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 04-06-2014, 10:04 AM
Zot
 
Location: 3rd rock from a nearby star
468 posts, read 579,359 times
Reputation: 747

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ7 View Post
Seems like you have more research to do...

Has Belgium Cracked the Problem of Storing Wind Power Electricity?

In addition, research has been presented to show that oceanic wind farms are more efficient when the turbines are set up asymmetrically, or in a even/odd pattern instead of the standard array they are in now (even pattern).
Here ya go - Denmark: 1,000 Megawatts Of Offshore Wind, And No Signs of Slowing Down - Forbes

Quote:
It won’t be an easy task. With the existing wind capacity, there have already been times in recent years when surpluses have been generated and Denmark has actually paid other countries to take the excess power supply (much like the situation in West Texas, where surpluses of wind occasionally result in negative pricing for short periods). If significant changes to the electric system are not made, it is possible that supply might eclipse demand for up to 1000 hours per year by 2020 (out of the 8760 hours in a year), according to Jen Moller Birkebaek, a vice president at Energinet.dk, quoted in the NY Times.

In order for the integration of wind energy to effectively occur with minimal disruption, a number of existing tools must continue to be used, while new ones are developed. One critically important element used today is hydro storage capacity in neighboring Norway (which is supplied by 99% hydro) and Sweden (over 50% hydro), supported by robust interconnection transmission lines. When excess wind energy is generated, power is often transmitted to these neighboring countries. In turn, they simply throttle back their hydro plants and store more water behind dams for later use. When more electricity is needed, power can flow the other way. In this sense, Norway and Sweden’s hydro systems serve as large batteries in a larger interconnected system.
So YES excess wind power is sometimes sold at a loss (you must pay someone to take it), and YES it can be stored as hydro power, IF you wish to inundate land. Would it be OK to seize your neighborhood and flood it? In the U.S. with legal challenges and endangered species everywhere, how long do you think it would take to build a large hydro storage reservoir?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-06-2014, 10:11 AM
MJ7
 
6,221 posts, read 8,601,815 times
Reputation: 6514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zot View Post
Here ya go - Denmark: 1,000 Megawatts Of Offshore Wind, And No Signs of Slowing Down - Forbes



So YES excess wind power is sometimes sold at a loss (you must pay someone to take it), and YES it can be stored as hydro power, IF you wish to inundate land. Would it be OK to seize your neighborhood and flood it? In the U.S. with legal challenges and endangered species everywhere, how long do you think it would take to build a large hydro storage reservoir?
The article I linked, you may want to read it again. It was calling for a 20 foot high gravity driven donut storage unit 2 miles offshore.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2014, 10:17 AM
Zot
 
Location: 3rd rock from a nearby star
468 posts, read 579,359 times
Reputation: 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ7 View Post
The article I linked, you may want to read it again. It was calling for a 20 foot high gravity driven donut storage unit 2 miles offshore.
Yes and in the middle of the Texas, Arizona and Colorado deserts a 20 foot high gravity driven offshore storage makes sense how?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2014, 10:21 AM
MJ7
 
6,221 posts, read 8,601,815 times
Reputation: 6514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zot View Post
Yes and in the middle of the Texas, Arizona and Colorado deserts a 20 foot high gravity driven offshore storage makes sense how?
Were we not discussing Denmark? It has to all start somewhere. Texas (at least parts) are near the gulf. As for land locked states I would say alternate systems would need to be performed. Look at Canada and their hydroelectric systems. Residents in some areas have very very low electric bills per month. I have a colleague in Quebec City that pays around 10 bucks a month because the gov't funds the hydro plants and they virtually pass that onto the citizens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2014, 11:21 AM
 
4,718 posts, read 8,942,502 times
Reputation: 2153
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ7 View Post
Were we not discussing Denmark? It has to all start somewhere. Texas (at least parts) are near the gulf. As for land locked states I would say alternate systems would need to be performed. Look at Canada and their hydroelectric systems. Residents in some areas have very very low electric bills per month. I have a colleague in Quebec City that pays around 10 bucks a month because the gov't funds the hydro plants and they virtually pass that onto the citizens.
And that is way it should be, not gouge the customer. I bet a lot more of these projects would get off the ground if the savings were actually passed on. Lately, it seems the companies want the customer to pay to build it while they enjoy the cost savings without passing any of it on to the customer - even after the thing is paid for and built. Before you get all crazy, yes, I understand it is business and they need to survive/make a profit, but as a customer I paid into it and therefore am a stake holder in the project.

Just like the citizens paid for a bridge to be built with tolls, the promise that the tolls would be removed once it was paid for... Welp, that was 40+ years ago and the tolls still remain. And now they didn't do maintenance on it or saved up for a maintenance budget, so guess who gets to pay for the repairs now? Too many fast ones have been pulled, so I understand hesitancy for any new projects.

And the bad thing is that I agree with the need to do things "greener" than we are now... And the above is frustrating to me as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2014, 12:18 PM
 
Location: Port Charlotte
3,926 posts, read 4,742,814 times
Reputation: 3408
We have had blackouts when they took regular generation plants down for regular maintenance , relying on the wind farms...and the wind stopped blowing.

Wind generation is not economical without federal and state subsidies (were just added on in a funding bill in Congress). Wind generation and solar generation is not 24-hour reliable, which is the big issue.

The better long-term bet is thorium-based reactors. They don't have the issues that uranium reactors have. Also, they are working on small reactors able to power small cities, without the melt-down issues, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2014, 12:21 PM
Zot
 
Location: 3rd rock from a nearby star
468 posts, read 579,359 times
Reputation: 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ7 View Post
Were we not discussing Denmark? It has to all start somewhere. Texas (at least parts) are near the gulf. As for land locked states I would say alternate systems would need to be performed. Look at Canada and their hydroelectric systems. Residents in some areas have very very low electric bills per month. I have a colleague in Quebec City that pays around 10 bucks a month because the gov't funds the hydro plants and they virtually pass that onto the citizens.
We were discussing "Wind Power cuts US CO2 emissions AND water usage".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2014, 12:26 PM
Zot
 
Location: 3rd rock from a nearby star
468 posts, read 579,359 times
Reputation: 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Restrain View Post

The better long-term bet is thorium-based reactors. They don't have the issues that uranium reactors have. Also, they are working on small reactors able to power small cities, without the melt-down issues, etc.
Upon introduction to thorium salt reactors, many assume thorium is the safe fuel. It turns out thorium, plutonium or uranium can be fissioned in a salt reactor safely and with greater use of the innate nuclear energy in each element.

I mention this as while thorium should have been preferred from the start, we foolishly have made abundant nuclear waste, and using a salt reactor instead of a water reactor, it is possible to get rid of all of it. The problem isn't so much fission, but rather using water fission instead of salt. A salt fission reactor can be easily made very safe, and a leak will only result in hardened salt proximal to the facility, it won't upset the environment.

I'd like to see thorium used, but would also like to get rid of (render inert) existing supplies of plutonium and uranium not being used for weapons (and would one day like to think we'll find a way to get rid of weapons as well).

You are very correct, we all need energy, and should search for solutions that cause the least grief. Currently, until fusion is perfected, salt fission reactors make the most sense imo.

A problem with salt reactors is utilities and government won't like them much. For $10 million dollars it may be possible to power 25,000 homes with thorium (less if recycled uranium or plutonium is used) for up to 50 years. The cost would be $400 per home for 50 years of power. Our government and utilities may have trouble with this the same way we have trouble with getting rid of phone taxes, today via internet, phone calls service should be totally free. Yet a tariff and interconnection system exists due to our history which makes this impossible. Just having really great technology, doesn't mean we are culturally capable of using it effectively.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2014, 12:29 PM
 
4,718 posts, read 8,942,502 times
Reputation: 2153
Yes, Restrain, wind and solar is meant to augment not replace traditional power generation at this time. (nuclear, coal, fuel, natural gas, etc...) Until there is a suitable way to store the extra power that needs to be generated by wind/solar and to make enough to handle the times when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine, it is the best "we" can do. But it is better than doing nothing, unless you don't want to surf the 'net, watch TV, have lights, A/C, etc...

Just my humble opinion. You will never see neighborhood sized thorium or other nuclear reactors. Too hard to secure and the material could get into the wrong hands. Much easier to safeguard a large plant. I read a lot about them and thought it was a neat idea, until you realize that you have to somehow safeguard them. We can't even put a neighborhood sized gas/diesel generator out in key areas without them getting stolen. And cable signal boosters get ripped off all the time too...

I don't know what the capability is to weaponize thorium is, but I am sure someone will figure out a way to make a rather large thorium bomb using power generation quality thorium. Until someone can tell me that it is impossible - I see a lot of people fighting against doing that.

On Edit: ZOT -- Thorium used is innert? Than that might work...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2014, 12:29 PM
 
947 posts, read 1,171,534 times
Reputation: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Restrain View Post
We have had blackouts when they took regular generation plants down for regular maintenance , relying on the wind farms...and the wind stopped blowing.

Wind generation is not economical without federal and state subsidies (were just added on in a funding bill in Congress). Wind generation and solar generation is not 24-hour reliable, which is the big issue.

The better long-term bet is thorium-based reactors. They don't have the issues that uranium reactors have. Also, they are working on small reactors able to power small cities, without the melt-down issues, etc.
Nuclear power is far less economical and wouldn't exist without subsidies which are huge.

Thorium reactors haven't gotten past experimental stage for a reason. They can still melt down, they produce nuclear waste, they don't generate even a fraction of the energy the advocates claim they would. Thorium reactors are a product of hype created when uranium stockpiles were thought to be extremely rare instead of incredibly common and easily mined.
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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:43 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