Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Marketwatch)   Google invests $100M in massive wind farm. The farm will be located under Larry King's desk   (marketwatch.com ) divider line 57
    More: Cool, Google, wind farms, Southern California Edison, green business, host computers  
•       •       •

5096 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Apr 2011 at 6:59 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



57 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-04-18 05:58:17 PM  
They'd get more power if it were under Trump's combover
 
2011-04-18 07:00:58 PM  

cretinbob: They'd get more power if it were under Trump's combover


Oprah's vagina
 
2011-04-18 07:02:49 PM  
It might be more effective in the vicinity of Taco Bell
 
2011-04-18 07:02:58 PM  
[insert well known adult star's screen name here]'s vagina.
 
2011-04-18 07:03:47 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: cretinbob: They'd get more power if it were under Trump's combover

Oprah's vagina


Rush Limbaugh's piehole?
 
2011-04-18 07:03:53 PM  
Headline might have been funny if Larry King wasn't retired.

/doubt it
 
2011-04-18 07:03:56 PM  

Flragnararch: [insert well known adult star's screen name here]'s vagina.


That one lady who lets bald dudes oil up their heads and stick them all the way in her vag
 
2011-04-18 07:07:40 PM  
Ah, bird shredders. Love them.
 
2011-04-18 07:08:03 PM  
Google invests $100M in massive wind farm. The farm will be located under Larry King's desk in Rush Limbaugh's mouth
 
2011-04-18 07:08:48 PM  
They're placing a wind farm on Conan's stage?
 
2011-04-18 07:09:09 PM  
http://webecoist.com/2009/05/04/10-abandoned-renewable-energy-plants/
Go here before you wreck yourself
 
2011-04-18 07:16:23 PM  

modest22: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: cretinbob: They'd get more power if it were under Trump's combover

Oprah's vagina

Rush Limbaugh's piehole?


Katie Couric's colon?
 
2011-04-18 07:16:48 PM  
How come they don't add lighting rods to the top of those windmills and a series of strong resisters to downgrade the current to usable levels? That would increase the potential energy each mill has.
 
2011-04-18 07:21:23 PM  

lordlight: How come they don't add lighting rods to the top of those windmills and a series of strong resisters to downgrade the current to usable levels? That would increase the potential energy each mill has.


Because it irritates the mole people. And let's face it, we;re on thin ice with them as it is.
 
2011-04-18 07:23:32 PM  
But they are selling Oregon wind power to southern California, what a bunch of turds.
 
2011-04-18 07:32:11 PM  
Tyr Energy lists ONE job on their website.

LOLAmerica!
 
2011-04-18 07:35:16 PM  

RaceDTruck: It might be more effective in the vicinity of Taco Bell your pants!




2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2011-04-18 07:42:21 PM  
If that was their entire PR/marketing budget then I wouldn't think it so stupid. There is a reason why companies don't stray from their core competancies the way Google does. This is not to say that they shouldn't be using their profits to search for alternative revenue streams. It is to say that they might be just as well off trying their hand at minning or fast food franchises.
 
2011-04-18 07:55:08 PM  
if they were smart they'd build it next to my ass based on the Mexican I'd had last night...
 
2011-04-18 08:12:11 PM  
lh6.googleusercontent.com
 
2011-04-18 08:17:59 PM  
There once was a comp'ny called Google
Who got rich, they don't have to be frugal
They said, "we won't be chagrined
"If we buy up the wind
"To shield from the Oil Baron's cudgel"
 
2011-04-18 08:20:04 PM  
Clever headline, guy-who-doesn't-seem-to-know-he-retired-and-is-doing-stand-up-which-doesn't-invo lve-a-desk-mitter.
 
2011-04-18 08:22:28 PM  
Total power is advertised at 845 Mw. and total cost is $1.3 billion, guaranteed by gov't loan.

Just another welfare for the wealthy project.

Cheap advertising for google though.

\\\ they want a wind farm, let them pay for it themselves. They don't need my money.
 
2011-04-18 08:25:40 PM  
Is wind energy actually cost effective (when you take away government tax breaks and such)?

I really don't know much about it, and my father-in-law was telling me that they're only cost effective because of tax breaks and other government incentives. He said that if you take away all that, then they cost more to build and upkeep then the monetary value they provide.

He's also not known for being right all the time, so I took it with a grain of salt.
 
2011-04-18 08:29:10 PM  
Wind might have a large start up cost, but it is mostly clean and also last for quite some time. I think this is a good step in the right direction.
 
2011-04-18 08:35:58 PM  
This, like everything else they do that is intelligent, will cause their stock price to drop due to investor disappointment over the effect of spending on profits.

After it is making a huge profit itself, the investors will be looking at forecasts that assume Google will not be investing those profits in yet additional profitable ventures, and probably be disappointed again.

They don't learn
 
2011-04-18 08:52:26 PM  

mgshamster: Is wind energy actually cost effective (when you take away government tax breaks and such)?

I really don't know much about it, and my father-in-law was telling me that they're only cost effective because of tax breaks and other government incentives. He said that if you take away all that, then they cost more to build and upkeep then the monetary value they provide.

He's also not known for being right all the time, so I took it with a grain of salt.


I've heard that too. But don't have any trustworthy sources to verify/debunk that.
 
2011-04-18 08:58:34 PM  
Google: We hate bats!
 
2011-04-18 09:03:23 PM  
"One time, my 4th wife suggested that they use my farts to generate emergency power for western South Carolina during the great blackout of '78. I Dutch Ovened her for even suggesting it.....

Saginaw! You're on Larry King Live!"

/LKG'd
 
2011-04-18 09:07:06 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: modest22: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: cretinbob: They'd get more power if it were under Trump's combover

Oprah's vagina

Rush Limbaugh's piehole?

Katie Couric's colon?


Ah, the old catharto-electric plug.
 
2011-04-18 09:24:01 PM  

mgshamster: Is wind energy actually cost effective (when you take away government tax breaks and such)?

I really don't know much about it, and my father-in-law was telling me that they're only cost effective because of tax breaks and other government incentives. He said that if you take away all that, then they cost more to build and upkeep then the monetary value they provide.

He's also not known for being right all the time, so I took it with a grain of salt.


In the right location and with easy transmission to consumers it is effective. However, it is not a consistent source. You turn a nuclear reactor on and it runs at 100% until a few years go by and it is time to change the fuel rods. So it is a cost effective source, but it cannot be depended on too much or a massive high pressure front that stalls over the midwest might brown-out some communities that can't access enough remote power from long distance transmission lines.

An ideal mix would be 1/3 nuclear, 1/3 coal, 1/3 wind/solar, and 1/3 natural gas. That provides plenty of power (30% headroom) and during off peak or breezy times the gas plants turn off (they cost a bundle to operate) as do many coal turbines. If the wind stops cold, gas turbines can get you through the day.
 
2011-04-18 09:26:23 PM  
$1.4 billion for between zero and 850 megawatts of unreliable energy (wind and weather permitting.) What a bargain!
 
2011-04-18 09:31:34 PM  

lordlight: How come they don't add lighting rods to the top of those windmills and a series of strong resisters to downgrade the current to usable levels? That would increase the potential energy each mill has.


Umm, ohh, what..., don't get, huh... okay...
 
2011-04-18 09:34:29 PM  

olddinosaur: Total power is advertised at 845 Mw. and total cost is $1.3 billion, guaranteed by gov't loan.

Just another welfare for the wealthy project.

Cheap advertising for google though.

\\\ they want a wind farm, let them pay for it themselves. They don't need my money.


Amen. Cash in a few farking shares. Shouldn't take more than a couple thou at current prices.

Also...

Drove to Chicago last week up thru northern Indiana. The wind farm there straddling I-65 is pretty damn freaky. Like War of the Worlds come to life. Impressive shiat.
 
2011-04-18 09:34:38 PM  

Lt. Col. Angus: Tyr Energy lists ONE job on their website.

LOLAmerica!


We were told the money would be used to create jobs, they didn't say how many a billion dollars would create.
 
2011-04-18 10:09:14 PM  
Current wind turbines are a big step up from 1990 technologies that literally fell apart from high intensity wind gusts, killed bats and birds, looked ugly and were placed in otherwise scenic locations that people actually liked to look at.

However the Google investment and the location selected is off of the Atlantic Costal Ridge 40 miles away from the mainland, uses 5.5 MW towers (20 times as effective as those broken ones in California)so less actual turns, can survive 175 MPH winds, don't have gearboxes and instead generate electricity through electromagnetisim, so there are no "moving parts" to break down internally. They rotate slower so that they are 1/300th as likely to impact seabirds and are well out of the way to impact bat populations. They are also just the first of four installations of an Atlantic Wind Connection development plan detailed in Popular Science that will, when installation begins in 2015, will replace the need for 10 Coal fired powerplants as well as stablizing the power grid on the east coast, as there will be sufficient wind generations at 1 or 2 of the 4 installations constantly.

So the project will be invisible (over the horizon), have low maintainence, high power delivery capacity, low impact on wildlife and reduce reliance on coal power. All the things that were promised us 40 years ago, and it is being run by Transelect.

With a lifetime expectancy of 50 years, before replacement, the cpkwh is expected to be 8.5 cents/KW/H deliverable compared to coals 18 cents/KW/H deliverable when matched 1$ per dollar in subsidies rebates and other cost offsets.
 
2011-04-18 10:16:55 PM  
madgonad Quote 2011-04-18 09:24:01 PM

An ideal mix would be 1/3 nuclear, 1/3 coal, 1/3 wind/solar, and 1/3 natural gas. That provides plenty of power (30% headroom) and during off peak or breezy times the gas plants turn off (they cost a bundle to operate) as do many coal turbines. If the wind stops cold, gas turbines can get you through the day.


>>>

Nothing that has gas and coal in a mix is called ideal.
 
2011-04-18 10:18:01 PM  

modest22: Rush Limbaugh's piehole?


We simply at this point, do not have the technology to safely harness the wind from Rush Limbaugh's pie hole.

mgshamster: Is wind energy actually cost effective (when you take away government tax breaks and such)?


The short answer is no. The longer answer is no form of energy is cost effective without government tax breaks or the ability to otherwise externalize costs.

Coal, Natural Gas Oil, limited supplies and if you beleive the hippies emits CO2 which will bake us.

Nuclear. Requires government loan guarantees and insurance just to be built. Also huge unfunded liabilities related to decommissioning and spent fuel storage. Uranium mining is nasty business.

Hydro-electric. Environmental issues related to dams. Safety issues related to dam failure. And we've damn well dammed everything that can be dammed to produce power.

Geo-thermal. Works but only limited amounts available.
 
2011-04-18 10:21:01 PM  
Acravius:

OK, that all was interesting but how do older wind generators avoid "electromagnetisim".
 
2011-04-18 10:21:37 PM  
Acravius

the cpkwh is expected to be 8.5 cents/KW/H deliverable compared to coals 18 cents/KW/H

I'm confused by this. My bill says $0.067 per kWh.

(Yes, I get it that it varies all by whurr ya live).

What are these numbers based on? Whose cost is that? Where?
 
2011-04-18 10:39:34 PM  
jaytkay - older wind turbines used mechanical gear boxes to drive the turbines. these were used to mainatin an even flow of power over time. the new onese use the aerodynamics of the blade to maintain even turning momentum with the shaft directly between the electromagnetic turbine array. Since there is no intermediary gearbox, no oil is needed and there is no chance of a gearbox failure that could endup with a catastrophic disentegration of the wind tower.

eyeyeye I don't know where you live, but where I live it is 0.043 per KW/H, but that is with 50 years of established cost and maintenance.

The numbers I had were slightly different from a different calculation but this references future wind installations at 7 cents and 17.8 cents for coal
http://www.udel.edu/udaily/2011/mar/wind-energy-kempton-031811.html
 
2011-04-18 10:40:50 PM  

jaytkay: Acravius:

OK, that all was interesting but how do older wind generators avoid "electromagnetisim".


I don't know for sure and I'm not going to bother to look it up, but my guess is that they use direct drive generators vs. older mechanically driven models. Direct drive motors/generators work via magnetism and don't require high-maintenance, easily broken mechanical linkages. The only thing that fails on a direct drive motor under normal use are the bearings, and you can spec bearings to last a ridiculously long time.
 
2011-04-18 10:58:17 PM  

ThunderPelvis: Direct drive motors/generators work via magnetism


As opposed to motors/generators which work without magnetism?

??
 
2011-04-18 11:15:35 PM  

hjy6: http://webecoist.com/2009/05/04/10-abandoned-renewable-energy-plants/
Go here before you wreck yourself


Newsflash: Test installations are eventually dismantled.

My family used to live in Papua New Guinea, far from any electrical source. On our roof were 9 panels from the ARCO test field in that article
 
2011-04-18 11:16:40 PM  
Aw, my CSB tags were deleted. I should have put them as:

[CSB]
My family used to live in Papua New Guinea, far from any electrical source. On our roof were 9 panels from the ARCO test field in that article
[/CSB]
 
2011-04-18 11:20:33 PM  
Both the older versions and the new versions obviously rely on the standard effect of electromagnetic field flux to generate a current.

The old ones were mechanically attached to the turning blade via a gearbox mechanism. These were prone to seizing up if they turned to fast or weren't properly maintained. Once the gearbox broke down the blades couldn't turn, but the wind was still pushing them and often resulted in breaking blades or destroying the wind tower entirely.

The new ones have the shaft directly attached to the turning wind blades, with the rotating coils within a permanent magnet, which generates the electrical charges. As there is no mechanical intermediary parts to hang up the turning blades, there is a much smaller chance that a catastrophic failure of the tower would occur.
 
2011-04-18 11:26:47 PM  

jaytkay: ThunderPelvis: Direct drive motors/generators work via magnetism

As opposed to motors/generators which work without magnetism?

??


In this case, we are referring to the motor/generator drive mechanism, not the actual electricity-generating magnets and coils. Make sense?
 
2011-04-18 11:43:07 PM  
Ahhh, I get it, thank you. Direct drive, the turbine axle is the generator axle.

Odd that is a recent innovation. Variable pitch propellers were common in 1940s aircraft.
 
2011-04-18 11:49:46 PM  

Acravius:
eyeyeye I don't know where you live, but where I live it is 0.043 per KW/H, but that is with 50 years of established cost and maintenance.

The numbers I had were slightly different from a different calculation but this references future wind installations at 7 cents and 17.8 cents for coal
http://www.udel.edu/udaily/2011/mar/wind-energy-kempton-031811.html


Hmm. So really, the numbers in whatever study or survey or report we're talking about are useless, .. Without reference, .. Right? Booooooooo
 
2011-04-19 12:08:42 AM  

jaytkay: Ahhh, I get it, thank you. Direct drive, the turbine axle is the generator axle.

Odd that is a recent innovation. Variable pitch propellers were common in 1940s aircraft.


Yeah, I'm not sure why they went with gearboxes on the old ones...must've been some sort of cost-saving measure. I can tell you that the magnets and coils on direct drive motors are pretty damn beefy, so it was probably just a matter of materials costs.

My turntables use direct drive motors and the bastards are HEAVY.
 
Displayed 50 of 57 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report