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.
They have to turn off the turbines in stormy weather because so much power is generated by the turbines it can fire the electrical grid. Tell me have you ever heard of a coal or nuclear power plant generating so much power that it had to be turned off in order to prevent the electrical grid from frying? Nope thought not!
Wind turbines pay for themselves in 5 years? Says who? You?
Most people don't live on or very close to farms. Hello? Also, most people aren't farmers.
Did you look at the picture in the source you cited? Nice eh? What a view.
They turn off turbines in stormy weather because so much power in generated that it can fire the electrical grid? I can't stop laughing. Here is why according to your own source:
"Wind farms are often thought to be among the first generators chosen to be switched off because they are relatively easy to stop, by applying brakes to the turbines to halt their movement."
It has to do with the grid, not the wind turbines. They are paying wind turbine owners money that should be going into upgrading the electrical grid, not to heap on more money to wind turbine operators.
Did you read the story? It was about the money, not the efficiency of the wind turbines.
If everything was at it seems, they why aren't people paying less for electricity? Think about that for just a moment. If the wind turbines are so efficient and produce so much power, then why aren't the rates for electricity going down?
Last edited by Mack Knife; 05-09-2014 at 11:48 AM..
I looked up the NEW energy California brought on-line. 30% was wind and solar....but they needed 70% primarily natural gas to back up the new wind production.
Industrial wind areas do NOT make sense in rural areas.
IF they are so quiet and environmentally safe, put them in our cities and suburbs.
Actually, they make the most sense in rural areas, because the land under them can be used for other purposes, such as raising crops and livestock.
Basic engineering principles call for the the towers for three bladed HAWTs (Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines) to be as tall as possible, because the wind energy is higher off the ground. Wind power will come to cities, but in the form of VAWTs (Vertical Axis Wind Turbines) installed on top of tall buildings, where no tower is required. VAWTs are not yet as advanced as the HAWTs that are more familiar to the public, but several recent research advancements have brought them closer to broad distribution.
Wind turbines pay for themselves in 5 years? Says who? You?
Says industry figures, government figures, regulator's figures, public records. It's not hard to verify that the standard payback range for well sited industrial wind turbines is 4 - 6 years. It's not even remotely a debatable question at this stage of things.
Quote:
Did you look at the picture in the source you cited? Nice eh? What a view.
Personally I find modern wind turbines far more attractive than belching smokestacks, oil derricks, refineries or mountains with their tops bulldozed off to harvest the coal.
Quote:
They turn off turbines in stormy weather because so much power in generated that it can fire the electrical grid? I can't stop laughing. Here is why according to your own source:
"Wind farms are often thought to be among the first generators chosen to be switched off because they are relatively easy to stop, by applying brakes to the turbines to halt their movement."
It has to do with the grid, not the wind turbines. They are paying wind turbine owners money that should be going into upgrading the electrical grid, not to heap on more money to wind turbine operators.
Did you read the story? It was about the money, not the efficiency of the wind turbines.
Let's straighten out the twists and confusion in this tangle, shall we? The operating wind speed range for most commercial wind turbines today is approximately 10 - 50mph. Below the low end speed rating not enough electricity is produced to be efficient, although newer technology is pushing that limit lower and lower all the time. But wind power works by the cube of the speed, so when the wind speed doubles the energy is multiplied by 8X. Consequently the energy generated at 50 mph is 125X the energy generated at 10 mph, but so is the physical force exerted on the equipment. Past this point the equipment could be damaged, and the power could overload the grid, so the turbines are taken off-line until the windspeed drops. In some designs the blade angle is changed, an action called feathering, so that there is no rotational force generated. In other designs the blades are designed to flex to dump the excess energy until safe limits are reached again.
Quote:
If everything was at it seems, they why aren't people paying less for electricity? Think about that for just a moment. If the wind turbines are so efficient and produce so much power, then why aren't the rates for electricity going down?
It's simple economics. The dominant power supply sets the market price. (That would be legacy fossil fuel fired generators at present) The alternative producers get paid the same rate as the big boys. If it costs them more to produce the energy than the market rate they get paid, they lose money. If it costs less, they make money. In the early years wind energy costs exceeded the revenues produced, so various subsidies were/are required to balance the books. Recently the costs of production have dropped in some areas, enough that some alternative sources are profitable even without subsidy. But it's still a small enough segment that it doesn't affect the market rate yet. Over time it will.
and their energy source is endlessly renewable continues to drive growth in this segment of the US energy portfolio...
Renewables need one resource that is absolutely finite: land. Nothing is for free. If land is not endless then you can't have "endless" renewable energy.
Renewables need one resource that is absolutely finite: land. Nothing is for free. If land is not endless then you can't have "endless" renewable energy.
Silly argument. We have so much surplus land in this country that land is only an effective constraint for hydro power.
Silly argument. We have so much surplus land in this country that land is only an effective constraint for hydro power.
With an increasing population, increasing demands on productivity that requires more land use, there is no such thing as surplus land. It is a finite resource. Only those who see a use for land for their own agendas see that land as surplus and without regard for anyone else.
Originally Posted by DCforever
There is about 100 GW of nuclear capacity in this country and about 60 GW of wind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyRider
Interesting if true. Do you have a link?
If you read Post #1 in this thread, the article I quoted, using US Dept of Energy figures, gave a total US wind power capacity of 60 GW for 2012, projected to reach 77 GW by next year. That shows the rapid growth of this energy segment.
By Contrast, the nuclear energy capacity in the US has been essentially static for more than two decades, hovering around the 98-100 GW figure since 1990, peaking at 101.9 GW in 2012, and declining slightly to 99 GW in 2013, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute.
Originally Posted by HappyRider
Renewables need one resource that is absolutely finite: land. Nothing is for free. If land is not endless then you can't have "endless" renewable energy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever
Silly argument. We have so much surplus land in this country that land is only an effective constraint for hydro power.
In fact we could grow the renewable energy segment significantly without using much land at all if we simply made full use of existing rooftop "real estate" for solar panels and wind turbines. MIT figures show that the entire current energy needs of mankind could be met by harnessing only 1.5% of the sunlight that falls on earth. Effectively, if not literally, renewable energy is an endless resource.
I'm all for this, but just wait until someone figures out how to own it all, like the utility companies...or the beach...and then start charging you somehow.
but yes, I think that and solar is great, it's about time we put those rapist utility companies out of business....
and I believe nuclear energy will be our own demise if we continue....
where is all that waste going?
What about all the cancers?
See these are questions that people don't ask...just as long as they can flip a switch and turn on their lights, who cares, right?
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.
