Windmills dismal performance (greenhouse gas, global warming, furnace, wind turbine)

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by rlchurch

Google EPA Clear Skies. EPA: Clear Skies -- Health and Environmental Benefits

And again your interpretation of those numbers is grossly inaccurate. They encompass much more than just coal plants, pollution as whole as best i can tell. Saying coal plants is responsible for those numbers is like saying a 400lb. guy that sits on the couch all day smoking cigarettes, eating potato chips and chicken wings that he washes down with rum cokes died of heart attack because of a lack of exercise.

Post the link to the document where those numbers came from rlchurch, I'd suggest people go to page 5 if I remeber correctly as it lists what they are based on. Of course you probably never got past the first sentence where it mentions power plants.

Having said that the accuracy of such numbers is certainly debatable as with any estimates on health issues.

[rlchurch]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

And again your interpretation of those numbers is grossly inaccurate. They encompass much more than just coal plants, pollution as whole as best i can tell. Saying coal plants is responsible for those numbers is like saying a 400lb. guy that sits on the couch all day smoking cigarettes, eating potato chips and chicken wings that he washes down with rum cokes died of heart attack because of a lack of exercise.

It addresses fossil fueled power plants. The vast majority of pollution come from coal fired power plants. Natural gas produces minor amounts of pollution and oil is not a significant power plant fuel. Interpret? I posted the EPA statement.

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Post the link to the document where those numbers came from rlchurch, I'd suggest people go to page 5 if I remeber correctly as it lists what they are based on. Of course you probably never got past the first sentence where it mentions power plants.

Having said that the accuracy of such numbers is certainly debatable as with any estimates on health issues.

It is based upon reducing the emissions from Power Plants.

Originally Posted by EPA

Clear Skies legislation would create a mandatory program that would dramatically reduce power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and mercury by setting a national cap on each pollutant.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by rlchurch

It addresses fossil fueled power plants. The vast majority of pollution come from coal fired power plants. Natural gas produces minor amounts of pollution and oil is not a significant power plant fuel. Interpret? I posted the EPA statement.

<sigh> Read again, are you that forgetful?

The Base Case includes all finalized EPA and state regulations that are expected to be in effect in 2010 and 2020. It includes such recent actions as the:
•
Title IV Acid Rain Program for controlling SO2 and NOx from electric generating units
•
NOx SIP Call
•
Tier 2 rule for new cars and light trucks
•
Heavy Duty Diesel truck rules for 2004 and 2007 covering new vehicles
•
Proposed Nonroad Diesel Vehicle Rule
•
Additional state regulatory requirements finalized by March 2003

I was wrong above it was page 6, so are we to accept what you say or what the report says?

Just to further illustrate my point let's look at the map provided in the report:




Note the giant red area covering most of Southern California, we can also note that most if not all of the red areas are major urban population centers. Having said that according to this site California has 10 coal plants that generate 439MW yet Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania have 282 generating about 65,000MW.

Existing U.S. Coal Plants - SourceWatch

Still solely blaming the coal plants? Texas is the third ranked state in the nation according to that link yet has no counties listed at all...

Lastly since your initial post was that coal is costing us $110 billion lets not forget to mention this little addendum:

$110 billion dollars in health benefits;

• An alternative estimate projects annual health benefits of $21 billion.1

So in fact the total cost benefits of the Clear Skies that covers many forms of pollution other than that produced by coal although significant could be much less than what you are stating. As I said above such numbers would be very hard to accurately predict and the report says much the same thing.

Now that you numbers and figures have been completely thrown out the window could we get back to discussing why I the taxpayer should be subsidizing your wind energy just so you can shove it in my face?

[rlchurch]

Are you not able to read? They benchmarked critical areas and analysed what would happen if pollution from power plants was reduced. The baseline include all pollution from all source. The alternative considered reduction in pollution fro power plants. What about that is difficult to understand?

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by rlchurch

Are you not able to read? They benchmarked critical areas and analysed what would happen if pollution from power plants was reduced. The baseline include all pollution from all source. The alternative considered reduction in pollution fro power plants. What about that is difficult to understand?

Incorrect again, if you're referring to Clear Skies as the alternative:

The Clear Skies Case includes the emissions from all other sectors projected with the Base Case as well as the projected emission reductions in SO2, NOx, and mercury that would be achieved by Clear Skies.

If you're referring to to the alternative estimates in cost savings it does not differentiate between the source but uses two different methods to a rrive at two vastly different figures :

1The two sets of estimates reflect alternative assumptions and analytical approaches regarding quantifying and evaluating the effects of airborne particles on public health. All estimates assume that particles are causally associated with health effects, and that all components have the same toxicity. Linear concentration-response relationships between PM and all health effects are assumed, indicating that reductions in PM have the same impact on health outcomes regardless of the absolute level of PM in a given location. The base estimate relies on estimates of the potential cumulative effect of long-term exposure to particles, while the alternative estimate presumes that PM effects are limited to those that accumulate over much shorter time periods. All such estimates are subject to a number of assumptions and uncertainties. It is of note that, based on recent preliminary findings from the Health Effects Institute, the magnitude of mortality from short-term exposure (alternative estimates) and hospital/ER admissions estimates (both estimates) may be overstated. The alternatives also use different approaches to value health effects damages. The key assumptions, uncertainties, and valuation methodologies underlying the approaches used to produce these results are detailed in Technical Addendum: Methodologies for Benefit Analysis of the Clear Skies Initiative, 2003. (PDF, 86 pp., 1.7MB)

[BIGBOB]

Quote:
Originally Posted by vec101
There is just one problem.... the electric still comes from Pepco lines so the power is intermingled with electric from various sources.

"Sorry I'm not going to go down this inane path with another nontechnical person. PJM says that it's fine."

I'll trudge down the path....

And everyone knows you can't mix all those electrons, I mean how would we sort them all out? Here's how it works...we use the PEPCO lines solely for transmission. We buy our energy from the Wind Farm. Just like you pay 2 charges on your home bill now, for distr. and consumption. Instead of both fees going to one company, they now will be directed to the proper provider. And now PEPCO has increased capacity because we now buy elsewhere.

Not that hard in practice. And yes, I have some direct experience in this very subject. Worked for 21 years at a water utility. The last 11 directly in the field of Energy Mgt.

They decided a couple years ago to purchase a large portion of our electrical needs from a wind farm in PA, who we signed a long term contract with.
Wind Power Trust me, this was all studied and scrutinized to the inth degree. We have to answer to two separate county govt's. This was projected to save AT LEAST 2 million a year for the next 10 years. I have actually seen first hand the elec. bill for our largest water treatment plant. During the summer at it's highest production the bill was 1 million a month. Yes you read it right. Now cut it by 30% Big dollars to be saved and with "green" power. All those pollutants gone.

And while I no longer work at WSSC, I'm still in the energy field. I left their employ to do the same thing that I did when I worked at WSSC. I'm working in the Chesapeake region as a Home Energy auditor. So I kind of keep my hand in whats happening with energy sources, distribution and rates.


Bob Dunn
Home Energy Auditor
Dunn's Energy

[my54ford]

Here's an interesting link or 2 regarding PJM and wind. They recognize it's imitations......and limited value. I'd wonder how much they're losing per month on a purchased power cost vs real time cost... It's probably a lot unless they hit customers with fuel adjustment clause....

http://www.nationalwind.org/pdf/SotkiewiczPaul.pdf

http://www.nationalwind.org/pdf/FreemanMike.pdf

Wind
•2009 projects in eastern PJM: $90-95/MWh
•2009 projects in Northern IL: $80-90/MWh
Solar
•Multi-crystalline PV: $350-400/MWh
•Thin film PV: $300-350/MWh
Landfill

•$75-85/MWh

http://www.pjm.com/Media/committees-...verability.pdf

http://www.nrel.gov/wind/systemsinte...city_value.pdf
[SIZE=3]pg 15 &16
In May 2008, PJM replaced the 20% capacity credit class average with 13%, based on the average capacity factor during the 3 – 7 p.m. hours from June through August for all wind
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=7][/SIZE][SIZE=6]
[/SIZE]

[AONE]

I think if we think there is one solution for everywhere we will miss the boat. some areas lend well for the windmill farms, most areas can do alright with the individual units, For those areas with onnly marginal wind we can ad solar power... ok so Seattle doesn't see the sun... but they do have some great tides and could use tidal energy. There are many green solutions that offer much more than the traditional coal plants and far more than nukes could ever hope to offer.

[GregW]

How many pumped hydroelectric plants and/or dispatchable straight hydro plants are located in West Virginia? Hydro seems to be a natural for a place that has both mountains and water. Use the wind to gather the energy and the hydro to store and dispatch it. Use the coal to hold up the mountains by leaving it in the ground instead of putting it into the air.

[vec101]

Reclaimed surfacr mine in WV
Reclaimed surface mine in WV, and guess what - there was no valley fill stream problem