U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-06-2013, 04:37 PM
 
4,982 posts, read 5,045,239 times
Reputation: 6322

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
You mean simplistic not simple. Those of us with professional training in the disciple don't have to resort to simplistic analysis. It's to often wrong.
You want to say that it takes less energy to transport a windmill than the energy contained in diesel that trucks burn while delivering a windmill? Yup, it takes lots of professional training to conclude that, I can't wait for more thorough analysis that your professional training and ignorance of basics can produce.

I have even a better idea, show this thread to your boss to impress him with your brilliant answers. This deserves a raise.

Last edited by RememberMee; 10-06-2013 at 04:46 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-06-2013, 11:01 PM
 
Location: Volcano
12,971 posts, read 23,539,229 times
Reputation: 10573
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee View Post
OpenD, are you an aspiring community organizer, a politician maybe?
No. But two can play the same game, so, are you a truck driver, perhaps? Possibly bitterly divorced, since you keep bringing up "deconstructing the feminine" so often in a pejorative sense? Possibly you're from Eastern Europe, based on your really strange syntax at times. Maybe a failed academic, since you have such a negative attitude toward scientific publication and peer reviews and university experts. And then there was that odd reference you made to knowing "the kitchen," and "knowing how it's done." Is that why you're so hostile and angry and keep putting everyone else down all the time? Bullies are usually compensating for something negative in their life. Extreme arrogance and hostility is an obvious red flag.

Quote:
Here is my last attempt to reason with you, I propose the simplest estimate of the rock bottom minimum energy it takes to transport a windmill.

Four simple basic steps every semi-literate enthusiast should be able to do. Fill those steps with numbers of your own, no more BS. If you can't produce the numbers, you better apply your uncritical enthusiasm to some other political cause that excites you. I'm sure there must be a justice cause without numbers that you could embrace.
I have a simpler approach. Let's just take a fresh look at the calculations you posted oh-so-many-sarcastic-insults ago, the very same calc-o-later I've been trying to prompt you into rechecking for yourself in search of the big error I said I found. But first, a review of some of those signature insults of yours, arrogantly made as you attacked very intelligent and knowledgeable people here, post after post after post, dodging and deflecting all criticisms, and taking absolutely nothing to heart, no matter how blatant and obvious your errors were proven to be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee View Post
Please, no more useless ignorant posts, this thread is already overloaded with...

Nope, you can't, your "fact-check" nonsense suggests that you have no rudimentary knowledge of engineering and physics whatsoever...

Outrageous nonsense aimed at 100% scientifically illiterate enthusiasts...

Bolded number is supported by elementary arithmetic applied to the energy numbers I came up with...

Physics 101 should be a must for every technology enthusiast making a comment to a post with numbers and formulas...

Personally, I don't comment on the things I don't know much about (Like deconstructing the feminine hero in the late 1960s NYC graffiti), on the estimates I have no knowledge to evaluate, and I strongly suggest you to embrace the same personal paradigm...

... you have nothing constructive to say on the matter at hands...

Apparently you have trouble comprehending...

Obviously, you have no basic knowledge to judge my estimates...

You are free to show my estimates to an expert of your choice. Until then your appeal to invisible authority is ludicrous...

But again you don't comprehend value of engineering approximations to begin with, you bring up some nonsense that proves exactly what?...

No, dear, I don't just call those numbers insane, I provided numerical estimates proving those numbers to be insane...

Since you have no basic knowledge of your own to judge my numerical estimates, just ask an expert of your choice to help you out. Until then don't waste space in this thread with even more nonsense...

I can forgive your 11 year old nephew ignorance of scientific & engineering approximations, it's not like his uncle can teach him about that...

If you cannot see at a glance, without reading much, what basic arithmetic operation allowed me to claim that "It would take 3 years of the problem free operation for a windmill to generate 372 GJ of energy" you have no business commenting on my post...

I gave very straightforward and simple estimate of energy it takes to transport a windmill for 1000 miles. I used a simple standard calculations to come up with energy that a 1.5MW windmill with 15% capacity factor can produce in a year. I divided two numbers to come up with 3 years it takes for a windmill to generate energy it took to transport it for 1000 miles. That's was the point of my post...

If you have no personal knowledge to judge validity of those very simple estimates, what's this verbal diarrhea all about?...

I've made simple estimates using two basic formulas, you too apparently lack knowledge of Physics 101 and Arithmetic 001 to evaluate and critic directly, instead you come up with even more nonsense in this thread, as though as empty verbal barrage unleashed by OpenD is not enough...

Evaluate a simple energy conservation approximation, if you can...

Since you claim you have a BS in engineering and since it takes no degree, just basic knowledge of energy conservation, arithmetic and common sense to evaluate my simplest estimates. Do it...

If you can't double check my simple equations for their arithmetic precision, general common sense and agreement with energy conservation principles why post nonsense?...

Another ignoramus "contributing" nothing to this thread?...

If you are not capable of the most primitive arithmetic, concentrate your powerful intellect on deconstructing feminine in the age of enlightenment and things of that nature...

I have very important things going for my 4 step estimate, it's VERY simple, it's COMMON SENSE, it's factual, it's easily verifiable by anyone with the most rudimentary knowledge of energy concepts and arithmetic...

Are scientifically illiterate people with BS in aerospace engineering and no critical thinking skills the only hope for Mother Earth? Can you fill my 4 steps with your numbers? If not, your BS in engineering is good only for deconstructing feminine, misspellings and things of that nature...

First, OpenD didn't provide anything remotely "peer reviewed", just industry propaganda. Second, you cannot dull my critical thinking with "peer reviewed" crap, because I know the kitchen, I know how it's done...

Unlike the BS masters in the link, I outlined clearly the way to verify my numbers, as far as I am concerned they just could pull those numbers from their arse, there is no way to verify that, it's obvious nonsense though...

There is no use for the rough estimates in deconstructing of feminine and the rest of liberal arts, so I somewhat understand why OpenD and his friends in this thread are so fixed on nonsensical details and googling thinking it would make up for their general ignorance...

Yup, it takes lots of professional training to conclude that, I can't wait for more thorough analysis that your professional training and ignorance of basics can produce...
Whew! Now that your extreme disdain toward everyone else is fully out on the table, let's take a look at your basic arithmetic:

Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee View Post
To make it simple, let's assume it's 12 trucks (making 5 mpg) that haul a wind-tower parts for 1000 miles.

(12x1000miles)/(5mpg)= 2400 gallons; 155MJ/gallon - energy content of a gallon of diesel; 2400gallons x 155 MJ/gallon=372 GJ of energy to transport a windmill...
Arguably the MPG could be higher, and some references peg the energy in #2 Diesel a little lower, but I'm feeling generous, so we'll go with those values for this purpose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee View Post
Speaking of Van Vert wind farm, capacity factor of 15% is an optimistic estimate.

1.5 MW 365 days 24 hours 15% = 1,971MWh = 1,971,000 kWh per year,
Here I feel you sandbagged the calculation by using a capacity figure less than half what the company projects, and also induced slop in your favor by using 1.5 MW instead of the rated value of 1.8 MW. But what's a little induced error between friends? Hey, I'll even give you that as a freebie. So OK, we'll use the figure you came up with as the wind turbine output for a year, 1,971 MWh. Everybody got that? We're almost done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee View Post
1,971 MWh*60seconds= 120 GJ of energy a windmill generates per year.
It was in this last line, in the final conversion that your calculation ran completely off into the weeds.

1 MWh = 3.6 GJ, so 1,971 MWh X 3.6 = 7095.6 GJ not 120. It's basic arithmetic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee View Post
It would take 3 years of the problem free operation for a windmill to generate 372 GJ of energy it took to transport it (just moving around 400 tonnes long distance).
Actually, now that we have the correct figure for the output of the windmill, according to your very own assumptions and calculations, the corrected payback estimate is that the even with the windmill operating at only 15% efficiency, that 372 GJ expended in transport will be paid back by a little less than 5% of the energy generated by the wind turbine in a year. In other words, the transport energy invested will be paid back in about 17 days, not 3 years. And that's certainly within the range of reason, since transportation to the site is only a small portion of the total cost of manufacturing, installing, operating and decommissioning that the industry figures show being paid off within that "ballpark" of about 4 months.

It's not like I didn't give you enough hints about needing to recheck your math, and about your sloppiness and inaccuracy and conversion errors. You had plenty of opportunity to find your own error and fess up to it. But instead, you just heaped scorn on others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee View Post
I'm not an expert...
Like I said much earlier, you should really just stop there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee View Post
...but I do have numbers giving me good reasons to believe that wind energy is useless as far as saving the world from burning the fossils. It's much more likely wind energy hurts environment more than simple burning of oil.
What's actually useless is your evaluation and conclusion, because your final result was pathetically bad but you were unable to discern or intuit the huge error you made, or even to accept any input pointing to it. Hopefully you can see that clearly now, and you'll finally sit down and be quiet.

At least, one can hope.

Last edited by OpenD; 10-07-2013 at 12:14 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2013, 06:21 AM
 
Location: On the brink of WWIII
21,094 posts, read 23,815,172 times
Reputation: 7812
I am just worried we will run out of WIND, being it is a finite resource.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2013, 06:45 AM
 
Location: West Michigan
12,084 posts, read 34,074,672 times
Reputation: 16828
Quote:
Originally Posted by zthatzmanz28 View Post
I am just worried we will run out of WIND, being it is a finite resource.
We could have RememberMee stop by the wind farm they drive by and expound upon their vast and superior knowledge of how crazy it is that the towers are there. That should produce enough wind to power them for decades without a hint of breeze from Mom Nature.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2013, 07:01 AM
 
Location: california
5,620 posts, read 4,848,269 times
Reputation: 6614
I believe that wind is a good source of power, certainly not the only.
Wave energy is also being used, along with river, and solar, photovoltaic, and solar thermal passive, and active .
New solar panels are now developed better than the photovoltaic that work on the same basis as the thermocouple using fraction of the area, using the heat of the sun not the light.
Also there are steam solar that use old satellite dish with a boiler at the focal point making steam driving a turbine-generator. Obviously most of these rely on the sun ,in reality most every thing does.
I built my own system using batteries as a energy bank and several sources feed into it. The batteries carry the load through the night ,and provide a buffer against the little city power I use for things greater than my system can handle on it's own.
Among other things I have a 600 watt wind mill, that makes a small contribution due to lite winds ,but the expectation of moving to a more windy location it is no disappointment. My mill is mounted on a shop trailer not on the ground, so I can bring it down for transport.
My battery bank is in the trailer as well.
Thing is I am not nor ever have been rich but I have invested a little at a time in this system so that I am not completely dependent on the grid .
My average bill is about $25. from the city, and like I said, it is only for things greater than my system can handle alone like my welder and large air compressors.
The more folks that get into solar and wind mills of their own, the greater the appreciation for the power there is.
Problem is, only one out of a thousand are willing to invest them selves into some kind of independence project, because it involves thinking and learning and investment and discipline ,and creativity .
Most people I know only have the courage to make excuses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2013, 09:26 AM
 
Location: DC
6,509 posts, read 6,427,712 times
Reputation: 3112
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee View Post
You want to say that it takes less energy to transport a windmill than the energy contained in diesel that trucks burn while delivering a windmill? Yup, it takes lots of professional training to conclude that, I can't wait for more thorough analysis that your professional training and ignorance of basics can produce.

I have even a better idea, show this thread to your boss to impress him with your brilliant answers. This deserves a raise.
I am the boss in a utility consulting business. The amount of energy used to transport the components is trivial compared to the lifetime production from the unit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2013, 12:07 PM
 
4,982 posts, read 5,045,239 times
Reputation: 6322
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenD View Post
No. But two can play the same game, so, are you a truck driver, perhaps? Possibly bitterly divorced, since you keep bringing up "deconstructing the feminine" so often in a pejorative sense? Possibly you're from Eastern Europe, based on your really strange syntax at times. Maybe a failed academic, since you have such a negative attitude toward scientific publication and peer reviews and university experts.
Your needless verbosity and inability to come to the root of the issue/post, stirring 5 pages of BS while "deconstructing" nonessential details and my personality lead me to believe that you are somehow involved with deconstruction biz, unfortunately only "deconstructing of feminine" stuck in my mind, I know there is so much more to it but for a forum post it should be good enough. Pejorative has nothing to do with "feminine" per se but with needless verbosity and convolutedly worded nonsense that seems to be a must for some in the deconstruction biz.

Kudos for getting in touch with your nephew and checking the numbers though.
Quote:
And then there was that odd reference you made to knowing "the kitchen," and "knowing how it's done." Is that why you're so hostile and angry and keep putting everyone else down all the time? Bullies are usually compensating for something negative in their life. Extreme arrogance and hostility is an obvious red flag.
So in that first reply of yours you were trying to compensate for some sort of childhood trauma, a toy windmill broken by a street bully perhaps? Why you didn't tell me. You were so hostile and angry, attacking totally nonessential details by questioning my humble personality instead of paying attention to the obvious numbers, I thought you were just warming up for a lucrative career where stirring BS pays big.
Quote:
I have a simpler approach. Let's just take a fresh look at the calculations you posted oh-so-many-sarcastic-insults ago, the very same calc-o-later
I was asking you to do just that for the last past 5 pages, what happened, you got tired of deconstructing my spelling and syntax?
Quote:
I've been trying to prompt you into rechecking for yourself in search of the big error I said I found.
I saw the error but I don't recollect your prompts, you were busy with other things.
Quote:
But first, a review of some of those signature insults of yours, arrogantly made as you attacked very intelligent and knowledgeable people here, post after post after post, dodging and deflecting all criticisms, and taking absolutely nothing to heart, no matter how blatant and obvious your errors were proven to be.
I wouldn't call blanket unsupported statements that intelligent and knowledgeable people left here "criticism". It's very unlikely they ever read my original post or my posts in between. Most people don't follow bickering in a thread.
Quote:
Whew! Now that your extreme disdain toward everyone else is fully out on the table, let's take a look at your basic arithmetic:
5 pages of BS and you just decided to go arithmetic route? What have happened? Your nephew is back home?
Quote:
But what's a little induced error between friends? Hey, I'll even give you that as a freebie. So OK, we'll use the figure you came up with as the wind turbine output for a year, 1,971 MWh. Everybody got that? We're almost done.
Are you an aspiring drama queen too? It reads like a tragic plot of almost Shakespearean proportions. Keep it up.
Quote:
It was in this last line, in the final conversion that your calculation ran completely off into the weeds.
1 MWh = 3.6 GJ, so 1,971 MWh X 3.6 = 7095.6 GJ not 120. It's basic arithmetic.
So instead of deconstructing Van Wert or Van Vert and things of that nature you could just glance at

1,971 MWh*60 seconds= 120 GJ and point to the error immediately. This would have saved tons of typing, no calculations and deconstruction needed. At least I encouraged you to brush up on basics, so now you know that 1MWh=3.6GJ and that 1hour=3600 seconds.
Quote:
In other words, the transport energy invested will be paid back in about 17 days, not 3 years. And that's certainly within the range of reason, since transportation to the site is only a small portion of the total cost of manufacturing, installing, operating and decommissioning that the industry figures show being paid off within that "ballpark" of about 4 months.
It's the case when even gross error doesn't change much, that's what rough estimates are for, there are energy costs associated with transportation of all the components of a windmill to assembly plants, transportation of components of transmission lines, batteries, back up power plants, etc., there are transportation costs associated with mining and refinining. Considering global nature of the commodities and manufacturing it's not 1000 miles commutes either. Remember industry claims 6 moths payback.
Quote:
It's not like I didn't give you enough hints about needing to recheck your math, and about your sloppiness and inaccuracy and conversion errors. You had plenty of opportunity to find your own error and fess up to it. But instead, you just heaped scorn on others.
Pointing at Van Wert, appealing to authority and bickering for 5 pages about 410 tonnes or 411 tonnes as the way to point at the obvious "hey, it's 3600 seconds not 60 seconds", it seems a natural way to discuss things in some high-minded circles. There was no need to recheck math, it's on the surface, you just can't see it and I didn't look.
Quote:
What's actually useless is your evaluation and conclusion, because your final result was pathetically bad but you were unable to discern or intuit the huge error you made, or even to accept any input pointing to it.
There is a major difference between "Results" and "estimates". If my conclusions are useless why wind energy is going broke around the world without massive government subsidies and/or mandated price control? High monetary costs of windmills indirectly reflect high input energy costs of manufacturing of windmills and all the required infrastructure. Across the industries, energy represents roughly 15-60 percent of production costs. Generously assuming it's 20% for windmill manufacturing industry and 6 months of energy payback (according to the industry experts you cited), windmills should generate pure profit in just 3-4 years. Why private investors don't jump on this once in a life time opportunity? It doesn't make any sense.

Speaking of the global warming, windmills do not do as much as advertised (if anything, according to some) to decrease CO2 emissions. Partially because it takes adjusting output of a fossil powered plant to moderate power fluctuations from a wind farm. Industry experts claim it's grossly inefficient way to run a coal powered plant, windmills + coal powered backup = more CO2 from the coal powered plants.

Europe despite massive investments in wind energy for decades sees no major decrease in CO2 emissions.

Climate Change Paradox: Wind Turbines in Europe Do Nothing for Emissions-Reduction Goals - SPIEGEL ONLINE
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2013, 03:14 PM
 
Location: Volcano
12,971 posts, read 23,539,229 times
Reputation: 10573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bydand View Post
We could have RememberMee stop by the wind farm they drive by and expound upon their vast and superior knowledge of how crazy it is that the towers are there. That should produce enough wind to power them for decades without a hint of breeze from Mom Nature.
Talk about an infinite resource!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2013, 03:33 PM
 
Location: Volcano
12,971 posts, read 23,539,229 times
Reputation: 10573
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
I am the boss in a utility consulting business. The amount of energy used to transport the components is trivial compared to the lifetime production from the unit.
Of course it is. It's a very well documented fact.

Having worked on ISO certification myself I'm aware of how thorough and meticulous the work is, so I see the LCA documentation as reliable.

Of course, I still believe in the phrase "Trust but verify," but claiming that the proven metrics of an entire industry are wrong by orders of magnitude is the work of the foolhardy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2013, 05:38 PM
 
11,210 posts, read 8,350,431 times
Reputation: 20256
Wow.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:37 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top