Futility of Wind Power (pump, install, climate, research)
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.
This is just factually incorrect. Wind and solar are cheaper than new nuclear and coal. They are even cheaper than legacy coal in many areas. Storage claims are red herring by people with no technical knowledge. We have utilities with >25% wind in their current mix. No one will move to 100% in any technology, that's poor diversification.
You mean like the people at MIT and Argonne National Lab?
Quote:
They concluded that coupling battery storage with renewable plants is a “weak substitute” for large, flexible coal or natural-gas combined-cycle plants, the type that can be tapped at any time, run continuously, and vary output levels to meet shifting demand throughout the day. Not only is lithium-ion technology too expensive for this role, but limited battery life means it’s not well suited to filling gaps during the days, weeks, and even months when wind and solar generation flags.
Getting to a very high level of wind and solar in a particular area may strain the system. IMO California should not be attempting to get to 100% renewables in the short term. Using simple cycle gas turbines for spinning reserve and ancillary services makes a lot of sense. Getting the bulk energy from renewables is the smartest approach. California also needs to improve its transmission system. That will enhance the value of installed renewables.
Until we realize a massive breakthrough in truly massive batteries, green energy can only supplement the existing grid. Wind energy costs about twice as much as traditional energy. Solar about 5 times due to the costs of installing the equipment.
Your data seems out of date. Both solar and wind are much cheaper now. Are you considering the unsubsidized TCO?
It's sad how politicized technology has become. Did they argue like this going from wood to coal? What made more sense won.
The transition from wood to coal didn't generate much protest because by the time it happened most of Europe's forests had been wiped out and no significant industries were harmed. That's not true of the transition from fossil fuels to renewables; the former industries still have plenty of money to spend on resisting the transition for as long as possible. Doing so maximizes the profits of their stockholders.
The modern wood industry has learned its lesson and is now based on renewable approaches.
As an engineer with multiple degrees from different fields of engineering, I need to point out that common knowledge in one discipline (e.g. mechanical engineering) does not mean that it is also common in another discipline of engineering (e.g. environmental engineering, computer engineering, etc).
Do those studies include an environmental impact assessment?
For example, back in the 60s the engineering "experts" for the US Army Lab at Fort Detrick, MD insisted Agent Orange was safe and affected only plants. But they were wrong.
What went wrong? The engineering "experts" at the US Army Lab failed to do an environmental impact assessment. Hence, Agent Orange did massive damage to the health of soldiers and civilians. https://www.wvxu.org/post/generation...m-war#stream/0
So, the study is likely limited in scope to only the specialty of engineering knowledge pertinent to the authors.
As an engineer with multiple degrees from different fields of engineering, I need to point out that common knowledge in one discipline (e.g. mechanical engineering) does not mean that it is also common in another discipline of engineering (e.g. environmental engineering, computer engineering, etc).
Do those studies include an environmental impact assessment?
For example, back in the 60s the engineering "experts" for the US Army Lab at Fort Detrick, MD insisted Agent Orange was safe and affected only plants. But they were wrong.
What went wrong? The engineering "experts" at the US Army Lab failed to do an environmental impact assessment. Hence, Agent Orange did massive damage to the health of soldiers and civilians. https://www.wvxu.org/post/generation...m-war#stream/0
So, the study is likely limited in scope to only the specialty of engineering knowledge pertinent to the authors.
Actually the study looked at California trying to reach 100 renewables based primarily on California based wind and solar.
There are seasonal variation in wind and solar that make that level economically challenging. The study authors really didn't explore other alternatives such as out of state power, which is how California gets virtually all of its coal derived electricity today. Nor do I see an expansion of California's geothermal resource. What we have learned historically is that good engineers are creative and will find acceptable solution unknown to naysayers.
At around $3 million a turbine and a mile apart, it's gonna be some expensive electricity, but it is "green."
Actually there were three turbines (that could be seen from the highway) that failed on the South High Plains in June, two were simply blown down ("spilled" over) and one burned.
Next to increase wind generated energy, they will want electric wind machines to turn the wind turbines when the wind doesn't blow.
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.
