all that knowledge how come you pasted a link to an article in USA Today.

Plain and simple, you are full of shit, 

Go to the study you indirectly quoted, dig out one fact, thats all, should be easy. Go ahead.

You state "far more than capable", that sounds stupid, why not just state, "capable".

Your math, another idiotic statement, not a debate, not even presenting facts, you simply are stating what you believe because you read a headline.

I challenged you on your post, will continue to hide behind moronic statements.


----------



## martybegan

Found the base assumptions made.

1 windmill every square kilometer located throughout the area described. The report admits it does not take into acount practical considerations like concentration, spacing, and suitability of the sea floor, as well as just being a Generating capacity, and not a power supplied factor.


----------



## mdn2000

loosecannon said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wind, Solar, Geo-thermal, Slow Current, there are many, many alternative energy systems coming on line now that are not only non-poluting, but also cheaper than dirty coal.
> 
> In fact, other than political opposition, the primary problem today is the grid. It is not designed for distributed sources. We need to access where our best energy resources are, and put in the grid to access the resources. An example of this that I have personally explored for my own pleasure is the area in Southeastern Oregon. The basalt ridges in this area are prime wind areas, the basins have extensive geo-thermal potential, and there is enough sunlight for both photovoltaic and solar thermal. One grid leg could pick up all of this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This summer and fall alone CA will permit enough solar power plants to satisfy 10% of our states energy use. We could produce 4 times as much power as we need. The economics are not as favorable as cheap oil and coal, today, but that is because alternatives require big upfront costs that cheap oil and coal don't feature.
> 
> And investors are wary because they perpetually think something cheaper may arrive and spoil all of their long term plans.
Click to expand...


This is a giant lie by government, industry, professors in our universities, special interest groups and the morons.

last paragraph you state Green Energy can produce four times as much energy than the entire amount of power california uses in a year.

Four times as much, prove it, how many windmills, how many solar plants.

I bet you cannot tell us how many watts of electricity is used in the entire state to pump every drop of water used.

Its a large number, get back to me after your google search, I wont wait, I can tell simply by the fact that your statement was made with no thought on your part, hence you have no idea of the amount of energy consumed just pumping water. 

Green energy (which does not exist) will never be able to pump water, never in a million years, further, Green energy (which does not exist) can never supply the power needed just to meet the increase in demand every year.

Four times as much power than is produced today, how many windmills, you cannot even answer how many and of which types, be sure to tell us where all this Green Junk will go, hell, tell us where you will bury it after it turns to junk in ten years. That is all you get, ten years, after that it turns to junk, where do you bury your toxic solar panels, where will you burn all that junk fiberglass, how will you dispose on millions of tons of toxic batteries.


----------



## KissMy

Energy Producing *Winds only Blow 25% of the time*. What the fuck should we do for the other 75% of the time?
*Power Capacity factor*






*Peak Nameplate Capacity......Percent Power Output per year*
 .  .  .  Baseload Power Plant........90%
 .  .  .  Hydro Electric Dam...........50%
 .  .  .  Wind Turbine...................25%
 .  .  .  Solar Tracker..................21%
 .  .  .  Static PV Solar................15%

*Average US Household uses 12,000kw per year.
Resource size required per home*
*5kw  Solar* - Provides Power 15% of the time
*4kw  Solar Tracking* - Provides Power 21% of the time
*3kw  Wind* - Provides Power 25% of the time
*1.5kw Hydro* - Provides Power 50% of the time
*0.8kw Coal/Gas* - Provides Power 100% of the time

People require power continuously for all 8766 hours or 525,960 minutes per year. Currently storage can only get us so far. Maybe a few hours a day.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Now that's attractive!


----------



## mdn2000

KissMy said:


> Energy Producing *Winds only Blow 25% of the time*. What the fuck should we do for the other 75% of the time?
> 
> *Power Capacity factor*
> 
> *Peak Nameplate.........Continuous Average 8766hr/y*
> Baseload Power Plant.......90%
> Hydro Electric Dam..........50%
> Wind Turbine..................25%
> Solar Tracker..................21%
> Static PV Solar................15%
> 
> Average US Household uses 12,000kw per year.
> Size required per home
> 5kw  Solar
> 3kw  Wind
> 1.5kw Hydro
> 0.8kw Baseload Power Plant



How come you have not factored in energy needed for water.

I also see you have not addressed your peak load usage. 

Wind Turbines are impossible for individual homes, think of poor wind quality do to surface turbulence created by the wind turbines being too close together.

On top of all of this, this moron will demand to be hooked up to the grid, being dirty fake-Green energy this requires taxpayers to build an entire new "smart grid" designed for power shortages, power lags, voltage spikes, frequency fluctuations, so cough up your scarce money, give more to the government, so government can give your money to rich special interest groups that demand laws passed that force us to use their fake-green energy scams.

Smart Grid, thats propaganda, there is nothing smart about it, its a joke, your the butt of the joke, 

Hey, dummy, its a "Smart Grid", just accept it, we need not explain a "Smart Grid", right, dummy, 

Green energy is not green

Green energy produces unreliable, unpredictable, intermittent, dirty, electricity.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

ObamaCare now requires every citizen to wear a personal wind turbine, cause it's like reducing the cost of health care or something


----------



## martybegan

​


CrusaderFrank said:


> Now that's attractive!



I think it actually looks really cool, but of course, I'm and engineer. We like big shiny things.


----------



## martybegan

KissMy said:


> Energy Producing *Winds only Blow 25% of the time*. What the fuck should we do for the other 75% of the time?
> 
> *Power Capacity factor*
> 
> *Peak Nameplate.........Continuous Average 8766hr/y*
> Baseload Power Plant.......90%
> Hydro Electric Dam..........50%
> Wind Turbine..................25%
> Solar Tracker..................21%
> Static PV Solar................15%
> 
> Average US Household uses 12,000kw per year.
> Size required per home
> 5kw  Solar
> 3kw  Wind
> 1.5kw Hydro
> 0.8kw Baseload Power Plant



A rational system would have to involve some sort of stored energy mechanism. I would go with a 2 level water system, where you use some of the wind energy to pump water from a low to a high elevation, and when the wind dies down, let the water flow through a turbine. It would reduce the overall effective energy from the wind power, but would reduce the downtime (at least until all the water is in a lower state)

This does however add land use to the issue.


----------



## mdn2000

martybegan said:


> ​
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's attractive!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it actually looks really cool, but of course, I'm and engineer. We like big shiny things.
Click to expand...


You should of studied more English, 

Get some glasses, those things are not shiny.

I see a large pile of garbage dripping oil into the ocean. I see the added pollution of motorboats used to service these giant money pits, how many barrels of oil will the boat have to hold to service the worlds largest wind farm that produces insignificant levels of power. How will you get thousands of gallons of oil from the boat up the tower, how will you do it every time without spilling oil at least once a day, if not more.

Wind farms are not Green nor renewable, no such thing as green energy.


----------



## martybegan

mdn2000 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's attractive!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it actually looks really cool, but of course, I'm and engineer. We like big shiny things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should of studied more English,
> 
> Get some glasses, those things are not shiny.
> 
> I see a large pile of garbage dripping oil into the ocean. I see the added pollution of motorboats used to service these giant money pits, how many barrels of oil will the boat have to hold to service the worlds largest wind farm that produces insignificant levels of power. How will you get thousands of gallons of oil from the boat up the tower, how will you do it every time without spilling oil at least once a day, if not more.
> 
> Wind farms are not Green nor renewable, no such thing as green energy.
Click to expand...


Did you not get the engineer part? We have administrative assistants for the english crap. Have to employ people with communication degrees somehow. 

I get you dont like any form of renewables, but any form of power had downsides and contributes negatively to its surrounding environment. Trying to demonize this stuff is just as bad as the renwable nutters trying to sell this stuff as a utopia. 

For example, the lube oil can be of a biodegradable type, that has negative impact in case of spill. Servicing is a viable concern, but you have to service any type of power supply.


----------



## Stephanie

CrusaderFrank said:


> ObamaCare now requires every citizen to wear a personal wind turbine, cause it's like reducing the cost of health care or something



made me lol..


----------



## loosecannon

martybegan said:


> Found the base assumptions made.
> 
> 1 windmill every square kilometer located throughout the area described. The report admits it does not take into acount practical considerations like concentration, spacing, and suitability of the sea floor, as well as just being a Generating capacity, and not a power supplied factor.



Those figures also project a capacity to create 4 times as much electricity as we currently consume. It should be blatantly obvious to all that nobody intends to generate 4 times as power as we need, simply that we could do it if we chose to. That the wind power exists within reach of shore and at sea depths suitable for offshore wind turbines.


----------



## loosecannon

mdn2000 said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wind, Solar, Geo-thermal, Slow Current, there are many, many alternative energy systems coming on line now that are not only non-poluting, but also cheaper than dirty coal.
> 
> In fact, other than political opposition, the primary problem today is the grid. It is not designed for distributed sources. We need to access where our best energy resources are, and put in the grid to access the resources. An example of this that I have personally explored for my own pleasure is the area in Southeastern Oregon. The basalt ridges in this area are prime wind areas, the basins have extensive geo-thermal potential, and there is enough sunlight for both photovoltaic and solar thermal. One grid leg could pick up all of this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This summer and fall alone CA will permit enough solar power plants to satisfy 10% of our states energy use. We could produce 4 times as much power as we need. The economics are not as favorable as cheap oil and coal, today, but that is because alternatives require big upfront costs that cheap oil and coal don't feature.
> 
> And investors are wary because they perpetually think something cheaper may arrive and spoil all of their long term plans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a giant lie by government, industry, professors in our universities, special interest groups and the morons.
> 
> last paragraph you state Green Energy can produce four times as much energy than the entire amount of power california uses in a year.
> 
> Four times as much, prove it, how many windmills, how many solar plants.
> 
> I bet you cannot tell us how many watts of electricity is used in the entire state to pump every drop of water used.
> 
> Its a large number, get back to me after your google search, I wont wait, I can tell simply by the fact that your statement was made with no thought on your part, hence you have no idea of the amount of energy consumed just pumping water.
> 
> Green energy (which does not exist) will never be able to pump water, never in a million years, further, Green energy (which does not exist) can never supply the power needed just to meet the increase in demand every year.
> 
> Four times as much power than is produced today, how many windmills, you cannot even answer how many and of which types, be sure to tell us where all this Green Junk will go, hell, tell us where you will bury it after it turns to junk in ten years. That is all you get, ten years, after that it turns to junk, where do you bury your toxic solar panels, where will you burn all that junk fiberglass, how will you dispose on millions of tons of toxic batteries.
Click to expand...


I didn't say green energy, I said solar steam power on BLM land in the mojave desert. Any and all addition sources of power or available lands in other parts of the state would only add to that total.

But again CA has only permitted 1/40th that capacity because altho the potential exists to convert all BLM land in the mojave desert to solar/steam power generation lots nobody is prepared to develop all of the mojave desert.


----------



## loosecannon

mdn2000 said:


> If you have all that knowledge how come you pasted a link to an article in USA Today.



Because I don't have and didn't claim to have any idea what the potential for windpower generation off the coast of 26 states is. I am aware of the national wind survey maps and have studied them to appraise specific projects, but only 20-30 inland locations in the US are attractive for windfarms. Whereas even a cursory look at the USA wind survey maps reveals that nearly all offshore locations are attractive for wind farms.

All you need is 7 mph average wind speeds to qualify as a suitable location for wind generators. Almost the entire coast of the US features 7 mph average wind speeds.


----------



## martybegan

loosecannon said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Found the base assumptions made.
> 
> 1 windmill every square kilometer located throughout the area described. The report admits it does not take into acount practical considerations like concentration, spacing, and suitability of the sea floor, as well as just being a Generating capacity, and not a power supplied factor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those figures also project a capacity to create 4 times as much electricity as we currently consume. It should be blatantly obvious to all that nobody intends to generate 4 times as power as we need, simply that we could do it if we chose to. That the wind power exists within reach of shore and at sea depths suitable for offshore wind turbines.
Click to expand...


I dont like the methodology where they quote the 4 times number, and then immidiately say that at a max 60% is even close to realistic. 

The paper is just feel goody crap.


----------



## mdn2000

martybegan said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Energy Producing *Winds only Blow 25% of the time*. What the fuck should we do for the other 75% of the time?
> 
> *Power Capacity factor*
> 
> *Peak Nameplate.........Continuous Average 8766hr/y*
> Baseload Power Plant.......90%
> Hydro Electric Dam..........50%
> Wind Turbine..................25%
> Solar Tracker..................21%
> Static PV Solar................15%
> 
> Average US Household uses 12,000kw per year.
> Size required per home
> 5kw  Solar
> 3kw  Wind
> 1.5kw Hydro
> 0.8kw Baseload Power Plant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A rational system would have to involve some sort of stored energy mechanism. I would go with a 2 level water system, where you use some of the wind energy to pump water from a low to a high elevation, and when the wind dies down, let the water flow through a turbine. It would reduce the overall effective energy from the wind power, but would reduce the downtime (at least until all the water is in a lower state)
> 
> This does however add land use to the issue.
Click to expand...


A stupid idea. You obviously have no idea how much energy that requires and how little energy the wind produces.


----------



## mdn2000

martybegan said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> I think it actually looks really cool, but of course, I'm and engineer. We like big shiny things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should of studied more English,
> 
> Get some glasses, those things are not shiny.
> 
> I see a large pile of garbage dripping oil into the ocean. I see the added pollution of motorboats used to service these giant money pits, how many barrels of oil will the boat have to hold to service the worlds largest wind farm that produces insignificant levels of power. How will you get thousands of gallons of oil from the boat up the tower, how will you do it every time without spilling oil at least once a day, if not more.
> 
> Wind farms are not Green nor renewable, no such thing as green energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you not get the engineer part? We have administrative assistants for the english crap. Have to employ people with communication degrees somehow.
> 
> I get you dont like any form of renewables, but any form of power had downsides and contributes negatively to its surrounding environment. Trying to demonize this stuff is just as bad as the renwable nutters trying to sell this stuff as a utopia.
> 
> For example, the lube oil can be of a biodegradable type, that has negative impact in case of spill. Servicing is a viable concern, but you have to service any type of power supply.
Click to expand...


No such thing as Renewable Green Energy, calling windmills renewable or green is like calling cats, dogs.

The downside of Wind farms, they must the largest electrical generator farms in the world, using millions of tons mores of the earths resources to create insignificant amounts of electricity. You use more oil to build the wind mill than if you just burned oil directly.

biodegradable lube oil cannot be used, you have to make too much, there is not enough farm land to use for bio fuels, you would have to quit feeding people. Further there are chemicals in oil that are used to make fiberglass, I guess while you are dreaming and giving ideas not based on fact you will tell me we can invent chemicals from magic corn to replace the petrochemicals used to make your non-renewable wind farm.

You have to service any type of power supply, sure, but in windmills case you use more resources to service windmills than fossil fuel or nuclear, hence again green energy's impact on the environment is greater than just burning coal.

So you have still proposed the worlds largest pile of garbage, you replace wind farms before you have to replace a fossil fuel plant, you need the fossil fuel plant to make fiberglass, wind farms cannot exist on the merits of the energy, they only exist when Government and industry trick the weak minded.


----------



## mdn2000

loosecannon said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> This summer and fall alone CA will permit enough solar power plants to satisfy 10% of our states energy use. We could produce 4 times as much power as we need. The economics are not as favorable as cheap oil and coal, today, but that is because alternatives require big upfront costs that cheap oil and coal don't feature.
> 
> And investors are wary because they perpetually think something cheaper may arrive and spoil all of their long term plans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a giant lie by government, industry, professors in our universities, special interest groups and the morons.
> 
> last paragraph you state Green Energy can produce four times as much energy than the entire amount of power california uses in a year.
> 
> Four times as much, prove it, how many windmills, how many solar plants.
> 
> I bet you cannot tell us how many watts of electricity is used in the entire state to pump every drop of water used.
> 
> Its a large number, get back to me after your google search, I wont wait, I can tell simply by the fact that your statement was made with no thought on your part, hence you have no idea of the amount of energy consumed just pumping water.
> 
> Green energy (which does not exist) will never be able to pump water, never in a million years, further, Green energy (which does not exist) can never supply the power needed just to meet the increase in demand every year.
> 
> Four times as much power than is produced today, how many windmills, you cannot even answer how many and of which types, be sure to tell us where all this Green Junk will go, hell, tell us where you will bury it after it turns to junk in ten years. That is all you get, ten years, after that it turns to junk, where do you bury your toxic solar panels, where will you burn all that junk fiberglass, how will you dispose on millions of tons of toxic batteries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say green energy, I said solar steam power on BLM land in the mojave desert. Any and all addition sources of power or available lands in other parts of the state would only add to that total.
> 
> But again CA has only permitted 1/40th that capacity because altho the potential exists to convert all BLM land in the mojave desert to solar/steam power generation lots nobody is prepared to develop all of the mojave desert.
Click to expand...


So you cannot debate anything in the study?

BLM land, they own no land, that is my land, that is the land of the people, not for you to turn into a windfarm.

You want to make the worlds largest garbage dump composed of windmills and you need my land to do it, mandated by law. 

BLM owns no land, they must steal from me, they must make me work harder for an idea that is proven not to work.

Solar steam power will never produce the power needed to pump the water it uses. 

Look up how much electricity is consumed pumping water.

Further, where do you get the water, last time I heard its desert because of the giant lakes of water that all flows magically to solar steam plants financed by my labor, my money, on my land, stolen by the government because you read the USA Today.

Still now one direct quote and reference to the article, this shows me you have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## mdn2000

loosecannon said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have all that knowledge how come you pasted a link to an article in USA Today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I don't have and didn't claim to have any idea what the potential for windpower generation off the coast of 26 states is. I am aware of the national wind survey maps and have studied them to appraise specific projects, but only 20-30 inland locations in the US are attractive for windfarms. Whereas even a cursory look at the USA wind survey maps reveals that nearly all offshore locations are attractive for wind farms.
> 
> All you need is 7 mph average wind speeds to qualify as a suitable location for wind generators. Almost the entire coast of the US features 7 mph average wind speeds.
Click to expand...


Average speeds, average speed is not good enough, you need sustained speeds.

Still, how come you refuse to debate anything in your article.

The article states "assumptions and estimates". That is not scientific nor something you base national energy policy on.

Assumptions, that is all you got, assumptions, you even linked to an article that states exactly that, based on assumptions.

Assuming and stating your assumption proves there is no such thing as Green Energy or Renewable Energy.


----------



## Old Rocks

Charles_Main said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry chumpo but my own math and my own experience in solar and water current engineering had long ago convinced me that there is far more than enough energy latent in those media to power our consumption.
> 
> 10 years ago the figure was batted around that solar energy available at the earth's surface was 10,000 times the value of our entire energy consumption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To bad the cost of capturing all that Energy would be astronomical both in cash cost and the sheer size of space you would need to cover with solar panels eh.
> 
> We need to work on solar collection in Orbit IMO.
Click to expand...


Not at all.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep4L18zOEYI[/ame]


----------



## loosecannon

martybegan said:


> I dont like the methodology where they quote the 4 times number, and then immidiately say that at a max 60% is even close to realistic.
> 
> The paper is just feel goody crap.



Only if you suffer from diverticulosis.


----------



## loosecannon

mdn2000 said:


> So you cannot debate anything in the study?



Neither can you, and who cares? You haven't represented yourself as even being coherent much less having a rational grasp of the facts.

In fact you embody the term strawman.


----------



## loosecannon

mdn2000 said:


> Average speeds, average speed is not good enough, you need sustained speeds.



No, average wind speeds of 7 mph are sufficient to make a site cost effective. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## loosecannon

mdn2000 said:


> Assuming and stating your assumption proves there is no such thing as Green Energy or Renewable Energy.



I never said anything about green or renewable energy, you did.

You have an agenda and you don't know a damned thing about the topic. 

Sucks to be you.


----------



## Mr. H.

Think of all the football fields these windmills could fill.


----------



## mdn2000

loosecannon said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Average speeds, average speed is not good enough, you need sustained speeds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, average wind speeds of 7 mph are sufficient to make a site cost effective. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...


If the site is cost effective why does the land half to be given to them, why do they need the massive subsidies, why does it take government mandated law.

You linked to an article to start this thread, that is as far as your intelligence goes, your challenging me to read a study you have not read and you refuse to read.


----------



## mdn2000

loosecannon said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you cannot debate anything in the study?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither can you, and who cares? You haven't represented yourself as even being coherent much less having a rational grasp of the facts.
> 
> In fact you embody the term strawman.
Click to expand...


You state, "Neither can you", so partially we agree, you just stated that you believe I cant at the same time admitting that you are the same as me, so you have stated you cannot debate what you have posted.

As you are wrong about your idea of Green Energy, so I can see how your wrong about what I know. 

You have made assumptions about me, as you have made assumptions about what you posted.

The study is not a study at all, oits a paid for by Obama with our tax money advertisement full of pure propaganda.

There are no facts in the so called "study"

Its not a study at all, its simply an incorrect idea presented by professors with zero experience.

They even begin by stating "we use estimates and assumptions".

So you have not read what you post, you cannot debate what you post, you do not even know that Obama paid professors to make propaganda.

This is pure propaganda, nothing more.

Not one person is addressing the "study", not in its defense. 

It is not a study, its propaganda, it states specifically they are making assumptions.

Its paid for by government, to enrich politician's pockets and the pockets of big business.

The fact that nobody is willing to debate the so called "Study", proves there is nothing in the study but propaganda.


----------



## GHook93

I did a similar trend about energy goals. There is no reason we should be extending all our renewable non-populating energy sources (Solar, Wind, Biomass, Hydroelectric and even nuclear). Your article makes 25% of countries usage of wind a plausible reality (20% offshore, 5% inland like on farms in IL, which we are having success with). 15% hydro should have already happened. Biomass/Waste should be a no brainer. Solar, technology must get better, but the abundance of sun in the Southern and Desert states should be taken advantage off.

Our 
*Here should be the nations goals by 2025:*
*Wind - 25%* (yes it will require a lot of construction and possibly better technology, but I am a believer because of what IL has accomplished in should a short time)
*Solar - 10% *(Technology MUST get better, but I think it could be possible it plants are built in the right parts of the country - Sunbelt states like AZ and NV.)
*Hydro -15%* (There are alot of untapped and under-tapped stated like VT, ME, NH, CO, UT that could start to develop Hydro energy, but efficiency would also have to increase also - Look at some states like OR they are getting 90% of energy from Hydro)
*Biomass - 5%* (Make the nations waste turn into something beneficial other than waste)
That's 55% renewable green sources!

*Nuclear - 25%* (It makes no sense why its been decades since we expanded our nuclear products or why no nuclear plants have been built in the last few decades)
Coal and Natural Gas - 20% (Call me a hippie, but I prefer the others above over these 2).
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2715007-post1.html

But more important than this is getting our cars off of oil, esp foreign oil!



loosecannon said:


> *U.S. offshore winds, abundant off the coasts of 26 states, have the potential to generate four times as much power as the nation's present electric capacity, a new Department of Energy report says.*
> 
> Developing this resource would help the United States reduce air pollution, achieve 20% of its electricity (or about 54 gigawatts) from wind by 2030 and create more than 43,000 permanent, well-paid technical jobs, according to the 240-page study by DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
> 
> 
> 
> Study: Offshore wind could generate all U.S. electricity - Green House - USATODAY.com
> 
> nuf sed
Click to expand...


----------



## Douger

zzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## mdn2000

GHook93 said:


> I did a similar trend about energy goals. There is no reason we should be extending all our renewable non-populating energy sources (Solar, Wind, Biomass, Hydroelectric and even nuclear). Your article makes 25% of countries usage of wind a plausible reality (20% offshore, 5% inland like on farms in IL, which we are having success with). 15% hydro should have already happened. Biomass/Waste should be a no brainer. Solar, technology must get better, but the abundance of sun in the Southern and Desert states should be taken advantage off.
> 
> Our
> *Here should be the nations goals by 2025:*
> *Wind - 25%* (yes it will require a lot of construction and possibly better technology, but I am a believer because of what IL has accomplished in should a short time)
> *Solar - 10% *(Technology MUST get better, but I think it could be possible it plants are built in the right parts of the country - Sunbelt states like AZ and NV.)
> *Hydro -15%* (There are alot of untapped and under-tapped stated like VT, ME, NH, CO, UT that could start to develop Hydro energy, but efficiency would also have to increase also - Look at some states like OR they are getting 90% of energy from Hydro)
> *Biomass - 5%* (Make the nations waste turn into something beneficial other than waste)
> That's 55% renewable green sources!
> 
> *Nuclear - 25%* (It makes no sense why its been decades since we expanded our nuclear products or why no nuclear plants have been built in the last few decades)
> Coal and Natural Gas - 20% (Call me a hippie, but I prefer the others above over these 2).
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/2715007-post1.html
> 
> But more important than this is getting our cars off of oil, esp foreign oil!
> 
> 
> 
> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *U.S. offshore winds, abundant off the coasts of 26 states, have the potential to generate four times as much power as the nation's present electric capacity, a new Department of Energy report says.*
> 
> Developing this resource would help the United States reduce air pollution, achieve 20% of its electricity (or about 54 gigawatts) from wind by 2030 and create more than 43,000 permanent, well-paid technical jobs, according to the 240-page study by DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
> 
> 
> 
> Study: Offshore wind could generate all U.S. electricity - Green House - USATODAY.com
> 
> nuf sed
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


How much electricity will it take to pump the water to the solar plants.

If you are know this topic you must be aware water is a problem, a problem which is causing the government of Arizona to suspend licences for solar farms.

So Solar is out for the fact it takes to much water, as you know there is very little water in Arizona and California. I know you will do a google search and come back with "dry solar", vs "wet solar", that still leaves the question of millions of gallons of water used to wash the solar panels so the issue of water has proven critical to the success of Solar.

Solar has just failed with no technological solution. The laws of nature have killed solar.

This is pure fact, water, the lack of, the need of, prevents Solar from being used.

I will wait for you to concede, afterwards I will address the next type energy falsely called Green.

Solar pollutes as well, but given water kills the issue there is nothing to debate.


----------



## GHook93

Old Rocks said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry chumpo but my own math and my own experience in solar and water current engineering had long ago convinced me that there is far more than enough energy latent in those media to power our consumption.
> 
> 10 years ago the figure was batted around that solar energy available at the earth's surface was 10,000 times the value of our entire energy consumption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To bad the cost of capturing all that Energy would be astronomical both in cash cost and the sheer size of space you would need to cover with solar panels eh.
> 
> We need to work on solar collection in Orbit IMO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.
> 
> [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep4L18zOEYI[/ame]
Click to expand...


I like the idea, but that has to be very expensive. What about maintenance? That has to be expensive also! I am also not sure how a car would stay on the road driving on glass!


----------



## mdn2000

The user who started this thread cut and pasted from an article in USA Today, USA Today cut and pasted as well as linked to a 16 page summary.

That is all the proof you idiots need.

Its not proof at all, its not even a study, maybe its a summary of a study, summaries have never been accepted as fact, summaries are not even a source in a debate.

This is all it takes though to convince the fools. The price of electricity is already going up because of government mandating extremely expensive electricity.

Those who support "Green Energy and Renewables" are Jackasses.

The Jackasses dont care if we are paying extremely high electrical rates. Its just starting, 500$ a month is the new average electrical bill.

500$ a month, I guess all of you are rich. 

Jackasses, all of you.


----------



## KissMy

GHook93 said:


> *Here should be the nations goals by 2025:*
> *Wind - 25%* (yes it will require a lot of construction and possibly better technology, but I am a believer because of what IL has accomplished in should a short time)
> *Solar - 10% *(Technology MUST get better, but I think it could be possible it plants are built in the right parts of the country - Sunbelt states like AZ and NV.)
> *Hydro -15%* (There are alot of untapped and under-tapped stated like VT, ME, NH, CO, UT that could start to develop Hydro energy, but efficiency would also have to increase also - Look at some states like OR they are getting 90% of energy from Hydro)
> *Biomass - 5%* (Make the nations waste turn into something beneficial other than waste)
> That's 55% renewable green sources!
> 
> *Nuclear - 25%* (It makes no sense why its been decades since we expanded our nuclear products or why no nuclear plants have been built in the last few decades)
> Coal and Natural Gas - 20% (Call me a hippie, but I prefer the others above over these 2).
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/2715007-post1.html
> 
> But more important than this is getting our cars off of oil, esp foreign oil!



*Your targets are a physical impossibility*
-Wind only creates power 25% of the time.
-Solar only creates power 15% of the time.
A lot of the time the wind blows while the sun shines. So these percentages overlap. There is no way to store enough power for the days the wind does not blow or sun don't shine. You will need way more hydro electric storage than we have room for. V2G Hybrid Electric Autos can help with storage on a smart grid.

You also can't have nuclear plants as your only source of power when the wind & sun are not producing. Nuclear Plants take most of the day to ramp power up & down. They are only good for base-load power & are very expensive. We will still be dependent on fossil fuels for peak & swing power loads, because these plants can respond very rapidly.

I read somewhere that Texas wind farms generate more power than the grid consumes while the wind blows. The problem is transmission line operators won't send the excess power to other regions or states during these high production periods. These wind farms have to dump & burn off this excess power. By not being able to sell this power when the wind blows these wind farms may go broke.


----------



## mdn2000

KissMy said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Here should be the nations goals by 2025:*
> *Wind - 25%* (yes it will require a lot of construction and possibly better technology, but I am a believer because of what IL has accomplished in should a short time)
> *Solar - 10% *(Technology MUST get better, but I think it could be possible it plants are built in the right parts of the country - Sunbelt states like AZ and NV.)
> *Hydro -15%* (There are alot of untapped and under-tapped stated like VT, ME, NH, CO, UT that could start to develop Hydro energy, but efficiency would also have to increase also - Look at some states like OR they are getting 90% of energy from Hydro)
> *Biomass - 5%* (Make the nations waste turn into something beneficial other than waste)
> That's 55% renewable green sources!
> 
> *Nuclear - 25%* (It makes no sense why its been decades since we expanded our nuclear products or why no nuclear plants have been built in the last few decades)
> Coal and Natural Gas - 20% (Call me a hippie, but I prefer the others above over these 2).
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/2715007-post1.html
> 
> But more important than this is getting our cars off of oil, esp foreign oil!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Your targets are a physical impossibility*
> -Wind only creates power 25% of the time.
> -Solar only creates power 15% of the time.
> A lot of the time the wind blows while the sun shines. So these percentages overlap. There is no way to store enough power for the days the wind does not blow or sun don't shine. You will need way more hydro electric storage than we have room for. V2G Hybrid Electric Autos can help with storage on a smart grid.
> 
> You also can't have nuclear plants as your only source of power when the wind & sun are not producing. Nuclear Plants take most of the day to ramp power up & down. They are only good for base-load power & are very expensive. We will still be dependent on fossil fuels for peak & swing power loads, because these plants can respond very rapidly.
> 
> I read somewhere that Texas wind farms generate more power than the grid consumes while the wind blows. The problem is transmission line operators won't send the excess power to other regions or states during these high production periods. These wind farms have to dump & burn off this excess power. By not being able to sell this power when the wind blows these wind farms may go broke.
Click to expand...


You make some factual points at the begining of your post. 

You also make bad assumptions, not your fault, its sometimes hard to learn these things when so many people are wrong.

All the Nuclear power plants in the USA run continuously, never ramping up or down for while over a year. 

Most plants are on a fuel cycle that is 18 months, some plants are on 24 month fuel cycles.

04/07/09 Susquehanna nuclear plant sets record



> APRIL 7, 2009
> Contact:	Joe Scopelliti, 866-832-4474
> jjscopelliti@pplweb.com
> Unit 2 at Susquehanna nuclear power plant starts refueling outage after 723 consecutive days generating electricity
> 
> Second longest run ever by a U.S. nuclear plant underscores commitment to reliability and safety by plant workers
> 
> Ending the second longest run ever by a nuclear generating unit in the United States, operators safely shut down the Unit 2 reactor at PPL Corporations Susquehanna nuclear power plant in northeastern Pennsylvania on Tuesday (4/7) to begin a planned refueling and maintenance outage.
> 
> Unit 2 generated electricity for 723 consecutive days since its last refueling and maintenance outage in 2007. That is a record for the Susquehanna plant, and the second longest run ever by a nuclear generating unit in the United States, according to figures provided by the Nuclear Energy Institute.
> 
> Continuous operation of Unit 2 helped the two-unit Susquehanna plant set a record by generating 19,046,000 megawatt-hours in 2008, which is enough to power about 2 million homes.



Palo Verde had a recent record as well, in the Arizona desert, our largest plant, actually three plants on one site.

So Nuclear power plants run continuously at 100% or very near 100% power.

Once you learn this fact than you need to realize that this is clean, steady, smooth power. 

Nothing is perfect though, that is why you need a power protector to plug your computer into any electrical wall.

Now the worlds largest wind farm wants to be able to drop peak power on the grid, the wind farm cannot tell the operators of the grid when or how much and for how long they will have power. The wind power is a problem, its intermittent,  as soon as the energy is released onto the smooth, clean, grid it creates a spike, that spike can be felt all the way to your home as your computer suddenly stops working, that is even with your expensive power protector. You can use an UPS, anything you like, but attach it to the grid with wind power and you have a major problem. 

The solution is an expensive cost, on the wind farm. So expensive the Wind Farms want someone else to pay for the solution, that is what is known to us as the Smart Grid. 

You get to pay all the costs so that someone else gets rich, you even get to pay higher electrical rates (today if you live in California, tomorrow for the rest of the jackasses) making everyone in the "Green Energy industry" very rich.

Wind energy is taking money from everyone to give to the rich. That is why Obama can say tax the rich and they are quiet, they know Obama will pass the laws to make them rich. I bet you Obama will even be paid to make speeches for these same people after Obama leaves office.

That is the payoff, getting a big fee for making a speech.


----------



## KissMy

mdn2000 said:


> The solution is an expensive cost, on the wind farm. So expensive the Wind Farms want someone else to pay for the solution, that is what is known to us as the Smart Grid.
> 
> You get to pay all the costs so that someone else gets rich, you even get to pay higher electrical rates (today if you live in California, tomorrow for the rest of the jackasses) making everyone in the "Green Energy industry" very rich.
> 
> Wind energy is taking money from everyone to give to the rich. That is why Obama can say tax the rich and they are quiet, they know Obama will pass the laws to make them rich. I bet you Obama will even be paid to make speeches for these same people after Obama leaves office.
> 
> That is the payoff, getting a big fee for making a speech.



Yes ! Those Green Speaking Fees can really make some serious Green. Former President Bill Clinton's Global Initiative organization has garnered more than $63 Billion from about 170 countries.


----------



## rdean

Rare earths are needed to make certain parts that are used in the turbines.  In 2002, Republicans made sure our only rare earths mine was shut down.  Now, 97% of the worlds rare earths are bought from China. 

China could now cripple our military of they wanted to.  Our military hi tech now depends on the Chinese.

I know, I know, right wingers will claim I'm bashing Republicans.  Believe me, I wish it weren't the truth.  I don't want to believe they sold out this country for a few fucking bucks.

US concerns about rare earths scarcity gain momentum

Momentum is building in the US to address the nation's growing dependence on China for rare earth  materials, crucial for developing clean energy, military and manufacturing technologies. 

China: All Your Rare-Earth Metals Belong to Us | Danger Room | Wired.com

the Pentagon has become increasingly concerned over Chinese demand for specialty steels and titanium, which are key to armor plating, aircraft design and other high-end weaponry

--------------------------

Any attempt to lesson our dependence on foreign energy will only come from Chinese help.

I'm going to make a bet right now.  Any attempt to open that mine or lesson America's dependence on Chinese rare earths will be met with stiff opposition from the Senate Republicans.

You heard it here first.  let's see if it happens. I've been able to predict everything they've done for the last 9 years.  If it's bad for America, count on Republicans to do it.


----------



## martybegan

mdn2000 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Energy Producing *Winds only Blow 25% of the time*. What the fuck should we do for the other 75% of the time?
> 
> *Power Capacity factor*
> 
> *Peak Nameplate.........Continuous Average 8766hr/y*
> Baseload Power Plant.......90%
> Hydro Electric Dam..........50%
> Wind Turbine..................25%
> Solar Tracker..................21%
> Static PV Solar................15%
> 
> Average US Household uses 12,000kw per year.
> Size required per home
> 5kw  Solar
> 3kw  Wind
> 1.5kw Hydro
> 0.8kw Baseload Power Plant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A rational system would have to involve some sort of stored energy mechanism. I would go with a 2 level water system, where you use some of the wind energy to pump water from a low to a high elevation, and when the wind dies down, let the water flow through a turbine. It would reduce the overall effective energy from the wind power, but would reduce the downtime (at least until all the water is in a lower state)
> 
> This does however add land use to the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A stupid idea. You obviously have no idea how much energy that requires and how little energy the wind produces.
Click to expand...


I have a degree in chemical engineering. I think I have a general grasp of what it would require. For example, it would lower the average output as the pumps would require some of the power generated, but would allow some power supply to continue in calm periods. Again, its just and idea.


----------



## martybegan

KissMy said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Here should be the nations goals by 2025:*
> *Wind - 25%* (yes it will require a lot of construction and possibly better technology, but I am a believer because of what IL has accomplished in should a short time)
> *Solar - 10% *(Technology MUST get better, but I think it could be possible it plants are built in the right parts of the country - Sunbelt states like AZ and NV.)
> *Hydro -15%* (There are alot of untapped and under-tapped stated like VT, ME, NH, CO, UT that could start to develop Hydro energy, but efficiency would also have to increase also - Look at some states like OR they are getting 90% of energy from Hydro)
> *Biomass - 5%* (Make the nations waste turn into something beneficial other than waste)
> That's 55% renewable green sources!
> 
> *Nuclear - 25%* (It makes no sense why its been decades since we expanded our nuclear products or why no nuclear plants have been built in the last few decades)
> Coal and Natural Gas - 20% (Call me a hippie, but I prefer the others above over these 2).
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/2715007-post1.html
> 
> But more important than this is getting our cars off of oil, esp foreign oil!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Your targets are a physical impossibility*
> -Wind only creates power 25% of the time.
> -Solar only creates power 15% of the time.
> A lot of the time the wind blows while the sun shines. So these percentages overlap. There is no way to store enough power for the days the wind does not blow or sun don't shine. You will need way more hydro electric storage than we have room for. V2G Hybrid Electric Autos can help with storage on a smart grid.
> 
> You also can't have nuclear plants as your only source of power when the wind & sun are not producing. Nuclear Plants take most of the day to ramp power up & down. They are only good for base-load power & are very expensive. We will still be dependent on fossil fuels for peak & swing power loads, because these plants can respond very rapidly.
> 
> I read somewhere that Texas wind farms generate more power than the grid consumes while the wind blows. The problem is transmission line operators won't send the excess power to other regions or states during these high production periods. These wind farms have to dump & burn off this excess power. By not being able to sell this power when the wind blows these wind farms may go broke.
Click to expand...


This is where the concept of phyiscal storage of the power comes in. The example of using it to pump water to a higher elevation, and then allowing the water to power turbines at a later time when the wind power is lower is what i stated earlier in the thread.


----------



## GHook93

mdn2000 said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did a similar trend about energy goals. There is no reason we should be extending all our renewable non-populating energy sources (Solar, Wind, Biomass, Hydroelectric and even nuclear). Your article makes 25% of countries usage of wind a plausible reality (20% offshore, 5% inland like on farms in IL, which we are having success with). 15% hydro should have already happened. Biomass/Waste should be a no brainer. Solar, technology must get better, but the abundance of sun in the Southern and Desert states should be taken advantage off.
> 
> Our
> *Here should be the nations goals by 2025:*
> *Wind - 25%* (yes it will require a lot of construction and possibly better technology, but I am a believer because of what IL has accomplished in should a short time)
> *Solar - 10% *(Technology MUST get better, but I think it could be possible it plants are built in the right parts of the country - Sunbelt states like AZ and NV.)
> *Hydro -15%* (There are alot of untapped and under-tapped stated like VT, ME, NH, CO, UT that could start to develop Hydro energy, but efficiency would also have to increase also - Look at some states like OR they are getting 90% of energy from Hydro)
> *Biomass - 5%* (Make the nations waste turn into something beneficial other than waste)
> That's 55% renewable green sources!
> 
> *Nuclear - 25%* (It makes no sense why its been decades since we expanded our nuclear products or why no nuclear plants have been built in the last few decades)
> Coal and Natural Gas - 20% (Call me a hippie, but I prefer the others above over these 2).
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/2715007-post1.html
> 
> But more important than this is getting our cars off of oil, esp foreign oil!
> 
> 
> 
> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Study: Offshore wind could generate all U.S. electricity - Green House - USATODAY.com
> 
> nuf sed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much electricity will it take to pump the water to the solar plants.
> 
> If you are know this topic you must be aware water is a problem, a problem which is causing the government of Arizona to suspend licences for solar farms.
> 
> So Solar is out for the fact it takes to much water, as you know there is very little water in Arizona and California. I know you will do a google search and come back with "dry solar", vs "wet solar", that still leaves the question of millions of gallons of water used to wash the solar panels so the issue of water has proven critical to the success of Solar.
> 
> Solar has just failed with no technological solution. The laws of nature have killed solar.
> 
> This is pure fact, water, the lack of, the need of, prevents Solar from being used.
> 
> I will wait for you to concede, afterwards I will address the next type energy falsely called Green.
> 
> Solar pollutes as well, but given water kills the issue there is nothing to debate.
Click to expand...


I went to school in AZ, so I know about water scarity there. To my defense, I was unaware, and still ignorant, to how much water is used in the solar power process. Maybe you could explain it to me.


----------



## mdn2000

rdean said:


> Rare earths are needed to make certain parts that are used in the turbines.  In 2002, Republicans made sure our only rare earths mine was shut down.  Now, 97% of the worlds rare earths are bought from China.
> 
> China could now cripple our military of they wanted to.  Our military hi tech now depends on the Chinese.
> 
> I know, I know, right wingers will claim I'm bashing Republicans.  Believe me, I wish it weren't the truth.  I don't want to believe they sold out this country for a few fucking bucks.
> 
> US concerns about rare earths scarcity gain momentum
> 
> Momentum is building in the US to address the nation's growing dependence on China for rare earth  materials, crucial for developing clean energy, military and manufacturing technologies.
> 
> China: All Your Rare-Earth Metals Belong to Us | Danger Room | Wired.com
> 
> the Pentagon has become increasingly concerned over Chinese demand for specialty steels and titanium, which are key to armor plating, aircraft design and other high-end weaponry
> 
> --------------------------
> 
> Any attempt to lesson our dependence on foreign energy will only come from Chinese help.
> 
> I'm going to make a bet right now.  Any attempt to open that mine or lesson America's dependence on Chinese rare earths will be met with stiff opposition from the Senate Republicans.
> 
> You heard it here first.  let's see if it happens. I've been able to predict everything they've done for the last 9 years.  If it's bad for America, count on Republicans to do it.



Boy have you got the story wrong, your going to thank me after you read this.

It was Bill Clinton,



> The Idiot's Guide to Chinagate





> Thanks to Bill Clinton, China can now hit any city in the USA, using state-of-the-art solid-fueled missiles with dead-accurate, computerized guidance systems and multiple warheads.
> 
> China probably has suitcase nukes as well. These enable China to strike by proxy  equipping nuclear-armed terrorists to do its dirty work while the Chinese play innocent. Some intelligence sources claim that China maintains secret stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons on U.S. soil, for just such contingencies.
> 
> In 1997, Clinton allowed China to take over the Panama Canal. The Chinese company Hutchison Whampoa leased the ports of Cristobal and Balboa, on the east and west openings of the canal, respectively, thus controlling access both ways.
> 
> A public outcry stopped Clinton in 1998 from leasing California's Long Beach Naval Yard to the Chinese firm COSCO. Even so, China can now strike U.S. targets easily from its bases in Panama, Vancouver and the Bahamas.
> 
> How did the Chinese catch up so fast? Easy. We sold them all the technology they needed  or handed it over for free. Neither neglect nor carelessness is to blame. Bill Clinton did it on purpose.



Rare earth metals, thanks for helping me here, you gave me information that is critical.

Rare earth metals, meaning not plentiful, rare, are being used in Green energy, at a rate that is not sustainable. 

I will pull all my current information together with this to show how Green Energy will weaken us militarily by depleting the earth of the rare earth metals needed for weapons.

No liberal can ever point their fingers at republicans again, here, as posted, linked, and proved, rare earth metals are a concern, solar panels, wind mills, every form of green energy will use every rare earth metal, deplete the entire earth, and thus leave the USA without the rare earth metals needed to provide weapons for our defense.


----------



## mdn2000

GHook93 said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did a similar trend about energy goals. There is no reason we should be extending all our renewable non-populating energy sources (Solar, Wind, Biomass, Hydroelectric and even nuclear). Your article makes 25% of countries usage of wind a plausible reality (20% offshore, 5% inland like on farms in IL, which we are having success with). 15% hydro should have already happened. Biomass/Waste should be a no brainer. Solar, technology must get better, but the abundance of sun in the Southern and Desert states should be taken advantage off.
> 
> Our
> *Here should be the nations goals by 2025:*
> *Wind - 25%* (yes it will require a lot of construction and possibly better technology, but I am a believer because of what IL has accomplished in should a short time)
> *Solar - 10% *(Technology MUST get better, but I think it could be possible it plants are built in the right parts of the country - Sunbelt states like AZ and NV.)
> *Hydro -15%* (There are alot of untapped and under-tapped stated like VT, ME, NH, CO, UT that could start to develop Hydro energy, but efficiency would also have to increase also - Look at some states like OR they are getting 90% of energy from Hydro)
> *Biomass - 5%* (Make the nations waste turn into something beneficial other than waste)
> That's 55% renewable green sources!
> 
> *Nuclear - 25%* (It makes no sense why its been decades since we expanded our nuclear products or why no nuclear plants have been built in the last few decades)
> Coal and Natural Gas - 20% (Call me a hippie, but I prefer the others above over these 2).
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/2715007-post1.html
> 
> But more important than this is getting our cars off of oil, esp foreign oil!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much electricity will it take to pump the water to the solar plants.
> 
> If you are know this topic you must be aware water is a problem, a problem which is causing the government of Arizona to suspend licences for solar farms.
> 
> So Solar is out for the fact it takes to much water, as you know there is very little water in Arizona and California. I know you will do a google search and come back with "dry solar", vs "wet solar", that still leaves the question of millions of gallons of water used to wash the solar panels so the issue of water has proven critical to the success of Solar.
> 
> Solar has just failed with no technological solution. The laws of nature have killed solar.
> 
> This is pure fact, water, the lack of, the need of, prevents Solar from being used.
> 
> I will wait for you to concede, afterwards I will address the next type energy falsely called Green.
> 
> Solar pollutes as well, but given water kills the issue there is nothing to debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I went to school in AZ, so I know about water scarity there. To my defense, I was unaware, and still ignorant, to how much water is used in the solar power process. Maybe you could explain it to me.
Click to expand...


This is most likely better discussed in my thread, "solar is dead".

Each solar site is unique, thus the answer should be specific to a project. The California has mandated that citizens must buy extremely expensive Green Energy, 33% of the electricity we consume will be green, ordered by Republicans and Democrat politicians bought by lobbyist, special interests, unions, etc. etc..

Solar Power's share forced down our throats will cover over 200 square miles of turtle habitat, it will take more water than allowed by law, and after stealing my hard work through confiscatory tax rates and higher electrical rates in the form of million dollar subsidies, they will use my money to offset the damage they do. Further they will find a way to take my water, they will put more demand on the system I need for life, demand that will take more of my money through extremely high water prices, so high I can no longer afford to fill a simple swimming pool for my young children.

Thanks, your ideas really suck and your education in which you speak also sucks.

Here is a link for a project in the Mojave, what is clear, its a government project, a huge waste of tax payers money. Not one of the salaries of these politicians are added to the cost of the project, millions of dollars in public money is spent on the bureaucrats just for one project. 

Abengoa Mojave Solar Power Plant Licensing Case Documents Page


----------



## CountofTuscany

loosecannon said:


> *U.S. offshore winds, abundant off the coasts of 26 states, have the potential to generate four times as much power as the nation's present electric capacity, a new Department of Energy report says.*
> 
> Developing this resource would help the United States reduce air pollution, achieve 20% of its electricity (or about 54 gigawatts) from wind by 2030 and create more than 43,000 permanent, well-paid technical jobs, according to the 240-page study by DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
> 
> 
> 
> Study: Offshore wind could generate all U.S. electricity - Green House - USATODAY.com
> 
> nuf sed
Click to expand...

Wind power is making a strong foothold in NYS.


----------



## mdn2000

CountofTuscany said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *U.S. offshore winds, abundant off the coasts of 26 states, have the potential to generate four times as much power as the nation's present electric capacity, a new Department of Energy report says.*
> 
> Developing this resource would help the United States reduce air pollution, achieve 20% of its electricity (or about 54 gigawatts) from wind by 2030 and create more than 43,000 permanent, well-paid technical jobs, according to the 240-page study by DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
> 
> 
> 
> Study: Offshore wind could generate all U.S. electricity - Green House - USATODAY.com
> 
> nuf sed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wind power is making a strong foothold in NYS.
Click to expand...


A foothold secured by government mandates, government guaranteed loans, subsidies that eliminate risk and guarantee profit. 

Land, government mandates the use of windmills that use large tracts of lands, the government gives a company a subsidy to by the land, of if its government land the BLM allows the destruction of the land for the personal financial gain of a few people.

Less land is now available for people, we pay more because we must compete with the government, which we cant, everyone profits, banks who lend us higher amounts of money to purchase land, higher land prices mean the government collects higher taxes thus they can mandate more windmills, take more land, more of our money.

Sometimes you dont need a link to an article to know what is happening in the world, try it sometime.


----------



## Old Rocks

KissMy said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Here should be the nations goals by 2025:*
> *Wind - 25%* (yes it will require a lot of construction and possibly better technology, but I am a believer because of what IL has accomplished in should a short time)
> *Solar - 10% *(Technology MUST get better, but I think it could be possible it plants are built in the right parts of the country - Sunbelt states like AZ and NV.)
> *Hydro -15%* (There are alot of untapped and under-tapped stated like VT, ME, NH, CO, UT that could start to develop Hydro energy, but efficiency would also have to increase also - Look at some states like OR they are getting 90% of energy from Hydro)
> *Biomass - 5%* (Make the nations waste turn into something beneficial other than waste)
> That's 55% renewable green sources!
> 
> *Nuclear - 25%* (It makes no sense why its been decades since we expanded our nuclear products or why no nuclear plants have been built in the last few decades)
> Coal and Natural Gas - 20% (Call me a hippie, but I prefer the others above over these 2).
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/2715007-post1.html
> 
> But more important than this is getting our cars off of oil, esp foreign oil!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Your targets are a physical impossibility*
> -Wind only creates power 25% of the time.
> -Solar only creates power 15% of the time.
> A lot of the time the wind blows while the sun shines. So these percentages overlap. There is no way to store enough power for the days the wind does not blow or sun don't shine. You will need way more hydro electric storage than we have room for. V2G Hybrid Electric Autos can help with storage on a smart grid.
> 
> You also can't have nuclear plants as your only source of power when the wind & sun are not producing. Nuclear Plants take most of the day to ramp power up & down. They are only good for base-load power & are very expensive. We will still be dependent on fossil fuels for peak & swing power loads, because these plants can respond very rapidly.
> 
> I read somewhere that Texas wind farms generate more power than the grid consumes while the wind blows. The problem is transmission line operators won't send the excess power to other regions or states during these high production periods. These wind farms have to dump & burn off this excess power. By not being able to sell this power when the wind blows these wind farms may go broke.
Click to expand...


Fucking dumb. Iowa already produces 14% of the electricity it uses from the wind. And that number is going up as we speak. 

A combination of wind, solar, and geothermal could easily, with the existing hydro, power this whole nation. Add nuclear into the mix, and a nationwide distributed grid, and we could have clean power for the foreseeable future.


----------



## Revere

Nuclear energy won't be expanded in this country under this regime.  Dream on.


----------



## Revere

You can't power transportation (trucks, cars, busses) with those energy sources in the "forseeable future."


----------



## KissMy

Old Rocks said:


> Fucking dumb. Iowa already produces 14% of the electricity it uses from the wind. And that number is going up as we speak.
> 
> A combination of wind, solar, and geothermal could easily, with the existing hydro, power this whole nation. Add nuclear into the mix, and a nationwide distributed grid, and we could have clean power for the foreseeable future.



Yea 14% from wind, but they will never get over 25% from wind unless we figure out how to store the power to reuse on demand. I just spent a day with a group of Iowa farmers that have many 2 mega watt wind turbines on their property. They love the wind right & lease fees they are making from their properties. Investors in these wind projects will be crying the blues once they install enough to get closer to 25% & have to start dumping power & loosing money.

New York Times: Wind Drives Growing Use of Batteries


> As the wind installations multiply, companies have found themselves dumping energy late at night, adjusting the blades so they do not catch the wind, because there is no demand for the power. And grid operators, accustomed to meeting demand by adjusting supplies, are now struggling to maintain stability as supplies fluctuate.



These wind companies take out huge government backed loans to put up these wind turbines that cost over $2 million for each wind turbine. Each of these wind projects have to build a small power grid & transformer sub-stations to pump their power onto the grid (more millions of dollars). They base their income projections to pay back the loans on producing & selling power for the 25% of the time that the wind blows. If there is not enough demand when the wind blows & they have to dump power & not sell all they can then their business model is fucked & they will go under. Guess who has to cover all those government backed wind loans?


----------



## antagon

CrusaderFrank said:


> Now that's attractive!



well, i like the look of it.  imagine the fishing round them things!


----------



## antagon

i think the thread is based in a great deal of optimism, and there would need to be some technological development commensurate with moving our energy sources between any media at all.  pointing that out as if it poses an argument against developing alt energy is what confuses me.  some folks are so wrapped up in diametric opposition of the future that it betrays even more far-fetched optimism in staying the course.  the environmental, economic and geopolitical externalities of the status quo into the future is not sustainable.  we will be left with a massive infrastructure for exploiting waning and dearer commodities, years behind development the rest of the world has undertaken.  this is known as standing with your dick in your hand.


----------



## Spoonman

Mr. H. said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wind, Solar, Geo-thermal, Slow Current, there are many, many alternative energy systems coming on line now that are not only non-poluting, but also cheaper than dirty coal.
> 
> In fact, other than political opposition, the primary problem today is the grid. It is not designed for distributed sources. We need to access where our best energy resources are, and put in the grid to access the resources. An example of this that I have personally explored for my own pleasure is the area in Southeastern Oregon. The basalt ridges in this area are prime wind areas, the basins have extensive geo-thermal potential, and there is enough sunlight for both photovoltaic and solar thermal. One grid leg could pick up all of this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Best energy resources"? That wouldn't include natural gas would it?
Click to expand...

Fracking sucks. Killing water supplies man.


----------



## Spoonman

We got some big ass wind farms a little north of me. From what I hear they are producing a ton of energy at a nice profit.


----------



## mdn2000

Old Rocks said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Here should be the nations goals by 2025:*
> *Wind - 25%* (yes it will require a lot of construction and possibly better technology, but I am a believer because of what IL has accomplished in should a short time)
> *Solar - 10% *(Technology MUST get better, but I think it could be possible it plants are built in the right parts of the country - Sunbelt states like AZ and NV.)
> *Hydro -15%* (There are alot of untapped and under-tapped stated like VT, ME, NH, CO, UT that could start to develop Hydro energy, but efficiency would also have to increase also - Look at some states like OR they are getting 90% of energy from Hydro)
> *Biomass - 5%* (Make the nations waste turn into something beneficial other than waste)
> That's 55% renewable green sources!
> 
> *Nuclear - 25%* (It makes no sense why its been decades since we expanded our nuclear products or why no nuclear plants have been built in the last few decades)
> Coal and Natural Gas - 20% (Call me a hippie, but I prefer the others above over these 2).
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/2715007-post1.html
> 
> But more important than this is getting our cars off of oil, esp foreign oil!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Your targets are a physical impossibility*
> -Wind only creates power 25% of the time.
> -Solar only creates power 15% of the time.
> A lot of the time the wind blows while the sun shines. So these percentages overlap. There is no way to store enough power for the days the wind does not blow or sun don't shine. You will need way more hydro electric storage than we have room for. V2G Hybrid Electric Autos can help with storage on a smart grid.
> 
> You also can't have nuclear plants as your only source of power when the wind & sun are not producing. Nuclear Plants take most of the day to ramp power up & down. They are only good for base-load power & are very expensive. We will still be dependent on fossil fuels for peak & swing power loads, because these plants can respond very rapidly.
> 
> I read somewhere that Texas wind farms generate more power than the grid consumes while the wind blows. The problem is transmission line operators won't send the excess power to other regions or states during these high production periods. These wind farms have to dump & burn off this excess power. By not being able to sell this power when the wind blows these wind farms may go broke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fucking dumb. Iowa already produces 14% of the electricity it uses from the wind. And that number is going up as we speak.
> 
> A combination of wind, solar, and geothermal could easily, with the existing hydro, power this whole nation. Add nuclear into the mix, and a nationwide distributed grid, and we could have clean power for the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...


Old Crock the political hack dumb ass, I already told you Geothermal dont work, care for me to link the thread, briefly you stated the plant on the Salton Sea I referred to had a design flaw thus it had nothing to do with Geothermal, in the same thread two days later Old Crock posted and linked to an old article showing a geothermal plant that was making 250 million dollars through precious metal recovery, I had to correct Old Crock, Old Crock is so dumb, Old Crock started a plant had a design flaw and a day later claimed that same exact plant was recovering Gold and Silver, the plant was a complete failure, a 250 million dollar loss, the company was okay though, after all it was only a subsidy and a government guaranteed loan, I get to pay more for electricity and taxes to make corporations rich and risk free.

Take a look at this thread, it links to a press release, the study which is the basis of this thread for all we know does not exist, it will not be completed until next year. How is it they know the conclusion of the study before the study is even started.

So Old Crock, you a liar, I have shown over and over that Geothermal is extremely polluting, bad environmentally, yet Old Crock continues to post that Geothermal is good. So Old Crock is either real stupid or a liar.


----------



## antagon

geothermal power does not have to emit pollution at all.  geothermal is a broad group of potential power sources from the heat of the earth.


----------



## Big Fitz

loosecannon said:


> *U.S. offshore winds, abundant off the coasts of 26 states, have the potential to generate four times as much power as the nation's present electric capacity, a new Department of Energy report says.*
> 
> Developing this resource would help the United States reduce air pollution, achieve 20% of its electricity (or about 54 gigawatts) from wind by 2030 and create more than 43,000 permanent, well-paid technical jobs, according to the 240-page study by DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
> 
> 
> 
> Study: Offshore wind could generate all U.S. electricity - Green House - USATODAY.com
> 
> nuf sed
Click to expand...

I've got a perpetual motion machine to sell the OP.  No really... it works!


----------



## Big Fitz

martybegan said:


> ​
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's attractive!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it actually looks really cool, but of course, I'm and engineer. We like big shiny things.
Click to expand...

Yep.  Nice and shiny until that first Nor'Easter rolls through and uses those pinwheels as projectiles.  Can't wait for the first freighter to hit one in foul weather.  Nothing like a few navigation hazards like that out there.  But if you gotta put em somewhere... offshore and out of sight could be good.  Except making the costs to maintain them and get the electricity to shore reliably during shitty weather is going to be tricky.


----------



## antagon

Big Fitz said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's attractive!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it actually looks really cool, but of course, I'm and engineer. We like big shiny things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep.  Nice and shiny until that first Nor'Easter rolls through and uses those pinwheels as projectiles.  Can't wait for the first freighter to hit one in foul weather.  Nothing like a few navigation hazards like that out there.  But if you gotta put em somewhere... offshore and out of sight could be good.  Except making the costs to maintain them and get the electricity to shore reliably during shitty weather is going to be tricky.
Click to expand...


its not like this shit hasn't been done successfully before.


----------



## loosecannon

antagon said:


> i think the thread is based in a great deal of optimism, and there would need to be some technological development commensurate with moving our energy sources between any media at all.  pointing that out as if it poses an argument against developing alt energy is what confuses me.  some folks are so wrapped up in diametric opposition of the future that it betrays even more far-fetched optimism in staying the course.  the environmental, economic and geopolitical externalities of the status quo into the future is not sustainable.  we will be left with a massive infrastructure for exploiting waning and dearer commodities, years behind development the rest of the world has undertaken.  this is known as standing with your dick in your hand.



I think "dick in the sand" is the proper terminology, as in Iraq oil sands, Canadian tar sands, etc. 

Pounding sand, etc.


----------



## KissMy

loosecannon said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> i think the thread is based in a great deal of optimism, and there would need to be some technological development commensurate with moving our energy sources between any media at all.  pointing that out as if it poses an argument against developing alt energy is what confuses me.  some folks are so wrapped up in diametric opposition of the future that it betrays even more far-fetched optimism in staying the course.  the environmental, economic and geopolitical externalities of the status quo into the future is not sustainable.  we will be left with a massive infrastructure for exploiting waning and dearer commodities, years behind development the rest of the world has undertaken.  this is known as standing with your dick in your hand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think "dick in the sand" is the proper terminology, as in Iraq oil sands, Canadian tar sands, etc.
> 
> Pounding sand, etc.
Click to expand...


Well dick-less, Where is the magic energy storage device?

Oh I know, Big Oil hid it from us.

Besides that obvious problem limiting wind & solar power, where are we going to get more rare earth materials to build more wind turbines?


----------



## antagon

this is the sort of objection based in the fallacy that wind-turbine power is not plausible or practical.  how does this magic produce 100s of megawatts of power as we speak? since when has demand for under-exploited raw materials in a country like the US been a problem?


----------



## martybegan

Big Fitz said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's attractive!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it actually looks really cool, but of course, I'm and engineer. We like big shiny things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep.  Nice and shiny until that first Nor'Easter rolls through and uses those pinwheels as projectiles.  Can't wait for the first freighter to hit one in foul weather.  Nothing like a few navigation hazards like that out there.  But if you gotta put em somewhere... offshore and out of sight could be good.  Except making the costs to maintain them and get the electricity to shore reliably during shitty weather is going to be tricky.
Click to expand...


The high wind issue is not a big deal as long as the control system is working to thread the blades properly. The freighter concern isnt really an issue, as only an idiot would place these things anywhere near a shipping lane. 

Maintenance is an issue for any power source. 

Complaints against renewable energy should focus on the fact that they arent mature enough yet to compete on thier own, and need goverment subsidies to make viable. All power sources have downsides, ranging from finite sources of fuel to high maintenance requirements, to polluting off gasses.


----------



## editec

I don't doubt that wind generated electicity has a place in the energy production mix.

I'm dubious that it alone can be our only source of power.

Not because the power isn't there, but because we need continuous power and that means we need something more dependable than just wind.

Now if we converted wind's power to potential energy (like using it to store potential energy in water that we can run through a hydroelectic system when it's needed) that might help.

*But neither wind NOR solar is dependable UNLESS we find ways of storing the excess when we need it to deal with the shortages that are inevitable.*


----------



## martybegan

editec said:


> I don't doubt that wind generated electicity has a place in the energy production mix.
> 
> I'm dubious that it alone can be our only source of power.
> 
> Not because the power isn't there, but because we need continuous power and that means we need something more dependable than just wind.
> 
> Now if we converted wind's power to potential energy (like using it to store potential energy in water that we can run through a hydroelectic system when it's needed) that might help.
> 
> *But neither wind NOR solar is dependable UNLESS we find ways of storing the excess when we need it to deal with the shortages that are inevitable.*



Exactly. The Engineering issues involved have mostly to do with our power grid, making transmission more efficent, and able to switch sources. 

Wind will always be blowing SOMEWHERE. If you only counted a portion of the overall wind power provided as constant, you could be assured that it would not go below baseline. 

This again assumes increases in materials technology for transmisson wires, and increases in power grid controls.


----------



## Big Fitz

> The high wind issue is not a big deal as long as the control system is  working to thread the blades properly.



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3FZtmlHwcA[/ame]



> The freighter concern isnt really an issue, as only an idiot would place  these things anywhere near a shipping lane.



Hmmmm.  They want to put these off Cape Cod which is a very busy shipping area all things considered.  A big storm plus a ship in trouble... shit happens.  Just waiting for the first time it does.



> Maintenance is an issue for any power source.



Much harder to service isolated out to sea in a place with strong currents, frequent storms and rough weather... which is where you get the most wind generation.  For instance, why would you wan to put tidal power in the bay of Fundy?  a 70 foot tide!  Windmills go where the wind is highest, makes the sea a good choice in this factor.  BUT, they have to be shut down when the wind is too strong which very well may be frequently out there.



> Complaints against renewable energy should focus on the fact that they  arent mature enough yet to compete on thier own



Glad you see that.



> and need goverment subsidies to make viable.



WRONG.  WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. Fucking WRONG

They need to be SHELVED as policy and pushed back to the lab till they ARE viable.  Period.  You go to what works best, and that is Coal.  That is Nuclear.  That is Hydro.  You don't play fuck around fuck around pretending that these bad forms of energy production are worthy of support till they PROVE it.  And once they become viable, the market will fund them till the day something better comes along.

Remember:  Bigger, Better, Faster, Stronger, Cheaper, Cleaner.... That is the nature of improvement and economic efficiency and smart policy.  You don't waste money on something that doesn't match this philosophy, unless you have economic suicide as your goal.



> All power sources have downsides



Yes, they do.  But most are overstated by the econazis to push bad solutions and global fascism on an imaginary crisis.  This eliminates the argument that their clean energies are substantially better, when they can't carry the freight.



> ranging from finite sources of fuel to high maintenance requirements, to  polluting off gasses.



Finite sources.  The only ones who 'see the end' of petroleum are those who have a vested interest in it's stoppage.  High maintenance is often caused by stupid government regulations and NIMBY bullshit.  Polluting gasses, If you include CO2 with that, you're mad.  Global warming, or whatever they're trying to rebrand it as today, is not a threat.  It is not caused by man.  Pretty much every past attempt to do so has ended in their science being debunked by basic logic and cursory investigations of their methods as being fraudulent.

The need for this crap snaps like the dead dry twig it is.


----------



## mdn2000

loosecannon said:


> *U.S. offshore winds, abundant off the coasts of 26 states, have the potential to generate four times as much power as the nation's present electric capacity, a new Department of Energy report says.*
> 
> Developing this resource would help the United States reduce air pollution, achieve 20% of its electricity (or about 54 gigawatts) from wind by 2030 and create more than 43,000 permanent, well-paid technical jobs, according to the 240-page study by DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
> 
> 
> 
> Study: Offshore wind could generate all U.S. electricity - Green House - USATODAY.com
> 
> nuf sed
Click to expand...


Thank Loosecannon for the information, or maybe negative rep, this is too funny, what a dumbass, loosecannon is arguing about dirt in the other thread and now you post this for me, which side are you on, you made my morning loosecannon

Whats wrong loosecannon, you cant think for yourself, all you know is what told to you in a headline.

Loosecannon has made my argument, wind power is dead, nobody of intelligence would spend money on something unknown, nobody would spend money on something if the people who advocate it say they dont know if it will work.

Loosecannon is a great example of people who know nothing of what they post, loosecannon is so incompetent, so lazy, so full of himself, so ignorant he simply takes the first paid result from google, reads the headline, and thinks he is right or worst knows he is wrong but is someone with a financial interest in promoting non-existent green energy.

Loosecannon, you know there is a study related to the article, why link an article when the study is the source? Either loosecannon is lazy, dumb, never learned how to think or loosecannon's agenda is to destroy the USA with green energy, that is what green energy is doing, destroying the country.

Wind Farms do not work, as the study states. 

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/49229.pdf



> The LCOE calculations, or the cost of energy produced over the anticipated 20-year life of a project, are based on a range of factors, many of which are currently unknown and must be projected. In addition to the ICC, these include operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, the cost of financing, amount of energy to be generated, long-term system reliability, and decommissioning costs.



From the supporters of Green Energy, to the Politicians, to the Scientist,  they are forcing us to pay for expensive wind mills when they know they do not work. They are giving our money, our taxes, taxes are not enough, we have to pay  more for electricity as well.

People should note this thread, nothing more need be said, this study ends the debate, wind mills do not work. Everything that say wind mills work, is a lie.

 a link to an article, which links to the report, that links to the study, as posted by loosecannon, talk about a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy. Not very intelligent research on Loosecannon's part.

And its not just Loosecannon, every scientist to every politician does the same thing. Obfuscate the facts.

Loosecannon feel bad, Old Crock does this all the time.


----------



## California Girl

Key word from the study: "could". That's not "would" or "will", it's "could".


----------



## antagon

Big Fitz said:


> They need to be SHELVED as policy and pushed back to the lab till they ARE viable.  Period.  You go to what works best, and that is Coal.  That is Nuclear.  That is Hydro.  You don't play fuck around fuck around pretending that these bad forms of energy production are worthy of support till they PROVE it.  And once they become viable, the market will fund them till the day something better comes along.



the nonsense persists through contending that offshore wind power is not viable when hundreds of MW are generated that way now for years. 

to the contrary, i think that heating dearer and dearer water up with shit we've dug or pumped out of the ground is likely to be shelved in the coming decades, because of the effective inefficiency of the practice.  it's not just the wattage, it is the pollution, the waste, the water consumption, the hazard and the land use that makes this approach inefficient.  certainly pushing the development of new coal reactors is less wise year on year. reactors altogether are impacting the per-capita consumption of water and pose a bottleneck for that reason alone.

prescience points to solutions like offshore wind.  in fact, we're dragging our feet where other nations have a head start.


----------



## mdn2000

Big Fitz said:


> The high wind issue is not a big deal as long as the control system is  working to thread the blades properly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3FZtmlHwcA[/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The freighter concern isnt really an issue, as only an idiot would place  these things anywhere near a shipping lane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmmm.  They want to put these off Cape Cod which is a very busy shipping area all things considered.  A big storm plus a ship in trouble... shit happens.  Just waiting for the first time it does.
> 
> 
> 
> Much harder to service isolated out to sea in a place with strong currents, frequent storms and rough weather... which is where you get the most wind generation.  For instance, why would you wan to put tidal power in the bay of Fundy?  a 70 foot tide!  Windmills go where the wind is highest, makes the sea a good choice in this factor.  BUT, they have to be shut down when the wind is too strong which very well may be frequently out there.
> 
> 
> 
> Glad you see that.
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG.  WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. Fucking WRONG
> 
> They need to be SHELVED as policy and pushed back to the lab till they ARE viable.  Period.  You go to what works best, and that is Coal.  That is Nuclear.  That is Hydro.  You don't play fuck around fuck around pretending that these bad forms of energy production are worthy of support till they PROVE it.  And once they become viable, the market will fund them till the day something better comes along.
> 
> Remember:  Bigger, Better, Faster, Stronger, Cheaper, Cleaner.... That is the nature of improvement and economic efficiency and smart policy.  You don't waste money on something that doesn't match this philosophy, unless you have economic suicide as your goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All power sources have downsides
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they do.  But most are overstated by the econazis to push bad solutions and global fascism on an imaginary crisis.  This eliminates the argument that their clean energies are substantially better, when they can't carry the freight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ranging from finite sources of fuel to high maintenance requirements, to  polluting off gasses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Finite sources.  The only ones who 'see the end' of petroleum are those who have a vested interest in it's stoppage.  High maintenance is often caused by stupid government regulations and NIMBY bullshit.  Polluting gasses, If you include CO2 with that, you're mad.  Global warming, or whatever they're trying to rebrand it as today, is not a threat.  It is not caused by man.  Pretty much every past attempt to do so has ended in their science being debunked by basic logic and cursory investigations of their methods as being fraudulent.
> 
> The need for this crap snaps like the dead dry twig it is.
Click to expand...


Wind Mills are dead, their own studies state they do not work, sure they say "many factors such as cost, output, reliability are unknown, either way, your talking about stuff that dont matter, the government states it just does not know, I bet every study in favor of Green power states the same thing, no idea if a profit can be made or if the power will be produced


----------



## antagon

California Girl said:


> Key word from the study: "could". That's not "would" or "will", it's "could".



you seem to be up on the UK.  how could this present such a mysterious prognosis for the US despite britain's track record with offshore wind successes?


----------



## martybegan

Big Fitz said:


> The high wind issue is not a big deal as long as the control system is  working to thread the blades properly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3FZtmlHwcA[/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The freighter concern isnt really an issue, as only an idiot would place  these things anywhere near a shipping lane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmmm.  They want to put these off Cape Cod which is a very busy shipping area all things considered.  A big storm plus a ship in trouble... shit happens.  Just waiting for the first time it does.
> 
> 
> 
> Much harder to service isolated out to sea in a place with strong currents, frequent storms and rough weather... which is where you get the most wind generation.  For instance, why would you wan to put tidal power in the bay of Fundy?  a 70 foot tide!  Windmills go where the wind is highest, makes the sea a good choice in this factor.  BUT, they have to be shut down when the wind is too strong which very well may be frequently out there.
> 
> 
> 
> Glad you see that.
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG.  WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. Fucking WRONG
> 
> They need to be SHELVED as policy and pushed back to the lab till they ARE viable.  Period.  You go to what works best, and that is Coal.  That is Nuclear.  That is Hydro.  You don't play fuck around fuck around pretending that these bad forms of energy production are worthy of support till they PROVE it.  And once they become viable, the market will fund them till the day something better comes along.
> 
> Remember:  Bigger, Better, Faster, Stronger, Cheaper, Cleaner.... That is the nature of improvement and economic efficiency and smart policy.  You don't waste money on something that doesn't match this philosophy, unless you have economic suicide as your goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All power sources have downsides
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they do.  But most are overstated by the econazis to push bad solutions and global fascism on an imaginary crisis.  This eliminates the argument that their clean energies are substantially better, when they can't carry the freight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ranging from finite sources of fuel to high maintenance requirements, to  polluting off gasses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Finite sources.  The only ones who 'see the end' of petroleum are those who have a vested interest in it's stoppage.  High maintenance is often caused by stupid government regulations and NIMBY bullshit.  Polluting gasses, If you include CO2 with that, you're mad.  Global warming, or whatever they're trying to rebrand it as today, is not a threat.  It is not caused by man.  Pretty much every past attempt to do so has ended in their science being debunked by basic logic and cursory investigations of their methods as being fraudulent.
> 
> The need for this crap snaps like the dead dry twig it is.
Click to expand...


That is a case of a control system not working. Disable a control system on a nuke plant and see how much fun you are going to have. 

A shipping lane is a relatively narrow area, ships do not transverse the oceans all willy nilly. Yes a storm could divert a ship into a wind farm, just like a tornado can level a fossil fuel plant (not a nuke plant, those containments are pretty freaking strong)

You misread my point. All I am saying is that alternative energy projects usually need goverment subsidies to be viable, I am not commenting on the right or wrong of it. 

And unless you proscribe to the theory of fossil fuel regenration from deep sources, we are using oil/coal deposits faster then they are being recreated.

Edit: I forgot, that video is freaking awsome, one of my favrorite "Engineering whoopsies" right after the Tacoma narrows bridge


----------



## mdn2000

martybegan said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The high wind issue is not a big deal as long as the control system is  working to thread the blades properly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3FZtmlHwcA[/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm.  They want to put these off Cape Cod which is a very busy shipping area all things considered.  A big storm plus a ship in trouble... shit happens.  Just waiting for the first time it does.
> 
> 
> 
> Much harder to service isolated out to sea in a place with strong currents, frequent storms and rough weather... which is where you get the most wind generation.  For instance, why would you wan to put tidal power in the bay of Fundy?  a 70 foot tide!  Windmills go where the wind is highest, makes the sea a good choice in this factor.  BUT, they have to be shut down when the wind is too strong which very well may be frequently out there.
> 
> 
> 
> Glad you see that.
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG.  WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. Fucking WRONG
> 
> They need to be SHELVED as policy and pushed back to the lab till they ARE viable.  Period.  You go to what works best, and that is Coal.  That is Nuclear.  That is Hydro.  You don't play fuck around fuck around pretending that these bad forms of energy production are worthy of support till they PROVE it.  And once they become viable, the market will fund them till the day something better comes along.
> 
> Remember:  Bigger, Better, Faster, Stronger, Cheaper, Cleaner.... That is the nature of improvement and economic efficiency and smart policy.  You don't waste money on something that doesn't match this philosophy, unless you have economic suicide as your goal.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they do.  But most are overstated by the econazis to push bad solutions and global fascism on an imaginary crisis.  This eliminates the argument that their clean energies are substantially better, when they can't carry the freight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ranging from finite sources of fuel to high maintenance requirements, to  polluting off gasses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Finite sources.  The only ones who 'see the end' of petroleum are those who have a vested interest in it's stoppage.  High maintenance is often caused by stupid government regulations and NIMBY bullshit.  Polluting gasses, If you include CO2 with that, you're mad.  Global warming, or whatever they're trying to rebrand it as today, is not a threat.  It is not caused by man.  Pretty much every past attempt to do so has ended in their science being debunked by basic logic and cursory investigations of their methods as being fraudulent.
> 
> The need for this crap snaps like the dead dry twig it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a case of a control system not working. Disable a control system on a nuke plant and see how much fun you are going to have.
> 
> A shipping lane is a relatively narrow area, ships do not transverse the oceans all willy nilly. Yes a storm could divert a ship into a wind farm, just like a tornado can level a fossil fuel plant (not a nuke plant, those containments are pretty freaking strong)
> 
> You misread my point. All I am saying is that alternative energy projects usually need goverment subsidies to be viable, I am not commenting on the right or wrong of it.
> 
> And unless you proscribe to the theory of fossil fuel regenration from deep sources, we are using oil/coal deposits faster then they are being recreated.
> 
> Edit: I forgot, that video is freaking awsome, one of my favrorite "Engineering whoopsies" right after the Tacoma narrows bridge
Click to expand...


You appear to have no knowledge of energy, period. It is impossible to disable a "control system", on a nuclear power plant, any failure in a control system will initiate a "trip", the plant will automatically shut down, any system failure. Three mile island was human error, Fermi 1 was human error, Waltz Mill was human error, even Chernobyl was human error. 

Gross error on your part so I must ask do you really know a lot about windmills.

Fossil Fuels, again, a gross error, Fossil Fuels are needed to make Wind Power Plants, you cannot build a wind mill with anything but fossil fuels and massive amounts of electricity. Its best just to burn the oil or gas to produce electricity directly, instead of creating a new industry and industrial infrastructure. Fossil Fuels demand is increasing exponentially to meet demand for the raw materials to build wind mills, that is why China is purchasing and hording the rare earth metals.

I will now cut and paste directly from the study that this thread is based on.

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/49229.pdf



> cost of energy produced over the anticipated 20-year life of a project, are based on a range of factors, many of which are currently unknown and must be projected. In addition to the ICC, these include operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, the cost of financing, amount of energy to be generated, long-term system reliability, and decommissioning costs.



Not one person has read this study yet every one posts as if they know this topic. 

Loosecannon lost the argument as soon as he linked to this study, the study disagrees with every supporter of Wind Power.


----------



## martybegan

mdn2000 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3FZtmlHwcA
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm.  They want to put these off Cape Cod which is a very busy shipping area all things considered.  A big storm plus a ship in trouble... shit happens.  Just waiting for the first time it does.
> 
> 
> 
> Much harder to service isolated out to sea in a place with strong currents, frequent storms and rough weather... which is where you get the most wind generation.  For instance, why would you wan to put tidal power in the bay of Fundy?  a 70 foot tide!  Windmills go where the wind is highest, makes the sea a good choice in this factor.  BUT, they have to be shut down when the wind is too strong which very well may be frequently out there.
> 
> 
> 
> Glad you see that.
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG.  WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. Fucking WRONG
> 
> They need to be SHELVED as policy and pushed back to the lab till they ARE viable.  Period.  You go to what works best, and that is Coal.  That is Nuclear.  That is Hydro.  You don't play fuck around fuck around pretending that these bad forms of energy production are worthy of support till they PROVE it.  And once they become viable, the market will fund them till the day something better comes along.
> 
> Remember:  Bigger, Better, Faster, Stronger, Cheaper, Cleaner.... That is the nature of improvement and economic efficiency and smart policy.  You don't waste money on something that doesn't match this philosophy, unless you have economic suicide as your goal.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they do.  But most are overstated by the econazis to push bad solutions and global fascism on an imaginary crisis.  This eliminates the argument that their clean energies are substantially better, when they can't carry the freight.
> 
> 
> 
> Finite sources.  The only ones who 'see the end' of petroleum are those who have a vested interest in it's stoppage.  High maintenance is often caused by stupid government regulations and NIMBY bullshit.  Polluting gasses, If you include CO2 with that, you're mad.  Global warming, or whatever they're trying to rebrand it as today, is not a threat.  It is not caused by man.  Pretty much every past attempt to do so has ended in their science being debunked by basic logic and cursory investigations of their methods as being fraudulent.
> 
> The need for this crap snaps like the dead dry twig it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a case of a control system not working. Disable a control system on a nuke plant and see how much fun you are going to have.
> 
> A shipping lane is a relatively narrow area, ships do not transverse the oceans all willy nilly. Yes a storm could divert a ship into a wind farm, just like a tornado can level a fossil fuel plant (not a nuke plant, those containments are pretty freaking strong)
> 
> You misread my point. All I am saying is that alternative energy projects usually need goverment subsidies to be viable, I am not commenting on the right or wrong of it.
> 
> And unless you proscribe to the theory of fossil fuel regenration from deep sources, we are using oil/coal deposits faster then they are being recreated.
> 
> Edit: I forgot, that video is freaking awsome, one of my favrorite "Engineering whoopsies" right after the Tacoma narrows bridge
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You appear to have no knowledge of energy, period. It is impossible to disable a "control system", on a nuclear power plant, any failure in a control system will initiate a "trip", the plant will automatically shut down, any system failure. Three mile island was human error, Fermi 1 was human error, Waltz Mill was human error, even Chernobyl was human error.
> 
> Gross error on your part so I must ask do you really know a lot about windmills.
> 
> Fossil Fuels, again, a gross error, Fossil Fuels are needed to make Wind Power Plants, you cannot build a wind mill with anything but fossil fuels and massive amounts of electricity. Its best just to burn the oil or gas to produce electricity directly, instead of creating a new industry and industrial infrastructure. Fossil Fuels demand is increasing exponentially to meet demand for the raw materials to build wind mills, that is why China is purchasing and hording the rare earth metals.
> 
> I will now cut and paste directly from the study that this thread is based on.
> 
> http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/49229.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cost of energy produced over the anticipated 20-year life of a project, are based on a range of factors, many of which are currently unknown and must be projected. In addition to the ICC, these include operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, the cost of financing, amount of energy to be generated, long-term system reliability, and decommissioning costs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not one person has read this study yet every one posts as if they know this topic.
> 
> Loosecannon lost the argument as soon as he linked to this study, the study disagrees with every supporter of Wind Power.
Click to expand...


I would argue that human error IS a failure in a control system. And I know more about engineering than you is that I know that NOTHING is impossible, and anything can happen, its just really really unlikely. 

Also your point on the turbines and parts of a windmill needing fossil fuels to be made, so what? so do the turbines, boilers, and buildings that are needed to house fossil fuel generating plants? The point you harp on so incessantly is moot. The fact is once they are made they require no fuel input to run. 

Again, oppose them on not being efficent enough yet. Note the word "yet" as efficiencies go up they will become more viable on thier own.


----------



## mdn2000

martybegan said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a case of a control system not working. Disable a control system on a nuke plant and see how much fun you are going to have.
> 
> A shipping lane is a relatively narrow area, ships do not transverse the oceans all willy nilly. Yes a storm could divert a ship into a wind farm, just like a tornado can level a fossil fuel plant (not a nuke plant, those containments are pretty freaking strong)
> 
> You misread my point. All I am saying is that alternative energy projects usually need goverment subsidies to be viable, I am not commenting on the right or wrong of it.
> 
> And unless you proscribe to the theory of fossil fuel regenration from deep sources, we are using oil/coal deposits faster then they are being recreated.
> 
> Edit: I forgot, that video is freaking awsome, one of my favrorite "Engineering whoopsies" right after the Tacoma narrows bridge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You appear to have no knowledge of energy, period. It is impossible to disable a "control system", on a nuclear power plant, any failure in a control system will initiate a "trip", the plant will automatically shut down, any system failure. Three mile island was human error, Fermi 1 was human error, Waltz Mill was human error, even Chernobyl was human error.
> 
> Gross error on your part so I must ask do you really know a lot about windmills.
> 
> Fossil Fuels, again, a gross error, Fossil Fuels are needed to make Wind Power Plants, you cannot build a wind mill with anything but fossil fuels and massive amounts of electricity. Its best just to burn the oil or gas to produce electricity directly, instead of creating a new industry and industrial infrastructure. Fossil Fuels demand is increasing exponentially to meet demand for the raw materials to build wind mills, that is why China is purchasing and hording the rare earth metals.
> 
> I will now cut and paste directly from the study that this thread is based on.
> 
> http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/49229.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cost of energy produced over the anticipated 20-year life of a project, are based on a range of factors, many of which are currently unknown and must be projected. In addition to the ICC, these include operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, the cost of financing, amount of energy to be generated, long-term system reliability, and decommissioning costs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not one person has read this study yet every one posts as if they know this topic.
> 
> Loosecannon lost the argument as soon as he linked to this study, the study disagrees with every supporter of Wind Power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would argue that human error IS a failure in a control system. And I know more about engineering than you is that I know that NOTHING is impossible, and anything can happen, its just really really unlikely.
> 
> Also your point on the turbines and parts of a windmill needing fossil fuels to be made, so what? so do the turbines, boilers, and buildings that are needed to house fossil fuel generating plants? The point you harp on so incessantly is moot. The fact is once they are made they require no fuel input to run.
> 
> Again, oppose them on not being efficent enough yet. Note the word "yet" as efficiencies go up they will become more viable on thier own.
Click to expand...


Yet the study that you have not disagreed with states you are wrong. 

You must increase oil production to increase fiberglass production, you use more energy to make wind mills than they produce, as the study states. 

State any amount of electrical output from a wind power farm, lets say it will produce 1 gwh, Lets site the study 



> are based on a range of factors, many of which are currently unknown and must be projected. In addition to the ICC, these include operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, the cost of financing, amount of energy to be generated, long-term system reliability



The study says they do not know? The amount of energy they do not know. 



> so do the turbines, boilers, and buildings that are needed to house fossil fuel generating plants?



Thats your argument, no facts, no analysis, 

A wind mill produces a million times less power than a fossil fuel plant.

If the whole idea of a wind mill is not to use fossil fuels why use fossil fuels to make wind mills, demand for fossil fuels is increasing exponentially due to wind power. 

You did not even read the study, after all these years, billions of dollars in subsidies, the government which is passing laws states they do not know.

If it was even close to truth, the study would not say they do not know.


----------



## antagon

man, mdn, i've not seen this grade of ignorance exhibited so consistently.  part of what went wrong  at chernobyl was that a control system was disabled.


----------



## mdn2000

antagon said:


> man, mdn, i've not seen this grade of ignorance exhibited so consistently.  part of what went wrong  at chernobyl was that a control system was disabled.



Which control system was disabled, exactly.

I am a bit tired and will admit if I was wrong.

Just so you know me a bit, I worked all night at Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant, I am working with Westinghouse inspecting a Combustion Engineering System 80 Nuclear power plant. We will finish our inspection of the primary coolant systems heat exchangers (steam generators). Its tough being an Analyst in the field.


----------



## martybegan

mdn2000 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You appear to have no knowledge of energy, period. It is impossible to disable a "control system", on a nuclear power plant, any failure in a control system will initiate a "trip", the plant will automatically shut down, any system failure. Three mile island was human error, Fermi 1 was human error, Waltz Mill was human error, even Chernobyl was human error.
> 
> Gross error on your part so I must ask do you really know a lot about windmills.
> 
> Fossil Fuels, again, a gross error, Fossil Fuels are needed to make Wind Power Plants, you cannot build a wind mill with anything but fossil fuels and massive amounts of electricity. Its best just to burn the oil or gas to produce electricity directly, instead of creating a new industry and industrial infrastructure. Fossil Fuels demand is increasing exponentially to meet demand for the raw materials to build wind mills, that is why China is purchasing and hording the rare earth metals.
> 
> I will now cut and paste directly from the study that this thread is based on.
> 
> http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/49229.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Not one person has read this study yet every one posts as if they know this topic.
> 
> Loosecannon lost the argument as soon as he linked to this study, the study disagrees with every supporter of Wind Power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue that human error IS a failure in a control system. And I know more about engineering than you is that I know that NOTHING is impossible, and anything can happen, its just really really unlikely.
> 
> Also your point on the turbines and parts of a windmill needing fossil fuels to be made, so what? so do the turbines, boilers, and buildings that are needed to house fossil fuel generating plants? The point you harp on so incessantly is moot. The fact is once they are made they require no fuel input to run.
> 
> Again, oppose them on not being efficent enough yet. Note the word "yet" as efficiencies go up they will become more viable on thier own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet the study that you have not disagreed with states you are wrong.
> 
> You must increase oil production to increase fiberglass production, you use more energy to make wind mills than they produce, as the study states.
> 
> State any amount of electrical output from a wind power farm, lets say it will produce 1 gwh, Lets site the study
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are based on a range of factors, many of which are currently unknown and must be projected. In addition to the ICC, these include operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, the cost of financing, amount of energy to be generated, long-term system reliability
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The study says they do not know? The amount of energy they do not know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so do the turbines, boilers, and buildings that are needed to house fossil fuel generating plants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats your argument, no facts, no analysis,
> 
> A wind mill produces a million times less power than a fossil fuel plant.
> 
> If the whole idea of a wind mill is not to use fossil fuels why use fossil fuels to make wind mills, demand for fossil fuels is increasing exponentially due to wind power.
> 
> You did not even read the study, after all these years, billions of dollars in subsidies, the government which is passing laws states they do not know.
> 
> If it was even close to truth, the study would not say they do not know.
Click to expand...


I love people who just dismiss my point without answering it, and then you follow up your dismissing of my analysis with a statement of " a million times less."

As far as studies go I can find 20 different studies that come from the same source and they will have 20 different answers. I trust most "studies" as much as I trust in my ability to walk on water.

Yes, a wind turbine needs inputs including plastics and metals, and yes those need power to create. but so does any other power source. The fact is they still dont need a fuel source once made, and I dont care how big thier fiberglass casing is, in a 15-20 year lifespan the amount of oil to make the casing cannot compare to the oil required to provide the same power in a standard oil fired plant.


----------



## mdn2000

antagon said:


> geothermal power does not have to emit pollution at all.  geothermal is a broad group of potential power sources from the heat of the earth.



Yet Geothermal does emit pollution, ask Old Crock.

Geothermal is too expensive and extremely toxic, heavy demand on raw materials.


----------



## mdn2000

martybegan said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't doubt that wind generated electicity has a place in the energy production mix.
> 
> I'm dubious that it alone can be our only source of power.
> 
> Not because the power isn't there, but because we need continuous power and that means we need something more dependable than just wind.
> 
> Now if we converted wind's power to potential energy (like using it to store potential energy in water that we can run through a hydroelectic system when it's needed) that might help.
> 
> *But neither wind NOR solar is dependable UNLESS we find ways of storing the excess when we need it to deal with the shortages that are inevitable.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. The Engineering issues involved have mostly to do with our power grid, making transmission more efficent, and able to switch sources.
> 
> Wind will always be blowing SOMEWHERE. If you only counted a portion of the overall wind power provided as constant, you could be assured that it would not go below baseline.
> 
> This again assumes increases in materials technology for transmisson wires, and increases in power grid controls.
Click to expand...


Which means increase in costs, increase in demand of dwindling resources, increase in tax to pay for this, increase in borrowing, increase in tax on energy sources already developed.

The development of wind power is costly because it does not produce enough power to meet our needs, not even a significant portion of our needs. 

Wind Power is part of California's problem, we are bankrupt, billions spent on alternative energy, billions, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Wind Power is making the rich, richer, Wind Power is paying off Al Gore and Bill Clinton with speaking fees. 

I cannot afford to pay for electricity that comes from wind power, not even one percent of our needs will be wind power, never, its impossible unless you completely shut down industry.

Maybe that is the idea, destroy everything from our health care, to our industry, to our energy, whats next our food supply.

So which point of your did I miss, that the cost is trillions.


----------



## martybegan

mdn2000 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't doubt that wind generated electicity has a place in the energy production mix.
> 
> I'm dubious that it alone can be our only source of power.
> 
> Not because the power isn't there, but because we need continuous power and that means we need something more dependable than just wind.
> 
> Now if we converted wind's power to potential energy (like using it to store potential energy in water that we can run through a hydroelectic system when it's needed) that might help.
> 
> *But neither wind NOR solar is dependable UNLESS we find ways of storing the excess when we need it to deal with the shortages that are inevitable.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. The Engineering issues involved have mostly to do with our power grid, making transmission more efficent, and able to switch sources.
> 
> Wind will always be blowing SOMEWHERE. If you only counted a portion of the overall wind power provided as constant, you could be assured that it would not go below baseline.
> 
> This again assumes increases in materials technology for transmisson wires, and increases in power grid controls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which means increase in costs, increase in demand of dwindling resources, increase in tax to pay for this, increase in borrowing, increase in tax on energy sources already developed.
> 
> The development of wind power is costly because it does not produce enough power to meet our needs, not even a significant portion of our needs.
> 
> Wind Power is part of California's problem, we are bankrupt, billions spent on alternative energy, billions, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.
> 
> Wind Power is making the rich, richer, Wind Power is paying off Al Gore and Bill Clinton with speaking fees.
> 
> I cannot afford to pay for electricity that comes from wind power, not even one percent of our needs will be wind power, never, its impossible unless you completely shut down industry.
> 
> Maybe that is the idea, destroy everything from our health care, to our industry, to our energy, whats next our food supply.
> 
> So which point of your did I miss, that the cost is trillions.
Click to expand...


At this point i realize reasonable debate is pretty much impossible, and back away.... slowly.


----------



## mdn2000

martybegan said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. The Engineering issues involved have mostly to do with our power grid, making transmission more efficent, and able to switch sources.
> 
> Wind will always be blowing SOMEWHERE. If you only counted a portion of the overall wind power provided as constant, you could be assured that it would not go below baseline.
> 
> This again assumes increases in materials technology for transmisson wires, and increases in power grid controls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which means increase in costs, increase in demand of dwindling resources, increase in tax to pay for this, increase in borrowing, increase in tax on energy sources already developed.
> 
> The development of wind power is costly because it does not produce enough power to meet our needs, not even a significant portion of our needs.
> 
> Wind Power is part of California's problem, we are bankrupt, billions spent on alternative energy, billions, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.
> 
> Wind Power is making the rich, richer, Wind Power is paying off Al Gore and Bill Clinton with speaking fees.
> 
> I cannot afford to pay for electricity that comes from wind power, not even one percent of our needs will be wind power, never, its impossible unless you completely shut down industry.
> 
> Maybe that is the idea, destroy everything from our health care, to our industry, to our energy, whats next our food supply.
> 
> So which point of your did I miss, that the cost is trillions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At this point i realize reasonable debate is pretty much impossible, and back away.... slowly.
Click to expand...


No problem, not one person is able or willing to address the costs.


----------



## KissMy

martybegan said:


> I love people who just dismiss my point without answering it, and then you follow up your dismissing of my analysis with a statement of " a million times less."
> 
> As far as studies go I can find 20 different studies that come from the same source and they will have 20 different answers. I trust most "studies" as much as I trust in my ability to walk on water.
> 
> Yes, a wind turbine needs inputs including plastics and metals, and yes those need power to create. but so does any other power source. The fact is they still dont need a fuel source once made, and I dont care how big thier fiberglass casing is, in a 15-20 year lifespan the amount of oil to make the casing cannot compare to the oil required to provide the same power in a standard oil fired plant.



To manufacture & install an offshore wind turbine requires more energy per maximum output rated kilowatt than conventional power plants. Then these wind turbines only spin 25% of the time. Then during this 25% of available wind energy producing time the grid power demand must coincide with this time period or the wind turbines must spill off power wasting even more EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested). So now you are returning under 20% max rated output. Oh and guess what else you did not factor in to your EROEI? You still must use energy to build conventional power plants to generate power when the wind is not blowing. 

A conventional power plant gives you far far more Fossil Fuel EROEI in construction. They run at 90% rated output levels. The only way to make wind & solar work is to have massive storage. Who knows what the EROEI is on that. This is likely way over your head & who cares anyhow. For you guys wind sounds fun & PC (politically correct) so stop bringing me down.


----------



## antagon

KissMy, your EROEI is moot after a couple year's operation.  that assessment of viability is over the top.  i think we both know that.  plain 'ol ROI poses a real pinch, however.


----------



## KissMy

antagon said:


> KissMy, your EROEI is moot after a couple year's operation.  that assessment of viability is over the top.  i think we both know that.  plain 'ol ROI poses a real pinch, however.



EROEI is factored over the life of the product. I have not read the study on large wind turbines but I have on the small wind below 100kw for small business & residential. They never recover the energy used to create them over their entire lifetime. They increase our dependence on fossil fuels. But hey there is something to be said for that smug your greener than your neighbors look by having one on or near your home.


----------



## mdn2000

antagon said:


> KissMy, your EROEI is moot after a couple year's operation.  that assessment of viability is over the top.  i think we both know that.  plain 'ol ROI poses a real pinch, however.



If that is true why does the study of this thread say different. 

The government must and is mandating higher electrical rates, higher taxes, and subsidies, without billions of dollars given to wind farm corporations, there is no profit.

Wind Power is steal from the middle class, give to the rich


----------



## antagon

> Modern wind turbines rapidly recover all the energy spent in manufacturing, installing, maintaining, and finally scrapping them. Under normal wind conditions *it takes between two and three months for a turbine to recover all of the energy involved.*



You may download the 16 page report. 


> offshore wind turbines will generally yield some 50 per cent more energy than a turbine placed on a nearby onshore site. The reason is the low roughness of the sea surface.
> *On the other hand, the construction and installation of foundations require 50 per cent more energy than onshore turbines.*
> It should be remembered, however, that offshore wind turbines have a longer expected lifetime than onshore turbines, *in the region of 25 to 30 years*.



Energy Payback Period for Wind Turbines

not even close.   > 20 years recovered in < 6 months. my emphasis.


----------



## mdn2000

antagon said:


> Modern wind turbines rapidly recover all the energy spent in manufacturing, installing, maintaining, and finally scrapping them. Under normal wind conditions *it takes between two and three months for a turbine to recover all of the energy involved.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may download the 16 page report.
> 
> 
> 
> offshore wind turbines will generally yield some 50 per cent more energy than a turbine placed on a nearby onshore site. The reason is the low roughness of the sea surface.
> *On the other hand, the construction and installation of foundations require 50 per cent more energy than onshore turbines.*
> It should be remembered, however, that offshore wind turbines have a longer expected lifetime than onshore turbines, *in the region of 25 to 30 years*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Energy Payback Period for Wind Turbines
> 
> not even close.   > 20 years recovered in < 6 months. my emphasis.
Click to expand...


Great you can cut and paste, you should of included a bit of you own analysis and a summary other than six month recovery.

so what is the total energy needed and what types. your link or the danish study references another study they used, so we have to look at second hand information, which is fine to begin but I dont see in this study that they took all energy needed into account.

Further they are specific in the energy source used and the type of material, it states recycled aluminum. Can all wind turbines be made with aluminum, are any made with recycled aluminum, very important question. The difference in cost is close to a 100%, obviously the use of raw materials will make the cost prohibitive otherwise the use of raw materials would be the benchmark.

I see no breakdown of the individual material as well.

So what is the total energy used, from the report you link to, I dont see the number, do you. 

The report is at best, not accurate.

I have my information I can share, its not real easy, but it is accurate, I am off to the airport to drop a co worker off so I will come back to this important topic.

The report is also from 1997, why, is this applicable today, as a beginning yes, not as final word.

Why does the study used in this thread, the basis of this thread not reference this report, seems the united states government would not state unknown, if in fact it is known, after the study of this thread is from the Department of Energy.

Coal, maybe for the electricity needed, coal is also real cheap.

So to stop polluting, you use coal, that is extremely polluting but it is the cheapest form of electricity, still is coal able to fire the furnace used to make fiberglass, no. 

So what about other energy, is that taken into account, without the actual study how do we know the liberties taken? 

In reality subsidies and higher prices for electricity from solar would not be needed if it took three months or even a year to recoup the cost.

Still, we can explore the cost and use this report as a start.

To start the report is missing tons of information.


----------



## antagon

i just think it sounds outrageous to think that making a viable power-generating device could possibly take more energy than it creates over its lifetime.  that conundrum was claimed, and that claim was wrong.  if the study put forward by the most experienced offshore wind-power users was extremely inaccurate as you've contended -- that it took 2-3 years instead of 2-3 months to break even -- it would still have taken 1/10 of the total life of the product.  the study claims it is more like 1/100.

not only do i believe that this is likely fairly accurate information, but i believe without a doubt that what you and KissMy believe is far-fetched-fiction unsupportable by fact.  it's so far fetched, i've limited my own analysis to 'not a chance' and 'moot'.


----------



## mdn2000

antagon said:


> i just think it sounds outrageous to think that making a viable power-generating device could possibly take more energy than it creates over its lifetime.  that conundrum was claimed, and that claim was wrong.  if the study put forward by the most experienced offshore wind-power users was extremely inaccurate as you've contended -- that it took 2-3 years instead of 2-3 months to break even -- it would still have taken 1/10 of the total life of the product.  the study claims it is more like 1/100.
> 
> not only do i believe that this is likely fairly accurate information, but i believe without a doubt that what you and KissMy believe is far-fetched-fiction unsupportable by fact.  it's so far fetched, i've limited my own analysis to 'not a chance' and 'moot'.



That is fine and you have every reason to believe what you believe, you also did much more than anyone else in this thread, you looked for an answer, that is more credible than I see just about all the other posts.

I have not dismissed your ideas, they do challenge mine, they do require research, I am and have done my homework and it will take a bit to compare, read, think, research.

I have to go now but thanks for showing your ideas have some basis,

others should take note


----------



## antagon

i think this index of energy return and investment has more application to fuel-based energy rather than direct kinetic sources like wind.  energy investment goes into supplying fuels for gas, coal, oil, etc, and that cost is part of perpetuating the operation.  this is additional to the sort of costs which go into generating the power, where fuel-based energy regains a lot of its overall efficiency because of the greater net gains it offers.

when you declare coal is cheap, remember, wind is free.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Study: The Big Yellow Thing in the Sky heats the Planet. 

Scientists Puzzled. Warmers assert CO2 influences vastly understated!


----------



## mdn2000

antagon said:


> Modern wind turbines rapidly recover all the energy spent in manufacturing, installing, maintaining, and finally scrapping them. Under normal wind conditions *it takes between two and three months for a turbine to recover all of the energy involved.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may download the 16 page report.
> 
> 
> 
> offshore wind turbines will generally yield some 50 per cent more energy than a turbine placed on a nearby onshore site. The reason is the low roughness of the sea surface.
> *On the other hand, the construction and installation of foundations require 50 per cent more energy than onshore turbines.*
> It should be remembered, however, that offshore wind turbines have a longer expected lifetime than onshore turbines, *in the region of 25 to 30 years*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Energy Payback Period for Wind Turbines
> 
> not even close.   > 20 years recovered in < 6 months. my emphasis.
Click to expand...


Sorry, this report from 1997 is bullshit, how do you convert to Terajoules, come on, if this is all you can come up, a report from the Danish manufacturer, you cannot provide the study, nor any analysis other than here is a link, seriously you must be kidding.

A report based on a study. There is not one mention of the amount of oil, natural gas used, nothing on the energy used for smelting aluminum, or melting silica into fiberglass.

Further if this is so true and easy to explain why is the study that is the basis of this thread state the opposite of this report.


----------



## mdn2000

So if I got your positions straight, you propose to use more fossil fuels to make Wind power. How is using more to make less energy dependence?

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/industry/Glass_Manufacturing_Energy_Guide.pdf



> The estimated primary energy consumption of the U.S. glass industry in 2002 was 331 trillion Btu
> (TBtu) (see Chapter 4). Most of the energy consumed is in the form of natural gas, which is used
> to fuel glass furnaces and process heating equipment. Glass production is also very capital intensive,
> due in part to the cost of rebuilding glass furnaces every 8-12 years.



I provided this link simply to show the type of energy required to make fiberglass, it also shows Wind Farms and Solar power plants will never supply industry with energy.

Green energy cannot pump water nor can Green energy supply power to the industry that makes Wind Turbines and Solar panels.


----------



## antagon

mdn, you are the person who contends that more energy is used to build wind turbines than is made by them.  this is a joke which you cant back up.

if you want to discredit my source, find another one, any one, which is willing to come close to saying that windmills cant recover their manufacture, construction and scrapping cost at all.  the study which i referenced claims about a 1:100 ratio based on 2-3 months claimed over 20 to 30 years overall life.

you've engaged in an energy debate without knowing what a terajoule is.  it is one trillion watts per second.  you can divide it by 3,600,000 to get kW/hours.

edit: (1.9TJ = 1,900,000,000,000)/(((60seconds * 60minutes) * 1,000,000 watts) = 3,600,000,000) = 52.777MW/hours or 52,777kWh


----------



## loosecannon

antagon said:


> mdn, you are the person who contends that more energy is used to build wind turbines than is made by them.  this is a joke which you cant back up.
> 
> if you want to discredit my source, find another one, any one, which is willing to come close to saying that windmills cant recover their manufacture, construction and scrapping cost at all.  the study which i referenced claims about a 1:100 ratio based on 2-3 months claimed over 20 to 30 years overall life.
> 
> you've engaged in an energy debate without knowing what a terajoule is.  it is one trillion watts per second.  you can divide it by 3,600,000 to get kW/hours.
> 
> edit: (1.9TJ = 1,900,000,000,000)/(((60seconds * 60minutes) * 1,000,000 watts) = 3,600,000,000) = 52.777MW/hours or 52,777kWh



mdn is clueless. He/she or it is unconcerned with facts or reality and fixated purely upon an agenda that "green energy" can't work. 

As if Green Energy didn't provide all of our food, heat the earth, support us entirely, and even create us in the first place. 

He probably hates women too. Even his own Mom.


----------



## mdn2000

antagon said:


> mdn, you are the person who contends that more energy is used to build wind turbines than is made by them.  this is a joke which you cant back up.
> 
> if you want to discredit my source, find another one, any one, which is willing to come close to saying that windmills cant recover their manufacture, construction and scrapping cost at all.  the study which i referenced claims about a 1:100 ratio based on 2-3 months claimed over 20 to 30 years overall life.
> 
> you've engaged in an energy debate without knowing what a terajoule is.  it is one trillion watts per second.  you can divide it by 3,600,000 to get kW/hours.
> 
> edit: (1.9TJ = 1,900,000,000,000)/(((60seconds * 60minutes) * 1,000,000 watts) = 3,600,000,000) = 52.777MW/hours or 52,777kWh



You did not link to a source, you linked to a 13 year old report by a subsidized corporation or summary of another study, a study you cannot or will not provide, how am I to respond to tertiary information, at best you posted heresy,  you make the claim that wind energy can supply the power it states, this thread is based on an article, that links to a summary, that links to a study, that study states they have no idea, so how is 13 year old at best, "statements" by a foreign subsidized company accurate.

You grasped onto one sentence that states an opinion, your sixteen page summary is not a basis for debate. 

So tell me, according to your link, how much energy does it take, your arguing based on the link, so simply tell me the total energy required, in United States units, and you can use your tertiary information that is heresy at best.

You cannot expect a simple link with no analysis by yourself stands as any sort of basis to make your point, especially when the link that this thread is based on states the opposite.


----------



## mdn2000

loosecannon said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> mdn, you are the person who contends that more energy is used to build wind turbines than is made by them.  this is a joke which you cant back up.
> 
> if you want to discredit my source, find another one, any one, which is willing to come close to saying that windmills cant recover their manufacture, construction and scrapping cost at all.  the study which i referenced claims about a 1:100 ratio based on 2-3 months claimed over 20 to 30 years overall life.
> 
> you've engaged in an energy debate without knowing what a terajoule is.  it is one trillion watts per second.  you can divide it by 3,600,000 to get kW/hours.
> 
> edit: (1.9TJ = 1,900,000,000,000)/(((60seconds * 60minutes) * 1,000,000 watts) = 3,600,000,000) = 52.777MW/hours or 52,777kWh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdn is clueless. He/she or it is unconcerned with facts or reality and fixated purely upon an agenda that "green energy" can't work.
> 
> As if Green Energy didn't provide all of our food, heat the earth, support us entirely, and even create us in the first place.
> 
> He probably hates women too. Even his own Mom.
Click to expand...


He, moron, your study you linked to that you started this thread on states you are wrong. Your study says, "unknown", to cost, power output, maintenance, everything about wind power according the basis of this thread is unknown.

The title of this thread based on the study provided is a lie,

Your link states everything about wind power is "unknown", 

can you base an energy policy of a nation, the worlds economic leader, on "unknowns".

The answer is no.

You posted the link, now prove your own link/study is wrong.

Your link states Loosecannon and all that support Wind Power is wrong. How can we argue with your study.


----------



## mdn2000

antagon said:


> mdn, you are the person who contends that more energy is used to build wind turbines than is made by them.  this is a joke which you cant back up.
> 
> if you want to discredit my source, find another one, any one, which is willing to come close to saying that windmills cant recover their manufacture, construction and scrapping cost at all.  the study which i referenced claims about a 1:100 ratio based on 2-3 months claimed over 20 to 30 years overall life.
> 
> you've engaged in an energy debate without knowing what a terajoule is.  it is one trillion watts per second.  you can divide it by 3,600,000 to get kW/hours.
> 
> edit: (1.9TJ = 1,900,000,000,000)/(((60seconds * 60minutes) * 1,000,000 watts) = 3,600,000,000) = 52.777MW/hours or 52,777kWh



I contend, I am simply stated what the study which is the basis of this thread states, you must disprove the study not me, show me how the study of this thread is wrong.


----------



## antagon

mdn2000 said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> mdn, you are the person who contends that more energy is used to build wind turbines than is made by them.  this is a joke which you cant back up.
> 
> if you want to discredit my source, find another one, any one, which is willing to come close to saying that windmills cant recover their manufacture, construction and scrapping cost at all.  the study which i referenced claims about a 1:100 ratio based on 2-3 months claimed over 20 to 30 years overall life.
> 
> you've engaged in an energy debate without knowing what a terajoule is.  it is one trillion watts per second.  you can divide it by 3,600,000 to get kW/hours.
> 
> edit: (1.9TJ = 1,900,000,000,000)/(((60seconds * 60minutes) * 1,000,000 watts) = 3,600,000,000) = 52.777MW/hours or *52,777kWh*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did not link to a source, you linked to a 13 year old report by a subsidized corporation or summary of another study, a study you cannot or will not provide, how am I to respond to tertiary information, at best you posted heresy,  you make the claim that wind energy can supply the power it states, this thread is based on an article, that links to a summary, that links to a study, that study states they have no idea, so how is 13 year old at best, "statements" by a foreign subsidized company accurate.
> 
> You grasped onto one sentence that states an opinion, your sixteen page summary is not a basis for debate.
> 
> So tell me, according to your link, how much energy does it take, your arguing based on the link, so simply tell me the total energy required, in United States units, and you can use your tertiary information that is heresy at best.
> 
> You cannot expect a simple link with no analysis by yourself stands as any sort of basis to make your point, especially when the link that this thread is based on states the opposite.
Click to expand...

i did the math for you. it is in bold.  joules are 'United States units', but kWh is converted so it lines up with your light bill at home.

there is no way based on this 13y/o foreign study that yours/KissMy's idea that it takes more energy to make a windmill than the windmill will produce is based in reality.  this is stupidity for anyone to think that is likely.  the danish study also shows that the energy cost reduces with time.  it is likely that the efficiency of the turbines has improved such that the returns are swifter, too.

you are dense.  you believe in bullshit even after being faced with evidence.  this makes you an idiot doesn't it?

seriously, what does that make you out to be if _not_ an idiot?


----------



## loosecannon

mdn2000 said:


> He, moron, your study you linked to that you started this thread on states you are wrong. Your study says, "unknown", to cost, power output, maintenance, everything about wind power according the basis of this thread is unknown.
> 
> The title of this thread based on the study provided is a lie,
> 
> Your link states everything about wind power is "unknown",
> 
> can you base an energy policy of a nation, the worlds economic leader, on "unknowns".
> 
> The answer is no.
> 
> You posted the link, now prove your own link/study is wrong.
> 
> Your link states Loosecannon and all that support Wind Power is wrong. How can we argue with your study.



If I wanted to argue with the retarded, or the insane you would be one stop shopping.


----------



## mdn2000

I guess this thread is dead, 

This threads premise is wrong based on the link and basis for this thread.

Its pretty funny, Green Energy post links to studies that prove Wind Energy does not work than they deny what they post.

Wind is dead, Solar is dead, Geothermal is dead. They are on life support, that being a direct line of support, its attached to my wallet.


----------



## Big Fitz

mdn2000 said:


> I guess this thread is dead,
> 
> This threads premise is wrong based on the link and basis for this thread.
> 
> Its pretty funny, Green Energy post links to studies that prove Wind Energy does not work than they deny what they post.
> 
> Wind is dead, Solar is dead, Geothermal is dead. They are on life support, that being a direct line of support, its attached to my wallet.


In an industrialized grid, yes.  But... I still maintain that as a supplemental power source for light usage, wind and solar are fine helpers to a solid nuclear, hydro or coal backbone.  Geothermal is great in very very isolated areas only.  

In 40-75 years, wind and solar may be more than just an afterthought novelty, but still situational and supplimental, but till then... no chance, and geothermal... unless they come up with some freakish sci fi idea, it will never be widespread.


----------



## Old Rocks

*Well, 10 gw solar this year, 200 gw of wind. That equal to 21 nukes, at considerably less cost. And this is just the beginning.*
FuturePundit: 2010 10 Gigawatts Solar Power Install Expected

June 14, 2010
2010 10 Gigawatts Solar Power Install Expected 
Eric Wesoff of Green Tech Media reports on their projection that well over 10 gigawatts of solar cells will be installed in 2010.


In 2010, we will cross the threshold of 10 gigawatts of photovoltaic solar installed globally in a single year -- a record-setting and once-inconceivable number.

Rewind to ten years ago: the total amount of photovoltaics installed in the year 2000 was 170 megawatts.  Since then, the solar photovoltaic industry has grown at a 51 percent annual growth rate, and 170 megawatts is now the size of a healthy utility installation or a small solar factory. 

Contrast that with 200 gigawatts of wind installation this year. Wind continues to far surpass solar power due to lower costs.


----------



## Old Rocks

5 GigaWatt Solar Power Field To Be Built In South Africa | Solar Power

South Africa has recently unveiled plans for building world&#8217;s biggest solar energy park, which, according to officials, will be capable of producing about 5GW of clean electricity.

The country is more than 90% dependent on coal-fired power stations and one in six people still lacks electricity: &#8220;In South Africa over 90% of our power comes from the burning of coal and we need to reduce this because of our international obligations on climate change,&#8221; said Jonathan de Vries, the project manager.


----------



## Old Rocks

First Solar To Build 2-Gigawatt Solar Power Plant in China - Environmental Capital - WSJ

Solar-panel maker First Solar is cracking open the Chinese market, which could become one of the world&#8217;s most promising for solar power.


Arizona-based First Solar said today it signed a deal with Chinese officials to build a 2,000 megawatt solar-power plant in Inner Mongolia over the next decade at an estimated cost of $5 billion to $6 billion.

UPDATE: That figure is apparently what it would cost to build a similar plant in the U.S. today; building a large plant in China in the future would likely cost less, due to labor costs especially, say First Solar spokesmen.

For First Solar, which already has contracts to build smaller, though still utility-size, solar-power plants in the U.S., the Chinese deal could be a game-changer. &#8220;If you have two gigawatts, it could change the image of solar power from niche to nuclear-plant-size installations,&#8221; said First Solar chief executive Mike Ahearn in an interview.


----------



## Old Rocks

Biggest Solar Deal Ever Announced ? We&#8217;re Talking Gigawatts | Wired Science | Wired.com

The largest series of solar installations in history, more than 1,300 megawatts, is planned for the desert outside Los Angeles, according to a new deal between the utility Southern California Edison and solar power plant maker, BrightSource.

The momentous deal will deliver more electricity than even the largest nuclear plant, spread out among seven facilities, the first of which will start up in 2013. When fully operational, the companies say the facility will provide enough electricity to power 845,000 homes &#8212; more than exist in San Francisco &#8212; though estimates like that are notoriously squirrely. 

The technology isn&#8217;t the familiar photovoltaics &#8212; the direct conversion of sunlight into electricity &#8212; but solar thermal power, which concentrates the sun&#8217;s rays to create steam in a boiler and spin a turbine. 

"We do see solar as the large untapped resource, particularly in Southern California," said Stuart Hemphill, vice president of renewable energy and power at Southern California Edison. "It&#8217;s barely tapped and we&#8217;re eager to see it expand in our portfolio."

BrightSource is the reincarnation of Luz International, which built the only currently operating solar thermal facility during the 1980s in the Mojave Desert. After natural gas and energy prices plunged in 1985, that operation became unprofitable. The group&#8217;s engineers and founders moved the business to Israel, where they continued to work on their technology



Read More Biggest Solar Deal Ever Announced ? We&#8217;re Talking Gigawatts | Wired Science | Wired.com


----------



## mdn2000

Big Fitz said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess this thread is dead,
> 
> This threads premise is wrong based on the link and basis for this thread.
> 
> Its pretty funny, Green Energy post links to studies that prove Wind Energy does not work than they deny what they post.
> 
> Wind is dead, Solar is dead, Geothermal is dead. They are on life support, that being a direct line of support, its attached to my wallet.
> 
> 
> 
> In an industrialized grid, yes.  But... I still maintain that as a supplemental power source for light usage, wind and solar are fine helpers to a solid nuclear, hydro or coal backbone.  Geothermal is great in very very isolated areas only.
> 
> In 40-75 years, wind and solar may be more than just an afterthought novelty, but still situational and supplimental, but till then... no chance, and geothermal... unless they come up with some freakish sci fi idea, it will never be widespread.
Click to expand...


Geothermal is not great, as you state in very isolated areas, that makes it not great at all. Geothermal is a very varied topic to discuss, each geothermal source is very unique so what I state about one geothermal site cannot be applied to another, they are geophysically to different. 

Geothermal in the Salton Sea has been a complete failure. 

On wind and solar, they both are complete wastes of energy, nobody can even state how much a electricity a wind farm requires. Wind farms run on the grid, that is a 100% of the power consumed by a wind farm only comes from the grid. It has to, they need clean reliable power to run the computers and radios, pretty funny really, 100% fossil fuel back-up power and 100% reliant on the grid to just be on in case the wind blows and when the wind blows the wind mill always consumes power from the grid.

Anyhow, windmills dont last forever and require millions of tons of fossil fuels to be built. Windmills dont last as long as a fossil fuel plant.

Maybe someone can tell us how a windmill "renews" itself.


----------



## mdn2000

Old Rocks said:


> Biggest Solar Deal Ever Announced ? Were Talking Gigawatts | Wired Science | Wired.com
> 
> The largest series of solar installations in history, more than 1,300 megawatts, is planned for the desert outside Los Angeles, according to a new deal between the utility Southern California Edison and solar power plant maker, BrightSource.
> 
> The momentous deal will deliver more electricity than even the largest nuclear plant, spread out among seven facilities, the first of which will start up in 2013. When fully operational, the companies say the facility will provide enough electricity to power 845,000 homes  more than exist in San Francisco  though estimates like that are notoriously squirrely.
> 
> The technology isnt the familiar photovoltaics  the direct conversion of sunlight into electricity  but solar thermal power, which concentrates the suns rays to create steam in a boiler and spin a turbine.
> 
> "We do see solar as the large untapped resource, particularly in Southern California," said Stuart Hemphill, vice president of renewable energy and power at Southern California Edison. "Its barely tapped and were eager to see it expand in our portfolio."
> 
> BrightSource is the reincarnation of Luz International, which built the only currently operating solar thermal facility during the 1980s in the Mojave Desert. After natural gas and energy prices plunged in 1985, that operation became unprofitable. The groups engineers and founders moved the business to Israel, where they continued to work on their technology
> 
> 
> 
> Read More Biggest Solar Deal Ever Announced ? Were Talking Gigawatts | Wired Science | Wired.com



Notice how every solar power plant is going to be bigger than the next, and that is because it has to, they must cover thousands of square miles of land, completely destroying the life on the land, just to provide a tiny bit of energy sometimes.

The worlds largest Solar plant in a short time will have to be torn down and thrown away becoming the worlds largest pile of solar garbage, how many of the worlds largest future garbage piles are we building. 

Think about, every thing in solar will be the largest producing the least amount of energy per square foot.

Such a tremendous waste.


----------



## mdn2000

Old Rocks said:


> *Well, 10 gw solar this year, 200 gw of wind. That equal to 21 nukes, at considerably less cost. And this is just the beginning.*
> FuturePundit: 2010 10 Gigawatts Solar Power Install Expected
> 
> June 14, 2010
> 2010 10 Gigawatts Solar Power Install Expected
> Eric Wesoff of Green Tech Media reports on their projection that well over 10 gigawatts of solar cells will be installed in 2010.
> 
> 
> In 2010, we will cross the threshold of 10 gigawatts of photovoltaic solar installed globally in a single year -- a record-setting and once-inconceivable number.
> 
> Rewind to ten years ago: the total amount of photovoltaics installed in the year 2000 was 170 megawatts.  Since then, the solar photovoltaic industry has grown at a 51 percent annual growth rate, and 170 megawatts is now the size of a healthy utility installation or a small solar factory.
> 
> Contrast that with 200 gigawatts of wind installation this year. Wind continues to far surpass solar power due to lower costs.



20 nukes, actually considering the actual output of all Solar is 1/3, for it must be remembered that solar cannot operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, so using your distorting ignorant reasoning its actually 6 nuclear plants, of course Palo Verde is producing over 3 gwh so your Solar power plant actually equals less than one Palo Verde , I forget, was this another one of the world's largest solar plants? If it is we must consider the cost of the land, oh yea, solar does not need to by the land, its given to them by Obama, the financing is guaranteed, even the cost to build the panels is not considered a cost to make in compete. 

Lawyers make nukes expensive, and at that they are still cheaper than solar that cannot provide reliable power.


----------



## Old Rocks

solar thermal power

Solar: Solar Thermal: Making Electricity From The Sun's Heat

Solar thermal electric power plant generates heat by using lenses and reflectors to concentrate the sun's energy. Because the heat can be stored, these plants are unique because they can generate power when it is needed, day or night, rain or shine. 


Solar thermal electric systems operating in the US today [Solar Parabolic Troughs] meet the needs of over 350,000 people (equal to the population of the city of Fresno, CA or Miami, FL) and displace the equivalent of 2.3 million barrels of oil annually. 


Solar thermal power plants create two and one-half times as many skilled, high paying jobs as do conventional power plants that use fossil fuels. 


A CEC (California Energy Commission) study shows that even with existing tax credits, a solar thermal electric plant pays about 1.7 times more in federal, state, and local taxes than an equivalent natural gas combined cycle plant. If the plants paid the same level of taxes, their cost of electricity would be roughly the same.


----------



## rdean

There are places where the wind never stops.  Republicans should be experts.  They know all about "wind".


----------



## mdn2000

rdean said:


> There are places where the wind never stops.  Republicans should be experts.  They know all about "wind".



Very nice, but Microsoft Paint does not win a debate. 

How come you did not actually make the dots proportionate to the actual size, afraid that would not distort reality enough to be convincing.


----------



## CountofTuscany

We need to take out heads out of our asses and explore every option. What happened to all the added alternative exploration Obama promised us?


----------



## Old Rocks

He tried to find a 'compramise' and threw it all away. And, possibly, the Democratic nomination in 2012.


----------



## Revere

Old Rocks is a leaky bag of dog shit who wants Americans to be poor and miserable for no good reason.


----------



## editec

martybegan said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Energy Producing *Winds only Blow 25% of the time*. What the fuck should we do for the other 75% of the time?
> 
> *Power Capacity factor*
> 
> *Peak Nameplate.........Continuous Average 8766hr/y*
> Baseload Power Plant.......90%
> Hydro Electric Dam..........50%
> Wind Turbine..................25%
> Solar Tracker..................21%
> Static PV Solar................15%
> 
> Average US Household uses 12,000kw per year.
> Size required per home
> 5kw Solar
> 3kw Wind
> 1.5kw Hydro
> 0.8kw Baseload Power Plant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A rational system would have to involve some sort of stored energy mechanism. I would go with a 2 level water system, where you use some of the wind energy to pump water from a low to a high elevation, and when the wind dies down, let the water flow through a turbine. It would reduce the overall effective energy from the wind power, but would reduce the downtime (at least until all the water is in a lower state)
> 
> This does however add land use to the issue.
Click to expand...

 
Yeah that's my theory, too, about how to store energy we get from wind.

No doubt engineers can find even more efficient ways to store that energy.

The problem is that we are trying to replace a very good energy source...oil.

We created our economy based on this cheap and easily stored energy, and now as this source appears to be running out, we're spoiled by how cheap it was, and how much more convenient it is than alternate energy sources.

Our energy consuption continues to rise exponentially while our energy sources are running out.

*Or... *even if you believe we are finding replacement oil, we are still not finding it fast enough to keep up with worldwide growing demand.

If there's one thing I think it's safe to plan on for the rest of OUR lifetimes, I think it's safe to assume that energy costs are going to go up.

Plan acordingly.

Sucks to be on the wrong side of the peak, doesn't it?


----------



## Old Rocks

I think that before we will achieve real change in our approach to energy, we will have to have a catastrophe that will create a condition that will allow a paradigm shift in personal philosophy.

At present, we are all happy to just be consumers, and take no responsibility for what we use on a daily basis in our lives. Be it energy, food, or water, we seem to have assumed that the pipes will always have water in them, whether we put up money for the system or not, that the switch on the wall will always work, whether or not we add generational capacity as we add consumption, and that the food in the supermarket will always be there at an affordable price, no matter if the wages are not increasing at the same rate as food prices, or that the farmers lose crops to variable weather.

In my youth, we raised a large garden, canned the vegitables from that garden, and picked fruit from abandoned orchards, and canned that. We had a wood stove, and a supply of wood, even when we had heat from electricity or oil. In other words, we were both consumers and producers. We need to go to that philosophy again. 

Now we have the means, for those of us that own our own homes, to produce our own electricity through solar and wind. That can be done either grid parrallel, or independent. Having a vegatable garden, even a very small one, simply makes sense. Not only for the quantity of food, but also for the quality. And you would be surprised at the quantity of food that you can raise in a 10' by 20' space.

I see many people that squack about the cost of a solar installation. Even the spendy ones will only run you about 30K. A person that shops around and is good with tools, can have a 5kw installation for under $10k. How many people have a boat they use only 2 or 3 times a year that cost them that? The point is, if you truly want to as be independent as possible, then you are going to have to take more responsibility for what you consume in all spheres.


----------



## Old Rocks

Revere said:


> Old Rocks is a leaky bag of dog shit who wants Americans to be poor and miserable for no good reason.



You are a stupid individual that cannot think further than wingnut talking points. When you actually achieve some thoughts of your own, come back to the discussion.


----------



## mdn2000

Old Rocks said:


> I think that before we will achieve real change in our approach to energy, we will have to have a catastrophe that will create a condition that will allow a paradigm shift in personal philosophy.
> 
> At present, we are all happy to just be consumers, and take no responsibility for what we use on a daily basis in our lives. Be it energy, food, or water, we seem to have assumed that the pipes will always have water in them, whether we put up money for the system or not, that the switch on the wall will always work, whether or not we add generational capacity as we add consumption, and that the food in the supermarket will always be there at an affordable price, no matter if the wages are not increasing at the same rate as food prices, or that the farmers lose crops to variable weather.
> 
> In my youth, we raised a large garden, canned the vegitables from that garden, and picked fruit from abandoned orchards, and canned that. We had a wood stove, and a supply of wood, even when we had heat from electricity or oil. In other words, we were both consumers and producers. We need to go to that philosophy again.
> 
> Now we have the means, for those of us that own our own homes, to produce our own electricity through solar and wind. That can be done either grid parrallel, or independent. Having a vegatable garden, even a very small one, simply makes sense. Not only for the quantity of food, but also for the quality. And you would be surprised at the quantity of food that you can raise in a 10' by 20' space.
> 
> I see many people that squack about the cost of a solar installation. Even the spendy ones will only run you about 30K. A person that shops around and is good with tools, can have a 5kw installation for under $10k. How many people have a boat they use only 2 or 3 times a year that cost them that? The point is, if you truly want to as be independent as possible, then you are going to have to take more responsibility for what you consume in all spheres.



Great post form a tree cutting ax wielder, how much education did that career take. Yes a catastrophic event must happen before the realization that Solar was a huge waste of energy, time, and money. 

Money best spent developing a new technology, Solar is a technology that has failed to have a breakthrough in 60 years.


----------



## Old Rocks

Hmmm.....   What were the names of the thin film producers in 1950?


----------



## mdn2000

Old Rocks said:


> Hmmm.....   What were the names of the thin film producers in 1950?



Kodak


----------



## Old Rocks

LOL. Sure, mdn, sure. There were no thin film manufactures in 1950. In fact, there were no solar cells being manufactured in 1950, just lab testing of theories.

History of Solar Energy | Meridian Solar

 History of Solar Electricity
 The history of light-electricity conversion&#8212;known as the photovoltaic (PV) effect&#8212;can be traced back to the year 1839, when a French scientist named Alexandre-Edmond Becquerel first observed the phenomenon. Over the following decades it was recorded by many other scientists, but Albert Einstein was the first to study PV theory in-depth. In 1923 he was awarded a Nobel Prize for his work in the field. Still, it was not until the 1950&#8217;s that PV technology began to bloom. Scientists from Bell Laboratories developed the silicon-based solar cells that are the basis of today&#8217;s PV cell technology. Once those cells began successfully powering orbital satellites during the space race, the future of the technology was certain. Unfortunately, the cost of solar cells was still too high for broader use until the 1970&#8217;s, when Dr. Elliot Berman refined the manufacturing process of solar cells by using lower grade silicon and cheaper materials. His cells were five times less expensive, making them affordable for off-grid applications such as offshore platforms. In the 1980&#8217;s, Swiss engineer Marcus Real promoted the installation of solar systems on the rooftops of residential and commercial buildings as a more economical option than centralized solar-cell power plants. Today, solar cells continue to become more cost effective through technological improvements from public research institutions such as the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and private corporations. Recently, many governments and utility providers have implemented financial incentives to promote the growth and integration of solar technology. Click on the links below for specific information on key events in the lifecycle of photovoltaic technology


----------



## michael39

Solar prices have dropped dramatically.  Solar IS the future and will allow not just NATIONAL energy independence, but Energy Independence for the INDIVIDUAL.  As we near $1 per watt, the use of Solar energy will increase dramatically, dropping costs even more.


----------



## Big Fitz

Read the thread before saying something dumb like that.

and a dollar per watt eh?  What is it for coal?  1 cent?  3 cents?  How about nuclear, last I recall, even better.  The best is hydro but we don't want to be damming up any more rivers I suppose.

no... let's just choose something that is 10, 20, 50, 100 times more expensive for a threat that doesn't exist.

Tell you what, do it somewhere else first and prove that that country can be the energy superpower before trying to fuck this one up.


----------



## mdn2000

And the idiots continue the rant, the premise or link this thread is based on states that wind cannot supply the energy needed. The title of the link or article is contrary to the contents of the study, the article states this. 

I guess pointing this out once is not enough.


----------



## KissMy

Old Rocks said:


> I think that before we will achieve real change in our approach to energy, we will have to have a catastrophe that will create a condition that will allow a paradigm shift in personal philosophy.
> 
> At present, we are all happy to just be consumers, and take no responsibility for what we use on a daily basis in our lives. Be it energy, food, or water, we seem to have assumed that the pipes will always have water in them, whether we put up money for the system or not, that the switch on the wall will always work, whether or not we add generational capacity as we add consumption, and that the food in the supermarket will always be there at an affordable price, no matter if the wages are not increasing at the same rate as food prices, or that the farmers lose crops to variable weather.
> 
> In my youth, we raised a large garden, canned the vegitables from that garden, and picked fruit from abandoned orchards, and canned that. We had a wood stove, and a supply of wood, even when we had heat from electricity or oil. In other words, we were both consumers and producers. We need to go to that philosophy again.
> 
> Now we have the means, for those of us that own our own homes, to produce our own electricity through solar and wind. That can be done either grid parrallel, or independent. Having a vegatable garden, even a very small one, simply makes sense. Not only for the quantity of food, but also for the quality. And you would be surprised at the quantity of food that you can raise in a 10' by 20' space.
> 
> I see many people that squack about the cost of a solar installation. Even the spendy ones will only run you about 30K. A person that shops around and is good with tools, can have a 5kw installation for under $10k. How many people have a boat they use only 2 or 3 times a year that cost them that? The point is, if you truly want to as be independent as possible, then you are going to have to take more responsibility for what you consume in all spheres.



Rather than go overboard with drastic measures it makes more sense & EROEI to stop shopping at stores & have goods delivered to your home. Live close to work, carpool & combine trips as much as possible. Stock-up to reduce trips to stores.

A Chinese worker lives in a dorm at their work place. The average China worker consumes less than 2 barrels of oil per year to live & make products for Americans. The average American consumes over 20 barrels of oil per year to live & make products. It is much, much, much more fuel efficient to make products in China & ship them to American homes than it is for Americans to go to work to make & buy their own goods.

A ocean cargo ship gets over 1,100 net freight ton miles per gallon.
A barge gets 575 net freight ton miles per gallon.
A train gets 425 net freight ton miles per gallon.
A semi truck gets 170 net freight ton miles per gallon.
A UPS delivery truck gets 15 net freight ton miles per gallon.
A Jet plane gets 7 net freight ton miles per gallon.
A 1/2 ton pick-up truck completly filled both ways gets 9 net freight ton miles per gallon. One way 4.5 net freight ton miles per gallon.
An average 20-lbs of goods per car trip to the store empty one way gets 0.125 net freight ton miles per gallon.

FYI - CNBC just did a story (Supermarkets Inc.) on grocery stores. The average American spends $35 per trip to the store & goes shopping 3.5 times per week. You can't even buy 20-lbs worth of groceries for $35. So the average net freight ton miles per gallon for grocery shopping is likely lower than the 0.125 I quoted above. If we would just combine trips, buy more per trip, carpool, take a neighbor shopping with us or do their shopping for them we could double our mileage & cut our transportation fuel consumption by 50%.


----------

