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.
Yes it is truly sad that those within the scientific community pushing this agenda the most can't let their work stand or fall on it's own merits but instead have to rely on tactics like commandeering a widely used resource and tweaking it to represent their own view.
Evidently Europe is finding out just how costly wind turbines are...
Good find; interesting to read the unintended consequences of "green" energy. The key seems to be in the ability to store energy. Carbon based fuels seem to allow greater long-term storage while other forms of energy do not at this time.
Evidently Europe is finding out just how costly wind turbines are...
I found this part most interesting...
A spokesman for RenewableUK, the trade body which represents the renewable energy industry, said all suppliers to the National Grid periodically were asked to reduce output to control the balancing mechanism. He said it was simply evidence of the growing part wind energy had to play in Britain's supply needs that turbines would occasionally be taken off the National Grid. He added: "REF exists to misrepresent any piece of information and turn it into a scandal or crisis. The reality is the National Grid's job is to ensure we have adequate capacity to meet demand at any one time."
At least wind power cannot destroy an entire coast, eco system and its wildlife. Working the kinks out of any renewable energy technology is certainly worth the end result.
imho - We really should replace ALL the fossil fueled electric power plants with government owned and operated nuclear fission facilities with a full fuel recycle system. This should be done ASAP regardless of the monetary cost. Once we have the base load on a power system breeding more fuel than it consumes we can then install as much hydroelectric, wind and solar as we want.
Then we can work on electrifying and expanding rail transport to eliminate fossil fuel using interstate trucking along with a system if very high speed rail passenger trains to replace airplanes on trips under 1,000 miles.
Then we can tackle replacing the oil driven automobile fleet with a less polluting technology.
It is not cheep to make power from wind. I am sure everyone has heard about the dust up around the Cape Cod area were they are trying to build large wind turbines off sure. The Kennedy clan, huge Eco-Freaks are against it because they don’t want to ruin their view.
But digging a little deeper you find the average cost per Kilowatt is around .10 per KW for the USA, however the Cape Code Wind farm rates will be .21 per KW by 2013.
Beyond that Wind has other very serious problems. This link points some of them out.
80% of harvestable wind is very far removed from 70% of the energy demand. That means in addition to the billions needed to build wind farms, many more billions will be needed to create transmission lines to send the electricity over those distances.
Wind doesn’t generally blow on the hottest or coldest days when demand is high. Wind generally blows on days when it is more moderate when demand is lower.
Wind blows more at night than in the daytime. Again, demand is lower at night.
Beyond these problems are other issues related to both wind and Solar. Due to the distances involved, there is talk that a new grid would have to be developed. We would need a High Voltage Direct Current grid (possibly). This would cost in the Trillions (with a “T”)
We have not even gotten into the environmental impact to birds and bats. Wind Turbines kill birds and bats at an alarming rate.
A spokesman for RenewableUK, the trade body which represents the renewable energy industry, said all suppliers to the National Grid periodically were asked to reduce output to control the balancing mechanism. He said it was simply evidence of the growing part wind energy had to play in Britain's supply needs that turbines would occasionally be taken off the National Grid. He added: "REF exists to misrepresent any piece of information and turn it into a scandal or crisis. The reality is the National Grid's job is to ensure we have adequate capacity to meet demand at any one time."
At least wind power cannot destroy an entire coast, eco system and its wildlife. Working the kinks out of any renewable energy technology is certainly worth the end result.
But until that time the limitations need to be fully understood. It is a matter of opinion whether windpower can destroy an entire coast or wildlife. There are plenty of Canadians that believe the massive windfarms along the St. Lawrence river has indeed ruined it visually. Commercial wind farms placed in migratory pathways have killed significant numbers of birds. It is simply irresponsible and disinjenous to pretend that currently available "green" technology has little/no impact on the environment or upon the well being of the lives of people nearby these energy production fields.
I'd love to install a PVC array and have a small wind generator. However I am less than pleased about the cost vs. payback period, the relative inefficiency of energy conversion during production, and the potential danger to the birds and bats I enjoy watching. If "CAP & TAX along with a "smart grid" are put in placed by the federal government and the corporate oligarchy with which it is in bed, I will no doubt be motivated to go off-grid for my own sake of freedom and personal energy independence.
Good find; interesting to read the unintended consequences of "green" energy. The key seems to be in the ability to store energy. Carbon based fuels seem to allow greater long-term storage while other forms of energy do not at this time.
You are exactly right. Nothing comes close.
Now geo-thermal is good but limited because of its location.
Hydro has good potental and has been used for year, but the environmental impact is HUGE.
Nope..not viable for what they want to use it for. Good locally, like for your own home, but I cannot see it powering cities.
Not necessarily. A combination of various technologies is the future. Germany, for example, has had a steady supply of nuclear energy (about 21K MW-h), and most of its energy comes from Thermal (which has seen reduction as renewables have caught up).
Solar energy production in Germany was just 76 MW in 2000, which is now at about 8.9K MW* (2009). Hydro is another supplemental energy source. The biggest growth is going to be in the renewables, considering the challenges all around, except, may be, if fusion technology is perfected.
Also worth noting is that Germany is not the best location for solar power but still meets a hefty chunk of its energy requirement with it. And as solar technology progresses, it will only have a greater impact.
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.
