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.
New Data (http://www.jmt.org/assets/pdf/wind-report.pdf - broken link) from the UK indicates that once again, alternative energy advocates are misinformed and/or ideologically driven when 'selling' the notion of common reliability for their pet ideas, in this case wind power. Just as many solar advocates claim that 'peak solar corresponds to peak demand' [WRONG: Solar noon power production peaks are 4 - 5 hours earlier than average peak summer demand], wind advocates say that 'the wind is always blowing somewhere' so to level off wind-inputs on the grid'. Wrong, too.
The study commissioned by the John Muir Trust, Britain's premier wildlands conservation charity found that:
Average output from wind in the UK was 27.18% of capacity in 2009, 21.14% in 2010, and 24.08% between November 2008 and December 2010 inclusive.
There were 124 occasions from November 2008 through December 2010 when total generation from the windfarms metered by National Grid was less than 20 MW from an average capacity of over 1,600 MW.
The average frequency and duration of a low wind event of 20 MW or less between November 2008 and December 2010 was once every 6.38 days for a period of 4.93 hours.
At each of the four highest peak demands of 2010 wind output was low being respectively 4.72%, 5.51%, 2.59% and 2.51% of capacity at peak demand.
The study's most startling conclusions were that:
The nature of wind output has been obscured by reliance on “average output” figures. Analysis of hard data from National Grid shows that wind behaves in a quite different manner from that suggested by the study of average output ... or from wind speed records which in themselves are averaged
It is clear from this analysis that wind cannot be relied upon to provide any significant level of generation at any defined time in the future. There is an urgent need to re-evaluate the implications of reliance on wind for any significant proportion of our energy. This only supports the need for added fossil fuel back-up plants when A/E capacity is tied to the grid, negating or even exacerbating GHG emissions overall. Without efficient battery storage technologies, pursuits like wind and solar are folly.
Ending all A/E and conventional fuel subsidies is about over-due. Let all fuels reach their true market costs and then let the private sector take a shot at what governments and subsidies are getting wrong. If today's Greens are going to maintain their paradigmatic ideology, they will end up obsolete like the foolish Reds before them.
The only A/E technology really worth it is solar hot water. One can make it and store it and use it cost-effectively with conventionally available technology and equipment. Without a subsidy.
Allthese alternatives remind me of Hitler and his miracle weapons to save the war as they it was already loss/ Neat inventions but would save the war or even win a abttle i it.
Alternative energy sources cannot drive consumer capitalist societies, period. All pinko, commie, treehugging, environmentalists & wanna be eco terrorists agreed upon this since the times immemorial.
I'm guessing, you are upset with Al Gorish liberal advocates of alternative energy, and, no, these folks are not "ideologically" driven. Their and your ideologies are quite similar, minuscule differences aside. Only in America, a ruling elite guy (yup that would be Al) is labeled "extreme leftists" for simple suggestion to plebians (naturally) to make eco friendly consumer & energy choices as an environmental cure it all. That was a system "shattering" message of Al Gore, an extreme American leftist, ladies and gentlemen. This country is so skewed to the right, it may capsize.
This article on Bonnville Power Authority's proposal to shut down the wind farms during spring runoff (when water levels are high) is interesting. A problem of too much power and BPA didn't want to drive down prices. They backed off of the unpopular proposal.
New Data (http://www.jmt.org/assets/pdf/wind-report.pdf - broken link) from the UK indicates that once again, alternative energy advocates are misinformed and/or ideologically driven when 'selling' the notion of common reliability for their pet ideas, in this case wind power. Just as many solar advocates claim that 'peak solar corresponds to peak demand' [WRONG: Solar noon power production peaks are 4 - 5 hours earlier than average peak summer demand], wind advocates say that 'the wind is always blowing somewhere' so to level off wind-inputs on the grid'. Wrong, too.
The study commissioned by the John Muir Trust, Britain's premier wildlands conservation charity found that:
Average output from wind in the UK was 27.18% of capacity in 2009, 21.14% in 2010, and 24.08% between November 2008 and December 2010 inclusive.
There were 124 occasions from November 2008 through December 2010 when total generation from the windfarms metered by National Grid was less than 20 MW from an average capacity of over 1,600 MW. The average frequency and duration of a low wind event of 20 MW or less between November 2008 and December 2010 was once every 6.38 days for a period of 4.93 hours.
At each of the four highest peak demands of 2010 wind output was low being respectively 4.72%, 5.51%, 2.59% and 2.51% of capacity at peak demand.
The study's most startling conclusions were that:
The nature of wind output has been obscured by reliance on “average output” figures. Analysis of hard data from National Grid shows that wind behaves in a quite different manner from that suggested by the study of average output ... or from wind speed records which in themselves are averaged
It is clear from this analysis that wind cannot be relied upon to provide any significant level of generation at any defined time in the future. There is an urgent need to re-evaluate the implications of reliance on wind for any significant proportion of our energy. This only supports the need for added fossil fuel back-up plants when A/E capacity is tied to the grid, negating or even exacerbating GHG emissions overall. Without efficient battery storage technologies, pursuits like wind and solar are folly.
Ending all A/E and conventional fuel subsidies is about over-due. Let all fuels reach their true market costs and then let the private sector take a shot at what governments and subsidies are getting wrong. If today's Greens are going to maintain their paradigmatic ideology, they will end up obsolete like the foolish Reds before them.
The only A/E technology really worth it is solar hot water. One can make it and store it and use it cost-effectively with conventionally available technology and equipment. Without a subsidy.
So during the surveyed period, one day a week for five hours the wind didn't create much power. Since there aren't many wind farms now, the author figures we should just forget about them and install more fossil fuel facilities...... Is that really what I am reading here?
So far I have not stumbled upon anything "scientific" proving once and for all that wind power is a net energy producer. It may well be that wind turbines are nothing but energy "accumulators" slowly releasing fossil energy spent to manufacture, transport, assemble & maintain them. Hint: most of wind towers & blades are made in China or Brazil etc., it takes enormous amount of fuel just to transport a wind mill, not speaking of manufacturing. Even if there is a net energy gain in wind, it's quite modest to brag about, not speaking of placing high hopes on.
Energy Input - Energy Output analysis is the weakest point of all alternative energy hoopla. I'm not an "expert" on energy alternatives, but I can easily come up with experiments on net energetic viability of biodiesel, ethanol, wind, etc.. Yet, nobody bothers, most prefer to pull numbers from their arses & get funded or just getting ecstatic about the bright future.
I'm all for alternative and renewable energy but do understand that if something isn't working, we've got to drop it and move on to the next. However, I'm not so sure if this is the case for wind energy yet...
Of course wind energy isn't really a do-able energy source. Ask the folks in the Netherlands how that worked out for them. I mean, if it had worked, they might have used it for hundreds of years instead of ..... hundreds of years. Of course they had the added problem of turning their houses when the wind changed direction, so I can see how any alternative might have been preferable. Holland.com : The Land Of The Windmills (http://us.holland.com/e/7779/The%20land%20of%20the%20windmills.php - broken link)
IMO the problem is that big business thinks wind should be big business. Huge wind turbines have several problems built in because of the scale of the project. Noise and frequency vibration come to mind immediately. Those problems are magnified when trying to create a "wind farm".
Wind on a personal scale is a different sort of thing altogether. The big problem there (which is why there are so many articles saying "It won't work") is there is no profit in it for business, once the original equipment is obtained.
It puts the consumer in direct control. You can have as much power as you are willing to be responsible for. When damage or breakdown happens, it's the consumer that has to do repairs, or do without.
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.
I mean, if it had worked, they might have used it for hundreds of years instead of ..... hundreds of years. Of course they had the added problem of turning their houses when the wind changed direction, so I can see how any alternative might have been preferable. Holland.com : The Land Of The Windmills (http://us.holland.com/e/7779/The%20land%20of%20the%20windmills.php - broken link)
