Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
12% according HECO.. But who's counting....Maybe there are other wholesale power suppliers out there.... In 2011, 12% of electricity sales came from renewable sources, well on our way to Hawaii’s next renewable mandate: 15% by 2015
I would imagine that the Big Island doesn't consume anywhere near the amount of electricity as Hawaii Islanld, with Oahu being located on Hawaii. So it's entirely possible that 50% of the Big Island's energy comes from renewables, while only 12% of the entire state's come from renewables.
the U.S. has increasingly out-sourced much of its wind turbine development. Less than a quarter of wind turbine components installed in the U.S. came from domestic production
This means that my pessimistic estimates are actually "optimistic" since I didn't account for the energy costs of the global supply chain. So dear liberal arts majors and clean energy activists, save Mother Earth Say NO to the windmills, they not only kill wildlife they cause more pollution and CO2 emissions than bonafide burning of oil (and so are ethanol and bio-diesel btw).
This means that my pessimistic estimates are actually "optimistic" since I didn't account for the energy costs of the global supply chain. So dear liberal arts majors and clean energy activists, save Mother Earth Say NO to the windmills, they not only kill wildlife they cause more pollution and CO2 emissions than bonafide burning of oil.
and where exactly is coal being transported from? oil? natural gas? you act as though those sources of energy have no transportation costs/energy consumption.
and where exactly is coal being transported from? oil? natural gas? you act as though those sources of energy have no transportation costs/energy consumption.
Those sources have much greater energy density than anything alternative and that makes them net energy winners. Ratios of (Energy returned)/(energy invested) for oil, gas and coal is well in the double digits even for the exhausted fields. We couldn't possibly create our complex civilization (powered by coal & oil) otherwise. Just simple feeling good for the alternative energy is not enough. Biomass, ethanol, bio-diesel & wind are the most obvious dead ends since theoretical limits for energy density of those sources are rather unimpressive (while environmental and human costs are sky high). Unfortunately, I feel that many people just want to feel good about doing (or rather thinking) something "alternative".
Sad truth is that available alternatives cannot power our complex consumer civilization. We have two choices basically: a) mankind shrinking to the scale at which we wouldn't denude Earth of all surface vegetation once fossils are gone. b) warp drive (meaning something totally outside of the box of the alternatives we are aware of). Possibility of run away warming may rob us of either option.
Last edited by RememberMee; 10-02-2013 at 09:05 AM..
it sounds like you have something against wind energy. it's not THE solution, but it's a big player. have a good day.
It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of numbers. I have something against wind energy because large scale wind, especially globally sourced big wind, doesn't make much energetic sense, I gave rough numerical estimates of why I think so. You are always welcome to come up with your estimates proving your enthusiasm for the wind.
I understand very well why industry experts blow smoke from their rears. They want a paycheck in order to secure a meal. However, I don't really understand blind faith of the alternative believers. Don't you all want to save the Earth from the fossil evil? If so, it's only reasonable to scrutinize every alternative solution. Instead, people prefer to belong to a church of Holy Wind where faith if far more important than knowledge and simple curiosity.
I would imagine that the Big Island doesn't consume anywhere near the amount of electricity as Hawaii Islanld, with Oahu being located on Hawaii. So it's entirely possible that 50% of the Big Island's energy comes from renewables, while only 12% of the entire state's come from renewables.
Errrk, you've got that tangled up a bit. It's easy for people who don't live here to get confused about the fact that the island I live on is Hawai'i, and it's in the State of Hawai'i, while Honolulu is on Oahu Island, IN Hawai'i (the state), but not ON Hawai'i (the island).
But you are correct, that 12% figure is for the State of Hawai'i, not for the Island of Hawai'i, aka The Big Island, which is what I was talking about. If you look at the power facts page on that Heco site, it breaks out the figures for Helco, which is the power company on Hawai'i Island. At the bottom of the column it clearly says: Percentage of sales from renewable energy: 31.3% But wait, that was as of 12/31/06, and we've had a whole lot of new renewable power generation come on line since then, including the Pakini Nui wind farm I mentioned earlier. I really wish Heco would update this data sheet with current actuals, but while we're waiting for it knowledgeable experts say we're in the 40-50% range already, headed toward the goal of 70%.
Elsewhere on the site you'll find more interesting information, such as... the estimated potential for Big Island geothermal production at 750 MW, a list of alternative energy projects in development around the state such as innovative wave power and hydrothermal (utilizing deep sea cold water), and the statement that the Big Island has the highest density of residential solar energy installations in the country. What they don't say is that a large number of those are not grid-tied, so they don't show up on Helco's totals, but do show up on third-party figures.
In any case the Pakini Nui wind farm at Southpoint is already proven successful, and several other wind projects will be going in at the other end of the island, so the use of wind power is increasing. Because it works!
Every subsidized industry has top notch analysts keeping public interests close to their hearts, we all know that.
And every field also has independent experts who are capable of unbiased and accurate analysis, especially when peer reviewed and published. That's what makes the scientific method such a powerful tool for discovery of the truth.
Quote:
What does it have to do with anything? It's not a spelling bee, but you have to grab a straw don't you?
Once could be a typo, but twice is clear evidence that you have no regard for accuracy, even with a reference handy.
Quote:
Why capacity factor is "proprietary" then if everything is so peachy and well thought out?
Because it is business sensitive information that competitors would love to get their hands on.
Quote:
I have my eyes, I drive by those turbines 2 days/week, 52 weeks/year, most of the time windmills are still like a rock, 30-40% capacity factor - NO way in hell.
Anecdotal evidence from casual observations is the meat of pseudoscience. To pick only the lowest hanging fruit from the tree, you don't know why those windmills were not operating when you happened to notice them.
Quote:
411 tonnes, 400 tonnes, 405 tonnes, what difference does it make? Especially considering that I didn't use turbine weight in my estimates at all. I just gave an idea about an approximate weight of a windmill.
It's more clear evidence that you have no regard for accuracy, even with a reference handy. 410 is not 411. Tonnes is not tons. Sloppy IS sloppy.
Quote:
Nope, you can't, your "fact-check" nonsense suggests that you have no rudimentary knowledge of engineering and physics whatsoever (it's not a personal attack, it's the fact).
It's not a fact, it's an erroneous assumption. That's more clear evidence that you just make things up as you go.
Quote:
Industry experts used to claim that cigarettes are harmless and that soft drinks increase kids' IQ.
And that proves absolutely nothing about wind power experts, especially independent experts, like the University sources I quoted.
Quote:
Sorry, man, argument from authority is not a substitute for your personal reasoning in response to my personal estimates. If you think they are 100s orders of magnitude off you should point at the exact place where I've made 100 orders of magnitude error.
Wow, and the hits keep coming! That's even more clear evidence that you have no regard for accuracy, even with a reference handy. I said your calculations were off by 10x, which is 1 order of magnitude in a base 10 system, not 100s. It doesn't seem like you understand what an order of magnitude is.
Quote:
Citing some unknown experts (who never saw my post) and their insanely unrealistic numbers does NOT address my specific post and it doesn't prove it wrong.
Calling expert's figures "Insanely unrealistic" doesn't prove them wrong. It's just an unsubstantiated assertion. Meanwhile you've proved nothing about your own figures, and the burden of proof IS on you.
Quote:
I specifically cited my "personal observations" as a supporting evidence for 15% capacity factor.
It's my personal observations vs your uncritical Google enthusiasm. Besides, 15% or 40% doesn't make any difference, none at all.
I have an 11 year old nephew who could take that argument apart in moments.
Quote:
40% capacity will NOT make wind energy viable.
Wind energy already is viable, when properly sited and engineered. Oh, and to update you on other news, you can now buy a production electric car that can travel 300 miles at 55mph. And an electric plane recently traveled more than 200 mph. The technology is evolving.
Quote:
Only substantial increase of turbine power output (while shrinking turbine size and weight) can make wind energy a winner overall. It's just too bad that power output of a windmill is linked to its blade size. Increasing power output requires larger blade size & larger towers, that means more energy is required to manufacture, transport and install a higher power windmill, it's a losing race.
Actually, it's already a winner and researchers are steadily gaining efficiency all the time. One promising possibility I'm aware of is placing the blades within an annular duct ring with an airfoil cross section. In pilot demonstrations increases of 2.5 - 3X in power output have been seen.
Quote:
Bolded number is supported by elementary arithmetic applied to the energy numbers I came up with. You couldn't Google that, could you?
In addition to everything else, your writing is sometimes just incomprehensible. This is one of those times. I wonder if English is perhaps not your original language. In any case, I recommend you slow down and review your posts carefully - maybe check a few facts - before hitting the Submit button.
Quote:
Physics 101 should be a must for every technology enthusiast making a comment to a post with numbers and formulas.
I know. It was my favorite class in High School.
My overall point is, your air of superiority is unearned, and your supercilious attitude is unbearable, so why not just drop the arrogance, stop making things up, and just discuss things like a normal human being without attacking others? It certainly would be more pleasant.
I trust it to only be reliable at killing birds and virtually unfordable if it wasn't for big government subsidies.
Wanna get rich on the backs of the little guy? Start a wind farm.
Awesome pictures, BTW.
Cool as any Hollywood CGI and only 100 times the cost.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
