Why wouldn't you build wind turbines instead of nuclear plants?

You can build wind power at the rate you need it or at the rate you can afford it. You can build a megawatt or a gigawatt or anything in between.

You can locate wind power relatively close to the need it fulfills, costing less to transport.

You still have some NIMBYism to overcome, but public safety issues are relatively quite minimal.

Decommissioning can happen with a few well placed dynamite charges, at 7.00 on a Saturday morning, with an awe struck crowd nearby, cheering, oooo-ing and ah-ing.

The create local jobs from planning, through construction, trough operation, to decommissioning.

The fuel is forever free of charge.

The fuel disposes of itself immediately upon use, silently, and pollution-free.

You can build communal power generation schemes or you can locate small versions on individual rooftops.




Wind .... what's not to like?

if we leave VietNam, the Philippines will be the next domino to fall, or something.....

...so they make out either way.

At that cost, individual housing developments can afford to put a few up. Surely local governments can. Even if they build one or two megawatts a year for the next twenty years, it is a positive step in the right direction.

If the corporations can't charge us for it, where does that leave us? Free to do what we want, that's where! Fuck that! We can't allow people to actually have a choice.

http://windspireenergy.com/

"The 1.2 kW Windspire will produce approximately 2000 kilowatt hours per year in 12 mile per hour average winds while the included internal wireless modem can continuously transmit power production information directly to your computer so you can check your power production at any time.

The 1.2 kW Windspire is available now for around USD$5,000 installed," http://www.gizmag.com/windspire-low-cost-wind-power-alternative/10861/



"The blades are not propellers and are attached to two circular bars at the bottom and the top. The blades turn around a central axis that collects the energy generated.

One of the other great aspects of the 1.2 KW Windspire is its price: $4,995 (essentially $5,000) which is tens of thousands less than you would pay for solar power. The Windspire also “comes complete with a high efficiency generator, integrated inverter, hinged monopole, and wireless performance monitor.”

The 1.2 KW Windspire should be able to generate 1/3 to 1/2 a typical homes energy needs. The new 3 KW version that is on its way should provide the entire needs of most households.

It also comes “plug ‘n play” ready. You get your local installer to set it up (you must provide the concrete for the foundation) and then plug it into the house and start harvesting the energy. At 12 mph winds, you should get about 2,000 kilowatts of power. The Windspire will work in winds up to 100 mph.

The Windspire is quiet and turns slow enough that birds can see the blades to avoid them. Unlike other wind turbines, birds could actually perch on the top circular rail should they want a short merry-go-round ride. All kidding aside, this is one of the safest wind turbines made."

http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2008/08/20/windspire-is-the-affordable-home-wind-turbine/

seen the land the wind turbines require for a relatively small amount of power?

It's a very rare day that we don't have wind. Most days we get a lot of wind. There is a large wind turbine (looks like a giant windmill) really quite beautiful, down by Pueblo and that thing looks to be 2 or 3 stories tall from the highway.

the West Virginia mountains. There was a line of turbines stretching miles across the mountain tops. First of all they ruin the landscape. In order to build them they had to make a road across the mountain top. I would say less than 1/4 of them was even turning. I stopped by one near the road that was actually turning and they make noise, I certainly wouldn't want to live within a 1/4 mile of one. Then if you consider how many of them there were and how much scenery they ruin just how much power do they actually make. Does a line of them 5 miles long even produce enough electricity to power a small town? Then on the other side of the argument I saw a mountain top mining site, what a mess, I am amazed the citizens of West Virginia would permit such destruction of their land. The only sadder sight I ever saw was a mining area in Colorado where miles and miles of mountains were leveled. I believe it was a molybdenum mine.

problem with them. We even have 3 on the family farm. No noise problem at all.

But they are certainly better than nukes.

And even though the investment in wind was down in 2010, I still see a lot of gigantic wind-turbine blades on outsized trucks heading up I35 from Texas. Sometimes hard to pass, but I still cheer each and every one.

For farms just the size they need for a community or the size they can muster the finance.
Or dare I say it? why not install them as public (i.e. nationalized) assets?
By what law of nature is it necessary, that energy generation for the needs of the people must generate private profit?
From Deepwater Horizon to Fukushima the private business has done us nothing good.

What`s your problem? That corporations potentially could be left out of the picture?
Since you're a nukes guy/gal maybe it irks you that the different needs for the grid will put nukes out of business.

They haven't.

Wind farms will be owned by the very same companies that own other power generation.

"Or dare I say it? why not install them as public (i.e. nationalized) assets?"
That doesn't have anything to do with wind. The US could nationalize coal plants, natural gas turbines, hydro plants, and nuclear reactors too.

I was just pointing out the idea that wind is sticking it to the corporations is silly. Many wind farms run into the billions of dollars.

Also, they do poorly on or near structures.
Also, it's difficult to manage a grid with variable inputs that come from turbines and solar.
Also, the impacts are mostly on the manufacturing and installation side.

These are things we can choose to live with, of course.

Santa Barbara has survived with *this* seascape. They have several of these. Windmills are far less intrusive.

No kidding. Somehow a windmill is "ugly," but we can look at these things no problem.

People are stupid.

No permanent damage.

beach, too. Old tech. Time for new tech.

We wouldn't want to burn the things down! lol

:shrug:

was the wind farm we passed as we got close to San Angelo. The wind is pretty much a constant here.

...of mounting a wind turbine horizontally along their rooflines? It would sure work at my house, where the wind blows alot, and the dozen or so turbines I can see from my front porch attest to that.

They seem like nice neighbors to me. I've not heard any stories about dead birds, although I did see a pheasant killed along the side road yesterday. I can't hear them, but that could be me.

There remains a raging controversy over whether they are clean, efficient, local, free sources of energy, or they are giant monsters installed by Satan and his librul army.

They cost money (and resources) to build, install, and maintain. The fact that the wind is "free" is kind of beside the point, in my opinion.

The wind-turbine noise, opinions seem to differ on. As with lots of things, distance is always your friend. Bird casualties seems like a location-dependent thing. I predict we'll learn more about that when we build more of them.

My view on wind is, it comes with problems and impacts that are apples/oranges, relative to more conventional energy sources. I think calling it "free" and/or "clean" is a mistake: it sets up unreasonable expectations.

It may be that we choose to go down that road and make it work.

If you want "free" power on home solar is a far better solution.

It's just not viable unless some corporate monopoly profits.
I would like to add the :sarcasm: thingy, unfortunately this is far closer to the truth.

very large country. Wind Turbines will not provide
enough energy.

Just being the Devil's advocate.

one big answer, it's about a lot of little answers working together!

Wind is likely the easiest and most universally applicable, but off shore tidal energy, geothermal where that's appropriate, solar in the (duh!) Sun Belt. Locally appropriate alternative energy is the answer.

filled with wind turbines.

And that wind power isn't scalable?

I vote for wind turbines.

Real Men Drive Plutonium Powered 4 Wheel Drive Trucks, With Radioactive Truck Nutz™.

...like smashing atoms.

I definitely think wind, geothermal and solar are worth pursuing and pursuing on a large scale. But to answer your question, wind is diffuse and in any one place unreliable. It is more of a national system than a power plant. To generate a lot of power off a turbine and generator, you need to move a lot of fluid through a small space quickly and continuously. It can be natural kenetics like hydroelectric, or you can make the water hot by burning something or by nuclear fission. There is more energy in wind and sunshine than there is in a nuclear reactor, but it is too spread out to collect easily. Through technical advances we are slowly getting past these problems. Still, I doubt these passive energy sources will ever be as efficient at producing electricity as nuclear power.

And IMO they are kind of cool looking!

I actually LOVE the looks of them too. They have a calming effect on me. :)

I suppose we don't build them because it's a Bleeding heart Liberal, tree hugging, commie pinko, hippie idea? Just a guess though.:(

but I would venture that once established, MUCH less costly than coal fired plants, or nuclear plants.

have you ever talked to someone who lives next to one?
They are noisy and the shadow they cast as the blade spins can drive you crazy.

http://windspireenergy.com/

snip...

They have the power to provide clean, renewable energy. They have the power to run silently. They have the power to lower your energy bill. But most of all, they have the power to inspire. Windspire vertical wind turbines. Changing the world… one revolution at a time.™

and with less flicker?


flicker http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbIe0iUtelQ

Noise http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyOImGHyJtQ

And yet, some of the same people who are opposed to nuclear power generation also oppose wind farms and large solar installations. Go figure. Some people, apparently, oppose the use of power generation of all types. They post all the time, using their computers, powered by some ethereal source of energy, I guess. Some won't be satisfied until we're all living in unheated hovels.

Seriously, you seem more interested in slamming people who are for a responsible way of energy generation, no matter what.

Remember how you schooled those anti nuke hippies, that the pumps and pipes at Fukushima would be fine? "Strong stuff". Those tech-averse nosayers. Seems they are more important to you then the respective issue at hand.
Come on, I'm tired of this condescending shit.
btw: the pumps were not fine.

And now you pop up in alternative energy discussions, advocating for megaprojects without proper risk assessment?
Talk about being consistent.
What`s the problem introducing new technologies with caution? The charm of solar and to a smaller degree wind energy is precisely, that they don't necessarily require megainstallations (i.e. mega-corporation-owned).

There is no reason, not to choose windturbine locations carefully. There is no need to put them just in the way of migrating birds.
And there is no need to put solar parks in native American land or (even worse) in their religious sites. Put them elsewhere. Cover all your walmarts, parking lots and individual roofs with panels.

But what seems to irk you is the anti corporate mindset of the people you criticize.

nuclear power generation since 1959. But, thanks for asking.

For one thing, you can't put them just anywhere. They don't make economic sense unless they're in an area with good wind profiles and those areas are typically in the midwest or offshore. These areas usually far from the electric load centers so transmission IS a problem and in some parts of the country (e.g. Texas and Michigan) it can be a big problem. You need a lot of land for a wind farm - a modest 100 MW wind farm (onshore) would need about 4000 - 5000 acres. The setbacks are generally significant 1000 - 1500 feet is typical because noise and flicker are a serious concern to the neighbors. That's not to mention the fact that these turbines are set on towers 80 - 100 meters high with blades that are 70 - 80 meters long. The blades can break in a high wind and the towers do sometimes collapse. I would want not to live close to one.

Wind is not without environmental impacts. Wind turbines kill many thousands of birds and bats each year. I'm in the wind power business and I still think they look like shit.

You can't store wind energy, which means that when the wind stops blowing, you need to have another form of generation (usually combustion turbines) ready to take up the slack. Too much wind (or solar) on the grid can cause stability problems because the variable nature of wind and sunshine can make it hard for the system operators to maintain stable voltages.

Wind turbines need maintenance and that isn't cheap. All-in, a modern wind farm might be able to deliver energy, when the wind is blowing, at about $45 per mega-watt hour. A modern, gas fired power plant can do it cheaper than that, plus you can turn the plant on and off when you want and control the output

All that said, I do think there is a place for wind and solar in our future, but they are not going to replace coal, gas and nuclear as our mainstay energy source. The most optimistic projections I've seen have renewables supplying about 20% of our needs in about 30 years. Currently, renewables are in the 8% range.

Sorry to shit in the punch bowl, but your post needed a serious reality check. I do like renewable energy, but it has limitations that need to be recognized and the failure to do that will lead to a poor energy policy in the long run.

You make a cogent argument.

:)

No seriously thanks.

Wind needs to and will be part of the future energy solution but the idea that we will power 100% of the country of variable non-dispatchable power sources (wind, solar, tidal, etc) is a pipe dream. Even the wind energy association thinks 20% wind power by 2030 is a significant goal and it may take longer than that. If we get to 20% wind by 2030 and shut down nuclear than wind simply filled the nuclear hole and we are back to burning more fossil fuels than ever before.

Some are somewhat outdated. They are not as old as John McCain but they`ve been around for a while.

They were designed, to stall the development of alternative energy-sources. But somehow that didn't work, although the process was slowed down.
There was no need, to be still at 8% now (if your numbers are correct). Could easily be at 20 or more today had the money (wars to secure the oil, tax breaks for oil companies, subsidies for nukes, clean up after disasters...) gone to r&d for alternative sources.

Electric power has been my career (28 years). I've developed both renewable projects and conventional generation projects and I'm working on a 150 MW wind farm on the Texas Gulf Coast right now. I've managed operating plants and I've dealt with system operators. I know what problems are real, what's being done to solve them and what's bullshit. Speaking of bullshit, there is an awful lot of it posted on DU about the electric power business by people who know nothing about it.

Your opinion is an informed one because....?

Sid

not futuristic any more.

Wind farming is becoming a reality.

here.


Jk. There are a lot of limiting factors that others have pointed out. It's not as simple as building say a new coal plant.

"Blow Me."

n/t

More than 4X nuclear? :shrug:

Of course, the kicker is the "Variable O&M (including fuel).

It's zero, zilch, nada, for wind and solar. :P

:patriot: