Gary, I thought the traditional definition of "snake oil" is "Something sold with a promise of performance which DOESN'T meet the performance promised?"
That does not apply to wind power. It does what it's promised to do. It's not perfect, it's not a PRIMARY source, it cannot completely replace fossil fuel or nuclear power.
It's a great backup source, a great source of green renewable energy. It's not an omnipotent source of primary power.
It merely needs to help us burn less fossil fuel by providing current.
That does not apply to wind power. It does what it's promised to do.
If you will buy that, how about I sell you some lush desert property out near Gila Bend? :shades: I'll bet the wind blows there enough for a windmill....
The wind energy lobbyists love to claim that installing new wind turbines is the cheapest form of new electricity generation capacity. In fact, I heard that very claim while at a party here in Austin a few weeks ago. But as usual, there’s the hype and there’s the reality.
Today, the International Energy Agency, in cooperation with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Nuclear Energy Agency, released a study called “Projected Costs of Generating Electricity.” The results are yet another refutation that wind is the least-costly source of new generation. Using what it calls the “levelized costs of electricity,” a metric that includes key factors like the discount rate, construction costs, load factors, fuel prices, and carbon costs, the study found that nuclear power is the least-expensive option for new generation in North America, Europe, and Asia Pacific when the discount rate is 5%. Meanwhile, wind energy was often the most expensive option regardless of location and whether the discount rate was 5% or 10%.
*Expect wind lobbyists and environmental advocates to downplay the importance of this IEA report. But just look at the figures from the new IEA and consider the disparity in costs between wind and nuclear. Also look at the disparity in costs between wind and conventional generation, particularly in Asia. Then consider how much higher the costs of wind would be if all of the costs – that means adding in the transmission line costs and the backup generation costs – were factored into the equation.
The punchline here is abundantly obvious: Adding more wind energy to the US electricity grid will mean higher costs for consumers.
If you do that Las Vegas will sere and wither away. What a loss that would be. :shades:
Seriously, Lake Mead is at record lows and Vegas could be hurting, although the lake should rise 10' based on current snowfall. Even when I floated the Grand Canyon a decade or so ago, the group had to use an alternate takeout since the boat ramp at Pearce was too far from the water that year to try to haul the rafts to (I was smart and bailed at Diamond so I wouldn't have to help pack up ).
As someone who has had to install a radon-reduction system under my basement floor, and still have radon gas at low levels (is that safe?), I'll vote for mankind's efforts to extract and use the radiaoactive elements. I'd rathe rhave the radioactive material in 1 place that spread throughout nature as they are now. I look at any mining of uranium and such as "environmental cleanup".
It is far better to use the radioactive materials and to have them in controlled, known places then to have them littered throughout the environment as nature has located those materials.
The thing to consider regarding costs is that in the past much of the high cost of a nuclear generating station has been that each design was fairly unique, and dealing with years of siting-permits. If the federal government gets its act together, and comes up with 1 or 2 standard designs that will be implemented for a few hundred plants, and expedites the permit process to 6-months, then you would see much less expensive nuclear energy.
Advanced nuclear energy systems are the only hope that mankind has of long-term survival. It is the only energy source that is going to get us off this little pebble we're stuck on, in this little dusty corner of the galaxy!
I'm in a radon area now although I didn't bother to test. I don't smoke so it's probably not much of an issue. I thought the easiest remediation was simply to install a fan to insure a few air changes an hour.
Nukes aren't there - it's fortunate we've only had one or two "Gulf oil spills" to date. One Chernobyl in the US (Vermont Yankee in your case?) and just watch what happens to your electric rates and taxes.
What does wind NOT do that it promises to do, Gary?
It is not a cost effective alternative to other sources of energy such as Nuclear and clean coal. Take away the subsidies and guys like T. Boone pull their money from the projects. Wind has NOT proven itself to be a viable alternative to other sources of energy!
You want to get into a "benefits versus disadvantages of wind power" posting battle? You'll lose that one.
I don't think so. You may be able to come up with more liberal eco nut links than I can find legitimate links. That is because there are so many liberal eco nuts feeding off of the tax payers. With nothing to do but post half truths and doctored reports. The International Energy Agency says Wind is not competitive with Nuclear, coal or gas in the USA. I believe them. You can be a DENIER if you like. Does not change the facts. Wind without subsidies from tax payers and consumers is not viable. NOT Free power from any rational perspective.
Gary, is it free to build a coal plant or a nuclear plant?
No, it's not free.
And the coal is not free.
Look at wind: One time outlay (no different than building any standard fossil-fuel generation plant - except FAR CHEAPER) then maintenance costs (just as fossil fuel generation had maintenance costs.)
The WIND to generate the power:
FREE FOR.EV.ER.
Name another energy generation source that can take something that mother nature delivers for FREE and turn it into power.
Solar. Tide.
That's the list as far as I know.
Coal and Nuclear both have costs related to acquiring or disposing of the fuel.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Pardon the laughter, but I just looked at the source for your link !!!
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
For a second I was considering your post a serious one !!!
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
oilprice.com !!!!
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
You accuse ME of using "eco nut sources" then you post THIS ????? LOL :shades:
FREDERICTON — A $200-million wind farm in northern New Brunswick is frozen solid, cutting off a potential supply of renewable energy for NB Power.
The 25-kilometre stretch of wind turbines, located 70 kilometres northwest of Bathurst, N.B. has been completely shutdown for several weeks due to heavy ice covering the blades.
GDF SUEZ Energy, the company that owns and operates the site, is working to return the windmills to working order, a spokeswoman says.
“We can’t control the weather,” Julie Vitek said in an interview from company headquarters in Houston, Texas. “We’re looking to see if we can cope with it more effectively, through the testing of a couple of techniques.”
She says the conditions in northern New Brunswick have wreaked havoc on the wind farm this winter.
Some folks only see the good side of a subject. Others of US are objective in our research. Just trying to balance an off kilter debate.
TORONTO — Facing a court challenge, a growing backlash and an election, Ontario's Liberal government imposed a surprise moratorium Friday on all off-shore wind farms until there is more scientific research on their impact.
The government announced it would not go ahead with off-shore wind projects to generate electricity, saying there's too little evidence on how they may affect people's health.
"Fresh water wind turbines are something that's relatively new, and the Ministry of the Environment needs a level of comfort on the science before they can approve any further consideration of them," said Energy Minister Brad Duguid.
Minnesota’s frozen turbines raise new doubts about wind power
In Minnesota, the wind is blowing but turbines aren’t turning. The machines, bought used from California and installed last fall, are completely frozen in place. Even on the windiest days, the blades sit at a standstill, producing no power. Why should anyone care? The problem highlights some of the less intuitive challenges associated with wind power — long considered to be the most feasible and cost effective source of renewable energy.
The likely culprit in Minnesota: frozen hydraulic fluid, unfit for the state’s brutally cold winters. As the temperature continues to drop, these fluids have started to thicken, turning into jelly. This is a big problem, considering how much the Midwest has spent on trying to become the U.S.’s wind power corridor. Wind power is already intermittent — the wind isn’t blowing at gale speeds all the time. But being knocked out of commission for an entire season? That could be a deal breaker.
That is, unless the problem can be fixed. The turbines, each more than 100 feet tall in 11 Minnesota cities, were purchased for $3.3 million — but now even more must be sent to retrofit them for the cold. The first stab at the problem will be to fix heating devices to the turbines to keep the fluid at the right temperature. But this will rob power from the turbines, maybe even negating their usefulness. There’s also a chance this solution won’t work at all.
So much for 40 years of free electricity. Wind Not just a joke in the USA.
The Wind Farm Joke: Frozen Up in Scotland
Not only does wind power kill birds (including eagles as the Independent Bloghorn reports), is extremely expensive, an eyesore, but it is also very unreliable. So why do Liberals love it so (unless you’re a Kennedy living on Martha’s Vineyard)?
Back in 2008, the wind died in Texas and power generation from it plunged from 1,700 megawatts to just 300 in a matter of minutes. The Electric Reliability Council of Texas responded by cutting power to many customers. A week before, the same thing happened in Florida and 1 million people lost their power.
Better hope next time it’s not your grandmother at home on a ventilator.
The extreme cold weather in Europe (obviously because of Global Warming) essentially froze the wind farms up, forcing Scotland to use electricity generated in France from nuclear reactors to meet demand:
SCOTLAND’S wind farms are unable to cope with the freezing weather conditions – grinding to a halt at a time when electricity demand is at a peak, forcing the country to rely on power generated by French nuclear plants.
Output from major wind farms fell to as low as 2.5 per cent of their potential generation capacity during the cold snap as power demand rose to close to the highest level yet recorded, new figures have revealed.
The irony, of course, is that Greeners in Scotland are against nuclear power and once Scotland’s two remaining nuclear plants shut down they don’t want any more built.
When it’s coldest outside demand for electricity also happens to be the highest and when wind power is the least reliable. But yet there are no plans to diversify power generation there.
Gary, the post I pointed out to you was from the link you posted TODAY.
They quoted a report from the EIA.
I went and looked at the PDF of that report on the EIA website, and the link is from a 2009 file posted from a 1998 report. Look at it yourself - it's not new. It's 1998.
You've picked up a nice trick over the years Gary, and for someone who does not know your tactics, it might be pretty persuasive.
You cherry-pick a few negative articles on a particular subject ( your other subjects have included hybrid cars and the 'Yota UA issue ) which say bad things about a technology and try to use those posts to say
"SEE !! SEE !! THIS TECHNOLOGY SUCKS !!!"
Unfortunately for your tactic, it's totally silly.
No one bothers to post stories like "WIND FARM PRODUCING ABOVE RATED CAPACITY !!" stories.
People (in this case CONSERVATIVE WEBSITES/BLOGS WHO ARE AGAINST GREEN ENERGY) like to point out negative stories.
Not so many people continually post stories about everything going smoothly. That's not news !! When things just "WORK" like they are supposed to work, there's no news there !!
Worldwide wind capacity as of last June and the text accompanying it:
16 Gigawatt of Wind Power added in First Half of 2010 WWEA expects Global Capacity to reach almost 200 Gigawatt in 2010 Further improvements in National and International Policies are necessary.
Bonn (WWEA) – The world market for wind turbines saw robust growth in the first half of the year 2010, with approximately 16 Gigawatt of new capacity added worldwide. Again, China represents by far the largest market and added 7800 Megawatt within only six months, reaching total installations of almost 34 Gigawatt. The five major European markets showed similar growth: Germany added 660 Megawatt, France and the UK 500 Megawatt, Italy 450 Megawatt and Spain 400 Megawatt. The total capacity of all wind turbines installed worldwide reached 175 Gigawatt in mid-2010, compared with 159 Gigawatt by the end of 2009.
For something that, ahem, DOESN'T WORK, that's a lot of Gigawatts it is producing !!
Your points are verging on incredulous on this issue, Gary. Completely baseless.
San Jose, California (Vocus/PRWEB) January 03, 2011
As global economies grapple with skyrocketing oil imports and burgeoning energy bills, the transition towards a renewable source-based energy economy is a slow, yet inevitable reality. The uncertainty and unrest in the energy sector, rapidly depleting natural resources, together with the political pressures and environmental issues, are shedding light on the rapidly evolving role of clean technologies such as wind power, solar energy, fuel-cell power automobiles, and other bio-based materials. As the investment climate for clean technologies clears, the clean energy market is expected to witness a barrage of investments, with energy companies vying for a stake in clean technologies. Wind and solar power constitute the most widespread cost-competitive solutions for the global energy crisis.
Wind power is poised to gain from the tumult in the energy sector. Although the market is expected to face several competitive and structural challenges, apart from the meltdown in the global economy, wind energy is capable of surviving the uncertainties plaguing the overall energy market. Countries around the world have set a target of meeting 12% of the world’s electricity needs from the winds by the year 2020. Strategic developments in the wind industry, vibrant new power project undertakings and upgradation activities, cumulative increment in new capacity installations in the recent past, and the transforming governmental energy plans, offer buoyant market forecasts. Although cost of wind energy has drastically declined over the last few years, a further reduction of 30% to 50% is required if wind energy is to compete on par with conventional energies. Appropriate funding and co-ordination of R&D activities could very well help in achieving a cost reduction of 40%. Rising concerns about dramatic environmental changes, attributed to unabated use of fossil fuels, is another driving force for renewable energy market.
The market is expected to produce over 2000 TWh of electricity, and meet about 20% of global power demand and result in carbon dioxide savings of more than 1,500 million tonnes in 2020. More than 1/3rd of the increased global capacity was driven by growth in China where newly added wind power capacity reached 14 GW in 2009. China has emerged the largest producer of wind power surpassing the US, which was in the leading position until mid-2010. Asian countries constitute the fastest growing regions, particularly China and India, which are characterized by high pollution and rising electricity demand. Lured by attractive growth prospects, several wind energy companies have expanded their presence in these regions. The US, India and China are focused on employing onshore wind, while Northwest Europe as well as the UK focus on developing offshore wind power across the North Sea. Offshore wind farms production is expected to outpace land-based wind turbines production by 2015, as countries across the globe increasingly employ renewable energy produced through offshore wind.
in this case CONSERVATIVE WEBSITES/BLOGS WHO ARE AGAINST GREEN ENERGY
There is a logical reason why conservatives are skeptical of alternative energy sources. They are a HUGE WASTE of tax dollars.
For something that, ahem, DOESN'T WORK, that's a lot of Gigawatts it is producing
Nice try. That is NOT gigwatts producing. That is Gigawatts installed. So far about the best any farm has produced is 35% of their installed rating. I would say that is a HUGE waste of money. Many farms are producing under 10% of rated capacity.
Remember how the ERCOT guy in TX was bragging about getting 3500 MW from Wind Farms in the state? Not very much with 11,000 MWs installed in TX. You may convince yourself it is a great way to save the planet. I say it is another big boondoggle like Corn Ethanol that is bankrupting America.
That's how you post data that is CURRENT, Gary. This story release today, 2-15-2011. Not 1998.
So is my story on the Brunswick Wind Farm that is FROZEN solid today and has been for quite a while. Not producing ANY Electricity. Just when it is needed most. Wind is not dependable if you have to have a backup system.
Maybe someday wind power will be practical, but it certainly isn't today. Frankly I don't see it working until there is a breakthrough in battery storage capacity and in the overall cost.
Hopefully this can be accomplished before the backers run out of other people's money. Since the wind turbines work at about 30% of their rated capacity, the cost is some 3 times what is advertised.
On January 6, renewable energy made up a record-breaking 75 percent of Spain's electricity. Over the course of the day, coal only accounted for four percent of the electricity supply.
On that day, conditions must have been ideal for renewable energy production, but even on any given day, Spain is cranking out some clean energy. Spanish power transmission company Red Electrica reports that in 2010, renewable energy sources supplied 35 percent of all of Spain's electricity, which means the country surpassed its goal of having 30 percent of its energy come from renewable sources by 2010 and has almost hit its target of 35.5 percent by 2020 way ahead of schedule.
Last year, coal-fired power in Spain dropped 34 percent and gas-fired power dropped 17 percent leading to a 20 percent cut in emissions.
It's completely inspiring to see a country making such significant progress on upping renewable energy production and slashing fossil fuel use.
Not when you still have to have coal or some other fossil fuel as backup. What part of BROKE don't you understand? Are Spain's Eco Nuts are a big part of their insolvency. Clean air is nice if you have money to buy food, cloths and housing. I don't see the ends justifying the means.
It is not just when there is enough wind. It has to be in just the right band. Too much wind can damage the units. Not enough and NO electricity. 35% is just about the maximum you can expect. It has already been posted. The UK only got 3.8% just when they needed it most. I would rather have something a bit more reliable than the sun or wind. Especially when you look at how much more they are charging US now to put this boondoggle in place.
I would hate to be near one of the wind generators when they disintegrate. Very dangerous situation:
I don't think our current crop of "weather scientists" can tell global warming from global cooling...and here is why:
Since global warming has been said to cause just about every type of weather phenomena you can name, global cooling would have to cause all those same things because there is nothing left to choose from. Hence, there is no way to distinguish between global warming and global cooling. End of argument.
Hence, there is no way to distinguish between global warming and global cooling. End of argument.
That is where I am at. I don't trust any of them to tell the truth. It is all about getting money from the tax payers. Anyone that believes differently is living on another planet. Not much happens in DC unless someone is getting paid. Or getting paid back for favors during an election. Green is just a buzz word to send chills up an eco nuts leg.
There are extremely warm temperatures still occurring in eastern Russia, Canada, and Greenland this winter ... the likes of which more than cancel out the colder spots on the planet.
Huh? Everytime the temperature has dropped in the U.S. this year, the air has come from the Arctic and Canada. If it's -15F where I live 60 miles north of Boston, I know that air was a lot darn colder when it started in the northern reaches of Canada. So I really take issue with their definition of "extremely warm". It's just a bunch of hyperbole!
It's really unbelieveable that climatologists can speak from both sides of their mouths and retain any credibility. One instant they're talking about the "warm" Arctic, and then in the next their explaining how the sub-zero temperatures are all that Arctic air spilling down from the Arctic (Canada in the U.S. case).
The same thing with hurricanes. We were supposed to get more hurricanes and more severe hurricanes from GW; but the decrease in the last few years is also attributable to GW. Great Britain is supposed to run tropical according to some climatologists, except for those darn blizzards caused by GW.
American citizenry - jump, left, right, no squat, spin around, get dizzy fall down, and do it all over again!
Regardless of "if" you don't believe in physics or science,
I believe completely in Physics and Science. I don't believe in Scientists that have an agenda they are paid to put forth.
conservation, recycling, reducing pollution driving the lowest-pollution vehicle which meets your needs
should be on everyone's personal "to do" list.
I agree, with the exception of recycling when it uses more fossil fuel than it saves. Which is a lot of what we recycle. I Balance between radical environmentalism and Conservationism. They are not always the same. For me our economy and the welfare of mankind is more important than Snail Darters and Spotted Owls.
As far as protecting animals. Here's the one reason I care about it:
The welfare of mankind MIGHT be directly related to some species and we just don't know it yet.
Maybe the testicular gland of a "___________(insert oddball rare species of whatever here)_______" gives us an enzyme to cure cancer.
Or Alzheimer's Or Aids
We just don't know at this point what medical miracles might or might not come from some random, rare species of "whatever." It's just more reasonable to be safe than sorry.
Gary says, "...with the exception of recycling when it uses more fossil fuel than it saves."
And who told you that? Some Conservative, oil-backed website?
It's true in SOME cases, with SOME types of recycling materials and systems, but fossil fuel is not the ONLY thing recycling saves.
If that were true, don't you think all the major oil companies would be setting up massive recycling centers right beside their production facilities?
Sometimes the things you say are just "whooooooo" out of bounds.
Plastics sometimes get recycled back into oil. Haven't you seen that YouTube video of that Japanese guy who invented the little "plastic to oil" recycling machine?
Recycling just one ton (2,000 lb.) of paper can save 17 trees, 380 gallons of oil, three cubic yards of landfill space, 4,000 kilowatts of energy, and 7,000 gallons of water.
As far as protecting animals. Here's the one reason I care about it:
The welfare of mankind MIGHT be directly related to some species and we just don't know it yet.
And that's exactly why you should be an advocate of a warmer earth, with more areas that become tropical than arctic-like. The richest diversity of life, and the most evolution is in the warmer parts of the Earth - such as the Amazon. Colder areas such as Greenland and in the arctic circle have very few different species.
Life flourishes in the 70-90F region. The Earth's current average temperature is something like 58F. IMO, a warmer Earth will lead to a healthier, "livelier" environment.
U.S. citizens like warmer environments too. Take a look at where all the growth has been in this country in the last 5 decades. People are voting with their feet, or should I say U-Hauls, that they like areas warmer than the Northeast, and Upper Midwest and West (Dakotas, Wyoming and such).
Recycling just one ton (2,000 lb.) of paper can save 17 trees
I'm for that. Outlaw newspapers, magazines and catalogs. It is better to reuse magazines than to recycle the paper. The best paper for recycling is your printer paper. Whatever happened to our paperless society?
Well, I could be an advocate for a warmer Earf and that wouldn't matter either way, since you don't thing Man is making the Earf warmer...
So why would we even talk about that?
You don't believe these studies, then, I assume?
WASHINGTON — Whenever the world's tropical seas warm several degrees, Earth has experienced mass extinctions over millions of years, according to a first-of-its-kind statistical study of fossil records.
And scientists fear it may be about to happen again — but in a matter of several decades, not tens of millions of years.
Four of the five major extinctions over 520 million years of Earth history have been linked to warmer tropical seas, something that indicates a warmer world overall, according to the new study published today.
"We found that over the fossil record as a whole, the higher the temperatures have been, the higher the extinctions have been," said University of York ecologist Peter Mayhew, the co-author of the peer-reviewed research published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, a British journal.
Yes supervolcanoes and large asteroids/comets will certainly create an immediate warmer Earth. Though the ash will then create a cooling period after that. But what has caused the mass extinctions is the explosive forces and fires; not the warmer ocean that follows. The ocean warms AFTER the mass extinction where the species are killed immediately or in a few days.
Well I have a mini-glacier right now in my driveway that defeated AWD w/ Blizzak tires last night.
The winter if anything is colder than the winter I grew up with in PA, 40 years ago. We can get a foot of storm anytime between Oct to May. Isn't that long enough to have a non-growing season? Canada which is even larger than the U.S. even has a worse winter. The average temp. of the Earth is currently a chilly 58F. While a temperature increase change will cause some problems, and populations would need to adjust, a warmer Earth would be a net benefit.
If you have any sort of an atlas or pickup any book on the Amazon and Africa, you will see that a) the amount of organisms, and the diversity of organisms, is in the Tropic zones of the earth. The warmer oceans and the warmer land-areas have the highest amount of life. As you move away from the temperate zones towards the arctics areas you see that the number and variety of organisms decreases quite quickly. Despite what larsb wants to believe, the variety and density of life in Siberia does not match that of the Amazon, South Pacific, and Oceania, and the unspoiled areas that Africa had before it got its "modern problems".
WASHINGTON — Whenever the world's tropical seas warm several degrees, Earth has experienced mass extinctions over millions of years, according to a first-of-its-kind statistical study of fossil records.
That is what myself and skeptics have tried to get across to those erroneously believing man causes significant reversible changes in the climate. It has happened before. Long before man spewed GHG into the atmosphere. With 95% of all species extinct, who is man to think he can change the climate or protect all currently existing lifeforms? Pure arrogance is the only thing I can think of. Those that want to try and change the climate should foot the bills involved. How much do you think you would raise?
"Our disruptions in the balance of nature, the deserts enlarged and rainforests leveled and species exterminated, are small items in the big picture. Those things happen all the time in geologic history, and Earth recovers with scarcely a scar.
When the next great volcanic episode or asteroid impact or ocean-current flip-flop occurs, then we'll see what kind of mastery we have over planet Earth. Even ordinary climate variation severely tests our ability to survive. Earth is not fragile—we are. Earth doesn't need to be saved—we do. "
Comments
That does not apply to wind power. It does what it's promised to do. It's not perfect, it's not a PRIMARY source, it cannot completely replace fossil fuel or nuclear power.
It's a great backup source, a great source of green renewable energy. It's not an omnipotent source of primary power.
It merely needs to help us burn less fossil fuel by providing current.
It does that, and does it well.
If you will buy that, how about I sell you some lush desert property out near Gila Bend? :shades: I'll bet the wind blows there enough for a windmill....
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/0-307-Ave-Gila-Bend-AZ-85337/2130544328_zpid/
Today, the International Energy Agency, in cooperation with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Nuclear Energy Agency, released a study called “Projected Costs of Generating Electricity.” The results are yet another refutation that wind is the least-costly source of new generation. Using what it calls the “levelized costs of electricity,” a metric that includes key factors like the discount rate, construction costs, load factors, fuel prices, and carbon costs, the study found that nuclear power is the least-expensive option for new generation in North America, Europe, and Asia Pacific when the discount rate is 5%. Meanwhile, wind energy was often the most expensive option regardless of location and whether the discount rate was 5% or 10%.
*Expect wind lobbyists and environmental advocates to downplay the importance of this IEA report. But just look at the figures from the new IEA and consider the disparity in costs between wind and nuclear. Also look at the disparity in costs between wind and conventional generation, particularly in Asia. Then consider how much higher the costs of wind would be if all of the costs – that means adding in the transmission line costs and the backup generation costs – were factored into the equation.
The punchline here is abundantly obvious: Adding more wind energy to the US electricity grid will mean higher costs for consumers.
Windy Hype
*Of course they will. It is part of the Liberal scheme to enslave the populace.
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/online/ccd/avgwind.html
Looks like most of AZ is not prime for wind power, as most of the numbers for AZ cities are pretty low comparatively.
What does wind NOT do that it promises to do, Gary?
Has any reasonable, objective person ever said that wind power is the "be all, end all, can replace ALL other forms of power generation?"
I think not.
You'll lose that one.
The punchline here is abundantly obvious: Adding more nuclear energy to the US electricity grid will mean higher costs for consumers.
And that gift will keep on giving for 1,000s of years.
Ain't no free lunch.
Seriously, Lake Mead is at record lows and Vegas could be hurting, although the lake should rise 10' based on current snowfall. Even when I floated the Grand Canyon a decade or so ago, the group had to use an alternate takeout since the boat ramp at Pearce was too far from the water that year to try to haul the rafts to (I was smart and bailed at Diamond so I wouldn't have to help pack up
It is far better to use the radioactive materials and to have them in controlled, known places then to have them littered throughout the environment as nature has located those materials.
The thing to consider regarding costs is that in the past much of the high cost of a nuclear generating station has been that each design was fairly unique, and dealing with years of siting-permits. If the federal government gets its act together, and comes up with 1 or 2 standard designs that will be implemented for a few hundred plants, and expedites the permit process to 6-months, then you would see much less expensive nuclear energy.
Advanced nuclear energy systems are the only hope that mankind has of long-term survival. It is the only energy source that is going to get us off this little pebble we're stuck on, in this little dusty corner of the galaxy!
Nukes aren't there - it's fortunate we've only had one or two "Gulf oil spills" to date. One Chernobyl in the US (Vermont Yankee in your case?) and just watch what happens to your electric rates and taxes.
It is not a cost effective alternative to other sources of energy such as Nuclear and clean coal. Take away the subsidies and guys like T. Boone pull their money from the projects. Wind has NOT proven itself to be a viable alternative to other sources of energy!
You want to get into a "benefits versus disadvantages of wind power" posting battle?
You'll lose that one.
I don't think so. You may be able to come up with more liberal eco nut links than I can find legitimate links. That is because there are so many liberal eco nuts feeding off of the tax payers. With nothing to do but post half truths and doctored reports. The International Energy Agency says Wind is not competitive with Nuclear, coal or gas in the USA. I believe them. You can be a DENIER if you like. Does not change the facts. Wind without subsidies from tax payers and consumers is not viable. NOT Free power from any rational perspective.
No, it's not free.
And the coal is not free.
Look at wind: One time outlay (no different than building any standard fossil-fuel generation plant - except FAR CHEAPER) then maintenance costs (just as fossil fuel generation had maintenance costs.)
The WIND to generate the power:
FREE FOR.EV.ER.
Name another energy generation source that can take something that mother nature delivers for FREE and turn it into power.
Solar.
Tide.
That's the list as far as I know.
Coal and Nuclear both have costs related to acquiring or disposing of the fuel.
Solar, wind, and tide do not.
So don't give me that "it's not viable" crap.
Pardon the laughter, but I just looked at the source for your link !!!
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
For a second I was considering your post a serious one !!!
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
oilprice.com !!!!
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
You accuse ME of using "eco nut sources" then you post THIS ????? LOL :shades:
Here is the link !!!
It's OLD NEWS man !!! None of those cost projections are valid 13 years later !!!
http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/1990/projected1998.pdf
Same thing with solar. Glad yours are working out since all of us pitched in to help pay for them.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
This page shows the growth from 1999 thru 2009:
Installed Wind Capacity
And as far as my solar? I've paid taxes for 32 years now, so I think I have contributed enough money to cover my own tax subsidy..... :shades:
Northern New Brunswick wind turbines frozen solid
Greg Weston, Telegraph-Journal · Tuesday, Feb. 15, 2011
FREDERICTON — A $200-million wind farm in northern New Brunswick is frozen solid, cutting off a potential supply of renewable energy for NB Power.
The 25-kilometre stretch of wind turbines, located 70 kilometres northwest of Bathurst, N.B. has been completely shutdown for several weeks due to heavy ice covering the blades.
GDF SUEZ Energy, the company that owns and operates the site, is working to return the windmills to working order, a spokeswoman says.
“We can’t control the weather,” Julie Vitek said in an interview from company headquarters in Houston, Texas. “We’re looking to see if we can cope with it more effectively, through the testing of a couple of techniques.”
She says the conditions in northern New Brunswick have wreaked havoc on the wind farm this winter.
http://www.nationalpost.com/Northern+Brunswick+wind+turbines+frozen+solid/428706- 3/story.html
TORONTO — Facing a court challenge, a growing backlash and an election, Ontario's Liberal government imposed a surprise moratorium Friday on all off-shore wind farms until there is more scientific research on their impact.
The government announced it would not go ahead with off-shore wind projects to generate electricity, saying there's too little evidence on how they may affect people's health.
"Fresh water wind turbines are something that's relatively new, and the Ministry of the Environment needs a level of comfort on the science before they can approve any further consideration of them," said Energy Minister Brad Duguid.
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110211/offshore-windfarms-froze- n-ontario-110211/20110211/?hub=TorontoNewHome
Minnesota’s frozen turbines raise new doubts about wind power
In Minnesota, the wind is blowing but turbines aren’t turning. The machines, bought used from California and installed last fall, are completely frozen in place. Even on the windiest days, the blades sit at a standstill, producing no power. Why should anyone care? The problem highlights some of the less intuitive challenges associated with wind power — long considered to be the most feasible and cost effective source of renewable energy.
The likely culprit in Minnesota: frozen hydraulic fluid, unfit for the state’s brutally cold winters. As the temperature continues to drop, these fluids have started to thicken, turning into jelly. This is a big problem, considering how much the Midwest has spent on trying to become the U.S.’s wind power corridor. Wind power is already intermittent — the wind isn’t blowing at gale speeds all the time. But being knocked out of commission for an entire season? That could be a deal breaker.
That is, unless the problem can be fixed. The turbines, each more than 100 feet tall in 11 Minnesota cities, were purchased for $3.3 million — but now even more must be sent to retrofit them for the cold. The first stab at the problem will be to fix heating devices to the turbines to keep the fluid at the right temperature. But this will rob power from the turbines, maybe even negating their usefulness. There’s also a chance this solution won’t work at all.
http://venturebeat.com/2010/02/08/minnesotas-frozen-turbines-raise-new-doubts-ab- out-wind-power/
So much for 40 years of free electricity. Wind Not just a joke in the USA.
The Wind Farm Joke: Frozen Up in Scotland
Not only does wind power kill birds (including eagles as the Independent Bloghorn reports), is extremely expensive, an eyesore, but it is also very unreliable. So why do Liberals love it so (unless you’re a Kennedy living on Martha’s Vineyard)?
Back in 2008, the wind died in Texas and power generation from it plunged from 1,700 megawatts to just 300 in a matter of minutes. The Electric Reliability Council of Texas responded by cutting power to many customers. A week before, the same thing happened in Florida and 1 million people lost their power.
Better hope next time it’s not your grandmother at home on a ventilator.
The extreme cold weather in Europe (obviously because of Global Warming) essentially froze the wind farms up, forcing Scotland to use electricity generated in France from nuclear reactors to meet demand:
SCOTLAND’S wind farms are unable to cope with the freezing weather conditions – grinding to a halt at a time when electricity demand is at a peak, forcing the country to rely on power generated by French nuclear plants.
Output from major wind farms fell to as low as 2.5 per cent of their potential generation capacity during the cold snap as power demand rose to close to the highest level yet recorded, new figures have revealed.
The irony, of course, is that Greeners in Scotland are against nuclear power and once Scotland’s two remaining nuclear plants shut down they don’t want any more built.
When it’s coldest outside demand for electricity also happens to be the highest and when wind power is the least reliable. But yet there are no plans to diversify power generation there.
http://capitolcommentary.com/2011/01/14/the-wind-farm-joke-frozen-up-in-scotland- /
They quoted a report from the EIA.
I went and looked at the PDF of that report on the EIA website, and the link is from a 2009 file posted from a 1998 report. Look at it yourself - it's not new. It's 1998.
You cherry-pick a few negative articles on a particular subject ( your other subjects have included hybrid cars and the 'Yota UA issue ) which say bad things about a technology and try to use those posts to say
"SEE !! SEE !! THIS TECHNOLOGY SUCKS !!!"
Unfortunately for your tactic, it's totally silly.
No one bothers to post stories like "WIND FARM PRODUCING ABOVE RATED CAPACITY !!" stories.
People (in this case CONSERVATIVE WEBSITES/BLOGS WHO ARE AGAINST GREEN ENERGY) like to point out negative stories.
Not so many people continually post stories about everything going smoothly. That's not news !! When things just "WORK" like they are supposed to work, there's no news there !!
Worldwide wind capacity as of last June and the text accompanying it:
16 Gigawatt of Wind Power added in First Half of 2010
WWEA expects Global Capacity to reach almost 200 Gigawatt in 2010
Further improvements in National and International Policies are necessary.
Bonn (WWEA) – The world market for wind turbines saw robust growth in the first half of the year 2010, with approximately 16 Gigawatt of new capacity added worldwide. Again, China represents by far the largest market and added 7800 Megawatt within only six months, reaching total installations of almost 34 Gigawatt. The five major European markets showed similar growth: Germany added 660 Megawatt, France and the UK 500 Megawatt, Italy 450 Megawatt and Spain 400 Megawatt. The total capacity of all wind turbines installed worldwide reached 175 Gigawatt in mid-2010, compared with 159 Gigawatt by the end of 2009.
For something that, ahem, DOESN'T WORK, that's a lot of Gigawatts it is producing !!
Your points are verging on incredulous on this issue, Gary. Completely baseless.
Global Wind Energy Installed Capacity to Reach 707,570 MW by 2015, According to New Report by Global Industry Analysts, Inc.
San Jose, California (Vocus/PRWEB) January 03, 2011
As global economies grapple with skyrocketing oil imports and burgeoning energy bills, the transition towards a renewable source-based energy economy is a slow, yet inevitable reality. The uncertainty and unrest in the energy sector, rapidly depleting natural resources, together with the political pressures and environmental issues, are shedding light on the rapidly evolving role of clean technologies such as wind power, solar energy, fuel-cell power automobiles, and other bio-based materials. As the investment climate for clean technologies clears, the clean energy market is expected to witness a barrage of investments, with energy companies vying for a stake in clean technologies. Wind and solar power constitute the most widespread cost-competitive solutions for the global energy crisis.
Wind power is poised to gain from the tumult in the energy sector. Although the market is expected to face several competitive and structural challenges, apart from the meltdown in the global economy, wind energy is capable of surviving the uncertainties plaguing the overall energy market. Countries around the world have set a target of meeting 12% of the world’s electricity needs from the winds by the year 2020. Strategic developments in the wind industry, vibrant new power project undertakings and upgradation activities, cumulative increment in new capacity installations in the recent past, and the transforming governmental energy plans, offer buoyant market forecasts. Although cost of wind energy has drastically declined over the last few years, a further reduction of 30% to 50% is required if wind energy is to compete on par with conventional energies. Appropriate funding and co-ordination of R&D activities could very well help in achieving a cost reduction of 40%. Rising concerns about dramatic environmental changes, attributed to unabated use of fossil fuels, is another driving force for renewable energy market.
The market is expected to produce over 2000 TWh of electricity, and meet about 20% of global power demand and result in carbon dioxide savings of more than 1,500 million tonnes in 2020. More than 1/3rd of the increased global capacity was driven by growth in China where newly added wind power capacity reached 14 GW in 2009. China has emerged the largest producer of wind power surpassing the US, which was in the leading position until mid-2010. Asian countries constitute the fastest growing regions, particularly China and India, which are characterized by high pollution and rising electricity demand. Lured by attractive growth prospects, several wind energy companies have expanded their presence in these regions. The US, India and China are focused on employing onshore wind, while Northwest Europe as well as the UK focus on developing offshore wind power across the North Sea. Offshore wind farms production is expected to outpace land-based wind turbines production by 2015, as countries across the globe increasingly employ renewable energy produced through offshore wind.
That's how you post data that is CURRENT, Gary.
This story release today, 2-15-2011. Not 1998.
There is a logical reason why conservatives are skeptical of alternative energy sources. They are a HUGE WASTE of tax dollars.
For something that, ahem, DOESN'T WORK, that's a lot of Gigawatts it is producing
Nice try. That is NOT gigwatts producing. That is Gigawatts installed. So far about the best any farm has produced is 35% of their installed rating. I would say that is a HUGE waste of money. Many farms are producing under 10% of rated capacity.
Remember how the ERCOT guy in TX was bragging about getting 3500 MW from Wind Farms in the state? Not very much with 11,000 MWs installed in TX. You may convince yourself it is a great way to save the planet. I say it is another big boondoggle like Corn Ethanol that is bankrupting America.
So is my story on the Brunswick Wind Farm that is FROZEN solid today and has been for quite a while. Not producing ANY Electricity. Just when it is needed most. Wind is not dependable if you have to have a backup system.
Nice try.
If you are opposed to putting wind farms in cold areas, that's fine.
There are plenty places in the world with mild temps and lots of wind.
Read my last post about how wind power is growing super-fast Gary.
When trying to be a wind power "hater" you are fighting a losing battle. That's a train you might not want to stand in front of
By that logic, all electricity generation systems are undependable.
As are all batteries.
Hopefully this can be accomplished before the backers run out of other people's money. Since the wind turbines work at about 30% of their rated capacity, the cost is some 3 times what is advertised.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
On January 6, renewable energy made up a record-breaking 75 percent of Spain's electricity. Over the course of the day, coal only accounted for four percent of the electricity supply.
On that day, conditions must have been ideal for renewable energy production, but even on any given day, Spain is cranking out some clean energy. Spanish power transmission company Red Electrica reports that in 2010, renewable energy sources supplied 35 percent of all of Spain's electricity, which means the country surpassed its goal of having 30 percent of its energy come from renewable sources by 2010 and has almost hit its target of 35.5 percent by 2020 way ahead of schedule.
Last year, coal-fired power in Spain dropped 34 percent and gas-fired power dropped 17 percent leading to a 20 percent cut in emissions.
It's completely inspiring to see a country making such significant progress on upping renewable energy production and slashing fossil fuel use.
¡Viva España!
It takes money to keep those wind turbines spinning.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Not when you still have to have coal or some other fossil fuel as backup. What part of BROKE don't you understand? Are Spain's Eco Nuts are a big part of their insolvency. Clean air is nice if you have money to buy food, cloths and housing. I don't see the ends justifying the means.
It is not just when there is enough wind. It has to be in just the right band. Too much wind can damage the units. Not enough and NO electricity. 35% is just about the maximum you can expect. It has already been posted. The UK only got 3.8% just when they needed it most. I would rather have something a bit more reliable than the sun or wind. Especially when you look at how much more they are charging US now to put this boondoggle in place.
I would hate to be near one of the wind generators when they disintegrate. Very dangerous situation:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/27/disintegrating_turbine/
PS
Before you or Steve get the chance I would not want to be near a Nuclear reactor when it self destructs either. :sick:
Ok, change of pace.
Global warming makes a lot of snow more typical (rrstar.com)
So glad I moved to the Midwest.
Since global warming has been said to cause just about every type of weather phenomena you can name, global cooling would have to cause all those same things because there is nothing left to choose from. Hence, there is no way to distinguish between global warming and global cooling. End of argument.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
That is where I am at. I don't trust any of them to tell the truth. It is all about getting money from the tax payers. Anyone that believes differently is living on another planet. Not much happens in DC unless someone is getting paid. Or getting paid back for favors during an election. Green is just a buzz word to send chills up an eco nuts leg.
I sincerely hope you don't really believe any of that.
ANYHOO:
Regardless of "if" you don't believe in physics or science,
conservation
recycling
reducing pollution
driving the lowest-pollution vehicle which meets your needs
should be on everyone's personal "to do" list.
There are extremely warm temperatures still occurring in eastern Russia, Canada, and Greenland this winter ... the likes of which more than cancel out the colder spots on the planet.
Huh? Everytime the temperature has dropped in the U.S. this year, the air has come from the Arctic and Canada. If it's -15F where I live 60 miles north of Boston, I know that air was a lot darn colder when it started in the northern reaches of Canada. So I really take issue with their definition of "extremely warm". It's just a bunch of hyperbole!
It's really unbelieveable that climatologists can speak from both sides of their mouths and retain any credibility. One instant they're talking about the "warm" Arctic, and then in the next their explaining how the sub-zero temperatures are all that Arctic air spilling down from the Arctic (Canada in the U.S. case).
The same thing with hurricanes. We were supposed to get more hurricanes and more severe hurricanes from GW; but the decrease in the last few years is also attributable to GW. Great Britain is supposed to run tropical according to some climatologists, except for those darn blizzards caused by GW.
American citizenry - jump, left, right, no squat, spin around, get dizzy fall down, and do it all over again!
I believe completely in Physics and Science. I don't believe in Scientists that have an agenda they are paid to put forth.
conservation, recycling, reducing pollution
driving the lowest-pollution vehicle which meets your needs
should be on everyone's personal "to do" list.
I agree, with the exception of recycling when it uses more fossil fuel than it saves. Which is a lot of what we recycle. I Balance between radical environmentalism and Conservationism. They are not always the same. For me our economy and the welfare of mankind is more important than Snail Darters and Spotted Owls.
The welfare of mankind MIGHT be directly related to some species and we just don't know it yet.
Maybe the testicular gland of a "___________(insert oddball rare species of whatever here)_______" gives us an enzyme to cure cancer.
Or Alzheimer's
Or Aids
We just don't know at this point what medical miracles might or might not come from some random, rare species of "whatever." It's just more reasonable to be safe than sorry.
Gary says, "...with the exception of recycling when it uses more fossil fuel than it saves."
And who told you that? Some Conservative, oil-backed website?
It's true in SOME cases, with SOME types of recycling materials and systems, but fossil fuel is not the ONLY thing recycling saves.
If that were true, don't you think all the major oil companies would be setting up massive recycling centers right beside their production facilities?
Sometimes the things you say are just "whooooooo" out of bounds.
Plastics sometimes get recycled back into oil. Haven't you seen that YouTube video of that Japanese guy who invented the little "plastic to oil" recycling machine?
Recycling just one ton (2,000 lb.) of paper can save 17 trees, 380 gallons of oil, three cubic yards of landfill space, 4,000 kilowatts of energy, and 7,000 gallons of water.
The welfare of mankind MIGHT be directly related to some species and we just don't know it yet.
And that's exactly why you should be an advocate of a warmer earth, with more areas that become tropical than arctic-like. The richest diversity of life, and the most evolution is in the warmer parts of the Earth - such as the Amazon. Colder areas such as Greenland and in the arctic circle have very few different species.
Life flourishes in the 70-90F region. The Earth's current average temperature is something like 58F. IMO, a warmer Earth will lead to a healthier, "livelier" environment.
U.S. citizens like warmer environments too. Take a look at where all the growth has been in this country in the last 5 decades. People are voting with their feet, or should I say U-Hauls, that they like areas warmer than the Northeast, and Upper Midwest and West (Dakotas, Wyoming and such).
I'm for that. Outlaw newspapers, magazines and catalogs. It is better to reuse magazines than to recycle the paper. The best paper for recycling is your printer paper. Whatever happened to our paperless society?
So why would we even talk about that?
You don't believe these studies, then, I assume?
WASHINGTON — Whenever the world's tropical seas warm several degrees, Earth has experienced mass extinctions over millions of years, according to a first-of-its-kind statistical study of fossil records.
And scientists fear it may be about to happen again — but in a matter of several decades, not tens of millions of years.
Four of the five major extinctions over 520 million years of Earth history have been linked to warmer tropical seas, something that indicates a warmer world overall, according to the new study published today.
"We found that over the fossil record as a whole, the higher the temperatures have been, the higher the extinctions have been," said University of York ecologist Peter Mayhew, the co-author of the peer-reviewed research published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, a British journal.
But what has caused the mass extinctions is the explosive forces and fires; not the warmer ocean that follows. The ocean warms AFTER the mass extinction where the species are killed immediately or in a few days.
Well, I'll have to take your word for it on that one, since you WERE there, after all, and you ARE a Paleontologist by trade.... :shades:
All I know is I can see Hudson's Bay from my house and it's almost 60 degrees. The record is like 45. Normal is mid 20s.
I'm not complaining mind you.
The winter if anything is colder than the winter I grew up with in PA, 40 years ago. We can get a foot of storm anytime between Oct to May. Isn't that long enough to have a non-growing season? Canada which is even larger than the U.S. even has a worse winter. The average temp. of the Earth is currently a chilly 58F. While a temperature increase change will cause some problems, and populations would need to adjust, a warmer Earth would be a net benefit.
If you have any sort of an atlas or pickup any book on the Amazon and Africa, you will see that a) the amount of organisms, and the diversity of organisms, is in the Tropic zones of the earth. The warmer oceans and the warmer land-areas have the highest amount of life. As you move away from the temperate zones towards the arctics areas you see that the number and variety of organisms decreases quite quickly. Despite what larsb wants to believe, the variety and density of life in Siberia does not match that of the Amazon, South Pacific, and Oceania, and the unspoiled areas that Africa had before it got its "modern problems".
That is what myself and skeptics have tried to get across to those erroneously believing man causes significant reversible changes in the climate. It has happened before. Long before man spewed GHG into the atmosphere. With 95% of all species extinct, who is man to think he can change the climate or protect all currently existing lifeforms? Pure arrogance is the only thing I can think of. Those that want to try and change the climate should foot the bills involved. How much do you think you would raise?
"Our disruptions in the balance of nature, the deserts enlarged and rainforests leveled and species exterminated, are small items in the big picture. Those things happen all the time in geologic history, and Earth recovers with scarcely a scar.
When the next great volcanic episode or asteroid impact or ocean-current flip-flop occurs, then we'll see what kind of mastery we have over planet Earth. Even ordinary climate variation severely tests our ability to survive. Earth is not fragile—we are. Earth doesn't need to be saved—we do. "
http://geology.about.com/od/geologyandculture/a/betterE_Day.htm
Well, I guess they ARE, ARE they not?
Don't you always say it's "Taxpayers" who are paying the "supposed"scammers?
The scammers themselves are also taxpayers, are they not?
I don't want to "change" the climate. I want to help STOP the EXISTING changes.